• Family Of Italian Woman Whose Death Linked To AstraZeneca Jab Launches Legal Action
  Family Of Italian Woman Whose Death Linked To AstraZeneca Jab Launches Legal Action

  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. And after widespread skepticism of the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine, what was supposed to be the workhorse of the global immunization rollout before reports of rare and deadly blood clots inspired regulators around the comment to either halt the jab, or impose limits on its use.

  And now, all these issues will be dredged up again as AstraZeneca is hit by lawsuits filed by the families of those who died from rare blood clots potentially linkted to the vaccine. In what appears to be a first, Sky News reported Monday that the family of an Italian woman who died from a case of vaccine-linked clots are suing to officially establish whether the jab was at fault in her death.

  

  Augusta Turiaco

  The case involves 55-year-old Augusta Turiaco from Messina, Sicily, who received her COVID jab on March 11, but started experiencing severe symptoms a few days later.

  Despite feeling unwell afterwards, Turiaco returned to work, posting two days later to reassure worried friends saying: “Andra tutto bene” – or “everything will be alright” in Italian.

  She fell into a coma on March 28 March and died on March 30 March, 19 days after having the AstraZeneca injection. Her conditions also found in others who died after having the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.

  Here’s more from Sky News:

  Her brother Nunzio Turiaco told Sky News: “For us it was a bolt from the blue that such a clinical picture occurred.

  “My sister was in excellent health, she did not take drugs because she did not have diseases such as hypertension or diabetes.”

  Medical records seen by Sky News showed blood clots had formed in Ms Turiaco’s body, including in her brain.

  Her platelet levels had fallen.

  According to Sky, the family’s suit is one of several legal actions in Europe directed at AstraZeneca over the clotting issue.

  The legal proceedings launched by the family are just one of a number of cases across Europe being mounted against AstraZeneca.

  The family’s lawyer, Daniela Agnello, told Sky News: “The excellent state of health of Ms Turiaco, the absence of previous pathologies, the very short period of time between the administration of the vaccine, the appearance of the first illnesses and the very serious clinical picture and then death.

  Messy clinical trial data, manufacturing issues and – of course – the rare blood clots that have resulted in more than a dozen deaths have all damaged the AstraZeneca jab’s reputation, experts say.

  Despite this, both the European Medicines Agency and the World Health Organization consistently stressed that the vaccine’s benefits far outweigh the risk of any side effects and advised against any restrictions to its use. Still, national health authorities have moved ahead with their own risk and benefit assessments, which, remarkably, have drawn dissimilar conclusions – ranging from limiting the vaccine’s use in different age groups to suspending its usage and even ditching it entirely.

  Whether the vaccine will ever be approved for use in the US remains unclear; although AstraZeneca has said it has applied for review by regulators in the US, reports cited uneasiness with the vaccine’s safety record, which include a halt to a Phase 3 trial in the US for a month last fall.

  ,>

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 04/21/2021 – 02:45

• Still Believe Digital Vaccine Passports Are Something Made Up By Conspiracy Theorists?
  Still Believe Digital Vaccine Passports Are Something Made Up By Conspiracy Theorists?

  Authored by Robert Wheeler via The Organic Prepper blog,

  In my past articles I wrote about Digital Vaccine Passport pilot programs in New York, global announcements and along the same lines, health passports and vaccine passport apps in which a traveler (or event goer, employee, or shopper) uploads their COVID-19 test results or vaccination status. 

  Unless the EU Parliament suddenly became enamored with conspiracy theorists, that is exactly what is going to happen.

  

  The EU announces the Digital Vaccine Passport proposal

  In March, the European Commission opened a proposal to create a “Digital Green Certificate” to allow travel inside the EU during the “pandemic.”

  This Digital Green Certificate would serve as a documentation that a person has been vaccinated for COVID, received a negative test for COVID, or has recovered from it. It will include a QR Code to ensure the authenticity and security of the certificate and will be made free of charge in paper or digital form.

  The Digital Green Certificate will have three certificates included within it including:

  • Vaccination certificates, stating brand of the vaccine used, data and place of inoculation and number of doses administered.

  • Negative test certificates (either a NAAT/RT-PCR test or a rapid antigen test). Self-tests will be excluded for the time being.

  • Medical certificates for people who have recovered from COVID-19 in the last 180 days.

  According to Euro News,

  “Where member states accept proof of vaccination to waive certain public health restrictions such as testing or quarantine, they would be required to accept, under the same conditions, vaccination certificates issued under the Digital Green Certificate system,” the Commission said in a statement.

  …

  The instrument will be valid in all EU countries and will be open for Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway as well as Switzerland. It will be issued to EU citizens and their family members, regardless of their nationality.

  Other countries are following suit in the Digital Vaccine Passport scheme

  But while the EU debates what sort of technology to use and what parameters will be included, various European countries are taking matters into their own hands, choosing instead to create their own versions of a vaccine passport, all varying between each country. For instance, Estonia is planning to launch its own pilot program at the end of April. France is doing the same.

  In addition, the World Health Organization, who recently opposed the creation of a vaccine passport, is now working to do just that. And they are all working with the usual suspects – Google, Apple, Microsoft, IBM and a host of other corporations. What is more likely is that European countries will all implement different versions of the passport and, in the midst of chaos, the EU will have to step and standardize the process. The WHO will likely lead the charge in implementing the process worldwide.

  What does a Vaccine Passport mean for you as an American? A lot, actually

  First, if you plan on travelling to or through Europe anytime soon (and possibly forever) you may have to grab yourself one of these passports. Of course, the EU Commission has stated that the move is temporary . Once the World Health Organization (now owned by Bill Gates) declares an end to the global health emergency the digital passports will be suspended. So they say.

  “The Digital Green Certificate will not be a pre-condition to free movement and it will not discriminate in any way. A common EU-approach will not only help us to gradually restore free movement within the EU and avoid fragmentation,” explained Commissioner Reynders. Except that a “pre-condition to free movement” is the whole point and “discrimination” is at the core of the passport.

  But back to America. There are already plans to introduce a similar scheme in the United States. In fact, “coincidentally” the United States is now discussing a similar vaccine passport. As tens of millions of Americas, having been terrorized for a year, line up like cattle for their “vaccines,” the United States is planning to develop a “vaccine passport” that will allow those vaccinated to travel and “enjoy other aspects of pre-pandemic life.” In other words, freeze the unvaccinated out of normal life altogether.

  Digital Vaccine Passports in the US are up for debate

  A senior advisor to the White House has signaled that the government will be taking a hands off approach to the whole ordeal saying “”it’s not the role of the government to hold that data and to do that”

  So with that in mind, it’s likely that private corporations will be enlisted to act as the new feudal overlords that Carroll Quigley predicted years ago. More than likely, it will be companies like RAND who are involved in developing and implementing the vaccine passport scheme. In fact, RAND analysts are already making public comments on the type of scheme that will be implemented.

  “Inevitably I think there are going to be these passports because people are eager to go back to a sense of normalcy,” said Dr. Mahshid Abir, a senior physician policy researcher for the RAND Corp. “From both the supply and demand side, there is impetus to get tourism and traveling back on track, and go back to some semblance of normalcy.”

  US News and World Report quotes Abir further when it writes “One other potential benefit of requiring a vaccine passport to travel, eat out or attend a rock concert might be that it would pressure some vaccine-hesitant folks into getting their inoculation, Abir said.”

  Some states, however, have refused to participate in this gross violation of civil liberties. Florida and South Carolina have been clear they are opting out. But some Communist controlled states like New York are already implementing the passport scheme. As USA Today wrote,

  Starting Friday, New Yorkers will be able to pull up a code on their cellphone or a printout to prove they’ve been vaccinated against COVID-19 or recently tested negative for the virus that causes it.

  The first-in-the-nation certification, called the Excelsior Pass, will be useful first at large-scale venues like Madison Square Garden. But next week, the pass will be accepted at dozens of event, arts and entertainment venues statewide. It already lets people increase the size of a wedding party, or other catered event.

  Still don’t believe Digital Vaccine Passports are coming?

  So there you have it. A vaccine passport being rolled out in the EU (“temporarily” of course) and simultaneously in the United States. Still think this is not a coordinated effort to restrict travel and civil liberties? If you do, then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. But, unless you’ve been vaccinated, you won’t be able to travel to see it.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 04/21/2021 – 02:00

• Ukraine's Zelensky Invites Putin To Meet In War-Torn East: "Million Lives At Stake"
  Ukraine’s Zelensky Invites Putin To Meet In War-Torn East: “Million Lives At Stake”

  Following on the heels of last week’s Joe Biden invitation to Vladimir Putin for a bilateral summit proposed for the summer to tackle a range of still simmering contentious issues, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued a surprised invitation late Tuesday for Putin to meet him in the war-torn east of Ukraine. 

  In making the announcement Zelensky told Putin that such a direct high states meeting where the two leaders can talk de-escalation is essential as there are a “million lives at stake” in any potential outbreak of major conflict, according to AFP:

  Zelensky told the Russian leader that he was ready “to invite you to meet anywhere in the Ukrainian Donbass where the war is going on”, adding that “million of lives at stake” in the conflict between government forces and pro-Kremlin separatists in the east of the country.

  

  Days ago Zelensky traveled to an area near Mariupol in Donetsk where he “walked the front line with the troops” amid renewed fighting with Russian-backed separatists in the eastern Donbass region.

  Zelensky’s direct invitation to Putin to meet over the crisis came the same day Russia’s Defense Ministry justified its troop build-up in the South, particularly in Crimea and near the border with Ukraine, by calling it a necessary “deterrent” to NATO’s “destabilization” of the region. 

  Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that “Nato’s attempts to destabilize situations in the Middle East and Transcaucasian region force Russia to take symmetric measures of strategic deterrence,” according to an Interfax citation by Bloomberg. 

  Following Biden’s proposal to meet face-to-face with Putin we and others noted that it appeared Ukraine’s leadership had been effectively sidelined by the two rival superpowers. As one FT piece had underscored, Putin’s troop build-up has succeeded in pressuring the Biden administration for a coveted summit to decide the future of Ukraine. 

  

  “The summit format will also please the Kremlin by effectively cutting Kyiv out of any negotiations, and allow Putin to project the image of two global superpowers deciding the future fate of the conflict,” FT observed.

  Zelensky’s Tuesday appeal to Putin appears an attempt to assert that no major agreements or decisions can be reached without direct negotiations involving Ukraine’s leader. 

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 04/21/2021 – 01:00

• Hidden Russiagate Docs Expose More Misconduct, Evidentiary Holes: Ex-Investigator
  Hidden Russiagate Docs Expose More Misconduct, Evidentiary Holes: Ex-Investigator

  Authored by Aaron Maté via TheGrayZone.com,

  Kash Patel, a former Russiagate investigator on the House Intel Committee and senior White House official, says US intelligence leaders blocked the release of documents that expose more malpractice and critical evidentiary holes in their claims of sweeping “Russian interference.” Patel also singles out the FBI’s “outrageous” reliance on Crowdstrike, and the burying of testimony that the firm had no concrete evidence.

  

  As a senior House Intel investigator and Trump administration official, Kash Patel helped unearth critical misconduct by the intelligence officials who carried out the Trump-Russia probe.

  In his first extended interview since leaving government, Patel tells Aaron Maté that still-classified documents expose more malpractice, as well as major evidentiary holes in the pivotal — and largely unquestioned — claims of a sweeping Russian interference campaign to elect Trump in 2016.

  According to Patel, the release of these critical documents was “continuously impeded.”

  “I think there were people at the heads of certain intelligence agencies who did not want their tradecraft called out, even though it was during a former administration, because it doesn’t look good on the agency itself,” Patel says.

  Among the tradecraft that Patel criticizes is the hastily produced and highly consequential “Intelligence Community Assessment” of January 2017, as well as the FBI’s reliance on Crowdstrike — the DNC contractor that generated the Russian hacking allegations despite later admitting, behind closed doors, that it lacked concrete evidence.

  Patel also discusses other aspects of his time in the Trump White House: a secret mission to Syria; Trump’s record on foreign wars; and the January 6th riot at the Capitol.

  Guest: Kash Patel. Former senior government official in the Trump administration, where he served as senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, and chief of staff to the acting Secretary of Defense. Previously, Patel served as a top investigator on the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee, where he was instrumental in exposing US intelligence misconduct in the Trump-Russia investigation. Also served as a national security official in the Obama-era Justice Department and Pentagon.

  Read more:

  Aaron Maté’s July 2019 report on the flaws in Mueller’s claims of sweeping Russian interference: “CrowdstrikeOut”

  HPSCI March 2018 report: “Report on Russian Active Measures”

  Aaron Maté on Crowdstrike’s secret admission of no “concrete evidence” in Russian hacking claims:

  “Bombshell: Crowdstrike admits ‘no evidence’ Russia stole emails from DNC server”

  “Hidden Over 2 Years: Dem Cyber-Firm’s Sworn Testimony It Had No Proof of Russian Hack of DNC”

  VIDEO

  TRANSCRIPT

   AARON MATÉ: Welcome to Pushback. I’m Aaron Maté.

  Joining me is Kash Patel. He is a former senior official in the Trump administration who served in several top roles, including as the Deputy Assistant to the President, the Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council, the chief of staff to the Acting Secretary of Defense, and previously he served as a top aide on the House Intelligence Committee when it was chaired by Republican Devin Nunes, where he was instrumental in exposing US intelligence conduct behind the Trump-Russia investigation.

  Kash Patel, welcome to Pushback.

  KASH PATEL: Aaron, thanks so much for having me. Really appreciate you doing this. Let’s have some fun.

  AARON MATÉ: I appreciate the opportunity. You had a front row seat to several major stories of the Trump era. I want to start with Russiagate because that’s where I first heard of you. You helped expose the conduct of intelligence officials who carried out the investigation, including the instrumental role of the Steele dossier and the surveillance warrant on Carter Page, the former Trump campaign volunteer. And I want to get your response to actually how the media portrayed you, because when you were discussed in media accounts in several outlets, it seemed like it was a requirement to describe you as someone who was working to discredit the Trump-Russia investigation. I want to just get your response to that, how you saw your role behind the scenes, and your overall thoughts on the Trump-Russia investigation itself.

  KASH PATEL: Well, thanks for allowing me the opportunity to speak about it like that. I don’t think anybody has ever really asked me to do that, so I really appreciate it.

  So, I went on as a senior staffer for the House Intel Committee and not in Devin’s personal office. And long and short of it was, I didn’t really want to go over to The Hill, but Devin had said, ‘Hey, somebody with your background as a public defender and a national security prosecutor and knows how to investigate and take depositions, we sort of need someone to run this investigation.’ At the time neither of us thought it would get much coverage. We were just, like, we’ll do the investigation, we’ll make a report and we’ll put it up in Congress for the records, and that’ll be that. But I guess we were both really wrong on that one.

  As the investigation unfolded, and the agreement I made with Devin, I said, ‘Okay, I don’t really want to go to The Hill, but I’ll do the job on one basis: accountability and disclosure. Everything we find—I don’t care if it’s good or bad or whatever from your political perspective—we put it out so the American public can just read it themselves.’ And he agreed to that right away. So, I said, ‘Okay, then we’re up and running.’ But then the media came in and, I think the first portrayal of me in the media, because my name as a staffer was leaked, which is generally verboten, unheard of, but was leaked, and they called me a genocidal dictator in that article—Torquemada—and I thought that was—I don’t know how to even describe that—but I felt really upset that my family name was being portrayed as someone who had killed thousands of people during the Spanish Inquisition.

  AARON MATÉ: Huh, huh.

  KASH PATEL: That was the first big, breaking news story. I don’t know if it was big; it was just the one that put my name out there, which I also was not expecting any of the media to be on me personally, as a staffer. That was a little surprising.

  AARON MATÉ: And what were you actually doing behind the scenes, then, that you think would have elicited this attack on you?

  KASH PATEL: Well, running types of investigations are hard enough when you’re a public defender with limited resources. So, I analogize going over to Congress and running an investigation in a similar fashion. When I was at DOJ [Department of Justice], you have all the resources in the world and it’s really cool, but Congress has limited capabilities. We had a limited budget and limited authorities, so I sort of went back to my public defender role and I said, ‘Okay, look, the first thing we got to do is line up key witnesses that we’re going to eventually interview. But before that we have to acquire all the relevant documents from the government agencies so that we can ask these witnesses about them and know what we’re doing before we get into the room.’ So, it was a document acquisition first step, and then, a sort of parallel track, lining up witnesses that we would ultimately interview, and I think we interviewed maybe 70 under oath, ballpark.

  AARON MATÉ: And do you remember what revelation it was that made you first realize that there was some serious malfeasance going on behind the scenes, when it comes to the conduct of the intelligence officials who ran the Trump-Russia probe?

  KASH PATEL: Well, it’s a combination of things, if you’ll allow me.

  So, as a terrorism prosecutor at main Justice, I had personally worked on FISA applications myself, for a number of prosecutions successfully, and having done that work, I know how labor-intensive and detailed it is, and how much disclosure requirements you have to present to the FISA court, but also to the federal judge overseeing the case, ultimately, itself. So, I think the first time I read the Steele dossier was maybe a month or so after it came out, and it just seemed pretty sensational. And what I told folks was, ‘Look, the purpose of a FISA application is to go up on someone and surveil them who you think is basically working for another country against America.’ And Carter Page was the crux of that dossier, and I said, ‘This is really easy to prove or disprove.’ The big thing that made Carter Page in the dossier a quote-unquote “agent” of a foreign power was his meetings with high-level Russian officials and then bartering, as the dossier put it, for a 19-percent stake in the biggest gas company in Russia if he would help them, the Russians, trade once the Trump administration got in. Now, I told the members on House Intel if that were true, he’s definitely an agent of a foreign power. That’s the crux of the matter, so that’s where we started.

  AARON MATÉ: And when you found out that the FBI was citing the Steele dossier in its surveillance applications to spy on Carter Page and listing Christopher Steele as quote “Source #1” and “credible,” what was your response, and how did you try to go about getting that out to the public?

  KASH PATEL: Well, it was just sort of a Search Warrant 101, okay? So, we found out who the source is, let’s look at the source documents and the credibility of the source; that’s just basic Investigative 101. Getting those documents was another story. That was a whole different challenge that DOJ thwarted for a long time, but, ultimately, we were successful.

  I think the big breakthrough was a combination of things that happened over the course of obviously many months, and we’ll condense it here. But once I found out that the Steele dossier itself was used in the FISA application, it was a huge red flag, because I was, like, this is not how we do FISA applications. And, also, this information is incredibly salacious, and some of it was just so easily disproved, such as the hotel room that they said the salacious engagement with Trump and others had occurred. Well, if you do some Investigative 101, that hotel doesn’t exist with that room in Moscow, period. And you would think an investigator like Christopher Steele, a human guy spy for the British government for so many years with Russian expertise, would get that little fact right.

  The other thing was they had placed at the time Trump’s lawyer on a trip in Prague. I think it was Prague. And I said, ‘This is really easy. We just get the toll records for travel and see if the guy was ever in the Czech Republic or not.’ Turns out, he never left America during that time period. So, these credibility issues started to arise, and I said, ‘If we’re having problems with these easily disprovable facts, what about the heart of the matter?’ And that’s what we turned to next, with trying to get the documents and the sourcing of the whole Steele dossier.

  AARON MATÉ: And the public became aware that it was the Clinton campaign and the DNC that was paying for the Steele dossier, in late 2017. When did you find this out?

  KASH PATEL:  Was it late 2017? Yeah, your timeline’s probably right. So, what we had to do was, through our investigations and our team, we were able to piece together the sort of players involved in this whole Steele dossier thing. And the Fusion GPS came out. The individual at DOJ, Bruce Ohr, came out; then we tied that to his wife’s work, Nellie Ohr, who we were sort of shocked to see involved in all this. So, these things we started really getting going on our investigative techniques and started to unveil the facts. And, ultimately, I told Devin one thing. I said, ‘Look, when you’re a prosecutor, you follow the money.’ Terrorism Financing Cases 101. This is really easy stuff, so I said, ‘Hey, let’s follow the money.’ But the difficulty was, I wasn’t in federal court. I wasn’t a DOJ prosecutor; I was at Congress with limited powers. So, I told Devin, I said, ‘Okay, give me one bank subpoena for this bank and let’s see what’s behind the curtain, and if I’m wrong we’ll just stop the investigation.’ And luckily, we got that bank subpoena, but that ultimately took us to federal court because Fusion challenged the validity of the subpoena, and now we obviously know why.

  AARON MATÉ: So, I think by now the collusion allegation has been pretty much debunked. Few people actually still hold on to it except the most diehard adherents to Russiagate.

  But I have a lot of questions about the other aspect of this, which is this allegation of a sweeping and systematic Russian interference campaign which has not been undermined nearly to the extent that the collusion aspect has. And the obvious question for me, even without looking at all the evidence, is that given that collusion was essentially a scam, what else about this was a scam as well? So, you looked at the intelligence used to advance these allegations of Russian meddling. Was it convincing to you?

  KASH PATEL:  That the Russians were interfering with the presidential election or that they were doing so for the behest of one candidate over another?

  AARON MATÉ: Let’s start with that they were conducting a sweeping, comprehensive interference campaign to install Trump in the White House.

  KASH PATEL:  I would say the evidence did not bear that out. Now, it’s the Russians, they’re always interfering in our cybersecurity infrastructure, in our intelligence apparatus, and they will always look to get a leg up in our election cycle. So, were they involved in interfering? Sure. It’s what they do to us, period. Anyone who says otherwise has never really been in the game and understands how it works, or it’s just really making stuff up. I didn’t see this systematic, sweeping level of infiltration to pick one candidate over the other. We didn’t find that kind of hard evidence. We did find them meddling in a lot of places, of course.

  AARON MATÉ: So, when it comes to the question of Russia interfering to specifically install Trump, that was an area where your report, the March 2018 HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] report took issue with some of the intelligence communities’ findings, when the US government, in the last days of the Obama administration, put out this Intelligence Community Assessment [ICA] in January 2017, which said that Vladimir Putin ordered this campaign of interference to install Trump. Your committee identified what it called “significant intelligence tradecraft failings.” Can you give us a sense of what those failings were?

  KASH PATEL: Sure. Unfortunately, one of the documents we tried to get out during the Trump administration was that document you’re referring to.

  So, the ICA was this investigation put together in a span of two to three weeks, led by John Brennan, and in two to three weeks you can’t have a comprehensive investigation of anything in terms of interference and cyber security matters. But they put it together, so we went and looked at it and looked at the underlying evidence and cables and talked to the people who did it.

  We, on House Intel on the Republican side, actually put out a report, a highly classified report on the tradecraft used to make the Obama-era ICA that was made public. We wanted that underlying report made public, but we were continuously impeded in our efforts to do so by members of the Intelligence Community themselves, with the same singular epithets that ‘you’re going to harm sources and methods.’ And that was what was thrown in my face the entire time, when we were talking about Christopher Steele before he was Christopher Steele, and all the underlying methods.

  And I just highlight that because we didn’t lose a single source, we didn’t lose a single relationship, and no one died by the public disclosures we made, because we did it in a systematic and professional fashion. And that’s what part of the media said would be impossible to do, but we did it, and we wanted to do it for our ICA. But that was, unfortunately, the one report which speaks directly to the issue you’re asking about, that’s still sitting in a safe, classified, and unfortunately, the American public—unless Biden acts—won’t see it.

  AARON MATÉ: President Trump, though, had said that he was going to order a full declassification. Did he ever signal that he wanted that particular document released?

  KASH PATEL: I don’t know if he personally singled it [out]. I know it was included in a list of documents that Congress was seeking, or some members of Congress were seeking, to have declassified. And I know that list made its way to the White House, and I also know that, I think, on the one of the last days he did declassify a bunch of material, but I still have not seen that.

  AARON MATÉ: Right. That was a so-called binder of documents that have not come out yet. Who are some of the key officials who blocked the release of this material?

  KASH PATEL: I think it was…look, when you’re calling out the FBI and DOJ, like, one person is calling them out to say, ‘You guys screwed up one of the biggest consequential investigations of this era,’ I think it’s right for them to take your word with caution. So, it was more of an institutional pushback, and then, ultimately, when you were able to peel back the layers and show Christopher Wray and show Rod Rosenstein that these documents in fact existed and then asked them to produce them, they would start to see the shortcomings of the FISA application and the investigative process and the Steele sourcing at the FBI.

  And so, it was a repetitive process, one that even led Rod Rosenstein to threaten to investigate me because he got so annoyed at me for whatever reason, and I’m not really sure what he would investigate me or Congress on, but he made that threat, and that was widely reported.

  It was just unfortunate to see the Deputy Attorney General who, at that point, was basically the Attorney General because Jeff Sessions was aside [recused] on all matters. We were having private internal discussions, and I just said, ‘Why don’t you just go get me these Bruce Ohr 302s [FBI interview reports], and if they don’t exist and they don’t say what I’m saying they’re saying, then you can say, “Hey, Kash, you’re totally wrong.”’ Well, it turned out that the Bruce Ohr 302s did exist and it took me a long time, but America finally saw 75 percent of them unredacted.

  AARON MATÉ: And Bruce Ohr, for those who don’t know, is a former Department of Justice official who, even after the FBI terminated Christopher Steele as a source, he continued to act as essentially a liaison between Steele and the FBI.

  KASH PATEL: Yeah.

  AARON MATÉ: Let me ask you about this core assessment in the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 2017 as we discussed—that Putin ordered this campaign specifically to install Trump. It’s been reported that the main source for that judgment was this supposed mole inside the Kremlin who worked for the CIA, and that this mole, after some media reports actually was … he left Russia and came to the US and he was outed as living outside of Virginia. It’s been said that he had high-level access inside the Kremlin. Based on what you’ve seen, are the reports about the mole and his supposed high level of visibility into the Kremlin, are they credible?

  KASH PATEL: So, unfortunately, I’m sort of in a bind on this one still, with all the classified information I looked at and the declassifications we’ve requested but have not yet been granted. So, through your great public reporting and investigative work, a lot of people have continued on, and I think rightly so, to get to the bottom of this. But until the ICA product that we created and some of the other documents are finally revealed, if I start talking about them, then I’m probably going to get the FBI knocking at my door, and I don’t really want that right now—or ever.

  AARON MATÉ: Fair enough. Alright, I’m going to try one more angle of this, then, which I realize falls into similar territory, but I think it’s worth mentioning because some of it has been also made public.

  CrowdStrike is the private security firm contracted by the DNC that generated the core allegation at the heart of all this: that Russia had hacked the DNC and stolen emails. Then, almost three years later, we get last year this declassification of a transcript from Shawn Henry, the CEO of CrowdStrike, testifying to your committee in December 2017. And he said that actually CrowdStrike had no evidence that these supposed Russian hackers actually took any data off of the server. So, essentially CrowdStrike had no evidence that Russian hackers had stolen the emails that CrowdStrike in public was accusing them of stealing.

  CrowdStrike’s reports were used for the FBI’s investigation, and the FBI also relied on CrowdStrike’s forensics in terms of investigating and looking into the DNC server. What can you tell us about CrowdStrike’s credibility? Do you think that they relayed credible and accurate information?

  KASH PATEL: I think CrowdStrike, as a private company contracted by the DNC, basically did the job that they were hired to do, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they served the American public well. They weren’t hired by the American public; they were hired specifically by a private company to look at their servers.

  Where the FBI got it wrong—and James Comey admitted this—is that they, the FBI, who are the experts in looking at servers and exploiting this information so that the Intelligence Community can digest it and understand what happened, did not have access to the DNC servers in their entirety. The FBI only received—and for some outrageous reason agreed to having CrowdStrike be the referee as to what the FBI could and could not exploit and could and could not look at. Now, Shawn Henry, being a former FBI agent under James Comey, knew that, and I believe totally took advantage of the situation to the unfortunate shortcomings of the American public, and we were only able to have the FBI look at a piece of the cyber security hardware infrastructure for the DNC rather than all of it, which is what the FBI always does.

  So, that was one of the most frustrating things to me, that the FBI, one, permitted that, and two, never went back and got the server so they could look at it. But I do think Shawn Henry testified that day accurately, that CrowdStrike didn’t have any information to support those claims that you were talking about.

  AARON MATÉ: Which then leads me to question the claim itself, because it was CrowdStrike that generated it, and I think it’s a scandal that instead of us hearing back in December 2017 that the firm that generated this allegation didn’t have the concrete evidence for it. We had to wait nearly three years to find that out after so much had unfolded and so much hysterical fearmongering about Russian interference had happened.

  KASH PATEL: Yeah, I think you’re totally right. And look, we wanted those depositions and those things out and declassified immediately after we took them, and we were thwarted in that ability, too, to do that. If you recall, we had sent all 60, whatever, transcripts to the DNI under then-DNI Coats just to do a quick classification check, and the Office of Director of National Intelligence under Dan Coats never processed or advanced those deposition transcripts until actually Rick Grenell and I got to the DNI and completed the work.

  AARON MATÉ: But, by the time Grenell was in there, you had Adam Schiff now heading your committee—and I imagine he was not very receptive to releasing those transcripts.

  KASH PATEL: Exactly. And that’s a great fact that you point out: Congress had switched majority/minority positions then, and the power to release the transcripts, even after we returned them, rested with the new chairman Adam Schiff, who, whatever your politics are, didn’t want some of these transcripts to come out. And that was just extremely frustrating because the whole purpose, as I said in the beginning, was accountability and release for the American public, and everybody should have been able to read every single page of those transcripts.

  AARON MATÉ: Since we’re on the topic of Schiff, let me ask you quickly, when you see Congress reprimanding Marjorie Taylor Greene for pushing QAnon conspiracy theories, you witnessed Adam Schiff pushing Russiagate conspiracy theories, reading even the Steele dossier into the Congressional Record, including those Carter Page insane allegations that you mentioned before, about Carter Page being offered a stake in the Russian state gas company.

  Adam Schiff: Carter Page, back from Moscow, also attends the convention. According to Steele, it was Manafort who chose Page to serve as a go-between for the Trump campaign and Russian interests.

  AARON MATÉ: What are your thoughts on that, seeing Greene reprimanded for pushing conspiracy theories, but not Adam Schiff?

  KASH PATEL: I think it’s a perfect example of why the American people have such little confidence in Congress’s abilities to do much of anything these days. It’s so infiltrated with partisan politics that people don’t know what to believe, and that’s why the only thing that I wanted to do there was to, instead of me writing stuff that I found, why not just let everybody read it, the way I found it, with a few protections here and there for some certain national security measures? But those are minimal redactions, and I asked that of everybody across the board, whether it was against people in President Trump’s universe or people at the DNC, or whatever. I said, ‘You guys have agreed to testify. We found documents pertaining to your work here. Everybody should read it.’ And that was just an argument that Congress wouldn’t let me win.

  AARON MATÉ: I want to ask you something else about your March 2018 HPSCI report. There’s a very interesting line to me. You’re talking about the judgments that were inside that January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, the one that was put out in the last days of the Obama administration.

  The report says the judgments, quote, “were mostly well reasoned, consistent with observed Russian actions, properly documented, and—particularly on the cyber intrusion sections—employed appropriate caveats on sources and identified assumptions.”

  That line stood out to me because it suggests to me that when it comes to this core allegation of Russian cyber intrusions, that the evidence was not overwhelming, that there were caveats and identified assumptions. Am I right to infer from that, that when it comes to the attribution of Russian cyber meddling, that there were some qualifiers here and that the evidence was not overwhelmingly concrete?

  KASH PATEL: Without speaking to the underlying intelligence, I think you’re absolutely on the right path to infer those things, because you smartly picked up on the verbiage that the IC uses a lot of times to qualify its reporting, but especially reporting of that volume done at that speed. And that’s the reason we undertook to investigate the ICA, too, as a piece of the Russia investigation, because we felt that report put out to the American public deserves scrutiny, the same scrutiny that the FISA application process received, and we created a whole separate report for it. And I really hope one of these days that report becomes public, because I think you’ll find a lot of things in that report that are facts that cannot be disputed by the IC, and that would lend a lot of credence to the things that you’re saying now.

  AARON MATÉ: So, why do you think Trump didn’t let this get out? Because he had the authority to.

  KASH PATEL: I don’t know if I would characterize it as whether or not President Trump let this out or not. I think there were people within the IC, at the heads of certain intelligence agencies, who did not want their tradecraft called out, even though it was during a former administration, because it doesn’t look good on the agency itself.

  And again, that’s not castigating an entire agency. We’re not disparaging the entire FBI because of Peter Strzok and his crew of miscreants, where the same thing goes for the Intelligence Community. Just because I think John Brennan had four or five folks work on the ICA, if I remember correctly, if they did some shoddy tradecraft, the American public has a right to know about it in an investigation involving the presidential election.

  And there were just the same barriers you run into. When we tried to declass just the Nunes memo itself, it’s institutional pushback, and then singular pushback at high levels because they didn’t want those disclosures to happen on their watch.

  AARON MATÉ: Another question on this front: Guccifer 2.0 was this internet persona who the US Intelligence Community later said was actually a front for Russian intelligence, and the FBI and Robert Mueller strongly suggested in their indictment of Russian intelligence officers that it was Guccifer 2.0 that provided the stolen Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks. Fast forward, though, to Mueller’s final report, and he includes a caveat that actually he has no idea how these emails made their way to WikiLeaks and actually they could have been transferred in person by hand. Do you have any sense of the sourcing behind this claim about Guccifer 2.0 being a front for Russian intelligence, and is it also something that we should be looking at with skepticism?

  KASH PATEL: I think it’s something you should definitely be looking at with skepticism. It’s not something that we had time to focus on when we were doing the Russiagate investigation. It wasn’t one of the things that we were able to encapsulate within our sort of guidelines for purposes of investigation, and it sort of came up later. And by that point the handoff to Mueller had already happened, and so there was that cutoff date as to what we could and couldn’t look at. And once Mueller was announced, there was that spring cutoff timeline of the date of his March-April appointment; nothing past that that he was looking at was anything we could look at. But that doesn’t mean you guys can’t or shouldn’t.

  AARON MATÉ: Well, speaking of which Mueller, very strangely, I think, chose not to interview Julian Assange, who was at the heart of all this because he released the stolen emails. Was there ever any discussion on your committee about interviewing Julian Assange?

  KASH PATEL: I think there was. But remember, you have Robert Mueller whose special counsel is under the authorities of the Department of Justice and FBI. Big Government versus Congress and a Congressional investigator and his committee. To do those things and to make those asks is a very different request than coming from the Executive Branch of the United States government, and that’s the problem we ran into a lot of times. The FBI and the DOJ can ask and subpoena you guys and work with the heads of foreign governments to do so, but Congress’s ability to do that is much more limited.

  AARON MATÉ: If you could release just a handful of documents, just say two documents that you think would give the public a better window into the real story here, what would they be?

   

  KASH PATEL: The ICA report that HPSCI did, on the ICA itself. That, for sure, has been at the top of my list for far too long. And the other thing I would say, twofold: one, the entire subject portion of the last Carter Page FISA, and two, in conjunction with that I would release the underlying source verification reporting basically that they used to prop up that FISA. And then the American public can see what a bunch of malarkey it was that they were relying on. And not only that. It’s okay to make a mistake in a search warrant or pleading because that work you’re doing is so hard, but to intentionally make it is just something the American public needs to know about and read for themselves and make their own determination as to why their government allowed this to happen, knowingly.

   

  AARON MATÉ: I want to move on to other aspects of your time in government. It was reported last year that you took part in a secret mission to Syria to try to broker the release of Austin Tice, the US journalist who has been held hostage there. It’s unclear what his status is, whether he’s even still alive. Let me just actually ask you that, do you think Austin Tice is still alive?

  KASH PATEL: Hostage rescues are one of the most difficult and probably most rewarding parts of the job, when I was running counterterrorism for President Trump. You get to know the family so well that you just learn not to publicly comment on those matters about their loved ones because it’s just too painful, whatever the answer is. And I reserve my comments on those matters for Mr. and Mrs. Tice, in any efforts we made to get Austin.

  AARON MATÉ: Can you tell us anything about your discussions with Syrian officials, what they were asking from you, their level of openness to having talks with the US government?

  KASH PATEL: Sure. I mean, look, that didn’t happen overnight. One of President Trump’s priorities was, go get American hostages home, and I think we got over 50, 53-ish hostage/detainees back from 20-some countries, maybe. Maybe a little less.

  But Austin Tice had been missing for going on eight years, and we had made no headway, really, on it, so we made it a priority. We started working with our counterparts in the region, and then that trip was almost 18 months in the making, and we finally were able to land a meeting in Damascus. Because I told them, I said, ‘I’ll come see you. You send someone who can represent President Assad directly because I can represent President Trump directly on this matter, and let’s go sit down.’ And they said, ‘Okay, come to Damascus.’

  And I don’t know if they thought we would show up or not. But we did, and we were very clear. We said, ‘Look, I understand I’m not getting Austin home on this trip, but I would like a proof of life. What would you like in return for that?’ We had very frank conversations, and they said, ‘We want x amount of movement for the United States military and troop stuff,’ and this and that. I said, ‘Look, all of that’s on the table. We can discuss all those things. I need a proof of life.’ And they said they would take it back to Assad, at which they did. I know they did that. And then, I think, shortly thereafter I switched over to the Department of Defense and tried to continue that mission. But that one was one I just, unfortunately, didn’t succeed on.

  AARON MATÉ: President Trump on the campaign in 2016, he was critical of US interventions abroad. He criticized the war on Libya, he criticized the dirty war in Syria, but his record in office did not do anything to reverse all this. And I think actually one could argue that he escalated it. What do you make for the gap between what he was saying on the campaign trail and then what he did in office?

  KASH PATEL: I probably disagree with that because we did end three wars, three and a half, and that was what he campaigned on and we…

  AARON MATÉ: Where? Which wars?

  KASH PATEL: Well, we’re down to zero in Somalia, we’re down to less than 2,500 in Iraq. I won’t discuss the troop numbers in Syria, but it’s the lowest we’ve ever been, and we should hit zero in Afghanistan by 1 May unless the administration alters that trajectory. So, to move that amount of manning from decades of in-country fighting, we did that pretty expeditiously, and that’s something I think I’m pretty proud of, that we ended or drew to a near end so many theaters of war. Not all of them, unfortunately, but a lot of them.

  AARON MATÉ: In Somalia, though, haven’t US troops just basically moved next door?

  KASH PATEL: Well, yeah. Sort of. Without discussing exact troop locations, we’re no longer in Somalia with a big troop presence, and we are always going to counter terrorism in any form. And al-Shabaab, being one of al-Qaeda’s biggest affiliates, based solely out of Somalia. We, of course, are going to lend help to our forces in Kenya, which is one of our biggest partners in East Africa.

  So, if you talk about moving troops from Syria to Iraq versus moving troops from Somalia to wherever, you move them to where you have more reliability, are closer to the actual fight, and your capabilities to counter the terrorist threat is greater, not less. And that’s the line of effort that we took to execute in places like Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and East Africa.

  AARON MATÉ: What about the Saudi war on Yemen? Obama greenlit that war. It caused a humanitarian catastrophe—some call it a genocide. There was the ongoing risk of famine, a cholera outbreak. Why did Trump escalate US support for that?

  KASH PATEL: I don’t know. The Saudi piece has never been my forte, so I’d just be speculating if I was speaking to that.

  AARON MATÉ: Was there talk of ending it?

  KASH PATEL: The Saudi component or the Yemeni component? Sorry.

  AARON MATÉ: The support for the Saudi war on Yemen.

  KASH PATEL: There was always talk of decreasing our support to any theaters of war. The problem with the Yemeni portion of it is, as you know, the Houthis are in Yemen, so that’s Iran’s proxy, and it’s one of al-Qaeda’s bigger branches, too, that bases out of Yemen, that poses a threat to American interests. So that was the balance that they had to strike with that conflict, and it’s a tough one. There are three different governments running around in Yemen. There’s two different…three different foreign terrorist organizations. Well, two now that Biden removed one as the label as a terrorist, and that conflict’s going to go on. It’s one, I do think, we need to monitor because Iran is involved, and they simply don’t like us.

  AARON MATÉ: All right, we’re going to have to debate Yemen another time, because I have a much different view.

  But let me ask you, finally, what did you make first of Trump’s claims that this election was stolen, and were people advising him that what he was saying was not grounded in fact?

  KASH PATEL: I’m not going to speak to what people were advising him on about that, because the election stuff was never my job. My job was to head his counterterrorism program, run his DNI, and then, ultimately, help run his Defense Department. So, I stayed out of all that stuff. That never came to me.

  AARON MATÉ: And what do you think explains what happened on January 6th? Do you think that…I mean, who deserves blame here for what happened?

  KASH PATEL: That’s not for me to cast. Unfortunately, people died, Americans died, policemen died, which is just one of the greatest tragedies you can have. The Capitol was broken into, which is just a symbol of our democracy.

  AARON MATÉ: But what about claims or allegations or suspicion that the Pentagon slowed a response? They did not answer the calls for the National Guard quick enough, and that even that this was deliberate. I mean, that is the suspicion of many people, that there was a deliberate attempt to let that mob happen on the part of even White House officials, possibly even President Trump.

  KASH PATEL: I mean, that’s an extended conversation for another day. But I will politely say that that is totally, factually false. Having assisted Secretary [Christopher] Miller running the Defense Department, we put out a very public timeline for our response. We basically quelled the situation at the Capitol so that the United States Senate could go back and certify the presidential election. From the time the incident began, in less than five hours they were voting to certify the presidential election again. We—and the Capitol Police admitted this—went to the Capitol Police beforehand and said ‘Hey, do you need any help?’ They said, ‘No.’ And we, the Department of Defense, cannot lawfully send in the National Guard unless there is a specific request made by the mayor and/or a federal agency, and none were made.

  Once they were made—and a caveat to that is Secretary Miller and I had gone to President Trump days before January 6th, and he had authorized 10,000 National Guardsmen throughout the country in case there was any unrest, so he had already authorized the action. The governors and the mayors still had to ask for it, and once they did in the DC area, just to give you an anecdotal example, we activated from a cold start the fastest augmentation and mobilization of uniformed military troops in the DC area since World War II, and we put 24,000 boots on the ground in less than 48 hours. I don’t know who’s saying we slow-rolled anything, because these are Guardsmen, they’re not active-duty military, and we have to pull them out of their daily lives, train them up, get them up and then deploy them, and employ them. And I think we did that. And I think the record will show with extreme alacrity that we’re very responsive because of the severity of the situation.

  AARON MATÉ: Kash Patel, former senior official in the Trump administration, thank you very much.

  KASH PATEL: Thanks, Aaron. I appreciate it. I had fun.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 04/21/2021 – 00:05

• Meet The Tiny California Town "Full Of Dirt" That Snagged Elon Musk's Boring Company
  Meet The Tiny California Town “Full Of Dirt” That Snagged Elon Musk’s Boring Company

  Elon Musk is taking his Boring Company circus on the road to Adelanto, California. 

  Adelanto is a town of 37,000 where the mayor, Gabriel Reyes, works part time and the city manager, Jessie Flores, is the full time chief executive of the city, according to a recent Bloomberg report. 

  The county supervisor mentioned to Flores recently that Musk’s Boring Company was looking for a place to practice digging tunnels, so Flores reached out. “Steve, we’re the ones you’re looking for. When can we meet?,” Flores texted Boring’s President Steve Davis. Flores suggested meeting at SpaceX’s headquarters, which was about 2 hours away from Adelanto. 

  While the city has “no money or political capital”, it did have plenty of dirt, open space and lax views on regulation. 

  “I inherited a very unstable and mismanaged city, and poorly led. If you want to quote me on that, that would be great,” Flores said. He took over as city manager in 2018. The city is projecting a $4.72 million deficit for 2021 and 33% of its residents live below the poverty line. It doesn’t have its own police department, after it was disbanded in 2001 after a corruption probe. 

  

  Permits can get same-day turnaround in the city, Flores said. “They understand that it’s economic development and job creation that stimulate the economy, not government bureaucracy,” he continued.

  Drone manufacturer General Atomics and prefabricated construction manufacturer Clark Pacific also have footprints in Adelanto. The city also houses a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center run by the Geo Group. 

  Flores said of the controversial decision to place a detention center in Adelanto: “They stimulate the economy. There’s guards that are employed. They have families. They have obligations.” 

  The Boring Company got its first permits to dig back in 2017 in Hawthorne, who has gotten “fed up” with Musk. Upon arriving at SpaceX, Flores and his team got a tour of the facilities and a ride in a test tunnel. Musk’s team expressed to Flores that they were tired of getting blamed for kicking up dust when they dug. “We have plenty of dirt,” Flores responded. “We wouldn’t be able to tell if it’s your dirt.” 

  Boring sought out a half-mile long property and Adelanto offered up “a 20-acre plot zoned for manufacturing on the eastern fringes of town, just off U.S. Route 395.” The land was also prime-time in terms of lack of red tape, Bloomberg wrote:

  That the land had previously hosted the Adelanto Grand Prix, an annual motocross event, which was canceled last year because of Covid-19, meant extra good news for Boring. The property is considered previously disturbed, which meant less environmental red tape. Another bonus: Joshua trees, a protected species in California and common elsewhere in town, are largely absent from the site, which meant Boring wouldn’t have to go through the costly and time-consuming process of hiring an arborist to dig up and replant them. Boring and the seller, a limited partnership in Orange County, Calif., quickly agreed on a price of $495,000.

  

  When Bloomberg tried to accompany Flores to The Boring Company for a visit, he was told that the facilities “couldn’t accommodate guests that week”. The foreman on site told Bloomberg he winds up chasing five or six people a day away. As for what the company is doing at the site? “It involves experimenting with tunnel techniques, including digging the initial portion of a tunnel at an angle, rather than digging a hole and then dropping the boring machine down to the level of the tunnel,” the report says.

  Many of the workers live three hours away in Las Vegas, though local businesses are seeing pops in businesses as workers spend money for meals and other necessities in town. 

  Flores is fine with all of it. “We’ll take a gigafactory, and any other factory he wants to build in our city. Let’s go back to the industrial modern revolution, right? Where we’re building robotics, artificial intelligence.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 23:45

• Company Sells Sex Robot "Clones" Of Dead Partners Using 3D-Modeling Technology
  Company Sells Sex Robot “Clones” Of Dead Partners Using 3D-Modeling Technology

  Authored by Elias Marat via TheMindUnleashed.com,

  For many people who have lost their significant others, sex dolls have provided one way to ease the pain of grief and loneliness.

  

  However, sex robot company Lux Botics is taking things one step further – by offering a clone of dead partners using state-of-the-art three-dimensional modeling.

  With demand for sex dolls booming amid the ongoing pandemic and lockdowns across the world, Lux Botics is offering “ultra-realistic humanoids” to satisfy the carnal needs of the singles without any other recourse.

  The company’s flagship “Adult Companion” model called Stephanie goes for USD $6,000 on the Lux Botics website.

  Lux Botics is manufacturing sex robots with speech control, a facial recognition function and artificial intelligence capabilities.🤖 #AI #Robots #Manufacturing https://t.co/VDum1qz7gy

  — AIBC Dubai (@AIBCsummit) April 7, 2021

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

  The model includes speech control, facial recognition, a “hyper realistic eyes” option and even the option of implanted real hair, as well as limited AI capabilities.

  However, the company also offers the option of creating a facsimile of a lost loved one.

  The company can either create a 3D model through detailed modeling prior to it being printed in ultra-fine resolution, or it can rely on photos of the individual.

  A mould would then be constructed based on the 3D model, complete with a robot skeleton. The robot is then painted and fitted with the lips, nails, eyebrows and other features the customer chooses.

  “We can make robots that talk but we have not made robots that truly walk on their own,” Lux Botics co-founder Bjorn told Daily Star UK. 

  “We hope to develop this in the near future. We can make a large number of body parts that can move in a realistic manner.”

  While the company hasn’t yet created body doubles, Lux Botics is offering the choice to customers.

  Since the start of the pandemic, people have been desperate to cope with the solitude of self-isolation and lockdown measures. While many have resorted to traditional measures like purchasing a pet or using dating apps, sex doll sales have also skyrocketed as people seek an emotional crutch.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 23:25

• Here's What $1,000 Invested In Vaccine Stocks Would Be Worth Now
  Here’s What $1,000 Invested In Vaccine Stocks Would Be Worth Now

  It’s often said that with every crisis comes great opportunity.

  While such catastrophes do create upheaval and uncertainty in financial markets, Visual Capitalis’s Aran Ali details below that they can also lead to new opportunities for investors, as asset classes react to different environments.

  

  Since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the performance of vaccine stocks have been varied—but with some notable winners that notched triple or quadruple digit returns.

  Here’s how much a $1,000 investment would be worth as of March 31, 2021, if you had put money into each vaccine stock at the start of the pandemic:

  

  The Business of Vaccines

  The returns on vaccine stocks have varied greatly. They are staggering in the case of Novavax and Moderna, but also seem quite underwhelming, when considering the likes of Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer.

  One factor for the discrepancy in stock price performance is the revenue potential from vaccine sales relative to the rest of the existing business, as vaccine sales will have a much greater impact on the fundamentals of smaller companies.

  For example, before the pandemic, Novavax had revenues of just $18.7 million—this meant that capturing any portion of global vaccine sales would create massive value for shareholders. On the flipside, vaccine sales are much less likely to impact the fundamentals of Sanofi’s business, since the company already is generating $40.5 billion in revenue.

  To put it into perspective, analysts are expecting total sales from COVID-19 vaccines to be around $100 billion, with $40 billion in post-tax profits.

  Vaccine Stocks vs the S&P 500

  Even in a booming and valuable industry, it’s difficult to identify the long-term leaders. For example, in the mobile phone market, there was a time where the likes of Motorola, Nokia, and Blackberry appeared untouchable, but eventually lost out.

  Similarly, with the limited information available at the start of the pandemic, few, if any, could have separated the winners and losers from this group with accuracy.

  In the past year, the S&P 500 grew 44.9%—meaning that only three of the seven vaccine stocks have seen their share prices outperform the market.

  Nobody said helping solve a global pandemic guarantees a pay off.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 23:05

• The Biggest Threat To US Hegemony: China, Russia, Or Debt?
  The Biggest Threat To US Hegemony: China, Russia, Or Debt?

  Via The Mises Institute,

  Now that the Biden administration has settled in, it is time to reassess American policy towards Russia, China and the wider Asian scene. Is it going to be a continuation of the Trump administration’s policies, or is there something new going on? Given the continued tenure of staffers at the Pentagon from before the Trump presidency, it seems unlikely there will be much in the way of détente: it is game-on for the cold war to continue.

  

  Before delving into geopolitics, we must be careful to define a neutral position from which to observe developments. You cannot be objective in these matters if you justify an uninvited invasion of a foreign territory to take out a proclaimed public enemy, as America did with Osama Bin Laden and then condemn Russia for attempting to murder an ex-KGB officer living in Salisbury, or for that matter the dismembering of a journalist in the Saudi Embassy in Turkey. You must be aware that it is an established part of what Kipling called The Great Game, and always has been.

  Acts of this type are the product of states and their agents acting above any laws and are therefore permitted to ignore them. We must dismiss from our minds the concept that there are good and bad guys—when it comes to foreign operations, they all behave the same way. We must dismiss nationalistic justifications. Nor can we believe propaganda from any state when it comes to geopolitics, and particularly in a cold war. Know that our news is carefully managed for us. As far as possible we must work from facts and use reasoned deduction.

  We are now equipped to ask an important question: the US status quo, with its dollar hegemony is seen by the new Biden administration as an unchallengeable right, and its position as the world’s hegemon is vital for … what? The benefit of the world, or the benefit of the US at the world’s expense? To answer this, we must consider it from the point of view of the US military and intelligence complex.

  The problem facing us is that the Pentagon became fully institutionalized in managing America’s external security following the second world war. When the Soviets extended their sphere of influence into the three great undeveloped continents, Asia, Africa and South America, there was a case for defending capitalism and freedom—or at least freedom in an American sense by keeping minor nations on side. This was done by fair means and often foul for expediency’s sake.

  But the fall of the Berlin Wall and the death of Mao Zedong made the American military and intelligence functions largely superfluous, other than matters more directly related to national defense. But it is in the nature of government departments and their private sector contractors to do everything in their power to retain both influence and budgets, and the argument that new threats will arise is always hard for politicians to resist. And what do the statists in a government department do when they have secured their survival? Their retention of power without real purpose descends into alternative military objectives. And from the first Bush president, they were all firmly on-message.

  President Trump was the first president for some time not to start military engagements abroad. His attempts to wind down foreign operations were strongly resisted by defence and intelligence services. And his efforts to obtain a détente with North Korea were met with disdain—even horror at Langley.

  Whatever the truth in these matters, it is highly unlikely that the power conferred by the ability to initiate unchallengeable cover-ups, information management, subversion of foreign states and secret intelligence operations is not abused. The proliferation and traction of conspiracy theories, attributed in their origin to Russian cyber-attacks and disinformation, is a consequence of one’s own government continually bending the truth to the point where large sections of the population begin to believe it is its own government’s propaganda.

  This brings us to the change in administration. As a senator, Biden had interests in foreign affairs dating back to the late 1970s and was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1997 and subsequently became its chairman. As such a long-standing politician in this field it is almost certain that the Pentagon establishment regards Biden as a safe pair of hands; in other words, a president who is likely to support Langley’s role in setting geopolitical and defence priorities. Surely, for them this is a welcome change from the off-message President Trump.

  Policies to Contain the Russian Threat

  Despite the Navalny affair, Putin is still unchallengeable as Russian leader, having emerged from the post-Soviet turmoil where chaos and organised crime were the order of the day. No western leader has had such a tough political background and Putin is a survivor, a strongman firmly in control. This matters for America and NATO with respect to policies in Ukraine, the Caucasus, Syria, Iran and Turkey. Any attempt by America to complete unfinished business in Ukraine (a triparty scrap involving Russia, Germany/EU and the US over the Nord Stream pipelines depriving Ukraine of transition revenues is already brewing) is likely to lead to confrontations with Russia on the ground. And Russia signed a military cooperation pact with Iran in 2015. Like a cat with a mouse, Putin is playing with Turkey, interested in laying pipelines to southern Europe, and getting it to drift out of NATO. Russia’s interest in Syria is to keep it out of America’s sphere of influence, which with Turkey’s help it has managed to do.

  For some time, military analysts have been telling us that we are now in a cyber war with Russia, accusing it of interfering in elections and promoting conspiracy theories—the US presidential election last November being the most recent assertion. As with all these allegations there is no proof offered, just statements from government sources which have a track record of being economical with the truth. Whatever the truth may be, cyber wars are closely intertwined with propaganda.

  Attacks on Russia since the millennium have been by disrupting dollar payments, and less importantly, by sanctioning individuals close to Putin. The monetary threat was originally justified by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, leading to the collapse of the rouble and a hike in interest rates. The new cold war had taken a financial turn. Russia’s response was to reduce the economy’s dependence on dollars as much as possible, with the central bank selling dollar reserves and adding gold in their place. It also set up a new payments system to reduce its dependence on the SWIFT interbank payments system.

  Russia has survived all financial attacks and is now better insulated against them for the future. One-nil to the Russians. But the cost has been hidden, with western investment restricted to being mainly from the EU (particularly directed at the oil and gas industries). With the nation being fundamentally a kleptocracy, economic progress is severely constrained. Furthermore, with Russia being the world’s largest energy exporter, the west’s policy of decarbonisation is a medium to long term threat, leading to the demise of Russia’s USP. For these and other reasons Russia has turned to China as both a partner and an economic protector. In return, Russia is resource-rich, an energy provider, and therefore of great value to China.

  Russia’s history of assassinating leading dissidents on foreign soil has been its greatest mistake. It took years after the Litvinenko assassination for diplomatic relations with the UK to be fully restored. The deaths of several Russian oligarchs in recent years on British soil were thought to be the actions of organised crime and not attributed to the Russian state. But the clumsy assassination attempt on Sergei Skripal in Salisbury by GRU officers three years ago is unlikely to lead to a rapprochement anytime soon.

  The Russian and Chinese Geopolitical Partnership

  One of the first persons to identify the geopolitical importance of Russia’s resources was Halford Mackinder in a paper for the Royal Geographical Society in 1904. He later developed it into his Heartland theory. Mackinder argued that control of the Heartland, which stretched from the Volga to the Yangtze, would control the “World-Island”, which was his term for all Europe, Asia and Africa. Over a century later, Mackinder’s theory resonates with the two leading nations behind the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

  The underlying point is that North and South America, Britain, Japan and Australasia in the final analysis are peripheral and less important than Mackinder’s World-Island. There was a time when British and then American primacy outweighed its importance, but this may no longer be true. If Mackinder’s vision is valid about the overriding importance of undeveloped resources, Russia is positioned to become with China the most powerful national partnership on earth.

  The SCO is the greatest challenge yet mounted to American economic power and technological supremacy. And Russia and China are clearly determined to ditch the dollar. We don’t yet know what will replace it. However, the fact that the Russian central bank and nearly all the other central banks and governments in the SCO have been increasing their gold reserves for some time could be an important clue as to how the representatives of three billion Euro-Asians—almost half the world’s population—see the future of trans-Asian money.

  In terms of GDP per capita the United States is a long way ahead of the field. But it is also the most indebted at the national level. The difference with the SCO is at the purchasing power parity level, making market prices of secondary importance. While prices regionally vary considerably the costs of goods in the SCO are as an average considerably less than in the US and EU, so that on a PPP basis the SCO’s GDP is significantly greater than that of the US or the EU.

  

  The inclusion of the EU in Figure 1 is a post-Brexit nod to the fact that the EU can no longer be automatically regarded as being in the US sphere of influence. The commercial ties to the SCO, with both energy reliance from Russia and silk road rail terminals in various EU states are clearly the trade future for the EU. The EU is advanced in its plans to bring national forces under its combined flag, which by giving them an EU identity can only loosen NATO ties with America. While not an active threat to America’s power, one can envisage the EU sitting on the fence in an intensifying cold war.

  The SCO started life in 2001 as a security partnership between Russia and China, incorporating the ‘stans to the east of the Caspian Sea. Born out an earlier organisation, the Shanghai Five Group, it was set up to combat terrorism, separatism and extremism. It is still a platform for joint military exercises, but none have taken place since 2007 and it has morphed into a loose economic partnership instead.

  Since the founding Shanghai Five, the SCO now includes India and Pakistan. Observer status includes Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran and Mongolia. These nations can attend SCO conferences, but their participation is very limited. Dialogue partners include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Turkey. These nations can participate actively in SCO conferences, and this status is seen as a preliminary to full membership. Egypt and Syria have applied for observer status and Israel, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have applied to be dialog partners. Apart from South East Asian nations, which are dominated by a Chinese diaspora anyway, SCO members and their influence covers almost all of Halford Mackinder’s World Island, with the exception of the European Union.

  This is the reality that faces American hegemony; there are twenty-one nations across Asia in a non-American alliance, or on the cusp of joining it. All the other European and Asian nations are within the SCO’s sphere of influence through trade, even if not politically affiliated. It is getting more difficult to define the nations definitely in the US pocket, other than its five-eyes partners (Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand). This simple fact places severe limitations on US action against China, and to a lesser extent Russia.

  It is an exaggeration to suggest that an attack on one member state is an attack on them all. Their cooperation is fundamentally economic rather than military; except, as stated above, the SCO’s original function remains to eliminate terrorism, separatism and extremism. Indeed, India and Pakistan are at loggerheads over Kashmir, and China and India have border disputes in the Himalayas. But attempts, by, say, the US to prize India away from the SCO is bound to generate wider issues, and perhaps a response, from the other members.

  The Biden presidency faces significant challenges in the ongoing cold war and America is unlikely to retain its hegemonic status. During Trump’s presidency, attempts to curtail China’s trade and technological development did not succeed, and has only emboldened both China and Russia to stand firm and as much as possible to do without America and its dollar.

  Their senior advisors are, or should be, acutely aware of the debt and inflation traps facing the US and also the EU. Following the Fed’s policies of accelerated monetary expansion announced last March, China increased her purchases of commodities and raw materials, in effect signalling she prefers them to dollar liquidity. As a policy, it is likely to be extended further, given China’s existing stockpile of dollars and dollar-denominated debt. Her dilemma is not just the fragile state of the US economy, but that of the EU which on any dispassionate analysis is a state failing economically and politically as well. China will not want to be blamed for triggering a series of events which will get everyone reaching out for their forgotten copy of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.

  As events take their course, the risk of a dollar collapse and a matching crisis in the euro, though for different reasons, increases. For Mackinder’s heartland theory to be proved and for the Russian and Chinese partnership to be in control of it, a mega-crisis facing the profligate money-printers must happen. All history and a priori economic theory confirm it will happen. The SCO’s Plan B will be a continuance of Plan A, hatched out of the Shanghai Five Group, making the World Island a self-contained unit not dependent on the peripherals—principally, the five eyes. For money, they must give up western ways with unbacked state currencies. Between them they have enough state-owned declared and undeclared gold to back the yuan, and the rouble. Give these two currencies free convertibility into gold, and they will be accepted everywhere, so their old cold war enemies can trade their way back to prosperity. The US has, or says it has, enough gold to put a failing dollar back on a gold standard, but for it to be credible it must radically cut spending, its geopolitical ambitions, and return its budget into balance. With luck, that is how the new cold war ends.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 22:45

• Uninhabitable Bay Area Shack Listed For $575k
  Uninhabitable Bay Area Shack Listed For $575k

  A rustic log cabin in one of the Bay Area’s most expensive neighborhoods has been listed for nearly $600k. 

  The 992 sqft log cabin from the 1890s is in considerable disrepair but hidden between Oakland hills and Piedmont’s 94611 ZIP code. The average home value in the area is more than $1.5 million. 

  

  A Zillow description of the log cabin describes it as a “rustic log cabin (in considerable disrepair) built in about 1890.” It does sit on 25,000 sqft of land. 

  

  “It’s a cool property, but not in great shape,” listing agent Nick Flageollet told local news KRON4. “The terrain is sliding out from under the foundation.”

  

  Flageollet said, “It’s very unique. I don’t know if I’ve seen anything like this or even this old in this area.”

  

  Besides calling it a “rustic log cabin,” more or less it’s an uninhabitable shack that is listed for double the US median home price. 

  For someone with a knack for renovations, perhaps a millennial with woodworking skills from the metro area could find this property not just affordable (for the area) but very appealing due to its location in suburbia.  

  When it comes to price/sqft, the shack comes out to around $580, higher than averages in Washington DC and Los Angeles, California. 

  This year, housing prices have been so absurd that Case-Shiller, US home prices in 20 major cities are up a shocking 11.10% year-over-year.

  

  This is the fastest YoY rise since March 2014.

  Away from the 20 major cities, prices are rising even faster, up 11.22% – the fastest YoY price appreciation since Feb 2006…

  

  Who would ever have thought that an uninhabitable shack would be listed for double the price of the average US home? But nothing is surprising in the Bay Area while the Federal Reserve continues to prime real estate markets. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 22:25

• Watch: Shocking Clip Shows Children Being Paraded Around Drag Queen Show Taking Cash Tips
  Watch: Shocking Clip Shows Children Being Paraded Around Drag Queen Show Taking Cash Tips

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

  Yet another disgusting video has emerged of children being paraded around during a late night drag queen show in L.A. as they are encouraged to take cash tips from members of the crowd.

  

  The woman filming the video expresses her revulsion at the scene, commenting, “Why in the hell do these people got these fucking little-bitty ass kids at this fucking drag show?”

  “It is 11:40 at night – these people have children in a fucking drag show in L.A.” she adds.

  The video then shows two young blonde girls being made by a drag queen to perform poses to music as they collect money from the attendees.

  “Look at this shit! They’re fucking throwing money at these little girls, got ’em picking up fucking money off the floor like they’re fucking strippers and shit,” remarks the woman.

  #WakeTheFuckUpAmerica pic.twitter.com/EeRvDOHJDu

  — ✨LINDSAY✨ (@DistortedLinds) April 18, 2021

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

  Respondents to the video were similarly repulsed.

  “I can’t fathom what kind of woke ass stupid parent lets their little girls parade suggestively in front of a room full of horny sauced-up freaks while they get bills thrown at them like strippers,” one remarked.

  “11.40pm. People giving money to children. This is insane,” added another.

  This is by no means the only instance of children being exposed to sexualized drag queen shows in late night clubs.

  In 2019, so-called ‘drag queen kid’ Desmond is Amazing performed on stage at a gay club in New York while patrons tossed money at the then 12-year-old boy.

  A video posted to Tik Tok in February last year showed a drag queen dancing suggestively in front of a girl no older than 6 as adults in the room applauded and cheered.

  The following month, we also highlighted how a school in Brooklyn reportedly handed out stickers to 4-year-old children during a ‘drag queen story time’ event that said “drag queen in training.”

  This occurred in the same month that video emerged of a drag queen in the UK teaching toddlers how to twerk.

  Drag queen Kitty Demure previously slammed ‘woke’ parents for exposing their kids to drag queen culture.

  “I have absolutely no idea why you would want that to influence your child, would you want a stripper or a porn star to influence your child?” he asked.

  *  *  *

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

  *  *  *

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

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 22:05

• While The Economy Collapsed In 2020, CEO Pay Surged
  While The Economy Collapsed In 2020, CEO Pay Surged

  At the same time the corporate world was suffering from implementing new burdensome Covid restrictions, dealing with shutting down in-person office sites, and generally trying to quell the panic of a government induced recession brought on by its pandemic response, CEO pay was soaring.

  During 2020, as millions lost their jobs, median pay for CEO of more than 300 of the biggest U.S. public companies hit $13.7 million, up from $12.8 million the year prior, according to a new Wall Street Journal report. Of the 322 CEOs that the Journal analyzed, pay rose for 206 of them, with the median raise coming in at about 15%. 

  The rise was helped along by the bounce in the stock market and modified pay structures for dealing with the response to the pandemic. Shareholders have spoke out at companies like Starbucks and Walgreens Boots Alliance, voting against pay arrangements at the companies’ annual general meetings.

  

  TransDigm also saw 57% of its shares voted against the company’s proposed pay program, which allowed options to vest when they normally otherwise wouldn’t be allowed to be exercised.

  “TransDigm’s executive compensation plans, along with the board’s decision to vest certain options in 2020, are designed to incentivize leaders to act like business owners and align their interests with shareholders over the long term,” the company’s IR rep said.

  Even companies that felt the brunt of the pandemic the worst saw their CEO pay rise. For example, Norwegian Cruise Lines posted a $4 billion loss last year and its revenue fell 80% – but its CEO’s pay doubled to $36.4 million, thanks to resigning a contract extension with the company. 

  The company said: “We believe these changes were in the best interests of the company and secured Mr. Del Rio’s continued invaluable expertise. Our management team took quick, decisive action to reduce costs, conserve cash, raise capital.”

  

  At food service company Aramark, CEO John Zillmer saw his 2020 pay come in at $27.1 million versus $11 million in the year prior. The company’s board “bumped executives’ annual incentive payments up to 40% of initial targets instead of the 10% that pay-program formulas would have dictated,” the report notes.

  Aramark claims the changes were to retain executives and recognize the “extraordinary circumstances” of the pandemic. 

  Shaun Bisman, a pay and corporate-governance consultant at Compensation Advisory Partners in New York, told the Journal: “I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything like this before in terms of the number of changes we’ve seen in incentive plans.”

  However, not all companies followed suit. CEOs of Exxon, Omnicom Group Inc. and Intel all took less in pay in 2020 than they did in 2019, the report noted. Those companies generated total returns of between -15% and -36% during 2020.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 21:45

• Lacalle: Why The US Recovery Is Not That Strong
  Lacalle: Why The US Recovery Is Not That Strong

  Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

  The United States: Hardly A Recovery

  There is an overly optimistic consensus view about the speed and strength of the United States’ recovery that is contradicted by facts. It is true that the United States recovery is stronger than the European or Japanese one, but the macro data shows that the euphoric messages about aggregate GDP growth are wildly exaggerated.

  Of course, Gross Domestic Product is going to rise fast, with estimates of 6% for 2021. It would be alarming if it did not after a massive chain of stimuli of more than 12% of GDP in fiscal spending and $7 trillion in Federal Reserve balance sheet expansion. This is a combined stimulus that is almost three times larger than the 2008 crisis one, according to McKinsey. The question is, what is the quality of this recovery?

  The answer is: extremely poor. The United States real growth excluding the increase in debt will continue to be exceedingly small. No one can talk about a strong recovery when industry capacity utilization is at 74%, massively below the level of 80% at which it was before the pandemic. Furthermore, labor force participation rate stands at 61.5%, significantly below the pre-covid level and stalling after bouncing to 62% in September. Unemployment may be at 6%, but it is still almost twice as large as it was before the pandemic. Continuing jobless claims remain above 3.7 million in April.  Weekly jobless claims remain above 500,000 and the total number of people claiming benefits in all programs — state and federal combined — for the week ending March 27 decreased by 1.2 million to 16.9 million.

  These figures must be put in the context of the unprecedented spending spree and the monetary stimulus. Yes, the recovery is better than the Eurozone’s thanks to a fast and efficient vaccination rollout and the dynamism of the United States business fabric, but the figures show that a relevant amount of the subsequent stimulus plans have simply perpetuated overcapacity, kept zombie firms that had financial issues before covid-19 alive and bloated the government structural deficit and mandatory spending.

  Would the United States economy had recovered as fast as it has without the deficit-spending stimulus plans? Maybe. I believe so because the entire recovery, both in markets and the economy, has been driven by the vaccine news and the process of inoculation. Most of the programs that have been implemented have had a small impact compared to the re-opening of the hospitality sector and the vaccinations. The entire economic crisis came from the lockdowns and the virus and the entire recovery is the re-opening and the vaccinations.

  My main concern is that this monster deficit and debt program has been set as the minimum for the next crisis. No one has analysed if the spending plans have been effective. In fact, in the eurozone no one seems to be concerned about the fact that countries that have spent between 20 to 30% of GDP in stimulus plans are now in stagnation. The mainstream message seems to be that if the spending plans have not worked it is because they were not large enough. Very few seem to be discussing the waste in public funding when the number one drivers of the recovery are the vaccine roll-out and the re-opening of the services sector.

  It seems that governments want to convince us that they have saved the world when the reality is that the misguided lockdowns were the cause of the economic debacle and lifting them is the main cause of the recovery. In the process, trillions have been squandered. It is dangerous to accept that government spending no matter how much and what for is the only solution and even more dangerous to believe that the shape of the recovery is only a function of the size of the stimulus package. The problem was the virus and the government-imposed lockdowns, the solution is the vaccine and the re-opening.  The problem was caused by government’s lack of prevention and excess of interventionism and the solution is not more intervention.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 21:25

• Facebook Plans To Launch Stablecoin That Will Compete With Dollar Early Next Year
  Facebook Plans To Launch Stablecoin That Will Compete With Dollar Early Next Year

  A couple of days ago, Morgan Stanley warned that China’s new digital renminbi – the first “central bank digital currency” (or CBDC) – could cement its status as the next reserve currency. But as government and Wall Street continue their embrace of virtual currencies that, some say, threaten to blow up the industry status quo and eliminate the need for banks, corporations are also striving to create the stablecoin of the future, challenging governments’ long-held monopoly on money.

  

  Years after Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg first declared his intention to launch a transnational stablecoin via Facebook’s “Libra” project that would, he hoped, enable cross-border payments on Facebook’s platform, the Facebook-backed digital-currency project Diem is reportedly planning to launch its first stablecoin in 2021 as a small-scale pilot, according to an anonymously sourced report from CNBC.

  But Libra, which involved a convoluted plan to launch a stablecoin backed by a potpourri of fiat currencies, was quickly scaled back after Facebook’s talk about creating a new international financial system to supplant the dollar apparently rattled too many feathers. What was left was later spun off as Diem, a re-branding that has given life to a scaled-back vision of corporate stablecoin dominance. However, When it finally arrives, Diem won’t come with the same fanfare and controversy of the original idea envisioned by the social media giant nearly two years ago.

  The person, who preferred to remain anonymous as the details haven’t yet been made public, said this pilot will be small in scale, focusing largely on transactions between individual consumers. There may also be an option for users to buy goods and purchases, the person added. However, there is no confirmed date for the launch and timing could therefore change.

  “It’s really drifted off the radar in a way that’s quite striking,” Michael Casey, chief content officer of the cryptocurrency publication CoinDesk and a former financial journalist, told CNBC.

  Facebook won’t play an official role in the launch, which instead will be overseen by the Diem Association, the Switzerland-based nonprofit which oversees diem’s development.

  In comments to CNBC, financial journalist Michael Casey said he was surprised at how under-the-radar the diem project has become. It’s almost as if the international community has forgotten about it, he said. “It really drifted off the radar in a way that’s quite striking,” said Casey, the chief content officer of the cryptocurrency publication CoinDesk who was one of the first reporters at a major American newspaper (the Wall Street Journal) to cover the rise of crypto.

  The soft reaction to Diem is also surprising considering how much of a backlash its predecessor created. “It was such a stunning challenge to the international order, in that the backlash was just really powerful,” Casey said.

  Diem has lost several senior executives over the past year, as well as the backing of powerful corporations like Mastercard and Visa, among many others. But in the wake of its rebranding, Diem is reportedly in talks with Swiss financial regulators to secure a payment license, a crucial step that would place the organization further along the path toward getting its digital currency project off the ground.

  Of course, more “government sponsored” competitors are in the works: in addition to the eRMB, the ECB recently concluded a public consultation on a digital euro and will make a decision this summer, and the Boston Fed is set to release its initial research in the fall.

  With stablecoins seen as a more practical alternative to bitcoin and ether, we will be closely watching the rollout of stablecoins as a space where corporations might win an early victory in the battle to use crypto technology to seize the money-making monopoly from government – and from the people.

  To sum up, why should readers be skeptical of Facebook’s Diem? Well, Tom Luongo once described it as a “Trojan Rabbit” that could quietly help Zuck seize the ability to print money, and launch “the Central Bank of Facebook.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 21:05

• BLS Reveals That Big City Unemployment Is Much Higher Than The National Average
  BLS Reveals That Big City Unemployment Is Much Higher Than The National Average

  Submitted by Nicholas Colas of Datatrek Research

  After a highly unusual several-month lag, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics has finally updated its state and local labor market statistics, so we will dedicate today’s Data section to these numbers.

  The central message here is that US unemployment trends are very location-specific, something the national data obviously fails to capture. By looking at state- and city-level data we can more accurately assess both how far the domestic labor market has recovered and what factors will drive unemployment/labor force participation trends from here.

  Two points on this topic:

  #1: The current difference in unemployment rates across US states are very large (March 2021 data here).

  • 12 states are already back to essentially full employment (2 – 4 percent unemployment): Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, New Hampshire, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Alabama, Montana, Wisconsin and Indiana.

  • 19 states have unemployment between 4 – 6 percent (note: March national joblessness was 6.0 percent): Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Dakota, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Maine, Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Wyoming, Washington, West Virginia and Oregon.

  • 8 states have unemployment rates between 6.1 and 7.0 percent, or close to the national level: Maryland, Mississippi, Colorado, Delaware, Alaska, Arizona, Massachusetts and Texas.

  That leaves 11 states with noticeably higher unemployment rates (over 7 percent), and several are in the most populous areas of the country:

  • California (12 pct of US population): 8.3 percent unemployment

  • New York (6 pct): 8.5 percent unemployment

  • Illinois (4 pct): 7.1 percent unemployment

  • Pennsylvania (4 pct): 7.3 percent unemployment

  • New Jersey (3 pct): 7.7 percent unemployment

  • Smaller states with +7 percent unemployment: Rhode Island, Louisiana, Nevada, Connecticut, New Mexico, and Hawaii.

  Takeaway: US unemployment is clustered in a handful of states (CA, NY, IL, PA, and NJ), with much of the rest of the country already approaching, near, or at full employment.

  #2: American big city joblessness is a large part of the country’s overall unemployment challenge, as these 2 points show:

  First, consider February/March’s national unemployment rates as compared to America’s 10 largest cities in the same months:

  • March 2021 national unemployment: 6.0 percent

  • February 2021 national unemployment: 6.2 percent

  Versus:

  • New York City unemployment Rate: 11.2 pct (March)

  • Los Angeles: 10.9 pct (March)

  • Chicago: 7.7 pct (March)

  • Houston: 8.4 pct (Feb data, latest available)

  • Phoenix: 6.7 pct (Feb data)

  • Philadelphia: 11.2 pct (Feb data)

  • San Antonio: 6.8 pct (Feb data)

  • San Diego: 6.9 pct (March)

  • Dallas: 6.9 pct (Feb data)

  • Austin: 5.6 pct (Feb data)

  What this shows: average top-10 big American city unemployment (Feb/March 2021) is 8.2 percent, much higher than the national 6.0 – 6.2 percent rate.

  Second, let’s zoom in on New York and Los Angeles and see how their unemployment situations both differ from and inform the US experience as a whole:

  • First, keep in mind that the US labor force (people employed or looking for work) shrank from February 2020 to March 2021 by 3.8 million people (down 2.3 percent). This highlights the problem of declining labor force participation that Fed Chair Powell regularly mentions.
    NYC has not seen the same drop in workforce size. The labor force here has declined by only 9,186 people (-0.2 percent).
    Los Angeles is much more in line with the national decline in labor force size, down 115,124 from February 2020 (-2.2 percent)

  • Add up unemployment in New York City (462,131) and Los Angeles (551,124) and you get 1,013,255 jobless workers, or 10 percent of the US total. These 2 cities only make up 3.7 percent of the US population.

  Takeaway: the Pandemic Recession hit large American cities harder than the rest of the country due to their leverage to in-person commercial activities like business travel/tourism as well as the shift to work-from-home. It will be some time before they fully recover.

  Final thought: every recession hits regional/local economies differently, but the current dichotomies are exceptional. Even now, the pandemic uniquely challenges urban areas while more suburban/rural regions are in much, much better shape. Monetary and fiscal policy do not, of course, differentiate between New York City or Los Angeles and the 31 states where unemployment is markedly lower than those cities. American policymakers make decisions based on national data, and fair enough – it is one country. But if one is predisposed to worrying about inflationary pressures as a result of over-stimulation, the data we’ve presented today is certainly one way to justify those concerns.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 20:45

• Bill Gates Criticized For Blocking The Equitable Distribution Of COVID Vaccines
  Bill Gates Criticized For Blocking The Equitable Distribution Of COVID Vaccines

  Nearly 1 billion COVID vaccination shots have been distributed around the world, but in more than 120 countries, not a single dose has been received, much less administered. And as we explained recently, one man is to overwhelmingly to blame for this sorry state of affairs: Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

  

  Thanks to his role as the world’s de facto public health czar, Gates has used his influence to ensure that the international vaccine rollout remains firmly under the control of drugmaking giants, and that the intellectual property undergirding vaccines remains a closely guarded secret, not a universally-applicable formula. As a coalition of poorer nations tries to fight back against this using the WTO, a freelance journalist named Alexander Zaitchik has harshly criticized Gates for failing to provide for the equitable distribution of vaccines.

  Zaitchik said the software developer-turned-philanthropist has ignored all concerns about the supply of vaccines, essentially leaving the poorest nations to fend for themselves, even as he pours another $1.8 billion of his own money into the COVAX initiative, which seeks to provide vaccine supplies to more than 90 low-income nations.

  “We missed a crucial year of being able to scale up and get the tech transfer where it should be to have global production at full capacity. And he’s basically said ‘trust me’, and it didn’t work,” Zaitchik said.

  The journalist emphasized that at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, many health experts were calling for a collaborative approach, saying companies and countries should share experience in testing, treatment, and vaccines against the disease. This could have prevented a potential crisis of supply and access to vaccines. However, Zaitchik claims that the Gates-funded ACT-Accelerator had “outmatched and outmanoeuvred” supporters of this “open science” approach with the intention of

  Ironically, the biggest critics of Gates’ methodology are at the WHO. For months, criticis about the unfair distribution of inoculations against the coronavirus. In February, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that more than three quarters of vaccinations had been carried out in just 10 high-income countries. “Around 130 countries, with 2.5 billion people, have yet to administer a single dose”, the WHO chief said.

  At the end of March, Dr. Tedros warned that vaccine inequity was becoming “more grotesque every day” while calling for a fairer distribution of inoculations. He also warned that “countries that are now vaccinating younger, healthy people at low risk of disease are doing so at the cost of the lives of health workers, older people and other at-risk groups in other countries” – something that’s becoming increasingly egregious as unused COVID jabs pile up in some US states.

  Incidentally, Bill Gates has himself complained about the issue of unfair distribution of inoculations and urged US legislators to allocate more money for the global response to the coronavirus.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 20:25

• The Bankers Are Coming! The Bankers Are Coming… For Your Bitcoin
  The Bankers Are Coming! The Bankers Are Coming… For Your Bitcoin

  Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

  One of the oldest arguments against Bitcoin, and cryptocurrencies in general, is the Central Banker Attack. Anyone who’s spent more than fifteen minutes inside the crypto-world will have heard this one.

  That’s the argument where the person tacitly admits bitcoin isn’t a scam or vaporware but then says, “Well, if it gets too big, they’ll just make it illegal.” What’s most baffling to me is that this argument is mostly made by those who swear by their gold holdings while simultaneously swearing at the central bankers for ruining the world.

  

  I get that it’s mostly a coping mechanism for watching crypto go ballistic while gold languishes under the control those same central bankers. And, in the past, I had a lot more sympathy for that perspective than I do now. Because today, at a total valuation around $2 trillion, we’ve arrived at that moment where the bankers and politicians are coming for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and they are coming hard.

  Since last week’s Coinbase IPO Bitcoin has been under constant and persistent attack. Bitcoin pushed through its former peak at $61,800 and since then there have been massive, coordinated dumps to push the price back down.

  WTF! $7.5 Billion In Stolen #Bitcoin from the 2016 Bitfinex Hack has just been moved for the first time in 5 years. pic.twitter.com/WJJ3smY8dc

  — Mr. Whale (@CryptoWhale) April 14, 2021

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

  That pushed Bitcoin back below it’s previous high and COIN’s tumble from an overpriced IPO didn’t help matters.

  Then Turkey announced it would, like India, that it would ban the use of cryptocurrencies as payments on Friday.

  At nearly the same time, however, China announced it was allowing Chinese banks to import up to 150 tonnes of gold for retail distribution for the first time since 2019. This led some to speculate about a ‘gold-backed yuan’ but I don’t think that at all.

  This was simply another counter-move to the ones made against the cryptocurrency markets. Like the Archegos Capital tac nuke that is still creating aftershocks throughout the financial system, China’s announcement sent gold, which was firming but still very vulnerable to the downside, through near-term resistance to close the week above the magic $1760 level.

  

  One has to realize just how important gold’s non-confirmation of bitcoin’s rally has been to undermine it in the eyes of major money managers. Gold is an asset the central banks control most of the supply of. Bitcoin is the opposite, an asset the central banks presumably control none of.

  So, when casting your eye around the market landscape who are the people, other than the bitter gold-only bugs, most bearish about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies? The ones who made/make their living off the U.S. dollar-based system.

  Between them and those that have a kind of monetary policy Stockholm Syndrome there’s still a massive number of people who just can’t or won’t get involved at this point. At a minimum, many pros are simply waiting for a real correction they can get behind to finally take the plunge.

  But bull markets, real bull markets, are brutal to people who refuse to get on board and the longer it goes on the more strident in their opposition they become. Hence the constant sniping and backbiting by people who should know better amplifying the truly clueless takes on the situation.

  Thanks to the Chinese on Friday a simultaneous wipeout of both gold and bitcoin was avoided with gold breaking out and bitcoin mostly holding serve, throwing no technically significant bearish signals into the weekly close.

  

  Averting a weekly close above the March high helped set up what happened on Sunday early morning.

  These attacks were honestly not terribly successful until a series of uncorroborated rumors of the SEC going after Bitcoin account holders for money laundering emerged on Twitter this weekend.

  

  From Zerohedge on this:

  Whereas this account traditionally blasts Reuters or Bloomberg headlines, in this case there was no such underlying report from either Reuters or Bloomberg, and Bloomberg even said that “several online reports attributed the plunge to speculation the U.S. Treasury may crack down on money laundering that’s carried out through digital assets.”

  Furthermore, in comments just earlier this week, regulators refused to take a position on bitcoin either way, even as speculation of a crackdown against bitcoin by the US government is ever present – indeed, the rumor of a “crackdown” against money laundering has always been present, which is why said tweet merely poured gasoline on an already jittery market.

  Then there were the blackouts in China which took a huge amount of hashing power offline for a few hours this weekend.

  “After a run-up in prices ushering in #Coinbase‘s long-awaited market debut earlier in the week, the #cryptocurrency market plummeted early Sunday after blackouts in China led to massive declines in #bitcoin‘s mining rates…”
  https://t.co/lkLFP0Ea4E

  — Bitcoin Market Journal (@BitcoinMktJrnl) April 18, 2021

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

  But, honestly, this kind of bearish price action into Sunday morning is normal. I do a report for my Patrons every Sunday morning and there is always shenanigans while I’m asleep Saturday night. I go to sleep and everything is fine and I wake up the next morning and bitcoin is off some amount. Sometimes it’s technically scary, like this week and sometimes it’s just sad.

  Saturday nights in #Bitcoin have become like Monday mornings in #Gold used to be. If you are a long-time gold sufferer you know exactly what I’m talking about.

  Attacks only make you stronger.

  — Tom Luongo (@TFL1728) April 18, 2021

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

  Now, Zerohedge is right that the market should be jittery, certainly. Any asset that climbs 20x in a year is one that is very overbought. However, bitcoin’s unique problem for mean reversionists is it is just beginning to climb the broader adoption curve while it’s supply continues dwindling.

  And that’s why these attacks had to happen this week. Another bull wave up would have done real damage to the credibility of the central banks right at the same time that China seemingly put in the floor beneath gold prices at around $1670.

  Remember, it was last year where gold and bitcoin came off the Coronapocalypse in safe haven lockstep, both rallying hard into August. Bitcoin’s fundamental supply and demand mismatch and a spate of institutional adoption announcements touched off its rise in November to break out of the three-year consolidation at the quarterly level.

  

  Gold, still being the plaything of the central banks continued its decline to this day. Even Friday’s technical breakout is only a short-term life preserver given that the longer-term charts are bearish. Gold has a lot of work to do to regain the market’s confidence.

  And that makes bitcoin’s correction all that much more dangerous all around because the two assets moving down together now will only make those skeptical of bitcoin that much more cautious and respectful of the awesome power of the central banks.

  The liquidations in bitcoin that began over the weekend continue today. The usual suspects will be out saying, “See! I told you so!” And I’m looking at my portfolio saying, “Told me what, that I’m only up 350% since the start of the year versus 400%?”

  Cry me a frickin’ river.

  Moments like this quite possibly become inflection points in a market’s history, no doubt about it. And it’s clear that there is a coordinated effort by those with power to manipulate events to their satisfaction. It’s completely expected. If they didn’t counterattack I would actually be less bullish on cryptos because I’d now be looking for the dead rat in the cupboard because something wouldn’t smell right.

  That said, China confirmed my analysis of their Friday announcement on gold by today reversing their stance on cryptocurrencies after years of opposition to it.

  Industry insiders called the comments “progressive” and are watching closely for any regulatory changes made by the People’s Bank of China.

  “We regard Bitcoin and stablecoin as crypto assets … These are investment alternatives,” Li Bo, deputy governor of the PBOC, said on Sunday during a panel hosted by CNBC at the Boao Forum for Asia.

  “They are not currency per se. And so the main role we see for crypto assets going forward, the main role is investment alternative” he added.

  This confuses some people, but it honestly shouldn’t.

  I’ve made the point in the past that if you really thought China was against bitcoin then how do you explain the amount of energy consumed by the Chinese electrical grid in mining it?

  

  https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200477/bitcoin-mining-by-country/

  I’m no fan of central planning but really do you think something like this happens without the CCP knowing about it because they have a Hayekian pretense to knowledge?

  Or do you think, maybe, just maybe, China is more than happy to allow this to go on knowing the bind it ultimately puts the Fed, the ECB and the SNB?

  Do you really think that China doesn’t understand that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies can become more of a near-term threat to the U.S.’s dominance of the global financial system than anything it does today or tomorrow with the digital yuan?

  Even if that argument doesn’t persuade you, the idea that China wouldn’t nurture bitcoin as a weapon to use against an increasingly hostile and sanctions-happy U.S. as a kind of monetary shock troop brigade is terminally naïve.

  Moreover, do you think China’s government didn’t just give out a stern warning to the miners there not to get too many ideas? If Jack Ma can get taken down a few pegs, so can AntPool. Moments like this only confirm for me that the bitcoin hashing power will become more democratized now that there are real investments in the U.S. on the line.

  Expect hashing power to migrate away from China while at the same time more attempts made to bring the bitcoin supply more under control of authorities here in the West. The beauty of crypto, of course, is that spinning up another blockchain is easy, building trust over time is important and altcoins which one may consider shitcoins today may be the saviors of the entire industry tomorrow.

  Highs are made when the supply of buyers is overwhelmed by the supply of sellers. Bottoms are the reverse of this, where sellers are overwhelmed by a flood of buyers. I find it fascinating that this knock down of bitcoin hasn’t done much to dampen the enthusiasm for other high-quality store-of-value style coins. Once bitcoin retreated from its new high we saw big breakouts in coins like DASH, Monero (XMR), Decred (DCR) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH).

  Heck, even a duds like Zcash (ZEC) and Bitcoin Gold (BTG) joined the party.

  But once Turkey made its announcement and the SEC rumor hit the markets what really saw a move was the ultimate privacy coin, Pirate Chain (ARRR). It doesn’t take a 200+ IQ to figure that one out. Pirate Chain has been quietly building momentum all year and exploded in a 10x move that made even Dogecoin (DOGE) look tame. Moreover, there seems to be no slowing it down, because this isn’t a trade, it’s a defensive move.

  Since ARRR doesn’t really trade on any major exchanges liquidity is non-existent and holders of it have no intention of letting go just because the central banks are coming. If the SEC is worried about money laundering with a fully transparent blockchain like bitcoin or ethereum, what will they do when the world wakes up to the complete anonymization of capital coins like ARRR and XMR are capable of delivering?

  With the central banks and The Davos Crowd making their moves on the entire crypto-space it validates what I’ve been saying about the futility of their actions trying to maintain their power and control. They are putting a premium on anonymity and privacy in a world increasingly under surveillance. China’s statements and actions on bitcoin are putting a premium on wider, shallower mining and alternatives to blockchain security.

  It may be time to light three lanterns in the window because the central banks are coming both by land and by sea but nothing worth having was ever gained by not fighting for it. We’ll soon find out who has the stones and the fortitude to stick it out to the end.

  And if the crypto-revolution ultimately dies on the digital vine then there’s always gold right?

  *  *  *

  Join My Patreon if you don’t think central banks are all powerful

  Donate via

  BTC: 3GSkAe8PhENyMWQb7orjtnJK9VX8mMf7Zf
  BCH: qq9pvwq26d8fjfk0f6k5mmnn09vzkmeh3sffxd6ryt
  DCR: DsV2x4kJ4gWCPSpHmS4czbLz2fJNqms78oE
  LTC: MWWdCHbMmn1yuyMSZX55ENJnQo8DXCFg5k
  DASH: XjWQKXJuxYzaNV6WMC4zhuQ43uBw8mN4Va
  WAVES: 3PF58yzAghxPJad5rM44ZpH5fUZJug4kBSa
  ETH: 0x1dd2e6cddb02e3839700b33e9dd45859344c9edc

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 20:05

• China's Central Bank Researchers Urge Lifting Birth Limits To Keep Up With 'Skilled Immigration-Fed' US
  China’s Central Bank Researchers Urge Lifting Birth Limits To Keep Up With ‘Skilled Immigration-Fed’ US

  China is still desperately seeking to recover from its disastrous ‘one-child policy’ which was officially ended in 2015 and replaced by the current two-child policy, yet still by 2019 the country reached a decades low of 14.7 million births after years of observable stark decline, still significantly below what’s required to maintain the size of the current population and economy. 

  With this aim in mind and amid the continued panic in terms of the need to replace the future workforce and compete with other industrialized nations, especially its superpower rival the United States, there are new calls in the country to “fully liberalize” its draconian birth-control policy, which remains reputed as the harshest in the world. 

  

  A recently released paper published by the People’s Bank of China urges a drastic overhaul of the policy to actually encourage “three or more” children per household. It called for a total lifting of any restrictions in order to “fully liberalize and encourage childbirth” to reverse the current four-year straight decline in births nationwide. 

  A key section of the 22-page document spells out: “In order to achieve the long-term goals in 2035, China should fully liberalize and encourage childbirth, and sweep off difficulties (women face) during pregnancy, childbirth, and kindergarten and school enrollment by all means (possible),” the four central bank researchers wrote in the English language abstract. 

  In particular the authors, who noted they don’t necessarily represent the official views of the central bank, worry that the United States’ continued influx of “skilled immigration” combined with China’s accelerating rate of ageing population (and with a little over 70% of the total population in the labor workforce based on 2019 numbers, compared to a US rate of 65%) will leave China’s economy at a huge disadvantage: 

  “For [China] to narrow the gap with the United States in the past four decades, it relied on cheap labor and huge numbers of people… What will we rely on in the next 30 years? This is worth our thoughts,” the study said.

  “If there’s slight hesitation, (we) will miss the precious window of opportunity for birth policy to respond to the demographic transition, and repeat the mistake of developed countries.”

  

  Charts via BBC/World Bank figures.

  

  The study further comes after recent forecasts by the United Nations suggested that over the next thirty years China’s population is expected to decrease by over 30 million people; and simultaneously the US is expected to gain 50 million by 2050.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 19:45

• The Lockdown Paradigm Is Collapsing
  The Lockdown Paradigm Is Collapsing

  Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The American Institute for Economic Research,

  It’s taken much longer than it should have but at last it seems to be happening: the lockdown paradigm is collapsing. The signs are all around us. 

  

  The one-time hero of the lockdown, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, is now deeply unpopular and most voters want him to resign. Meanwhile, polls have started to favor Florida governor and lockdown opponent Ron DeSantis for influence over the GOP in the future. This remarkable flip in fortunes is due to the dawning realization that the lockdowns were a disastrous policy. DeSantis and fellow anti-lockdown governor Kristi Noem are the first to state the truth bluntly. Their honesty has won them both credibility.

  Meanwhile, in Congressional hearings, Representative James Jordan (R-OH) demanded that Dr. Fauci account for why closed Michigan has worse disease prevalence than neighboring Wisconsin which has long been entirely open. Fauci pretended he couldn’t hear the question, couldn’t see the chart, and then didn’t understand. Finally he just sat there silent after having uttered a few banalities about enforcement differentials.

  The lockdowners are now dealing with the huge problem of Texas. It has been fully open with no restrictions for 6 weeks. Cases and deaths fell dramatically in the same period. Fauci has no answer. Or compare closed California with open Florida: similar death rates. We have a full range of experiences in the US that allow comparisons between open and closed and disease outcomes. There is no relationship. 

  Or you could look to Taiwan, which had no stringencies governing its 23.5 million people. Deaths from Covid-19 thus far: 11. Sweden, which stayed open, performed better than most of Europe. 

  The problem is that the presence or absence of lockdowns in the face of the virus seem completely uncorrelated with any disease trajectory. AIER has assembled 33 case studies from all over the world showing this to be true. 

  Why should any of this matter? Because the “scientists” who recommended lockdowns had posited very precisely and pointedly that they had found the way to control the virus and minimized negative outcomes. We know for sure that the lockdowns imposed astonishing collateral damage. What we do not see is any relationship between lockdowns and disease outcomes. 

  This is devastating because the scientists who pushed lockdowns had made specific and falsifiable predictions. This was probably their biggest mistake. In doing so, they set up a test of their theory. Their theory failed. This is the sort of moment that causes a collapse of a scientific paradigm, as explained by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). 

  A good example of a similar situation might be the Soviet economy under Nikita Khrushchev. He came to power with a promise that he would make the Russia economy under communism perform better than the United States. That was the essence of his famous promise “We will bury you.” He meant that Russia would outproduce America. 

  It did not happen. He failed and the theory he pushed failed alongside. And thus began the slow coming apart of communist theory and practice. Khrushchev had already repudiated the Stalinist terror state but never had any intention of presiding over the slow demise of the entire Soviet experiment in central planning. By setting up a test that could falsify his promise, he doomed an entire system to intellectual repudiation and eventual collapse. 

  The theory and practice of lockdownism could be going the same way. 

  In Kuhn’s reconstruction of the history of science, he argued that progress in science occurs not in a linear fashion but rather episodically as new orthodoxies emerge, get codified, and then collapse under the weight of too many anomalies. 

  The pattern goes like this. There is normal science driven by puzzle solving and experimentation. When a theory seems to capture most known information, a new orthodoxy emerges – a paradigm. Over time, too much new information seems to contradict what the theory would predict or explain. Thus emerges the crisis and collapse of the paradigm. We enter into a pre-paradigmatic era as the cycle starts all over again. 

  As best anyone can tell, the idea of locking down when faced with a new virus emerged in the US and the UK around 2005-2006. It started with a small group of fanatics who dissented from traditional public health. They posited that they could manage a virus by dictating people’s behavior: how closely they stood next to each other, where they travelled, what events they attended, where they sat and for how long. They pushed the idea of closures and restrictions, which they branded “nonpharmaceutical interventions” through “targeted layered containment.” What they proposed was medieval in practice but with a veneer of computer science and epidemiology. 

  When the idea was first floated, it was greeted with ferocious opposition. Over time, the lockdown paradigm made progress, with funding from the Gates Foundation and more recruits from within academia and public health bureaucracies. There were journals and conferences. Guidelines at the national level started to warm to the idea of school and business closures and a more broad invocation of the quarantine power. It took 10 years but eventually the heresy became a quasi-orthodoxy. They occupied enough positions of power that they were able to try out their theory on a new pathogen that emerged 15 years after the idea of lockdown had been first floated, while traditional epidemiology came to be marginalized, gradually at first and then all at once. 

  Kuhn explains how a new orthodoxy gradually replaces the old one:

  When, in the development of a natural science, an individual or group first produces a synthesis able to attract most of the next generation’s practitioners, the older schools gradually disappear. In part their disappearance is caused by their members’ conversion to the new paradigm. But there are always some men who cling to one or another of the older views, and they are simply read out of the profession, which thereafter ignores their work. The new paradigm implies a new and more rigid definition of the field. Those unwilling or unable accommodate their work to it must proceed in isolation or attach themselves to some other group. 

  That’s a good description of how lockdown ideology triumphed. There are plenty of conspiracy theories out there concerning why the lockdowns happened. Many of them contain grains of truth. But we don’t need to take recourse to them to understand why it happened. It happened because the people who believed in them became dominant in the world of ideas, or at least prominent enough to override and banish traditional principles of public health. The lockdowns were driven primarily by lockdown ideology. The adherents to this strange new ideology grew to the point where they were able to push their agenda ahead of time-tested principles.

  It is a blessing of this ideology that it came with a built-in promise. They would achieve better disease outcomes than traditional public health practices, so they said. This promise will eventually be their undoing, for one simple reason: they have not worked. Kuhn writes that in the history of science, this is prelude to crisis due to “the persistent failure of the puzzles of normal science to come out as they should. Failure of existing rules is the prelude to a search for new ones.” Further: “The significance of crises is the indication they provide that an occasion for retooling has arrived.”

  Kuhn’s theory of scientific progress fits rather well with the rise and fall of lockdownism. They had a theory that converted many people away from traditional principles. That theory came with a test. The theory has failed the test – that much is becoming more obvious by the day. 

  The silence of Fauci in Congressional hearings is telling. His willingness only to be interviewed by fawning mainstream media TV anchors is as well. Many of the other lockdowners that were public and preening one year ago have fallen silent, sending ever fewer tweets and content that is ever more surreptitious rather than certain. The crisis for the fake science of lockdownism may not be upon us now but it is coming. 

  Kuhn speaks of the post-crisis period of science as a time for a new paradigm to emerge, first nascently and then becoming canonical over time. What will replace lockdown ideology? We can hope it will be the realization that the old principles of public health served us well, as did the legal and moral principles of human rights and restrictions on the powers of government.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 19:25

• 68-Year Old President Of Chad Killed In Frontline Clashes With Rebels
  68-Year Old President Of Chad Killed In Frontline Clashes With Rebels

  In a headline that almost defies belief given it’s the 21st century, the president of the north-central African country of Chad has died from wounds sustained on frontlines while battling rebels seeking to oust his government. 

  The national armed forces announced Tuesday that Chad’s President Idriss Déby Itno, who had only on Monday been elected to a sixth term, “died while protecting the country” and as he was “commanding an army unit during hostilities against the rebels in the north of the country,” according to AFP. He was pronounced dead from his injuries at a hospital. 

  

  The 68-year-old leader has been in office since 1990, and under his rule Chad had been considered a key strategic ally in the historically war-racked central African region. Though widely acknowledged as a dictator, European countries like former colonial power France considered he and his military crucial in rooting out jihadists from the region.

  AFP reports the following details of his death: “The army said Deby had been commanding his forces at the weekend as they fought rebels who had launched a major incursion into the north of the oil-producing country on election day.”

  Deby “has just breathed his last breath defending the sovereign nation on the battlefield,” army spokesman General Azem Bermandoa Agouna announced on state television, which reportedly sent much of the population into a panic as schools, public buildings, and the country’s borders were shut “until further notice” on fears of instability.

  

  And BBC added further details: “He had gone to the front line, several hundred kilometres north of the capital N’Djamena, at the weekend to visit troops battling rebels belonging to a group calling itself Fact (the Front for Change and Concord in Chad).”

  Here’s more background from AFP: 

  Deby, often called “marshal” due to his military rank, had ruled Chad with an iron fist since taking power on the back of a coup in 1990.

  He was nonetheless a key ally in the West’s anti-jihadist campaign in the troubled Sahel region, particularly due to Chad’s ability to supply weaponry and soldiers.

  Déby son, 37-year-old four star general Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno, will take over leadership of the country and army for the next 18 months during a ‘transition period’ during which time parliament will be suspended.

  #UPDATE Chad’s President Idriss #Deby Itno died on Tuesday from wounds sustained in battle after three decades in power, the army said, his son immediately named transitional leader opening a period of uncertainty in a country that is a key Western ally https://t.co/R7OFIgm2J2 pic.twitter.com/CTGvFLzDWv

  — AFP News Agency (@AFP) April 20, 2021

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

  Mahamat Idriss Déby is now vowing “free and democratic” elections following the mourning period and lengthy transition period.

  Recent history in the region of course suggests that the son will probably hold onto power for decades to come. There’s already widespread fears the country is poised to descend into instability and violence.

  

  Idriss Déby Itno previously addressing the United Nations, via Reuters.

  

  We should note that this instance of Deby’s perishing during a battle constitutes the only time in the 21st century that a head of state has died while leading his forces into military combat — something we can imagine is probably never going to happen again in this century, apparently providing a lone exception to Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s take on all modern heads of state (especially in the West) as warmongers who are themselves not warriors…

  “Historically, all warlords and warmongers were warriors themselves, and, with a few curious exceptions, societies were run by risk takers, not risk transferors,” Taleb wrote in his Skin in the Game.

  “They took risks – more risks than ordinary citizens. Julian the Apostate, the hero of many, died on the battlefield fighting in the never-ending war on the Persian frontier. One of predecessors, Valerian, after he was captured was said to have been used as a human footstool by the Persian Shahpur when mounting his horse. Less than a third of Roman emperors died in their bed – and one can argue that, had they lived longer, they would have fallen prey to either a coup or a battlefield.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 19:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Britain To Deploy 2 Warships To Black Sea As "Solidarity" With Ukraine
  Britain To Deploy 2 Warships To Black Sea As “Solidarity” With Ukraine

  Turkey’s NTV channel is confirming a Sunday Times report that said the UK is preparing to sail two warships into the Black Sea via the Bosporus starting next month amid continued fears that a major confrontation between Russia and Ukraine could break out. 

  “Putting the ships off the coast of Ukraine is intended to show solidarity with Kiev and Nato allies in the region after the President Biden decided to cancel the deployment of two American warships to the Black Sea last week for fear of escalating the crisis over the massing of Russian troops,” The Sunday Times wrote. 

  

  Biden had canceled the US warship deployment after a phone call with Russia’s Putin, wherein the US president also expressed willingness for a face-to-face summit at some point in the summer – an overture that angered hawks, given it put the White House in a “weak” position due to no conditions being agreed to ahead of such a high level bilateral summit

  According to further details in The Sunday Times:

  One Type 45 destroyer armed with anti-aircraft missiles and an anti-submarine Type 23 frigate will peel off from the Royal Navy’s carrier task group in the Mediterranean and head through the Bosphorus into the Black Sea, according to senior naval sources.

  RAF F-35B Lightning stealth jets and Merlin submarine-hunting helicopters are to stand ready on the task group’s flag ship, the carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, to support the warships in the Black Sea should they be threatened by Russian warships, submarines or aircraft. HMS Queen Elizabeth has to stay in the Mediterranean because an international treaty prohibits aircraft carriers from entering the Black Sea.

  The Montreux Agreement of 1936 dictates that foreign powers passing through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles straits must notify Turkey two weeks ahead of time before their passage.

  Interestingly, the Royal Navy had plans for near-future Black Sea missions prior to current tensions and Russia’s troop build-up in Crimea and near the Ukrainian border. But this new deployment is now being recast as “solidarity” toward Ukraine. The announcement further came days after Russia closed the Kerch Strait to all foreign military vessels, essentially cutting off the Ukrainian Navy’s access to the Black Sea. 

  Britain’s Ministry of Defence was cited as saying for example: “The UK and our international allies are unwavering in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We are working closely with Ukraine to monitor the current situation and continue to call on Russia to de-escalate.”

  “Our armed forces continue to support Ukraine through our training mission Operation Orbital, which has trained over 20,000 members of the armed forces of Ukraine, and the UK-led Maritime Training Initiative,” it added.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 02:45

• UK Labour Leader Kicked Out Of Pub By Anti-Lockdown Landlord
  UK Labour Leader Kicked Out Of Pub By Anti-Lockdown Landlord

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

  UK Labour Party leader Keir Starmer was kicked out of a pub in Bath by an irate landlord who tore into him for supporting the Conservative government’s economy-wrecking lockdown policy.

  

  Starmer’s visit to the Raven didn’t go as planned as owner Rod Humphreys launched into a verbal tirade about the idiocy of COVID-19 restrictions while asserting he was “incandescent” with rage.

  The landlord showed Starmer a chart while making the point that the average age of a COVID death was 82 years and 3 months compared to the average age of death in the UK which is 81 years.

  “Do you understand we have fucked our economy because old people are dying,” said Humphreys before going on to point out that the UK had a similar total death rate in 2008.

  Eventful trip to the Raven in Bath for Labour leader Keir Starmer.
  Warning – bad language from landlord Rod Humphreys pic.twitter.com/gjNtCsok6F

  — Stephen Sumner (@StephenSumner15) April 19, 2021

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

  “You’ve failed me – I’ve been a Labour voter my entire life,” Humphreys told Starmer as the politician tried to skulk away.

  “You have failed to be the opposition, you have failed to ask whether lockdown was functioning, thousands of people have died because you have failed to do your job and ask the real questions.”

  Humphreys then scolded Starmer for failing to oppose children wearing masks in schools when there’s “never been any evidence for it.”

  A second clip shows Humphreys demanding Starmer leave his pub after the politician and his security team tried to enter the premises.

  A UK pub owner kicks out a pro-lockdown politician. This is the most satisfying video you’ll see all day. pic.twitter.com/i4YbD1AKBy

  — Ezra Levant 🍁 (@ezralevant) April 19, 2021

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

  The Labour Party is supposed to act as the “opposition” to the ruling government, and yet it has voted with the Tories on every single COVID-19 lockdown policy, at some points arguing that the restrictions should have been even more severe.

  Starmer subsequently addressed the incident on Twitter with a smarmy tweet that encouraged people to register to vote.

   

  Register to vote for a party that supports the exact same policies as the ruling government?

  Genius.

  *  *  *

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

  *  *  *

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

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 04/20/2021 – 02:00

• Oceania Takes On Eurasia And Eastasia
  Oceania Takes On Eurasia And Eastasia

  Submitted by South Front,

  The emerging US strategy appears to be centered on imposing a regime of isolation on Russia and China with the aim of ultimately effecting regime change in both countries through a combination of political, economic, and military measures. The military component consists of building up naval, aerial, and space capabilities for blockade and strike directed at these two countries and any countries aligned with them. The ongoing shift of US military capabilities away from protracted land warfare toward naval and aerial long-range strike using hypersonic weapons and swarming munitions, evidenced by the US Marine Corps’ shedding of its tanks and heavy artillery and the US Army opting for long-range missile arsenals and even anti-ship capabilities, indicates a preference for “non-contact” warfare in the future, with client states being assigned the role of “bleeding” in future conflicts. The fact that even the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, the senior military advisory body to the civilian leadership, a US Army four-star general himself, argues that in the future the US Army will need to have its funding reduced in order to facilitate the US Navy’s improbably ambitious expansion plans, is very telling in and of itself.

  NATO’s obsession with so-called “Anti-Access/Area Denial”, or A2/AD “bubbles” supposedly being built by Russia and China in order to protect their territory from NATO’s aggression in locations such as Kaliningrad Region, Crimea, Hainan Island, and other locations, is indicative of the offensive nature of NATO’s operational planning which is plainly inconvenienced by the notion of putative targets being able to shoot back. The development of drone swarms and hypersonic munitions, together with the desperate emphasis on deploying as many of the clearly flawed F-35 stealth fighters as possible, is all part of the technological arms race intended to give offense an advantage over defense.

  But technology is only one part of the puzzle. The other is that deep-strike technologies require, well, “access” to politically open airspace which may not always be available. Moreover, US deep-strike capabilities may also rely on bases located in client states that would become targets of counterstrikes. That the possibility, indeed the strong likelihood of such retaliation exists was suggested by Russia’s warning to NATO in advance of the post-Douma false-flag operation cruise missile strikes against Syria that, should Russian forces or facilities be targeted, the Russian military would not limit itself to downing the munitions.Instead it would also go after the launch platforms (meaning aircraft and warships) as well as bases from which they were operating. In that context, it would have meant NATO air and naval bases in Greece, Italy, and as far away as Spain, which homeports four US Navy destroyers at Naval Station Rota. One way or the other, the message was received by NATO and no Russian forces or facilities were targeted. But the precedent was established, and we can assume it will be followed in any future confrontations.

  Which means that United States’ ability to launch strikes against Russia or China, their forces and bases both on and outside its national territory and airspace, will also be limited by client states’ unwillingness to suffer retaliatory strikes.

  This creates a major diplomatic challenge for the United States, which is relegating its “allies” to the role of punching bags forcing to accept retaliatory blows following its own strikes. The sheer size of Russia and China combined means that the challenge varies from region to region.

  Here the situation is relatively the easiest for the US, given the proximity of Alaska where a major military build-up is taking place, including anti-ballistic missile defenses, forward-basing of strategic bombers, and plans for major F-35 permanent deployment in addition to the air-defense F-22s already stationed there. However, these bases have pretty limited reach, even with aerial refueling for the F-35s, which means that to reach targets closer to Arkhangelsk and Murmansk US forces would have to rely, one way or another, on bases in Norway, Iceland, and even Greenland. The likelihood of the relevant political authorities giving assent to the use of these bases in support of strikes against Russian forces or assets in the Arctic reasons appears to be low. Given these countries’ economic interests in the Arctic and the effectiveness of the Arctic Council at managing the problems of the region, it does not appear likely that Norway, Denmark, or Iceland, would go so far as to risk being a target of Russian military retaliation, and the inevitable end to that international organization which would follow. While Sweden and Finland are also making noises about joining NATO, which would enter huge swaths of airspace to “access” by US aircraft and missiles on their way to Russia, the prospect of becoming a target of retaliation has so far kept them from joining that organization outright. One, however, should not discount the possibility of existence of various secret agreements and arrangements that are being kept from these countries’ populations.

  Here the United States has two countries that are actually willing, at the governmental level if not popular one, to absorb Russian retaliatory strikes. These are Poland and Romania which have already agreed to host components of US National Missile Defense system, and which are all but guaranteed to give the US whatever “access” it needs in case of an operation against Kaliningrad or Crimea, respectively. The restraining factor here is the fact both of these countries happen to be members of the European Union and will remain such for the foreseeable future in spite of earlier US efforts to split the union by peeling off first Great Britain, and then Eastern Europe. While not members of the Eurozone, they are nevertheless part of the common market and open border zones, and serve as the preferred destination for “outsourcing” by Western European firms seeking to avoid Eurozone’s high labor costs (which creates its own set of problems). The pressure on North Stream 2 and indeed on all EU-Russia economic and political ties is motivated by the desire to eliminate the political resistance to the free use of EU’s airspace for offensive military operations against Russia and its targets. So far it has had little success, and has even elevated North Stream 2 issue to the level of question whether Germany is in any way a sovereign country. United States is also exerting indirect pressure on Germany by actively courting France as its “preferred” continental interlocutor at the expense of Germany. However, the economic benefits of EU-Russia collaboration have proved greater than anything the United States could provide to offset them, and Biden’s own version of “America First” policies is unlikely to be more attractive than Trump’s.

  To make matters worse, Poland’s and Romania’s proximity to Russia have meant a certain unwillingness to place major US military bases there, meaning that even when it comes to operations by bombers based in the United States, some of their support functions would be performed by military units based in Germany, Italy, and Great Britain, rendering them vulnerable to retaliatory strikes as well.

  Here, if anything, the situation is even worse for the US than in Europe’s case because there does not appear to be a single country that is an equivalent to Poland and Romania in the sense of having political leadership willing to make their country a hostage to Washington’s military planning. The relevant countries where US currently has bases include Japan and South Korea, neither of which views their relationship with China as a zero-sum game. Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, do not show signs of giving the US a blank check in any situation other than a major threat to their own vital interests by China. The political resistance would mean pushing US support infrastructure to as far as Guam, which is too far and too poorly developed to sustain large-scale carrier battle group operations in eastern Pacific or South China Sea. Even Australia, which has a strong Sinophobic lobby and which moreover self-identifies as part of the “Anglosphere”, is on the fence regarding the desirability of granting unfettered access to Australia’s bases and airspace for the purpose of operations against China.

  The difficulties United States are experiencing at providing the political preconditions for the implementation of their ambitious aero-naval-space blockade and strike capabilities demonstrate the importance of traditional diplomacy to national security. Russia’s outreach to the European Union, the Middle East, and Asia, as well as China’s oft-maligned “Tiger diplomacy” have created a situation in which US military power is functionally displaced by political considerations. It does not even appear that the US leadership is fully aware of the reasons for the ineffectiveness of its military power, otherwise it would not be sending badly overworked aircraft carriers on “double-pump” deployments or keep decades-old strategic bombers on what looks like a repeat of permanent patrols, though this time without nuclear bombs onboard. This is, however, what a multipolar world looks like and will look like going forward. Biden administration’s agreement to extend the New START with Russia for five years without preconditions, over the objections of such hard-liners as Victoria Nuland, suggests there is some reluctant recognition that the world is shifting toward a more equitable distribution of power and wealth.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 23:50

• WHO Rejects Vaccine Passport For International Travelers
  WHO Rejects Vaccine Passport For International Travelers

  In a statement released following a virtual briefing on Monday, the WHO’s Emergency Committee on international health standards officially recommended that governments avoid making vaccine passports mandatory, a trend that is already catching on in the UK.

  Specifically, the committee advised governments “do not require proof of vaccination as a condition of entry, given the limited (although growing) evidence about the performance of vaccines in reducing transmission and the persistent inequity in the global vaccine distribution. States Parties are strongly encouraged to acknowledge the potential for requirements of proof of vaccination to deepen inequities and promote differential freedom of movement.”

  

  To justify this position, the WHO cited both limited data on vaccine effectiveness in reducing transmission, along with the deep inequalities in availability that the WHO has long complained about, while at the same time enabling the man is perhaps, more than anybody, responsible for the fact that poor nations will likely wait years for adequate vaccine supplies.

  As we have reported, this man’s name is Bill Gates.

  Incidentally, the Committee also exhorted governments to do whatever they could to support Covax, the WHO-sponsored and Gates-designed program to supply enough jabs to vaccinate the populations of more than 130 countries. However, the program hasn’t managed to allocate nearly enough vaccines, and many poorer nations – beyond the 92 officially eligible for aid via Covax – have no idea where vaccine supplies will come from, sine the choice to respect patent law has created massive international supply bottlenecks. Instead of allowing an “open vaccine” that could be produced anywhere, emerging markets must compete for jabs on the free market.

  After telling governments to try to keep quarantine restrictions for travelers within the bounds of common sense, the WHO added that governments should also work to “Reduce the financial burden on international travelers” whenever possible while enforcing quarantine measures.

  Meanwhile, over in the US, CDC Director Dr. Walensky, whose fearmongering has launched her to front-page coverage in the past, warned that COVID cases have continued to climb even as vaccination numbers have risen, a reality that hasn’t escaped millions of Americans, who are walking on with their masks on as if nothing has changed.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 23:30

• The Age Of Over-Abundant Elites
  The Age Of Over-Abundant Elites

  Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,

  I’ve been reading Peter Turchin’s “Ages of Discord”, which tries to look at patterns of societal strife that he found in previous, pre-industrial civilizations such as Rome and France, and examine how it holds up in a post-industrial era. It bears some resemblance to other cycle theories like Strauss and Howe’s “Fourth Turning” or other long-wave models like Kondratiev Waves (K-Waves). The basic premise behind these ideas are that societies undergo cyclical or pendulum-like dynamics between relatively steady states of prosperity and stability, the internal dynamics of which then produce the conditions that precipitate reversions into turbulent periods of strife and chaotic change.

  The important thing to keep in mind is that to that the likes of Turchin and other historical statisticians, the periods of societal discord that they try to map may look like this:

  

  Turchin: Long-term dynamics of sociopolitical instability in France, 800–1700 (data from Sorokin 1937).

  But when experienced in real life look more like this

  

  St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, 1572 by François Dubois

  If there’s one thing in this highly polarized world that everybody probably does agree on it’s that we are almost certainly already in one of these periods of discord right now.

  What I’m finding most interesting from Turchin’s take on this isn’t that periods of stability are not terminated by resource depletion (a la the climate alarmists), or any other “limits to growth” per se. While population growth in pre-industrial societies may bump up against “neo-Malthusian” limits, it sets up a counter-cyclical decline in population growth. How these forces interact in a transition from stability to chaos is that an over-abundance of elites creates a situation of the political class splitting into factions and fighting over the spoils of what is now a shrinking pie in terms of real economic wealth:

   “According to this theory, population growth in excess of the productivity gains of the land has several effects on social institutions. First, it leads to persistent price inflation, falling real wages, rural misery, urban migration, and increased frequency of food riots and wage protests.

  Second, rapid expansion of population results in elite overproduction—an increased number of aspirants for the limited supply of elite positions. Increased intra-elite competition leads to the formation of rival patronage networks vying for state rewards. As a result, elites become riven by increasing rivalry and factionalism.

  The above passage made me think of the 2016 US election, one that was framed as a populist political outsider taking on the Washington DC swamp… however as Turchin notes, somewhat uncannily….

  “all these trends intensify, the end result is state bankruptcy and consequent loss of military control; elite movements of regional and national rebellion; and a combination of elite-mobilized and popular uprisings that expose the breakdown of central authority.”

  

  MAGA, Democratic Socialism, BLM, whatever comes next all have in common extremely well off elites (millionaires and billionaires) talking up a populist game against some ostensibly amorphous “Establishment”, to which these crusaders are loathe to admit their own membership.

  Regional governors and in increasingly more cases, entire police forces are essentially “going rogue”. It all sounds in the ballpark of what Turchin is talking about.

  Then the media makes useful idiots of us all, reframing as existential battles between good and evil what are really just internecine conflicts between elites who regard everybody else as serfs (in much the same way that I have always privately remarked that World War 1 was, at it’s core, a family squabble among a pan-European dynasty that ruled by divine right).

  

  Via Brookings Institute: The Family Relationships that couldn’t stop World War 1

  Which brings us to today, which Turchin doesn’t assert, but I couldn’t help but notice another uncannily prescient remark:

  “epidemics and even pandemics strike disproportionately often during the disintegrative phases of secular cycles”

  Global lockdowns and fiscal stimulus are once again framed as public safety and societal stabilizing measures. However as come commentators (thinking specifically of Danielle Di Martino) observed: The financial system was screwed, and the central bankers needed Covid because they were about to pull a Hail Mary to save a rapidly deteriorating financial system.

  The Great Pivot: Covid-to-Climate

  What’s probably coming next: ubiquitous climate change alarmism, can be understood to mean there aren’t enough private jets to go around, and it was even getting crowded in First Class.

  Everything coming out of unaccountable policy institutes like the WEF and the mainstream media are just reframings of what Turchin calls “elite overproduction” such that the rabble believes the revocation of their civil liberties and the decline in their living standards is necessary and just.

  What are the alternatives?

  Maybe neo-Malthusianism has its place, given The Climate? This is an important point because the signs are already around us that as the pandemic fizzles The Great Pivot will be from COVID-to-Climate.

  For starters, numerous environmental and ecological scholars and thinkers who are concerned about humanity’s effects on the ecosystem are vehemently opposed to climate alarmism, finding it destructive and self-defeating. This warrants multiple separate articles but I’ll mention Michael Shellenberger’s “Apocalypse Never” and former Under-Secretary for Energy under Obama, Steven Koonin’s “Unsettled Science”. The latter isn’t out until next month, but Dmitri Kofinas just had him on Hidden Forces, I strongly suggest listening and sharing it.

  The coming New Green Deal style clampdowns will make global lockdowns look rather benign, despite an abundance of evidence that lockdowns did nothing to change the actual trajectory of COVID.

  

  Lockdowns vs no-lockdowns. From Tom Woods’  “COVID Charts that CNN Forgot”

  The coming Climate Emergency will embark on some fool’s errand like “15 months to cool 1.5C”, and it will probably be announced from some Davos-style ecological summit on Richard Branson’s private island that all the participants arrived at via super-yachts.

  Because as per Turchin, this is final stage that transitions us into a period of chaos and instability:

  ‘First, the elites become accustomed to ever greater levels of consumption. Furthermore, competition for social status fuels “conspicuous consumption” (Veblen 1973 [1899]). Thus, the minimum level of consumption necessary for maintaining the elite status exhibits runaway growth.

  Second, the numbers of elites, in relation to the rest of the population, increase. 

  The third consequence is that the twin processes of declining living standards for the commoners and increasing consumption levels for the elites will drive up socioeconomic inequality. As a result of the growth in elite appetites and numbers, the proportion of the total economic pie consumed by them will increase. However, there are limits on how far this process can go. Eventually, increasing numbers of elites and elite aspirants will have to translate into declining consumption levels for some, leading to the condition that has been termed elite overproduction (this is reminiscent of population growth leading to overpopulation). Intraelite competition for limited elite positions in the economy and government will become more fierce.

  I emphasized the part that provides the most telling signal of them all. If you pay attention to the argument Turchin has been laying out, left to itself, an expanding population with expanding consumption will hit some sort of Neo-Malthusian limit and then begin to reverse under its own constraints.

  But this dynamic doesn’t happen at the elite level. The capstone class of society simply continues getting larger and consuming more of the economic pie and owning more of the wealth, exacerbating wealth inequality. The elites are not constrained by limits, until there is nothing left to leach from the underclass and they come into conflict with each other.

  Then, well, things need to get serious. We need a world war, or a global lockdown, or a climate emergency to keep the rabble in line so that the people on top can finish sorting out the spoils.

  (It is important to note: I’m not saying this is all planned. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. It’s a dynamic. The people impelling these shifts probably really do think they’re benefactors of humanity and that they deserve to sit atop of it. Divine right persists to this day.)

  How about this instead?

  What would restore a semblance of natural constraints around both overproduction and overconsumption (and with it externalities like pollution and habitat destruction) would be lifting all artificial attenuators on market signalling. That means: subsidies, bail-outs, governments picking winners and losers, central planning and management by “experts”, all of it has to go.

  We have to deal with reality as it is, not as our models insist it is supposed to be. We have to re-gear public policies as responses to facts on the ground as opposed to doubling down on failed models (lockdowns aren’t slowing the spread? Lockdown harder! Masks don’t work? Double masks!)

  How about seeing a governor or a premier come out and say this:

  “Neither lockdowns nor masks seem to be working, for the next six weeks we want as many people as possible to load up on Vitamin D and Zinc”. We’re going to greenlight Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and we’re going to launch an operation Warp Speed to study any and all alternative approaches”

  In any society in which the incentives were such that the ruling class was really trying to solve the problem at hand, this would have happened without any prompting.

  Any business or any tribe that has to weigh trade-offs and can’t externalize their failures would have looked at alternatives to failed models because they would have no other choice.

  But the elites and the political class? They get paid either way. They get exemptions. They get priority. And when their “public service” is over, they walk through the revolving door into Big Corporate directorships, lobby firms and think tanks.

  All they have to do is get the public to ratify their own servitude every few years, and the elites have the entirety of Big Tech and the Corporate Media to brainwash the public that it’s in their best interests to do it.

  In our current age, the dynamics Turchin explored were not mathematically precise and he acknowledged that there would be nuances and subtleties in applying these to a post-industrial age:

  While the overall dynamics are complex, the dynamical feedbacks between variables, that is, mechanisms that generate the dynamics, are often characterized by a high degree of determinism.

  He is probably onto something that these societal dynamics have set an age of discord in motion, one myself among others have been saying for awhile will be remembered as the end of the age of the Nation State.

  *  *  *

  To receive future posts in your mailbox join the free Bombthrower mailing list, follow me on Twitter or join the Bombthrower telegram

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 23:10

• US Issues Rare "Cognitive Warfare" Photo As Navy Shadows Chinese Carrier
  US Issues Rare “Cognitive Warfare” Photo As Navy Shadows Chinese Carrier

  In a rare move the United States Navy has released a photo on Sunday of one of its warships shadowing a Chinese aircraft carrier in the East China Sea, which is said to have occurred days ago.

  Currently both countries have carrier strike groups in the region amid heightened tensions between Beijing and Washington. The newly issued photo set shows the USS Mustin shadowing the Liaoning carrier group in what’s clearly a strong “message” to China’s military. 

  Very unusual image of the commanding officer and executive officer of #destroyer USS #MUSTIN DDG89 as they shadow #Chinese #carrier #LIAONING 16 in the Philippine Sea on 4 April. US #Navy rarely acknowledges both its efforts to shadow Chinese ships and Chinese shadowing US ships pic.twitter.com/2tv4GF7XIO

  — Chris Cavas (@CavasShips) April 11, 2021

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

  The image further shows the US ship’s captain, Commander Robert J Briggs, and his deputy Commander Richard D Slye observing the Liaoning in a casual manner.

  The Chinese carrier is seen a few thousand meters away…

  

  The South China Morning Post (SCMP) cited a regional military expert to say it was clearly a form of provocative “cognitive warfare” by the US side: 

  The United States military has engaged in a form of “cognitive warfare” following the latest encounter between its warships and the Chinese navy.

  Both countries have deployed aircraft carrier strike groups to the East and South China seas, led by the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the Liaoning, respectively.

  According to the key quote, “In the photo, Commander Briggs looks very relaxed with his feet up watching the Liaoning ship just a few thousand yards away, while his deputy is also sitting beside him, showing they take their PLA counterparts lightly,” Lu Li-shih, recently of Taiwan’s Naval Academy in Kaohsiung, commented to the SCMP.

  

  “This staged photograph is definitely ‘cognitive warfare’ to show the US doesn’t regard the PLA as an immediate threat,” the analyst added. 

  

  While such ‘shadowing’ maneuvers in the region are nothing new, the ‘messaging’ of the photograph is indeed unusual (with one of the commander’s feet up, which can be interpreted as an insult being directed at the Chinese side), suggesting a heightened propaganda campaign is now playing out.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 22:50

• Taibbi: An Afghanistan Veteran Looks Back On The "First Postmodern War"
  Taibbi: An Afghanistan Veteran Looks Back On The “First Postmodern War”

  Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News,

  I first met Adrian Bonenberger in 2014, after he completed two tours in Afghanistan. He’d published Afghan Post, a painful epistolary memoir about his experiences. Bonenberger started that book a breezy, confident, idealistic young officer, but as he came across more cruelty, waste, and corruption, started to break down, second-guessing not only the mission but himself, i.e. why he’d volunteered.

  

  At the outset of Afghan Post Bonenberger referenced everything from the illustrated versions of The Odyssey and The Iliad he read as a kid, to All Quiet on the Western Front. But after years of head-scratching missions, circuitous contracting schemes, and lies sent down from above (and demanded in return), he seemed to realize, unpleasantly, that his experience was less Homer and more Catch-22.

  He laughs some, but mostly the absurdity crushes him. A selection of passages gives a snapshot of his progression:

  My life is in near-perfect harmony… This is what I’ve been aiming for, a sense of balance, of co-existing with the world. My job at this instant is precisely what it needs to be, no more, no less. I’m a good commander, man… Life feels correct.

  We aren’t here to defeat the enemy; that’s impossible with our resources. We’re here to occupy them, to distract them from the women wearing blue jeans in Kabul.

  No matter how many rifle-bearing insurgents we kill, they only seem to increase in numbers and proficiency.

  I just want to keep bashing away at the Taliban until they quit. I refuse to stop. I will break them with constant patrolling…

  What are we doing. This makes no sense. I feel my grasp on humanity slipping away. The army believes the solution to this is behavioral health. We’d do better with some religious/moral equivalent — sadly, our own multi-faith shepherd/ expert does not provide me with anything like the type of certainty I’d need to get me through this or buck-up.

  He unravels, and as the diary goes on, seems to become more concerned with his own mental survival than with making sense of the mission, which becomes little more than an absurdist plot point. By the end, he writes, “Afghanistan is sending me out, as though I never set foot here, utterly unchanged,” adding:

  The landscape is so harsh and unforgiving — on the one hand, the people I see trying to drag a living from the dust seem like heroes or madmen — on the other hand, they move slowly and without obvious desperation — it’s only after a great deal of time spent around them that you realize this transcends the fatalist predisposition of their culture… These people are the embodiment of despair; life without hope of improvement, waiting for an early death from disease, accident, or murder.

  Can’t wait to leave this place and these thoughts behind.

  I thought of Adrian after Joe Biden announced that “I have concluded that it’s time to end America’s longest war.” The question that faded from view by the end of Adrian’s two tours was one of the first Biden addressed.

  We went to Afghanistan, President Biden said, “to ensure Afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again.” And “we did that. We accomplished that objective.”

  Is that true? Less than a day after Biden’s speech, even would-be allies of the administration like former Clinton adviser Richard Clarke were saying that there was a “high probability” the Afghan government would fall, and Westerners would soon be chased out by the Taliban, in scenes likely to recall the scrum for helicopter seats in Saigon in 1975.

  Is Clarke wrong? If not, what was the point? Was there ever one? I asked Adrian’s perspective, as a former soldier:

  Matt Taibbi: Do you believe it? That we’re leaving?

  Adrian Bonenberger: I’m just going to go full Charlie Brown and say, yes. Yes, I do. I think they’re going to leave. Hold the football, Lucy. Here I come.

  MT: What were some of the first things that concerned you about the mission?

  Adrian Bonenberger: The first time I went, I was a first lieutenant. I think I became a captain after I got back from the first deployment. That was with the 173rd Airborne. It was a very kinetic deployment… The terrain wasn’t as bad where we were. Most of the KIAs, the people who died were hit by IEDs in Humvees.

  On that first deployment, I got to see the Humvees swapped out for MRAPs [eds. note: Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicle]. I remember reading all this stuff about how Humvees were terrible, and they were. They broke down all the time. They weren’t designed for 15,000 pounds of armor. They were not designed for a mountain environment. In this desperate attempt to field stronger-armored vehicles, we got MRAPs, which are these giant, lumbering mine-resistant vehicles.

  I didn’t realize at the time, but it was a $50 billion expedited program to swap out every up-armored Humvee with MRAPs. What they didn’t know when we got the MRAPs was that here we are, on the border of Pakistan with a bunch of roads that we built that barely supported Humvees, so when we get these MRAPs… I was actually in a rollover in one.

  There was a fill that collapsed because we were driving over in a vehicle that weighed about 40,000 pounds. The Humvee weighed 20,000 pounds. We blamed the Afghan contractor at the time. It sounds psychotic, but we were like, “Oh, yeah. The Afghans built this substandard road. It’s their fault.”

  That felt so emblematic. It feels to me today so emblematic. We only had those MRAPs in service for five years. We spent $50 billion bucks for a five-year rental, and then sold them to police stations across America. Those MRAPs that did fuck-all for us in Afghanistan are now what the police are using, presumably, for their small towns.

  MT: That’s via the 1033 program, where the Pentagon sells its surplus equipment to localities?

  Adrian Bonenberger: Exactly.

  MT: I remember in Iraq, they recalled the original Humvees and had heavier doors put in, I think to repel rockets.

  Adrian Bonenberger: Right.

  MT: So in Afghanistan, they did that, and then switched out the replacement Humvees for the MRAPs?

  Adrian Bonenberger: When they up-armored the Humvee, they surrounded these things with armor, because obviously, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want, per the ridiculous claim by Donald Rumsfeld.

  That armor was good at protecting you against RPGs and bullets. We were getting shot at, and I remember vehicles coming back from patrols, all of them had been shot up, and all of the windows were just spider-webbed, but the bulletproof windows would stop the bullets. The problem was when they started putting IEDs in the road, it would channel the blast through the cabin, and ended up just killing everybody in it. The thing that was good at keeping the bullets out ended up being the worst possible design for IEDs.

  MT: Because it kept the blast inside the vehicle?

  Adrian Bonenberger: Exactly.

  MT: They didn’t figure that out until later?

  Adrian Bonenberger: I just don’t know, man. So many times, so much of our policy, so much of how we… I mean, if we even had a policy, it was reactive and responsive. It seems impossible that nobody, no chemist or no engineer, said, “Hey, if a bomb hits the bottom of this, it’s going to turn these guys into Campbell’s Soup.” Nobody was in the room that said, “This is only solving this one problem, but this other problem, it’s going to make it much bigger.” Insurgents, not being stupid, are probably going to figure that out.

  With the MRAP, the big thing was the V-shaped hull. It’s going to be V-shaped on the bottom so the explosion will go around it. Well, I think that certainly helped. That was better, and I saw IEDs that definitely would’ve killed people in Humvees, not kill people in MRAPs, but it didn’t do away with the problem of IEDs. It created this other problem of these vehicles are so fucking heavy, you couldn’t drive anywhere without rolling over and almost dying in a different way.

  MT: Did they have to build new roads?

  Adrian Bonenberger: I think what happened was we just left. We just got out before they could do that stuff. Eventually, yes, they would’ve had to have built the new roads, which we wanted to do anyway. Yeah, I think we were there for another two or three years in that place where my first deployment happened, and then we left. We haven’t been back.

  That’s Taliban. The Taliban own that area now. They’ve owned that for a decade.

  MT: Are there other contracting issues you remember?

  Adrian Bonenberger: We only had the MRAPs for a few years. By the time I went back, they were already getting swapped out for something called the M-ATV, an off-road vehicle on steroids. It was a lot better.

  There’s always a new vehicle.

  Another crazy angle was that Biden bragged in a 2020 campaign ad about his involvement in the MRAP push, and the myth of their effectiveness is so complete nobody interrogated the claim. I imagine if anyone registered it in Trumpland it was to grudgingly concede that Biden had played a leading role in fielding MRAPs, which they probably imagined was a good thing. 

  Another thing that I remember very vividly was when I was a commander on my second deployment, we had these crypto devices that would fill the radios so the radios could talk to each other via encryption. It’s not like the Taliban had signals, units, or anything else, but we were doing these things in case we ever fought a military that did have the capacity to crack encryption.

  We would do this very religiously, and they’re these black boxes that you could throw them on the ground, they wouldn’t break. Everybody knew how to use them. Everybody had been trained on them, and they were a line item on my inventory as a commander, like $4,800, $4,900 bucks apiece. About $5,000 bucks apiece.

  I think we had three months left on deployment when a contractor came into the office one day and said, “Hey, you’re getting new crypto devices.” I looked at them and they looked like… Do you remember, I think they’re called pen pilots…

  MT: Palm pilots?

  Adrian Bonenberger: Palm pilots. That’s it. It looked like a palm pilot. This is the very end of 2010, early 2011, I already had soldiers who had smartphones. When we would get up to Tajikistan, and they could get cell coverage, they would be posting their statuses. I may be one of the earliest commanders to deal with the problem of a soldier posting on social media in the field. It was like, “Dude, text your girlfriend, whatever — I get it, but please do not give away our position to the enemy.”

  Anyway we get these palm pilot things that are supposed to be the latest and greatest, and we were a week away from going out on a pretty long mission, a week-long operation, and so I told the contractor, “Thanks. We don’t really need these. Why don’t you just give these to the unit that’s training right now to replace us? They’ll have some time to get comfortable with them.”

  His response was, “Maybe I didn’t explain myself. You’re getting these. I’m here to train you.”

  I went to the battalion commander, and said, “This makes no sense to me. I don’t have time to train everybody in my unit for these silly new devices that look fragile, they look like palm pilots. I’m very skeptical here.”

  He answered, “My hands are tied. These are ours.” Basically, the contractor training you on these is now your commander, for all intents and purposes.

  Now it’s $12,000 bucks a pop instead of $5,000 bucks a pop. I’ve heard subsequently that they are actually a far superior device to that original black box, but just the way it was done right before an operation was… I only had time for one soldier, the smart RTO guy, I think his dad was a professor at Princeton, to learn it. He enlisted for dubious reasons. He figured out how to do it, and he just was “the guy who did it,” because nobody else could figure out how to do it.

  For the rest of the deployment, there was one guy who knew how to use the device, and whenever there was a new code that came out, he had to run around the battlefield, or drive around updating everybody’s communications stuff, which is the dumbest thing I’d ever seen. It also endangered lives. But, that to me was a very tangible example of the military not being there to do a thing, but as a receptacle, as somebody who was required to purchase expensive new stuff that was not wanted or even really needed at that moment.

  MT: So it was the tail wagging the dog?

  Adrian Bonenberger: That’s exactly right. The tail was wagging the dog.

  MT: What was your conception of why you were there?

  Adrian Bonenberger: They got bin Laden in May, 2011, which was probably the time we should’ve gotten out. The most generous explanation for our being there was that we were trying to get him and punish him for 9/11, and then we got him. Then we were still there, for no clear reason. We were all okay with that. I’m okay with that, apparently. That happened ten years ago.

  Ten years ago next month. We’re still there.

  MT: I remember in the book of fiction you co-edited, The Road Ahead — I think it was Roxana Robinson in the introduction who talked about how when she asked soldiers if it bothered them that WMDs hadn’t been found, they gave her unexpected answers. What was the understanding in Afghanistan among the people you served with about why you were there? Did they care?

  Adrian Bonenberger: That’s a great question. I think it really gets to the heart of the problem with Afghanistan. I was talking with Will Mackin, who was with the SEALs and wrote a really beautiful collection of short fiction… I was telling him that I think the wars on terror have been the first post-modern wars, which sounds so buzzy and annoying, like, “Shut the fuck up, nobody cares about that. That’s dumb.”

  But, there is no explanation for why we’re there. If you ask ten people why we’re in Afghanistan, or why we’re in Iraq, even, you’ll get ten different answers that are equally plausible. That wasn’t the case in Vietnam. You agreed with why we were in Vietnam or disagreed with it, but we were there to stop communism. A blisteringly stupid and failed idea, but our being there was related to communism in one way, shape, or form. You’ll find people who will explain to you that Afghanistan has nothing to do with terrorism, that it’s about minerals, or it’s about China, or it’s the great game, or it’s Bin Laden.

  MT: Or women’s rights now.

  Adrian Bonenberger: Women’s rights was a way that I rationalized being in Afghanistan. It’s a powerful rationalization. There were a couple of girls that I saw wearing blue jeans at the end of my second deployment, and that reduced me to tears, because soldiers get sentimental about dumb stuff, and that seemed like it was validating a narrative that I’d constructed in my head that was important to me.

  But is that why we were there? No. No, absolutely not. That’s not why we went. That’s not why we stayed.

  That’s what some people may think and say in the op-ed pages so that people feel better about us being there, much in the same way that that’s how I felt good about being there when I was a commander. That’s not why we went. We went to get bin Laden, I think, ultimately is what most people will say, or said at the time. That isn’t why we went there, but that’s the story that’s probably closest to the truth.

  The Taliban got caught up in it because they refused to hand him over, and nobody said no to the United States of America under George W. Bush. You say no, it’s time to go.

  MT: Time to smoke you out of your hidey-holes.

  Adrian Bonenberger: Right.

  MT: What about the Afghanistan Papers story in the Washington Post? Did you and other vets talk about that when that came out? Military leaders were telling the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) that the war was so expensive in lives and money, and wasn’t getting things done. But the public story was different. What was your reaction?

  Adrian Bonenberger: Reading it all laid out there, they just lied. The thing that I’m most worried about right now is, I’m already seeing it around the edges. Biden made the announcement this week, and you see email threads and you see it on Twitter, people are like, “But, what about all the progress? What about all the money that we’ve spent?” It’s just like, “Guys, you’ve been deluding yourselves.”

  There was this thing that we did, the officers did. It was kind of a joke to us, and I just didn’t put two and two together. It’s called Red, Amber, Green Trackers. The joke was you would have these maps of your AO or your area of operations, and the places that the Taliban had were red, and then were permutations of this, so red-trending-amber meant that the Taliban had it, but maybe there were a couple of guys there that you could work with, whatever.

  Amber was we patrol there, and we’re trying to flip it green. Amber-trending-green is like, “Oh, the Taliban haven’t blown us up here for a few months, and we built them a well.” Then, green is just like, “We got this. The Afghans have it.” The colors would change sometimes. I think blue became a permutation that I saw later. The joke anyway was you would get to the end of the deployment, and all of the red places were listed as red-trending-amber, or amber, and all the places that were amber were now amber-trending-green or green, and all the places that were amber-trending-green were green, 100%. You give it to the next unit, and it all turned red again. It would downgrade one.

  MT: They were juking the stats.

  Adrian Bonenberger: I saw that and I didn’t think to myself, “This is dumb.” I knew it was dumb. It was more like, “This is fraud.”

  This should be illegal. We just all kind of did it all the time. We talked about it, and it’s not like this is a secret. The fact that people were seeing this in the Pentagon and were just like, “Oh, yeah. Of course, we’re just going to keep doing this forever.” There was no plan, and the metrics changed every deployment. They still wanted body counts, EKIA, enemy killed in action.

  These frauds, the context changes, but it’s the same.

  MT: It sounds like Daniel Ellsberg in his book “Secrets,” when he was talking about a tour with John Paul Vann. They had a similar system. I think it was something like, if the local South Vietnamese commander could sleep without a guard at his door at night, then that area was green. He found that every area that had been designated X was actually X minus one, or X minus two, security-wise… Was that basically what was going on?

  Adrian Bonenberger: 100%. The only difference being, and this is one of the saddest things to me… Afghanistan, a parade of sad memories, the eternal bitch-fest… It might’ve been two years ago, it might’ve been three years ago, when SIGAR stopped doing a certain type of report, during Trump’s presidency, because they didn’t have access anymore essentially. They still did the report, but they were like, “Look, we can’t go out and survey 80% of these places, because they’re under Taliban control. We’re going to attempt to do a QA/QC* of projects as they happen. We’re still going to be active in Kabul, but we just can’t get to half of these places.”

  I saw that, and I remember thinking, “This should be headline news.” If we can’t go anywhere, we’re already out of Afghanistan in a sense. We’re not there. We can’t even establish what is being done with the building that cost $50 million or $100 million bucks to build. What else would you call that, except fraud?

  It’s as if somebody justified that thing being built. Oh, it’s a hospital. It’ll be great. Was it being used as a hospital? You go down there, and the Taliban are using it as a school or a madrassa or whatever. Honestly, at this point, I don’t care. I’m glad that it’s being used for something, but don’t say that it’s going to be a hospital if it’s not going to be a hospital. Just say, “We’re paying for madrassas.” That’s fine. Maybe that’s what Afghanistan needs? I don’t know.

  MT: Did you see that? Would they build something, or bid out a contract for something, and it would turn into something else?

  Adrian Bonenberger: My second deployment, the first mission I was on was a company-plus mission, maybe a battalion-minus mission, to QA/QC a school that had been built for, I believe, $20 million. It had been completed, but we needed to do a final review of it. It was in Taliban-held territory. We had to fight our way all the way out to QA/QC it. We did that, and determined that the Taliban was using it as a recruiting station!

  Then, we fought our way out. I was never able to get back there. At the very end, we probably could’ve gone back out there if we wanted to. We really did “pacify” the province, because of the Afghans. The Afghans did all the heavy lifting. It didn’t last long. It was not something that you can transit again a year or two later, but for that moment, it was. But what is it being used for today? If we’re lucky, it’s being used for that. If we’re not lucky, it’s being used for something worse.

  MT: Was that mission just to determine if that building was being used correctly?

  Adrian Bonenberger: Yes, and it wasn’t.

  MT: There was an article by William Arkin in Newsweek recently, arguing that just because the uniform boots on the ground may be withdrawing, doesn’t mean we’re leaving. We’ve already started to shift to a system where a lot of the people who are actually engaged in an occupation aren’t even in the country, because they’re operating remotely, and/or they’re private contractors who don’t wear uniforms. Or, they work for some enforcement agency like the DEA or the FBI.

  Did you see that process start to evolve while you were there?

  Adrian Bonenberger: The most compelling argument against our leaving on a certain level is that it at least leaves the military as some type of official mechanism. Yeah, we’re going to read about them being there. There’s a way to tell when a soldier dies, at least.

  I remember when Thomas Ricks went on Fox News, and the Fox guy was trying to rake him over the coals over something, and Tom asked, “Do you know how many contractors have died in Iraq?”

  He paused for a second, and he said, “No.” Tom said, “Nobody does. There’s no way to know. We think 500 to 700 died,” but that’s a private company. They keep their own statistics. We will never know how many contractors died in Iraq and Afghanistan. There’s no legal mechanism for determining that, and as a result, we’re just not going to know. Historians hundreds of years from now may be able to mount lengthy campaigns to figure it out. That’s a problem.

  The DEA wanted me to do raids on certain militias that were smuggling weapons and drugs, and I refused point-blank. I said, “That’s not my problem. That’s Afghanistan’s problem.”

  Internally, I figured out, I would’ve drawn the line on human smuggling, like if I found out that one of my Afghan partners was trafficking humans or slaves, I’d say, “We can’t work together. You’re my enemy now.” But with weapons and drugs, I don’t even think drugs should be illegal in this country, so why would I do anything there? But the DEA would ask me to pull security for their raids, and I’d say, “No, I’m not going to do that.”

  Imagine one of the soldiers dying on that mission. You either would’ve had to lie about it and say that the Taliban was actually there and the Taliban ambushed us, or you’d have to explain that you were doing Colombia-style drug raids on an ally, because the DEA wanted it. It’s so complicated. It makes no sense. It made no sense to me then, and I’m proud that, however sneakily I accomplished it, I stood up for what was right.

  MT: What’s your prognosis for what happens now?

  Adrian Bonenberger: The Taliban already have, by fairly conservative estimates, the run of 80% of the country. So the Taliban are already there. I think the hope with Afghanistan was always going to be that we could support the Afghans who are interested in a non-Taliban government for enough time for them to get their act together.

  If we continue to support them diplomatically and economically, they have a chance, but in the same way that the USSR supported their communist administration in Kabul for I think two or three years before the USSR fell apart. It held on. It wasn’t doing great, but it was doing okay. I think we can achieve that.

  If we can’t, then that’s the most damning indictment possible of everything that we did there, including the things that I did there that I thought were good, and was doing for the right reasons. It means that all of that was just pissing in the wind. The next time we do this, I hope we’ll keep that in mind and do it better, or not at all.

  * Quality Assurance, Quality Control

  You can find Adrian Bonenberger’s book Afghan Post here. He also co-edited The Road Ahead, a collection of “fiction from the forever war,” and co-edits The Wrath-Bearing Tree, which he describes as “a little independent site that tries to promote good content and be subversive.”

   

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 22:30

• Pentagon Now Says Russian Troop Build-Up Near Ukraine "Bigger" Than In 2014
  Pentagon Now Says Russian Troop Build-Up Near Ukraine “Bigger” Than In 2014

  On Monday Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby for the first time gave a US military assessment of Russia’s troop build-up along Ukraine’s eastern border that goes significantly beyond prior statements. 

  Kirby said of the Russian military build-up that “it is certainly bigger than the one in 2014,” however without providing a specific number. Russia insists the buildup is for training, but it is “not clear to us” that this is the only purpose, he added according to Politico’s Lara Seligman. Kirby described that “over the past couple of weeks, officials have continued to see an increase in Russia’s buildup of troops on the border with Ukraine,” Politico’s Pentagon correspondent added. 

  Pentagon Spokesperson John Kirby says the U.S. is “seriously concerned” about a buildup of Russian troops on the border with Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/SiWgssgkFh

  — The Recount (@therecount) April 19, 2021

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

  Ukrainian government officials late last month had been the first to accuse the Kremlin of destabilizing and saber-rattling with a major troop deployment to Crimea and near the border with war-torn Donbass, setting off a renewed diplomatic crisis between Moscow and the West.

  Kiev ultimately charged that Russia was preparing for an “offensive” into Ukraine’s sovereign territory in support of pro-Russian separatists fighting Ukraine’s military in the country’s east. While the conflict had smoldered since the height of fighting in 2014 and 2015, which has taken over 13,000 lives over a half-decade, late last month four Ukrainian soldiers were reported killed in shelling by separatists. 

  The Economist has recently voiced the biggest concern out of Western allies as follows: “The last time that Russia gathered so many troops on Ukraine’s borders, it went on to invade the country and annex Crimea.”

  As tensions mount over the build-up of Russian troops at the border with Ukraine – this is life at the front line https://t.co/lvBSbra0WU pic.twitter.com/UwEP7WCjlz

  — BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) April 19, 2021

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

  The Pentagon’s new assessment that the Russian troop build-up goes beyond 2014 levels comes a week after Secretary of State Antony Blinken first said “We’re now seeing the largest concentration of Russian forces on Ukraine’s borders since 2014.” He had issued the words from NATO’s headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, saying further “That is a deep concern not only to Ukraine, but to the United States” – comments backed by NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg.

  Meanwhile also on Monday the European Union’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell issued an astoundingly high estimate and accusation of Russian troop numbers in the area:

  Initially, Borrell told reporters that “there’s more than 150,000 Russian troops massing on the Ukrainian borders and in Crimea,” and doubled down on the figure later before his services had to correct it in the transcript, saying the real figure was over 100,000.

  Nevertheless, Borrell said that “the risk of further escalation — it’s evident.”

  He said that a “spark” could set off major war at any time. “It is the highest military deployment of the Russian army on the Ukrainian borders ever. It’s clear that it’s a matter of concern when you deploy a lot of troops,” Borrell said. “Well, a spark can jump here or there.”

  

  Ukrainian leaders have been urging Western countries to make clear to Russia that it will pay a price for its “aggression” – while President Volodymyr Zelensky has lobbied for a ‘fast-tracking’ into NATO membership, considered a Russian ‘red line’. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 22:10

• "We Made History Today" – NASA's Ingenuity Helicopter Makes First Flight On Mars 
  “We Made History Today” – NASA’s Ingenuity Helicopter Makes First Flight On Mars 

  After some delay, NASA’s Ingenuity helicopter was given the “all-clear for takeoff” on Sunday. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) sent instructions for the Mars helicopter to liftoff. By early Monday morning, history was made and would make the Wright brothers proud as Ingenuity lifted off on the Red Planet.

  

  JPL tweeted Ingenuity “made history today by being the first craft to achieve controlled, powered flight on a planet beyond Earth.” 

  Perseverance got us to Mars. With Ingenuity, we soar higher.

  The #MarsHelicopter made history today by being the first craft to achieve controlled, powered flight on a planet beyond Earth.

  — NASA JPL (@NASAJPL) April 19, 2021

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

  During today’s historic ascent, JPL released the first photo from the flight. 

  

  The 4-pound helicopter rose a little more than 3 meters, hovered briefly, and returned to the surface. Ingenuity’s altimeter shows flight time and altitude reached. 

  

  NASA’s rover Perseverance tweeted a short GIF of Ingenuity’s flight. Throughout the day, more images and pictures will be released. 

  You wouldn’t believe what I just saw.

  More images and video to come…#MarsHelicopterhttps://t.co/PLapgbHeZU pic.twitter.com/mbiOGx4tJZ

  — NASA’s Perseverance Mars Rover (@NASAPersevere) April 19, 2021

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

  “We can now say we’ve flown a rotorcraft on another planet,” MiMi Aung, NASA’s Ingenuity program manager, told her team earlier this morning in the flight control room. “We together flew on Mars. We together have our Wright brothers moment.”

  She added that “We don’t know from history what Orville and Wilbur [Wright] did after their first successful flight. But I imagine the two brothers hugged each other. Well, you know, I’m hugging you virtually.”

  Ingenuity’s initial flight was scheduled for April 11. A problem occurred on the helicopter’s onboard computers that engineers on Earth were able to correct. 

  Mars’s super-thin atmosphere is just 1% the density of Earth’s, making it more challenging for the helicopters’ blades to spin around 2,500 revolutions per minute to generate lift. For comparison, on Earth, most helicopters operate at about 450-500 revolutions per minute.

  As for future flights, at least five are scheduled in the coming weeks. Each flight will be more complex, operating at higher altitudes and longer flight times. 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 21:50

• China Says It Has No Desire To Replace Dollar As Global Reserve Currency With Digital Yuan
  China Says It Has No Desire To Replace Dollar As Global Reserve Currency With Digital Yuan

  Apparently all it takes to replace a global reserve currency is a digital currency alternative just waiting to be released any moment… and a deep-seated desire to do so.

  As regular readers know, China is leaps and bounds ahead of every other central bank and indeed plans to release a digital Yuan in the near future, but for now it supposedly has no interest in dethroning the dollar as the reserve currency… at least according to China.

  

  According to Bloomberg, which last weekend reported that the Biden administration is “stepping up scrutiny of China’s plans for a digital yuan, with some officials concerned the move could kick off a long-term bid to topple the dollar as the world’s dominant reserve currency”,  People’s Bank of China Deputy Governor Li Bo said the goal for internationalizing its currency is not to replace the dollar, and the efforts to create a digital yuan are aimed at domestic use.

  “For the internationalization of the renminbi, we have said many times that it’s a natural process, and our goal is not to replace the U.S. dollar or other international currencies,” Li said on a panel at the Boao forum Sunday according to Bloomberg. “I think our goal is to allow the market to choose, to facilitate international trade and investment.”

  “Allowing the market choose” is, of course, a passive-aggressive way of saying that while China does not want to overthrow the greenback with its digital yuan, the market may have other plans, and if it so choose to overthrow the reigning reserve currency… then so be it.

  As a reminder, in a recent note discussing the upcoming disruption from CBDCs, Morgan Stanley said that central bank digital currencies “have the potential to disrupt the international payments system. If a country’s CBDC gains acceptance for international transactions, significant advantages could accrue to the issuer country in financing costs and control over financial transactions, similar to the US dollar’s privileged role today. Some central banks like the ECB and the PBOC see the move towards digital currency as an opportunity to raise the international status of their currencies and increase their use in cross-border payments.”

  And this is precisely what China wants, even if it can’t say so explicitly for fears of provoking a retaliation from the Biden admin. So instead of openly challenging the US with its plans of a “weaponized e-Yuan”, Beijing is hoping to downplay its full potential, if only for the time being:

  “The motivation for the e-yuan, for now at least, is focusing primarily on domestic use,” Li said. International “interoperability is a very complex issue and we are not in a hurry to reach any particular solution yet,” although there could be cross-border use “in the long term,” Li said.

  The central banker said that the PBOC is planning to test the cross-border use of the digital yuan at the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, where it could be used by both domestic users as well as athletes and visitors from overseas.

  Speaking on the same panel at China’s high-profile Boao Forum, Agustin Carstens, general manager of Bank for International Settlements, said there was huge potential in the cross-border use of digital currencies as they could make foreign exchange transaction and payment settlement extremely efficient. He said countries can explore various ways to achieve international interoperability, including making different systems compatible and creating connectivity links among the systems.

  While the digitization of the yuan could benefit its use in cross-border transactions, the key factor in determining the currency’s global role is whether China will relax its capital controls, said Shen Jianguang, chief economist at JD.com Inc. “If you want to have a global reserve currency, you need to allow foreigners to hold it, to use it.”

  Which, incidentally, is also in the works: as we reported two weeks ago, China is already quietly “encouraging more capital outflows to ease pressure on yuan“, and in what may be the biggest transformation yet, earlier today we noted that following years of crackdown on crypto, Beijing now calls bitcoin an “investment alternative.”

  “I think it is quite significant and is definitely different to their previous statements or positions on public cryptocurrencies,” Vijay Ayyar, head of business development at cryptocurrency exchange Luno, told CNBC by email.

  “Governments are realizing that it is a viable and established, yet growing, asset class and need to regulate it. China regulating crypto would be another massive boost to the industry in China and globally,” Ayyar said, talking about the motivation behind the PBOC’s shift in tone. To be sure, China is not alone in changing its mind about bitcoin: over the past 4 years, Bitcoin has transformed from being purely a retail-favored asset and has become more mainstream in the financial world, gaining interest from institutional investors. Major corporations such as Tesla and Square in the U.S. have purchased large sums of bitcoin.

  Besides easing on its capital firewall, China will also need to allow its citizens to buy more foreign assets, further develop its financial markets and allow greater exchange rate flexibility in order to push for the internationalization of yuan, Shen said in an interview at the forum.

  China has seen a flood of capital flows into its financial markets since last year, boosting the amount of yuan traded globally. Yet, in the context of its vast markets, foreign ownership of local stocks and bonds remains relatively low at around 5% and 3% respectively. And while the yuan’s share of global payments and central bank reserves is still only about 2%, it is rising the fastest of all major currencies.

  

  “The digital yuan is a means to help monetary policy efficiency and cross-border usage with partners that tend to trade with China in goods and services, less so the major economies like the U.S.,” said Stephen Chiu, Asia FX and rates strategist at Bloomberg Intelligence. “Digital or not, it’s not so easy to move the dollar’s dominance, be it as a trade settlement or reserve currency.”

  But while the real reason for the digital yuan was hinted at, the panel concluded with China playing coy and claiming its (soon the be gold-backed) digital currency won’t be a challenge to the USD.

  “The initial plans for a digital currency weren’t motivated by considerations of cross-border use” said former People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan, who noted that there are many issues with using a digital currency across national borders. International use could affect monetary policy independence, and it’s important it isn’t used for crime, he said on the same panel in Boao.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 21:30

• Florida Gov. DeSantis Signs "Anti-Riot" Bill Into Law, Creating Tougher Penalties For Non-Peaceful-Protesters
  Florida Gov. DeSantis Signs “Anti-Riot” Bill Into Law, Creating Tougher Penalties For Non-Peaceful-Protesters

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

  Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a bill that intends to crack down on violent protests and riots in the state.

  DeSantis, a Republican, signed the so-called “anti-riot” measure in Polk County, saying it is “the strongest anti-rioting, pro-law enforcement piece of legislation in the country.”

  

  The signing comes in the midst of protests, riots, looting, and arson incidents in several major cities around the United States in the wake of an officer involved-shooting death in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Meanwhile, a verdict is expected to be handed down by a jury in the murder trial of former Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin, who was seen kneeling on George Floyd before his death—which sparked months of riots and demonstrations.

  The law, known as HB1, increases criminal penalties for assault, defacing monuments, and vandalizing public property during riots. Local governments that interfere with law enforcement trying to contain violent demonstrations would be penalized. Meanwhile, a citizens’ appeal process will be set up when counties and cities try to reduce their respective budgets of police forces.

  On Monday, DeSantis said in the signing event that the left-wing cries of “defund the police” that echoed throughout Black Lives Matter demonstrations last year is an “insane theory” and is “not going to be allowed to ever carry the day in the state of Florida.”

  Democrats and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have said that the law is designed to intimidate Black Lives Matter and related protesters.

  “The bill was purposely designed to embolden the disparate police treatment we have seen over and over again directed towards black and brown people who are exercising their constitutional right to protest,” said Micah Kubic, the executive director of ACLU of Florida, in a statement.

  The law went into effect immediately after DeSantis signed the bill on Monday.

  

  Demonstrators participate in a protest in Miami, Fla., on June 12, 2020. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

  According to the text of the bill, other new measures include changing the definition of what a “riot” is in the state of Florida. A riot will be defined as a violent public disturbance involving three or more people acting with a common intent that causes damage to public property or injuries—or can cause imminent injury or damage.

  The law creates a new second-degree felony—”aggravated riot”—which takes place when a riot has more than 25 people involved, causes grievous bodily harm, or more than $5,000 in damage to property. It would also be used if participants have or threaten with a deadly weapon or block roadways by force or by the threat of force.

  Florida state Sen. Danny Burgess, a Republican who sponsored the measure, said the law defines the difference between a peaceful demonstration and a riot.

  “Not only did we do that to put the public on notice as to what constitutes a riot, but also to make it clear to both protester[s] and law enforcement where that line in the law is drawn,” said Burgess, according to Newschannel8.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 21:10

• NY Requires Nursing-Home Workers To Sign Paperwork If They "Opt Out" Of COVID Jab
  NY Requires Nursing-Home Workers To Sign Paperwork If They “Opt Out” Of COVID Jab

  Now that nearly 130MM Americans have received at least one dose of the coronavirus vaccine, the CDC announced Monday that all adults aged 16 and over across the US are now eligible to receive the vaccine.

  Almost 130MM people 18 or older have received at least one dose of a vaccine, or 50.4% of the total adult population, the CDC pointed out. Almost 84MM adults, or about 32.5% of the population, have been fully vaccinated.

  

  What’s more, Dr. Anthony Fauci hinted on Sunday that the US government will likely move to resume use of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine this week, though possibly with restrictions or broader warnings about the rare, but potentially deadly, blood clots.

  The news comes just as demand for vaccines in the US appears to be reaching an inflection point, as more states report growing stockpiles of unused jabs as demand for vaccinations tapers off.  Dr. Scott Gottlieb has warned that a demand crisis might be at hand in the US, putting the entirely theoretical 70% herd immunity threshold out of reach – at least temporarily.

  

  Clearly, public health officials across the country are starting to worry about waning vaccine demand, because after nearly half of New York nursing home workers refused the vaccine, the state’s Department of Health us taking steps to pressure nursing homes to get these compliance numbers up. While some health care workers say they haven’t yet had an opportunity to get the jab, Zero Hedge has been chronicling reports about health-care workers declining the jabs in surprising numbers, in states from California to New York and elsewhere.

  Like the old saying goes, “sh*t rolls down hill,” and as the state leans on nursing homes to raise staffer vaccination numbers, the homes are being required to force employees who refuse the vaccine to sign “paperwork” affirming their decision.

  As the New York Post reported last night, New York’s health department brass are now requiring nursing homes in the state to give every worker an opportunity to get vaccinated. And if they refuse, they must sign paperwork recording their decision to “opt out” of the vaccination process. Nursing homes that don’t comply could face serious fines, according to the New York Post.

  Nearly half of New York’s nursing home workers haven’t gotten the COVID-19 vaccine — so the state Department of Health is now putting more pressure on the facilities to bridge the gap, The Post has learned.

  Health department brass issued new guidance late Thursday that requires nursing homes to offer “an opportunity to receive” the jab to all consenting residents and staff by April 29 and within two weeks of a new hire or a new admission, records obtained by The Post show. Both staff and residents who opt out will need to sign paperwork acknowledging that they are declining. Facilities that don’t comply with the new rules may be penalized up to $2,000 per violation, the DOH

  […]

  They’re trying to get people vaccinated and they’re trying to incentivize it,” said Michael Balboni, the Executive Director of Greater New York Health Care Facilities Association, said of the new requirement.

  Only 60 percent of workers in the facilities statewide have gotten the shot since December – and just 56 percent of staff in the five boroughs have received the vaccine, the latest DOH vaccination numbers show.

  By comparison, 80 percent of nursing home residents statewide have been vaccinated and 73 percent in the city have gotten the jab.

  One nursing home official claimed the guidelines were released without enough consultation and argued that facilities might have trouble meeting the 2-week vaccination rule simply because they don’t have enough jabs. But as we noted above, there could be other reasons – even justifiable reasons – why nursing home workers refuse the vaccine.

  While it’s not clear what immediate purpose this paperwork would serve, the ominous notion that the state will be taking names of those who refuse could be interpreted as an implicit threat for a large subset of the state’s health-care workers (and a group that was severely impacted, with vast numbers catching the virus last spring as it tore through state nursing homes while Gov. Andrew Cuomo shopped around his book deal).

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 20:50

• Musk Goes "All In": Claims Data Says Autopilot Not Engaged In Fatal Houston Wreck
  Musk Goes “All In”: Claims Data Says Autopilot Not Engaged In Fatal Houston Wreck

  Earlier today, we reported about a Tesla Model S wreck that killed two men when the vehicle with “no driver” slammed into a tree and caught fire. It appeared to be an obvious instance where Autopilot and/or Full Self Driving could and would be the “front and center” suspect for the wreck.

  The story itself also caught fire on Monday, denting Tesla’s stock to the tune of 3.4% during the cash session. 

  Then came what can only be described as either a baffling truth, given that nobody was in the driver’s seat of the car, or an all-in moment (as one Twitter user called it): Elon Musk took to Twitter Monday to assert in a tweet that data logs “recovered so far” show Autopilot was not enabled in the car and that Full Self Driving had not been purchased on the vehicle.

  Your research as a private individual is better than professionals @WSJ!

  Data logs recovered so far show Autopilot was not enabled & this car did not purchase FSD.

  Moreover, standard Autopilot would require lane lines to turn on, which this street did not have.

  — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2021

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

  Leaving out the unknown of what “so far” means and how it basically negates Musk’s point, the Tweet is stunning for a couple of reasons:

  1. The fact that nobody was in the driver seat of the car makes Autopilot the “Occam’s Razor” explanation for the wreck. The NY Times also wrote earlier in the day that the men in the vehicle had discussed Autopilot before leaving for their drive together.
  2. It comes off as a preemptive PR effort to potentially mitigate and/or influence the outcome of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)’s look into the wreck.
  3. If it turns out that Autopilot was, in fact, off, the circumstances behind the wreck become even more baffling. But if it turns out that one of the regulators finds that Autopilot and/or FSD was on during (or seconds before) the wreck, Musk may need further PR efforts to repair the harm it could do to him and/or his brand. Several people on social media have brought this up:

  Jason you are an enabler of Elon Musk’s lies and fraud.

  The police are certain there was no one in the drivers seat of the car. The car crashed into a tree at a high speed. Who was driving the car?

  Why couldn’t the occupants of the car get out of the 🚘 before or during the 🔥? https://t.co/kmuhqtWSF4

  — JC Oviedo (@JCOviedo6) April 19, 2021

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

  Additionally, it has already been noted that these type of preemptive suggestions prior to investigations are frowned upon by regulators:

  Elon Musk’s claim that the car was not in Autopilot according to data “so far” comes independent of federal investigators, who bristle at these types of preemptive disclosures. NTSB booted Tesla from a previous investigation over this exact issue. https://t.co/ARjoO7siWQ

  — Faiz Siddiqui (@faizsays) April 19, 2021

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

  To get to the bottom of all this, Mark Herman, Harris County Constable Precinct 4, told Reuters that the police will serve search warrants on Tesla Inc on Tuesday to secure data from a Model S that crashed in Texas.

  He was responding to a tweet by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who said, “Data logs recovered so far show Autopilot was not enabled.”

  Herman appeared quite skeptical: “If he is tweeting that out, if he has already pulled the data, he hasn’t told us that” Herman told Reuters. “We will eagerly wait for that data.”

  “We have witness statements from people that said they left to test drive the vehicle without a driver and to show the friend how it can drive itself,” Herman said according to the Reuters report.

  Needless to say, This could be very troubling for Musk.

  Recall, the Tesla slammed into a tree near Hammock Dunes Place in the Houston Area, a local NBC affiliate reported. The wreck was in the “Carlton Woods subdivision near the Woodlands,” the report says. According to authorities, “the vehicle failed to negotiate a cul-de-sac turn, ran off the road and hit the tree.”

  

  Of the two occupants, one was seated in the passenger seat of the front of the car while the other was seated in the passenger seat of the back of the car.  NBC says it is “trying to determine whether the vehicle may have been in automatic driving mode due to the victims’ seating, but that information is not available yet.”

  A reported 23,000 gallons of water needed to be used to extinguish the flames because the Tesla’s battery “kept reigniting”. Two federal agencies will investigate the deadly crash of a Tesla Model S over the weekend near Houston, Texas, in which local authorities said no one was behind the wheel. 

  

  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) are aware of the fatal Tesla crash that killed two, which occurred on Saturday night in Spring, Texas. Both agencies are sending investigators to conduct a safety analysis. 

  “NHTSA is aware of the tragic crash involving a Tesla vehicle outside of Houston, Texas. NHTSA has immediately launched a Special Crash Investigation team to investigate the crash. We are actively engaged with local law enforcement and Tesla to learn more about the details of the crash and will take appropriate steps when we have more information,” the NHTSA told local news KHOU11 in a statement. 

  And the NTSB tweeted Monday afternoon that their investigation team, “in coordination with the Harris County Precinct 4 Constable’s Office,” will “conduct a safety investigation of the fatal Apr. 17, 2021, Tesla vehicle crash near Spring, TX.”

  NTSB also said their “investigation would focus on the vehicle’s operation and the post-crash fire. NTSB investigators will arrive in the area later this afternoon.” 

  Sitting across the table from regulators, Musk has once again pushed “all in”. So far, he has been able to defy the odds and suck out. Will that remain the case?

  That tweet was an all-in move by Elon

  — TC, Master of Chart (@TESLAcharts) April 19, 2021

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

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 20:30

• Chauvin Judge Blasts "Abhorrent" Maxine Waters' Words; Says May "Result In This Whole Trial Being Overturned"
  Chauvin Judge Blasts “Abhorrent” Maxine Waters’ Words; Says May “Result In This Whole Trial Being Overturned”

  Update (2015ET): It’s been quite a few days for the millionaire south-central LA congresswoman. First she incites violence and questions the US judicial system, then violence takes place resulting in injuries, then she is denigrated for actions, and turns around and blames white supremacy for what she did and said. But, to be frank, all of that pales into insignificance relative to what could possibly happen next.

  Having exclaimed that “we’re looking for a guilty verdict… as far as I am concerned it’s first degree murder,” Maxine Waters may be in hot water as the judge in the very same case regarding the death of George Floyd issued an ominous statement as the two sides finished closing arguments and handed the case to the jury.

  Critically, Chauvin’s defense raised several concerns with the judge over outside influence impacting the jurors judgement… and that’s when the fireworks began.

  

  As Townhall.com’s Spencer Brown details, Chauvin’s lawyers pointed out that jurors were not sequestered during the case and therefore may not be free from outside influence in the form of news updates they may have inadvertently or purposefully seen along with ongoing violence in the community surrounding the Chauvin trial and approaching verdict.

  Among their concerns, Chauvin’s defense team pointed to Waters and her appearance with demonstrators in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, over the weekend.

  Even though the judge denied the defense’s motion for mistrial, he highlighted the damage her rhetoric may have done, saying “Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.”

  Chauvin trial Judge Peter Cahill responds to defense request for a mistrial over comments by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA):

  “I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.” pic.twitter.com/jPp7zl0iGd

  — The Recount (@therecount) April 19, 2021

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

  The judge continued with a scorching message for Rep. Waters and other elected officials who have engaged in what he slams as “abhorrent” behavior disrespecting the rule of law and giving their opinion in a way that is inconsistent with their oath to the Constitution: (emphasis ours)

  I’m aware of the media reports. I’m aware that Congresswoman Waters was talking specifically about this trial and about the unacceptability of anything less than a murder conviction and talking about being confrontational, but can you submit the press articles about that.

  This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function.

  I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect the co-equal branch of government.

  Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it’s prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice this jury. They have been told not to watch the news. I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that were talking specifically about the facts of this case.

  Ultimately saying he trusted jurors to follow his instructions to them, the judge denied the defense’s motion for mistrial, adding “a congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.”

  Chauvin trial judge Cahill is visibly upset by elected officials like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) sharing their opinions on the Floyd trial, but he believes it’s not enough to constitute a mistrial. pic.twitter.com/G5kHpTXpU0

  — The Recount (@therecount) April 19, 2021

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

  Let’s hope he is right. Presumably, no lessons will be learned from his comments as Waters will simply look at the color of the judge’s skin and reject his criticism as simple systemic racism…

  *  *  *

  What’s the first thing Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) did after conservatives called her out for crossing state lines to incite violence in Brooklyn Center, MN, hours before the National Guard and police were targeted in a drive-by shooting?

  

  Why, play the victim of course.

  In Monday comments, Waters ripped GOP lawmakers for criticizing her – saying they are trying to “send a message” to white supremacists.

  “I am nonviolent,” Waters told The Grio on Monday following a tweet by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) – who accused her of condoning political violence and using “dangerous rhetoric” when she told protesters to get more confrontational.”

  “Maxine Waters is inciting violence in Minneapolis — just as she has incited it in the past. If Speaker Pelosi doesn’t act against this dangerous rhetoric, I will bring action this week,” McCarthy tweeted on Sunday.

  Maxine Waters is inciting violence in Minneapolis — just as she has incited it in the past. If Speaker Pelosi doesn’t act against this dangerous rhetoric, I will bring action this week.

  — Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) April 19, 2021

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

  In response, Waters said: “Republicans will jump on any word, any line and try to make it fit their message and their cause for denouncing us and denying us, basically calling us violent … any time they see an opportunity to seize on a word, so they do it and they send a message to all of the white supremacists, the KKK, the Oath Keepers, the [Proud] Boys and all of that, how this is a time for [Republicans] to raise money on [Democrats’] backs”.

  Waters then said that she’s “not worried that they’re going to continue to distort what I say.”

  “This is who they are and this is how they act,” she continued. “And I’m not going to be bullied by them.”

  Of course, as constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley notes – Waters may have hoisted herself by her own petard. Read on…

  *  *  *

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  With rioting continuing in Brooklyn Center, Minn. and around the country, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, went to Minnesota and told the protesters that they “gotta stay on the street” and “get more confrontational.”  The statement is ironic since Waters is one of the House members currently suing former President Donald Trump and others for inciting violence on January 6th with his words on the Mall.  Waters insists that Trump telling his supporters to go to the Capitol to make their voice heard and “fight” for their votes was actual criminal incitement. Conversely, Waters was speaking after multiple nights of rioting and looting and telling protesters to stay on the streets and get even more confrontational. There was violence after the remarks, including a shooting incident where two National Guard members were injured.

  

  Waters has now guaranteed that she could be called as a witness by Trump in his own defense against her own lawsuit.

  Waters’ most recent words could well be cited in the ongoing litigation over the January 6th riot on Capitol Hill. As I have previously discussed, the lawsuit by House members and the NAACP may prove a colossal mistake. It is one of a number of lawsuits, including a lawsuit filed by Rep. Eric. Swalwell, D-Cal, that could ultimately vindicate Trump shortly before the next election. While it is possible that members could find a trial judge to rule in their favor, these lawsuits should fail on appeal, if they get that far. Moreover, they would fail under a lower standard of proof than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal law. Such a result would eviscerate the claim that Trump was guilty of criminal incitement in his speech.

  After the riot, various legal experts appeared on news channels to proclaim that this was a strong if not conclusive case for criminal incitement. Trump was clearly guilty of criminal incitement. CNN legal analyst Elie Honig declared “As a prosecutor I’d gladly show a jury Trump’s own inflammatory statements and argue they cross the line to criminality.” Richard Ashby Wilson, associate law school dean at the University of Connecticut, said “Trump crossed the Rubicon and incited a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol as Congress was in the process of tallying the Electoral College vote results. He should be criminally indicted for inciting insurrection against our democracy.” District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine then thrilled many by declaring that he was investigating Trump for a possible incitement charge.

  As I have previously written, these statements ignored both the elements of that crime and controlling case law. Notably, while these and other experts insisted that the crime of incitement was obvious and public on Jan. 6th, there has been no charge brought against Trump despite over four months. Why?

  The reason is that an actual criminal case would lead to a rejection of not just the charge but the basis for the second Trump impeachment. Trump’s Jan. 6 speech would not satisfy the test in Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court stressed that even “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” is protected unless it is imminent. Trump did not call for the use of force but actually told people to protest “peacefully” and to “cheer on” their allies in Congress. After violence erupted, Trump later told his supporters to respect and obey the Capitol Police.

  Now Waters, Swalwell, and others are rushing in where wiser Democrats fear to tread. These civil lawsuits actually raise claims like the infliction of emotional distress that were directly and unequivocally rejected by the Supreme Court. In 2011, the court ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, an infamous group of zealots who engaged in homophobic protests at the funerals of slain American troops. In rejecting a suit against the church on constitutional grounds, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.”

  Yet, Waters is not more deterred by the actual case law in this area than the legal experts on CNN and MSNBC. Indeed, Waters has gone further and insisted that Trump should not only be charged with criminal incitement but actual “premeditated murder.” She stated, “For the President of the United States to sit and watch the invasion and the insurrection and not say a word because he knew he had absolutely initiated it – and as some of them said, ‘he invited us to come.”

  That bring us back to Brooklyn Center this weekend. Violence and looting have been unfolding around the country, including the near the area where Waters was speaking. Yet, she called on people to stay in the streets and get more “confrontational.”  She added that there would be no acceptance of court decisions to the contrary in the Chauvin case: “We’re looking for a guilty verdict. If we don’t, we cannot go away.”  Protesters have not only been camped around the courthouse but the home of a witness in the Chauvin case was targeted. (It turned out to be his former home). Critics could charge that Waters’ statement and these protests are meant to intimidate witnesses or influence the trial — just as critics charged that Trump was attempting to intimidate or influence Congress.

  After Waters remarks, protesters confronted reporters in a tense scene. Also protesters descended upon the home of the prosecutor responsible for the second degree manslaughter charge against the officer who killed Daunte Wright. Also the Minnesota National Guard was fired upon, injuring at least two Guardsman.  That is not to say that Water incited such actions but that the same claimed nexus could be raised in making such an allegation as was done in the Trump impeachment.

  In my view, those words are political speech and should not be subject to criminal sanctions. However, I felt the same way about Trump’s speech (which I condemned as he was giving it on Jan. 6th as reckless). I also rejected prior claims against Waters like when she encouraged protesters to confront Trump officials in restaurants and “push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” It is all protected speech.

  Yet, that standard cannot be selectively applied to some but not all riots or protests. Waters was encouraging protesters to continue to fight for what they believe in. Her over-heated rhetoric could easily be seen by some as an invitation or endorsement for rioting.  However, criminalizing such speech would shred the guarantees of free speech in our country.

  Carl Jung once said that “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves”. That certainly seems to be the case with Waters and Trump. It is also why Waters could prove the only witness that Trump needs to call to defeat her own lawsuit.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 20:29

• Japan's Hardest-Hit Regions Push For COVID State Of Emergency As Olympics Safety Review Looms
  Japan’s Hardest-Hit Regions Push For COVID State Of Emergency As Olympics Safety Review Looms

  President Biden has given his uneasy blessing to Japan and Tokyo’s resolution to hold the 2020 Summer Olympic Games, which is set to begin in just a few months. Still, it’s looking unlikely that the President will attend in person, and as the level of attendance looks increasingly uncertain, yet another Japanese prefecture has asked to declare a state of emergency as COVID cases climb.

  

  Osaka Gov. Hirofume Yoshimura reportedly asked the Japanese government to declare a full-fledged state of emergency for Osaka, while other reports noted that Tokyo could ask restaurants to shut during the next emergency, which follows tighter restrictions introduced by the capital city earlier this month.

  

  Yoshimura isn’t alone: Tokyo is also considering a similar state-of-emergency request, Governor Yuriko Koike told reporters late on Sunday, in a step backwards as Japan scrambles to bring the pandemic under control ahead of the Summer Olympics.

  Here’s more from Reuters:

  A recent surge in COVID-19 cases could see major parts of Japan slide back into states of emergency with authorities in Tokyo and Osaka looking at renewed curbs to stop the spread.

  The new wave of infections complicates preparations for the Tokyo Olympic Games, which are due to start in July having already been postponed due to the global coronavirus outbreak last year.

  Japan this month put Osaka, Tokyo, and eight other prefectures under “quasi-states of emergency” aimed at controlling the spread of COVID-19 with shorter business hours for restaurants and bars and stronger calls for teleworking.

  But those measures have done little to reverse the trend so far, with Osaka reporting a record 1,220 cases on Sunday, two weeks after those restrictions took effect as a mutant strain fueled the spread.

  “The fruits of these measures should be appearing now,” Osaka Governor Hirofumi Yoshimura told reporters in comments carried online.

  “Medical services are also in a dire state, and we’ve decided that we need a state of emergency. We need stronger measures such as those that would stop the movement of people,” he said, adding that Japan’s third-most populous prefecture would make the formal request to the government on Tuesday.

  Back in Tokyo, Koike said “Taking pre-emptive action is crucial right now,” Koike said.

  Tokyo reported 543 new cases on Sunday, the 18th straight day of seven-day increases.

  As COVID cases climb in Japan, the IOC, which organizes the Olympics and could ultimately quash the Games if it feels necessary, is preparing to decide whether to move ahead with the Games, or abandon them (at tremendous cost to the Japanese economy). Thomas Bach, president of the International Olympic Committee, will attend a torch relay ceremony in the western city of Hiroshima on 17 May and meet prime minister Yoshihide Suga the next day, Kyodo, one of several large Japanese news agencies, reported over the weekend.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 20:10

• The Media Lied Repeatedly About Officer Brian Sicknick's Death. And They Just Got Caught
  The Media Lied Repeatedly About Officer Brian Sicknick’s Death. And They Just Got Caught

  By Gleen Greenwald, first posted on Substack

  Just as with the Russia Bounty debacle, they will never acknowledge what they did. Their audience wants to be lied to for partisan gain and emotional pleasure.

  

  It was crucial for liberal sectors of the media to invent and disseminate a harrowing lie about how Officer Brian Sicknick died. That is because he is the only one they could claim was killed by pro-Trump protesters at the January 6 riot at the Capitol.

  So The New York Times on January 8 published an emotionally gut-wrenching but complete fiction that never had any evidence — that Officer Sicknick’s skull was savagely bashed in with a fire extinguisher by a pro-Trump mob until he died — and, just like the now-discredited Russian bounty story also unveiled by that same paper, cable outlets and other media platforms repeated this lie over and over in the most emotionally manipulative way possible. Just watch a part of what they did and how:

  As I detailed over and over when examining this story, there were so many reasons to doubt this storyline from the start. Nobody on the record claimed it happened. The autopsy found no blunt trauma to the head. Sicknick’s own family kept urging the press to stop spreading this story because he called them the night of January 6 and told them he was fine — obviously inconsistent with the media’s claim that he died by having his skull bashed in — and his own mother kept saying that she believed he died of a stroke.

  But the gruesome story of Sicknick’s “murder” was too valuable to allow any questioning. It was weaponized over and over to depict the pro-Trump mob not as just violent but barbaric and murderous, because if Sicknick weren’t murdered by them, then nobody was (without Sicknick, the only ones killed were four pro-Trump supporters: two who died of a heart attack, one from an amphetamine overdose, and the other, Ashli Babbitt, who was shot point blank in the neck by Capitol Police despite being unarmed). So crucial was this fairy tale about Sicknick that it made its way into the official record of President Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate, and they had Joe Biden himself recite from the script, even as clear facts mounted proving it was untrue.

  

  Because of its centrality to the media narrative and agenda, anyone who tried to point out the serious factual deficiencies in this story — in other words, people trying to be journalists — were smeared by Democratic Party loyalists who pretend to be journalists as “Sicknick Truthers,” white nationalist sympathizers, and supporters of insurrection.

  For the crime of trying to determine the factual truth of what happened, my character was constantly impugned by these propagandistic worms, as was anyone else’s who tried to tell the truth about Sicknick’s tragic death. Because one of the first people to highlight the journalistic truth here was former Trump official Darren Beattie of Revolver News and one of the few people on television willing to host doubts about the official story was Tucker Carlson, any doubts about the false Sicknick story — no matter how well-grounded in truth, facts, reason and evidence — were cast as fascism and white supremacy, and those raising questions smeared as “truthers”: the usual dreary liberal insults for trying to coerce people into submitting to their lies:

  

  

  Because the truth usually prevails, at least ultimately, their lies, yet again, all came crashing down on their heads on Monday. The District of Columbia’s chief medical examiner earlier this morning issued his official ruling in the Sicknick case, and it was so definitive that The Washington Post — one of the media outlets that had pushed the multiple falsehoods — did not even bother to try to mask or mitigate the stark conclusion it revealed:

  

  The first line tells much of the story: “Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes a day after he confronted rioters at the Jan. 6 insurrection, the District’s chief medical examiner has ruled.” Using understatement, the paper added: “The ruling, released Monday, likely will make it difficult for prosecutors to pursue homicide charges in the officer’s death.”

  This definitive finding from the medical examiner not only rids us of the Fire Extinguisher lie but also the second theory to which these media outlets resorted once they had to face the reality that they spent weeks spreading an outright lie (needless to say, they provided no real accountability or even acknowledgement for the fact that they did spread that Fire Extinguisher tale, instead just seamlessly moving to their next evidence-free claim). They changed their story to claim that pro-Trump protesters still murdered Sicknick, not with a fire extinguisher but with bear spray, which video shows at least one protester using in his vicinity.

  

  The problem with that theory is that bear spray is not usually fatal, and the medical examiner’s findings ruled out the possibility that this is what caused his death:

  In an interview with The Washington Post, Francisco J. Diaz, the medical examiner, said the autopsy found no evidence the 42-year-old officer suffered an allergic reaction to chemical irritants, which Diaz said would have caused Sicknick’s throat to quickly seize. Diaz also said there was no evidence of internal or external injuries….

  Diaz said Sicknick suffered two strokes at the base of the brain stem caused by a clot in an artery that supplies blood to that area of the body. Diaz said he could not comment on whether Sicknick had a preexisting medical condition, citing privacy laws.

  So there goes that second fairy tale. The Post did note the medical examiner’s observation regarding Sicknick’s participation in defending the Capitol that day that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” That of course is true: just as it is true for the two pro-Trump supporters who had heart attacks that day and the other pro-Trump supporter who died from too much amphetamine in her system, having a stressful encounter as a police officer likely played a role in why someone would have two strokes the following day. But police officers are trained for stressful encounters, and that obviously is a far cry from being able to claim that any pro-Trump supporter murdered Sicknick.

  I’ll have much more on this story as it unfolds. A significant amount of media accountability is warranted. But you’re seeing why there is so much resentment and so many attacks on platforms like this one that permit journalists to report and analyze facts and dissect media narratives without being constrained by liberal orthodoxies and pieties and while remaining immune from liberal pressure tactics: it’s one of the few ways that real dissent to their lies and propaganda can be aired.

  

  Truth matters. Noble lies are never justified no matter the cause, especially in journalism. But these employees of corporate media outlets have been taught the exact opposite model: that their primary obligation is to please and flatter the partisan agenda and political sensibilities of their audience even if it means lying or recklessly spreading unproven theories to do it. That is their profit model. And they have trained their audiences to want and expect this and that is why they never feel compelled to engage in any self-critique or accountability when they get caught doing this: their audiences want to be lied to — they are grateful for it — and would prefer that they not admit they did it so that their partisan interests will not be undermined.

  What is most depressing about this entire spectacle is that, this time, they exploited the tragic death of a young man to achieve their tawdry goals. They never cared in the slightest about Officer Brian Sicknick. They had just spent months glorifying a protest movement whose core view is that police officers are inherently racist and abusive. He had just become their toy, to be played with and exploited in order to depict the January 6 protest as a murderous orgy carried out by savages so primitive and inhuman that they were willing to fatally bash in the skull of a helpless person or spray them with deadly gases until they choked to death on their own lung fluids. None if it was true, but that did not matter — and it still does not to them — because truth, as always, has nothing to do with their actual function. If anything, truth is an impediment to it.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 19:47

• Lordstown Motors' "Endurance" All-Electric Pickup Fails To Endure Baja Race
  Lordstown Motors’ “Endurance” All-Electric Pickup Fails To Endure Baja Race

  Lordstown Motors’ electric pickup truck, Endurance, did not endure too long in the SCORE San Felipe 250 in San Felipe, Baja California, Mexico, on Saturday. 

  What a ride it has been leading up to race day. We did not cross the finish line, but we are proud of the work our team and partners put in to make entering this race possible. Read our full statement here: https://t.co/JJOSOamtDF #RideWithLordstown

  — Lordstown Motors (@LordstownMotors) April 18, 2021

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

  The electric vehicle startup hyped its entry into the Baja, Mexico event for weeks, only completed less than 40 miles of the 280-mile course before withdrawing. 

  According to automobile news website Autoevolution, the Endurance only completed 14% of the course until it had to meet up with a portable charging truck. The vehicle was stationary for 2.5 hours. 

  Before the 40-mile (64.3-km marker), GPS tracking on the Endurance showed the e-truck slowing down. Shortly afterward, it veered off the racecourse to meet up with the Lordstown truck carrying the charging station on a nearby highway. TFL Truck reports that it stayed in the same spot for 2.5 hours, recharging and/or undergoing repairs.

  As for what happened next, we won’t know until Lordstown issues a clarification in this sense.

  

  Shortly after, Endurance withdrew from the race. The exact reasons have yet to be provided by the company.

  “What a ride we have had getting to the SCORE International San Felipe 250,” Lordstown’s Facebook page read. “The Endurance’s hub motors, battery pack and software performed very well today, and everything we did and experienced in Mexico has provided us with valuable insights into how the Endurance’s technology performed and responded to the demanding and treacherous conditions.”

  “We are stopping here and taking our incredible learnings back to Lordstown. Thank you to everyone at Lordstown Motors, our partners at Brenthel Industries and Elaphe Propulsion Technologies, and all of our champions – your hard work, dedication and passion for the Endurance is the reason we made it to Mexico, and the reason we’ll keep going as we continue into our Beta builds ahead of start of production in September.”

  Throughout April, Lordstown hyped its entry into the San Felipe 250 race. Perhaps, the hype was an attempt to attract new interest into the company’s stock, which has fallen 71% since mid-February. Shares on Monday slumped 8%. 

  

  Lordstown Investors and future buyers of Endurance should question the company’s technology as it could barely finish an offroad race. After this past weekend’s race, Endurance might need a name change.

  … and remember short-seller Hindenburg Research recently published pictures of the Endurance breaking down last year.

  Hindenburg has also published a report titled “The Lordstown Motors Mirage: Fake Orders, Undisclosed Production Hurdles, And A Prototype Inferno,” which accused the company of “fake orders.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 19:30

• China Launches New App Allowing Citizens To Report Others For Expressing "Mistaken Opinions"
  China Launches New App Allowing Citizens To Report Others For Expressing “Mistaken Opinions”

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

  China’s Communist government has launched a new app that encourages citizens to report dissidents for expressing “mistaken opinions” on the Internet.

  

  The new platform will target anyone who criticizes the dictatorship’s ruling CCP, disputes the official version of the country’s history or engages in “misinformation.”

  The new website and app was proudly unveiled by China’s Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), with authorities calling on users to play an “active role” in helping to identify “malicious people distorting facts and confusing” others.

  “For a while now, some people with ulterior motives…have spread historically nihilistic false statements online, maliciously distorting, slandering and denying Party, national and military history in an attempt to confuse people’s thinking,” the announcement said.

  “We hope that most internet users will play an active role in supervising society…and enthusiastically report harmful information.”

  As Didi Rankovic notes, “It’s also unsurprising because it comes ahead of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CPP), when messages and narratives will have to be kept particularly “clean.”

  China already operates an onerous social credit score system that bans people from using transportation and engaging in other basic functions of society if they commit minor infractions like jaywalking or buying too much junk food.

  Given that social media mobs in the west, routinely aided by journalists, already conduct witch hunts that lead to people being socially ostracized, deplatformed and left unemployed for expressing “mistaken opinions,” are we really that better off than Chinese dissidents?

  *  *  *

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

  *  *  *

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

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 19:10

• Lumber Hasn't Had A Down Day Since March 26… And It's Sending Home Prices Soaring Even Higher
  Lumber Hasn’t Had A Down Day Since March 26… And It’s Sending Home Prices Soaring Even Higher

  Less than a week ago, we published an article explaining that the ongoing “Supply Chain Collapse Leads To Lumber Frenzy, Soaring Home Prices.” Since then the lumber buying frenzy has gotten even more out of control, with prices surging another 12%, and as Bloomberg’s Aoyon Ashraf points out, “lumber hasn’t had a down day since March 26 and keeps hitting all-time highs with few signs of stopping.” In an amusing comparison, Ashraf also notes that while Lumber futures have climber a staggering 58% in just the past month since bottoming on March 16, “Bitcoin has fallen 3% and S&P 500 returned only 5% over this period” (of course, any comparison that is not goalseeked and stretches further beyond just a few weeks will show bitcoin trouncing lumber, but we get the idea).

  

  Ashraf then echoes what we said last week, namely that “the reason for lumber’s meteoric rise is simple: low supply and surging demand. Slow ramp-ups at sawmills, trucking delays and worker shortages all are feeding into it.” The Bloomberg reporter than boldly suggests that going long lumber is a safer choice than bitcoin:

  Meanwhile, with opaque assets such as Bitcoin, it’s quite a bit harder to explain why it moves the way it does. This makes lumber a relatively safer choice.

  Well, maybe not for those who have been long bitcoin since 2015 but in any event it is true that lumber is at the forefront of reflating assets, and what makes it especially problematic is that one can’t build houses without lumber. Hence: even higher home prices.

  As WIS10 News reports, leaders with the Building Industry Association of Central South Carolina and Central Carolina Realtors Association say the rising price of that material plays into the rising cost of homes, which have already soared at the highest pace since Feb 2006 (according to the Case Shiller National Home Price Index).

  

  In Richland and Lexington Counties, Consolidate Multiple Listing Service data shows the median price of homes went from $189,900 in March 2020 to $218,000 a year later. That’s a 14.8% jump. Building association Executive Director Earl McLeod pointed to the pandemic, during which mills shut down or slowed production.

  “At the same time demand for new homes increased. People were being told to stay at home, people wanted to be at home. There was a tremendous demand for new homes. That coupled with less production and high demand created a surge, so lumber prices have substantially increased,” he said.

  Pointing out the painfully obvious, Realtor Association Executive Officer Taylor Oxendine said the supply and demand of homes are out of balance. Currently, there’s not enough supply. He said the price of lumber has impeded construction, which would be needed to lower the price.

  “That’s made it more expensive to build homes in these new developments, meaning the supply can’t meet the demand here,” he said, adding that the costs have had to be passed onto homebuyers.

  Builder John Streven said affordability is a goal for his projects, but the rising cost has forced him into tough conversations with customers.

  “I don’t have any control over this. There’s nothing that I can do. All we can try and do is see how can we help defray some of that cost, mitigate against it, but there is, it’s that feeling there is no control because the control is in the hands of a few very large manufacturers,” he said.

  The American Wood Council claims to represent 86% of the Structural Wood Products industry and released this statement in March on the issue:

  By Chris Joseph | April 15, 2021 at 6:16 PM EDT – Updated April 16 at 10:11 PM

  COLUMBIA, S.C. (WIS) – Lumber is a crucial part of many homes, and a short supply is making those homes more expensive.

  The National Association of Home Builders reports the price of lumber has climbed 180% since last spring.

  Association data shows 1,000 board feet went from roughly $400 in June 2020 to $1,100 in April.

  Leaders with the Building Industry Association of Central South Carolina and Central Carolina Realtors Association say the rising price of that material plays into the rising cost of homes.

  In Richland and Lexington Counties, Consolidate Multiple Listing Service data shows the median price of homes went from $189,900 in March 2020 to $218,000 a year later. That’s a 14.8% jump.

  Building association Executive Director Earl McLeod pointed to the pandemic, during which mills shut down or slowed production.

  “At the same time demand for new homes increased. People were being told to stay at home, people wanted to be at home. There was a tremendous demand for new homes. That coupled with less production and high demand created a surge, so lumber prices have substantially increased,” he said.

  Realtor Association Executive Officer Taylor Oxendine said the supply and demand of homes are out of balance. Currently, there’s not enough supply.

  He said the price of lumber has impeded construction, which would be needed to lower the price.

  “That’s made it more expensive to build homes in these new developments, meaning the supply can’t meet the demand here,” he said.

  The costs have had to be passed onto homebuyers.

  Builder John Streven said affordability is a goal for his projects, but the rising cost has forced him into tough conversations with customers.

  “I don’t have any control over this. There’s nothing that I can do. All we can try and do is see how can we help defray some of that cost, mitigate against it, but there is, it’s that feeling there is no control because the control is in the hands of a few very large manufacturers,” he said.

  The American Wood Council claims to represent 86% of the Structural Wood Products industry and released this statement in March on the issue:

  “Despite the many challenges presented by the pandemic, wood products manufacturers are responding to the high demand by producing wood products at levels not seen since before the Great Recession. Production output of wood products is the highest it’s been since 2007, according to the Federal Reserve Board.

  At the beginning of the pandemic, wood product manufacturers were operating under the same uncertainty as the rest of the country. Many curtailed production in anticipation of worker shortages and reduced demand. At the same time, many wholesale and retail lumber customers significantly reduced their inventory levels. But then, the need for wood products quickly rebounded as people stayed home and tackled DIY projects, restaurants rushed to build outdoor accommodations, and many states declared home building an essential industry allowing construction to rapidly resume. New home sales are up over 19 percent year-over-year as demand for single-family homes have increased during the pandemic and mortgage rates have remained low.

  The industry has quickly responded and put in extensive worker health and safety protocols to protect the 450,000 employees across the industry and prevent large scale shut-downs due to COVID exposures. Many wood products mills are back at pre-pandemic production levels or higher, with some operating seven days a week.

  Additionally, many wood products companies have continued to make significant investments in improving the throughput of their existing mills and building new mills in the U.S. since the sharp rebound in demand in the second quarter of 2020. These investments will create additional supplies in 2021. However, new equipment lead times remain long in many cases, engineering and construction resources are constrained, and additional production often requires environmental permitting reviews, so near-term relief during the spring building season from new production is likely to be limited.

  Constraints in supply and transportation have also continued, which are issues facing manufacturers of all kinds, and it has proven difficult to rebuild the near-zero inventories up to meet the renewed retailers’ and wholesalers’ demands. Some mills have taken temporary curtailments or reduced shifts due to localized COVID outbreaks and quarantines. All of this has been further exacerbated by constraints on log supplies resulting from recent extreme weather events, some of which also caused production downtime.

  While the wood products industry is far from the only one facing supply chain challenges, we have worked hard to protect our workforce through significant health and safety measures to stay in production.”

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 18:50

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Spanish Police Raided 3D-Gun Factory And Found Cache Of Weapons And Bomb-Making Material 
  Spanish Police Raided 3D-Gun Factory And Found Cache Of Weapons And Bomb-Making Material 

  People have been making 3D-printed guns at home for nearly a decade, but in the last few years, 3D printed technology, blueprints of weapons, and materials have rapidly evolved that allows anyone to print AR-15s, AKMs, semi-automatic pistols, and others with no serial number, no registration, no background check.

  These weapons are also known as “ghost weapons” due to their untraceable nature. Criminals are embracing ghost guns and even creating manufacturing facilities. 

  Reuters reports Spanish police busted a 3D-printed weapons factory that produced illegal and untraceable firearms in the country. 

  Spanish police raided the illegal weapons workshop in Santa Cruz de Tenerife in Spain’s Canary Islands and arrested two people in possession of weapons and explosives. 

  Spain’s National Police said police found 3D-printing equipment that could print lowers for weapons. They also found machinery that could manufacture gun barrels in under two minutes, leading authorities to believe the rate of weapons produced at this factory could be staggering. 

  

  Police confiscated the components for 19 3D-printed weapons and chemicals that could be used for manufacturing explosives. 

  Reuters said, “there were also manuals on terrorism, urban guerilla warfare, and white supremacist literature.” 

  Spain’s National Police kept the police weapons factory raid a secret since Sept. 14 until police released details on Sunday. 

  Governments around the world are scrambling to clamp down on 3D-printed weapons.

  The Biden administration recently declared war on ghost guns. Anyone can purchase a 3D printer and download weapon CAD files online, such as ones from the 3D-printed website CTRL-Pew, and build a 100% homemade semi-automatic rifle that shoots 9 mm ammo and can survive thousands of rounds. 

  Since ghost guns have been so disruptive in the Western world, governments are expected to take action against them. The question is, how? What are they going to do, ban printers? 

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 02:45

• Balance Of Power In The Black Sea: Will The Montreux Convention Prevail?
  Balance Of Power In The Black Sea: Will The Montreux Convention Prevail?

  Authored by Brian Kalman exclusively for SouthFront,

  The current deterioration of any hopes of a lasting “ceasefire” in the eastern Ukraine, have brought not only the long smoldering conflict back into the forefront of global media attention, but have also presented an opportunity for several geopolitical rivals to take advantage of the situation for their own perceived benefit. Russia responded rapidly to immediate signals from the Kiev government that it fully intended to explore yet another military campaign to resolve the long-standing stalemate in the Donbass and a possible invasion of the Crimean Peninsula.

  On March 29th, the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) officially adopted Resolution No. 5312, which is a clear departure from the Minsk Agreement and labels Russia as the unequivocal aggressor and responsible party for the conflict. Within days, the Ukrainian Armed Forces began moving large amounts of heavy equipment and materiel up to the line of contact and advanced some units within the demilitarized zone. The Zelensky government made very public calls for support from NATO, the United Kingdom and the United States, which were reciprocated in short order. Russia responded with warnings to Kiev to deescalate, coupled with deployments of military units along the south-eastern border with Ukraine, and reinforcement of units tasked with safeguarding the Crimea.

  

  Within a week of the provocative parliamentary vote, over 100 former Turkish Navy officers committed their signatures to an open letter criticizing the Erdogan government’s decisions related to maritime matters and demanded that he maintain Turkey’s commitment to the Montreux Convention. Ten former admirals that signed the letter were swiftly arrested and painted as traitors planning a governmental coup. This story was briefly covered by corporate media, but quickly dropped off the radar. Was this incident aimed at undermining the Erdogan government, or a diplomatic ploy created by the Erdogan government? There are ample reasons to support either assertion. The timing of the incident, in close relation to developments vis-à-vis Russian and Ukraine, are far from coincidental.

  Erdogan himself has made a number of statements regarding his administration’s willingness to re-evaluate whether the Montreux Doctrine should be revised or abandoned. Most of these comments were linked to media questions regarding the proposed Istanbul Canal, a $10 billion project that would construct a canal parallel to the busy Bosporus Strait. The Istanbul Canal project has been proposed off and on since 2011, with referrals for proposals from likely contractors solicited since 2013. But why the sudden reinjection of the topic of the Montreux Doctrine in such a dramatic fashion now? The timing seems far from a coincidence.

  

  Although logical allies against a common rival, President Erdogan harbors his own designs for Crimea that do not include Ukraine. (AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)

  Is Turkey signaling a possible departure from the international compact, signed in 1936, as an attempt to put pressure on Russian efforts to defend Crimea and respond to NATO assurances of support for Ukraine? What benefits would be achieved by Turkey pulling out of the treaty? Ukrainian president Zelensky made an official visit to Turkey and met with Erdogan on April 10th to discuss defense cooperation amongst numerous other topics. Erdogan reiterated his administrations commitment to Ukraine’s national sovereignty yet saw the Minsk Agreement as the vehicle to achieve a solution to the current impasse. He also voiced support for the official inclusion of Ukraine as a full member of the NATO alliance in the future. More than a few mixed messages to say the least.

  Montreux Convention: A Brief Overview

  The Regime of the Straits as first adopted by signatories in 1936 in Montreux, Switzerland attempted to govern the movement of commercial and military traffic through the Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits. This treaty once adopted, replaced the previous Lausanne Treaty of 1923. Clearly a major diplomatic victory for Turkey, the nation maintained sovereignty over the maritime territory of the Bosporus Strait, Strait of Dardanelles, and the Sea of Marmora and gave it the ability to close this major maritime traffic lane to any belligerent of Turkey in time of war. More importantly, it has minimized the ability of any nation whose territory does not border the Black Sea to transit significant amounts of naval warships into the Black Sea. This was a major concern of many of the signatories at the time of its adoption at the onset of the Second World War, chief amongst them the Soviet Union.

  

  The strategically important maritime bottleneck that is controlled by Turkey and governed by the Montreux Convention. Approximately 50,000 vessels a year move through this waterway, along with 3 million barrels of oil every day.

  On one hand, aggregate tonnage limitations imposed on non-Black Sea powers severely limits the size and total number of surface warfare vessels that can transit the straits and enter the Black Sea, and these vessels can only remain in the Black Sea for a period of 21 days. On the other hand, the limitation on movements of vessels through the straits does affect the naval movements of the Black Sea nations. The movement of submarines is significantly hampered by Article 12 as follows:

  Black Sea Powers shall have the right to send through the Straits, for the purpose of rejoining their base, submarines constructed or purchased outside the Black Sea, provided that adequate notice of the laying down or purchase of such submarines shall have been given to Turkey.

  Submarines belonging to the said Powers shall also be entitled to pass through the Straits to be repaired in dockyards outside the Black Sea on condition that detailed information on the matter is given to Turkey.

  In either case, the said submarines must travel by day and on the surface, and must pass through the Straits singly.

  Understanding how the limitations imposed by the Montreux Convention affect Russian submarine movements illustrate a major challenge for Russian submarine deployments in the Mediterranean. A Russian naval base capable of major repair, supply and retrofitting is required outside of the Dardanelles (such as Tartus, Syria) is required to facilitate a sustained Russian submarine presence in the Mediterranean.

  An additional limitation of significance is the agreement’s prohibition of the transit of aircraft carriers. The Montreux Convention describes an aircraft carrier under Annex II:

  Aircraft Carriers are surface vessels of war, whatever their displacement, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea. The fitting of a landing-on or flying-off deck on any vessel of war, provided such vessel has not been designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea, shall not cause any vessel so fitted to be classified in the category of aircraft carrier.

  One of the reasons why the Soviet Union classified the Kiev class and Kuznetsov class vessels as “heavy aircraft carrying cruiser” was to circumvent this restriction. Their primary armament comprised of ant-aircraft missiles and anti-ship missiles, with the small complement of Yak-38 VTOL meant for fleet defense. The acceptance of the heavy aircraft carrying cruiser moniker under the Montreux Convention arguably required the acquiescence of friendly Turkey, especially one that was a NATO member.

  Throughout the 85-year history of the convention, the Black Sea has remained largely demilitarized and stable, with the Black Sea states keeping modest fleets in this maritime area. Even during World War II, Turkey’s neutrality and administration of the convention greatly limited the injection of large naval fleets into the Black Sea. Coupled with the impediment of Gibraltar, Nazi Germany only introduced small numbers of patrol boats and submarines to the region, with these having to make most of the transit overland, requiring them to be assembled and launched from Axis controlled territory along the coast.

  2021: Ukraine Conflict Reignition?

  As the situation along the conflict line in eastern Ukraine continues to further deteriorate, and the statements coming out of Ukraine, NATO and the U.S. become exceedingly provocative, the likelihood of a significant armed conflict reigniting on an even larger scale increase with each passing day. Russia has voiced its concerns and made its “red lines” know to all, has mobilized a large amount of personnel and military hardware, and positioned it close to the border with eastern Ukraine. It has reinforced the defense of Crimea significantly. Russia has conducted its movements of troops and materiel quite overtly, with no attempts to conceal them. This clearly communicates the Russian movements are in fact a reaction to developments in the region and a are designed as a deterrent, not the signs of a premeditated offensive as the corporate media would have the world believe.

  By contrast, the United States has sent numerous military transport aircraft loaded with unknown payloads to Ukraine in the past few days. Although the flights were not hidden per se, questions regarding their purpose were not answered by various Biden Administration press secretaries. This can hardly be seen as an attempt to achieve strategic ambiguity, as the U.S. has been supplying Ukraine with billions of dollars in military aid since the conflict began in 2014. The United States requested transit approval from Turkey of the Straits for two U.S. Navy warships 15 days ahead of the proposed transit as required by the Montreux Convention. Turkey granted the request. Although the U.S. Navy’s 6th Fleet routinely sends warships into the Black Sea and had three vessels in the area during the previous month, the official reasons given for this deployment were that the U.S. was providing a show of support for Ukraine and attempting to provide “stability” in the region. After a call between presidents Biden and Putin on April 15th, the U.S. Navy rescinded its transit request. This was a welcome step toward de-escalation.

  

  USS Carney DDG 64 during a previous naval deployment that took her into the Black Sea and an official visit to the port of Odessa, Ukraine in 2017. She is currently in drydock undergoing a full modernization overhaul in Jacksonville, FL.

  All the above developments are happening with the backdrop of the commencement of NATO operation Defender Europe 2021 back on March 15th. As the training exercise ramps up in May it will engage approximately 28,000 personnel from 27 participating countries. Approximately 20,000 of these troops will be deployed from the U.S., along with heavy equipment shipped to the continent for the U.S. Army’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team and 3rd Infantry Division. The majority of armored vehicles and war materiel will be mobilized from pre-position depots in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Exercises will simulate and test the response to a Russian invasion of NATO members and friendly nations, i.e., Ukraine. Exercises will take place in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Ukraine.

  Quite ironically, Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters, NATO’s supreme allied commander stated after last year’s Defender Europe 2020 that,

  “We’ve seen a fair amount of response from Russia. They’re not overly pleased with Defender Europe 20. We’re concerned mostly about the readiness of our forces and we’re doing all that in accordance with international law.”

  Somehow it is acceptable for the U.S. to move tens of thousands of troops and equipment thousands of miles across the Atlantic Ocean to conduct military exercises on foreign soil, yet it is unacceptable for Russia to conduct similar exercises on its own soil, yet both are clearly in accordance with international law. Could General Wolters grasp that Russia’s displeasure might be influenced by the long list of broken promises related to NATO expansion into previous Warsaw Pact nations over the past thirty years? How about Operation Barbarossa of 1941, which saw a massive invasion of the nation by Nazi Germany, Bulgaria, and Romania, with Hungary and Italy also participating to a greater degree after the initial operation? Russia learned a tragic lesson in this case and one that it will never allow to happen again. Perhaps it would help for General Wolters to crack the binding of a history book or two about Russia in the near future.

  What Role will Turkey Decide to Play?

  Turkey has a multitude of options open to it in case the current conflict in Ukraine develops into open warfare between Ukraine and Russia. President Erdogan is a very shrewd and calculated politician, who would undoubtedly hedge his bets and alter Turkey’s strategic position as the situation developed. Turkey’s strategic calculus would depend largely on the level of response exhibited by Russia in its reaction to any move by Kiev to break the stalemate in the Donbass region, or any direct military threat on Crimea. A direct move on Crimea is highly unlikely, as Russia was totally unambiguous as to its stance in 2014. It will fight to maintain Crimea even if it means nuclear war.

  

  Russia has been slowly modernizing the Black Sea Fleet. The Admiral Makarov pictured above is one of three Project 11356 FFGs commissioned and stationed there in the past few years.

  Turkey would wait and gauge the NATO response to any Russian reaction to Kiev’s escalation. If NATO moved forcefully and resolutely, Turkey would likely maintain the status quo and honor its responsibilities under the Montreux Convention up until such point that either NATO or Russia gains a clear advantage. Turkey is a NATO member and is bound by the treaty; however, Ukraine is not a member, and thus Turkey has no obligation under Article 5 to defend it, especially if Ukraine initiates hostilities. A propaganda war facilitated by western corporate media would be used to frame any conflict as a case of a Russian invasion to allow for NATO to initiate a conflict to defend a non-member state. If NATO gained a clear advantage, Turkey would align itself unequivocally with the military bloc, declare Russia a belligerent party to Turkey and bar all Russian naval and maritime traffic in the Straits as per the mechanisms available in the Montreux Convention. Turkey would cut off the major supply route from Russia to its forces stationed in Syria and would likely escalate the military situation in Syria in conjunction with NATO. This would only lead to a much wider conflict.

  If Russia were to gain an early and clear advantage, Turkey would most likely remain “neutral” and maintain the status quo regarding the Montreux Convention; however, it would likely engage in covert warfare against Russia in both the Crimea and Syria via its proxies in both regions to take advantage of Russia’s immediate focus on Ukraine. It could also reignite the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Its commitment to proxy warfare would be gauged by the pace and level of any Russian military success. Even in the case of an overwhelming victory on the part of Russia, I see little likelihood of Turkey abandoning the Montreux Convention and the adoption of a more favorable transit agreement with Russia. In regard to controlling this strategically important maritime bottleneck, Turkey holds all the cards. Russia has been keenly aware of this reality since the agreement was ratified in 1936. Alongside its desire to maintain an advantage in the natural gas trade to Europe, it is also for this reason that Russia has invested so much in stabilizing Syria and defeating Western/Saudi/Gulf Emirate efforts to eliminate Russia’s most viable naval base of operations in the Mediterranean Sea in Tartus, Syria.

  The Future of the Montreux Convention

  There is very little chance of a major change in the status of the Montreux Convention in the immediate future. The greater possibility is that an open conflict between Russia and Ukraine would be the catalyst for Turkey and NATO to use the agreement to weaken Russia’s position in Syria, where it would be of greatest effect. Erdogan has been very measured in his public statements regarding possible hostilities in Ukraine. While hosting an official state visit with President Zelensky and voicing support for Ukraine’s sovereignty (including Crimea), he has also voiced his support for the Minsk Agreement as the mechanism to resolve the issue; however, public statements are often quite different than the discussions that take place behind closed doors.

  The Montreux Convention was perhaps the greatest political victory for Turkey in the past century, and President Erdogan undoubtedly grasps this reality. If the Istanbul Canal project ever actually breaks ground, it is a winning proposition for Turkey economically, although there are several ecological and civic planning concerns that pose a major challenge to the project. Such a project, if successful will bring all the economic benefits that both the Panama and Suez Canals have provided for Panama and Egypt. Although there is a natural, navigable waterway connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, this waterway is constricted and limited in the traffic volume that it can handle.  If a man-made canal can significantly reduce voyage transit time, shippers stand to save significant amounts of money by utilizing it. The time saved equates to fuel savings, possible reduction of overtime labor costs in the next port of call or may determine if a vessel operator meets the contractual terms of a charter party. Russia aims to leverage the same advantages in promoting its own Northern Sea Route.

  

  If Turkey ever completes the proposed Istanbul Canal it would alleviate some of the maritime traffic congestion in the Bosporus Strait and provide a large amount of revenue for the state.

  With or without the proposition of the Istanbul Canal, the Montreux Convention is a major strategic advantage for Turkey and the NATO Alliance, as long as Turkey remains a member state. For Russia it is a double-edged sword. Assuming Turkey remains an ally or a neutral party, it severely limits the ability of any foreign power to introduce a viable naval threat to the Black Sea and Russia’s vital national interests in the region. In any scenario where Turkey becomes an active belligerent in any hypothetical conflict, Russia is forced to take decisive and overwhelming action to rest control of these navigable waterways from Turkey or else surrender its access to the Mediterranean. Turkey, Russia and NATO all clearly understand this strategic reality, and have been rational and logical enough to accept it. By so limiting the available options for naval escalation, the Montreux Convention continues to provide stability and ensure a naval balance of power in the region.

  Tyler Durden
  Mon, 04/19/2021 – 02:00

• Escobar: So Who Wants A Hot War?
  Escobar: So Who Wants A Hot War?

  Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

  It’s a scorpion battle inside a vortex of distorted mirrors inside a circus. So let’s start with the mirrors in the circus.

  

  The non-entity that passes for Ukrainian Foreign Minister traveled to Brussels to be courted by US Secretary of State Blinken and NATO secretary-general Stoltenberg.

  At best, that’s circus shadowplay. Much more than NATO advisers in a frantic revolving door in Kiev, the real shadowplay is MI6 actually working very close with President Zelensky.

  Zelensky’s warmongering script comes directly from MI6’s Richard Moore. Russian intel is very much aware of all the fine print. Glimpses were even carefully leaked to a TV special on the Rossiya 1 channel.

  I confirmed it with diplomatic sources in Brussels. British media also got wind of it – but obviously was told to further distort the mirrors, blaming everything on, what else, “Russian aggression”.

  German intel is practically non-existent in Kiev. Those NATO advisers remain legion. Yet no one talks about the explosive MI6 connection.

  Careless whispers in Brussels corridors swear that MI6 actually believes that in the case of a volcanic but as it stands still preventable hot war with Russia, continental Europe would burn and Brexitland would be spared.

  Dream on. Now back to the circus.

  Oh, you’re so provocative

  Both Little Blinken and NATO straw man Stoltenberg parroted the same script in Brussels after talking to the Ukrainian Foreign Minister.

  That was part of a NATO “special meeting” on Ukraine – where some Eurocrat must have told a bunch of extra clueless Eurocrats how they would be carbonized on the spot by Russian TOS-1 Buratino’s terrifying explosive warheads if NATO tried anything funny.

  Listen to the sound of Blinken yappin’: Russian actions are “provocative”.

  Well, his staff certainly did not hand him a copy of Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu examining step by step the deployment of the annual US Army DEFENDER-Europe 21: “The main forces are concentrated in the Black Sea and Baltic region.”

  Now listen to the sound of Stoltenberg yappin’: We pledge “unwavering support” to Ukraine.

  Woof woof. Now go back to play in your sandboxes.

  No, not yet. Little Blinken threatened Moscow with “consequences” whatever happens in Ukraine.

  Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov’s infinite patience is nearly Daoist. Sun Tzu’s Art of War, by the way, is a Daoist masterpiece. Peskov’s answer to Blinken: “It is simply not necessary for us to go around forever proclaiming: ‘I am the greatest!’ The more one does this sort of thing, in fact, the more people doubt it…”

  When in doubt, call the irreplaceable Andrei Martyanov – who always tells it like it is. The Crash Test Dummy gang in D.C. still does not get it – although some Deep State pros do.

  Here’s Martyanov:

  As I am on record constantly – the United States never fought a war with its Command and Control system under the relentless sustained fire impact and its rear attacked and disorganized. Conventionally, the United States cannot win against Russia in Europe, at least Eastern part of it and Biden Admin better wake up to the reality that it may, indeed, not survive any kind of escalation and, in fact, modern Kalibrs, 3M14Ms, as a matter of fact, have a range of a 4,500 kilometers, as well as 5,000+ kilometer range of X-101 cruise missiles, which will have no issues with penetrating North American airspace when launched by Russia’s strategic bombers without even leaving the safety of Russia’s airspace.

  The Patrushev effect

  The circus went on with the phone call from “Biden” – that is, Crash Test Dummy with an earpiece and a teleprompter in front of the phone – to President Putin.

  Call it the Patrushev effect.

  In his stunning interview to Kommersant, Triple Yoda Patrushev mentioned a very civilized late March phone call he had with US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. Of course there’s no smokin’ gun, but if anyone would come up with the face-saving idea of a Biden-Putin phone call that would have been Sullivan.

  The spin from Washington and Moscow is only slightly divergent. The Americans highlight that “Biden” – actually the deciding combo behind him – wants to build “a stable and predictable relationship with Russia, consistent with US interests.”

  The Kremlin said that Biden “expressed interest in normalizing bilateral relations.”

  Away from all this fog, what really matters is Patrushev-Sullivan. That has to do with Washington telling Turkey that US warships would be transiting the Bosphorus towards the Black Sea. Sullivan must have told Patrushev that no, they won’t be “active” in Donbass. And Patrushev told Sullivan, OK, we won’t incinerate them.

  There are absolutely no illusions in Moscow that this putative Biden-Putin summit in a distant future will ever take place. Especially after Daoist Peskov had made it very clear that “no one will allow America to speak with Russia from a position of strength.” If that sounds like a line straight out of Yang Jiechi – who made shark fin’s soup out of Blinken-Sullivan in Alaska – that’s because it does.

  Kiev, predictably, remains stuck in circus mode. After getting sharp messages from Mr. Iskander, Mr. Khinzal and Mr. Buratino, they changed their mind, or at least pretend to, and are now saying they don’t want war.

  And here comes the intersection between circus and the serious stuff. The “Biden” combo never said, explicitly, on the record, that they don’t want war. On the contrary: they are sending those warships to the Black Sea and – circus again! – designating an envoy, Ministry of Silly Walks-style, whose only job is to derail the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

  So the cliffhanger – like a teaser for Snowpiercer – is what happens when Nord Stream 2 is completed.

  But before that, there’s something even more momentous: next Wednesday, on his speech to the Russian Security Council, President Putin will lay down the law.

  It’s Minsk 2, stupid

  Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov, has struck a much less Daoist note than Peskov: “The United States is our enemy, doing everything to undermine Russia’s position in the international arena, we do not see other elements in their approach to us. These are our conclusions”.

  That’s stone to the bone realpolitik. Ryabkov knows the Hegemon’s “non agreement-capable” mindset inside out. So an added dimension to his observation is its direct connection to the only solution for Ukraine: the Minsk 2 agreements.

  Putin reiterated Minsk 2 on his live teleconference with Merkel and Macron – and certainly to “Biden” in their phone call. The Beltway, the EU and NATO are all aware of it. Minsk 2 was signed by Ukraine, France and Germany and certified by the UN Security Council. If Kiev violates it, Russia – as a member of the UNSC – must enforce it.

  Kiev has been violating Minsk 2 for months now; it refuses to implement it. As a faithful Hegemon satrapy, they are also not “agreement-capable”. Yet now they are seeing the – firepower – writing on the wall if they as much as think of starting a blitzkrieg against Donbass.

  The open secret in the whole Ukraine/Donbass wilderness of mirrors under the circus tent is of course China. Yet Ukraine, in a sane world, would not only be part of a Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) corridor, but also part of the Russian Greater Eurasia project. China specialist Nikolai Vavilov recognizes the importance of BRI, but is also certain Russia is above all defending its own interests.

  Ideally, Ukraine/Donbass would be inserted in the overall revival of the Silk Roads – as in internal Central Eurasian trade based and developed taking into consideration Eurasia-wide demand. Eurasia integration – in both the Chinese and Russian vision – are all about interconnected economies via inter-regional trade.

  So it’s not by accident that the Hegemon – on the verge of becoming an irrelevant player across Eurasia – is going no holds barred to harass and try to smash the continental integration by all means available.

  In this context, manipulating a failed state to meet its own doom is just (circus) business.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 23:40

• Where COVID Cases Are Growing The Fastest
  Where COVID Cases Are Growing The Fastest

  COVID-19 cases are growing in many countries around the world, but, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz details below, some are hit harder than others. Numbers by Johns Hopkins University published on Our World in Data show that among the highly affected countries with rising case numbers are several with successful vaccination campaigns, highlighting the need to not rely on vaccination alone to combat the coronavirus.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Chile still recorded an average of 377 new infections per one million of population on Thursday despite having given out 67 vaccine doses per 100 people – the equivalent of 40 percent of the population having received at least one vaccine dose and 27 percent having been fully vaccinated.

  The same phenomenon is happening in Bahrain (60 doses per 100 people as of April 15) and Qatar (41 doses). 

  According to Our World in Data this places the countries towards the top of the most successful vaccination campaigns in the world.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 23:15

• What The CDC's VAERS Database Reveals About "Adverse" Post-Vaccine Reactions
  What The CDC’s VAERS Database Reveals About “Adverse” Post-Vaccine Reactions

  Authored by Megan Redshaw via ChildrensHealthDefense.org,

  Data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the number of injuries and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccines revealed reports of blood clots and other related blood disorders associated with all three vaccines approved for Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. — Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (J&J). So far, only the J&J vaccine has been paused because of blood clot concerns.

  

  VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.

  Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received through a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Today’s data show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 8, a total of 68,347 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 2,602 deaths — an increase of 260 over the previous week — and 8,285 serious injuries, up 314 since last week.

  

  Of the 2,602 deaths reported as of April 8, 27% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, 19% occurred within 24 hours and 41% occurred in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

  In the U.S., 174.9 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of April 8. This includes 79.6 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 90.3 million doses of Pfizer and 4.9 million doses of the J&J COVID vaccine.

  This week’s VAERS data show:

  • 19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.

  • 55% of those who died were male, 43% were female and the remaining death reports did not include gender of the deceased.

  • The average age of those who died was 77 and the youngest death was an 18-year-old. There are a few reported deaths in children under 18, but these reports contained errors.

  • As of April 8, 408 pregnant women had reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 114 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.

  • Of the 678 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 59% of cases were reported after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccinations, 38% following vaccination with the Moderna vaccine and 24 cases (4%) of Bell’s Palsy were reported with J&J.

  • There were 77 reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome with 55% of cases attributed to Pfizer, 40% to Moderna and 10% to J&J.

  • There were 20,021 reports of anaphylaxis with 47% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine, 46% to Moderna and 7% to J&J.

  Reports of blood clotting disorders in VAERS

  Children’s Health Defense queried the VAERS data for a series of adverse events associated with the formation of clotting disorders and other related conditions. VAERS yielded a total of 795 reports for all three vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020, through April 8.

  Of the 795 cases reported, there were 400 reports attributed to Pfizer, 337 reports with Moderna and 56 reports with J&J — far more than the eight J&J cases under investigation, including the two additional cases added Wednesday.

  As The Defender reported today, although the J&J and AstraZeneca COVID vaccines have been under the microscope for their potential to cause blood clots, mounting evidence suggests the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines also cause clots and related blood disorders. U.S. regulatory officials were alerted to the problem as far back as December 2020.

  CDC ignores The Defender, no response after 39 days 

  According to the CDC’s website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”

  On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. We requested information about how the CDC conducts investigations into reported deaths, the status of ongoing investigations reported in the media, if autopsies are being done, the standard for determining whether an injury is causally connected to a vaccine, and education initiatives to encourage and facilitate proper and accurate reporting.

  After many attempts to get a response from the CDC, 22 days after our initial outreach a representative from the CDC’s Vaccine Task Force responded, saying the agency had never received our questions — even though the employees we talked to several times said their press officers were working through the questions we sent.

  We provided the questions again and set a new deadline of April 7. We’ve reached out multiple times since, but the representative has not answered our emails or returned our calls.

  On April 15 we called the CDC’s general media line again and were told they had our list of questions and were unsure why the representative told us she never received them. We were told the COVID response team would be informed and that we should follow up in a few days.

  It has been 39 days since we first reached out and have yet to receive answers to our questions.

  Johnson & Johnson paused over reports of blood clot

  On April 15, The Defender reported that a healthy 43-year old man in Mississippi suffered a stroke hours after being vaccinated with J&J’s COVID vaccine. Brad Malagarie, father of seven, had received the vaccine a little after Noon and was found unresponsive by co-workers at his desk.

  Also on April 15, the  Cincinnati Enquirer reported that the Ohio Department of Health is monitoring the investigation into what may have caused a 21-year-old University of Cincinnati student to die suddenly last Sunday, about a day after he received the J&J vaccine.

  Alicia Shoults, a spokeswoman for the state health department, said the agency is waiting for the completion of a Hamilton County coroner’s report, and “if necessary,” further guidance from the CDC.

  The two news stories came just days after federal health officials paused the J&J vaccine.

  As The Defender reported April 13, the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) called for a temporary but immediate halt to the use of J&J’s COVID vaccine while the agencies investigated the vaccine’s possible link to potentially dangerous blood clots.

  In a joint statement, the agencies said the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) was reviewing clinical data gathered on six women, one who died, between the ages of 18 and 48 years who developed blood clots after receiving the single-dose J&J vaccine.

  On April 14, the ACIP held an emergency meeting to vote on whether to lift the pause on J&J’s vaccine or change recommendations for its use. As The Defender reported, the ACIP postponed the vote, extending the pause pending further analysis of data relating to blood clots. The ACIP said it would reconvene for a vote in one week to 10 days.

  That same day, J&J revealed two more cases of blood clots — one that occurred in a 25-year-old man who suffered a cerebral hemorrhage during a clinical trial and another case of deep-vein-thrombosis in a 59-year-old woman.

  In its review of J&J’s submission for Emergency Use Authorization in February, the FDA initially urged further surveillance of a slight “numerical imbalance” in blood clotting events after receiving the shot. At the time, it was concluded there was “insufficient” data to determine “a causal relationship” with the vaccine and the drugmaker resumed the trial.

  As The Defender reported April 12, the rollout of J&J’s COVID vaccine has not been smooth. At the beginning of the month the vaccine maker had to throw out 15 million doses of its vaccine after they were contaminated with AstraZeneca vaccine ingredients at an unapproved manufacturing plant in Baltimore.

  The vaccine maker also has been plagued with shutdowns of its vaccine sites prior to the vaccine being paused, multiple reports of COVID breakthrough cases and criticism over its CEO’s $30 million pay package while the company pays out billions for its role in the opioid epidemic.

  CDC, multiple states report ‘breakthrough’ COVID cases among fully vaccinated

  Cases of fully vaccinated people getting COVID, referred to as “breakthrough” cases, continue to make news.

  Calling it a “really good scenario,” the CDC yesterday reported 5,800 cases of COVID in fully vaccinated people. Of the 5,800 cases, 396 required hospitalization and 74 people died, the CDC said.

  The CDC said it was “keeping a close eye” on the cases, but that breakthrough cases are to be expected. Tara Smith, a professor of epidemiology at the Kent State University College of Public Health in Ohio, told NBC News:

  “This is a really good scenario, even with almost 6,000 breakthrough infections. Most of those have been mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic. That’s exactly what we were hoping for.”

  On April 12, the Houston Health Department reported 142 breakthrough cases of COVID that occurred in fully vaccinated people since January, according to ABC 13 News. Vaccine recipients received either two doses of Moderna or Pfizer, or one dose of J&J. The report ruled out those who were said to have contracted the virus 45 days before their second scheduled shot date.

  Houston Health Department said there were 2.46 positive cases out of every 10,000 fully-vaccinated people and it was unclear if those who tested positive contracted the original strand of COVID or a newer variant.

  Last month, The Defender reported on breakthrough cases in Washington, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, New York, California and Minnesota. On April 6, The Defender reported on 246 breakthrough cases in Michigan, which included three people who died.

  Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 22:50

• Goldman: The Economic Surge Is Starting To Flare Out… And Markets Are Starting To Price It In
  Goldman: The Economic Surge Is Starting To Flare Out… And Markets Are Starting To Price It In

  A year ago, Goldman Sachs wrote about an adage that came to characterize the market’s response to the pandemic: “investors can not afford to wait for the resolution to a problem that they know will be resolved.” And a year later, around the time Wall Street decided that covid is now behind us, the resolution is well and truly underway in the US with 38% of Americans having already received a first shot of the vaccine

  

  … and nearly 80% of all Americans 65 and older having received at least one dose.

  

  And signs of how the economy may respond to this resolution are already starting to crop up — especially this week.

  • March Retail Sales grew almost 10% M/M, helped also by a fresh round of stimulus checks sent out to shoppers
  • The number of people filing for jobless benefits in the latest week also fellnsharply to 576k from 769k a week prior
  • And business sentiment — which had already bounced off its low — showed further improvement with the Philly Fed rising to 50.2 from 44.5 a month ago and the Empire Manufacturing Index jumping to 26.3 from 17.4

  Interestingly, as Goldman’s Chris Hussey writes, Friday’s University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey disappointed, rising less than expected to 86.5 from 84.9 a month ago due to subdued expectations about the future…

  

  … perhaps as a result of 1-year inflation expectations soaring.

  

  When coupled with March’s blockbuster retail sales report, Goldman writes that “it may suggest that the stimulus-driven spending surge is already starting to flare out.” But it might also reveal how stimulus checks are hard-pressed to erase the longer-term memory of a 1-year+ pandemic-fueled lockdown.  The survey’s current economic conditions component rose by 4.2pt to 97.2. But the expectations index remained unchanged at79.7. As Goldman suggests, “it may be that consumers will need to live and feel ‘normal’ for more than just a shopping trip to the mall before fully embracing a post-pandemic era.“

  On one hand, this last point could be encouraging for markets as it suggests the reopening may have legs. But just how long those legs are is an increasingly hot topic of conversation. As Goldman strategist Alessio Rizzi warned in a separate note, we are probably entering the last stage of pricing the growth acceleration.

  

  To be sure, the market action last week may point to signs that the reopening trade could be already starting to fade.

  • Yields on 10-year US Treasuries have fallen about 10 bp this week to 1.57%.
  • Three of the best performing sectors in the S&P 500 this week were traditionally defensive ones: Healthcare, Real Estate, and Utilities.
  • A look at Goldman’s 19 stocks to focus on when we get a vaccine shows declines this week in particularly reopening sensitive categories like airlines (UAL and BA) and entertainment (FUN and IMAX).
  • The Financials sector is among the worst performers this week despite what on paper looked to be an extraordinary quarter of reported profits for the large money center banks.

  Putting all this together, Hussey writes that “in a week in which the US made significant progress in its recovery, we learned that business sentiment is only improving while more people are getting their job back and Banks reported strong profits through March, the procyclical trade showed signs of getting a little ‘long in the tooth’.”

  Indeed, as the Goldman strategist concludes, we may now be in a mirror image from one year ago today, when “investors find out that they can not afford to wait for the fading of a recovery that they know will eventually fade.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 22:25

• How To Start A War
  How To Start A War

  Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via AmGreatness.com,

  Wars often arise from uncertainty. When strong powers appear weak, truly weaker ones take risks they otherwise would not. 

  

  Sloppy braggadocio and serial promises of restraint alternatively trigger wars, too. Empty tough talk can needlessly egg on aggressors. But mouthing utopian bromides convinces bullies that their targets are too sophisticated to counter aggression.

  Sometimes announcing “a new peace process” without any ability to bring either novel concessions or pressures only raises false hopes—and furor. 

  Every new American president is usually tested to determine whether the United States can still protect friends like Japan, Europe, South Korea, Israel, and Taiwan. And will the new commander-in-chief deter America’s enemies Iran and North Korea—and keep China and Russia from absorbing their neighbors?

  Joe Biden, and those around him, seem determined to upset the peace they inherited. 

  Soon after Donald Trump left office, Vladimir Putin began massing troops on the Ukrainian border and threatening to attack.

  Putin earlier had concluded Trump was dangerously unpredictable, and perhaps better not provoked. After all, the Trump Administration took out Russian mercenaries in Syria. It beefed up defense spending and upped sanctions.

  The Trump Administration flooded the world with cheap oil to Russia’s chagrin. It pulled out from asymmetrical missile treaties with Russia. It sold sophisticated arms to the Ukrainians. The Russians concluded that Trump might do anything, and so waited for another president before again testing America.

  In contrast, Biden too often talks provocatively—while carrying a twig. He has gratuitously called Putin “a killer.” And he warned that the Russian dictator “would pay a price” for supposedly interfering in the 2020 election. 

  Unfortunately, his bombast follows four years of a Russian-collusion hoax, fueled by a concocted dossier paid for by 2016 candidate Hillary Clinton. Biden and others swore Trump was—in the words of Barack Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper—a “Russian asset.”

  If Biden seeks to provoke a nation with 7,500 deliverable weapons, he is certainly not backing up his rhetoric with force.

  He has cut military aid to Ukraine. And Biden may well decrease the Pentagon budget.  

  He seems to have forgotten that Trump was impeached for supposedly imperiling Ukraine, when in fact he sold to it the very weapons Biden and others in the Obama Administration had vetoed.

  While Biden was talking loudly to Putin, his administration was serially humiliated by China. Beijing’s diplomats dressed down their American counterparts in a recent meeting in Anchorage, Alaska. They gleefully recycled domestic left-wing boilerplate that a racist America has no moral authority to criticize China.

  If Trump was unpredictably blunt, Biden is too often predictably confused. And he appears frail, sending a message to autocracies that America’s commander-in-chief is not fully in control. 

  Biden has not, as he promised, demanded from China transparency about the origins of the COVID-19 virus in Wuhan. By summer, that Chinese-birthed plague may have killed 600,000 Americans.

  More disturbing, as Russia puts troops on the Ukrainian border, China simultaneously flies into Taiwanese air space, testing its defenses—and the degree to which the United States cares.

  For a half-century, American foreign policy sought to ensure that Russia was no closer to China than either was to the United States.

  Now the two dictatorships seem almost joined at the hip as each probes U.S. responses or lack thereof. Not surprisingly, North Korea in late March suddenly resumed its firing of missiles over the Sea of Japan.

  In the Middle East, Biden inherited a relatively quiet landscape. Arab nations, in historic fashion, were making peace with Israel. Both sides were working to deter Iranian-funded terrorists, like Hezbollah and extremists in Syria, the West Bank, and Yemen. 

  Radical Palestinians were no longer beneficiaries of U.S. aid. Iran itself was stagnating by sanctions and recession. Its arch terrorist mastermind General Qasem Soleimani was killed by U.S. bombing. 

  The United States left the Iran deal that was a prescription for certain Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon. The theocracy in Tehran, the chief sponsor of terror in the world, was in its most fragile condition in its 40 years of existence.

  Now U.S. diplomats bizarrely express an interest in restoring cordial relations with Iran, rebooting the Iran deal, and dropping sanctions against the regime. If all that happens, Iran will likely get a bomb soon. 

  More importantly, Tehran may conclude that the United States has distanced itself from Israel and moderate Arab regimes. One of two dangers will then arise. Either Iran will feel it can up its aggression, or its enemies will conclude they have no choice but to take out all Iranian nuclear facilities.

  Biden would do well to remember ancient American diplomatic adages like speaking softly while carrying a big stick, keeping China and Russia apart, being no better friend—or worse enemy—and letting sleeping dogs lie.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 22:00

• A Third Of Workers In San Fran Will Not Return To The Office
  A Third Of Workers In San Fran Will Not Return To The Office

  While we have been writing more of late about corporations returning to the office and life (slowly) starting to return back to normal, not everybody is going to be making the trek back into the office. 

  Only about 38% of currently employed San Francisco workers said they would be making the human-shit-filled hobble back to the office five days a week. This number is down from the 58% who made the commute prior to the pandemic. 

  The data is according to a poll commissioned by regional business group Bay Area Council, and reported by Bloomberg.

  

  The poll revealed that about a third don’t plan to return to the office in the same way they did prior to the pandemic and that about 16% of workers plan to work remotely after Covid, up from 10% pre-Covid. 

  Ultimately, this will result in about 384,000 less people driving or taking mass transit to work daily. 

  Jim Wunderman, President and CEO of the Bay Area Council, concluded: “Work and commute patterns have undergone dramatic changes over the past year, changes that will continue to evolve in the months ahead as the pandemic hopefully slips into our rearview mirror.”

  Recall, in mid March, we wrote that Goldman Sachs had told its employees they would be returning to the office by the summer. Like its much-larger rival JPM, Goldman moved to start bringing traders and investment bankers back to the office last year, leading to some headline-grabbing trading-floor COVID outbreaks.

  

  According to Reuters, Goldman CEO David Solomon informed staff during an all-hands Zoom call last month that the bank’s thousands of workers, who have mostly been working from home, will be back in offices by the summer.

  The NYC-based investment bank has nearly 40K employees around the world and its push to return to offices has been gaining steam internationally. Many of the bank’s roughly 10K workers in India are already returning to offices in Bengaluru and Mumbai from the hometowns where they spent the pandemic. In London, traders, investment bankers and others can get tested for COVID-19 in booths scattered around the building.

  Additionally, just two weeks ago, we reported that Wells Fargo would also have its employees back to the office this year, aiming for a September 6 return date.

  The bank announced in late March that it plans on bringing its workers back to its offices after Labor Day, due to the “increasing availability of vaccines”. The bank says it is hoping for operations to return to normalcy after September 6, according to Reuters. Wells says it is still evaluating whether or not to allow certain businesses or functional subgroups to return to work before labor day. 

  Wells Fargo noted that about 200,000 employees have been working from home, and about 60,000 from offices, during the pandemic.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 21:35

• Antifa "Panicking" About Police Informant Inside Network: Andy Ngo
  Antifa “Panicking” About Police Informant Inside Network: Andy Ngo

  Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

  Members of the infamous Antifa cell in Portland are anxious after an informant in their midst gave information to police, leading to arson charges, Antifa expert Andy Ngo says.

  “They’re panicking because this may possibly mean that somebody has infiltrated high… and there’s a lot at risk, because this is a criminal cartel,” Ngo said Saturday on NTD’s “The Nation Speaks.”

  “And if there’s somebody in there and they don’t know who it is who’s informing on them, it could bring down the entire cell,” Ngo added.

  “I’m hopeful that that will happen, although I’m not sure if there’s the political will for the investigators to actually go through and fully investigate all the links and ties that this individual suspect has. But this is at least a little bit of good news in regards to months and months of really terrible things happening in Portland with no changes happening.”

  Portland has seen repeated rioting since the spring of 2020. At least some of the violence has been linked to members of Antifa, a far-left, anarcho-communist network that has carried out violent acts in cities across the country.

  Last week, prosecutors announced they were charging Alma Raven-Guido, a 19-year-old who has attended multiple riots, with arson, criminal mischief, and rioting—all felonies.

  Raven-Guido is accused of pouring flammable liquid onto a fire that had been started at the building housing the Portland Police Association, a police union, during a riot on April 13. That liquid “resulted in the fire growing,” Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt said.

  A witness saw one of the bottles Raven-Guido use catch fire and start melting and also told police that they saw her place the three bottles into a backpack. In a court document, a police officer described the witness as “the informant.”

  Portland police officers found an accelerant and lighters when they arrested Raven-Guido shortly after the fire was set. They also found her to be in possession of a crow bar, spray paint, and heavy marker.

  

  In this image from video, a fire is seen at the Portland Police Association building in Portland, Ore., on April 13, 2021. (KPTV)

  The fire caused an estimated $25,000-plus damage to the police union building. Daryl Turner, executive director of the union, said in a statement that no one was inside the building when it was set on fire and that neighboring homes were not damaged.

  The arsonists were “a splinter group of rioters” who broke off from a peaceful march, Turner said.

  Slogans favored by Antifa were scrawled on the side of the building, including “ACAB,” an anti-police acronym.

  A court-appointed attorney for the defendant, who was released after being arraigned last week, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Antifa network in Portland does not have a public-facing brand, such as a spokesperson.

  After publications started reporting on the informant’s information helping lead to Raven-Guido being charged, a lot of Antifa members on social media “were trying accuse one another, saying, ‘who was it?’” Ngo, the journalist who has tracked the network for years, was beaten by alleged members in 2019, and later left the United States because of threats, told NTD.

  “And they’re really scared, so they’re locking down their social media accounts so that you can’t see what they’re saying anymore,” he added.

  Screenshots shared by Ngo on Twitter, and other posts that are still publicly available, show people wondering about who informed on Raven-Guido.

  “Somebody sold us out. Somebody sold every single one of us out. There’s somebody out there that would rather send a 19 year old indigenous person to prison than protect a single one of us. [expletive] you. Absolutely [expletive] you. I hope we find out who the [expletive] you are,” one wrote.

  “So where did this happen and what’s that snitches address?” another posted.

  Another user shared a meme that stated, “snitches get stitches.”

  Ngo said he’s hopeful that the anxiety that has set in among Antifa members will lead to a decrease in the violence in Portland.

  “I think that the group of people who are organizing, carrying out the violence is relatively small. So they stand a lot to lose actually if there’s going to be a high level of distrust within the ranks and Portland Police and even federal authorities have not been effective at clamping down on the violence in Portland, which is still ongoing to this day,” he said. “But hopefully, this—Antifa’s own paranoia—can be their undoing. One can hope.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 21:10

• JPMorgan: Clients Are "Increasingly Nervous", Fear "A Market Pullback In May Or June"
  JPMorgan: Clients Are “Increasingly Nervous”, Fear “A Market Pullback In May Or June”

  Much to the delight of bulls everywhere, the past month has been a relentless meltup in stocks, commodities, cryptos, and – paradoxically over the past week when we have been bombarded with stellar economic data – Treasurys as well.

  After dumping at the end of March to a low of 3,843, spoos have seen an almost flat-line diagonal move higher over the past three weeks, hitting an all time high of 4,183 on Friday (trading a little softer over the weekend following the crypto rout) following one blockbuster economic data point after another, and a solid start to earnings season to boot.

  

  If one looks purely at technicals (i.e., lines drawn on a chart which somehow predict stuff), the latest ramp was to be expected, but appears to be reaching an exhaustion point with just 10 points to go until resistance is hit.

  

  There is another technical reason (we’ll ignore fundamentals because when the Fed continues to inject $120BN per month and when the joke cryptocurrency Dogecoin goes exponentially higher “just because”, it’s clear that fundamentals don’t matter), the rally may be coming to an end: as of this moment a near record 96% of S&P stocks are trading above their 200DMA, which is the highest in more than 20 years, and the last time it happened – in Sept of 2009…

  

  … the S&P was 5% lower in 2 weeks, and unchanged a year later. Then again, the current period – when central banks are openly PPTing everything and will defend stocks at any and all cost – can’t really be compared to any other period in the past. Offsetting the negative charts is the well-known fact that April is historically the strongest month for stocks, green 89% of the time over the past 10 years and 75% of the time over the past 20.

  Another factor will be earnings season why by all counts will be stellar… but probably not stellar enough as absolute perfection is already priced in as recent bank earnings demonstrated.

  Which may explain why in his Friday Market Intelligence note, JPMorgan’s Andrew Tyler writes that while the “bull case remains intact” he warns to “keep an eye” on growing divergence in the sleep VIX relative to the spiky MOVE Index (which would imply a VIX in the mid-30s)…

  

  … as well as the CBOE’s put/call ratio…

  

  … as “the combination seems to suggest an increasing nervousness among investors.”

  As Tyler adds, “this dovetails with client conversations that, while expecting a robust earnings season, increasingly worry about potential market pullback in May/June” and urges his readers to recall that last week none other than JPM’s resident in house Marko Kolanovic recommended staying long risk but adding hedges.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 20:49

• China: Still Recovering, But Losing Steam
  China: Still Recovering, But Losing Steam

  By Raphie Hayat of Rabobank

  Still recovering, but losing steam

  Summary

  • China’s economic growth surged to 18.3% y/y, broadly in line with expectations

  • A big part of this is due to the lower base in Q1 2020

  • Although the overall first quarter growth was driven by production, more recent data suggests that services are taking over, while production growth is slowing

  • We think the recovery will lose steam as the initial pent up demand dies out and because policy support is being scaled back

  • Moreover, trade will not help economic growth as much as it did in the past few months as China’s trading partners are slowing coming out of the pandemic and are requiring less working-from-home and other coronavirus-related exports from China.

  • That is why we stick to our GDP forecast of 7.7% this year

  • Despite the relative positive short term outlook, we remain gloomier for the long term as China’s ageing population, high debt load, weakening productivity growth and increasing international tensions will keep growth below the levels of the past 15 years

  Services are taking over

  China’s National Bureau of statistics (NBS) released Q1 GDP figures, which showed that GDP growth accelerated to 18.3% y/y, up from 6.5% y/y in Q4 2020 (figure 1). This was broadly in line with the Bloomberg consensus of 18.5% y/y although higher than our own estimate of 16.3% y/y. The main driver of the first quarter growth was industry and construction, which grew by 24.4% y/y, while services grew by 15.6% y/y (figure 2). However, the monthly data suggests that services growth has taken over, while production growth is coming down.

  

  Industrial production growth has moderated to 14.1% y/y in March (down from 35.1% y/y in January/February) while real retail sales growth has kept pace at 33% y/y (slightly down from 34% y/y growth in January/February). Admittedly, retail sales suffered more and longer than industrial production during the initial outbreak of the coronavirus in China, which means base affects play a more prominent role for retail sales than production (figure 3). However, a high frequency indicator such as cinema box office sales corroborates that domestic demand is holding up. Cumulative daily cinema box office sales were CNY 1.56 bln for the first 14 days of April, which is comparable to the CNY 1.54 bln level over the same period in 2019. Meanwhile, industrial capacity utilization has come down a bit, from 78% in Q4 2020, to 77.2% in Q1 2021 (figure 4). Another indicator that points to slower industrial activity going forward is fixed asset investments, which slowed to 25.6% y/y in March, from a 35% y/y increase in January/February (figure 4). Investment activity is a better indicator of businesses confidence in the future and is also more sensitive to the monetary policy stance (on which we will come back later). Taken together, this indicates that services have taken from industry as the growth driver, at least in the short term.

  

  Unemployment is falling, but it’s of limited use as an indicator

  The surveyed urban unemployment rate came in at 5.3%, edging lower from 5.5% February, which is in line with the over economic recovery picture (figure 5).

  

  However, official unemployment figures do not adequately take into account the 300 mln rural migrant workers in China (which is about a third of China’s labour force) that are not counted as unemployed if they are not officially registered as an urban resident (because of the hukou registration system that). The flipside is that underlying improvements in the labour market are not seen in the unemployment figures as well (if rural migrants without hukou do go back to work, that will not be counted as a reduction in unemployment as they were not counted as being unemployed in the first place). In any case, official unemployment figures do not give an accurate picture of China’s labour market, so retail expenditure related data matters more to gauge the health of the economy.

  Trade reflects asynchronicity between China and the rest of the world

  From the trade side, we have already seen data coming out weaker than expected on the export side and stronger than expected on the income side in March. Namely, March Chinese exports grew by 30.6% y/y, and imports by 38.2% y/y in March, which means China’s net exports declined substantially to 14 bln USD (down from 38 bln USD in February).

  This partially reflects the fact that China was the first country in the world to experience the coronavirus outbreak, a couple of months before the virus spread to the rest of the world. As such its exports dipped initially due to supply side effects (since factories wore closed), but rebounded shortly after as China contained the virus relatively quickly, while the rest of the world was going closing down (figure 6). Now that the rest of the world is slowly starting to open up again, the initial boost for Chinese products is diminishing. In addition, China has benefitted from an initial surge in demand for ‘pandemic related products’ such as those related to working from home (computers, laptops and mobile phones) and protective equipment (such as face masks). That demand seems to be coming down (figure 7), which is reflected in the headline trade figures.

  

  We expect China’s exports to moderate further in the coming months as its trading partners slowly move back to normal and will require less products related to containing the coronavirus and working from home. That means net exports will likely be less of a driver for economic growth in China for the rest of the year.

  What do we expect for the coming year?

  For the coming quarters, we expect consumer demand growth to moderate as a considerable part of the “pent up demand” has already come to fruition, while production growth will slow. In addition, reduced policy support from the monetary as well as fiscal side will keep a lid on economic growth. From the fiscal side, Chinas recent government budget targets a fiscal deficit of 3.2% of GDP, which is relatively conservative. From the monetary side, China’s recent Five Year Plan targets growth of the money supply (M2) to be in line with nominal GDP growth, while there have been reports that China’s central bank (the PBoC) has asked banks to cap lending at 2020 levels. Indeed, there are already hints that credit growth is slowing. Total Social Financing (TSF, a measure of broad credit growth in China) has dropped from 13.3% y/y in February to 12.3% in March, the lowest growth rate in TSF since April 2020. We think this reduced policy support will keep a lid on economic growth this year.

  Altogether this GDP report and the observations above mean that we have not adjusted our GDP growth forecast for this year (7.7%).

  The main downside risks to our short term outlook are (i) increasing tensions between China and the US, EU, Japan, Australia or India. Such tensions could lead to sanctions on Chinese businesses and tariffs on Chinese exports, which will cut into China’s economic growth. In addition, the recent rise in SOE and corporate defaults could lead to financial instability. Finally, an unexpected resurgence of the coronavirus (for example via a new strain) will lead to containment measures again and hurt domestic demand.

  One possible upside risk is that China’s coronavirus restrictions are wound down faster than we currently envisage, boosting domestic demand quicker and more than we expect. China’s coronavirus restrictions were one of the toughest globally, but have now come down to below most G7 countries, while coronavirus cases are not materially increasing anymore. In that sense, similar to other countries, containment measures remain a key element to watch for the short term outlook.

  

  Long term outlook

  Our longer term outlook remains that economic growth will slow significantly in China (to 4% by 2025). As we recently argued (here), China is facing an ageing population (which is actually projected to start shrinking from 2030 onwards, according to US Census data), a very high debt load (335% of GDP), increasing tensions with several countries (which will hurt exports as well as limit needed imports) and weak productivity growth.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 20:20

• Meet The Crypto Billionaire That Wants To Make Stock Trading 24 Hours A Day
  Meet The Crypto Billionaire That Wants To Make Stock Trading 24 Hours A Day

  29 year old billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried was fed up with how crypto traded, so he did something about it: he started his own crypto exchange, FTX, which now processes $10.7 billion in trades per day. 

  His exchange lets people not only trade equities 24 hours a day, but also bet on props like whether or not Donald Trump will retake the presidency in 2024, according to a recent profile by the Wall Street Journal. It became popular due to Bankman-Fried’s commitment to donating 1% of its revenue to charity – and keeping the exchange reliable. 

  Recently, FTX made news when it bought the naming rights to the former American Airlines Arena – the home of the Miami Heat – for $135 million. The offshore exchange is “far more exciting” than Coinbase to many crypto traders because it operates outside the reach of U.S. authorities and offers both cryptos and derivatives.

  It was the first to offer tokenized stocks, which allows people to track the value of shares of companies like Tesla and GameStop outside of regular trading hours. These tokenized stocks are still only a small market, but crypto fans see them as a way to break stocks free of normal trading hours.

  Bankman-Fried is hopeful regulators eventually allow his products: “Nothing operates 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., five days a week. There’s actually a lot of room to innovate in stock exchanges.”

  

  Skeptics point out that, not unlike crypto itself, the products are new and should be taken with a grain of serious salt. Lee Reiners, executive director of the Global Financial Markets Center at Duke University, said: “These are very novel and complex instruments. These things are destined to blow up at some point, and then FTX will be in the hothouse with regulators and law enforcement.”

  FTX’s tokens can “be redeemed for the actual underlying shares at a regulated German investment firm, CM-Equity AG, which helps keep the price of the tokens in line with the actual stocks,” the Journal reports. 

  Rich Rosenblum, president of GSR, a crypto trading firm, said of FTX: “They’ve certainly pushed the envelope in terms of products and the speed with which they’ve been able to launch products.” 

  

  If they were to trade in the U.S., there’s a high chance they would be regulated by the SEC. Since the exchange is overseas, it isn’t beholden to U.S. regulations yet. 

  However, this doesn’t mean it won’t eventually be. The Journal points out that last October, “federal prosecutors charged the founders of BitMEX, another offshore crypto exchange, with violating anti-money-laundering laws because of its failure to register with U.S. regulations while allegedly turning a blind eye to Americans using its platform.”

  It’s tough not to think FTX could be subjected to similar scrutiny. 

  FTX says it has processed $10.7 billion in trades on an average day, which makes it one of the world’s top crypto exchanges. Coinbase, for comparison, has handled about $2.6 billion in daily trades this month – but doesn’t offer derivatives.

  

  FTX has made Bankman-Fried one of the world’s richest people, with an estimated net worth of $8.7 billion, much of which is made up of his stake in FTX and various tokens. 

  The 29 year old formerly studied physics at MIT and almost wound up with a career in academia. He launched his own crypto firm, Alameda Research, in 2017 during the early stages of the bitcoin boom. His wealth has allowed him to support organizations like OpenAI, which focuses making sure AI stays an asset – and not a threat – to the human race. 

  He also donated to President Biden’s campaign. He said of the current President: “I’d love to talk to him about crypto regulation. But I don’t think he gives a shit.”

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 19:55

• Have Chinese State Banks Quietly Bought $180 Billion In Gold?
  Have Chinese State Banks Quietly Bought $180 Billion In Gold?

  By Ye Xie, Bloomberg Live commentator and author

  Three things we learned last week:

  1. U.S. Treasury scrutinizes Chinese state banks for possible hidden currency intervention

  While Janet Yellen’s Treasury Department refrained from labeling China as a currency manipulator in its semi-annual currency report, it again zeroed in on the role of Chinese state banks in the foreign-exchange market. It noted that China’s net foreign exchange settlement, which it considers a more comprehensive proxy for intervention because it includes the activities of China’s state-owned banks, surged to about $180 billion last year. But the PBOC’s foreign exchange assets, which historically track the settlement data, stayed flat.

  

  The Treasury cautioned that it’s not clear what’s driving the unusual divergence between the two data sets, which used to provide roughly similar estimates of the direction and size of China’s currency intervention. While acknowledging that the difference could be due to commercial reasons, it’s also possible that these banks intervened on behalf of the PBOC to cover the central bank’s tracks, the Treasury said (ZH: or, it is the case that China has been stealthily accumulating some $180 billion in gold, as discussed last Friday in “Beijing Greenlights Purchases Of Billions In Bullion“).

  “Overall, this development highlights the need for China to improve transparency regarding its foreign exchange intervention activities,” the Treasury Department wrote in a report released Friday. “Compared to other major economies, especially in Asia, China is increasingly an outlier with respect to its non-disclosure of foreign exchange market intervention.”

  The Treasury raised similar concerns in its previous report. This won’t be the last time we hear about the issue.

  2. Besieged Huarong got some reprieve

  Dollar bonds of China Huarong Asset Management Co. rallied after financial regulators sought to ease investors’ concerns that the nation’s largest bad-debt manager may be heading for default. Huarong’s operations are normal and the company has ample liquidity, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission said Friday. Chinese regulators asked banks not to withhold loans to help stabilize to Huarong’s cash flow, Reuters reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

  It’s clear that Beijing wants to keep Huarong from becoming China’s “Lehman moment”, even as it works to remove the perception of a blanket guarantee supporting state-owned companies.

  The uncertainties remain, with Huarong’s perpetual bonds trading at about 73 cents on the dollar. But so far, the contagion has been limited as the domestic funding market remains calm.

  

  3. Global growth is accelerating

  China’s economy strengthened in the first quarter as consumer spending rose more than expected. In the U.S., economic data from retail sales to manufacturing surveys also surged. In Europe, vaccine rollouts are starting to speed up. Meanwhile, bond yields remain contained as traders have pared back their expectations for central bank hikes.
  No wonder global stocks keep smashing records.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 19:30

• Former Temple Business School Dean Charged Federally For Manipulating School Ranking Data
  Former Temple Business School Dean Charged Federally For Manipulating School Ranking Data

  The former dean of Temple’s Fox School of Business is being charged with federal crimes after being ousted due to an investigation that found the school “manipulated data” to become the number one ranked MBA program in the country.

  Former dean Moshe Porat was indicted on one count each of conspiracy and wire fraud, according to NBC Philadelphia. His lawyer “vigorously” denied the charges. 

  Isaac Gottlieb, a statistics professor, and Marjorie O’Neill, who submitted data to magazines that rank college programs, were also named in the indictment, according to the report. 

  Temple’s online MBA had been ranked top in the nation by U.S. News and World Report since 2015. The university stayed at the top of the list for 3 years after that and used its ranking to attract students and win donations. 

  Porat allegedly hand picked a small group of employees to focus on the rankings, including stat professor Gottleib, who was also to reverse engineer the magazine’s ranking criteria. Porat appointed O’Neill as the sole liaison between the university and the magazine. 

  The indictment “claims Fox manipulated data in its part-time MBA program, conflating its data with other programs to drive better rankings,” NBC reported.

  

  U.S. News called out Temple’s online MBA data and stripped the school of its ranking. Temple was then forced to pay the U.S. Department of Education $700,000 and later settled a class action suit by offering $250,000 in scholarships.

  Temple called Porat the “mastermind” of the fraud and asked him to resign. 

  Attorney Carolyn P. Short wrote in court papers: “He conceived it, controlled it and kept it hidden, only to try later to cover it up. M. Moshe Porat bears personal responsibility for the Fox School’s intentional submission of false ranking data.”

  Porat says he is being used as a scapegoat by Temple. His lawyer commented: “We are disappointed that, after cooperating with the government in its investigation, the United States Attorney’s Office decided to bring these charges, which Dr. Porat vigorously denies.”

  “Dr. Porat dedicated forty years of his life to serving Temple University, first as a faculty member, and ultimately as Dean of the Fox Business School, and he did so with distinction. He looks forward to defending himself against these charges and to clearing his name,” the statement continued.

  The kicker? Porat is still a tenured professor at the university and is making $316,000 per year. He hasn’t taught a class or published research since 2018. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 19:05

• Biden Blames Russia For The Exact Same "Interference" That US Corporate Media Is Guilty Of
  Biden Blames Russia For The Exact Same “Interference” That US Corporate Media Is Guilty Of

  Authored by Michael Tracey via substack,

  Deliberately vague weasel-word terms like “election interference” and/or “influence” gained such purchase in the past four-to-five years for a simple reason: the deliberate vagueness allowed people in power — elected officials, pundits, Intelligence Community functionaries — to claim unspecified expertise on a supposedly emerging range of threats.

  

  The threats were portrayed as particularly scary because of their alleged potential to Undermine Our Democracy. Consequently, these power-wielding people acquired a potent tool in their arsenal to accuse political enemies, whether foreign or domestic, of contributing to the proliferation of new and scary threats. The accusations were so deliberately vague that it was almost impossible to ever rebut them; sometimes even retweeting a meme was sufficient to be implicated in a foreign plot to destroy the very foundations of America. If an act so trivial as clicking one’s mouse on a social media post could be spun as abetting a foreign-backed “interference” or “influence” scheme, then that created an endless number of booby-traps for you to walk into.

  So there was nothing new about the suite of anti-Russia charges promulgated Thursday by the US federal government, and parroted as usual with maximum credulity across the US media ecosystem. The charges were again predicated on the idea that Russian “interference” and/or “influence” is an extremely foreboding test for the survival of US Democracy. Taking bold action, the Treasury Department levied sanctions against a bunch more Russians for their claimed nefarious behavior in carrying out this interference/influence — a fulfillment of Joe Biden’s oft-stated campaign pledge that under his watch, Russia would finally “pay a price” for allegedly engaging in such activities. Donald Trump, it was thought, had been appallingly lax in his resolve to confront this threat; now, a new sheriff is in town.

  Leaving aside the question of whether it’s prudent to assume that Janet Yellen is suddenly in possession of a foolproof methodology for attributing the provenance of “cyber operations” to specific foreign individuals and nation-states, it’s worth emphasizing what exactly is being alleged in the statement. The Treasury Department document reads: “Outlets operated by Russian Intelligence Services focus on divisive issues in the United States, denigrate US political candidates, and disseminate false and misleading information.” 

  Noting that these same characteristics could be just as easily applied to US corporate media outlets is so blindingly self-evident as to almost be redundant. Were there not “outlets” during the 2020 election that were “focused” on “denigrating” Donald Trump? Or for that matter, Joe Biden? Do “divisive issues” not tend to be “focused on” by these same outlets as a basic precept of their core business model?

  Controversy = clicks/views, which equals revenue.

  Everyone knows this.

  Yet when scary Russian outlets are said to employ this same logic in their own content-production enterprises, it magically becomes dangerous enough to justify all manner of punitive government and corporate action. Including but not limited to: censorship purges, tighter regulation of online speech, and, as Biden announced Thursday, sanctions and expulsion of diplomats. “Disseminating false and misleading information”? The entire US media just got caught “disseminating” a fake story about Russians putting bounties on the heads of US soldiers in Afghanistan. If you’re truly concerned about the dissemination of “false and misleading information” having deleterious effects on the health of US political culture, your first target should be CNN.

  One of these supposedly-scary Russian “outlets” identified by the Treasury Department is the website SouthFront. (Gee, way to give them far more publicity than they could’ve possibly generated on their own. I’m sure more than .001% of Americans had heard of this obscure website before this week.) SouthFront is alleged to have committed the grave crime of having “sought to promote perceptions of voter fraud” after the 2020 election. I wrote extensively at the time about how the “perceptions of voter fraud” promoted by Trump and his media allies were mostly ill-founded, overblown, and illogical, and it’s true that consumers of fraud-obsessed media coverage often became more-than-a-little deranged. But that’s not the point: the point is whether or not promoting these theories constitutes some sort of terrifying “interference” that requires a forceful punitive response. In which case, the entirety of US right-wing media could be deemed as complicit, requiring vast state-backed retaliation (which may well be the long-term goal). Promoting ill-founded perceptions of political events might be bad, but it doesn’t generally rise to the level of Democracy-Threatening Existential Crisis unless you have some other motivation for raising it to that level.

  In any event, Biden declared a “national emergency” with respect to this vague threat, on the ground that Russia had violated the “sacred” nature of US presidential elections by way of these website postings — even though the criteria invoked would apply to an infinitely wide array of US “outlets” that do exactly the same thing. Nonetheless, it’s henceforth an “emergency” to be on the lookout for irrelevant amateur websites like SouthFront. (Aside: Does anyone really view as “sacred” America’s multi-year presidential election rituals, into which billions of unregulated dollars are poured? Most Normies seem to be actively disdainful of presidential election melodrama and the attention/resources these rituals consume, rather than worshipful of their “sacredness.”)

  In his remarks, Biden also introduced what is possibly an even vaguer term than “interference” or “influence” to describe this horrifyingly ever-present threat: Russia, he alleged, was guilty of “engagement in our elections.” And again, this “engagement” was said to consist of Russian Government-backed websites publishing posts about issues related to the 2020 US presidential election. 

  So now we have an official “national emergency” declared vis-a-vis Russia’s conduct in orchestrating website posts, which has in turn been lumped into another “emergency” that apparently encompasses the ongoing escalation of conflict in Eastern Ukraine — a geopolitical domain Joe Biden has always taken a keen interest in. And this is largely being received not as an ominous development in US relations with a nuclear-armed power, but instead as a cheerful sign that the US has returned to asserting its rightful global dominance.

  One neat trick of this whole rhetorical framework is that foreign “interference,” “influence,” and “engagement” will obviously never be completely curtailed, especially if these things consist of internet postings. Therefore, the framework authorizes a perpetual war-like footing against Russia (or whatever country is next in the line of sight) which is especially convenient if you are interested in waging a New Cold War to garner whatever benefits (political, military, economic) you calculate comes with doing so. The rationale for keeping this ridiculous tit-for-tat going in perpetuity is clear — but don’t expect much clarity on that score from the US media, which always takes delight in blaming scary foreign entities for partaking in the exact same Democracy Undermining behavior that it’s guilty of itself.

  *  *  *

  Subscribe to Michael’s Substack here.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 18:40

• Another "Explosive Eruption" Detected At St. Vincent Volcano In Eastern Caribbean
  Another “Explosive Eruption” Detected At St. Vincent Volcano In Eastern Caribbean

  The Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA) reports a volcanic eruption has been detected at La Soufriere on the Caribbean island of St. Vincent Sunday afternoon. 

  

  “At 4:49 pm on 18/04/21, there was another explosive eruption at LS. It’s been 52 hours since the last explosive event. There have now been at least 30 identifiable explosive events since the start of this eruptive phase. We continue to monitor and will provide an update in this evening’s advisory,” CDEMA stated. 

  The La Soufrière volcano erupted today, April 18th 2021 at 4:49pm

  Please see the detailed update from @uwiseismic #RegionalResponse #cdema #disastermanagement #disasterpreparedness #lasoufriere #stvincentandthegrenadines pic.twitter.com/FChh8Pi9jj

  — CDEMA (@cdemacu) April 18, 2021

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

  SkyAlert, a Mexico-based early earthquake warning company, posted a video of the alleged eruption. It said a “high eruptive column and possible pyroclastic surges,” adding that “thousands of people are still sheltered in lower-risk areas.”

  Esta tarde se registró una nueva erupción vulcaniana (tipo de erupción) en el volcán #LaSoufriere en la isla San Vicente. Alta columna eruptiva y posibles oleadas piroclásticas.

  Miles de personas aún permanecen refugiadas en zonas de menor riesgo. pic.twitter.com/4d4WqRMK4c

  — SkyAlert (@SkyAlertMx) April 18, 2021

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

  The latest explosive eruption showed up on satellite imagery. 

  The latest explosive eruption today on the island of Saint Vincent. #LaSoufriere pic.twitter.com/cmMlQ1UBdh

  — George Waldenberger (@GWaldenWFTV) April 18, 2021

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

  St. Vincent’s National Emergency Management Organization (NEMO) released a statement that “ash clouds are moving towards the south and west of the island. “Alert level remains RED,” NEMO warned. 

  

  Last week, tens of thousands of residents were evacuated from the island’s northern region, where La Soufriere is located. 

  

  At the moment, the island is completely covered with ash from multiple eruptions.

   Before And After 

  

  Before And After 

  

  Here is more devastation from the ashfall. 

  

  The entire Caribbean island is on the verge of a humanitarian crisis. The ashfall from eruptions has contaminated the island’s water supply and decimated crops. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 18:19

• “It’s Totally Insane. Someone Made A Million On Dogecoin With His Stimulus Check"
  “It’s Totally Insane. Someone Made A Million On Dogecoin With His Stimulus Check”

  By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

  “What happened with Dogecoin Dad?” asked Jackson on FaceTime. I smiled. Dogecoin jumped from $0.06 to $0.47 – a 7.8x weekly jump to a $60bln+ market cap.

  

  “It’s totally insane,” he said Friday night, back from lacrosse practice, sitting down to study, life as a plebe. “Are your buddies trading crypto now?” I asked.

  “One supposedly made a million on Dogecoin with his stimulus check,” said Jackson, eyes wide.

  “Not possible Jax, at today’s panic high it was up just 77x this year, and you guys only got $1,400 checks,” I said.

  “He bought it with last year’s stimulus,” explained Jackson.

  “Still doesn’t add up. Dogecoin is only up 165x since the beginning of 2020,” I said, shrugging, the meaning of money quietly slipping away.

  * * *

  Those things that make the least sense are where you discover opportunity, risk too. They are opposite sides of the same thing: Change.

  So any truly interesting conversation explores things that boggle the mind. My favorite enigma in the physical world is quantum entanglement, which I’m convinced hints at something utterly extraordinary. But I leave that mystery to those a million times smarter, which frees my time to search for things that might make money. Sounds shallow. Empty. I know. Mara reminds me often. But the human mind is the universe’s greatest enigma and when you connect 8.5bln of them the possible futures are more uncertain than any particle being split at CERN. When put that way, exploring the profound uncertainty flowing from mass human psychology seems less meaningless.

  That’s not to say things always appear uncertain. Most of the time, tomorrow looks indistinguishable from today. Which is to say, boring. During those periods, leveraged investment strategies that bet on recent correlations persisting well into the future tend to do well. So in recent years, when massive firms built upon such strategies struggled for reasons few could quite explain, it was a sign of change. Risk. Opportunity.

  When equity factors started experiencing 10,000-year floods every other month, it was another sign.

  Our political division in a pandemic, a sign. The horned Shaman in America’s capitol. GameStop. Signs. Study market history and you find that in periods of quantum change, those things that make the least sense but show mysterious momentum (both up and down) present the greatest opportunities.

  Beeple sold an NFT for $69.3mm in March. Literally everyone saw it as a sign of a bubble. Perhaps everyone is right. But I’m more interested in exploring whether the accelerating emergence of soaring valuations in things that make little sense represents a historic change, a future that few can barely imagine, let alone grasp.

  Particularly when such powerful incumbent industries and institutions so vocally resist. And Coinbase went public, briefly touching a $100bln valuation.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 18:00

• Hedge Funds Are Getting The Hell Out Of New York In Favor Of Florida
  Hedge Funds Are Getting The Hell Out Of New York In Favor Of Florida

  Given the state of New York City throughout the last year – the draconian lockdowns, the neverending proposal of new and more invasive taxes, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez turning away new businesses and insulting corporate America at every chance she gets and well…just about everything Bill de Blasio has done – can anyone really blame hedge funds for taking their business elsewhere?

  The inevitable is happening, the free market is speaking. Hedge funds are taking their business to Florida, a new Bloomberg report notes. 

  Many who read Zero Hedge already know this: we have constantly been documenting the ongoing exodus to Florida as names like Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Apollo Global Management Inc. and Point72 Asset Management are all taking steps to move operations out of the state (or at least diversify operations). 

  

  Timothy Noonan, a law partner at Hodgson Russ who specializes in tax residency issues, recently told Bloomberg: “There definitely is an unprecedented migration of high-net-worth taxpayers from New York City, and some of them are taking their businesses with them. With rates set to go up, they are ready to get out.”

  While there is optimism about tourism and leisure providing a much-needed cash infusion back into New York, it’s going to be tough to not take into account the hole that many wealthy defectors will leave in the city’s budget. Florida, on the other hand, doesn’t have a state income tax. 

  Elliott Management Corp. “has seen several of its highest-paid executives leave Manhattan” in favor of Palm Beach while Scott Shleifer, co-founder of the private equity unit at the $40 billion Tiger Global Management, also just bought a $132 million home in Palm Beach. Dan Sundheim, who runs $20 billion D1 Capital Partners, is also relocating toward Miami. 

  

  George Sweeting, deputy director of the city’s Independent Budget Office, said: “We’ve had high taxes and it hasn’t driven all the multi-millionaires out. We don’t know what the limit is. At what point does it become more than people are willing to pay? Theoretically there is some point there.”

  Thanks, George. It’s called the Laffer Curve and it’s been around for a hundred years. Let us know what you find out.

  Meanwhile, in some instances, hedge fund partners will move to Florida but keep staff and operations in New York. They will owe some New York taxes, but likely not as much as they would have otherwise. Bloomberg points out exactly how important the discussion of taxes are to smaller firms:

  “Take the example of a manager who makes $10 million per year. In New York City, they would have paid more than $1.1 million in state and local taxes last year, and more like $1.2 million this year after the tax hike. By moving to Florida, the manager avoids that charge every year, as well as about $400,000 annually that their firm owes to the city’s 4% unincorporated business tax.

  The savings are even bigger for the most successful managers. In addition to hiking the top rate on single filers earning more than $1.1 million — from 8.82% to 9.65% — the state added two new brackets: income above $5 million will be taxed at 10.3% and $25 million at 10.9%. Adding these to the city’s top rate of 3.88%, rich New York City residents now face marginal rates of 13.5% to 14.8%, surpassing the 13.3% top rate in California, previously the U.S.’s highest.”

  

  Taxpayers in New York earning $10 million or more paid 17% of income taxes in 2018, the report says. In New York City alone, about 1,800 people earned at least $10 million in 2018 and were responsible for 18.5% of the city’s tax revenue, equating to roughly $2.1 billion.

   

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 17:35

• Obama's Chief Energy Scientist Disputes The Climate-Change Propaganda-Peddlers
  Obama’s Chief Energy Scientist Disputes The Climate-Change Propaganda-Peddlers

  Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

  After a stint at the Obama Energy Department, Steven Koonin reclaims the science of a warming planet from the propaganda peddlers.

  

  Beyond the Hype

  Please consider the Wall Street Journal report How a Physicist Became a Climate Truth Teller

  Barack Obama is one of many who have declared an “epistemological crisis,” in which our society is losing its handle on something called truth. 

  Thus an interesting experiment will be his and other Democrats’ response to a book by Steven Koonin, who was chief scientist of the Obama Energy Department. Mr. Koonin argues not against current climate science but that what the media and politicians and activists say about climate science has drifted so far out of touch with the actual science as to be absurdly, demonstrably false.

  Mr. Koonin is a Brooklyn-born math whiz and theoretical physicist, a product of New York’s selective Stuyvesant High School. He would teach at Caltech for nearly three decades, serving as provost in charge of setting the scientific agenda for one of the country’s premier scientific institutions. Along the way he opened himself to the world beyond the lab.

  From deeply examining the world’s energy system, he also became convinced that the real climate crisis was a crisis of political and scientific candor. He went to his boss and said, “John, the world isn’t going to be able to reduce emissions enough to make much difference.”

  His thoughts seem to be governed by an all-embracing realism. Hence the book coming out next month, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”

   “I’ve been building models and watching others build models for 45 years,” he says. Climate models “are not to the standard you would trust your life to or even your trillions of dollars to.” Younger scientists in particular lose sight of the difference between reality and simulation:

  For the record, Mr. Koonin agrees that the world has warmed by 1 degree Celsius since 1900 and will warm by another degree this century, placing him near the middle of the consensus. Neither he nor most economic studies have seen anything in the offing that would justify the rapid and wholesale abandoning of fossil fuels, even if China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and others could be dissuaded from pursuing prosperity.

  The public now believes CO2 is something that can be turned up and down, but about 40% of the CO2 emitted a century ago remains in the atmosphere. Any warming it causes emerges slowly, so any benefit of reducing emissions would be small and distant. Everything Mr. Koonin and others see in the science suggests a slow, modest effect, not a runaway warming. If they’re wrong, we don’t have tools to apply yet anyway. Decades from now, we might have carbon capture—removing CO2 directly from the atmosphere at a manageable cost.

  Even John Kerry, Joe Biden’s climate czar, recently admitted that Mr. Biden’s “net-zero” climate plan will have zero effect on the climate if developing countries don’t go along (and they have little incentive to do so). Mr. Koonin hopes that “a graceful out for everybody” will be to see the impulse for global climate regulation “morph into much more impactful local environmental action: smog, plastic, green jobs. Forget the global aspect of this.”

  Slow Modest Impact

  The above article is right in line with my stated belief all along. 

  I do not doubt the temperatures have risen a degree. I do mock the associated fears.

  I am highly skeptical of radical models and I also mock the notion that the world as we know it will soon end and that climate change is the “existential threat of our time” as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has stated.

  I am not at all convinced that climate change is totally or mostly man-made but actually that is irrelevant. 

  Science suggests a slow modest impact. The models anticipate another rise in the oceans of 1 inch by 2050. Heck call it 3 or 4 inches and expect a foot by 2099 if you like.

  50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened

  Let’s review 50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened

  2014 John Kerry: “We have 500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos” discussed Sec of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabious at a joint meeting.

  I list 21 predictions and what actually happened. 

  What Happens When Ice Melts?

  Please factor in the cooling impact of melting ice on ocean temperatures. No one has decent models of ocean cooling.

  Nature Magazine reports Melting Ice Could Slow Global Temperature Rise.

  If there is a solution, it will be a free market solution not a solution by politicians hyperventilating about something that is now too late to stop and would be worth the cost even if we could stop it.

  Name Calling Coming Up

  Note that if you Don’t Accept 100% of the Climate Change Story and You Get Labeled a Racist

  Koonin knows he will get an avalanche of name-calling that befalls anybody trying to inject some practical nuance into political discussions of climate.

  The article had a nice finishing touch: “My married daughter is happy that she’s got a different last name,” said Koonin.

  To finish on the practical side, barring a major technological breakthrough,  Global Net Zero Climate Change Targets are ‘Pie in the Sky’

  Don’t worry, the world will still be here 50 years from now.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 17:10

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• The Political Economy Of Fear
  The Political Economy Of Fear

  Authored by Robert Higgs via The Mises Institute,

  [This article was originally published May 16, 2005… but seems ominously prophetic given our current age of rage and unreason.]

  [S]ince love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. 

  – Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, 1513

  All animals experience fear – human beings, perhaps, most of all. Any animal incapable of fear would have been hard pressed to survive, regardless of its size, speed, or other attributes. Fear alerts us to dangers that threaten our well-being and sometimes our very lives. Sensing fear, we respond by running away, by hiding, or by preparing to ward off the danger.

  To disregard fear is to place ourselves in possibly mortal jeopardy. Even the man who acts heroically on the battlefield, if he is honest, admits that he is scared. To tell people not to be afraid is to give them advice that they cannot take. Our evolved physiological makeup disposes us to fear all sorts of actual and potential threats, even those that exist only in our imagination.

  The people who have the effrontery to rule us, who call themselves our government, understand this basic fact of human nature. They exploit it, and they cultivate it. Whether they compose a warfare state or a welfare state, they depend on it to secure popular submission, compliance with official dictates, and, on some occasions, affirmative cooperation with the state’s enterprises and adventures. Without popular fear, no government could endure more than twenty-four hours. David Hume taught that all government rests on public opinion, but that opinion, I maintain, is not the bedrock of government. Public opinion itself rests on something deeper: fear.

  

  Hume recognizes that the opinions that support government receive their force from “other principles,” among which he includes fear, but he judges these other principles to be “the secondary, not the original principles of government” ([1777] 1987, 34). He writes: “No man would have any reason to fear the fury of a tyrant, if he had no authority over any but from fear” (ibid., emphasis in original). We may grant Hume’s statement yet maintain that the government’s authority over the great mass of its subjects rests fundamentally on fear. Every ideology that endows government with legitimacy requires and is infused by some kind(s) of fear. This fear need not be fear of the government itself and indeed may be fear of the danger from which the tyrant purports to protect the people.

  The Natural History of Fear

  Thousands of years ago, when the first governments were fastening themselves on people, they relied primarily on warfare and conquest. As Henry Hazlitt ([1976] 1994) observes,

  There may have been somewhere, as a few eighteenth-century philosophers dreamed, a group of peaceful men who got together one evening after work and drew up a Social Contract to form the state. But nobody has been able to find an actual record of it. Practically all the governments whose origins are historically established were the result of conquest—of one tribe by another, one city by another, one people by another. Of course there have been constitutional conventions, but they merely changed the working rules of governments already in being.

  Losers who were not slain in the conquest itself had to endure the consequent rape and pillage and in the longer term to acquiesce in the continuing payment of tribute to the insistent rulers—the stationary bandits, as Mancur Olson (2000, 6–9) aptly calls them. Subjugated people, for good reason, feared for their lives. Offered the choice of losing their wealth or losing their lives, they tended to choose the sacrifice of their wealth. Hence arose taxation, variously rendered in goods, services, or money (Nock [1935] 1973, 19–22; Nock relies on and credits the pioneering historical research of Ludwig Gumplowicz and Franz Oppenheimer).

  Conquered people, however, naturally resent their imposed government and the taxation and other insults that it foists on them. Such resentful people easily become restive; should a promising opportunity to throw off the oppressor’s dominion present itself, they may seize it. Even if they mount no rebellion or overt resistance, however, they quietly strive to avoid their rulers’ exactions and to sabotage their rulers’ apparatus of government. As Machiavelli observes, the conqueror “who does not manage this matter well, will soon lose whatever he has gained, and while he retains it will find in it endless troubles and annoyances” ([1513] 1992, 5). For the stationary bandits, force alone proves a very costly resource for keeping people in the mood to generate a substantial, steady stream of tribute.

  Sooner or later, therefore, every government augments the power of its sword with the power of its priesthood, forging an iron union of throne and altar. In olden times, not uncommonly, the rulers were themselves declared to be gods—the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt made this claim for many centuries. Now the subjects can be brought to fear not only the ruler’s superior force, but also his supernatural powers. Moreover, if people believe in an afterlife, where the pain and sorrows of this life may be sloughed off, the priests hold a privileged position in prescribing the sort of behavior in the here and now that best serves one’s interest in securing a blessed situation in the life to come. Referring to the Catholic Church of his own day, Machiavelli takes note of “the spiritual power which of itself confers so mighty an authority” ([1513] 1992, 7), and he heaps praise on Ferdinand of Aragon, who, “always covering himself with the cloak of religion, … had recourse to what may be called pious cruelty” (59, emphasis in original).

  One naturally wonders whether President George W. Bush has taken a page from Ferdinand’s book (see, in particular, Higgs 2003a and, for additional aspects, Higgs 2005b).

  Naturally, the warriors and the priests, if not one and the same, almost invariably come to be cooperating parties in the apparatus of rule. In medieval Europe, for example, a baron’s younger brother might look forward to becoming a bishop.

  Thus, the warrior element of government puts the people in fear for their lives, and the priestly element puts them in fear for their eternal souls. These two fears compose a powerful compound—sufficient to prop up governments everywhere on earth for several millennia.

  Over the ages, governments refined their appeals to popular fears, fostering an ideology that emphasizes the people’s vulnerability to a variety of internal and external dangers from which the governors—of all people!—are said to be their protectors. Government, it is claimed, protects the populace from external attackers and from internal disorder, both of which are portrayed as ever-present threats. Sometimes the government, as if seeking to fortify the mythology with grains of truth, does protect people in this fashion—even the shepherd protects his sheep, but he does so to serve his own interest, not theirs, and when the time comes, he will shear or slaughter them as his interest dictates.

  Olson (2000, 9–10) describes in simple terms why the stationary bandit may find it in his interest to invest in public goods (the best examples of which are defense of the realm and “law and order”) that enhance his subjects’ productivity. In brief, the ruler does so when the present value of the expected additional tax revenue he will be able to collect from a more productive population exceeds the current cost of the investment that renders the people more productive. See also the interpretation advanced by Bates (2001, 56–69, 102), who argues that in western Europe the kings entered into deals with the merchants and burghers, trading mercantilist privileges and “liberties” for tax revenue, in order to dominate the chronically warring rural dynasties and thereby to pacify the countryside. Unfortunately, as Bates recognizes, the kings sought this enlarged revenue for the purpose of conducting ever-more-costly wars against other kings and against domestic opponents. Thus, their “pacification” schemes, for the most part, served the purpose of funding their fighting, leaving the net effect on overall societal well-being very much in question. Both Olson and Bates argue along lines similar to those developed by Douglass C. North in a series of books published over the past four decades; see especially North and Thomas 1973, and North 1981 and 1990.

  When the government fails to protect the people as promised, it always has a good excuse, often blaming some element of the population–scapegoats such as traders, money lenders, and unpopular ethnic or religious minorities. “[N]o prince,” Machiavelli assures us, “was ever at a loss for plausible reasons to cloak a breach of faith” ([1513] 1992, 46).

  The religious grounds for submission to the ruler-gods gradually transmogrified into notions of nationalism and popular duty, culminating eventually in the curious idea that under a democratic system of government, the people themselves are the government, and hence whatever it requires them to do, they are really doing for themselves—as Woodrow Wilson had the cheek to declare when he proclaimed military conscription backed by severe criminal sanctions in 1917, “it is in no sense a conscription of the unwilling: it is, rather, selection from a nation which has volunteered in mass” (qtd. in Palmer 1931, 216–17).

  Not long after the democratic dogma had gained a firm foothold, organized coalitions emerged from the mass electorate and joined the elites in looting the public treasury, and, as a consequence, in the late nineteenth century the so-called welfare state began to take shape. From that time forward, people were told that the government can and should protect them from all sorts of workaday threats to their lives, livelihoods, and overall well-being—threats of destitution, hunger, disability, unemployment, illness, lack of income in old age, germs in the water, toxins in the food, and insults to their race, sex, ancestry, creed, and so forth. Nearly everything that the people feared, the government then stood poised to ward off. Thus did the welfare state anchor its rationale in the solid rock of fear. Governments, having exploited popular fears of violence so successfully from time immemorial (promising “national security”), had no difficulty in cementing these new stones (promising “social security”) into their foundations of rule.

  The Political Economy of Fear

  Fear, like every other “productive” resource, is subject to the laws of production. Thus, it cannot escape the law of diminishing marginal productivity: as successive doses of fear-mongering are added to the government’s “production” process, the incremental public clamor for governmental protection declines. The first time the government cries wolf, the public is frightened; the second time, less so; the third time, still less so. If the government plays the fear card too much, it overloads the public’s sensibilities, and eventually people discount almost entirely the government’s attempts to frighten them further.

  Having been warned in the 1970s about catastrophic global cooling (see, for example, The Cooling World 1975), then, soon afterward, about catastrophic global warming, the populace may grow weary of heeding the government’s warnings about the dire consequences of alleged global climate changes—dire unless, of course, the government takes stringent measures to bludgeon the people into doing what “must” be done to avert the predicted disaster.

  Recently the former Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge revealed that other government officials had overruled him when he wanted to refrain from raising the color-coded threat level to orange, or “high” risk of terrorist attack, in response to highly unlikely threats. “You have to use that tool of communication very sparingly,” Ridge astutely remarked (qtd. by Hall 2005).

  Fear is a depreciating asset. As Machiavelli observes, “the temper of the multitude is fickle, and … while it is easy to persuade them of a thing, it is hard to fix them in that persuasion” ([1513 1992, 14). Unless the foretold threat eventuates, the people come to doubt its substance. The government must make up for the depreciation by investing in the maintenance, modernization, and replacement of its stock of fear capital. For example, during the Cold War, the general sense of fear of the Soviets tended to dissipate unless restored by periodic crises, many of which took the form of officially announced or leaked “gaps” between U.S. and Soviet military capabilities: troop-strength gap, bomber gap, missile gap, antimissile gap, first-strike-missile gap, defense-spending gap, thermonuclear-throw-weight gap, and so forth (Higgs 1994, 301–02).4

  One of the most memorable and telling lines in the classic Cold War film Dr. Strangelove occurs as the president and his military bigwigs, facing unavoidable nuclear devastation of the earth, devise a plan to shelter a remnant of Americans for thousands of years in deep mine shafts, and General “Buck” Turgidson, still obsessed with a possible Russian advantage, declares: “Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!”

  Lately, a succession of official warnings about possible forms of terrorist attack on the homeland has served the same purpose: keeping the people “vigilant,” which is to say, willing to pour enormous amounts of their money into the government’s bottomless budgetary pits of “defense” and “homeland security” (Higgs 2003b).

  This same factor helps to explain the drumbeat of fears pounded out by the mass media: besides serving their own interests in capturing an audience, they buy insurance against government punishment by playing along with whatever program of fear-mongering the government is conducting currently. Anyone who watches, say, CNN’s Headline News programs can attest that a day seldom passes without some new announcement of a previously unsuspected Terrible Threat—I call it the danger du jour.

  By keeping the population in a state of artificially heightened apprehension, the government-cum-media prepares the ground for planting specific measures of taxation, regulation, surveillance, reporting, and other invasions of the people’s wealth, privacy, and freedoms. Left alone for a while, relieved of this ceaseless bombardment of warnings, people would soon come to understand that hardly any of the announced threats has any substance and that they can manage their own affairs quite well without the security-related regimentation and tax-extortion the government seeks to justify.

  Large parts of the government and the “private” sector participate in the production and distribution of fear. (Beware: many of the people in the ostensibly private sector are in reality some sort of mercenary living ultimately at taxpayer expense. True government employment is much greater than officially reported [Light 1999; Higgs 2005a] .) Defense contractors, of course, have long devoted themselves to stoking fears of enemies big and small around the globe who allegedly seek to crush our way of life at the earliest opportunity. Boeing’s often-shown TV spots, for example, assure us that the company is contributing mightily to protecting “our freedom.” If you believe that, I have a shiny hunk of useless Cold War hardware to sell you. The news and entertainment media enthusiastically jump on the bandwagon of foreign-menace alarmism—anything to get the public’s attention.

  Consultants of every size and shape clamber onboard, too, facilitating the distribution of billions of dollars to politically favored suppliers of phoney-baloney “studies” that give rise to thick reports, the bulk of which is nothing but worthless filler restating the problem and speculating about how one might conceivably go about discovering workable solutions. All such reports agree, however, that a crisis looms and that more such studies must be made in preparation for dealing with it. Hence a kind of Say’s Law of the political economy of crisis: supply (of government-funded studies) creates its own demand (for government-funded studies).

  Truth be known, governments commission studies when they are content with the status quo but desire to write hefty checks to political favorites, cronies, and old associates who now purport to be “consultants.” At the same time, in this way, the government demonstrates to the public that it is “doing something” to avert impending crisis X.

  At every point, opportunists latch onto existing fears and strive to invent new ones to feather their own nests. Thus, public-school teachers and administrators agree that the nation faces an “education crisis.” Police departments and temperance crusaders insist that the nation faces a generalized “drug crisis” or at times a specific drug crisis, such as “an epidemic of crack cocaine use.” Public-health interests foster fears of “epidemics” that in reality consist not of the spread of contagious pathogens but of the lack of personal control and self-responsibility, such as the “epidemic of obesity” or the “epidemic of juvenile homicides.” By means of this tactic, a host of personal peccadilloes has been medicalized and consigned to the “therapeutic state” (Nolan 1998, Szasz 2001, Higgs 1999).

  In this way, people’s fears that their children may become drug addicts or gun down a classmate become grist for the government’s mill—a mill that may grind slowly, but at least it does so at immense expense, with each dollar falling into some fortunate recipient’s pocket (a psychiatrist, a social worker, a public-health nurse, a drug-court judge; the list is almost endless). In this way and countless others, private parties become complicit in sustaining a vast government apparatus fueled by fear.

  Fear Works Best in Wartime

  Even absolute monarchs can get bored. The exercise of great power may become tedious and burdensome—underlings are always disturbing your serenity with questions about details; victims are always appealing for clemency, pardons, or exemptions from your rules. In wartime, however, rulers come alive. Nothing equals war as an opportunity for greatness and public acclaim, as all such leaders understand (Higgs 1997). Condemned to spend their time in high office during peacetime, they are necessarily condemned to go down in history as mediocrities at best.

  Upon the outbreak of war, however, the exhilaration of the hour spreads through the entire governing apparatus. Army officers who had languished for years at the rank of captain may now anticipate becoming colonels. Bureau heads who had supervised a hundred subordinates with a budget of $1 million may look forward to overseeing a thousand with a budget of $20 million. Powerful new control agencies must be created and staffed. New facilities must be built, furnished, and operated. Politicians who had found themselves frozen in partisan gridlock can now expect that the torrent of money gushing from the public treasury will grease the wheels for putting together humongous legislative deals undreamt of in the past. Everywhere the government turns its gaze, the scene is flush with energy, power, and money. For those whose hands direct the machinery of a government at war, life has never been better.

  Small wonder that John T. Flynn (1948), in writing about the teeming bureaucrats during World War II, titled his chapter “The Happiest Years of Their Lives”:

  Even before the war, the country had become a bureaucrat’s paradise. But with the launching of the war effort the bureaus proliferated and the bureaucrats swarmed over the land like a plague of locusts. … The place [Washington, D.C.] swarmed with little professors fresh from their $2,500-a-year jobs now stimulated by five, six and seven-thousand-dollar salaries and whole big chunks of the American economy resting in their laps. (310, 315)

  Sudden bureaucratic dilation on such a scale can happen only when the nation goes to war and the public relaxes its resistance to the government’s exactions. Legislators know that they can now get away with taxing people at hugely elevated rates, rationing goods, allocating raw materials, transportation services, and credit, authorizing gargantuan borrowing, drafting men, and generally exercising vastly more power than they exercised before the war.

  Although people may groan and complain about the specific actions the bureaucrats take in implementing the wartime mobilization, few dare to resist overtly or even to criticize publicly the overall mobilization or the government’s entry into the war—by doing so they would expose themselves not only to legal and extralegal government retribution but also to the rebuke and ostracism of their friends, neighbors, and business associates. As the conversation stopper went during World War II, “Don’t you know there’s a war on?” (Lingeman 1970).

  Because during wartime the public fears for the nation’s welfare, perhaps even for its very survival, people surrender wealth, privacy, and liberties to the government far more readily than they otherwise would. Government and its private contractors therefore have a field day. Opportunists galore join the party, each claiming to be performing some “essential war service,” no matter how remote their affairs may be from contributing directly to the military program. Using popular fear to justify its predations, the government lays claim to great expanses of the economy and the society. Government taxation, borrowing, expenditure, and direct controls dilate, while individual rights shrivel into insignificance. Of what importance is one little person when the entire nation is in peril?

  Finally, of course, every war ends, but each leaves legacies that persist, sometimes permanently. In the United States, the War between the States and both world wars left a multitude of such legacies (Hummel 1996, Higgs 1987, 2004). Likewise, as Corey Robin (2004, 25) writes, “one day, the war on terrorism will come to an end. All wars do. And when it does, we will find ourselves still living in fear: not of terrorism or radical Islam, but of the domestic rulers that fear has left behind.” Among other things, we will find that “various security agencies operating in the interest of national security have leveraged their coercive power in ways that target dissenters posing no conceivable threat of terrorism” (189). Not by accident, “the FBI has targeted the antiwar movement in the United States for especially close scrutiny” (189).

  Such targeting is scarcely a surprise, because war is, in Randolph Bourne’s classic phrase, “the health of the state,” and the FBI is a core agency in protecting and enhancing the U.S. government’s health. Over the years, the FBI has also done much to promote fear among the American populace, most notoriously perhaps in its COINTELPRO operations during the 1960s, but in plenty of others ways, too (Linfield 1990, 59–60, 71, 99–102, 123–28, 134–39). Nor has it worked alone in these endeavors. From top to bottom, the government wants us to be afraid, needs us to be afraid, invests greatly in making us afraid.

  Conclusion

   Were we ever to stop being afraid of the government itself and to cast off the phoney fears it has fostered, the government would shrivel and die, and the host would disappear for the tens of millions of parasites in the United States—not to speak of the vast number of others in the rest of the world–who now feed directly and indirectly off the public’s wealth and energies. On that glorious day, everyone who had been living at public expense would have to get an honest job, and the rest of us, recognizing government as the false god it has always been, could set about assuaging our remaining fears in more productive and morally defensible ways.

  Tyler Durden
  Sun, 04/18/2021 – 00:00

• Watch: Sikorsky's S-97 Raider Performs Impressive First Flight Demo 
  Watch: Sikorsky's S-97 Raider Performs Impressive First Flight Demo 

  For the first time, the Sikorsky S-97 Raider flew multiple flight demonstrations this week for service leaders and soldiers at the company’s test center at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama.

  Defense giant Lockheed Martin, who owns Sikorsky, released a press release on Thursday detailing the demonstrations on Tuesday and Thursday. 

  “The events offered a glimpse at Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin company’s bid for the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program, part of the U.S. Army’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) effort to revolutionize its aircraft fleet,” the press release said.

  

  The Sikorsky S-97 Raider is based on its X2 coaxial-rotor technology, making it a fast and agile aircraft, well suited for the modern battlefield. The new FVL is expected to fill a capability gap left by the retirement of the Bell OH-58 Kiowa helicopter. 

  “Since the first Black Hawk took to the skies in the 1970s, to when our teams broke helicopter speed records with X2 Technology in 2010, we have been working with our Army partners to develop and deliver low-risk, transformational, affordable and sustainable aircraft to support the warfighters’ missions,” said Sikorsky President Paul Lemmo, who was at the demonstrations. 

  Lemmo continued: “This is the first of what we believe will be many times our X2 Future Vertical Lift aircraft will fly at Redstone.”

  Sikorsky test pilots Christiaan Corry and Bill Fell piloted the S-97 at both demonstrations, highlighting the aircraft’s new capabilities. 

  

  “Flying RAIDER continues to amaze me,” said Corry, a former U.S. Marine with more than 4,500 flight hours in 25 different types of aircraft, including numerous helicopters. 

  “The combination of the coaxial rotors and the propulsor are really the enablers for this transformational technology. As we demonstrated today, in low-speed flight we are as capable as a conventional helicopter, but when we engage the prop, we are able to operate in a whole new way – it’s much more like flying an airplane,” he said. 

  In 2018, the Army selected two FARA candidates. Sikorsky is currently in the running with the S-97 Raider and Bell’s V-280 Valor tiltrotor.

  FARA aircraft are expected to replace the military’s aging fleet of helicopters in the coming years as part of a vast modernization effort to counter China and Russia. 

  Watch the S-97 Raider demonstrations below:  

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 23:30

• Canadian Cops Refuse To Enforce Ontario's New 'Police State' COVID-Lockdown Laws
  Canadian Cops Refuse To Enforce Ontario's New 'Police State' COVID-Lockdown Laws

  Authored by Thomas Lifson via AmericanThinker.com,

  A new police state has been established just north of the states of Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.  The Province of Ontario is home to over 38% of the population of Canada and is 55% bigger in area than the State of Texas, and it is now acting like a nightmarish police state.

  

  Solicitor General Jones (Twitter video screen grab).

  CTV News reports:

  The Ontario government is giving police temporary powers to enforce its stay-at-home order and allowing them to stop individuals and vehicles and ask their reasons for leaving their homes.

  Solicitor General Sylvia Jones made the announcement Friday afternoon as part of the new measures introduced by Premier Doug Ford’s government to stop the further spread of COVID-19.

  “We have made the deliberate decision to temporarily enhance police officers’ authority for the duration of the stay-at-home order. Moving forward, police will have the authority to require any individual who is not in a place of residence to first provide the purpose for not being at home and provide their home address,” Jones said.

  “Police will also have the authority to stop a vehicle to inquire about an individual’s reason for leaving their residence.”

  So much for freedom of movement or assembly.  Unless the police deem your presence outside your prison cell home essential, you could be in for trouble.  

  Those who will not comply will be issued a ticket, Jones said. The province has not provided further details on possible fines, but she said under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, penalties for non-compliance are set at a minimum of $750.

  I find the excerpts from the news conference announcing these changes deeply troubling, just looking at the faces and listening to the tone of these authoritarians as they try to justify their seizure of power over the details of ordinary life.  George Orwell would recognize them:

  🔥Ontario, Canada is now officially a police state🔥 pic.twitter.com/cBP8kCTG16

  — 🍁🇨🇦CanAditude🇨🇦🍁 (@CanAditude) April 16, 2021

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

  Ontarian police and local authorities are not necessarily enthusiastic about exercising these new powers to detain citizens and examine their motives for daring to leave home:

  A spokesperson for the Toronto Police Service said they are reviewing the new orders.

  “Prior to any change in our enforcement strategy, we will notify the public on how we plan to implement the new provincial orders,” spokesperson Allison Sparkes said.

  Several police services have said Friday that they will not be randomly stopping people. They include Waterloo Regional Police, Peterborough Police, Guelph Police, London Police and Ottawa Police.

  

  Toronto Mayor John Tory expressed his concerns over the new police powers, saying in a tweet that he will review the regulations carefully and will discuss them with the medical officer of health and the police chief.

  Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie also said stopping people arbitrarily “is not how we get control of the virus.” She added that she will speak to the chief of Peel police and public health to look at how it will be enforced.

  False! Our members will NOT be conducting random vehicle or individual stops for the sole purpose of enforcing the EMCPA. Sorry @SylviaJonesMPP & @fordnation that will not be happening in Peel. Don’t make cops the bad guys here! https://t.co/IsgKNbKVP5

  — Adrian Woolley (@PRPA_Prez) April 17, 2021

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

  It sounds as if the provincial authorities are drawing their inspiration from China’s early response with drastic lockdowns.  At least so far, they are not discussing welding doors shut to trap people inside.  They might also consider the disaster across their own border in Michigan, where Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s drastic lockdown regulations have led to one of if not the worst problems with COVID in the United States, while  free states like Texas and Florida do much better.

  I’d be a lot more impressed if, instead of trying tom keep people indoors, where the virus spreads far more readily than outdoors, they focused in early therapeutic intervention in cases of COVID, using ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, both widely used and relatively benign pharmaceuticals, that inhibit reproduction of the virus and often have been shown to slow and even stop the effects.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 23:00

• "Fentanyl Is Here:" Las Vegas Suffers 200% Surge In Overdose Deaths
  "Fentanyl Is Here:" Las Vegas Suffers 200% Surge In Overdose Deaths

  America has been engulfed with a drug problem for decades, but the situation is quickly deteriorating as the largest inbound fentanyl traffic into the country was recently reported. Not surprising, but Las Vegas has been the latest metro area to suffer an “alarming” surge in overdose deaths.

  According to Las Vegas Sun, fentanyl killed 219 people in the Las Vegas Valley in 2020, a stunning 200% increase from the prior year. 

  

  During the 2015-18 opioid crisis that ravaged many metros across the US, Clark County, Nevada, the area that houses Las Vegas, recorded annual reductions in opioid overdoses and deaths. 

  Since then, Mexican fentanyl has flooded the town, and overdoses/deaths have soared. 

  “We said fentanyl was coming,” Metro Police Capt. John Pelletier told reporters Thursday. “Fentanyl is here.”

  Reporters questioned Pelletier about how the drug crisis is going so far (on a year-to-date basis), he answered: “not good.” 

  “Clark County fentanyl deaths are on par with the “alarming” 30% increase in total overdose deaths in 2020, when 768 people succumbed to them, compared with 591 in 2019,” Pelletier said, adding that 31 people were killed in the county in August, an average of about one per day. 

  Last week, Metro Police announced the creation of the Overdose Response Team, a task force comprised of local police and federal agencies. The task force would pursue murder charges for dealers accused of killing clients with drugs. 

  Another issue in Las Vegas and across Clark County is counterfeit pills that look identical to prescription medications are cut with fentanyl and have been responsible for overdoses and deaths. 

  

  The rise in fentanyl use across Clark County coincided with multiple things, such as a socio-economic implosion of Vegas during lockdowns, where tens of thousands of people lost their jobs. At the same time, Mexican drug cartels were pumping record amounts of the drug into the US – some describe this as a ‘perfect storm.’

  “This emergency, this situation, does not discriminate,” Pelletier said. “It does not care how old you are; it does not care where you live.”

  … and Pelletier is correct. The drug crisis has dramatically worsened since the pandemic began, with many streets in various metro areas have transformed into a “zombie apocalypse.” 

  Right now, Mexican drug cartels are pumping US streets with fentanyl, and the Biden administration doesn’t seem too worried about doing anything to stop this from happening with their relaxed border policies. 

  Vegas and the surrounding county are the next victims of the fentanyl crisis. Those partying in Vegas, be careful what party drugs you ingest. It could very well be cut with fentanyl. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 22:30

• The Plutocrats Of Wall Street And Silicon Valley Are Scamming America
  The Plutocrats Of Wall Street And Silicon Valley Are Scamming America

  Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

  In recent years, it seems that the nation’s CEOs and billionaires are increasingly willing to drop the pretense that they are politically neutral entrepreneurs who simply want to go about their business.

  

  Last week, for example, more than a hundred CEOs met to plot ways to punish the people of Georgia by “stopping investments in states” that pass laws unapproved by the billionaire class.

  This comes in the wake of a decision by Major League Baseball—a collection of billionaire-owned sports teams—to punish residents of Georgia for the fact a tiny number of politicians there passed legislation designed to lessen voter fraud. In retaliation, MLB decided to move the league’s all-star game so as to deny the residents of Atlanta the economic benefits of hosting the game.

  This comes only a few years after Apple CEO Tim Cook led a corporate campaign to boycott Indiana after Cook and Marc Benioff (the CEO of Salesforce) demanded the people of Indiana be punished. This was because the Indiana legislature passed a law which some billionaires decided was insufficiently pro-LGBT.

  These examples, however, constitute only a small and relatively innocuous part of the political scheming and lobbying in which powerful CEOs, billionaires, and investors routinely engage.

  Certainly, wealthy CEOs are happy to throw their weight around in pursuit of social policies they like. But while the CEOs’ calls for boycotts and retribution against entire populations of various states makes for good headlines and talk radio, the billionaire class inflicts far more damage on ordinary Americans through other means. 

  It is not unusual to find large corporate interests like big banks, Silicon Valley firms, and Wall Street investors calling for a wide variety of policies which transfer wealth from the general public to the well-lined pockets of the monied classes. These can include monetary policies that benefit the wealthiest Americans, as well as tax policies and regulations that favor large well-established firms at the expense of everyone else.

  Unfortunately, this is nothing new, and it has always been the case that well-heeled pressure groups attempt to turn their financial resources into political power.

  Free Markets vs. the Plutocracy

  The potential danger of this situation was not lost on the classical liberals (i.e., the libertarians) of generations past, who opposed “the privileged” among the wealthy who sought to exercise political power.

  Specifically, it was the Jeffersonians, the Jacksonians, and other advocates of free markets and laissez-faire who attacked these monied groups under a variety of names. Names like “stock jobbers,” the “new aristocracy,” the “scrip nobility,” and “the plutocracy” have all been employed to draw attention to a wealthy elite which manipulates Congress and the central bank in schemes of economic exploitation.

  The Classical Liberals and Economic Exploitation

  This language of “exploitation” might strike some readers as odd. Unfortunately, a certain naïve view of social classes has become popular among some conservatives and libertarians who think that that the concept of “class warfare” was invented by the Marxists. Moreover, some even insist that the wealthy classes pose no threat to political or market institutions, and that the wealthy seek only to mind their own business.

  But, as historian Ralph Raico has explained, the idea of exploitation of one class by another was, in fact, pioneered by the classical liberals. It was these liberals who well understood that the power of the state could be harnessed by one group for the purposes of extracting resources from another group. Left to itself, of course, the marketplace does not foster exploitation, as market activities are voluntary. Once the state is involved, however, the coercive power of the regime changes the equation. The key to success in exploiting others lays in harnessing the power of the state to carry out the exploiters’ schemes. The wealthy have never been immune to this temptation.

  We find these views in an early form in America in the thinking of the Jeffersonian theorist John Taylor of Caroline. Taylor decried the urban investor class that sought to manipulate the new nation’s financial policies to serve this rising plutocracy’s own ends. Taylor, according to Raico,

  was outraged by what he saw as the betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution by a new aristocracy based on “separate legal interests,” the bankers privileged to issue paper money as legal tender and the beneficiaries of “public improvements” and protective tariffs. American society has been divided into the privileged and the unprivileged by this “substantial revival of the feudal system.”

  The threat of this new “aristocracy” had certainly not lessened by the 1830s, when the Jacksonian William Leggett pointed out that the US had attained its own homegrown exploiter class to rival the haughty ruling classes of the Old World. Referring to the ostentatious palaces erected by the wealthy elites of Genoa, Leggett asked,

  Is there no parallel for it in our own [country]? Have we not, in this very city, our “Street of the Palaces,” adorned with structures as superb as those of Genoa in exterior magnificence, and containing within them vaster treasures of wealth? Have we not, too, our privileged orders? Our scrip nobility?1 Aristocrats, clothed with special immunities, who control, indirectly, but certainly, the political power of the state, monopolise the most copious sources of pecuniary profit, and wring the very crust from the hard hand of toil? Have we not, in short, like the wretched serfs of Europe, our lordly masters, “Who make us slaves, and tell us ‘tis their charter?”

  For Leggett, the answer to all of this, of course, was yes. To see this new class of plutocrats, Leggett observed, one need only “walk through Wall-street.” Leggett went on to suggests that if anyone “asks concerning the political power” of these Wall Street elites,

  he will ascertain that three‐fourths of the legislators of the state are of their own order, and deeply interested in preserving and extending the privileges they enjoy. If he investigates the sources of their prodigious wealth, he will discover that it is extorted, under various delusive names, and by a deceptive process, from the pockets of the unprivileged and unprotected poor. These are the masters in this land of freedom. These are our aristocracy, our scrip nobility, our privileged order of charter‐mongers and money‐changers!

  Plutocrats or Private Entrepreneurs?

  On the other hand, the great libertarian sociologist William Graham Sumner was careful to note that not all wealthy people are plutocrats. “[W]e must make some important distinctions,” Sumner writes. “Plutocracy ought to be carefully distinguished from ‘the power of capital’…. A great capitalist is no more necessarily a plutocrat than a great general is a tyrant.” In other words, the plutocrats are not simply the factory owners who are on the receiving end of Marxist claims that all capitalists necessarily exploit their workers.

  Rather, according to Sumner, the plutocrat is something very specific. Modern plutocrats “buy their way through elections and legislatures, in the confidence of being able to get powers which will recoup them for all the outlay and yield an ample surplus besides.”

  That is, plutocrats are political operatives who employ the power of the state to accomplish political and financial ends. Moreover, the plutocrat

  is a man who, having the possession of capital, and having the power of it at his disposal, uses it, not industrially, but politically; instead of employing laborers, he enlists lobbyists. Instead of applying capital to land, he operates upon the market by legislation, by artificial monopoly, by legislative privileges; he creates jobs, and erects combinations, which are half political and half industrial … 

  Today’s Plutocracy

  So, who are the plutocrats of today?

  Certainly, this group includes those who seek to blackmail state legislatures with boycotts and pressure tactics. But we find plutocrats using more subtle tactics as well.

  For example, Amazon corporation now supports raising the minimum wage. This may seem like some great populist and magnanimous move on Amazon’s part. But it is just what we’ve come to expect from plutocrats. In fact, Amazon’s senior managers know that it can endure paying a higher wage than can Amazon’s smaller and less capitalized competition. Smaller operations have fewer financing options to weather a cash flow crunch and are thus more financially fragile. Basically, Amazon is likely to support a wide variety of government regulations, because government regulations are anticompetitive. Amazon, of course, being the dominant firm, is motivated to crush the competition through state action. This is partly why Jeff Bezos came out in favor of a hike in the corporate tax. He’s just hoping to stay on top, and while a tax hike is unfortunate for him, it’s even worse for the competition that Bezos hopes to destroy through his political lobbying. 

  We see similar forces at work when plutocrats like Mark Zuckerberg call for more regulation of social media companies. Zuckerberg is speaking as head of the industry’s largest, most capital rich, and most dominant firm. Now that he’s on top, he’s fine with more regulation, which will hurt small competitors most. (Social media companies, of course, are also happy to buy favors from the regime by deleting user comments and punishing users who annoy regime operatives.)2

  But perhaps the most subtle form of exploitation practiced by the plutocrats occurs through the central bank, and this is why the Jeffersonians and Jacksons focused so much on the role of the central bank throughout the nineteenth century. Leggett, after all, is known for calling for “the separation of bank and state.” 

  The advantages offered to plutocrats through central banks have been similar for more than two centuries, but in today’s world these advantages can be seen in the fact that central banks are now in the business of pushing up stock prices for the benefit of Wall Street and large public companies. Thanks to the “Greenspan put,” for example, the Federal Reserve has now for three decades been in the business of propping up stock prices. Now, we barely even notice when stock prices soar upward even during periods when millions of workers are laid off and national production collapses. “Stock prices must always go up” is essentially now federal policy. This in itself further helps explain why the plutocrats so often come out in support of higher taxes and a bigger regulatory state. As David Stockman observed, people like Bezos and the Wall Street and Silicon Valley elite: 

  have been made so insanely rich by the Fed’s egregious stock market inflation that they no longer care if their businesses are inconvenienced or even deeply harmed by schemes like the Biden [tax hikes]; and, worse still, have no idea about how real, sustainable wealth is generated or that free market prosperity is not at all a sure thing when the state becomes an unhinged wrecker of honest money, fiscal rectitude and financial discipline.

  Why worry too much about taxes or regulation when you know you’ll be bailed out by the Fed? Stockman continues:

  By and large these new titans are not geniuses. They are bubble riders who were in the right place at the right time. And after years of the Fed’s massive inflation of financial asset prices they have become totally corrupted—politically, intellectually and otherwise.

  In all likelihood, they don’t even know how they got rich. But since they are rich, they conclude they must be very smart, and therefore they’re now entitled to run the country; to punish people who live in red states, and run lesser business owners into the ground using the power of the state. 

  The nation’s billionaires and megacorps benefit from central banking schemes in other ways as well. Ultralow interest rate policies mean an endless tsunami of cheap debt. Nonetheless, the focus has remained on lending to the lowest-risk firms, which means there’s far less financing available to smaller start-ups and other riskier enterprises. Low rates also mean financially conservative small-time investors can only earn very small returns on their investments. Generally, it’s only the wealthy who can indulge in high-risk yield chasing, which further enriches the wealthy as others stagnate. The end result is more liquidity for the plutocrats while the newcomers fight over scraps.

  The Fed now buys corporate debt, and for more than a decade has been buying up assets in order to prop up what would have been the ailing portfolios of the nation’s megabanks and investment firms. The Fed’s monetary inflation leads to immense amounts of asset inflation not only in stocks, but in housing prices as well. This impoverishes first-time home buyers and renters, but benefits those who are already wealthy—and own lots of these assets.

  It’s all part of a well-established scam that the laissez-faire liberals identified long ago. The plutocrats hope to keep it going forever. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 22:00

• Taco Bell Opens "Digital-Only" Location In Times Square That Serves Alcohol 
  Taco Bell Opens "Digital-Only" Location In Times Square That Serves Alcohol 

  Restaurants continue to change their processes to improve the customer experience in a virus pandemic. Under the guise of social distancing, Taco Bell has opened a “digital-only” fast-food shop in Times Square that customers can only order food online or through automated kiosks. 

  These modern features of digital-only ordering and pick-up will minimize customer to employee interaction. The digital-only front-end of the eatery allows for more convenient pick-up.

  “Built with the energy and on-the-go vibrance of the city in mind, the newest restaurant embraces technology in a whole new way to serve the demands of New Yorkers,” Taco Bell said in a press release. 

  

  The simplified design will keep employees in the backend of the fast-food joint occupied with fulfilling orders. The disbandment of cash registers at the new Taco Bell Cantina in Times Square will require fewer employees to run operations. 

  

  The restaurants have a smaller footprint than a traditional Taco Bell and offer more modern and upscale designs and alcohol. So far, 20 Cantinas across New York’s five boroughs are already open (though the only digital-only one is in Times Square). 

  Other restaurant chains, like Chipotle Mexican Grill and Starbucks, have been opening digital-only ordering and pick-up. The focus is not just to minimize human labor but also to increase pick-up orders forced by the virus pandemic. The first digital location Taco Bell opened was in London in 2020. 

  The automated concept could be standard at all Taco Bells by the end of this decade as restaurants pivot towards automation and artificial intelligence, which will displace workers, leading to a surge in technological unemployment. 

  Yum Brands, which owns KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, The Habit Burger Grill, and WingStreet worldwide, except in China, will likely expand automation and artificial intelligence in all its stores over this decade. 

  What’s frightening is when Yum begins to use robot chefs to automate the backend of the restaurant – essentially eliminating human food preppers. Already, KFC is testing what it calls the “restaurant of the future,” where automation and artificial intelligence dominates the front and back end.

  Big corporations are preparing to replace low-skill and low-paid workers with all sorts of new technology through 2030, displacing millions of them. Many of these restaurants will be entirely contactless.

  All of this suggests technological unemployment is set to skyrocket in the coming years. So then what to do with all the displaced workers? Nothing like starting a war can help dig the economy out of the rut that it’s currently in and resolve the unemployment situation.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 21:30

• Black Lives Matter Activist Charged With Anti-Asian Hate Crime
  Black Lives Matter Activist Charged With Anti-Asian Hate Crime

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

  A Black Lives Matter activist was arrested in Seattle for allegedly committing two separate hate crimes against Asian people, once again contradicting the media narrative that Donald Trump’s rhetoric on coronavirus was primarily to blame for the hate crime wave.

  

  Pamela Cole, who is Asian, told KIRO 7 News about her experience on March 16 during which she and her young children were subjected to a frightening and abusive attack by a man who later turned out to be 51-year-old BLM protester Christopher Hamner.

  Hamner had posted multiple photos of himself attending BLM protests and was also involved in the Seattle CHOP encampment that was populated by Antifa and BLM demonstrators.

  “The moment he made eye contact with me he stopped, opens his door and he’s screaming, ‘F— you, you Asian b—-. F— you!’ and I was in complete shock. Are you talking to me?” Cole said.

  Cole said she felt like her family were “sitting ducks” as Hamner then proceeded to get out of his vehicle while demanding they get out too.

  “I just felt so defenseless and so helpless. And you know as a mom, all we want to do is take care of our kids and protect them,” Cole said.

  Cole said that even after the light changed and she was able to drive away, Hamner continued to throw objects at her car and track where she was heading. She was eventually able to pull over and call the police.

  “Hamner is accused of committing a similar hate crime two days later, when he cut off two Asian women in a vehicle. The vehicle had a dashboard camera, which enabled authorities to identify Hamner,” reports the Hill, adding that Hamner again charged at the vehicle and threw objects.

  After being charged, Hamner pleaded not guilty to hate crimes and his bail has been set at $10,000 dollars.

  The two incidents once again expose how the media’s attempt to pin a wave of anti-Asian hate crimes on “white supremacy” by saying they were incited by Donald Trump’s anti-Chinese COVID 19 rhetoric has completely failed.

  Though black people comprise 13% of the pop.

  They committed 27.5% of all violent crimes against Asian Americans in 2018

  While whites comprise 62% of the pop. the commit 24% of crimes against Asians

  But please tell me how white supremacy is the issue https://t.co/3Zdn12vTfb

  — MOSTLY PEACEFUL ELIJAH (@ElijahSchaffer) March 19, 2021

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

  In virtually every major recent incident where Asians were targeted by violent criminals in hate crime attacks, the perpetrators turn out to be African-American men.

  Crime stats also show white people are underrepresented per capita in attacks against Asians.

  As the Washington Examiner highlights, citing FBI statistics, whereas whites comprise 62% of the population, they committed 24% of crimes against Asians in 2018.

  In comparison, blacks, who comprise 13% of the population, committed 27.5% of all violent crimes against Asian Americans in 2018.

  The media’s fake narrative that “white supremacy” is to blame for the hate crime spree in now inciting violent attacks against white people.

  37-year-old Michael Sangbong Rhee attacked a woman he believed was white by holding her at gunpoint and trying to rape her.

  According to authorities, the attack was “in retaliation for the rise in hate crimes against Asian people.”

  *  *  *

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

  *  *  *

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 21:00

• Trader Fueled Lavish Lifestyle Running Singapore's "Largest Ever Suspected Investment Fraud"
  Trader Fueled Lavish Lifestyle Running Singapore's "Largest Ever Suspected Investment Fraud"

  Stop us if you’ve heard this one before: a young, up and coming “wunderkind” trader was living a lavish lifestyle on the back of a massive fraud.

  Can’t be possible, you say? Enter 33 year old Ng Yu Zhi, living in a three-story villa in Singapore, driving a $5 million supercar. The only problem? He had raised at least $740 million from investors for commodity trades that didn’t exist, Bloomberg reported this week. 

  He was charged last month with four counts of fraud. It’s being called one of Singapore’s “largest-ever suspected investment frauds”. Court proceedings this week revealed that he was able to raise the money by touting quarterly gains of 15% to investors. It would have made him one of the most successful traders in the world, had it of been true. 

  The fraud was centered around his companies Envy Asset Management and Envy Global Trading. Of more than S$1 billion he had invested in his companies, S$300 million had been transferred to his personal account and S$200 million remains “unaccounted for”. Investors had received payments of S$700 million but are still owed S$1 billion, the report says. 

  

  In riding the broader “green” tailwind that has blown tons of hot money into global markets, Ng had purported to invest in nickel, a key ingredient in electric vehicle batteries. Specifically, per Bloomberg:

  Ng was involved in deceiving investors into buying supposed forward contracts that were purportedly with French lender BNP Paribas SA, but those contracts didn’t exist, according to the charge sheets. BNP had no account or trading history with Ng, Envy Asset Management or Envy Global Trading, a person familiar with the matter said. A BNP spokesperson declined to comment.

  Song Seng Wun, an economist at CIMB Private Banking, thinks more instances of “suspect behavior” will be revealed, thanks to investors feeling like they need to “reach” for returns in an era of low rates. Thanks, Central Banks.

  Song said: “This won’t be the last case and that’s the sad reality.”

  Shim Wai Han, an investor in Ng with their company Envysion Wealth Management Pte., said: “Our objective now is just one thing. To get back the money for investors and for ourselves.” Shim said she was “working on this together with MAS (The Monetary Authority of Singapore) to help investors.”

  Ng has been released on S$1.5 million bail for the time being and is being monitored by an electronic ankle bracelet. He had become “an increasingly visible figure in Singapore’s philanthropic, supercar and corporate communities” over the last couple of years, Bloomberg noted. 

  He received an award in August 2020 for his philanthropy and a Pagani Huayra supercar was seized as part of his assets after being charged. The car is valued around $5 million. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 20:30

• If You Don't See Any Risk, Ask Who Will "Buy The Dip" In A Freefall?
  If You Don't See Any Risk, Ask Who Will "Buy The Dip" In A Freefall?

  Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

  Nobody thinks a euphoric rally could ever go bidless, but as Greenspan belatedly admitted, liquidity is not guaranteed.

  

  The current market melt-up is taken as nearly risk-free because the Fed has our back, i.e. the Federal Reserve will intervene long before any market decline does any damage.

  It’s assumed the Fed or its proxies, i.e. the Plunge Protection Team, will be the buyer in any freefall sell-off: no matter how many punters are selling, the PPT will keep buying with its presumably unlimited billions.

  If this looks risk-free, ask who else will be “buying the dip” in a freefall? Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan answered this question in his post-2008 crash essay Never Saw It Coming: Why the Financial Crisis Took Economists By Surprise (Dec. 2013 Foreign Affairs):

  “They (financial firms) failed to recognize that market liquidity is largely a function of the degree of investors’ risk aversion, the most dominant animal spirit that drives financial markets. But when fear-induced market retrenchment set in, that liquidity disappeared overnight, as buyers pulled back. In fact, in many markets, at the height of the crisis of 2008, bids virtually disappeared.”

  For the uninitiated, bids are the price offered to buyers of stocks and ETFs and the ask is the price offered to sellers. When bids virtually disappear, this means buyers have vanished: everyone willing to buy on the way down (known as catching the falling knife) has already bought and been crushed with losses, and so there’s nobody left (and no trading bots, either) to buy.

  When buyers vanish, the market goes bidless, meaning when you enter your “sell” order at a specific price (limit order), there’s nobody willing to buy your shares at the current price. The shares remains yours all the way down.

  If you decide to just get out at any price and place a market order (sell at whatever the bid is offered), your $100 per share stock might sell for $5 a share. This is known as a flash crash, and astute punters have observed that these are becoming more common.

  When markets go bidless, the predictable order flow of low-volume days goes out the window. On a typical low volume day (and all days are low volume recently), the spread between bid and ask is modest in heavily traded issues and sellers can be confident their sell order will execute in a few seconds. In a freefall sell-off, sell orders pile up and the bid plummets to levels that were considered “impossible” in low-volume days.

  What Greenspan didn’t discuss is the trading bots that do most of the trading have been programmed to be risk averse. In a real sell-off, why catch the falling knife by hitting the bid on the way down? That’s a guaranteed way to either lose money or ending up a bagholder.

  Humans have a default setting for risk aversion: it’s called panic. Once the euphoric comnfidence that the Fed will never allow the market to fall by more than a few percentage points is broken, it’s not replaced by rational risk assessment; it’s replaced by full-blown just-get-me-out panic.

  The Plunge Protection Team works just fine on low-volume days, but it fails when a tsunami of selling washes away the bid. Though few seemed to notice, massive selling volume begets more selling as the bots’ risk aversion kicks in.

  Ironically, the mass migration of retail punters into the market has introduced a heightened potential for panic selling. The wild swings in Gamestock (GME) earlier in the year were a sneak preview of what can happen as panicked newbies enter market sell orders.

  Euphoric punters forget that many of the players are leveraged, meaning that they’re using borrowed money (margin debt) to buy more stocks. Should the market drop instead of rebounding, their account will fall below minimum requirements and they will have to add cash or sell stocks. When buy the dip fails, those with margin calls add to the selling.

  Other limits can manifest in cryptocurrency trading. When most trades are buys, few notice the fine print on exchange sell orders in crypto wallets and exchanges. Prices may be guaranteed for a limited time (for example, 10 minutes), and there may not be an option for limit orders. If the order doesn’t execute before the time limit expires, then the order to sell executes at whatever bid is offered.

  There’s also no guarantee that your sell order will execute in a timely manner. A reader recently sent me a screenshot of an exchange of a top 100 (by market cap) cryptocurrency for Bitcoin that took almost 2 hours to execute. (The reader passed on using the Lightning Network after reading the disclosures.)

  Exchanges may limit the number of coins per exchange. In other words, the implicit assumption that punters can unload their entire position at the current bid may prove unfounded in heavy sell volume days.

  The point here is bottlenecks can emerge in heavy sell volume days that traders did not anticipate. The possibility that markets, brokerage platforms and exchanges could break and simply cease to function isn’t on anyone’s radar, despite various bits of evidence that a breakdown isn’t as farfetched as punters currently assume.

  Ten minutes is more than enough time for supreme, euphoric confidence to crumble into panic, and trading bots can pull their buy orders in 10 milliseconds.

  This is why the big players distribute their shares to overly confident retail punters over many weeks. Big players know there is no way they can dump their entire position without crushing the bid, so they sell in bits and pieces all the way up the euphoric melt-up.

  The issue isn’t just the price you get when you sell–it’s being able to get out of your position at all. A strange phenomenon occurs in freefall sell-offs: the exit door (i.e. the liquidity that allows you to liquidate your entire position at the current bid) suddenly shrinks from a barndoor to a mouse-sized hole in the baseboard.

  Nobody thinks a euphoric rally could ever go bidless, but as Greenspan belatedly admitted, liquidity is not guaranteed. In a real tsunami of trading-bot selling, the Plunge Protection Team’s card table is no match for the sea of selling.

  Risk aversion can go from zero to 200 faster than overconfident punters believe possible.

  

  *  *  *

  If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

  *  *  *

  My recent books:

  A Hacker’s Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook $17.46) Read the first section for free (PDF).

  Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World (Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Read the first section for free (PDF).

  Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($5 (Kindle), $10 (print), ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).

  The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

  Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 20:00

• Record 33% Of Young Americans Living With Parents
  Record 33% Of Young Americans Living With Parents

  The number of adults aged 18-34 living at home with their parents continues to accelerate to levels not seen in decades, according to Goldman Sachs, citing US Census Bureau data which found that just over 33% have returned to the nest.

  

  And while real estate in major markets is booming, the percentage of young adults in the ‘boomerang generation’ – who leave the nest only to return years later – has taken a dive, as unemployment and punishing (self-inflicted) student debt has forced many younger Americans out of the housing market.

  

  Last July, Pew Research reported that a majority of 18-29 year-olds, 52%, were living in their parents’ home – and spans young adults across the board; men, women, all races and ethnic groups, and in every geographical region, according to the study. Note that the percentage Pew reported is undoubtedly higher due to the lower cutoff in age for the range (29 vs. 34).

  

  “In a very short space of time, we are now at levels last seen during the Great Depression,” said Pew senior researcher, Richard Fry.

  That said, even before the pandemic, young adults were increasingly dependent upon their parents for financial support. According to Pew, around 60% of children between the ages of 18-29 received at least some financial help in the past year, primarily to cover expenses such as tuition, rent, groceries or bills.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 19:30

• The Next Economic Crisis – Will Your Wealth Survive?
  The Next Economic Crisis – Will Your Wealth Survive?

  Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,

  The greatest wealth transfer in history has already begun and the next crisis will only accelerate the process.

  

  As the printing presses continue cranking out more and more money, looking forward to a time when the markets pause or another economic crisis consumes the world is an issue we all should think about. How much wealth will escape the next large financial reset is very important because it will set the bar that determines the rate of inflation or deflation in coming years. If you believe we did not solve many of our financial problems after 2008 but merely masked them with a huge amount of newly printed money you are likely to embrace this concept.

  

  The Shell Game Of Wealth Transfer

  Much like a shell game where wealth is transferred about, in our modern society wealth is always on the move. Wealth and how things are valued is far from constant, it is fungible and constantly changing. While we may try to deny it, wealth is in a constant state of flux and constantly moving. Wealth comes in many forms, it can be held in the form of paper, promises, or as something more tangible and real such as property or goods.

  Some items such as a tool hold “utility value” and its value may be based on how much work it can perform or the revenue it can produce. Replacement cost, supply and demand, and factors such as whether something can spoil or might grow obsolete over time also help determine its value as a place wealth can be safely stored. The term, safely stored in this case also includes placing it out of the reach of governments’ ability to tax it or make it illegal to own.

  Defining wealth is one thing but it is important to actually delve into its nature to truly understand just how elusive it can be. Wealth is defined as the abundance of valuable resources or valuable material possessions. An individual, community, region, or country that possesses an abundance of such possessions or resources to the benefit of the common good is known as wealthy. This means it might be preferable to live as a poor person in a very rich and wealthy society versus a rich person in a poor and wretched place. This notion underlines the idea wealth is also relevant and measured by how it compares to that of others.

  

  Don’t Be Naive, They Do Not Care

  Returning to the subject of various kinds of wealth, today Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies and other “digital assets” designed to work as a medium of exchange also fall into the category of wealth. They have joined pensions, annuities, and even investments in stocks and such as a store of wealth. Many assets fall into the area of paper promises that are often recorded somewhere far from sight or as a digital entry on a computer. These intangible stores of wealth based on faith have grown at a massive rate during the last several decades and were relatively minor players until recently. Currencies, also known as fiat money, are also just IOUs or paper promises. The idea of a currency free-society in my mind tends to break the bonds that link us to wealth but that is for another post.

  In the past I have written several pieces about subjects such as, writing off the rising amount of bad debt, how debt is like a mirage moving into the distance, how bad debt is resolved, and how precarious the vessels where we store our wealth can be, however, the crux of this article centers around what will or might be left after stress or war pushes the global economy to the brink or into total collapse. A great deal will depend on how such an event unfolds, this means what kind or type of value and wealth is the first to vanish.

  

  Be Skeptical, Be Cautious, Get Smart!

  I will be the first to admit the answer is unknown, still in this “exercise of the mind,” I am asking you to consider and think about such a scenario. The ugly truth is that there are many places your wealth could vanish into and multitudes of ways it could seep away. Remember, wealth zips across borders at the click of a button and just because you deposit it with a local institution does not mean it stays in your community.

  We witnessed how wealth could be “transferred away” decades ago during the savings and loan crisis when huge beautiful buildings were constructed in certain areas from wealth transferred in from other parts of the country. Needless to say when the dust settled the big winners were the areas with the new buildings and not those forced to pay for them when the loans used to build them went into default.

  Today some market watchers claim that the stock market is being held at lofty levels while the smart money is rushing to the exits. Today tens of trillions of dollars are sitting in offshore banking accounts in places such as the Cayman Islands. Today government and businesses are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars each year by issuing bonds some that will not return investor’s money for decades. Today homes, apartments, and buildings are being built, some poorly constructed, with loans guaranteed more or less by the American people. Today America’s national debt stands at over 28 trillion dollars and is rising. Today currencies such as the euro and yen are even more fundamentally flawed than the dollar. I could do this a bit longer but I suspect I’ve made the point.

  We have all heard about how the Caymans have become a popular tax haven among the American elite and large multinational corporations. This is because there is no corporate or income tax on money earned outside of its territory. This has made the Caymans especially popular among hedge fund managers. I hate to blow a hole in the idea that you can safely tuck their money away in an offshore banking account, the reality is, we have no idea where all the money deposited in the Cayman Islands really is. Banks do not just sit on deposits and keep them safe, they loan them out.

  We must never forget the world is full of crooks, evil politicians, greedy bankers, and that we have judicial systems that make true justice a rare commodity. Returning to the focus of this article, the thing that is important is what or how much wealth survives an economic crisis and in what form. That is because when that wealth comes out of hibernation it will soak up all the tangible assets on the planet. This will be the determining factor of whether we face inflation, deflation, or some crazy mix of the two. Remember it is the nature of those in charge to throw the masses under the bus when things go sideways.

  The average person is foolish and silly if they expect to be protected when the next financial crisis hits. Those counting on a stimulus check for survival will someday most likely find it will not buy them diddly-squat. The shelves will be empty or the value of what they receive will simply not be enough. The economic landscape we face following such an event will without a doubt be shaped and depend on what wealth survives and how much vanishes following a tsunami of defaults and /or a monetization of debt where government debt disappears and inflation takes its place. A word to the wise should be sufficient and cause any person prudent or interested in protecting their wealth to consider the many ways wealth can vanish and that it can without a doubt happen to you.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 19:00

• Apollo Joins Exodus To Florida As New York Tax Hike Drives Out Wealthy
  Apollo Joins Exodus To Florida As New York Tax Hike Drives Out Wealthy

  The authors of a Bloomberg report claiming the trend of financial services firms moving from New York to Florida was rapidly starting to reverse couldn’t have been more wrong. Barely two weeks after the New York State legislature passed a state budget that saddled the wealthiest New Yorkers with an effective tax rate north of 50%, the highest in the nation…

  

  …more financial firms and their wealthiest employees are bidding the Big Apple adieu. Earlier this week, Bloomberg reported that Guggenheim’s Scott Minerd was preparing to move to Miami as the firm moves to dedicate more resources to South Florida.

  And now, Bloomberg has followed that earlier report up with another high-profile departure: Apollo Global Management, newly free of its founder Leon Black, was considering opening additional offices in South Florida, specifically in Miami and West Palm Beach, as well as elsewhere in the US and Europe. The decision to “expand” its physical presence its the result of a survey of employees about where they would prefer to work as part of a strategy to attract a broader talent pool, a spokesperson for the firm told Bloomberg.

  Apollo, which has 1,729 employees worldwide, is just the latest financial services firm to commit to a more open ended “open working” plan as workers in the US start their journey back to the office. This contrasts with Goldman and JPM, which are already summoning front-office workers and analysts back to the office (now that we all know how Goldman CEO David Solomon feels about working from home).

  

  As far as moving to Florida, Goldman is reportedly polling employees to figure out which workers in various front-office investment-banking and capital markets positions might be willing to relocate to Miami.

  Hedge fund titan Steven Cohen is reportedly looking to move his new firm, Point72 Asset Management, to Florida despite his recent purchase of the New York Mets (he also recently took a massive hit on the sale of a New York condo). Elliott Management, and even the mighty Citadel, are looking to Florida as well.

  While Apollo said it has no plans to pull back from New York, even Bloomberg acknowledged that the newfound flexibility brought on by remote work is making low-tax locales like Florida and Texas more appealing. Under the new $212 billion state budget, the top tax rate on wealthy Americans would temporarily increase to 9.65% from 8.82% for single filers earning more than $1.1 million. Income between $5 million and $25 million would be taxed at 10.3% and for more than $25 million it would be 10.9%. The new rates would expire in 2027. And with New York City residents also paying city taxes, the combined top rate for the highest earners would be between 13.5% and 14.8%, surpassing the 13.3% rate in California, currently the highest in the nation, as we reported previously.

  

  Lump in Federal Taxes and the increases would mean that the richest New Yorkers would be hit with a combined marginal rate of 51.8% — higher than levels in some European countries.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 18:30

• "I Object…" – Is This The Start Of The Turn Against 'Woke Tyranny'?
  "I Object…" – Is This The Start Of The Turn Against 'Woke Tyranny'?

  Authored by Andrea Widburg via AmericanThinker.com,

  For three days, I’ve had sitting on my virtual spindle a post that Bari Weiss, formerly of the New York Times, posted on her Substack page.  It’s entitled “I Refuse to Stand by while My Students Are Indoctrinated.”  

  The author isn’t Weiss but is, instead, Paul Rossi, a math teacher at Grace Church High School in Manhattan (annual tuition: $57,330).  

  On Friday, Weiss added another open letter, this from Andrew Gutmann, a parent who had just pulled his daughter out of Brearley, another expensive private school (annual tuition: $54,000).  

  Both are horrifying exposés of, and attacks against, the woke culture saturating these institutions.

  

  Both letters are long and don’t yield easily to a brief summary.  I’ll quote a few select paragraphs from each, but you must read them to get the full flavor of the Maoist madness at these institutions.

  Paul Rossi, the teacher, writes that Grace Church is focused on “‘antiracism’ training and pedagogy that I believe is deeply harmful to [my students] and to any person who seeks to nurture the virtues of curiosity, empathy and understanding.”

  Rossi perfectly describes the self-hatred, mental repression, cognitive dissonance, and pure racism this training inculcates into young minds:

  My school, like so many others, induces students via shame and sophistry to identify primarily with their race before their individual identities are fully formed. Students are pressured to conform their opinions to those broadly associated with their race and gender and to minimize or dismiss individual experiences that don’t match those assumptions. The morally compromised status of “oppressor” is assigned to one group of students based on their immutable characteristics. In the meantime, dependency, resentment and moral superiority are cultivated in students considered “oppressed.”

  Rossi describes how, during a segregated “whites only” student and faculty Zoom meeting, he spoke out, inspiring the students to speak out, too.  This was a bad thing.

  I was informed by the head of the high school that my philosophical challenges had caused “harm” to students, given that these topics were “life and death matters, about people’s flesh and blood and bone.” I was reprimanded for “acting like an independent agent of a set of principles or ideas or beliefs.” And I was told that by doing so, I failed to serve the “greater good and the higher truth.” 

  He further informed me that I had created “dissonance for vulnerable and unformed thinkers” and “neurological disturbance in students’ beings and systems.” The school’s director of studies added that my remarks could even constitute harassment.

  Rossi was then denounced over the school announcement system.  There’s more.  Read it all, because it’s important.

  

  The letter that Andrew Gutmann sent to fellow parents after he pulled his daughter out of Brearley is, if anything, even more horrifying:

  It cannot be stated strongly enough that Brearley’s obsession with race must stop. It should be abundantly clear to any thinking parent that Brearley has completely lost its way. The administration and the Board of Trustees have displayed a cowardly and appalling lack of leadership by appeasing an anti-intellectual, illiberal mob, and then allowing the school to be captured by that same mob.

  To give context to his scathing attack on the school, Gutmann describes actual systemic racism as things such as the real Jim Crow, Jewish genocide, and the Democrats’ decision in 1942 to lock up all their Japanese-American citizens.  And then he’s off:

  I object to a definition of systemic racism, apparently supported by Brearley, that any educational, professional, or societal outcome where Blacks are underrepresented is prima facie evidence of the aforementioned systemic racism, or of white supremacy and oppression.

  …

  I object to the idea that Blacks are unable to succeed in this country without aid from government or from whites.

  …

  I object to mandatory anti-racism training for parents, especially when presented by the rent-seeking charlatans of Pollyanna.

  …

  I object to Brearley’s vacuous, inappropriate, and fanatical use of words such as “equity,” “diversity” and “inclusiveness.”

  …

  l object to Brearley’s advocacy for groups and movements such as Black Lives Matter, a Marxist, anti family, heterophobic, anti-Asian and anti-Semitic organization that neither speaks for the majority of the Black community in this country, nor in any way, shape or form, represents their best interests. 

  As with Rossi’s letter, there’s more, much more, including all the material I snipped out.  And as with Rossi’s letter, you must read the whole thing.

  A couple of years ago, ensconced in a Senate chamber in which almost half of the senators and all the national media agreed with him, and lying about violating Senate rules, Sen. Cory Booker made the ridiculous claim that he was having his “I am Spartacus moment.”

  In fact, what we’re seeing from Rossi and Gutmann, in the belly of the beast that is true-blue New York, should be the start of a true Spartacus moment.  We must join together to defeat the racist Critical Race Theory and other maddened toxins oozing from leftists.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 18:00

• CNN Can't Stop Losing: Viewership Down By Half Since Biden Took Office, 60% In Key Demo
  CNN Can't Stop Losing: Viewership Down By Half Since Biden Took Office, 60% In Key Demo

  While CNN may no longer be torturing people in airports, voluntary viewership has fallen over 50% in multiple categories since President Biden took office, according to Fox News.

  

  Who knew that their best move during the 2020 election would have been to help Trump win, instead of helping Biden.

  In the first three weeks of 2021, the network averaged 2.2 million viewers – only to plummet to just one million viewers – a decline of 54%. Among the key advertising demographic of adults age 25-54, ratings are down 60%. From December 28 through Inauguration day, viewership went from 617,000 viewers in that demographic to just 244,000 since Biden took office.

  CNN’s liberal primetime hosts Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon haven’t been able to keep their audiences under the new administration, either.

  CNN averaged 3.1 million viewers from 8-11 p.m. from Dec. 28 through Inauguration Day but only 1.4 million since for a whopping 55-percent decline. Over the same time period, CNN’s primetime lineup lost 63 percent of its viewers among the crucial demo. –Fox News

  CNN also fared worse than liberal competitor MSNBC, which lost ‘only’ 34% of its total-day viewers, and 30% of primetime viewers under Biden. Fox News points out, of course, that their viewership has remained mostly flat – as declines remained in the single digits.

  When asked if he was worried about the ratings disaster, CNN host Don Lemon told the New York Times’ podcaster “Sway”:

  “No. I’m not worried about it … Trump was a horrible person. And he was terrible for the country. And it is better for all — for the world that he is no longer the President of the United States,” adding “So if that means that cable news ratings go down? Aww. So I’m not really that concerned about it. I would prefer that my ratings go down and Trump not be in office than my ratings be sky-high and him be there. That’s the honest truth.”

  And when a CNN anchor ends anything with “That’s the honest truth,” it’s exactly the opposite.

  CNN the new clown news network! pic.twitter.com/zVvh3KB2Ja

  — LeAnn F Sellers 🇺🇸❣🇺🇸 (@LeAnnFSellers1) April 15, 2021

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

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 17:35

• Edward Snowden NFT Sells For $5.4 Million In Ethereum
  Edward Snowden NFT Sells For $5.4 Million In Ethereum

  Authored by Jeff Benson via Decrypt.co,

  An NFT artwork created by Edward Snowden has sold for $5.4 million in Ethereum.

  “Stay Free” portrays the NSA whistleblower and exiled American with hand on chin like a modern Rodin statue.

  

  Look closer, however, and you’ll find the image has been formed from the pages of a US appeals court decision that the Patriot Act did not permit mass collection and surveillance of Americans’ phone records by the National Security Agency.

  A reminder that the symbolism of @Snowden minting his first NFT goes far beyond the price tag.

  The decentralized technologies powering this auction will fundamentally reshape our world — precisely to curb the abuse of power @Snowden spoke out against.https://t.co/ofNi1nSwzZ

  — kayvon🪐 (@saturnial) April 16, 2021

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

  While the ACLU won that case, Snowden remains persona non grata in the US for his role in making the NSA’s surveillance program public. In 2013, while the computer analyst was contracting for the security agency, he began leaking classified documents to the press. Shortly after being charged with espionage, Snowden flew to Russia, where he was granted asylum, then residency.

  

  Snowden sold the artwork on Foundation, a community-driven NFT marketplace where the Overly Attached Girlfriend NFT sold for 200 ETH and a Nyan Cat animation earned 300.

  Those amounts seem relatively paltry to the 2,224 ETH spent on Stay Free, Snowden’s first NFT.

  NFTs are unique digital tokens that often come in the form of artwork, trading cards, or other collectibles. There is only one edition of “Stay Free,” meaning the auction winner, @PleasrDAO (fans of digital artist pplpleasr, who also sells lucrative NFTs), has the only copy of the work.

  FIVE POINT FIVE MILLION from @PleasrDAO. It feels like the whole staff of @FreedomOfPress is watching live, and we’ve never seen anything like this. This is more than a spectacle — this is drama. All eyes turn to the dark horse. https://t.co/GOcrOiraXS

  — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) April 16, 2021

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

  According to Snowden, the proceeds will go to Freedom of the Press Foundation, a non-profit established in 2012 that develops open source communication and encryption tools as well as tracks press freedom. As the foundation’s president, Snowden serves on the board alongside John Cusack, journalist Glenn Greenwald, and Daniel Ellsberg, the Vietnam-era reporter best known for shuttling the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 17:10

• Psaki Dodges Questions On Biden "Weakness" Over Initiating Putin Summit
  Psaki Dodges Questions On Biden "Weakness" Over Initiating Putin Summit

  On Friday White House press secretary Jen Psaki was pressed on why President Biden appeared to initiate a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, yet without setting conditions, which is widely being viewed as a “weakness”. This is also given as we and many others have pointed out that it effectively cuts out Kiev, leaving Ukraine’s fate to be considered by the two superpowers at the table. For Putin, it appears that “saber-rattling” over Ukraine in the form of the troop build-up in Crimea and along the border has forced Biden’s hand, effectively making Washington have to deal directly with Putin, precisely what the Kremlin has wanted all along.

  She was asked at the daily briefing by a reporter: “Why would you announce a summit intention without a commitment? … A high-level meeting of this sort is often a point of leverage with the world leader… why aren’t there conditions?” Psaki fumbled through a response while avoiding the question head-on…

  Psaki then rambled on about “consequences”…

  Biden was ”clear that there would be consequences for the actions, whether it was the hacking of SolarWinds or other problematic behavior by Russian leadership,” Psaki said in reference to Thursday’s Russia sanctions rollout.

  ”And the president offered that … to send the message that we will have disagreement, we’re not going to hold back on that. But our objective is to have a predictable and stable relationship,” she added.

  In follow-up to her apparent avoidance of the main issue the reporter mused that if Putin actually rejects the summit offer, ”wouldn’t that indicated some weakness on the part of the American administration here?”

  ”I think the president’s view is that Russia is on the outside of the global community in many respects at this point in time,” Psaki replied.

  So again she didn’t actually answer the question.

  “It’s the G7, not the G8 … We’ve put sanctions in place in order to send a clear message that there should be consequences for the actions. The Europeans have also done that. What the president is offering is a bridge back. And so certainly he believes it’s in their interest to take him up on that offer.”

  How Putin’s “Saber-Rattling” Forced A Biden Summit, Bypassing Kiev To Decide Ukraine’s Fate https://t.co/95A4thiMNU

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 17, 2021

  To review, here’s what FT had to say

  Here’s more from FT on the whole question:

  If Vladimir Putin’s decision to deploy tens of thousands of troops to Ukraine’s border in the past few weeks was driven primarily by a desire to get the west’s attention, he did not have to wait too long for his reward.

  Hours after his defense minister on Tuesday admitted Russia had mobilised two armies and three paratroop divisions to positions close to the conflict-wracked frontier, US President Joe Biden phoned the Kremlin with an offer of a bilateral summit: a long sought-after prize for Putin who craves a seat at the world’s highest negotiating table. 

  …Those 50,000 extra soldiers, scores of tanks and other heavy weaponry spooked Kyiv and other European powers, and sparked a hurried response from Nato and the US amid fears over a potential outbreak of fighting between the two countries. 

  Consider too… what if this were Trump? 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 16:45

• Woke Capital Is Destined To Become A Relic
  Woke Capital Is Destined To Become A Relic

  Authored by Peter Earle via The American Institute for Economic Research,

  In a market economy, consumers vote with their dollars. The survival and growth of a business depends pivotally upon how effectively they convince customers to buy their products over those of their competitors. But recently, consumers seem to expect a new product in addition to what they were already purchasing from firms: corporate consciousness. In particular, a decidedly left-leaning consciousness.   

  But it’s not entirely accurate to claim that consumers have compelled businesses to “get with the times;” more precisely, the sensibilities of the public, have mostly through the media and polling, bled into corporate board rooms. Big businesses have in turn doled out value statements; some are praised, others pilloried. It’s a chicken-or-egg case: did the consumer demand woke capital, or has the corporatist, desperate to maintain market share and boost public perception of their firm, made woke capital the law of the American economy?

  

  A New Twist on an Old Saw

  In reality, woke capital is nothing new – though it has undergone many transformations and changes of name over the years. On the individual level, early industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller engaged in corporate philanthropy, donating large shares of their fortunes to charity. In the 1940s, businesses themselves started supporting charitable causes. 

  The idea of corporate social responsibility entered the mainstream in the 1970s when the Committee for Economic Development pushed the “social contract” model, stating that businesses function as a result of public “consent,” thus leading to an obligation to serve societal needs. (This also ties to the rise and spread of stakeholder theories, which today no MBA program would dare omit.) That same model outlined three duties of businesses: providing jobs and economic growth, fair and honest treatment of workers and customers, and improving the conditions of the surrounding community. 

  The present ascendance of woke capital, then, has been less of a rise and more of a continuation––a twist, really––on existing tendencies. The contemporary culture war has only served as a catalyst. A 2020 Spectator piece reads,

  As the Democratic party and cultural elites have lurched left on cultural issues, corporate America has lurched along with them. America’s ‘reckoning with racial injustice’ in the past three months was enthusiastically endorsed by major corporations, often even as their physical outlets were plundered by the ‘mostly peaceful’ activists on the street….As capital aligns with the cultural left, it is now extracting its concessions. 

  It wouldn’t be so unpalatable if it weren’t rife with hypocrisy. This, ultimately, is the cardinal sin of woke capital: lofty moral standards, selectively applied. In one of the earlier discussions of the woke capital phenomenon, which appeared in The New York Times back in 2018, columnist Ross Douthat pointed out the folly in Apple’s value statements: 

  It’s worth noting, for instance, how Tim Cook’s willingness to play the social justice warrior when the target is a few random Indiana restaurants that might not want to host hypothetical same-sex weddings does not extend to reconsidering Apple’s relationship with the many countries around the world where human rights are rather more in jeopardy than they are in the American Midwest.

  Douthat’s concerns proved prescient as the turmoil of last summer––largely centered on the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and the ensuing Black Lives Matter protests––came to a head. In 2020, no less than two-thirds of S&P 500 companies released statements of solidarity with the movement; a smaller share, 36 percent, contributed funds to racial justice organizations. 

  S&P 500 ESG Index (5 yrs)

  

  (Source: Bloomberg Finance, LP)

  Nike and The Washington Post, among other employers, gave workers Juneteenth off as a paid holiday. Companies participated in #BlackOutTuesday, posting just a black square to their social media accounts. Managers assigned left-wing political texts to employees. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon dropped by a Chase branch to take a knee with staff in support of racial justice protests (and, it seems, could not resist taking advantage of the photo opportunity). 

  The immediate aftermath of these actions was characterized by confusion and skepticism alike. Black employees of many companies that had sprung into activist action found the messaging inconsistent with their personal experiences, speaking to poor racial climates and difficulty in climbing the career ladder. Nearly one year later, investor groups are still pressuring banks and industry giants to support shareholder resolutions that will hold them to proof of progress measures. Though Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) disagrees with the premise of “woke capital,” it nonetheless concedes that “many corporate overtures to diversity, racial justice and progress are marketing gimmicks that don’t actually address structural economic inequality, and, at worst, are meant to distract from any kind of class reckoning.” 

  Stunts and Missteps

  One such blunder came in the form of the McCann ad agency’s Black Lives Matter blunder. In early June, the firm asked artist Shantell Martin to paint a BLM mural on the storefront of McCann’s client Microsoft. The email specifically requested that Martin finish the piece within a few days, “while the protests are still relevant.” Martin teamed up with other black artists who had been approached by McCann, eviscerating the agency in a letter that decried the disingenuity of activism with an expiration date. 

  With all that in mind, it must be said that not every business simply postures for the sake of posturing. In the early days of corporate social responsibility, Milton Hershey of The Hershey Company built far more than just production facilities in Hershey, Pennsylvania; he built civic centers and cultural institutions that continue to support the community to this day. And in the woke capital era, plenty of organizations have taken up the helm of well-intentioned, effective societal change. Chobani, a leading Greek yogurt brand, has made tangible steps toward social responsibility––from actively seeking to hire refugees to investing in social entrepreneurs in order to encourage innovating for the greater good, Chobani’s impact statements are far more than just platitudes. 

  Yet these examples are, in many ways, the exceptions rather than the rule. Far-reaching social and political turmoil has prompted businesses to feel as though they must comment on current issues, but that talk has hardly translated into any meaningful change. Social change is expensive––and woke capital is difficult to back––and as such, few businesses have put their money where their mouth is. That voluntary, cooperative commercial engagement is a center of gravity for civilization itself has not occurred to them, or doesn’t make for a flashy enough campaign.

  SunSuper Socially Conscious Balanced Fund (AU)

  

  (Source: Bloomberg Finance, LP)

  Economic Calculation with Woke Capital

  An issue with decidedly larger implications is whether or to what extent corporate management decisions made along political lines will impact potential uses of capital. Ludwig von Mises, in his writings about economic calculation, noted that private property in the means of production, and subsequently money prices established for those capital goods, 

  provide…a guide amid the bewildering throng of economic possibilities. [They] enable us to extend judgement of value which apply directly only to consumption goods––or at best to production goods of the lowest order––to all goods of higher orders. Without it, all production by lengthy and roundabout processes would be so many steps in the dark. 

  A large number of economically significant firms deciding to sell important assets, engage in select transactions, or limit their investments exclusively to projects managed by and firms owned by minority citizens or women may seem innocuous. And in some cases, it likely is. But to the extent that such transactions are appreciable and done in ways which preempt or confound market processes (which is to say, if they are done at prices which do not reflect the actual subjective valuation of market participants at a point in time) they will likely result in less rational allocations and overall losses of efficiency in the economy at large. 

  Fad or Principle?

  Though consumers seem on balance to prefer activist firms, companies largely miss the mark. A 2018 survey covering 35 countries showed that 64 percent of consumers would gladly reward firms engaged in activism of some type––proving that corporate consciousness has become an essential part of many companies’ bottom lines. However, a 2020 opinion poll conducted by Gallup in the United States indicated that public confidence in big business was laughably low. Only 19 percent of respondents reported having a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of trust in large firms. Sentiments have been tepid for decades now, with confidence lingering around the 20 percent mark since the early 2000s. And the leftward shift of business has especially alienated Republicans, with their satisfaction with big business falling to 31 percent––a 26-point decline since 2020.

  Whether corporate America’s commitment to woke capital will last remains to be seen, but one questions who truly prefers this state of affairs. Companies feel obligated to offer value statements to their customers, despite often having records of conduct contrary to the socially acceptable view; consumers sense the game being played and accordingly, chafe. Structural changes, most of which involve more opportunities and less state interference, are desirable and attainable, and the lack of genuineness here suggests unsustainability. Rather than a sign of the times, the embracing of woke capital may simply come to be a relic of the times.

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 16:20

• Iconic Retail Investor "Roaring Kitty" Doubles Down On Gamestop, Now Owns 200,000 Shares
  Iconic Retail Investor "Roaring Kitty" Doubles Down On Gamestop, Now Owns 200,000 Shares

  You won’t find Roaring Kitty Capital, LP in any Goldman Sachs salestrader’s rolodex but to the millions of WallStreetBets daytrading fanatics, the name Roaring Kitty is far more popular than Bridgewater, Citadel, or Millennium.

  And for good reason: Keith Gill, the person behind the moniker “Roaring Kitty” and “DeepFuckingValue“, who launched a historic short squeeze across multiple asset classes in January, destroying Melvin Capital (which needed a bailout from both Ken Griffin and Steve Cohen) and several other heavily bearish hedge funds, showed ordinary investors that virtually anyone can become a millionaire with lots of hard work and preparation… before eventually ending up in Congress explaining to Maxine Waters just how a relative nobody managed to outsmart people who run billions thanks to his now iconic investment in Gamestop.

  Another reason why “Roaring Kitty” has earned the respect of his peers is that unlike so many traders who make a buck on a trade and move on, Gill has demonstrated true diamond hands, and not only that but he is now literally doubling down on the company that brought him stardom and riches by exercising his call options and buying even more shares.

  “DeepFuckingValue” posted a screenshot of his portfolio showing that he has exercised 500 GameStop call options expiring Friday at a strike price of $12, giving him 50,000 more shares of a stock that closed at $154.69 on Friday, but will likely blast off on Monday once the Reddit animal spirits are reignited.

  

  There’s more: in addition to exercising his options, Gill also bought another 50,000 shares of the video-game retailer, doubling his holdings to 200,000 shares from 100,000 at the beginning of the month. His total investment in GameStop is now worth more than $30 million, giving him a profit of nearly $20 million. Bloomberg reached out to Gill’s mother, Elaine Gill at his childhood home in Massachusetts, who confirmed the Reddit screenshots were posted by her son.

  Despite having earned the praise and admiration of most of his peers for executing what many have said has been the most astute short squeeze since Volkswagen, there were haters too and roughly around the time Gill was explaining to Maxine Waters how investing works, he was hit with a lawsuit that accused him of misrepresenting himself as an amateur investor. The suit alleged that he was actually a licensed securities professional who manipulated the market for profit, which he denied.

  To be sure, it wasn’t just Gill: some argue that the true mastermind behind the Gamestop squeeze was not Roaring Kitty at all but hedge fund Senvest which started buying GME shares all the way back in September – roughly around the time the post “The REAL Greatest Short Burn of the Century” appeared on Reddit and which made over $700 million on its GME position which has given it the top position in the HSBC hedge fund ranking for the third month in a row

  

  Meanwhile, on Friday GameStop CEO George Sherman who is expected to leave, sold almost $12 million in shares. The company is looking for a new CEO as part of a shake-up spurred by activist investor and Chewy.com co-founder Ryan Cohen, Bloomberg notes.

  While shares of GameStop are up 721% YTD, though they are less than half of the peak level in January. However, now that Roaring Kitty has shown his Reddit peers that he is not only in it for the long run but doubling down, expect another squeeze on Monday as the latest generation of shorts which have entered the stock in recent weeks, is steamrolled, and as Reddit excitement in GME which had fizzled in recent weeks…

  

  … explodes afresh.

  And speaking of Chewy, we remind readers that the reason why the stock rose as high as the mid-$400s in February is not only the presence of Chewy founder Ryan Cohen, but that as the September Reddit write up noted, “if GME was trading at the same P/S multiple as $CHWY, the share price would be $420.”

  In short, GME may be about to double all over again.

  Which begs another question: is the daytrading, gamma-squeeze mania that shook markets in late January, about to send GME – and the whole batch of most shorted names – soaring higher all over again?

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 15:54

• Software Glitch Transforms Some Mustang Mach-Es Into "Electric Bricks" 
  Software Glitch Transforms Some Mustang Mach-Es Into "Electric Bricks" 

  Just as Morgan Stanely released a new Autos & Shared Mobility research report a couple of months ago explaining how Tesla is losing market share to the Ford Mustang Mach-E. It appears Ford has run into a significant software hiccup for some of its Mach-Es, transforming them into “electric bricks.” 

  Some Mach-E owners reported the 12-volt battery inside their vehicle has discharged after charging the main battery pack, preventing the car from turning on, essentially transforming it into an electric brick.  

  According to a new service bulletin posted by the Michigan automaker on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) website, Ford has addressed the problem.

  “Some 2021 Mustang Mach-E vehicles built on or before 3-Feb-2021 may exhibit the 12-volt battery becoming discharged while the vehicle is plugged in during the high voltage charging process. This may be due to the parameters in the powertrain control module (PCM). To correct the condition, follow the Service Procedure to reprogram various modules starting with the PCM,” the bulletin read. 

  Here is the complete technical service bulletin:

  The dying 12-volt batteries were first reported by The Verge, as furious Ford owners recently began populating on online forums about the issue. Some readers must be asking: Why do electric cars have separate 12-volt batteries from the main battery pack? 

  The answer is simple: 

  The battery that supplies power to the electric motors is extremely high voltage, and the 12-volt battery powers the vehicle’s low-voltage parts. When the 12-volt battery discharges, the car can’t be started.

  In a statement provided to The Verge, Ford said owners must bring their Mach-Es to a dealer for the fix. So there are no over-the-air updates like a Tesla. 

  “We are aware that a small number of Mustang Mach-E owners have had their 12V battery reach a low voltage condition. We proactively worked with early owners experiencing this issue to identify the root cause and a fix. In the rare instances where this still occurs, customers can now contact their local EV-certified Ford dealer to have the matter resolved.”

  Ford revealed to The Verge the problem would be fixable via wireless update “later this year.” The automaker also said Mach-Es after Feb. 3 do not exhibit this problem. 

  Ford wouldn’t specify how many of its Mach-Es are affected by the software glitch, but nearly 7,000 have been delivered in the first three months of the year. 

  With Ford quickly selling Mach-E’s, the software glitch comes at an inopportune time as it battles Tesla for EV US market share. 

  Tyler Durden
  Sat, 04/17/2021 – 15:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Globalists Will Need Another Crisis In America As Their Reset Agenda Fails
  Globalists Will Need Another Crisis In America As Their Reset Agenda Fails

  Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

  It might sound like “US exceptionalism” to point this out (…and how very dare I), but even if the globalist Reset is successful in every other nation on Earth, the globalists are still failures if they can’t secure and subjugate the American people. As I’ve noted many times in the past, most of the world has been sufficiently disarmed, and even though we are seeing resistance in multiple European nations against forced vaccination legislation and medical tyranny, it is unlikely that they will have the ability to actually repel a full on march into totalitarianism. Most of Asia, India and Australia are already well under control. Africa is almost an afterthought , considering Africa is where many suspect vaccines are tested.

  America represents the only significant obstacle to the agenda.

  

  Conservative Americans in particular have been a thorn in the side of the globalists for generations, and it really comes down to a simple matter of mutual exclusion: You cannot have an openly globalist society and conservative ideals at the same time in the same place. It is impossible.

  Conservatives believe in limited government, true free markets, individual liberty, the value of life, freedom of speech, private property rights, the right to self defense, the right to self determination, freedom of religion, and the non-aggression principle (we won’t harm you unless you try to harm us). None of these ideals can exist in a globalist world because globalism is at it’s core is the pursuit of a fully centralized tyranny.

  There are people on this planet that are not satisfied to merely live their lives, take care of their families and make their mark peacefully. They crave power over all else. They desperately want control over you, over me, over everything, and they will use any means at their disposal to get it. I would compare it to a kind of drug addiction; globalists are like crack addicts, they can never get enough power, there is always something more to take.

  They tell themselves and others that they are “philanthropists”, that “they know what is best” for the rest of us. They believe themselves superior and therefore it is their “destiny” to dictate and micro-manage society for the “greater good” of us all. But really, when we witness their methods it becomes clear that they have no noble aspirations. They have no empathy or honor. They don’t care about the average human being, or the environment, or the economy or society in general. They only care about themselves and their delusions of grandeur. These people are a cancer on the rest of civilization.

  They seem to be particularly obsessed with deconstructing and sabotaging America in the pursuit of their global Reset. Real philanthropists would not have a problem if someone didn’t want to accept their “charity”, but psychopaths cannot abide a group of people rejecting them and their ideology. You are not allowed to walk away from them. You are not allowed to do things your own way. You must be forced to comply. The agenda only works if EVERYONE submits.

  Unfortunately for the globalists, the Reset is not working out for them everywhere. In the US, the agenda is failing miserably compared to Asia and parts of Europe.

  As the head of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, is so fond of reminding us, the Covid pandemic is the “perfect opportunity” to push forward the globalist plans for a total Reset of human economy and society. To the globalists, the crisis is a panacea, a doorway to their version of a better world. They love the pandemic, they are not distressed by it.

  The problem is, it’s not doing enough damage or terrifying enough people.

  Consider the Event 201 coronavirus pandemic simulation – It was held by the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation only two months before the real thing “coincidentally” happened in early 2020. The pandemic war game was less about saving lives and more about how the elites planned to keep the public under control. The suppression of alternative media and censorship in social media was discussed at great length. Dissenting voices need to be silenced if the Reset is going to prevail.

  One factor within the Event 201 simulation that never played out, though, was the WEF projections on deaths. The war game suggested at least 65 million initial deaths due to the pandemic. Early projections on the death rate suggested 2% to 3% of the population or more. The same projections were repeated by the UN’s World Health Organization when the real pandemic was first revealed to the public.

  Instead, Covid-19 has been a letdown for the globalists, with a tiny death rate of around 0.26% outside of nursing homes. Meaning, 99.7% of the population has nothing to worry about from covid. Millions of Americans are becoming savvy to the situation and are refusing to comply with mandates over a virus that is a non-threat.

  Instead of backing off of the Reset scheme, the globalists are continuing to double down. Why? Because they have no other choice. They let the cat out of the bag and bloviating big-mouths like Klaus Schwab told the world exactly what the plan is. If they retreat now, they might NEVER get another chance to implement a world centralization plan; a massive grift which requires medical tyranny in order to prevent rebellion.

  You see, if the death rate had been dramatically higher than 0.26% and covid represented a legitimate threat, then maybe a larger portion of the US population would have been on board with longer term restrictions and medical passports. Maybe not. The fact remains that 40% of deaths have been in nursing homes among patients with preexisting illnesses, the death rate outside of these facilities is minimal, the mask mandates have been proven completely ineffective and the states that have remained open and removed mask mandates have FALLING death and infection rates when compared to states that are enforcing lockdowns.

  The fear narrative is falling apart. States across the US are opening and are refusing to implement useless mandates. In my home state of Montana, legislators and the governor are passing laws that forbid the enforcement of medical passports. Even major corporations are not allowed to demand vaccine passports from customers or employees.

  On top of that, 40% to 50% of the US population in polls are refusing to comply with the vaccine rollout or medical passports. Why take a vaccine for a virus that 99.7% of the population is unaffected by anyway?

  The jig is up. The globalists are going to need another crisis if they hope to enforce further lockdowns in the US, along with medical passports and disarmament. Do not be surprised if there is more engineered chaos going into the summer months. But what will the next crisis look like? I think we are already seeing the signs…

  Covid Mutations

  The mainstream media is pushing a non-stop narrative of covid mutation hype. We hear about UK and Brazilian variants on a weekly basis, and the assertion has been that surely, these variants will be more infectious and more deadly that the original virus. There is still no proof whatsoever to confirm this, but the globalists only care about planting the idea in people’s heads. They only care about reigniting the fear.

  My feeling is that this strategy is going to fail, at least in the US. Too many Americans are aware of the con game, and a new virus threat is not going to have the same effect as Covid-19 did in the early months of the pandemic. None of us really knew what we were facing back then, and caution was a practical response. Today, we know for a fact that covid is not a concern for the vast majority of the public. Media attempts to amp up the threat will be ineffective, but they will of course still try.

  BLM Riots

  This is the next obvious tactic on the part of the establishment. Numerous state officials are openly supporting renewed riots across the country due to a recent police shooting in Minnesota. The shooting itself was accidental, with the suspect violently resisting arrest and leaping into his car. A female officer grabbed her pistol in a panic instead of her taser and fired.

  This event had nothing to do with racism, and nothing to do with police brutality. But, that’s not stopping Marxist groups like BLM from taking advantage and making it all about “white supremacy”. The real danger of unrest, however, will arrive at the closing of the Derek Chauvin trail.

  With the trail coming to an end, evidence has been revealed that George Floyd was involved in heavy drug use and the medical examiner indicated that this along with heart disease were contributing factors to Floyd’s death. A “speed ball” containing Fentanyl was also discovered in the back of the police cruiser in which Floyd was originally restrained. So, even if Derek Chauvin’s knee to the neck tactic helped kill Floyd, it is unlikely that a jury will convict him of 1st or 2nd degree murder based on the evidence. Any lesser charges will undoubtedly trigger more BLM riots.

  Conveniently, these powderkeg events are taking place at the onset of the warm spring and summer months, which is prime time for riots.

  My concern is that civil unrest will be allowed to spread and fester in the US until regular citizens start taking matters into their own hands. And, of course, any community that tries to defend itself against looting and destruction will be accused of “racist aggression” – At which time the Biden Administration will then try to assert the authority to institute martial law measures in various regions. This combined with renewed attempts at covid lockdowns is a highly likely scenario.

  Cyber Polygon

  Just as the Event 201 simulation of a coronavirus pandemic preceded the real thing by only two months, there are concerns that the next World Economic Forum simulation event will also be a precursor to another crisis.

  Cyber Polygon is a war game being held by the WEF this July which is meant to simulate a major cyber attack on the global supply chain and the economic system. There has been endless discussion int the media the past year building up fears of cyber attacks by Russia, China, Iran and even North Korea.

  In terms of supply chain threats, I’m not sure exactly how a cyber attack could do much to disrupt global shipping, unless we are talking about another blockage in a major shipping route like the Suez Canal. But, a successful attack on stock exchanges in places like Wall Street could be devastating. I suggest watching this event carefully as it may be designed to precede a real cyber attack sometime this year.

  Global War Tensions

  The media and the Biden Administration are very busy trying to create tensions with Russia over Ukraine. There are renewed tensions between Iran and Israel and continued destabilization by the West in Syria. And, a rising danger of confrontation with China over Taiwan.

  War could be the goal, or, the goal could merely be economic conflict. After all, China has already been dumping dollars and US treasuries the past year, and it would not take much to cause damage to the dollar’s world reserve status if China and Russia both diversified into a basket of currencies for global trade.

  Beyond that, there are many advantages for globalists in creating regional wars and drawing Americans into pointless conflicts. For example, the threat of war could be used to institute a new draft. What better way to keep American men in particular busy and stop them from rebellion against the Reset than to draft them so they can die in a meaningless war overseas?

  There is also a narrative advantage to global tensions; when presented with a foreign threat, are Americans more likely to reject notions of rebellion against government trespasses? I have no doubt that the establishment will try to claim the liberty movement is not a movement for freedom, but an “astro-turf” movement created by the Russians to destabilize America. This has been the leftist media propaganda strategy for years now; so why would they stop?

  The bottom line is this: America is the primary target of the globalists because we are one of the only countries with the means and the numbers to stop them and the Reset. Until they are removed from the equation they will continue to throw crisis after crisis at us in order to wear us down and force us to accept totalitarianism. Do not get too comfortable in the fact that the pandemic agenda is failing here; stay alert and continue to organize your communities.

  *  *  *

  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
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 23:40

• "I Shoot a Bunch of 3D Printed Guns – Do My Hands Survive?"
  “I Shoot a Bunch of 3D Printed Guns – Do My Hands Survive?”

  A decentralized network of 3D printed gun advocates is mobilizing online and quickly revolutionizing gun designs, sharing blueprints, advice, and building a community. There’s no easy way the federal government can halt this movement as President Biden, not too long ago, declared war on “ghost guns.” 

  YouTuber Sean with “The 3D Print General” attended “Bear Arms N’ Bitcoin” on April 10-11 in Texas. The first day involved top experts and practitioners that gave the audience actionable steps on how to print 3D guns at home. The second day, readers should be excited for this, was when Sean attended “shooting rad guns” day. 

  

  The event was held at Onion Creek Gun Club, located in Austin, Texas. Sean shot various 3D-printed weapons, such as the FGC-9, which stands for “f**k gun control 9 mm.” As we’ve noted, the FGC-9 can be printed entirely at home for the cost of $350, including the printer’s cost. 

  

  In the video “I Shoot a Bunch of 3D Printed Guns – Do My Hands Survive?” Sean test-fired an array of 3D-printed guns. In the last decade, the printing technology behind these weapons without serial numbers has drastically improved that it’s rare a gun explodes in someone’s hand as the early models did. Sean proves it; not one of these guns he fired at the range exploded in his hand. In fact, some of the weapons appeared to be high-tech or even futuristic. 

  

  Without further adieu, here’s Sean test firing 3D printed weapons. 

  When it comes to the Biden administration waging war on ghost guns  – well – good luck, what are they going to do – ban printers?

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 23:20

• Thirdworldization: The Slow Burning SHTF Of America
  Thirdworldization: The Slow Burning SHTF Of America

  Authored by Fabian Ommar via The Organic Prepper blog,

  The developed world, accustomed to safety, convenience, and comfort, is facing a slow-burning SHTF called Thirdworldization by some. Each time humankind faces some tribulation like the one we’re currently going through, it feels like the world is coming to an end. In many senses, the threat is present: a pandemic is a serious SHTF. It IS the end for many. 

  But the real SHTF isn’t just the pandemic – it’s the effects on the system that Selco warned us about from the very beginning.

  The ramifications of such events as Covid-19 and government responses are real and long-lasting. Despite theories surrounding COVID-19 (conspiratorial or not), the fact is real damage has happened to the economy and our lifestyle. To those who say we’ve been through a lot since March 2020, I’d argue we haven’t yet seen the full range of consequences. Objectively, we’re not even out of the pandemic.

  

  The question remains: how and when will this Thirdworldization play out?

  I concede this doom-and-gloom talk is growing old and burning out even among preppers. But we’re not talking probabilities: it’s already happening.

  We must face reality and accept things are not going back to normal any time soon (if ever). It may indeed get worse before it starts getting better again. It’s past time to stop waiting for Black Swans and pay attention to subtle changes already underway.

  It’s been a different SHTF for each country, each business, each family, and each person. On a more broad scale, there’s no way to tell for sure whether it will be a storm, “the” perfect storm,” or something in between. These things unfold slowly – the proverbial frog in the pot (until they catch up). As always, multiple interests and powerful forces are acting simultaneously in different directions, which means lots of possible ramifications.

  Global crises affect countries in different intensities and manners

  Global-scale SHTF hit some places faster and worse than others. Good and bad are never evenly distributed. The capacity of a nation and its population to withstand and overcome disaster depend on many factors. These include the size, strength, and resiliency of the economy. Also, how solid, functional, and credible the institutions are, the social fabric’s stability, etc. 

  Those and others dictate whether a country will suffer more or less the effects of a global economic setback. But as it’s happening with the pandemic, no one will come out unscathed: some will feel the impact of migration, others (eventually) by war. At the same time, some will see internal conflicts, currency devaluation, martial law, coups, political instability, social eruptions, and more. Much of that is already taking place in various places around the globe.

  It’s impossible to get the timing right or know what will happen, but trends can be forecast

  These and other events are hitting differently even inside the same country: some regions are “normal,” while others suffer badly. That’s one of the factors driving the migrational movements within the U.S. Many people are moving to different states. People go wherever they receive better treatment.

  You should already have a grip on your local zeitgeist. If you don’t, maybe it’s a good idea to start paying attention to the social, political, economic, and institutional moods in your piece of land. That will help tell which way things go when SHTF. You don’t want to get caught on the wrong side of the fence if it happens. 

  And that’s how we get to Thirdworldization

  Thirdworldization is a slow-burning SHTF for those living in developed countries, used to comfort, convenience, and security.

  Thirdworldization is the gradual and inevitable impoverishment of a rich country. It is the visible effect of major crises hitting square on the population, institutions, corporations, and even the government. It spreads insidiously in every aspect of daily life and our small circles. 

  Less growth means less wealth, less money circulating for everyone to take care of necessities and obligations. This shrinking economy brings all sorts of declines that affect services, infrastructure, the supply chain, institutions, and changing the population’s lives and routines.

  The economy has a direct impact on the structure and foundation of social order. As an engineer, I tend to analyze structures and foundations by force of my work before assessing other factors. If those are in bad shape, the rest can’t be good. That holds true for a family, a company, a city, or a country.

  The standard of living is dropping significantly everywhere

  Even though the rich are getting richer, they will be affected by the destruction of the middle class and the poor becoming miserable. The wealthy don’t build their own houses, grow their own food, nor collect their own trash. But like rich countries and corporations, they’re much less affected because wealth can soften the blow and pay for a lot during hard times – or should I say, especially during hard times. 

  For the rest (the great majority of society), there’s SHTF as the unfolding of the economic decline is reflected in various aspects as described below. 

  Criminality

  Crime on the rise is shocking America. Many factors contribute to that: joblessness, homelessness, financial struggle, disillusionment, and anger. Dwindling resources mean a reduction in the capacity of governments and authorities to keep society safe. There’s an overall defunding of not only the police but the entire crime-fighting apparatus: ostensive, preventative, and investigative work, departments of justice, social support, prisons and corrections, everything.

  How it plays out: All kinds of crimes jump and tend to become more violent, too. Expect (and prepare for) rises in everything from minor scams to drug traffic (and consumption), bank robberies, kidnappings, arson, home invasions, homicides. Honest citizens may not engage in violent actions, but bribing, corruption, extortions, black market, misappropriations, tax evasion, and others become widespread. Sociopaths and psychopaths feel more emboldened: rapes, killings, vengeance acts, gang wars, fights, and similar also tend to increase. 

  Homelessness

  Homelessness exploded in the U.S. and other western countries in 2020. It’s still on the rise with no signs of getting better anytime soon. Some argue it’s not as bad as it would have been (and can become) without the aggressive forbearance and moratorium programs implemented by governments. But this has side effects. What will happen when these suspensions end? And if they extend, what will be the unintended consequences? It is hard to predict, but eviction waves could throw millions into the streets in months and years ahead if the crisis worsens. Homelessness can also get boosted by mass migration, as we’ll see below.

  How it plays out: During the 1930’s Great Depression, cities everywhere saw the growth of squatter areas and shantytowns. New York’s Central Park became Hooverville, a giant slum right in the middle of America’s biggest and wealthiest city at the time. Whole areas in L.A., San Francisco, and many other towns across the U.S. have already become tent cities. These are ripe for crime, exploitation, drug trafficking, violence, disease, and political manipulation. 

  Immigration

  Immigration is serious and can turn into major geopolitical issues in some regions. Migration waves can be impossible to contain, as people desperately try to flee conflicted countries searching for better conditions elsewhere, even at great risks. Sudden, large internal movements can create imbalances internally and bring unforeseen consequences. People leave cities for the country or move to other states to avoid the rising taxes and crime, loss of freedom, or other threats.

  How it plays out: Countries in better shape could face massive migration waves. The entire network of support put in place to control, minimize impacts, and give immigrants support can weaken. Significant or sudden movements may overwhelm border control. Immigrants in large numbers can cripple social support systems. That makes things harder for the population, sparking crime and violent actions from both sides.

  Private Services and Products

  Manufacturers and companies across the board are required to cut costs everywhere to stay afloat or keep profits. It reflects directly on the quality and variety of products and services provided to the population.

  How it plays out: There will be an overall drop in quality and more inferior ingredients used to manufacture items and produce food. We will experience crowded, inefficient, slow customer support by poorly trained and low-paid workers. Strikes may cause disruptions and delays. 

  Public Services

  I have friends living in wealthy, developed countries. They complain a lot about the quality of public services, the bureaucracy, the inefficiency. Sure enough, it’s (almost always) subpar when compared to private counterparts. But they have no idea how good they have it compared to underdeveloped or even developing places. They don’t know how bad this can get. Is USPS’s announcement that First Class mail will have longer delivery times and will cost more a glimpse of things to come?

  How it plays out: Overwhelmed systems, (even more) disincentivized agents. Longer lines, longer waiting, slow or no response, more bureaucracy, squandering, etc. Many welfare programs will go extinct. There will be lower-quality education, transportation, childcare, healthcare, etc. Strikes and corruption are other effects of the Thirdworldization of public services 

  Infrastructure

  Without constant investment in maintenance, expansion, and rebuilding, the entire infrastructure becomes derelict. More than 50 bridges have collapsed worldwide since 2015. Roads will be in dire need of maintenance. Billions of gallons of treated water get lost daily in leakages (estimates talk about one water main break every two minutes in the U.S.). There may be issues in the energy sector. Airports and ports will postpone expansions and modernizations, and so on.

  How it plays out: Despite talks of megalomaniac infrastructure programs everywhere to “save the economy and promote growth” (governments love doing this when crises erupt), disruptions, rationing, supply rotations, closings, and more are much more frequent during prolonged recessions.

  Sanitation

  Trash removal and disposal drains a large portion of city and state budgets. As it happens to other public services, once tax revenue drops, these impacts and effects can drag on for years. Sewage and water treatment systems cease expansion and quality and safety drops. Does anyone remember the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, just five years ago?

  “Nearly half a decade has passed since the water crisis in Flint captured the attention of America, during which toxic water was delivered to a city of nearly 100,000 people for 18 months before the state acknowledged the problem.”

  How it plays out: Those who watched the movie Joker may remember the streets full of trash, rats, and graffiti. Many 80’s movies have that decadent “look and feel.” Dim cities, with boarded-up storefronts and “for rent” or “sale” signs everywhere. That’s the portrait of slow-burning SHTF. What’s missing in films is the smell, the diseases, the flies, rats, and insects present in real life. 

  Inflation, Deflation, Taxation, and Confiscations

  The inflation vs. deflation debate is raging among the macroeconomic experts right now. It’s a hard bet as there are pressures for both to turn out. And indeed, both could take place at the same time (in different areas). It’s that crazy. Prices are already all over the place, with inflation running hot in some items/sectors and deflation in others. Whatever happens, rest assured the “non-essentials” (that’s you, me, and the 99%) will be called to foot the bill, so get prepared for that.

  How it plays out: Price fluctuations, insecurity, bank runs. Rises in fuel affect prices of everything else. Inflation can show in perversely subtle ways: dilutions and reductions in quantity/portions effectively raise products’ price. Shortages and a drastic reduction in product variety are other common effects of highly dysfunctional economies. Taxation will explode – this is already being talk-tested everywhere. 

  Confiscations can happen, too. One day after taking office in 1990, the newly elected government in Brazil seized money from bank accounts “on grounds to reduce liquidity and fight rampant inflation.” The seizure left citizens without their savings and only 50k in currency. It was a stupid plan that didn’t work (it should’ve caused a revolution, but I digress). Such insanities have happened in other places in recent times. They could happen again because governments can become dictatorial and change laws and rules or do anything if conditions are in place (desperate times).

  Some other third-world things that first-world people might not know about (yet)

  Just like countries are affected differently, so do the various layers of society. High levels of inequality exacerbate some bizarre distortions people living in rich and developed countries might have only seen in dystopian movies. But the things listed below exist and could become a reality if things keep going south.

  Social contract

  Large social inequalities are incredibly poisonous: they destroy the social fabric faster than you can say “who messed with my stimulus check?”.

  Two very adverse effects are radical divisiveness and a rise in crime and violence. It affects everybody, from top to bottom: trust in other people, institutions, and even in the collective disappears. It becomes impossible to lower the guard, and that is stressful. And even for those fortunate enough to get by okay, it sucks to live in a society where most of the population is struggling so hard (and failing) to live with a minimum of decency. How can someone be genuinely happy surrounded by misery? The answer is, no one can.

  High Walls

  In unsafe societies, every house and building has high (as in 10ft. tall or higher) protection walls, either masonry or steel bars, lockers, cameras, electrical fences, and barbed wire (concertina). For citizens accustomed to open front yards and unprotected houses, it looks like a bunch of high-security prisons (only it’s in reverse: the ones “locked” are the rich trying to stay safe from the violent mobs).

  Slums

  The “favelas” (slums) of Rio de Janeiro are worldwide famous, shown as “communities” where everyone is friendly and loves to dance to the samba. It is a vibrant and unique scene in some places, but the reality is that many are unsafe, unhealthy places where drug traffic and militia rule with iron hands. The government and public power have almost no presence and oversight: there’s little to no sanitation and safety, health, education, and other precarious services. If the standard of living drops for long enough, slums may become a lot more common in countries and places where they previously didn’t exist. 

  Private security

  Off-duty cops do double-duty as security agents or consultants for companies, commerce, and individuals, either as private guards, security personnel, or security consultants. It’s not legalized but also not enforced, nonetheless a big thing, an organized multimillion-dollar business with huge companies competing with each other. 

  Armored vehicles

  In 2014 Brazil already had the most extensive fleet of armored cars globally (not an enviable title). I’m not talking about expensive, luxury cars driven by (or for) the ultra-rich, high-profile personalities and figureheads: even the middle-class look for ballistic protection, especially for women and children. It’s a big industry here. Much bigger than in conflicted nations. Criminals are armed and violent, even against the police. When crime soars, the armoring industry booms. 

  Preparing for the possibility of Thirdworldization

  There are no downsides to investing in awareness, creativity, mentality, and determination (and some preparations).

  These are not predictions. Perhaps a chronicle of what happens in poorer countries and has happened before in rich ones during crises. We can already see some signs and even developments, and if you believe this kind of SHTF is somehow coming your way, you may want to prepare. Here are few tips that might help:

  • Mental strength: accept reality and learn to deal with all sides’ psychological pressures, including ourselves. Even though, at times, it may seem like there’s no option. As Churchill once said, “If you’re going through hell, just keep going.” Everyone is in this together, and no one is special. 

  • One day and one problem at a time: It’s easier to deal with one issue, focus on what we can control, and live the present than it is to worry about the significant, long-term issues that are out of our control. We usually suffer more in imagination than in reality.

  • Independence: Realistically, being independent and living off-grid is for a few. But everyone can benefit from growing more self-reliant wherever that is possible. Grow some food, learn new skills, recycle and reuse, invest in generating part of your power, build situational awareness, etc.

  • Financially savvy: Seek economy and finance education as a way to mitigate or defend from inflation (or deflation), to invest and make money grow and last longer. Read about life in times of crises and inflation, like the ’70s and ’80s.

  • Economically viable: Invest in alternative income sources. Today there are hundreds of ways to make money without even leaving home. Even a little can make a difference if the belts get tightened further.

  • Help others: It will be hard for almost everyone but harder for some. If you are fortunate enough to be in a relatively good situation, look around and try to help others. It doesn’t have to be with money or goods: donate time, teach skills, even listening can bring support and relief. Helping others is a way to help ourselves, too.

  Have you noticed a reduced standard of living in your area?

  Have you seen a reduced standard of living in your area or a wider disparity between rich and poor? Are you noticing any of the Thirdworldization effects happening near you or are there some things you’ve seen on the news that surprised you when you realized they were happening here?

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 23:00

• Democrats Brace For 'Defund The Police' Movement To Damage Party Into Midterms
  Democrats Brace For ‘Defund The Police’ Movement To Damage Party Into Midterms

  In the wake of George Floyd’s death and several other high-profile incidents between black Americans and police, calls rang out across the country to defund the police – a movement which Democratic lawmakers largely supported.

  

  Yet, after several cities did just that, crime rates soared, and demoralized cops quit or retired early after what seemed like half of the country vilified them – leaving police forces spread thin as BLM and Antifa riots led to widespread looting, arson, and property damage throughout the country.

  Both Minneapolis and Portland, for example, woefully regretted defunding their police departments.

  And while the Democrats won both the White House and retook the Senate in the 2020 election, the impact of defunding the police took its toll, contributing to their very narrow majorities in both chambers.

  Democrats lost seats in the House and lost Senate races in states where they thought they had a chance, including North Carolina and Montana. At least some officials blame those losses on the defund the police debate.

  Republicans believe the defund the police narrative is a political gift they can use again to win over swing voters and to energize their own political base. -The Hill

  Now, with the George Floyd trial in full swing – and the very real possibility that former officer Derek Chauvin will be acquitted of his murder – as well as brewing protests over the recent Minneapolis shooting death of a 20-year-old black suspect by a white female officer who says she meant to grab her Taser, moderate Democrats are bracing for another round of calls to defund the police, and the violence which is sure to follow.

  And while the far-left contingent in Congress openly supports defunding the police – such as Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), who says she’s “done with those who condone government funded murder,” moderate Dems realize this may come back to bite them during the 2022 midterm elections.

  It wasn’t an accident. Policing in our country is inherently & intentionally racist.

  Daunte Wright was met with aggression & violence. I am done with those who condone government funded murder.

  No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can’t be reformed.

  — Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) April 12, 2021

  Via The Hill:

  But while most Democrats share the outrage over the deaths of Floyd, Daunte Wright, Breonna Taylor and a seemingly ever-growing list of Black Americans killed by police, they diverge sharply over whether defunding the police is the solution — or simply a phrase that will cost Democrats elections and leave them without the power to foment change.

  “I mean, this defund the police was just a terrible drag on the Democratic Party. It really was. Don’t kid yourself,” veteran Democratic strategist James Carville told Bill Kristol in an interview for the Weekly Standard earlier this month.

  “This is music to the Republican minority’s ears in Washington,” according to GOP strategist, Ford O’Connell. “That is more powerful for Republicans than any perfectly scripted message.”

  Meanwhile, GOP Senators homed in on an op-ed written by Biden’s Justice Department nominee for the civil rights division – in which she’d advocated for defunding the police.

  “You just said you don’t support cutting funds from police,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), adding “I find that astonishing and, Ms. [Kristen] Clarke, frankly not credible because I’m holding the article you wrote.”

  Clarke replied that she doesn’t support defunding police departments, and that the headline of the Op-Ed was poorly worded.

  Democrats recognize the threat that the ‘defund’ movement poses.

  “The one thing we cannot allow is for Republicans to use this as a weapon of mass distraction,” said Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright in a statement to The Hill. “Or as a weapon of mass political destruction as they have done in the past,” whatever that means.

  “I think the ability — using terms like defund the police have led to Democratic losses in this last year,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) in November. Warner was joined by fellow Virginia Democrat Abigail Spanberger, who pointed to progressive proposals to reallocate police funds as the reason more than a half-dozen moderate lawmakers lost their seats in the last election.

  According to polls, defunding the police does not have widespread support. According to a recent USA Today-Ipsos poll, just 20% of Americans support the movement. That said, polling last year in the wake of George Floyd’s death revealed that over half the country, 58%, say that changes are needed to policing.

  “We can’t allow them, meaning the opposition, to try to paint this picture that we are anti-police. We’re just pro-good policing,” said Seawright. “We have to do something at the federal level, for certain.”

  The Biden administration, meanwhile, falls on the side of ‘reform’ but not ‘defund.’

  ““The president’s view is that there are necessary, outdated reforms that should be put in place; that there is accountability that needs to happen; that the loss of life is far too high; that these families are suffering around the country; and that the Black community is exhausted from the ongoing threats they feel,” according to White House press secretary Jen Psaki, adding: “But he also believes that there is a forum for putting in place legislation, the George Floyd Act, that can help put many of these necessary reforms in place, and that part of what needs to happen is rebuilding trust in communities in order to get to a better place.”

  Apparently some Democrats realize that virtue signaling has consequences.

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

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 22:40

• The Military Origins Of Facebook, Part 1
  The Military Origins Of Facebook, Part 1

  Authored by Whitney Webb via UnlimitedHangout.com,

  Facebook’s growing role in the ever-expanding surveillance and “pre-crime” apparatus of the national security state demands new scrutiny of the company’s origins and its products as they relate to a former, controversial DARPA-run surveillance program that was essentially analogous to what is currently the world’s largest social network.

  

  In mid-February, Daniel Baker, a US veteran described by the media as “anti-Trump, anti-government, anti-white supremacists, and anti-police,” was charged by a Florida grand jury with two counts of “transmitting a communication in interstate commerce containing a threat to kidnap or injure.”

  The communication in question had been posted by Baker on Facebook, where he had created an event page to organize an armed counter-rally to one planned by Donald Trump supporters at the Florida capital of Tallahassee on January 6. “If you are afraid to die fighting the enemy, then stay in bed and live. Call all of your friends and Rise Up!,” Baker had written on his Facebook event page.

  Baker’s case is notable as it is one of the first “precrime” arrests based entirely on social media posts—the logical conclusion of the Trump administration’s, and now Biden administration’s, push to normalize arresting individuals for online posts to prevent violent acts before they can happen. From the increasing sophistication of US intelligence/military contractor Palantir’s predictive policing programs to the formal announcement of the Justice Department’s Disruption and Early Engagement Program in 2019 to Biden’s first budget, which contains $111 million for pursuing and managing “increasing domestic terrorism caseloads,” the steady advance toward a precrime-centered “war on domestic terror” has been notable under every post-9/11 presidential administration.

  This new so-called war on domestic terror has actually resulted in many of these types of posts on Facebook. And, while Facebook has long sought to portray itself as a “town square” that allows people from across the world to connect, a deeper look into its apparently military origins and continual military connections reveals that the world’s largest social network was always intended to act as a surveillance tool to identify and target domestic dissent.

  Part 1 of this two-part series on Facebook and the US national-security state explores the social media network’s origins and the timing and nature of its rise as it relates to a controversial military program that was shut down the same day that Facebook launched. The program, known as LifeLog, was one of several controversial post-9/11 surveillance programs pursued by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) that threatened to destroy privacy and civil liberties in the United States while also seeking to harvest data for producing “humanized” artificial intelligence (AI). 

  As this report will show, Facebook is not the only Silicon Valley giant whose origins coincide closely with this same series of DARPA initiatives and whose current activities are providing both the engine and the fuel for a hi-tech war on domestic dissent.

  DARPA’s Data Mining for “National Security” and to “Humanize” AI

  In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, DARPA, in close collaboration with the US intelligence community (specifically the CIA), began developing a “precrime” approach to combatting terrorism known as Total Information Awareness or TIA. The purpose of TIA was to develop an “all-seeing” military-surveillance apparatus. The official logic behind TIA was that invasive surveillance of the entire US population was necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, bioterrorism events, and even naturally occurring disease outbreaks. 

  The architect of TIA, and the man who led it during its relatively brief existence, was John Poindexter, best known for being Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisor during the Iran-Contra affair and for being convicted of five felonies in relation to that scandal. A less well-known activity of Iran-Contra figures like Poindexter and Oliver North was their development of the Main Core database to be used in “continuity of government” protocols. Main Core was used to compile a list of US dissidents and “potential troublemakers” to be dealt with if the COG protocols were ever invoked. These protocols could be invoked for a variety of reasons, including widespread public opposition to a US military intervention abroad, widespread internal dissent, or a vaguely defined moment of “national crisis” or “time of panic.” Americans were not informed if their name was placed on the list, and a person could be added to the list for merely having attended a protest in the past, for failing to pay taxes, or for other, “often trivial,” behaviors deemed “unfriendly” by its architects in the Reagan administration. 

  In light of this, it was no exaggeration when New York Times columnist William Safire remarked that, with TIA, “Poindexter is now realizing his twenty-year dream: getting the ‘data-mining’ power to snoop on every public and private act of every American.”

  The TIA program met with considerable citizen outrage after it was revealed to the public in early 2003. TIA’s critics included the American Civil Liberties Union, which claimed that the surveillance effort would “kill privacy in America” because “every aspect of our lives would be catalogued,” while several mainstream media outlets warned that TIA was “fighting terror by terrifying US citizens.” As a result of the pressure, DARPA changed the program’s name to Terrorist Information Awareness to make it sound less like a national-security panopticon and more like a program aiming specifically at terrorists in the post-9/11 era. 

  

  The logo for DARPA’s Information Awareness Office, which oversaw Total Information Awareness during its brief existence

  The TIA projects were not actually closed down, however, with most moved to the classified portfolios of the Pentagon and US intelligence community. Some became intelligence funded and guided private-sector endeavors, such as Peter Thiel’s Palantir, while others resurfaced years later under the guise of combatting the COVID-19 crisis. 

  Soon after TIA was initiated, a similar DARPA program was taking shape under the direction of a close friend of Poindexter’s, DARPA program manager Douglas Gage. Gage’s project, LifeLog, sought to “build a database tracking a person’s entire existence” that included an individual’s relationships and communications (phone calls, mail, etc.), their media-consumption habits, their purchases, and much more in order to build a digital record of “everything an individual says, sees, or does.” LifeLog would then take this unstructured data and organize it into “discreet episodes” or snapshots while also “mapping out relationships, memories, events and experiences.”

  LifeLog, per Gage and supporters of the program, would create a permanent and searchable electronic diary of a person’s entire life, which DARPA argued could be used to create next-generation “digital assistants” and offer users a “near-perfect digital memory.” Gage insisted, even after the program was shut down, that individuals would have had “complete control of their own data-collection efforts” as they could “decide when to turn the sensors on or off and decide who will share the data.” In the years since then, analogous promises of user control have been made by the tech giants of Silicon Valley, only to be broken repeatedly for profit and to feed the government’s domestic-surveillance apparatus.

  The information that LifeLog gleaned from an individual’s every interaction with technology would be combined with information obtained from a GPS transmitter that tracked and documented the person’s location, audio-visual sensors that recorded what the person saw and said, as well as biomedical monitors that gauged the person’s health. Like TIA, LifeLog was promoted by DARPA as potentially supporting “medical research and the early detection of an emerging epidemic.”

  Critics in mainstream media outlets and elsewhere were quick to point out that the program would inevitably be used to build profiles on dissidents as well as suspected terrorists. Combined with TIA’s surveillance of individuals at multiple levels, LifeLog went farther by “adding physical information (like how we feel) and media data (like what we read) to this transactional data.” One critic, Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, warned at the time that the programs that DARPA was pursuing, including LifeLog, “have obvious, easy paths to Homeland Security deployments.” 

  At the time, DARPA publicly insisted that LifeLog and TIA were not connected, despite their obvious parallels, and that LifeLog would not be used for “clandestine surveillance.” However, DARPA’s own documentation on LifeLog noted that the project “will be able . . . to infer the user’s routines, habits and relationships with other people, organizations, places and objects, and to exploit these patterns to ease its task,” which acknowledged its potential use as a tool of mass surveillance.

  In addition to the ability to profile potential enemies of the state, LifeLog had another goal that was arguably more important to the national-security state and its academic partners—the “humanization” and advancement of artificial intelligence. In late 2002, just months prior to announcing the existence of LifeLog, DARPA released a strategy document detailing development of artificial intelligence by feeding it with massive floods of data from various sources. 

  The post-9/11 military-surveillance projects—LifeLog and TIA being only two of them—offered quantities of data that had previously been unthinkable to obtain and that could potentially hold the key to achieving the hypothesized “technological singularity.” The 2002 DARPA document even discusses DARPA’s effort to create a brain-machine interface that would feed human thoughts directly into machines to advance AI by keeping it constantly awash in freshly mined data. 

  One of the projects outlined by DARPA, the Cognitive Computing Initiative, sought to develop sophisticated artificial intelligence through the creation of an “enduring personalized cognitive assistant,” later termed the Perceptive Assistant that Learns, or PAL. PAL, from the very beginning was tied to LifeLog, which was originally intended to result in granting an AI “assistant” human-like decision-making and comprehension abilities by spinning masses of unstructured data into narrative format. 

  The would-be main researchers for the LifeLog project also reflect the program’s end goal of creating humanized AI. For instance, Howard Shrobe at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and his team at the time were set to be intimately involved in LifeLog. Shrobe had previously worked for DARPA on the “evolutionary design of complex software” before becoming associate director of the AI Lab at MIT and has devoted his lengthy career to building “cognitive-style AI.” In the years after LifeLog was cancelled, he again worked for DARPA as well as on intelligence community–related AI research projects. In addition, the AI Lab at MIT was intimately connected with the 1980s corporation and DARPA contractor called Thinking Machines, which was founded by and/or employed many of the lab’s luminaries—including Danny Hillis, Marvin Minsky, and Eric Lander—and sought to build AI supercomputers capable of human-like thought. All three of these individuals were later revealed to be close associates of and/or sponsored by the intelligence-linked pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who also generously donated to MIT as an institution and was a leading funder of and advocate for transhumanist-related scientific research.

  Soon after the LifeLog program was shuttered, critics worried that, like TIA, it would continue under a different name. For example, Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation told VICE at the time of LifeLog’s cancellation, “It would not surprise me to learn that the government continued to fund research that pushed this area forward without calling it LifeLog.”

  Along with its critics, one of the would-be researchers working on LifeLog, MIT’s David Karger, was also certain that the DARPA project would continue in a repackaged form. He told Wired that “I am sure such research will continue to be funded under some other title . . . I can’t imagine DARPA ‘dropping out’ of a such a key research area.” 

  The answer to these speculations appears to lie with the company that launched the exact same day that LifeLog was shuttered by the Pentagon: Facebook.

  Thiel Information Awareness

  After considerable controversy and criticism, in late 2003, TIA was shut down and defunded by Congress, just months after it was launched. It was only later revealed that that TIA was never actually shut down, with its various programs having been covertly divided up among the web of military and intelligence agencies that make up the US national-security state. Some of it was privatized.

  The same month that TIA was pressured to change its name after growing backlash, Peter Thiel incorporated Palantir, which was, incidentally, developing the core panopticon software that TIA had hoped to wield. Soon after Palantir’s incorporation in 2003, Richard Perle, a notorious neoconservative from the Reagan and Bush administrations and an architect of the Iraq War, called TIA’s Poindexter and said he wanted to introduce him to Thiel and his associate Alex Karp, now Palantir’s CEO. According to a report in New York magazine, Poindexter “was precisely the person” whom Thiel and Karp wanted to meet, mainly because “their new company was similar in ambition to what Poindexter had tried to create at the Pentagon,” that is, TIA. During that meeting, Thiel and Karp sought “to pick the brain of the man now widely viewed as the godfather of modern surveillance.”

  

  Peter Thiel speaks at the World Economic Forum in 2013, Source: Mirko Ries Courtesy for the World Economic Forum

  Soon after Palantir’s incorporation, though the exact timing and details of the investment remain hidden from the public, the CIA’s In-Q-Tel became the company’s first backer, aside from Thiel himself, giving it an estimated $2 million. In-Q-Tel’s stake in Palantir would not be publicly reported until mid-2006. 

  The money was certainly useful. In addition, Alex Karp told the New York Times in October 2020, “the real value of the In-Q-Tel investment was that it gave Palantir access to the CIA analysts who were its intended clients.” A key figure in the making of In-Q-Tel investments during this period, including the investment in Palantir, was the CIA’s chief information officer, Alan Wade, who had been the intelligence community’s point man for Total Information Awareness. Wade had previously cofounded the post-9/11 Homeland Security software contractor Chiliad alongside Christine Maxwell, sister of Ghislaine Maxwell and daughter of Iran-Contra figure, intelligence operative, and media baron Robert Maxwell. 

  After the In-Q-Tel investment, the CIA would be Palantir’s only client until 2008. During that period, Palantir’s two top engineers—Aki Jain and Stephen Cohen—traveled to CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, every two weeks. Jain recalls making at least two hundred trips to CIA headquarters between 2005 and 2009. During those regular visits, CIA analysts “would test [Palantir’s software] out and offer feedback, and then Cohen and Jain would fly back to California to tweak it.” As with In-Q-Tel’s decision to invest in Palantir, the CIA’s chief information officer during this time remained one of TIA’s architects. Alan Wade played a key role in many of these meetings and subsequently in the “tweaking” of Palantir’s products.

  Today, Palantir’s products are used for mass surveillance, predictive policing, and other disconcerting policies of the US national-security state. A telling example is Palantir’s sizable involvement in the new Health and Human Services–run wastewater surveillance program that is quietly spreading across the United States. As noted in a previous Unlimited Hangout report, that system is the resurrection of a TIA program called Biosurveillance. It is feeding all its data into the Palantir-managed and secretive HHS Protect data platform. The decision to turn controversial DARPA-led programs into a private ventures, however, was not limited to Thiel’s Palantir.

  The Rise of Facebook

  The shuttering of TIA at DARPA had an impact on several related programs, which were also dismantled in the wake of public outrage over DARPA’s post-9/11 programs. One of these programs was LifeLog. As news of the program spread through the media, many of the same vocal critics who had attacked TIA went after LifeLog with similar zeal, with Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists telling Wired at the time that “LifeLog has the potential to become something like ‘TIA cubed.’” LifeLog being viewed as something that would prove even worse than the recently cancelled TIA had a clear effect on DARPA, which had just seen both TIA and another related program cancelled after considerable backlash from the public and the press. 

  The firestorm of criticism of LifeLog took its program manager, Doug Gage, by surprise, and Gage has continued to assert that the program’s critics “completely mischaracterized” the goals and ambitions of the project. Despite Gage’s protests and those of LifeLog’s would-be researchers and other supporters, the project was publicly nixed on February 4, 2004. DARPA never provided an explanation for its quiet move to shutter LifeLog, with a spokesperson stating only that it was related to “a change in priorities” for the agency. On DARPA director Tony Tether’s decision to kill LifeLog, Gage later told VICE, “I think he had been burnt so badly with TIA that he didn’t want to deal with any further controversy with LifeLog. The death of LifeLog was collateral damage tied to the death of TIA.”

  Fortuitously for those supporting the goals and ambitions of LifeLog, a company that turned out to be its private-sector analogue was born on the same day that LifeLog’s cancellation was announced. On February 4, 2004, what is now the world’s largest social network, Facebook, launched its website and quickly rose to the top of the social media roost, leaving other social media companies of the era in the dust. 

  

  Sean Parker of Founders Fund speaks during the LeWeb conference in 2011, Source: @Kmeron for LeWeb11 @ Les Docks de Paris

  A few months into Facebook’s launch, in June 2004, Facebook cofounders Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz brought Sean Parker onto Facebook’s executive team. Parker, previously known for cofounding Napster, later connected Facebook with its first outside investor, Peter Thiel. As discussed, Thiel, at that time, in coordination with the CIA, was actively trying to resurrect controversial DARPA programs that had been dismantled the previous year. Notably, Sean Parker, who became Facebook’s first president, also had a history with the CIA, which recruited him at the age of sixteen soon after he had been busted by the FBI for hacking corporate and military databases. Thanks to Parker, in September 2004, Thiel formally acquired $500,000 worth of Facebook shares and was added its board. Parker maintained close ties to Facebook as well as to Thiel, with Parker being hired as a managing partner of Thiel’s Founders Fund in 2006.

  Thiel and Facebook cofounder Mosokvitz became involved outside of the social network long after Facebook’s rise to prominence, with Thiel’s Founder Fund becoming a significant investor in Moskovitz’s company Asana in 2012. Thiel’s longstanding symbiotic relationship with Facebook cofounders extends to his company Palantir, as the data that Facebook users make public invariably winds up in Palantir’s databases and helps drive the surveillance engine Palantir runs for a handful of US police departments, the military, and the intelligence community. In the case of the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, Palantir was also involved in utilizing Facebook data to benefit the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign. 

  Today, as recent arrests such as that of Daniel Baker have indicated, Facebook data is slated to help power the coming “war on domestic terror,” given that information shared on the platform is being used in “precrime” capture of US citizens, domestically. In light of this, it is worth dwelling on the point that Thiel’s exertions to resurrect the main aspects of TIA as his own private company coincided with his becoming the first outside investor in what was essentially the analogue of another DARPA program deeply intertwined with TIA. 

  Facebook, a Front

  Because of the coincidence that Facebook launched the same day that LifeLog was shut down, there has been recent speculation that Zuckerberg began and launched the project with Moskovitz, Saverin, and others through some sort of behind-the-scenes coordination with DARPA or another organ of the national-security state. While there is no direct evidence for this precise claim, the early involvement of Parker and Thiel in the project, particularly given the timing of Thiel’s other activities, reveals that the national-security state was involved in Facebook’s rise. It is debatable whether Facebook was intended from its inception to be a LifeLog analogue or if it happened to be the social media project that fit the bill after its launch. The latter seems more likely, especially considering that Thiel also invested in another early social media platform, Friendster. 

  An important point linking Facebook and LifeLog is the subsequent identification of Facebook with LifeLog by the latter’s DARPA architect himself. In 2015, Gage told VICE that “Facebook is the real face of pseudo-LifeLog at this point.” He tellingly added, “We have ended up providing the same kind of detailed personal information to advertisers and data brokers and without arousing the kind of opposition that LifeLog provoked.” 

  Users of Facebook and other large social media platforms have so far been content to allow these platforms to sell their private data so long as they publicly operate as private enterprises. Backlash only really emerged when such activities were publicly tied to the US government, and especially the US military, even though Facebook and other tech giants routinely share their users’ data with the national-security state. In practice, there is little difference between the public and private entities.

  Edward Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, notably warned in 2019 that Facebook is just as untrustworthy as US intelligence, stating that “Facebook’s internal purpose, whether they state it publicly or not, is to compile perfect records of private lives to the maximum extent of their capability, and then exploit that for their own corporate enrichment. And damn the consequences.”

  Snowden also stated in the same interview that “the more Google knows about you, the more Facebook knows about you, the more they are able . . . to create permanent records of private lives, the more influence and power they have over us.” This underscores how both Facebook and intelligence-linked Google have accomplished much of what LifeLog had aimed to do, but on a much larger scale than what DARPA had originally envisioned.

  The reality is that most of the large Silicon Valley companies of today have been closely linked to the US national-security state establishment since their inception. Notable examples aside from Facebook and Palantir include Google and Oracle. Today these companies are more openly collaborating with the military-intelligence agencies that guided their development and/or provided early funding, as they are used to provide the data needed to fuel the newly announced war on domestic terror and its accompanying algorithms. 

  It is hardly a coincidence that someone like Peter Thiel, who built Palantir with the CIA and helped ensure Facebook’s rise, is also heavily involved in Big Data AI-driven “predictive policing” approaches to surveillance and law enforcement, both through Palantir and through his other investments. TIA, LifeLog, and related government and private programs and institutions launched after 9/11, were always intended to be used against the American public in a war against dissent. This was noted by their critics in 2003-4 and by those who have examined the origins of the “homeland security” pivot in the US and its connection to past CIA “counterterror” programs in Vietnam and Latin America. 

  Ultimately, the illusion of Facebook and related companies as being independent of the US national-security state has prevented a recognition of the reality of social media platforms and their long-intended, yet covert uses, which we are beginning to see move into the open following the events of January 6. Now, with billions of people conditioned to use Facebook and social media as part of their daily lives, the question becomes: If that illusion were to be irrevocably shattered today, would it make a difference to Facebook’s users? Or has the populace become so conditioned to surrendering their private data in exchange for dopamine-fueled social-validation loops that it no longer matters who ends up holding that data?

  Part 2 of this series on Facebook will explore how the social media platform has grown into a behemoth that is much more extensive than what LifeLog’s program managers had originally envisioned. In concert with military contractors and former heads of DARPA, Facebook has spent the last several years doing two key things: (1) preparing to play a much larger role in surveillance and data mining than it currently does; and (2) advancing the development of a “humanized” AI, a major objective of LifeLog.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 22:20

• White House Dedicates $1.7 Billion To Tracking COVID Mutations Across US
  White House Dedicates $1.7 Billion To Tracking COVID Mutations Across US

  As President Biden’s COVID advisory team scrambles to turn the “fearmongering” dial about the threat posed by mutant strains of the virus that causes COVID-19, the White House is dedicating $1.7 billion in COVID relief funds to tracing the “variant” strains. This comes after Dr. Anthony Fauci and others have struggled to explain why the US lagged behind other western countries, such as the UK, in detecting and tracing the spread of these variants, which require more advanced analysis to identify.

  The money, taken from last month’s $1.9 trillion stimulus package, will help the CDC and individual states monitor emerging variants by boosting the country’s capacity to sequence the virus’s genome and detect mutations, the White House said. It comes as the B.1.1.7 variant, also known as “the Kent strain” from where it was first sequenced in the UK, is raising alarms as it is now one of – if not the most – common strains in hotspots like Michigan and NYC.

  

  B.1.1.7 and other variants are increasingly infecting younger children, prompting at least one respected epidemiologist – the University of Minnesota’s Michael Osterholm – to warn the press about a “brand new ball game” for fighting COVID (fortunately, Pfizer has been making swift progress in trials of its COVID-19 vaccine on increasingly youonger children).

  The money will be used for collecting COVID-19 samples, sequencing their genomes to identify the strain, and sharing the data, according to a fact sheet provided by the White House, which pointed to these “new and potentially dangerous strains” in its statement. The investment also includes $400MM to establish six “Centers of Excellence in Genomic Epidemiology,” a partnership between state health departments and academic institutions for research and development of the new strains, while also providing $300MM to create a national bioinformatics system to share and analyze sequencing data. The administration will dole out the first portion of the money in early May, with a second tranche expected to be invested over the next several years.

  “At this critical juncture in the pandemic, these new resources will help ensure states and the CDC have the support they need to fight back against dangerous variants and slow the spread of the virus,” White House COVID-19 Testing Coordinator Carole Johnson said in a statement.

  The administration published a factsheet with a complete breakdown of funding by state.

  * * *

  Funding from American Rescue Plan will help CDC and Governors monitor, track, and defeat emerging variants that are currently threatening pockets of the country.

  The original strain of COVID-19 comprises only about half of all cases in America today. New and potentially dangerous strains of the virus make up the other half. In order to improve the detection, monitoring, and mitigation of these COVID-19 variants, the Biden Administration is rapidly investing $1.7 billion from the American Rescue Plan to help states and other jurisdictions more effectively fight these mutations.

  An essential component of the response to the emerging COVID-19 variants is increasing the country’s genomic sequencing — the process by which COVID DNA is decoded and potentially deadly mutations in the virus are detected. Today’s funding, allocated through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), will help the CDC, states, and other jurisdictions more effectively detect and track variants by scaling genomic sequencing efforts. With the information from sequencing, the CDC and state and local public health leaders can implement known prevention measures to stop the spread.

  In early February, U.S. laboratories were only sequencing about 8,000 COVID-19 strains per week. Since then, the rate of sequencing has increased substantially, strengthening the country’s ability to detect and respond to emerging and more contagious COVID-19 strains, like the variants currently sweeping through the Midwest and parts of the East Coast. The Biden Administration has already made a nearly $200 million investment to help increase genomic sequencing to 29,000 samples per week. Thanks to today’s funding from the American Rescue Plan, states and the CDC will expand that even further and, importantly, provide states with more resources to expand their own efforts to increase geographic coverage of sequencing to better detect emerging threats like variants. This will mean that both existing and any new COVID variants could be detected faster, before they grow prevalent.

  Today’s announcement includes:

  • $1 billion to expand genomic sequencing: This funding will help CDC, states, and other jurisdictions improve their capacity to identify COVID mutations and monitor circulation of variants. Specifically, it will allow CDC and jurisdictional health departments to conduct, expand, and improve activities to sequence genomes and identify mutations in SARS-CoV-2. Much of this work is done through CDC partnerships with the laboratory community and through state laboratories, and the funding will support the collection of COVID specimens, the sequencing of COVID viruses, and the sharing of the resultant data. A state-by-state breakdown of the initial $240 million in jurisdictional funding support is below.
  • $400 million to support innovation initiatives including the launch of new innovative Centers of Excellence in Genomic Epidemiology: The funding will establish six Centers of Excellence in Genomic Epidemiology. These centers of excellence will operate as partnerships between state health departments and academic institutions, and today’s funding will fuel cutting-edge research into genomic epidemiology. For example, the partnerships could focus on developing new genomic surveillance tools to better track pathogens of public health interest with the objective of developing surveillance methods to be used more widely in the public health system. Areas of focus will likely include bioinformatic workflows and the critical integration of genomic and epidemiologic data.
  • $300 million to build and support a National Bioinformatics Infrastructure: One of the challenges of building out the nation’s sequencing capacity is having the data system necessary to quickly and effectively access information and turn it into concrete actions to prevent the spread of viruses. Experts use bioinformatics and complex computing to connect the dots between how pathogens spread and mutate to help solve outbreaks. This investment will support bioinformatics throughout the U.S. public health system, creating a unified system for sharing and analyzing sequence data in a way that protects privacy but allows more informed decisionmaking. This funding also will support training to increase sequencing in clinical settings and expand CDC’s Bioinformatics Fellowship program.

  USA Today pointed out that the US ranks 33rd in the world for its rate of sequencing, falling between Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe, according to COVID CoV Genomic, a group led by researchers at Harvard and MIT. The top three nations (Iceland, Australia and New Zealand) sequenced viral genomes at a rate 55 to 95 times greater.

  Notably, the money is being announced one day after Pfizer CEO Albert Bourlas told reporters that Americans would “likely” need a third vaccine shot within 12 months (and as soon as six months) after their second dose, and possibly annual jabs every year after that. But how will the public know to be afraid of the new mutant strains if the US can’t monitor their spread?

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 22:00

• The US Air Force Has Big Plans For The Hexa "Flying Car"
  The US Air Force Has Big Plans For The Hexa “Flying Car”

  Submitted by South Front,

  The Hexa is an electric vertical-takeoff-and-landing (eVTOL) wingless multicopter. It is developed by LIFT Aircraft, a Texas-based company. In May, the Air Force will start testing the “flying car” that was designed for the commercial market to be used in military missions, including rescuing troops, delivering cargo and conducting security checks over an airfield.

  In late March, one of the flying cars was loaded on a HC-130J and was transported from Ohio to Texas. This was a test to prove that eVTOL aircraft fit to be transported by U.S. military cargo planes.

  The initial test was with a single eVTOL, while a C-130H could carry up to four Hexa platforms, with newer C-130J models potentially able to transport five or six at a time.

  The first eVTOL prototype was unveiled in February 2021, and the first production units were delivered to the US Air Force for testing and air-worthiness certification.

  The Hexa isn’t exactly a flying car, it’s better described as a multi-rotor drone, which is considered an ultralight aircraft that doesn’t need a pilot’s license to fly.

  Such eVTOL capable of landing without a runway could be used to ferry troops and supplies needed to stand up operations, while also providing a platform for crisis response. The Hexa will undergo tests for all of these.

  Right now, Hexa’s abilities are limited and geared toward the commercial recreation market. The aircraft has room for one person and can fly for about 10-15 minutes and cover a range of 10-15 miles, depending on the payload. A person can learn to fly Hexa quickly because many of the flight systems are automated, but Lift plans to develop a fully automated version.

  In the future, the platform could potentially serve as an armed overwatch aircraft to protect ground troops. Even in its current, limited capability, the Hexa could be useful. While it can’t carry as much weight as required to satisfy certain logistics missions, it could transfer smaller cargo.

  eVTOL platforms with quiet electric engines and simple sustainment footprints could become key to the Air Force as it figures out how to operate away from large airfields, a concept known as agile combat employment, or ACE.

  In a war situation against China or Russia, it is likely that US bases in Europe would quickly be destroyed, for a while or permanently. In response, the US Air Force wants to be able to shift to a disaggregated style of fighting, where discrete packages of aircraft are temporarily deployed to smaller airfields across the globe that may not have large runways or established amenities.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 21:40

• Chinese Aluminum Price Soar To 11-Year Highs As Decarbonization Efforts Slash Energy To Smelters 
  Chinese Aluminum Price Soar To 11-Year Highs As Decarbonization Efforts Slash Energy To Smelters 

  Chinese aluminum prices moved higher Friday, hitting an 11-year high, exchange data showed, as Beijing embarks on the road to decarbonization, a move that has reduced energy to the power-hungry smelting hub located in Inner Mongolia, even as new capacity came on online, according to Mining.com. 

  The benchmark price for aluminum on the Shanghai Futures Exchange stood at 18,025 yuan ($2,764) per metric ton, an 11-year high. 

  

  In terms of dollars, SHFE aluminum futures printed at 2,800 per metric ton, a critical resistance level dating back more than a decade ago. 

  

  Analysts believe the price surge in aluminum is due to Bejing’s curb on aluminum output in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. 

  According to Mining.com,

  Primary aluminum output in the world’s top producer was up 8.5% year-on-year at 3.28 million tonnes in March, the National Bureau of Statistics said, beating the previous monthly high of 3.27 million tonnes reached in December 2020.

  High prices are incentivizing production, with Shanghai aluminum mostly holding above 17,000 yuan a tonne in March.

  Prices hit an 11-year high of 18,460 yuan on Friday.

  In July, aluminum for delivery was down 0.35% on Friday morning after futures touched $2.355 a tonne on the Comex market in New York.

  Meanwhile, the output of a group of 10 nonferrous metals – including copper, aluminum, lead, zinc, and nickel – rose 12.7% year-on-year in March to 5.48 million tonnes, the bureau said.

  However, daily aluminum output eased in March from the previous two months, Reuters calculations based on official data showed, dropping to around 105,800 tonnes per day versus 109,300 tonnes per day for January/February, a record.

  “March’s record output is due to a 500,000 tonne per year ramp-up of new capacity in the first quarter, offsetting the Inner Mongolia curbs,” CRU analyst Wan Ling told Reuters.

  “Some idle capacity has restarted or is going to restart, April production should be still a bit higher compared with March,” Wan said.

  “Data do indicate that China still has a considerable appetite for commodities,” Commerzbank analyst Daniel Briesemann said in a note.

  Consultancy AZ China estimates 279,000 tonnes of annual aluminum capacity across seven smelters were shut due to the energy curbs, exceeding its estimate of 130,000 tonnes of new capacity launched in China last month, all in Yunnan.

  China’s two-decade run as an aluminum juggernaut is running out of road. Decarbonization initiatives have reduced power to smelters as some are having trouble keeping up with demand as the country’s manufacturing sector experiences a growth spurt. 

  Domestic supply-chain stress are certainly developing in China as green policies start to kick in. 

  … and the one question we have is how will base metals react if China’s credit impulse begins to slip?

  

  A slowdown in credit creation would have dire consequences for commodity prices that have experienced a rip roar rally for nearly a year since the pandemic began following global central banks and countries pumping trillions of dollars into the respective economies. 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 21:20

• The CIA Used To Infiltrate The Media… Now The CIA Is The Media
  The CIA Used To Infiltrate The Media… Now The CIA Is The Media

  Authored by Caitlin Johnstone,

  Back in the good old days, when things were more innocent and simple, the psychopathic Central Intelligence Agency had to covertly infiltrate the news media to manipulate the information Americans were consuming about their nation and the world. Nowadays, there is no meaningful separation between the news media and the CIA at all.

  

  Journalist Glenn Greenwald just highlighted an interesting point about the reporting by The New York Times on the so-called “Bountygate” story the outlet broke in June of last year about the Russian government trying to pay Taliban-linked fighters to attack US soldiers in Afghanistan.

  “One of the NYT reporters who originally broke the Russia bounty story (originally attributed to unnamed ‘intelligence officials’) say today that it was a CIA claim,” Greenwald tweeted.

  “So media outlets – again – repeated CIA stories with no questioning: congrats to all.”

  Indeed, NYT’s original story made no mention of CIA involvement in the narrative, citing only “officials,” yet this latest article speaks as though it had been informing its readers of the story’s roots in the lying, torturing, drug-running, warmongering Central Intelligence Agency from the very beginning. The author even writes “The New York Times first reported last summer the existence of the C.I.A.’s assessment,” with the hyperlink leading to the initial article which made no mention of the CIA. It wasn’t until later that The New York Times began reporting that the CIA was looking into the Russian bounties allegations at all.

  One of the NYT reporters who originally broke the Russia bounty story (originally attributed to unnamed “intelligence officials”) say today that it was a CIA claim. So media outlets – again – repeated CIA stories with no questioning: congrats to all.https://t.co/4GbUXBCOpI

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 15, 2021

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

  This would be the same “Russian bounties” narrative which was discredited all the way back in September when the top US military official in Afghanistan said no satisfactory evidence had surfaced for the allegations, which was further discredited today with a new article by The Daily Beast titled “U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops”.

  The Daily Beast, which has itself uncritically published many articles promoting the CIA “Bountygate” narrative, reports the following:

  It was a blockbuster story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great Game” in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.

  But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven — and possibly untrue.

  D’oh! US spy agencies basically admitted they lied about Russia supposedly paying militants in Afghanistan to kill American occupation forces.

  Of course the entire Western media spread this lie for weeks, but don’t expect them to issue any corrections https://t.co/itOniutu0D

  — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 15, 2021

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

  So the mass media aggressively promoted a CIA narrative that none of them ever saw proof of, because there was no proof, because it was an entirely unfounded claim from the very beginning. They quite literally ran a CIA press release and disguised it as a news story.

  This allowed the CIA to throw shade and inertia on Trump’s proposed troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and Germany, and to continue ramping up anti-Russia sentiments on the world stage, and may well have contributed to the fact that the agency will officially be among those who are exempt from Biden’s performative Afghanistan “withdrawal”.

  In totalitarian dictatorships, the government spy agency tells the news media what stories to run, and the news media unquestioningly publish it. In free democracies, the government spy agency says “Hoo buddy, have I got a scoop for you!” and the news media unquestioningly publish it.

  In 1977 Carl Bernstein published an article titled “The CIA and the Media” reporting that the CIA had covertly infiltrated America’s most influential news outlets and had over 400 reporters who it considered assets in a program known as Operation Mockingbird. It was a major scandal, and rightly so. The news media is meant to report truthfully about what happens in the world, not manipulate public perception to suit the agendas of spooks and warmongers.

  Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and people are too propagandized to even recognize this as scandalous. Immensely influential outlets like The New York Times uncritically pass on CIA disinfo which is then spun as fact by cable news pundits. The sole owner of The Washington Post is a CIA contractor, and WaPo has never once disclosed this conflict of interest when reporting on US intelligence agencies per standard journalistic protocol. Mass media outlets now openly employ intelligence agency veterans like John Brennan, James Clapper, Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, Phil Mudd, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash, Susan Hennessey, Ned Price and Rick Francona, as are known CIA assets like NBC’s Ken Dilanian, as are CIA interns like Anderson Cooper and CIA applicants like Tucker Carlson.

  SUPERCUT:

  A look back on how cable news went all in on the discredited Russian bounties story. pic.twitter.com/QaG9xAqiuR

  — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 15, 2021

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

  This isn’t Operation Mockingbird. It’s so much worse. Operation Mockingbird was the CIA doing something to the media. What we are seeing now is the CIA openly acting as the media. Any separation between the CIA and the news media, indeed even any pretence of separation, has been dropped.

  This is bad. This is very, very bad. Democracy has no meaningful existence if people’s votes aren’t being cast with a clear understanding of what’s happening in their nation and their world, and if their understanding is being shaped to suit the agendas of the very government they’re meant to be influencing with their votes, what you have is the most powerful military and economic force in the history of civilization with no accountability to the electorate whatsoever. It’s just an immense globe-spanning power structure, doing whatever it wants to whoever it wants. A totalitarian dictatorship in disguise.

  And the CIA is the very worst institution that could possibly be spearheading the movements of that dictatorship. A little research into the many, many horrific things the CIA has done over the years will quickly show you that this is true; hell, just a glance at what the CIA was up to with the Phoenix Program in Vietnam will.

  In case anyone needs reminding, here’s a partial list of the ex-spooks who served as media figures in the Trump years: https://t.co/CJT8YGcvkN

  — Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) April 16, 2021

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

  There’s a common delusion in our society that depraved government agencies who are known to have done evil things in the past have simply stopped doing evil things for some reason. This belief is backed by zero evidence, and is contradicted by mountains of evidence to the contrary. It’s believed because it is comfortable, and for literally no other reason.

  The CIA should not exist at all, let alone control the news media, much less the movements of the US empire. May we one day know a humanity that is entirely free from the rule of psychopaths, from our total planetary behavior as a collective, all the way down to the thoughts we think in our own heads.

  May we extract their horrible fingers from every aspect of our being.

  *  *  *

  New book: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix.

  The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

  Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 21:00

• Hunter Biden's Memoir Flops Despite Media Fluffing
  Hunter Biden’s Memoir Flops Despite Media Fluffing

  Hunter Biden’s memoir, Beautiful Things, has totally flopped – selling under 11,000 copies to date, according to Publishers Weekly.

  

  The dismal sales come despite, as Sara Carter’s Douglass Braff notes, “the abundant media promotion from places such as CNN, CBS News, and ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!“ – especially about the memoir’s sex and drug content – in the lead-up to the book’s release.”

  The book of President Joe Biden‘s youngest son debuted at twelfth place among hardcover nonfiction books. Some notable books that beat Hunter Biden’s memoir include National Youth Poet Laureate Amanda Gorman’s “The Hill We Climb: An Inaugural Poem for the Country” in first place with 42,318 copies and Fox News host Shannon Bream’s “The Women of the Bible Speak: The Wisdom of 16 Women and Their Lessons for Today” in second with 32,686 copies during the same timeframe.

  His memoir did have a stronger showing on The New York Times’ Best Sellers list though, finishing its debut week in fourth place in the “Combined Print & E-Book Nonfiction” category. –Sara A. Carter

  Braff also notes that Biden attempted to downplay the significance of the infamous laptop scandal broken by the New York Post in the run-up to the 2020 US election – telling Jimmy Kimmel that it’s a “red herring,” while falsely claiming that it had been deemed part of a Russian disinformation operation by the Director of National Intelligence’s office.

  Of note, Donald Trump Jr.’s book Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us sold 70,000 copies in its first week, according to Neilsen BookScan, and infuriated liberals when it made the New York Times’ best seller list.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 20:40

• F-35: Too Expensive To Use. Too Expensive To Lose
  F-35: Too Expensive To Use. Too Expensive To Lose

  Authored by Julian Macfarlane,

  The F35 is the greatest boondoggle in American history, as one writer says, “too expensive to use, too expensive to lose”. Over its lifespan, it will cost the American taxpayer $1.7 trillion. An F35B costs $138 million dollars and over $36,000 an hour to operate.

  

  Intended to replace the F16, the F35 is slow, maneuvers sluggishly and cannot fire its new lightweight Gatling without destroying the housing and the airplane.  It suffers from 13 “class one” defects that endanger both the aircraft and its crew. And 871 flaws that must be corrected before it can be fully operational—in 5 years.

  Still, the US has managed to force this aerial junk on a lot of its allies, most recently the UAE, which has prompted the Israelis who have two squadrons of the F35 and mostly use it for PR, to ask for the F22, which, of course, they can only afford to buy with American money.

  Last year, there were reports that the Syrians had downed an F35 over Syria with a Soviet era S200. The Israelis claimed a bird did it—over Israel. Nobody really knows.

  The Syrians certainly shot something down!  And it wasn’t an…um…bird.

  However, it is unlikely that the Israelis are using the F35 over Syria. Losing an F35 to the Syrians–especially to a large anti-Zionist Syrian crow – would be too big embarrassment. Most IDF strikes inside Syria seem to have been carried out by F16s, which are faster, carry more ordinance and have the maneuverability to avoid incoming missiles if they detect them early enough.

  Another point….

  Gen. Tod Wolters, who leads U.S. European Command, offered this explanation:

  “You cannot operate an F-35 in the vicinity of an S-400. They won’t talk to each other, and what the two systems will attempt to do, certainly the S-400 against the F-35, is attempt to exploit the F-35’s capabilities.”

  The US, of course, has been using the F22 in Eastern Syria and Iraq within range of Russian systems, which now reportedly can detect even this more capable stealth aircraft.

  Yes, the Americans tried out the F35 in Afghanistan, since locals throwing rocks weren’t much of a threat. The sales point of the F35 is “stealth”, which is only fine–when your opponent doesn’t have much in the way of advanced radar equipment.

  “Stealth” is not invisibility.

  An S400 real time anti-stealth radar system can certainly pick up even a large bird-sized object, at 150 km, especially when moving at 700km per hour, which is a giveaway.

  The Russians have yet to allow S300 or S400 launches in Syria thanks to a tacit agreement with the Israelis not to exacerbate regional tensions: so, it is not just that the very, very pragmatic Israelis don’t want to use the unreliable F35 over Syria, whose antiaircraft systems to be so much more sophisticated than, say, Lebanon—they don’t want to provoke the Russians.

  The last time they did that, the Russians supplied the Syrians with the S300–albeit keeping control of these systems.  The warning is obvious:  there are redlines.

  The Pentagon doesn’t really want this dog. Dogs don’t fly.

  But, as in the Yeltsin years in Russia, the US government works for the nation’s oligarchs, a country for Big Tech, by Big Tech, of Big Tech.

  Since the US has had to fight a war on its own soil, the nation’s “defense” industry is a malapropism:  all its wars are offensive. If the weapons don’t work too well — it doesn’t matter–because the US doesn’t fight anyone but third world countries.  The more expensive and complicated the weapons are, the better it is for he companies that make them. How else can a poor CEO buy that second island in the Caribbean and a new private jet?

  It also doesn’t matter that the America lost to little Vietnam, ended up losing Iraq to Iran, and soon leave Afghanistan, its tail between its legs.  It is even losing in Yemen.

  Of course, bullying other countries is more of a problem when your equipment doesn’t work.  The new USS Ford, super carrier in the South China Sea?  It can’t launch its aircraft.  The UK’s new carrier which is supposed to show the flag against China?  Its F35Bs can’t fire their guns.  In any case, carriers are nice targets for hypersonic missiles.

  The Russians and Chinese do defense differently – because for them it actually is defense.

  When Putin took over, he made it clear to the oligarchs who previously owned the country that they either deferred to the State, or got out. Some went to prison. Some got out. Russia is still very unequal but the Rich toe the line just as they do in China.

  When the Ministry of Defense is not satisfied with a military product, either in terms of cost or performance, it simply cuts orders.  This was the case with the Su57.  Originally, the government had envisioned putting up to 250 of these aircraft into service by 2025. Now, Russia will get 76 aircraft at a 20% reduction in cost, with better engines, hypersonic weapons, electronics, improved stealth and general finish.   And the Su57 will cost about $35 to $40 million each compared to the 138 million of the 35B or the $300 million of an F22. One reason for the discrepancy is that US companies expect the taxpayer to pay R&D and developmental costs, which are added to the flyaway cost.   Of course, the companies use that R&D for lucrative commercial projects as well.

  Russia doesn’t have money to spare. It is still recovering from the Yelsin years and massive inequality. So it keeps defense companies in line.

  The Su57 is a good example but also the T-14 (Armata) tank, where orders were slashed until the contractor promised to a. reduce costs; b. address performance issues.

  Putin made clear that Russia is a developing democracy.  In the end, the people will rule, oligarchs or not.

  By contrast, the US is an “inverted totalitarian state”, or, if you like a “managed” democracy. It is not really a modern state in germs of governance, since it is defined by an 18th Century constitution and institutions, designed to prevent rather than enable democratic rule. The US loved Yeltsin because his “system” was really theirs.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 20:20

• How Putin's "Saber-Rattling" Forced A Biden Summit, Bypassing Kiev To Decide Ukraine's Fate
  How Putin’s “Saber-Rattling” Forced A Biden Summit, Bypassing Kiev To Decide Ukraine’s Fate

  As the leaders of France, Germany, and Ukraine hold an urgent meeting on Friday to discussing soaring tensions in eastern Ukraine and Russia’s largescale military build-up near the border, Kiev continues to charge Moscow with aggressively stoking conflict:

  Addressing a news conference on Thursday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba condemned the Kremlin’s “aggravation of the security situation” and accused Russian pundits and officials of “openly threatening Ukraine with war and the destruction of Ukrainian statehood”.

  And for Ukraine’s part, President Volodymyr Zelensky has been using the crisis to push hard for rapid NATO membership. In his latest statements on Thursday, he tweeted, “I fully agree with [President of Georgia] Salome Zourabichvili that it is time for concrete proposals for Ukraine and Georgia to obtain a NATO MAP and a plan to join the EU.”

  

  And this followed a recent CNN interview wherein Zelensky demanded “more weapons, more money, and more support to join NATO” from Biden.

  But given Biden’s recent offer to sit down with Putin for a bilateral summit this summer, which is still on the table, it appears Ukraine’s leadership has been effectively sidelined. As one FT piece underscored this week, Putin’s troop build-up has succeeded in pressuring the Biden administration for a coveted summit to decide the future of Ukraine. 

  “The summit format will also please the Kremlin by effectively cutting Kyiv out of any negotiations, and allow Putin to project the image of two global superpowers deciding the future fate of the conflict,” FT observed.

  Imagine Trump had done this
  https://t.co/MWrvMu7foq

  — Bruno Maçães (@MacaesBruno) April 15, 2021

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

  Here’s more from FT…

  If Vladimir Putin’s decision to deploy tens of thousands of troops to Ukraine’s border in the past few weeks was driven primarily by a desire to get the west’s attention, he did not have to wait too long for his reward.

  Hours after his defense minister on Tuesday admitted Russia had mobilised two armies and three paratroop divisions to positions close to the conflict-wracked frontier, US President Joe Biden phoned the Kremlin with an offer of a bilateral summit: a long sought-after prize for Putin who craves a seat at the world’s highest negotiating table. 

  …Those 50,000 extra soldiers, scores of tanks and other heavy weaponry spooked Kyiv and other European powers, and sparked a hurried response from Nato and the US amid fears over a potential outbreak of fighting between the two countries. 

  This wasn’t a stand-alone assessment, given also this week BBC came to a similar conclusion.

  The BBC commentary underscored that the Russian troop build-up was never ultimately about some kind of hyped “invasion” of Ukraine – as Kiev officials have been shouting – but instead about bringing massive leverage to bear in forcing Biden’s hand. 

  Why Russia may not be planning invasion Ukraine fears https://t.co/WoNmYNWyuO

  — BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) April 14, 2021

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

  To the chagrin of the West’s Russia hawks, the BBC essentially pointed to a major diplomatic victory and ‘checkmate’ of sorts for the Russian side…

  The build-up has been impossible to ignore: thousands of Russian troops deployed towards Ukraine; US warships reportedly heading for the Black Sea and Russia’s foreign ministry warning them off “for their own good”.

  As the hostile rhetoric and military moves around Ukraine have intensified, Western politicians have begun fearing an open invasion and urging Russia’s Vladimir Putin to “de-escalate”.

  Russia has refused: the defense ministry this week insisted its moves were in response to “threatening” Nato exercises in Europe.

  Then Mr Putin got a phone-call from the White House.

  And then, noted the BBC, Biden suggested a near-future face-to-face summit with Putin, which gives Russia the edge given it was the US side that first proposed it:

  “In Putin’s game of brinkmanship, Biden blinked first,” argues journalist Konstantin Eggert, after Joe Biden made his first call to the Kremlin and proposed meeting Mr Putin “in the coming months”.

  It’s just weeks after the US president agreed with an interviewer that Russia’s leader was “a killer”.

  President Biden’s new move is now a new topic of debate – disaster prevention or a mistaken concession – but in the run-up to a summit, the risk of major military action by Russia certainly fades.

  “That would be really unstatesmanlike: a slap in Biden’s face,” Mr Eggert told the BBC. “But the fact that it was Biden who suggested they meet does give Putin the edge.”

  Or in other words, “In Putin’s game of brinkmanship, Biden blinked first”.

  Biden’s hasty offer sparked widespread disappointment and anger among Russia hawks…

  Biden must first hold a summit meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky before he meets with Russian President Putin.

  — Michael McFaul (@McFaul) April 15, 2021

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

  Eggert had this further to say, telling the BBC: “I think Putin attracted attention, he put himself in the focus not only of Europe but the US administration.” And concluded further of Putin, “He managed to scare them, and he likes doing that.”

  But it still remains unclear how Moscow plans to react to Thursday’s major Russia sanctions imposed by Biden. Certainly the punitive actions are intended by Washington to maintain leverage over the Kremlin – but for now it likely means Putin will keep up the pressure in the form of a strong military presence in Crimea, the Black Sea, and along Ukraine’s border. The Kremlin has also reacted with a warning of “no de-escalation” – as Biden called for in his late Thursday address.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 20:00

• The Ugly Truth About Printing-Press Money
  The Ugly Truth About Printing-Press Money

  Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

  Weeping and gnashing of teeth shall come…

  We don’t know when, exactly.  But we do know a certain catastrophe’s approaching.  In fact, we can see it on the horizon.

  Does anyone in Washington give a rip the nation’s beyond broke?  Does anyone in Congress care that outright money printing is what’s financing their stimulus bills?  Does House Financial Services Committee Chair Maxine Waters think it’s all a real hoot?

  Surely, someone in the legislature is aghast at federal spending that’s gone completely out of control.

  Are you aghast?

  We are.  But there’s nothing we can do to stop it.  Nearly all remnants of fiscal conservatism have been quarantined from federal government.

  The majority of the electorate have voted for generous gifts from the public treasury.  They want free education, free food, free phones, free transportation, and free drugs.  They want debt forgiveness.  Most of all, they want free money.

  Many representatives are pushing the President to give the voters what they want…and what the politicians have promised.  Specifically, more stimmy checks.  According to MoneyWise:

  “More than 75 members of Congress say that until the pandemic is over, there should be regular stimulus checks.  President Joe Biden is being urged to wrap them into the $2.3 trillion infrastructure spending plan he’s now promoting.”

  Stimmy checks, as far as we can tell, have nothing to do with infrastructure.  Yet that’s the beauty of perpetual stimmy checks in the interminable pandemic era.  The legislature can “wrap them into” just about anything.  All it takes is a simple stimmy check earmark.

  Hemorrhaging Red Ink

  The longer personal livelihoods are funded by government giveaways the more dependent people become.  Those who were once self-supporting through their own work derived income are now reliant on stimulus…and generous unemployment checks.

  Why work, when it’s much more lucrative to loaf and invite your soul?

  Meanwhile, Washington’s hemorrhaging red ink.  This week the U.S. Treasury Department released its Monthly Treasury Statement.

  It’s unlikely Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen read it.  But if she had she would’ve discovered the federal government has already racked up a $1.7 trillion budget deficit in fiscal year 2021.

  The fiscal year extends through the end of September.  The running budget deficit reported this week was through March – the halfway point.  At this rate, we’re looking at a $3.4 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2021.  This even tops the $3.1 trillion record deficit attained in fiscal year 2020.

  The federal government ran a budget deficit of nearly $660 billion in March alone.  In 2017 – just four years ago – the annual deficit was $666 billion.  At the time, this was considered reckless and insane.

  Now the federal government goes in the hole by $660 billion in one month and no one bats an eye.  What’s more, Congress demands further spending, bigger deficits, stimmy check earmarks, and uncompromising fiscal insanity.

  Where’s the money coming from?

  By now anyone who’s bothered to ask is clued into where the money comes from.    And from where it comes is flagrant deception…

  The Ugly Truth About Printing Press Money

  The Federal Reserve adds a notation to its balance sheet – now over $7.7 trillion – and the credit magically appears from thin air.  The Fed then loans the freshly minted credit to the Treasury through the purchase of Treasury notes.  The Treasury then directs this printing press money into Washington’s various spending programs.

  This inflation of the money supply is inflation in the truest sense.  And it comes with destructive consequences.

  John Maynard Keynes, Fabian socialist and the godfather of modern day economic planning, in his 1919 work, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, wrote:

  “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.  By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.  The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but [also] at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.

  “[…].  As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.”

  Could this continuing process of inflation explain the extreme divergence between today’s freshly minted bitcoin millionaires and the abundance of Hoovervilles in cities across the country?

  Could it explain the extreme divergence in net worth between the average Congressional representative and the average plumber?

  What about the extreme divergence between house prices and incomes…or the extreme divergence between market capitalization and gross domestic product?

  The Dow Jones Industrial Average just eclipsed 34,000 – is this some kind of joke?

  After asset price inflation and wild gambling and speculation comes consumer price inflation…the real wealth destroyer.

  

  This is the ugly truth about printing press money.  The ugly truth Fed Chair Powell and Treasury Secretary Yellen will never share as they champion the virtues of their policies of mass inflation.

  Weeping and gnashing of teeth shall come.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 19:40

• Not Just Court Packing: Biden's Supreme Court Commission To Consider Multiple Overhauls
  Not Just Court Packing: Biden’s Supreme Court Commission To Consider Multiple Overhauls

  Packing the Supreme Court isn’t the only overhaul under consideration by a Biden-appointed commission studying whether Democrats should change the rules because they didn’t win.

  

  The 36-member commission created last week is expected to meet today for a ‘private and informal’ planning session, according to the New York Times, where they will likely split into five working groups to ‘develop research for the entire body to analyze a broad scope of issues.’

  Changes under discussion include:

  • Term limits
  • Mandatory retirement ages
  • Limiting the court’s ability to strike down acts of Congress
  • Requiring the court to hear more types of appeals
  • Limit its ability to resolve important matters before first hearing arguments and receiving full briefings

  The Friday meeting, private and unannounced, will focus on a draft road map according to the Times, citing people familiar with the commission who spoke on condition of anonymity.

  Their account makes clear that the panel’s intellectual ambitions go beyond the notion of expanding the court — or “packing” it — even though nearly all of the early commentary has focused on that.

  …

  Mr. Biden decided to create the commission to defuse the thorny political question of whether to endorse adding seats to the Supreme Court. Some liberal activists have called for the step in response to Republican power plays in 2016 and 2020 that yielded a 6-to-3 conservative advantage on the court, even though Democrats won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections. Many conservatives vehemently oppose the idea. -New York Times

  As the Times notes, any legislation to expand the court could be blocked by a filibuster in the Senate, while Democrats lack sufficient support within their own caucus to successfully overcome the tactic. On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she did not intend to bring up a bill introduced this week by several Democrats which would expand the court to 13 justices. 

  Still, Pelosi believes Court Packing should be “considered” and supports Biden’s efforts to study the issue, before noting that changing the size of the court “has been done before” and that changes in the US economy “might necessitate such a thing.”

  The structure of Biden’s commission, developed by co-chairs Bob Bauer – a NYU law professor who served as an attorney in the Obama White House, and Yale law professor Cristina M. Rodríguez, a former DOJ official.

  There will be five working groups as described by the Times:

  The first working group, they said, would assemble materials to set the stage for the commission’s work, including information on what problems have made changing the Supreme Court a matter of recurring debate, comparisons to historical periods in which there were serious calls for changing the court and criteria for evaluating arguments about changes to the court.

  The second working group would gather materials about the Supreme Court’s role in the broader constitutional system, including as a final arbiter of major issues with a legal nexus. Among what it will prepare for are proposals for Congress to strip the court of jurisdiction over certain topics, and ideas such as requiring a supermajority to strike down an act of Congress and creating a mechanism for lawmakers to override court decisions.

  The third working group would put together materials about length of service and turnover of justices on the Supreme Court, including proposals to create 18-year terms that are staggered so a seat comes up every two years or to impose a mandatory retirement age on older justices. Many other countries have such a safeguard.

  The fourth group would develop materials about the membership and size of the Supreme Court. In addition to looking at the history of expansions and contractions of the number of justices by Congress, it will also examine other plans for reducing partisan tensions over the issue, like creating a nonpartisan commission to recommend potential justices or transforming the court into a rotating panel drawn by lottery from the ranks of sitting appeals court judges.

  The last working group would collect materials about concerns about the Supreme Court’s case selection and review powers. These include the plummeting number of cases it resolves each year compared with what it did several generations ago, and its so-called shadow docket, when the court issues emergency orders and summary decisions that resolve important questions without full briefings and arguments.

  Meanwhile, the Commission will also study whether the reforms could be accomplished via congressional statute or would require a Constitutional amendment.

  What happened to just playing the cards you’re dealt?

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 19:20

• Florida Gov. DeSantis Says Lockdowns Were A "Huge Mistake"
  Florida Gov. DeSantis Says Lockdowns Were A “Huge Mistake”

  Authored by Ivan Pentchoukov and Jan Jekielek via The Epoch Times,

  Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis issued a statewide stay-at-home order on April 1 last year locking down the Sunshine State for 30 days amid a global panic about the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus outbreak. Sitting in his office exactly a year later, he told The Epoch Times that the lockdowns were a “huge mistake,” including in his own state.

  “We wanted to mitigate the damage. Now, in hindsight, the 15 days to slow the spread and the 30—it didn’t work,” DeSantis said.

  “We shouldn’t have gone down that road.”

  Florida’s lockdown order was notably less strict than some of the stay-at-home measures imposed in other states. Recreational activities like walking, biking, golf, and beachgoing were exempted while essential businesses were broadly defined.

  “Our economy kept going,” DeSantis said. “It was much different than what you saw in some of those lockdown states.”

  The governor nonetheless now regrets issuing the order at all and is convinced that states that have carried on with lockdowns are perpetuating a destructive blunder.

  

  After the 30 days of the initial lockdown in Florida lapsed, DeSantis commenced a phased reopening. He faced fierce criticism at each stage from establishment media and his own constituents beholden to the lockdown narrative.

  The governor fully reopened Florida on Sept. 25 last year. When cases began to rise as part of the winter surge he did not reimpose any restrictions. Lockdown proponents forecast doom and gloom. DeSantis stood his ground.

  The governor’s persistence wasn’t a leap of faith. Less than two weeks after Florida’s full reopening in late September, scientists from Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford went public with the Great Barrington Declaration, which disavowed lockdowns as a destructive and futile mitigation measure. The declaration, which has since been signed by 13,985 medical and public health scientists, calls on public officials to adopt the focused protection approach—the exact strategy employed by DeSantis.

  Despite dire predictions about the pandemic in Florida, DeSantis has been vindicated. On April 1, 2021, Florida ranked 27th among all states in deaths per capita from the CCP virus, commonly known as the coronavirus.

  The ranking’s significance is amplified because the Sunshine State’s population is the sixth oldest in the United States by median age. California—the lockdown state often compared to Florida due to its lower per-capita death rate—is the sixth youngest. The risk of dying from the CCP virus is highest for people over 55, with the group accounting for 93 percent of the deaths nationwide.

  While Florida is doing either better or relatively the same as the strict lockdown states in terms of CCP virus mortalities, the state’s economy is booming compared to the crippled economies in California and New York. Though less quantifiable, the human suffering from the lockdown-related rise in suicides, mental health issues, postponed medical treatments, and opioid deaths is undeniably immense.

  “It’s been a huge, huge mistake in terms of policy,” DeSantis said.

  “All I had to do was follow the data and just be willing to go forward into the teeth of the narrative and fight the media,” he added.

  “As people were beating up on me, what I said was I’d rather them beat up on me than have someone lose their job. I’d rather have them beat up on me than have kids locked out of school. I’m totally willing to take whatever heat comes our way because we’re doing the right thing.”

  

  Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis gives a thumbs up as he leaves a press conference where he spoke about the cruise industry at Port Miami on April 08, 2021 in Miami, Florida. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

  ‘Don’t Let Them Roll Over Us’

  The Epoch Times spent a day embedded with DeSantis as he crisscrossed the state on April 1, jetting southeast from the seat of state government in Tallahassee to a press conference in Titusville and then back north to the Clay County Fair on the outskirts of Jacksonville.

  Across dozens of encounters with Floridians from all walks of life, one trend persisted. People thanked DeSantis for his work and his policies. Business owners praised him for not shutting them down.

  Chris Allen, the owner of Java Jitters, opened a coffee shop in Orange Park Mall during the pandemic.

  “We could not have done that if it wasn’t for Ron DeSantis,” Allen told The Epoch Times after personally thanking the governor during an encounter at the Clay County Fair.

  

  A staff member for Gov. Ron DeSantis holds a “DeSantis 2024, Make America Florida” hat at the Clay County fair on April 1, 2021. The staff member said the hat was handed to the governor by a fair attendee. (Ivan Pentchoukov/Epoch Times)

  At the time of the interview, Florida’s unemployment rate was 4.7 percent compared to 6.2 percent nationally. Lockdown states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and California had some of the highest rates in the country—8.9 percent, 7.8 percent, 7.3 percent, and 8.5 percent respectively.

  “I have a tough time paying for a meal in Florida just because I saved a lot of these restaurants from oblivion,” DeSantis said. Hours after this claim, a curly fries stand at the fair declined to charge the governor.

  DeSantis said some people get emotional when they meet him. Several of the interactions with the governor at the Clay County Fair resembled that description. An visibly moved elderly veteran urged the governor to not “let them roll over us.”

  “If we hadn’t stood up, these people may not have jobs, the businesses may have gone under, the kids wouldn’t be in school, there’d be all these things,” DeSantis said.

  “This really, really impacts people in a very personal way. And I don’t think anything prior to COVID that I’ve seen in politics can quite do it on this level. And it’s really unfortunate that there were governors that had power [who did] the opposite. It really shouldn’t depend on the governor.”

  Reopening the state wasn’t as easy as lifting his own stay-at-home measures. When DeSantis issued the final reopening order in late September last year, he signed a companion order prohibiting local Florida governments from restricting people from working or operating a business. The order had far-reaching consequences across the state, especially in densely-populated, liberal-leaning locales where the local authorities imposed their own strict measures.

  DeSantis adopted a hands-off approach to local regulations at first, thinking that voters would ultimately hold local authorities responsible. It became obvious eventually that some places would remain locked down despite the data showing that doing so would have no positive impact on the spread of the virus.

  “They weren’t going to open this stuff up unless I pried it open,” DeSantis said.

  “We had the data. We talked to some of the best scientists in the country,” DeSantis said, referring to Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Jayanta Bhattacharya from Stanford, and Sunetra Gupta from Oxford.

  “Every Floridian has a right to work. Every business has a right to operate.”

  In areas that were forced to reopen as a result, the economies are now booming with new hotels and restaurants opening, DeSantis said.

  DeSantis received a law degree from Harvard and is a textualist when interpreting the Constitution. He believes barring the local authorities from placing restrictions on the people and businesses was squarely within his authority.

  “You can’t have 67 different minimum wages, or 67 different regulations on hotels. We are one state economy, and we need to have certain rules of the road,” DeSantis said.

  

  Gov. Ron DeSantis delivers remarks at a press conference in Titusville, Florida, on April 1, 2021. (Screenshot via Epoch Times)

  ‘They Are Never Going to Admit They Were Wrong’

  Standing behind the desk in his office in Tallahassee, DeSantis leafed through a folder of praise he’s received from around the nation and across the globe. Hanging on the walls around the relatively small space was a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as well as the uniform the governor wore as the captain of the Yale baseball team.

  When asked why he chose Lincoln, DeSantis said the president is the best example of a leader who had to make difficult decisions in a time of crisis. When asked why some of the leaders today have continued with lockdowns even with ample evidence of their ineffectiveness, the governor theorized that the people involved have committed too much to the narrative and have made it impossible to change course.

  “You have a situation where if you’re in this field, the pandemic, that’s something that you kind of prepare for and you’re ready for. And a lot of these people muffed it,” he said.

  “When push came to shove, they advocated policies that have not worked against the virus but have been very, very destructive. They are never going to admit they were wrong about anything, unfortunately.”

  Elected leaders aren’t the only ones to blame, according to the governor. The media and big tech companies played a major role in perpetuating fears about the virus while selectively censoring one side of the mitigation debate. DeSantis said the media and tech giants stood to benefit from the lockdown as people stayed home and consumed their products.

  “It was all just to generate the most clicks that they could. And so that was always trying to do the stuff that would inspire the most fear,” DeSantis said.

  Two weeks after the interview, an undercover video recorded by Project Veritas showed a technical director at CNN talking about the boost the network received due to its pandemic coverage.

  “It’s fear. Fear really drives numbers,” CNN Technical Director Charlie Chester said. “Fear is the thing that keeps you tuned in.”

  The fear-mongering worked, DeSantis said, pointing to CDC statistics showing that 4 out of 10 American adults delayed or avoided getting urgent or routine medical treatment in June 2020. The agency’s report said that the pattern may have contributed to the excess deaths reported during that period, due to preventable illnesses and injuries going untreated.

  Emergency room doctors had reported that fewer people were coming in with cardiac-related chest pains while more were coming in with late-stage appendicitis, something that is usually caught much earlier. The pandemic has also led to a sharp decrease in cancer screenings and detections.

  “When you have people too scared to go to the emergency room when they’re literally having a heart attack, that didn’t happen in a vacuum,” DeSantis said.

  “Corporate media played a role in that, by really whipping up people into a frenzy.”

  The profit motive wasn’t the only factor potentially driving the media’s slanted coverage, according to the governor. The pandemic hit the United States in an election year, presenting an opportunity to heap the blame on President Donald Trump.

  “They viewed it as an opportunity to damage Trump. Obviously, they hated Trump more than anything,” DeSantis said.

  

  Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in his office in Tallahassee, Florida, on April 1, 2021. (Screenshot via Epoch Times)

  ‘Council of Censors’

  In the April 1 interview, DeSantis criticized big tech companies for censoring critics of lockdowns. Less than a week after the interview, the governor himself became the victim of censorship. YouTube, without warning, scrubbed videos of a roundtable discussion between DeSantis and prominent scientists from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford who assessed that lockdowns are ineffective.

  The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) was the first to flag the video’s disappearance. The original clip is now hosted on a different platform and appears along with a full transcript on the AIER website.

  “Google and YouTube have not been, throughout this pandemic, repositories of truth and scientific inquiry, but instead have acted as enforcers of a narrative, a big tech council of censors in service of the ruling elite” DeSantis said in response to YouTube’s censorship during an April 12 video conference call with three of the scientists from the banned video.

  “When they took down the video … they were really continuing what they’ve been doing for the past year: stifle debate, short-circuit scientific inquiry, make sure that the narrative is not questioned. And I think that we’ve seen already that that has had catastrophic consequences for our society.”

  The takedown of the video suggests that Big Tech intends to keep exercising the awesome power it directed against Trump in the closing days of the previous administration. Twitter and Facebook banned the president, cutting off a direct line of communication between the commander-in-chief and tens of millions of Americans.

  DeSantis thinks that the power monopolies have now is far more extensive than what the United States had witnessed at the turn of the century.

  “What we’ve seen with the big tech and the censorship, they are exercising more power than the monopolies at the beginning of the 20th century ever could have exercised,” the governor said. “The type of power that they’re exercising now in some respects is even more profound than the type of power that government typically exercises.”

  No End In Sight

  Desantis believes the lockdown states may never fully reopen because the leaders there have invested so heavily in the narrative while the voters have grown fearful.

  While restrictions are easing across the nation, only six states, including Florida, have fully reopened, according to a tracker maintained by USA Today. Eight states never issued a stay-at-home order.

  “I think if your goal is no cases, then there may never be an end to it, because you’re never gonna have zero COVID,” DeSantis said, adding that a more pragmatic goal would be to aim towards a hospitalization rate indicative of a respiratory virus endemic.

  “But I don’t know that they’re willing to accept that reality. I think they’re going to try to have no cases at all, which would basically mean there would never be a full end to these policies, which is scary.”

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 19:00

• More States Are Seeing Unused COVID Jabs Pile Up As Poor Countries Shut Out
  More States Are Seeing Unused COVID Jabs Pile Up As Poor Countries Shut Out

  The other day, we reported on an interview with from Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a former director of the FDA under President Trump who frequently appears in the press to offer analysis and commentary on the rollout of the COVID vaccine, along with federal COVID policy more broadly.

  Yesterday, the focus of the interview was a criticism lodged by Dr. Gottlieb against the Biden administration’s target of 200MM Americans vaccinated by the end of the month. Hours after our post, Bloomberg News shared a startling piece of analysis: Across the US, unused vaccines are already starting to pile up. Should we see daily vaccination numbers continue to decline, that would suggest the demand cliff that Dr. Gottlieb anticipated has perhaps already arrived.

  So far, 37% of American adults have gotten at least one dose, and the country is one of the world leaders in vaccinations. But even some states that are doing well are struggling with what Bloomberg described as “stubborn pockets” where uptake is low.

  

  Bloomberg offered the state of Virginia – infamous for its purple blue-meets-red divide between the Washington DC suburbs and Richmond vs. the rest of the state – as a “microcosm” of the “demand gap” plaguing America.

  In Virginia, for instance, 83% of vaccines supplied to the state have been used – but the number of people getting shots differs sharply from city to city. That difference is especially stark in Charlottesville and Lynchburg, separated by a mere hour’s drive on U.S. 29 past vineyards and open farmland.

  “Virginia is sort of a microcosm of the country,” said Costi Sifri, director of epidemiology at UVA Health in Charlottesville. “We’re going to have this same type of challenge played out in every state in the country. How do we close the vaccine gaps that are going to occur geographically?”

  In Charlottesville, a mostly Democratic area that is home to the University of Virginia, vaccine appointments are tough to snag even with two mass clinics right in town. In Lynchburg, 70 miles south and dominated by conservative Liberty University, open appointments at an old TJ Maxx are easy to find. The disparity has led to in-state vaccine tourism where residents in northern Virginia flock south to snap up shots that would otherwise go unused. The wide availability of vaccines also signals that areas like Lynchburg may be running out of residents willing to get vaccinated.

  Bloomberg‘s choice of imagery here is particularly evocative. If you had to choose where to get vaccinated, which would you prefer: a jam-packed campus health center, or the musty back-rooms of a TJ Maxx?

  And while you mull that over, consider this: nationwide, the percentage of vaccines going unused week to week has risen from 19% in February to more than 20% today. The rate varies substantially across states, with Alabama and Georgia seeing unused rates nearing 40%. And while Bloomberg humorously tiptoes around the politics factor,

  

  Source: Bloomberg

  Fortunately, federal officials are already working on a “solution”.

  Federal officials are in the early stages of rethinking distribution. Vaccines have so far been doled out based on population.

  “We’re going to go through stages, as we vaccinate higher and higher portions of populations, where it will make sense for us to continue to watch where vaccines are needed, how vaccines are distributed, the best way to reach more people,” Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the White House’s Covid Response team, said at the end of March.

  Meanwhile, doses pile up. West Virginia – lauded for its rollout of shots early on – has gone from using all but a tiny percentage of its supply in mid-February to 26% of doses unused, a daily average of 352,000 unused doses over the last week. Some states have never gotten their vaccination strategy in gear. Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi represent a band of southern states that have struggled to work through their supplies.

  States don’t control all of the distribution inside their own borders. Mississippi says it has used 77% of the doses it has requested. But when the doses sent directly by the federal government to pharmacies and other locations are counted, only 65% of doses in the state have been used, according to Bloomberg’s analysis.

  Taken together, the worst-performing quartile of states holds 14.1 million unused doses, meaning that 31% of doses delivered in those states are yet to be marked as used. In the best-performing quartile of states, only 11% of doses were unused.

  While US states clearly have more jabs than they need, of the 700 million vaccine doses that have been distributed across the globe, over 87% have gone to high-income or upper-middle-income countries, while low-income countries have received just 0.2%. More than 100 countries around the world haven’t gotten their hands on a single dose.

  Why can’t countries simply make their own vaccines? Well, it’s complicated, but one man is overwhelmingly responisble: Bill Gates. And his insistence on preserving vaccine-related IP, the focus of a battle over IP rights happening at the WTO.

  Here’s another idea. With US vaccine supplies already outpacing demand, why don’t we start sending more of these vaccines abroad. While the US has promised jabs to Mexico and elsewhere, the global need is vast, and if the status quo endures, billions of people likely won’t have access to vaccines until 2024.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 18:40

• Watch: Powerful Blast Rocks Latin America's Largest Explosive-Grade Ammonium Nitrate Plant
  Watch: Powerful Blast Rocks Latin America’s Largest Explosive-Grade Ammonium Nitrate Plant

  A powerful explosion has rocked the Enaex acid plant, which is located south of Calama, Chile, on Friday afternoon, according to Chilean news Meganoticias. 

  Enaex is the largest producer of explosive-grade ammonium nitrate in Latin America. The incident occurred within the acid plant where nitroglycerin is stored. 

  At the moment, the official number of injured is unknown. The mayor of Calama, Daniel Agusto, told CNN Chile that the powerful explosion “was felt in almost the entire city” and even “traffic was cut off.”

  🔴 AHORA | Alcalde de Calama por explosión en planta Enaex: “Es un accidente de proporciones (…). Se trataría del material nitroglicerina”. https://t.co/E6QIJgKdbt pic.twitter.com/c9uyjdqoex

  — CNN Chile (@CNNChile) April 16, 2021

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

  ‘“There are about 25 injured who are being transferred to the Carlos Cisternas y del Cobre Hospital. Various gravity. The explosion was felt throughout Calama. It destroyed the Enaex acid plant. That plant that works with explosives is three kilometers from the houses in the city,” according to one Twitter user who also posted a stunning picture of the explosion.

  

  Here’s a video of the explosion sending a large column of smoke into the atmosphere. 

  ¡PRECAUCIÓN! #Calama (16:57 hrs) Información preliminar de bomberos indican que la explosión fue en la planta de ácido de la empresa Enaex. Hacemos el llamado a los pobladores a no acercarse al sector del accidente. Noticia en desarrollo. pic.twitter.com/YelDcLACy0

  — TransporteInforma Región de Antofagasta (@TTIAntofagasta) April 16, 2021

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

  A video of the explosion as it was happening. 

  pic.twitter.com/pcO7dlc2nk

  — MacaJaDina (@dina_maca) April 16, 2021

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

  Video from within the plant. 

  Fuerte explosión hace un momento se sintió en la ciudad de #Calama. Información preliminar indican que esta se produjo en planta de ácido de ENAEX Calama. Noticia en desarrollo. Se remeció toda la casa, es de esperar que no hayan personas heridas. 🙏 pic.twitter.com/lutgXDF2hD

  — 🌸Ángel💜 (@angelbened) April 16, 2021

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

  Another view of the explosion. 

  Explosión en sector enaex #Calama. pic.twitter.com/MOw2958RcN

  — Concejal Cristian Flores XY 328 (@titan_flores) April 16, 2021

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

  So does this mean Latin America’s largest producer of explosive-grade ammonium nitrate is offline?  

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 18:26

• The Interesting Case Of 'The Zaïre'… The Question MMT Cannot Answer
  The Interesting Case Of ‘The Zaïre’… The Question MMT Cannot Answer

  Authored by Eric Nies via Disinthrallment.com,

  The zaïre lived an interesting life.

  The zaïre was the basic unit of currency for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Zaire (it’s back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; I’ll just call it Zaire for ease) from 1967 until 1997. Seventy-three of the 79 series of zaïre banknotes featured Ziarian dictator, CIA stooge, and world champion kleptocrat Joseph-Desire Mobuto.

  

  For its first two decades, the zaïre was surprisingly stable as far as Sub-Saharan currencies go. Between 1967 and 1987, the inflation vis-à-vis the dollar was only 98 percent. But then, things took a turn.

  The Zairian economy had managed to stay afloat during decades of kleptomania, nepotism, and military spending by Mobuto and his cronies due to Western Aid and high prices for the various minerals mined in the Eastern Congo basin. Beginning around 1990, the combination of the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, falling copper prices, and deeper administrative ineptitude buffeted the economy.

  As Gerard Prunier, French journalist and author of the excellent Africa’s World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Making of a Continental Catastrophe, explains:

  From sickly, the Ziarian economy turned terminal…. Because imports remained at a fairly high level for some time while exports declined, the external debt had risen to $12.8 billion by 1996, representing 233 percent of GDP, or 924 percent of export capacity …

  Perhaps the most preoccupying effect of this collapse was the quasi-disappearance of the monetary system. With inflation rate that the IMF calculated at an average of 2,000 percent during the 1900s, prices shot up in an insane way.

  The Zairian consumer price index moved from 100 in 1990 to 4,130 in 1992 to just under 2,000,000 in 1993. Prunier continues:

  The government started to print money as fast as it could, simply to keep a certain amount of fiduciary currency irrigating the economy. Bills were printed in ever higher denominations and put into circulation as fast as possible, and their rapidly shrinking real purchasing value would then wipe them off the market in a way that make even the German hyperinflation of the 1920s look mild In December 1992 the system finally imploded: the Z 5 million bill was refused by everybody and had a zero life span. The government then tried to force it through by paying soldiers’ salaries [with the inflated bills] but the army rioted when its money was refused in the shops.

  So far it reads like one of the many hyperinflations throughout history. But then things get interesting. Mobuto, in a panic, demonetized the zaïre and issued the new zaïre, with an initial exchange rate of 1 new zaïre = 3,000,000 old zaïre.

  

  A nation issuing new currency to attempt to staunch an inflationary hemorrhage is nothing new; Brazil did the same thing in the 1990s. However, the new zaïre suffered from the same hyperinflative tendencies as its predecessor except that in certain areas of Zaire the old zaïre resurfaced and began to be used again as a medium of exchange. For instance,

  Kasai refused the new currency and kept using the old one, which regained a certain value simply by not being printed anymore.

  In other words, even though the government and its central bank ruled that the old zaïre was without value and the full faith and credit of the Zairian government backed the new zaïre, the only currency with any value was the old zaïre—and the value had nothing to do with any fiat issued by the government, but instead the understanding of a sector of the population that because the old zaïre was no longer being printed, it could act as a reasonably safe store of value.

  Finally, by 1994, the financial sector was operating entirely with foreign currencies. Meanwhile, Prunier reports,

  As for the Congolese population … its tax burden increased out of all proportion, reaching a punishing rate of 7.5 percent of GNP outside the oil and mining levies.

  The case of the zaïre provides strong anecdotal evidence discounting the fiat currency-obsessed Modern Monetary Theory (“MMT”).

  MMT, which is growing in popularity, takes to the logical extreme the concept of fiat money, even to the point that proponents have argued government-issued currency is not subject to market forces and can be issued indefinitely. A fundamental aspect of MMT is the tenet that a central bank can always control inflation by pulling its own fiat currency from circulation by taxation. Thus, proponents such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former Bernie Sanders advisor Stephanie Kelton claim neither inflation nor budget deficits are a significant concern.

  MMT proponents have attempted to contest the arguments by such economists as Larry Summers that MMT is simply a recipe for hyperinflation by pointing out that a primary focus of MMT is keeping inflation in check by taxation (to reduce “excess demand”) and fiscal—as opposed to monetary—policy (such as an eternal zero Fed discount rate). But this is exactly where the zaïre is so relevant.

  A basic presumption of MMT is that the government can keep control of “its” money – that through any number of tools, it can control inflation fiscally and thus print whatever money it needs for the here and now without the classical economic concern about hyperinflation. But fiat currency (all currency actually) only has value if it is perceived to have value, and a central bank cannot switch that subjective valuation on and off at will. Consider again what happened in Zaire:

  (1) Due to internal and external forces, the corrupt government ran out of money and it turned on the presses. This was not due to the evil corporate bogeyman some MMT proponents blame, but simple increase in the money supply.

  (2) Inflation and then hyperinflation hit to the point that the zaïre was virtually useless. The government’s attempt to prop up the zaïre, literally at gunpoint, failed as did a “punishing rate” of taxation—which MMT proponents argue is a primary tool to stop inflation.

  (3) The central bank issued the new new zaïre and backed it while demonetizing the old zaïre. However, the government fiat meant nothing to the populace, who deemed the new zaïre worthless.

  (4) Meanwhile, the demonetized zaïre, having been left for dead, was suddenly resurrected. There is no evidence I can find of any centralizing or guiding effort behind the choice of some Zairians to begin using the old zaïre again; rather, it appears to have been a spontaneous market reaction and people realized the presses had stopped, and with it, inflation.

  The question MMT simply cannot answer is what happens when, due to monetary and fiscal gymnastics, the consumer simply stops trusting or using the currency. The Zairian central bank could not tax the populace enough to reduce “aggregate demand,” and its attempts to force a new currency on the populace immediately failed. Meanwhile, the older currency, which the government had specifically disavowed, was given value by the people—at least for a while. Under MMT tenets, this should not have happened; indeed, it should be impossible. And yet, it happened all the same.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 18:20

• Punching Right: Liz Cheney Was Top Never-Trump Peddler Of Debunked 'Russian Bounties' Story
  Punching Right: Liz Cheney Was Top Never-Trump Peddler Of Debunked ‘Russian Bounties’ Story

  As Democrats seized on a now-debunked New York Times report that the Kremlin placed bounties on the heads of American troops in Afghanistan – blaming President Trump for deliberately downplaying the aggression to appease ‘Lord Putin’ (as the story goes) – Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) punched right, peddling the fabricated bounties story to any and all who would listen, according to The Federalist.

  

  Fast forward ten months later, and the Daily Beast reports that a senior administration finally admitted: “The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks on U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier.”

  “Low to moderate confidence” is another way of saying “unproven and potentially false, “in part because it relies on detainee reporting,” which is often unreliable.

  Yet, Cheney pounced in an effort to undermine then-President Trump, while using the fake news to also lobby for a prolonged military presence in the region as the Trump administration was pulling troops out of Afghanistan.

  If reporting about Russian bounties on US forces is true, the White House must explain:
  1. Why weren’t the president or vice president briefed? Was the info in the PDB?
  2. Who did know and when?
  3. What has been done in response to protect our forces & hold Putin accountable?

  — Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) June 28, 2020

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

  More via The Federalist:

  Two days later, Politico, in an article titled, “Cheney takes on Trump,” wrote, “in her latest rebuke of Trump, Cheney openly questioned whether the president was aware of reports that the Russians offered Afghan militants bounties to kill U.S. troops and demanded the administration take a more aggressive posture toward the Kremlin.”

  Cheney was persistent in pushing the story, much to the frustration of colleagues and even allies on Capitol Hill as she continued an inner-party crusade against the president in an election year from her position as House conference chair.

  FWIW, quite a few people in recent weeks who generally like Cheney — including those not on the Hill — were extremely disappointed with how she worked so hard to help the NYT spread its false anti-Trump story about Russia bounties. https://t.co/rM1dbnMI6U

  — Mollie (@MZHemingway) July 21, 2020

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

  On June 29, Cheney released a joint statement with Texas Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry perpetuating the claims U.S. intelligence eventually conceded were a fake news story after Trump left office.

  “After today’s briefing with senior White House officials, we remain concerned about Russian activity in Afghanistan, including reports that they have targeted U.S. forces. It has been clear for some time that Russia does not wish us well in Afghanistan,” they wrote. “We anticipate further briefings on this issue in the coming days.”

  Cheney also pursued an ulterior motive to advance an interventionist foreign policy by amplifying the story alongside Democrats, as chronicled here by Glenn Greenwald in the Intercept. The at-large Wyoming congresswoman capitalized on the report of Russian bounties to sponsor an amendment with Colorado Democratic Rep. Jason Crow to prevent the White House from reducing the number of troops in Afghanistan to below 8,000, action the Trump administration was actively preparing to finalize.

  America’s adversaries should never question the will of the United States government or the American people to defend our interests, to protect the security of our nation, to protect our Armed Forces, and to respond when attacked or threatened. pic.twitter.com/czl22H8hrd

  — Rep. Liz Cheney (@RepLizCheney) June 30, 2020

  Read the rest of the report here.

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

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 18:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Beijing Displaces New York To Become The World's Billionaire Capital
  Beijing Displaces New York To Become The World’s Billionaire Capital

  For the first time in seven years, New York City has lost its title as the world’s billionaire capital.

  Statista’s Niall McCarthy reports that in 2020, the Big Apple was displaced by Beijing which recorded a net gain of 33 billionaires. Beijing is now in top spot with 100 individuals worth a billion dollars or more, narrowly ahead of New York’s 99.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  The findings come from the 2021 Forbes World’s Billionaires list which shows that a quarter of its 2,755 members live in just 10 cities with more than 10 percent resident in just four Chinese metropolises. Along with Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Hangzhou also make the list of the world’s top-10 billionaire capitals. Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, is also present on the list and it comes third with 80 billionaires.

  Even though New York is in second place, the collective worth of its billionaire population amounts to $560.5 billion, beating Beijing’s collective $484.3 billion. Zhang Yiming is the richest resident in the Chinese capital with a net worth of $35.6 billion while Michael Bloomberg is New York’s wealthiest inhabitant with a $59 billion fortune.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 02:45

• UK Councils Bring Back "COVID Marshal" To Report People For Not Social-Distancing
  UK Councils Bring Back “COVID Marshal” To Report People For Not Social-Distancing

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

  UK council authorities are putting more ‘COVID marshals’ onto the streets to report people to the police for not properly social distancing.

  

  After the government lifted some lockdown restrictions on Monday, bars and restaurants were allowed to open outside.

  This prompted the media to once again hysterically point to footage of people daring to enjoy themselves in order to whip up another contrived panic over a ‘4th wave’ of the virus returning despite Britain having one of the lowest case rates in the world amongst major countries.

  Hard to believe this is central London on a Monday night as opposed to some decadent festival.

  Spontaneous cheering. People quite literally dancing in the streets- the liberation is palpable. pic.twitter.com/gxHeuKcood

  — Matthew Thompson (@mattuthompson) April 12, 2021

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

  Local government immediately responded by vowing to put more state spies on the streets.

  “Councils across England have boosted the number of Covid-19 marshals patrolling city centres after scenes of overcrowding since outdoor drinking and dining resumed on Monday,” reports the Times.

  The marshals have no enforcement power, so their role almost entirely depends on lecturing people about their behavior and then snitching on them to police if they fail to comply.

  As we previously highlighted, when the second lockdown was implemented in the UK last autumn, COVID marshals were dispatched to ensure pubs and clubs were closed.

  Photographs from the patrols showed marshals peering into windows and letterboxes to ensure gatherings or private parties were not taking place.

  

  Images from London on Monday also showed masked security guards with attack dogs waiting to deal with any trouble caused by overcrowding as shops re-opened.

  This is all apparently part of the process of regaining our freedom!

  *  *  *

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

  *  *  *

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

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 02:00

• Mass Casualty Incident At FedEx Facility In Indianapolis
  Mass Casualty Incident At FedEx Facility In Indianapolis

  Update (0151ET): FedEx Corporation has released the following statement about the shooting at their FedEx Ground facility near the Indianapolis airport:

  “We are aware of the tragic shooting at our FedEx Ground facility near the Indianapolis airport. Safety is our top priority, and our thoughts are with all those who are affected. We are working to gather more information and are cooperating with investigating authorities.”

  

  * * * 

  Update (0141ET): Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) spokesperson: “We have multiple people with injuries consistent with gunshot wounds. We have others that have been transported to various hospitals…”

  Indianapolis Police spokesperson: “We have multiple people with injuries consistent with gunshot wounds. We have others that have been transported to various hospitals…”@mykalmphoto

  pic.twitter.com/dKIgZ0al1M

  — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 16, 2021

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

  * * * 

  Indianapolis News WISH-TV reports Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) received reports of an active shooter around 11:10 pm local time Thursday at a FedEx facility in Indianapolis. 

  The incident was reported at the FedEx facility in the 8900 block of Mirabel Road in Indianapolis, near Indianapolis International Airport.

  

  Dispatchers declared a “mass casualty, Level 1,” which means the incident involved less than ten surviving victims. 

  IMPD has yet to release information on how many people were shot or their conditions. There’s also no information if the shooter is in custody. 

  Here’s the IMPD scanner audio of shots fired at the FedEx facility. The dispatcher said at least ten shots were fired from the entrance or inside the facility. One caller (from inside the facility’s control room) told dispatchers she had no visual on the suspect but heard the shots. 

  Indianapolis police scanner audio of shots fired at Fed Ex (starts at 26:00 min mark) https://t.co/jaHmgEKEHp pic.twitter.com/yIMg2NJ8pA

  — SacKat (@sachibub10) April 16, 2021

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

  A massive police presence is seen outside the FedEx facility. 

  #Indianapolis
  Live from the FedEx facility. https://t.co/fExV3LlMfS pic.twitter.com/ETdRwNmBzz

  — Shane B. Murphy (@shanermurph) April 16, 2021

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

  Local news Fox 59’s Courtney Crown spoke with a family member of one of the victims who the gunman shot. 

  “She called as I was asleep at home. She said there was a shooting in the FedEx. So we just drove from Brownsburg,” said Parminder Singh, the uncle of one of the victims.

  pic.twitter.com/WDNh1hkkNR

  — Courtney Crown (@CrownJournalist) April 16, 2021

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

  A witness describes the shooting spree to reporters. 

  Indianapolis FedEx facility shooting witness interview. pic.twitter.com/NRbXSk5d57

  — John Curtis (@Johnmcurtis) April 16, 2021

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

  Crown interviewed the husband of a FedEx employee who was in the facility during the time of the incident.

  This man is so relieved his wife is okay, she is still inside the FedEx at this time. She is texting him updates. pic.twitter.com/dMKroZKddE

  — Courtney Crown (@CrownJournalist) April 16, 2021

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

  Sacramento journalist Matthew Keys said, “police initially received a report of a person with a “machine gun” firing into parked cars at the Federal Express facility in Indianapolis, then entering the facility where the suspect continued shooting.” 

  NEW: Police initially receive a report of a person with a “machine gun” firing into parked cars at the Federal Express facility in Indianapolis, then entering the facility where the suspect continued shooting.

  — Matthew Keys (@MatthewKeysLive) April 16, 2021

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

  Keys said as many as five people were shot at the FedEx facility. He also said the “suspect involved in Federal Express mass shooting dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.” 

  *This story is developing… 

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 00:53

• China's Economy Grows By A Record 18.3% In Q1; It's Not Enough
  China’s Economy Grows By A Record 18.3% In Q1; It’s Not Enough

  China’s economy grew by a record 18.3% in the first three months of 2021, its fastest annual growth rate in history reflecting the weak comparison to the lockdown period in early 2020. However, in keeping with the recent theme of China’s slowing credit impulse, the GDP print wasn’t nearly enough and disappointed markets which were expecting an 18.5% number.

  

  The Chinese slowdown was even more visible in the quarter-on-quarter growth which slowed to just 0.6% from 2.6% in the previous three months – the second lowest quarterly growth rate since the financial crisis with the sole exception of the covid crash quarter a year ago, while the picture in the monthly data dump was mixed at best.

  

  China’s expansion was supported by household consumption, which had previously lagged behind the wider recovery but is expected to play a greater role in driving growth this year. Retail sales beat expectations to add 34.2% in March, rebounding from a period of lockdowns a year earlier. Industrial production also boosted growth, with the metric adding 24.5% in the first quarter and alongside booming exports has helped prop up growth over the past year, it did, however, miss expectations in March and only rose 14.1% year-on-year.

  Other data was also mostly disappointing with both industrial production and fixed asset investment missing, while only retail sales beat:

  • March industrial production came in at +14.1% yoy, well below the 18.0% consensus forecast. Based on IP by major product data, cement production decelerated to 33.1% yoy in March from 61.1% yoy growth in January-February; steel product production grew 20.9% yoy in March vs. 23.6% yoy in January-February; electricity production decelerated to 17.4% yoy, from 19.5% in January-February.
  • Fixed investment growth also also slowed in March. FAI growth was +25.6%Y/Y in Q1 2021, below market expectations of 26.0% On single month basis FAI growth was +19.4% yoy in March (vs. +35.0% yoy in January-February).
  • Retail sales were the only bright spot and beat expectations.  March retail sales growth was 34.2% Y/Y vs. +33.8% in January-February and above the 28.0% consensus. Still, automobile sales growth slowed to +48.7% yoy (vs. +77.6% yoy in January-February).
  • The nationwide unemployment rate dropped to 5.3% in March, vs. 5.4% in January-February; and was at 5.3% for the 31 major cities in March, vs. 5.5% in January-February.
  • China Jan.-March Property Development investment rose 25.6% Y/y
    • Jan.-March property sales value rises 88.5% y/y to 3.84t yuan
    • Jan.-March home sales value rises 95.5% y/y to 3.51t yuan
    • Jan.-March property sales area rises 63.8% y/y to 360m sqm
    • Jan.-March home sales area rises 68.1% y/y to 323m sqm

  

  The Chinese recovery from the pandemic also helped it dominate global trade, with exports rising every month since June last year. In March, exports added 30% in dollar terms compared with the same month a year earlier.

  In light of China’s recent aggressive deleveraging which has pushed China’s CSI300 just shy of dipping below the 200DMA, focus has shifted to the prospect of rate rises, with signs of overheating across parts of the economy despite persistently low consumer price inflation. The government is trying to curb leverage across its property sector, as well as rein in record rates of steel production following a construction boom.

  Several high-ranking officials have warned about the risks of high asset prices in recent months. Guo Shuqing, China’s top banking regulator, said in March that the country was exposed to “bubbles” in international markets and its own real estate sector.

  And sure enough, with China’s CSI300 down 15% since hitting a record high in February, the overall economic direction points to an ongoing, broadening slowdown in China’s economy whose peak hit some time ago. That probably explains, why National Bureau of Statistics spokeswoman Liu Aihua talked up the recovery, especially among consumers, though she also flagged sectors such as services industries, smaller business and young workers who all need ongoing support.

  “Generally speaking, the national economy in the first quarter presented continued momentum of stable recovery,” China’s National Bureau of Statistics said in a statement.  “However, we must be aware that the Covid-19 epidemic is still spreading globally and the international landscape is complicated with high uncertainties and instabilities.”

  Markets were choppy on the data release with the CSI 300 Index falling as much as 0.6%, and briefly sliding below the 200DMA key support level, while the Shanghai Composite reversed its early losses to gain 0.2%. The benchmark 10-year sovereign bond yield fell 1 basis point to 3.166%; the onshore yuan lost 0.17% against the dollar.

  Asian stocks traded slightly lower as China’s record economic growth failed to inspire new investment in the region’s equity markets. Across the Pacific, US 10Y yields were unchanged as were US equity futures.

  Tyler Durden
  Fri, 04/16/2021 – 00:11

• Rule By Fiat: When The Government Does Whatever It Wants
  Rule By Fiat: When The Government Does Whatever It Wants

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

  “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”

  – Ayn Rand

  Rule by brute force.

  That’s about as good a description as you’ll find for the sorry state of our nation.

  SWAT teams crashing through doors. Militarized police shooting unarmed citizens. Traffic cops tasering old men and pregnant women for not complying fast enough with an order. Resource officers shackling children for acting like children. Homeowners finding their homes under siege by police out to confiscate lawfully-owned guns. Drivers having their cash seized under the pretext that they might have done something wrong.

  The list of abuses being perpetrated against the American people by their government is growing rapidly.

  We are approaching critical mass.

  The groundwork has been laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation, or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the government—or whoever happens to be calling the shots at the time—thinks. And if the powers-that-be think you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides.

  In effect, you will disappear.

  Our freedoms are already being made to disappear.

  We have seen this come to pass under past presidents with their use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements.

  President Biden’s long list of executive orders, executive actions, proclamations and directives is just more of the same: rule by fiat.

  Now the Biden Administration is setting its sights on gun control.

  Mark my words: gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people “suspected” of being threats, will become yet another means by which to subvert the Constitution and sabotage the rights of the people.

  These laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are yet another Trojan Horse, a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.

  Nineteen states and Washington DC have red flag laws on their books.

  That number is growing.

  As The Washington Post reports, these laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.”

  In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings (the statistics suggest otherwise), these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.

  Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.

  Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.

  With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”

  While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

  We’ve been down this road before.

  Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

  This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

  This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

  This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

  For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

  Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

  Let that sink in a moment.

  Now consider the ramifications of giving police that kind of authority: to preemptively raid homes in order to neutralize a potential threat.

  It’s a powder keg waiting for a lit match.

  Under these red flag laws, what happened to Duncan Lemp—who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home—could very well happen to more people.

  At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that had most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, a masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.

  The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.

  Lemp was killed and his girlfriend injured.

  No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.

  No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.

  So what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?

  According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”

  Thus, rather than approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash bang grenades and acted like battle-crazed warriors.

  This is the blowback from all that military weaponry flowing to domestic police departments.

  This is what happens when you use SWAT teams to carry out routine search warrants.

  This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, which Maryland did in 2018, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.

  Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.

  Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.

  Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

  In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.

  All you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States.

  Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.

  You will be tracked wherever you go.

  You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.

  This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

  The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

  To that noxious mix, add in a proposal introduced under the Trump Administration and being considered by Biden for a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

  It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

  If you’re not scared yet, you should be.

  

  Connect the dots.

  Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

  To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

  Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata. Finally, add in the local police agencies and SWAT teams that are being “gifted” military-grade weaponry and equipment designed for the battlefield and trained in the tactics of war.

  It all adds up to a terrifying package of brute force coupled with invasive technology and totalitarian tactics.

  This brings me back to those red flag gun laws.

  In the short term, these gun confiscation laws may serve to temporarily delay or discourage those wishing to inflict violence on others, but it will not resolve whatever madness or hate or instability therein that causes someone to pull a trigger or launch a bomb or unleash violence on another.

  Indeed, those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can and do wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives.

  Nor will these laws save us from government-instigated and directed violence at the hands of the militarized police state or the blowback from the war-drenched, violence-imbued, profit-driven military industrial complex, both of which remain largely overlooked and underestimated pieces of the discussion on gun violence in America.

  As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, in the long term, all these gun confiscation laws will do is ensure that when the police state finally cracks down, “we the people” are defenseless in the face of the government’s arsenal of weapons.

  No matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes. In this way, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.

  The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

  Red flag laws and gun control legislation are no less a threat to our freedoms.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 23:50

• Visualizing America's Longest Foreign Wars
  Visualizing America’s Longest Foreign Wars

  President Biden has announced that 2,500 U.S. troops and another 7,000 from NATO will start returning home from Afghanistan in May, with the full withdrawal set to be completed in time for the 20th anniversary of 9/11. In a White House speech, he said:

  “I am now the fourth American president to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan. Two Republicans. Two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth.”

  Statista’s Niall McCarthy details that over the course of nearly two decades, America’s longest war has consumed $2 trillion dollars, cost 110,000 Afghan lives and also resulted in the deaths of 3,500 coalition service members including around 2,400 Americans.

  Biden’s announcement will prove pivotal for Afghanistan and it could accelerate the drive towards peace or plunge the country into further uncertainty and violence. When asked by a reporter about whether the decision was a difficult one, the president said it was not and that “to me, it was absolutely clear”. He continued by stating that “we went for two reasons: to get rid of bin Laden and to end the safe haven. I never thought we were there to somehow unify Afghanistan. It’s never been done.”

  So how does the length of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan compare to other major foreign wars?

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Defining what exactly constitutes a military conflict is not as straightforward as it sounds and down through the years, U.S. participation in major wars, interventions, occupations and suppressions of insurgencies have tended to overlap. The Washington Post took those factors into account when it put an overview of U.S. foreign wars together in 2014.

  It shows that Afghanistan is the longest war in American history by far, running for nearly twice as long as the previous longest conflict, Vietnam. It has also outlasted the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II and the Korean War combined. The reality of the length of the war in Afghanistan becomes clear by the fact that many U.S. troops serving in the country were not even born when the conflict started back in October 2001.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 23:30

• Shipping's Billion-Dollar Coke Bust: 8 Plead Guilty, Sentencing Begins
  Shipping’s Billion-Dollar Coke Bust: 8 Plead Guilty, Sentencing Begins

  By Greg Miller, Senior Editor at Freight Waves,

  Prosecutors called it “the largest cocaine seizure in the 230-year history of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.” Twenty tons of cocaine worth $1 billion was found in seven containers aboard the MSC Gayane at the Philadelphia port on June 17, 2019. On Tuesday, the first of the conspirators — former MSC crewmember Vladimir Penda — was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison for his crime.

  

  Fresh details on who was involved in the conspiracy and how they did it have been revealed in new legal documents filed by prosecutors. They disclosed that a total of eight MSC crewmembers aboard the ship have pleaded guilty — including the chief mate and second mate.

  Brazen smuggling operation

  The MSC Gayane case is so striking because the drugs were not hidden in containers prior to loading at export terminals. Rather, they were brazenly loaded aboard at night in the open sea by MSC crewmembers.

  Speedboats met the ship off South America, and coke-brick-laden duffel bags were hoisted aboard by crew using the ship’s own crane.

  And this was no rust-bucket freighter being used for drug transport. The MSC Gayane is a large, 2018-built container ship with a capacity of 11,600 twenty-foot equivalent units. It is chartered by Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC), the largest ocean carrier in the world (including ships on order). VesselsValue puts its current value at $101.8 million. It is owned by Meridian 7, an entity linked to J.P. Morgan.

  More than a third of crew involved

  Eight crewmembers — more than a third of the total contingent of 22 — participated in the smuggling operation, according to prosecutors. Four were recruited in their home country of Montenegro prior to boarding and coordinated the operation with their land-based associates using mobile “narco” phones. Four other crewmembers were recruited when the ship was at sea to help with the loading operation.

  In addition to Penda, the ship’s fourth engineer, the seven other crewmembers who pleaded guilty are Bosko Markovic, chief mate; Ivan Durasevic, second mate; Nenad Ilic, engineer cadet; Aleksandar Kavaja, electrician; Stefan Bojevic, assistant reeferman; Fonofaavae Tiasaga, able seaman; and Laauli Pulu, ordinary seaman.

  

  The MSC Gayane was met by speedboats on multiple occasions during its voyage. After the duffel bags were hoisted aboard, “crewmembers bent railings on the ship and pulled back doors on the shipping containers so they could fit the bags of cocaine into the containers,” said prosecutors in Penda’s sentencing memorandum.

  The drugs were hidden “among legitimate cargo” and “crewmembers used fake seals to reseal the containers.” Prosecutors said that “the chief mate [Markovic] was in charge of the cargo plan and helped choose the shipping containers in which the cocaine would be stashed.”

  A criminal complaint filed by a special investigator on the day after the bust also cited an alleged leadership role of second mate Durasevic. One of the crew alleged to the investigator that he had been approached by Durasevic to load cocaine starting “on the previous voyage.”

  

  “A good person”

  Penda, who had no previous offenses, was one of the crewmembers recruited while on board.  Prosecutors wrote that the advisory sentencing guidelines called for a prison sentence of 135-168 months. Penda’s attorney argued for 60. The judge gave him 70.

  In affidavits filed before the sentencing, Penda’s family and friends described him as modest, kind, generous, “full of love for his family and people in general, indifferent to material things” … “very sensitive and emotional” … “a good person.”

  Penda grew up in Tivat, Montenegro, and began working for MSC in 2017. His lawyer wrote, “He is committed to facing the consequences of his actions and rebuilding his life after making a big mistake.”

  

  Driven by fear

  Penda “found himself as an engineer on the MSC Gayane alongside members of the Montenegrin mafia who asked Mr. Penda repeatedly to carry cocaine for them,” wrote his lawyer. 

  Penda “declined twice before he realized that ‘no’ was not an acceptable answer. Having lived his whole life in Montenegro [where he] witnessed the dangerous criminal acts committed by Montenegrin crime groups, Mr. Penda knew that he was not safe on the high seas unless he agreed to assist them.

  “His contribution to the enterprise consisted only of his own manual labor carrying the cocaine” from the crane to the ship’s containers, said Penda’s attorney, who said that his client was paid €4,000 ($4,800) for his work.

  The lawyer continued, “After his guilty plea, a Montenegrin newspaper published a story stating that Mr. Penda was cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice. As a result, Mr. Penda’s family was put in immediate danger and feared they would be killed.

  “Some of his family members even went into hiding immediately. Thankfully, with the intervention of Justice Department representatives in Montenegro, we were able to satisfy the reporter that Mr. Penda had not cooperated and thereby have the story retracted.”

  

  What’s next?

  As previously reported by American Shipper, Ilic and Kavaja await sentencing. Ilic was previously scheduled to be sentenced on April 5, but that has been delayed. Kavaja was originally scheduled for sentencing on April 28, but that too has been pushed back.

  The dockets for the five remaining former crewmembers who pleaded guilty were still under seal as of Tuesday.

  As for MSC, the liner giant emphasized in a recent court filing that “the company and everyone in it are victims” of the smuggling operation. It is spending an additional $100 million or more on security through 2024 as a result of the incident, which MSC said caused it “significant financial and reputational damage.”

  As for law enforcement, the Penda sentencing marks the beginning of the end of this stage of the investigation.

  Acting U.S. Attorney Jennifer Arbittier Williams said on Tuesday, “It has been nearly two years since federal agents conducted one of the largest drug seizures in U.S. history. The follow-up investigation uncovered dark-of-night, clandestine drug trafficking conduct which read like a movie plot, and prosecutors in our office have been working nonstop since then to pursue justice in this case. With Mr. Penda’s just sentence being handed down today, this chapter of the MSC Gayane saga is now coming to a close.”

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 23:10

• Meet The World's Most Advanced Beer-Pissing Robot 
  Meet The World’s Most Advanced Beer-Pissing Robot 

  YouTuber Michael Reeves was able to get his hands on a Boston Dynamics’ robot dog Spot and teach it how to pee beer into a cup. The video, which has gone viral and has more than 6.6 million views. 

  “It’s an engineering masterpiece, I wanna make it piss beer into a cup,” Reeves said, who was quoted by NYPost. The 16-minute clip runs through Reeves’ development process of teaching Spot how to piss beer in a cup. 

  

  By the 9:39 minute mark of the video, Reeves unveils the “pissbot” and tells viewers this is the “future of alcoholism.” 

  

  So here’s how pissbot works. You can be anywhere in the room and place the cup on the ground. The robot will find the cup and walk to it using sensors, eventually aligning its piss nozzle and filling up the beer cup. 

  Reeves explains the technology works about 35% of the time. The cutting-edge pisspot failed several attempts but eventually succeeded, pissing a nice cold brew into a solo cup with precision. 

  Since Boston Dynamics recently made Spot commercially available, others have programmed the robot dog to survey oil rigs and buildings. Others have strapped paintball guns to the Spot, which angered the robotics firm. Even the French Army is testing Spot. 

  Spot’s terms and conditions prohibit the use of weaponizing the robot “to harm or intimidate any person or animal, as a weapon, or to enable any weapon.” One could argue that if Spot is used as a reconnaissance robot, it would indirectly harm a human being (a gray area). 

  So pissing beer in a cup is fine, but using the robot for warfare is frowned upon by the company. 

  At the end of the video, Reeves travels from Los Angeles to Boston Dynamics’ headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts, to take a piss, showing his respect for the robotics company.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 22:50

• US Intelligence Officially Walks Back Claim Russia Paid Bounties For US Troops In Afghanistan
  US Intelligence Officially Walks Back Claim Russia Paid Bounties For US Troops In Afghanistan

  Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

  Since The New York Times published a story in June 2020 that claimed US intelligence concluded Russia offered bounties to militants in Afghanistan to kill US troops, it has slowly been revealed that the report had no basis. On Thursday, putting the final nail in the coffin of the Russian bounty hoax, the Biden administration walked back the claim.

  “The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks US and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier,” a senior administration official told The Daily Beast.

  Can’t wait for the hour-long retraction special by @maddow and the ENTIRE hysterical @msnbc @cnn lineup who dutifully has been doing stenography for U.S. intelligence since the dawn of time https://t.co/HkDIKdH3y7

  — Jordan (@JordanChariton) April 15, 2021

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

  As The Daily Beast report explains, “low to moderate confidence” means “the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven — and possibly untrue.”

  The comments from the officials are not surprising, as US intelligence agencies, most notably the NSA, dissented from the Russian bounty story almost immediately. Shortly after the original New York Times report was published, NSA sources spoke out against the conclusion.

  A memo circulated by the National Intelligence Council in July 2020 said only the CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center assessed with “medium confidence” that Russia offered the Taliban bounties. The memo said other intelligence agencies, only mentioning the NSA by name, gave it “low confidence.” According to US intelligence agencies’ definition of the confidence levels, the “medium” or “moderate” confidence level leaves plenty of room for doubt.

  US officials told The Daily Beast that the reporting about the alleged bounties came from “detainee reporting,” which suggests the bogus information was obtained through interrogation by the US-backed Afghan government, which has a history of torturing prisoners. The fact that some of the information was obtained through interrogation was included in the original New York Times report, one reason why so many doubted it.

  The Daily Beast today: “U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops”

  But hey, last year Joe Biden and Kamala Harris got what they wanted: pic.twitter.com/Z2hAu3s9tI

  — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) April 15, 2021

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

  President Trump dismissed the Russian bounty story as a “hoax,” which prompted cries of treason from his political opponents. The report inspired House Democrats, working with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) to add an amendment to the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that sought to block troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, which was included in the final NDAA.

  Despite the fact that the Russian bounty story has zero credibility, the Biden administration is still using it to advance hawkish Russia policies. When announcing a series of sanctions on Moscow and the expelling of Russian diplomats on Thursday, the State Department cited “reports of bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan”.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 22:30

• New York City's Super Rich Brace For Highest Income Tax Rate In The Country
  New York City’s Super Rich Brace For Highest Income Tax Rate In The Country

  It’s almost like New York State is trying to drive people out of the state and to tax havens like Florida.

  The richest of the rich in New York are now staring down the barrel of paying the highest personal income tax rate in the country, with Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s proposed rate increases, also known as his “Millionaire’s Tax”. 

  And while the tax will affect 123,000 New Yorkers across the state, the number of millionaires set to pay the highest rate in New York City dwindles to just about 500 households, according to a new review of the tax by MarketWatch. 

  A total of 15,165 city taxpayers will be on their way to a tax hike under the new state tax. Of those, 529 are slated to pay the top rate, designated for those making more than $25 million per year. Among those names are famous New York citizens like Michael Bloomberg, Julia Koch and Leonard Lauder. Bloomberg has a net worth of $59 billion, while Koch is worth $46.4 billion and Lauder is worth $25.5 billion. 

  The forthcoming state budget will generate $2.8 billion in new taxes from the super rich in the upcoming year and $3.3 billion in the next year. 

  

  The changes raise the state’s top rate to 9.65% from 8.82% for households that make over $1 million. Those making between $5 million and $25 million sport a 10.3% tax rate and people making over $25 million have a 10.9% rate.

  Meanwhile, New York City already assesses a 3.88% top tax rate. The combined city and state rate for the three highest end tiers easily surpasses California’s 13.3% top tax rate. And this is all, of course, on top of a 37% Federal tax rate for those making at least $518,400 per year. 

  About 55,215 New York State residents make at least $1 million and their combined tax bill accounted for 31.1% of the state’s 2019 tax liability. Marketwatch concluded:

  • Within that, 48,243 taxpayers make between $1 million and $5 million, paying an estimated 13.2% of the state’s 2019 tax liability.
  • Another 5,053 taxpayers earn between $5 million and $25 million, and account for an estimated 6.9% of the liability.
  • At the highest end, 1,919 New York State residents make at least $25 million and paid for 11% of the 2019 tax liability, the comptroller data said.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 22:10

• Can Huarong Go Bankrupt?
  Can Huarong Go Bankrupt?

  By Ling Huawei, managing editor of Caixin Media and Caixin Weekly. Originally published in Caixin,

  After China Huarong Asset Management Co. Ltd. on March 31 decided to suspend its share trading the next day, the market became awash in rumors that the company, one of the country’s four largest bad-asset managers, would be forced into restructuring or might even go bankrupt (as we discussed in “This Is A Fatal Event”: China’s Bond Market Hammered After Huarong Bankruptcy Rumors).

  

  The rumors spooked many institutional investors, sending the company’s bonds tumbling. Huarong, a product of China’s reform of state-owned banks at the end of last century, has once again found itself at the center of a critical moment in its history.

  

  But can Huarong go bankrupt?

  Huarong is not a bank. Most of its investors are the institutional sort, not individuals. If it were to go bankrupt, the spillover risks ought to be much easier to handle. Also, although Huarong has total assets upward of 1.7 trillion yuan ($259 billion), the central bank does not regard it as a systemically important financial institution. Therefore, it seems that Huarong’s problems ought to be dealt with in the same “market-oriented” way as average financial institutions. Under China’s Company Law in the case, shareholders would need to fill the holes on the books with net assets. After that, the company could issue new shares or introduce strategic investors to supplement the company’s capital. If the company was still insolvent after all that, it might end up facing debt restructuring or bankruptcy.

  However, Huarong is not an ordinary company. Rather it is a central government-administrated state-owned financial enterprise. At the end of last century, the company was set up to dispose of the nonperforming assets of state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd. Since 2006, it gradually expanded into a financial holding company. Huarong’s biggest shareholder is the Ministry of Finance, which holds a 61.25% stake. Huarong has grown its business mainly by obtaining financing with a state guarantee. In July 2014, the company started issuing bonds overseas, the outstanding value of which is more than $23 billion.

  Huarong, which went public in Hong Kong in October 2015, provides financing to multiple industries, with a large portion of its investment flowing into the property market or other areas where bank lending is kept under tight restrictions. Excluding its subsidiary, Huarong Xiangjiang Bank Corp. Ltd., Huarong has around 1 trillion yuan in assets, connecting financial institutions including banks, trust firms and insurance firms and nonfinancial industries. That gives Huarong certain characteristics of a systemically important financial institution that probably shouldn’t be allowed to go bankrupt.

  Regardless of whether it ends up going bankrupt, Huarong will need to put under strict financial constraints. Lai Xiaomin, a former chairman of Huarong who came under investigation in April 2018, was sentenced to death this January in the country’s biggest financial corruption case since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Some believe that Lai’s misconduct as chairman left Huarong with a huge financial black hole. The complexity of Lai’s case made it difficult to unwind some of Huarong’s more problematic projects, so it’s unrealistic to expect Huarong to fill that hole all on its own.

  As of mid-2020, Huarong had 160 billion yuan in net assets, and more than 30 billion yuan in loan-loss provisions. Huarong needs to be thoroughly recapitalized and have the value of its nonperforming assets correctly recalculated. It needs to “take a big bath.” Unless it does so, the company’s moral hazard will continue to grow. The financial black hole won’t disappear on its own, so Huarong needs to take responsibility and shoulder the losses.

  There’s no making without breaking. “Breaking” does not mean a hasty debt restructuring or even bankruptcy, but a practical restructuring plan created after completely clarifying its assets and liabilities. “Making” means Huarong needs to have the professional capabilities to dispose of nonperforming assets, to become a professional institution that can effectively dispose of such assets at both home and abroad.

  To achieve this goal, Hong Kong-listed Huarong will need the support and understanding of shareholders and other investors so that it can be privatized and delisted if necessary. Also, it needs to clear up its financials and recalculate its loss provisions. It will also need to reduce the costs of restructuring as much as possible and once again become a professional institution by reshaping its corporate culture and improving its internal governance.

  Update

  Confirming the above, this morning Bloomberg reported that Huarong has prepared funds for full repayment of a S$600 million offshore bond due April 27, according to a person with direct knowledge of the company’s plan.

  Huarong plans to make the payment on the due date, while a Huarong spokesperson declined to comment but said the company has “adequate liquidity” and has made full repayment on bonds that have matured

  Huarong International, the main offshore arm of China Huarong, “will continue its stable and compliant operations based on new business development plan,” the spokesperson said.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 21:50

• Drone Images Reveal Biden's Migrant Camp In Texas Expands As Border Crisis Rages
  Drone Images Reveal Biden’s Migrant Camp In Texas Expands As Border Crisis Rages

  Fox News’ Flight Team deployed an unmanned aerial vehicle in Donna, Texas, which reveals the extent to which the immigration facility has rapidly expanded in the last several weeks as the Biden administration struggles to find space for migrants. 

  New drone images show the facility has greatly expanded in a month. There are an estimated 4,000 migrants in custody at the facility, and each pod contained 500-600 migrants. Health guidelines state there should only be 32 people in each pod – so clearly, there are overcrowding concerns. 

  A flood of migrants have been filing up the Donna facility since President Biden took office – a stark contrast to the Trump administration, which required that migrants wait in Mexico while the US processed asylum requests, as opposed to Biden’s policy of letting everyone in and simply trusting migrants to show up for their hearings.

  Fox News’ Flight Team took photos of the facility in March and earlier this week, showing that it has expanded.

  The Donna facility as of March 31, 2021

  

  The Donna facility as of April 14, 2021

  

  The Department of Health and Human Services said while it is working to boost capacity, “additional capacity is urgently needed to manage the increasing numbers” of migrant children. The agency said the site is temporary.

  The Biden administration has repeatedly rejected the idea the border is in a crisis. Meanwhile, leaked photos from the facility in March show hundreds of children crammed together in pods, according to Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), who provided the images to Axios to raise awareness about the deteriorating situation.

  

  

  

  With so many migrants caught illegally crossing into the US, the Biden administration in early April was forced to start constructing a temporary annex facility for unaccompanied minors next to the Donna facility. 

  House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) posted video footage of numerous unaccompanied children at the facility, calling it “child abuse.” 

  🚨 I visited the Donna processing facility yesterday.

  These are the videos Joe Biden & Kamala Harris don’t want you to see.

  This is the devastating result of their disastrous left-wing immigration agenda.

  RT so everyone can see what they’re trying to hide. This is child abuse. pic.twitter.com/7y7sQp50Pn

  — Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) April 10, 2021

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

  Elsewhere on the border, things are so out of control that Gila Bend, a town near Arizona’s border with Mexico, declared a state of emergency over the border crisis. 

  Arizona sheriff Mark Lamb of Pinal County told “Fox & Friends” last month that President Bidens border crisis is worse than the Obama years, as the surge in illegal immigrants hits a 20-year-high. 

  Republicans have attacked the Biden administration for stoking the migrant crisis by ending former President Trump’s border policies, such as ordering to stop border wall construction. 

  However, since the migrant crisis has spiraled out of control, President Biden was forced to recently restart border wall construction to ‘plug gaps’ in the current barrier. 

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 21:30

• China Officially 'Enemy Number 1' In Annual US Threat Assessment Report
  China Officially ‘Enemy Number 1’ In Annual US Threat Assessment Report

  Via SouthFront.org,

  On April 13th, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released [pdf] its annual threat assessment report.

  

  The report reflects the collective insights of the Intelligence Community (IC), which is committed every day to providing the nuanced, independent, and unvarnished intelligence that policymakers, warfighters, and domestic law enforcement personnel need to protect American lives and America’s interests anywhere in the world.

  “This assessment focuses on the most direct, serious threats to the United States during the next year. The order of the topics presented in this assessment does not necessarily indicate their relative importance or the magnitude of the threats in the view of the IC. All require a robust intelligence response, including those where a near-term focus may help head off greater threats in the future, such as climate change and environmental degradation.”

  There are no big surprises in the report, Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang have demonstrated the capability and intent to advance their interests at the expense of the United States and its allies, despite the pandemic.

  Climate change is an important point, as well as there is an overview of the significant conflicts around the world, or simply instability between key players. This includes Afghanistan, India-Pakistan tensions, the Middle East in general, Asia as a whole, Latin America, and also Africa.

  “China increasingly is a near-peer competitor, challenging the United States in multiple arenas—especially economically, militarily, and technologically—and is pushing to change global norms. Russia is pushing back against Washington where it can globally, employing techniques up to and including the use of force. Iran will remain a regional menace with broader malign influence activities, and North Korea will be a disruptive player on the regional and world stages. Major adversaries and competitors are enhancing and exercising their military, cyber, and other capabilities, raising the risks to US and allied forces, weakening our conventional deterrence, and worsening the longstanding threat from weapons of mass destruction.”

  For each of the competitor countries, challenging the US interests on a global scale, there is a uniform presentation.

  It presents the “Regional and Global Activities”, “Military Capabilities”, “WMD” (Weapons of Mass Destruction), “Cyber”, “Space” and “Intelligence, Influence Operations, and Elections Influence and Interference”.

  These are as follows:

  China – Beijing is the biggest threat, and the most significant challenge with its ambitions to replace the US as global superpower.

  “The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will continue its whole-of-government efforts to spread China’s influence, undercut that of the United States, drive wedges between Washington and its allies and partners, and foster new international norms that favor the authoritarian Chinese system. Chinese leaders probably will, however, seek tactical opportunities to reduce tensions with Washington when such opportunities suit their interests.”

  Beijing sees increasingly competitive US-China relations as part of an epochal geopolitical shift and views Washington’s economic measures against Beijing since 2018 as part of a broader US effort to contain China’s rise.

  1. China seeks to use coordinated, whole-of-government tools to demonstrate its growing strength and compel regional neighbors to acquiesce to Beijing’s preferences, including its claims over disputed territory and assertions of sovereignty over Taiwan.

  This here includes behavior in the South China Sea, towards Taiwan as mentioned, with India, and the ever-improving relations with Russia.

  2. China will continue pursuing its goals of becoming a great power, securing what it views as its territory, and establishing its preeminence in regional affairs by building a world-class military, potentially destabilizing international norms and relationships. China’s military commitment includes a multiyear agenda of comprehensive military reform initiatives.

  3. Beijing will continue the most rapid expansion and platform diversification of its nuclear arsenal in its history, intending to at least double the size of its nuclear stockpile during the next decade and to field a nuclear triad. Beijing is not interested in arms control agreements that restrict its modernization plans and will not agree to substantive negotiations that lock in US or Russian nuclear advantages.

  4. Beijing is working to match or exceed US capabilities in space to gain the military, economic, and prestige benefits that Washington has accrued from space leadership

  Counterspace operations will be integral to potential military campaigns by the PLA, and China has counterspace weapons capabilities intended to target US and allied satellites.

  5. We assess that China presents a prolific and effective cyber-espionage threat, possesses substantial cyber-attack capabilities, and presents a growing influence threat. China’s cyber pursuits and proliferation of related technologies increase the threats of cyber-attacks against the US homeland, suppression of US web content that Beijing views as threatening to its internal ideological control, and the expansion of technology-driven authoritarianism around the world.

  6. China will continue expanding its global intelligence footprint to better support its growing political, economic, and security interests around the world, increasingly challenging the United States’ alliances and partnerships. Across East Asia and the western Pacific, which Beijing views as its natural sphere of influence, China is attempting to exploit doubts about the US commitment to the region, undermine Taiwan’s democracy, and extend Beijing’s influence.

  Russia – despite less-threatening than China currently, and according to the report unwilling to initiate a direct conflict with the US, Moscow is still a key adversary, not too far off from China in terms of threat to US interest.

  “Moscow will continue to employ a variety of tactics this year meant to undermine US influence, develop new international norms and partnerships, divide Western countries and weaken Western alliances, and demonstrate Russia’s ability to shape global events as a major player in a new multipolar international order.”

  1. Russia probably will continue to expand its global military, intelligence, security, commercial, and energy footprint and build partnerships with US allies and adversaries alike, most notably Russia’s growing strategic cooperation with China, to achieve its objectives.

  “We assess that Moscow will employ an array of tools—especially influence campaigns, intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation, military aid and combined exercises, mercenary operations, assassinations, and arms sales—to advance its interests or undermine the interests of the United States and its allies. We expect Moscow to insert itself into crises when Russian interests are at stake, it can turn a power vacuum into an opportunity, or the anticipated costs of action are low.”

  2. Despite declining defense spending, Russia will emphasize new weapons that present increased threats to the United States and regional actors while continuing its foreign military engagements, conducting training exercises, and incorporating lessons from its involvement in Syria and Ukraine.

  3. The report assesses Russia will remain the largest and most capable WMD rival to the United States for the foreseeable future as it expands and modernizes its nuclear weapons capabilities and increases the capabilities of its strategic and nonstrategic weapons. Russia also remains a nuclear-material security concern, despite improvements to physical security at Russian nuclear sites since the 1990s.

  4. Russia will remain a top cyber threat as it refines and employs its espionage, influence, and attack capabilities.

  5. Russia will remain a key space competitor, maintaining a large network of reconnaissance, communications, and navigation satellites. It will focus on integrating space services—such as communications; positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT); geolocation; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance—into its weapons and command-and-control systems.

  6. Russia presents one of the most serious intelligence threats to the United States, using its intelligence services and influence tools to try to divide Western alliances, preserve its influence in the post-Soviet area, and increase its sway around the world, while undermining US global standing, sowing discord inside the United States, and influencing US voters and decision-making.

  Iran – it presents a continuing threat to US and allied interests in the region as it tries to erode US influence and support Shia populations abroad, entrench its influence and project power in neighboring states, deflect international pressure, and minimize threats to regime stability.

  “Although Iran’s deteriorating economy and poor regional reputation present obstacles to its goals, Tehran will try a range of tools—diplomacy, expanding its nuclear program, military sales and acquisitions, and proxy and partner attacks—to advance its goals.”

  Risks will reportedly be taken by Tehran to increase tensions and try to gain leverage against US to get concessions on sanctions.

  1. Iran will remain a problematic actor in Iraq, which will be the key battleground for Iran’s influence this year and during the next several years, and Iranian-supported Iraqi Shia militias will continue to pose the primary threat to US personnel in Iraq. The situation is largely the same for Iran’s influence in Syria and Yemen. It notably remains the biggest threat to Israel. It is expected to take more part in Afghanistan, too.

  2. Iran’s diverse military capabilities and its hybrid approach to warfare—using both conventional and unconventional capabilities—will continue to pose a threat to US and allied interests in the region for the foreseeable future.

  3. Iran remains interested in developing networks inside the United States—an objective it has pursued for more than a decade—but the greatest risk to US persons exists outside the Homeland, particularly in the Middle East and South Asia.

  4. If Tehran does not receive sanctions relief, Iranian officials probably will consider options ranging from further enriching uranium up to 60 percent to designing and building a new 40 Megawatt Heavy Water reactor.

  “We continue to assess that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities that we judge would be necessary to produce a nuclear device. However, following the US withdrawal from the JCPOA agreement in May 2018, Iranian officials have abandoned some of Iran’s commitments and resumed some nuclear activities that exceed the JCPOA limits.”

  5. Iran’s expertise and willingness to conduct aggressive cyber operations make it a significant threat to the security of US and allied networks and data. Iran has the ability to conduct attacks on critical infrastructure, as well as to conduct influence and espionage activities.

  North Korea – it is not out of the question for Kim Jong Un to undertake a number of aggressive and potentially destabilizing actions to reshape the regional security environment and drive wedges between the United States and its allies—up to and including the resumption of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) testing.

  1. North Korea will pose an increasing threat to the United States, South Korea, and Japan as it continues to improve its conventional military capabilities.

  2. North Korea will be a WMD threat for the foreseeable future, because Kim remains strongly committed to the country’s nuclear weapons, the country is actively engaged in ballistic missile research and development, and Pyongyang’s CBW efforts persist.

  3. North Korea’s cyber program poses a growing espionage, theft, and attack threat.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 21:10

• There Are Now More Real Estate Agents Than Homes For Sale In The U.S.
  There Are Now More Real Estate Agents Than Homes For Sale In The U.S.

  If there has been one surefire beneficiary of the Fed printing trillions of new dollars and bailing out the entire U.S. economy at the cost of what will likely be a hyperinflationary disaster in the future, it has been the housing market. 

  The real estate market has surged into 2021, as newly cash flush U.S. citizens (thanks to a slew of government ‘free money’) leave cities and look to settle down in the suburbs. To say the market is running hot would be a vast understatement. 

  And this, of course, has resulted in an influx of new realtors. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal reports, “there are more real-estate agents than homes for sale in the U.S.”. It marks only the second time in history The National Association of Realtors member count is above the number of homes on the market. The other time was in December of 2019. 

  At the end of January, there were 1.04 million homes from sale (down 26% YOY and the lowest on record since 1982). The NAR posted 1.45 million members, up 4.8% from the year prior. The Journal wrote:

  The business is pretty fluid. NAR, which represents the majority of active U.S. residential real-estate agents and brokers, said about 15% of its membership turns over every year. Agents usually work as independent contractors, and many work part time.

  The number of agents also tends to roughly correlate with the performance of the housing market. The ranks of NAR rose to 1.37 million in October 2006—shortly after the market’s peak—then bottomed out around 960,000 in March 2012, following the housing crash. NAR membership has risen every year since.

  Real estate broker Redfin says it is now hiring 162 people a week after furloughing 41% of its agents in April of last year. At the same time last year, it was hiring just 92 people per week.

  

  Because of the glut of realtors, many are finding it difficult to churn up business for themselves. Many new realtors are defectors from the hospitality industry, where innumerable bartenders, waiters, hosts and cooks have all been laid off due to (the government’s response to) the pandemic. But being a realtor is often times easier said than done.

  “There are very low barriers to entry, in terms of the ease of getting a real-estate license. But the barriers to success are very high,” one Re/Max employee said.

  The Journal highlights Michael Mitchell in Boston, who got his license in October 2020 after being laid off from another job. He has yet to get a deal done. 

  “I’ve learned some aspects of the business, but it’s hard to connect with people…that you’ve never met,” he said.

  That’s because buyers and sellers generally like to drift toward agents who have track records and experience to fall back on. Realtors with under two years of experience earned a median gross income of just $8,900 from their real estate work in 2019, the report says. As you stay on the job longer, that median gross income rises. 

  Another new realtor, Diana Dorel Gutierrez, shared what she was told by her new co-workers:

   “They said, ‘You don’t have any idea what you’re in for. This is the worst time to be an agent [for buyers] and the best time if you’re the listing agent.’”

  She concluded on a note of optimism: “If you can do it in this industry at this time, you can do anything.”

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 20:50

• Tucker Carlson Responds To Fauci Labelling His Basic Questions "Crazy Conspiracy Theory"
  Tucker Carlson Responds To Fauci Labelling His Basic Questions “Crazy Conspiracy Theory”

  Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

  Tucker Carlson responded to Anthony Fauci’s accusation that it is “a typical crazy conspiracy theory” to question why restrictions must remain in place even with a COVID vaccine by asking “If this stuff works, why can’t you live like it works?“

  

  Fauci has refused to appear on Carlson’s show, but instead appears daily on CNN, where Wednesday he said “I don’t have any idea of what [Carlson] is talking about,” and called the Fox host a ‘conspiracy theorist’ for questioning why masks and distancing still need to be in place if the vaccine works.

  Carlson responded by repeating the same “very straightforward” question, “why do people who have been previously infected and show high levels of antibodies have to live under the restrictions that the vaccines were supposed to eliminate?”

  “Why, for example, does Tony Fauci say you have to wear a mask after you get the vaccine?” Carlson continued, adding “If we are following the science, and we sincerely hope to, we’re wondering, is Fauci telling Americans who have been vaccinated or who have been recovered from the coronavirus itself, that they aren’t protected against future infections?”

  “Is that why he is saying they can’t eat in restaurants or go to bars? These are not trick questions. They are the most basic of all questions. We would love to have Dr. Fauci on this show to explain them.,” Carlson continued.

  “This, again, is not a trick question, we are not playing word games here, what is the answer?” Carlson pleaded, adding:

  “If the coronavirus vaccine prevents you from catching the coronavirus, why are you wearing a mask? Why can’t you eat in a restaurant? And if it doesn’t prevent you from catching the coronavirus, why are we taking it in the first place? Both can’t be true.”

  Watch:

  https://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=6249029916001&w=466&h=263Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 20:30

• Morgan Stanley Prime: These Are The 6 Main Hedge Fund Trading Themes In 2021
  Morgan Stanley Prime: These Are The 6 Main Hedge Fund Trading Themes In 2021

  Those wondering how hedge funds are doing may get conflicting answers depending on whom they ask.

  On one hand, according to Goldman Prime (best known these days for liquidating its margin called clients to extinction), the average Long-Short hedge funds was flat for Q1, with some outperformance observed only in the first two weeks of April.

  

  On the other hand, if one reads the FT, one finds articles such as “Hedge funds post best start to year since before financial crisis“  in which we read, perplexingly, that “hedge funds have navigated the GameStop short squeeze and the collapse of family office Archegos Capital to post their best first quarter of performance since before the global financial crisis.”

  According to the FT, “funds generated returns of just under 1% last month to take gains in the first three months of the year to 4.8%, the best first quarter since 2006, according to data group Eurekahedge. Recent data from HFR, meanwhile, show funds made 6.1% in the first three months of the year, the strongest first-quarter gain since 2000.”

  The gains are a marked contrast to the first three months of 2020, when funds slumped by around 11.6 per cent as the onset of the pandemic sent equity and other risky markets tumbling. However, funds later recovered strongly to post their best year of returns since 2009.

  While we agree that 2020 was catastrophic for hedge funds, it’s certainly new to use that hedge funds did so well in Q1 – after all according to the HFRX hedge fund index, the average hedge fund is not only underperforming the S&P500 and retail investors, but was effectively flat for Q1.

  Morgan Stanley’s latest Prime report confirms as much, writing that “March was another challenging month for HF performance, with most strategies posting losses despite Global equity indices ending higher MoM.” The report goes on to note that one of the main drivers behind this was the long side, as HF longs lagged the MSCI by close to ~5.5% for the month across Global L/S positions, which caused total alpha to end the month down -3.5%.

  

  Some more details from Morgan Stanley:

  The average Global fund ended the month down ~20bps, while the average Global Equity L/S fund was down slightly more at -0.9%; this all compares to the MSCI AC World Index posting gains of +2.7% in the month of March. Notably, the average fund was down slightly more heading into the final week of March, but was able to recover in the final few days. YTD, the average Global fund is now up +2.9% vs. the MSCI up +4.7%, while the average L/S fund is up +3.5%

  MS also calculates that on an asset-weighted basis, “the average Global Equity L/S return was -2.0% for March MTD.”

  The divergence between the FT report and HFR/Prime brokers appears to be that the former focused on a handful of outlier performers and extrapolated while ignoring the overall trend in the industry.

  Case in point, the FT writes that “among some of the biggest winners is technology specialist Lee Ainslie’s Maverick Capital, which late last year switched into value stocks. Maverick has also profited from a longstanding holding in SoftBank-backed ecommerce firm Coupang, which floated last month, and a timely position in GameStop. It has gained around 36 per cent. New York-based Senvest, which began buying GameStop shares in September, has gained 67 per cent.”

  Also profiting is Crispin Odey’s Odey European fund, which rose nearly 60 per cent, having lost around 30 per cent last year, according to numbers sent to investors.

  Odey’s James Hanbury has gained 7.3 per cent in his LF Brook Absolute Return fund, helped by positions in stocks such as pub group JD Wetherspoon and Wagamama owner The Restaurant Group. Such stocks have been helped by the UK’s progress on the rollout of the coronavirus vaccine, which has raised hopes of an economic rebound.”

  It appears that what the FT did is merely read the latest HSBC hedge fund league table and work backward. So here it is, stripped of all commentary:

  

  So to provide some actual signal, here are the 6 main themes from the latest Morgan Stanley prime broker report, first focusing on global hedge fund positioning and leverage…

  THEME #1: HFs Sell Global Equities in March; Global L/S Ratio Dips in Line with Net Activity

  HFs were net sellers of Global equities in March, though the net selling was mostly concentrated in the week ending March 19th, driven by the US and China – HFs added to shorts and sold longs in both countries. Despite this, N. Am was the only region to see net buying in March, while AxJ, Japan, and Europe were all net sold.

  In line with the selling in March, the Global L/S ratio (ex. Quants) fell MoM, though it remains quite elevated over the longer term. Currently, the ratio sits just below 2.5x, which represents the 86th %-tile over the last 12M and the 99th since 2010.

  

  THEME #2: Gross & Net Leverage (across Strategies) Falls from Recent Highs

  Despite the fact we saw funds across all strategies adding to both longs and shorts on a net basis in March, the average gross leverage level (across strategies) fell from a +1.1 z-score at the start of March to a +0.9 z-score by month-end. For reference,  gross leverage reached near peak levels since 2010 in late Jan of this year (in line with the last week of Jan. in 2018). After reaching a high since 2010 in mid-February this year, net leverage across strategies also fell in March from a +2.7 z-score to start the month to +2.5 z-score by month-end. The main drivers behind this were Multi-Strat / Macro and Asia funds, as net leverage fell -8% and -4% across the two strategies respectively.

  

  … and then the 4 main themes on North American positioning:

  THEME #1: Re-Grossing That Began In Feb Slowed in March, But Gross Leverage Remains Elevated

  One the key trends following the Jan de-grossing event has been the re-grossing across single-names by L/S funds, which is something we saw play out throughout all of Feb and into the early days of March. The re-grossing trend has since slowed materially, with gross flows across single-names essentially paired off for the past ~2.5 weeks. While we have yet to see HFs de-gross in any material size, it has been an interesting break in trend, and comes at a time where gross leverage remains near longer-term highs – US L/S gross leverage now sits at 198% (95th %-tile since 2010), which is where it stood at the end of Feb.

  

  THEME #2: Growth and Value Detract from L/S Returns; HFs Beginning to Rotate Towards Value

  Long Growth / short Value was one of the more effective trades throughout all of 2020, as attribution from the two factors was one of the main drivers behind the strong positive alpha generated last year. 2021, however, has been a much different story with the two factors now among the largest detractors from total return across US L/S positions. The negative attribution began in late 2020, but it wasn’t really until this past month where we began to see HFs actively rotating away from Growth into Value – currently, net exp to Value is near ~6 month highs, though it remains light relative to longer-dated history.

  From a flows perspective, most of the rotation took place in the weeks ending 3/19 and 3/26, with these two weeks in particular among the largest weeks of buying of Value / selling of Growth in the past year.Z

  

  THEME #3: HFs Add to Higher Quality Names in the Back Half of March

  In addition to buying Value on a net basis in the month of March, HFs were also relatively large buyers of the Quality factor. The majority of the buying took place in the 2nd half of March as the factor began to outperform, which perhaps indicates a declining risk appetite, with HFs favoring higher quality names. The shift towards Quality was largely driven by a shift away from small caps in favor of large cap stocks. Net exposure to Quality, like Value, is also close to ~6 month highs, but remains in the 24th %-tile since the start of 2019.

  

  THEME #4: Flows to Large Cap Tech Turn Positive, While Unprofitable Tech Sentiment Cools

  In line with the shift towards Large Cap names / Quality / Size, HFs were net buyers of Large Cap Tech in the back half of March. Net exposure to this cohort of names had bottomed in early March as flows had been trending towards selling for most of 2021 (and also in late ’20), but it has since rebounded sharply in recent weeks.

  On the other hand, we’ve seen the buying of the more ‘Unprofitable / Expensive’ Tech names slow, in line with the challenging performance of these names. Net exposure had reached a high at the end of Feb, but the combination of marginal amounts of selling (short adds) and weak relative performance have caused net exp to fall to the 69th %-tile over the last 12M.

  

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 20:10

• Remembering Solyndra – A $524 Million Green Energy Failure
  Remembering Solyndra – A $524 Million Green Energy Failure

  Authored by Adam Andrzejewski via RealClearPolicy,

  Considering President Joseph Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan, Americans should first review the taxpayer money that was spent on projects in 2009 and learn from the ones that were massive failures.

  

  Biden asked Congress to invest $35 billion in green energy leadership to see “technology breakthroughs that address the climate crisis and position America as the global leader in clean energy technology and clean energy jobs,” according to the White House fact sheet.

  

  But look as recently as 2009, when Congress passed the the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act during President Barack Obama’s administration.

  That $831 billion spending package made lots of promises, including to save jobs and create new ones, but waste — and possibly some fraud — tainted the outcomes.

  Often referenced as a what-not-to-do in stimulus financing, solar panel start-up Solyndra cost taxpayers $570 million.

  The company received $535 million in loans from the 2009 stimulus and a $25 million tax break from California’s agency for alternative energy.

  Solyndra said it would use the $535 million to invest in generating solar energy.

  But a report from the Inspector General’s Office later found that the company misled the U.S. Department of Energy in its application and that the department did not manage and approve Solyndra’s loan guarantee properly.

  In 2011, Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, laid off its 1,100 employees and ended its operations.

  About six months before closing shop, the company also received $10.3 million in long-term credit from the U.S. Export-Import Bank for its exports to Belgium.

  To prevent a repeat, the American public and Congress should ask questions of Biden’s recent proposal, vet the companies and projects, get bipartisan support, and then audit “every dime” of the spending on the projects.

  The #WasteOfTheDay is presented by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 19:50

• NY Advisory Firm COO Pleads Guilty To Over $100 Million "Ponzi-Like" Scheme
  NY Advisory Firm COO Pleads Guilty To Over $100 Million “Ponzi-Like” Scheme

  The Department of Justice U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York yesterday announced that a managing partner and COO at New York-based investment advisory firm International Investment Group (“IIG”) had pled guilty to “investment adviser fraud, securities fraud, and wire fraud offenses in connection with an over $100 million scheme” to defraud his clients. 

  Martin Silver pled guilty to perpetrating a scheme that lasted more than 10 years, the release said. He created “fictitious investments” and overvalued investments used to generate funds “to pay off earlier investors in a Ponzi-like manner,” the Department of Justice said.

  The release said that from 2007 to 2019, Silver conspired to defraud investors in IIG-managed funds by:

  • (i) overvaluing distressed loans held by the IIG Funds

  • (ii) falsifying paperwork to create a series of fake loans that were classified, fraudulently, as positively performing loans, and to otherwise hide losses

  • (iii) selling overvalued and fake loans to a collateralized loan obligation trust and new private funds established and advised by IIG

  • (iv) using the proceeds from those fraudulent sales to generate liquidity required to pay off earlier investors in a Ponzi-like manner.

  

  The 63 year old pled guilty to “one count of conspiracy to commit investment adviser fraud, securities fraud, and wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of securities fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.”

  He will be sentenced in November 2021. 

  Manhattan U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss commented: “Today, Martin Silver admitted to participating in a sophisticated, decade-long scheme to defraud IIG funds and investors, abandoning his fiduciary responsibilities to IIG’s clients, and causing millions of dollars of losses.  My Office remains committed to policing investment advisers who seek to take advantage of their clients for personal and professional gain.”

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 19:30

• Taliban Promises 'Nightmare' For US Troops If They Stay Past May 1st
  Taliban Promises ‘Nightmare’ For US Troops If They Stay Past May 1st

  Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

  Since President Biden is breaking the US-Taliban peace deal by pushing back the May 1st withdrawal deadline to September 11th, the Taliban said it is ready to attack US troops again and turn the final months of Washington’s almost twenty-year-old war into a “nightmare.”

  Mullah Salih Khan, a Taliban commander in the Helmand Province, told The Daily Beast on Wednesday that the group is prepared to strike “very much prepared to strike” US and Afghan government forces, warning that the Taliban will turn Afghanistan “into a nightmare” for them.

  

  Mullah Mujahid Rahman, a Taliban subcommander from the Ghazni province, also said the group was ready to fight the US. He said the US has “proven they can’t be trusted after retreating from the May 1st deadline” and that the Taliban is willing to “fight till the end” of the US occupation.

  “We have the pride of defeating about 100,000 invaders from [different] countries in Afghanistan. A few thousand won’t be a problem at all,” he said.

  Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid delivered a warning via Twitter on Wednesday. “If the agreement is breached and foreign forces fail to exit our country on the specified date, problems will certainly be compounded and those whom failed to comply with the agreement will be held liable,” he said.

  Since the US-Taliban deal was signed in Doha in February 2020, no US troops have died in combat in Afghanistan. Leading up to President Biden’s decision on Afghanistan, the Taliban has been clear that they will again target US troops if they remain in the country beyond May 1st.

  Imagine the optics if America is pulling out of Afghanistan on 9/11 under fire from the Taliban. This is such an avoidable shame.

  — Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) April 14, 2021

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

  Formally announcing his plan on Wednesday, President Biden tried to frame his new timeline as being compliant with the deal. But instead of leaving Afghanistan by May 1st, Biden is starting the withdrawal process on that date with the goal of completing it before September 11th.

  Tyler Durden
  Thu, 04/15/2021 – 19:10