• Buy In Scotland, Rent In London: Britain's Post-COVID Housing Market
  Buy In Scotland, Rent In London: Britain’s Post-COVID Housing Market

  One of the biggest life questions facing this generation is whether they can and/or want to buy a home for themselves and their family.

  

  As Statista’s Martin Armstrong sadly notes, something which has long been the norm in the UK is proving ever more unrealistic for young people in the country and as a new analysis from estate agent Hamptons shows, renting is now the much more affordable option in a number of regions.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  As covered by the BBC, those looking to settle down in London with a 10 percent deposit in their pocket would, despite the potential longer-term benefits of home ownership, be paying an average of £251 more per month than if they chose to rent.

  It’s a different story in Scotland, where buying property would lead to monthly savings of £130.

  Aneisha Beveridge, Hamptons’ head of research, said the pandemic was responsible for reversing this six-year-long trend.

  “A year ago, lenders were either increasing their rates or withdrawing higher loan-to-value mortgages altogether,” she said.

  “For first-time buyers in particular this pushed up the cost of paying a mortgage, if they could get one at all, to well above the cost of renting.”

  There are, of course, a host of other financial and practical factors which potential first-time buyers will consider when deciding to rent rather than buy, or vice versa, which are not captured in this research.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 02:45

• Beijing Retaliates After EU Excludes China-Made Vaccines From Digital COVID 'Passport'
  Beijing Retaliates After EU Excludes China-Made Vaccines From Digital COVID ‘Passport’

  Authored by Alex Wu via The Epoch Times,

  The European Union will start its “EU Digital Covid Certificate” program on July 1, after the tool to streamline information about a traveler’s COVID-19 status was approved by the EU Parliament on June 9. China-made vaccines are not recognized by the program, as is the case with the Russia-made vaccines. The Chinese regime’s embassy in France responded by saying that it would retaliate with reciprocal treatment of French travelers in China.

  

  Vials with Pfizer-BioNTech, AstraZeneca, and Moderna coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine labels are seen in front of a European Union (EU) flag in this illustration picture taken March 19, 2021. (Dado Ruvic/Illustration/Reuters)

  All EU member countries, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland, are included in the scheme that will streamline information about the COVID-19 health status of travelers like COVID-19 test results, recovery status, or vaccination status, to help them move more efficiently around EU countries, which all still have different entry requirements. The digital certificates contain a QR code and are issued by individual EU countries. All EU countries are required to recognize the certificates issued by other EU countries.

  Chinese-made vaccines are not included in the program as they have not been approved for use by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). However, some EU member states, such as Greece, Cyprus, Hungary and Serbia, have individually accepted Chinese vaccines.

  In line with the EU’s decision, France implemented new entry regulations for COVID-19 on June 9. People who have been vaccinated now won’t need to provide “compelling reasons” to enter France, nor need to be quarantined. The Pfizer, Modena, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been approved for use by France. Vaccines made by China-based companies have not been approved. In addition, France divides the world into three epidemic zones: green, orange, and red. China is listed as an orange area.

  

  People queue to check-in at the Biarritz airport, southwestern France, on Aug. 14, 2020. (Bob Edme/AP Photo)

  Under the regulations, Chinese nationals will need to provide “compelling reasons” to enter the country and then quarantine themselves for seven days after arriving in France if granted entry.

  The official website of the Chinese Embassy in France issued an announcement on June 14 to remind Chinese citizens of the new French regulations. A staff member in the Chinese Embassy in France told Radio Free Asia that Beijing will implement “reciprocal sanctions,” that is, when French people enter China, China will not recognize their vaccination with non-Chinese vaccines.

  Mainland Chinese media reported the regime’s retaliation measures against France on June 15, adding that travelers from France are required to be quarantined upon arrival for 28 days, which is much longer than what France requires for Chinese nationals. The reports claimed that the China-made vaccines were not being recognized by France and EU for political reasons, saying that they had already been approved by the World Health Organization (WHO). The reports said the regime’s retaliation would be “teaching France a lesson.”

  France-based current affairs commentator Wang Longmeng told RFA that he believes that China’s retaliation was intended to stir up nationalist sentiments among the Chinese. He pointed out that, as one of the representatives of the regime’s “wolf diplomacy,” the Chinese ambassador to France, Lu Shaye, has frequently criticized Western countries for their calls for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19. The criticism was also posted on the Chinese Embassy’s official website. The Chinese Embassy in France has also been continually posting comments on social media in an attempt to sway public opinion against the West.

  Wang said:

  “The reciprocal treatment claimed by China is also ridiculous. How will the Chinese citizens who live in France and have received Western vaccinations feel about it? Are they going to be prohibited from returning to China?”

  Wang added he believes that as a major EU country, France is being responsible to its citizens by not approving the Chinese vaccines given the reports of low efficacy and a lack of transparency surrounding the data used in clinical trials. It is also a necessary means to contain China, as the regime is pushing its vaccine diplomacy and seeking global dominance by taking the opportunity of the pandemic, Wang said.

  Erkin Azat, a Kazakh journalist living in France, praised the EU’s decision not to approve Chinese vaccines. However, he told RFA he is worried that the EU’s collective policies will eventually be breached by China’s vaccine diplomacy as a few EU countries who participated in the regime’s “Belt and Road Initiative” and are receiving large loans from China, have approved the Chinese vaccines.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 02:00

• Escobar: The Real B3W-NATO Agenda
  Escobar: The Real B3W-NATO Agenda

  Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

  Build Back Better World aims to derail the Belt and Road Initiative, flex NATO’s muscles and harass China 24/7…

  

  The West is the best
  The West is the best
  Get here and we’ll do the rest

  – Jim Morrison, The End

  For those spared the ordeal of sifting through the NATO summit communique, here’s the concise low down: Russia is an “acute threat” and China is a “systemic challenge”.

  NATO, of course, are just a bunch of innocent kids building castles in a sandbox.

  Those were the days when Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO’s first secretary-general, coined the trans-Atlantic purpose: to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

  The Raging Twenties remix reads like “keep the Americans in, the EU down and Russia-China contained”.

  So the North Atlantic (italics mine) organization has now relocated all across Eurasia, fighting what it describes as “threats from the East”. Well, that’s a step beyond Afghanistan – the intersection of Central and South Asia – where NATO was unceremoniously humiliated by a bunch of Pashtuns with Kalashnikovs.

  Russia remains the top threat – mentioned 63 times in the communiqué. Current top NATO chihuahua Jens Stoltenberg says NATO won’t simply “mirror” Russia: it will de facto outspend it and surround it with multiple battle formations, as “we now have implemented the biggest reinforcements of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War”.

  The communiqué is adamant: the only way for military spending is up. Context: the total “defense” budget of the 30 NATO members will grow by 4.1% in 2021, reaching a staggering $1.049 trillion ($726 billion from the US, $323 billion from assorted allies).

  After all, “threats from the East” abound. From Russia, there are all those hypersonic weapons that baffle NATO generals; those large-scale exercises near the borders of NATO members; constant airspace violations; military integration with that “dictator” in Belarus.

  As for the threats from China – South China Sea, Taiwan, the Indo-Pacific overall – it was up to the G7 to come up with a plan.

  Enter “green”, “inclusive” Build Back Better World (B3W), billed as the Western “alternative” to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). B3W respects “our values” – which clownish British PM Boris Johnson could not help describing as building infrastructure in a more “gender neutral” or “feminine” way – and, further on down the road, will remove goods produced with forced labor (code for Xinjiang) from supply chains.

  The White House has its own B3W spin: that’s a “values-driven, high-standard, and transparent infrastructure partnership” which will be “mobilizing private-sector capital in four areas of focus – climate, health and health security, digital technology, and gender equality – with catalytic investments from our respective development institutions”

  The initial “catalytic investments” for BW3 were estimated at $100 billion. No one knows how these funds will be coming from the “development institutions”.

  Seasoned Global South observers already bet they will be essentially provided by IMF/World Bank “green” loans tied to private sector investment in selected emerging markets, with an eye on profit.

  The White House is adamant that “B3W will be global in scope, from Latin America and the Caribbean to Africa and the Indo-Pacific”. Note the blatant attempt to match BRI’s reach.

  All these “green” resources and new logistic chains financed by what will be a variant of Central Banks showering helicopter money would ultimately benefit G7 members, certainly not China.

  And the “protector” of these new “green” geostrategic corridors will be – who else? – NATO. That’s the natural consequence of the “global reach” emphasized on the NATO 2030 agenda.

  NATO as investment protector

  “Alternative” infrastructure schemes already proliferate, geared to contain “Russia bullying” and “Chinese meddling” off from the EU. That’s the case of the Three Seas Initiative, where 12 EU member-states from Eastern Europe are supposed to better interconnect the Adriatic, Baltic and Black Seas.

  This initiative is a pale copy of China’s 17+1 mechanism of integrating Eastern Europe as part of BRI – in this case forcing them to build very expensive infrastructure to receive very expensive American energy imports.

  The offensive against “threats from the East” is bound to fail.

  Dmitry Orlov has detailed how “Russia excels at building and operating huge energy, transportation and materials production systems” and, in parallel, how “the technosphere…has quietly relocated and is now busy telecommuting between Moscow and Beijing.”

  As every geek knows, China is way ahead in 5G and is the world’s top market for chips. And now the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law – significantly approved right before the G7 in Cornwall – will “safeguard” Chinese companies from “unilateral and discriminatory measures imposed by foreign countries” and the US “long arm jurisdiction”, thus forcing Atlanticist capital to make a choice.

  It’s China as a rising global power that in fact has proposed an “alternative” to the Global South in the first place, a counterpunch to the endless IMF/World Bank debt trap of the past decades. BRI is a highly complex sustainable development trade/investment strategy with the potential to integrate vast swathes of the Global South.

  That’s a direct connection to Chairman Mao’s famous theory on the division of the Three Worlds ; the emphasis then on the post-colonial Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), of which China was a stalwart, now encompasses the whole Global South. In the end, it’s always about sovereignty against neocolonialism.

  B3W is the Western, essentially American, reaction to BRI: try to scotch as many projects as possible while harassing China 24/7 in the process.

  Unlike China or Germany, the US hardly manufactures products the Global South wants to buy; manufacturing accounts for only 5% of a US economy essentially propped up by the US dollar as reserve currency and the – dwindling – Pentagon’s Empire of Bases.

  China churns out ten top engineers for every US “financial expert”. China has perfected what is known among bilingual tech experts as an effective system to make SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) development plans – and implement them.

  The notion that the Global South will be convinced to privilege B3W – a hollow PR coup at best – over BRI is ludicrous.

  Yet NATO will be regimented to actively protect those investments that follow “our values”.

  One thing is certain: there will be blood.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 06/18/2021 – 00:00

• Visualizing The Rise And Fall Of Ammo Prices 
  Visualizing The Rise And Fall Of Ammo Prices 

  Ammo prices across all calibers are coming down in price since April but remain well above their pre-COVID levels, according to Redditor “chainwaxologist,” sourcing data from Ammo Seek.  

  Readers are pretty familiar with the massive grab for guns and ammo during the virus pandemic and social unrest of the 2020s. The result of unprecedented demand resulted in gun and ammo prices reaching historic levels. At some points, there were even shortages. 

  Since the previous update in April 2021, we have seen steep declines in the lowest available Cost Per Round (CPR) price across all calibers. 

  All prices for calibers in this sample have declined from their highs between -36% (5.56) to -57% (22LR). Most calibers peaked in price after the 2020 presidential election in January 2021. Several calibers, notably 12 gauge and 380 Auto, peaked around April 2021.

  All calibers are still priced at a nearly 50% premium higher than their pre-pandemic pricing (7.62 is the lowest with a 25% premium), but extrapolating recent price declines indicate that prices may normalize to pre-pandemic levels in the next 3-6 months, barring another exogenous event causing them to rise again. – Chainwaxologist 

  The chart below shows the cost per round exploding higher during the pandemic, social unrest, and when Biden won the presidential elections. 

  

  On a percentage basis, the cost per round compared to pre-COVID is coming down but still elevated. 

  

  The latest decline in price may suggest two things. First, demand from retail is exhausted, and second, manufacturers might have increased supply. The good news is ammo is becoming cheaper, but returning to pre-pandemic levels may never happen. There’s just too much demand as the country spirals into chaos under liberal control – people want protection – and the best protection and most common is a 9mm handgun. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 23:40

• Vaccine Passports: Are Business Rights More Important Than Personal Freedom?
  Vaccine Passports: Are Business Rights More Important Than Personal Freedom?

  Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

  The formation of totalitarianism is often insidious in that it is almost always sold to the public as “humanitarian”; a solution for the greater good of the greater number. But beyond that, tyrants will also exploit the ideals of the target population and use these principles against them. Like weaknesses in the armor of a free society, our ideals of freedom are not necessarily universally applicable at all times and in all circumstances; we have to place some limits in order to prevent oligarchy from using liberalism as a tool to gain a foothold.

  This battle for balance is the defining drama of all societies that endeavor to be free. It might sound hypocritical, and your typical anarchist and some libertarians will completely dismiss the notion that there should be any limits to what people (or companies) can do, especially when it comes to their private property. But at what point do private property rights encroach on the rights of others? Is it simply black and white? Does anything go? The bottom line is, in the wake of covid controls and mass online censorship, it is time for those of us in the liberty movement to have a frank discussion about where the line is for the rights of businesses.

  The problem went mainstream initially a few years back when Big Tech companies that control the majority of social media sites decided that they were going to start actively targeting conservative users with shadow bans and outright censorship.

  Here’s the thing: If we are talking about smaller websites run by private individuals, then yes, I would argue in defense of their right to remove anyone from their site for almost any reason. Their website is their property, and much like their home they can do whatever they want within it. Denial of access to an average website is not going to damage the ability of a person to live their normal lives, nor will it fundamentally restrict their ability to share information with others. There are always other websites.

  But what if we are talking about massive international conglomerates? Should these corporations be given the same free rein to do as they wilt? Do private property rights and free markets extend to them as well, even if their goal is the destruction of the very principles of freedom we hold dear?

  And, what if a host of small businesses in a given place decide they are going to implement freedom crushing mandates along with major corporations? What if they are all manipulated by government incentives or pressure?

  What if governments do not need to implement totalitarianism directly at first because businesses are doing it for them? Do the dynamics of private property change in this case?

  

  I would assert that yes, things do change under these circumstances and individual rights must take precedence over business rights; here’s why…

  Monopoly Of ideology

  In past articles I have outlined why corporations are NOT private businesses with the same rights as individuals. For example, corporations cannot exist without government charter and they receive special legal protections from government through limited liability and corporate personhood. These are protections that the average small business and individuals do not have. On top of this, major corporations receive endless welfare handouts, tax incentives and stimulus dollars that make it impossible for small to medium businesses to compete.

  Just take a look at the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that were closed permanently during the pandemic lockdowns versus the trillions of dollars that were pumped into corporations through stimulus measures to keep them afloat. These companies have received so many government handouts over the years that they can no longer be considered private companies. Rather, they must now be considered public utilities, and as such, they do not have the same private property rights. This is specifically true for Big Tech social media.

  Some people will argue that this is socialism or communism, and I would say yes, I agree, except that these companies are given the best of both worlds – They get protection and tax dollars from governments while they are also able to operate with relative impunity to politically discriminate against any group of people they please.

  So what is the free market solution? The first option would be to build competing social media sites that do not politically censor people. This has been tried with websites like Parler, and I continue to support such efforts, but look at what has happened so far – Parler garnered massive attention. It was on its way to growing by tens of millions of users and Big Tech companies quickly banded together (illegally) to aid competitors like Twitter and they shut Parler down. The conservative site is back now but it almost didn’t survive the attack.

  According to Adam Smith’s analysis in ‘Wealth Of Nations’, corporations (or joint-stock companies as they were called in his day) are actually destructive to free markets because they are prone to corruption and monopoly. They are NOT a natural product of the free market but a government engineered anomaly or cancer on the system. He viewed such monopolies as a monstrous assault on free trade.

  Corporate monopolies must therefore be broken up to allow free markets to return to a natural equilibrium, and governments must NOT be allowed to give special treatment to particular companies because this creates unfair advantages that other businesses cannot compete with. But what does all this have to do with vaccine passports?

  Many people do not seem to understand that there are different kinds of monopolies that we need to worry about. Monopolies in social media and communications are one example, but what about monopolies of ideology in general? You might have a hundred separate small businesses and big box retailers in a community, but if all of them decide to collectively enforce covid mandates, or if all of them are compelled to enforce covid mandates, then all choice has been removed from the marketplace regardless. This is an ideological monopoly that is just as dangerous as any corporate monopoly.

  Without choice the free market dies, and individual freedom dies along with it.

  Bait And Switch

  The primary argument the past year among leftist governments in foreign nations as well as in blue states here in the US has been that they do not necessarily intend to “force” vaccine passports on their respective populations. Rather, they will leave it up to individuals to “choose” vaccination or no vaccination. This might sound surprising to many in the alternative media because we know that the lockdowns were viciously enforced by many states and numerous businesses were threatened or attacked by their local health authorities. Suddenly these same bureaucrats and politicians care about your personal freedoms?

  What they don’t mention is that the “choice” they are offering is not much choice at all. Sure, you can refuse to get the vaccine, but if most businesses in your community demand proof of vaccination before you can work or shop with them, your refusal comes with the promise of poverty and possibly starvation. You would be completely cut out of the mainstream economy.

  This is a bait and switch, an attempt to make you think you are free but then punishing you for pursuing free decisions. In order for this con game to work, though, the government needs businesses to act as their taskmasters. Make no mistake, major corporate retailers WILL join with government to enforce vaccine passports. It is only a matter of time.

  In the case of the state of Oregon recently, the agenda s set right out in the open, with the government making a declaration that all businesses must demand that customers produce a vaccine passport before being allowed to enter. If they don’t have one, they might still be allowed to shop as long as they wear a mask, but what is to stop businesses from completely denying people access based on their vaccine history?

  We all know that this is the endgame, we are simply in the midst of the incremental build up to the day when people who refuse to become guinea pigs for the experimental mRNA vaccines are legally discriminated against to the point that they will not be able to survive.

  Private Property Versus Personal Privacy

  Medical tyrants have engineered what they think is a Catch-22 for conservatives – If we argue against businesses being allowed to ask customers and employees for vaccine passports then we are violating one of our fundamental principles: The principle of private property. But is this really the case?

  As noted above, monopolies are destructive to freedom. I would go as far as to say they are intrinsically evil in that they only ever lead to enslavement of the public. Furthermore, monopolies of ideology can be legislated, or even artificially created through Color of Law. The lockdowns were never voted on by a legislature and they were never voted on by the public, they were pronounced as edicts from on high without any oversight or checks and balances. Vaccine passports are being implemented the same way.

  Under current law, no business has the right to demand access to your private medical history when you are applying for a job, and the right to demand such information from you as a customer is murky at best. They are in some cases allowed to “ask”, but you are not required to answer. The mainstream media and state governments have been actively trying to convince the public otherwise; they are lying.

  Under multiple federal and state laws there are protections against businesses discriminating against employees based on their medical conditions or requiring access to medical information. In fact, an employee or potential employee is not required to give personal medical information in most cases to their employer unless they have a disability that would prevent them from doing their job effectively.

  When it comes to customers, the argument turns of course to private property rights. The assertion is that a business can “ask a question”, like “Are you vaccinated?”, as long as it is not specifically restricted by state law. You do not have to answer. And if you don’t, medical tyrants claim this gives that business the right to deny you access. But consider this debate from a different perspective for a moment…

  What if a business owner said that he was going to demand that every single potential customer prove that they do not have AIDS, or cancer, or perhaps the flu or pneumonia before they were allowed to shop in his store? The public outrage would be enormous and legal action and lawsuits would be pursued. But for some reason we are supposed to accept such measures when it comes to covid?

  The next argument will be that covid is more communicable and more deadly. That is debatable, since independent studies show that covid has a 0.26% death rate and that 40% of all covid deaths are among people in nursing homes with preexisting conditions (meaning we have no idea if they actually died from covid or they died from illnesses they already had). It presents no threat to 99.7% of the population (according to the stats).

  But let’s say since there is still a chance of transmission and a minimal chance of death and that a business has room to be concerned. It still doesn’t matter. If the vaccines actually work, then what point is there in asking for vaccine passports?

  For over a year now we have been hearing about how people who refuse to wear masks or get vaccinated are putting everyone else “at risk”, yet, there has been no examination as to how this is actually true. Studies show that the masks are essentially useless in preventing the spread of covid anyway, but let’s say they did hypothetically make a difference. If I’m not wearing a mask and you are afraid you could get covid from me, then you are certainly welcome to wear a mask yourself. And, if you are still worried, then all you have to do is NOT come near me. It’s easy.

  You do not have the right to compel me to wear a mask just so you can feel personally safer.

  By extension, if you are vaccinated and the vaccines are actually effective then why do I need to wear a mask or have proof of the jab? Even if I had covid I would not pose a threat to you, right? Furthermore, if you think you are a part of the 0.26% of people that are actually at risk from covid, then perhaps you should stay home so that the other 99.7% of us can get on with our normal lives. You do not have the right compel me to comply with vaccine controls just to ease your personal and irrational fears.

  Since when do business property rights extend to forcing customers to submit to experimental medical procedures before they are allowed to utilize their services? Does this not sound like madness?

  It is unacceptable to allow any vaccine passport implementation within your community because opening the door just a little to this kind of oppression means setting the stage for incrementalism and full bore tyranny later. This is one instance in which business rights must be limited in favor of individual freedoms, because to allow vaccine passports is to allow far reaching and devastating consequences for constitutional rights in general.

  Public Safety Or Political Cleansing?

  Several states including Texas and Florida have banned businesses from asking for vaccine passports and I fully support this action. When business rights are exploited as a means to violate all other individual rights, such as the right to privacy, then a balance needs to be struck. Carte blanche domain over a customer’s medical history and health is one line in the sand that we cannot allow to be crossed by anyone. Their business will not be affected by the lack of knowing who has the jab and who doesn’t; the information is of no relevance to their bottom line. And as mentioned, safety should not be an issue if they believe that the vaccines actually work as advertised.

  The only purpose to the requirement of vaccine passports is thus a political one – Leftist businesses will demand passports because they are biased and want to keep conservatives and freedom minded moderates out. Leftists and elitist governments will press for passports because they want leverage to deny services to conservatives and freedom minded moderates as a means of political punishment.

  This will be an ongoing process over the next couple of years, and they will continue to tell us that it’s all about choice and property rights while slowly but surely cutting liberty advocates out of the economy completely. As we have seen in states like New York, Hawaii and Oregon, the agenda is not merely businesses making individual decisions on passport requirements, but corrupt governments and businesses working hand-in-hand to annihilate political opposition. The businesses that do not join in with the oppression will themselves be punished or closed down unless people organize to fight back.

  I do not see it as a violation of my conservative values to deny businesses the ability to aid in the destruction of the majority of our constitutional freedoms just to preserve their perceived ideal of unlimited property rights. When it comes down to it, our right to access to the economy is far more important than their “right” to be paranoid about covid.

  *  *  *

  If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 23:20

• "We Were Busy!" – NYC Strip Clubs "Packed" As COVID Restrictions Lifted
  “We Were Busy!” – NYC Strip Clubs “Packed” As COVID Restrictions Lifted

  Now that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has dropped most COVID restrictions for NYC and the rest of the Empire State, returning the area to near-normalcy, the New York Post reports that NYC’s strip clubs were mobbed by patrons during their first nights of having dancers return to the stages.

  

  The paper reports that strip clubs across the city have been packed this week after Cuomo’s announcement that he was lifting COVID restrictions in commercial and social settings. The Post even sent out a reporter, who confirmed that all three locations of the club Sapphire were “packed” as the clubs returned to full capacity for the first time in more than a year. It’s a triumph for the NYC clubs, many of which opted to file a joint lawsuit against Gov. Cuomo and the state’s liquor authority for ordering them to stay closed while bars started to reopen.

  “We were busy!,” chief operating operator Michael Wright tells Page Six, explaining that the pandemic was “extremely challenging.”

  […]

  But with mandates dropped, “It means it’s business back to normal,” Wright tells us. “People want contact and to be out of isolation and enjoy and smile and have human contact. I think people are ready to party. The city is ready to party.”

  It’s not that clubs weren’t open during the pandemic – they were. But most were limited to restaurant stye seating though more recently dancers started performing on stage at a 12-foot distance. Still, with no “tableside” dancing allowed, clubs were effectively stymied.

  Managers are looking forward to welcoming back dancers whom they laid off more than a year ago. Many are eager to get back to work, and collect patrons hard earned money (or government checks, or winnings from AMC or crypto).

  “If I get 1,500 performers back to NYC that would be phenomenal,” he tells us. “It’s an aggressive audition and hiring process right now … I am super excited. We will be able to provide people an opportunity to make money again because everybody hurt.”

  The manager who spoke to the Post said that their clubs would keep some COVID safety rules in place. For instance, they’ll continue taking patients’ temperatures.

  “We will still be taking temperatures,” Wright tells us, adding, “We have to have some layer of safety for guests and staff. We will of course keep antibacterials and face masks available. Some of that is best practices, not just about COVID.”

  To be sure, while business may be booming right now, the pandemic has created new adult entertainment alternatives like OnlyFans, which is reportedly raising billions of dollars more in private capital as its “creators” – overwhelmingly women telling nude or otherwise sexually suggestive or explicit photos or videos – cashed in on millions of bored, lonely men, many with government cash to burn.

  There’s also no word yet as to whether the labor market crunch and expanded benefits, along with the competition from OnlyFans, is enticing more dancers to quit in favor of “working from home” (so to speak).

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 23:00

• China's Plan To Dominate 'Near-Earth' Space
  China’s Plan To Dominate ‘Near-Earth’ Space

  Authored by Lawrence Franklin via The Gatestone Institute,

  Communist China’s space program is demonstrating that it is on a trajectory possibly to surpass the US in the military and scientific exploration in our solar system. China is planning a space spectacular to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party on July 23, 1921. Today, June 17, China launched a three-astronaut crew who will inhabit the command module of its soon-to-be-completed Tianhe Chinese Space Station. This planned human launch follows the June 10 multiple satellite deployment from Northern China’s Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center. One of these satellites is designed to track near-earth asteroids.

  

  As early as the mid-1950s, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Mao Zedong declared, “We too will make satellites.” Following that declaration, China aggressively began to compete with both the former Soviet Union and the United States in space — an ambition seemingly energized by China’s desire to develop a nuclear bomb and the means to deliver it. China’s Space Program, called the “Two Bombs, One Satellite” project, was from its inception, placed under the aegis of the CCP’s Central Military Commission, thereby underscoring the military orientation of its activities in space.

  During the past few years China has staged a number of space spectacles. In 2018, it quickened its exploratory space activity by staging more launches than any other nation. Also in 2018, China’s “Chang’e-4” spacecraft, named for a mythical Chinese goddess who supposedly inhabited the moon, was launched from the Xichang Space Center in southwest China. The Chang’e 4 landed its Yalu-2 land rover — a first-ever landing on the far side of the moon — on January 2, 2019. The Administrator of America’s National Association of Space Administration (NASA), Jim Bridenstine, hailed the Chinese accomplishment. China’s Chang’e 5, launched from an alternate space facility on Hainan Island in November 2020, collected more than four pounds of lunar rocks. China’s National Space Administration (CNSA), established in 1993, recently topped off another series of space triumphs by landing a land rover on Mars this past May 15.

  Communist China seems not only to be directly challenging the US lead in space exploration; its space plans also appear to include an ambitious military dimension, much of whose contents look as if they are controlled by the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA). These PLA programs include a vast array of counter-space weapons systems designed to degrade or destroy US space assets. These PLA weapons include satellites and anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities capable of inhibiting US space materiel from communicating with US military combat units. The aggressive posture of China’s space-based military programs underscores the recent regeneration of US Space Command and President Trump’s establishment of a US Space Force. The Chinese already established its US Space Force’s equivalent, the PLA’s Army Strategic Support Force, in 2015.

  China, with its National Space Administration, continues to position its own equipment in space, and is planning several more launches this year and next to complete its own international space station, separate from the existing US-Russian international space station. Chinese space experts have already met several times with European Space Association (ESA) representatives to explore ways in which China and Europe can cooperate in space. European astronauts already are expressing their willingness to join in flights with their Chinese counterparts. China also has now formulated its own equivalent of the US-initiated Global Positioning System (GPS), called the Beidou (Northern Dipper) constellation of satellites. This navigational system enables Chinese military planners to precisely record the movement of foreign military assets along China’s national borders where there exist several territorial disputes with neighboring countries such as India. Beidou also closely monitors the movement of US naval assets in the Chinese-claimed waters and islands in the South and East China Seas.

  One advantage that China’s totalitarian regime gives it over the US space program is that the Communist Party of China’s Central Military Commission manages the Chinese Space Program’s integrated network of space launch centers, space cities and space labs in universities.

  There are four Chinese launch centers, with multiple launch pads, dispersed throughout the country: Hainan Island’s Wenchang Launch Center, the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center, the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center, and the Xichang Satellite Launch Center. While all of China’s launch facilities are capable of putting into orbit various satellite systems, it is the Wencheng Center on Hainan Island that will be tasked with the Tianhe (Heavenly Harmony) launches of modules for China’s Space Station. Adjacent urban sites offer logistical and industrial support for launch operations. Nearby higher education facilities offer training programs for space program technicians and astronauts. The Chinese program also includes numerous domestic and foreign-based tracking stations. In the US, however, NASA’s projected increased cooperation with wealthy, independent US space entrepreneurs, such as Elon Musk’s Space-X, may ultimately prove more capable.

  Even if there are areas where the US and Chinese space programs could serve universal concerns such as monitoring climate change, international commerce, maritime piracy, and the collection of space junk from expired systems, sadly it would seem foolhardy to cooperate on any program with the CCP. It has not made a secret of its intent to unseat the US as the world’s leading superpower — economically, politically, and militarily — within the next 15-30 years. It has already declared war on the US; the US just seems not yet to have read the memo. China seems to be trying to maneuver a surreptitious surrender, by undermining the US from within, accompanied by the threat of a costly, high-powered war. Unfortunately, many in the US seem to be complying.

  Meanwhile, in America, we appear busy with diversions — educating our children to hate our country; allowing our government to torpedo our economy by killing growth and launching a ruinous debt; disabling our energy supply while boosting that of our adversaries; exploding our taxes while making us support countless illegal migrants — that are enabling Communist China to fulfill its dream: enfeebling America to take control not only of “near-Earth” space but everything under it as well.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 22:40

• Mashed Potato: Brian Stelter's CNN Show Loses 72% Of Viewers In 2021
  Mashed Potato: Brian Stelter’s CNN Show Loses 72% Of Viewers In 2021

  Ratings for Brian Stelter’s “Reliable Sources” have dropped off a cliff – as the CNN host has lost 72% of his viewers since hitting its highest level of the year on January 10.

  

  Stelter, who just last week groveled at the feet of White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki – asking how the media can better cover President Biden – has failed to attract at least one million viewers for 11 straight weeks, and averaged just 752,000 on Sunday, his smallest audience of the year.

  Comparatively speaking, Fox News’ “MediaBuzz” which fills the same timeslot averaged 1.1 million viewers, beating Stelter by 41%.

  While “Reliable Sources” is billed as a media program, Stelter’s tiny audience didn’t get a chance to hear about the most buzzed-about segment of the week when he didn’t cover Jeffrey Toobin’s awkward return to CNN after he was caught masturbating on a Zoom call with colleagues from his other gig. 

  Stelter had previously reported that some CNN hosts and anchors “expressed a desire to have Toobin back,” but he didn’t name names. Viewers who tuned in to see if Stelter would elaborate on air were left disappointed when he never even uttered Toobin’s name during the program. 

  “Reliable Sources” has been hitting embarrassing new lows in various ratings measurables on a regular basis in recent weeks as the program struggles to find relevancy during the Biden era. Stelter spent much of the previous few years criticizing former President Trump at every turn but hasn’t found a formula to attract an audience since Biden was sworn in. –Fox News

  When one looks at the coveted 25-54-year-old demographic, just 129,000 people tuned into Stelter.

  “Fox News aired 12 different programs on Sunday alone that attracted a larger audience than ‘Reliable Sources,’” reports Fox, which has been Stelter’s primary target over the past several months – calling it “GOPTV” over its spotlighting of Anthony Fauci’s damning emails.

  “Routine e-mails portrayed as scandalous. Where have we seen this trick before?” asked Stelter, according to the Daily Wire.

  Last week, several callers to CSPAN berated Stelter – with one caller saying “CNN, I cannot watch you. I wish I could. And MSNBC, they are worse than CNN.”

  Roasted potato:

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 22:20

• Lois Lerner Of 2021: IRS Political Corruption Unchanged With Billionaires' Tax Returns
  Lois Lerner Of 2021: IRS Political Corruption Unchanged With Billionaires’ Tax Returns

  Authored by Emily Miller via Emily Post News

  When the private tax returns of billionaires were leaked to a left-wing group, liberals and conservatives reacted very differently. Liberals fell for the political trick and immediately said that the tax code was unfair and the rich should get a tax hike. Conservatives saw through the conspiracy and wanted answers on how the Deep State at the IRS could, once again, have so much unchecked power for political purposes. When it comes to outrage, liberals always protest louder, so conservatives have to respond better.

  

  The billionaires’ actual tax returns were “provided”  to the leftist activist group called ProPublica. It says it has “a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the nation’s wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years.” It alleges that:

  The data provides an unprecedented look inside the financial lives of America’s titans, including Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg.

  ProPublica never explains that whoever gave them these documents broke multiple federal laws. The end justifies the means in their worldview. 

  The FBI is investigating the leak. House Republicans have demanded IRS Commissioner Charles Retting keep Congress informed on the investigation and have hearings into any “evidence of political influence or motivations.”

  Partisan politics at the IRS

  The stunning revelation that the IRS released private tax returns was overshadowed by the juicy details, like Jeff Bezos didn’t pay any income taxes in 2007 and 2011 and neither did Elon Musk in 2018. (We aren’t told if they lost money those years to explain this.)

  The billionaires picked to use for this political hit job were chosen because they are so extremely wealthy and household names. There are many more millionaires who no one would recognize that likely have more income, rather than wealth, so they wouldn’t fit the narrative.

  The Left has been jumping all over the billionaires’ low tax rates but never considered that every American will see the horrible breach of privacy by Uncle Sam as a threat to themselves too. That’s why when I saw the leak, my first thought was, this is Lois Lerner all over again.

  

  To remind you, Lerner was the head of the tax exempt division of the IRS that targeted conservative groups from 2010 to 2012, the height of the “Tea Party” movement. Lener admitted what they did — delaying tax-exempt status applications and harassing the groups that sounded right of center — and took the FIfth when she was called before Congress. Everyone at the IRS who had a hand in the political scandal got off without charges.  

  I looked around to find what Lerner is doing now. It’s pretty easy to find her and her lawyer husband, Michael Miles. They are both 70-years-old and have lived in the same Bethesda house since 1998 that is now worth about $2 million. She most likely is still receiving her $100,000 a year government pension. There were no consequences for the horrendous abuse of power.

  Biden tax hikes

  Ostensibly, ProPublica is using the stolen returns to show the public that the super rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes.  It is supposed to be a revelation that the richer you are, the more you can hire the fanciest and most clever accountants to take advantage of every tax break.

  Anyway, the real reason for this stunning power move to drop IRS forms to the public is clear: promote Pres. Joe Biden’s budget agenda.  The timing of this leak and the exact perfect messaging is not a coincidence.  ProPublica writes: 

  The revelations provided by the IRS data come at a crucial moment. Wealth inequality has become one of the defining issues of our age. The president and Congress are considering the most ambitious tax increases in decades on those with high incomes. 

  The Left wants the public to hate the rich enough to support demands to raise taxes and increase the budget and power of the IRS.  Biden’s budget, called the “American Families Plan”, was released on April 28 and calls for lots of government freebies that are funded by taxing the rich. He wants to increase  the top tax rate from 37 to 39.6 percent and increase the capital gains tax rate to 39.6 percent.

  Biden also wants to increases the power of the IRS by spending $80 billion on “enforcement against those with the highest incomes.” By the way, Biden’s term is “increase investment in the IRS.” That means he will invest and get bigger returns by having more agents rifling through tax returns to get more money. Do you really think the IRS where Lois Lerner went for years without getting stopped will only target the billionaires?

  Tax facts

  Even if you want to just debate the information that ProPublica posted on the billionaires’ taxes, it doesn’t fit the facts. CATO did a great analysis – link at bottom, chart summary below —to show how the clickbait headline “You May Be Paying a Higher Tax Rate Than a Billionaire” is just factually wrong. 

  

  The tax code is already heavily progressive. Americans for Tax Reform’s analysis of a new report from the Joint Committee on Taxation shows:

  Taxpayers making $1 million and up pay an average federal tax rate of 31.5% while the bottom half of income earners ($63,179 or less) pay an average federal tax rate of 6.3%. That’s nearly five times as much in taxes as a percentage of income. 

  The rich already fund most of the government. The Heritage Foundation, which made the cool graphic below to illustrate the concept, reports that the top 1% of income earners paid 40% of all the federal income taxes. The top 10% earners paid 71% of the federal income taxes.

  

  This number has always struck me because — you can do the math too– 90% of us are only paying for one third of the total government spending. This is why I’ve always supported the flat tax. Everyone should be participating in funding the government — even the lowers income owners — and stop all the tax breaks and schemes. I spend days every year on TurboTax and still come out with using the standard deduction. It’s a waste of time.

  ProPublica has a graphic (below) that is supposed to make it easy for people to get angry at the billionaires for reducing their tax bill. But look at it this way: Jeff Bezos paid almost $1 billion in taxes. Elon Musk paid almost half that. These successful businessmen are funding entire government agencies. A busload of the rest of us couldn’t come up with that kind of cash.

  

  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also thought of Lerner’s get out of jail free card this week in a floor speech (below.)

  Referring to both the Lerner-led Obama administration targeting conservative groups and the release of the National Organization for Marriage returns, McConnell said:

  These situations all have two things in common. First, a blatant political agenda aimed at advancing the cause of the political left. And second, the utter absence of criminal charges against the leakers.

  The federal government has proven far too often that it is, at best incapable, and at worst unwilling, to protect taxpayers’ data from misuse by the political left.

  The left vs right on billionaire taxes

  Conservatives took this news so differently because we are inherently suspicious of the government. And, unlike liberals, we admire success and want the rich to do well because it means better jobs and economy. We want to be rich too. That is the American dream.

  I hosted a YouTube show on Monday, and we discussed the FBI investigation into the leak of IRS forms to the left-wing ProPublica. I read some of the 1,200 comment on the video from the angry liberal, socialist audience. They mostly hate me for saying there is more to the issue than showing how the rich are paying taxes at a lower rate. The audience fell hook, line and sinker for the IRS/ProPublica tactic and did not want me to tell them that the people who broke federal laws were not the billionaires.

  I expected their attacks on me personally because that is how they fight politics- dehumanize the messenger. The comment that surprised me is the one that said that the former hosts — who they miss — would never have told them that there was anything more the story other than billionaires don’t pay enough in taxes. They did not want more facts, they actually prefer to be scammed by the political powers. And that is always the split in how liberals and conservatives consider policies — feelings or facts. When you make a policy decision on your emotions, you are not capable of debating with a rational idea or substantive position, so you attack like a wild animal.

  LINKS TO SOURCES:

  ProPublica The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax &  You May Be Paying a Higher Tax Rate Than a Billionaire
  
  Americans for Tax Reform: JCT Confirms: Tax Code is Already Steeply Progressive
  
  The Joint Committee on Taxation: Tax Gap: Overview Of Federal Tax Provisions And Analysis Of Selected Issues 
  
  The Heritage Foundation In 1 Chart, How Much the Rich Pay in Taxes
  
  CATO ProPublica Analysis of Taxes on Wealthy
  
  The Hill "Rising" -- Colin and Emily: What Billionaire Tax Story REVEALS About Our Tax System
  
  House Ways and Means Committee Brady Briefed by IRS Commissioner Rettig on Leak of Sensitive Taxpayer Information & Letter to IRS
  
  House Oversight Committee- Republicans Demand Hearing on Massive IRS Leak of Americans’ Sensitive Information
  
  White House Fact Sheet: The American Families Plan
  
  C-SPAN Lois Lerner testimony
  
  *  *  *
  

  Subscribers – Will the FBI catch who leaked the tax returns and will people be charged this time? What do you think of Biden’s tax increase proposals?
  Also, do you think conservatives and liberals view the same news differently?

  Readers- Did you notice there are no ads or sponsors on this free post? That’s because I am funded only from subscriptions. Please consider supporting me to continue this work and to get access to all my material by becoming a paid subscriber. It’s just $6 for a month and cancel anytime.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 22:00

• Hong Kong Pays Off 3 Patients Who Suffered "Adverse" Reaction To COVID Vaccines
  Hong Kong Pays Off 3 Patients Who Suffered “Adverse” Reaction To COVID Vaccines

  For the first time since its mass-vaccination campaign kicked off three months ago, Hong Kong’s vaccination indemnity fund has paid out a total of HK$450,000 ($58,000) as compensation for patients who suffered particularly severe reactions to inoculation against COVID.

  Out of more than 3MM doses of vaccines that have been administered in the city-state since February, HK’s Food and Health Bureau said it had received 74 applications for compensation as of June 10, 58 of which were still being processed. As of Sunday, 3,605 people had reported an adverse reaction to their jabs, roughly 0.12% of all vaccination recipients. Only 1.2MM, or 16.3% of the city’s population, has been fully vaccinated.

  

  Awards were given to patients whose reactions were deemed especially severe.

  “The principles of severity assessment include fairness to applicants, prudent use of public funding, transparency to the public, and based on medical science,” the bureau said in a statement. “Severity of individual cases is subject to case-by-case assessment according to their circumstances.”

  The compensation figures were revealed while authorities also confirmed a new imported case from Sri Lanka, which brought the city’s official tally to 11,881, with 210 related deaths. So far 21 deaths have been recorded involving people who received a jab two weeks before dying, although no connection has been made between he vaccination and the deaths, according to the state authorities.

  

  Between May 17 and Sunday, Hong Kong’s public hospitals reported 2.8 deaths for every 100K vaccinated adults. That’s compared with 58.1 in 100K among the rest who were not.

  One of the patients who received a payout from the HK$1 billion ($129MM) fund suffered an allergic reaction that nearly killed them, according to the SCMP.

  Of the three claims of vaccine-related deaths, two have already been processed while one was rejected because of a lack of an official vaccination record.

  Family members of fatal cases could receive up to HK$2.5MM if a patient is below the age of 40, or a maximum of HK$2MM for patients aged 40 or older.

  To be eligible for a payout, a registered doctor must certify all serious adverse events. Another condition is the expert committee monitoring side effects of vaccines cannot rule out that the event is not related to the jab.

  Tim Pang Hung-cheong, a patients’ rights campaigner from the Society for Community Organisation, also supported the payout, but said the amount should have been higher to reflect the loss of income and work ability caused by the side effects. He also said the government should publish in detail the reasons for approving or rejecting each claim, to give confidence to those thinking of getting a jab.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 21:40

• Supreme Court Rules Foster Agencies Can Deny Certification To Same-Sex Couples On Religious Grounds
  Supreme Court Rules Foster Agencies Can Deny Certification To Same-Sex Couples On Religious Grounds

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday that a Catholic foster agency in Philadelphia was free to turn away same-sex couples as foster parents on grounds of religious freedom.

  

  The decision (pdf) comes in the case of Fulton v City of Philadelphia, in which Catholic Social Services (CSS) sued the city after being ordered not to exclude same-sex couples from certification.

  In a 9–0 ruling, the high court found that the city of Philadelphia violated the First Amendment when it refused to continue contracting with CSS, which does not certify unmarried couples or same-sex couples as foster parents on religious grounds.

  “The City’s actions burdened CSS’s religious exercise by forcing it either to curtail its mission or to certify same-sex couples as foster parents in violation of its religious beliefs,” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion.

  “The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless the agency agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny and violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,” the opinion noted.

  CSS takes the view that “marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman” and believes that certification of prospective foster families is an endorsement of their relationship. It refuses to certify unmarried couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, or same-sex married couples, although it does not object to certifying gay or lesbian individuals as single foster parents.

  The Supreme Court noted in the opinion that no same-sex couple has ever sought certification from CSS and if one did, then it would be directed to one of more than 20 other foster agencies in Philadelphia that do certify same-sex couples.

  “For over 50 years, CSS successfully contracted with the City to provide foster care services while holding to these beliefs,” Roberts wrote, adding that things changed in 2018 when Philadelphia city authorities took the position that they would no longer refer children to CSS on grounds that its refusal to certify same-sex couples violated a non-discrimination provision in its contract with the city.

  “The contractual non-discrimination requirement burdens CSS’s religious exercise and is not generally applicable, so it is subject to ‘the most rigorous of scrutiny,’” Roberts wrote in the opinion. A government policy can only meet the “most rigorous of scrutiny” condition if it is narrowly tailored to achieve “compelling interests,” which the Supreme Court determined it did not.

  With the decision, the Supreme Court is carving out legal protections for people with religious objections to same-sex marriage.

  The case drew the attention of the Trump administration, which backed CSS in its lawsuit as a so-called friend of the court. The Trump-era Justice Department filed an amicus brief (pdf), in which it argued that Philadelphia’s actions had “impermissibly discriminated against religious exercise” and shown “unconstitutional hostility toward Catholic Social Services’ religious beliefs.”

  Currently, laws in 11 states allow state-licensed foster and adoption agencies to reject prospective parents who are in same-sex relationships on religious grounds, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a progressive think tank.

  Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOM

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 21:20

• Texas Gov. Abbott Hails "Biggest & Best" Gun Law As He Signs 'Constitutional Carry' Into Effect
  Texas Gov. Abbott Hails “Biggest & Best” Gun Law As He Signs ‘Constitutional Carry’ Into Effect

  Starting September 1st, Texans will be able to carry handguns in public without a license after on Wednesday the controversial bill dubbed “constitutional carry” was singed into law by Governor Greg Abbott. 

  He later presided over a ceremonial signing on Thursday morning where the governor hailed it as the “biggest and best” gun law this session. Standing alongside National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre in San Antonio, where he signed the bill, Abbott said, “Surely there’s no state in America that’s ever done as much protecting gun rights.”

  

  As the law stands prior to the new change, Texans must pass a background check and undergo a safety course, which includes over 1.6 million licensed conceal-carry individuals in the state. The bill still keeps the formal licensing “option” in place. 

  But after the new law takes effect anyone 21-years old and up can carry a holstered handgun, whether openly or concealed, without a permit.

  The National Rifle Association had months prior called for “Texas to join the 20 other states that have legalized this personal protection option” in a statement. Abbott had previously echoed this stance in media interviews, vowing that if HB1927 should pass the Texas state legislative bodies, he would sign it. “This is something that 20 other states have adopted and it’s time for Texas to adopt it, too,” he told a local radio show in April.

  Prior to approval this week the Texas Senate tacked on multiple amendments seeking to address law enforcement concerns that one alarming end result could be that the change allows easier access to weapons for criminals.

  Over two dozen #txlege Republicans here for @GovAbbott signing ceremony for gun bills at Alamo pic.twitter.com/xmXXFadFPA

  — Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) June 17, 2021

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

  According to the Texas Tribune: 

  The compromise lawmakers reached behind closed doors kept intact a number of changes the Senate made to the House bill, including striking a provision that would have barred officers from questioning people based only on their possession of a handgun.

  The deal also preserves a Senate amendment enhancing the criminal penalties for felons and family violence offenders caught carrying. Among other Senate changes that made it into the law was a requirement that the Texas Department of Public Safety offer a free online course on gun safety.

  As expected, Texas Democrats were outraged, with US Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-El Paso) leading the charge in a Wednesday statement saying, “The permitless carry bill will cause more violence and loss.”

  

  Perhaps fittingly of Texas Republicans’ defiant posture, the Thursday signing ceremony was held at the Alamo. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 21:00

• 20 Tons Of Coke = 40 Years In Prison For MSC Container-Ship Crew
  20 Tons Of Coke = 40 Years In Prison For MSC Container-Ship Crew

  By Greg Miller of FreightWaves,

  Bosko Markovic began working for ocean carrier Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) in 2008. Over the next 11 years, the Montenegrin worked his way up to the position of chief mate, second in command behind the master, with an annual salary of $108,000.

  That wasn’t enough money for him, according to prosecutors from the U.S Department of Justice. 

  “Motivated by profit and greed,” they said, Markovic attempted to use his management role aboard the container ship MSC Gayane to help pull off one of the largest and most audacious drug-smuggling operations in history.

  

  ‘Astronomical’ quantity of drugs

  Markovic and three other conspirators from Montenegro boarded the vessel and recruited four additional seafarers. That brought the drug gang to eight, more than a third of the crew of 22.

  Markovic, who had a lead role in the smuggling operation on the ship, as well as the three others he came aboard with, communicated with co-conspirators on land using special “narco phones.”

  The MSC Gayane was met by speedboats at night on multiple occasions off the coast of South America during a voyage in 2019. The eight members of the smuggling ring loaded duffel bags full of cocaine bricks onto the vessel using the ship’s crane. Markovic, as chief mate, was in charge of the cargo plan, and picked seven specific containers full of legitimate cargo to hide the cocaine in. Fake seals were used to reseal the boxes.

  When authorities raided the ship upon its arrival at Packer Marine Terminal in Philadelphia on June 17, 2019, they found 20 tons of cocaine aboard. “This was the largest cocaine seizure in the 230-year history of U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP],” said prosecutors, adding, “The sheer quantity of drugs involved in this case is astronomical.”

  To put the scope of the bust in perspective, the MSC Gayane is a 2018-built “Neopanamax”-class container ship with a capacity of 11,600 twenty-foot-equivalent units that is leased to MSC and owned by a fund linked to J.P. Morgan. It is currently valued at around $100 million. The seized cocaine was valued at $1 billion — 10 times more than the ship.

  

  5 crew sentenced so far

  All eight conspirators pleaded guilty. Markovic was sentenced most recently, on Thursday. Prosecutors said during the hearing that Markovic expected to be paid more than $1 million for his role overseeing the smuggling operation, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

  Markovic received a sentence of seven years, the longest handed down so far in the case. MSC asserted in a letter filed in the Markovic docket, “The Gayane incident is an undeserved and unwanted stain on [the employees’] record. The company and everyone in it are victims.”

  As previously reported by American Shipper, Vladimir Penda, the ship’s fourth engineer, was sentenced to five years and 10 months on April 13. Penda was one of the crew members recruited on board; his sole role was assisting to haul the drugs from the crane to the containers.

  Recently unsealed court records reveal that five of the eight members of the MSC Gayane drug gang have now been sentenced.

  The two Samoan crew members, who were recruited while on board and helped move the cocaine, were sentenced before Penda, when their dockets were under seal. Laauli Pula, ordinary seaman, and Fonofaavae Tiasaga, able seaman, both received five-year prison terms at a hearing on Jan. 19.

  Another crew member, Serbian Stefan Bojevic, the assistant reeferman, was sentenced to five years on March 2, at a time when his docket was sealed. 

  The latest judgement on Markovic brings the total MSC Gayane sentences to just under 28 years.

  There are three sentences remaining, for Montenegrins Ivan Durasevic, second mate; Nenad Ilic, engineer cadet; and Aleksandar Kavaja, electrician. Durasevic and Ilic are scheduled to be sentenced on July 7, Kavaja on Aug. 2. Based on past prison terms, the aggregate crew sentences will exceed four decades and could approach five decades.

  Ship bust skews nationwide numbers

  The unprecedented nature of the MSC Gayane seizure was highlighted in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 2020 National Drug Threat Assessment report, released in March. The DEA said that reported nationwide cocaine seizures in 2019 surged 70% versus 2018, to 45,241 kilograms from 26,585 kilograms the year before.

  

  But according to the DEA, “The increase is primarily attributed to the record seizure of 17,928 kilograms from cargo containers on the MSC Gayane in Philadelphia [that were] destined for Antwerp, Belgium. Excluding that seizure, nationwide CBP seizures increased a little less than 3% from 2018.”

  In other words, virtually all of America’s year-on-year increase in coke seizures in 2019 was driven by a single event: the MSC Gayane drug bust.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 20:40

• "Divine Vessel" Rockets Chinese Astronauts To New Space Station
  “Divine Vessel” Rockets Chinese Astronauts To New Space Station

  In the last month and a half, China has launched the core capsule of the new Tiangong space station and supplies. On Thursday, three astronauts were catapulted into low Earth orbit and successfully docked with the new space station launched in April, according to Nikkei. 

  The trio of astronauts – Nie Haisheng, Liu Boming, and Tang Hongbo – were transported in the Shenzhou-12 or “divine vessel” spacecraft on top of a Long March 2F at Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in the country’s northwestern Gobi Desert Thursday morning. By late afternoon local time, state broadcaster CCTV reported the craft had docked with the core capsule. 

  

  This is the first time China has launched humans into space in five years and the seventh since 2003. The country has been banned from the International Space Station (ISS) since 2011, when Congress, under the Obama administration, passed a law that prevented Americans from working with the Chinese space program due to national security risks. 

  The launch of #China’s first manned mission to its #space station. It’s pretty incredible what humans can do. The rocket’s chief designer told me after so much work, she was sad to see it go… but ‘thrilled’ that for 10 key minutes ‘it did its duty’.
  This was my view.@NBCNews pic.twitter.com/ofDNV8XXU5

  — Janis Mackey Frayer (@janisfrayer) June 17, 2021

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

  The three astronauts will be living on the 90-metric-ton T-shaped space station called Tiangong, or Heavenly Palace, for 90 days. The new space station is still under construction as there are eight more missions to expand it. 

  WATCH: China’s Shenzhou 12 docking to Tiangong Space Station Core Cabin Module

  pic.twitter.com/mvi82lyKEI

  — ASB News / MILITARY〽️ (@ASBMilitary) June 17, 2021

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

  The launch was broadcast live on Chinese television and social media, attracting tens of millions of viewers.

  This is another milestone for China as there are now two space stations operating in low Earth orbit. The ISS is nearing its working life, and Russia will soon withdraw from ISS cooperation in 2025

  Another launch is set for September. That crew will replace the current trio onboard the space station.

  For President Xi Jinping, the new space station represents power and his vision to dominate the world and space. 

  The great power competition between the US and China, the two largest economies and largest military spenders, means space is becoming the next battleground. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 20:20

• Pentagon Mulls Permanent Naval Task Force To Counter China
  Pentagon Mulls Permanent Naval Task Force To Counter China

  Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

  According to a report from Politico, the Pentagon is considering creating a permanent naval task force for the Pacific region to confront and counter China, which has been identified as the Pentagon’s top priority.

  Sources told Politico that the plan would include creating a named military operation for the Pacific that would allow the Pentagon to release more funding for Navy operations in the region.

  

  The Politico report said the naval task force would be based on a Cold War-era NATO construct known as the Standing Naval Forces Atlantic (SNFA) that was established in 1968 and served as a permanent naval presence that would rapidly respond to a situation in the Atlantic. The SNFA usually consisted of a rotating force of about six to 10 ships from NATO countries that would sail around the region.

  If the US established such a naval force for the Pacific, it would likely include Washington’s European allies and regional ones such as Japan and Australia.

  The idea grew from a 100-day task force review of the Pentagon’s China policy that was led by Ely Ratner, a special advisor to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

  Ratner is a China hawk who came from the interventionist Center for a New American Security think tank. He was appointed to his position to appease China hawks who did not believe Austin had enough experience dealing with Asia.

  Last week, Austin ordered the Pentagon to adopt initiatives recommended by the China task force review. Most of the recommendations are being kept classified, but Austin’s directive ordered the military to start acting like China is the top “threat” facing the US instead of just talking about it.

  A US official told Defense One that the task force found a “say-do-gap” between what the Pentagon is saying about China and the action it is taking.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 20:00

• Kim Jong Un's Rapid Weight Loss Has Triggered New Speculation Over His Health
  Kim Jong Un’s Rapid Weight Loss Has Triggered New Speculation Over His Health

  Is he thinner, leaner and healthier? Or is he gaunt and sickly? Perhaps he previously suffered a bout of coronavirus which is believed to be ravaging the country also amid severe food scarcity concerns? Or is it stress due to the worsening food and economic crisis in the country? Perhaps he’s just really hitting that treadmill hard.

  North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s appearance is once again setting off widespread speculation over his health. A new Associated Press report calls him “noticeably slimmer” as the latest side-by-side photographs showing a quick months-long transformation show…

  

  North Korean state media issued new photos of Kim on Saturday, after the strongman ruler hadn’t been seen publicly for a month.

  South Korea-based NK News published this week a series of side-by-side photo sets while analyzing the likely degree of the weight loss and what it could mean, writing that:

  “Though often the subject of less serious online commentary, Kim’s weight and health are closely watched by foreign intelligence agencies, including South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS).”

  

  And The Associated Press at the same time questioned:

  Has he gained even more weight? Is he struggling for breath after relatively short walks? What about that cane? Why did he miss that important state anniversary?

  Now, the 37-year-old faces fresh speculation in the South about his health again. But this time, it’s because he’s noticeably slimmer.

  A thinner looking Kim…

  

  On a national level, it’s been confirmed that there his a major food crisis looming, as CNN details Thursday:

  North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has admitted his country is facing food shortages that he blamed on last year’s typhoon and floods, just months after he warned North Koreans about a looming potential crisis.

  Kim told the plenary meeting of the Workers’ Party of Korea the nation was experiencing a “tense food situation,” Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported on Wednesday.

  North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has called his country’s food situation “tense”. He blamed the coronavirus pandemic and last year’s typhoons for the food shortages. pic.twitter.com/jwsraCxUmm

  — SCMP News (@SCMPNews) June 17, 2021

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

  For over the past year North Korea has been even more isolated than usual, with Pyongyang having ordered a total closure of all borders in efforts to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic from spreading – a drastic move which at the same time has resulted in less food and medicines making it in.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 19:40

• Florida Gov. DeSantis Pardons Violators Of Masks Mandates, Social Distancing Rules
  Florida Gov. DeSantis Pardons Violators Of Masks Mandates, Social Distancing Rules

  Authored by Isabel van Brugen via The Epoch Times,

  Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday announced that all Floridians who were were arrested or fined for violating mask mandates or social distancing requirements will be pardoned.

  

  In a 3-1 vote, the four-member Board of Executive Clemency approved the Republican governor’s decision to officially pardon those who were arrested or fined for violating local government orders.

  “This action is necessary so that we can recover, have a good transition to normal operations, and also just a recognition that a lot of this stuff was way, way overboard,” DeSantis said of the move.

  DeSantis said the pardon applies to civil and criminal penalties handed to individuals or businesses “punished for breaking unscientific, unnecessary directives.”

  Voting to deny the pardons was Democrat Nikki Fried, who is currently State Agriculture Commissioner and is running to unseat DeSantis next year.

  “Our local governments stepped up to protect the people of our state. They did what was best for the interests of their communities,” Fried said.

  It isn’t clear how many Floridians will be pardoned as a result of the state clemency board’s decision. DeSantis’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times.

  The decision to pardon Floridians who violated local government orders follows an executive order issued by the governor on May 3 that suspends all local pandemic emergency mandates effective July 1.

  DeSantis signed Senate Bill 2006 last month, passed by Florida state lawmakers in April, granting the governor the ability to override local emergency orders. The bill also includes a ban on vaccine passports that were to levy fines of $5,000 per violation.

  The Republican governor at the time described his executive orders as the “evidence-based thing to do,” adding that proponents of lockdowns “really are saying you don’t believe in the vaccines, you don’t believe in the data, you don’t believe in the science.” He added: “We’ve embraced the vaccines. We’ve embraced the science on it.”

  The order suspending local emergency mandates only affects governments, not businesses.

  In announcing the official pardons, DeSantis highlighted a case which saw the arrest of Mike Carnevale, a Broward County gym owner who refused to enforce mask orders. DeSantis granted clemency to him and his wife.

  “Floridians like Mike and Jillian Carnevale should have never faced criminal charges for not requiring mask in their businesses,” the governor said.

  “Today, we took action in Florida to reject the overreach of local authorities through unnecessary and unscientific mask mandates.”

  He added: “No business should face economic ruin and be punished for alleged violations of local orders that are unreasonably restrictive of rights and liberties.”

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 19:20

• Two Men Ejected From Flight At San Fran Airport After Fighting Over Elbow Room
  Two Men Ejected From Flight At San Fran Airport After Fighting Over Elbow Room

  Despite the fact that Covid restrictions are somewhat undergoing the process of being lifted, people sure do still seem ornery.

  For proof, look no further than a United Airlines plane at San Francisco International Airport, where two passengers had to be removed from the plane after an argument over elbow room on an armrest. Maybe airlines should take note of what these disruptions cost as they figure out new and creative ways to cram economy flyers even closer together. 

  Google product director Jack Krawczyk documented the spat on Twitter, writing: “On my first flight in 15 months, of course we were rerouted back to the gate because two passengers got into a physical altercation over elbow placement upon arm rests.”

  On my first flight in 15 months, of course we were rerouted back to the gate because two passengers got into a physical altercation over elbow placement upon arm rests. pic.twitter.com/YBAV1iG2Fk

  — Jack Krawczyk (@JackK) June 13, 2021

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

  The flight was on its way to Las Vegas when the incident took place before takeoff, the NY Post reports. The men involved in the altercation haven’t been identified, but were detained when an officer arrived at the gate. 

  Despite neither man wanting to “pursue further police action”, they weren’t allowed back on the flight.

  One response to Krawczyk’s Tweet read: “This is fucking why I HATE traveling economy. You’re cramming a bunch of uneducated low lives into cheap seats with barely any leg and arm room and expecting them to be civil? Throw in them having to wear masks now and good LUCK.”

  Despite the lifting of Covid restrictions, people still seem to be on edge. Forbes noted earlier this month that “airlines have seen a dramatic increase in in-flight passenger incidents and these have gotten increasingly violent and dangerous”. 

  About 2,500 incidents have been reported through May. 394 of these incidents have been labeled “unruly”, compared to “well under 200” such incidents for the full years 2019 and 2020. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 19:00

• Entire Portland Police Rapid Response Team Resigns After Officer Indicted For Breaking Up Antifa Riot
  Entire Portland Police Rapid Response Team Resigns After Officer Indicted For Breaking Up Antifa Riot

  Authored by Jack Posobiec via Human Events,

  Following the criminal indictment of a fellow officer, the entire Portland Police Rapid Response Team made the unanimous decision to resign, according to police sources via Portland news outlet KXL.  

  

  Cory Budworth, 40, is the first officer in the county to be prosecuted for using force during a violent protest. 

  The Rapid Response Team is a group of volunteer officers who respond to civil disobedience, demonstrations and riots. At the time of the incident, Officer Budworth was assigned to the Rapid Response Team for crowd control.

  Indeed, Budworth was indicted for breaking up an Antifa riot in 2020, charged with misdemeanor fourth-degree assault. He was accused of “unlawfully, knowingly and recklessly causing physical injury” to Teri Jacobs on August 18.

  A video shared on social media showed an officer running and striking a protestor with his baton. The woman fell down and was hit with the baton a second time. 

  However, it is critical to mention that the bureau found the baton strike in question was “not intentional” and therefore not considered lethal force, while the Independent Police Review office viewed the strike as a “push,” WCAX News reports. 

  “Unfortunately, this decorated public servant has been caught in the crossfire of agenda-driven city leaders and a politicized criminal justice system,” the Portland Police said Tuesday. 

  Portland Police Association Executive Director Daryl Turner told the “Lars Larson Show” Wednesday that he feared officers would quit in response to what he called a “Witch Hunt” of a prosecution. 

  Sources confirm for me tonight that members of the Portland Police Rapid Response Team (trained in riot control) met tonight and all resigned their spots in the voluntary assignment. The news comes one day after the Antifa friendly District Attorney of Multnomah County (cont)

  — Lars Larson (@LarsLarsonShow) June 17, 2021

  *  *  *

  For more information on Antifa, check out my new book The Antifa: Stories from Inside the Black Bloc here. 

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

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 18:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Facebook "Overwhelmingly" Being Used For Online Recruitment In Active Sex Trafficking Cases
  Facebook “Overwhelmingly” Being Used For Online Recruitment In Active Sex Trafficking Cases

  A stunning new report ties social media platforms – the most prominent of which is Facebook – to “the majority” of online recruitment in active sex trafficking cases.

  The data was revealed in the Human Trafficking Institute’s 2020 Federal Human Trafficking Report, according to CBS.  

  Human Trafficking Institute CEO Victor Boutros said on CBSN Wednesday: “The internet has become the dominant tool that traffickers use to recruit victims, and they often recruit them on a number of very common social networking websites. Facebook overwhelmingly is used by traffickers to recruit victims in active sex trafficking cases.”

  The report uses data from every criminal and civil human trafficking case that’s active. “This report actually looks at the last 20 years of trends in the federal government,” Boutros continued.

  

  The report revealed that 30% of all victims identified in federal sex trafficking cases since 2000 were recruited online. In 2020, 59% of online recruitment in active cases took place on Facebook. 65% of identified child sex trafficking victims recruited on social media were also attributed to Facebook.

  Children accounted for 53% of identified victims in active criminal human trafficking cases in 2020, the report says, and a “large majority” of them were women. 

  An active case is defined as one where defendants were charged in 2020, or had charges pending in 2020 from previous years.

  Facebook told CBS: “Sex trafficking and child exploitation are abhorrent and we don’t allow them on Facebook.” (Well, that solves *that* problem). 

  

  The tech giant continued: “We have policies and technology to prevent these types of abuses and take down any content that violates our rules. We also work with safety groups, anti-trafficking organizations and other technology companies to address this and we report all apparent instances of child sexual exploitation to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.”

  In addition to Facebook, both Instagram and Snapchat were the most frequently cited platforms for recruiting child victims. 

  

  The report stated: “These data do not reflect the prevalence of online solicitation in sex trafficking schemes beyond those federally prosecuted. To be sure, the internet is implicated in many sex trafficking situations, but the high numbers of federal prosecutions involving internet solicitation are equally if not more reflective of the strategies law enforcement use to investigate these crimes.”

  Boutros concluded: “Traffickers often prey on existing vulnerabilities of victims. A lot of times we imagine that traffickers are these large group syndicates or networks, exploiting a huge number of victims. But actually most traffickers are not operating as an organized crime enterprise. It is mostly individual traffickers that are operating individually and often exploiting a small handful of victims at a time.”

  

  The Human Trafficking Institute “exists to decimate human trafficking at its source by empowering police and prosecutors to stop traffickers.”

  “Working inside criminal justice systems, the Institute provides the embedded experts, world-class training, investigative resources, and evidence-based research necessary to free victims,” the report says.

  You can read the full 2020 Federal Human Trafficking report here. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 02:45

• New Israeli Strikes On Gaza – New Hope For Netanyahu
  New Israeli Strikes On Gaza – New Hope For Netanyahu

  Submitted by SouthFront,

  Thousands of Israelis waved flags and marched in a Palestinian neighborhood of Jerusalem, asserting Israeli control over the city and testing the feeble ceasefire in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The march had been delayed from last month out of concern it would escalate the violence in the city just as fighting was breaking out between Israel and Palestinian groups on May 10th.

  Hamas vowed a response to the recent escalation, and returned to its usual military practice: launching incendiary balloons into Israeli territory.

  The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said that 20 fires were sparked by these attacks over the past 24 hours, and in response scrambled warplanes to carry out airstrikes on the Gaza Strip. The IDF said that it had targeted Hamas military compounds, used by the group’s operatives.

  The Israeli strikes in Gaza appeared to cause no deaths or injuries. But the Israeli military warned that it was “prepared for any scenario, including a resumption of hostilities, in the face of continuing terror activities from the Gaza Strip.”

  Israel also deployed Iron Dome to the country’s south to guarantee security. Tel Aviv’s government needed to show that it had security under control, especially since it hosted a full delegation of former US generals who met with various IDF officials.

  Earlier on June 15th, in Jerusalem,  mostly young Israelis marched to the main entrance to the Old City’s Muslim quarter. Many of them chanted “Death to Arabs”. There,  a few thousand dancing demonstrators had gathered to celebrate Israel’s contested control of East Jerusalem. Scores of stone-throwing Palestinians took part in running street battles with Israeli security forces, who used rubber bullets, batons and water cannons spraying foul-smelling water to scatter those trying to disrupt the nationalist celebration outside the Old City walls.

  At least 33 people were injured, including a 14-year-old boy hit by a rubber bullet, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society.

  Israeli police said that two officers were lightly wounded and 17 people were arrested during the protests.

  Hamas leaders had urged Palestinians to take part in a “day of rage” to challenge the protest outside the Old City’s Muslim Quarter, and the militant group then launched incendiary balloons.

  The march’s organizers are former allies turned political enemies of new Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who has drawn ire from Israel’s right-wing population for forming a coalition that also includes the left-wing and an Arab party.

  Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that him being removed from his post was just temporary and he would be back in a short time-span, as Israel is essentially lost without him.

  Any sort of escalation in the West Bank is in his favor, as he may claim that his competition is not effectively dealing with the situation.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 06/17/2021 – 02:00

• FBI Operatives Likely 'Unindicted Co-Conspirators', Organizers Of Capitol Riot: Report
  FBI Operatives Likely ‘Unindicted Co-Conspirators’, Organizers Of Capitol Riot: Report

  Tucker Carlson dropped several bombshells on his show Tuesday night, chief among them was from a Revolver News report that the FBI was likely involved in organizing the Jan. 6 Capitol ‘insurrection,’ and were similarly involved in the kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor Gretchin Whitmer.

  

  “Why are there so many factual matters that we don’t understand about that day?” asked Carlson.

  “Why is the Biden administration preventing us from knowing? Why is the administration still hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the US capitol on January 6th? What could possibly be the reason for that – even as they call for more openness… they could release those tapes today, but they’re not. Why?”

  Carlson notes that Revolver News has dissected court filings surrounding the Capitol riot, suggests that unindicted co-conspirators in the case are likely to have been federal operatives.

  We at Revolver News have noticed a pattern from our now months-long investigation into 1/6 — and in particular from our meticulous study of the charging documents related to those indicted. In many cases the unindicted co-conspirators appear to be much more aggressive and egregious participants in the very so-called “conspiracy” serving as the basis for charging those indicted.

  The question immediately arises as to why this is the case, and forces us to consider whether certain individuals are being protected from indictment because they were involved in 1/6 as undercover operatives or confidential informants for a federal agency.

  Key segment from Tucker:

  “We know that the government is hiding the identity of many law enforcement officers that were present at the Capitol on January 6th, not just the one that killed Ashli Babbitt. According to the government’s own court filing, those law enforcement officers participated in the riot – sometimes in violent ways. We know that because without fail, the government has thrown the book at most people who were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6. There was a nationwide dragnet to find them – and many are still in solitary confinement tonight. But strangely, some of the key people who participated on Jan. 6 have not been charged.”

  Look at the documents, the government calls those people ‘unindicted co-conspirators.’ What does that mean? Well it means that in potentially every case they were FBI operatives… in the Capitol, on January 6th.”

  “For example, one of those unindicted co-conspirators is someone government documents identify only as “person two.” According to those documents, person two stayed in the same hotel room as a man called Thomas Caldwell – an ‘insurrectionist.’ A man alleged to be a member of the group “The Oathkeepers.” Person two also “stormed the barricades” at the Capitol on January 6th alongside Thomas Caldwell. The government’s indictments further indicate that Caldwell – who by the way is a 65-year-old man… was led to believe there would be a “quick reaction force” also participating on January 6th. That quick reaction force Caldwell was told, would be led by someone called “Person 3,” who had a hotel room and an accomplice with them. But wait. Here’s the interesting thing. Person 2 and person 3 were organizers of the riot. The government knows who they are, but the government has not charged them. Why is that? You know why. They were almost certainly working for the FBI. So FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6th according to government documents. And those two are not alone. In all, Revolver news reported there are “upwards of 20 unindicted co-conspirators in the Oath Keeper indictments, all playing various roles in the conspiracy, who have not been charged for virtually the exact same activities and in some cases much, much more severe activities – as those named alongside them in the indictments.”

  Watch:

  https://t.co/Hu50v31GBj

  — The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) June 16, 2021

  Revolver, meanwhile, has important questions about January 6th

  • In the year leading up to 1/6 and during 1/6 itself, to what extent were the three primary militia groups (the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters) that the FBI, DOJ, Pentagon and network news have labeled most responsible for planning and executing a Capitol attack on 1/6 infiltrated by agencies of the federal government, or informants of said agencies?

  • Exactly how many federal undercover agents or confidential informants were present at the Capitol or in the Capitol during the infamous “siege” and what roles did they play (merely passive informants or active instigators)?

  • Finally, of all of the unindicted co-conspirators referenced in the charging documents of those indicted for crimes on 1/6, how many worked as a confidential informant or as an undercover operative for the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, etc.)?

  Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) has demanded an explanation from FBI Director Christopher Wray:

  BREAKING: Congressman Matt Gaetz calls on FBI Director Christopher Wray to fully disclose the role and involvement of FBI operatives during the January 6th Capitol riot.

  More details coming. pic.twitter.com/lviUHfhLyW

  — Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) June 16, 2021

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

  More:

  • Revolver News: “Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge“

  • Tucker Carlson op-ed: “Government agents may have helped organize the Jan. 6 Capitol riot“

  .@DarrenJBeattie: “After seeing all of this you have to ask yourself: Does the national security apparatus do anything but conspire against the American people?” pic.twitter.com/vdMb8RfXgA

  — The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) June 16, 2021

  We recommend you read the entire Revolver piece, which includes the fact that at least five individuals involved int he “Whitmer Kidnapping Plot” were undercover agents and federal informants.

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

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 23:55

• Mao’s Cultural Revolution Has Arrived In America
  Mao’s Cultural Revolution Has Arrived In America

  Commentary authored by Chris Talgo via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  From 1966 to 1976, Chinese society suffered under what we now call the Cultural Revolution.

  Although the Cultural Revolution (previously known as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution) was a multifaceted affair, it was undergirded by a vicious, fanatical campaign to destroy the “Four Olds.”

  

  In 1971, The New York Times described the campaign thusly:

  “One of the early objectives of the Cultural Revolution in China … was to wipe out the ‘four olds’—old things, old ideas, old customs and old habits.

  “The ‘four olds’ had already suffered setbacks in the years of Communist rule preceding the Cultural Revolution, but the Maoist leadership tried to use the new revolutionary upsurge launched in 1966 to eliminate them completely.

  “In the turbulent years from 1966 to 1968, what remained of old religious practices, old superstitions, old festivals, old social practices such as traditional weddings and funerals, and old ways of dress were violently attacked and suppressed. Visual evidences of old things were destroyed, and there was an orgy of burning of old books and smashing of old art objects.”

  Tragically, it seems as if the United States is in the midst of its own Cultural Revolution.

  Like the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the current “revolution” in America is being waged by the youth, at the behest of radical leftists, of course.

  Also, much like the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, the American “Woke Revolution” is hellbent on destroying any and all vestiges of traditional society, especially those that celebrate freedom, individualism, and American exceptionalism, in general.

  In China, during the Cultural Revolution, as The New York Times describes, old things, old ideas, old customs, and old habits had to be eliminated.

  In America, during the Woke Revolution, we’re following the same path.

  Old things, such as fossil fuels, the Founding Fathers, the Electoral College, etc. must go.

  Old ideas, such as equality of opportunity and meritocracy, are now moot.

  Old customs, such as standing for the National Anthem and vigorously defending one’s right to freedom of speech, are long gone.

  And, old habits, such as the Protestant work ethic and rugged individualism, have been seriously undermined.

  In place of these “old” aspects of our culture, the Woke Revolution desires to turn our society on its head.

  The Woke Revolution, like the Cultural Revolution, is predicated on Marxist ideology.

  Individualism is being replaced with communalism. Equity, better known as equality of outcome, now trumps equality of opportunity.

  Sadly, even Martin Luther King Jr.’s “dream” of a color-blind society has given way to critical race theory, which is the epitome of racism.

  And, above all else, class warfare reigns supreme. Rich versus poor. Privileged versus oppressed.

  No longer is America the land of opportunity. Henceforth, it shall be known as the land of oppression. Or so we’re told.

  Perhaps most disconcerting when one compares the Cultural Revolution to contemporary America is the disdain for the past.

  In China, this manifested in mass book burnings and wanton destruction of historic monuments. That sounds a lot like what’s been happening in America recently.

  The parallels between China’s Cultural Revolution and America’s Woke Revolution are becoming closer by the day.

  As The New York Times article chronicling China’s Cultural Revolution concluded, “A new generation has appeared, and though much of the old China is too indelible to erase as yet, a new China with ways quite different from the old is in existence.”

  The same could be said about America in 2021.

  Chris Talgo is senior editor at The Heartland Institute.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 23:40

• ​​​​​​​California Bans Porsche From Selling 2022 911 GT3 With Manual Transmission 
  ​​​​​​​California Bans Porsche From Selling 2022 911 GT3 With Manual Transmission 

  Well, maybe the birds and deer will feel comfortable in California that the liberal-run state has banned Porsche from selling the 2022 911 GT3 with manual transmission because it’s just too damn loud. 

  Porsche informed Car and Driver this week that the optional six-speed manual transmission of the supercar will not be sold in the state due to the state’s sound regulations. 

  

  Porsche will contact those who have already ordered the GT3 with the opportunity to switch to the standard dual-clutch automatic gearbox. 

  Porsche tells us that California’s Code of Regulations (CCR) 1046 references the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) test procedure J1470 for its exterior-noise criteria, which was last revised in 1998. There’s a newer SAE standard for pass-by noise, J2805, which presumably the GT3 was designed to and meets, and Porsche expected California to update its regs to this latest standard before the GT3 went on sale. But, for now, the GT3 is stuck in limbo, awaiting that change.

  Porsche says that it’s working with California State Highway Patrol to come to a solution but has no estimated timeline of when that might happen. Somewhere in the details of those two SAE testing procedures is why the manual fails one but not the other; we’re digging into those specifics and will update this story when we have a more complete explanation. -Car and Driver

  The GT3 is an absolute beast, pumping out 502-hp from its naturally aspirated 4.0-liter flat-six and screams at 9,000 rpm. 

  So the ban on these GT3s will only be a handful of cars because of their rarity. Still, the state is turning a blind eye to the tens of thousands of automotive enthusiasts who mount aftermarket parts on their vehicles for performance gains that make some areas of the state sound like a Fast & Furious sequel on any given day. 

  Instead of banning these cars from the street in the UK, noise cameras were placed on certain roads that would ticket drivers if their vehicles made sounds over 80 decibels. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 23:20

• Welcome To Wokespeak: Its Logic-Defying Rhetoric Is Making Heads Spin
  Welcome To Wokespeak: Its Logic-Defying Rhetoric Is Making Heads Spin

  Authored by John Murawski via RealClearInvestigations,

  In the midst of the nation’s racial upheaval last year, media outlets including the Associated Press, the New York Times and the Washington Post rushed to start capitalizing the word “Black” in reference to African Americans, some announcing the move as a long-overdue gesture of respect. While RealClear has not changed its style, the change elsewhere prompted newsroom soul-searching on whether to write “white” or “White” in reference to people of European descent. 

  

  Capitalizing the term made sense as a simple matter of consistency. But the argument for lower-casing “white” staked its own moral claims. One was that capitalizing it would legitimize white supremacy. Another was that “white” in lower case is an apolitical description of a skin color; it doesn’t merit capitalization because whites don’t represent a shared culture.

  News organizations adopted inconsistent policies on the question – the AP, Times and others voted for “w”; the Washington Post and National Association of Black Journalists chose “W.” But the notion that there is no white culture drew jeers of derision from some quarters. It was virtually impossible to pretend not to see that white culture is routinely cited to refer to white supremacy and white privilege as a shorthand for the cultural biases, prejudices and values that prop up systemic racism.

  Both ideas – that white culture is omnipresent and nonexistent – can’t be true. Or can they?

  The white culture conundrum is one of many such paradoxes in today’s topsy-turvy woke culture, where colorblindness once represented the ideal of being unprejudiced, but now marks the epitome of racism.

  These apparent contradictions can cause confusion, frustration and moral whiplash in a swiftly changing society where many people fear that one wayward move can result in a public flogging or a pink slip. Yet as the public seeks guidance, the fractured market of ideas seems unable to provide clarity on which rules apply in which situation.

  “These contradictions and conundrums have hit like an avalanche,” said Jason Hill, a native of Jamaica and author of the 2018 book, “We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People.”

  

  Everyone needs to be aware because at some point they are going to be caught in these conceptual snares,” said Hill, a philosophy professor at DePaul University. “Most people are caught off-guard and cede their position. If you try to argue your way out, they’ll ensnare you in more traps.”

  The paradoxes come in a variety of iterations, from moral imperatives to abstract propositions. In Ibram X. Kendi’s best-selling book, “How to Be an Antiracist,” the celebrity professor writes that cultural relativism is “the essence of cultural antiracism. To be antiracist is to see all cultures in all their differences as on the same level, as equals.”

  Taken literally, Kendi’s dictum would mean that the antiracist culture he envisions is no better than the racist culture he blames for racial disparities in health, wealth, education and other measures. Yet it’s impossible to read Kendi’s work as anything but a critique of racist culture, and by extension, gun culture, rape culture and consumer culture.

  This paradoxical pairing of a radical cultural critique with a radical cultural relativism is hardly unique to Kendi, but one of a growing number of widely circulating self-cancelling propositions.

  Take gentrification, often invoked as an example of systemic racism because it can lead to the displacement of generations of black residents by incoming affluent whites. The famed antiracist writer Ta-Nehisi Coates has described gentrification as a crime, and others have denounced whites moving into black neighborhoods as ethnic cleansing, colonization and genocide.

  Yet the reverse of gentrification – white flight from increasingly black neighborhoods – is also deemed a racist reflex by some, Coates among them, because it abandons once thriving schools and communities to neglect and disrepair. Hence the paradox: Condemning gentrification and white flight seems to leave no room for movement in any direction, inducing a moral paralysis.

  “If both advocating for integrating city neighborhoods and advocating for retreat to safer suburban neighborhoods can be painted as racist — and there are many examples equivalent to this one — almost anyone could be ‘canceled’ at any time,” said Wilfred Reilly, author of the 2019 book “Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War.” 

  “It makes almost every conversation not among close friends into a booby-trapped environment,” said Reilly, a political science professor at Kentucky State University, a historically black college.  

  Some critics of progressive politics describe these paradoxes as the inevitable consequence of sloppy, illogical thinking based on emotional arguments and political expediencies. The inconsistencies can also result from the social justice movement’s strategy of “problematizing” – a philosophical posture that deconstructs and delegitimizes existing values and institutions as systems of oppression when seen through the lens of race, gender and power. Indeed, the term “woke” refers to being hyper-aware of the constant microaggressions and oppressions that become evident everywhere once one gets into the mindset of problematizing, or turning everything into a problem.

  Others see the self-cancelling propositions in more sinister terms: as moral double-binds and Orwellian doublespeak deliberately designed to deceive, entrap and neutralize political opponents.

  “They’re not bugs, they’re features,” said Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which defends free speech and other individual rights of students and faculty at colleges and universities.

  “It gives you infinite power over your opponent if you can literally have your argument any which way that works to your advantage,” said Lukianoff, co-author of the 2018 book “The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure.”

  To be sure, any large movement will have discordant voices and divergent opinions, and a certain amount of viewpoint diversity is inevitable. In all human affairs, from politics to religion, there seems to be no shortage of hypocrisy. Fabio Rojas, a sociology professor at Indiana University, said the visibility of paradoxes in the realm of social justice is a testament to the movement’s ascendance in Western societies.

  “Social justice is the theory of the moment. It’s all that we’re doing,” said Rojas, author of the 2007 book “From Black Power to Black Studies: How a Radical Social Movement Became an Academic Discipline.” “Right now the social justice world is gigantic, very popular.”

  Still, many antiracist advocates don’t see these conundrums as contradictory, but as being situationally true in specific contexts, and also dependent on other nuances, such as whether a word like “culture” is being used literally or metaphorically.

  Ron Scapp, an academic specialist in ethnic studies, is among those who acknowledge the contradictions and paradoxes as real, not imaginary; but Scapp says they are not the result of muddled thinking or an underhanded attempt at emotional blackmail. They simply reflect the ubiquity of systemic racism that permeates so much of American society, which means that we encounter racism wherever we turn, and all our options are morally fraught.

  This sensation of feeling trapped is what is often meant by the idea that facing one’s white complicity in structures of oppression will necessarily cause white people to experience discomfort and even distress, because they have no place to hide in the society they have created, said Scapp, a professor of humanities and teacher education at the College of Mount Saint Vincent, in New York, and past president of the National Association for Ethnic Studies. 

  “The options aren’t painless – this comes with a price,” Scapp said. “And doing good doesn’t mean that you get to feel free from any pain or inconvenience that history has set us up for. There’s some white people who want a quick and easy out, to buy their way out of that history.”

  Several critical race theorists told RealClearInvestigations that another factor might be at play in the calling out of contradictions: a whiff of white privilege in demanding perfect logical consistency without bothering to attend to context or to the literal and rhetorical uses of language.

  “There might be some element of that [white privilege] involved in demanding logical consistency where it’s so easily shown that there is none,” said Robert Westley, a Tulane University law professor who specializes in critical race theory and reparations. “If we suspend the rhetoricity of language and just approach it in a logical way, then you could generate these kinds of contradictions all day long.”

  In many intellectual traditions, logical consistency is not considered to be the loftiest human intellectual attainment, and rationalism lacks the prestige of paradoxes, enigmas, koans and riddles. In the Anglophone world, contradictions have been celebrated as transcendent by the playwright Oscar Wilde, poet Walt Whitman and essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson, who declared that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Political theorist Saul Alinsky, the author of the 1971 community organizing guide “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals,” gamely advised: “In the politics of human life, consistency is not a virtue.”

  Paradoxes aren’t the sole domain of the activist, but also are a tendency of progressive scholarship. For example, we are told that women are equal to men in all areas of competency, but studies show that women are more effective in 84% of leadership skills and in 13 of 19 areas of leadership effectiveness, according to research reported in Harvard Business Review.

  It is accepted as a self-evident truth that slavery and segregation enriched white America at the expense of African Americans. But research also shows the opposite: that racism acts as a drag on the whole economy – retarding investment, growth, purchasing power, consumer spending and depressing other metrics — which economically harms white people, too, according to a report in The New York Times.

  The most fertile ground for contradictions might well be the diversity and equity industry, which seems to have outpaced the pulpit in its zeal for issuing moral precepts.

  A recurring theme in the social justice movement is the plea for an honest conversation about race, where all perspectives are respected. But the public is also getting the inverse message: that it is imperative for whites to remain silent to make room for marginalized voices and to stop centering their privileged experiences.

  In the antiracist consulting world, it is a truth universally acknowledged that organizations should hire people of color to promote diverse viewpoints and insights from those employees.

  But according to materials from The Walt Disney Co., recently leaked to City Journal, there is a limit on exploiting black wisdom. “Do not rely on your Black colleagues to educate you. This is emotionally taxing”; “Do not call on your Black colleagues to represent the voice of their community”; and “Be aware of tokenism, when Black professionals are expected to be representative for their entire race.”

  Critical race theorist andré douglas pond cummings (who writes his name in lowercase letters), said this is actually sound advice for an organization that has hired one or two token black employees. The problem of tokenization disappears when organizations have true diversity with many black colleagues representing multiple black perspectives, said cummings, a business law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock who has taught courses on corporate justice and “Hip-Hop & the American Constitution.”

  He said many of the paradoxes will become moot in a socially just society.

  “Maybe some of these seeming incoherences or inconsistencies just need time to come to a place of coherence,” cummings said.

  Appeasing moral scolds can present a special challenge for homebuyers who want to be “on the right side of history” and increasingly see their words and actions as moral statements. The real estate dilemma of gentrification versus white flight is particularly acute for someone who might opt for a hybrid automobile over a gas-guzzling SUV and insists on shopping at businesses that support Black Lives Matter. A home purchase, the most expensive personal investment most people will make, becomes imbued with the greatest moral significance of all.

  Rachel Garshick Kleit, a professor of city and regional planning at The Ohio State University, has taught classes on and written about teaching “The Socially Just City.” She said her students have been torn between the two impossible options when they think about home ownership as a personal moral decision. “They were in moral conflict over it in a class discussion,” Kleit said. “They were trying to figure out what their personal responsibility was.”

  Gentrification is deeply personal for all involved. In a 2019 New York Times article about gentrification in Raleigh, N.C. – headlined “The Neighborhood’s Black. The New Home Buyers? White.” — a community organizer vented her frustration: “Our black bodies literally have less economic value than the body of a white person. As soon as the white body moves into the same space that I occupied, all of a sudden this place is more valuable.”

  Some critical race theorists are willing to grant moral absolution on this point. The moral predicament of home ownership arises out of the default culture’s fixation with individualism, said Westley, the reparations specialist at Tulane. The critique of gentrification and white flight is not so much a moral litmus test for individual white homebuyers, according to Westley and Kleit, but a critique of the government policies that shape real estate markets in ways that are harmful to people of color.

  “I think you have to get out of this individualist paradigm where it’s all about me and what I do, as opposed to it’s about what we do as a society and a community,” Westley said.

  ‘Endless Contradictions, Fabrications and Fantasies’

  The topic of woke paradoxes has received scant attention, but it hasn’t escaped notice altogether.

  Conservative British author Douglas Murray grappled with the issue in his 2019 book, “The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity.” He traced the cause of the linguistic convolutions to the social justice movement’s emphasis on identity politics and its jettisoning of traditional liberal principles such as colorblindness. This manner of thinking distorts the benefits of liberalism (that is, civil rights gains for minority groups) into a type of idolatry, elevating identity politics as an end unto itself. This confusion leads to “endless contradictions, fabrications and fantasies,” Murray wrote.

  As a paradox-spotter, Murray has few peers. Murray depicts social justice activism as an incarnation of the Orwellian principle that revolutions start out professing that all people are equal but then slip into the self-serving belief that some people are more equal than others. Though Murray doesn’t mention the U.S. Declaration of Independence – “all men are created equal” – slavery and discrimination might well be one of the most egregious examples of this unfortunate tendency.

  Murray does cite other examples. One is a 2014 study by Australian researchers that found that children of same-sex couples are healthier and happier than children brought up by straight couples. In another study, UCLA researchers found that gay couples are more likely to stay together than straight couples (and, surprisingly, lesbian couples).

  Murray also noted the perplexing declamations that women are more capable than men. This incongruity gained currency after the Great Recession of 2008, which was allegedly caused by too many men in positions of power in the finance and banking industry. Christine Lagarde, former head of the International Monetary Fund (now president of the European Central Bank), blamed the financial meltdown on the underrepresentation of women on the boards of banks and in regulatory agencies. “If it had been Lehman Sisters rather than Lehman Brothers,” she was quoted as saying, repeating a favorite mantra, “the world might well look a lot different today.”

  According to Murray, who is gay, one of the “central conundrums” of our time is expressed by people with marginalized identities: You must understand me. / You will never understand me.

  Murray dubbed these moral strictures as “paradoxical, impossible demands.”

  “The inherent willingness to rush towards contradiction” is “not enough to stop this new religion of social justice,” Murray wrote. One reason “why contradiction is not enough is because nothing about the intersectional, social justice movement suggests that it is really interested in solving any of the problems that it claims to be interested in.”

  That left Murray with only one possible conclusion: “Their desire is not to heal but to divide, not to placate but to inflame, not to dampen but to burn.”

  Email: johnmurawski@realclearinvestigations.com

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 23:00

• Summer's Hottest Drink Is Hard Seltzers, As It Single-Handedly Transforms Alcohol Industry
  Summer’s Hottest Drink Is Hard Seltzers, As It Single-Handedly Transforms Alcohol Industry

  This summer’s hottest drink is hard seltzers, and their success during the pandemic is rapidly transforming the alcohol industry. 

  Alcohol sales soared during the pandemic, and hard seltzers led the most of the growth, according to IWSR Drinks Market Analysis. They found seltzers and canned cocktails jumped 43%, and overall alcohol sales rose about 2% in 2020. 

  NielsenIQ data provided Bussiness 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. 

  

  The growing demand for seltzers and canned cocktails is not just because of the virus pandemic closing down bars, but there’s also a generation component to the equation because millennials seek exotic tastes and a convenience factor in a can. 

  How consumers are consuming hard seltzer pic.twitter.com/aRIswlaZqw

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 10, 2020

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

  Nielsen analyst Danelle Kosmal told Insider that hard seltzers’ popularity is driving growth across the entire industry. She added that consumers are requesting hard seltzer with “an experience through flavor or trying something new.” 

  Bank of America beverage analysts told clients in March that Anheuser-Busch InBev and Diageo were two companies that are emerging as top players in the field. 

  Instacart said hard seltzers are popular with millennials who live in suburbs or small urban areas. 

  There’s plenty of reason to believe that as bars and restaurants open up, hard seltzer will continue to be in high demand. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 22:40

• Taibbi: Has The Media's Russiagate Reckoning Finally Begun?
  Taibbi: Has The Media’s Russiagate Reckoning Finally Begun?

  Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News Subastack,

  Glenn Simpson, the former Wall Street Journal reporter turned high-priced “oppo” merchant, didn’t like to think of himself as a private investigator.

  

  He preferred to describe what he and his firm, Fusion-GPS, did as “journalism for rent,” an activity a class above spying, because a journalist can’t just say what he or she thinks.

  “You have to prove it,” Simpson said.

  “And that imposes a discipline to the investigative process that people in other fields don’t really absorb… When you’re a spy, you really don’t have to get into a lot of that stuff.”

  Spooked, the meticulous new book on private spying by former New York Times reporter Barry Meier, reads like a direct rebuttal to Simpson, the book’s central character.

  “There is little question that private investigators take on legitimate assignments,” writes Meier at one point.

   “Still, everyone in the industry knows its secret — that the big money is made not by exposing the truth but by papering it over.”

  Meier, a two-time Polk award winner who was also part of a team that won a Pulitzer in 2017, is the first mainstream press figure to break the industry omerta over the reporting failures of Russiagate. That Spooked is an important book can be judged by the nervous reaction to it. Though the Times did publish an excerpt and a review by William Cohan, and the Wall Street Journal commended him for saying “what hardly anyone else in his circle of elite mainstream journalists has had the courage to say,” much of the rest of the business has looked askance.

  This reveals how much industry discomfort remains about the Steele story, still treated by media critics as a minor fender-bender and not the epic crackup Spooked describes.

  Much of the point of Meier’s book is that there can be no such thing as “journalism for rent,” because the mere act of putting information up for sale corrupts the process Simpson claims to love. As Meier put it to me, “People who think of themselves as journalists and rent out those talents are no longer journalists.”

  Although Spooked covers other private agencies like Black Cube (hired by Harvey Weinstein to dirty up his accusers) and K2 (the corporate descendant of Kroll Associates, who planted a phony documentarian to investigate health activists), the spine of the book is the story of Glenn Simpson’s Fusion-GPS. Simpson is the kind of half-absurd, half villainous character who makes for a great character study, and Spooked readers are fortunate he made the mistake of leaving a trail of unflattering stories before very gossipy witnesses across his years in the media business. Meier coldly gathers these tales together in a way that makes for a particularly entertaining read for anyone who’s ever worked in a newsroom (Simpson imploring his “dachsund-beagle mix named Irving” to take a dump on his editors’ desks on his last day at the Journal is just one of many amusing anecdotes).

  Simpson had a rocky relationship to the journalism profession when he was in it. On one level, he apparently was well-liked, funny, a prankster. On another, editors were wary, finding him combative and, as Meier writes, “quick to see conspiracies where they didn’t exist”:

  One Journal editor became so concerned about the conclusionary leaps that Simpson was capable of making that he asked another journalist on the paper’s staff to double-check Simpson’s reporting. His response to any pushback he got from editors was usually the same: they could go fuck themselves…

  As Simpson soldiered on in a business whose ranks were shrinking, he drifted into a world where a thinker prone to “conclusionary leaps” might feel more comfortable, filling his rolodex with the names of private operatives who became his top sources. He did a series of reports about a fierce (if uninteresting) squabble between Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev and his former son-in-law and political rival, Rakhat Aliyev, with Aliyev’s lawyers and operatives serving as Simpson’s sources.

  Feeling less wanted in the newsroom, and tempted by the money and allure of the private spy world, Simpson made the jump to become an informational Pinkerton, to disastrous effect. Meier emphasizes that for all its flaws, the journalism business at least once imposed some constraints on personalities like Simpson’s, forcing them to stay stuck in the world of evidence. In private spying, those constraints are removed, and a person prone to skipping steps in the proof process can get themselves into some very nasty situations. As Meier put it, “things could go really wrong.”

  As the world knows by now, things did go wrong, in what Meier describes as “a media clusterfuck of epic proportions.”

  To read more, subscribe here…

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 22:20

• After Blisteringly Hot Temps, Texas Faces Shot Of Cold Air Next Week 
  After Blisteringly Hot Temps, Texas Faces Shot Of Cold Air Next Week 

  A negative temperature anomaly has been spotted for Texas for early next week that may impact power prices. But, no matter the temperature, extreme climate variability has stressed out the state’s power grid and resulted in soaring prices and forced outages. 

  Next week’s forecast shows a negative temperature anomaly is expected to roll into the Lone Star State between next Tuesday and Wednesday. This indicates cooler than average temperatures are expected. 

  

  Texas’ power grid has proved no match for extreme climate variability this year due to all the renewable energy sources on the grid. 

  In February, Texas power prices infamously exploded higher during the frigid temperatures of the February winter storm. The power grid was seconds away from breaking as record cold temperatures affected power generation of all types. The state’s independent and isolated electricity grid (operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT) had to plunge millions of people into darkness to save the grid from a total collapse. 

  Earlier this week, a positive temperature anomaly in the state resulted in surging power prices and outages as millions of people turned down their thermostats to survive blisteringly hot temperatures. As a result, ERCOT requested customers this week to reduce electric consumption as much as possible. But as of Wednesday, Bloomberg notes blackout threats are easing as more power capacity comes online. 

  The threat of blackouts is easing in heat-ravaged Texas as more power plants return to service after going down for repairs. The state’s grid operator projects available capacity will rise to about 75,000 megawatts Wednesday afternoon, up nearly 6% from Tuesday, with demand projected to peak at around 70,000 megawatts. That offers more breathing room, though officials are still asking consumers to reduce power use.

  Texas Power Demand vs. Texas Power Capacity

  

  Texas’ reliance on renewable energy shows how an entire state, isolated from the nation’s grid, can barely handle shifts in power demand due to extreme climate variability. 

  So what happens to the power grid during next week’s cold snap? 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 22:00

• Americans Are Increasingly "Fleeing" California And New York For Florida And Texas: Study
  Americans Are Increasingly “Fleeing” California And New York For Florida And Texas: Study

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

  A new study revealed that Americans are continuing to flee New York and California for places like Texas and Florida in recent months.

  “Despite the 2020 pandemic, this year Americans are following similar moving trends as prior years. Millions of Americans are moving either to start a new job or to move home,” said a report (pdf) from North American Van Lines, a trucking and moving company.

  

  Specifically, it noted that Americans “are fleeing” California to Texas and Idaho, although New York, New Jersey, and Illinois “are the three states with the most outbound moves.”

  Other states that have seen a mass exodus of people, the report said, are Michigan and Pennsylvania.

  “The top five inbound states in 2020 are Idaho, Arizona, Tennessee, South Carolina, and North Carolina, with Tennessee overtaking South Carolina from the 2019 results,” the report found.

  North American Van Lines did not make mention of the widespread protests and riots last year, or the pandemic. Crime rates in some cities have also spiked amid the “defund the police” movement that became popular in the summer of 2020. In major cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York City, and Chicago, shootings and homicides saw upticks in 2020 and during the first six months of 2021.

  

  But the report speculated that people might be leaving northeastern states due to the “harsh winters,” job availability as many firms “are avoiding the region” for now, and that many northeastern cities have a high cost of living that makes housing affordability more challenging.

  The city that is most popular as a moving destination is now Phoenix, according to the report. The next on the list are Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and Denver.

  “With Texas’ warm climate and low taxes it’s not surprising that three of the top ten MSA [Metropolitan Statistical Area] destinations are in Texas,” the report noted.

  Another report released this week from real estate website Zillow confirmed that there has been a significant shift in where people are living now, saying that Americans are “reshuffling” to “larger” and “more-affordable homes.”

  “The average long-distance mover relocated to a ZIP code with home values nearly $27,000 lower than where they came from last year,” its report said. “U.S. movers in 2020 relocated to ZIP codes with homes 33 square feet larger than where they came from, on average.”

  Zillow used data from North American Van Lines to find that “movers that changed states in 2020 moved to areas with homes that were, on average, both larger and less-pricey than in the areas they moved from.” That finding, according to the analysis, is a “notable reversal” of previous years’ trends.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 21:40

• IAEA Chief Says Nuclear Deal Will Have To Wait For New Iranian President
  IAEA Chief Says Nuclear Deal Will Have To Wait For New Iranian President

  The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said any agreement reached on a restored nuclear deal in Vienna will have to wait until after this weekend’s Iranian presidential election. 

  A national vote will take place on Friday, June 8, and it’s expected that the hardline candidate and current head of the judiciary Ebrahim Raisi will succeed Hassan Rouhani as president. Rouhani’s term ends on August 3rd. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said in a Wednesday interview with an Italian daily paper that “Everyone knows that, at this point, it will be necessary to wait for the new Iranian government.”

  

  “The discussions that have been going on for weeks have dealt with very complex and delicate technical questions, but what is needed is the political will of the parties,” he added.

  The remarks come after prior widespread overly-optimistic reports that a deal would be reached prior to a new Iranian president being sworn into office.

  These statements had actually previously come from the Iranian side, also given it was Rouhani who oversaw negotiations with the Obama administration in 2015 for the original deal. Rouhani has this week been pushing for a hasty positive conclusion to Vienna talks, with the hoped-for US dropping of sanctions:

  President Hassan Rouhani in his cabinet meeting Wednesday said that while progress in the Vienna nuclear talks had slackened, an agreement was “two words and a dot” away and would happen soon.

  With his period in office ending in August − he was ineligible to seek a third consecutive term in Friday’s presidential election − Rouhani has been heralding the imminent conclusion of Iran’s multilateral talks with world powers that began in April to revive the 2015 nuclear agreement, the JCPOA.

  In remarks likely aimed at bolstering turnout for the election, Rouhani today at the cabinet meeting acknowledged the Vienna talks on #Iran JCPOA had slowed but said an agreement was now “two words and a dot” away.https://t.co/moieI6WiGz

  — Jason Brodsky (@JasonMBrodsky) June 16, 2021

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

  As for the current state of the now 6th round of talks in Vienna, which is being done “indirectly” in terms of Iran engaging US officials, Grossi stated: “The discussions that have been going on for weeks have dealt with very complex and delicate technical questions, but what is needed is the political will of the parties.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 21:20

• You Know It's Bad When A North Korea Defector Says That US Similarities To NK Are "Insane"
  You Know It’s Bad When A North Korea Defector Says That US Similarities To NK Are “Insane”

  Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

  We interrupt your regularly scheduled brainwashing for a dose of reality for a brave young woman who defected from North Korea in a brutal journey so she could be free. Eventually, she made it to the US to attend an Ivy League American school.

  Yeonmi Park has seen firsthand where the United States is headed….and it’s straight to North Korea if we don’t make changes soon.

  

  Propaganda in North Korea

  Anyone who saw the movie “The Interview” recognized that under the farce there was a lot of truth. Kim Jong Un is a brutal dictator who will not allow citizens to access the internet or learn anything about critical thinking. The propaganda in North Korea is rampant – both anti-American and pro-North Korea.

  For example, there’s a long-running cartoon shown to schoolchildren called “A Squirrel and Hedgehog.”

  Yet we should not forget that films and cartoons in North Korea send an ideological message. Usually it is very simple: all the army, the party, and the people follow the unsurpassed leaders of Mount Paektu in their march from victory to victory against the mortal enemies of the Korean people willing that the wicked American imperialists, the evil Japanese claimants of territory, and their south Korean puppets suffer defeat-after-defeat, bringing ever closer the day when they will be erased from the face of the planet.

  The least ideological material on North Korean TV happens to be children’s cartoon series, the most well-known which is called “A Squirrel and Hedgehog”.

  The story is quite simple. There is a community of good animals who live on Flower Hill, but they are attacked by an evil Weasel Legion. The Flower Hill animals respond by sending a brave squirrel named Goldie agent to infiltrate the Legion. Goldie becomes close to the evil overlord – the Weasel General – yet soon sabotages his plans, helping his allies from Flower Hill. And when the Weasel Legion is defeated in episode 26, a new enemy rises: a Jackal Legion…

  …The morality presented in the series is utterly black and white alike those usually in North Korean fiction. Goldie and the other Flower Hill animals are smart, noble, witty and ready to self-sacrifice. Weasels, jackals and their allies, on the other hand, are mean and treacherous cowards, longing to betray everyone they see…

  …Finally, and this is perhaps the saddest part of all, “A Squirrel and a Hedgehog” is actually a cruel cartoon.

  Here I am not merely talking about the Jackal General, who suffers a nervous breakdown in almost every episode. The cruelty is actually more associated with Goldie and his allies, who constantly call their enemies “bastards” and “scum,” using violence against a defeated enemy on a regular basis…

  …Outside of North Korea, most cartoons and films about wars talk about a show of compassion towards the defeated enemy and civilians, in which when the hero is forced to kill, it is not an easy thing. In North Korea, however, the mentality seems to be “We are right. The enemy is not. Kill the enemy and make him suffer.” (source)

  In North Korea, there is no internet, all media is state-run, and there’s only one television channel. Only one point of view is allowed to exist. From the time they start school, children in North Korea are inundated with propaganda to the point that they’re completely brainwashed. Sound familiar?

  Back to Yeonmi Park’s interview

  Yeonmi, now 27, escaped from North Korea with her mother when she was 13 years old. The journey was treacherous. She and her mother were sold to sex traffickers, then rescued by missionaries, they walked across the Gobi Desert to reach freedom. Eventually, they reached safe haven in South Korea. She wrote about her fight to live free in her 2015 memoir, In Order to Live.

  We’ve talked here before about a Marxist agenda in the US education system and Park agrees. When she transferred to Columbia University, she says she was deeply disturbed by what she saw.

  “I expected that I was paying this fortune, all this time and energy, to learn how to think. But they are forcing you to think the way they want you to think,” Park said in an interview with Fox News. “I realized, wow, this is insane. I thought America was different but I saw so many similarities to what I saw in North Korea that I started worrying.”

  Those similarities include anti-Western sentiment, collective guilt and suffocating political correctness.

  Yeonmi saw red flags immediately upon arriving at the school…

  …It only got worse from there as Yeonmi realized that every one of her classes at the Ivy League school was infected with what she saw as anti-American propaganda, reminiscent to the sort she had grown up with. (source)

  Yeonmi was baffled by what American students considered oppression.

  “Because I have seen oppression, I know what it looks like,” said Yeonmi, who by the age of 13 had witnessed people drop dead of starvation right before her eyes.

  “These kids keep saying how they’re oppressed, how much injustice they’ve experienced. They don’t know how hard it is to be free,” she admonished…

  ….”The people here are just dying to give their rights and power to the government. That is what scares me the most.” (source)

  This is something we’ve witnessed to a shocking degree during the Covid pandemic, which has been used as an opportunity to change the world forever. People have given up their livelihoods, their lives, their very freedom to walk their dogs.

  The United States of America was not what she expected.

  Yeonmi had always dreamed of coming to the United States.

  Having come to America with high hopes and expectations, Yeonmi expressed her disappointment.

  “You guys have lost common sense to degree that I as a North Korean cannot even comprehend,” she said.

  She thought she was going to come here and learn to think critically.

  She accused American higher education institutions of stripping people’s ability to think critically.

  “In North Korea I literally believed that my Dear Leader [Kim Jong-un] was starving,” she recalled. “He’s the fattest guy – how can anyone believe that? And then somebody showed me a photo and said ‘Look at him, he’s the fattest guy. Other people are all thin.’ And I was like, ‘Oh my God, why did I not notice that he was fat?’ Because I never learned how to think critically.”

  “That is what is happening in America,” she continued. “People see things but they’ve just completely lost the ability to think critically.” (source)

  Critical thinking is indeed becoming a lost art, particularly as anyone thinking outside the status quo gets “canceled” or “defunded.” Our country is rapidly turning into the kind of place in which only one opinion can be held. To hold a different viewpoint is practically criminalized.

  The worst part is that people here have chosen their path.

  Yeonmi is watching America go down a totalitarian path.

  Witnessing the depth of American’s ignorance up close has made Yeonmi question everything about humanity.

  “North Koreans, we don’t have Internet, we don’t have access to any of these great thinkers, we don’t know anything. But here, while having everything, people choose to be brainwashed. And they deny it.” (source)

  We’re seeing changes though, that take us further and further toward that kind of world. Alternative news sites are shut down in a wave of virtual book-burning. Social media purges any dissenting point of view. TikTok brainwashes young people in 15-60 second intervals. University professors promote violence against those who think differently.

  Have things gone too far?

  Is it fixable? Yeonmi questions where our country goes at this point.

  “Where are we going from here?” she wondered. “There’s no rule of law, no morality, nothing is good or bad anymore, it’s complete chaos.”

  “I guess that’s what they want, to destroy every single thing and rebuild into a Communist paradise.” (source)

  There’s a playbook, we wrote it, and it’s being used to turn our once-proud nation into a parody of itself. Our very education is brainwashing students into hating our country and being ashamed of our race if we’re white. Social media inspires paroxysms of self-induced guilt over the possibility one may have accidentally micro-aggressed or not been 100% inclusive to everyone on the planet, thinking ahead of any potential handicap or mental illness that might have caused someone discomfort. Americans have become offended over practically everything and the butthurt is real. Some of it would be funny if it wasn’t so damned tragic.

  Critical thinking is frowned upon, canceled, and defunded. Why?

  Because we’re being set up for a communist takeover and the brainwashed masses will applaud. With jazz hands, of course, so they don’t “trigger” those who are bothered by loud noises. And definitely no memos will be sent announcing the changes using “frightening” all-caps.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 21:00

• "Now In Bust Cycle" – China Hog Futures Plunge Near Record Lows On Pork Glut
  “Now In Bust Cycle” – China Hog Futures Plunge Near Record Lows On Pork Glut

  Chinese hog futures have fallen nearly 38% since launching in January amid rising concerns that the Chinese pork market has gone from shortage to surplus. 

  Readers may recall African swine fever was first reported in China in August 2018. The spread of the disease slashed the country’s hog herd by at least 40%, resulting in hyperinflation of pork prices by 2019. 

  African swine fever has since been eradicated to some extent in the country as the government urged farmers to breed more pigs. At the same time, China Customs data showed the country imported a record amount of pork from the US in late 2019 and 2020 to replenish supplies. 

  Now the country has gone from a supply deficit to a supply surplus, sending domestic prices tumbling in 2021. 

  Hog futures on the Dalian Commodity Exchange dropped more than 8% in the last four sessions to Rmb18,980 ($2966.23), a record low. Since the contracts started trading in early January, hog prices are down nearly 38%. 

  

  Pork prices are back to levels not seen since the beginning days of the outbreak. 

  

  Plunging prices are getting out of hand as farmers race to slaughter their herds before prices head lower – adding to oversupply fears, according to Financial Times. 

  “It’s definitely surprising how fast and far pork prices have fallen,” said Darin Friedrichs, an analyst at commodities broker StoneX Group in Shanghai. 

  Oversupply pork conditions have affected US pork markets on Tuesday. Lean hog futures trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange are down 3%. 

  

  The latest drop in Dalian-traded hog futures is likely linked to a report by Beijing’s Xinfadi market, a large wholesale market, last Friday that noted smaller pigs were being brought for sale.

  This “indicates some farms have significantly lowered their expectations for future meat prices and . . . are slaughtering ahead of schedule”, according to the report.

  Downward pressure on prices has been so concerning that China’s cabinet, the National Development and Reform Commission, addressed the issue last week by promising to “maintain supply and stabilize prices in the pork market.” However, there was no word on what policies the agency would take. 

  Friedrichs said the government had anticipated the launch of hog futures contracts would flatten out boom and bust cycles in Chinese pork prices. “Now we’re in a bust cycle, so the volatility is still there,” he said.

  Pork prices are a heavyweight in China’s consumer price index, and declining prices in late 2020 managed to push inflation into negative territory for the first time in over a decade. Also, China’s producer price index for hogs has gone negative on a year-over-year basis.

  

  What may happen is that Chinese importers will order much less pork from the US this year. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 20:40

• Joe Rogan Warns "What's Happening In Mexico Could Easily Happen Here" Due To Defunding Of Police
  Joe Rogan Warns “What’s Happening In Mexico Could Easily Happen Here” Due To Defunding Of Police

  Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

  Podcast king Joe Rogan issued a stark warning this week concerning the ongoing leftist campaign to defund police departments all over the country, noting that the U.S. could soon resemble Mexico if it continues.

  

  “Cops don’t do anything if someone jumps into someone’s backyard, they don’t arrest them — like, you have to do like $900 worth of theft before they’ll even arrest you,” Rogan said, adding “If they do arrest you, they’ll just put you right back out on the street again.”

  Rogan noted that things have gotten worse “after the defunding.”

  The host added that “The defunding of the police in Austin has been a disaster, too, and New York’s been a disaster. It’s terrible everywhere. It’s a terrible idea.”

  Rogan further noted that “the idea that you are going to send social workers to handle someone’s domestic violence case is fucking bananas!”

  He asserted that the defund the police movement is supported by “a lot of people that don’t understand violence that think that’s OK, and they have this utopian idea.”

  “What’s happening in Mexico could easily happen here with no police presence. People have to understand that,” Rogan urged.

  Watch:

  As we have previously noted, researchers and experts have warned that defunding the police is having, and will continue to have, disastrous consequences.

  Last year after unrest and violence targeting police, Harvard university Professor Roland Fryer urged that defunding the police would cause more loss of life, citing figures showing that there are “450 excess homicides per year” when police are not able to do their jobs proficiently.

  “Defunding the police is not a solution and could cost thousands of black lives,” professor Fryer wrote in an email to the College Fix.

  Fryer has recently authored a research paper titled “Policing the Police: The Impact of “Pattern-or-Practice Investigations on Crime,” noting that police are less present when ‘viral incidents’ occur, meaning crime, including homicides increase… a lot.

  Last year it was reported by the New York Times that Gun violence is up 358% in New York City since June 2019 as police are being stripped of resources in Democrat run cities nationwide.

  The explosion in gun violence dovetailed with the disbanding of NYPD anti-crime units, a decision that meant around 600 plainclothes officers were taken off targeted raids and reassigned.

  In addition, Democrat imposed “reforms” have meant that around 40% of people arrested on gun possession charges were released without bail in 2019.

  Figures also show that other Democrat run cities including Chicago and Minneapolis have experienced a massive uptick in gun violence.

  Despite the crime spike, the Minneapolis City Council unanimously passed a resolution to replace the police department with a “community-led public safety system.”

  Meanwhile, the radical leftists and Democrats who are pushing the movement think nothing of hiring their own armed security while everyday Americans are left at the mercy of criminality.

  *  *  *

  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. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 20:20

• China's "Virus Control" Measures In Hong Kong: No Easing Lengthy Quarantine For Fully Vaccinated Execs
  China’s “Virus Control” Measures In Hong Kong: No Easing Lengthy Quarantine For Fully Vaccinated Execs

  Hong Kong has within a mere couple years gone from packed streets to silence – as The Guardian has observed following the national security law and mainland China crackdown going deep into effect, given also the arrests and exiling of young protest leaders. One UK-based photojournalist laments that “With no protests left to photograph, it seemed a good idea to take a break… But it was with a heavy heart that I watched the situation continue to deteriorate from afar.”

  And then the streets grew eerily calm after a couple years of mass protest and unrest: “In January 2021, the authorities arrested dozens of activists under the national security law. In one fell swoop, it was as if the entire cast of characters in the story of Hong Kong’s democratic movement – one I had been covering for years – were arrested, in jail, or in exile.”

  Whatever additional “control” over the previously protesting crowds HK police couldn’t get the upper hand on, the virus seems to have taken care of the rest, as the city has remained an on-and-off potential pandemic hot spot of concern for the mainland given it’s a hub of foreign travel, now also as health officials are desperately seeking to trace a rare coronavirus variant infection that’s raising new alarm. All of this seems conveniently timed of course, through Beijing’s eyes at least.

  

  Even business and top executives’ travel to the financial hub can now be tightly managed and controlled based on stringent health measures, as Bloomberg observes of the latest hugely disruptive restrictions: “Senior global bankers hoping to skip Hong Kong’s stringent quarantine regime will need to wait as concerns about imported Covid cases ratchet up,” according to the report.

  “Bank executives who have applied to take trips in June are being advised to postpone, without any indication of when requests under the new plan will be processed, according to a person familiar with the matter,” it continues.

  Currently a mandatory minimum hotel quarantine of at least three weeks is still in effect for Hong Kong inbound travelers as much of the rest of the world has opened up and moved on, for example other financial centers like New York and London, and even Singapore.

  This is mandated even for the fully vaccinated, as Bloomberg underscores: “The pause is a blow for fully vaccinated bankers looking to travel outside the city and for executives from abroad planning to visit the financial hub without needing to quarantine in a hotel for three weeks.”

  Remember when the Chinese Communist Party was facing the largest existential threat to its existence in HK? Pro-democracy protests in HK were out of control when…POOF everyone was gone from the streets as the virus was released. #GoodTiming #China #Wuhan https://t.co/GUQT3Tg14I

  — 🇺🇸Kyle Bass🇺🇸 (@Jkylebass) June 16, 2021

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

  At the end of May Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam introduced an easing plan which would allow select bankers to travel more freely based on each financial firm having the ability to apply for two quarantine exemptions per month. The idea was to speed up a post-pandemic economic recovery.

  But this too is now on hold as the quarantine process for those wishing to travel is still in full effect. Some are now seeing the inexplicable reversal as yet another tool of primarily political control.

  Hong Kong devolving into economic monoculture https://t.co/rVekVkeB6g pic.twitter.com/MOWbppTh8E

  — Reuters U.S. News (@ReutersUS) June 8, 2021

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

  A spokesman for the island’s Financial Services and Treasury Bureau issuing the following non-definitive statement via Bloomberg: “We are looking into the details of the applications received, and expect to take some time to process them in the light of latest local and global pandemic situations to ensure relevant control measures are sufficient to mitigate the risk of case importation.”

  Of course, ensuring “sufficient” and “relevant control measures” can be taken in more ways than one.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 20:00

• Trump Wanted Supreme Court To Order New Election In Key Swing States, Emails Show
  Trump Wanted Supreme Court To Order New Election In Key Swing States, Emails Show

  Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

  Former President Donald Trump through a lawyer and White House officials placed pressure on Department of Justice (DOJ) officials to probe the 2020 election results and wanted the Supreme Court to authorize a new election in key swing states, according to newly released emails.

  

  Kurt Olsen, a Trump lawyer, was shown in one of the emails asking DOJ officials to connect him to then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. He said that he represented Texas in the Supreme Court lawsuit against Pennsylvania and other states and that Trump “directed” him to meet with Rosen “to discuss a similar action to be brought by the United States.”

  A draft document attached to Olsen’s December 2020 message alleges elections in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada violated the U.S. Constitution. It asks the Supreme Court to stop the states from using their election results to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College and to authorize them “to conduct a special election” to appoint electors.

  The document was never filed.

  The Texas lawsuit noted that non-legislative officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin put into place election measures without the approval of their legislatures. Texas asked the Supreme Court to declare the election in the states unconstitutional. At least one judge said the arguments had merit, blocking certification of the election results in Pennsylvania in a separate case until her order was overturned and the case was dismissed.

  The Supreme Court ultimately rejected Texas’s lawsuit.

  Molly Michael, an assistant to Trump, also directly sent Rosen and other DOJ officials the draft complaint Trump wanted the United States to file.

  In another set of emails, Mark Meadows, who was Trump’s chief of staff at the time, asked Rosen to have the DOJ investigate fraud allegations.

  In one message to Rosen, Meadows sent a petition contesting the election that was submitted to Fulton County Superior Court by Trump and David Shafer, the Georgia Republican Party chairman.

  “Can you have your team look into these allegations of wrongdoing. Only the alleged fraudulent activity. Thanks Mark,” the email stated.

  The petitioners on Jan. 7 voluntarily withdrew the petition.

  

  In another email, Meadows told Rosen that there had been allegations of signature match anomalies in Fulton County, Georgia.

  He asked Rosen to get a DOJ official, Jeffrey Clark, “to engage on this issue immediately to determine if there is any truth to this allegation.”

  Rosen sent the email to Richard Donoghue, the acting deputy attorney general, commenting: “Can you believe this? I am not going to respond.”

  Rosen did ask Clark to followup on allegations of fraud in Atlanta and Clark said he was doing so.

  A group of Georgia voters is engaged in an ongoing petition regarding fraud claims in Fulton County. A judge is set to hear motions to dismiss on Monday. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, meanwhile, is probing how a county official recently said some forms documenting chain of custody for mail-in ballots are “missing.”

  Meadows also requested a review of allegations of fraud in New Mexico and sent Rosen documents and a video that claimed American electoral data was changed in facilities in Italy, with assistance from U.S. intelligence officials.

  Donoghue, who again forwarded one of the emails, called the claims “pure insanity.”

  Rosen said he learned that Brad Johnson, who created the video, was working with Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani and refused a request to have the FBI meet with Johnson.

  The emails were released by House Oversight Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who said they “show that President Trump tried to corrupt our nation’s chief law enforcement agency in a brazen attempt to overturn an election that he lost.”

  “Those who aided or witnessed President Trump’s unlawful actions must answer the Committee’s questions about this attempted subversion of democracy,” she added.

  Maloney’s panel wants Meadows, Donoghue, Clark, and several others to sit for transcribed interviews.

  The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.

  Trump did not return requests for comment sent to his campaign and political action committee.

  Trump has made no secret of his view that the 2020 election was rife with fraud. Last week, after the DOJ announced it would focus on protecting voter access and probe election audits for possible legal violations, Trump said the agency would seem to have “no choice but to look at the massive voter fraud which took place in certain Swing States, and I assume elsewhere, during the 2020 Presidential Election Scam.”

  “Whether it be voting machines, underaged people, dead people, illegal aliens, ballot drops, ballot cheating, absentee ballots, post office delivery (or lack thereof!), lock boxes, people being paid to vote, or other things, the 2020 Presidential Election is, in my mind, the Crime of the Century,” he added.

  Follow Zachary on Twitter: @zackstieber

  Follow Zachary on Parler: @zackstieber

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 19:40

• Maersk Warns South China Port Congestion 'More Significant Disruption' Than Suez Canal Closure
  Maersk Warns South China Port Congestion ‘More Significant Disruption’ Than Suez Canal Closure

  We previewed last week to readers that port congestion wasn’t just observed across US West Coast ports, such as Los Angeles/Long Beach, but also severe congestion was developing in southern China. At the time, we called it a “perfect storm” ahead of the peak shipping season. 

  Now the world’s largest container line, Maersk, calls the port congestion at Yantian International Container Terminal, a deepwater port in Shenzhen, Guangdong, in southern China, a much more significant disruption to its operations than the shutdown of the Suez Canal in March.

  Ditlev Blicher, Maersk Asia Pacific Managing Director, was quoted by Seatrade Maritime, who said Yantian port is operating at a 40% capacity, and “We’re expecting that to continue for the next month with significant delays for vessels to be able to berth.”

  A recent surge in COVID-19 infections in the port area and prevention and restriction measures put in place by local authorities is the primary reason for the lack of capacity at the port. 

  AP Moller-Maersk’s CEO of Ocean & Logistics, Vincent Clerc, stated: 

  “I would say this for us is a much bigger disruption than the Ever Given getting stuck in the Suez Canal for some days because of the duration and the importance of Yantian as a gateway.”

  Before the outbreak, the average shipping times at Yantian averaged a waiting time of 0.5 days. Now it’s 16 days.

  “Right now, we have vessel delays of up to 16 days outside Yantian which is of course going to cause significant ripple effect across the network from a reliability perspective,” Clerc explained.

  This has caused a massive traffic jam of container ships in the region, resulting in an unprecedented supply chain impact and another shipping crisis as delays mount, threatening to drive up costs again.

  South China Container Port Congestion 

  

  Brian Glick, founder and CEO at supply chain integration platform Chain.io, told CNBC that the latest congestion in Yantian is “absolutely massive” and will have an “unprecedented supply chain impact.” 

  Already, shipping delays in major Chinese ports drive shipping costs higher as waiting times at berth jumped.

  Global Container Prices 

  

  Guangdong accounts for about a quarter of China’s total exports. It’s home to Shenzhen port and Guangzhou port, some of the largest in the world. 

  Combined with the congestion challenges on the US West Coast, the latest round of congestion in southern China is a significant warning for US businesses and consumers that another round of delays, shortages, and soaring shipping costs is ahead. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 19:20

• Florida Sheriff To Blue-State-Migrants: Don't Vote The Way You Did Before "Or You'll Have Here What You Had There
  Florida Sheriff To Blue-State-Migrants: Don’t Vote The Way You Did Before “Or You’ll Have Here What You Had There

  Authored by Patricia Tolson via The Epoch Times,

  On June 9, The Epoch Times reported how Florida was the number one state in the nation for people to move to, while New York and California took first and second place respectively for states that have the most people leaving. To those moving to Florida from blue states, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd says: “Do me a favor,” and “don’t vote the way the majority of the people voted from where you came or you’ll have here what you had there. Guaranteed.”

  

  One of the reasons cited by those fleeing their blue state hometowns was the rising crime rates. According to Judd, the escalation in crime rates are a direct result of the “defund the police” movements in many Democrat-run states.

  “Florida has had a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican governor for a very long time,” Judd told The Epoch Times in a phone interview.

  “So all you have to do is compare-and-contrast. You go to these areas where crime is through the roof, look at your representatives.”

  In April 2021, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the “Anti-Riot” HB1 bill into law. This new measure makes it a felony to tear down statues or monuments in the Sunshine State and provides the governor and Florida Cabinet the authority to override the efforts of any other state official to cut law enforcement spending.

  Conversely, in June 2020, the Portland City Council voted 3-1 to cut at least $15 million from the police bureau. The cut effectively eliminated 84 positions in the department.

  So far this year, 37 homicides have been reported in the city, an increase of more than six times compared to the same period last year.

  In November 2020, the Seattle City Council cut 18 percent of the budget from their police department. By January, Seattle saw a 48 percent increase in murders, the highest number in almost 30 years. In May, 260 police officers chose to leave the Seattle police force.

  Trust in Law Enforcement

  “The good things that are happening in Florida don’t just happen,” Judd insisted.

  “If they did, those good things would be happening in Seattle and Portland. But when you create an environment where criminal conduct is acceptable that’s exactly what you get.”

  Judd also attributes the better safety conditions in Florida to the public’s connection with law enforcement and effective leadership in government.

  “When people lose trust and they lose faith in the government or the police they quit interacting with you,” Judd explained.

  “So you don’t know how bad the crime rate is if people aren’t calling to tell you and people quit calling to tell you when you quit caring.”

  It’s the same sentiment shared by Hernando County Sheriff Al Nienhuis.

  “Florida Sheriffs, who report directly to their citizens, are very good at holding chronic criminals accountable, while simultaneously maintaining the trust of the law-abiding citizens,” Nienhuis told The Epoch Times.

  “This has all resulted in a consistent decrease in crime during the last 4 decades. This is foundational to Florida’s growth, due to the fact that, regardless of age or family status, everyone wants to live in a safe community.”

  “Florida’s great weather and beaches have always been a draw for tourists,” Nienhuis added.

  “However, low taxes, common sense leadership in state government, and the community’s support of law and order, have made those tourists realize that Florida is also a great place to live, work, and raise a family.”

  Changing Voting Habits

  Judd agreed, saying when he asks blue state migrants if they chose to move to Florida because of the warm weather, low taxes, and low crime rates, they always answer “yes.”

  “Then do me a favor,” he tells them. “Welcome to Polk County. Welcome to Florida. But please don’t vote like you did up north. You’ll still have warm weather in the winter but you won’t have low taxes or a safe community.”

  “We are definitely seeing the trend of people fleeing blue ‘lockdown’ states for the ‘free state’ of Florida,” state House Rep. Blaise Ingoglia, a Republican, told The Epoch Times. “They are coming here because of sunshine and opportunities. I can only hope that they leave any liberal ideology at the border.”

  “You are coming for a reason,” Ingoglia reminded the blue state migrants.

  “Please don’t ‘New York our Florida.’ Don’t turn this great state into the state you fled from.”

  Asked about the fears held by some Floridians that the blue state migrants will dim the freedoms of the Sunshine State, Judd admitted “their fear is well-founded” because individuals casting ballots in blue states don’t seem to understand that the officials they elect are the ones enacting the destructive policies that made them leave.

  “None of the policies and practices in place up north just happened. It happened because they voted for elected officials that created those policies or laws.”

  To assuage their fears, Judd advised worried Floridians to educate their new blue state neighbors and to explain that “all of the good things we have in Florida didn’t just happen.”

  “It was the people we elected to the city commissions, to the county commissions and into the state legislature that made good things happen,” Judd said.

  “If you live in a high crime community, vote those officials out.”

  “Nothing else really matters if you aren’t safe and you don’t feel safe,” Judd concluded. “A community can’t thrive if it’s eaten alive by crime.”

  Welcoming New Residents

  The Epoch Times asked Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis what he’d like to share with the migrants coming from blue states.

  “For the almost 1,000 people a day who are moving to Florida,” DeSantis wrote in an email.

  “Welcome to Florida, I hope we can all work together to keep our state the special place it is, an oasis of freedom in our country.”

  “All Americans can learn from the mistakes made in lockdown states and not repeat those mistakes,” he added. “It won’t happen in Florida.”

  “People who come to Florida from lockdown states can see for themselves how well we are doing here. If you look at voter registration trends overall, it’s positive; there isn’t any indication that the people of Florida—newcomers and longtime Floridians—are shifting away from the principles that helped our state succeed.”

  Judd also expressed goodwill to Florida’s new migrants: “Welcome to Florida. You’re in a safe state, you’re in a healthy state, and we love people coming to our state. But don’t vote the way the majority of the people voted from where you came or you’ll have here what you had there. Guaranteed.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 19:00

• US Food Bank Lines May Reemerge As Millions Set To Lose Unemployment Benefits
  US Food Bank Lines May Reemerge As Millions Set To Lose Unemployment Benefits

  US food banks in Republican states are preparing for a massive demand surge in food aid this summer as 24 GOP-led states are set to end federal unemployment assistance before they’re set to expire on Sept. 6. 

  The benefits set to lapse include the additional $300 weekly federal supplement and other Pandemic Unemployment Assistance programs that support low-income households. The policies have also contributed to a historic labor shortage after millions of people received more money via government benefits to staying at home than actually work. 

  With local economies reopening up across the country, here are states that are pulling pandemic benefits early so that millions of people can reenter the labor market: 

  • Jun. 19: Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming

  • Jun. 26: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas

  • Jun. 27: Montana, Oklahoma, Utah

  • Jul. 3: Tennessee

  • Jul. 10: Arizona

  According to JPMorgan, cutting benefits is “tied to politics, not economics.” 

  

  With two dozen GOP-led states pulling benefits within the next month, millions of people are expected to return to food bank lines this summer, similar to what was seen last spring/summer. 

  Already, US Census Bureau figures show 19.3 million adults experienced food insecurity issues.  

  Food banks around the country are well aware that millions of Americans are set to lose generous unemployment benefits, according to The Guardian. 

  “We are still distributing about a million to a million and a half more meals each month than we did pre Covid,” said Teresa Schryver, advocacy manager for the St Louis Area Food Bank in Bridgeton, Missouri services for residents in Missouri and nearby Illinois.

  Schryver said there could be another “spike in July and August as we’re losing the unemployment benefits here in Missouri, so we might be doing 2m meals again for a couple of months.”

  She said the public health crisis is abating this spring as summer approaches due to the high level of vaccinations, but the lingering economic effects tied to virus-related shutdowns has economically doomed millions of people. 

  “We hope it’s not going to take us 10 years to get our food insecurity rates back down to pre-pandemic levels, but that’s the kind of timeline we’re looking at,” Schryver said. 

  Florida food banks are also preparing for increased demand later this summer. “With the unemployment benefits level being reduced, it will no doubt put hardship on a large population here in central Florida. It is impossible to say how much of an impact, but, it cannot be positive,” said Dave Krepcho, CEO of the Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida in Orlando.

  “We can see a correlation between an addition or elimination of a household financial benefit,” said Thomas Mantz, the CEO and president of Feeding Tampa Bay, which provides a variety of food relief services to communities in the Tampa area. “So when we see stimulus checks go out, we do see less people in our lines, when we see additional unemployment checks, we see less people in our lines. And conversely, when those things stop, we do see our numbers swell.”

  Thomas Mantz, the CEO and president of Feeding Tampa Bay, said demand is about 35% higher than pre-pandemic levels.

  The virus pandemic has placed significant strains on food banks (read: here & here & here).

  In Texas, all federal extended unemployment benefits end on Jun. 26, leaving more than 1.3 million unemployed workers with reduced benefits. Celia Cole, CEO of Feeding Texas, said the lowest-income Americans continue to struggle despite the recovery. She expects food bank demand will surge at the end of this month when benefits are wound down. 

  “We’re anticipating that we will see at least a short-term surge when the unemployment benefits run out. So we’re gearing up for that,” said Cole. “People who were lower-income to begin with tend to get hit harder by natural and economic crises, and it can take them as individuals and the communities they live in a lot longer to come back.”

  … and by the way, there are still 15 million Americans on some form of government dole…

  

  The economic crisis is far from over, and we may just see a reemergence of massive food bank lines this summer. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 18:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Deutsche Bank Nets "Almost $1 Billion" Win On Its Best Trade Since Shorting Subprime
  Deutsche Bank Nets “Almost $1 Billion” Win On Its Best Trade Since Shorting Subprime

  Remember when Deutsche Bank was the butt of every investment banking liquidity joke on the street just a couple years ago? Well, thanks to Bill Hwang, that ridicule has now been turned toward Credit Suisse while, at the same time behind the scenes, Deutsche Bank has apparently been putting together some wins.

  Today, the investment bank is benefitting to the tune of “almost $1 billion” on a 35 year old trader’s bet on shipping company Zim Integrated Shipping Services, according to Bloomberg. 

  The trade on the world’s 11th-largest container shipping carrier could net Deutsche its biggest win since its “big short” trade during the global financial crisis, the report notes. 

  Deutsche had been betting on bonds and bank loans of Zims that had been trading at a large discount as far back as 2016. The bank also took a small slice of equity in the name. Since then, shipping rates have skyrocketed and the investment has been such a success, it could make up “about a quarter of [Deutsche Bank’s] 2020 investment banking profit”.

  Trader Mark Spehn starting putting on the position when he joined the bank from SC Lowy. Zim was in the midst of emerging from a debt restructuring that took place in 2014. As a result, the company had less debt and had diluted its equity. But over the coming years, shipping rates remained depressed, making it difficult for shippers make up ground.

  

  Meanwhile, Spehn made Zim his top conviction trade, convinced there would be industry consolidation and an eventual leaner and meaning company emerging as a result. With rates staying low, he tried to lure others into his bet, but found little success. 

  That has all changed now. Shipping rates have started to skyrocket this year as a result of continued demand in the U.S. and Europe, mixed with new carbon emission standards. Supply chain and shipping bottlenecks are a way of life as global economy adapts to the ongoing post-Covid recovery. The Shanghai Containerized Freight Index is up 265% over the last year, Bloomberg notes. 

  Deutsche has started to ring the register on its trade, selling about $90 million in stock on June 4. It still has a stake of about $645 million after the sale. Debt the company owed was redeemed at face value. Zim equity is up over 400% over the last 12 months.

  Ofer, who has been helping Zim financially for the last decade, has also benefited from the trade. Firms King Street Capital Management and Davidson Kempner Capital also had exposure to the restructuring. 

  Deepak Natarajan, managing director at King Street, concluded: “It was important for us to monetize a decent portion of our position just because the liquidity of the equity is relatively low. We are still relatively constructive on freight rates in the next six to 12 months.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 02:45

• The Next Serbia? Belarus Alarmed By NATO's Threats
  The Next Serbia? Belarus Alarmed By NATO’s Threats

  Authored by Rick Rozoff via AntiWar.com,

  On Monday the foreign minister of Belarus, Vladimir Makei, expressed alarm over recent statements by NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about his nation, ones that were openly hostile and implicitly threatening. He’s quoted by the Belarusian Telegraph Agency voicing these concerns: “We are absolutely concerned over these recent statements by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Just a few days ago, he expressed concern over deeper ties between Minsk and Moscow, saying that they see it as a threat to the alliance’s eastern flank. They are also concerned about closer cooperation between Moscow and Beijing. They also see it as a threat.”

  Although one of many statements in the same vein of late, the foreign minister may at least in part have been responding to an interview with Stoltenberg published by the Welt am Sonntag on June 6 in which the NATO chief said the military bloc was “following what is happening in Belarus very closely,” especially what he claimed were closer ties between Belarus and its neighbor and Union State partner Russia.

  

  He warned that the thirty-nation military bloc he leads is prepared “to protect and defend any ally against any kind of threat coming from Minsk and Moscow.” The language was inflammatory and threatening and meant to conjure up a specter of a new mini- (or micro-) Warsaw Pact. Belarus has a population of some 9.5 million. NATO nations have a population of over 1 billion.

  The Belarusian foreign minister also said that his country doesn’t comment on the closer integration of NATO member states or the relations of the latter with third parties. He then posed the question: “Does it all mean that we should stay silent while they will react to a minor event [likely the Ryanair incident] and tell us how to live?”

  On June 14 CNBC interviewed Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda who, echoing statements from leaders of NATO nations and NATO partners that portray the lamb as a threat to the wolf, launched this diatribe:

  “We see the military buildup of Russian forces in Ukraine, in [the] Kaliningrad region [part of Russia] and of course we see what’s happening in Belarus right now. We see that this country is losing its last elements of independence, and could be used in the hands of Russians as a weapon….for foreign aggressive activities towards NATO allies.” Again the numbers: 9.5 million vs 1 billion.

  In a recent interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky condemned the consolidation of the Union State between Belarus and Russia in these words:

  “We are observing how Russia and Belarus persistently cooperate with each other. They can include defense there, and then these countries will be able to exert serious pressure on us.”

  Four of the five nations bordering Belarus are members or an Enhanced Opportunities Partner of a military bloc controlled by the U.S. – Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, and Ukraine, respectively – but closer cooperation between two neighboring states with the same cultural, linguistic and religious background is a threat to Ukraine, Europe and North America according to Zelensky.

  

  Over a month ago he claimed of tensions with Russia at the time, “I think it could be a world war.” He also said Russia could invade Ukraine not only from Crimea (which Ukraine and its American, NATO and European Union sponsors refer to as temporarily occupied territory) but also from Belarus.

  Speaking at the same event as the Ukrainian president when he made the comments, Ukrainian Defense Minister Andriy Taran claimed “Russian military hardware still remains near our northern border,” and asserted his nation’s armed forces were monitoring events inside Belarus and were considering the invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops through Belarus “or the spread of military aggression through Belarusian territory.“

  The defense chief also warned that “if necessary, we have developed plans and we know how to act if we see signs of the creation of a group of armed forces that can be used through Belarus.” Zelensky, Taran and other leading Ukrainian officials, in attempting to depict Belarus as a threat to their nation, frequently alluded to the autumn, specifically September, when Russia and Belarus are scheduled to hold the latest iteration of the quadrennial Zapad military exercise.

  Regarding Belarus, Defense Minister Taran spoke in these terms in May: “As for the escalation, perhaps in the autumn, I would say this: If I expect there might be an escalation in the autumn, I must be held criminally liable. We expect a possible escalation at any moment. We are always ready to give an appropriate rebuff.”

  As to who is likely to invade whom, after the presidential election last August Belarusian President repeatedly warned of NATO nations invading the western part of his country with statements like: “The defense ministry should pay special attention to movements of NATO forces in Poland and Lithuania. We should track all directions of their movements and intentions.”

  In regard to which Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin said: “I can confidently state that the Armed Forces are ready for combat. The morale is high. We are ready to carry out missions. The main task for us is to preserve territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of the country….” Monday’s Belarusian media report that the nation’s members of parliament have sent an appeal to the United Nations and other international organizations concerning the threat to the nation.

  

  In the words of Sergei Sivets, the chairman of the Standing Commission on Legislation and State Construction:

  “You know that the MPs of all levels and members of the Council of the Republic of the National Assembly have adopted the address to the international community in connection with the situation around Belarus. The situation is primarily connected with the unprecedented political, information and sanctions pressure on our country on the part of the collective West. We have put together the signature sheets of the authentic signatures of all deputies and members of the Council of the Republic, sent it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which in turn will froward them to international and intergovernmental organizations….”

  In late May President Lukashenko addressed members of parliament and other government officials and used the same language as did the Ukrainian president earlier about the true nature of the threat that a war in northeastern Europe would portend:

  “The time has chosen us. We have found ourselves on the front line of a new cold, even freezing cold war. Only countries that will be able to resist this hybrid pressure will hold out.

  The goal is clear. We also know who would benefit from demonizing Belarus. We are a small country, but we will respond appropriately. The world knows examples of similar situations. Before making any rushed moves, remember, that Belarus is in the center of Europe, and if things spin out of control here – it will be another world war.”

  NATO may be planning to treat Belarus as it did Serbia/Yugoslavia 22 years ago. But unlike Serbia, Belarus borders Russia. And autumn is not far off.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 02:00

• Escobar: Empire Of Clowns Versus Yellow Peril
  Escobar: Empire Of Clowns Versus Yellow Peril

  Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

  Global South will be unimpressed by new B3W infrastructure scheme funded by private Western interests out for short-term profit…

  

  It requires major suspension of disbelief to consider the G7, the self-described democracy’s most exclusive club, as relevant to the Raging Twenties. Real life dictates that even accounting for the inbuilt structural inequality of the current world system the G7’s economic output barely registers as 30% of the global total.

  Cornwall was at best an embarrassing spectacle – complete with a mediocrity troupe impersonating “leaders” posing for masked elbow bump photo ops while on a private party with the 95-year-old Queen of England, everyone was maskless and merrily mingling about in an apotheosis of “shared values” and “human rights”.

  Quarantine on arrival, masks enforced 24/7 and social distancing of course is only for the plebs.

  The G7 final communique is the proverbial ocean littered with platitudes and promises. But it does contain a few nuggets. Starting with ‘Build Back Better’ – or B3 – showing up in the title.

  B3 is now official code for both The Great Reset and the New Green Deal.

  Then there’s the Yellow Peril remixed, with the “our values” shock troops “calling on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms” with a special emphasis on Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

  The story behind it was confirmed to me by a EU diplomatic source, a realist (yes, there are some in Brussels).

  All hell broke loose inside the – exclusive – G7 room when the Anglo-American axis, backed by spineless Canada, tried to ramrod the EU-3 plus Japan into an explicit condemnation of China in the final communiqué over the absolute bogus concentration camp “evidence” in Xinjiang. In contrast to politicized accusations of “crimes against humanity”, the best analysis of what’s really going on in Xinjiang has been published by the Qiao collective.

  Germany, France and Italy – Japan was nearly invisible – at least showed some spine. Internet was shut off to the room during the really harsh “dialogue”. Talk about realism – a true depiction of “leaders” vociferating inside a bubble.

  The dispute essentially pitted Biden – actually his handlers – against Macron, who insisted that the EU-3 would not be dragged into the logic of a Cold War 2.0. That was something that Merkel and Mario ‘Goldman Sachs’ Draghi could easily agree upon.

  In the end the divided G7 table chose to agree on a Build Back Better World – or B3W – “initiative” to counter-act the Chinese-driven Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

  Reset or else

  The White House, predictably, pre-empted the final G7 communiqué. A statement later retracted from their website, replaced by the official communique, made sure that, “the United States and our G7 partners remains deeply concerned by the use of all forms of forced labor in global supply chains, including state-sponsored forced labor of vulnerable groups and minorities and supply chains of the agricultural, solar, and garment sectors – the main supply chains of concern in Xinjiang.”

  “Forced labor” is the new mantra handily connecting the overlapping demonization of both Xinjiang and BRI. Xinjiang is the crucial hub connecting BRI to Central Asia and beyond. The new “forced labor” mantra paves the way for B3W to enter the arena as the “savior” human rights package.

  Here we have a benign G7 “offering” the developing world a vague infrastructure plan that reflects their “values”, their “high standards” and their way of business, in contrast to the Yellow Peril’s trademark lack of transparency, horrible labor and environmental practices, and coercion methods.

  Translation: after nearly 8 years since BRI, then named OBOR (One Belt, One Road) was announced by President Xi, and subsequently ignored and/or demonized 24/7, the Global South is supposed to be marveling at a vague “initiative” funded by private Western interests whose priority is short-term profit.

  As if the Global South would fall for this remixed IMF/World Bank-style debt abyss. As if the “West” would have the vision, the appeal, the reach and the funds to make this scheme a real “alternative”.

  There are zero details on how B3W will work, its priorities and where capital is coming from. B3W idealizers could do worse than learn from BRI itself, via Professor Wang Yiwei.

  B3W has nothing to do with a trade/sustainable development strategy geared for the Global South. It’s an illusionist carrot dangling over those foolish enough to buy the notion of a world divided between “our values” and “autocracies”.

  We’re back to the same old theme: armed with the arrogance of ignorance, the “West” has no idea how to understand Chinese values. Confirmation bias applies. Hence China as a “threat to the West”.

  We’re the builders of choice

  More ominously, B3W is yet another arm of the Great Reset.

  To dig deeper into it, one could do worse than examining Building a Better World For All, by Mark Carney.

  Carney is a uniquely positioned player: former governor of the Bank of England, UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, adviser to PM Boris “Global Britain” Johnson and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, and a trustee of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

  Translation: a major Great Reset, New Green Deal, B3W ideologue.

  His book – which should be read in tandem with Herr Schwab’s opus on Covid-19 – preaches total control on personal freedoms as well as a reset on industry and corporate funding. Carney and Schwab treat Covid-19 as the perfect “opportunity” for the reset, whose benign, altruistic spin emphasizes a mere “regulation” of climate, business and social relations.

  This Brave New Woke World brought to you by an alliance of technocrats and bankers – from the WEF and the UN to the handlers of hologram “Biden” – until recently seemed to be on a roll. But signs in the horizon reveal it’s far from a done deal.

  Something uttered by B3W stalwart Tony Blair way back in January is quite an eye-opener:

  “It’s going to be a new world altogether… The sooner we grasp that and start to put in place the decisions [needed for a] deep impact over the coming years the better.”

  So here Blair, in a Freudian slip, not only gives away the game (“deep impact over the coming years”, “new world altogether”) but also reveals his exasperation: the sheep are not being corralled as fast as necessary.

  Well, Tony knows there’s always good old punishment: if you refuse the vaccine, you should remain under lockdown.

  BBW, incidentally, accounts for a heterodox category of porn flics. B3W in the end may reveal itself as no more than toxic social porn.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 00:05

• China Sends Record 28 Fighter Jets Toward Taiwan After Telling NATO: 'We Won't Sit Back'
  China Sends Record 28 Fighter Jets Toward Taiwan After Telling NATO: ‘We Won’t Sit Back’

  The timing appears an unmistakable message and warning to the West after on Monday NATO issued a communiqué which for the first time ever singled out China as a central security “challenge” to the military alliance and a stable global order: China’s PLA military on Tuesday flew a record 28 fighter jets into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone.

  While China has over the past months since Biden took office flown near daily groups of aircraft and bombers near or in Taiwan contested airspace, this latest comes as Biden is in Europe shoring up support among allies for a tougher united front against Beijing. In March China’s military had sent a record at that time of 20 aircraft, which included four nuclear-capable bombers, but Tuesday’s 28 total aircraft marks the biggest incursion since Taiwan’s defense ministry began keeping public tally of incursions.

  

  According to the AP, “The planes included various types of fighter jets including 14 J-16 and six J-11 planes, as well as bombers, the ministry said.” And further the report noted “China’s show of force comes after leaders of the Group of Seven industrialized nations issued a statement Sunday calling for a peaceful resolution of cross-Taiwan Strait issues and underscored the importance of peace and stability.”

  In response Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian on Tuesday slammed the G-7 nations as deliberately “interfering in China’s internal affairs.” He added: “China’s determination to safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests is unwavering.”

  NATO’s later communiqué was even more muscular, calling out China’s “assertive behavior which presents systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security.”

  BREAKING: Taiwan Defense Ministry says 28 Chinese PLA warplanes entered its ADIZ this morning. Largest known recent incursion. https://t.co/h0ngSh3RVf

  — Jesse Johnson (@jljzen) June 15, 2021

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

  This new record-setting PLA incursion is no doubt is meant as a further “answer” to the Western powers which are increasingly defining a new global security priority as ‘confronting’ a rising China.

  It also comes just after a US carrier group entered the South China Sea on Tuesday. The strike group’s aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Shiloh and the guided-missile destroyer USS Halsey. The group of vessels entered the heavily disputed South China Sea waters on Tuesday to conduct a maritime security operation. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 23:45

• GOP Lawmakers Unveil Bill To Defund 1619 Project In Public Schools
  GOP Lawmakers Unveil Bill To Defund 1619 Project In Public Schools

  Authored by Isabel van Brugen via The Epoch Times,

  A group of Republican lawmakers on Monday unveiled legislation that would block federal funds for public schools from being used to teach the controversial 1619 Project published by The New York Times.

  

  Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) at the Conservative Partnership Institute in Washington on July 27, 2020. (Brendon Fallon/The Epoch Times)

  Reps. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Rick Allen (R-Ga.), alongside Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), reintroduced the “Saving American History Act” (pdf) which “would ban federal funds from being used to teach the 1619 Project in K-12 schools or school districts,” a news release from Buck’s office states.

  The 1619 Project, an offshoot of the Marxist teaching model critical race theory (CRT), has been criticized for attempting to rewrite American history as fundamentally racist and disregarding the merits of the nation’s founding documents. The controversial project has been panned by historians as having false information.

  It is a “racially divisive and revisionist account of history that threatens the integrity of the Union by denying the true principles on which it was founded,” the bill states.

  “Critical Race Theory is dangerous, anti-American, and has no place in our nation’s schools,” said Buck in a statement.

  “School curriculum plays a critical role in a child’s development and greatly influences the type of adult they will become.”

  The lawmaker added, ”Children shouldn’t be taught that they will be treated differently or will be racist because of their skin color.”

  Former President Donald Trump established the so-called “1776 Commission” in the final months of his presidency to combat “false narratives about the American Founding,” however, it was formally dissolved by President Joe Biden upon taking office.

  The Biden administration has put CRT as its top priority and included “equity”—which emphasizes equality of outcome, rather than equal opportunity—as its focus for all legislation.

  Allen said in a statement that the 1619 Project “aims to indoctrinate our students into believing that America is an evil country.”

  

  U.S. Reps. Rick Allen (L) (R-Ga.) and Doug Collins (R) (R-Ga.), speak as they await the arrival of President Donald Trump in Atlanta, Georgia, on July 15, 2020. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

  “There is no room for that in our classrooms,” the lawmaker continued.

  “We must teach our young folks to learn from our nation’s past in order to form a more perfect union. Teaching revisionist history and promoting divisive ideology will not move our nation forward.”

  The Georgia lawmaker said the measure will ensure federal funds are used to provide students with a “historically accurate curriculum.”

  “Activists in schools want to teach our kids to hate America and hate each other using discredited, Critical Race Theory curricula like the 1619 Project,” charged Cotton.

  “Federal funds should not pay for activists to masquerade as teachers and indoctrinate our youth.”

  

  Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) questions President Joe Biden’s nominee for secretary of defense, retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 19, 2021. (Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images)

  Parents across the country have begun pushing back against the use of CRT in schools, while an increasing number of local and state governments have responded with legislation banning its use.

  Georgia’s state Board of Education passed a resolution in May that says students should not be taught CRT in schools.

  Governors from Tennessee, Idaho, Arkansas, and Oklahoma have already signed anti-CRT bills, while in Texas and Iowa, similar legislation is awaiting signatures from the governors.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 23:25

• USS Regan Strike Group Enters Heavily Disputed South China Sea 
  USS Regan Strike Group Enters Heavily Disputed South China Sea 

  The great power competition between China and the U.S. continued Tuesday as the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group sailed into the South China Sea for the first time this year, according to a U.S. Navy press release. 

  The strike group’s aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Shiloh and the guided-missile destroyer USS Halsey. The group of vessels entered the heavily disrupted South China Sea waters on Tuesday to conduct a maritime security operation. 

  

  The Navy said, “upholding freedom of the seas in the South China Sea is vitally important where nearly a third of global maritime trade, roughly 3.5 trillion dollars, a third of global crude oil, and half of the global liquefied natural gas passes through the sea each year.” 

  This comes vulnerabilities to global trade continue beyond narrow chokepoints as more than 200 Chinese vessels, mainly fishing vessels believed to be manned by China’s maritime militia, have been causing havoc near the Philippines. 

  Earlier this year, the USS John S. McCain, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, was “expelled” by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) from the Paracel Islands in the heavily disrupted waters. PLA alleged, at the time, around February, the destroyer “trespassed” into China’s territorial waters.

  In April, the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier and its strike group sailed through the region as exclusive economic zones between the Philippine government and Chinese were in dispute. 

  The Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group is expected to conduct maritime security operations, “which include flight operations with fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, maritime strike exercises, and coordinated tactical training between surface and air units,” according to the Navy. 

  Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group commander rear admiral Will Pennington said: 

  “The South China Sea is pivotal to the free flow of commerce that fuels the economies of those nations committed to international law and rules based order.

  “It is both a privilege and a pleasure to work alongside our allies, partners, and joint service teammates to provide full spectrum support to key maritime commons and ensure all nations continue to benefit from a free and open Indo-Pacific region.”

  Here’s the latest U.S. naval deployment map from Stratfor (as of June 10). 

  

  There’s more here than meets the eye as a great power competition continues to brew between both countries. 

  Over the past year, the U.S. has increased aerial patrols, and U.S. Navy warship sails through the disrupted region and near and through the Taiwan Strait, an exercise aimed at angering Beijing. Such “close encounters” and U.S. flyovers and sail through in the South China Sea and near Taiwan become more frequent during the tail-end of the Trump presidency.

  It’s only a matter of time before PLA officials or Chinese state-run media denounces the latest U.S. sailing. So should we expect the PLA to try to expel the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group from the heavily disputed waters?

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 23:05

• France's Macron Just Gave Away The Plot With His Outside Voice
  France’s Macron Just Gave Away The Plot With His Outside Voice

  Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

  French President Emmanuel Macron, whose poll numbers are abysmal and needs a sincere shot in the arm, just gave away the plot with his outside voice.  

  I’ve noticed this trend within The Davos Crowd in recent months, speaking with their outside voice what they only ever talk about internally.

  

  That plot, by the way, is to transfer power over the global money supply to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by eventually doing away with individual central banks.

  To that end Macron’s latest proposal is to bailout Africa because COVID by coordinating $100 billion in gold sales of national reserves of the G-7. Who would they sell that gold to? The IMF. That money can then be distributed by the IMF, expanding the supply of SDRs — Special Drawing Rights — using the gold as collateral for the development loans.

  He’s talking about $100 billion here.  That’s around 1600 tonnes of gold at current prices.  32150.7 ounces/tonne x $1900 per ounce. $0.06109 billion per tonne.  1610 tonnes of gold.

  Now, interestingly, a reader on Twitter put a lot of pieces together with this, saying, in effect that that this is the humanitarian cover story for the upcoming liquidation of Italy.

  Tom said the ECB needs the physical gold for the revaluation and to balance their books(ECB books are nuked). In the case of Italy the physical Gold can just be wheeled out since it is deeply indebted to the ECB, EU member countries that are not as indebted however..proxy/pretext

  — Eric Yeung 👍🚀🌕 (@KingKong9888) June 11, 2021

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

  Having spoken with the Mittdolcino.com, an Italian blog with a similar mission, it is well understood within Italian circles that his liquidation of Italy is well underway and Mario Draghi was put in power to effect this.

  Italy, officially, has 2450 tonnes of gold, give or take.  Macron can ask them to pony up because they owe at least that much to the ECB and Germany through TARGET2.  Draghi has already made it explicit that there will be no Italeave without paying that debt.  He said this as ECB President. With Christine Lagarde in power that requirement is still there. Now that he’s Prime Minister, Italeave is off the table. Worse, he can effect this transfer once there is political cover for it.

  I don’t think this plan has legs just yet, but it is another sign that they have to accelerate their plans because of the rising opposition to the basic framework of Davos’ agenda.  

  So, Macron speaking on the eve of the G-7 conference to spill the plot is telling of just how bad his electoral prospects are in France, because he needs to improve his image and this is the best he can come up with? Sell some of France’s gold to the IMF to pay for a new colonization program in Africa?

  No wonder he got slapped last week.

  That said, since this plan is now out in the open what are the implications:

  1. It gives political cover for stealing Italy’s gold, humanitarian giving from the virtuous first world.

  2. It puts the IMF at the center of the post-COVID bailout strategy, neatly avoiding the EU’s naked aggression against its own members.

  3. It rolls the current western gold reserves into one institution rather than a bunch of disparate ones.

  4. Gives the IMF even more ammunition to combat China and Russia’s rampant accumulation of gold and set it up as the future for a world government enforced by the UN

  5. It tells everyone that Europe is losing ground to China and Russia in Africa for the future of rare earths and lithium necessary to pull off their Green Revolution.

  6. It puts the world on notice that the EU now feels confident of its ability to recolonize the third world because of the primacy of its central unelected authority.

  7. This fits right in with the global minimum corp. tax agreement… because once they all agree on this there will have to be an enforcement agency… that agency will be handed to the UN and collected through the IMF.

  8. It paves the way for national CBDC’s unmoored from gold but backed by a basket of “gold-backed SDR’s” and tax policy.  

  9. It’s also a frontal assault on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies which are gaining traction very quickly in African countries most vulnerable to dollar supply and demand shock, now that Lightning Network has proven to be functional.

  10. It puts paid that the changes to Basel III’s Stable Funding Ratios are there to increase the price of gold, by removing the Fed’s ability to keep it under wraps through the futures markets and unallocated paper gold.

  Macron will not be allowed to leave office next year unless something dramatic happens against Davos’ wishes in France, i.e. some form of violent uprising rather than just protests.  There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a number of attempts to prop him up to get him across the finish line, Marine Le Pen will get closer but she won’t be allowed to win.  

  They stopped Trump, they’ll stop Le Pen.  It may be the last time they do such a thing and they may burn what political capital and cover they have left in the process, but don’t bet on them NOT DOING IT.   At this point no price is too high to pay.  They’ve garnered this political capital exactly for this reason, they will spend it.

  What comes next is what my friend at The Duran, Alex Mercouris, talked about in my recent chat with him. The Biden / Putin summit will be a bribe and a threat from Biden to Putin. Get on board with this new post-COVID European Marshall Plan to recolonize Africa and we’ll pay you a few hundred million dollars or face a new round of massive sanctions.

  This is supposed to create the new version of the Sino-Soviet split? The Russians bring in a few hundred million a month from the U.S. now, exporting 1.4 million barrels per day in May. The idea is laughable on its face and further advances my thesis that the U.S. is intentionally destroying relations with Russia and China through diplomatic ‘gaffes’ which preclude any rapprochement.

  The goal is ultimately isolation of the U.S. as a world power diplomatically, while doing exactly what Davos wants to ensure they aren’t blamed for what comes next. So, expect a final break with the U.S. by Russia financially in the post-Summit environment.

  This will not be a mistake, it will be part of the plan. Because, again, the goal is the political, economic and cultural dissolution of the U.S. and that only occurs by disrupting as much of the infrastructure of U.S. internal energy market as possible.

  At the same time I’ve noted that the Fed was completely silent about this new plan of Macron’s while it’s also clear that Fed Chair Jerome Powell is not down with the ECB’s Christine Lagarde’s over-the-top push to coordinate central bank policy to fight climate change.

  That public disagreement on the fulcrum issue for Davos was the most important headline from last week. It signals that whatever Davos has planned for the U.S. the Fed and the banking system is not going to go gently into that dark night.

  So, there’s another crack in the Davos agenda. Another front in this war is opening up and it’s going to intensify from here. Powell is not a globalist in the same way that Lagarde, Draghi, Kuroda, Carney and Gordon Brown are.

  He’s a private equity guy with a far different ethos and understanding of the situation. He represents similar, but not the same, people.

  And he’s not going to sell or revalue one ounce of the U.S.’s gold nor give up the commercial banking sector in the U.S. because the word came down from Klaus Schwab.

  That said, the central banks know they are done with the current system and need a new one. To survive they will have to disconnect money from value and work. By doing that they disconnect you from your own value in the work you do. It’s that simple. The most efficient way to do that is sell the gold and isolate those powers unwilling to go along with their plans.

  And this all ties directly back to Macron’s innocent and innocuous sounding request for the world to come together and help out poor Africa recover post-COVID and sell their country’s only tangible measure of savings left backing their rapidly devaluing currencies, their gold.

  *  *  *

  Join my Patreon if you don’t like selling your gold to globalists

  Donate via

  BTC: 3GSkAe8PhENyMWQb7orjtnJK9VX8mMf7Zf
  BCH: qq9pvwq26d8fjfk0f6k5mmnn09vzkmeh3sffxd6ryt
  DCR: DsV2x4kJ4gWCPSpHmS4czbLz2fJNqms78oE
  LTC: MWWdCHbMmn1yuyMSZX55ENJnQo8DXCFg5k
  DASH: XjWQKXJuxYzaNV6WMC4zhuQ43uBw8mN4Va
  WAVES: 3PF58yzAghxPJad5rM44ZpH5fUZJug4kBSa
  ETH: 0x1dd2e6cddb02e3839700b33e9dd45859344c9edc

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 22:45

• Hawaii Scrambles Stealth Jets For "Irregular Air Patrol" 
  Hawaii Scrambles Stealth Jets For “Irregular Air Patrol” 

  Officials over the weekend would not disclose why three armed stealth fighter jets were scrambled for an “irregular air patrol,” according to Honolulu Star-Advertiser. 

  “The 154th Fighter Wing launched two F-22 Raptors from Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam at approximately 4 p.m. Sunday,” Pacific Air Forces wrote in an email.

  “A third was launched at approximately 5 p.m.”

  The command at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam said the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requested the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command to “conduct an irregular air patrol and the situation resolved, prompting the fighters and a KC-135 Stratotanker (a refueling plane) to return to base. We cannot discuss further specifics of the situation.”

  

  Scrambling stealth fighter jets is not uncommon. 

  For example, F-22s are tasked with intercepting unknown or potentially threatening aircraft that approach or have entered U.S. airspace.

  

  But what remains a mystery here is that usually, the military is open about its encounters. 

  The War Zone submitted a Freedom Of Information Act request into what happened Sunday afternoon and received a short non-response…

  

   

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 22:25

• Why America's Oligarchs Are Moving Left
  Why America’s Oligarchs Are Moving Left

  Authored by José Niño via The Mises Institute,

  These days it’s not your typical latte-sipping millennials who are going woke.

  Taking a stroll around America’s largest metro areas will have one believe social justice is the latest fad that’s sweeping across corporate boardrooms.

  Much has been written about woke capital—businesses’ recent pivot to signal their affinity for leftist movements—and what it means for society at large. Suffice it to say that since last year, this trend has accelerated at breakneck speeds.

  

  Scratching one’s head in utter confusion should be a natural response to corporate America’s virtue signaling. One has to wonder why big business, which has traditionally been perceived as a reactionary institution aligned with the political right, would make common cause with radicals on the cultural left. Counterintuitive as it may seem, corporations and prominent business moguls have many incentives to jump on the virtue-signaling bandwagon.

  For megacorporations, woke signaling is a matter of self-preservation in order to protect themselves from ravenous mobs in both the virtual and physical realms. What’s more, in a time when hall monitors—state and nonstate—are lurking around every corner waiting for individuals to commit some kind of impropriety, many institutions will go out of their way to signal their compliance with the regime’s standards. Not abiding by the regime’s accepted behavior comes with major social and financial costs that the bulk of businesses are not willing to bear.

  For wealthy members of society who have leftist inclinations, there’s a diminishing marginal utility of money, as Mises Institute president Jeff Deist spelled out in an interview with Jay Taylor two years back. Put simply, spending hundreds of millions on civilization-destroying campaigns is a casual expense for America’s premier tycoons, who have plenty of money to spare after covering their expenses on basic necessities. 

  When someone is rich, say an individual who has $10 billion, they have the luxury of throwing money at uneconomic ventures without losing any sleep about meeting their basic economic needs. The multibillionaire spearheading a woke project that is rejected by the public will not land in the poorhouse from the financial fallout. They can go back to their private affairs or pivot to another political cause that is not as divisive. By contrast, for a small business owner, such virtue signaling could mean bankruptcy if their customer base tends to be right wing or is at least hostile toward culturally radical virtue signaling.

  Indeed, one of the more perverse developments in Western societies is the rich’s penchant to squander away the wealth they’ve accumulated by funding all sorts of bizarre social projects. Only in such a developed economy, characterized by hyperabundance and unprecedented luxuries, can people engage in bizarre activities that in previous eras would have been viewed as masochistic and self-destructive.

  The likes of George Soros and Michael Bloomberg offer stark counterexamples to the business elites of the past. The two financial titans have built a reputation of bankrolling a wide network of gun control groups which strive to pass legislation designed to infringe on millions of people’s ability to defend themselves. By contrast, Bloomberg and his left-leaning oligarchical counterparts have the luxury of living in gated communities and relying on private security to defend themselves. In fairness, business magnates in previous eras were likely not fervent champions of wedge political issues like gun rights, but you would not see them enthusiastically throwing their weight behind the latest political fads the Left gravitates toward these days.

  Bolsheviks and Billionaires

  Although the Left has changed in its overall strategy, going from class-reductionist conflicts toward an identity politics focus over the course of the past century, there exist several commonalities between the contemporary left and its past iterations. Foremost of these is its elitist origins.

  In his polemical work, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, economic historian Antony Sutton uncovered the oligarchical backing of Bolshevism—the twentieth century’s most destructive political movement in terms of the body count and economic mayhem it unleashed in countries that embraced its precepts.

  Contrary to the mythology that leftist historians have created, Bolshevism was no spontaneous uprising of workers, but rather a movement of elite aspirants. Lenin himself counted on a law degree and worked as a writer and political activist during his time in exile while living in Switzerland, Germany and the United Kingdom. Similar to Karl Marx, who relied on industrialist Friedrich Engels’s lavish patronage to subsidize his daily activities, prominent financiers such as Swedish banker Olof Aschberg helped bankroll Lenin and his revolutionary compatriots, Sutton’s work revealed.

  It’s perhaps counterintuitive for financial heavyweights to throw their weight behind an individual and a movement advocating for the destruction of private property, but it makes sense when analyzing how rent-seeking economic actors behave in the context of state centralization.

  The inherently centralist nature of socialist systems, even when policymakers make deviations around the margins, as seen with Lenin’s New Economic Policy, remains attractive to unscrupulous financial actors, who seek to exploit these features for the sake of easy profits while not facing any serious competition. Sutton observed how economic radicals and big financial interests can become strange bedfellows:

  Bolshevists and bankers have then this significant common ground—internationalism. Revolution and international finance are not at all inconsistent if the result of revolution is to establish more centralized authority. International finance prefers to deal with central governments. The last thing the banking community wants is laissez-faire economy and decentralized power because these would disperse power.

  Likewise, Ludwig von Mises acknowledged in Omnipotent Government how the salt of the earth are not the ones responsible for making collectivist political movements mainstream:

  It is not true that the dangers to the maintenance of peace, democracy, freedom, and capitalism are a result of a “revolt of the masses.” They are an achievement of scholars and intellectuals, of sons of the well-to-do, of writers and artists pampered by the best society. In every country of the world dynasties and aristocrats have worked with the socialists and interventionists against freedom.

  “Wokeness” as a Public Relations Strategy

  Furthermore, woke signaling has an obfuscation function that businesses and individuals can use to divert attention away from their questionable behavior. In a world dominated by woke standards of conduct, these actors are banking on the assumption that being against the prevailing orthodoxy constitutes a larger social offense than providing shoddy services or participating in morally questionable behavior.

  Instead of competing with other companies on the basis of fulfilling consumer wants, companies try to one-up each other by trying to display their woke credentials. Those with skeletons in their closets would likely find use in this type of signaling as a way to avoid any unwanted attention. Going woke acts as a release from all social obligations. By viewing their nation’s history as fundamentally bigoted, individuals and institutions no longer feel compelled to abide by basic rules of decency and serve their clients and community.

  With this in mind, one cannot underestimate the role of ideology in shaping the way corporate actors behave in contemporary times. Business magnates are often caricatured as homines oeconomici whose only concern is profit and who see human relations through an exclusively transactional lens. Such a perception understates the level of socialization that has permeated across class lines throughout America.

  There’s nothing special about the upper-middle class and higher that exempts them from being infected by the cultural left’s ideology. As a matter of fact, America’s well-to-do grow up in milieus, from the educational institutions they’re enrolled in to the social clubs they participate in, that expose them to the dominant political and social trends. Over the course of their development, many members of this class end up being conditioned to accept the established ruling doctrine.

  The current crop of business elites have little in common with Gilded Age corporate titans who still operated within the confines of bourgeois propriety. In fact, traditional values and resistance to cultural radicalism are more the province of the working classes and other Americans who have not placed themselves in the PC conveyer belt that is the contemporary education-to-corporation pipeline.

  One thing is certain, though: woke leftism is not about fighting for the interests of the common man. Grievance politics’ ornamental displays of victimhood only obscure the oligarchical nature of this project.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 22:05

• Biden's NATO Warning To Putin: If You Don't Cooperate, 'We Will Respond'
  Biden’s NATO Warning To Putin: If You Don’t Cooperate, ‘We Will Respond’

  Mainstream media is positively giddy with excitement that “tough on Russia” Joe Biden will finally “confront” Putin during their highly anticipated summit in Geneva on Wednesday. Though any level of diplomatic “check mate” won’t come publicly as Biden will give a solo press conference, ensuring that he can give his version of events to a pliant press pool, which one admin official earlier described as communicating “with the free press” (…the implication being that Putin’s presence would somehow make it not a “free press”).

  During Biden’s Monday press conference at the end of the one-day NATO summit in Brussels, the US president vowed: “But I will tell you this: I’m going to make clear to President Putin that there are areas where we can cooperate, if he chooses.  And if he chooses not to cooperate and acts in a way that he has in the past, relative to cybersecurity and some other activities, then we will respond. We will respond in kind.”

  Biden additionally said in his NATO summit remarks: “There need not be — we should decide where it’s in our mutual interest, in the interest of the world, to cooperate, and see if we can do that.  And the areas where we don’t agree, make it clear what the red lines are.”

  And then the president dubbed Putin “a worthy adversary”…

  I have met with him. He’s bright. He’s tough. And I have found that he is a — as they say, when you used to play ball, “a worthy adversary.”

  As we highlighted earlier, much of this “adversary” talk is more simply geared toward a US domestic audience, particularly a Democratic base which has been primed and pumped for years on the Russiagate and ‘interference’ kool-aid…

  Mainstream media are barely reporting – and at times distorting – olive-branch remarks by Putin, and are at pains to “accentuate the negative”. We are particularly concerned over the incessant media commentary on “Russian hacking”, which seems to be aimed at mousetrapping you into an ill-advised confrontation with Putin. Revelations since the last summit in July 2018 – including testimony under oath to Congress – give President Putin some very high cards. Should things get acrimonious, he might decide to put them into play.

  Meanwhile, Russian official sources have revealed the agenda for Wednesday’s bilateral summit, which is to include cyberattacks and cybercrime, fighting the pandemic, the war in Donbass and Ukraine issues, and then there’s no doubt Biden will focus heavily on human rights. 

  President Biden says if jailed Kremlin critic Alexey Navalny were to die in prison it would be a “tragedy.”

  “Navalny’s death would be another indication that Russia has little or no intention of abiding by basic fundamental human rights” https://t.co/WqfuBhPQMA pic.twitter.com/qBl94yuT8Z

  — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) June 14, 2021

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

  The two presidents are due to meet at 1pm local time at Geneva’s historic Villa La Grange.

  * * * 

  In the meantime…

  TIME cover blasted for over-the-top attempt to make Biden ‘look cool’ ahead of Putin meeting https://t.co/iz4gKGgGfS

  — Fox News (@FoxNews) June 11, 2021

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

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 21:45

• Taper To Be Discussed But Quickly Dismissed; No 2023 Hike Dots Will Be Seen As Dovish
  Taper To Be Discussed But Quickly Dismissed; No 2023 Hike Dots Will Be Seen As Dovish

  By Steve Englander, head G10FX research and NA Macro Strategy at Standard Chartered

  FOMC Preview – Taper to be discussed but quickly dismissed 

  Key highlights:

  • Tapering very likely to be discussed and dismissed, unlikely to be mentioned in the statement

  •  UST market unlikely to see major moves; ongoing absence of 2023 hike in dots may be read as dovish

  •  Soft recent data discourages a hawkish signal until the FOMC has more clarity on growth and inflation

  Talk is cheap

  The 16 June FOMC is unusual in that there are potentially several market drivers in both directions but no dominant one:

  • Tapering of asset purchases will likely be discussed, given the number of FOMC participants who have raised the issue, but we expect Chair Powell to stress that all (or almost all) participants see tapering action as very premature.

  • It is a close call on a 2023 hike in the June projections; on balance we think the FOMC will wait until 2024 projections are introduced in September and put the first hikes in 2024.

  • The 2021 forecast of core inflation is likely to rise, but we expect 2023 core inflation unchanged at 2.1%. The end-2021 unemployment rate projection rising from its current 4.5% would be a dovish signal.

  • We do not see rates on reverse repos (RRP) or overnight reserves (IOER) being raised at this meeting but they could well be raised in the coming months.

  • The inflation update in the statement could edit the May comment to implicitly acknowledge higher inflation but not as a policy factor: “With inflation running persistently below this longer-run goal, The Committee will aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time”.

  • Fed Chair Powell will likely push back against the view that the rebound has come off the rails but not spook the market by completely ignoring data softness.

  We anticipate the FOMC giving itself a few more months to assess incoming data on both inflation and growth, recognizing the potential embarrassment of another episode of premature hawkishness. FOMC comments will be in the context of sluggish economic data (including a risk of soft May retail sales data, due 15 June) and much less aggressive market pricing (Figure 1).

  

  We see a small chance that the FOMC will indicate that it is advancing its normalization schedule, but at current yield levels such a shift would likely have a big bond market impact. The FOMC is much more likely to advocate and practise patience in assessing the underlying trends in activity and inflation, which points to very moderate signals. Yields have some downside if the FOMC sees the recovery as being more sluggish than earlier expected, but such overt pessimism would surprise us.

  We, and we suspect the FOMC, expect the activity data to firm in the coming months, and the center of the FOMC may even be worrying more about inflation; but incoming data makes it risky to be overtly hawkish.

  We don’t see a spike in yields unless the tapering discussion is accompanied by added inflation concerns in the out years. Many have discussed labor-market tightness, but real wages have not moved much this year, with inflation offsetting a big chunk of nominal gains. And inflation expectations in surveys such as the New York Fed’s still show increases in the coming years. So far the upward inflation move is heavily concentrated in a few small sectors. We expect the FOMC to argue that the evidence supports a transient rather than permanent inflation pick-up, but perhaps with slightly less conviction than before.

  Given the decline in breakevens recently, particularly in the 2Y-3Y sector of the curve, the market may be caught off-guard if the 2023 core PCE projection rises from March’s 2.1% forecast. Markets could see such a rise as inconsistent with the Fed’s view that the inflation pick-up is transient. A 2.2% core inflation projection for 2023 could be seen as close enough to the upper end of “somewhat higher” to justify beginning policy rate normalization. We think that nine (including Powell) will push for unchanged signals, and expect a few swing participants to go with the Chair. While projections are not discussed or debated at FOMC meetings, we suspect that participants develop an understanding of which projections are potentially sensitive and reflect carefully on those projections.

  Yields could also rise if Fed Chair Powell looks through recent data, conveying a message that the Fed is convinced that the current soft data patch is temporary. But given FOMC emphasis on making policy based on current data, he is likely to argue that they expect robust growth but need to see how growth plays out.

  The biggest dovish risk that we see is if the unemployment rate projections rise. The unemployment trend since January does not jive with the current 4.5% median projection (Figure 2). If that rises, and especially if the increase is not made up in later years, investors may contemplate an even slower anticipated future tapering path. Powell has been at pains to stress that projections are not policy signals, but more elevated unemployment projections would be indicative of added caution on growth prospects. While Fed rate hike pricing has retreated somewhat since the March and April FOMC meetings, the market still prices in about 2½ hikes by end-2023, so there is room for further paring if the projections suggest slower normalisation (Figure 3).

  

  There are enough FOMC participants arguing that is time to begin the tapering discussion that it would be a surprise if there were none. Too many Fed speakers have mentioned tapering for it not to be discussed; it would look as if they were avoiding mention of the elephant in the room. However, we expect the possibility of near-term tapering to be dismissed quickly without mention in the statement. Given the run of data, it is more credible for Fed Chair Powell to say that there was broad agreement that sufficient progress had not yet been made and concrete discussion was premature.

  We think the bond market will react negatively initially to the mention of a tapering discussion, especially given that 10Y UST yields are well below levels prevailing immediately before and after the March and April FOMCs. The dominant market view looks to be that any mention of a tapering discussion is the first step towards normalization. We don’t think this reaction will persist and expect the dismissal of an imminent move to reassure investors. The scenario would be different if payroll gains had averaged 900,000 the past two months rather than 418,000.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 21:25

• WHO 'Highly Compromised', Unfit To Lead COVID-19 Investigation According To Former CDC Director
  WHO ‘Highly Compromised’, Unfit To Lead COVID-19 Investigation According To Former CDC Director

  The World Health Organization is “highly compromised” and unfit to lead an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, according to former CDC head Robert Redfield.

  “Clearly, they were incapable of compelling China to adhere to the treaty agreements that they have on global health, because they didn’t do that,” Redfield told Fox News on Tuesday. “Clearly, they allowed China to define the group of scientists that could come and investigate. That’s not consistent with their role.“

  In March, Redfield told CNN that he doesn’t believe the natural origin theory which posits that COVID-19 jumped from a bat to a human through a yet-to-be determined intermediary species.

  “I think they were highly compromised,” Redfield said of the World Health Organization (WHO), which ‘investigated’ the origins of the pandemic in what was nothing more than political theatre conducted by a highly conflicted group – one of whom, Peter Deszak of NGO EcoHealth Alliance, worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and was funded to the tune of millions of dollars by Anthony Fauci’s NIH.

  Redfield slammed Fauci during the interview, saying that while he supports the lab-leak hypothesis, “Other individuals, Tony Fauci, for example, would say that he prefers to support that it evolved from nature.”

  “Now, why would that be?” asked Redfield, adding that “sometimes scientists when they bite into a bone on a hypothesis, it’s hard for them to move on.”

  “I guess if I’m disappointed about anything about the early scientific community it’s that there seemed to be lack of openness to pursue both hypotheses,” he continued.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 21:05

• US Indo-Pacific Commander Requests More Spending To Contain China
  US Indo-Pacific Commander Requests More Spending To Contain China

  Authored by Alex Wu via The Epoch Times,

  Facing the Chinese communist regime’s increasing aggression in the Asia-pacific region, the newly appointed Indo-Pacific Commander John Aquilino has recently requested an additional $890 million in spending from Congress to strengthen military equipment in Guam, Alaska, and Hawaii for possible military confrontations. Meanwhile, the Biden administration’s top Asia official revealed a new strategy to contain China in the region.

  

  Adm. John C. Aquilino and Adm. Philip S. Davidson with Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin arrive at at a Change of Command ceremony for the U.S Indo-Pacific Command, at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam west of Honolulu, Hawaii, on April 30, 2021. (Cindy Ellen Russell/Honolulu Star-Advertiser via AP)

  Aquilino said that the spending request is less than 1 percent of the total authorized amount allocated to the Department of Defense, but is “critical for deterring China’s decision calculus,” Foreign Policy reported on June 8.

  Portions of the additional spending request will be used for missiles and improving facilities—$231 million will be used to strengthen air defense and missile defense in Guam, because it is within the range of Chinese missiles; $114 million will be used to improve facilities in Alaska and Hawaii to ensure that they can maintain digital communications with U.S. forces and allies conducting military drills in the Western Pacific. Prior to this, the budget proposed by the Indo-Pacific Command was $5.1 billion.

  Aquilino sent a letter to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Adam Smith, and other members of Congress last week, emphasizing the importance of increasing funding and proposing plans “to ‘seize the initiative’ by providing a pragmatic and viable approach that deters potential adversaries from unilaterally attempting to change the international rules based order, reassures allies and partners, and shapes the security environment.”

  He also warned that the time for Beijing to launch an attack on Taiwan may be sooner than what most people think. He said the Hawaii-based military command needs more resources and troops to respond to the Chinese regime’s possible rapid attack on Taiwan.

  Meanwhile on June 8, the Deputy Assistant to the President and Coordinator for Indo-Pacific Affairs on the National Security Council Kurt Campbell, talked about a few key areas of a new strategy to contain the Chinese regime in the region, at an event organized by the Center for a New American Security.

  

  Australian Scott Morrison (L) participating in the inaugural Quad leaders meeting with President Joe Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a virtual meetingin Sydney, Australia, on Friday, March 12, 2021. (AP Image/Pool/Dean Lewins)

  He said the United States is “working closely with allies like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and others” to assist island nations in the Pacific, especially in South Pacific, where the competition for influence between China, the United States, and allies has intensified in recent years.

  He added that the Quad bloc—the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue composed of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia—would have another leaders’ meeting later this year, and it is open to other countries that have shown “interest” in joining the group to deal with the security threats posed by the Chinese regime in Asia Pacific.

  Campbell emphasized that the United States is committed to continuing to provide defensive articles to Taiwan, but he also reminded Taiwan to take measures to step up its own defense capabilities.

  Campbell said that China has only itself to blame for a global backlash against its policies, including the militarization of artificial islands in the South China Sea, and its aggressive approach to global diplomacy, which Beijing’s foreign policy establishments know. However, he asked, “But is that getting through to the most inner-circle in the Chinese leadership? I think that’s a question we can’t answer.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 20:45

• "The Idea That Inflation Is Transitory Is Nonsense": How One Hedge Fund Manager Plans To Profit From Fed Stupidity
  “The Idea That Inflation Is Transitory Is Nonsense”: How One Hedge Fund Manager Plans To Profit From Fed Stupidity

  Ahead of tomorrow’s FOMC decision, and in general, two clear camps are emerging when it comes to the increasingly acrimonious debate whether the current soaring inflation is “transitory” or not. In one camp we have the establishmentarians: those with little vision, limited imagination, and whose job precludes them from conceiving of any outcome but that accepted by the groupthink led by the Fed. As noted earlier, this now includes the vast majority of Wall Street…

  

  … not to mention most central bankers and virtually every TV newscaster and reporter, desperate to hit that career pinnacle of asking the Fed chair a ridiculously boring and boneheaded question one day: a career goal that will never happen if one dares to think originally.

  In the other camp we have a handful of contrarians, “divergents”, and the occasional brilliant trader such as Paul Tudor Jones ( “buy commodities, buy crypto, buy gold”), Kyle Bass (“real inflation is 10%…The Fed has got to really start thinking about food prices.”) and Michael Burry, people who took the opposite side to the consensus and won big.

  People always ask me what is going on in the markets. It is simple. Greatest Speculative Bubble of All Time in All Things. By two orders of magnitude. #FlyingPigs360

  — Cassandra (@michaeljburry) June 15, 2021

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

  They will likely end up winning again.

  Today we can add one more to what will soon be the winning team: Wincrest Capital founder Barbara Ann Bernard was quite clear where she stands on the temporary/permanent inflation debate when in an idea with Bloomberg she said that “The idea that inflation is transitory is nonsense.”

  

  Picking up on what BofA, Deutsche Bank, and increasingly more “serious” analysts have said, the chief investment officer of the Nassau, Bahamas-based Wincrest said that much of the Biden administration’s agenda, including reducing wealth inequality and promoting the ESG hypocrisy, support a structural lift to inflation.

  Naturally, Fed officials, who have been always wrong about everything but can cover up all of their mistakes with ever more grotesque amounts of money printing, have been taking the opposite view, emphasizing that a recent surge in inflation won’t last. A lot is riding on this debate, and if money managers like Bernard or Paul Tudor Jones prove correct, it could mean that central bankers will have to move ahead with plans to begin normalizing their ultra-loose monetary policy.

  Unlike many of her peers, Barnard has no problem with being outspoken: the money manager began her career in finance at 15, when she persuaded the iconic investor John Templeton – a fellow Bahamian resident – to take her on board for the first of what would become a series of summer jobs at Templeton Global Advisors. Her career also included stretches at Deutsche Bank AG in alternative investments and at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. as an investment banking analyst.

  For Bernard, the U.S. administration’s focus on wealth distribution and the potential for higher minimum wages in some states could put more money in more pockets, adding to price pressures. Talk of a carbon tax and increased focus on environmental, social and governance initiatives also stand to add to companies’ costs.

  

  “All of that plus changing supply chains is inflationary,” she said, making a point so obvious one can see why nobody at the Fed can grasp it.

  Like PTJ she plans on making money when the “transitorists” are proven wrong, and like PTJ she is going long commodities, such as nickel and copper. On Monday, iconic trader Tudor Jones told in an interview with CNBC that inflation risk wasn’t transitory. If he were on the investment committee of a pension fund, he said he’d “have as many inflation hedges on as I possibly could.”

  Yet despite growing warnings from some of the most erudite traders of their generation, the Treasury market appears unfazed by the inflation risk, and as we noted previously, yields in the world’s biggest bond market aren’t far above a three-month low set Friday. The rate is down from a March 30 peak of 1.774%. The bond market’s most-watched proxy for inflation expectations has also faded from recent highs.
  Bernard’s take is that the market is ill-prepared for what’s ahead (we discussed this in “5 Reasons Why Treasury Yields Tumbled Even As Inflation Surges… And Isn’t Transitory“).

  “There are ways to outrun inflation,” Bernard said. “But if you just sit there, you are going to get rolled over.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 20:25

• No, The Second Amendment Was Not Primarily About Suppressing African Americans
  No, The Second Amendment Was Not Primarily About Suppressing African Americans

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  The media has given highly favorable coverage to a new book by Dr. Carol Anderson, chair of Emory University’s Black Studies Department, that argues that “[the Second Amendment] was designed and has consistently been constructed to keep African Americans powerless and vulnerable.” 

  In interviews with media outlets like CNN and NPR Anderson’s theory is not challenged on the history and purpose of the Second Amendment.

  Like the contested claims of the “1619” project (which posited that slavery was the motivation for the establishment of the colonies), there might be a reluctance by academics to raise the countervailing historical sources out of fear of being labeled insensitive, defensive, or even racist. 

  

  However, this is not a new theory and, while there were concerns at the time about slavery and uprisings, the roots of the Second Amendment can be traced largely to England and the fears of government oppression. The point is not to dismiss this consideration for some pro-slavery figures at the time but to put those statements in a more historically grounded and accurate context.

  The book, “The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America,” is the latest work of Anderson who previously published “White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide.”  NPR bills its interview as “Historian Carol Anderson Uncovers The Racist Roots Of The Second Amendment.”

  In truth, this is not a new theory and was long preceded by more detailed accounts by figures like Carl Bogus who wrote the 1998 work The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. Carl T. Bogus, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, 31 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 309 (1998); see also Carl T. Bogus, Race, Riots, and Guns, 66 S. CAL. L. REV. 1365 (1993). These works are worth reading as are the writings of my colleague Robert Cottrol (and my former colleague) Ray Diamond. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 GEO. L.J. 309 (1991).

  Bogus highlighted the quotes used later by Anderson, including a warning by Patrick Henry that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government in the “common defense” and did not leave enough powers with the states to defend themselves. Bogus asked “What was Henry driving at? In 1788, Americans did not fear foreign invasion.  Nor did Americans still harbor the illusion that the militia could effectively contest trained military forces.” His answer was slavery and its preservation.

  Slavery was a matter discussed both at the Declaration of Independence and during the Constitutional debates. There were those who were concerned about efforts to abolish slavery as well as slave uprisings. However, the Second Amendment does not appear the result in whole or in large part due to those fears. The right to bear arms was viewed as a bulwark against oppression of citizens by the government. In Northern states where slavery was not as popular, the Second Amendment was an important guarantee against that danger of tyranny. For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution (that preceded the Constitution) included these provisions:

  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.

  The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not enclosed, and in like manner to fish in all navigable waters, and others not private property, without being restrained therein by any laws to be passed by the legislature of the United States.

  New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and other states had similar precursors to the Second Amendment.  The Framers had just overthrown a tyrant and the image of the militia and the famed “Minutemen” remained fixed in the minds of many at the time.

  James Madison captured this purpose in in Federalist No. 46 when he noted that a small federal standing army would be opposed by “a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands” which would be able to defeat a tyrannical standing army. He was highlighting “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation”

  Likewise, important contemporary writers at the time connected the Second Amendment to values heavily steeped in the shared history from England. There were also strong cultural and practical value placed on gun ownership, a right that was limited in England. This was still a young country where many lives along the frontier and relied on guns to sustain themselves and their families in terms of both security and sustenance. There was also a deep-seated mistrust of both a standing army and a centralized government.

  That is evident in St. George Tucker’s American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803). In his publication of Blackstone, Tucker added two footnotes that reflected the thinking of many Framers:

  [fn40] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

  [fn41] Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England.  The commentator himself informs us, Vol. II, p. 412, “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.”

  Tucker later explained this point further:

  “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.”

  There are a myriad of historical sources expounding on this rationale for the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has itself highlighted that rationale in its discussions of the history and purpose of the Amendment.

  The Anderson book effectively repeats the arguments of Bogus but she offers a far more fluid and casual treatment of the history, as is evident in a recent interview:

  “…George Mason. Patrick Henry and George Mason really teamed up like tag team taking on the Federalists and the Constitution. What they argued, was that the Constitution put control of the militia under federal control. That meant that Virginia would be left defenseless, as they saw it, when there is an uprising. When there is a slave uprising, that they could not count on the North. They could not count on the federal government and those in Congress to deploy the militia to help out in the midst of a slave revolt.

  And they were like, ‘you know, the North detests slavery and we will be left defenseless. I mean, can we really count on those folk?’ and Madison is arguing, ‘look, you got the Atlantic slave trade. Look, you got the three fifths clause. Look, you got the fugitive slave clause, you’re protected.’ And Patrick Henry’s like, ‘No, we are not.’ And so you started seeing the momentum for a new constitutional convention. And that was the last thing James Madison wanted, because he’s like, ‘if these folks get another bite at this, we’re gonna end up with the Articles of Confederation again’.”

  …

  This is the payoff to Patrick Henry and to George Mason. Look, the militia is here. And what it does is it says that the feds cannot interfere with the militia. You are safe to have your militia to defend against slave uprisings. So sitting here in the Bill of Rights, we have an amendment that is about denying Black people their rights.”

  That is not, in my view, an accurate account of what was said by some of these figures and, more importantly, what was the primary motivation for the Second Amendment.

  While I disagree with the analysis and conclusion, I value the discussion of how slavery may have impacted this and other amendments. Slave revolts were a concern in the South and that fear no doubt reinforced the desire to have a guaranteed right to bear arms, particularly for slave holders like Patrick Henry. I simply disagree with the sweeping generalizations and conclusions reached in the book. Moreover, this is not a new theory as suggested in these media accounts. Indeed, the case was made stronger by academics like Bogus and the general subject is presented with far greater depth and understanding by academics like Cottrol and Diamond.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 20:05

• Non-Fungible Tokens Are "Changing The Lives" Of Many In Southeast Asia
  Non-Fungible Tokens Are “Changing The Lives” Of Many In Southeast Asia

  Just days after we noted that people in South Korea saw bitcoin as their “only chance of escape” from their social status, it looks as though non-fungible tokens are also catching on in Southeast Asia. 

  At least that was the topic of a new report by Nikkei, which took at look at how skeptics and believers are clashing head-to-head about NFTs, whether they have any value and whether or not they could be the future of asset ownership and finance. 

  “NFTs are indeed changing the lives of some Southeast Asians” the report notes, with some people using them to earn extra income. One such person is Gilbert Jalova, who has been buying and selling digital assets in a game called Axie Infinity. He can earn up to $550 a month doing so, the report notes, which is “more than he makes in his regular job”. 

  Jalova said: “It’s a huge help to us and at the same time, it has become our family bonding.”

  The report estimates that more than 80% of Axie Infinity’s player base comes from emerging economies where it is tough to find work or where inflation has run rampant. 

  “People are turning to these games as a way to supplement their income or as an alternative means of employment,” one Filipino game developer said. 

  

  Riky Candra, a 20-year-old university student in Pekanbaru, said: “I’ve managed to earn a total of around 10 million rupiah ($700) in the year that I have been playing. I’m able to spend that on daily campus needs, such as books or other equipment, and I tend to set aside some for deposit as future assets.”

  Trung Nguyen, co-founder of the game’s developer said an NFT is a way “to represent objects that are unique in nature. So it’s a very good fit with game characters and game assets.”

  Artists in Southeast Asia are also cashing in on NFTs. One artist, who goes by the name Monez, sold his first NFT artwork in March of this year for 0.8 ETH, or about $1200. “In the real world … people buy the first painting from the painter, which is usually very cheap, and can sell it for double the price, but the original artist is still poor because we get [only the first payment],” he said.

  But there is still some skepticism about NFTs looming. Naohito Yoshida, founder and CEO of Digital Entertainment Asset, pointed out the lack of liquidity: “Liquidity in the NFT market could be a potential risk. If someone buys NFTs for purely collection purposes, there won’t be much of a problem. But if people are buying for investment purposes, then low market liquidity will be an issue, as it means you will not be able to sell it when you want.”

  And there are already “signs that liquidity may be drying up, or that the NFT bubble is bursting,” Nikkei writes. While $101 million of NFTs sold on May 3, that number has dropped to about $2 million per day by the end of may. 

  Poltak Hotradero, business development manager at the Indonesia Stock Exchange, concluded: “For the digital natives of the younger generations, it will be easy. But for older generations, I don’t think they can appreciate NFTs [on a] par with tactile arts which they can see and touch.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 19:45

• 15 States Are Moving To Curb Public Health Agency Powers Following Lockdown Carnage
  15 States Are Moving To Curb Public Health Agency Powers Following Lockdown Carnage

  Authored by John Miltimore via The Foundation for Economic Education,

  More than a dozen states have passed or advanced legislation to place new checks on the powers of public health agencies in the wake of the pandemic…

  

  Mike Fratantuono grew up in a restaurant. Literally.

  For decades, Sunset Restaurant in Glen Burnie, Maryland, was the family business. Over the years, he’d done seemingly every job imaginable: busboy, bartender, and butcher; prep cook and plumber; handyman and manager.

  Fratantuono says that’s what made it so hard to watch the family’s legacy become a COVID casualty in 2020.

  “It kills me. We were supposed to be getting ready to celebrate our 60th anniversary this year, and instead we’re packing up and closing at the end of this month,” Fratantuono told the Washington Post last year.

  “I try not to get too sentimental about it, because it won’t change a damn thing, but sometimes the stress hits me and my heart starts going like crazy. I get frustrated. It makes me angry.”

  Fratantuono is just one of the countless business owners across America who saw their dreams vanish before their eyes in the wake of government lockdowns that crushed their businesses. Now, in the wake of the pandemic, states across the country are advancing legislation to curb the powers of public health departments following one of the most destructive and contentious years in American history.

  Reining in Public Health Agencies

  In May, the Network for Public Health Law published a report showing that in recent months no fewer than 15 state legislatures have passed or are considering passing measures that would restrict the legal authority of public health departments.

  Among the provisions passed or considered are the following:

  • Prohibitions on requiring citizens to wear masks;

  • Prohibiting health agencies from closing businesses or schools;

  • Banning the use of quarantines for people who have not been shown to be sick;

  • Preventing state hospitals and universities from requiring vaccinations for employees and students;

  • Preventing local governments from exercising emergency powers that are inconsistent with state health department guidelines;

  Earlier this year, for example, North Dakota passed legislation making it unlawful for state officials to force citizens to wear masks—just one of a growing number of states to place restrictions on mask orders. In March, Kansas’s legislature passed legislation that removes the governor’s ability to shut down businesses during a public health emergency.

  Meanwhile, more than 40 states passed legislation that made it unlawful for health departments to mandate COVID-19 vaccination.

  A recent report found that no fewer than 15 state legislatures have passed or are considering passing measures that would curb the powers of public health departments.

  This is very good news. pic.twitter.com/5WJbAAGzNV

  — Jon Miltimore (@miltimore79) June 9, 2021

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

  A Serious Threat to Life?

  The report concludes that opposition to “reasonable” public health measures poses serious dangers to life and health.

  “Legislation to stop expert public health agencies from leading the response to health emergencies creates unforeseen, serious risks to life and health,” the report states.

  “These laws could make it harder to advance health equity during a pandemic that has disproportionately sickened and killed Black, Hispanic and Latino, and Indigenous Americans.”

  Not mentioned in the report, however, are the unintended consequences of the actions taken by public health agencies across the country in 2020. The collateral damage of lockdowns included business closures, job losses, supply disruptions, mass protests, surging violence, increased mental health problems, unprecedented drug overdoses, and a collapse in cancer screenings.

  Public health agencies, meanwhile, proved incapable of taming the coronavirus through the use of lockdowns. And these struggles were not confined to the United States.

  “A new study by German scientists claims to have found evidence that lockdowns may have had little effect on controlling the coronavirus pandemic,” The Telegraph reported last week.

  “Statisticians at Munich University found ‘no direct connection’ between the German lockdown and falling infection rates in the country.”

  The Lesson of Lockdowns

  The devastating impact of lockdowns, combined with their failure to slow the spread of the virus, demonstrates why states are right to curb the powers of public health agencies.

  If 2020 taught us anything, it’s the danger of unchecked executive power. Using emergency powers, governors and public health bureaucrats across the country took unilateral, sweeping, and indefinite measures that massively damaged livelihoods and infringed on the rights of millions of Americans. People were fined and arrested for simply gathering privately or exercising outside, walking a pet, paddling a boat on the water (alone), or taking a child to the park—even though most transmissions took place in homes and the coronavirus is rarely transmitted outdoors.

  Americans may disagree on the precise role public health departments should play in society today. But the pandemic reminded us why checks and balances on concentrated power are so important.

  The American constitutional system was deliberately designed to avoid concentrated power because the Framers feared it above all else.

  “The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty,” wrote John Adams.

  The authors of the Network for Public Health Law report express concern that public health agencies are being stripped of the power to act by dangerous radicals. The truth is that dangerously radical government agencies are being put in check.

  Ohio, for example, passed a law in March that limits the length of a public health emergency order to 90 days unless it’s extended by the legislature. The same month, lawmakers in Utah passed legislation allowing the state legislature to override state health agency orders during public health emergencies. Missouri, meanwhile, has proposed a law that limits lockdowns to 15 days, after which extensions must be approved by legislative bodies.

  These reforms are not radical. They are both reasonable and sensible. They do not represent an attack on science—which tells us what is, not what we ought to do—but are prudent checks on power from lawmakers acting within their rightful province.

  “It is necessary to curb the power of government,” the economist Ludwig von Mises noted in Human Action.

  “This is the task of all constitutions, bills of rights and laws. This is the meaning of all struggles which men have fought for liberty.”

  The preservation of liberty, protected by separating and checking power, is the ideal on which the American system was founded. Following a year that saw Americans’ rights, dreams, and health trampled by central planners wielding vast power with little restraint and few checks, it’s a vision Americans are right to rekindle.

  Just ask Mike Fratantuono and the millions of other Americans whose lives were derailed in 2020.

  https://fee.org/Scripts/fee-repub.js

  

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 19:25

• Ceasefire Over? Israeli Jets Attack After Incendiary Balloons Fired From Gaza
  Ceasefire Over? Israeli Jets Attack After Incendiary Balloons Fired From Gaza

  The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked Hamas armed compounds in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday in response to 20 fires sparked by incendiary balloons launched earlier in the day from the territory into southern Israel.

  At least one explosive balloon was reported over southern Israel, with residents reporting that they saw and heard the balloon explode in the air, according to Israeli media.

  In a statement, the military said that it was “ready for all scenarios, including renewed fighting in the face of continued terrorist acts emanating from Gaza”.

  #صور مواجهات بين شبان وقوات الاحتلال على السياج الفاصل شرق رفح جنوب قطاع غزة، بالتزامن مع “مسيرة الأعلام” للمستوطنين في القدس المحتلة. pic.twitter.com/Q4JgBzNC09

  — وكالة شهاب للأنباء (@ShehabAgency) June 15, 2021

  Israel’s new prime minister, Naftali Bennett, had said in the past that the Israeli government should not tolerate incendiary balloons, and must retaliate as if Hamas had fired rockets into Israel.

  

  The escalation came after an Israeli nationalist march, as part of “Jerusalem Day” in East Jerusalem that angered Palestinians.

  

   

  Crowds waving blue and white Israeli flags set off from Damascus Gate, the main entry to the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City, dancing and chanting “This is our home” and “Jerusalem is ours.”

  

  Iron Dome anti-missile defense units were also reinforced ahead of the march, amid threats by Hamas in recent days and weeks.

  On Tuesday evening, Defense Minister Benny Gantz held a situation assessment with IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi, Shin Bet head Nadav Argaman, IDF Intelligence Directorate head Maj.-Gen. Tamir Heiman, IDF intelligence analysis chief Brig.-Gen. Amit Saar and Defense Ministry Policy and Political-Military Bureau head Zohar Palti.

  Is the Egyptian-brokered cease-fire officially over?

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 19:07

• 899 Patients Given Expired Jabs At Times Square Vaccination Site
  899 Patients Given Expired Jabs At Times Square Vaccination Site

  Authored by Jack Phillips via the Epoch Times

  Hundreds of people were administered doses of expired COVID-19 vaccines during an event in New York City’s Times Square, city health officials authorities said.

  The New York City Health Department confirmed that 899 individuals got Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine at the former NFL Experience building between June 5 and June 10.

  

  A spokesperson for the department told news outlets on Tuesday that those people should schedule another vaccination session as soon as possible.

  “We have communicated with Pfizer, which recommended that the patients receive another dose as soon as possible,” the spokesperson said in statements to the media outlets. “While there is no safety risk for the patients, the re-administration is being carried out to ensure that the individuals are fully protected.”

  Other city health department officials, including spokesman Patrick Gallahue, said that patients “have received e-mails, phone calls, and are also being sent letters to make sure they are aware of this situation,” reported The Associated Press.

  Patients who got the defective vaccines were informed by ATC Vaccination Services, which said in emails that they need to receive another shot because the firm can’t guarantee whether the shot is effective at preventing the spread of COVID-19, otherwise known as the illness caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

  “We are contacting you concerning the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine you received at Times Square–NFL Experience vaccination site on June 5 to June 10, 2021. It was recognized after the vaccine was administered, that it had been in the freezer beyond the approved time frame prior to it being administered,” ATC’s David Savitsky said in an email to patients, reported the New York Post.

  The firm contacted the city’s Department of Health and New York City Vaccine Command Center, Savitsky added in the email before saying that “there should be no adverse health consequences from the vaccine already received.” Those who got the defective doses can get their “repeated dose” right away “in the opposite arm,” he added.

  ATC Vaccination Services issued a statement following the incident and apologized.

  “We apologize for the inconvenience to those receiving the vaccine batch in question and want people first and foremost to know that we have been advised that there is no danger from the vaccine they received,” the firm said, according to The Associated Press.

  The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for COVID-19 requires two shots to be administered about three weeks apart, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

  The Epoch Times has contacted the city’s Department of Health and ATC for comment.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 18:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Jon Stewart Hijacks Colbert Show With Lab-Leak Rant, Liberal Twitter Explodes
  Jon Stewart Hijacks Colbert Show With Lab-Leak Rant, Liberal Twitter Explodes

  Comedian Jon Stewart overpowered Stephen Colbert’s ability to shill on Monday, hijacking the Late Show‘s return to a live (and fully vaccinated) audience with an epic rant on the COVID-19 lab-leak theory.

  

  “I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to science. Science has, in many ways, helped ease the suffering of this pandemic, which was more than likely caused by science,” Stewart said after Colbert asked how he was feeling about the scientific response to COVID-19.

  “Do you mean perhaps there’s a chance that this was created in a lab?” asked Colbert, adding “There’s an investigation.”

  “A chance?” shot back Stewart – kicking the door open.

  “Oh my god, there’s a novel respiratory coronavirus overtaking Wuhan, China, what do we do? Oh, you know who we could ask? The Wuhan novel respiratory coronavirus lab. The disease is the same name as the lab. That’s just a little too weird, don’t you think? And then they asked those scientists – they’re like ‘how did this… so wait a minute, you work at the Wuhan respiratory coronavirus lab. How did this happen?’ and they’re like ‘mmmm – a pangolin kissed a turtle?‘ and you’re like ‘no… the name of your lab! If you look at the name! Can I… let me see your business card. Show me your business card. Oh – I work at the coronavirus lab in Wuhan. Oh, cause there’s a coronavirus loose in Wuhan. How did that happen?‘

  ‘Maybe a bat… flew into the Cloaca of a turkey and… then it sneezed into my chili. And now we all have Coronavirus.”

  Stewart landed one final joke as Colbert desperately tried to control the situation;

  “HOLD IT, HOLD IT! What about this, what about this… listen to this! ‘OH MY GOD, there’s been an outbreak of chocolately goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania. What do you think happened?’

  ‘Oh I don’t know, maybe a steam shovel mated with a cocoa bean?’

  “Or… it’s the fucking chocolate factory! Maybe that’s it!” Stewart screamed.

  Right now: Jon Stewart on the Covid Lab Leak “theory” is solid laughs pic.twitter.com/WlRX35p9WK

  — siskin.eth (@mns) June 15, 2021

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

  “Can I say this about scientists?” Stewart said after the break. “I love them and they do such good work but they are going to kill us all.“

  As noted by Stephen Miller, Liberal Twitter is not happy.

  

  US Intelligence. The Secretary of State. Officials at NIH. Us Senators. A president – All crazy conspiracy theorists

  Jon Stewart – Shit now we have to believe the lab leak.

  — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) June 15, 2021

  pic.twitter.com/dwKoVYXpNm

  — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) June 15, 2021

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

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 02:55

• Fairfax Board Member Rails Against The Dangers Of "Excessive Individualism"
  Fairfax Board Member Rails Against The Dangers Of “Excessive Individualism”

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  There has been a great deal of controversy over the graduation address of Fairfax County school board member Abrar Omeish to the Justice High School in Falls Church on June 7th.

  In her remarks to the graduates, Omeish praised a teacher who made social activism part of her class and warned the graduates that they are going into a world filled with racism and white supremacy.

  However, what really struck an admittedly libertarian chord with me was the third danger that she warned about: “excessive individualism.” 

  

  Like free speech, individualism is now being presented as a danger rather than a strength in our society.

  Omeish is a strong speaker who impressively moved between English, Spanish, and Arabic in her address. However, many parents objected in Fairfax (where I live) to the content of the remarks. She labeled those who do not agree with the activism agenda as effectively opposing anti-racism values: 

   “You understand that social justice is only political for those that can afford to ignore it. You understand that ‘neutral’ is another word for complicit. And you have made a choice to take a stand.”

  She encouraged the students to remain activists and pursue “jihad” because “we struggle with human greed, racism, extreme versions of individualism and capitalism, white supremacy, growing wealth gaps, disease, climate crisis, extreme poverty amidst luxury and waste right next door. And the list goes on.”

  As we have previously discussed, “jihad” in Arabic does not mean violent acts despite the common view of the term. It is a reference to good acts or public service. There is no basis to suggest that this speech was encouraging violent action.  Rather, she declared “Every part of your being may scream in rage at the ways others have wronged you,” but “let compassion for your fellow human beings, not anger or rage — and believe me this is hard to do — fuel you.”

  What stood out for me was the reference to “extreme versions of individualism.”  There was a time when individualism was viewed as a core protection and value in our society. Now it is often denounced as a harmful value that resists more collective and communal priorities from fighting Covid-19 to racial justice.

  For years, academics have lashed out at individualism as a barrier for public policy goals like health care. On study on the “excesses of individualism” concluded, for example, “Libertarian individualism has created political isolation and prevents the evolution of democratic decision making and real partnerships in healthcare.” The case against individualism has been made in books ranging from Robert N. Bellah’s book Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, Amitai Etzioni’s The Spirit of Community. Writers like Nick Romeo insist:

  Radical individualism today retains this highly circumscribed conception of government’s role; the body politic – above all – serves to protect the safety and the property of the individual. This is exemplified in a line made popular by the US president Ronald Reagan: the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ It is a radical philosophy that suggests the political collective should have no role beyond the protection of the individual.

  The old view of “rugged individualism” has become reactionary individualism for those arguing for a new collective consciousness. 

  The move against individualism brings to mind a quote from Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago:

  “The main misfortune, the root of all the evil to come, was the loss of confidence in the value of one’s own opinion. People imagined that it was out of date to follow their own moral sense, that they must all sing in chorus, and live by other people’s notions, notions that were being crammed down everybody’s throat.”

  Few would argue that there is no value in collective action and policies.  Individualism is not anarchy. The concern is that the attacks on individualism are coinciding with attacks on values like free speech.  There is a movement to force adherence to accepted norms or values — and a corresponding intolerance for opposing views.

  That is why the dire warning of Omeish for the young graduates to fear “excessive individualism” was so jarring for those of us who find believe that on certain rights, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, nothing succeeds like excess.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 02:53

• The Fight Against Child Labor Has Stalled
  The Fight Against Child Labor Has Stalled

  A report released yesterday by UNICEF and the International Labor Organization shows that even before the coronavirus pandemic came into full swing, progress in combating child labor around the world had stalled. Statista’s Katharian Buchholz reports that at the beginning of 2020, there were once again 160 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 engaged in age-inappropriate and/or hazardous work. The new number marks an increase from around 152 million in 2016.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  While child labor in Asia and Latin America has decreased, it has been rising again in Sub-Saharan Africa – in absolute and relative terms. While in 2016, 22.4 percent of children between the ages of 5 and 17 were in child labor in the region, that number had risen to almost 24 percent in early 2020. The global share of 9.6 percent of children engaged in child labor stayed the same between 2016 and 2020, showing that while the increase in child labor was in line with world population growth, the burden has shifted between regions.

  The report also reveals that one of the most common images of child labor in the developing world – children working for a wage on factory floors – is actually the least common scenario. Child labor in industry stood at around 10 percent globally, being trumped by work in the service sector (around 20 percent) as well as the most common field for child labor, agriculture (70 percent). Earning a wage is also most uncommon for children, as 72 percent of child laborers work with their families.

  Both numbers rise above 80 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa. The shift towards Africa therefore means that more young children below the age of eleven have become engaged in child labor, since agricultural and family work typically involve younger child workers. Yet, the region’s particular profile is more likely to keep child workers in school.

  Child labor in Latin America and Asia typically involved more children from ages 12 to 17, more employed or self-employed work, more urban work and more work in services and industry, even though family work and the agricultural sector still provided the majority of jobs for children in the regions. Child workers were most likely to be out of school in Asia at rates between 32 and 35 percent and least likely to miss out on an education in Latin America at just 16 percent of child workers being out of school. Boys became child laborers only at a slightly higher rate when taking into account age-inappropriate domestic work carried out by girls. Globally, around half of child workers carried out hazardous work, defined as work likely to harm a child’s health, safety or morals.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 02:45

• England Footballers 'Taking The Knee' Engaged In "Gesture Politics": UK Minister
  England Footballers ‘Taking The Knee’ Engaged In “Gesture Politics”: UK Minister

  Authored by Alexander Zhang via The Epoch Times,

  UK Home Secretary Priti Patel said on Monday that she does not support England footballers taking the knee ahead of Euro 2020 games, calling the act “gesture politics.”

  

  Home Secretary Priti Patel arrives at Downing Street in London, on Sept. 8, 2020. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

  The England team was booed by some fans in London’s Wembley Stadium on June 13 when players took the knee before kick-off in their match with Croatia in Euro 2020.

  A Number 10 spokesman said before the match that Prime Minister Boris Johnson “wants to see everybody getting behind the team to cheer them on, not boo.” But the requests fell on deaf ears.

  

  England’s manager Gareth Southgate (L) and Steve Holland, Assistant Coach of England, ‘take a knee’ ahead of the international friendly football match between England and Romania at the Riverside Stadium in Middlesbrough, north-east England on June 6, 2021. (Scott Heppell/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

  Patel appeared to have taken a different stance to Johnson. She told GB News:

  “I just don’t support people participating in that type of gesture, gesture politics.”

  Asked whether England fans were right to boo the national team, she said: “That’s a choice for them, quite frankly.”

  Patel also said the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests last summer had a “devastating” impact on policing in the UK.

  “It’s all well to support a cause and make your voices heard,” she said. “But actually, quite frankly, and we saw last year in particular with some of the protests that took place, I speak now very much from what I saw in the impact on policing. It was devastating.”

  She criticised the BLM rioters who pulled down the statue of 17th-century slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol.

  “I just don’t subscribe to this view that we should be rewriting our history, pulling down statues, the famous Colston statue, and what’s happened there. Toppling statues is not the answer.

  “It’s about learning from our past, learning from our history, and actually working together to drive the right outcomes.”

  Patel was not the first British government minister to criticise England footballers taking the knee.

  Education minister Gillian Keegan said on June 10 that the act is “divisive,” as it is an expression of support for the BLM movement.

  “There are some Conservative MPs [that] are very much against it. Why? Because Black Lives Matter stands for things that they don’t stand for. It’s really about defunding the police and the overthrow of capitalism, which is, you know, Black Lives Matter the actual political organisation,” she told the BBC’s “Question Time” programme.

  “And some people will take it and think that’s supporting Black Lives Matter. I’m sure Black Lives Matter will think it’s supporting them.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 02:00

• Is A "Climate Lockdown" On The Horizon?
  Is A “Climate Lockdown” On The Horizon?

  Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

  If and when the powers-that-be decide to move on from their pandemic narrative, lockdowns won’t be going anywhere. Instead it looks like they’ll be rebranded as “climate lockdowns”, and either enforced or simply held threateningly over the public’s head.

  

  At least, according to an article written by an employee of the WHO, and published by a mega-coporate think-tank.

  Let’s dive right in.

  THE REPORT’S AUTHOR AND BACKERS

  The report, titled “Avoiding a climate lockdown”, was written by Mariana Mazzucato, a professor of economics at University College London, and head of something called the Council on the Economics of Health for All, a division of the World Health Organization.

  It was first published in October 2020 by Project Syndicate, a non-profit media organization that is (predictably) funded through grants from the Open society Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and many, many others.

  After that, it was picked up and republished by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which describes itself as “a global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world.”.

  The WBCSD’s membership is essentially every major company in the world, including Chevron, BP, Bayer, Walmart, Google and Microsoft. Over 200 members totalling well over 8 TRILLION dollars in annual revenue.

  In short: an economist who works for the WHO has written a report concerning “climate lockdowns”, which has been published by both a Gates+Soros backed NGO AND a group representing almost every bank, oil company and tech giant on the planet.

  Whatever it says, it clearly has the approval of the people who run the world.

  WHAT DOES IT SAY?

  The text of the report itself is actually quite craftily constructed. It doesn’t outright argue for climate lockdowns, but instead discusses ways “we” can prevent them.

  As COVID-19 spread […] governments introduced lockdowns in order to prevent a public-health emergency from spinning out of control. In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again – this time to tackle a climate emergency […] To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.

  This cleverly creates a veneer of arguing against them, whilst actually pushing the a priori assumptions that any so-called “climate lockdowns” would a) be necessary and b) be effective. Neither of which has ever been established.

  Another thing the report assumes is some kind of causal link between the environment and the “pandemic”:

  COVID-19 is itself a consequence of environmental degradation

  I wrote an article, back in April, exploring the media’s persistent attempts to link the Covid19 “pandemic” with climate change. Everybody from the Guardian to the Harvard School of Public Health is taking the same position – “The root cause of pandemics [is] the destruction of nature”:

  The razing of forests and hunting of wildlife is increasingly bringing animals and the microbes they harbour into contact with people and livestock.

  There is never any scientific evidence cited to support this position. Rather, it is a fact-free scare-line used to try and force a mental connection in the public, between visceral self-preservation (fear of disease) and concern for the environment. It is as transparent as it is weak.

  “CLIMATE LOCKDOWNS”

  So, what exactly is a “climate lockdown”? And what would it entail?

  The author is pretty clear:

  Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling.

  There you have it. A “climate lockdown” means no more red meat, the government setting limits on how and when people use their private vehicles and further (unspecified) “extreme energy-saving measures”. It would likely include previously suggested bans on air travel, too.

  All in all, it is potentially far more strict than the “public health policy” we’ve all endured for the last year.

  As for forcing fossil fuel companies to stop drilling, that is drenched in the sort of ignorance of practicality that only exists in the academic world. Supposing we can switch to entirely rely on renewables for energy, we still wouldn’t be able to stop drilling for fossil fuels.

  Oil isn’t just used as fuel, it’s also needed to lubricate engines and manufacture chemicals and plastics. Plastics used in the manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels, for example.

  Coal isn’t just needed for power stations, but also to make steel. Steel which is vital to pretty much everything humans do in the modern world.

  It reminds me of a Victoria Wood sketch from the 1980s, where an upper-middle class woman remarks, upon meeting a coal miner, “I suppose we don’t really need coal, now we’ve got electricity.”

  A lot of post-fossil utopian ideas are sold this way, to people who are comfortably removed from the way the world actually works. This mirrors the supposed “recovery” the environment experienced during lockdown, a mythic creation selling a silver lining of house arrest to people who think that because they’re having their annual budget meetings over Zoom, somehow China stopped manufacturing 900 million tonnes of steel a year, and the US military doesn’t produce more pollution than 140 different countries combined.

  The question, really, is why would an NGO backed by – among others – Shell, BP and Chevron, possibly want to suggest a ban on drilling for fossil fuel? But that’s a discussion for another time.

  AVOIDING A “CLIMATE LOCKDOWN”

  So, the “climate lockdown” is a mix of dystopian social control, and impractical nonsense likely designed to sell an agenda. But don’t worry, we don’t have to do this. There is a way to avoid these extreme measures, the author says so:

  To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently […] Addressing this triple crisis requires reorienting corporate governance, finance, policy, and energy systems toward a green economic transformation […] Far more is needed to achieve a green and sustainable recovery […] we want to transform the future of work, transit, and energy use.

  “Overhaul”? “reorienting”? “transformation”?

  Seems like we’re looking at a new-built society. A “reset”, if you will, and given the desired scope, you could even call it a “great reset”, I suppose.

  Except, of course, the Great Reset is just a wild “conspiracy theory”. The elite doesn’t want a Great Reset, even if they keep saying they do…

  …they just want a massive wholesale “transformation” of our social, financial, governmental and energy sectors.

  They want you to own nothing and be happy. Or else.

  Because that’s the oddest thing about this particular article, whereas most fear-porn public programming at least attempts subtlety, there is very definitely an overtly threatening tone to this piece [emphasis added]:

  we are approaching a tipping point on climate change, when protecting the future of civilization will require dramatic interventions […] One way or the other, radical change is inevitable; our task is to ensure that we achieve the change we want – while we still have the choice.

  The whole article is not an argument, so much as an ultimatum. A gun held to the public’s collective head. “Obviously we don’t want to lock you up inside your homes, force you to eat processed soy cubes and take away your cars,” they’re telling us, “but we might have to, if you don’t take our advice.”

  Will there be “climate lockdowns” in the future? I wouldn’t be surprised. But right now – rather than being seriously mooted – they are fulfilling a different role. A frightening hypothetical – A threat used to bully the public into accepting the hardline globalist reforms that make up the “great reset”.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 23:40

• Visualizing 50 Years Of Global Steel Production
  Visualizing 50 Years Of Global Steel Production

  From the bronze age to the iron age, metals have defined eras of human history. If our current era had to be defined similarly, it would undoubtedly be known as the steel age.

  Steel is the foundation of our buildings, vehicles, and industries, with its rates of production and consumption often seen as markers for a nation’s development; and as Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte details below, today, it is the world’s most commonly used metal and most recycled material, with 1,864 million metric tons of crude steel produced in 2020.

  

  This infographic uses data from the World Steel Association to visualize 50 years of crude steel production, showcasing our world’s unrelenting creation of this essential material.

  The State of Steel Production

  Global steel production has more than tripled over the past 50 years, despite nations like the U.S. and Russia scaling down their domestic production and relying more on imports. Meanwhile, China and India have consistently grown their production to become the top two steel producing nations.

  Below are the world’s current top crude steel producing nations by 2020 production.

  

  Despite its current dominance, China could be preparing to scale back domestic steel production to curb overproduction risks and ensure it can reach carbon neutrality by 2060.

  As iron ore and steel prices have skyrocketed in the last year, U.S. demand could soon lessen depending on the Biden administration’s actions. A potential infrastructure bill would bring investment into America’s steel mills to build supply for the future, and any walkbalk on the Trump administration’s 2018 tariffs on imported steel could further soften supply constraints.

  Steel’s Secret: Infinite Recyclability

  Made up primarily of iron ore, steel is an alloy which also contains less than 2% carbon and 1% manganese and other trace elements. While the defining difference might seem small, steel can be 1,000x stronger than iron.

  However, steel’s true strength lies in its infinite recyclability with no loss of quality. No matter the grade or application, steel can always be recycled, with new steel products containing 30% recycled steel on average.

  The alloy’s magnetic properties make it easy to recover from waste streams, and nearly 100% of the steel industry’s co-products can be used in other manufacturing or electricity generation.

  It’s fitting then that steel makes up essential parts of various sustainable energy technologies:

  • The average wind turbine is made of 80% steel on average (140 metric tons).

  • Steel is used in the base, pumps, tanks, and heat exchangers of solar power installations.

  • Electrical steel is at the heart of the generators and motors of electric and hybrid vehicles.

  The Steel Industry’s Future Sustainability

  Considering the crucial role steel plays in just about every industry, it’s no wonder that prices are surging to record highs. However, steel producers are thinking about long-term sustainability, and are working to make fossil-fuel-free steel a reality by completely removing coal from the metallurgical process.

  While the industry has already cut down the average energy intensity per metric ton produced from 50 gigajoules to 20 gigajoules since the 1960s, steel-producing giants like ArcelorMittal are going further and laying out their plans for carbon-neutral steel production by 2050.

  Steel consumption and demand is only set to continue rising as the world’s economy gradually reopens, especially as Rio Tinto’s new development of atomized steel powder could bring about the next evolution in 3D printing.

  As the industry continues to innovate in both sustainability and usability, steel will continue to be a vital material across industries that we can infinitely recycle and rely on.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 23:20

• Why Are Hordes Of Wealthy People Hitting The Escape Button And Heading To Montana?
  Why Are Hordes Of Wealthy People Hitting The Escape Button And Heading To Montana?

  Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

  Why have thousands upon thousands of very wealthy people suddenly felt an overwhelming urge to buy a home in Montana?  At this moment, Montana is one of the hottest real estate markets in the entire country.  When a desirable house is put on the market, it can often spark a wild bidding war.  Of course the vast majority of the potential buyers involved in these bidding wars do not actually have any roots in Montana at all.  Vast hordes of wealthy individuals from Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York and other major cities are flooding into the state, and there is only a limited amount of housing to accommodate them.  As a result, home prices are being pushed to absolutely absurd levels.

  

  In the Flathead Valley, home builders have been working incredibly hard to construct houses for the new arrivals.  The following comes from a New York Post article entitled “Montana, the sold-out state New Yorkers can’t get enough of”…

  All around the Lodge, along Montana Highway 35, from Kalispell to Whitefish, are what the locals call “COVID homes,” prefabricated track houses that line up along what used to be a timber farm — all of which were built last year and sold at around $550,000.

  “Most were bought sight unseen for cash deals,” said Doug Averill.

  $550,000 may have seemed like a hefty price when those homes originally went up, but today $550,000 would be considered a bargain price.

  That is because the average selling price of a home in Flathead County has now risen to more than $638,000…

  In May 2020, the average sale price for a home in Flathead County was $447,387 — a year later it had increased to $638,992. The average number of days a property stayed on the market has been cut almost in half, from 77 days in May 2020 to 41 days in May 2021.

  The Flathead Valley possesses great natural beauty, and Whitefish in particular has become an extremely popular tourist destination.

  All of this interest in Whitefish has helped to fuel a home price boom that is unlike anything the region has ever experienced…

  While this may be good for realtors, locals are shell-shocked at the price hikes due to what the Flathead Beacon called the “COVID migration” from states like New York. “(The housing crisis) is happening all over Montana,” one Whitefish local told The Post. “No one who is from here can actually afford to live here anymore.”

  According to Realtor.com, just before the pandemic in December 2019, the average home price in Whitefish, a town of 7,700 people just south of Glacier National Park, was $369,450. A year and a half later, that has almost doubled — and the average home price is now $704,000. Local average wages in Whitefish are just $30,642, according to bestplaces.net.

  Needless to say, the vast majority of Americans cannot afford a $700,000 home.

  Only the wealthy have enough money to relocate to Whitefish now, and many locals with roots in the area are having to leave for good because housing has become so ridiculously expensive.

  A similar thing is happening over in Missoula.  From last May to this May, the median sales price in Missoula shot up a staggering 41 percent…

  New real estate data for the month of May shows an increasingly competitive market in western Montana.

  New Multiple Listing Service data shows the median sales price in Missoula increased 41% from May 2020 to May 2021, up to $449,338.

  Ten years ago, the median sales price in Missoula was just $205,000.

  If you go all the way back to 2001, it was just $138,000.

  Things are getting crazy in Bozeman too.  At this point, “the average home in the greater Bozeman area is going for more than $650,000”…

  One hundred thirty thousand dollars. That’s what it takes for a down payment to buy an average-priced home in Bozeman, Montana. Then an aspiring homeowner must fork out another $3,000 each month, which is more than two-thirds of their household’s paychecks if they make the median income for the metro area.

  That’s because the average home in the greater Bozeman area is going for more than $650,000, up from an already astronomical $500,000 in early 2020.

  So why is this happening?

  Why are home prices in Montana and other desirable locations around the country going absolutely nuts?

  Many are blaming the COVID pandemic, and that certainly played a major role at first, but now the COVID pandemic is subsiding.

  Ultimately, I believe the the largest reason why we are seeing such a home buying frenzy is because people can see that our society is starting to come apart at the seams and they can sense that enormous trouble is ahead.

  Just consider what happened this weekend.  We literally witnessed mass shootings in four different U.S. cities in a period of just six hours…

  At least four major U.S. cities were reeling from an onslaught of mass shootings over the weekend that left at least 39 people wounded, five dead and police officials alarmed that the surge in gun violence is a prelude to a bloody summer as the nation emerges from the pandemic.

  Police in Austin, Cleveland, Chicago and Savannah were all investigating on Sunday mass shootings that erupted over a six-hour streak that began around 9 p.m. on Friday and spilled over into Saturday morning.

  All over America, countless numbers of people are finally waking up and realizing that it is time to leave the major cities and head for greener pastures.

  As I have been encouraging people to do for years, those that are leaving are looking for areas with low population density and low crime rates.

  Of course the wealthy also value great natural beauty, and this is one of the big reasons why the Flathead Valley has become so popular.

  And once they have purchased their beautiful new homes in remote parts of the nation, many wealthy individuals are filling them up with emergency food and supplies.

  Collectively, rich people tend to be much more into “prepping” than the general population as a whole.

  Sadly, the vast majority of the population is still asleep.  The mainstream media keeps telling us that everything is going to work out just fine somehow, and most Americans blindly believe them.

  Meanwhile, many among the wealthy are buying up properties in remote locations at a blistering pace, and this is going to permanently change the character of those communities.

  *  *  *

  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
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 23:00

• Chinese Stealth Fighters Buzz Beijing In Fly Over Rehearsal Ahead Of Centenary Parade 
  Chinese Stealth Fighters Buzz Beijing In Fly Over Rehearsal Ahead Of Centenary Parade 

  The celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China is nearing and will be held on July 1. So naturally, like any massive government-sponsored celebration involving war machines, there needs to be lots of preparation. Over the weekend, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was spotted flying all sorts of warplanes and helicopters in a rehearsal event, but what has caught our attention is the video of stealth fighter jets and new heavy-lift helicopters.

  According to state-run media Global Times, thousands of people in the Tiananmen area of Beijing gazed into the skies as warplanes and helicopters practiced flying formations. The event included “the warm-up, a grand gathering, and entry and exit, as well as preparations in the event of an emergency,” Global Times added. 

  During the day on Sunday morning, several echelons of PLA warplanes were seen flying through the sky in the rehearsal, including dozens of helicopters forming a formation representing the number “100,” a J-10 fighter jet formation representing “71,” or July 1, the birthday of the CPC, and formations consisting of five J-20 stealth fighter jets, Beijing-based magazine the Aerospace Knowledge reported on Sunday. – Global Times 

  Pictures and videos of the rehearsal event have circulated on social media showed the J-20 stealth jets and helicopters. 

  

  Videos uploaded onto social media are pretty impressive. 

  J-20 and helicopter in Beijing for CPC 100 year anniversary celebration. pic.twitter.com/VLHxYff6G6

  — WEIWEI DAI (@WEIWEIDAI4) June 14, 2021

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

  #Sunday
  15 J-20 ‘Mighty Dragon’ fighters in three formations soaring in the sky over Beijing this morning 🌅 pic.twitter.com/SEcCXRodhT

  — Eva 郑 عائشة (@evazhengll) June 13, 2021

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

  China is obviously making a statement to the West as tensions between the US and China continue to sour under a Biden administration. The great power struggle between both countries is pushing both countries closer and closer towards Thucydides Trap.

  We’re surprised the “God of War” stealth bomber is not featured in the upcoming celebrations – or maybe it will? 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 22:40

• Putin Warns Against Ongoing NATO Warship Build-Up In Black Sea Ahead Of Biden Meeting
  Putin Warns Against Ongoing NATO Warship Build-Up In Black Sea Ahead Of Biden Meeting

  Authored by Rick Rozoff via AntiWar.com,

  In comments that got past editors in the Western news media, President Vladimir Putin in a recent Russian television interview accused the West of abusing what were good relations at the time (1999-2004) to expand NATO up to Russia’s borders. And in doing so, he specified, violated verbal pledges made by American officials to then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, adding that the latter is alive and in good health and can confirm what he was told. In a candid assessment of the matter, Putin added, “I do not want to use harsh words, but they simply spat upon our interests and that’s that.”

  Lengthy excerpts of his comments were published on the English-language site of the government news agency TASS on June 9. The most significant, and most alarming, aspect of the interview is the Russian president’s warning of Ukraine joining NATO, which contrary to what he acknowledged is a dismissal of that prospect by many experts in Russia and in the West he takes seriously, especially in regard to its membership providing the U.S. and NATO with new missile sites.

  BREAKING: #USSLaboon (DDG58) began its northbound transit into the #BlackSea to conduct #maritimesecurity operations in the region. The @USNavy routinely operates with our @NATO Allies & partners in the Black Sea!#PowerForPeace pic.twitter.com/4bnFTyuOgQ

  — U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. Sixth Fleet (@USNavyEurope) June 11, 2021

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

  Without naming them he mentioned that Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) missile defense (so-called) interceptors in Romania and Poland could strike Moscow in 15 minutes if a warhead was added to them; which, although the West denies its intent to do so, could be easily done. Russia has not been invited to inspect the missiles, for example. Paraphrasing the head of state, the TASS report disclosed the above threat is eminently practicable “because the missile defense launch systems stationed there can be used to carry out strikes as well.”

  Installing SM-3s in Ukraine, Putin warned, would reduce the time needed to strike Moscow to 7-10 minutes. “Is it a red line for us or not?” he asked.

  He also drew the inevitable comparison with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when he estimated Soviet missiles on that island nation could have hit Washington in 15 minutes, adding another parallel:

  “To lower this flight time to 7-10 minutes, we should station our missiles on Canada’s southern border or Mexico’s northern border. Is it a red line for the US or not?”

  Though perfectly transparent and accurate in all regards, his comments have been ignored and, if brought to people’s attention, would be dismissed. That’s how wars and that’s how a nuclear catastrophe beyond a healthy mind’s powers of comprehension can occur. Sleepwalking into Armageddon.

  Five years ago the U.S. installed an Aegis AN/SPY-1 radar and twelve missile tubes for Standard Missile-3 Block IB interceptors at Deveselu in Romania, and plans to do the same in Poland under an initiative called Aegis Ashore or European Phased Adaptive Approach, first announced by the Barack Obama administration in 2009. Aegis Ashore is derived from the Aegis Combat System used by U.S. Navy to equip American warships and those of its allies with SM-3s to shoot down other nations’ missiles. The U.S. has 62 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (with more under construction) and 22 Ticonderoga-class cruisers that are equipped for the Aegis Combat System. They can fire the same SM-3s Vladimir Putin warned about in his interview.

  In addition to presenting the threat to Russia described above, the US and its allies, in ringing Russia in with land- and sea-based interceptor missiles, could not only undermine but neutralize its deterrence capabilities. Any Russian missiles surviving a first-strike attack by the US and NATO would be shot down with interceptors. At the NATO summit in 2012 the military bloc endorsed the second phase of a so-called missile defense policy; NATO’s and the U.S.’s systems are fully integrated. The European Phased Adaptive Approach includes SM-3s on American destroyers and cruisers in the Atlantic and Mediterranean as well as missiles placed in Romania and Poland. Washington has also recruited nations to Russia’s east, the Asia-Pacific region, into the Aegis Combat System; to date Japan, South Korea and Australia. NATO members Norway and Spain are also directly integrated into the system.

  On June 11 the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa site simultaneously announced that the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Laboon entered the Black Sea and the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Roosevelt arrived in Gdynia, Poland on the Baltic Sea.

  The first occurred despite the cancellation of the deployment of two American warships to the Black Sea in April allegedly for fear of too openly antagonizing Russia. Instead, it was announced shortly afterward that two British warships assigned to the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier’s strike group, a destroyer and a frigate, would substitute for them. The latter may occur shortly.

  Five American warships were in the Black Sea earlier this year, including the Aegis-class destroyers USS Donald Cook and USS Porter in January and the USS Thomas Hudner destroyer and USS Monterey cruiser in March.

  While in the Black Sea, Laboon will, according to U.S. Navy, conduct “multi-domain operations with a U.S. Navy P-8A aircraft from Patrol Squadron VP-40 and NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force E-3A Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS).” The press release announcing the warship’s entry into the sea states: “The U.S. Navy routinely operates in the Black Sea to work with our NATO Allies and partners, including Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Turkey, and Ukraine.” That is, five of the Black Sea’s six (recognized) littoral nations. The other of course is Russia.

  Geneva summit stirs memories of 1985 Reagan-Gorbachev meet https://t.co/rzUWm3Zsko #World

  — Digital Journal (@digitaljournal) June 14, 2021

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

  Laboon is currently assigned to the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group, so its presence (and that of other Aegis-class warships so assigned) is independent of the four American guided-missile destroyers based (on a rotating schedule) at the Naval Station Rota in Spain as part of the European Phased Adaptive Approach and in conjunction with NATO.

  The Navy release also states: “The ship’s operations in the Black Sea will strengthen interoperability with NATO allies and partners and demonstrate collective resolve to Black Sea security under Operation Atlantic Resolve.” The latter is a Pentagon operation launched in 2014 along what NATO calls its Eastern Flank from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

  On June 11 the Navy also reported that USS Roosevelt had docked at the Polish port city of Gdynia to refuel while engaged in this year’s massive Baltic Operations 50 (BALTOPS) war games.The destroyer’s commander said of the event, “During BALTOPS, Roosevelt has honed our skills in air, surface, and anti-surface warfare exercises with our NATO partners.” Russia is the only Baltic Sea nation that is not a NATO member or Enhanced Opportunities Partner. All the others are: Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden.

  Roosevelt is one of four – soon to be six – U.S. interceptor-missile destroyers based in Rota, Spain. The Navy says this about their capacity and their mission: “These Forward-Deployed Naval Forces-Europe ships have the flexibility to operate throughout the waters of Europe and Africa, from the Cape of Good Hope to the Arctic Circle, demonstrating their mastery of the maritime domain.”

  .@RoyalNavy returns to #BlackSea accompanied by Royal Netherlands Navy: type45 🇬🇧 Daring class destroyer @HMSDefender & @kon_marine 🇳🇱De Zeven Provincien Class air-defence frigate @HNLMS_Evertsen transited Bosphorus & entered BlackSea #CSG21 #WeAreNATO #NATO2030 #NATOSummit #NATO pic.twitter.com/pdf5fKhRqj

  — Yörük Işık (@YorukIsik) June 14, 2021

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

  Also on June 11 U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa announced – shortly after the Russian president had so powerfully warned of the SM-3 threat to his country – that Vice Admiral Eugene Black, commander alike of the U.S. Sixth Fleet and Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO, had inspected the five Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers assigned to Commander, Task Force 65 during a visit to Naval Station Rota on June 8. In addition to USS Arleigh Burke, USS Donald Cook, USS Porter and USS Ross forward deployed to Rota, he also visited USS Paul Ignatius, which too is currently assigned to the Mediterranean Sea.

  The Navy press release on the subject stated that Arleigh Burke, Paul Ignatius and Ross had recently participated in the At-Sea Demo/Formidable Shield 21 Integrated Air and Missile Defense exercise that was completed in Norway’s Arctic region on June 3. It also mentioned that Paul Ignatius had “conducted a cooperative engagement of a live medium-range ballistic target using a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor.” That event was described by a American military official involved in the exercise as “a ballistic missile intercept in outer space.”

  President Putin is fully justified in sounding the alarm over NATO’s encroachment on and the U.S.-NATO missile threat against his nation. The pertinent question is why it’s taken him twenty years to do so.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 22:20

• G7 Nations Spend More On Fossil Fuels Than Green Energy
  G7 Nations Spend More On Fossil Fuels Than Green Energy

  Development charity Tearfund published a report in collaboration with the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Overseas Development Institute ahead of the G7 summit.

  As Statista’s Niall McCarthy reports, it found that G7 countries are spending billions of dollars more on fossil fuels than green energy. Between January 2020 and March 2021, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.S. and the UK pumped $189 billion into coal, oil and gas energy while only $147 billion was spent on clean energy.

  The transportation sector received the bulk of the funding, primarily due to the approval of large bailout plans for the automotive and aviation sectors during the early stages of the pandemic. The report’s authors claim that these rescue packages were provided with very little incentives “to go green” and that they will sustain highly polluting industries for the forseeable future.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  A mere 17 percent of commitments to fossil fuel intensive sectors had green strings attached and 83 percent did not include any climate targets or pollution reduction requirements.

  Describing the pandemic as a lost opportunity for G7 countries to support a transition to cleaner energy, the report says that funding based on green conditions needs to be the minimum approach and that only one in 10 dollars committed to the pandemic response benefited the cleanest energy measures.

  Along with direct funding for dirty forms of energy, some governments rolled back regulations affecting the fossil fuel industry. This ranged from the introduction of fuel tax exemptions to the suspension of penalties for companies in breach of environmental regulations.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 22:00

• "Like Hell Went To Hell" – The Tragic Demise Of Venice Beach
  “Like Hell Went To Hell” – The Tragic Demise Of Venice Beach

  Authored by Jamie Joseph via The Epoch Times,

  World-renowned Venice Beach has long been a place where visitors, residents, and business owners commingled with artists, musicians, and entertainers from all over the country. Over 10 million tourists visit the beach’s famous boardwalk each year, drawn in by the ocean view and the unconventional lifestyle of the city’s eccentric community.

  But the famed destination no longer circulates in headlines for its wacky tourist attractions or local eateries. Instead, the beach town has become known worldwide for its flourishing homeless encampments, burgeoning filth, skyrocketing crime rate, and increasingly violent transients.

  

  Women walk past homeless encampments in venice Beach, Calif., on June 8, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

  As city officials dawdle, the beachside town is falling to ruin, residents say, overwhelmed by the homeless that are making their lives a living hell.

  Their cries for help have gone largely unheeded—until now. Earlier this week, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva announced a July 4th sweep that aims to clean up the mess.

  For residents who have been trying to get local officials to act for months, the action can’t come soon enough.

  During a recent trip to Venice, Villanueva said the tents need to be cleared by Independence Day, after reports of crime, arson, and filth went unaddressed for months. He blames elected leaders for not handling the issue.

  “When I was out there in Venice, I talked to a shop owner, and he was fit to be tied,” Villanueva told The Epoch Times.

  “He’s tired of politicians, tired of people in the city doing nothing. And it’s impacting his ability for customers to come in, [with] the cost of people trying to break into his business and people causing scenes, fights, [and] outside fires. It’s like a third-world country.”

  But not all locals approve of the sweep. Some activists quickly criticized the move on social media. “Why is this @LASDHQ dressed like this to do outreach? Why do they have guns?” the People’s City Council asked on Twitter.

  For some residents, the uptick in recent violent attacks by the homeless on workers, residents, and the elderly are justification enough.

  

  A homeless individual in Venice Beach, Calif., on June 8, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

  Cleaning Up the Mess

  Within the last two weeks alone, there have been three reports of alleged attacks by the homeless.

  A 70-year-old man, a small business manager, and a security guard were all victims of random attacks, according to local reports. It was the final straw that caught the attention of law enforcement—even though residents say the problem has been bubbling to the surface for months.

  Butch Say, a traveling transient who sings rock ‘n’ roll on the boardwalk, has called Venice home for the last two years. He said people like himself are attracted to the neighborhood by its welcoming culture and the weather—but even he’s noticed that things are getting worse.

  “It’s nutty, but they like it. And that’s part of the reason a lot of people come here,” Say told The Epoch Times.

  Say watched on June 8 as 18 officers from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Housing Outreach and Services Team (HOST) descended on the boardwalk, cleaning up trash and alerting the homeless of the upcoming action.

  “The trash is going to fill right back up in a few days,” Say said with a chuckle.

  HOST stepped in to mitigate the chaos that has been ensuing in the area, and tried to connect homeless individuals with housing and other stabilization resources ahead of the July 4th sweep.

  Say said this was the first time he’d seen the Sheriff’s Department in force.

  “You never see him. It’s usually LAPD [the Los Angeles Police Department], and they’re cool. They roll by and they just keep the peace—which is not much more you can ask from them, because this is on nonstop, 24-hours-a-day going, this lifestyle, and it gets crazy,” he told The Epoch Times.

  “Some people, you know, [do] too much drugs. They’re up for days—weeks—and they’re just psychotic, running around screaming at … invisible trees and whatever.”

  Deputy Lewis, one of the officers on duty that day, told The Epoch Times, “To be honest, I didn’t know about Venice Beach until 6 a.m. this morning.”

  But Lt. Jeff Deedrick, who led the HOST team, was bothered by the recent attacks.

  “Our mission is humanitarian; this is a crisis, and this is bad. And the acts of violence here have been significant,” Deedrick told The Epoch Times.

  “It was heartbreaking to see the gentleman the other day get punched in the face in broad daylight. That can’t happen. We have to have a civil society. And it needs to be to where everybody can enjoy this place.”

  

  A law enforcement officer speaks to a man on Venice Beach, Calif., on June 8, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

  Skyrocketing Crime

  The conditions in Venice Beach have been deteriorating for over a year. City codes prohibiting encampments on the beach and sidewalks were rolled back per new COVID-19 regulations when the pandemic hit, and normal street sweeping crews were cut to limit contact.

  Then Venice was declared a sanctuary zone by Los Angeles Councilmember Mike Bonin, whose district includes the beach. Tents were no longer violating city policy.

  Bonin, who is facing a recall effort over his policies, and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti also championed temporary A Bridge Housing units in Venice to help with the problem.

  But residents have told The Epoch Times that the facility has only served to attract more homeless to the nearby streets since its development. Tents and trailers parked on the side of the street are present outside of the complex. Many of those same people living in A Bridge Housing are “dual residents,” with some still dwelling in their tents outside, according to locals.

  Soledad Ursua, chairwoman of the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC), told The Epoch Times that the issue is one of “lack of enforcement” due to COVID-19.

  “That’s really how a lot of these crime problems have really spiraled out of control,” she said.

  “And it’s sad that we have to ask the city to resume enforcing our laws, you know, laws that we have on the books. So, Venice residents, we have to basically beg for our laws to be enforced again.”

  The Los Angeles Fire Department announced last month that over 54 percent of fires in the county this year had been started by homeless encampments. In Venice, a number of fires sparked in encampments have been reported, with one corporate building burning to the ground earlier this year.

  

  A homeless individual in Venice Beach, Calif., on June 8, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

  Say said he personally witnessed a homeless person start a fire on the beach only last week.

  “It was somebody’s little wagon with batteries, and they wired it up wrong to play their musical instruments, and it blew up, caught on fire, [and] burned itself out,” Say recalled.

  The neighborhood is also experiencing a sharp uptick in crime, according to statistics provided to the Venice Neighborhood Council by LAPD Capt. Steve Embrich.

  Year-to-date numbers show that robberies have nearly tripled since the same period last year. Homeless-related robberies are up 260 percent; homeless-related assault with a deadly weapon is up 118 percent; property crimes and area burglaries are up 85 percent; and grand theft auto is up 74 percent.

  According to Embrich, felony arrests are up 68 percent, while misdemeanor arrests have grown by 355 percent. But arrests aren’t enough: Suspects are often released back onto the streets within hours.

  “So, arrests are way up—the officers arrested a lot more people—but you may not see a difference because most of those arrests, like 99 percent, are we arrest them, and they’re coronavirus released, they’re released back into the community shortly after we book them,” Embrich told the VNC during a recent meeting.

  Grand theft auto (GTA) incidents in Venice are “much higher than the rest of the area,” Embrich said.

  “And with our GTA, what we see is that we have a very short recovery window. So, most of the cars that are stolen are recovered within Pacific area, very close, or they’re recovered in Culver City or whatever adjacent cities, and the recovery period is short—that means your cars are being stolen out of Venice, for the purpose of sleeping or for the purpose of transportation.”

  

  A homeless individual in Venice Beach, Calif., on June 8, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

  ‘Tearing the Community Apart From Within’

  How to solve the problem is tearing the community apart, according to Venice Neighborhood Councilmember Brian Averill.

  “The city of L.A. has dropped the ball on the crime in Venice. … It’s not being addressed. So, people on different sides of the issues in our community are sort of turning on each other. Not only is it unsafe, but it’s really tearing the community apart from within,” Averill told The Epoch Times.

  “Because people pay taxes to feel safe and to feel protected, and it is chaotic out there, so that’s the city’s sort of ineptitude.”

  Say said he understands the residents’ frustrations.

  “It’s crazy about the fighting stuff. I’ve seen neighbors and houses fight, and it goes on for years down here. They’re in the morning ready to chop each other’s heads off, and at night they’re sharing dinner,” Say said.

  Averill said the push for “housing first,” a theory the city has embraced that believes more housing units are needed as the first step to help the homeless, does not treat the complexities of each individual case, as people may need other resources to rehabilitate them.

  He said that “a triage situation” would be the best option right now.

  “It’s a disaster out there, frankly,” he added.

  “Why we’re not seeing some sort of triage is beyond me. … You should be getting people into the triage, figuring out what they need. Some people just need $1,000 so they can get a bus ticket or a plane ticket home, some people need addiction help, some people need detox. Some people need serious, you know, mental illness help.”

  On June 7, Averill was present at a press conference on the boardwalk when a knife-wielding homeless woman was subdued steps away from L.A. Councilmember Joe Buscaino. At the time, Buscaino was in the middle of a news conference addressing homelessness on the boardwalk as part of his mayoral campaign.

  Bystander Nico Ruderman yelled “Knife!” and LAPD’s Embrich subdued the woman, sustaining minor cut injuries while arresting her. It is unclear if the woman intended to attack Buscaino. Some witnesses say she was arrested because the knife fell out of her pocket.

  Within hours, however, the suspect was released back onto the boardwalk, charged only with a misdemeanor.

  Said VNC’s Ursua, “Our concerns are valid. We were afraid to go out. … If a councilmember can almost get stabbed, it means that it could happen to us.”

  A few days after the incident, Buscaino requested that the city restore its ban on sidewalk encampments.

  

  A homeless individual in Venice Beach, Calif., on June 8, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

  ‘Inept and Corrupt Politicians’

  Since the pandemic began, the boardwalk has become “like hell went to hell,” according to Say.

  “It was bad [before], but it wasn’t like this,” he said.

  For years, the colorful history of homeless dwellers has been an integral part of Venice Beach, with locals referring to them as “street people.” Business owners told The Epoch Times they used to know most of them by name. They were part of the community—until the pandemic brought a massive influx of new transients.

  “It was with COVID, people getting tossed and all that. This place filled up quick: all women, men, middle-aged, you know, everybody here, little kids sometimes,” said Say.

  “A lot of new people, they try to blend in. They say, ‘I’ve been here 20 years,’ and it’s like, ‘I’ve only been here two and I haven’t seen you.’”

  If parents have little children, “they get hooked up quick” with help, Say said. “And if you’re part of it—they call it ‘the family,’ you know—if you’re part of the family, they know you down here, you’re OK.”

  But they still get into fights with each other, he added. “I’ve seen people fighting, screaming, threatening [each other] with pipes and poles in the morning, and bringing them a pair of shoes at night and sharing their dinner,” he said.

  Venice Beach Bar manager Luis Perez told The Epoch Times previously that when the stay-at-home orders were declared last year, homeless people were bussed in from other cities and dropped off on the boardwalk. It was clear they didn’t fit in with the culture, he said. Most of them were addicts.

  Now, attacks against visitors and other homeless people are regularly documented on social media by a local watchdog group, with new videos uploaded nearly every day.

  In the meantime, the encampments are still growing—and impacting local businesses. Recently, another tent community appeared behind the Rose Café restaurant on nearby Rose Avenue, a few blocks from the beach. The encampment has barbecue pits, dressers, and motorbikes parked inside the tents.

  Right outside businesses on the boardwalk, trash, needles, and tents can be seen in plain sight, piled up on top of each other.

  Klaus Moeller is owner of the Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream shop on the boardwalk. He has been dealing with problems caused by the homeless for over a year.

  On June 5, Moeller filed a police report against a homeless person who attacked his manager.

  “Woman hit a Hare Krishna monk, then threatened our customer. When our manager asked her to leave, she hit the manager in the face,” Moeller told The Epoch Times in an email.

  The police did nothing. “Police refused to make an arrest and told us that an assault apparently now is considered a misdemeanor,” he said.

  Moeller said he doesn’t blame the police, as current “catch and release” policies “make any arrest a waste of time for them.”

  “I blame the inept and corrupt politicians,” he said.

  Moeller said that only a day earlier, a beloved local security guard at a nearby skate shop “was hit over the head with a bottle and then repeatedly stabbed by a homeless guy in their parking lot.”

  Moeller said he has reached out repeatedly to Bonin, the local representative. But his attempts at communication have failed.

  “I have tried for a year now to have Mr. Bonin speak with me but emails are not answered. Our very own councilman, whose salary is paid with our taxes; refuses to even talk to us or acknowledge that there is a problem,” Moeller said.

  The Epoch Times reached out for comment but did not hear back from Bonin’s office. However, Bonin released a series of tweets defending his housing policies.

  

  A homeless encampment in Venice Beach, Calif., on June 8, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

  “There is loud and growing criticism of homeless housing from people saying homelessness is about addiction and mental health, not housing. We absolutely need more mental health & drug rehab services—and we can’t address these issues among the unhoused without housing,” Bonin said in a June 3 tweet.

  On June 10, Bonin asked the Los Angeles Homeless and Poverty Committee to shift $5 million in budgeted aid to fund housing programs in his district.

  But Say warned that not every homeless person wants the help. He said most of the people living in Venice get government support.

  He pointed to a homeless man in a wheelchair wearing pajamas. The man gets $1,400 a month from the government, Say said, “and he loves it out here.”

  Say said that government Section 8 housing vouchers are available to many people, providing “a nice place to live,” and if you’re older, you get priority. But many people, like the man in the wheelchair, prefer to live on the street.

  “They go, ‘No, I love it out here. Nobody tells me what to do, and I run around in my underwear,’” Say said. “You know, whatever. They’re crazy. What can I say? It’s Venice.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 21:40

• Biden Admin Pats Self On Back After 'Gifting' Vaccine To 0.015% Of Trinidad Population
  Biden Admin Pats Self On Back After ‘Gifting’ Vaccine To 0.015% Of Trinidad Population

  Last Thursday, US President Joe Biden announced that the United States would donate 500 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to the world’s poorest countries with “no strings attached.”

  On Sunday, the US State Department proudly tweeted that they had donated 80 vials to Trinidad and Tobago, which has a population of 1.4 million.

  USA Donates Vaccines to Trinidad and Tobago pic.twitter.com/5S0OTQfJU5

  — U.S. Embassy POS (@USinTT) June 14, 2021

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

  Given that each vial can squeeze out six doses for a total of 480 jabs, and each person requires two shots, that’s enough to cover 0.015% of the country’s population!

  

  The mockery came hard and fast:

  They legit had to open a flat, count out 80 (or 115), then put the rest back into cold storage. Unbelievable pic.twitter.com/XJCv3RGm2Q

  — funkydrugmonkey (@funkydrugmonkey) June 14, 2021

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

  If I were donating 80 vials of vaccine to a country of 1.4 million people I probably wouldn’t put out a self-congratulatory press release 😬 https://t.co/dDA7DnYOVC

  — Quantian (@quantian1) June 14, 2021

  I really really hope they just forgot some zeroes https://t.co/CzhERkfjyH

  — shahenshah🌞pilsudski (सामाजिक फासीवाद युग) (@misandrogynist) June 14, 2021

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

  According to Trinidad and Tobago’s National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds, the vials will be given to the National Security Ministry. 

  “This has nothing to do with any large donation that we expect is being considered by the United States Government,” he told the Trinidad Daily Express. “This is just a small number for the Ministry of National Security as a gift which we are happy to accept.“

  Ah – so the Biden admin was congratulating itself over a gift that’s meant for bureaucrats!

  The island nation has recorded 29,000 cases of COVID-19 and 670 deaths thus far, after a steep rise in May.

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

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 21:20

• Petition Demands Resignation Of New Jersey School Board After Holiday Names Replaced With Generic "Day Off"
  Petition Demands Resignation Of New Jersey School Board After Holiday Names Replaced With Generic “Day Off”

  Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

  A petition has been launched calling for the resignation of school board members in a New Jersey county over their vote last week to remove holiday names from the school calendar and replace them with a generic “day off” designation.

  

  The petition, created on the platform Change.org by a user identified as Thomas Tatem on Friday, seeks to build support among residents of Randolph Township in Morris County, New Jersey, for the immediate resignation of Superintendent Jennifer Fano and all of the Board of Education members.

  While the petition does not explicitly reference the board’s Thursday decision to label holidays generically, the comments of some of its 2,300 signatories make the context clear.

  “Now they’ve cancelled our holidays,” wrote Laura Assante of Randolph Township.

  “How will students learn about the significance of these days if our board doesn’t even deem them important enough to keep on the calendar? Enough! It’s time now to cancel the BOE and get a new, honest administration in place who values our children and community.”

  “I signed because this woke nonsense of erasing everything that has importance to different religions has to be stopped. Today, it is at Randolph. Where will it be tomorrow?” wrote Deborah Midkiff of Randolph Township.

  “We are all capable of living along side neighbors of different religions knowing that they are celebrating days that are special to them just as we celebrate ours!”

  Fano did not immediately respond with a request for comment on the petition, but the Randolph Township school board issued a statement on Sunday responding to the blowback.

  “The Randolph Board of Education is aware of the large public outcry regarding our decision on June 10, 2021 to remove the names of the holidays from our school calendar,” the statement reads, insisting that the move does not mean that children will not be taught about holiday traditions.

  “Our actions are somehow being misconstrued by some to mean that the Randolph School District is no longer recognizing these holidays, teaching about them to our students, and honoring the great veterans and the heroes for whom many of these holidays have been named. Nothing could be further from the truth,” the statement reads.

  “These State, Federal, and other holidays have not been cancelled or taken away by this Board of Education as some are falsely claiming. Schools will still be closed on the days that we originally approved and our children will know why. They will still continue to receive instruction in schools about these important historical events and the people behind them,” the board added.

  The main purpose of the school calendar is to inform parents about when schools are open or closed, the board said, adding that it is a school attendance calendar, “which is why we did not feel the need to list every State, Federal and Religious holiday on the one (1) page calendar that we adopt every year.”

  “Our State and Federal governments approve public holidays and the Randolph School District is in no way minimizing or taking that away from anyone. Everyone is still encouraged to celebrate them in whatever way they deem appropriate,” the board said.

  The board on Thursday unanimously voted to remove the names of all holidays from the school calendar, with the move prompted by an outcry over an earlier decision to change the name of Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day.

  “If we don’t have anything on the calendar, we don’t have to have anyone [with] hurt feelings or anything like that,” board member Dorene Roche told Fox 5.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 21:00

• ​​​​​​​Busy Start To Hurricane Season? NHC Currently Tracks 3 Disturbances
  ​​​​​​​Busy Start To Hurricane Season? NHC Currently Tracks 3 Disturbances

  The National Hurricane Center (NHC) is tracking three tropical disturbances, one off the coast of North Carolina, one in the Gulf of Mexico, and another off the western African coast. The Atlantic hurricane season began on June 1 and extends into late November. 

  

  On Monday, NHC’s focus is on “Disturbance 1,” located about 90 miles southeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The disturbance has a 70% Chance of Cyclone Formation in 48 Hours. NHC said the disturbance “is acquiring more tropical characteristics.” However, the system could move northeastward away from the US to colder waters south of Nova Scotia on Wednesday. 

  

  Meanwhile, “Disturbance 2” is located over the Bay of Campeche, in the southern area of the Gulf of Mexico, which has a 20% chance of developing into a cyclone in the next 48%. But there’s a 60% chance of formation over the next five days. 

  

  “Disturbance 3” is located offshore of West Africa and has a 10% chance of developing into a cyclone over the next 48% hours and a 20% over the next five days. 

  

  Readers may recall this hurricane season could be very active. Refinitiv estimates around “17 named storms, 8 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes are expected from June-November. This compares to historical averages of 14 named storms, 7 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes, respectively.”

  

  All three disturbances should be monitored this week. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 20:40

• Thomas Jefferson Versus The Federal Reserve
  Thomas Jefferson Versus The Federal Reserve

  Authored by Michael Maharrey via SchiffGold.com,

  The Federal Reserve is the engine that drives one of the biggest, most powerful governments in the history of the world.

  Without the Fed, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the government to fund its foreign wars, its massive, unsustainable social programs, the ever-growing police state, and the tangled web of corporate welfare programs. It’s almost certain none of this would exist as we know it today – not even close. The federal government would truly be limited.

  Although the Federal Reserve is relatively new within the scope of American history, its roots go back to the early days of the republic and the First Bank of the United States, chartered by Congress on Feb. 25, 1791. 

  

  A national bank was the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton. His rationale wasn’t much different from those who later came up with the Federal Reserve. Hamilton thought a central bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the fledgling nation’s credit and to better manage the financial business of the United States government.

  The notion of a national bank but wasn’t without its detractors. One of the most vocal opponents of the bank was Thomas Jefferson who argued that it was unconstitutional.

  The debate was really about more than chartering a bank. At its core, it was an argument about the extent of federal power. Jefferson held to the promise of the ratification debates – that federal authority would remain carefully circumscribed by the enumerated delegated powers. Given that the Constitution doesn’t authorize Congress to charter corporations, much less a national bank, Jefferson argued that it was an unconstitutional act.

  On the other hand, Hamilton pivoted from the position he took during the ratification debates and justified his project by invoking the doctrine of “implied powers.” His arguments foreshadowed how federal policies of every imaginable stripe would be justified moving forward. Arguably, Hamilton’s arguments for the First Bank of the United States set the foundation for much of the federal overreach we have today.

  Jefferson and Hamilton both wrote documents making their cases for the establishment of the bank. Jefferson wrote his Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank first.

  He rested his argument on the Tenth Amendment, writing:

  “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That  ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

  He then succinctly stated his conclusion.

  “The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.”

  Jefferson proceeded to outline the various clauses of the Constitution supporters of the bank used to constitutionally justify and explained why they failed to bear the burden of that power.

  The primary justification was the Commerce Clause, but Jefferson argued that “to erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts.” Erecting a bank actually creates an institution of commerce, and as Jefferson pointed out, “to make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling.”

  He went on to argue that if erecting a bank is an exercise of the commerce power, it would be void because it would also impact commerce within individual states.

  “For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.”

  Next Jefferson tackled the General Welfare Clause, pointing out that Congress cannot lay and collect taxes for any purpose it pleases, “but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.” Likewise, Congress can’t do anything it pleases to promote the “general welfare.” It can only further the general welfare by laying taxes and acting within its enumerated powers.

  “In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lacce them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.” [Emphasis original]

  Jefferson drove his point home by pointing out a very inconvenient fact for Hamilton – the Philadelphia Convention debated and rejected delegating the power to charter corporations.

  On one of the final days of the convention, James Madison proposed the federal government be delegated the authority “to grant charters of incorporation where the interest of the U.S. might require & the legislative provisions of individual State may be incompetent.”

  Rufus King of Massachusetts objected specifically on the grounds that “It will be referred to the establishment of a Bank, which has been a subject of contention in those Cities (New York and Philadelphia). He also warned that “In other places it will be referred to mercantile monopolies.”

  George Mason of Virginia proposed limiting the power to charting corporations for the construction of canals. “He was afraid of monopolies of every sort, which he did not think were by any means already implied by the Constitution as supposed by Mr. Wilson.”

  Ultimately, the convention rejected the proposal completely. Historian Dave Benner wrote, “This casts overwhelming doubt on the notion that the Constitution allowed Congress to form such monopolies. No enumerated power to grant monopolies and corporate charters was ever included in the document, and during the ratification campaign, none of the Constitution’s advocates cited the presence of such a power.”

  But Hamilton’s arguments didn’t rely on the existence of any delegated power. Instead, he appealed to the existence of unwritten “implied powers.”

  In response to Jefferson’s appeal to the Tenth Amendment and that the federal government can only exercise delegated powers, Hamilton affirmed it, and then effectively nullified its limiting force. He wrote, “The main proposition here laid down, in its true signification is not to be questioned.” But he continued, insisting, “It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter.”

  But who decides the extent of these implied powers? Who determines their limits? In effect, Hamilton sets up an almost unlimited reservoir of power the general government can dip into in order to take whatever actions it deems appropriate. This was a 180-degree reversal from the position he took during the ratification debates when he insisted that the new general government would only exercise limited powers.

  Hamilton primarily based his defense of the national bank on the “necessary and proper clause,” citing it as the source of these “implied” powers. While Jefferson relied on a very narrow definition of “necessary and proper,” Hamilton used the phrase to milk implied powers out of the Constitution.

  The debate centered on the meaning of the word necessary. Jefferson took a very narrow view, arguing that the government can carry out all of its enumerated powers without a national bank. “A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.”

  “It has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes, Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to everyone, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed. Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to the necessary means, that is to say, to those means without which the grant of power would be nugatory.”

  Hamilton found this view too limiting. He wrote, “It is certain that neither the grammatical nor popular sense of the term requires that construction. According to both, necessary often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to.”

  “It is a common mode of expression to say, that it is necessary for a government or a person to do this or that thing, when nothing more is intended or understood, than that the interests of the government or person require, or will be promoted by, the doing of this or that thing. … To understand the word as the Secretary of State does, would be to depart from its obvious and popular sense, and to give it a restrictive operation, an idea never before entertained. It would be to give it the same force as if the word absolutely or indispensably had been prefixed to it.”

  Jefferson hit the problem with Hamilton’s view on the head. It opens up a door to virtually unlimited government power. This runs counter to James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that “the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” [Emphasis added]

  Under Hamilton’s “implied power” doctrine and his loose reading of the necessary and proper clause, there is very little the federal government can’t do. After all, virtually anything could be defined as “needful” or “useful” to the government. During the ratification debates, opponents of the Constitution worried that the necessary and proper clause would be construed exactly as Hamilton read it. At the time, Hamilton swore they had nothing to worry about. In Federalist #33, he wrote, “It may be affirmed with perfect confidence that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same, if these clauses [necessary and proper and the supremacy clause] were entirely obliterated, as if they were repeated in every article. They are only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government, and vesting it with certain specified powers.” [Emphasis added]

  Hamilton pivoted from “specified powers” in 1788 to “implied powers” just three years later.

  In his push for a bank, Hamilton also invoked a rule of construction very favorable to the government. He wrote, “This restrictive interpretation of the word necessary is also contrary to this sound maxim of construction, namely, that the powers contained in a constitution of government, especially those which concern the general administration of the affairs of a country, its finances, trade, defense, etc., ought to be construed liberally in advancement of the public good.”

  This was not “a sound maxim of construction” at the time.

  St. George Tucker was an influential lawyer and jurist, and he wrote the first systematic commentary on the Constitution. Published in 1803, View of the Constitution of the United States served as an important law book, informing the opinions of judges, lawyers and politicians for the next 50 years. He explained that we should always construe federal power in the most limited sense possible.

   “The powers delegated to the federal government, are, in all cases, to receive the most strict construction that the instrument will bear, where the rights of a state or of the people, either collectively or individually, may be drawn in question.”

  This is the exact opposite of Hamilton’s maxim. As “Light Horse” Harry Lee put it during the Virginia ratifying convention, “When a question arises with respect to the legality of any power, exercised or assumed by Congress, it is plain on the side of the governed. Is it enumerated in the Constitution? If it be, it is legal and just. It is otherwise arbitrary and unconstitutional.”

  When political power resides in the people, the default position should always be to assume the most limited government power possible – not the most liberal reading as Hamilton insisted.

  Later in his life, Jefferson made a similar point in a letter to William Johnson.

  “On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

  There was no probable construction authorizing charting a national bank.

  Reading Hamilton’s arguments for the bank, it becomes clear he was trying to “squeeze” meaning – and power – out of the Constitution. Under the limited general government promised by supporters of the Constitution during ratification, including Alexander Hamilton, there would have been no national bank.

  Hamilton’s twisting of the Constitution to wring out new powers set the stage for much the federal overreach that would follow. It was the “foundation” for the “living breathing” Constitution we live under today.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 20:20

• Goldman Sachs Latest Wall Street Giant To Move Traders To Florida After NY Tax Hikes
  Goldman Sachs Latest Wall Street Giant To Move Traders To Florida After NY Tax Hikes

  Goldman Sachs employees finally returned to the office this week (for at least part of the work week). But at least some Goldman employees who miss working from the beach, the bank might soon be moving some of its front-office workers from NYC down to sunny Florida, becoming the latest major Wall Street firm to beef up its operations in the Sunshine State.

  

  Goldman will join Carl Icahn, Dan Loeb’s Third Point, the private equity giant Apollo and a host of other firms in moving more employees to Florida, a state that, among other perks, has no income tax, according to a report published Monday by Insider.  But talk of the bank moving some of its personnel has been circulating since at least late last year.

  Per Insider, Goldman “is in the early stages of moving traders and salespeople to Florida,” and the leaders of its global markets group have recruited about 100 or so people to move down south, according to sources “with knowledge of the plans.”

  The fact that Goldman is moving some of its top-earning personnel to Fla. is extremely significant, as one of Insider’s sources pointed out. And it doesn’t exactly bode well for New York, which is struggling to convince firms to stay after the state raised taxes that make the state one of the most heavy taxers in the country. The moving of front-office traders and salespeople away from the world’s financial hub is a “once unthinkable outcome for a firm that has considered New York home for 152 years.” And in all likelihood, it wouldn’t have happened without COVID-19.

  What’s worse (as far as the Empire State’s tax base is concerned) is that many of the bankers who will be moving earning 7-figure salaries, meaning that once the move is over, New York Stat could be facing down a drop in revenue in the tens of millions of dollars.

  Goldman’s senior executives would take an active role in deciding who gets to move and would look to relocate clusters of teammates to the West Palm Beach office, one of the people said. Each cluster would be an offshoot of a larger team based in New York and made up of as many as eight or 10 people.

  Setting it up that way would ensure that employees still enjoy the benefits of working with close colleagues even though they’re 1,200 miles from the bank’s headquarters. Employees in Florida would likely spend significant time shuttling back and forth to New York for face time with executives working from Manhattan, one of the people said.

  The division’s leaders are agnostic about whether credit traders or interest-rate salespeople make the move, though those covering the emerging markets from New York may find Florida an easier location for working with Latin American clients, one of the people said.

  The move makes sense considering that one of Goldman’s top traders already commutes to New York from Boca Raton. As it happened, having at least one of its top traders in Fla. during the pandemic turned out to be a godsend for the bank, since they were able to meet with clients face-to-face more than six months before bankers in NYC were able to.

  Goldman’s sales-and-trading operation is led by Ashok Varadhan and Marc Nachmann. While Varadhan lives in New York, Nachmann commutes to New York from a private development in Boca Raton, Florida, according to real-estate records.

  Florida has been Nachmann’s home for more than 15 years, according to two people with knowledge of his arrangement. During the pandemic, his Florida base meant Nachmann met with clients in person roughly six to eight months before New York reopened, one of the people said.

  Insider reports that Goldman’s plans for relocating some of its top people to Florida started taking shape even before COVID. It started when one of the top executives in the bank’s asset-management arm stated exploring a potential move, just as more buy side firms (and more of the bank’s clients) were heading to Florida. When CEO David Solomon caught wind of GSAM’s plan, he decided to expand the project and explore moving even more personnel to the famously low-tax state.

  While it’s not exactly clear when these traders will be leaving, one thing is clear: New York State and its leader, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, are the biggest losers here.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 20:00

• Wisconsin Student Accused Of Arson In Hoax Hate Crime
  Wisconsin Student Accused Of Arson In Hoax Hate Crime

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  Viterbo University in Wisconsin has been the scene of protests for months over alleged hate crimes committed on campus.  The police however has charged a student, Victoria Unanka, with what it says was a hoax hate crime involving the setting of a fire in her dormitory. What interested me about the case was the curious combination of criminal charges. She is being charged with both arson and “the negligent handling of burning materials.”

  

  The arson occurred during protests over alleged racial incidents on campus. A student complained about racial slurs directed against her. The university cancelled classes and campus-wide demonstrations were held.

  One of those who reportedly spoke at the demonstrations was Unanka.

  The LaCrosse Police Department report states that Unanka “admitted to intentionally setting the fire in the second level lounge for attention purposes.”  

  According to media reports, President Glena Temple has later announced that the responsible student would be expelled.

  There were also slurs written on a dorm room door and the campus installed cameras and launched a full investigation.

  That investigation was closed and a Viterbo spokesperson said that “the remaining person of interest is no longer a student.”

  Viterbo is not the only university dealing with such a controversy.

  Wayne State University Police launched a major investigation after student Zoriana Martinez alleged that, on February 16 and March 1, someone threw eggs at her residence hall door. She also alleged someone tore down her LGBT Pride sticker and stole a photo of her dog.  While the police later concluded that Martinez was likely responsible for the acts herself, it did not seek charges. There was a notable twist.  The police report indicated that “Isis,” a Wayne State University employee was believed to have information on the case. However, she “isn’t compelled to speak with police or WSU administration despite the fact that Isis is a WSU employee and holds some obligation to report such concerns.”

  Back to Viterbo.  What struck me about the story was the initial charges of arson and negligent handling of of burning materials. One is an intentional act while the other is an act based on fault rather than intent.

  Here is the latter provision:

  941.10 Negligent handling of burning material.

  (1)Whoever handles burning material in a highly negligent manner is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

  (2)Burning material is handled in a highly negligent manner if handled with criminal negligence under s. 939.25 or under circumstances in which the person should realize that a substantial and unreasonable risk of serious damage to another’s property is created.

  History: 1977 c. 173; 1987 a. 399.

  The charges seem inherently in conflict. However, this may be an effort to offer a plea for the lesser charge, though it is not clear why the prosecutors would not seek an arson plea if the evidence is strong. The fire endangered everyone living in the dorm.

  There is also a possibility that the prosecutors will shake out the charges by adding and dropping charges.  The negligent charge can be a placeholder in that sense, a charge that is likely to pass judicial muster on review as they work out other possible charges.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 19:40

• Zelensky Claims NATO "Confirmed" Ukraine Will Become Full Member
  Zelensky Claims NATO “Confirmed” Ukraine Will Become Full Member

  Coming off Monday’s meeting of top NATO leaders in Brussels with Joe Biden, President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued a shock statement, claiming that NATO has “agreed” to admit Ukraine into the military alliance with Biden’s blessing.

  However, in simultaneous remarks given during Biden’s anticipated press conference, the president actually appeared to suggest nothing has really change. He said Ukraine has more it must do to meet the “criteria” for NATO membership. “It depends on whether they meet the criteria,” Biden told reporters. “The fact is, they still have to clean up corruption… School’s out on that question.“

  President Zelensky of Ukraine says NATO has agreed to admit Ukraine into alliance. This is a move President Biden backed. https://t.co/fTcZrdmBtj

  — Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) June 14, 2021

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

  This has essentially been the Washington position all along – while the US desires a Ukrainian path to NATO membership, obstacles still remain.

  As The Guardian also observed, “A tweet today from the Ukrainian president had led some reporters to think that the Nato summit had approved adding Ukraine as a member, but it seems that will not yet happen.”

  Hours ahead of Biden’s Monday evening press conference, Zelensky had told US media outlets:

  “If we are talking about NATO and the [Membership Action Plan], I would really like to get [from Biden] specifics – yes or no… We must get clear dates and the likelihood of this for Ukraine.”

  Biden was asked point blank on whether the answer would indeed be yes or no…

  President Biden on Ukraine joining NATO: “Depends on whether they meet the criteria. The fact is they still have to clean up corruption…school’s out on that question.”

  Full video here: https://t.co/t8w4dxicaB pic.twitter.com/RVu9ytYFMK

  — CSPAN (@cspan) June 14, 2021

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

  Again, the Biden administration message to Kiev long appears to have been “yes” but with the key caveat of meeting the “criteria”.

  Washington is also very conscious that doing such would be a recipe for future war with Russia – something that also prevents NATO membership (that said country is engaged in border disputes or conflict), according to requirements for entry.

  Zelensky to AP, AFP, Reuters today: “If we are talking about NATO and the [Membership Action Plan], I would really like to get [from Biden] specifics – yes or no… We must get clear dates and the likelihood of this for Ukraine.” https://t.co/saNjhHTNBI

  — Christopher Miller (@ChristopherJM) June 14, 2021

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

  By all appearances Zelensky jumped the gun, or else used intentionally confusing wording in hopes of generating enough headlines to put the contentious the issue front and center during the June 16 Putin-Biden summit in Geneva.

  Ukraine did not just become a member of NATO. Zelensky is reiterating something that was agreed to in 2008. This is from the NATO communiqué today: pic.twitter.com/nfANprVJCM

  — Kevin Liptak (@Kevinliptakcnn) June 14, 2021

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

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 19:20

• Stanford Study: Most Mass Shooters Have Undiagnosed Psychiatric Illnesses
  Stanford Study: Most Mass Shooters Have Undiagnosed Psychiatric Illnesses

  Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

  Researchers from the Stanford University School of Medicine have published a study that reveals most of the perpetrators of mass shootings in America are people with undiagnosed psychiatric disorders.

  

  The study focused on 115 assailants of shootings committed between 1982 and 2019, and then narrowed that number down to ones who survived.

  “We found that most mass shooters in our study experienced undiagnosed and unmedicated psychiatric illness,” the researchers noted.

  Describing the findings as “striking,” the study notes that symptoms of clinical psychiatric disorders were identified in almost all the shooters, 32 out of 35.

  Over half of the perpetrators, 18, were found to have schizophrenia, with psychotic symptoms including the belief they were receiving messages from demons and seeing hallucinations ordering them to “kill, burn or destroy.”

  A further 10 of the shooters were diagnosed as bipolar, delusional and suffering from personality disorders.

  The study also noted that “None were medicated or received other treatment prior to the crime.”

  To make the diagnoses, the study focused on the records of forensic psychiatrists and court proceedings, in addition to writings and social media posts made by the shooters.

  Researchers also found that in 20 mass shooting cases where the perpetrators died, at least eight had schizophrenia, seven had other diagnoses, and five had unknown mental illnesses.

  While concluding that diagnosis and treatment of mental illness could have “decreased violence,” the study notes that “Psychiatric research… on the nature and the incidence of mental illness among mass shooters, however, remains largely understudied.”

  “Most of the cases of domestic mass murders possibly might have been prevented had the assailant… been more consistently assisted to receive a correct diagnosis… followed by psychiatric medication treatment… to save lives,” the study suggests.

  *  *  *

  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. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 19:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• AstraZeneca's COVID Jab Should Be Halted For People Over 60: EMA
  AstraZeneca’s COVID Jab Should Be Halted For People Over 60: EMA

  On Friday, the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) safety committee identified another rare blood condition after people taking AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine and said it was examining cases of heart inflammation after inoculation. By Sunday, the head of the EMA health threats said people over 60 should avoid the Astrazeneca vaccine, according to Reuters. 

  EMA safety committee on Friday said that capillary leak syndrome is a new side effect after taking AstraZeneca’s vaccine. There’s been widespread skepticism surrounding the AstraZeneca vaccine for months due to rare and deadly blood clots. 

  

  Even though EMA considers the vaccine safe for all ages, several EU member states have halted administering it to people in the 55 to 65 range due to blood clotting. To date, 78 million doses of AstraZeneca’s vaccine shots have been given in the EU and U.K. 

  “In a pandemic context, our position was and is that the risk-benefit ratio remains favorable for all age groups,” Marco Cavaleri, head of health threats and vaccine strategy at EMA, told Italian newspaper La Stampa.

  Cavaleri told the local paper that since infections are declining and the younger population is less exposed to virus-related risks, it would be better to use RNA (​mRNA) vaccines, such as Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.

  Asked whether the AstraZeneca vaccine should be avoided for people over 60. He said, “Yes, and many countries, such as France and Germany, are considering it in the light of greater availability of mRNA vaccines.”

  On Friday, Italian health regulators said the AstraZeneca vaccine would be restricted to people over 60 after a teenager was administered the vaccine and died from a blood cot. 

  While American lawmakers have taken steps to shield US pharma companies from any legal blowback caused by COVID vaccines, drugmakers in Europe haven’t been so lucky. 

  Months ago, the family of an Italian woman who died from a case of vaccine-linked clots sued the vaccine company. 

  Last week, German scientists may have pinpointed these blood clots’ cause, which can be eliminated with a relatively easy tweak.

  Regulators first began examining these unusual blood clots cases in April and now are suggesting people over 60 should avoid AstraZeneca.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 02:45

• Biden-Putin: What's On The Table (And Why No Progress Can Possibly Be Made)
  Biden-Putin: What’s On The Table (And Why No Progress Can Possibly Be Made)

  Authored by Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  The key barrier in US-Russian relations is that they are again locked in a new zero-sum game but with a different dynamic than during the Cold War.

  

  There is a lot of optimism and big press regarding the upcoming meeting between Biden and Putin. This will be the first meeting of the two since Biden took that seat behind the lovely desk in the Oval Office. There are many issues on the table for discussion and there is tension and excitement in the political press in both the West and especially in Russia. There is a growing belief that this could be a turning point or at least provide some small nudging of relations in a positive direction. This wishful thinking, although pleasant from a moral standpoint, does not reflect the realities of the current divide between the United States and Russia. This meeting simply cannot provide some sort of new start for relations between the countries and will probably look like a head-nodding and pretending-to-listen fest the likes of which we have never seen before. Hours worth of hot air will be blown to throw words onto deaf ears with some background posturing to boot.

  

  Image: Showmanship averted Moscow’s eyes from the coming Maidan.

  One reason for the Russians to be suspicious of any offers from Washington is simply recent precedent. Over ten years ago when Obama was still full of Hope and Change his feisty new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a great big smile presented Foreign Minister Lavrov the infamous Russian Reset Button. The red button had the word “overload” accidentally written on it in place of “reset”. This mistake due to a fake desire to make it seem like Washington cared enough to learn one word of Russian was very telling as during the brief era of the Russian Reset, America’s Soft Power machine was working day and night to organize the Maidan in Kiev. From a Western perspective this revolution was another piece of evidence that the people of Eastern Europe want nothing to do with naughty Moscow, but from a Russian perspective the Maidan was the beginning of an endless waking nightmare. This all led to the genocidal war in the Donbass breaking out, the return of Neo-Nazism to Europe, and the now official systemic racism that Russian speakers have to endure in the “Zimbabwe of Europe”. After an experience like that, can one really expect any sort of optimism from the Russian side because Biden sort of stepped back a bit on the whole Nord-Stream 2 thing?

  Besides bitter precedent, the key barrier in US-Russian relations is that they are again locked in a new zero-sum game but with a different dynamic than during the Cold War. Russia wants to rise as one of many powers in a Multipolar World while the United States in accordance with the “Project for a New American Century” wants to make sure that no competitor ever rises again, maintaining the Monopolar advantage that it won from the Cold War. Because of this situation neither side could possibly hope to get what they want from the other unless things in America are far worse than they seem, turning this meeting into a reverse Reykjavík Summit. But that is so unlikely, that even the most hardened gambling addict wouldn’t place a bet on it.

  

  Image: The proper strategy – handshaking, nodding, and not listening to a word the other says.

  So let’s take a look at what’s on the table and why no progress can possibly be made.

  • The Crimea: The U.S. wants this peninsula returned to Ukraine. If Russia were to do this it would remove them from the Black Sea entirely and kill any ambitions they may have to rise as a world power. It would also be the end of Putin’s presidency as a national betrayal. Returning it is impossible. Any Russian pleas to recognize the Crimea as Russian will fall on deaf ears because it would set the precedent for many regions of the world to go back to Russia like Abkhazia, North Ossetia and Transdniestria. Washington cannot allow this domino effect to occur.

  • Alexey Navalny: Like Lenin he got to live in comfort with support in the West while at the same time having the ambitions of Yeltsin to strive for greatness via submission. He is in jail for parole violation and Putin is not going to pardon him. Even when his sentence is up this blatant Manchurian candidate is never going to be given the status that Washington wants for him.

  • The Donbass: Russia will not give up support for the Donbass and the United States will never green light carving up the Ukraine into a logical Eastern and Western chunk. If the Donbass were to “win” then Russia would wind up getting all the parts of the Ukraine that it needs for renewed greatness where the majority want to go back home. Conversely if Russia were to completely throw the Donbass to the dogs it could crush patriotic support for the establishment in Moscow.

  • Climate Stuff: Because climate change is irrelevant virtue signaling, plenty of “progress” could be made on that front.

  • Russian Meddling: The Democrats believe the Russians are behind lots of conspiracies, the Russians say they didn’t do any of it. Again this issue will remain stagnant. The Democrats could drop this narrative, but it isn’t worth using as a bargaining chip because the Russian side really doesn’t care. Removing this scandal offers no value for negotiating.

  • Sanctions and Embassies: Both sides seem fairly content with the long bitter divorce they are going through. Travel between the countries is now hard and sanctions seem to suit the mood of both sides. This is unlikely to change as there is no motivation for it. Washington wants Russia out of Europe’s economy and Russia is benefitting from the economic isolation that sanctions offer. It’s a win-win as is.

  There is really nothing of any substance that could change thanks to this meeting. The only possible major result is that yet again Moscow will “step on the same rake” as they say in Russian and buy into the empty good feelings that Anglo-Saxons naturally project. Russians believe that people who smile too often are pathetic, stupid and generally harmless. U.S. politicians have unknowingly been able to use the advantage of seeming like naive trustable twits during negotiations for decades. The other issue is that Russians cannot and will not accept the fact that the West sees them and Second-World Second-Class Humans and any deals made with barbarians or bushmen do not count. Ask the Native Americans about the value of treaties with Washington.

  The only gains at this meeting that can be made are of an emotional nature to the advantage of the U.S. as the Russians have been suckered in time and time again. For the Russians to resist this they need to “call a spade a spade” at every moment, while being interruptive, rude and in general spoiling any Anglo-Saxon snake oil sales pitches that come up. The Russian desire for social acceptance is its greatest weakness in these sorts of scenarios. But hopefully, finally, they have learned their lesson.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 02:00

• The Wizard Of Oz: The Dark Reality That The Deep State Hides From The World
  The Wizard Of Oz: The Dark Reality That The Deep State Hides From The World

  Authored by Andrew Korybko via OneWorld.press,

  The world’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep states”) together with their perception managers in the Mainstream Media and the education system are hiding a very dark reality from everyone that’s much more nefarious than what the Wizard of Oz hid from Dorothy.

  

  The “Deep State”

  Nothing is ever as it seems, especially when it comes to the modern world in which everyone lives. “There Are No Democracies Or Autocracies, Only Governments”, I wrote last week, and they’re all comprised of permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies, or “deep states”, which handle matters largely considered (whether rightly or wrongly) to be beyond the responsibility of the average citizen. This power structure is allied with influential perception managers in the Mainstream Media and the education system in order to hide a very dark reality from everyone that’s much more nefarious than what the Wizard of Oz hid from Dorothy. Supporters might say that “it’s better this way” since “society needs to be controlled” whereas critics claim that this is highly manipulative and against people’s fundamental human rights. Whichever side of the divide one falls on, there’s no denying that the real world is much worse than the average person thought.

  “Bread & Circuses”

  All people across the world are strongly encouraged by their governments to go about their daily lives and behave as economically productive and socially responsible citizens. To this end, they’re distracted with “bread and circuses” by being kept above the minimum subsistence level at the very least and pressured to focus more on their personal pursuit of happiness than everyone else’s. The exception of course is those who show a sincere interest in how the world works and are considered by the so-called “powers that be” as “ideologically reliable” after years of relevant indoctrination in the higher education system. This elite category of citizens learns how the world really operates after getting to peek behind the curtain ahead of actually getting to play a direct role of some sort in managing this secret state of affairs. Sometimes average people learn about the truth on their own or through whistleblowers, but it mostly remains obscured.

  Information Warfare

  The system upholds itself by obsessively discrediting those intrepid enough to research its inner workings and publicly share their findings as so-called “conspiracy theorists”, “foreign agents”, or whatever else. That’s not to say that there’s no such thing as factually unsubstantiated speculation that can legitimately be described as a conspiracy theory or that foreign powers aren’t infiltrating society through actual agents and even those of so-called “influence” (the latter of which may not even be conscious of the role that they’re playing), but just to point out the techniques used to discredit those who occasionally break through the “deep state’s” informational firewall in order to enlighten the masses about what’s really going on. In fact, different countries’ media outlets are presently waging an intense information war against one another’s target audiences in order to convince them that their own “deep states” are lying to them, which adds a hybrid dimension to all of this.

  The New Cold War

  Behind the “glitz and glamour” of the “everyday life” that most people have been misled by the “deep state” and its perception management allies into believing is “real”, the world has actually been in the midst of a New Cold War since long before its seemingly official commencement in 2014 following the US’ simultaneous attempt to more openly “contain” Russia and China in Eastern Europe (Ukraine) and Southeast Asia (the South China Sea). This is also taking place against the backdrop of profound civilizational changes in the information-communication, military technology, economic-industrial, and healthcare fields that will fundamentally revolutionize life as everyone knows it. In fact, the COVID-19 pandemic (regardless of whether one believes it’s real, fake, or exaggerated) ushered in a new era whereby “deep states” across the world are now actively working to indoctrinate everyone into accepting this “new normal” that was already a long time coming.

  The Truth About US-Chinese Relations

  For starters, the post-Old Cold War system of American-led unipolarity was structurally unsustainable as proven by historical precedent. It ended a lot sooner than its most passionate supporters expected due to the US’ inadvertent subsidization of China’s unprecedented historic rise as a result of its leaders’ self-interested economic motives that are nowadays dishonestly dismissed as so-called “misplaced optimism” over that country’s supposedly “inevitable liberalization” via trade with time. Although some elements of the US’ “deep state” consistently sought to subvert and ultimately destroy China as they’d attempted to do since the 1989 Tienanmen Square Color Revolution, they failed to succeed both because of their target’s structural resilience and the lack of support from America’ economic and political elite that had an interest in indefinitely profiting from China’s astronomical rise.

  Reinterpreting Russia’s Role

  As for Russia, it was never the “anti-Western Phoenix” that both its top foreign supporters and detractors alike misportrayed it as for different reasons, but always sought to incorporate itself into the larger Western-led world, albeit in a manner that preserved as much of its sovereignty as possible. This was unacceptable for the West which demanded full submission, especially to the diktats of hyper-liberalism in both the economic and social senses, which prompted President Putin to proudly resist these efforts while nevertheless always keeping his country’s olive branch extended. Russia simply wanted to carve out its own comfortable niche in the US’ “New World Order”instead of reattempting to following in its predecessor state’s revolutionary footsteps by pioneering an entirely new one. The public friction between the US’ unipolar demands and Russia’s multipolar vision was responsible for the world finally beginning to realize that a New Cold War was afoot by 2007-2008.

  Great Power Competition

  Trump’s much-hyped “trade war” with China was really just him trying to revert back to “the good ‘ole days” of the pre-globalizatiion era, though of course modified a bit to accommodate for some of the irreversible processes that had since unfolded across the world in the decades since the US-Chinese detente of the late 1970s changed the very nature of the global economy. He also more confidently popularized the notion of the New Cold War by openly embracing Great Power competition, which never actually went away since the end of the Old Cold War but the illusion thereof was simply a masterful means for managing the perceptions of the global population by getting them to focus less on international affairs and more on the plethora of “bread and circuses” that were produced since 1991. Trump’s vision also aligned with the irreversible trend of multipolarity, accelerated as it was by the US’ own missteps of the prior decades, which “normalized” the New Cold War.

  The Military-Industrial Complex

  Amidst all of this and even arguably preceding it for quite some time already, the Great Powers (first and foremost among them the US, China, Russia) were already intensely competing in multiple domains, with only the economic one emphasized in the public sphere (and even that wasn’t even widely recognized until Trump’s presidency). Militarily, all of them continued to develop new weapons systems, including missile defense shields, hypersonic missiles to piece the former, drones, and space weapons. Their military-industrial complexes have been working on such munitions for a long time already, and the rare instances in which the public accidentally caught sight of them were conveniently described as so-called “UFO sightings” in order to distract the masses from what was really going on. Everyone was aware of this arms race during the Old Cold War, but it became taboo to talk about after 1991, though that’s recently changing since it’s becoming impossible to deny.

  The Information-Communication Industry

  The other trend that took place during these decades was in the information-communication industry. The global spread of the internet gave certain countries like the US a strategic edge, especially in intelligence collection, though that’s now being challenged by China’s cutting-edge technological developments and its much more affordable competitive products. The controversial concept of 5G is just the latest stage of this game. It basically functions as the means for managing the “Internet of Things” (IoT), which will further enhance its pioneers’ strategic edge. Although there are reportedly serious health risks associated with it, the nature of the New Cold War is such that no actor can afford to delay this technology’s development out of fear of irredeemably falling behind its “peer competitors”. The hullabaloo about Huawei and other Chinese tech companies is simply a public cover for justifying the US’ power moves against its top technological competitor.

  The “Fourth Industrial Revolution”/”Great Reset”

  The IoT will facilitate the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (4IR), which will totally transform mankind’s economic-industrial relations considering the increased dependence on autonomous systems. This project was already proceeding apace prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the virus (again, whether or not one believes it’s real, fake, or exaggerated) served as the pretext to accelerate its rollout across the world in the most dramatic way possible via what’s now widely regarded as the “Great Reset” (GR). The resultant outcome will necessitate greater state intervention in the economy in order to subsidize the newly unemployed masses, which will resemble a comparatively more “socialist” system, even if only imperfectly/superficially Some might even describe the state-corporate partnerships that emerge from them as being more akin to “economic fascism”, which hints at a worldwide competition between “socialist” and “fascist” systems in the future.

  COVID-19 Vaccines

  Regardless of the semantics that one uses, there’s also no denying that mankind itself might be somewhat genetically different in this dark future than it presently is as a result of the experimental gene therapies that are being pushed upon hundreds of millions of people under the pretext of serving as vaccines against COVID-19. There are high hopes that mRNA technology might truly achieve miracles like curing cancer if responsibly utilized, but such technology requires many more years of testing before it has a credible chance of changing the world for the better with the lowest amount of risk possible The COVID-19 pandemic has been exploited by Big Pharma in order to test these treatments in real-time on the largest number of people in order to accelerate this technology’s development considering the competitive context of the New Cold War. The West was already far ahead in this field, hence why most of its vaccines are mRNA ones unlike the non-West’s.

  “Collateral Damage”

  It can’t be known for sure, but Big Pharma (and presumably also its “deep state” backers) probably only sought to experiment on hundreds of millions of people in such a deceptive way because they sincerely thought (whether rightly or wrongly) that the consequences are minimal and that the “collateral damage” can therefore be “manageable”. They might truly believe that any long-term health problems that these experimental gene therapies contentiously marketed as vaccines might cause could in theory be treatable within the next decade following the quantum leap that this technology might make by then as a result of this ongoing real-life mass testing. This line of thinking presupposes that the symptoms of such speculative problems might not occur until the next decade, which is of course a risky bet to make and arguably unethical if that’s the case since those being experimented on “in the name of the greater good” might not be aware of it and thus didn’t consent.

  Genetic Engineering

  To expand a bit more on the topic of vaccines, it’s questionable whether the mRNA COVID-19 ones even present a viable solution to the pandemic (again, whether or not one believes that it’s real, fake, or exaggerated). After all, COVID-19 no longer exists in its “pure” form after having evolved countless times into new strains which might be impossible to perfectly vaccinate against anyhow. This means that the experimental gene therapies that many people have already taken might actually be redundant, ergo the need for more vaccines to supposedly counter forthcoming strains, which in turn actually leads to more real-life testing for Big Pharma to accelerate the perfection of this technology ahead of its foreign competitors. Once that happens, genetic engineering could even lead to “super soldiers” and human-animal hybrids (“chimeras”).

  The “Green” (“Depopulation”) Agenda

  The other dark reality hidden from the public eye by the “deep state’s” perception management operations pertains to the speculative campaign of “depopulation”. There’s no denying that there are some influential forces who are in favor of this for ideological (“green”) and “pragmatic” (“overpopulation”) reasons (especially in the context of the unfolding 4IR/GR), but it’s unclear whether the ongoing mass vaccination of hundreds of millions of people with experimental mRNA gene therapies is part of this, at least directly. While nobody knows for sure what the affect will be on fertility, it can reasonably be discounted that these treatments are meant to kill off many people in the near future. After all, despite the 4IR/GR, the “deep state” still requires a tax base and some human labor to build the “new economy’s” machines. Considering the fact that so many younger people have already been vaccinated, it’s unrealistic that they’d kill off their most promising labor pool.

  Trump Spills The Beans

  In any case, the global public must become aware of the so-called “green agenda”, which is also part and parcel of the earlier mentioned trend towards comparatively more “socialist”/”fascist” economic systems. The climate is veritably changing regardless of whatever one attributes this to, be it mankind and/or natural cycles, but every “deep state” has an inherent interest in exploiting this to enhance its power over the population. That’s not to say that every member thereof is doing so for “evil purposes” since many might sincerely believe that it’s for the “greater good” however they rationalize it, but this dynamic is undeniable. Former US President Trump did a lot to popularize awareness of this and some of the other trends that were earlier discussed, which he did on his own prerogative but in a way which greatly upset most of the world’s “deep states”, including his own. This explains the universal revulsion that they had for him.

  QAnon & “5D Chess” Canard

  In their minds, Trump wasn’t supposed to “spill the beans” about the way that the world really works since he wasn’t supposed to have been elected in the first place. The “deep state” made sure by hook or by crook that he wouldn’t win a second term and thus stand a greater chance of reforming some of their forthcoming governance plans in the context of the “4IR/GR” (“socialism”/”fascism”). Furthermore, they feared that he could inspire the most passionate members of the population to peacefully exercise their political rights through rallies and the like in an attempt to meaningfully change the situation, even if only by publicly showing how popular his envisioned future was among the masses. The response to this “threat” was the QAnon movement which sought to preemptively neutralize these forces by capturing their minds through the manipulative narrative constructive of “5D chess”, which is just a coping mechanism for dealing with reality.

  The Hybrid War Of Terror On America

  That said reality is that Trump was basically “a king without a country” since the most powerful elements of his “deep state” continued to oppose him at every twist and turn, thereby sabotaging his envisioned policies. Instead of peacefully rallying in his support when he needed it most, his top supporters were brainwashed into thinking that “he had it all under control” and that every objectively existing setback was really just a “masterful 5D chess move”. By surrendering the streets, they facilitated the kinetic phase of the “deep state’s” decades-long Hybrid War of Terror on America via Antifa and “Black Lives Matter” (BLM), which paved the way for the dystopian hellhole that Biden’s presently presiding over as that same “deep state’s” puppet. The only “storm” that ever arrived was the “deep state’s” on election day. The successful anti-Trump regime change sequence led to the “swamp” finally swallowing him and Biden’s “Cyber Stasi” suppressing most subsequent digital dissent.

  Social Media Censorship

  The digital dimension is so important too because it’s the only realistic “commons” in which meaningful opposition to these trends can be organized, but it’s now almost entirely under the “deep state’s” control with few exceptions (like Russia’s VK). The pretext for seizing control over this domain was to stop any repeat of the 6 January events as well as reduce the chances of actual foreign meddling in the US’ domestic processes via Hybrid War means. About the latter, this threat veritably exists but not to the extent that the “deep state” claimed. It’s already done the exact same to countless other countries and much more effectively than they could ever do to the US, but the “deep state” fears the introduction and proliferation of “politically inconvenient” narratives into the American political conversation, hence the need to so aggressively censor social media. To be fair, other countries are implementing similar policies for the same security-centric reasons.

  People=Pawns?

  What most folks don’t realize is that they’re really just pawns in a global game between competing “socialist”/”fascist” “deep states” as part of the New Cold War. Their individual views don’t matter so long as they keep them to themselves, but they become “troublesome” once they’re shared with others and might eventually influence a larger change in socio-economic and/or especially political behavior (e.g. voting patterns, provoking protests, etc.). It’s one thing to “know the truth” as one understands it to be (whether realized on one’s own and/or due to the influence of whatever they come across on the Internet, including that which is shared with them by foreign parties, be it state or civilian), and another entirely to actually act upon it in a peaceful way within the legal limits of their respective constitutions, many of which at least in the West superficially respect the right to the freedoms of speech and assembly.

  Reality Check

  In fact, this very analysis will probably only at most make “fellow travelers” feel like they’re not alone or “crazy” as opposed to having any meaningful effect on shaping the course of events. Be that as it may, everyone deserves to learn how the world really operates, even if only to be at peace with how powerless they might actually be if that’s what makes them feel a bit better. Others might be inspired to share this insight with others in the hopes that enough people can eventually come together to peacefully express their constitutionally enshrined rights in a last-ditch attempt to at least slow down the implementation of the “4IR/GR”. This is especially so with respect to raising awareness of the speculative risks associated with volunteering oneself to be a guinea pig for “deep state”-backed Big Pharma’s massive gene therapy experiment designed to give their government a strategic edge in the New Cold War at the arguable expense of their citizens’ human rights.

  Welcome To World War C

  The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in what can be described as World War C, or the full-spectrum paradigm-changing processes catalyzed by the world’s uncoordinated attempt to contain the virus (again, whether or not one believes that it’s real, fake, or exaggerated). All preexisting trends are now being accelerated and compressed, including the geopolitical, military, economic-industrial, information-communication, healthcare (genetic engineering), governmental (“socialist/”fascist”), and “green” (“depopulation”) ones. This means that everyone is truly living in an unprecedented era of history whereby literally everything about life as they know it will be completely different within a decade. The very nature of international, economic, civil-state, and even human-to-human relations is transforming at a record pace, with folks either choosing to remain asleep like the “deep state” wants or wake up and peacefully try to stop them if it’s even at all still possible to do so.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 06/14/2021 – 00:00

• These Are The Nicest New Cars The Average Buyer In Each State Can Afford
  These Are The Nicest New Cars The Average Buyer In Each State Can Afford

  Like homes, new cars have become prohibitively expensive in 2021 as a shortage of critical microprocessors has forced millions of Americans to instead settle for a used car. Unfortunately, Americans have generally been forced to pay more for used cars, leaving some workers overburdened with their car loans and insurance payments.

  

  For Americans who are looking for a used car and would like some guidance, Zippia.com recently crunched the numbers using the average income and most common financing structure in each state, and figured out what they claim is “the nicest new car that is affordable in each state.”

  It’s certainly an interesting claim. Here are the ten most expensive cars from the company’s list.

  10 Most Expensive Cars:

  • Hawaii – 2021 Tesla Model S
  • California – 2021 Volvo S90 T8 Recharge
  • Massachusetts – 2021 Audi Q5
  • Colorado – 2020 Mercedes-Benz C-Class
  • Washington – 2021 Buick Enclave
  • Oregon – 2021 Lexus NX
  • New York – 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLA-class
  • New Jersey – 2021 BMW 2-Series Gran Coupe
  • Maryland – 2021 Toyota Sienna
  • Utah – 2021 Mazda CX-9

  And the 10 cheapest cars:

  • Arkansas – 2021 Chevrolet Spark LS
  • West Virginia – 2020 Nissan Versa
  • Mississippi – 2021 Hyundai Accent
  • Oklahoma – 2021 Mitsubishi Mirage ES
  • Indiana – 2021 Kia Rio Sedan
  • Ohio – 2020 Honda Fit
  • Kentucky – 2020 Honda Fit
  • Iowa – 2021 Nissan Versa
  • Alabama – 2021 Nissan Versa
  • Kansas – 2021 Kia Soul

  Here’s how Zippia came to these conclusions.

  We started with average salary in each state to US Census. We then divided by 12 for the monthly income.

  From there, we applied a 65 month loan (the most common) and 4.67% interest (current average car interest rate) to work out the maximum monthly payment the average salary could sustain without exceeding 10%.

  It is recommended by financial advisors that no one have debt payments greater than 36% on total debt servicing. More specifically, it is recommended that car payments and car costs (including gas, maintenance, taxes and other costs) not exceed 20% of your income.

  With this in mind, we conservatively allotted a max of 10% of monthly income to account for miscellaneous costs.

  From there we used Kelly Blue Book to find the “nicest” (or most expensive) new car that budget could afford.

  We tried to get as close as possible, opting to go lower when possible rather than exceeding (and only exceeding by a couple 100 dollars when we did go over). This means, particularly lower cost cars where there are less options, some states share a car type.

  Keep reading to see the full list– and the car price that breaks the bank for each state.

  Don’t break the bank to buy a car:

  Ultimately, personal finances are personal. Someone with excessive student loans, heavy credit card debt, or incoming consuming mortgage, would need a lower car payment.

  Before purchasing a car, you should carefully consider your present day circumstances and future goals.

  Readers can find the full list here.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 23:30

• Financial Blowout Ahead: Lobotomized Economists Clash On The Deck Of The Titanic
  Financial Blowout Ahead: Lobotomized Economists Clash On The Deck Of The Titanic

  Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  Under the new world order of “stakeholder capitalism” citizens will learn to own nothing and be happy…

  

  As the geniuses running the western financial bubble sometimes called an “economy” continue to double down on their obsession to pump a dead financial system with ever more trillions in stimulus spending, arguments are raging among brainwashed economists living in denial over the oncoming systemic collapse. The thought of engineers on the Titanic passionately arguing over whether they should accelerate or decelerate the speed of the boat whose hull has long been torn to shreds by an iceberg comes to mind.

  On one side of the debate, figures like U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Fed Chair Jerome Powell champion an emerging new wave of high interests as “a plus for society’s point of view” in order to counteract the increasing rates of inflation sweeping across every sector of the economy. This camp asserts that this spike in interest rates should not be done immediately however, and only begin in 2023, and until then interest rates should be kept at near zero percent.

  On the other side of the debate, economists among Germany’s largest bank scream that waiting until 2023 is deadly. Not a second should be lost before increasing interest rates now in order to stop a “time bomb” from destroying both the USA and the world. On June 7, Deutsche Bank Chief Economist David Folkerts-Landau wrote passionately that Washington’s decision to wait until 2023 before raising interest rates “could create a significant recession and set off a chain of financial distresses around the world” leading to “a time bomb” waiting to explode… unless interest rates were hiked up to 20% just as they had been done in 1980 by then Fed Chairman Paul Volcker which saw interest rates collapse from 12.5% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1982.

  Both sides however, are either completely ignorant or outright liars trying to distract citizens and policy makers from the real systemic nature of the oncoming meltdown that can only be dealt with if certain fundamental facts of recent history are kept in mind.

  Why is Inflation going to Skyrocket?

  Since a pandemic induced nations to lockdown their economies, rescue packages and unlimited money printing to keep people from literally starving, and banks from collapsing has become a new normal. $24 trillion dollars in COVID related debts have been generated internationally, while U.S. Federal Reserve balance sheets have doubled over the same period to $8 trillion with increasing rates of liquidity injections flushed into the Too Big to Fail banks since September 2019. So far, consumer price inflation has risen by 4.2% in 12 months, but based on the obvious reality of $28 trillion of totally unpayable U.S. debt, sustaining a $1.2 quadrillion derivatives bubble time bomb alongside the breakdown of supply chains and a dysfunctional green infrastructure program pushed by Biden, the runaway threat of inflation and even hyperinflation is firmly (or should be) on everyone’s mind.

  Now if Deutsche Bank’s Folkerts-Landau was talking about the insane money printing disassociated from any systemic restructuring of the over-bloated Too Big to Fail zombie banks or serious recovery program, then he should be applauded for raising the spectre of unbounded inflation. His nation did after all have a direct experience with this disastrous policy back in 1923 when hyperinflation tore the German economy to shreds and set the stage for the rise of Nazism shortly thereafter.

  

  Sadly, both Folkerts-Landau and Yellen are instead pushing policies that will not only accelerate hyperinflation a century after Weimar, but usher in a new central bankers’ dictatorship that had only been subverted in 1933 due to the fortuitous intervention of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt.

  So What Did Volcker Do?

  Since economists are told repeatedly that Volcker’s interest rate hikes of 1979-1982 saved the U.S. economy, let’s look at what really happened and why Volcker described his philosophy as a “controlled disintegration”.

  While inflation did indeed spread across the USA in the 1970s, it is worth asking: why did this actually happen and did Volcker’s reforms have anything to do with solving that problem? Or did both the problem and its nominal solution drive a singular agenda of controlled destruction of the USA now playing out four decades later?

  For one, the shift away from industrial long term development with the 1971 floating of the U.S. dollar off of the gold reserve standard went a long way to turning a once-forward thinking productive, manufacturing-driven economy into a consumer cult, post-industrial waste. This “post industrial” age was characterized by outsourced industries relying ever more on increased rates of imports of things the USA once made for itself. A FIRE economy (of Finance, Insurance and Real Estate speculation) increasingly took over the once powerful manufacturing sector.

  

  Agro-Industrial production was replaced by service sector jobs as the USA became ever more reliant on cheap imports made from China, Mexico and other poor nations who were expected to remain labor intensive sweat shops for eternity.

  

  This detachment of the “valuation” of the dollar from all physical measurable standards went a long way to killing the buying power and raising inflation as monetary circulation increased ever more by speculation on oil, currencies or other goods that often had no connection with reality. Investment rates into cutting edge science both in the atomic realm of fusion and the macro realm of space exploration were cut off drastically (see graphs) as general vital infrastructure maintenance and improvement collapsed drastically across all OECD nations trapped in the “new post-industrial normal”.

  

  

  Non-military related science R & D also saw a collapse during this period from 2.5% of GDP in 1971 to a mere 0.4% of GDP in 2020 (see graph).

  

  Deregulation and market liberalization castrated the role of the sovereign nation state ever more from 1971 onward, as “laissez faire” policies dominated a once-protectionist landscape. Rather than continuing the successful practice of “parity pricing” which defined the real growth of western nations during the 25 post-WW2 years, the markets run by speculators looking only towards maximizing profit defined the prices of goods.

  Last but not least, oil price increases of 400% during the 1973 OPEC crisis is admitted to have played a big role driving the 1973-79 inflation, but as researcher William Engdahl demonstrated in his 1992 Century of Oil, then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had more of a role in manufacturing this crisis from scratch by keeping hundreds of tankers replete with petrol from being unloaded in the USA and facilitating the 400% increase with the assistance of several high level oil ministers in the Middle East beholden to Kissinger. In recent years, Saudi Arabia’s former OPEC minister at the time corroborated Engdahl’s research stating:

  “I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.”

  Putting the Trilateral Commission into Perspective

  This shift of the U.S. economy from its former role as an industrial producer economy to a consumer cult of speculation and monetarism was accompanied by a broader international shift then being orchestrated by a cabal of misanthropic technocrats managing an organization known as the Trilateral Commission founded in 1973 by Chase Manhattan President David Rockefeller III and a sociopathic grand strategist named Zbigniew Brzsinski.

  The aim of the Trilateral Commission was to destroy the sovereign manufacturing base of both the USA and international developing sector alike.

  For anyone who might consider this paranoid “conspiracy theorizing”, it is useful to be reminded that among the highest echelons of the U.S. executive branch under President Carter included members such as Brzezinski, Walter Mondale (Vice President), Harold Brown (Defense Secretary), Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State), Michael Blumenthal (Treasury Secretary), James Schlesinger (Energy Czar) and Paul Volcker himself as Fed Chair. Henry Kissinger was also a leading member of this group.

  Among the many goals of the Trilateral Commission laid out Brzezinski in his 1970 Manifesto “Between Two Ages” was the need to drive the transition of society towards what Brzezinski referred to as the “technetronic era” saying:

  “The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”

  During a 1975 Trilateral Commission study called Crisis in Democracy, overseen by Zbigniew, Clash of Civilizations ideologue Samuel Huntington wrote: “we have come to recognize that there are potential desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of democracy… a government which lack authority will have little ability to impose on its people the sacrifices that will be necessary”.

  So what sort of sacrifices did these Trilateral Commission technocrats think necessary in a healthy society liberated from its foolish belief in scientific and technological progress that animated the policy outlook of such rifraf as Franklin Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, Charles De Gaulle or Bobby Kennedy?

  This is where Volcker steps in.

  The Meaning of ‘Controlled Disintegration’

  In 1978, faced with unbounded inflation, Paul Volcker spoke at a conference at Warwick University London stating that “a controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate object in the 1980s”.

  Upon ascending to the chair of the Fed a year later, he wasted no time in applying this program. Not only did he render available credit impossible for many small and medium enterprises by raising interest rates to 20%, Volcker also ensured that third world nations then being sucked back into a neocolonial debt slavery under the IMF and World Bank economic hitmen, would be sucked into ever greater rates of unpayable debts as a new form of slavery. Between 1979-1982, third world debt skyrocketed from 40-70% across the board leading to a major debt crisis.

  During this period U.S. agricultural output collapsed, metal cutting machine tools fell by 45%, automobile production fell by 44.3% and steel production fell by 49.4% as bankruptcies skyrocketed leaving only mega-corporations strong enough to pay the draconian rates while absorbing small bankrupted companies and farms like a modern day Borg consuming ever greater rates of cheap labor and cheap resources from poor nations.

  To understand how these countries remained poor and exploitable, one need only visit the Malthusian State Department/CIA Report authored by Henry Kissinger in 1974 called NSSM-200 that called for a total depopulation program targeting 14 poor nations then desirous of industrial growth. Those targeted included India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. Kissinger’s logic was simple: If these nations develop, their populations will grow. If their populations grow they will use their resources. BUT since it is in the strategic interests of the USA to use those resources, these nations must be kept down.

  Nationalist leaders among those target nations who had a different idea were targeted for assassination or regime change throughout the 1980s.

  Back in the USA, Paul Volcker additionally took aim at commercial banks by forcing vast increases in reserve requirements making lending additionally difficult (although speculation in investment banks were facilitated with the Garn-St. Germaine Act of 1982). This act and accompanying financial de-regulation during this period of “Reaganomics” led the way to the new age of universal banking beginning with Thatcher’s Big Bang in 1986, the end of Canada’s Four Pillars that same year and finally the killing of Glass-Steagall in 1999. The dream of social Darwinists of an unregulated world of each against all where only the strongest and fittest and most sociopathic survive was now real. In the Soviet Union, this process of nation stripping and deregulation that took decades to wreck havoc on western economies was accelerated in the space of a decade of shock therapy. In China, where agents of Soros and the CIA like Zhao Ziyang (Prime Minister and CCP General Secretary from 1987-89) attempted to impose liberalizing reforms like a Chinese Gorbachev, the rape was luckily stopped before a Russian model could be imposed.

  With Glass-Steagall out of the way, commercial and investment banks could unite to form “the ultimate, all-powerful, many-headed financial conglomerate” as outlined by Lord Jacob Rothschild in 1983 (2).

  In 2001, as Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Islamicist monstrosity created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan had been incubated throughout the 1990s, a new program of never-ending wars in the Middle East was launched. While the Middle East was turned inside out under a new age of war, the financial services sector avoided several near blowouts in 1997, 1998 and 2000 (with the collapse of the dot com/Y2K bubble). This was done by deregulating over-the-counter derivatives which turned a $70 trillion time bomb (in 2001) into a $650 trillion time bomb in 2008 when the housing market collapsed.

  

  While opportunities then existed to impose Glass-Steagall and break up the banks as had been done earlier by FDR in 1933, hyperinflationary money printed was chosen instead resulting in another 12 years of insanity as the bubble continued to expand and the physical economic productive base continued to atrophy.

  Today, we sit on not one bubble concentrated in housing prices, or oil, or currencies, but rather a multitude of bubbles in literally everything from commodities, bitcoin, housing, commercial real estate, bundled student debts, automotive loans, and the over-valued U.S. currency itself.

  The COVID Pandemic did not “cause” the current systemic crisis as many fools have parroted for over a year, but has merely served as cover to obscure the real systemic causes of the long-awaited collapse and accelerate the controlled disintegration of the system as the world is prepared to transition into a “new technetronic age” which has come to be dubbed a “Great Reset” or “Fourth Industrial Revolution”.

  We are told by the likes of Klaus Schwab, or World Economic Forum trustees Mark Carney, Christine Lagarde, and Chrystia Freeland that the age of free market capitalism which reined from 1971-2020 has come to an end, and that a new epoch of “green finance” under a decarbonizing world is upon us. Under this new world order of “stakeholder capitalism” citizens will learn to own nothing and be happy, while polluting companies who commit climate sins will be choked of all credit.

  As former Bank of England head Mark Carney recently wrote of the new age of “net zero” in his new book Values Building a Better World for All, (which many of recognized as a precursor to his replacement for Canada’s Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister):

  “It could be generations before the gains of the fourth industrial revolution are widely shared. In the interim, there could be a long period of technological unemployment sharply rising inequalities and intensifying social unrest”.

  Klaus Schwab has publicly fantasized of this new age of human-machine merging of microchipped brains interfacing with the global net, and Tony Blair has giddily said that “vaccination is, in the end, going to be your route to liberty”.

  So, while that story might sound a tad bleak, there remains only tiny obstacle to the successful implementation of this anti-human program.

  This obstacle is located in the Greater Eurasian Partnership led by Russia and China and joined by 135 nations of the world that have signed onto the Belt and Road Initiative. These are nations who would rather have a multipolar future vectored around large scale industrial growth than be sacrificed on the alter of Gaia by a technocratic neo-Malthusian priesthood. This multipolar paradigm operates under a financial and geopolitical philosophy at total odds with the closed, entropic obsession of the forces associated with Kissinger, Blair, Carney or Schwab, and that is a very good thing not only for the Eurasian world, but for nationalist forces within the west as well.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 23:00

• Indian Officials Demolish 'Corona Mata Temple' In Crackdown On COVID Superstition
  Indian Officials Demolish ‘Corona Mata Temple’ In Crackdown On COVID Superstition

  While India is dealing with “scientists” allegedly lying and cheating over COVID cures, officials in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh have demolished a shrine dedicated to a coronavirus-inspired goddess, reportedly due to concerns about dubious claims of health benefits linked to the unorthodox religious site.

  

  Last week, we saw The Indian Bar Association serve a legal notice (pdf) on World Health Organization’s (WHO) Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan on May 25, claiming that she was “spreading disinformation and misguiding the people of India, in order to fulfill her agenda” and sought to prevent her from “causing further damage.”

  But, with “science” being questioned for its political bias worldwide, residents of a village near the city of Pratapgarh constructed a temple allowing devotees to seek the healing powers of “Mother Corona” as they battle the virus. 

  

  “Villagers collectively set up the temple with the belief that praying to the deity would definitely offer respite to people suffering from Covid-19,” one local told Indian news agency ANI.

  As RT reports, the shrine is composed of a mask-clad statue set behind a yellow backdrop. Devotees brought yellow flowers as offerings to the goddess, but were not allowed to touch the statue, according to local media reports.

  According to the Times of India, police and regional officials dismantled the temple several days after it was unveiled in order to “discourage superstition” about the virus among villagers.

  Ironically, places in India where Ivermectin is used preventatively or as early treatment, such as Goa and Uttar Pradesh, are seeing COVID-19 cases declining versus states that have banned the drug.

  “Every one of those states, the curves are now precipitously declining,” said Dr. Pierre Kory, President and Chief Medical Officer of the FLCCC Alliance.

  “But there’s a state in India called Tamil Nadu whose minister there basically effectively outlawed ivermectin… [and] the cases and deaths in that state are skyrocketing,” he added.

  According to data by the Johns Hopkins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering, Tamil Nadu saw 20,421 new cases and 434 deaths on June 6, while Goa recorded 403 new cases and 16 deaths, and Uttar Pradesh reported 1,037 cases and 85 deaths.

  Uttar Pradesh, one of the most populous states in India with over 200 million people, has been handing out free medical kits containing seven days’ worth of medication, one of which is ivermectin, for COVID-19 positive patients under home isolation.

  So – was it the ivermectin… or the Corona-Mata Temple that saved the people of Uttar Pradesh?

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 22:30

• Bombs In Paradise: How Hawaii Is Fast Becoming The Most Militarized Place On Earth
  Bombs In Paradise: How Hawaii Is Fast Becoming The Most Militarized Place On Earth

  Authored by Brad Wolf via WorldBeyondWar.org,

  The United States Army plans to build an enormous weapons facility storing stockpiles of conventional warheads and explosives right next to the residential housing communities of Ewa Beach, Ewa Villages, West Loch Estates, and Ewa Gentry, as well as beside the Pearl Harbor National Wildlife Refuge in Hawaii. This Pacific island paradise already has the largest concentration of United States military bases and compounds in the country, making it one of the most militarized places on earth. Were it to secede from the Union, Hawaii would be a major military power on a global scale. And now, more weapons are on the way. A lot more.

  The size, scope, and expense of this massive construction project must be considered, as well as the immediate danger placed on the residents of the surrounding communities. Equally important is whether the pre-positioning of such massive amounts of live warheads and munitions is in the interest and safety of the American public. Pre-positioning means ready to use. Locked and loaded. We’re off to war. This decreases the time for diplomacy and increases the likelihood of the weapons’ use. Do we really want to stockpile yet more weapons on this over-militarized island in preparation for the next big war? Is this a prudent strategy, or rash and perilous behavior?

  

  In a 164 page report written by the Department of the Navy for the Army, titled :Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) For The U.S. Army West Loch Ordnance Facilities At Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickman (JBPHH), Oahu, Hawaii,” the Navy states this project will include 27 new box type “D” magazines, eight modular storage magazines, administrative and operational facilities, accessory roads and concrete pads, utility service and distribution, site drainage, security features, and fire lines. For the record, a box type “D” magazine has an estimated footprint of 8,000 square feet. Again, there will be 27 of these. An 86,000 square-foot vehicle holding yard, a 50,000 square-foot vehicle inspection area, and a 20,000 square-foot residue storage warehouse are among the other larger items to be built.

  Despite this massive construction project, the Navy asserts no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative environmental impact to the area. The Navy then doubles-down on the absurdity, stating the proposed facility would actually result in beneficial impacts to public health and safety, an interesting argument for the storage of millions of pounds of explosive materials not more than a half mile from a housing development.

  The report continues in the same vein using language meant to be innocuous and reasonable, but which is deadly serious, by arguing the massive weapons complex will cause no impact to cultural resources, biological resources, socioeconomic conditions, and minimal impact to land use. The Department of the Interior even signed off on the environmental impact argument, thereby proving the obvious, that all branches of the government work for the Pentagon.

  Explosive munitions would be on and off-loaded at this site from a variety of ships, trucked and forklifted to warehouses, and then carted back to other ships ready for war. An accidental explosion would be devastating to these residential communities, carrying the potential to kill and injure hundreds. Homes, businesses, parks and schools all would be in the blast zone, or the “explosion arc.”

  

  Additionally, an accidental blast there could ignite even greater blasts at Pearl Harbor facilities and Hickam Field, a chain reaction of deadly explosions the Navy refers to as “sympathetic explosions.” The 1969 USS Enterprise fire near Pearl Harbor began when a Zuni rocket accidentally detonated under a plane’s wing and ignited additional munitions, blowing holes in the flight deck which allowed jet fuel to ignite the ship. Twenty-eight sailors were killed, 314 were injured, and 15 aircraft were destroyed at a cost of over $126 million. This accidental explosion occurred offshore and far away from residential neighborhoods. Such an explosion at this new facility would cause far greater loss of life and property.

  Especially noteworthy about this new weapons facility is the shortened safety distance between the bomb storage buildings and the residential population, less than a half mile from the new Ewa Gentry North Park housing development. Other storage facilities such as Indian Island in Washington State and the Earle Ammunition Loading facility in New Jersey have far greater explosion arcs, while the Army MOTSU site in North Carolina has a 3.5 mile explosion arc. The recent accidental explosion in Beirut, Lebanon, though not of military munitions, left a blast zone of 6.2 miles. The data used to calculate these explosion arcs is, according to the Navy, classified. Additionally, the types of ammunition and exclusive amounts to be stored are also classified. And so, explosion arc is a term whose actual meaning is held in close confidence by the Navy. Trust us, they say.

  At the end of their lengthy report, the Navy, not surprisingly, concludes there is no alternative but this. They have, so they argue, done their due diligence. Weapons must be brought here, a new facility must be built, there is no danger to the public or the environment. They are merely fulfilling their obligations under the law by planning, pre-positioning, and preparing for war. Rest assured, they seem to say, all is well. No reason to worry. You are in safe hands. The military is in control. Construction begins in 2022.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 22:00

• As G7 Communique Waters Down China Abuses, White House Preempts With Separate Statement
  As G7 Communique Waters Down China Abuses, White House Preempts With Separate Statement

  It appears the final G-7 communique on China was a bit watered down for Washington’s taste, after it become clear the Biden administration hoped to make the summit in Cornwall focused on China China China! …but the uncomfortable irony that remains is that the very parties at the G-7 table that are most reliant on Chinese trade (Europe) have proven themselves least willing to crack down on Beijing’s reach and influence. 

  A clearly softened (compared to US rhetoric of late) official communique issued at the G-7 close Sunday reads as follows: “With regard to China, and competition in the global economy, we will continue to consult on collective approaches to challenging non-market policies and practices which undermine the fair and transparent operation of the global economy.”

  And further in very dry bureaucratic tone, it states “In the context of our respective responsibilities in the multilateral system, we will cooperate where it is in our mutual interest on shared global challenges, in particular addressing climate change and biodiversity loss in the context of COP26 and other multilateral discussions.”

  

  …all leading to a highly “cushioned” G-7 conclusion on China’s human rights abuses: 

  At the same time and in so doing, we will promote our values, including by calling on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in relation to Xinjiang and those rights, freedoms and high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.

  France’s Macron is foremost among European leaders who has met Washington’s urgent call for a more muscular strategy to confront Beijing with a big yawn, as Politico this weekend noted:

  Macron’s zinger about differences over the Chinese military threat will help set the tone: “For my part, China isn’t part of the Atlantic geography, or perhaps my map is off.” But France is also pushing back against China’s fait accompli policy in the Indopacific, the French Defense Minister Florence Parly told me in May.

  In response to the muted G7 reaction to China human rights, the White House had actually released its own separate statement just ahead of the formal agreed upon communique.

  Or did he?… no:

  US President Biden persuades G7 to be more competitive towards China https://t.co/R7ycDcraD3

  — Mutlu Civiroglu (@mutludc) June 13, 2021

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

  The White House statement said,

  “The United States and our G7 partners remain deeply concerned by the use of all forms of forced labor in global supply chains, including state-sponsored forced labor of vulnerable groups and minorities and supply chains of the agricultural, solar, and garment sectors—the main supply chains of concern in Xinjiang” – in a clearly more direct statement containing a litany of specific Chinese violations.

  Blinken had earlier claimed “largely agreement” on China among G7 leaders in Cornwall… but the competing Sunday statements tell a different story.

  On reported tension between Pres. Biden and world leaders at the G7 summit on countering China’s global infrastructure initiatives, Sec. of State Antony Blinken tells @MarthaRaddatz: “What we have is largely agreement.” https://t.co/bRcR04cdtm pic.twitter.com/UyG3YXcVCb

  — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) June 13, 2021

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

  And about that “rival BRI” infrastructure plan…

  After 7 years of ignoring, mocking and demonizing China’s New Silk Road, the West now proposes its own infrastructure project. But it’s supposed to be funded by private firms. Good luck — they’re going to be tiny ones seeking short-term profits. #BRI https://t.co/FWEtfgajBo

  — Global Politics (@Geopol2030) June 12, 2021

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 21:30

• "Discrimination At The Hands Of Their Government": Another Federal Court Has Halted A Racially-Biased Federal Relief Program
  “Discrimination At The Hands Of Their Government”: Another Federal Court Has Halted A Racially-Biased Federal Relief Program

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  President Joe Biden is facing an embarrassing and growing problem as he continues to declare his focus on ending racial discrimination: another federal court appears close to ruling that his Administration is engaging in raw racial discrimination. Milwaukee District Judge William Griesbach issued a temporary restraining order in Wisconsin halting Biden’s controversial $4 billion race-based federal relief program for farmers.  The awarding of relief based on race immediately raised objections of racial discrimination. The ruling is based on the court’s view that the white farmers challenging the program are likely to prevail.

  

  The order was made in favor of twelve plaintiffs from nine different states who sued the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency to enjoin the Biden Administration from implementing a loan-forgiveness program for farmers and ranchers under Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). The program pays up to 120% of direct or guaranteed farm loan balances for Black, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian American or Pacific Islander farmers.

  As part of the ARPA, Congress appropriated “such sums as may be necessary” to pay for the cost of loan modifications and payments to “socially disadvantaged” farmers and ranchers. § 1005(a)(1). The term “socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher” is defined under 7 U.S.C. § 2279(a). § 1005(b)(3) as a farmer or rancher who is a member of a “socially disadvantaged group.” § 2279(a)(5).

  “Socially disadvantaged group” is then defined as “a group whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities.” § 2279(a)(6).

  The Biden Administration defines “socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher” to include individuals “who are one or more of the following: Black/African American, American Indian, Alaskan native, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, or Pacific Islander.” American Rescue Plan Debt Payments, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, available at https://www.farmers.gov /americanrescueplan (last visited June 7, 2021).

  The Court found that the program was unambiguously discriminatory since “the only consideration in determining whether a farmer or rancher’s loans should be completely forgiven is the person’s race or national origin.” As such, “Plaintiffs are excluded from the program based on their race and are thus experiencing discrimination at the hands of their government.”

  The Court found on the required compelling interest that the Administration failed to state a case:

  Here, Defendants lack a compelling interest for the racial classifications. Defendants assert that ‘Congress targeted the debt payments in Section 1005 to the minority groups that it determined had suffered discrimination in the USDA programs and that had been largely left out of recent agricultural funding and pandemic relief.’ Dkt. No. 17 at 17. But Defendants have not established that the loan-forgiveness program targets a specific episode of past or present discrimination. Defendants point to statistical and anecdotal evidence of a history of discrimination within the agricultural industry. Id. at 16–17. But Defendants cannot rely on a ‘generalized assertion that there has been past discrimination in an entire industry’ to establish a compelling interest. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. at 498; see also Parents Involved, 551 U.S. at 731 (plurality opinion) (‘remedying past societal discrimination does not justify race-conscious government action’). Defendants’ evidence of more recent discrimination includes assertions that the vast majority of funding from more recent agriculture subsidies and pandemic relief efforts did not reach minority farmers and statistical disparities. Id. at 17.

  Judge Griesbach further rejected the government’s arguments on the narrow tailoring prong:

  Defendants have not established that the remedy is narrowly tailored. To do so, the government must show ‘serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.’ Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 339 (2003). Defendants contend that Congress has unsuccessfully implemented race-neutral alternatives for decades, but they have not shown that Congress engaged ‘in a genuine effort to determine whether alternative policies could address the alleged harm’ here. Vitolo, 2021 WL 2172181, at *6. The obvious response to a government agency that claims it continues to discriminate against farmers because of their race or national origin is to direct it to stop: it is not to direct it to intentionally discriminate against others on the basis of their race and national origin.

  This is the latest opinion finding that the Biden Administration is engaging in presumptive racial discrimination. As discussed previously, in Texas, Judge Reed O’Connor found that the Biden administration engaged in systemic gender and race discrimination to implement COVID-19 relief for American restaurants.

  In Oregon, however, a challenge was rejected over racially dependent benefits. A state COVID-19 program for black businesses, called the Oregon Cares Fund, was challenged by a Mexican-American café owner and others under the Equal Protection Clause. While legislative counsel and some legal experts raised concerns over the constitutionality of the law, a trial court rejected the challenge.

  Even if such categories pass constitutional muster, there is the question of selecting groups for favored treatment. In the case of Oregon’s fund, Latino owners were excluded. Under the American Rescue Plan, anyone can qualify for preferential treatment if they claim to be part of a group that has “been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society.” It is the legislative version of the special graduation held at the University of Portland for “QTBIPOC (LGBTQIA and/or BIPOC).” Once the inclusions were defined, the only major exclusion was straight white males.

  These challenges could find a receptive majority on the Supreme Court. In a 2007 case, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that position most succinctly by declaring that the “way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

  Notably, Judge Griesbach rejected the call of the Biden Administration for a limited injunction” “To ensure that Plaintiffs receive complete relief and that similarly-situated nonparties are protected, a universal temporary restraining order in this case is proper.”

  Here is the opinion: Faust v. Vilsack

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 21:00

• The Fed's Punchbowl Is Overflowing Into Money Markets: What Happens Next
  The Fed’s Punchbowl Is Overflowing Into Money Markets: What Happens Next

  Last Wednesday, when the Fed’s reverse repo facility hit just shy of half a trillion dollars (it has since risen to a new record $547.8BN), we said that “Wall Street Scrambles To Figure Out What Comes Next” in which we showed that while some banks expect the Fed to hike its IOER and Reverse Repo rates (such as BofA, JPM and Wrightson ICAP), others see the Fed standing pat again (Jefferies, Credit Suisse and BMO), a case bolstered by the WSJ’s Fed whisperer, Michael Darby, who suggested that the Fed was ok with the reverse repo being at half a trillion, and thus is unlikely to make any changes to its adminstered rates.

  Alas, with the Street evenly split in two camps on the fate of the IOER/RRP rates, the confusion among traders remains, and so in attempt to explain away some of the confusion, late last week, Std Chartered’s top FX and rates strategists, Steve Englander and John Davies, penned a report describing why the “Punchbowl is overflowing into money markets” and what the Fed can do in response.

  Here is the one minute summary:

  • The Fed may eventually feel compelled to tweak IOER and RRP but can avoid doing so at the June FOMC
  • RRP usage is likely to rise further as the drawdown in the Treasury cash balance continues
  • Yellen’s view that a higher rate environment would be a plus makes sense without being UST-negative
  • Still, higher long-term yields could take the pressure off short-term rates

  Below we present some of the key highlights from their note, in which they make the critical observation that “It is very unusual for the Treasury Secretary to talk up yields”

  The surge in Reverse Repurchase Facility (RRP) usage over recent weeks has supported speculation that the Fed may tweak administered rates higher. The Fed has made it clear that any adjustments to administered rates will be treated as technical fixes, not monetary policy moves. Nevertheless, focus remains on whether the Fed deems it necessary to adjust Interest on Excess Reserves (IOER) and the RRP offering rate. Our view is as follows:

  1. With effective Fed Funds (EFFR) generally steady at 6bps, we expect the Fed will opt for the status quo at the 16 June FOMC meeting.
  2. Reverse repo operations will probably increase even further as the Treasury General Account (TGA) falls.
  3. We think the Fed would move IOER and RRP intra-meeting if EFFR falls to 5bps or below other than at month-end. Eventually the Fed will likely move to firm money market rates but would avoid such a move if possible.
  4. Treasury Secretary Yellen’s openness to higher yields may reflect issues that occur when Fed balance sheet expansion prevents yield spreads from widening as much as investors see as appropriate given issuance.

  As we have discussed extensively in recent weeks, the decline in EFFR as largely driven by the boost to liquidity from the recent drawdown in the Treasury’s cash balance on top of ongoing quantitative easing (QE) by the Fed.

  

  This drawdown is related to the debt-ceiling suspension that expires end-July and could have $600bn further to go. The Fed has no say in this, and adjusting the pace of QE to try to deal with the consequences would be a blunt and risky approach. Near-term, RRP usage is likely to rise further. Average demand per counterparty has reached $10-12Bn in recent days but the Fed’s counterparty limit was raised to $80Bn in March.

  Yet remarkably, recent remarks from Treasury Secretary Yellen that “a slightly higher interest rate environment…would actually be a plus for society’s point of view and the Fed’s point of view” caught the market’s attention but triggered only a temporary blip higher in UST yields. She has mentioned higher yields twice in recent weeks, so it is unlikely to be an accident or misstatement”” according to the Std Chartered duo who note that “nevertheless, it is unusual for a treasury secretary to endorse higher borrowing costs.”

  Yellen  also commented that “we’ve been fighting inflation that’s too low and interest rates that are too low now for a decade”. In our view, both her comments and the market reaction are fair. In the 1930s Jacob Viner argued for fiscal policy on the grounds that it would push up long-term interest rates and make short-term monetary policy more effective.

  Yellen’s comments on inflation and (presumably) real yields can be seen in the same light. If real yields increase because of government borrowing for long-term investment, that is a plus provided that the real return on the investment exceeds borrowing costs.

  Similarly, if inflation and inflation expectations move towards target rather than undershooting, any level of nominal policy rates becomes more stimulatory. Aggressive macro policy settings can push both real yields and inflation breakevens higher while improving economic outcomes. As Englander explains, “if unchanged policy rates accompany the higher market yields, then the lower real yields would mean employment and inflation targets are reached more quickly” while from the Fed’s perspective, it would suggest that its new policy framework is gaining traction and ultimately mean that it has more ammunition to support the economy if and when the next recession arrives.

  From the market’s perspective, Std Chartered thinks that such an outlook is already largely priced in. Indeed, the breakeven curve implies a near-term pick-up in inflation beyond what the Fed’s transitory view assumes, but longer-term spreads look consistent with the 2% average inflation target. 5Y5Y USD OIS is currently around 2%, so below the Fed’s 2.5% median longer-run policy rate projections, but it hit 2.4% when UST yields registered their YTD highs in Q1.

  

  On balance, Englander concludes that Yellen was likely defending the Biden administration’s fiscal plans much more than stating a view on Fed QE and policy rates. However, he also notes that “it is striking when the Treasurer of a public or private entity argues for higher borrowing costs. This unusual situation may reflect the fear that QE is not leading to more bank loans.” If true, that would remove one of the major monetary policy justifications for QE.

  Or, summarizing what we have always said about the catastrophic experiment that is QE, Englander notes that “the Fed would be paying for government debt with new reserves and preventing yields from going negative by paying a floor rate on excess reserves, but not generating additional lending activity. The higher yields that Yellen was welcoming may be a way of creating more attractive investment opportunities for financial institutions with excess reserves on hand. The higher yields further along the curve would make carry more attractive, encourage lending and reduce the excess liquidity at the short end.”

  Still, it could be argued that her comments even stack up in terms of the front-end rates conundrum facing the Fed in the near term. According to the Std Chartered strategists, “slightly higher rate environment” would certainly be a plus for money market investors. From the Fed’s perspective it would reduce the risk that EFFR sets outside the target range and the risk that QE is seen as having reached the limit of effectiveness.

  Nonetheless, Englander concludes that does the Fed is unlikely to adjust IOER/RRP as soon as 16 June. However, Yellen may be also be making the case that more debt issuance and the higher yields that would accompany the debt would be positive for the economy and resolve some of the ‘plumbing’ issues at the short end of the market. Needless to say, in a world where there has never been more debt and where the jury is very much out on whether reflation (so very need to inflate away the debt) is here to stay, the likelihood that Yellen will be just as wrong about her “benign higher rates” forecast as she was with her 2017 prediction of “no financial crisis in our lifetimes” is effectively 100%.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 20:30

• Top US General Warns China Increasing Military At "Serious And Sustained Rate"
  Top US General Warns China Increasing Military At “Serious And Sustained Rate”

  By Jack Phillips of The Epoch Times

  The top U.S. general warned Thursday that the Chinese regime is increasing its military capacity at a “very serious and sustained rate” and said it could pose a threat to worldwide stability and peace.

  Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that it’s necessary the United States “retain our competitive and technological edge” over the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which comes after President Joe Biden and Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin raised similar concerns in recent days about the rhetoric coming from the CCP—as the United States and China have remained intransigent over Taiwan, the CCP’s human rights violations, and disputes over territory.

  

  Austin told senators on Thursday that Biden’s defense request of $715 billion is needed to meet the challenge posed by the “increasingly assertive” regime.

  “The request is driven by our recognition that our competitors—especially China—continue to advance their capabilities,” Austin said during a hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We must out-pace those advances to remain a credible deterrent to conflict around the world.”

  Milley also noted that the combined total defense spending by China and Russia is greater than that of the United States, although he did not say how he reached that conclusion during the hearing. But aside from that, China poses the “number one” military threat to the United States, he added.

  Earlier this month, a bipartisan group of senators visited Taiwan and said the United States would provide 750,000 COVID-19 vaccine doses to the island nation. It prompted a series of bellicose statements from Chinese officials, including Wu Qian, a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of National Defense, who alleged the United States is “seriously undermining” stability in the region.

  Wu then threatened that anyone—without providing names—who dared to “split Taiwan from China” would see a “resolute attack head-on” from the Chinese army. The CCP has long claimed that Taiwan belongs to it, while Taiwan has asserted that it is a sovereign, democratic nation. Because the regime believes Taiwan is part of its territory, it opposes any government or world body from establishing ties with the island nation.

  

  Milley’s comment comes months after another top U.S. commander, Adm. Philip Davidson, head of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, warned the same Senate panel that China’s military is threatening U.S. dominance in the Pacific.

  “The military balance in the Indo-Pacific is becoming more unfavorable for the United States and our allies,” Davidson said, adding: “Our deterrence posture in the Indo-Pacific must demonstrate the capability, the capacity, and the will to convince Beijing unequivocally the costs of achieving their objectives by the use of military force are simply too high.”

  The CCP is also able to project more and more naval power in the Indian Ocean, as well as the Horn of Africa, said Gen. Stephen Townsend, head of the U.S. Africa Command, in mid-April.

  “Their first overseas military base, their only one, is in Africa, and they have just expanded that by adding a significant pier that can even support their aircraft carriers in the future. Around the continent, they are looking for other basing opportunities,” Townsend told the House Armed Services Committee at the time.

  The Senate on Tuesday passed a nearly $250 billion bill to invest in manufacturing and technology to out-compete with Beijing, which includes some $190 billion in spending. Much of that money will go to research and development at universities and other institutions.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 20:00

• From HCQ To Hunter's Laptop: Trump Shreds Democrats Over Vindicated Bombshells
  From HCQ To Hunter’s Laptop: Trump Shreds Democrats Over Vindicated Bombshells

  Former President Trump trolled Democrats this weekend, releasing a list of claims he says he’s been vindicated over.

  

  The statement reads:

  Statement by Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America

  Have you noticed that they are now admitting I was right about everything they lied about before the election?

  • Hydroxychloroquine works

  • The Virus came from a Chinese lab

  • Hunter Biden’s laptop was real

  • Lafayette Square was not cleared for a photo op

  • The “Russian Bounties” story was fake

  • We did produce vaccines before the end of 2020, in record time

  • Blue state lockdowns didn’t work

  • Schools should be opened

  • Critical Race Theory is a disaster for our schools and our Country

  • Our Southern Border security program was unprecedentedly successful

  Speaking from his Bedminster, New Jersey golf course, Trump said: “‘We were right! Listen to this: Hydroxychloroquine works. The virus came from a Chinese lab – it just came out. Hunter Biden’s laptop was real. They tried to say it was made by Russia. Russia. Russia. Russia.”

  “Lafayette Square was not cleared for a photo op. That just came out and I want to thank the Inspector General for having the courage to come out with the truth. The ‘Russian Bounties’ story was fake. Remember that? We produced vaccines before the end of 2020 in record time,” Trump added.

  #Breaking

  Trump Addresses Frank Speech Rally!

  Reads some of his recent vindications. And Mentions your favorite person! pic.twitter.com/R174Dh2GYH

  — SCUBA MIKE🤿 (@scuba2024) June 12, 2021

  Trump was condemned throughout last year for touting Hydroxychloroquine despite multiple doctors having successfully used it in patients. Last week, preliminary research revealed that the drug can increase survival rates in seriously ill COVID-19 patients by 200%. 

  How many people have died as a result of the left’s politicized crusade against cheap therapies – including Dr. Anthony Fauci?

  Fauci and friends’ misdeeds exposed. pic.twitter.com/GZ0PbpPXq8

  — Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) June 13, 2021

  Trump was also slammed for suggesting that COVID-19 may have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology – only to have been recently vindicated after bombshell reports in the Wall Street Journal revealed that three lab workers were hospitalized in December 2019 with COVID-like symptoms – adding to the mounting pile of evidence against the institute known for its gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

  As the Washington Examiner notes, “a batch of newly released emails from Fauci shows that the doctor was made aware that the virus likely did originate from a lab leak. The emails also show Fauci was aware of a coordinated effort between the World Health Organization and the Chinese government to squash stories about the lab leak hypothesis.”

  Republican Sen. Rand Paul described the emails allege Fauci was guilty of a “cover-up” and called for an investigation into him. House Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene similarly said Fauci and the media intentionally misled the public.

  Sen. Lindsey Graham took the emails a step further and claimed that Trump would have won the 2020 presidential election alone if the media reported accurately that the virus came from China.

  “If Trump was right [about the lab leak theory], it would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election, I believe,” Graham told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Tuesday. “And if we could have proven that early on in 2020 it was a lab leak coming from China, not occurring naturally, the public would want revenge against China, and who would they turn to: Biden or Trump?”

  “If it were known in February that Trump was right [in] 2020, I think he’d be president today,” he said in the interview.

  And since nobody else will pat Trump on the back or admit he was right, he might as well take a victory lap.

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 19:30

• Morgan Stanley: This Is The Biggest Paradigm Shift In Global Macro In The Past Three Years
  Morgan Stanley: This Is The Biggest Paradigm Shift In Global Macro In The Past Three Years

  By Chetan Ahya, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Economist and Global Head of Economics

  The Paradigm Shift

  At a recent group dinner, I was asked to identify the most significant development in global macro I had witnessed during my three-year stint in New York. I expect that many people would point to the pandemic and the structural changes it has brought to the ways we work and live. But I think the bigger story is how the pandemic has triggered a paradigm shift in how corporate profits and wages will be distributed within national income. As this mega-trend reverses in the US, the tide will turn in favor of higher inflation and economic cycles will run hotter but shorter, in my view.

  For context, the share of corporate profits in GDP has been on a rising path for the past 40 years, while the wage share has been declining until recently. At the same time, income inequality has increased sharply and intergenerational mobility has declined. While these trends are global in nature, the US has undoubtedly been at the forefront.

  

  As time wore on, these trends became increasingly unsustainable. Calls for action grew louder and a collective voice began to make its way into policy-making circles. When the burden of the COVID-19 recession fell most heavily on lower-income households, policy-makers were galvanised into action.

  How are policy-makers addressing these issues, and what are the implications?

  At a macro level, they are explicitly aiming for a high-pressure economy. Drawing on the experience of the past cycle, they believe that such an economy will create broad-based and inclusive economic growth, which will help to reduce the impact of the recession on lower-income households and address the long-standing problem of income inequality.

  The conduct of fiscal policy has shifted from austerity to activism. The fiscal response to this recession is already the largest since the Second World War, and policy-makers are working on additional fiscal packages. The Federal Reserve has recast both sides of its dual mandate, essentially creating room for unemployment rates to move lower in order to ensure that gains in the labor market can be shared more broadly among low-income groups.

  At a micro level, policy-makers are intervening to temper the adverse effects of market forces. The efforts under way to raise minimum wages are a case in point. But there will also be increasing scrutiny of the tech, trade and titans trio – the key factors that have held down the wage share of GDP. The previous US administration had already taken a new tack on trade policy, and all indications are that it will not be reversed under the current administration.

  At the same time, policy-makers are homing in on corporate titans and their actions. These companies tend to have high industry concentration and have blunted labor’s bargaining power. Moreover, they typically have a low labor share of value-added, and their proliferation has also contributed to the general decline in the wage share of GDP.

  All in, as policy-makers act to address income inequality and ensure an inclusive growth environment, the wage share of GDP will start to reverse its 40-year decline.

  

  The reversal of this mega-trend could have far-reaching implications for the macro landscape. We highlight two in particular.

  • First, the tide is turning in favor of higher inflation. We have been vocal about the return of inflation since May 2020. Our base case is that US core PCE inflation will rise above 2%Y (stripping out the base effects) from April 2022. We also see a real risk that inflation could overshoot 2.5%Y on a sustained basis.
  • Second, economic cycles could run hotter but shorter. A high-pressure economy would mean a faster return to full employment. But tightening policies at a later stage in the recovery runs the risk that shifts in policy stances could become more disruptive, truncating economic cycles.

  The initial burst of decisive policy action has set the US on a new course. Going forward, how pervasive and persistent these actions turn out to be will determine how far the US economy travels in this new direction. While the reversal of mega-trends could potentially be disruptive, this course correction will set the stage for a more balanced and sustainable economic trajectory over the longer term.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 19:00

• Judge Tosses Texas Hospital Workers' Vaccine Lawsuit
  Judge Tosses Texas Hospital Workers’ Vaccine Lawsuit

  A Texas judge tossed out a lawsuit brought by 117 Houston Methodist hospital employees who sought to block the hospital system’s requirement that all employees receive COVID-19 vaccinations or face suspension and/or termination. 

  

  The move comes after the hospital suspended 178 employees without pay last week over their refusal to get vaccinated – 117 of which sued to overturn the requirement.

  US District Judge Lynn Hughes of Houston wrote in a scathing Saturday ruling that lead plaintiff Jennifer Bridges’ assertion that the vaccines are “experimental and dangerous” was false and otherwise irrelevant, according to AP (via Chron). He added that the plaintiff’s likening of the vaccination requirement to forced medical experimentation by the Nazis on concentration camp captives was “reprehensible.”

  In addition, Hughes ruled that making employment conditional upon vaccination status does not constitute coercion, as Bridges’ complaint alleges.

  “Bridges says that she is being forced to be injected with the vaccine or be fired. This is not coercion. Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” reads the ruling. “Bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else. If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired. Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for remuneration. That is all part of the bargain,” the Reagan appointee continued.

  Houston attorney Jared Woodfill, who represents Bridges and other clients (and who thought it wise to include a Holocaust analogy in the original complaint), has promised an appeal.

  “All of my clients continue to be committed to fighting this unjust policy,” he said in a statement, adding. “What is shocking is that many of my clients were on the front line treating COVID-positive patients at Texas Methodist Hospital during the height of the pandemic. As a result, many of them contracted COVID-19. As a thank you for their service and sacrifice, Methodist Hospital awards them a pink slip and sentences them to bankruptcy.”

  “We’re taking it all the way Supreme Court,” he added.

  The hospital allowed some employees to forgo vaccination for religious reasons or medical concerns; 285 employees received a medical or religious exemption, while 332 were granted deferrals for pregnancy or other reasons.

  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said recently that businesses can require employees to get a vaccine without violating federal laws but that employers must provide “reasonable accommodations” for workers who can’t or won’t get vaccinated due to religious reasons, pregnancy, or a disability.

  Over 100 employees from the system filed the lawsuit last month, asserting that officials were forcing employees “to be human ‘guinea pigs’ as a condition for continued employment.” –The Epoch Times

  “We can now put this behind us and continue our focus on unparalleled safety, quality, service, and innovation,” CEO of Houston Methodist, Marc Boom, told news outlets in response to the ruling. “Our employees and physicians made their decisions for our patients, who are always at the center of everything we do.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 18:30

• Beijing's Useful Idiots
  Beijing’s Useful Idiots

  Authored by Ian Birrell via UnHerd (emphasis ours),

  Just over a year ago, I stumbled across an intriguing scientific paper. It suggested the pandemic that was ripping around the world was “uniquely adapted to infect humans”; it was “not typical of a normal zoonotic infection” since it first appeared with “exceptional” ability to enter human cells. The author of the paper, Nikolai Petrovsky, was frank about the disease when we spoke back then, saying its adaptability was either “a remarkable coincidence or a sign of human intervention”. He even broke the scientific omertà by daring to admit that “no one can say a laboratory leak is not a possibility”.

  

  But even though Petrovsky has excellent credentials — professor of medicine at a prominent Australian university, author of more than 200 papers in scientific journals and founder of a company funded by the US government to develop new vaccine technologies — I was still anxious when my story went global. His original document had been posted on a pre-print site, so had not been peer reviewed, unlike if it had been published in a medical or scientific journal. These sorts of sites allow researchers to get findings out quickly. Petrovsky told me his first attempt to place these seismic findings was on BioRxiv, run by prominent New York laboratory. But it was rejected; eventually he succeeded on ArXiv, a rival server run by Cornell University. Last week, however, he told me this important origins modelling paper had finally been accepted by Nature Scientific Reports after “a harrowing 12 months of repeated reviews, rejections, appeals, re-reviews and finally now acceptance”.

  This acceptance is one more sign of the changing political climate as suddenly it is deemed permissible to discuss the possibility that the virus causing havoc around the world might have emerged from a laboratory. Petrovsky has had to endure what he calls “the legitimacy” of his paper as a peer-reviewed publication being denied for a critical 12 months — and he is far from alone. “I have heard all too many tales from other academics who have been equally frustrated in getting their manuscripts dealing with research into the origins of the virus published,” he said.

  Bear in mind that in the heat of this pandemic, papers printed in important journals were peer-reviewed within 10 weeks; one rattled through the process in just nine days for Nature. But, like Petrovsky, I have heard similar stories from many other frustrated experts who confronted the conventional wisdom that this lethal virus was a natural spillover event. Some could not even get letters published, let alone challenge those key papers promoting the Chinese perspective which have since turned out to be flawed or wrong.

  Only now is acceptance emerging that the science establishment colluded to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory, assisted by prominent experts with clear conflicts of interest, patsy politicians and a pathetic media that mostly failed to do its job. And yet, at the heart of this scandal lie some of the world’s most influential science journals. These should provide a forum for pulsating debate as experts explore and test theories, especially on something as contentious and fascinating as the possible origins of a global pandemic. Instead, some have played a central role in shutting down discussion and discrediting alternative views on the origins, with disastrous consequences for our understanding of events.

  Many scientists have been dismayed by their actions. “It is very important to talk about the scientific journals — I think they are partially responsible for the cover-up,” said Virginie Courtier-Orgogozo, a leading French evolutionary biologist and key member of the Paris Group of scientists challenging the established view on these issues. The rejection of the lab leak hypothesis, she argues, in many places was not due to Trump’s intervention but the result of “respectable scientific journals not accepting to discuss the matter”.

  The Paris Group, for instance, submitted a letter to The Lancet in early January signed by 14 experts from around the world calling for an open debate, arguing that “the natural origin is not supported by conclusive arguments and that a lab origin cannot be formally discarded”. This does not seem contentious. But it was rejected on the basis it was “not a priority for us”. When the authors queried this decision, it was reassessed and returned without peer review by editor-in-chief Richard Horton with a terse dismissal saying “we have agreed to uphold our original decision to let this go”. The authors ended up publishing their statement on a pre-print site.

  Yet this is the same prestigious journal that published a now infamous statement early last year attacking “conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin“. Clearly, this was designed to stifle debate. It was signed by 27 experts but later turned out to have been covertly drafted by Peter Daszak, the British scientist with extensive ties to Wuhan Institute of Virology. To make matters worse, The Lancet then set up a commission on the origins — and incredibly, picked Daszak to chair its 12-person task force, joined by five others who signed that statement dismissing ideas the virus was not a natural occurrence.

  Horton has been scathing about British government failures on the pandemic, even publishing a book lambasting them. Perhaps he would do well to turn his critical fire on his own journal’s failings as its 200th anniversary approaches. This is, remember, the same organ that inflamed the anti-vaccine movement by promoting Andrew Wakefield’s nonsense on MMR jabs — and then took 12 years to retract the damaging paper. But it is far from alone. The Paris Group has been collecting details of dissenting scientists, whose letters or critical articles were rebuffed by key journals which include Nature and Science, another two of the world’s most influential vehicles for scientific debate.

  Nature’s stance has been especially questionable. Around the same time as Daszak’s letter was printed, a statement started appearing at the top of some previously-published papers such as one on “gain of function research” by US virologist Ralph Baric and Shi Zhengli, the “batwoman” expert from Wuhan, entitled “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence”. This carefully-crafted note said such papers were being used as “basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing Covid-19 was engineered”, adding “there is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus”.

  Nature also published a landmark paper from Prof Shi and two colleagues, sent to them on the same day last January that China belatedly admitted to human transmission. This detailed the existence of a virus called RaTG13 that was taken from a horseshoe bat and stored at Wuhan Institute of Virology. It was said to be the closest known relative to Sars-Cov-2 with more than 96% genetic similarity. This was highly significant since it underlined that such diseases occur in nature, yet although closely related, would have taken decades to evolve in the wild and seemed too distant to be manipulated in a laboratory.

  [ZH: More on this below regarding Nature’s Amy Maxmen and what appears to be an attempt to distance herself from Daszak.]

  Few hours ago, @amymaxmen told @KatherineEban, in a now deleted tweet, that the videos and picture I posted are deepfakes and that she has never met Peter Daszak. Trying to check if her allegations are true, I had stumbled on the Pulitzer webpage. https://t.co/UpzcK7MF8c pic.twitter.com/ue6DywqfaU

  — Florin (@Florin10302020) June 11, 2021

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

  * * *

  Some experts were immediately suspicious over the lack of information on this new strain. The reason soon became clear: its name had been changed from another virus identified in a previous paper but — unusually for such a publication — this was not cited in Nature. This masked a link to three miners who had died from a strange respiratory disease while clearing out bat droppings in a cave in south China, which was hundreds of miles from Wuhan but used by Shi and her colleagues to collect samples from bats. The Wuhan researchers even admitted they had eight more undisclosed Sars-like viruses from the mine. But despite a barrage of complaints that began within weeks of publication, it took Nature 10 months to publish her addendum, which only raised more questions that remain unanswered to this day.

  Nature Medicine, its sister publication, was also home for the second key commentary that set the tone in the scientific community after Daszak’s outing in The Lancet. “The proximal origin of Sars-CoV-2″ bluntly concluded that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible”. Critics pointed out it was questionable to claim there was any “evidence” proving that Sars-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus. Others noted that the statement mentions the mysterious furin cleavage site — which Nikolai Petrovksy drew attention to as allowing the spike protein to bind effectively to cells in human tissues yet which is not found in the most closely-related coronaviruses — but downplays its potential significance. The statement suggests “it is likely that Sars-CoV-2-like viruses with partial or full polybasic cleavage sites will be discovered in other species”. This has not happened so far.

  This document — whose five signatories include one expert who was handed China’s top award for foreign scientists after nearly 20 years work there, and another who is a “guest professor” for the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention — has been accessed 5.4 million times and cited almost 1,500 times in other papers. It is so influential that when I emailed Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust and one of The Lancet signatories, to see if his stance remained the same, he pointed me to this paper that he called “the most important research on the genomic epidemiology of the origins of this virus”.

  The lead author was Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at Scripps Research Institute in California who has been a very active voice on social media condemning the lab leak theory and confronting its proponents. Yet the recent release of emails to Anthony Fauci exposed that Andersen had previously admitted to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director that the virus had unusual features that “(potentially) look engineered” and which are “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory”. He claimed last week the discussion was “clear example of the scientific process” but as another top scientist said to me: “What a smoking gun!”. Now Anderson’s twitter account has suddenly disappeared.

  There are many more examples. For instance, China pointed the finger at animals sold at the Huanan Seafood Market two days after admitting there was human transmission of the virus. Within weeks, four manuscripts describing a pangolin virus with a similar spike receptor-binding domain to Sars-Cov-2 were submitted to journals, all relying heavily on data published by one group of Chinese scientists the previous year. Two of these papers on pangolin coronaviruses were run by Nature. Inevitably, the articles sparked intense global discussion over whether pangolins sold at the market were the missing zoonotic link between bats and human beings, similar to civet cats with the first Sars epidemic.

  The pangolin link was a false trail laid from China. Nature, however, rejected a submission from another key scientific dissident that showed how all four papers primarily used samples from the same batch of pangolins and that key data was inaccurately reported in two of these papers. Richard Ebright, a bio-security expert and professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University, argues that such tolerance of “material omissions and material misstatements” expose a massive issue. “Nature and The Lancet played important roles in enabling, encouraging, and enforcing the false narrative that science evidence indicates Sars-CoV-2 had a natural-spillover origin points and the false narrative that this was the scientific consensus”.

  Or as another well-placed observer put it: “The game seems to be for Nature and The Lancet to rush non-peer revised correspondences to set the tone and then delay critical papers and responses.”

  But why would they do this? This is where things become even murkier. Allegations swirl that it was not down to editorial misjudgement, but something more sinister: a desire to appease China for commercial reasons. The Financial Times revealed four years ago that debt-laden Springer Nature, the German group that publishes Nature, was blocking access in China to hundreds of academic articles mentioning subjects deemed sensitive by Beijing such as Hong Kong, Taiwan or Tibet. China is also spending lavishly around the world to win supremacy in science — which includes becoming the biggest national sponsor of open access journals published by both Springer Nature and Elsevier, owner of The Lancet.

  [ZH: more on Chinese appeasement below]

  Well, @PeterDaszak and the Chinese influence over @Nature happened. In the same article, Amy and virologist @angie_rasmussen from @georgetown_ghss fabricate misinformation about the lab leak investigation group #DRASTIC, then spread it on Twitter. Maxmen with Daszak in 2016. 2/2 pic.twitter.com/UPwYRlBLt1

  — Florin (@Florin10302020) June 11, 2021

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

  * * *

  One source estimated that 49 sponsorship agreements between Springer Nature and Chinese institutions were worth at least $10m last year. These deals cover the publishing fees authors would normally pay in such journals, so they smooth the path for Chinese authors while creating a dependency culture. They have worked well for both sides: they offer the publishers access to the surging Chinese market and its well-resourced universities, while offering international recognition and status in return. But we know President Xi Jinping demands compliance with his world view, even from foreign-owned companies — and especially on an issue as sensitive as his nation’s possible role in unleashing a global catastrophe.

  Critics fear these corporate links to China compromise output and distort agendas. “Scientific publishing has become a highly politicised business,” argues Petrovksy. “Clearly there needs to be an international investigation launched into the role of scientific publishers, their increasingly powerful influence as the major publishing houses buy out many of the smaller independent journals, together with their growing politicisation and susceptibility to overt influence. We need to examine what impact this may have had in the pandemic and what impact it could have on science in the future.”

  Certainly it is valid to ask where was the real conspiracy in this tawdry saga that has stained so many reputations?

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 18:00

• 'Always Higher' – Cocaine Washes Ashore At Cape Canaveral Space Force Base 
  ‘Always Higher’ – Cocaine Washes Ashore At Cape Canaveral Space Force Base 

  In an ironic twist on their mission statement “Sempra Supra” (which could be translated “Always Higher”), a wildlife manager at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) discovered more than a million dollars worth of cocaine on a beach last month while checking on sea turtle nests, according to local newspaper Florida Today. 

  Angy Chambers, a 45th Civil Engineer Squadron wildlife manager conducting sea turtle nesting surveys in late May, found 24 packages, collectively weighing 65 pounds, of cocaine. 

  

  “While I was waiting for them to arrive, I drove a little further and noticed another package, and then another,” Chambers said. “I called SFS back and suggested they bring their UTV, or utility terrain vehicle, as I counted at least 18 packages.”

  Brevard County Sheriff’s Office narcotics unit seized the 65 pounds of cocaine. One of the narcotics agents performed a field test on one package and verified that it was cocaine. 

  

  The cocaine was then transported to a secrete location operated by the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

  Brevard County Sheriff’s Office estimated the drugs had a street value of an estimated $1.2 million. 

  HSI special agent, David Castro, said maritime drug traffickers usually transport cocaine in bales, including 25 bricks each. Once bales are damaged or are ditched during transport, they typically wash ashore in small packages. 

  “We take pride in protecting our base and the surrounding community,” 45th Space Forces Squadron Flight Sergeant Joseph Parker said in the release. “There is also a higher level of job satisfaction knowing that these drugs will not make it into our community.”

  Another 63 pounds of cocaine washed ashore in the Florida Keys last month, valued at more than $1.4 million. HSI has since launched an investigation into why mysterious packages of cocaine continue to wash ashore on Florida beaches.  

  Meanwhile, under the Biden administration, drugs are flowing into the U.S. at a record pace, resulting in the worst drug crisis ever as overdose deaths soar continue to soar. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 17:30

• Debunking The Dumbest Crypto FUD Of Them All
  Debunking The Dumbest Crypto FUD Of Them All

  Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,

  

  “If anyone can do it, then no one should”

  It’s always some combination of amusement and frustration when you hear the incessant admonition of crypto-skeptics (crypto-denialists?) who think they’re being original when they come up with this version of FUD (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt):

  “Bitcoin is not a limited supply because people can create an infinite number of crypto currencies! Check mate, crypto-cucks”

  This is the “Without government, who will build the roads?” argument of decentralization and crypto. When my last post ran on Zerohedge, the comment section had a lot of this:

  

  (There are also 10,000 penny stocks and growing. So that dilutes APPL?)

  Whenever somebody says that, my reaction is always “What’s your point?”.

  Nobody disputes that Bitcoin is hard capped at 21 million coins (which is less than half the number of millionaires in world), but the fact that other crypto-currencies exist doesn’t inflate the supply of BTC. Yes, anybody can create a new crypto-currency. Anybody can create all kinds of things.

  With free open source software and a commodity VPS, anybody can build their own search engine for next to nothing. Does that mean Google is worthless?

  Anybody can plug WooCommerce into a WordPress site, so Amazon and Shopify are ultimately zeros then?

  Anybody can start a band, write a book, launch a website, a podcast or a blog, and it doesn’t make every successful instance of these pointless because they are open to potentially infinite competitors and imitators. In fact, every knock-off, every me-too, every jump onto the bandwagon that ultimately fails actually validates the incumbents that continue to succeed. So bring on the shitcoins.

  Then every challenger that actually gains some traction or carves out a niche validates the entire space. So bring on Cardano, Solana, Polygon, Polka Dot. Bring on Helium and Hashgraph. Bring on Litecoin. Syscoin even.  Bring.It.On.  “Let a thousand flowers bloom”.

  What people are actually saying when they use the “anybody can do it” argument, is that they worship at the alter of monopoly and they’re too immersed in their own mediocrity to realize that the first monetary revolution in 500 years is taking place around them and in their own lives. They are cavemen, huddling cold in darkness saying “Bah! Fire. It’s not real. You can’t even touch it and it’s not even scarce! You can set fire to nearly anything.”

  

  It’s such a one dimensional / defeatist objection that it can only be made by those who have lost the plot on what makes capitalism so successful. And that is, in a word: competition.

  They don’t understand that their argument, taken to its logical conclusion means either:

  A) everything is worthless because anybody else can do  anything that’s already been done, or,

  B) there should only be one version of everything. This probably appeals to the “equality of outcome” Marxist zombies.

  If you can do any of these things, including going out and creating a crypto currency, then great. The big question is this: Can you create a more successful one? If you really think you can, then you should go do it, right now.

  What people don’t understand about all this is that we’re seeing the emergence of a new monetary protocol. This is TCP/IP for value. TCP/IP emerged under its own steam from among many possible options, and as investors, we’re always trying to make sense of which emerging protocol stack will be the victor, and which companies are on the right side of that. In our Crypto Capitalist portfolio, we try to own the companies that are doing exactly this.

  The entire point with crypto is that the structural flaw with the monetary system is because it’s a monopoly. One that is governed by unaccountable central bankers and technocrats with interests antagonistic to the wider population. Only in a monetary monopoly could it possible to so rig the game this way. It not only robs the citizenry, leaches their purchasing power and perpetuates ever-widening wealth inequality, it even brainwashes the victims into believing there is no other possible monetary system.

  That’s the problem with centralization today. In money, media and governance. People have blinders on that has them believing that the dominant systems are the only ones that have legitimacy, that authority and imperatives must flow from the top down and that competition to those systems is somehow immoral or out-of-bounds.

  But the decentralization revolution doesn’t care about any of that. It’s happening right in front of our very eyes and it’s playing out in realtime. Communications systems yesterday. Economic systems now. Governance systems next.

  Where we’re headed, you want anybody to be able to create a currency system, form an alternative governance structure, launch a business, write alternative viewpoints and to find and present non-conforming data.

  Without competition we wind up with a rigid, authoritarian monoculture.

  Without monetary competition we wind up with ZIRP/NIRP, trillion dollar deficits, targeted theft (a.k.a inflation)  and inevitably, China-style social credit.

  *  *  *

  To receive future posts in your mailbox join the free Bombthrower mailing list, follow me on Twitter, Mastodon or join the Bombthrower telegram

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 17:00

• As Biden Swipes At Trump, G-7 Leaders Hail US President As "Part Of The Club" Again
  As Biden Swipes At Trump, G-7 Leaders Hail US President As “Part Of The Club” Again

  Biden capped the G-7 summit with a victorious sounding “America is back at the table” – in what many are noting was an obvious swipe at former President Trump. But many are also observing the whole summit appeared more like a multi-day long photo-op where Biden was formally admitted into being “part of the club”.

  French President Emmanuel Macron to Joe Biden: “What we need is cooperation. I think it’s great to have a US President who is part of the club.”

  I don’t know about you, but I thought an American President is supposed to LEAD, not be “part of the club”.

  Of course, Biden nods. pic.twitter.com/RjzwwLQ8No

  — Amy Tarkanian (@MrsT106) June 12, 2021

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

  Before Biden departed Cornwall for London where he’s meeting Queen Elizabeth II, his supposed “anti-Trump foreign policy” was on full display in these words during his end of summit press conference:

  “The lack of participation in the past and full engagement was noticed significantly, not only by the leaders of those countries but by the people in the G-7 countries. America is back in the business of leading the world alongside nations who share our most deeply held values.”

  “I felt a genuine sense of enthusiasm that America was back at the table and fully, fully engaged,” Biden said. “Bottom line is I think we’ve made some progress in reestablishing American credibility among our closest friends and our values,” he added.

  But it was French President Emanuel Macron who on Saturday unwittingly summarized the real import of the whole spectacle…

  “I think it’s great to have the U.S. president part of the club, and very willing to cooperate,” Macron said. “What you demonstrate is that leadership is partnership.”

  …with the suggestion being that the whole problem in international relations during the Trump era was that he was an outlier wanting to put America first, and so not capable of being admitted into the “club”.

  

  And there was more of this throughout the weekend, especially when it came to the topic of NATO:

  Biden knocked Trump when he said the U.S. does not view NATO “as a sort of protection racket,” but as critical for domestic security. Trump repeatedly chastised NATO allies for failing to pay more to the alliance and reportedly wanted to leave the alliance, questioning its usefulness.

  The president also swiped at his predecessor on the issue of climate change, which Trump repeatedly questioned and downplayed in favor of boosting the economy. Trump skipped the climate session at the 2019 G-7, the most recent one to be held in person.

  U.S. President Biden and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron were all smiles and handshakes during their first formal, in-person meeting, with Macron telling pool reporters “it’s great to have the U.S. president part of the club.”https://t.co/GzyvDBfD9X

  — Axios (@axios) June 12, 2021

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

  Biden had said further, “I know that sounds silly, but we had a president last who basically said it’s not a problem, global warming.” Again, for this Biden gets warmly rewarded with declarations that the US had been readmitted to the “club”.

  Trump actually responded in a Saturday statement via his Save America PAC:

  “This was a quote by the President of France. He and many other Leaders before him, in France and throughout Europe, were ripping off the United States like never before. We were treated very unfairly with horrible trade deals, and paying for a large portion of their defense.

  “They were taking advantage of the United States and therefore, of course, they like Biden because now they will be allowed to return to their old ways of ripping off our Country. If I were a leader of these countries, I too would like Biden far better than President Trump.

  “They will now get very rich off the United States just like they have in the past until a change is made. I am for AMERICA FIRST!”

  Apparently Trump is quite content to not be part of this club…

  Appropriate western leaders are socially distancing outside while they’re all vaccinated for their G7 photo. They perfectly represent what western politics have become. Safetyism, hypocrisy and low IQ virtue signalling pic.twitter.com/paVhYQN54K

  — Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) June 12, 2021

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

  

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 16:30

• Election Assessment In Pennsylvania County Uncovers Five "Issues Of Note"
  Election Assessment In Pennsylvania County Uncovers Five “Issues Of Note”

  Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

  An election assessment conducted in a Pennsylvania county months ago and quietly released to the public in recent weeks uncovered five errors, including three linked to Dominion Voting Systems, whose election management system is used in the county, the assessing firm said.

  

  Wake Technology Services Inc. (Wake TSI), a Pennsylvania-based firm, conducted the assessment in Fulton County. Workers visited the county’s offices late last year and about a month later, on Feb. 9.

  The assessment was meant to review the mail-in ballots in the county and explore whether conduct relating to absentee ballot requests, distribution, receipt, and counting were in line with federal and commonwealth guidelines, Wake TSI said in the 93-page report that was quietly published on the county’s website, with no public fanfare, in May.

  Wake TSI personnel did not conduct a technology forensic audit of the operating system or election management system (EMS) but did review some system file dates, log files, ballot images, and other files.

  Wake TSI said in its report summary that it found that the election “was well run, was conducted in a diligent and effective manner and followed the directions of Pennsylvania.” No anomalies were reported during the election process and expectations were that the assessment would not show any indications of fraud, error, interference, or misconduct.

  However, Wake TSI said it found five “issues of note,” including that Dominion failed to meet the commonwealth’s certification standards; that the election management system had Microsoft SQL Server Data Tools installed, despite the software not being part of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s certified configuration; and that changes were made to the management system just three weeks prior to the election.

  Assessors said there is “no valid reason” for the software to be installed on the system and that the presence “allows any user with access to change and manipulate the EMS databases without logging [recording] to the Database, EMS, or [operating system] logfiles.”

  They also said that Dominion failed to fill out a document that attests that the installed software versions conformed with certified reasons, with Dominion apparently claiming filling out the form was “optional.”

  Dominion Voting Systems disputed the report’s findings related to it.

  The Microsoft software “is a federally-certified component of Dominion’s system, which meets U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Voluntary Voting System Guidelines,” a spokesperson said in an email, adding: “Only federal and state entities have the authority to certify voting machines. Dominion’s systems have been certified by both the U.S. EAC and the State of Pennsylvania.”

  A search of the voluntary guidelines did not turn up any mention of Microsoft SQL Server Data Tools, which can be used to create, debug, maintain, and rewrite the source code of a database.

  The Microsoft software in question can help recover from a corrupted database if there’s a crash, such as a crash caused by a power surge, but can also be used for nefarious purposes, according to Greg Miller, chief operating officer of the OSET Institute, a California-based nonprofit that researches, develops, and educates on elections technology reform. The type of assessment Wake TSI conducted would not be able to uncover whether it was used for something malfeasant.

  The nonprofit’s policy and technology teams went over the assessment and found cause for concern and spaces where both the county and Dominion could improve, he added.

  “No direct evidence of any malfeasance but, boy, people deserve better. There were some fundamental mistakes that were made there and I think Dominion owes some answers,” he told The Epoch Times.

  The report showed “a couple of bureaucratic errors that would leave the average voter wondering, and they should, they should wonder,” he said. “It doesn’t look good. It looks awful. Unfortunately, the kind of digital forensic analysis we would want to do to determine if the presence of those toolkits caused any problems is almost impossible now,” he said, adding that election machines that are under suspicion would ideally be sequestered immediately before being audited.

  The errors included the county not keeping documentation on whether logic and accuracy testing was done on the machines, which is inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Department of State’s conditions for certification, and Dominion’s stated failure to fill out the attestation form.

  Logic and accuracy tests are done on machines before elections to make sure that voting equipment and ballots set to be used in an election can properly tabulate the results.

  Wake TSI’s report states that Fulton County apparently “never had a Logic and Accuracy test documented,” adding: “This is not to say whether or not the L&A testing has been completed, but there is nothing documenting that the process was completed.”

  Wake TSI explained that the issue is not minor because inaccurate scanning can significantly impact election results, using the example of alignment of a candidate’s voting circle being off by a fraction of an inch, which would render the system unable to properly read the ballot, which would then go through the adjudication process, which is open to interpretation by election workers.

  “A simple human error, or a bad actor, could cause huge issues with accurate ballot counting if it is not caught by proper testing both before and after an election, as it is required by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” the firm said, blaming both Dominion and Pennsylvania’s Department of State.

  The Department of State did not respond to multiple queries for this article.

  According to Fulton County commission meeting minutes, commissioners discussed on Dec. 29, 2020, on a third-party team that wanted to inspect the 2020 election results. Commissioners Stuart Ulsh and Randy Bunch, both Republicans, supported the inspection but the lone Democrat commissioner, Paula Shives, said she would only be agreeable to an inspection if machines were not removed. She also said that she wanted to be present for the inspection.

  Wake TSI visited the county offices two days later, collecting copies of log files, images of scanned ballots, and other materials. Patti Hess, the county’s director of elections and voter registration, or Bunch remained in the room with the ballots during the entire course of the review, according to the minutes and the election assessment.

  

  A portion of the minutes from the Fulton County commissioners’ meeting goes over Wake TSI’s election assessment, on Jan. 5, 2021. (Screenshot/Fulton County via The Epoch Times)

  Ulsh motioned at a Jan. 12 meeting to permit Wake TSI to complete the mail-in ballot portion of the election review. Bunch voted yes. Shives voted no “because she feels anyone wanting to review election materials should go through the legal process and obtain a subpoena,” according to minutes of the meeting.

  The commissioners noted participating in the second visit, which they described as an audit, in their Feb. 9 meeting.

  No further mention was made of the assessment until May 11, when Ulsh motioned that the Wake TSI’s report would be placed on the county’s website after the firm released it. All three commissioners approved the motion.

  The two Republican commissioners in the county did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Shives, the lone Democrat, answered an initial query about the assessment by pointing The Epoch Times to Wake TSI’s report. She did not respond to further questions.

  Hess on June 2 declined to comment, saying she was too busy with primary certification. Responding to a followup inquiry a week later, she directed questions about the assessment to the commissioners.

  Wake TSI did not return multiple requests for interviews or comment.

  Wake TSI also included in its assessment analysis on what it described as ballot-scanning errors, saying the scanning errors identified in two sets of log files exceeded the allowable error rate set by the federal government.

  However, Miller said he did not know of the error rate they cited and that the number of errors found was not unusual.

  Dominion told The Epoch Times via email: “Claims of ‘scanning errors’ are also incorrect as they do not relate to Dominion’s system. These are benign instances where ballots were not fed into the scanner correctly and were ejected [‘reversed’] for the voter to try again or instances of ballot mistakes such as overvoting or blank ballots.”

  Another election expert said he did not think Wake TSI uncovered anything significant.

  “Bottom line: Wake TSI didn’t find anything of substance that went wrong. In my analysis of elections over the last ten years, I have found a lot of errors made by tired people under pressure using a complicated computer system. I have never seen anything that looked intentional or that looked like an attempt at fraud. I don’t read anything in the Wake TSI report that would suggest otherwise, and I read a lot in the Wake report that points out how little they knew about analysis of election data,” Duncan Buell, chair emeritus-NCR chair in computer science and engineering at the University of South Carolina, told The Epoch Times in an email.

  “There are experts who analyze elections. (I believe I am one of them.). I don’t see that Wake was anywhere close to that space until they were called on for the specific purpose of finding evidence that might support The Big Lie. They didn’t find the evidence, so they focus on the nits,” he added.

  But Pennsylvania lawmakers said the assessment’s findings motivated recent calls for an audit in the state.

  “I’ve only done a preliminary review of the audit, however my first concern is the lack of L&A inspections of the voting system after the changes were made to the system. The non-certified database tools (I have learned of SQL being discovered in machines in other states when it is not a software product permitted under the Election Assistance Commission guidance) are of significant concern as they allow for manipulation of data and facilitate the transmittal and reception of modifications to data from outside of the machines in question,” Pennsylvania Sen. Cris Dush, a Republican, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.

  

  A screenshot from the website of Wake TSI shows members of its team. (Screenshot/Wake TSI via The Epoch Times)

  “Constituents from across the Commonwealth continue to have questions about the 2020 Election. Because responses from the Department of State and other state government officials have not answered these many concerns, Senator Argall believes all options should be considered—including an assessment of the Fulton County audit and how it was conducted,” added Jim Brugger, a spokesman for Pennsylvania Sen. Dave Argall, a Republican who chairs the Senate’s State Government Committee.

  The assessment showed blunders by both the county and Dominion but also indicated that the election ran largely correctly, according to Miller of the OSET Institute. Still, the issues identified highlight the need for technology that’s more easily examined by auditors and others, he added.

  “The problem here is you’ve got black box technology when we need glass box technology,” he said.

  Wake TSI’s assessment was “set” by Pennsylvania Sen. Doug Mastriano, a Republican, according to a Dec. 31, 2020 document signed by Wake TSI that was obtained and published (pdf) by the Arizona Mirror and the Washington Post.  Mastriano declined to comment. Wake TSI says in its assessment that Mastriano and Pennsylvania Sen. Judy Ward “were aware of our efforts.”

  The document also said the Wake TSI was “contracted to Defending the Republic,” a nonprofit founded by lawyer Sidney Powell, who has claimed widespread fraud occurred in last year’s election.

  Contact information was not listed on the nonprofit’s website. Powell did not respond to an email.

  Hess, Fulton County’s elections director, told acting Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Veronica Degraffenreid last month that “various members” of the state legislature asked for Wake TSI to do an audit in the county.

  “Since we believe in transparency, we agreed to let them come in and do the audit,” she wrote in the letter, which was sent last month and obtained by the Post.

  Hess said that that Wake had three people in the room where the ballots were stored. Hess would hand a ballot to one, who would write down who was voted for before passing it on to a second person, who also wrote down the ballot result. The third person then took a picture of the ballot.

  The team also took backups of “key data on our computers used in the ballot counting process” and used a system imaging tool to “take complete hard drive images” of computers used in the election, she added.

  Wake TSI was later subcontracted by Florida-based Cyber Ninjas to help audit ballots in Maricopa County, Arizona. In its statement of work, Cyber Ninjas cited Wake’s experience in Fulton County and said the firm had workers that have been involved in investigating election fraud issues dating back to 1994.

  The Maricopa County audit started on April 23. Wake TSI stopped working on the audit as of May 14, choosing not to renew its contract. The ballot review work was taken over by Arizona-based StratTech Solutions. The audit is expected to wrap up by the end of June, with a report on what auditors found expected in July or August.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 06/13/2021 – 16:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• "It Won't Be Pleasant" – Mark Carney Unveils Dystopian New World To Combat Climate 'Crisis'
  “It Won’t Be Pleasant” – Mark Carney Unveils Dystopian New World To Combat Climate ‘Crisis’

  Authored by Peter Foster via NationalPost.com,

  What Carney ultimately wants is a technocratic dictatorship justified by climate alarmism…

  

  In his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All, Mark Carney, former governor both of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, claims that western society is morally rotten, and that it has been corrupted by capitalism, which has brought about a “climate emergency” that threatens life on earth. This, he claims, requires rigid controls on personal freedom, industry and corporate funding.

  Carney’s views are important because he is UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. He is also an adviser both to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on the next big climate conference in Glasgow, and to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

  Since the advent of the COVID pandemic, Carney has been front and centre in the promotion of a political agenda known as the “Great Reset,” or the “Green New Deal,” or “Building Back Better.” All are predicated on the claim that COVID, and its disruption of the global economy, provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not just to regulate climate, but to frame a more fair, more diverse, more inclusive, more safe and more woke world.

  Carney draws inspiration from, among others, Marx, Engels and Lenin, but the agenda he promotes differs from Marxism in two key respects. First, the private sector is not to be expropriated but made a “partner” in reshaping the economy and society. Second, it does not make a promise to make the lives of ordinary people better, but worse. Carney’s Brave New World will be one of severely constrained choice, less flying, less meat, more inconvenience and more poverty: “Assets will be stranded, used gasoline powered cars will be unsaleable, inefficient properties will be unrentable,” he promises.

  The agenda’s objectives are in fact already being enforced, not primarily by legislation but by the application of non-governmental — that is, non-democratic — pressure on the corporate sector via the ever-expanding dictates of ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) and by “sustainable finance,” which is designed to starve non-compliant companies of funds, thus rendering them, as Carney puts it, “climate roadkill.” What ESG actually represents is corporate ideological compulsion. It is a key instrument of “stakeholder capitalism.”

  Carney’s Agenda is promoted by the United Nations and other international bureaucracies and a vast and ever-growing array of non-governmental organizations and fora, especially the World Economic Forum (WEF), where Carney is a trustee. Also, perhaps most surprisingly, by its corporate victims. No one wants to become climate roadkill.

  Carney clearly feels himself to be a man of destiny. “When I worked at the Bank of England,” he writes in Value(s), “I would remind myself each morning of Marcus Aurelius’ phrase ‘arise to do the work of humankind’.” One is reminded of French aristocrat and social reformer Henri de Saint-Simon, the “grand seigneur sans-culotte,” who ordered his valet to wake him with similar words: “Remember, monsieur le comte, that you have great things to do.”

  That is not the only thing Carney has in common with Saint-Simon, who believed that society should be ruled by savants such as himself; an alliance of engineers and other technocratic intellectuals, along with bankers. Carney is very much a banker technocrat, not merely at ease gliding along the corridors of global bureaucratic power, but expert at framing arguments that support an ever-expanding role for his class.

  His expansive pretensions first appeared at the Bank of Canada. If the economy is like a game of ice hockey, then central bankers should, ideally, be like Zamboni drivers, whose job is to keep the ice flat (Carney had in fact been a goalie during his academic years at both Harvard and Oxford). At the Bank of Canada, he often seemed like the Zamboni driver who thought he was Wayne Gretzky. He could never resist lecturing private businesses to stop sitting on “dead money,” or telling them they were too timid in the international arena, or advising consumers that they were spending too little, or borrowing too much. He promoted “macroprudence,” the idea that regulators, in their panoptic wisdom, would focus on the forest, not the trees. Now, he wants to establish himself as an intellectual.

  Carney has a lot to put straight with the world. According to his new book, and the related BBC Reith Lectures that Carney delivered last year, the three great crises of credit (2008–09 version), COVID and climate are all rooted in a single problem: People in general, and markets in particular, are not as wise, moral or far-seeing as Mark Carney. He sums up this failing as the “Tragedy of the Horizon,” a phrase he concocted for a speech ahead of the 2015 Paris climate conference.

  However, Carney is sophistic when it comes to the alleged moral shortcomings of capitalism. It has been one of the most tedious tropes of the left since at least The Communist Manifesto that the rise of commerce would drive out all that is virtuous in society, leaving nothing but the “cash nexus” of trade. One of Carney’s favourite philosophers is Harvard’s Michael Sandel, who produces endless trivial examples suggesting that we have moved from a “market economy” to a “market society.”

  “Should sex be up for sale?” Carney thunders, following Sandel. “Should there be a market in the right to have children? Why not auction the right to opt out of military service? Why shouldn’t universities sell admission to raise money for worthy causes?” But the very fact that people reflexively feel uneasy about — or outright reject — such notions entirely disproves his point. People do not believe that everything is, or should be, for sale.

  Carney notes the long debate, going back to classical times, on the nature of commercial value. This was theoretically resolved by the “marginalist revolution,” which put paid to the “paradox of value” that puzzled over the (usually) low price of useful water and the (usually) high price of useless diamonds. The marginalists pointed out that commercial value isn’t determined by usefulness or labour input. It is inevitably subjective, based on personal preferences and available resources. There is no paradox. Someone dying of thirst in the middle of the desert might be more than willing to offer a bucket of diamonds for a bucket of water.

  

  Mark Carney is a UN Special Envoy on Climate Action. PHOTO BY TOLGA AKMEN/POOL VIA REUTERS/FILE

  However, market valuations are essentially different from moral values, a distinction Carney continually muddles. He misrepresents the marginalist/subjectivist perspective, claiming that it implies that anything not commercially priced is not considered valuable. “Market value,” he writes, “is taken to represent intrinsic value, and if a good or activity is not in the market, it is not valued.” But who holds such an idiotic view? Nobody “prices” their family, children, friends, community spirit or the beauties of nature, although there is certainly lots of calculation going on in the background. Carney constantly berates “market fundamentalist” straw men who employ “standard economic reasoning” and who believe that people are rational and markets perfect.

  He incorrectly claims that Adam Smith — in his first great book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments— said that a sense of morality was “not inherent.” In fact, Smith believed that we are born with such a sense, which is then fine-tuned by the society in which we grow up. However, Carney — like all leftists — leans towards the blank slate, nurture-over-nature perspective because it suggests that human nature might be beneficially reformed under the right (that is, left) social arrangements.

  Carney believes our moral sentiments started going astray around the time of the publication of Smith’s better-known book, The Wealth of Nations, in 1776, when the Industrial Revolution was beginning to take off. He rightly suggests that one should read both books to gain a full appreciation of Smith’s insights, but he seems to have missed the significance of Smith’s putdown of “whining and melancholy moralists,” his cynicism about “insidious and crafty” politicians, and his thoroughgoing skepticism about those who would “trade for the public good” (that is, the ESG crowd). Moreover, Smith noted that the greatest corrupter of moral sentiments was not commerce but “faction and fanaticism,” that is, politics and religion, which come together in the toxic stew of climate alarmism and ESG.

  ESG used to be called Corporate Social Responsibility, or CSR. The Nobel economist Milton Friedman warned against its subversive nature 50 years ago. He noted that taking on externally dictated “social responsibilities” beyond those directly related to a company’s business opened the floodgates to endless pressure and interference. The big questions are responsibility to whom? And for what?

  Carney also typically misrepresents Friedman, suggesting that he claimed that shareholders should rank “uber alles,” and to the exclusion of other legitimate stakeholders such as employees and local communities. Carney claims that “At times, large positive gains could accrue to society if small sacrifices were made on behalf of shareholders.” But by what right would management “sacrifice” shareholders, and who would decide which sacrifices should be made?

  Carney admits that the “integrated reporting” required by ESG is a morass: “ESG ratings consider hundreds of metrics, with many of them qualitative in nature… Putting values to work is hard work, but as with virtue, it should become easier with sustained practice.” No need to ask whose version of values and virtue is to prevail.

  *  *  *

  Despite his thorough castigation of market society, Carney somehow also believes this “corroded” society is clamouring to make great personal sacrifices for draconian climate actions and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

  Carney has been a prime pusher of “net-zero,” the notion that climate-related human emissions must be entirely eradicated, buried or offset by 2050 if the world is to avoid climate Armageddon. He claims that net-zero is “highly valued by society.” In reality, the vast mass of people have no clue what it entails; when Carney talks about this version of “society,” he is talking about a small, radical element of it.

  Carney peddles the non-sequitur that because the world wasn’t ready for COVID, this confirms that the world is being short-sighted about climate catastrophe. But COVID is an obvious reality; an existential climate catastrophe is a hypothesis (frequently promoted — admittedly with great success — by those with agendas). He claims that “A good introduction to this subject can be found in journalist David Wallace-Wells’ The Uninhabitable Earth,” a work heavily criticized even by prominent climate-change scientists for its factual errors and exaggerations. Indeed, even its author admitted its tendentious purpose.

  Carney also commends the knowledge and wisdom of Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg: “The power of Greta Thunberg’s message lies in the way she drives home both the cold logic of climate physics and the fundamental unfairness of the climate crisis.”

  Anybody who cites an anxious 17-year-old as an authority on climate science and moral philosophy should be an object of deep suspicion, but then, according to Carney, climate science is easy. Greta’s “basic calculations” are ones that she could “easily master and powerfully project.” (Carney says he once gave Greta a tour of the Bank of England’s gold vaults. One wonders if she also offered up tips on monetary policy.) But then, in early 2020, Greta demonstrated her complete disconnect from reality when, at the WEF in Davos, she called for an immediate cessation of emissions, which would tank the world economy and potentially kill millions. Even Carney admits deviating from her wisdom on that point.

  Far from demonstrating a firm knowledge of the climate system himself, Carney cites scary but misleading statistics. “Since the 1980s,” he writes, “the number of registered weather-related loss events has tripled, and the inflation-adjusted losses have increased fivefold. Consistent with the accelerated pace of climate change, the cost of weather-related insurance losses has increased eightfold in real terms over the past decade to an annual average of $60 billion.”

  I asked Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., an expert on climate and economics at the University of Colorado, to comment. He replied “(Carney) has confused economics with weather. The increase in losses he describes is well understood to occur for two main reasons: more wealth and property exposed to loss and better accounting of those losses. To assess trends in extreme weather one should look at weather data, not economic loss data.”

  

  Among Mark Carney’s current responsibilities since leaving the Bank of England as its governor is advising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. PHOTO BY SEAN KILPATRICK/THE CANADIAN PRESS/FILE

  Carney’s confusion is hardly innocent since his Agenda depends on incessantly claiming that “What had been biblical is becoming commonplace.”

  Fortunately, Carney has been making claims about worsening weather for long enough that we can assess some of his predictions. In his recent book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin, former undersecretary for science at the Obama-era U.S. Energy Department, cites the speech Carney made to Lloyd’s of London before the Paris climate conference in 2015. The speech was designed to frighten the insurance industry into divestment from fossil fuels, on the basis that many oil and gas reserves would be “stranded” as we exhaust our allowable carbon “budget.” Carney pointed out that the previous U.K. winter had been the “wettest since the time of King George III.” He went on to say, “forecasts suggest we can expect at least a further 10% increase in rainfall during future winters.” For support he cited the U.K. Met Office’s forecast for the next five years. It turned out to be dead wrong. The six winters after 2014 averaged 39-per-cent less rainfall than the 2014 record. Meanwhile a Met Office report in 2018 acknowledged that the “largest source of variability in U.K. extreme rainfalls during the winter months was the North Atlantic Oscillation mode of natural variability, not a changing climate.”

  “(I)t’s surprising,” notes Koonin, “that someone with a PhD in economics and experience with the unpredictability of financial markets and economies as a whole doesn’t show a greater respect for the perils of prediction — and more caution in depending upon models.”

  During his BBC Reith Lectures last year, on the topic of “How We Get What We Value,” Carney received few challenges from his handpicked questioners, but a couple came from eminent historian Niall Ferguson. Ferguson asked Carney why, in his discussion of the climate issue, he made no reference to Bjorn Lomborg (a much more knowledgeable Scandinavian than Greta), and in particular to Lomborg’s book, False Alarm, in which Lomborg establishes — using “official” science — that there is no existential climate crisis, that adapting to climate change is manageable, and that the kinds of policies promoted by Carney are likely to be far more costly than any impact from extreme weather.

  Carney of course hadn’t read that book, but he dismissed Lomborg by saying that “it’s 15 or 20 years ago when he first came out with his ‘Don’t worry about the climate.’ How’s that working out for us?” But Lomborg never said “Don’t worry about the climate,” he just suggested that we had to put risks into perspective. Meanwhile Lomborg’s non-alarmist thesis is working out much better than that of doomsayers such as Carney.

  This offhand rejection of someone as widely respected as Lomborg exposes the hypocrisy of Carney’s statement in Value(s) that “experts need to listen to all sides…All of us as individuals have a responsibility to be more open and to engage respectfully with different views if we want constructive political debates and to make progress on important issues.” Except, climate-catastrophe dissenters don’t make it into the debate. There can be zero diversity of views on net-zero.

  Ferguson put another thorny question to Carney at that Reith lecture: He pointed out that since the 2015 Paris agreement, China had been responsible for almost half the increase in global carbon emissions, and it was building more coal capacity in the current year than existed in the entire United States. What did China’s promises of net-zero by 2060 mean, Ferguson asked, if it was “actually leading the pollution charge”? Carney’s non response was that China is the largest manufacturer of zero-emission cars, and the leading producer of renewable energy.

  Koonin notes in his book that Carney “is probably the single most influential figure in driving investors and financial institutions around the world to focus on changes in climate and human influences upon it…. So it’s important to pay close attention to what he says.”

  *  *  *

  Mark Carney cries crocodile tears at the possible viability of the Marxist perspective in today’s political environment. But if there is one sure sign of a Marxist, it’s a belief that capitalism is — or is about to be – in “crisis.” His new book has an appendix on Marx’s theory of surplus value: that all profits are wrung from the hides of labour. He also cites Marx’s collaborator, Friedrich Engels. In particular he notes “Engels’ pause,” the one period in capitalist history, early in the 19th century, when workers may not have shared the increases in productivity brought about by industrialization.

  Carney projects that the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (a phenomenon much invoked by the WEF) might bring about a similar period, thus providing a source of political unrest. “(I)t could be generations before the gains of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are widely shared,” he writes. “In the interim, there could be a long period of technological unemployment, sharply rising inequalities and intensifying social unrest… If this world of surplus labour comes to pass, Marx and Engels could again become relevant.”

  He rather seems to hope so.

  Carney claims powerful parallels between Marx’s time and our own. “Substitute platforms for textile mills, machine learning for the steam engine, and Twitter for the telegraph, and current dynamics echo those of that era. Then, Karl Marx was scribbling the Communist Manifesto in the reading room of the British Library. Today, radical viral blogs and tweets voice similar outrage.”

  In fact, Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, based on a tract by Engels, in Brussels, not at the British Library, but it’s more important to remember where Marx’s misguided and immutable outrage led: to a disastrous economic and political model that generated poverty and mass murder on an unprecedented scale. Meanwhile “outrage” is surely a dubious basis for policy. The outraged are certainly a useful constituency for those seeking power, however, which brings us to the influence on Carney of the man who first tried to put Marxism into practice.

  When it comes to the COVID crisis, writes Carney, “We are living Lenin’s observation that there are ‘decades when nothing happens and weeks when decades happen’.” Strange that Carney would cite one of the most ruthless murderers in history for this rather bland insight, but then Carney’s Agenda is not without its own parallels to Lenin (minus, one presumes, the precondition of rampant bloodshed).

  Although Vladimir Lenin didn’t know much about business or economics, he declared that “’Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.” Carney’s plan is global. “We need,” he claims, “to electrify everything and turn electricity generation green.” The problem is that wind- and solar-powered electricity needs both hefty government subsidies and fossil-fuel backup for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Green electricity is inflexible, expensive and disruptive to grids.

  Carney cites Joseph Schumpeter’s concept of “creative destruction,” but his own version involves not the metaphorical and benign process of market innovation making old technologies redundant, but a deliberate suppression of viable technologies to make way for less reliable and less economic alternatives.

  When Lenin wrecked the Russian economy after brutally seizing power in 1917, he was forced to backtrack and allow some private enterprise to prevent people starving. However, he assured his radical comrades that he would retain control of “the commanding heights” of heavy industry. Carney’s plan is to control the global economy by seizing the commanding heights of finance, not by nationalization but by exerting non-democratic pressure to divest from, and stop funding, fossil fuels. The private sector is to become a partner in imposing its own bondage. This will be do-it-yourself totalitarianism. Indeed, companies in our one-party ESG state are already pleading like show-trial defendants, making suicidal net-zero commitments, lest banks cut them off.

  

  Left: A portrait of Karl Marx. Top right: Vladimir Lenin makes a speech in Red Square on the first anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. Below right: Teenage Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg delivers brief remarkssurrounded by other student environmental advocates in 2019. Mark Carney draws on all three in his agenda to address the “climate emergency,” writes Peter Foster. PHOTO BY FILE; HULTON-DEUTSCH COLLECTION/CORBIS/CORBIS VIA GETTY IMAGES; SARAH SILBIGER/GETTY IMAGES/FILE

  To further that end, Carney has helped to start a key organization, the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), a collection of central banks and regulators. He has also signed up an ever-growing constituency of activist policy wonks who peddle emissions measurement and certification, eco audits and ESG rankings. This agenda is inevitably appealing to transnational organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, whose empires are all lucratively intertwined with the global governance thrust. In May, the IEA issued a report calling for an immediate end to fossil fuel investment to get to net-zero.

  Part of Carney’s strategy is to force “voluntary” standards on banking and industry, then have governments make those standards compulsory. The major accounting firms appear keen to promote the possibility of endless auditing extensions, under which the relatively straightforward metric of money is to be replaced by the infinitely malleable concepts of “purpose” and “impact.”

  Carney has also helped turn the accounting screw though “carbon disclosure.” Companies are pressured to make explicit the kind of damage they might suffer if the alarmists’ worst nightmares are realized. Such disclosure is a variant on that famous loaded question “When did you stop beating your spouse?” Instead, carbon disclosure asks the climate equivalent of “If you were to beat your spouse, what sort of injuries might he/she suffer?” Companies must also disclose their plans to deal with the presumed crisis. No company dares to say “We do not believe your apocalyptic forecasts.” They meekly regurgitate the required climate porn about floods and droughts and hurricanes, and make elaborate fingers-crossed emissions-reductions commitments. This in turn leads them into arrangements such as buying emissions offsets, a complex scheme analogous to the medieval Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences. Carbon markets have inevitably led to a surge in work for offset generators, certifiers and auditors. Carney projects this market could be worth $100 billion.

  Ironically, earlier this year Carney found himself tangled in the murky metrics of offsets. In 2020, he was appointed a vice chairman with Toronto-based Brookfield Asset Management, where he is in charge of “impact investing.” As historian Tammy Nemeth points out in her critical study of the “Transnational Progressive Movement,” of which Carney is a leading light: “(I)t is perhaps ethically murky for someone who is actively working within the UN and advising two different governments on how to change national and global financial rules to be working for a company that will be a direct beneficiary of those rule changes.” Still, who better to lead your company through a minefield than the person who planted the mines?

  Except that Carney was hoist with his own petard when he claimed that Brookfield, which has major investments in fossil fuels and pipelines, was already “net-zero” due to emissions “avoided” as a result of its investing in renewable energy. Carney’s claim produced instant refutation and accusations of greenwashing. The Financial Times called it a “major stumble.” A representative of CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) castigated those who attempt to hide “dirty coal issues.” Carney subsequently issued a qualified mea culpa on Twitter: “I have always been — and will continue to be — a strong advocate for net zero science-based targets, and I also recognize that avoided emissions do not count towards them.”

  *  *  *

  H. L. Mencken observed that “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-front for the urge to rule.” So, just how big a threat is the agenda of Mark Carney and his fellow “transnational progressives”?

  In his book, Value(s), Carney lays out rationalizations and autocratic pretensions, although he is less forthcoming about his motivations. He writes that “Leaders need to renounce power for its own sake and discern the power of service.” Mencken would be amused.

  The shambolic response to COVID of many governments, not least in Canada, and the distinctly unsettled nature of pandemic “science,” have not done much for the credibility of either governments or experts. The Carney-backed agenda is not predicated on working through democratic institutions but on circumventing them. Still, he is also reported to have more conventional political aspirations, namely to join the federal Liberal party and rise within it, very possibly to prime minister. (Carney recently gave a speech at the Liberal national convention, where he pledged his full support.)

  He thus has a rather ill-fitting section in Value(s) on “How Canada Can Build Value for All.” It reads like a Liberal party stump speech. According to Carney “We (in Canada) routinely transcend the limitations of our size to model values and policies for other countries.” It’s the old chestnut that no progressive Canadian leader ever seems to tire of: The world needs more Canada.

  Carney is a classic example of what Friedrich Hayek called the “fatal conceit” of constructivist rationalism: the belief that the largely spontaneous institutions of the market order should be rejected in favour of more deliberately planned arrangements. Carney is undoubtedly an intelligent man, but Hayek stressed that the thing that intelligent people tend most to overestimate is the power of intelligence — particularly if they happen to be socialists.

  Carney is also of the class that philosopher Karl Popper described as “enemies” of an “open society.” Popper noted that social upheavals tend to bring forth prophets who claim to understand the forces shaping the future, and promise salvation if they are given absolute power. Such was Plato’s model — in response to the upheavals of the Peloponnesian War and the first wave of democracy — of a necessary dictatorship in which the rulers lived as communists, using a specially bred military to control a cattle-like populace. Similarly, Marx’s communism was a response to the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution.

  Considering the squalor of Manchester in the 1840s, one might forgive Marx and Engels for thinking a radical response was in order. But given the success of capitalism and the horrors of autocratic systems in the intervening period, it takes considerable chutzpah to be promoting net-zero totalitarianism.

  Still, Carney claims that great crises demand great plans. He cites Timothy Geithner, secretary of the U.S. Treasury under president Obama, saying “plan beats no plan.” But Geithner was talking about the very real and immediate 2008–09 financial crisis. Carney’s climate plan is much closer to the notion of Soviet central long-term planning. Clearly, when it came to the subsequent welfare of the Russian people, “no plan” would certainly have beaten “plan.”

  What Carney ultimately wants, like Saint-Simon, is a technocratic dictatorship justified by climate alarmism. He suggests that “governments can delegate certain aspects of the calibration of specific instruments… to Carbon Councils in order to improve the predictability, credibility and impact of climate policies.” These carbon councils will be able to demand that national governments “comply or explain” when they inevitably fall short of targets. How these commissars will bring governments into line is unclear, although Nobel economist William Nordhaus has suggested “Climate Clubs” that will punish recalcitrants with punitive tariffs.

  The threat of punishment will clearly be necessary because governments are doing little more than hypocritical tinkering on climate policy. China and India are hardly even playing lip service to the “climate emergency.” Nevertheless, according to Carney “political technology” is needed to “build a broad consensus around the right goals.” No question of debating the goals, or the science, just building a consensus to support them.

  Carney is a man on a mission to change global society. “Business as usual” — the most hated phrase in the socialist lexicon — is “ultimately catastrophic,” he writes. There is too much “misplaced acceptance of the status quo.” But somehow the new socialism will not be socialism as usual. This time it’s different. We can because we must. The threat is too great to permit any argument. It’s surprising that as he was picking out choice quotes from Lenin for his book, Carney missed this one: “No more opposition now, comrades! The time has come to put an end to opposition, to put the lid on it. We have had enough opposition!”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 23:30

• Visualizing The Biggest Companies In The World In 2021
  Visualizing The Biggest Companies In The World In 2021

  Since the COVID-19 crash, global equity markets have seen a strong recovery. The 100 biggest companies in the world were worth a record-breaking $31.7 trillion as of March 31 2021, up 48% year-over-year. As a point of comparison, the combined GDP of the U.S. and China was $35.7 trillion in 2020.

  In today’s graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Jenna Ross uses PwC data to show the world’s biggest businesses by market capitalization, as well as the countries and sectors they are from.

  

  The Top 100, Ranked

  PwC ranked the largest publicly-traded companies by their market capitalization in U.S. dollars. It’s also worth noting that sector classification is based on the FTSE Russell Industry Classification Benchmark, and a company’s location is based on where its headquarters are located.

  Within the ranking, there was a wide disparity in value. Apple was worth over $2 trillion, more than 16 times that of Anheuser-Busch (AB InBev), which took the 100th spot at $128 billion.

  In total, 59 companies were headquartered in the United States, making up 65% of the top 100’s total market capitalization. China and its regions was the second most common location for company headquarters, with 14 companies on the list.

  Risers and Fallers

  What are some of the notable changes to the biggest companies in the world compared to last year’s ranking?

  Tesla’s market capitalization surged by an eye-watering 565%, temporarily making Elon Musk the richest person in the world. Food delivery platform Meituan and PayPal benefited from growing e-commerce popularity with their market capitalizations growing by 221% and 151% respectively.

  Tech companies TSMC and ASML Holdings were also among the top 10 risers, thanks to a shortage of semiconductor chips and growing demand.

  On the other end of the scale, Swiss companies Nestlé, Novartis, and Roche Holding were all among the bottom 10 companies by market capitalization growth. China Mobile was the only company to decline with a -12% change. The company was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange as a result of an executive order issued by former president Donald Trump, and recently announced its intention to list on the Shanghai Stock Exchange.

  A Sector View

  Across the 100 biggest companies in the world, some sectors had higher weightings.

  

  Technology had the highest market capitalization and was also the most common sector, with Big Tech dominating the top 10. Companies in the consumer discretionary, financials, and health care sectors also had a strong representation in the ranking.

  Despite having only five companies on the list, the energy sector amounted to almost 10% of the top 100’s market capitalization, mostly due to Saudi Aramco’s whopping valuation.

  An Uncertain Recovery

  From near market lows on March 31, 2020, all sectors saw increases in their market capitalization. However, top 100 companies in some sectors outperformed their respective industry index, while others did not.

  

  Basic materials and industrials, both cyclical sectors, were high performers in the top 100 and outperformed their respective industry indexes. Technology companies also outperformed, and accounted for $255 billion or 31% of all shareholder distributions by the top 100, far more than any other sector. Apple alone spent $73 billion on share buybacks and $14 billion in dividends in the 2020 calendar year.

  On the other hand, the worst-performing sectors in the top 100 were health care, utilities, and energy. While the index performance for health care and utilities was also relatively poor, the wider energy sector performed fairly well.

  It’s perhaps not surprising that all sectors saw positive returns since their low levels in March 2020, buoyed by fiscal stimulus and central bank policies. As countries begin to reopen, will the value of the biggest companies in the world continue to climb?

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 23:00

• Trump Huddles With GOP Congress Members To Plan How To Flip House In 2022
  Trump Huddles With GOP Congress Members To Plan How To Flip House In 2022

  Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

  About a dozen Republicans in the House of Representatives met with former President Donald Trump this week, going over the border crisis and how the GOP plans to flip the lower chamber in 2022.

  

  Then-President Donald Trump speaks to media before departing on Marine One en route to Ohio and Texas, from the White House South Lawn in Washington on Aug. 7, 2019. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)

  Leaders of the Republican Study Committee, which bills itself as the largest conservative caucus in the House, went to Florida to meet with the former president.

  The committee said the meeting included a discussion of “the challenges facing our nation.”

  “From securing our border to combatting soaring inflation and the deficit, #RSC is fighting for working families. Thank you President Trump, for developing an agenda that puts Americans first!” it said, sharing photographs of Trump with members.

  “It was so great meeting with President Trump last night to discuss a number of conservative priorities. From border security and election integrity to inflation and beyond,” said Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.).

  Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), chairman of the committee, told the New York Post that most of the nearly two-hour meeting was about the work the panel is doing to fight for what he described as “the Trump agenda.”

  “We talked about our election integrity bill, The Save Democracy Act, which he was very supportive of, and we talked about what we’ve done to define immigration moving forward,” he said.

  Republicans flipped 15 House seats, primarily from Democrats, in the 2020 presidential election. The GOP remains in the minority, with an eight-seat deficit, but is confident it can take back control of the chamber in the 2022 midterms, though Democrats believe they’ll retain control.

  

  Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 27, 2019. (York Du/NTD)

  “We believe we take back the majority by focusing on the Trump agenda, and President Trump plays a big role in that,” Banks said.

  “He’s obviously planning to go out and hit the road and campaign for candidates who share our vision, and we were excited to talk to him about that.”

  “We have arrived at an understanding with a broad unity within the Republican Study Committee and recognizing that the Trump agenda is the winning agenda, we will win back the majority in ’22 and the White House in 2024 so Republicans can run on the Trump agenda,” he added to Breitbart News, explaining that the platform includes tough immigration policies, legislation to rein in Big Tech, and election integrity bills like the Save Democracy Act.

  Trump has not publicly commented on the meeting, nor has his spokesman, Jason Miller. But Trump will soon be more visible after largely staying out of the spotlight after leaving the presidency because of how much he opposes the President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) agenda, Banks said.

  “He feels like he has a duty to get back out and hold on, hold the rallies, engage with the American people and weigh in on how disastrous the Biden-Pelosi agenda is for our country,” he said. “So I think we’re getting … we’re gonna be seeing a lot more of him. And I think that’s good for Republicans. It’s good for … it’s good for America.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 22:30

• Pentagon Announces $150 Million In Defense Aid To Ukraine For Bolstering Borders With Russia
  Pentagon Announces $150 Million In Defense Aid To Ukraine For Bolstering Borders With Russia

  Days ahead of the June 16 Biden-Putin summit in Geneva, the Pentagon announced a $150 million defense allocation for Ukraine to help “bolster its borders against Russia.” 

  A Friday Defense Department statement detailed that the large package for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative includes “training, equipment, and advisory efforts to help Ukraine’s forces preserve the country’s territorial integrity, secure its borders, and improve interoperability with NATO.”

  

  The statement further notes that it will fund “counter-artillery radars, counter-unmanned aerial systems, secure communications gear, electronic warfare and military medical evacuation equipment, and training and equipment to improve the operational safety and capacity of Ukrainian Air Force bases.”

  It’s being made available through the State Department’s foreign military financing budget, and was previously approved by Congress on a conditional basis for fiscal year 2021, based on whether Ukraine would meet “progress” on ongoing anti-corruption efforts and reforms. 

  On this front, the Pentagon said it “was able to certify that Ukraine has made sufficient progress on defense reforms this year,” according to press secretary John Kirby.

  Meanwhile, leaders in Kiev have continued their recent renewed push to be fast-tracked for NATO membership, and all of this will no doubt add to already soaring tensions going into the Biden-Putin meeting. 

  Poor Joe knows he would be outwitted by Putin at joint press conference.

  Biden will hold solo press conference after Putin meeting https://t.co/o1OrXN1kBz #FoxNews

  — Reidar Roll (@reidar_roll) June 12, 2021

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

  The White House indicated on Saturday morning that President Biden plans to appear in a solo press conference following this upcoming week’s meeting with Putin in Switzerland, instead of the usual joint presser that’s more typical of such bilateral summits, saying it’s necessary for the US President to interact with a “free press” – though we fail to see how that wouldn’t be the case if it also included Putin. 

  “We expect this meeting to be candid and straightforward and a solo press conference is the appropriate format to clearly communicate with the free press the topics that were raised in the meeting—both in terms of areas where we may agree and in areas where we have significant concerns,” a White House official said.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 22:00

• Group Of Seven Illustrates Existential Global Problem Not Solution
  Group Of Seven Illustrates Existential Global Problem Not Solution

  Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  The G7 represents much about the world order that is totally unsustainable: elite wealth promoting false conflicts among nations instead of implementing genuine cooperation and peace.

  Posing as problem-solvers of the globe’s ills, the leaders of the so-called Group of Seven (G7) nations are gathered in an English seaside resort this weekend for an annual summit. It’s a spectacle that has lost any illusion of luster. Indeed, the gathering of such an elitist and effete group looks ridiculous against the backdrop of urgent global needs for cooperation and development.

  A fawning media headline hailed the forum as “democracy’s most exclusive club”. How’s that for an absurd contradiction that inadvertently speaks of grotesque reality?

  It is US President Joe Biden’s first overseas trip since he entered the White House nearly five months ago. He will be convening with counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan, as well as leaders of the European Union.

  The G7 forum has existed since 1976 and it is a fair question to ask what has it ever achieved in terms of actually helping global development? The forum has become something of an anachronism that no longer reflects the realities of a world that has changed significantly from nearly half a century ago.

  The G7 nations claim to represent over 70 percent of the world’s wealth. Yet in economic output terms, the group currently accounts for only about 30 percent. The imbalance speaks of shameful structural inequality and therefore the so-called advanced group is really an emblematic sign of the problem that Western capitalism creates, not solves.

  

  There is a palpable sense of embarrassing spectacle. Posing as “great and good” the politicians in Cornwall look “impotent and frivolous”. In the past year, the world has been hit by a pandemic and most of the globe’s 7.7 billion population remains unvaccinated while the United States and Britain have hoarded their supplies of vaccines. Biden comes to the summit “pledging” that the US will soon donate 500 million doses of anti-Covid-19 shots to the rest of the world. That offer has been dismissed as a “drop in the bucket” given the billions of people needing immunization.

  Yet the American president and his “elite” allies are posing as saviors of the world, a world that they have largely ignored.

  If G7 leaders had any genuine intention of global development, they would seek to work with other major nations instead of demarcating the world into artificial camps under misleading labels of “democracies” and “autocracies”. The latter pejorative term has been applied to China and Russia. Both of these nations have done much more in getting vaccines to other countries, only to be disparaged by Western opponents for having alleged cynical interests in using “vaccine diplomacy”.

  The elitism and divisiveness that underlies the concept of G7 is something that should be repudiated as a relic of a bygone era.

  Today, China is the world’s biggest economy, according to some reckoning. Or at least the second biggest after the United States. China has overtaken the US as the largest trade partner for the European Union. Why isn’t its leader, President Xi Jinping, attending the forum in England this weekend?

  Apologists would say because the group has “shared values” of “democracy” and “human rights” which China does not possess. Sorry, but that sounds like lame excuses for making gratuitous global divisions. The real reason is that the G7 is an instrument for asserting American hegemony and trying to exclude perceived rivals.

  The arbitrariness of the G7 is an indication that it is a political construct for partisan objectives.

  Back in 2008, the group abruptly became the G8 after the admission of Russia to the fold. That was during the leadership of Boris Yeltsin whom the United States was trying to co-opt as part of its global hegemony. When Vladimir Putin succeeded Yeltsin and charted a more independent geopolitical course, then Russia fell out of favor with the Americans and their Western partners. In 2014, the Ukraine crisis engendered by Western meddling provided the pretext for ejecting Russia from the club. Not that Moscow gives a fig about that.

  But the point is the arbitrariness and anomalies that make up the G7.

  It’s a petty theater to showcase Western elite concerns rather than the democratic concerns of humanity. For his part, President Biden wants to demonstrate that “America is back” after four years of policy chaos under his predecessor Donald Trump. In doing so, Biden is trying to corral Western partners to adopt a more hostile stance towards China and Russia. He is due to meet with the Russian leader on June 16 in Geneva, and the G7 has been used as a platform for Biden to espouse belligerence towards Russia. What’s that got to do with solving a pandemic crisis, addressing climate change, or promoting global development to improve the lives of billions of poor? Precisely, none.

  

  For British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, he gets the chance to play a “world statesman” (instead of the buffoon that he really is) who is supposedly rebranding his nation as “Global Britain” following the ragged and bitter departure from the European Union.

  It’s easy to dismiss the Group of Seven as a useless talking shop for pompous politicians. Yes, it is that of course. Nevertheless, the manifest consequences are serious enough and should focus global efforts to seek real solutions, rather than indulge in vain distractions. What the group signifies is the apartheid world that Western capitalism creates: massive inequality and the futile destructiveness of foisting divisive relations onto the rest of the world that leads to conflict and ultimately war.

  With bitter irony one of the subjects on the agenda this weekend is “sustainable development”. The G7 represents much about the world order that is totally unsustainable: elite wealth promoting false conflicts among nations instead of implementing genuine cooperation and peace.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 21:30

• Bank of America: Everyone Knows The Fed Will Stop Tapering As Soon As The S&P Drops 10%
  Bank of America: Everyone Knows The Fed Will Stop Tapering As Soon As The S&P Drops 10%

  There has been much discussion and fierce debate whether the current blast of inflation is permanent, or as the recent sharp drop in bond yields and breakevens despite ever higher CPI prints, which are now annualizing 8.3% or the highest since 1092…

  

  … and which we discussed on Friday in “Here’s Why The “Reflation” Trade Is Collapsing“, the market is already fading the current spike in prices in anticipation of deflation. This is, in fact, the $64 trillion question.

  But what if the market is not actually bothering with timing the inflation peak, nor extrapolating how much longer the current inflationary swell can deflect the deflationary continental drift that has been unleashed by the triple-3Ds of debt, demographics and disruption over the past decade. What if the market is far more pragmatic and is merely pricing in the fact that any upcoming taper will force the Fed to untaper yet again.

  That’s the argument made by BofA CIO Michael Hartnett who in his latest “flow show” report writes that “nobody knows how to trade inflation, everybody knows how to trade “don’t fight the Fed.”

  What does he mean by that?

  Well, when looking at stubbornly negative real rates, which DB’s Jim Reid discussed on Friday when he pointed out that the current gap between 10yr US yields (1.5%) and US CPI (5.0%) is a whopping 3.5%, the highest since 1980 (In fact, the gap has only been more negative for 10 months in the last 70 years, all of which were in 1974, 1975 or 1980)…

  

  … he said that this is a clear sign that the market views the Fed’s taper is nothing more than  “paper tiger” because investors know Fed will stop tapering at first hint of trouble, most likely the moment the S&P drops 10%.

  Meanwhile, the market’s liquidity addiction remains, even though speculative froth has been hit in stocks & crypto (Chart 3), for now, but it is now swinging back to IG & junk credit (Chart 4).

  

  This means that trader sentiment now is that “it’s a free call option on credit & stocks” until “return-to-office” Sept payroll (released Oct 8th), the taper announcement some time around Jackson Hole in late August, and return of Goldilocks as macro cannot get any hotter  as the (combo of inflation & labor shortages at US small businesses is the highest since 1974.

  

  And yet, to BofA this is not an “all clear” sign; instead, the surging wage growth (which however will reverse in September when extended payroll benefits end), means lower yields are transitory and H2 stagflation means risk-return for stocks (+3-5% vs -10-15%) poor.

  There is another ‘simple’ reason why BofA sees the inflation trade ending: inflation itself. As a reminder, soaring prices are about to crush record profit margins (companies can’t pass on the full input cost spike to consumers even if they tried), and as the chart below shows, global EPS peaked around +40% YoY in April according to BofA Global EPS Model (driven by China FCI, Asia exports, global PMI, US yield curve).

  

  Additionally, not only is the Fed’s monetary stimulus about to be tapered: fiscal stimulus has also peaked (infrastructure hopes for $2tn down to $1tn)…

  

  … and jump in inflation (headline up 8.4% annualized in past 3 months = 9th fastest since WW2 – Chart 8) will reduce purchasing power and spending (US homebuilding stocks an excellent example of market anticipating inflation negatively impacting spending on real estate).

  

  As Hartnett concludes it is “little wonder “peak CPI” since WW2 has led to 67bps drop in Treasury yields in following 3-months (Table 1); so Q3 should see defensives outperform cyclicals.”

  

  Finally for those who are still unconvinced and believe there is much more to the inflation is here to stay vs inflation is transitory argument, the BofA CIO says that there is a quick and dirty way to determine the temporal nature of inflation, and it has to do with jobs and wages after the current “Biden benefits” run out.

  Consider that last week we learned US unemployment claims dropped to 385k, closing in on pre-COVID average of 300k; while small company job offerings are off-the-charts. However, that’s all about to reverse: by end-June 21 states (representing 27% of labor market) will opt out of extended unemployment benefits (by Sept 5th benefits end in all 50 states).

  

  So putting those variables together, Hartnett concludes that “if July/Aug payrolls show jobs ↑, Average Hourly Eearnings ↓ stay-of-execution for Goldilocks; but if jobs ↑, AHE ↑ = inflation here to stay.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 21:00

• Real Interest Rates Suggest It's A Good Time To Buy And Hold Gold
  Real Interest Rates Suggest It’s A Good Time To Buy And Hold Gold

  Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

  Let’s investigate the relationship between real interest rates and the price of gold.

  

  Real means inflation adjusted. 

  I calculated the real interest rate by subtracting year-over-year CPI from the current 3-month T-bill yield. 

  One could also use the Fed Funds Rate or 1-month T-Bill rate as the yields are all about the same. 

  

  The following chart puts the negative interest rate theory to the test,

  Real Interest Rate vs Price of Gold 

  

  The chart above shows the monthly gold close, not monthly highs. That explains why the 1980 top does not show.

  Synopsis

  Gold took off in the stagflation years then collapsed from $850 to $250 an ounce with inflation every step of the way.

  Note that between 1980 and 2000, the Fed kept real interest rates in positive territory except for one minor and brief moment.

  In response to the DotCom bust, housing bust,  and Covid-19 recessions, rates have been generally negative.

  The first question mark around 2006, gold kept rising despite positive rates, but that is if one believes the CPI. If one factors in housing, real rates were indeed quite negative.

  One might also argue the chart reflects anticipation of the financial stress of a housing collapse.

  The second question mark pertains to ECB president Mario Draghi’s statement “We will do whatever it takes to save the Euro and believe me, it will be enough”.  

  Simultaneously, in the US, expectations there was endless speculation about Fed normalization, ending QE, Tapering, hiking rates, etc. 

  People actually believed the Fed would do all those things and that made for a rough spell as gold fell from over $1900 an ounce to around $1100.

  Timing vs Magnitude

  Real interest rates suggest nothing about magnitude of the move. Rather, it’s a directional indicator. 

  It goes along with what I have stated previously about faith in central banks. 

  

  When the Fed has positive real rates, gold tends to do poorly. 

  Real interest rates approached 7% in early 1980’s. If that happened now, the 3-month T-bill would yield an astonishing 12%. 

  How likely is that?

  *  *  *

  Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts. Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 20:30

• Thor Industries Now Has $14 Billion Order Backlog Amid Booming Demand For RVs 
  Thor Industries Now Has $14 Billion Order Backlog Amid Booming Demand For RVs 

  About two months after we discussed recreational vehicles are “on pace for a blowout year“ and “sales just hit an all-time high,” we got the latest confirmation from Thor Industries CEO Bob Martin. He spoke with Jim Cramer on “Mad Money” earlier this week about the manufacturer’s massive order backlog. 

  

  Thor Industries — Airstream, Heartland RV, Jayco, Livin Lite RV, and others — first began to experience an uptick in sales after lockdowns ended in May and June 2020. Without a vaccine, people were too afraid to fly or stay in hotels or resorts, so they bought campers and traveled. The RV industry also saw a lot of first-time buyers, especially with the millennial generation. 

  

  The RV boom has left many dealers with limited inventory or even empty lots. Thor’s backlog of orders is a whopping $14.32 billion as of late April, the company’s latest filing said. That’s up 32.5% from $10.81 billion at the end of January and up 550% from a year ago.

  Martin told Cramer in an interview on Tuesday evening that the company is “pretty much sold out for the next year” with new RV inventory already headed to customers instead of sitting on dealers’ lots. 

  “We have backlogs that are full of retail orders, so those will hit the dealer’s lot and then leave, and so we’re still not able to build inventory at our dealer’s lots,” he said.

  Without the ability to build inventory at dealer lots, one would suspect an RV shortage for Thor brands is developing. 

  The virus pandemic rewired people’s brains as they became more in touch with the outdoors and explored small towns and parks rather than big cities and resorts. 

  “Right now, we see this as a long-term trend, and if we get people in at an entry-level price and entry-level product, they grow throughout their lifetime,” he said. “People trade every 3 to 5 years, but right now we’re seeing it a little bit quicker, and we see this for a long runway.”

  At the moment, the company’s North American supplies are quickly dwindling to about 75,000 RVs last quarter, down from 106,000 in 2020, and well below 132,500 in 2019. 

  This seems like an RV shortage is in the making, which suggests that used RV prices should increase in price. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 20:00

• A "Slippery, Bootlicking A.G."? MSM Goes Silent As Garland Sides With Barr's 'Controversial' Positions
  A “Slippery, Bootlicking A.G.”? MSM Goes Silent As Garland Sides With Barr’s ‘Controversial’ Positions

  The media has caught a not-so-curious case of amnesia when it comes to Attorney General Merrick Garland – who’s been royally pissing off Biden supporters after the DOJ has shown an increased tendency to side with the Trump administration in legal wranglings that were considered ‘bombshell’ controversies under AG Barr.

  Unpacking the hypocrisy is legal scholar Jonathan Turley, who notes the MSM’s glaring double standards:

  

  Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org (emphasis ours)

  When Joe Biden nominated Merrick Garland to be attorney general, many — including me — heralded Garland as an honorable, apolitical judge who would follow the law. He was not, the Washington Post editors insisted, “a lackey who will serve as the president’s personal attorney” like Donald Trump‘s AGs. Garland has indeed followed the law, but some are not thrilled by where it has taken him.

  President Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has adopted some of the same positions taken by the Trump administration that a host of legal and media experts once denounced. This week, the DOJ sought to replace itself as the defendant in a lawsuit against Trump brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who alleges that Trump raped her. The week before, it sought to dismiss a Black Lives Matter lawsuit over the clearing of Lafayette Park during a June 2020 protest.

  This time last year, both positions were cited by legal and media experts as grotesque examples of then-Attorney General Bill Barr’s political bias. Now, those same experts are silent as Garland takes the same positions Barr took in federal court.

  Garland is free, of course, to reject prior legal positions of Barr, but he has reached the same conclusion as his predecessor on several points of law thus far. In yet another adherence to Trump-era policy, the DOJ will defend opposing the ability of Puerto Ricans to receive social security disability benefits before the Supreme Court. Likewise, Garland agreed with Barr that a DOJ memo finding no legal basis for an obstruction charge against Trump should not be released to the public in its entirety.

  Is Garland a Trumpist mole, part of some “deep state” resistance to his own president? Or is the more likely alternative that some in the media and many others in politics or the law knowingly distorted past legal controversies to use those as political fodder against Trump?

  The general lack of media criticism — or even coverage — has never been more striking than with the latest filing in the Carroll case. In November 2019, Carroll sued Trump, claiming he defamed her when he denied sexually assaulting her. She alleges that Trump raped her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the 1990s.

  The Biden administration has told the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that it — rather than Trump — should be the defendant because his comments were made as part of his official capacity as president. Said the Biden DOJ: “Courts have thus consistently and repeatedly held that allegedly defamatory statements made in that context are within the scope of elected officials’ employment — including when the statements were prompted by press inquiries about the official’s private life.”

  That is the identical position taken by then-AG Barr last year.

  A district court rejected that effort, and the Trump administration appealed. While I disagree with the treatment of any such statements as part of a president’s official duties, I stated at the time that there was support for the position in the governing federal statute and case law.

  However, some media outlets featured an array of experts who denounced Barr’s legal move. Vanity Fair was typical of the coverage with a column titled “Bill Barr Sinks To New Low, Uses Justice Department To Try To Kill Trump’s Rape Defamation Suit.” In it, writer Bess Levin explained that the move proved that Barr was “willing not just to do [Trump’s] dirty work but to do it completely out in the open and without a scintilla of shame.” Citing the DOJ effort to replace Trump as a party in the suit, Levin declared that experts confirmed that “this special arrangement is wholly unique to Trump and his slippery, bootlicking A.G.” She cited University of Texas law professor and CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck and an array of other experts cited in a New York Times article. The Times wrote how “some current and former Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity, echoed Mr. Vladeck’s concerns, saying they were stunned that the department had been asked to defend Trump in Ms. Carroll’s case.”

  One would expect that these same media outlets and experts would denounce Garland now as another “slippery, bootlicking A.G.” doing Trump dirty work. But … no.

  The same is true with the Biden DOJ ‘s recent filing in the BLM lawsuit. Last year news stories stated as fact that Barr ordered Lafayette Park to be cleared of protesters to make way for Trump’s controversial photo op before St. John’s Church. From the outset, the Trump/Barr conspiracy claim had little support, and soon there were reports contradicting it. As I explained in my testimony to Congress on the protest, the plan to clear the park area to establish a wider perimeter was due to an extreme level of violence by protesters over the preceding two days, including the injury of a high number of federal officers. The violence was so great that Trump had to be moved to a bunker. (An IG investigation debunked the conspiracy theory). None of that mattered. Viewers on CNN, MSNBC, and other news outlets wanted to hear that it was all a conspiracy. Experts like Vladeck continued to claim that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.”

  Now the Biden administration is arguing that the BLM case should be dismissed. Moreover, it is advancing the same position as Barr’s DOJ that “Presidential security is a paramount government interest that weighs heavily in the Fourth Amendment balance.” The DOJ’s counsel, John Martin, added that “federal officers do not violate First Amendment rights by moving protesters a few blocks, even if the protesters are predominantly peaceful.”

  The Biden administration is not reluctant to change positions in litigation when it disagrees with the prior administration. However, in these cases the Biden administration insists that Barr was right on the law, even if it disagrees with Trump’s statements themselves. That would likely come as a surprise to many viewers of CNN or MSNBC.

  Reasonable people can disagree about such legal disputes — but the point of much of the past coverage was that there was no real dispute, just raw political abuse by Barr.

  As we watch the anger and divisions growing in our nation, we need to be honest about the role that media coverage continues to play in our age of rage. It is little surprise that many are enraged when legal experts state as a fact that the Justice Department is acting without legal basis; that makes for undeniably good ratings. Now that the ratings have receded, however, the law has again emerged — with the Biden administration in full agreement with its predecessor’s legal arguments.

  Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 19:30

• Visualizing The History Of US Inflation Over 100 Years
  Visualizing The History Of US Inflation Over 100 Years

  Is inflation rising?

  The consumer price index (CPI), an index used as a proxy for inflation in consumer prices, offers some answers. In 2020, inflation dropped to 1.4%, the lowest rate since 2015. By comparison, inflation sits around 5.0% as of June 2021.

  

  Given how the economic shock of COVID-19 depressed prices, rising price levels make sense. However, as Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld notes, other variables, such as a growing money supply and rising raw materials costs, could factor into rising inflation.

  To show current price levels in context, this Markets in a Minute chart from New York Life Investments shows the history of inflation over 100 years.

  

  U.S. Inflation: Early History

  Between the founding of the U.S. in 1776 to the year 1914, one thing was for sure – wartime periods were met with high inflation.

  At the time, the U.S. operated under a classical Gold Standard regime, with the dollar’s value tied to gold. During the Civil War and World War I, the U.S. went off the Gold Standard in order to print money and finance the war. When this occurred, it triggered inflationary episodes, with prices rising upwards of 20% in 1918.

  However, when the government returned to a modified Gold Standard, deflationary periods followed, leading prices to effectively stabilize, on average, leading up to World War II.

  The Move to Bretton Woods

  Like post-World War I, the Great Depression of the 1930s coincided with deflationary pressures on prices. Due to the rigidity of the monetary system at the time, countries had difficulty increasing money supply to help boost their economy. Many countries exited the Gold Standard during this time, and by 1933 the U.S. abandoned it completely.

  A decade later, with the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944, global currency exchange values pegged to the dollar, while the dollar was pegged to gold. The U.S. held the majority of gold reserves, and the global reserve currency transitioned from the sterling pound to the dollar.

  1970’s Regime Change

  By 1971, the ability for gold to cover the supply of U.S. dollars in circulation became an increasing concern.

  Leading up to this point, a surplus of money supply was created due to military expenses, foreign aid, and others. In response, President Richard Nixon abandoned the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971 for a floating exchange, known as the “Nixon shock”. Under a floating exchange regime, rates fluctuate based on supply and demand relative to other currencies.

  A few years later, oil shocks of 1973 and 1974 led inflation to soar past 12%. By 1979, inflation surged in excess of 13%.

  The Volcker Era

  In 1979, Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker was sworn in, and he introduced stark changes to combat inflation that differed from previous regimes.

  Instead of managing inflation through interest rates, which the Federal Reserve had done previously, inflation would be managed through controlling the money supply. If the money supply was limited, this would cause interest rates to increase.

  While interest rates jumped to 20% in 1980, by 1983 inflation dropped below 4% as the economy recovered from the recession of 1982, and oil prices rose more moderately. Over the last four decades, inflation levels have remained relatively stable since the measures of the Volcker era were put in place.

  Fluctuating Prices Over History

  Throughout U.S. history. there have been periods of high inflation.

  As the chart below illustrates, at least four distinct periods of high inflation have emerged between 1800 and 2010. The GDP deflator measurement shown accounts for the price change of all of an economy’s goods and services, as opposed to the CPI index which is a fixed basket of goods.

  It is measured as GDP Price Deflator = (Nominal GDP ÷ Real GDP) × 100.

  

  According to this measure, inflation hit its highest levels in the 1910s, averaging nearly 8% annually over the decade. Between 1914 and 1918 money supply doubled to finance war efforts, compared to a 25% increase in GDP during this period.

  U.S. Inflation: Present Day

  As the U.S. economy reopens, consumer demand has strengthened.

  Meanwhile, supply bottlenecks, from semiconductor chips to lumber, are causing strains on automotive and tech industries. While this points towards increasing inflation, some suggest that it may be temporary, as prices were depressed in 2020.

  At the same time, the Federal Reserve is following an “average inflation targeting” regime, which means that if a previous inflation shortfall occurred in the previous year, it would allow for higher inflationary periods to make up for them. As the last decade has been characterized by low inflation and low interest rates, any prolonged period of inflation will likely have pronounced effects on investors and financial markets.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 19:00

• Seattle Police Crack Down On Shoplifting, 53 Arrested In One Day
  Seattle Police Crack Down On Shoplifting, 53 Arrested In One Day

  By John Sexton of HotAir

  Last year there was a proposal circulating in the Seattle City Council to consider making drug abuse and mental disorders a defense against most misdemeanor crimes. In essence, that would have been a green light for an army of homeless shoplifters to steal at will knowing they’d face no chance of being punished. But it appears Seattle police have decided to do something about aggressive shoplifters. This Wednesday they arrested 53 shoplifters in 9 separate stores:

  “These are organized groups that hit retailers with the sole purpose of stealing to either resell them or use them as currency for other things,” said Sgt. Randy Huserik, public information officer for the Seattle Police Department…

  Huserik said large retailers and grocery stores have been losing thousands of dollars in merchandise due to ongoing problems with organized theft groups. He said some places are still struggling to recover from the pandemic.

  “Not only does that impact the store itself with their losses and their bottom line, but the every-day people who walk into those stores that are buying things from those stores because of the losses those stores are sustaining, they have to raise their prices and then that impacts everybody,” said Huserik.

  These cases will now be passed of to King County Prosecutor. Hopefully their office will follow through and put some of these people in prison.

  Most big retailers have a policy of not chasing shoplifters through the store. This case from a Staples store in Seattle shows what can go wrong if workers get too aggressive pursuing thieves:

  [Elizabeth] Pratt was shopping at the Staples in Burien in August 2018 when a teenager suddenly rushed past her, knocking the then 85-year-old to the ground.

  According to reports filed by King County Sheriff’s Deputies, the collision happened as the juvenile suspect was “running from employees.” Pratt and her attorneys believe Staples workers should have let the suspected shoplifter go.

  Mike Kelly, of Gehrke Baker Doull Kelly Attorneys at Law in Des Moines, said “over-pursuing, or overly aggressively pursuing shoplifters” to the point where “non-involved, innocent business invitees or shoppers” can be injured fails to protect the public. Kelly believes Staples employees failed in their duty to protect Pratt the day she broke her hip.

  There’s video of this incident and it was clearly the shoplifter who knocked over Mrs. Pratt. But because a store employee was trying to get to him before he could leave the store is being sued. To ensure employees don’t get aggressive, many stores let them know they can be fired for even trying to stop a shoplifter.

  But those policies designed to avoid lawsuits mean retailers are often at the mercy of local police to try to discourage this behavior. And in some locations, that just doesn’t happen. Last tear I wrote about the absolute looting of drug stores in San Francisco. All workers could do as people walked out with armloads of merchandise was make sarcastic comments. A number of Walgreens locations were shut down in San Francisco because they had been stripped bare.

  In Seattle, retailers have complained for years about the lack of attention to this problem. Last February KOMO News did a story about it:

  One complaint is that shoplifters are sometimes set free hours after being arrested. Mindy Longanecker with the Seattle City Attorney’s Office said the laws around holding people in custody prior to a trial are set by the state, not local prosecutors.

  “If you are upset with those laws, that is out of our hands,” Longanecker said. “That is in the hands of the Legislature.”

  Another perception is that shoplifting simply doesn’t get prosecuted. Officials said it depends on the facts of the case, but the reality is that trials are expensive.

  “There is something of a cost-benefit analysis, particularly if this person is not a prolific offender, whether or not we prosecute,” Longanecker said.

  In short, prosecuting someone over $100 theft doesn’t make a lot of sense, but what if that person is actually stealing that much day after day from a number retailers? At some point the legal system has to put a stop to it if for no other reason than to send a message.

  So it’s good to see Seattle PD making an effort to do something about this, but given the other problems Seattle has dealing with homeless people and repeat offenders it’s going to take a lot more than a one day effort to really see any change.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 18:30

• Mexican Drug Cartel Unveils "Grupo Elite" Special Forces Unit Hunting Rivals
  Mexican Drug Cartel Unveils “Grupo Elite” Special Forces Unit Hunting Rivals

  Drug cartels such as the powerful Jalisco New Generation Cartel, or CJNG, have upgraded their arsenals with an elite special forces unit, according to atlas.news. 

  CJNG released a video of their “Grupo Elite” otherwise known as special forces team, “outfitted with signal jammers and heavily modified rifles,” said atlas.news. The video also shows the unit in what appears to be a bulletproof vehicle. 

  CJNG released the video (watch here) on the prospects of expanding their control into Naucalpan de Juárez, a city located just northwest of Mexico City in the neighboring State of Mexico. They appear to be threatening local drug lord Nestor Arturo Lopez Arellano, otherwise known as “El 20.”

  In the video, a Sicario says, “Citizens of Naucalpan. We are already here for one sole objective. And that’s for all the cheap and dirty scumbags, the sons of bitches who are collecting fees, and extorting. You’re charging a tariff with citizens who work honestly. As well with public transportation workers. This message goes out to you Nestor Arturo Lopez Arellano.”

  

  He continued his saying, “We’re going to be stationed here in Naucalpan. Regardless of where you choose to run away. We will be right behind you. Because you made the mistake of getting involved with the monster of numerous heads. We respect citizens who work for society. We respect the authorities who do their jobs honestly. But the policemen who are on your side. That have sold themselves out for a miserable sum of money,” adding that “They’ve sold out to stop protecting the honest workers of society. We haven’t come here to extort anyone. Much less to keep this fucking drug corridor. We’ve all come here to take you out. So that the citizens of Naucalpan can be allowed to work without worries.” – atlas.news

  

  Last year, CJNG released a video displaying a convoy of armored vehicles with dozens of combat-uniformed gunmen.

  Abrazos, no balazos.
  👇 pic.twitter.com/UgvQwzAcj3

  — Héctor de Mauleón (@hdemauleon) July 18, 2020

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

  CJNG — which is known for kidnappings, torture, and murders across Mexico and the US, has been blamed for the fentanyl crisis. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 18:00

• Answering The "$64 Trillion Question": A New Theory Of Inflation
  Answering The “$64 Trillion Question”: A New Theory Of Inflation

  By Michael Every, Elwin de Groot and Philip Marey of Rabobank

  A structural inflation framework outlook

  Summary

  • This special report looks at the ‘hot topic’ of ‘hot’ inflation, and asks if it is really back to stay 

  • Inflation is crucial for financial markets, but we lack an accurate economic theory of what causes it, leading to inaccurate modelling and policy/forecasting errors

  • We draw a broader framework of the eight structural factors currently driving global inflation: a ‘bullwhip’ effect; the Fed; fiscal policy; speculators; psychology; Chinese demand; labour vs. capital; and the role of global supply chains/the distribution of production

  • We then look at how these factors can combine, and show which of them are the ‘prime-movers’ if global inflation is to return

  • This approach shows that understanding the global inflation outlook is currently more about (geo)politics/geoeconomics than it is about just economics or econometrics

  • We conclude that when encompassing this logic, the range of potential future inflation outcomes –and market reactions– varies hugely. Indeed, this is only to be expected given the implied structural, not cyclical, changes involved

  

  Inflation in inflations

  The topic of inflation is very much on the mind of markets and businesses. Despite a dip in recent weeks, Google Trends shows the highest global interest in the topic since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 (Figure 1).

  

  One can see why inflation is a topic of discussion: it is supremely important in determining the valuation of tens of trillions of USD in global financial assets, from stocks to bonds to property to currencies. Moreover, after decades of slumber, its future direction is unclear.

  Some key measures of inflation are at multi-year or multi-decade highs: US CPI, ex- food and energy, on a rolling 3-month annuali\ed basis hit 5.6% in April, the highest since 1991; the US Michigan consumer sentiment survey year-ahead inflation expectations index rose to 4.6% in May, the highest level since August 2008 (Figure 2); the 10-year US breakeven inflation rate (a proxy for investor expectations) has also moved to 2013 levels (Figure 3); gold has started to climb since May; and despite recent dips in some commodities, the FAO’s global price index was the highest since 2014 in April (Figure 4).

  

  

  However, not all inflation indicators are moving in the same direction. Benchmark US 10-year Treasury yields are still around 1.55% rather than pushing to 2.00%; and Bitcoin, taken as a proxy inflation hedge, has also seen its price tumble (Figure 5).

  

  In short, will current high inflation prove “transitory”, as central banks tell us, or “sticky”, as consumer surveys suggest, or could it even break higher – or much lower? This is the proverbial ‘$64 trillion question’ given the scale of assets involved.

  If we could, we would

  The problem is, we seem universally incapable of answering it by forecasting inflation correctly!

  

  Figures 6 and 7 show the large forecast errors on inflation in the low-inflation and politically predictable Eurozone, as just one example. Figure 8 shows the market forecast of what the Fed was expected to do on interest rates in response to presumed inflation: it suggests that both markets and the Fed are flying blind – or very unlucky!

  …but we can’t

  This inaccuracy is rooted in the fact that in an ergodic sense, there is no one accepted, robust theory of how inflation actually works. (Indeed, what do we even mean by inflation – RPI/CPI/PPI? Headline/core? Goods, services, or assets?) For a smattering of examples of  the lack of agreement, and in strictly chronological order:

  • The Classical World said inflation was due to debasing the coinage – but this is of little value under today’s fiat money system;

  • Say said it is about supply, which creates its own demand and does not allow for gluts – but this is clearly not an observable outcome;

  • Marx said it is about money supply, cost-plus mark-ups, the Labour Theory of Value, and financialisation – but his teleological predictions failed;

  • George said it was about land prices – but this overlooks too many other factors;

  • Kondratiev said it was about long waves of technological development – but this cannot be modelled;

  • Keynes said it was about demand – but Keynesian inflation models are often very wrong;

  • Austrians said it was about debt creation – but that one cannot model the economy at all;

  • Post-Keynesians said it was a mixture of many factors, including the political – and also can’t be modelled;

  • Monetarists said it is about money creation – but monetarist inflation models are usually wrong;

  • Minsky said it was about debt creation and politics – and while we are moving closer this being modelled, markets and central banks are not there yet; and

  • Demographers argue it plays a key role – but it is hard to forecast, slow to play out – but then hits tipping points

  True, there are many areas of overlap in those different theories. Marx’s “fictitious capital” going into asset inflation, not productive investment, sounds Austrian; his “high prices caused by an over-issue of inconvertible paper money” sounds monetarist; polar opposites like Keynes and Friedman agree that inflation can be a stealth tax; and even rivals Minsky and the Austrians share many assumptions about the dangers of credit bubbles.

  However, there is no unified view of all the intersecting structural causes of inflation that can be modelled – and this is before we include issues such as productivity, and whether an economy is open or closed to international trade – China joining the WTO clearly had an impact on inflation that traditional models failed to incorporate.

  

  Structural, not cyclical

  Consequently, while supply vs. demand is a simple truth, inflation is a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary, structural phenomena.

  One can still forecast near-term cyclical changes in inflation with some degree of accuracy, just as for any economic variable with a relatively low level of month-to-month volatility. However, to make accurate long-run forecasts must involve understanding all the structural drivers, and how these can change over time.

  Here, existing market models fall short. As former Fed Governor Tarullo revealed in October 2017: “Central bankers are steering the economy without the benefit of a reliable theory of what drives inflation.”

  Indeed, inflation stayed low through the 1950s and 1960s – then surged in the late 1960s and 1970s, proving one set of official inflation models wrong. Inflation was proudly on target in the early 2000s, as we proclaimed ‘an end to boom and bust’ – right before the Global Financial Crisis, which ushered in a new world of inflation persistently below target.

  As we shall explore, perhaps we stand at another such structural juncture at present.

  Framework, not a theory; scenarios, not a model

  Crucially, this report does not pretend to offer a new holistic theory of inflation, or the belief that we can model it.

  Instead, we aim to describe what we believe to be the eight most important structural factors currently driving inflation (Figure 9) as a form of framework. These are: the ‘Bullwhip’ Effect; the Fed; fiscal policy; market positioning; psychology; Chinese demand; labour vs. capital; and the role of global supply chains/the distribution of production.

  We will explore each of these in turn ahead, and will then look at all the permutations of their various interactions, before showing which of the eight matter most, and so could potentially drive a return to global inflation.

  In short, only one combination of the three key factors leads in that direction – and while unlikely, this is now at least more plausible than at any time in the past four decades.

  However, as shall also be shown, even having just a few inflation factors does not mean it is easy to make macroeconomic forecast or model. Rather, we will outline just how wide the range of potential global inflation outcomes, and market reactions, still is.

  1) Bullwhip Effect

  Covid-19 and the recent Suez Canal blockage again exposed the weaknesses of our globalized system of production and international trade. Optimized ‘Just In Time’ supply chains are vulnerable to major disruption, just as they were to pre-Covid trade tensions.

  All have caused severe dislocations in demand, supply, and logistics. In turn, these are causing severe price fluctuations, as can be seen in commodity markets and gauges of producer prices. These are not new market phenomena, but the current scale is extraordinary. The  key questions are: i) how long these fluctuations will last; and ii) whether there is now also a structural component. To answer, we need to understand what is exactly going on: enter the ‘Bullwhip Effect’.

  Asymmetric information

  In a nut-shell, this occurs when there is an unexpected change in final (downstream) demand, which causes increasingly sharp variations in demand and supply as we move up the supply chain. Think of orders placed by consumers at a retailer, who in turn buys from a  wholesaler, who obtains the product from a manufacturer, and so on (Figure 10).

  

  The main cause of these variations is asymmetric information within the supply chain. As no one can entirely foresee the final demand situation downstream, there will be a tendency to rely on the information provided by the nearest customer in the chain. If that information is further limited to simply ‘orders placed’ by direct customers, rather than a reflection of the true state of actual final demand all the way down the stream, this is likely to cause a cascade of demand forecasting errors all the way back upstream.

  Of course, some of these errors could cancel each other out. Yet when there is a bias to exaggerate orders, perceived demand is likely to be amplified the further we travel up the supply chain. In particular, over-ordering is expected to take place when: i) current inventories are low; ii) prices are low and/or are expected to rise; or iii) the customer is expecting to be rationed by his or her suppliers (i.e. not all orders are likely to be fulfilled). Over-ordering tends to raise prices and, again, more so upstream than in the downstream part of the supply chain.

  An additional element is the logistics process: transport can be a major source of additional volatility. Bear in mind that it takes time (and therefore money) to move goods from A to B, and in the meantime they are of ‘out of view’ of the production chain, while transport costs can be volatile due to sharp fluctuation in global energy prices.

  

  Although information sharing and electronic data exchange solutions may help to offset some of these Bullwhip issues, it is also clear that a complex global supply-chain with limited infrastructure/transport alternatives raises the risks of asymmetric information issues and logistical chokepoints.

  A recent World Bank Report points out only a handful of sectors truly drove the expansion of Global Value Chains (GVCs) over 1995-2011: machinery, transport, and electrical and optical equipment. However, many businesses are finding out that even a single, seemingly-innocuous product can nowadays often be the result of manufacturing and assembly in multiple countries. Indeed, even those wishing to buy a garden shed or deckchair –let alone a semiconductor– are facing long delays and/or price hikes.

  So how does the Bullwhip Effect work in practice? Here’s a short narrative of what happened since Covid-19 struck:

  • In early 2020, China went into lockdown and closed a swathe of its factories, leading to a big drop in exports. This was aggravated by Europe and the US also locking down from February-March onwards, causing a significant drop in global trade;
  • In Q2, China began to reopen, and by mid-2020 its exports had rebounded. Weak demand kept global trade subdued, however;
  • As Chinese demand recovered into end-2020, US and EU exports did the same. Western households also bought more (imported) goods and fewer (local) services, pushing demand for freight up. Higher commodity prices, i.e., oil, and a misallocation of containers in Asia also saw shipping costs move sharply higher;
  • By early-2021, vaccine roll-out was starting, but many countries faced rising infections. In the US, the Democrats won Georgia’s two senate seats, potentially opening the door for massive fiscal stimulus, with a USD1.9 trillion package quickly passed. Demand for goods soared again, even though global logistics were not ready for the extra load, creating a further feedback loop; and
  • In March, the Suez canal was blocked for 6 days, creating a domino effect on global trade, and further exacerbating the above problems.

  We can illustrate parts of this Bullwhip Effect using German data, firstly because it is a key exporter of manufactured goods, and plays a key role in global value chains. From Q4 2020, orders started to outstrip output, and this gap consistently widened as time progressed; by March, growth of orders for German machinery hit 30% y/y (Figure 12).

  To illustrate what this does to prices, we show the assessment of inventory levels (Figure 13) and selling price expectations (Figure 14). These clearly illustrate inventories dropped off from 2020 onwards, and were seen as insufficient from the start of 2021. Even more telling is that this effect becomes more pronounced the further you travel up the supply chain. (Assuming basic metals and chemicals are upstream, fabricated metals, machinery, and wholesale are midstream, and retail is downstream). This in turn is translating into the sharpest increases in selling price expectations in the sectors most upstream. In other words, the Bullwhip Effect in practice. So what next?

  First, past price rises are still working through the supply chain; and given EU and US consumer demand is likely to recover as lockdown restrictions are eased –and if more fiscal stimulus is passed– the Bullwhip may have more sting in it yet. Indeed, producer prices upstream are likely to filter downstream, so broadening upward price pressures, even if this is a lagging cyclical phenomena rather than a structural one.

  However, as long as there are still large parts of the world grappling with the virus, we should expect logistics disruptions to play a significant role, suggesting firms will over order ‘just in case’. The closure of Shenzhen’s Yantian port, one of China’s busiest, is an example.

  

  Moreover, global trade flows may continue to face other disruptions, with larger ripple effects. Consider the accident at Taiwan’s Kaohsiung port (14th busiest in the world); protests at US ports; cyberattacks on a key US oil pipeline and major meat producers; and, potentially, the Russian threat to the neutrality of civilian airspace.

  Meanwhile, geopolitics –which we will explore as part of the final factor driving inflation– presents a potential risk of the Bullwhip Effect becoming more embedded in markets.

  2) The Fed

  It goes without saying that the central role of the Fed as either enabler or disabler of inflationary pressures cannot be overstated.

  For the Fed, the inflationary impact of reopening the economy does not come as a surprise. The central bank sees this as a temporary or “transitory” phenomenon which will fade once the economy is back to normal after Covid-19. In its eyes, during the reopening of the economy, mismatches between demand and supply are difficult to avoid. What’s more, restarted supply chains have trouble to keep up with pent-up demand. To add to the distortions, fiscal policy –more on which after this– is boosting personal consumer spending, while at the same time holding back labour supply through generous federal unemployment benefits (see section 7: Labour vs. Capital).
  Overall, the official view is that these mismatches between supply and demand in the markets for goods, services, and labour are causing upward pressure on wages and prices.

  In contrast to the Fed, markets and consumers are alarmed by the economic data and stories about supply bottlenecks, both from the Bullwhip Effect already covered, and the bigger picture geopolitical angle (which will be covered in section 8).

  These all come at the same time as the base effects that are pushing up year-on-year readings of inflation. Indeed, since we are now comparing the price level of a reopening economy with the price level of an economy in lockdown, we are getting high inflation numbers. On top of that, the demand-supply mismatches, visible in month-on-month data, are pushing up the year-on-year inflation rates even further. No wonder inflation expectations are rising and that bond investors are requiring a higher compensation for inflation.

  The Fed is pushing back against these expectations by repeatedly stressing the transitory nature of both the base effects and the supply bottlenecks caused by reopening the economy. After all, central bankers think it is crucial to keep long-term inflation expectations in check, because that is supposed to stabilize inflation at central bank target rates.

  The standard example of what could go wrong is a wage-price spiral, in which consumers demand higher wages because they expect higher prices. In turn, the higher wages will push prices up further, etc. (Again, see section 7).

  Fed speakers are right in explaining the transitory nature of base effects and supply bottlenecks caused by reopening.

  

   

  However, we fear they are not paying enough attention to the permanent shifts that are taking place in the global economy. For example, the strained geopolitics of recent years is leading to a rethinking of supply chains. This could have an inflationary impact that stretches beyond transitory. The recent reactions of most Fed speakers suggest that they do not spend a lot of time trying to understand such structural changes, and are still focused on inequality within the US.

  Worryingly, this means that any permanent impact of these changes will take them by surprise. It could very well be the case that the current monetary policy pursued by the Fed turns out to be far too accommodative, and its reaction function delayed.

  The Fed decided last year to change its monetary policy framework by shifting to ‘flexible average inflation targeting’ (FAIT). Instead of pre-emptive rate hikes to stabilize inflation near target, they are now willing to let inflation overshoot in order to make up for past undershoots. In other words, the Fed has moved into an extreme position, doubling down on the assumption that the Phillips curve is flat (after years of thinking it wasn’t).

  The current rate projections of the FOMC imply not a single rate hike before 2024. This means that the Fed will be even more “behind the curve” than other central banks when the permanent shifts in the global economy become visible in the inflation data.

  What’s more, the US is the country with the most expansive fiscal policy among the OECD, adding to the inflation risk (see the next section). At present, the Fed expects inflation to come down after “transitory” factors fade. However, if the structural changes on the supply side and the demand impulses from fiscal policy cause inflation to remain elevated, the Fed will be caught off guard – and we all know how destabilising for markets this can be.

  Crucially, we are seeing the risk of the Fed being behind the curve on inflation for the first time since the 1970s.

  The Summer of Taper Talk

  In the meantime, we are heading for a summer of ‘taper talk’. The minutes of the FOMC meeting on April 27-28 revealed that a number of participants suggested that if the economy continued to make rapid progress toward the Committee’s goals, it might be appropriate at some point in upcoming meetings to begin discussing a plan for adjusting the pace of asset purchases.

  Since the FOMC meeting, we have had a very disappointing and then a somewhat disappointing Employment Report, but also a CPI report massively stronger than market expectations, so that much awaited taper talk may be coming soon. Many participants highlighted the importance of the Committee clearly communicating its assessment of progress toward its longer-run goals well in advance of the time when it could be judged substantial enough to warrant a change in the pace of asset purchases.

  We think if unemployment falls to 4.5% in Q4, as projected by the FOMC, we could see a formal announcement of tapering then.

  Since Powell has promised to warn us well in advance, we could get a signal in Q3. This time schedule underlines it is about time the FOMC started to talk about what they actually mean by ‘substantial further progress’. The potential risks if they don’t are clear from inflation history.

  3) Fiscal Stimulus

  Once deeply-unfashionable fiscal policy is now very much on trend – and this has huge potential inflation consequences. See here for a recent summary and comparison of relative G20 Covid fiscal packages: but the scale of proposed stimulus ahead in the US makes it the central global inflation focus for markets.

  US President Biden has already passed the $1.9trn American Rescue Plan, a Covid relief package to support the economy through to September. It contained: $400bn in one-time direct payments of $1,400; enhanced federal unemployment benefits of $300 per week through September 6 (now being rolled back in some states); $350bn to state and local governments; and an expansion of the child tax credit from $2,000 to $3,000. Following on, Biden has presented three other huge fiscal proposals.

  The American Jobs Plan offers $2.3trn in spending on social and physical infrastructure out to 2030. The largest item is transportation, including electric vehicles, bridges, highways, roads, public transit, and passenger and freight trains. The plan also supports manufacturing, including US production of semiconductors, as well as green energy, buildings, and utilities; R&D and training; upgrading and building new public schools; and large-scale home- and community-based care for the disabled and elderly.

  The American Families Plan proposes an additional $1.8trn on health care, child care, and poverty reduction.

  The fiscal 2022 budget (starting 1 October) proposes federal spending of $6.0trn compared to $4.4trn in 2019, even though the economy should be fully re-opened. Spending is also projected to keep rising to $8.2trn by end-2031 – double what it was before 2017, and 33% above 2022’s level. As such, federal debt will exceed the historical post-WW2 peak within a few years and hit 117% of GDP by end-2031, vs. around 100% of GDP now. In short, we are in a new structural paradigm on the political will for higher federal expenditure.

  On taxation, the White House initially proposed to raise the corporate rate to 28% from 21%, double capital gains to 39.6%, increase top income tax to 39.66%, let the Trump tax cuts lapse when they expire, and ramp up IRS enforcement. Notably, all of the taxed groups have a lower marginal propensity to consume than those who would see higher federal spending, so this redistribution of income would benefit consumer demand.

  Remarkably, the economic projections in the budget do not expect a surge in US growth from all this federal spending.

  

   

  Real GDP growth is seen averaging 2% y/y through to 2031, compared to 2.3% from 2010-19. Moreover, inflation is expected to stay moderate at just 2.3% y/y despite the current evidence suggesting that such a surge in fiscal stimulus into a log-jammed logistical network would produce a more pronounced Bullwhip Effect.

   

  The key issue now is if these measures can pass

  Congress. The Democrats’ preference for using Budget Reconciliation to get bills through the 50-50 Senate, with the Vice-President holding the decisive vote, has been complicated by the Senate parliamentarian. The issue is also putting pressure on relations between progressives and centrists in the Democrat Party: Senator Manchin in particular has repeatedly said he does not believe reconciliation is appropriate, and prefers bipartisan legislation.

  Therefore it remains to be seen how much of this fiscal agenda will materialize before the mid-term elections in November 2022, which could then change the Congressional balance of power. For markets, this is a critical issue – but it requires political, not econometric forecasting skills!

  4) Market Positioning

  A further factor playing into inflation fears, and arguably both reacting and driving it, is the role of financial markets and their positioning.

  Commodities are one of the best performing asset class year-to-date, registering gains of 21% to 29% depending on which index you look at (Figure 20). The commodity rally has been broad-based in nature, sparking widespread inflation fears. Unsurprisingly, commodity futures returns are positively correlated with the US CPI index, which is also currently spiking, and especially energy markets, given the high pass-through cost to consumers. As such, investors and large asset managers are increasing commodity index exposure to mitigate inflation risks across their portfolios with nearly $9bn of inflows or “new” money into the commodity ETF space alone (Figure 21).

  These figures are only what is publicly available, but the trend is clear: commodities are back in vogue as an asset class. Indeed, the true sum of investor inflows is likely multiplies of what is shown here when considering the less transparent investment vehicles such as privately managed accounts and hedge funds.

  In fact, assets under management at commodity index funds (ETFs and mutual funds) remain significantly below the highs from the early 2010s, suggesting we are still in the early stages of a strategic rotation. This potential buying pressure is likely to keep a strong bid under commodity prices, creating a positive feedback loop with inflation fears.

  Admittedly, we have seen some hedge funds and large speculators scale back “long” positions in recent data. However, there are key  distinctions amongst the different group of large commodity speculators as it relates to their trading behaviour and motivations. The scaling back in positions seen so far has been more related to systematic and even discretionary “long/short” traders. These flows typically have little to do with inflation, and more to do with momentum, trend, and carry signals on the systematic side, or on commodity-specific fundamentals for discretionary traders – which remain bullish in many cases.

  On the other hand, we have the phenomenon of commodity index investors, a distinct class of speculators who were dormant up until recently. This category of investors is comprised mostly of institutional money such as pension funds and large asset managers, who are investing in “long-only” commodity indices for the specific goal of mitigating inflation risks to their portfolios.

  

  As such, their investment dollars tend to be much “stickier” than other groups of traders, who are constantly moving in and out of markets. These inflation-based flows have remained very strong, and late May saw a record inflow of over $1bn (Figure 22). This could soon see the reduction in positioning from the “long/short” crowd reversed, leading them into forced buy-back positions at higher prices – something we may already be seeing in grains markets aside from weather-related developments.

  5) Psychology

  Very high –or low– inflation can exacerbate socio-political problems, as many of the inflation quotes on the first page underline: it is an intensely political issue. Moreover, it can even produce a change in national psychology.

  The German Weimar Republic and its early 1920’s hyperinflation serves as an infamous example that still leads Germans to fear inflation  and lean towards ‘sound money’ and fiscal prudence. Of course, we can remember things wrong: this focus on inflation overlooks the subsequent, deliberate crushing Weimar deflation of 1929/the early 1930s, which was more clearly the path leading to Nazism.

  Current socio-political tensions and rising populism are widely recognised by politicians and central banks alike. A period of sustained high inflation that hits the poorest in society the hardest should be extremely concerning.

  Fortunately, most OECD economies have not seen sustained high inflation for a generation, e.g., CPI (or RPI) was last above 5% in the US and Japan in the early 1980s; in France, in the mid-1980s; and in the UK, in the early 1990s (Figure 23).

  However, this is also a problem. To have been an adult (21 or over) with working experience of high inflation one would today have to be aged over 60 in the US and Japan; over 55 in France; and over 50 in the UK. Even in China, an emerging market which has seen more recent bursts of inflation, one would have to be aged over 30.

  Anyone younger working in markets or at central banks has spent their career without serious inflation. Or, to put it another way, they are experienced in fighting a phony war rather than a real one. As such, one must ask if OECD markets are psychologically prepared for higher inflation, were it to occur.

  

  On one level, this means inflation is less likely, as it is simply not ‘on our radar’: we don’t expect to see it last.

  Yet equally, after decades of low inflation, it is unclear what a sustained reversal might do to business and consumer behaviour, if seen.

  In emerging markets with persistent inflation problems, such as Argentina or Turkey, there are preferences for hoarding hard assets or hard currencies; indexing rents to the USD; repaying loans or accounts outstanding slowly, as the real value of debt deflates; spending money as soon as one has it; and against long-term business lending or planning.

  In Western asset markets such as residential property, one can also witness the assumption that “prices always go up”, and what that does to consumer behaviour. Should we see that dive-in-and-hold attitude flow back to a broader basket of goods and services, it would be deeply concerning. It would also exacerbate the Bullwhip Effect already mentioned.

  As already shown, breaking the entrenched (Keynesian) inflation psychology that had developed in the West over the late 1960s and 1970s required a period of exceptionally high nominal rates under the Volcker Fed, and major structural economic reforms that deregulated the economy. Today, there is no social or political appetite for either – if anything quite the opposite is true as we shift away from raw globalisation. So how could we fight it, if we had to?

  That again leaves one wondering exactly what businesses and consumers would do if they began to suspect that those in charge of inflation were abdicating that responsibility. The huge shift of interest towards crypto assets, rather than productive investment, may be part of the answer – and not a happy one.

  Of course, both Fed Chair Powell and US Treasury Secretary Yellen are old enough to recall the Volcker Fed and what preceded it. “I came of age and studied economics in the 1970s and I remember what that terrible period was like,” Yellen told Congress in testimony. “No one wants to see that happen again.” Moreover, an influential, growing slice of the OECD population –pensioners– would stand to lose out hugely from high inflation.

  Yet while it is good to have leadership able to recognise the damage from high inflation, it remains to be seen if just not wanting to see a repeat of the 1970s is enough: most so when key structural assumptions are changing, and the US Treasury is –accurately– using 1970s terminology like “labour vs. capital”.

  6) China Demand

  Though many tried, it has long been impossible to discuss global inflation without also discussing China. This was true in 2004, when Chinese nominal GDP was $2.2trn and its export engine was driving the global cost of manufactured goods down to the “China price”; and it is even truer today when the still-growing $15.4trn Chinese economy is an even larger exporter – and an importer of many commodities at a time of rising commodity price inflation.

  Of most immediate cyclical concern is the risk of Chinese PPI (rising 6.8% y/y) feeding through into CPI (0.9% y/y) and hence on into imported inflation around the world. However, China has seen previous cycles of PPI-CPI divergence, and they have not so far proved to be inflation events for global markets as much as margin crushing ones for Chinese firms (Figure 24). They may well be again.

  

  From a structural perspective, we must also focus on Chinese imports. There has been a surge in commodity import volumes in 2021: is this really demand-pull, translating into global cost-push inflation, and so meaning central banks are wrong to think the inflation we are now seeing is “transitory”? Is China now inflationary not deflationary?

  In the agri space, this is our long-held view, and has been exacerbated by problems like African Swine Fever. China’s May 2021 soybean volumes are up 36% over May 2019; wheat 262%; corn 339%; barley 80%; and edible oils 76%. This is clearly inflationary for the rest of the world, if maintained. However, how about the broader commodity picture?

  First, the import volume picture is almost as extreme across a range of hard commodities, but also including the likes of pulp/paper (Figure 26). This is happening despite the fact that GDP growth –looking past the distortions of 2020– is still on a declining trend (Figure 27), and as the shift to a services economy continues, so China should logically be moving towards lower commodity intensity. So where are these commodity imports actually going, and is this surge in import demand sustainable? They are questions of the highest global importance.

  

  Inventory data for key hard commodities, while rising, are generally below previous peaks (Figure 28), which suggests imports are finding final demand – although the reliability of such numbers has been called into question in the past, most notably with the ‘rehypothecated’ copper scandal in 2014.

  

  Chinese steel production vs. the iron ore inventory held at ports also does not suggest excess stocks are being built up (Figure 29).

  

  Rather than ask what each individual commodity is doing, the key question in terms of global inflation then becomes where this Chinese demand is being seen – and the answer appears to be three-fold: construction, exports, and speculation.

  

  Construction area was up 10.9% y/y on a 3-month average in April (Figure 30), the highest reading since late 2014. On exports the picture is also obvious (Figure 31) and is arguably responsible for much of the demand for pulp/paper, rubber, and plastics, etc. However, from an inflationary perspective if these goods were being made elsewhere, there would still be the same commodity demand – just more geographically dispersed.

  

  Finally we have speculation, which is not reserved to US funds. Chinese authorities have recently intensified a campaign to prevent such activity pushing commodity prices higher. The government has vowed “severe punishment” for speculators and “spreading fake news”, and stated it will show “zero tolerance” for monopolies in spot and futures markets, as well as any hoarding. These announcements saw an initial knee-jerk move lower in many commodity prices on Chinese exchanges.

  However, unless GDP growth –and construction– slow, which does not appear politically palatable to Beijing, then ultimately demand for commodities, and speculation to chase it, are likely to return again.

  Of course, high prices themselves could destroy demand. Anecdotally, copper prices (up 47% since the start of 2020 and 23% since the start of 2021) are causing significant problems for many related firms in China.

  A related factor is the currency. The PBOC has made clear it is not willing to allow CNY to appreciate to dampen imported commodity inflation: indeed, this would arguably exacerbate it as demand would be able to stay high. Conversely, a weaker currency would help cap demand via higher prices – but would be deflationary for the world and suggest a de facto ‘speed limit’ for Chinese growth: it is unlikely that the PBOC would be prepared to flag that.

  In short, cyclical fears of a China-to-global inflation pass-through are overstated; but unless we see a shift towards lower Chinese growth, its increasing commodity appetite still risks a structural shift higher in cost-push inflation outside the agri sector, as well as within it.

  7) Labour (vs. Capital)

  For years, markets expected inflation and bond yields to rise: and for many years we said those forecasts would be wrong – and were consistently right. This is because the political-economy Marxist/Post- Keynesian/Minsky view of the importance of the bargaining power of labour is not incorporated into inflation models. They look at an expansion of money supply, or credit, or QE, and assume it will filter through to wages. An atomized workforce in a globalised, financialised economy says it will not – and Covid-19 has only increased these pressures.

  However, when the US Treasury Secretary is talking about labour vs. capital(!), Western governments about ‘Building Back Better’, and central banks are focused not just on inflation and unemployment, but inequality, we might potentially be on the cusp of a structural break that would have enormous implications. On the other hand, cost-push inflation pressures will collapse under their own weight if wages don’t follow. This all makes the wage outlook crucial.

  Nonetheless, most of these data are being affected by temporary factors such as composition effects. Many low-paying service jobs were shed or furloughed during Covid-19, for instance, which pushed average pay up, and most so in the more timely and ‘market relevant’ metrics, such as average hourly earnings (AHE) in the US, or average weekly earnings (AWE) in the UK.

  Further out, this composition effect may start to act as a drag on wages. Once employment in service industries fully recovers, the increased relative weight of these wages will pull down the average again. This even holds when wages for these workers exceed their pre-pandemic trend.

  On which note, wage inflation will first appear to rise sharply over the next few months due to these effects, adding to an already combustible mix of inflationary signals. Yet this will happen regardless of the underlying strength of the labour market (see Figures 32 and 33). In the UK, for example, y/y wage growth could spike to as high as 7% before falling back as these effects fizzle out.

  Meanwhile, in many countries customers are coming back to shops, restaurants and other establishments faster than employers are able to add staff at prevailing wages (Figure 34). In the US, employers are competing with generous unemployment benefits in some states, while health and childcare issues may also be keeping people out of the workforce. In Europe, employees are shielded by the security of furlough schemes. Australia has just begun to phase these out; the UK will do so from July to September.

  

  Importantly, these are temporary factors, suggesting no real motivation for employers to pay structurally higher wages than previously, and they would be better off offering one-offs or sign-on bonuses instead: anecdotally, this is exactly what is happening: some US states are paying ‘return to work bonuses’ of up to USD2,000; US restaurants are offering adjusted hours and gift cards; and UK restaurants are giving finders’ fees of GBP2,000 for workers who bring a friend to fill an empty position.

  Of course, leisure/hospitality wages are far lower than in other sectors, and we therefore think it is unlikely that there will be a spill-over. Indeed, the opposite didn’t happen in March-April 2020: even as 7m US leisure/hospitality jobs were lost this had no effect on wages in construction, manufacturing, or other services. In short, US job vacancies are rising to new record highs (Figure 35), but this reflects a resumption from locked-down services activities rather than an overall extremely-tight labour market that can drive up wage expectations.

  However, this does not mean there are no such risks ahead. First, the labour market is likely to heal far faster than after the GFC. Due to extensive state support measures, ‘scarring’ effects aren’t as extreme, and most furloughed workers will eventually be reintegrated into the labour market. Indeed, even as measures of unemployment are being depressed by the drop in participation rates, surveys suggest the recovery to pre-pandemic unemployment rates will be rapid. We currently forecast US unemployment to be below 4% in late-2022, and Euro area unemployment should stabilize at 8.5% before it eventually starts declining too (Figure 36).

  Admittedly, the NAIRU –the unemployment rate trigger for higher wage inflation– hasn’t been a useful forecasting tool for years, for reasons we already covered. However, pre-Covid there had already been signs of wage inflation beginning to reappear. Indeed, one of the few iterations of the US Phillips Curve that actually has a slope (Figure 37) suggests if the recovery in prime-age US employment continues to progress at a solid pace, real pay growth will remain positive. Likewise, in the Eurozone, the cyclical component of wage growth may also become more relevant once things have normalized.

  But then we come to wild card: politics, and the structural changes it may bring.

  The back-to-work bonuses being seen in the UK and US may not be structural wage-inflationary – but they are a clear indication of just how much wage-inflation the ‘Built Back Better’, full-employment economy aimed for by proponents of fiscal stimulus, or MMT, would imply.

  Is this where we are heading under the present seemingly irresistible force of a labour-friendly zeitgeist and massive fiscal stimulus? If so, there will be huge obstacles from — and equally huge implications for– global supply chains, the last inflation factor to be covered.

  Or will globalisation prove the more immovable object, with white collar middle class jobs sent abroad now that remote working has become normalised, as some believe may occur?

  

  In short, if forecasting inflation requires forecasting wages, then forecasting wages requires being able to forecast the outcome of political-economy. No model is able to do so – but the risks of a structural break towards labor and away from capital, while low, appear higher now than at any point in the past four decades. That alone makes it even more imperative to look at the wage/earnings data – and political developments.

  8) Supply Chains

  Supply chains are vitally important in any inflation framework for three reasons: one deflationary, and two inflationary:

  1) DEFLATION: The easier supply chains can move off-shore in response to rising wages, the lower the ceiling for wages is. In short, labour’s power is limited by free trade. This uncomfortable truth is one of the key reasons global inflation forecasts have been so wrong for so long.

  2) INFLATION: The Bullwhip Effect. On 2 June, Elon Musk tweeted: “Our biggest challenge is supply chain, especially microcontroller chips. Never seen anything like it. Fear of running out is causing every company to overorder – like the toilet paper shortage, but at epic scale. That said, it’s obv not a long-term issue.” However, production is not expected to be able to match demand for several years, with a flow-through effect to everything from PCs and cars to toasters.

  3) INFLATION: The above may now be helping the political tide turn away from parts of free trade. Indeed, where semiconductor plants are to be built is now a deeply geopolitical issue.

  The US-China trade war, followed by the Covid crisis and the obvious shortfalls of PPE, ventilators, and vaccines (and then the Suez Canal blockage), has seen growing official recognition that ‘just in time’ production needs to shift to a more ‘resilient’, ’just in case’ model. The deepening US-China Cold War makes this ideological for some as well.

  Yet even for those who do not wish to be involved in this issue, supply chains are intimately linked to any plans to ‘Build Back Better’ and/or for Green transitions, which are now common. For example:

  • The UK, with its post-Brexit aim of Green “Levelling Up”;

  • The EU, where the Commission’s 2021 Trade Policy Review said: “A stronger and more resilient EU requires joined up internal and external action, across multiple policy areas, aligning and using all trade tools in support of EU interests and policy objectives.” In this case, ensuring quality EU jobs, even by subsiding EU green exports – and, as soon as 2023, introducing ‘Green tariffs’ on iron, steel, aluminium, cement, and fertilizer;

  • Japan, which is using public funds to incentivise firms to come home from China and which has just announced a “national project” to boost semiconductor production;

  • China, whose “Dual Circulation” policy aims to retain industry, attract new FDI with its market size, develop domestic R&D, and to win the high-end of the global value chain – including semiconductors; and most importantly

  • The US, where to the surprise of some, the Biden White House has taken some of the trade rhetoric of the Trump administration much further.

  Cynics will point out talk – like imports – is cheap. However, the shift towards fiscal policy is clear; many Western politicians recognise not just their leadership, but the liberal world order is under pressure; and this all now being linked to ‘Green’ is significant. It holds the promise of securing our safety, and higher economic growth, better employment, and a commanding position in an uncertain future of climate, social, and geopolitical change, which echoes the 1950’s Space Race. Everyone wants to produce the industrial goods of the future, like electric vehicles, batteries, and solar panels.

  Yet it should also be obvious that it is not possible for the US, China, the EU, Japan, the UK, etc., to all ‘Build Back Better’ with Green domestic production without global decoupling; nor for all to be net exporters. As such, this threatens a new (or rather, old) global paradigm: instead of businesses seeking the lowest cost production anywhere, they may have to seek sustainable production –with social and national security parameters– closer to/at home. Geospatially, this means no more hub-and-spokes focus, but a distributed, multi-modal approach around economic centres of gravity able to bend Green rules of trade/regulation to their advantage.

  Of course, globalised businesses will not like this, and most are so far ignoring missives from their governments to bring supply chains and jobs home. However, a mixture of carrots (fiscal incentives) and sticks (tariffs and/or non-tariff barriers) could move production, as we already see.

  Yet things are even more complicated than that. Even if a factory is opened in the US, the Bullwhip Effect shows it can be rendered useless without a reliable supply of all the intermediate goods and raw materials needed for final assembly. China has built this at home and along the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to coax foreign production to agglomerate there. 75% of global solar panels are now made in China, for example, and it intends to dominate Green production.

  Indeed, new US electric car battery plant would need lithium, nickel, cobalt, and copper – but can supply be assured? Consider the potential for China to disrupt crucial rare-earth mineral exports required for electronic goods production (Figure 38); and what is happening with US restrictions on much-needed high-tech exports to China.

  The US or Europe would arguably need to replicate what China has done all the way down the supply chain –in a zero-sum game– to ensure true ‘resiliency’. On that note, the June 2021 G7 summit will include a commitment to a Green (democratic) alternative to China’s BRI.

  In short, our commodity-price inflation sits alongside a global ‘race for resources’ that mirrors the late 19th century – when mercantilism (and empire) was fashionable. That implies huge structural shifts in supply chains – and a flow-through to labor markets.

  

  Into this mix we also see flux over reserve currencies, central bank digital currencies (CBDC), and payments systems. China has already launched a pilot CBDC; and the ECB has argued a CBDC might facilitate digital “dollarisation” (or “yuanisation”?) in weaker economies, while strengthening the global status of the currency in which the CBDC is denominated. The ECB openly flags concerns over domestic and cross-border payments being dominated by non-domestic providers, where “individuals and merchants alike would be vulnerable to a small number of dominant providers with strong market power”.

  This all presents the tail-risk of a global bifurcation of technology, production, payment systems, currencies, and supply chains – and labour markets. Moreover, if we do move in that direction, it will not be a gradual, linear process like a series of snowballs to be dodged: it will be a tipping-point to a rapidly exponential process, like an avalanche.

  Of course, none of this may come to pass: but that does not mean that the zero-sum game goes away. Somebody will still get to ‘Build Back Better’ with domestic production; somebody will produce the Green goods required; somebody will have reserve currency status globally; and somebody will have the easier access to raw materials and logistics supply chains required to do all of the above. Yet it may not be all the same economy or currency.

  As we will now show, global inflation will depend on how this all plays out, alongside the other seven factors previously listed.

  Whipping into a (new) shape

  We have just shown the eight primary factors we see driving global inflation. What we now need to do is look at how they interact.

  Let’s begin by making a simple assumption: that each of the factors can have a binary state that is either inflationary (1) or deflationary (0). As such, there are 64 potential combinations. That can’t be modelled, and we won’t try. But we can weigh up which factors have logical prime-mover status –or ‘primacy’– over the others. This can help us complete an inflation framework.

  Let’s take factor #7 (Labour) and factor #2 (The Fed). Both are crucial to any understanding of inflation pressures. If labour is in a strong bargaining position, e.g., if supply chains are being on-shored, then higher inflation would appear. Likewise, if the Fed were to fall behind the curve on rates, inflation would rise.

  However, can a tight labour market prevent the Fed from raising rates and bringing inflation –and wage inflation– down? No, as Volcker showed in the early 1980s. The Fed may opt NOT to act on rates, but it cannot be prevented from doing so by unions – unless US politics changes completely. In short, the Fed has primacy over labour.

  Let’s look at factor #6 (China) against factor #5 (Market Positioning). Market positioning can push commodity prices higher, and so can China. But if China stopped buying, prices would fall and market positioning would shift. On the other hand, if markets kept pushing prices higher China may not like it, but it would not necessarily have to stop buying. In reality, it would probably do to markets what markets can’t do to China: regulation. So China has primacy.

  Another example is factor #8 (Supply Chains) against factor #1 (Bullwhip Effect). Both are inflationary, but one is prime. A shift to a new supply-chain system might replicate a Bullwhip Effect to begin with: but after that it would help prevent one from happening. The opposite does not hold true. So supply chains have primacy over inflation trends.

  How about factor #3 (Fiscal policy) and #2 (The Fed) – there is a prospective clash of the titans! Again, only one matters most. If we were to see loose fiscal policy, monetary policy can be tightened in response to reduce inflation pressures. On the other hand, Congress could not keep spending or cutting taxes to compensate for rising rates – unless US politics changes completely. As such, the Fed still holds primacy.

  Then we come to perhaps the most interesting one: factor #8 (Supply Chains) against #2 (The Fed.)

  Imagine we see the tail-risk supply-chain shift scenario unfold: Western unemployment tumbles, and broad wage inflation matches that being seen in the return-to-work bonuses of the furloughed US and UK services sectors.

  The Fed cannot encourage firms to offshore – but it can stop some of those jobs from being created by raising rates and slowing the economy and/or pushing the dollar higher. So returning supply chains cannot force the Fed not to act – unless US politics changes completely, as under a new Bretton Woods with capital controls, for example. As such, the Fed once again has primacy.

  Meanwhile, what the Fed ‘has’ to do because of supply-chains is unclear. It is possible to run a trade surplus without high inflation as Germany, Japan, and China all show – but it seems unlikely the US can shift economic structure to this degree.

  Table 1 uses the prime-mover lens to show only two factors emerge as truly crucial for global inflation: the Fed, and supply chains

  

  This doesn’t mean US fiscal policy is not vital – it also is. But more so is what the Fed does in response; and if the White House starts to shift global supply chains.

  Figure 39, on the next page, is an adjusted version of Figure 9 that better reflects the relative importance of each of the eight interacting factors we have covered so far.

  

  Does this give us an inflation forecast? Again – no! One has to forecast what Congress will do, what the Fed will do in response – and what the White House does on supply chains. That is two political forecasts and a monetary one that is more political too. What can say from the framework, however, is that the inflation outlook shifts enormously depending on these projected outcomes. Indeed, we can draw up 4 scenarios focusing on the most important factors of Fed, fiscal, and supply chains:

  1) If the Fed stays behind the curve, the White House can’t pass a fiscal package, and nothing is done on supply chains, then inflation is likely to rise near term due to the Bullwhip (and other factors) – but this would mean lower real wages, and the risks of a drop in spending and then a return to low-flation/deflation.

  2) If the Fed stays behind the curve, but the White House can pass a fiscal package, and nothing is done on supply chains, then inflation will spike much higher near term due to the exacerbation of the Bullwhip Effect. However, labour’s bargaining power will remain limited, and there would then be larger real income declines and then deflationary pressure.

  3) If the Fed stays behind the curve, and the White House passes a fiscal package, and this is accompanied by an aggressive plan to shift global supply chains, things get complicated. Near term, we would see much higher inflation and a bullwhip to end all bullwhips. Provided that market positioning and consumer/business psychology did not shift too far from our past low-flation norms, however, after far more than “transitory” price hikes, inflation could stabilise at a higher than previous level, but with local supply meeting local demand in a more ‘decoupled’ economy. (In short, a partial reversing of the global economic paradigm of the past four decades.) This would be an earthquake for markets, of course.

  4) If the above scenario played out but markets speculated, consumers and business hoarded as in emerging markets, unions pushed for huge pay rises, and China also snapped up key commodities, then we would risk returning to the inflation of the 1970s. However, this is by far the least likely of these four outcomes.

  Meanwhile, the implications vary for the EU and China (and the rest of the world). US inflation, or deflation, would flow through to them. Yet scenario 3 would be deflationary for net exporters to the US (see Figures 40-43 as a summary).

  

  NB In the Figures above, green denominates that a factor is overall deflationary, and red denominates it is overall inflationary. The key two/three factors (the Fed, fiscal policy, and supply chains) are highlighted to underline their relative importance.

  On the right side one sees the indicative near and longer term inflation outcomes for the US, EU, and China, as well as the trade impact. The latter is indicative that without a shift in supply chains, fiscal stimulus flows to production abroad and not at home so ‘Build Back Better’ is built elsewhere.

  

  NB Figure 42 shows that while each factor for inflation is generally red or green, a shift towards fiscal and monetary stimulus, and a supply chain shift could not help but strengthen the power of labour vs. capital. However, the extent to which supply grows faster than demand, and productivity, would then be key.

  At the same time, Figure 43 underlines just how destabilising all factors shifting back in an inflationary direction at once would be!

  ‘Whipping’ markets around

  Crucially, in each of the four given scenarios, inflation rises near term – which we already see around us; and more so with each additional inflation factor that flips red.

  In scenarios 1 and 2, inflation falls back again subsequently because labour does not have any bargaining power, and extra demand is met by offshore rather than onshore supply. This is “transitory” inflation – yet it means significant pain for consumers and businesses. The difference between no fiscal stimulus and fiscal stimulus is also hugely significant near-term, with scenario 2 pushing inflation much higher with a much larger Bullwhip Effect (and so real wages lower).

  Yet it is only a shift in supply chains –‘Made in America/Buy American’ policy, and/or US, EU, or UK tariffs on others’ Green goods– in tandem with fiscal and monetary stimulus that sees a sharp move higher in inflation near term, and a structural long-term shift higher. At that point, should labour power and mass psychology also change in an inflationary direction, as in scenario 4, then even a partial mirroring of the 1970’s experience is theoretically possible.

  In terms of the potential impact on bond yields and the US Dollar, we therefore have the following hypothetical outcomes – and one can see how wide a range there is:

  

  Conclusion

  • What we hope to have shown in this report is that:

  • Inflation is vital to understand – but no economic theory captures it well enough to model accurately;

  • As a result, an inflation framework works better than a model;

  • Right now, we are stuck with high inflation due to a Bullwhip Effect, which economic models do not factor into their projections;

  • There are currently seven other major factors in our inflation framework, of which 2/3 are the most important from a structural perspective (the Fed, global supply chains, and fiscal policy);

  • Predicting what these key factors will do is not within the purview of any economic or econometric forecast – but is rather a political/geopolitical call (most so for the latter two);

  • How one projects the various outcomes of these key swing factors has enormous implications for both near term and long term inflation;

  • We could logically see moderate, high, or very high inflation, and/or deflation afterwards, depending on how this all plays out.

  If this implied volatility fails to satisfy a market looking for a simple, cyclical answer to its $64 trillion structural inflation question, then one needs to get cracking.

  First, on understanding political economy at a national level – which would have predicted the recent structural change in the Fed’s reaction function; and second, on understanding geopolitics/geoeconomics/great power theory at an international level – which would have predicted the current Cold War, and the ensuing push for supply-chain decoupling.

  We could also have just looked at history, and noticed how inflation never remains in the nice, stable range we would like it to for too long – because underlying social and economic structures don’t stay the same, even if our models do!

  Or, we can take an even bigger picture view than that:

  “It’s hard to build models of inflation that don’t lead to a multiverse. It’s not impossible, so I think there’s still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously.” Alan H. Guth

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 17:44

• Inflation Is Starting To Get Really Crazy… And It Is Worse Than You Think
  Inflation Is Starting To Get Really Crazy… And It Is Worse Than You Think

  Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

  Inflation is making headlines all over the country, but the mainstream media is not being honest about the true severity of the crisis.  We are being told that the official rate of inflation is still in single digits, but what we aren’t being told is that the way inflation is calculated has changed dramatically over the years.  In fact, according to Forbes “the government has changed the way it calculates inflation more than 20 times” over the past 30 years.  The rate of inflation directly affects so many other things in our system, and the government would like to keep that number as low as possible.  So they tinkered and tinkered with the formula until they got it just where they wanted it.

  

  But even with the highly modified formula that they are now using, the rate of inflation still rose at the fastest pace in almost 13 years last month…

  The consumer price index, which represents a basket including food, energy, groceries, housing costs and sales across a spectrum of goods, rose 5% from a year earlier. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been expecting a gain of 4.7%.

  The reading represented the biggest CPI gain since the 5.3% increase in August 2008, just before the financial crisis sent the U.S. spiraling into the worst recession since the Great Depression.

  We all remember what happened in the months following August 2008.

  Hopefully we will not have a repeat of that.

  Of course the truth is that consumer prices are not just rising at a 5 percent rate in the United States right now.

  According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, if the rate of inflation was still calculated the way that it was back in 1990, it would be above 8 percent right now.

  And if the rate of inflation was still calculated the way that it was back in 1980, it would currently be sitting at about 13 percent.

  But 5 percent inflation sure sounds a whole lot better than 13 percent, doesn’t it?

  One thing that I am keeping a very close eye on is food inflation.  Earlier today, I came across a story from one CBS affiliate in which they used the term “sticker shock” to describe what consumers are now experiencing at the grocery store…

  You may have noticed a significant jump in prices at the grocery store.

  More and more grocery shoppers are experiencing sticker shock every day. The price of food — especially meat, fruit and vegetables — is going up.

  If prices were increasing at just a 5 percent annual rate, that wouldn’t be a big deal.

  Sadly, the reality is much worse than that, and that is especially true for meat prices.  According to one deli owner, the true rate of inflation for meat prices is “probably closer” to 20 or 30 percent…

  Jeff Cohen, a deli owner and meat wholesaler, said those factors are making the price of meat out of control.

  “They said on national news it’s 10 percent. But that’s not true. it’s probably closer 20, 30 percent,” Cohen said.

  We will continue to get a lot of happy talk from the Biden administration and from the Federal Reserve, but this is becoming a real national crisis.

  When CBS News interviewed one shopper in Maryland, she said that she is now spending about twice as much on groceries as she did before…

  Abby Walter said she started noticing her grocery bill creeping up earlier this year. Prior to January, the Maryland resident had typically spent about $75 a week on groceries. Now her bill is averaging about $150 or even more.

  I still remember when I could get an entire shopping cart of food for just 25 dollars.

  Now if I can get an entire cart of food for less than 200 dollars, I consider that to be a monumental achievement.

  I try really hard to take advantage of sales and make every dollar stretch as far as I can.  But these days some of the sale prices are higher than the old regular prices.

  As global commodity prices have exploded higher in recent months, companies have been forced to pass those increases along to consumers, but they are attempting to use language that will not cause widespread alarm…

  If you ask Pampers maker Procter & Gamble Co., it’s not raising prices, it’s “taking pricing.” Rival Unilever, known for Dove soap and Axe body spray, says it’s been “very active with pricing.” The prize for creativity — so far at least — has been home-improvement retailer Lowe’s Cos., whose finance chief told investors Wednesday that it was “elevating our pricing ecosystem.”

  What in the world is a “pricing ecosystem”?

  I would love to have a representative from Lowe’s define that for me.

  Executives from General Mills are also using language that borders on the absurd…

  Then there’s cereal maker General Mills Inc., whose jargon includes arcane phrases like “strategic revenue management” and “holistic margin management,” which is not language you’d ever find on the back of a box of Lucky Charms. The company uses those terms so often, in fact, that its CEO now just refers to them by the acronyms SRM and HMM.

  Why can’t they just say that they are “raising prices”?

  These days, I cringe whenever I go down the cereal aisle.  It is hard for me to believe that cereal prices are so high now, but I know that they will eventually get a whole lot higher.

  We have way too many dollars chasing way too few goods and services, and instead of taking emergency measures to get inflation under control our leaders seem intent on making things even worse.

  The Biden administration wanted to spend 2 trillion dollars on infrastructure, but a group of U.S. Senators is currently working on a “compromise deal” that would only provide 1.2 trillion dollars in new infrastructure spending.

  This is on top of the trillions upon trillions of dollars that we have already borrowed and spent during this crisis.

  We can’t do this anymore.

  It is complete and utter insanity.

  But our politicians in Washington don’t seem to care.  They are going to continue to borrow and spend giant mountains of money that we do not have, and the Federal Reserve is going to continue to shovel enormous gobs of cash into the financial system.

  So more inflation is on the way, and the standard of living for most Americans is going to continue to go down.

  *  *  *

  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
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 17:30

• Ford's Electric F-150 Lightning Reservations Pass 100,000
  Ford’s Electric F-150 Lightning Reservations Pass 100,000

  While Tesla’s Cybertruck was revealed far in advance of Ford’s F-150 Lightning electric pickup, the Lightning has several things going for it.

  First, it actually appears to exist, and is planned to roll off the assembly line in Spring 2022 – unlike the Cybertruck, the current status of which is up in the air. Second, the Ford F-150 Lightning now has 100,000 reservations in just the 3 short weeks since its introduction. 

  Emma Bergg, Ford spokeswoman, told the Detroit Free Press on Thursday: “We’re super excited about the demand. Reservations are getting added all the time.”

   

  The Lightning was released 3 weeks ago and packs 563 horsepower and 775 lb.-ft. of torque. In the first 48 hours after its release, the company received 44,500 pre-orders. President Biden was at the truck’s release last month and even gave the Lightning a test drive and some free press. “This sucker is quick,” Biden said, after taking off in the truck on a closed course. 

  By comparison, since 2019, Tesla’s Cybertruck has accumulated over 1 million reservations. 

  Tesla’s official website doesn’t denote an expected delivery date. As of May, it was expected that the Cybertruck would begin production in “late 2021”. 

  Ford, meanwhile, is taking $100 refundable deposits for the Lightning and the truck starts at $39,974.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 17:00

• Venezuela Says US Sanctions Blocking COVID Vaccines: 'Global Health System' As Geopolitical Weapon
  Venezuela Says US Sanctions Blocking COVID Vaccines: ‘Global Health System’ As Geopolitical Weapon

  Authored by Brett Wilkins via via CommonDreams.org,

  Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has accused the US-backed international financial system of blocking the country’s access to Covid-19 vaccines under the COVAX program, even though Venezuela has paid all but $10 million of the $120 million it owes.

  Appearing in a televised address, Rodríguez said Venezuela was unable to pay the remaining $10 million because it was being blocked from transferring funds to the Switzerland-based GAVI Vaccine Alliance, which directs COVAX. “The financial system that also hides behind the U.S. lobby has the power to block resources that can be used to immunize the population of Venezuela,” she said.

  

  Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza tweeted a letter from COVAX stating that it “received notification from UBS Bank” that four payments, totaling just over $4.6 million, were “blocked and under investigation.”

  Arreaza said that “Venezuela has paid all of its commitments,” adding that “the bank has arbitrarily blocked” the country’s final payments and calling the situation “a crime.”

  The vice president and foreign minister’s remarks follow accusations from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last week that “organizations of US imperialism” are engaged in an effort to stop vaccine producers from selling doses to the country.

  “Venezuela might be the only country in the world that is subject to a persecution against its right to freely purchase vaccines,” said Maduro, according to Venezuelanalysis. “Venezuela is besieged so that it cannot buy vaccines.”

  

  Successive US administrations have targeted Venezuela with economic sanctions that critics say have devastated the nation’s once-thriving economy and have caused tremendous suffering for the poor and working-class people whose dramatic uplift was once hailed as the great success of the Bolivarian Revolution launched under the late President Hugo Chávez. 

  According to a 2019 report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a progressive think tank based in Washington, D.C., as many as 40,000 Venezuelans have died due to sanctions, which have made it much more difficult for millions of people to obtain food, medicine, and other necessities. 

  Maduro also denounced the World Health Organization (WHO) for its role in delaying vaccine delivery to Venezuela. The president had expected “many millions” of the Covid-19 jabs to be delivered in July and August. “The COVAX system owes a debt to Venezuela,” asserted Maduro. “We made a deposit in April and we are waiting for the vaccines.”

  That $64 million deposit to GAVI came after a rare deal between the Maduro administration and Juan Guaidó, the coup leader recognized by the United States and dozens of other nations as Venezuela’s legitimate head of state despite never having been elected.

  In an attempt to mitigate the efforts that Cuba, Venezuela and Russia are making in South America to combat the spread of COVID-19, the US Office of Global Affairs (OGA) made use of diplomatic relations with Brazil to prevent the use of Sputnik V.https://t.co/OhwzXk4OL0

  — MV English (@MV_Eng) June 8, 2021

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

  Adept at circumventing US interference in its affairs, Venezuela turned to China, Russia, and Cuba to launch its mass vaccination program, which aims to inoculate 70% of the population this year. Earlier this month, the country reached a deal to buy and locally manufacture the Russian EpiVacCorona vaccine. Venezuela has also already acquired about three million doses of the Russian Sputnik V and Chinese Sinopharm jabs, and last month began clinical trials on Cuba’s Adbala vaccine.

  Compared to other nations in the region, Venezuela has reported a very low rate of coronavirus infections and deaths. According to Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center, there have been nearly 248,000 reported cases and 2,781 deaths in the country of 28.5 million people during the ongoing pandemic. Neighboring Colombia, with just over 50 million people, has reported more than 3.6 million cases and over 94,000 deaths.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 16:30

• Gluten-Free Generation: Children With Celiac Disease Doubles In 25-Years 
  Gluten-Free Generation: Children With Celiac Disease Doubles In 25-Years 

  According to a new study, the rising prevalence of celiac disease in Europe is absolutely astonishing and has more than doubled over the last 25 years. 

  Researchers at Marche Polytechnic University in Ancona, Italy, found that celiac disease, sometimes called celiac sprue or gluten-sensitive enteropathy, an immune reaction to eating gluten, a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye, can cause painful damage to small intestines over time, doubled in school children compared to a similar study by the same group 25 years ago.

  

  Approximately 7,760 children aged from five to 11 in eight provinces of Italy were given a blood test to see if they had specific gene mutations which predispose them to celiac disease. If they tested positive, the researchers checked them for antibodies to gluten. Researchers concluded the overall prevalence of the autoimmune disease in Italian children was 1.6%, much higher than the global average of around one percent. 

  “Our study showed that prevalence of celiac disease in schoolchildren has doubled over the past 25 years when compared to figures reported by our team in a similar school age group,” said lead-author Elena Lionetti, a professor at the university. “Our sentiment is that there are more cases of celiac disease than in the past, and that we could not discover them without a screening strategy.”

  Lionetti continued: 

  “At the moment, 70% of celiac disease patients are going undiagnosed, and this study shows that significantly more could be identified, and at an earlier stage, if screening were carried out in childhood with non-invasive screening tests. Diagnosis and avoiding gluten could potentially prevent damage to the villi (finger-like projections that line the gut), which can lead to malabsorption of nutrients and long-term conditions such as growth problems, fatigue, and osteoporosis (a fragile bone condition).

  “The study has shown that screening is an effective tool for diagnosing celiac disease in children which could potentially help avoid a lot of unnecessary suffering from what can be a hard-to-detect condition.”

  StudyFinds noted around one percent of the US population, or 3 million people have celiac disease. Similar to Europe, celiac disease continues to increase among Western populations. 

  

  People with the autoimmune disorder may not be aware they have the disease as intestinal damage from gluten causes fatigue, brain fog, diarrhea, bloating, weight loss, and anemia. 

  Other studies have shown “celiac disease can increase the risk of dying prematurely.” 

  A simple solution to see if you have a gluten intolerance or even celiac disease is to get a food allergy test covered under most insurance plans. 

  In recent years, better access to gluten-free foods has made it easier for people with the autoimmune disease to eat better food.

  It appears gluten-filled Western diets are poisoning the youth. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 16:00

• Gold: "Heads You Win, Tails You Don't Lose"
  Gold: “Heads You Win, Tails You Don’t Lose”

  Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

  Boring. I never thought I would say that about gold prices, but the gold price action for the last nine months has been boring.

  And that’s actually a good thing. Why?

  After beginning with the boring part, I’ll explain. Let me unpack this…

  Gold prices hit an all-time high of $2,069 per ounce on August 6, 2020.

  The yield-to-maturity on the 10-year Treasury note hit an interim low of 0.508% on August 4, 2020. The near simultaneity of those two benchmarks is no coincidence.

  The interest rate on the 10-year note has been practically the sole determinant of the dollar price of gold since that August convergence of low rates and high gold prices.

  But that isn’t always the case…

  More Than Meets the Eye

  Many factors can affect gold prices, including fundamental supply and demand, geopolitical and other external shocks, liquidity preferences in market drawdowns, and the distinction between real rates and nominal rates.

  I watch all of those factors closely and include them in my analyses.

  Still, those other factors haven’t mattered much to the gold price lately.

  Supply and demand are in a rough balance. Global mining output is flat, and Russia, a major gold buyer, is curtailing its large-scale buying. We’ve also had geopolitical shocks in Ukraine and, most recently, Gaza.

  We’ve had other external shocks, such as the U.S. presidential election debacle and a riot in the Capitol.

  None of these events seemed to matter to gold.

  In short, these external, non-rate factors haven’t mattered to gold. The gold price is looking exclusively at the yield on the 10-year note.

  At the same time, there haven’t been any major market drawdowns in stocks.

  Information Rich

  The yield on the 10-year note is not an isolated data point. In fact, it’s information-rich. That yield represents expectations on economic growth, inflation, disinflation, exchange rates, capital flows, and returns on alternative asset classes such as stocks, private equity, venture capital and commodities.

  The yield on the 10-year note is also a good proxy for capital spending and business investment plans because they involve a five-to-twenty-year forecast.

  If you’re building a skyscraper, for example, you don’t finance it in the overnight repo market. You get a two-year construction loan and replace it with a 30-year mortgage. The average period of home ownership for a particular property in the U.S. is approximately seven years.

  In short, the 10-year note rate is a summation of a range of rates for investment activity in the real economy. This means we have to break down the drivers of the 10-year note rate to see what it’s really telling us…

  Lower Highs, Lower Lows

  The 10-year note rate — which is currently about 1.61% — is almost exclusively a reflection of inflation expectations.

  There’s no doubt that inflation expectations have been rising, especially after a spike in the CPI core and non-core data, which was reported on May 12.

  From the low yield of 0.508% on August 4, 2020, the 10-year note yield peaked at 1.745% on March 31, 2021, and hit a recent peak of 1.704% on May 13 (intraday) on the CPI news before backing down a bit to the current level.

  The dollar price of gold has moved down in lockstep as the yield on the 10-year note has risen.

  Still, there’s less than meets the eye in the recent increase in rates. As recently as November 4, 2018, the yield on the 10-year note was 3.238%. On November 4, 2019, the yield was 1.942%.

  The fact is today’s “high yields” are actually quite low and are much lower than the two interim peaks of the past three years. That means the historic 40-year bull market in bonds, which began in 1980 with yields around 14%, is alive and well.

  What we’re seeing is a classic technical pattern of lower highs and lower lows. Based on that pattern, I expect that rates are near their highs for this cycle and will soon retreat to new lows around 0.50% or lower.

  I know that puts me out of the consensus. All you hear about now is inflation and rising interest rates. But I’ve seen this movie before.

  The One Wild Card

  The only shock that would break this cycle and cause rates to reach 3.0% or higher is real inflation. But real, sustained inflation is unlikely to materialize soon. The same forces that have held inflation in check for the past decade and more are still in effect. We’ll have inflation eventually, but not yet.

  You can’t look at recent price increases as proof of sustained inflation. Temporary price spikes in lumber, for example, are the product of pandemic-induced shortages, not a general rise in overall prices.

  The surge in CPI reported on May 12 was driven predominately by base effects (lockdowns produced such low numbers that the year-over-year numbers were bound to be stronger). April 2020 marked one of the steepest output declines in U.S. history. Prices plunged.

  Many of those prices are recovering especially in the areas of travel, airfares, hotels, restaurants and other service sectors that were almost completely shut-down in the first half of 2020. Year-over-year price gains off the low 2020 base are normal. They are also transitory because the 2020 output collapse was transitory.

  As we move into the third quarter of 2021, the new base will reflect the strong growth in Q3 2020, when many lockdowns eased. That’s a higher baseline. That means a much steeper hill to climb for inflation metrics.

  That’s why I believe inflation will come down sharply, and the ten-year note yield will come down with it.

  That’s also why gold’s boring price performance has been a good thing. Essentially, gold is off the top but is nowhere near new lows; (gold was only $1,184 per ounce as recently as August 12, 2018).

  The gold bull market is entirely intact…

  The Running of the Gold Bull

  Gold has traded in a narrow range between $1,700 and $1,900 with very few exceptions since last summer. That’s about a 10% overall range and just 5% above and below the central tendency of $1,800.

  

  In a world of volatile stocks, commodity prices and exchange rates, the price of gold has been well-behaved.

  And that’s the good news.

  Given rising interest rates, a case could be made that the price of gold should be much lower. But gold has held its own against stocks and fixed income alternatives (not to mention Bitcoin and other high-flying speculations that compete with gold for investor dollars).

  If inflation does not appear and rates retreat, gold will rally. If inflation does appear, rates may rise but gold will also rally on inflation fears.

  We have been stuck in a rut where inflation expectations are driving rates higher but no sustained inflation has appeared. That’s a tough environment for gold. Still, gold has held its own.

  Technically, this is what we call an asymmetric trade.

  Downside is limited because of residual inflation fears, but upside is huge because gold prices have been moving inversely to interest rates and a plunge in rates is likely to occur.

  You can call it, “Heads I win, tails I don’t lose.” When it comes to investing, that’s as good as it gets.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 15:30

• Baltimore City Responds After Dozens Of Businesses Threaten Not To Pay Taxes
  Baltimore City Responds After Dozens Of Businesses Threaten Not To Pay Taxes

  This weekend, the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) closed down multiple city streets around the Inner Harbor, in a stretch called “Fells Point,” after dozens of local businesses threatened the new city government, run by Mayor Brandon Scott, to not pay taxes because they’re “fed up and frustrated” with the outburst of violence. 

  Last week, 37 restaurants and small businesses sent a letter to the mayor’s office titled “Letter to City Leaders From Fells Point Business Leaders.” They threatened to stop paying city taxes and other fees until “basic and essential municipal services are restored.” This comes as Madam State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby halted petty crimes during the pandemic and made such a measure permanent – the idea was to decrease violent crime, but that seems to have severely backfired.

  What’s happened in the historic bar strict is absolute mayhem at night, transformed into a dangerous area where violent and rowdy crowds have ruined the once pleasant atmosphere along with multiple shootings. 

  So this weekend, BPD closed down streets around Fells Point, which includes parts of Aliceanna, Thames, and Bond streets.

  Current look at Fells Point. pic.twitter.com/quABeTzhNn

  — Eddie Kadhim (@EddieKadhimWMAR) June 11, 2021

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

  In addition, Maryland State Police will conduct sobriety checkpoints in Fells Point. 

  Local news WJZ13’s Mike Hellgren tweets a couple of images of the increased police presence across Fells Point.

  Fells Point tonight: Police car and command post on Thames Street. @wjz #FellsPoint pic.twitter.com/cRVRRuffgJ

  — Mike Hellgren (@HellgrenWJZ) June 11, 2021

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

  One of the 37 concerned business owners on the list is Bill Packo, who owns Barley’s Backyard and has been operating in Fells Point 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.”

  BPD’s mobile police command was spotted outside another shop in the bar district. It looks very dystopic. 

  

  Meanwhile, Scott, who was newly elected, skipped out on the virtual community town hall meeting on Thursday at 7 p.m that was to address the issues in Fells Point. 

  Packo called out Scott for not attending the meeting: 

  “It’s an embarrassment to the city. It’s an embarrassment to the mayor no matter what the schedule was,” he said.

  Again, as we’ve said before, the chaos in Fells Point comes as the city descends into what could be the most violent period ever. Mosby has halted police officers going after petty crimes that have inadvertently backfired. Another liberal-run town with good intentions in policies not exactly panning out as they thought. 

  Local news WMAR2’s Eddie Kadhim interviewed a man who summed up the city’s response in Fells Point: 

  One Man’s opinion on the city response in Fells Point from a man who comes fishing down here every weekend. pic.twitter.com/mhO9GMj3qw

  — Eddie Kadhim (@EddieKadhimWMAR) June 12, 2021

  Another man said the violent crime in low-income neighborhoods is just spilling over into the downtown area. 

  “Why should Fells Point get help when so many other areas are suffering”. A fair question that I am hearing a lot. I talked to Munir Bahar @thecorcommunity about the violence that plagues the WHOLE city and how it trickles down EVERYWHERE into what he called this “powder keg”. pic.twitter.com/SKDfSzSCnJ

  — Eddie Kadhim (@EddieKadhimWMAR) June 10, 2021 

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 06/12/2021 – 15:00