• Why Propaganda Is Vital In Upholding The Illusion Of A Democracy
  Why Propaganda Is Vital In Upholding The Illusion Of A Democracy
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 23:40

  Authored by Cynthia Chung via The Saker blog,

  “Whenever the government of the United States shall break up, it will probably be in consequence of a false direction having been given to public opinion. This is the weak point of our defenses, and the part to which the enemies of the system will direct all their attacks. Opinion can be so perverted as to cause the false to seem true; the enemy, a friend, and the friend, an enemy; the best interests of the nation to appear insignificant, and the trifles of moment; in a word, the right the wrong, the wrong the right. In a country where opinion has sway, to seize upon it, is to seize upon power. As it is a rule of humanity that the upright and well-intentioned are comparatively passive, while the designing, dishonest, and selfish are the most untiring in their efforts, the danger of public opinion’s getting a false direction is four-fold, since few men think for themselves.”

  -James Fenimore Cooper

  Democracy is something that has been completely taken for granted here in the West. There is an ongoing triumph over past laurels, without paying heed to the road we have strayed from. We criticize others for failing to uphold a standard we consider ourselves the leaders of, but democracy is not something simply “acquired” and subsequently “retained,” it is not a “possession.” This is because a system of democracy is at every moment of its existence defined by the character of its citizenry. Democracy only exists if it is upheld, and if a citizenry fails to do so, it renders itself defenseless to an ever-creeping tyranny.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  For such a “creeping tyranny,” control is conditional to whether the citizenry is satisfied with an ever-growing “illusion of democracy.” Such a construct needs to give its subjects the impression that they have “free choice” in what shapes their future and their way of life, including: who will be their “friends” and who will be their “foes.”

  And thus, War has always depended on a reliable system to spread its propaganda.

  The Arthashastra written by Chankya (350-283 BCE) who was chief advisor to the Emperor Chandragupta (the first ruler of the Mauryan Empire) discusses propaganda and how to disperse and apply it in warfare. It is one of the oldest accounts of the essentialism of propaganda in warfare.

  Propaganda is vital in times of war because it is absolutely imperative that the people, who often need to make the greatest sacrifices and suffer the most, believe that such a war is justified and that such a war will provide them security. To the degree that they believe this to be true, the greater the degree of sacrifice and suffering they are willing to submit themselves for said “promised security”.

  It is crucial that when the people look at the “enemy” they see something sub-human, for if they recognise that said “enemy” has in fact humanity, the jig is up so to speak.

  And thus we are bombarded day after day, hour after hour of reminders as to why the “enemy” is not human like us, not compassionate like us, not patient, just and wise like us.

  No doubt, war has been a necessary response when tyranny has formed an army to fight for its cause, but I would put forth that most wars have been rather unnecessary and downright manipulated for the design of a small group of people.

  During WWI, on Dec 25th 1914, something rather unexpected occurred and a series of widespread unofficial ceasefires along the Western Front took place between the French/British soldiers and the German soldiers. Some even ventured into “no man’s land”, given its name since none left it alive, to mingle with the “enemy” and exchange food and souvenirs. There were joint burial ceremonies and prisoner swaps. A game of football took place as well. It is said that these truces were not unique to the Christmas period but that they were much more widespread during the holiday season.

  These fraternisations would understandably make it quite difficult to return to combat against one another…for no apparently good reason. Some units needed to be relocated since they had developed friendships with the opposing side and now refused to fight them.

  The lesson was quickly learned and propaganda was heavily pumped down the throats of the Allied countries, and by the course of just a few years, they no longer viewed the Germans as human.

  The Battle For Your Mind

  “Politicians, Priests, and psychiatrists often face the same problem: how to find the most rapid and permanent means of changing a man’s belief…The problem of the doctor and his nervously ill patient, and that of the religious leader who sets out to gain and hold new converts, has now become the problem of whole groups of nations, who wish not only to confirm certain political beliefs within their boundaries, but to proselytize the outside world.”

  – William Sargant “Battle of the Mind”

  Mass propaganda is the very reason why in this so-called “age of information”, we are more confused and divided from each other than ever…

  It had been commonly thought in the past, and not without basis, that tyranny could only exist on the condition that the people were kept illiterate and ignorant of their oppression. To recognise that one was “oppressed” meant they must first have an idea of what was “freedom”, and if one were allowed the “privilege” to learn how to read, this discovery was inevitable.

  If education of the masses could turn the majority of a population literate, it was thought that the higher ideas, the sort of “dangerous ideas” that Mustapha Mond for instance expresses in “The Brave New World”, would quickly organise the masses and revolution against their “controllers” would be inevitable. In other words, knowledge is freedom, and you cannot enslave those who learn how to “think”.

  However, it hasn’t exactly played out that way has it?

  The greater majority of us are free to read whatever we wish to, in terms of the once “forbidden books”, such as those listed by The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (1). We can read any of the writings that were banned in “The Brave New World”, notably the works of Shakespeare which were named as absolutely dangerous forms of “knowledge”.

  We are now very much free to “educate” ourselves on the very “ideas” that were recognised by tyrants of the past as the “antidote” to a life of slavery. And yet, today, there is a fear of that very thing, that to “know” will label you an outcast from a “healthy” society. That the simple desire to know is the beginning of rebellion.

  It is recognised, albeit superficially, that who controls the past, controls the present and thereby the future. George Orwell’s book “1984”, hammers this as the essential feature that allows the Big Brother apparatus to maintain absolute control over fear, perception and loyalty to the Party cause, and yet despite its popularity, there still remains today a lack of interest in actually informing oneself about the past.

  What does it matter anyway, if the past is controlled and rewritten to suit the present? As the Big Brother interrogator O’Brien states to Winston, “We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not? [And thus, are free to rewrite it as we choose…]”

  Of course, we are not in the same situation as Winston…we are much better off. We can study and learn about the “past” if we so desire, unfortunately, it is a choice that many take for granted. And thus, by our failure to ask the right questions and seek the appropriate answers, we find ourselves increasingly in the unsettling position of a Winston…we are enslaved by the very lack of our own will.

  In Orwell’s “1984”, there are three main super states in the world: Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia that are in one combination or another constantly at war with each other and have been so for the last 25 years.

  In the case of Winston, he has only known Oceania (the British commonwealths and U.S.), he knows essentially nothing of either Eurasia or Eastasia, except that sometimes Oceania is at war with Eurasia and sometimes it is at war with Eastasia. In fact, even this memory, that the enemy is not constant, is not something Winston is supposed to recollect or acknowledge. Just by doing this very thing, he is committing a “thoughtcrime”.

  Winston’s experience begs the questions, if one were born into a fascist, totalitarian state would they know it? Of course, the state itself would not describe itself as such. How would you be able to compare your “freedom” with the “oppression” of the enemy, when all you were given was what the state chose to give to you?

  How do you know that what has come to shape your convictions, your beliefs, your fears really belong to you, and were not placed there by another?

  We are all very sensitive to this unsettling question because ironically, that has also been placed in us. It was what started this whole business of “mind control”, you see, it had to be done…for our “protection”.

  Warfare in the 21st Century

  For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the pinnacle of skill.

  – Sun Tzu

  There a many different forms of warfare, but namely there is warfare that exists in the physical domain of aggression vs defense and warfare that exists in the mental domain of ideas.

  The majority of tyrants from the ancient times to present day, have always had a network of powerful people behind them (whether they were aware of it or not) that opened up a path for them to sit on the throne so to speak. For example, we now know that there was a very direct support of Hitler coming from the Bank of England amongst other very influential institutions. That is, Hitler did not arise to power ‘naturally’ or by his mere merit.

  The desperation of that economic environment in Germany was predictably formulated as a direct consequence of the Treaty of Versailles which was essentially a death sentence to the German people. And Hitler who had started to make a small name for himself was selected and endorsed as the ‘face’ of what had already been decided would be the fate of Germany.

  Wars have almost always been the result of funding and organising from powerful groups with geopolitical interests, often of empire, who create an environment of disinformation and desperation amongst the people through economic and military warfare along with color revolutions.

  However, once there was the creation of nuclear bombs, geopolitical warfare was changed forever.

  Though we still use much of the same old strategies today, war is ever more located on the plane of ideas, and along with this the ever increasing focus on the manipulation of information and the populace’s perspective of who is good and who is bad.

  The war that needs to be fought against the present tyranny is thus increasingly a mental war. In the case of the populace, all together they hold more power than they realise. The real crisis of today’s western thinking is that the people have forgotten how to think. Attention spans have gone down drastically along with a functional vocabulary. People are becoming more and more dominated by image based messages rather than content that requires more than a 10 minute attention span. Articles in the news keep getting shorter and shorter because people seemingly cannot be bothered with too much reading. Along with the serious decline in reading in replacement for quick entertainment (more successful than any book burning in history), people no longer bother to work for a comprehensive viewpoint. Information becomes an annoying barrage of ad campaigns, each yelling louder and more frequently than the other.

  The solutions to our problems such as the oncoming economic collapse (in case you haven’t noticed we are doing everything the same as pre-2008), have their solutions in what Russia and China are presenting.

  The initiation of war has almost always been presented as a false ‘necessity’, that is in response to the dominating geopolitical ‘balance’, which is basically meant to service the present system of empire, and the erroneous belief in zero sum game.

  However, the idea that humans exist in a zero sum game, doomed to battle forever over a diminishing return of resources, was disproven time and again in modern history through the application of successful principles of national political economy. Notable examples of which include Colbert’s dirigisme of France’s 17th century (later revived during the presidency of Charles De Gaulle), the Hamiltonian system of America as exemplified by Abraham Lincoln’s Greenbacks, FDR’s New Deal, and JFK’s space program as well as its most recent expression of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

  This system understands that fast money is parasitical and acts in direct opposition to the long-term investments required for projects that will revolutionise a nation’s infrastructure, including science-driver programs.

  That debt for such long-term projects is not qualitatively the same as the present debt we see accruing today, and that debt towards investing for the future will always yield a higher return than the cost over time. This is why debt towards long-term investment on infrastructure and science driver projects, such as space exploration, will always be sustainable with a massive return quantitatively and qualitatively. Whereas, the gambling of fast money will very predictably lead to a collapse as was clearly indicated by the 2008 financial crisis, and which insanely has yet to be addressed with a serious bank reform.

  The higher battle ground is being fought on the plane of ideas and which proposed ‘new system’ will replace the current collapsing one we are presently in. On the one side the hegemonic rule of a one world government who thinks that they can use force and oppression to rule and on the other side a multi-polar system of cooperating nation states committed to progress that will offer a real qualitative return for the future.

  The Art of Doublethink

  “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”

  George Orwell’s “1984” (Big Brother Mantra)

  A truly immersive system of propaganda, which necessarily will be full of contradictions to the truth, absolutely requires that its subjects are compliant with “doublethink,” that is, the ability to accept two contradictory thoughts in your mind without acknowledging that they are in fact opposites.

  Orwell identifies this under two forms of “doublethink”, which are “crimestop” and “blackwhite”. “Crimestop” meaning the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of a dangerous thought.

  Orwell further states “It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments…and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop in short, means protective stupidity.”

  “Blackwhite”, is the act of contradiction of plain facts, applied to an opponent. And when applied to the Party, it is the willingness to say black is white when the Party discipline demands it so.

  As Orwell describes it 

  “it means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past…The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons…The subsidiary reason is that…he must be cut off from the past, just as he must be cut off from foreign countries, because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off… [the precautionary reason] by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party.”

  Orwell continues 

  “The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest.”

  That is, it is the Inner Party members who are the most indoctrinated, the best at inducing “mind control” or “doublethink” on themselves, and at the same time believe that it is the best and right thing to do.

  Orwell describes “doublethink” thus: 

  “The process has to be conscious , or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence guilt…To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink.”

  What many fail to grasp when reading “1984” is that Orwell is not only the character Winston, he is also the character O’Brien. He is the Outer Party member-turned-revolutionary, and he is the Inner Party disciplinarian.

  He is simultaneously the tormentor-programmer as well as the tormented-programmed.

  Winston eventually breaks and releases the one thing that kept him human, his love and loyalty to Julia. In the end, an announcement is made that Oceania is ever nearer to winning the war and Winston looks up at a large poster of Big Brother and cries gin-filled tears of joy and relief, for he had finally come to love Big Brother.

  He had become O’Brien.

  So Who is the Said “Enemy”?

  The enemy is our lesser selves.

  Our most base fears, desires and obsessions. The voice that whispers in our ears telling us not to believe in anything genuine or honest, that the world we live in will ultimately destroy itself and thus it is all about looking out for number one. That it is our fate to be the playthings of higher powers.

  This is the voice of a prisoner of Plato’s cave, neck shackled and looking at only shadows on a wall. This is not reality. This is the voice of someone who has been enslaved for most of their life. The voice of someone who has become so disempowered that they wholly accept whatever ugly condition is imposed upon them and will even work to defend it as necessary.

  There is a way out of all of this, but you will have to become an optimist in order to see the solution.

  “We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

  – Abraham Lincoln

  

• US Seizes "Largest Ever" Haul Of Iranian Missiles & Oil: 'Enough For A Large Military Force'
  US Seizes "Largest Ever" Haul Of Iranian Missiles & Oil: 'Enough For A Large Military Force'
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 23:20

  On Thursday the United States revealed it had previously seized a major shipment of Iranian missiles bound for Yemen, and separately that it seized and later sold 1.1 million barrels of Iranian fuel bound for Venezuela. 

  Reports describe the seizer was accomplished by two US warships in regional waters that apprehended a total of 171 guided anti-tank missiles, eight surface-to-air missiles, and associated equipment, according to a statement by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Demers.

  “These actions represent the government’s largest-ever forfeitures actions for fuel and weapons shipments from Iran,” the Justice Department said.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  Also on Thursday the Treasury Department and State Department slapped sanctions on eleven different entities connected to the Iranian fuel shipments and sales, and sanctions-busting operations.

  The DOJ identified that it as top Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operatives behind the clandestine shipments of fuel and weapons.

  The 1.1 barrels of fuel had been previously reported as seized by US authorities in August. Initially diverted to Houston, some of it was offloaded in New York. The US has now confirmed it sold the petroleum from four tankers at a price of over $40 million.

  “We estimate that in excess of $40 million will be recouped by the United States related to the sale of petroleum from those four vessels,” acting US attorney for the District of Columbia Michael Sherwin the told reporters.

  According to AFP, Sherwin indicated much of the proceeds from the sale would go to a US fund for victims of “state-sponsored terrorism”. The report details:

  US courts have ordered Iran’s clerical regime to pay damages over attacks, most recently in July when a judge told Tehran to pay $879.1 million over a 1996 bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 US airmen.

  Iran denies responsibility and states it has no intention of paying, saying the United States should instead compensate for past episodes including its support of Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  As for the weaponry seized, US statements said it was enough “for a large military force” according to Fox:

  Authorities also said the Navy had confiscated other weapons components and enough blasting caps to “approximately” supply the U.S. military forces for a year, “leading law enforcement to believe these blasting caps were intended for a large military force.”

  Days ahead of the US election, there’s little doubt that Tehran is actively rooting for Joe Biden to take the White House, given Trump’s maximum pressure campaign is crippling the Iranian economy and fast putting the two sides on a war footing, especially after the January assassination of IRGC Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani. Biden has promised he’ll attempted to bring the US back into the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal.

  A very strange non-story ratcheting things up with Iran as we go into an election. FBI says nothing is going on here, but golly he has Facebook friends in the Middle East…https://t.co/8nFIjuB49c

  — Jack Murphy (@JackMurphyRGR) October 30, 2020

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

  Meanwhile Iran and Venezuela have pledged deepening cooperation, while the US has vowed to “destroy” and missiles transferred to the Maduro regime.

  

• The Irony Of American History And Russian Disinformation
  The Irony Of American History And Russian Disinformation
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 23:00

  Authored by Chris Farrell via The Gatestone Institute,

  We have been subjected to four years of large parts of the US government shrieking about Russia and the threats posed by that country to the safety of our republic. How did so many miss their own serial treasons, in concert with the Soviet and Russian governments, dating back to 1917? Let us refresh our recollections of how so many Americans reframed history and disinformation.

  Some of the following may be “lost history” to you, but that is okay, because we definitely need some reminders before election day.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  FDR himself personally schmoozed Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov in the White House and acknowledged the USSR diplomatically for no US advantage whatsoever in November of 1933. When Litvinov returned to his embassy from the White House, he openly mocked FDR’s naïveté and gullibility to his staff.

  FDR’s “co-president,” Kremlin-loving Harry Hopkins, has been airbrushed out of the history of the FDR White House. Hopkins went on to live in the FDR’s Lincoln Bedroom between May 1940 and December 1943 while running the entire Lend-Lease Program. Hopkins bellowed “All hail to the Russian people and their gallant army!” in Madison Square Garden on June 23, 1942, while promoting US war aid to the Soviet Union.

  The usual rebuff to this sort of inconvenient historical observation is, “Oh, but that was when the Soviets were our allies!” If you are satisfied with that explanation, then I recommend reading Stan Evans, Diana West and Paul Kengor in order that you to get much-needed additional information and perspective.

  How about when Ted Kennedy asked the Soviets to intervene in the 1984 elections? You may remember that Kennedy derisively coined the phrase “Star Wars” to mock Reagan’s “Strategic Defense Initiative” and aided the Soviet Union by opposing the program. Americans repeat “Star Wars” like parrots and do not even know why or how the term came to be associated with the program. Kennedy was not alone in his “Soviet friendship.” The FBI ran a program monitoring congressional contacts with the Soviet embassy for nearly 40 years, and they still will not release those records.

  What about Barack Obama’s wooing and collusion with Medvedev on a “hot mic,” with a special message for Vladimir? Hillary Clinton conjured up the fake Trump-Russia scheme, and then paid political operative cut-outs and Russians to advance the story.

  There is a 100-year-old pattern.

  The Soviet Union and modern-day Russia are expert practitioners of deception, provocation, diversion, active measures, and double-agentry — all of the tools and techniques of disinformation. Deception and manipulation are the goals of the disinformation. False information itself is not enough. There is a desired outcome. Decisions must be affected. Changes made. People persuaded. Actions taken.

  One hundred years ago, there was a cottage industry of forgeries peddled around the embassies, consulates, attaches and spies of European capitals. Some of the forgers were criminals looking to make a fortune, but most were Soviet agents sowing confusion. Letters, documents, reports, maps, diagrams, etc. — all forms of records, both physical and sometimes photographic reproductions that were used to tell a certain story to a certain audience. Books were also generated for deceptive purposes — writing and rewriting “facts” and “history” to serve on another front of the political war. It is really no different today. We have the “Steele dossier” and James Comey running around on his book tour(s). There really is “nothing new under the sun.”

  We are supposed to believe that the life-long career “friends of Russia” are suddenly terrified by Russia. Someone should have told Bernie Sanders. This sudden alarm over Russia by its erstwhile admirers is similar to the “old switcheroo” many Democrats did on civil rights for Black Americans. Lincoln and the Republican abolitionists freed the slaves of the Confederacy from Democrats through a bloody civil war, suffering 600,000+ casualties. Many of today’s Democrats pretend Republicans were Alabama plantation owners. Half the Republicans agree, or do not understand the insidious lie.

  Many switched party affiliation colors during the 2000 election. America now stupidly assigns Republicans the color of revolutionary, communist red. That was and is always the color of the Left. Hence “Red Army,” “Red Square,” etc. Republicans are too stupid and lazy to challenge it in the media and their own branding, so now a whole generation of Americans have been brainwashed and do not know any better. In fact, they are proud to be “Reds!” So sad.

  One must also consider the “arguments” about the “evidence” of Russian disinformation.

  First off, we have unending “investigations” by various bodies and persons who are not qualified to investigate a price check at Walmart.

  Here, I speak of persons like Adam Schiff or the members and staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

  Second, we have the “TV experts.” These folks are usually the former heads of the agencies and departments that are actually guilty of the subversion and sedition that got us to this point. Think of John Brennan giving his expert opinion on the innocence and honor of James Comey. When any of these characters (and paid CNN contributors) invokes Russian disinformation (usually quoting each other), you know they are lying. Period.

  Of course, anyone who asks questions about any of the logical disconnects and fallacies of any alleged Russian disinformation campaign must be on Putin’s payroll. Ask a question? Sure “comrade,” go ahead!

  It is terribly important to be reminded of all these things just a few days before the election. You should go to your polling place in-person and “vote angry.” You’ve been lied to — savagely — for nearly four years. Go ahead and take your electoral revenge.

  

• Visualizing The Top Struggles Of Remote Workers
  Visualizing The Top Struggles Of Remote Workers
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 22:40

  Unplugging from work can be challenging at the best of times.

  But, as Visual Capitalist’s Carmen Ang notes, when your living room doubles as your office, it can be even harder–at least that’s the case for 22% of remote workers.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Thanks to the global pandemic, millions of workers have been sent home to work at a safe distance. While many remote workers enjoy the flexibility that comes with remote work, it doesn’t come without its drawbacks.

  Here’s a ranking of the top struggles that remote workers face, according to a recent report by Buffer and AngelList:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The report also found that only 15% of employers paid the cost of home internet, and 21% covered the cost of a phone plan in a work-from-home situation. However, with this type of arrangement still being relatively new for most, these perks could evolve over time.

  Despite the various challenges involved, 98% of remote workers would like to continue working remotely, at least some of the time, for the rest of their careers.

  In short – while remote work poses its own set of struggles, the benefits outweigh the cons.

  »For a more in-depth look at the topic of remote work, visit: How People and Companies Feel About Working Remotely.

  

• Daily Briefing – October 30, 2020 (LIVE)
  Daily Briefing – October 30, 2020 (LIVE)

  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 22:40

  Tune in for this special edition of the Daily Briefing to hear from Ash and Raoul live at 4:30 PM ET. Raoul will provide an update on his macro thesis, trades he’s bullish on, and answer questions from the audience. Raoul and Ash will also break down bitcoin’s recent rally, and provide greater insight on the Real Vision crypto tier.

  

• A New World Monetary Order Is Coming
  A New World Monetary Order Is Coming
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 22:20

  Authored by Stefan Gleason via ActivistPost.com,

  The global coronavirus pandemic has accelerated several troubling trends already in force. Among them are exponential debt growth, rising dependency on government, and scaled-up central bank interventions into markets and the economy.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Central bankers now appear poised to embark on their biggest power play ever.

  Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, in coordination with the European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), is preparing to roll out central bank digital currencies.

  The globalist IMF recently called for a new “Bretton Woods Moment” to address the loss of trillions of dollars in global economic output due to the coronavirus.

  In the aftermath of World War II, the original Bretton Woods agreement established a world monetary order with the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency.

  Importantly, the dollar was to be pegged to the price of gold. Foreign governments and central banks could also redeem their dollar reserves in gold, and they started doing so in earnest in the 1960s and early 1970s.

  In 1971, President Richard Nixon closed the gold window, effectively ushering in a new world monetary order based solely on the full faith and credit of the United States. An inflation crisis followed a few years later.

  In response, the Federal Reserve took the painful step of jacking up interest rates to defend its wilting Federal Reserve Note and tame rising prices.

  Fast forward to 2020, and the Fed has assumed for itself novel policy mandates that are a precursor to a new monetary system.

  But the monetary masters aren’t contemplating a return to sound money. Rather, they’re planning for even more debt, more inflation, and picking of winners and losers in the economy.

  The Fed has unceremoniously thrown its statutory dual mandate of full employment and stable prices out the window. It now gives itself an unlimited mandate to inject stimulus and bailout cash wherever it sees fit (including, recently, “junk” bond exchange-traded funds).

  Instead of pursuing stable prices, the Fed is now explicitly embarking on an inflation-raising campaign with the goal of generating annual price level increases above 2% for an undefined period.

  The next frontier of the Fed’s unlimited mandate could be “FedCoin” – a central bank digital currency.

  Earlier this month Chairman Powell participated in an IMF panel on international payments and digital currencies. He touted electronic payments systems and raised the possibility of integrating them into a central bank digital currency regime.

  Powell has so far declined to outright endorse a move toward a fully cashless system which countries including China and Sweden are spearheading. But he is on board with the larger globalist agenda of expanding the role of monetary policy in shaping economic and social outcomes.

  IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva sees expanded monetary tools being aimed at every issue under the sun: “We will have a chance to address some persistent problems – low productivity, slow growth, high inequalities, a looming climate crisis… We can do better than build back the pre-pandemic world – we can build forward to a world that is more resilient, sustainable, and inclusive.”

  The IMF is being pressured by debt campaigners to sell some of its gold reserves to cover payments owed by some of the world’s poorest countries. The IMF would issue pseudo-currency units known as Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to cancel the debts of poor countries.

  In a world where central bank balance sheets have grown by more than $7 trillion, it’s not surprising that everyone wants a piece of the pie and that many now view gold as dispensable.

  Is gold merely a barbarous relic in this brave new digital world? If it were, then it would have collapsed in price this year, amid all the new central bank rollouts, instead of surging to an all-time high.

  Precious metals may be the ultimate hedge against the new world monetary order.

  In the event that the U.S. central bank launches a digital dollar and assigns every American a virtual wallet, there would be no escaping adverse monetary policy decrees except by exiting fiat currencies entirely.

  Under a central bank digital currency, authorities could impose negative interest rates on all holdings of currency units. They could do so without needing to get anyone to buy negative-yielding bonds or deposit money into negative-yielding bank accounts.

  Under a central bank digital currency, direct credits and debits could replace stimulus checks and taxes. It would be the vehicle through which modern monetary theory could be fully implemented – with the central bank becoming tax collector and funder of all government operations.

  If depreciating the value of the currency through the inflation tax wasn’t enough, the Fed could also stick dollar-holders with a direct tax in the form of negative interest rates. Once paper notes are phased out, holding cash itself would no longer be a way for individuals to escape negative rates.

  The only escape hatches would be volatile alternative digital currencies (such as Bitcoin) or hard money (gold and silver).

  Under a monetary order where electronic digits representing currency can be created out of thin air in unlimited quantities, the best hedge is the opposite – tangible, scarce, untraceable wealth held off the financial grid.

  

• US & China Hold Military Talks To Deescalate Ratcheting War Rhetoric
  US & China Hold Military Talks To Deescalate Ratcheting War Rhetoric
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 22:00

  The US and Chinese militaries are holding “crisis communications” talks after days of escalating ‘war rhetoric’ between the two countries. 

  This latest was held via video conference between the US and PLA sides Wednesday through Thursday of this week, Chinese defense ministry spokesman Wu Qian confirmed. This also as Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Mike Pompeo toured Asia seeking to gain support and cooperation from allies on confronting and countering the “China threat” to the region.

  Over the course of this month President Xi Jinping has made multiple hugely provocative statements telling PLA forces to “prepare for war” as tensions are ratcheting over Taiwan, particularly after US warship ‘freedom of navigation’ passages through the Taiwan Strait and Washington’s latest approval of advanced weapons transfers. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  In particular during this week’s military-to-military talks, intended as establishing a means of emergency communications, or military hotline, to avoid ‘accidental’ confrontation, dealt with rumors of a coming US drone attack on islands in the South China Sea claimed by Beijing, which the PLA side raised. It was said that a US military drill off California was meant to simulate just such an attack. 

  The exercise raised eyebrows in Chinese regional media given widespread reports that American drone operators wore patches on their uniforms suggesting China and its claimed islands were the direct targets.

  Esper is said to have expressly denied that there are any plans in place to attack Chinese islands in the region, also to assure Chinese military delegation participating in the communications talks.

  Does this US military uniform suggest it is preparing for war with China? https://t.co/kAPUwXtO93

  — SCMP News (@SCMPNews) September 29, 2020

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

  According to PLA spokesman Wu, Esper underscored that the United States “has no intention of creating a military crisis with the Chinese,” according to Reuters.

  “US Defense Secretary Esper clarified the issue through the military diplomacy channel and said the reports were inconsistent with the facts,” Wu added. “We urge the U.S. to walk the talk, keep its promise, and take measures to prevent provoking China military in the air and sea.”

  The Pentagon also confirmed that “The two sides agreed on the importance of establishing mechanisms for timely communication during a crisis, as well as the need to maintain regular communication channels to prevent crisis and conduct post-crisis assessment” in a statement.

  It’s long been feared that each superpower is ‘stumbling toward war’ in the region given the potential for an unintended confrontation or clash to rapidly grow into a broader conflagration. The military-to-military talks are designed precisely to prevent such a dramatic scenario. 

  

• Trump's (64-Day) Post-Election Endgame (Or, Can A Criminal Be Inaugurated President?)
  Trump's (64-Day) Post-Election Endgame (Or, Can A Criminal Be Inaugurated President?)
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 21:40

  Authored by Brett Redmayne-Titley via WatchingRomeBurn.uk,

  Suddenly, the anticipated Trump campaign’s October surprise: allegations that presidential candidate Joseph Biden has been a beneficiary of an international influence-peddling scheme with his son, Hunter, as the point man. This has dramatically, for the moment, turned the tables of election 2020.

  This pre-election day chess move is an obvious, carefully planned Trump campaign hit job, but short-sighted, most pundits predict these allegations come too late to sway the outcome of election day.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  This view is dubious and misses what could indeed be a three-move check-mate against Joe Biden, but…after the votes are counted.

  Come Nov 3, the race for POTUS is far from over. Trump’s handlers seem to know this. The follow-up will be an unprecedented public spectacle that will likely very much include the Electoral College. Further, this possible coup will have sixty-four very valuable extra days, a Judiciary Committee, an Attorney General, a Senate and developing media attention, all remaining and at the RNC’s disposal.

  The Trump campaign knows this and appears to be playing the long game. Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon are not political fools. Thanks to Biden’s true personality being exposed, a growing treasure chest of allegations have been handed over to Trump, four different times thus far. If these revelations prove true, should Trump lose, this will also provide his campaign no less than two more chances to bring Biden down.

  The timing of the weeks four separate bombshells alleging a Biden family pay-to-play scheme mimic off course the effects of the July 22 and November 6th, 2016 Wikileaks pre-election revelations. Here, in context, it should be remembered that this massive leak of emails blew up the campaign of the, then, DNC frontrunner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. It also exposed the utter anti-democratic corruption and coup that was the 2016 DNC presidential election committee.

  The Biden pay-to-play allegations also mimic those against Hillary Clinton US Secretary of State and the trove of evidence strongly indicating her own scheme in which her business partner, former president Bill Clinton, sold himself for international speeches…and access to Hillary’s State Department. And, during Biden’s tenure as VP.

  Mere days ago, the initial salvo released the news of Hunter Biden’s laptop and an alleged FBI cover-up of its illicit contents. In brief, Hunter had left it uncollected for months at a computer repair shop, and after seeing the laptop’s contents the owner, John Paul MacIsaac, first turned it over to the FBI which did nothing with it. But MacIsaac had kept a copy of the hard drive, and next donated it to Trump’s top henchman, Rudy Giuliani, who tossed this bone to the New York Post, who blew the whistle to the public.

  The laptop’s contents and emails made headlines… except in virtually the entirety of DNC aligned mainstream and social media. That’s most of it. This began Trump’s efforts to substantiate that Father Joe was the willing bait to sell influence in the VP’s office while he was in that office. Worse, the Bidens may have been working in concert with America’s newest enemy number one: China.

  Two days later the next salvo hit. A former close business associate of Hunter Biden, Bevan Cooney, who is currently serving a prison sentence for fraud, gave-up his own laptop reportedly containing 26,000 emails that according to Breitbart News make it “explicit” that Hunter Biden was “trading off the Biden name, the Biden connections, and the Biden access.” It has recently been reported that Cooney was moved out of his cell in Oregon for his safety.

  Barely a day went by before Tony Bobulinski next stepped forward with his digital paper trail of alleged Biden family conspiracy. Bobulinski has offered himself up as the total insider with the needed direct link(s) to the former VP and China. As of Tuesday night, Nov 27. when appearing with Tucker Carlson on Fox News he became the personalized face representing all these three sets of revelations. In reviewing the interview, despite his constant reminders of his being a democrat, his military record and his outrage on behalf of the American people, Bobulinski is obviously a well-rehearsed hitman. But his clownish act does not negate this purported evidence from further investigation.

  A dubious side note has also been floated with a detailed investigative report authored by the unknown Typhoon Investigations, released by Christopher Balding, Associate Professor at Peking University who reportedly is a contributor to the anti-Trump Bloomberg News. The report is 65 pages, well presented, documented, charted, sourced and referenced. This presentation must be called out as to its validity if only because of the sensational but fraudulent Steele Dossier leak of four years ago.

  Certainly, this report must be vetted, like the two camera moths, MacIsaac and Bobulinski. But if Prof. Balding does not cash his chips forever with Bloomberg, investigations will be in order.

  If Trump loses, so begins the long game of hard-ball power politics, 2020 and ‘21.

  Speaking of Investigations.

  Already these allegations have provided much further de-legitimacy of the Biden campaign beyond the candidate himself. The virtual black-out of all four stories and the excuses offered by the news directors of many censors have not blinded the public. Instead, this obvious censorship has rocketed this developing story to a massive new viewership. Questions about the related FBI cover-up in burying the laptop allegations have further increased calls for an investigation. The outrage of America’s awakening public is rising daily, with at least sixty-four plus days to go.

  Post-election day, should these allegations bear scrutiny there are three possible investigative bodies available to Trump. Further, the Electoral College has two more required steps to complete as well. This gives Trump, should he lose, multiple new chances to legally overthrow Biden.

  Behind the scenes, as the process of the Electoral College begins before it convenes for the last time on Jan 6, 2021, the Judiciary Committee, the Senate and the Attorney General will remain republican. Assuming AG Bill Barr is willing to do his job, history may be made post-election and, if so, placing one’s hand upon the bible may not this time be the privilege of the president-elect, but that of an indicted co-defendant in court.

  The first step of the Electoral College does not take place until Monday, Dec 14. In the meantime, although covering-up for Biden as the DNC media may attempt, the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee has already announced, on Thurs Oct 22, 2020, that on Oct 28 it will be convening public hearings regarding the censorship by at least Twitter, Google and Facebook of the Biden accusations. These hearings, although in the guise of examining social media censorship, will instead be an initial public display by the RNC of many of the allegations against Biden. This will be must-see TV for the tens of millions of locked-down, unemployed, and pissed off American’s who were already holding their noses about this election’s bi-partisan stench.

  Two of the three constitutionally available methods of investigation are tactically available to the RNC: A Senate Commission; or the Appointment of a Special Counsel, at the request of the Judiciary Committee, by the Dept. of Justice.

  A Senate investigation would have the benefit of TV coverage, as was the case with the Watergate and 9/11 investigations. It may be included in a duet of investigations. With the Judiciary Committee already on the attack, it will almost certainly reconvene again with Biden as the target. Able to function quickly as a quasi- grand jury, upon the Judiciary Committee’s initial examination the JC will likely call for the appointment of a Special Counsel. The Attorney General, William Barr, must then immediately appoint a Special Counsel of his choosing.

  Bill Barr has of late not been loyal to Trump, nor with his investigations into DNC criminal interference and collusion against a sitting president. But, if Barr fails to appoint a Special Counsel he must, by law, inform the Judiciary Committee of his exact reasons.  So, if Barr doesn’t do his job as demanded by the JC, he too will join Dorsey and Zuckerberg as coconspirators, at least in the widening minds of the public now watching closely.

  Regarding the AG’s support of a Special Counsel, the regulations set forth (28 C.F.R. 600.1) require a three-part analysis: One, that “criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.” Two, that prosecution of the “person or matter” would present “a conflict of interest for the Department [DoJ]”, and, three, whether “it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”

  By definition, Biden is in it deep.

  Certainly, the next few days before the election are not sufficient to see any result of an investigation and Trump just might win. Or, lose. Trump’s campaign loyalists knew this beforehand, particularly the suddenly released from the woodshed, Steve Bannon. He and Giuliani have likely had all this info for many weeks in waiting.  If legitimate, to waste political treasure of this magnitude too early in a single pre-election attack is not likely for men as crafty as Bannon and Giuliani. Since a Trump loss is still the predicted outcome, both are more likely preparing to play the long game of the post-election day Electoral College. Presumably, both are aware of its step-by-step chronology. Almost all of American voters are not. Yet.

  However fraudulent this election may be on many other state line battle fronts, the two upcoming Electoral College votes (actually fifty-one votes in total), both a month apart, are required of the EC to certify the presidential winner. With the scripted investigations thus already nicely raging in the minds of the Electoral College, and the court of public opinion, the EC has the ability to be Trump’s checkmate.

  The Reality of the Electoral College.

  The constitutional provisions of the Electoral College have been reported far too simply.

  The Electoral College is not an institution but, more accurately, the process of certifying the final results of a presidential election after Election Day and before the inauguration of Jan 20, 2021.

  Previous to the 2016 election, Electors of each state – Republican or Democrat- only “promised” that they would vote for the candidate who did prevail in their state. Few states had a legal requirement nor penalty for an Elector not doing so. Up until that election, only a total of eight Elector’s had ever in US history bucked party lines.

  In July 2020, the US Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, certified a state’s ability to mandate that any elector not deviate and that any who would can be sanctioned. At this time, still many states have not mandated a penalty, and of those that do, none is punitive enough to prevent an Elector following his conscience and allegiance to country.

  As the Electoral College begins and voter tabulation finally comes in sometime beyond Nov 3, the governor of each state must first prepare a “Certificate of Ascertainment” listing all of the candidates who ran for President along with the names of each of the respective Electors of the state’s party choice of president. Each state sends its Certificate of Ascertainment to the National Archives, but the C.A. of each state is also readied for a required upcoming public meeting of Electors at each of the fifty state capitols.

  The public meeting of the electors must take place on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, which will be December 14, 2020.The electors meet in their respective states, where they cast their votes for President and Vice President on separate personal ballots. After the vote, usually a formality seldom attended by members of the public, each state’s elector’s votes are next recorded on that state’s “Certificate of Vote,” which, now finalized, is also sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election.

  But, on Dec 14 – just forty-one days in– each state’s EC must vote in public. What will be the mood of these Electors six weeks, and possibly two ongoing investigations, after election day? Regardless, each state will next have three more weeks to re-consider their Dec 14 vote, the mounting evidence… and their conscience.

  Any individual protest by an elector will be merely grandstanding. However, by law, any state body of Electors might instead be influenced to collectively, “object.” This collective state protest of objection to a president-elect can be rendered at the State House on Dec 14, but also at any time before the reading of that state’s name from the floor of the US House of Representatives. That will be on Wed Jan 6, 2021.

  This meeting is also, by law, public.

  Yes, instead of individually influencing Electors to change their minds on individual votes at the State House, an entire state might ultimately- after days of watching the results of Biden’s true character surface daily- exert its 10th Amendment rights and chose to object to Biden’s certification. When the elector’s votes are read one-by-one by one, in alphabetical order by one of the four designated congressional “Tellers”, any state at that moment may interrupt the proceedings at the calling of its name and object. The objection must be on constitutional grounds. Such as secretly dealing with a foreign power for profit.

  Just as importantly, if any state does object, the vote tally immediately stops and a separate joint session of Congress must then be held to investigate and debate the merits of that state’s objection. Should there be a subsequent objection, yet another session must be held, but it is unclear if multiple issues and state’s objections could be combined.

  Although a president-elect with a criminal conviction can indeed still be elected president, any state can at least temporarily stop the proceeding for an examination of new charges by the full House. For examples of this possibility, Texas, in its state’s constitution, provides that disqualification for elected office can be for “anyone that has a conviction for bribery, forgery, perjury, and other high crimes.” Texas is a Trump state and is a strategic possibility to object on behalf of Trump once Trump makes the call to party loyalist, Gov. Greg Abbott.

  Over in Georgia, their bar is lower, disqualifying anyone who has been convicted of a crime “about moral turpitude.”

  What is important to note is that if Biden crosses the bar in any state, it would thus be statutorily illegal for that state to allow its electors to certify its State’s result on Jan 6. Therefore, that state must object.  Having Georgia similarly object on Jan 6 is not beyond possibility if the allegations are by then substantially proven.

  As for the voter, this is certainly not a farfetched possibility. On, Oct 26, the Google search for “Can I change my vote“ was reportedly surging nationally. And, by Jan 6…?

  An objection by a state has never happened. This eventuality, particularly if other states followed suit, would be far different from Biden dropping dead or impeached by his own party under the 25th Amendment due to his declining mental condition.  The objection(s) would also have the potential to remove enough Elector’s votes from the Biden’s grand total to swing that remaining total in Trump’s favour. These objections would not provide the DNC with their desired result of a Kamala Harris presidency. Nor would the Speaker of the House take over as interim president. This would be a unique electoral problem, one probably headed to SCOTUS for resolution.

  And, just moments ago, Trump’s new SCOTUS appointment, Amy Coney Barrett, has now been confirmed by the Senate.

  Trump’s senate.

  The sound of pitchforks is an interesting sound for it tends to carry on the winds.

  Come Dec 14, and then on Jan 6, on either day where will the unemployed, pitchfork carrying, depressed, angry, hungry, and disenfranchised voters be, physically and mentally.

  The answer on both days could be: shoulder to shoulder packing each and every State House rotunda. Rightfully, the voters, after decades of congressional, presidential and political party corruption are quite anxious and willing to finally lynch at least one of these bastards. And Joe Biden may be the one to swing.

  Will Biden fight? It’s doubtful, since he has trouble speaking much less weathering a prosecutor’s attack.

  Will Kamala Harris take his place? Not a chance. No outraged voter or elector after, having taken Biden’s skin, will ever allow a black Hillary Clinton in the White House, particularly one just as corrupt as Biden.

  Nancy Pelosi? Well…need one say more?

  The author offers this plausible evaluation to the reader in the spirit of bi-partisan presidential contempt.

  While it is easy to detest the presidential offerings of at least the past five elections, any political junkie should put aside a partisan view-point to appreciate this possible brilliant strategic checkmate by Giuliani and Bannon. Face it, Trump’s not this smart.

  Giuliani and Bannon are anything but politically naïve. If these allegations prove worthy of investigation at the Congressional level it is very doubtful that this carefully laid coup would be so short sighted as to be risked on only influencing the popular vote count.

  If the allegations against Joe Biden and family begin to gel into hard proof, the aftermath of the worst presidential election in US history will only increase in turmoil. With the other ongoing election chaos, thus combined with the Electoral College, the flames already on American streets will become a firestorm that has the possibility of destroying the nation.

  The American voter, no matter which horned and tailed, crimson-red phoenix does rise from these flames, constitutionally, politically, or militarily, will in less than a week, and sixty-four days after have to watch, wait and see.

  Or, pick-up a pitchfork and run to the local State House!

  

• ​​​​​​​Want To Lease A Bugatti Hypercar? Expect To Pay $66k Per Month
  ​​​​​​​Want To Lease A Bugatti Hypercar? Expect To Pay $66k Per Month
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 21:20

  For the Robinhood traders who turned tens of thousands of dollars into millions this year and have still yet to lose all their money, DragTimes YouTube channel’s Brooks Weisblat has found the perfect hypercar to lease, that is, a one-year-old Bugatti Chiron.

  Weisblat ran the numbers on leasing the hypercar, and even to our amazement, who knew Bugatti had a leasing program? 

  So here are the numbers: Bugatti offers 24- and 36-month leases with a 2,500 mile-per-year allowance. According to CNET, even before the actual lease amount, one must pay $4,000 of the monthly cost in taxes. For a 24 month lease, one would expect to pay around $65,960 per month or about $1.6 million over the term of the lease. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  For some perspective on per monthly lease costs, the US median income for 2019 was around $69,000. Tens of millions of Americans this year are struggling to survive as the virus pandemic has financially crushed them. But the Federal Reserve and the federal government, pumping trillions of dollars into financial markets, sparked a boom in the stock market that minted new millionaires. 

  Our advice to the successful Robinhood traders, preserve the wealth that was created from panic buying technology stocks, and enjoy it. Either way, in the next stock market crash, amateur traders will be wiped out again. 

  By the way, the Chiron has two keys; a regular key and a top speed key that allows it to hit 262 mph. Here’s Weisblat’s video: 

  And if the need for speed is your game – why lease a Chiron and waste $1.6 million, when you can purchase SSC North America’s Tuatara hypercar that recently reached speeds of 331 mph on a Nevada highway. The price tag of Tuatara is only $2 million, one million less than the 2019 Chiron. 

  

• Did 'The Economist' Aid A Chinese Communist Influence Operation?
  Did 'The Economist' Aid A Chinese Communist Influence Operation?
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 21:00

  Authored by Austin Bay via The Epoch Times,

  On Oct. 26, the Washington Free Beacon published a hard-hitting investigative article exposing a truly appalling and destructive example of communist China’s long-term war on free societies, in this case using influence and information as weapons.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The Free Beacon detailed The Economist magazine’s years of “sympathetic” coverage of China’s Huawei Technologies company. Then the report connected information to a kind of influence by documenting the magazine’s profitable business relationship with the notorious corporate giant. The Free Beacon noted The Economist did not acknowledge that economic relationship for nearly a decade.

  Huawei’s deep financial and operational connections to the Chinese Communist Party are no secret. The CCP has final say over Huawei’s international operations. That indicates the CCP was a silent partner in the Huawei-Economist arrangement.

  According to the Free Beacon report, written by Yuichiro Kakutani, from 2012 through 2018, the Economist Intelligence Unit (the magazine’s consulting division) published at least seven Huawei-commissioned reports the company used to “advance its policy agendas and deflect cybersecurity concerns raised by Western governments.” Huawei credited the reports with influencing British broadband and communications policy.

  But here’s the damning quote that implicates the news and editorial divisions. The magazine itself had “defended Huawei in a front-page cover story in 2012 – the year the publication’s consulting division started working with the company.” Titled “Who’s afraid of Huawei?” the story “accused Western countries of using cybersecurity concerns as a pretense to oppose legitimate competition from Huawei.”

  I visited The Economist website and read the Aug. 4, 2012, story. The Free Beacon summarizes it fairly. The Economist’s editors called Huawei “China’s new world-beater.” The article mentioned Chinese cyber-espionage, Huawei’s government connections, its “opaque ownership structure and secretive culture,” and other security and competitive issues—column inches devoted to the list. However, the editors dismissed these critical issues as “fretting.” This quote reveals the editorial attitude: “Huawei’s competitors have a vested interest in hyping concerns about it, while disguising their own reliance on Chinese subcontractors and on subsidies.”

  Substituting a bland word for a harsh one is a euphemism. The term “euphemize” also has a rhetorical meaning: a statement characterized by evasive or dismissive language. The Economist’s 2012 Huawei coverage dismisses deep national security concerns as frets.

  The Free Beacon’s bottom-line accusation: Chinese money bought advantageous (euphemized) treatment, if not favorable news coverage and a positive editorial attitude in a news and business journal long regarded as one of the world’s most influential—influential in terms of its editorial acumen, erudite reporting and savvy story selection. The Economist’s international subscriber base is well educated, wealthy and connected.

  It appears the CCP managed to influence The Economist’s purveyors of influence and did so not in one or two instances but for eight critical years. The CCP wasn’t simply targeting The Economist. Huawei has tried to coopt media everywhere. But The Economist allegedly influences the influencers in capital cities around the planet, which gives it unique leverage.

  For the past two decades, Huawei has engaged in espionage operations, racketeering, economic corruption and influence operations on behalf of Beijing while positioning itself to dominate global and regional communications infrastructure and international digital systems.

  Until summer 2020, the British government was committed to using Huawei’s suspect 5G technology—so the political influence attributed to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s reports lingered. I’ll wager the magazine’s soft and euphemized coverage helped stall attempts to curb Huawei’s activities.

  The word “influence” dominates this column. “Influence operations” are a major topic of national security concern. Influence operations are hard to define. In 2009, RAND Corporation offered this one: “efforts to influence a target audience, whether an individual leader, members of a decision-making group, military organizations and personnel, specific population subgroups, or mass publics.”

  From the Chinese perspective, Hunter Biden’s alleged business deals in China would classify as an effort to influence an individual leader.

  Congratulations to the Washington Free Beacon for documenting how corrosive and effective China’s influence operations can be.

  

• Costco Drops Coconut Milk Products Over Allegations Of Forced Monkey Labor
  Costco Drops Coconut Milk Products Over Allegations Of Forced Monkey Labor
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 20:40

  In the last few months, Walgreens, Food Lion, Giant Food, and Stop & Shop halted coconut milk products from Thailand suppliers accused by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) of using monkeys as forced labor. 

  “No kind shopper wants monkeys to be chained up and treated like coconut-picking machines,” PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said in a Thursday press release.

  @H_Combs VICTORY! ❤️🐒 Costco has cut ties with coconut milk producer #Chaokoh after discussions with PETA & hearing from thousands of kind supporters!

  Join us in continuing to speak out to other companies that still use forced monkey labor! https://t.co/OdVFzvugbJ pic.twitter.com/DM3cyKo0Mf

  — PETA (@peta) October 29, 2020

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

  Today’s PETA announcement shows another western retailer, that being Costco, will no longer carry coconut milk products from major Thailand-based coconut milk producer Chaokoh – until the company ends the use of chained monkeys to pick coconuts. 

  Newkirk continued, “Costco made the right call to reject animal exploitation, and PETA is calling on holdouts like Kroger to follow suit.”

  Readers may recall, in July, we noted PETA Asia’s investigation uncovered these chained monkeys, picking hundreds of coconuts each day. It was said Aroy-D and Chaokoh were some of the biggest Thai coconut players using monkeys. 

  PETA Asia’s investigators released disturbing images of the coconut picking monkeys:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  PETA Asia’s investigators found many of these monkeys were tortured, saying:   

  “When not being forced to pick coconuts or perform in circus-style shows for tourists, the animals were kept tethered, chained to old tires, or confined to cages barely larger than their bodies. Many displayed repetitive behavior indicative of extreme mental anguish, including one monkey who chewed on one of his own limbs. One coconut farmer confirmed that when monkeys are terrified and try to defend themselves, handlers may have their teeth pulled out.”

  PETA noted Costco joins Walgreens, Food Lion, Giant Food, and Stop & Shop, all of whom have eliminated coconut milk brands that use forced monkey labor, noting their attention will now turn on “Kroger” who still sells products from Chaokoh.

  

• Why Victor Davis Hanson Thinks Trump Will Win
  Why Victor Davis Hanson Thinks Trump Will Win
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 20:20

  Authored by Oliver Wyman via TheCritic.co.uk,

  To those who see an intellectual case for Donald Trump as a contradiction in terms, Victor Davis Hanson is an unlikely figure.

  A senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, Dr Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal by George W Bush in 2007. He is the author of more than 20 books on classics, military history and more. When he isn’t writing or teaching, he’s managing his family’s farm. Dr Hanson is also a full-throated and unapologetic supporter of the president. Last year, Dr Hanson published The Case for Trump, a coherent and thoughtful argument for an often incoherent and thoughtless president.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Victor Davis Hanson. Image courtesy of the Hoover Institution

  With under a week left in the presidential election, Dr Hanson spoke to me over the telephone from his farm in California’s San Joaquin Valley about whether Trump will win, why he supports the president and how the coronavirus has sharpened America’s political and class divides. Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation.

  How do you see the race right now? Who will win next week?

  I think Trump will win the Electoral College. I’m not sure about the popular vote, but the more our experts and pundits reassert that 2016 cannot happen again, the more it seems like it is happening again. And by that I mean, more specifically, all the polls that were discredited in 2016 — the Politico poll and the Reuters poll, Fox or the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, the mainstream polls in other words — they have Trump losing in the key states just about at the rate that Trump was losing last time. And from what I can tell, they haven’t really altered their methodology. The other polls, the Democracy Institute, the Trafalgar poll, the Zogby poll, the Rasmussen poll, have him very close, if not deadlocked at the national level. And then, in these key swing states, deadlocked or slightly ahead.

  And yet, we were told in 2016, that these were not credible polls. They turned out to be almost prescient in their accuracy. So there you have it.

  And then what we’re not supposed to do is rely on anecdotal evidence.  But when you drive around communities in America — and I’ve been out a lot despite the quarantine — the enthusiasm is all on one side. It’s all Trump. There’s Trump signs, Trump motorcades, huge Trump rallies.

  Because the data doesn’t seem logical, people don’t believe it. By that, I mean that African Americans might not vote just 8 per cent, but maybe 12 or 13 per cent for Trump, or Hispanics may not vote 31, but 35 or 36 per cent. Or college students, maybe a million and a half of them in swing states at these huge public universities, the biggest in the world — Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, University of Wisconsin, University of Miami, all of them — they’re not in session because of a lockdown. And students are not going to walk to the polls after being registered on campus, with the herd mentality and rah-rah exhortation that is normal. They are home in their basement or with their parents scattered all over. And I just don’t think they’re going to vote in the same numbers or with the same consistency as they did in 2016. I think that’ll benefit Trump as well.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  If I accept your assessment of the race for the time being, what about Trump’s message is working?

  If we had had this conversation in January, I think his critics would have said he was going to win, because of the booming economy, GDP, low unemployment, some foreign policy achievements.

  But after Covid, the lockdown, the recession and the rioting and looting, the Democrats came up with a pretty effective strategy toward him. If I can use the vernacular, he became Donald Trump as Herbert Hoover, Donald Trump as Typhoid Mary, Donald Trump as Bull Connor and he was blamed for all of these problems.

  At the same time, they had about a two-to-one edge in money. Most of the nation’s billionaires and big PACs were funding very effective ads against him. Then Joe Biden, once it was determined by his handlers that he had some cognitive issues, was pretty much put in isolation in his basement. He outsourced his campaign to surrogates and the media, who were 93-94 per cent for Biden according to the Shorenstein Center. And then he wasn’t allowed to go out and debate or barnstorm because of fear that he would say something like he did this week, that he was running against George, or that he had a fraud Task Force. He is capable of saying anything at any time. It can be quite embarrassing. So they kind of locked him down and let the news cycle take hold.

  Trump hadn’t come up with an effective answer to that. And then three weeks ago, his campaign took a turn for the worse when he got Covid. He wasn’t able to do the rallies, people were predicting he would be in bed with the virus or post-viral fatigue for weeks or months, sort of like Boris Johnson. Then suddenly, with these new therapeutics, new drugs, he just bounced back. Suddenly he was at the rallies. Suddenly they were talking about vaccination. Suddenly he was able to make the argument that while the cases were spiking, they were not as morbid. The mortality rate was going down. GDP was going up. And at the very time that happened, we had the Joe Biden scandals. They are trying to run out the clock on them, and they may or may not be successful. But the result of all that is that he has surged and is now, I think, dead even.

  You supported the president four years ago, as I understand it, and you support him in this election, obviously. How do those two cases for Trump differ? How does the 2016 case for Trump compare to the 2020 case for Trump?

  The most important thing is that most politicians in the Western world lie. And so when Donald Trump said, “I’m going to build a wall with Mexico, and I’m going to take on China, I’m going to bring jobs back to the deindustrialised Midwest, I’m going to avoid optional military engagements in the Middle East, I’m going to put my foot on the accelerator of gas and oil production, I’m going to get the most conservative judges you can imagine” everybody thought, you know, this is Manhattan real estate talk.

  But then when he got in, not only did he start doing that, but the forces arrayed against him. And, I should note, they were bipartisan. I mean, we had, almost immediately, talk of articles of impeachment, and then there was a move to declare him crazy under the 25th amendment, than the Emoluments Clause, then the Logan Act, and then 22 months of the Mueller Russia hoax, and then the impeachment. So it showed you that there was a lot of opposition to him, because he kept his promises.

  Now he’s running as an incumbent, Joe Biden is not saying “he didn’t build a wall”, or “I want to put that embassy back in Tel Aviv”, or “I’m going to go back to the Obama position on China”, or “I think those NATO members should pay what they want; they don’t have to meet the 2 per cent commitment”. That’s different. So there is a grudging consensus that whatever you think of him, he’s really kept most of the promises. He has absolutely recalibrated the entire American judiciary with his appointments.

  Were you surprised by the intensity of the opposition to Trump?

  I’d never seen it before. I’d seen hyper-partisanship. But I’d never seen respected former government officials like Rosa Brooks writing nine days after he was elected that you should either impeach him, declare him crazy or have a military coup to remove him. I’ve never seen retired military officers of the caliber of a General Mattis, or McCaffrey or McRaven say of their commander in chief “the sooner he’s gone, the better”, or “he uses Nazi-like tactics”, or “he’s a Mussolini”. I’ve never seen that level of opposition.

  Part of it is because he didn’t play by Marquess of Queensbury rules. When they went after John McCain and said he was senile or that Mitt Romney was a hazer who treated animals terribly, they just took it. And Trump came along and said, “I’m not going to lose nobly. I’m going to win ugly if I have to.” That appealed to his base, but it also won over some of his sceptics, because they were tired of Republicans at the national level not doing as well as they had been doing at the state and local levels, partly because of a failure to take off the gloves and handle the democrats in like kind, blow for blow.

  After Trump won in 2016, there was a big debate about what explained support for the president. It was soon framed as cultural grievances versus economic grievances. What do you think of that framing, and how do you explain the rise of the president?

  It was, in part, common to the Western world, not just the United States. It was same forces that voted for Brexit, that explained the surprising results in the Australian election as well as some push back in Canada. People who are on the coastal peripheries that had skills or were part of a professional class plugged into global markets — insurance, finance, media, academia, law, high tech — who made enormous amounts of money were exempt from the consequences of their own ideology. So they told people in the interior, whether it was on climate change, identity politics, or on immigration, this is what you’re going to do, and you’re the losers, you didn’t understand the economy. We can Xerox your muscular labour and outsource your fabrication or your farming or whatever. It’s cheaper somewhere else and you’re expendable.

  Here in the United States, they became the deplorables, irredeemables, clingers, dregs, the people that Peter Struck in his text called the smelly ones at Walmart. Whatever they were, that group felt that they had done nothing wrong, that they were not racist, and that you had to give a second look at globalisation. They thought that while it was nice that people had eyeglasses in the Amazon, and that you can buy cheap stuff at Target or Walmart, there was a downside to the disruption in traditional life and to marginalisation of nationalism and borders, of a distinct culture and tradition, iconoclasm, all that stuff. They didn’t like it.

  And Donald Trump went one step further than other politicians. He looked at the peculiarities of the American electoral system and said, you know, these people are in states that decide the election, and they have not been voting for either Democrat or Republican, they’ve been sitting out or they’re unhappy Republicans or they’re turned off Democrats, but I’m going to get four to six million of them to turnout in Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina. And he did. Now the question is, can he do it again?

  Let’s imagine he loses next week. And I know you think that that’s not going happen, but let’s say it does. Where do you think that energy will go?

  That’s a very good question. I don’t see that group of people rallying to the left when we don’t really have a Democratic Party. It’s sort of analogous to the pre-Tony Blair Labour Party underneath Kinnock. That’s pretty much where the Democratic Party is now. I don’t see any of those issues — I shouldn’t say I don’t see, I know because I saw them in the primary — winning much support. That’s what elected the supposed moderate Joe Biden. People didn’t want the Green New Deal, they didn’t want reparations and open borders and Medicare for everybody and all that stuff. So I don’t think that’s going to be empowered. They’re going to try to take power, but I don’t think these people will gravitate to them.

  They’re going to have to find a Republican candidate that has those signature Trump issues. It should be remembered that 90 per cent of Trump’s agenda was typical Republicanism, but he’s so tweaked it and modified it and adapted it that it got those people out. So somebody like Arkansas senator Tom Cotton, or Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, or another younger person coming up without the baggage of the Bush years, I think, can incorporate Trump’s ideas.

  You mentioned the Democratic Party. I’m interested, do you give Biden any credit for not swerving left in the way many of his competitive competitors did during the primary? And do you entertain any possibility that a Biden administration will be moderate in a way that is kind of tolerable to those on the right who are worried about the far-left?

  No. None. Zero. None.

  Why?

  Two reasons. Joe Biden at 77, is not the Joe Biden he was at 67. Every day he says something that is preposterous, and he doesn’t seem fully cognitively aware in a way that a president must be. That’s number one.

  And number two, I might disagree slightly with your interpretation of why he was nominated. He failed in in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he was declared a loser. He came in fifth. And so Michael Bloomberg was trotted out as the nice veneer, a centrist that could carry the party. And it turned out he spent a billion dollars to prove to everybody that he was a very unlikeable fellow. Then the Democratic establishment was in a quandary, so they resuscitated Joe Biden, but with the proviso that he would be a vessel that would carry this leftist position. And so it’s worked pretty well, to the degree that he’s not not up and about, but when he makes these rare appearances, he gets caught out. So in the debate, he said we’re gonna end fossil fuels, and I think that will cost him Pennsylvania. He said some things about immigration and amnesties and the wall and things that are not 51 per cent issues.

  Metaphorically, he’s like a hot air balloon that the left blew up. And then the carriage of progressivism is attached to it. Because he’s been a 47-year politician, his job was to get this across the finish line without having a Bernie Sanders veneer to it all.

  Once he’s done, I think you’ll start to hear rumours form the left and left media (which is a redundancy) that Biden is surprisingly, shockingly befuddled or addled and this is really a concern and maybe we better examine it. If Biden should win, we’ll hear this and we’ll hear, probably in November or December, that the virus is de facto not an issue now. It’s over with, the Biden economy is recovered, there’s no need for quarantine. We’ll hear all that, but I think in a context where Joe Biden knowingly and courageously served his purpose.

  If you look at the Democratic Party by House representation or the Senators, there’s no more blue dog moderates. They don’t exist anymore in the House. In the Senate, I mean, Amy Coney Barrett was a very brilliant, charismatic nominee and there wasn’t one Democrat that voted for her. You know, 90 Senators had voted for a pretty radical Sonia Sotomayor, just a decade or so ago. So, no I don’t think he’s going to govern as a centrist at all.

  We haven’t talked much about the pandemic. How has it thrown the choice in this election into contrast? How has it framed the difference between the American left and right?

  Well, I think it’s been cyclical. At the beginning, when the World Health Organisation said that it wasn’t transmissible, travel bans were not necessary, masks were unnecessary. And Anthony Fauci said go on a cruise, don’t wear a mask. Then that was recalibrated to “This is hyper deadly. This is very bad.” And Trump was confused. So he gave conflicting messages. Then we locked down the country for supposedly two weeks to level the curve. And that took on a life of its own for seven months. I think that really hurt the president because the economy was ruined and the quarantine was not evenly applied. If you wanted to protest the death of George Floyd or professed that you were protesting, all rules of quarantining were dropped. If you went out for a different type of rally, then all of a sudden you were arrested. Or if your business was open, you were arrested. So people lost confidence in the quarantine’s logic and systematic application, the fairness of it.

  Now I think it’s starting to be a wash. Half the country is where Sweden is and the other half is where Germany or France is. In other words, half the country believes that with the therapeutics that got Donald Trump back in three days, and with a vaccination on horizon, and new studies coming out of Stanford Medical School showing that the morbidity under 70, not 60, may be as low as two to three per thousand, you just simply can’t justify destroying an economy.

  Let me add a final caveat. This is a class issue now. I think here in the Western world, the people who are really suffering economically, from suicide, spouse or family abuse, missed cheques, missed surgeries, missed medications, are the lower and lower-middle class. And they’ve been hurt terribly. We don’t know how many have died from it or have had their lives ruined. But Trump is suggesting that the reaction to the virus at this point has been more lethal than the virus itself.

  But does the net effect of the virus on the race hurt Trump? Or do you think that if it’s clarified these things in the way you described? Has it helped him at all?

  It hurt Trump terribly. And then, three weeks ago, when he got the virus, he came up with a brilliant exegesis that people you can’t run a country from your basement, and that there were 100 million Americans out there growing food, delivering fuel, making stuff, and there’s an elite that stay safely in their basement and who had the ability and the opportunity to earn cash on Zoom or Skype. And he wasn’t gonna be part of that. He went out and said, I risked my own health to be with you guys. I took these experimental drugs to be with you guys. I’m with you guys. You’ve got to take risks. This is a great country. And that kind of worked, at least for his base. And especially with Biden secluded. So I think now what was a great detriment to his candidacy has been sort of neutralised.

  People think, you know what? China gave us the virus, nobody could have cured it. Look at the deaths per million ratios in Spain or Italy or France or the UK. Except for Germany, they’re pretty much comparable, and in some cases, like Belgium, worse than the United States. So I think that’s where we are.

  

• Central Banks Sell Gold For The First Time In 10 Years Due To Just Two Countries
  Central Banks Sell Gold For The First Time In 10 Years Due To Just Two Countries
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 20:00

  Following continuous quarterly net purchases since the start of 2011, in the third quarter of 2020 central banks switched to being modest net sellers for the first time in a decade, reducing global gold reserves by 12.1 tonnes in Q3 compared with purchases of 141.9 tons a year earlier, according to the latest Gold Demand Trends report by the World Gold Counsel.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  And while that selling in itself would be notable, there are two very big caveats: not only have central banks remained net purchasers on a YTD, basis, with demand for the first three quarters totalling 220.6 tonnes, the selling was the results of just two reserve-strapped nations which rushed to convert gold into dollars: Turkey and Uzbekistan.

  A few observations on Q3 activity which reflected two trends: a slowdown in purchases as the year has progressed combined with higher sales, which increased during the last quarter.

  First, the WGC notes that there was more buying from familiar faces. Despite the quarterly net sales, six central banks increased their reserves in Q3 by a tonne or more, although total gross purchases were a modest 33t largely due to the continued economic hardship sparked by COVID-19. This has pre-occupied central banks and governments around the world, which have been forced to find USD-denominated liquidity. Indeed, as the WGC notes, “uncertainty has been elevated by the pandemic, motivating many investors – including central banks – to seek assets that will diversify and protect the value of their portfolios in times of crisis.” Central banks have been particularly hard hit by the low and negative interest rates on sovereign bonds, which make up the largest proportion of reserve assets for many. United Arab Emirates (7.4t), India (6.8t), Qatar (6.2t), Kyrgyz Republic (5t), Kazakhstan (4.9t), and Cambodia (1t) were notable, and familiar, buyers during the quarter.

  Which brings us to the sellers… which were sizable but extremely concentrated. Reported gross sales jumped to 78.9t in Q3, with the rise mainly attributable to just two central banks: Turkey and Uzbekistan.

  • Turkey, which is undergoing an unprecedented current and capital account crisis which has drained the central bank’s reserves to almost nothing as the Turkish lira has disintegrated, reduced gold reserves by 22.3 tonnes during the quarter, the first quarterly decline since Q4 2018, as it is well on its way to becoming the next Venezuela – a country which liquidates its gold to keep the lights on. As the chart below from Goldman shows, while Turkey hasn’t engaged in full-blown liquidation yet, it may do so sooner rather than later with its FX reserves (excl swaps) at all time lows.
    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
    Although the story is a bit more complex: higher domestic gold demand in August and September led to heightened gold trading activity between commercial banks and the central bank, resulting in this decline. But on a YTD basis, the country remains the biggest gold buyer, adding 148.7 tonnes, although the inflection point seems to coincide around the point in time when the lira suddenly collapse. Turkey’s official gold holdings now amount to 561 tonnes and 47% of total reserves. In August, Hasan Yucel, the head of Turkey’s Gold Miners Association, indicated that national gold production was expected to increase by 44% this year. He also stated that since 2017 the central bank has been the sole buyer of all domestic output and that will likely continue this year.
  • Uzbekistan reduced its gold reserves by 34.9t during Q3, bringing YTD net sales to 28.6t. Despite the sizable sale in Q3, gold reserves of 307t still account for 56% of total reserves. The country has seen a rise in gold exports this year as it looks to utilize its gold reserves, taking advantage of higher prices to combat the economic impact of the pandemic. Tajikistan (9.2t), Philippines (7.8t), Mongolia (2.4t), and Russia (1.2t) were the other notable but small sellers during the quarter.

  “It’s not surprising that in the circumstances banks might look to their gold reserves,” said WGC analyst Louise Street. “Virtually all of the selling is from banks who buy from domestic sources taking advantage of the high gold price at a time when they are fiscally stretched.”

  Central bank selling aside, total bullion demand fell 19% year-on-year to the lowest since 2009 in Q3, largely thanks to continued weakness in jewelry buying as a result of record high prices and the lockdown-induced economic slowdown. Indian jewelry demand fell by half, while Chinese jewelry consumption was also down. Overall jewelry demand fell to 333 tonnes, 29% below an already relatively anaemic Q3 2019.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  By contrast, bar and coin demand strengthened, gaining 49% Y/Y to 222.1 tonnes as investors scrambled to buy paper gold. Much of the growth was also in official coins, due to continued strong safe-haven demand in Western markets and Turkey, where coins are the more prevalent form of gold investment. Q3 also saw continued inflows into gold-backed ETFs, which saw an eighth consecutive quarter of inflows. Q3 inflows of 272.5 tonnes pushed YTD flows to a record 1,003.3t and total global holdings of gold-backed ETFs to a new record of 3,880 tonnes.

  Meanwhile, on the all important supply side, things are getting more ominous as total gold supply declined 3% year-on-year as mine production remained depressed, even after Covid-19 restrictions were lifted in producers like South Africa. A quarterly uptick in recycling softened the decline according to Bloomberg, with consumers cashing in on high prices.

  

• Thousands Of Ballots In Pennsylvania May Be Missing: Officials
  Thousands Of Ballots In Pennsylvania May Be Missing: Officials
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 19:40

  Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

  Thousands of voters in Butler County, Pennsylvania, said have they never received their ballots…

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Nearly 40,000 registered voters in the county requested mail-in ballots, but only about 24 percent of them have been returned back to the county so far, authorities said.

  “At first we thought that maybe it just was a delay in the postal system” due to the high number of requests, Leslie Osche, chair of the Butler County commissioners, was quoted by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette as saying.

  “And that could still be the case. But nonetheless, when we realized that, we changed our strategy and now have begun to tell folks that if they haven’t received a ballot, they still have multiple options.”

  “Our main focus—because it’s too late now to worry about this—we need to make sure we get these people their ballots,” Osche added.

  A U.S. Postal Service (USPS) spokesperson told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the agency is “unaware of any significant delays or issues and is in regular contact with the Board of Election as we work to locate and deliver ballots as they are presented to us.” As of Tuesday, voters in Pennsylvania cannot apply for a mail-in or absentee ballot.

  A local county official, Aaron Sheasley, told CNN Friday that the county has received more than 10,000 phone calls about information related to the ballots that were requested but not received.

  “Somewhere between the post office and the Pittsburgh sorting facility something happened,” Sheasley told the network.

  “We don’t know what.” He added:

  “We haven’t given out any numbers” about the number of missing ballots “because we simply don’t know.”

  Speaking to CNN, Chuck Bugar, president of the American Postal Workers Union Pittsburgh chapter, said there is no record that suggests the missing ballots in Butler County made it to a Postal Service facility.

  “There’s no pile of ballots that have been taken from the Butler County election committee that are sitting around,” Bugar said.

  “There’s no record or indication that they entered the mail stream. There’s paperwork that goes along with it.”

  Butler County voted for President Donald Trump over Democrat rival Hillary Clinton in 2016 about 66 percent to 29 percent. The county is located north of Pittsburgh and has approximately 150,000 registered voters. In 2020, both Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden have been holding events and rallies, vying to secure the key battleground state with 20 electoral votes.

  The county told the Post-Gazette that voters can come to the Bureau of Elections and vote in person, provide them with identification, and officials will then give them a new mail-in ballot that a voter can return immediately. The original ballot that was mailed will be voided.

  They also said that voters can vote at a local polling place in the county. Other alternatives are also provided.

  

• Philly City Council Strips Cops Of Rubber Bullets, Tear Gas After Dozens Wounded In Street Violence  
  Philly City Council Strips Cops Of Rubber Bullets, Tear Gas After Dozens Wounded In Street Violence  
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 19:20

  Philadelphia City Council approved legislation, 14-3 vote, that prohibits law enforcement officers from using “less-lethal munitions,” such as rubber bullets, tear gas, and pepper spray on demonstrators. 

  The vote comes days after social unrest was sparked in the City of Brotherly Love – over the police shooting of Walter Wallace Jr., and days before the Nov. 03 presidential elections. The legislation is expected to be signed momentarily by Democratic Mayor Jim Kenney, who is trying to appease local constituents/demonstrators. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Councilmember Helen Gym, the bill’s prime sponsor, said, “in banning the police use of less-lethal munitions in response to demonstrations, we are answering the calls of our constituents.”

  Gym continued: “This is a moment where repairing trust between our residents, public officials, and police are essential. Residential neighborhoods are not warzones. Demonstrators are not enemy combatants. This is a first step in working with our communities to build a new model for public safety that is driven by their needs and their vision for the future.” 

  While most councilmembers support the bill, three councilmembers, including Republican Councilmembers David Oh and Brian J. O’Neill, along with Democrat Bobby Henon, voted against it. Their opposition stemmed from what they said would be the “chilling effects” of police officers not having the right tools to enforce public safety.

  Philadelphia Mayor’s Office released an update Thursday of the overall situation in the metro area. At least 11 ATMs were blown up across town, 57 police officers injured, and over 212 felony or misdemeanors arrests. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf was quick to deploy the Pennsylvania National Guard on Tuesday with mandatory curfews on Wednesday.

  Readers may recall, other Democratic cities banned “less-than-lethal” weapons earlier this year, following the George Floyd protests.  

  Seattle City Council voted unanimously to ban police from chokeholds, tear gas, pepper spray, and other crowd-control weapons in June. 

  This is another example of pandering urban Democrats, placing their political interest above police officers’ health and safety and the community they are supposed to be protecting.

  Also, suppose officers, barred from carrying “less-lethal munitions,” what happens when they’re forced into a situation where they have no alternative in firing their service weapon? 

  

• California Threatens To Arrest 12-Year-Old For Missing 3 Zoom Classes
  California Threatens To Arrest 12-Year-Old For Missing 3 Zoom Classes
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 19:00

  Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

  Are you ready for this week’s absurdity?

  Here’s our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, risks to your prosperity… and on occasion, inspiring poetic justice.

  School Threatens to Arrest 12 Year Old Over Three Missed Zoom Classes

  A California school sent a letter threatening to arrest and prosecute a 12 year old boy who missed 90 minutes of online virtual classes.

  The letter says the middle-schooler is considered truant if he misses more than a half hour of any given class.

  When the boy’s father complained about the threat to his son (who happens to be an excellent student and makes straight A’s), the school principal said his hands were tied.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  California’s laws regarding truancy force schools to send the warning letter, and funnel kids into the state’s prison pipeline.

  Click here to read the full story.

  *  *  *

  Mother Faces Prison for Keeping Kids Home From School

  A mother of two in the UK has a great reason to keep her kids home from school.

  She is especially at risk of complications if she contracts COVID-19 due to diabetes, asthma, and an underactive thyroid. According to these conditions, the UK’s socialized health system, the NHS, classifies her as clinically vulnerable.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  But that doesn’t matter to the local education welfare officer, who sent a letter to the mom demanding her children return to school, or she will face up to three months in prison and a £2,500 fine.

  So first the government forces everyone to close their businesses and stay home. Now they want to force a vulnerable person into contact with others.

  Isn’t it fun having the government control your life?

  Click here to read the full story.

  *  *  *

  UK Allows Migrant Posing as Child into School

  When an asylum-seeker arrives in the United Kingdom without a passport or birth certificate, the policy is to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  That’s how a balding man from Gambia who looks about 40 years old ended up in a UK high school.

  The man claims to be 15 years old, which qualifies him for extra government support as an unaccompanied minor. Naturally, he is not required to prove his claim of being 15. The government merely accepts his word, even though he clearly looks MUCH older.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  When one schoolgirl shared pictures of the man on social media, questioning his age, the school called her a bully.

  Click here to read the full story.

  *  *  *

  Tampax Competes for Wokest Corporation

  If you thought Tampax was a women’s hygiene product brand, you were wrong.

  The company recently sent a Tweet that read:

  “Fact: Not all women have periods. Also a fact: Not all people with periods are women. Let’s celebrate the diversity of all people who bleed!”

  Now it’s somehow controversial to say that one set of sexual organs requires Tampax’s products, and the other does not.

  In order to be more inclusive, we have to deny basic scientific facts of life, like the biological differences between males and females.

  Of course, like J.K. Rowling, you will get in trouble these days for thinking like that.

  The Harry Potter author was recently “canceled” for Tweeting, “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

  Click here to see the Twitter thread.

  *  *  *

  The Only Cop Arrested Was The Whistleblower

  Six months ago, a man died after two police officers arrested him in a drug sting.

  The Police Department in the city of Joliet, Illinois (about 30 miles from Chicago) refused to release video footage from the patrol car that night showing how the man died.

  But another officer was so disgusted by his colleagues’ misconduct that he leaked the video to the public.

  The video shows the officers swearing at the detainee, slapping him, shoving a police baton down his throat, and holding his nose shut to try to make him spit something out, presumably drugs.

  The suspect died a short time later.

  But the only arrest that resulted from this incident was the whistleblower– the third officer who leaked the video footage.

  He’s now charged with official misconduct for unauthorized access to the video evidence and faces five years in prison.

  Click here to read the full story.

  *  *  *

  On another note… We think gold could DOUBLE and silver could increase by up to 5 TIMES in the next few years. That’s why we published a new, 50-page long Ultimate Guide on Gold & Silver that you can download here.

  

• Twitter Capitulates: Reinstates NYPost Account After 16-Day Suspension
  Twitter Capitulates: Reinstates NYPost Account After 16-Day Suspension
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 18:36

  Following contentious Congressional testimony this week from Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and a 22% drop on Friday, the social media giant finally decided to unlock the New York Post‘s account just days before the general election – after more than two weeks in Twitter jail for posting a negative article on the company’s preferred candidate, Joe Biden.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In a Friday afternoon thread, Twitter Safety wrote that their policies are ‘living documents’ which they’re willing to ‘update and adjust when we encounter new scenarios or receive important feedback from the public.’

  The company says they’re ‘updating our practice of not retroactively overturning prior enforcement,” and have decided to let the Post have their account back.

  In response, we’re updating our practice of not retroactively overturning prior enforcement.

  Decisions made under policies that are subsequently changed & published can now be appealed if the account at issue is a driver of that change. We believe this is fair and appropriate.

  — Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) October 30, 2020

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

  This means that because a specific @nypost enforcement led us to update the Hacked Materials Policy, we will no longer restrict their account under the terms of the previous policy and they can now Tweet again.

  — Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) October 30, 2020

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

  The Post responds:

  We’re baaaaaaack https://t.co/D39qdLGMdV pic.twitter.com/SkVtp4o9ew

  — New York Post (@nypost) October 30, 2020

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

  In short, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was able to stop Twitter’s obvious election meddling by silencing one of the largest (and oldest) outlets in the country.

  Sen. Ted Cruz:

  “Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you? And put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report, and what the American people are allowed to hear… and why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC?” pic.twitter.com/lrC9II2MxL

  — Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) October 28, 2020

  The move also comes after DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf penned a scorching letter to Twitter demanding answers over why they’ve censored Customs and Border Protection senior official Mark Morgan over a post touting the southern border wall as helping to “stop gang members, murderers, sexual predators, and drugs from entering our country.” It appears his account is still locked, however.

  Twitter’s censoring of factual information poses a threat to national security.

  It should not be up to corporate bureaucrats to determine what security information the American public receives. https://t.co/9WzHcn4HLn pic.twitter.com/4lHJW5vEpZ

  — Acting Secretary Chad Wolf (@DHS_Wolf) October 30, 2020

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

  After weeks of grandstanding from @Twitter, it’s good to have the @nypost back.

  — Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) October 30, 2020

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

  TWITTER SAYS WILL NO LONGER RESTRICT NEW YORK POST ACCOUNT pic.twitter.com/RLDldPMaiq

  — zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 30, 2020

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

  The company was last able to post on October 14, the day they dropped a bombshell report regarding alleged incriminating contents on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Earlier in the day, CNN’s Jake Tapper suggested the post simply bend the knee and delete the offending tweet.

  Earlier today, Jake Tapper donned the Big Tech gimp suit, climbed out on a limb like a good little helper, and demanded New York Post sign the false confession demanded by Tapper’s Big Tech dom.

  And then Twitter sawed that limb right off. https://t.co/q97QC75LPu

  — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 30, 2020

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

  Meanwhile, the Post has gained nearly 200,000 new followers since being locked out.

  On 10/14, FB announced that the @nypost‘s bombshell re Hunter Biden was eligible to be fact checked, and “in the meantime, [they] are reducing its distribution on [their] platform.” Despite the preemptive censorship, @nypost has gained 47,390 new page likes. This spike 😍 pic.twitter.com/oIXlZueghz

  — Tyler Cardon (@TyCardon) October 30, 2020

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

  

• Michael Moore: "Don't Believe These Polls"
  Michael Moore: "Don't Believe These Polls"
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 18:30

  Filmmaker and political pundit Michael Moore – who correctly called Trump’s win in 2016 (and accidentally made a bitchin’ Trump ad) – is warning Democrats not to believe polls suggesting Biden has a giant lead. In fact, it may be within the margin of error.

  “I need to remind people that the poll back in July said at that point that Biden was ahead in Michigan by 16 points. Trump has cut that in half. Trump has tightened virtually every one of these swing states…” Moore told The Hill – noting what we’ve been highlighting for months – namely that many Trump supporters are unwilling to tell pollsters their true political affiliation.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  “Don’t believe these polls, first of all. And second of all, the Trump vote has always been under-counted,” said Moore. “Pollsters, when they actually call a real Trump voter, the Trump voter is very suspicious of the deep-state calling them and asking them who they’re voting for…

  …It is not an accurate count. I think the safe thing to do… whatever they’re saying the Biden lead is, cut it in half – and now you’re within the 4-point margin of error. That’s how close this is.”

  Moore also noted that Trump has been strategically campaigning in 2016 Hillary territory in Michigan: “10 days ago when Trump had the big rally in Muskegon, Michigan – Muskegon County, over on the west side of the state on Lake Michigan – only two counties voted for Hillary on the west side of Michigan in 2016,” said Moore. “Muskegon County was one of them. Trump chose not to go to a Trump county, because he won the state, he went to a Hillary county and had thousands of people there.“

  MICHAEL MOORE SAYS PRO BIDEN POLLS GREATLY INFLATED
  pic.twitter.com/thx1pDW18k

  — The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) October 30, 2020

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

  Moore’s concerns aren’t unfounded. As The Hill notes, while most pollsters show Biden with a ‘sturdy and stable lead’ over Trump, ‘a handful of contrarian pollsters believe Trump’s support is underrepresented and that election analysts could be headed for another embarrassing miss on Election Day.”

  The Trafalgar Group, which was the only nonpartisan outlet in 2016 to find Trump leading in Michigan and Pennsylvania on Election Day, shows Trump with small leads in both states, which would be keys to another Trump win in the Electoral College. Nearly every other pollster shows Biden with a comfortable lead.

  Trafalgar’s Robert Cahaly says there is a hidden Trump vote that is not being accounted for in polls that show Biden on a glide path to the White House. –The Hill

  “There are more [shy Trump voters] than last time and it’s not even a contest,” said Trafalgar’s Cahaly, who says it’s “quite possible” that the polling industry is headed for a catastrophic miss in 2020.

  Trafalgar is joined by a handful of other contrarian pollsters, such as Jim Lee of Susquehanna Polling and Research – which finds Trump and Biden tied in Wisconsin (the only other poll not showing Biden in the lead in the Badger State). In Florida, Susquehanna shows Trump leading Biden by four points.

  “There are a lot of voters out there that don’t want to admit they are voting for a guy that has been called a racist. That submerged Trump factor is very real,” said Lee. “We have been able to capture it and I’m really disappointed others have not.”

  Are we headed for a repeat?

  

• Countdown To Chaos
  Countdown To Chaos
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 18:20

  Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

  On Wednesday, while the broad stock market was getting shellacked, and companies like Everbridge, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Dynatrace were suffering double digit freefalls, something else was going on.  Gold and silver were also getting shellacked.

  But it wasn’t all crash and burn.  First Solar, Rolls-Royce Holdings, and CoreLogic all notched double digit gains.  The dollar, as measured by the dollar index, gold, silver, and most stocks, was also up.  And something else was up too…

  Most investors likely didn’t notice that American firearm manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Company managed to eke out a small return.  Why would they?  A return of 0.43 percent is nothing to write home about.

  Nonetheless, we contend that Ruger’s modest gain in the face of a massive selloff is something that should get the attention of investors.  It’s something that should also get the attention of non-investors.  Guns are in high demand.  So is ammo.

  Naturally, guns and ammo should be in high demand.  They are useful.  Sometimes they are especially useful.  And right now happens to be one of those times.

  Without question something wicked is brewing.  Politicians, academics, and the media have been fermenting public divisions for decades.  Now a volatile cocktail of rage threatens to blow its top off sometime on or shortly after election day.  People are gunning up just in case the chaos – something more than things that go bump in the night – arrives at their doorstep.

  What to make of it…

  “Death to America!”

  The weather may have cooled down.  But the populace still burns hot.  Factions and fanatics look for any excuse to destroy public usufructs.  And they don’t have to look far to find one.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  For example, this week, following the fatal police shooting of Walter Wallace Jr. in West Philadelphia, people went mad.  First they took to the streets.  Then they took to setting dumpsters on fire.  After that, they took to looting Walmart and other stores.

  The main intent of Philadelphia’s violent mobs was not to protest the shooting of Wallace.  Rather, it was to get free stuff.  Flat screen TVs were particularly popular.

  Here at the Economic Prism we don’t agree with theft of any kind…be it currency debasement, confiscatory taxes and fees, or mob looting.  But at least the mobs in Philadelphia were clear of their intent.  They wanted free stuff.  So they took it.

  The mobs in Portland, Seattle, and Kenosha were of a different variety.  The Wall Street Journal offers the following distinction:

  “‘Death to America!’ is a common refrain from antifa rioters from Portland, Ore., to Kenosha, Wis.  Children are in the streets calling for the country’s destruction while mobs of college kids trash public spaces, filming themselves as though part of a performance-art spectacle.  […]

  “These acts of violence encapsulate five decades of neo-Marxist indoctrination in American schools, colleges and universities.  The left’s ‘long march’ through the institutions is all but complete.  […].  America’s young, especially those raised in middle-class or affluent homes, have been so brainwashed that they no longer notice how absurd it is to call for the eradication of their own nation-state, and to do so in the lingo of Iran’s mullahs.”

  ‘Death to America!’ is a hollow mantra.  Just what is it that these soft minded brats think they’re shouting death to?  The American republic has been dead since at least 1913.

  Countdown To Chaos

  A great boon for Washington was attained that year.  Honest and prudent statesmen offering small government and sound financial policies were forever rendered powerless.  So, too, the hallowed reach along the banks of the Potomac River where politics and money mix forever slipped into venality.  Democratic mob rule supplanted the limited government of a republic.

  In the year 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified giving Congress the power to collect taxes on incomes.  That same year the states also ratified the Seventeenth Amendment, which established direct election of Senators by popular vote.  Then, before the year concluded, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was passed delegating the right to issue money from Congress to the Federal Reserve.

  After the events of 1913, the American republic ceased to exist.  The federal government was given carte blanche authority to consolidate and centralize power.  Moreover, the federal government had the power to plunder the lives of its citizens on a grand scale.  That is, it had near limitless power to tax, borrow, spend, and inflate the currency.

  The effects of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act are themes we commonly explore.  However, the effects of the Seventeenth Amendment are equally destructive.

  In short, the Seventeenth Amendment allows the Senate to buy votes from their constituents in exchange for delivering federal money back to their districts.  This ensures the government acts to meet the collective demand for private security through public spending.  It also rewards political corruption and public graft.

  These realities are not taught at universities.  They require self-study, independent learning, and deep thinking to uncover.  By this, shouts of ‘Death to America!’ by radicalized youth fall short of past grievances.

  At least shouts of ‘Bread or Blood’ by rioters of East Anglia, Britain, in 1816, were clear in their rage.  Bread prices had inflated beyond wages.  Stomachs were empty.

  Today’s ‘Death to America!’ rioter is unaware that the American republic is long gone.  Thus, what they are rampaging for is more of the policies that brought us to this disagreeable place.  Wealth redistribution and corruption are two of the fundamental canons of progressive socialism.  Throw a ‘woke’ hyper focus on race into the mix and progressive socialism can take a far more dangerous turn.

  Perhaps next week’s election day will come and go without a hitch.  But with all the idiots on parade, this is highly doubtful.  The countdown to chaos is on.  Plan accordingly.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Melbourne Parties As 112-Day COVID-19 Lockdown Comes To An End
  Melbourne Parties As 112-Day COVID-19 Lockdown Comes To An End
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 02:45

  After 112 days and countless arrests, fines and protests, Australia’s second-most-populous state is finally free from lockdown.

  The city of Melbourne, the capital and largest metro center of Australia’s coronavirus-hammered Victoria state, exited lockdown on Wednesday, leaving businesses and residents to cope with the aftermath of months of forced closures for an virus that has so far killed fewer than 1,000 people in the entire country.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  One resident told the SCMP about going to “an end of lockdown party” at a popular bar in the city to ring in the end of lockdown. She said the vibe at the event was “electric” and everybody was “giddy” about the restrictions finally coming to an end.

  What began as a six-week stretch in lockdown ultimately left Melbourne’s 5 million residents shut up inside for months, depriving them of the cultural attractions like bars, cafes and live music.

  Victoria premier Daniel Andrews said more than 16,000 shops, 5,800 cafes and 1,000 beauty salons reopened on Wednesday, though he acknowledged that the restrictions had taken their toll on the city and its economy.

  The lockdown comes to an end more than 2 months after Melbourne’s ‘peak’ of more than 700 new daily cases in a day.

  Some restrictions remain in place: Gyms in the city won’t be able to reopen until Nov. 8. Melbourne residents must also continue to comply with restrictions on movement that bar them from visiting towns outside the city, a measure that had led many to complain that Melbourne and Victoria had been “cut off” from the rest of Australia.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In total, Australia has recorded about 27,500 cases, with 20,344 in Victoria, and 907 deaths, compared with a population of 25 million. Total active cases in the state have fallen to just 76, almost all of which are within the city limits of Melbourne.

   

  

• Neo-Ottoman Nights Of Armenian-Azerbaijani War
  Neo-Ottoman Nights Of Armenian-Azerbaijani War
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Fri, 10/30/2020 – 02:00

  Submitted by SouthFront.org,

  Turkish Sultan-in-Chief Recep Tayyip Erdogan has come up with a justification for the deployment of Syrian militants to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone to support the war against Armenia. According to him, at least 2,000 fighters of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) are supporting Armenian forces there.

  During the meeting with the ruling Justice and Development Party parliamentary group, Erdogan claimed that during the phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin he allegedly told him that Turkish authorities “have identified, through intelligence sources, that there are some 2,000 PKK terrorists fighting for Armenia at the moment for $600. Mr. President said he was not aware of that.” “I have told Putin that if our red lines are crossed, we would not hesitate to take action,” he added. Apparently, these non-existent PKK and YPG members in Karabakh are to justify direct Turkish involvement in the conflict on the side of Azerbaijan and somehow neutralize the mounting evidence showing Turkish-backed al-Qaeda-linked militants moving to Karabakh.

  Meanwhile, the Armenian side revealed radar data confirming the involvement of the Turkish Air Force in the Armenian-Azerbaijani war. The released tracks show that Turkish warplanes deployed in Azerbaijan provide air cover for Bayraktar TB2 drones striking Armenian positions, while the Turkish aerial command post circulating in Turkish airspace, near the conflict zone, coordinates the entire aerial operation. The entire operation, according to Armenia, was planned and carried out with the deep involvement of Turkish military specialists.

  Under the pressure of evidence, the Azerbaijani side has already admitted the presence of Turkish specialists and military equipment on its territory. The last step towards reality would be to confirm that they are involved in combat.

  On October 28 and 29, forces of the Turkish-Azerbaijani bloc were conducting intensive strikes on Shushi and Stepanakert, the largest towns in Nagorno-Karabakh. Several airstrikes even hit the maternity section of the hospital in Stepanakert. Some sources even speculated that these strikes were delivered by F-16 warplanes. On the other hand, the Armenian side demonstrated that it is not much better and shelled the Azerbaijani town of Barda killing at least 21 people and wounding 70 others. The Turkish-Azerbaijani shelling of settlements and towns in Nagorno-Karabakh is a logical result of its attempt to remove Armenians from the region. Therefore, their strikes are aimed not only at military targets, but also at civilian ones in order to displace the local population. Meanwhile, the Armenian retaliation in a similar manner rarely has real military goals, rather it helps Ankara and Baku to gain some ‘evidence’ to confirm its propaganda narrative about ‘Armenian terrorism’. Moreover, these actions of the sides contribute to the further escalation of the conflict and undermine any weak hopes for escalation via diplomatic channels.

  On October 29, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry reported that it continues combat operations in the Khojavend, Fizuli, and Gubadli directions of the front calling its offensive ‘retaliatory measures’ to contain Armenian ceasefire violations. According to Baku, the Armenians lost two T-72 tanks, two BM-21 “Grad” MLRS, 14 different types of howitzers, and 6 auto vehicles in recent clashes. Earlier, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev announced that his forces had captured 13 more settlements in the districts of Zangilan, Fuzuli, Jabrayil and Gubadli.

  In their turn, the Armenian military claimed that it has repelled an Azerbaijani attack in the direction of the towns of Kapan and Meghri in southern Armenia inflicting numerous casualties on the ‘enemy’. Armenian forces are also counter-attacking in the district of the Gubadli, aiming to retake the district center. However, this attack reportedly was repelled. As of October 29, Armenian forces have contained Azerbaijani attempts to reach and fully cut off the Lachin corridor linking Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Nonetheless, the situation in the area remains instable and the Turkish-Azerbaijani bloc still continues its offensive operations in this direction.

  

• Plutocrat Violence And Election-Night Horror: Marxian Analysis Shows That Antifa Is Fascist
  Plutocrat Violence And Election-Night Horror: Marxian Analysis Shows That Antifa Is Fascist
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 23:45

  Authored by Joaquin Flores via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  “When fascism comes to America, it will be called antifascism” 

  – Huey Long (misattributed)

  Antifa’s fascist violence will return on election night. That’s why it’s important to understand their fraudulence and fascism, and reject the politics of plutocrat-contrived violence. Perhaps strangely, Marxian analysis itself is best suited to communicate this point to the radical left.

  This is because at the root of Marxian analysis are not self-declarations, nor definitions based in superstructural manifestations, but rather the material relationship between base and superstructure.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In layman’s terms this boils down to two things in practice: ‘follow the money’, and ‘watch what they do and not what they say’.

  The real existing financial motives and the socio-economic class behind those motives is what we will find driving the base, even while at the superstructural level we find an ideology which only nominally, only apparently, appears at odds with the real motives at the base. Antifa, at its class and financial base (i.e., its objective and material base) is a plutocrat supported and controlled operation against the republic.

  “Unlike the old left, rooted in radically independent organized labor, Antifa’s leadership and activities, to the contrary, are financed through billionaire oligarchs both directly and indirectly, like George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.”

  In the simplest possible terms, Antifa is fascist because while they use some of the talking points and imagery of the old left, they actually work towards a plutocratic coup (or counter-revolution) against the republic. This is not to say there is a system-wide fascist threat, for reasons we will explain in an upcoming installment. In short, the coming coup against republican norms will not establish ‘fascism’ as historically understood, but a new kind techno-industrial repressive society within the rubric of post-modernity, which has hitherto not been contemplated rigorously outside of small circles of futurists and science fiction authors.

  Antifa and BLM protests have generally disappeared from the simulated reality of the controlled media lens, because these riots did not have the intended effect of delegitimizing the Trump administration, instead working against Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

  Antifa Explosion – What the Week of November 2nd Will Look Like

  Once Trump declares victory at around 11:30 pm on November 3rd, right as social media bans, blocks, and censors Trump’s announcement of victory, we will see the start of mass Antifa violence in key cities in swing states. As the French Marxist Baudrillard would have explained, an entire media simulation will ensnare (within its simulacra) whole portions of the population, which will be encouraged to send in their late ballots, following a last minute strategic ballot harvesting ploy targeted at key locations.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The disastrous ruling of the Supreme Court allowing three-day late ballots to be counted, will encourage a whole post-election drive to harvest ballots precisely in those precincts where the known data is already in from election night. The push to throw the election for Biden post facto will focus largely on those precincts within particular communities, within swing states. The problem for Biden has been the lack of a ground campaign and any sort of excitement.

  This means we should expect a very big controlled-media scandal to captivate headlines right after the election. Whether or not this will actually motivate post facto ‘voting’ is beside the point. It most only be a semi-credible narrative that will explain why hundreds of thousands of voters turned out starting November 4th to cast their late ballots organically, even as in fact these will have been the result of targeted ballot harvesting.

  Why Antifa’s ‘Communists’ Are Actually Fascists

  1. It Doesn’t Matter What You Call Yourself

  Many Antifa members, as well as the BLM leadership, call themselves Marxists, and because this self-declaration is also convenient for their conservative opponents, these self-descriptions go unchallenged.

  Likewise in terms of its membership, fascist movements a hundred years ago were largely drawn from workers and small business owners who saw themselves as socialists and liberal-progressives. People do not fit into easy categories, and besides socialism and liberal-progressivism were a mix of both enlightenment and romantic ideas relating to both myth and utopia.

  What defined them as fascists in Marxian terms was not the self-professed utopian, futurist, religious, socialist, or reactionary beliefs of this or that member of the movement, but by the objective material and financial reality of being backed by the plutocracy against the public, itself. All the while posing as guardians of the public.

  Marxian analytic tools demonstrate that the same as true of Antifa in the U.S. today. The conservative right has long enjoyed throwing around the term ‘socialist’ and ‘Marxist’, especially ‘cultural Marxism’, to denounce their opponents within the Democrat Party, and this has the inverse effect of drawing elements of the populist and radical left who have no relation to the ruling plutocracy within the DNC, towards down-ballot DNC politics and Antifa protest-riots.

  We cannot characterize a party or movement by the plurality socioeconomic class of its members in a vacuum. Otherwise both the Democrats and Republicans are ‘labor parties’.

  2. We Already Proved That Antifa Is Financed by the Plutocracy

  Indeed, Antifa in the U.S. has become a plutocrat-financed fascistic movement if we are using any Marxian metric. This seems counter-intuitive, for after all they profess themselves to be antifascist, and the fascists they are opposed to are allegedly the ‘basket of deplorables’ that back Trump. This means we need to set aside the institutionally approved (Eco, Griffin, et al) definitions of fascism, ultimately liberal ones in service of the status quo, to arrive at any meaningful definition of any utility. The academic institutions themselves are compromised with regard to these matters.

  This is why in our piece ‘How Can the Deep State’s Antifa Organization Be Stopped?’ we showed the plutocrat financed NGO industrial complex through organizations like Democracy Alliance, was the defining base of Antifa activism – what Marxian analysis has always held, far and above, as defining the objective nature of a movement, and not its self-professions nor characterizations by their opponents.

  Marxian analysis requires that we assess a movement by a.) Its material base, meaning which class empowers it and makes it possible (finances it) and b.) In whose class interest they work to empower. The answer for both here is the plutocracy. Because they pose as ‘revolutionary left’ but are in fact plutocratic, means they are fascist.

  Marxian analytic tools must be salvaged from today’s ‘Marxists’, as these are as prescient as they are timely. They go farther to explain the 4th Turning, the 4th Industrial Revolution, the declining rate of profit, the internet of things and 3D printing, and the potential for a future economy based on the natural right of liberty and human dignity, both in the world and of the soul. But its vulgar misrepresentation as the ideology of Antifa and BLM serves the purpose, perhaps intentionally, of turning-off tens of millions of Americans who could otherwise see what is useful within the analytic framework of class and economic development through history.

  3. Their Tactics Are Taken From Fascism

  Of course the fascism of Antifa is visible to many, because of its gang-stalking and arson, the mob intimidation of citizens and small businesses to support this nascent totalitarian movement. To force passersby to raise the fist just as eighty-five years ago, Germans and Italians were identically forced to give the Roman salute, is only a corroborating piece of anecdata, and not the root of the reasoning that Antifa is fascist in nature.

  But insofar as the Antifa mob and BLM leadership situates itself ostensibly in Marxism, this is perhaps even more dangerous for the reasons we’ve explained. And yet it is Marxian analysis itself which is best suited to demonstrate that even at a theoretical level, Antifa is fascist.

  The owning class weary of radical economic changes and a rising ‘right-wing’ populist movement which itself is fixated on economic issues historically associated with the left, deploys the very same ‘victims of modernity’ (war veterans, permanently unemployed of all ages, workers, vagabonds, indebted students, adventurers, petty thieves and released criminals) to bring its definition of order out of chaos by operationalizing the chaos and the chaotic tendencies of its minions.

  Unlike the old left, rooted in radically independent organized labor, Antifa’s leadership and activities, to the contrary, are financed through billionaire oligarchs both directly and indirectly, like George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.

  Likewise we cannot characterize something as ‘fascist’ by its explicit beliefs or by views that may be projected onto them, but rather by the class that operationalizes them, and towards what end. Race, nationality, ethnicity, religion – these are but superstructural permutations of the givens of a time and place. Here is, among many other places, where Umberto Eco and Roger Griffin and those in their image are critically errant in understanding fascism. Fascism is a matter of methods, of tactics, and of financing – not of symbols, explicit ideology, or specific positions on culture-war (wedge) issues.

  That said, Griffin’s point that fascism no longer has the ability to mobilize a mass movement in the way it did prior to WWII, but that it can carry on as a smaller phenomenon that can inspire terrorism, is agreed. Many of his reasons for stating so are incorrect, even if this conclusion is apt.

  4. Antifa Punches Down, the Historic Labor Left Punches Up

  Both the traditional radical left and fascist right were proponents of violence towards political goals, even if in self-defense, but the traditional radical left used to focus on ‘punching up’: Attacking capital, the ruling class, the banks, big land owners.

  But historic fascism in its late-nascent stage is more similar to Maoism during the Cultural Revolution (there’s a strong New Left orientation to Maoism as well). It organizes and concentrates power by ‘punching down’.

  This dangerous fascistic trend among what has come to be known as ‘the left’. At the level of universities, it began in the late 90’s when coastal university classrooms became ‘call-out sessions’. It moved into mass culture through venture-capital funded click-bait websites like Buzzfeed and Jezebel. Of course all of these antics would have been unrecognizably alien to militant rank-and-file labor union members in decades past.

  That Antifa punches down and that mainstream media echoes their talking points, and that public service announcements are increasingly indistinguishable from Antifa propaganda, is a clear sign of its fascist essence. Punching down is always from a position of power, and its appropriation by the overt sections of power is a clear sign that their ideas have become what the French Marxist Althousser called the Ideological State Apparatus: That anything and everything outside of nebulous, ever-changing shibboleths (i.e. ‘community standards’) can potentially be called ‘fascist’ as a justification for ‘cancel culture’ and black-listing, is precisely that which the growing ‘illiberal liberalism’ of the plutocrats indeed flourishes on.

  Pro-systemic propaganda punches down. Anti-systemic propaganda punches up. It’s an equation as simple as it is true.

  5. Like Fascists, Antifa Relies on Support from Local Law Enforcement, Local Business, and an Entrenched Local Political Class to Place Them ‘Above the Law’

  Perhaps you’ve seen old film reel of Nazis in the 1920’s in paramilitary uniform, long before they had official power in the governmental sense, seemingly able to physically attack those they wanted at whim, without local authorities intervening. From a position of power, from local friendly police departments, business interests, and politicians who at the very least ‘look the other way’, Antifa – like its fascist counterpart – is able to get away of enforcing its power on a down vertical. Road-blocks, riots, home-burnings, against the general public – all with local official support. Their aim is to coerce from the public a fear-based passivity and conformity to the politics of their program.

  It matters very little in this sense, that they call themselves Antifa. While history moves in one direction, and historical parallels are fraught with contradictions, Antifa today in the most simple terms is recruited and built from that disenfranchised and permanently unemployed hodgepodge of people of various socioeconomic backgrounds, along with thrill-seeking youth (in that age-old quest for meaning, purpose, and identity) which formed the bulk of fascist mobs in the teens and twenties a hundred years ago in Europe.

  When we understand that their ability to operate ‘above the law’ in many cases, find large groups of philanthropically minded lawyer’s groups (like the National Lawyers’ Guild) to work to have their charges dropped, district attorneys who are lenient, and the media industrial complex including monopoly social media, all work in coordinated fashion to enable the Antifa organization.

  6. Their Violence Has Not Once Been in Defense of Labor Strikes and Pickets

  Their methods and tactics are entirely uninvolved in labor ‘general strike’ type strategies that would more correctly characterize them as traditionally leftist. As seen above, rather, their methods are taken solely from the rise of fascism. Their material financial base, as well as their methods and tactics are fascist, as we have shown. Legitimate left-wing movements arise from, and are materially (financially) rooted in organized labor at its base. The various superstuctural manifestations along the ideological plane, whether nationalist, fascist, social-democratic, communists, anarchist, etc., are not – in the final analysis – determinative of the class and socio-economic nature of its (conscious or not) ‘leftism’ in terms of its relation to organized labor.

  7. Their Cancel-Culture and Voter Disenfranchisement Campaign is Against Democracy

  This critical in separating Antifa from historical bourgeois-democratic movements. In Marxian terms, in the transition from feudal modes of production to capitalist modes of production, the plutocracy helped arm and organize workers and peasants, the poor and disenfranchised, to overthrow the feudal nobility and usher in an history period characterized by bourgeois-democratic liberties and freedoms, which have come to characterize the ‘western tradition’ in modernity. Antifa is not a bourgeois-democratic movement because the U.S. is not a feudal, nor semi-feudal country, and also because their actions work against the existing rights to association and speech (cancel-culture), and work against enfranchisement as they have been operationalized towards a ballot harvesting scheme.

  Concluding Commentary

  The views of Griffin and Eco focus overwhelmingly upon the superstructural manifestations of the fascism of a century ago, so much so that Eco’s attempt to uncover an ‘Ur-fascism’, or generalized theory of identifying fascism, is an utter failure. Rather, Marxian analysis demonstrates that both historical fascism regardless of name as well as contemporary movements of the same essence are defined not by these superstructural manifestations (ideology, aesthetics, etc.) but rather by its driving base in terms of socio-economic class (economic foundation, private property, capital.

  Election night and the weeks to follow will be met with a wave of violence larger than seen before. It will be difficult for those remaining on the left to understand that the Antifa foot soldiers are agents of capital, and not of labor. This is largely because of the gradual takeover of the left by new-left identity politics which crept slowly, and then rapidly, with May of 1968 and the Situationist moment being a key signifier.

  We know that the FBI’s field offices which historically have infiltrated radical left-groups are also compromised, because we would otherwise see these FBI agents – whose work is often to act as agents provocateurs – to act as de-escalating agents urging calm from within the ranks of these fascistic Antifa outfits. We have not seen this, which is a key sign that the FBI at the very top is wrought with complicit activity, which incidentally is another piece of evidence in 5., above.

  Perhaps it is ironic that Marxian analysis itself is best able to demonstrate that Antifa – whose members often describe themselves as Marxists (socialists, communists, etc.) – is in fact fascist.

  The defense of the republic, of the bourgeois-democratic revolutionary gains of 1776-89 which were expanded in 1865, today rests upon election integrity, voter enfranchisement, and in a strange twist of fate, the Justice Department under AG Barr.

  

• White Castle To Automate Kitchens As Contactless Shift Will Accelerate Job Loss 
  White Castle To Automate Kitchens As Contactless Shift Will Accelerate Job Loss 
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 23:25

  As restaurants across the country adjust for a post-pandemic world, driven mainly by the shift to a contactless environment via the adoption of automation and robotics, fast-food restaurant operator White Castle announced Tuesday morning additional robot deployments were nearing in the pursuit to automate kitchens.

  White Castle, who announced a partnership with Miso Robotics’ Flippy, a robotic chef, in July, which we’ve highlighted for years (see here & here), released a statement, announcing ten White Castle locations will soon receive robotic chefs. 

  “The move will accelerate the adoption of artificial intelligence and robotics in the restaurant industry, critical technologies needed to tackle new pandemic challenges such as social distancing in kitchens, takeout and delivery demand, and higher standards for health and safety via contactless solutions,” the press release read. 

  Miso released a new Flippy earlier this month, called Flippy Robot-on-a-Rail (ROAR), that will speed up the production time of meals and improve quality and taste. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  “Artificial intelligence and automation have been an area White Castle has wanted to experiment with to optimize our operations and provide a better work environment for our team members,” said Lisa Ingram, the CEO of White Castle, in a statement. “This pilot is putting us on that path – and we couldn’t be more pleased to continue our work with Miso Robotics and pave the way for greater adoption of cutting-edge technology in the fast-food industry.”

  The robots have so far been helpful during late-night shifts for the 24-hour restaurant, with job slots difficult to fill. Despite the virus pandemic, the company said customers are coming in. Flippy’s robots prepare upwards of 360 baskets of fried foods per day.

  The virus pandemic, forcing companies to limit interaction between customers and employees, has accelerated the trend of robots replacing humans in the workplace, which will lead to more job loss and rising wealth inequality for the poor. 

  “Policymakers need to rethink how to improve the safety net for workers abruptly displaced by the pandemic, who also face an imminent risk of being replaced by technology, as well as how to prepare for the complex workforce transitions ahead,” the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia said in a report released in September. 

  Suppose the virus crisis becomes more prolonged, as it appears in late October. In that case, as companies struggle to survive, many could turn to robotics and fire human workers, a move that would make customers feel more comfortable as there is no proven or commercially available vaccine for COVID-19, but ultimately will delay a labor market recovery.

  

• "This Isn't Human!" – The 'Unseen' Perils Of COVID From "A Faceless Number In Melbourne"
  “This Isn’t Human!” – The ‘Unseen’ Perils Of COVID From “A Faceless Number In Melbourne”
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 23:05

  Authored by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. via The Mises Institute,

  The Seen And Unseen Of COVID-19

  [From the 2020 Supporters Summit, presented at the historic Jekyll Island Club Resort on Jekyll Island, Georgia, on October 9, 2020. Read and see the full lecture.] 

  This is the intellectual level of the conversation [around covid-19]: You just want people do die.

  How do you talk to somebody like that? So, in order to do that, I’m going to appeal to the above midwit-level population and I’m going to remind people of the important lesson in Henry Hazlitt’s great book Economics in One Lesson. This is a book that’s sold millions of copies and Hazlitt’s one lesson, as we all know in this room, is that if you’re going to evaluate an economic policy, it’s not enough to evaluate the short-term consequences for one earmarked group. Any blockhead can do that. If you want to know the long-term consequences or the real consequence of it, you look at the long-term effects on everybody, not the short-term effects on an earmarked group.

  For example, suppose the government taxes the public to build a stadium. Well, the midwit will simply point to the stadium and say, “Hey, look at this wonderful thing that the government did. It’s a stadium.” And yes, we can all see with our physical eyes that there’s a stadium there, but they think that’s the entirety of the analysis: a stadium has somehow appeared. There’s no thought of costs, opportunity costs, where the money came from, where it would have gone otherwise—none of that is even considered, because those things can’t be seen with your physical eyes. To understand the fullness of the policy, you have to be able to think and see with your mind’s eye.

  Likewise, with rent control people think, You impose rent control and people get lower rents, and that’s the entirety of the analysis as far as they’re concerned. There’s nothing further we need to consider. We just take these fat cats and just force them to lower rents, and then everybody gets lower rent and that’s, as far as the midwit is concerned, that’s the end of the discussion, because that’s what he sees with his physical eyes. But, for people capable of seeing with their mind’s eye, they ask other questions like, How many people are going to start building low-cost rental housing if they know that this ceiling has been imposed? There will obviously be far less housing built, which will make the problem of housing people worse. We also know that at these particular rates, you have a million people and surfeit of demand, so if you’re a landlord, you can be a jerk, you don’t have to fix that leaky pipe, you don’t have to do any maintenance, because if somebody’s upset about it, you got 8 million other people who would be very happy to take that person’s place.

  So, in other words, if you see with your mind’s eye, you understand that rent control is a lot more complicated than just Duh, we forced them to lower the rent and it’s low for everybody. And in fact, if, for some reason, you wanted to lower rents through the means of government impositions, you would actually want to do the exact opposite of rent control. You would want to control every single price in the entire economy except rents, because that would make entrepreneurs not want to go into the production of anything other than rental property because everything else would be unprofitable. The one thing they could produce would be rental property, which would lead to a collapse in rental prices, which would be great for everybody. So, literally the opposite of what these people recommend would be the best thing. But the point is, we have to think about all the consequences for everybody.

  Well, the same thing goes for public health, because my talk could be called “Public Health in One Lesson.” Because yes, if you simply focus monomaniacally on one virus, you might be able to say, Look at what we did for this one virus. You might be able to say that. I’m not even sure they can say that, but they might be able to say, Look what we’ve done for people with this one virus, and then, being midwits, they leave the discussion right there. They don’t bother to investigate the seventeen other aspects of health that have catastrophically collapsed because of that one thing they did. All they say is, look at what they did in the short run for this targeted group instead of saying, Look at the long-run consequences for everybody. And because they don’t look at that, it’s not even mentioned.

  When was the last time Dr. Fauci, who is viewed superstitiously by everybody, even acknowledge that there are collateral damages from lockdowns, even mentioned them? Nothing. And so they’re, therefore, able to turn around and say, You just want people to die. Okay, well, let’s play that game. They want to play it, let’s play it. How about this? We know, for example, coming out of the UK, that there will be more likely to be at least as many, if not more, preventable cancer deaths than covid deaths because of the diversion of resources into covid and the panicking of everybody about it. And so we read Richard Sullivan, professor of cancer and global health at King’s College London, director of its Institute for Cancer Policy, saying “The number of deaths due to the disruption of cancer services is likely to outweigh the number of deaths from the coronavirus itself. The cessation and delay of cancer care will cause considerable avoidable suffering. Cancer screening services have stopped, which means we will miss our chance to catch many cancers when they are treatable and curable, such as cervical, bowel and breast. When we do restart normal service delivery after the lockdown is lifted, the backlog of cases will be a huge challenge to the healthcare system.”

  We read on October 6 in the Daily Mail coming out of the UK, that health secretary Matt Hancock says, “Cancer patients may only be guaranteed treatment if COVID-19 stays under control.” How about that? This is the Daily Mail, which is much more honest than the American press. “Almost two and a half million people missed out on cancer screening, referrals or treatment at the height of lockdown—even though the NHS was never overwhelmed.” They had the honesty in the UK to say that. “Experts now fear the number of people dying as a result of delays triggered by the treatment of coronavirus patients could even end up being responsible for as many deaths as the pandemic itself.” Now, we won’t see that kind of effect right away. It’s not like a huge number of cancer patients are going to die immediately in 2020, but it does mean that people who might have lived an extra fifteen to twenty years, may live just another three or four, and we’ll see those numbers in the coming years.

  Then we heard a United Nations report in April saying that “economic hardship generated by the radical interruptions of commerce could result in hundreds of thousands of additional child deaths in 2020.” UNICEF later increased that number to 1.2 million child deaths, and at Oxford University Professor Sunetra Gupta has reminded us several times, in recent weeks and months, of the UN’s prediction that as many as 130 million people could be at risk of starvation because of the lockdown, because of the possibility of famine in several dozen places around the world. Now who are the ones who don’t care about human life?

  But, that’s not all, because in the United States in Oakland, California, we have Benjamin Miller of the Well Being Trust who tells us, as coauthor of a study on deaths of despair—so that’s drug or alcohol abuse or suicide—that an excess—that is to say, above what would normally occur—of 75,000 deaths will occur as a result of all this. Not to mention the CDC itself estimates that in the United States alone, there will be more than 93,000 excess noncovid deaths this year because of what’s been going on, including over 42,000 from cardiovascular conditions, over 10,000 from diabetes, and 3,600 from cancer. A recent UK study just out found that the risk of death was increased because of lockdowns by 53 percent among seniors with dementia and another 123 percent among seniors with severe mental illness. For four decades, India Nobel Peace laureate Kailash Stayarthi rescued thousands of children from slavery and human trafficking and he fears that that’s going to be reversed. He says the biggest threat is that millions of children may fall back into slavery, trafficking, child labor, child marriage. Well, with millions of families being pushed into poverty, they’re being pressured to do something, to put their children to work to make ends meet. So this is being done.

  They’re trying these lockdowns even in the developing world, where people live hand to mouth. When you live hand to mouth, it means that every day you earn enough money to feed yourself for that day, and they’re being told to stay home for weeks and months. I think we see where this is going. Now, the people of Malawi, one of the poorest countries in the world, when they got wind of their government’s lockdown plans, they rose up and said, We’re not abiding by this. There will be no lockdown. And so there wasn’t. We could learn from them.

  Even The Atlantic had to admit, “When you ask them to stay home, in many cases, you’re asking them to starve.” In the UK, The Telegraph says, “The absurd demand that developing countries adopt economically disastrous lockdowns is driving untold misery.” How often is that mentioned in the US? Ever? Any of our people ever mention that? No, it’s You want to kill people, because you want to live your life. Or because you don’t want two years of your kids’ lives taken away from them. Because now we’re being told, Maybe you can have your life back in the spring of 2022. Not fifteen days to flatten the curve, probably spring of 2022 you can start getting back all these pleasurable things that make life worth living. Okay. So, it seems to me that the crazies who think that public health should mean a monomaniacal fixation on one virus and then pretending that none of the other stuff is happening should have to answer for this a little bit more.

  Now, some of this stuff that I’m talking about now appears in—wait for it—the free e-book I wrote on this subject: Your Facebook Friends Are Wrong about the Lockdown. They’re even wronger than you thought—wrong as wrong can be if you value human life and flourishing. So, in the United States, you can get this free book by just texting the word lockdown to the number 33444, and you’ll like it because it smashes these SOBs completely. Or you can get it at wrongaboutlockdown.com. Yes, I bought that domain, I was so happy to nab that one.

  Not to mention that of course over the course of this people’s life savings have been depleted, their livelihoods have been destroyed and things that give their lives meaning and fulfillment abruptly removed. So, we’re supposed to believe that all that matters is just biological existence. And this prompts some interesting philosophical questions. If I could live to be 120 and enjoy robust health for all those years, but the price was we would destroy all the architectural treasures of Europe, we would abolish music altogether, and we would restrict social life to 5 percent of its formal level, would I choose that? Who would? Human happiness is not some optional extra. These things, like close, intimate relationships or so-called large gatherings, like concerts, theater, lectures, church, sporting events, the arts in general—if you think these are merely dispensable adjuncts to human life and flourishing, you have no business being in charge of anything. These are life itself, and as I’ve said in a previous talk, for anybody who performs in front of an audience—and particularly think about your children, dancers, musicians, athletes, magicians, comedians, singers, actors, whatever—they’re basically being told, Maybe you can never have this. Maybe you can never ever do what brings your soul happiness. And yeah, maybe we can’t have these until we have a vaccine, said Dr. Zeke Emanuel. “We may have to give up cherished things for a long time,” he says—things like schooling and income and contact with our friends and extended family for at least eighteen months. Maybe this talk could also be called “Get Bent.”

  Well, another terrifying statistic came out recently, showing the grim if entirely predictable effects all this inhuman regimentation has been having on the young, particularly those between 18 and 24. Now, the federal government has a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. And they, among other things, look at percentages of people who have considered suicide within the previous twelve months.

  Now typically, before all these lockdowns occurred, in the 18–25 group, it fluctuates between just under 7 percent and 11 percent of those people have contemplated suicide in the previous 12 months. What we now know is that just in June—not twelve months, just one month—it’s now over 25 percent of them have contemplated suicide in just one month.

  Now why is that?

  We’ve taken away everything they love, deprived them of the opportunity to socialize and to experience those irreplaceable moments of youth and demanded they accept this dystopia as the new normal and tell them there’s something wrong with them if they long for normal human life, the kind that is lived by humans. Yeah, that’s selfish, that right there. That’s selfish.

  One of my friends has a friend in Melbourne, Australia, which is under a severe lockdown. Here’s what this friend wrote:

  It’s been three months since I saw another human face besides [my partner’s].

  Seven months since [my partner] and I had a little break together in the form of going and having a coffee down the street.

  Over a year since I last sat out in nature. Sitting staring at the wall for two hours, again, unable to move.

  Despair

  Horrible negative emotions virtually all day.

  Awake and tired nights, distress.

  I can’t think of anything to look forward to because I don’t know when we will be allowed to do anything.

  Just go for a drive, go to the forest.

  Just go somewhere together, far from all this.

  We are not allowed.

  The police could enter our homes at any point and arrest us if we say the “wrong” thing online. That has happened.

  This doesn’t feel human.

  I don’t smile.

  I don’t laugh.

  I worked out the other day and I felt nothing, no pain.

  Nothing would register as pain.

  I couldn’t feel anything.

  I feel far away from myself.

  Sometimes I forget how long the day has been going for.

  Does it matter?

  You’re not allowed to leave, even if family members are terminally ill. They could die before we are let out of Melbourne. We got told it isn’t a good enough reason to be let out.

  You aren’t allowed more than five kilometers from your house.

  You aren’t allowed to buy a takeaway coffee and sit under a tree or on the ground anywhere that isn’t your house.

  This isn’t human.

  This isn’t human.

  This isn’t human.

  This isn’t human.

  There is no empathy here.

  No price is too high.

  Suicide is not too great a price to pay.

  Self-harm is not too great a price to pay.

  Structural brain changes in large portions of the population is not too high a price to pay.

  Do you know what prolonged social isolation does to the brain?

  We are made to feel it does not matter because all we are, are numbers.

  We are not people; we are the masses without a say

  Without a time period to look forward to when we can hug again

  I am sharing my experience because you should know the truth.

  Sincerely,

  A faceless number in Melbourne.

  

• China's Central Bank Poised To Legalize Digital Yuan As Part Of Sovereign Fiat Currency
  China’s Central Bank Poised To Legalize Digital Yuan As Part Of Sovereign Fiat Currency
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 22:45

  China is poised to give legal backing to the launch of its own sovereign digital currency, cementing its trailblazer status in virtual currencies far ahead of other countries, after already recently experimenting with large-scale trials of actual payments by consumers, which was met with mixed results. 

  The South China Morning Post reported Tuesday that “The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) published a draft law on Friday that would give legal status to the Digital Currency Electronic Payment (DCEP) system, and for the first time the digital yuan has been included and defined as part of the country’s sovereign fiat currency.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Up until very recently, the whole project has been kept very secretive even during the latest closed, limited tests among select parts of the population. Previous reports described it acting akin to well-known stablecoins in the cryptocurrency world.

  The design framework for the digital yuan was released one year ago on the heels of Facebook’s ambitious but disastrous Libra token rollout after founding corporate partners split for lack of confidence in the project and on fears US federal regulators would seek to block it just as they did encrypted-messaging company Telegram’s Gram cryptocurrency.

  “The draft law would also forbid any party from making or issuing yuan-backed digital tokens to replace the renminbi in the market,” SCMP continues.

  Amid reports early this week that Beijing is fast moving on the digital yuan’s legal status, Bitcoin’s price hit a new 2020 high at $13,670 on Tuesday.

  Within the past months the government conducted multiple trials in the cities Suzhou, Chengdu, Xiongan and Shenzhen – in the latter city conducting the largest test so far by issuing a total ten million yuan (US$1.5 million) in digital currency to 50,000 randomly selected people to use. “It was as quick as when I use Alipay,” one Shenzhen resident said in reference to one of China’s two largest mobile payment apps. 

  50,000 residents took part in experimental ‘red envelope’ giveaway to test its viability https://t.co/ADcTA22psW

  — Asia Times (@asiatimesonline) October 19, 2020

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

  But regional media have also featured consistent negative reactions. China’s government has sought to downplay that the DCEP is a competitor to Alipay and WeChat, which was a consistent issue during the latest major trials among shoppers, as Asia Times relates:

  “Alipay and WeChat Pay have been out for a long time,” said a shopper who gave only her surname, Zhong. “The new digital currency is similar to those so it’s quite late to just start the trial,” said Zhong, an accountant.

  One bombshell section of the SCMP report lays out eyebrow raising ambitious goals as follows:

  The central government has made it clear that the goals of the DCEP include replacing cash, maintaining government control over the currency and creating as many small retail application scenarios as possible. China is also looking to internationalize the yuan by enhancing its use in international settlements.

  As expected, counterfeit wallets of digital yuan are already popping up, hence the rationale for China’s central bank draft law seeking to define it as officially regulated.

  For the above goals to be realized the DCEP would have to prove itself just as efficient as using paper yuan, which obviously raises the issue of personal electronic devices going offline. The payment system is said to incorporate dual offline technology to compensate for this potential major issue in cases of weak signals. All of this would be crucial in getting the average consumer to adopt the technology, especially when it comes to small retail exchanges – which remains common to the majority of the Chinese population. 

  

• Smith: A Biden Presidency Will Mean A Faster US Collapse
  Smith: A Biden Presidency Will Mean A Faster US Collapse
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 22:25

  Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

  The election of 2020 is perhaps the most bizarre affair in modern American history; not since the post Civil War turmoil of reconstruction and the election of 1876 have we seen the nation divided so completely along ideological lines. Questions of states rights vs. federal power were at the forefront at that time, and the presence of federal troops in the American south was a primary voting concern. The Democrats were the party of the Confederacy, the Republicans were the party of the Union. Though they had lost the war, southerners were finding ways to strike back during the elections.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  With the Republican party suffering from corruption allegations and public sentiment shifting against the federal occupation, the Democrats were gaining massive ground and a Democratic sweep was thought to be imminent. However, there were reports of ballot box fraud on BOTH sides of the aisle; in many voting districts the counted number of votes exceeded the number of people (often on the side of Republicans). Republicans sought to challenge poll results in closely contested states to stop the Democrats and former confederates from taking political power, a situation they considered to be a “potential national disaster”.

  The election became a stalemate of legal battles and fraud investigations. Ultimately a deal was struck – The Republicans would take the White House and in exchange federal troops would be removed from the South (the Republicans knew that voting fraud on their side would be exposed and that another civil war could erupt in response). Ultimately, the votes did not matter in the case of a contested election; what mattered was which outcome was the most convenient for the stability of the day and the election result was maneuvered to that end.

  (Special Note: If you try to learn more about the 1876 election, I recommend searching for articles and books that are more than 5-10 years old. Anything written in the past few years on the subject is rife with spin and disinformation. Just check out this article from Time Magazine and try to swim through the propaganda! The part where they attempt to explain why democrats used to be the party of the confederacy is especially hilarious – basically, the democrats of the past were more like the “racist republicans” of today. The communist penchant for rewriting history is on full display.)

  Today, we have a different dynamic and a different priority for the establishment: Which outcome will lead to the biggest disaster, and who will take the blame? In contrast to 1876, I believe that in 2020 the elites are seeking to INCREASE the level of instability, not calm the waters. The mainstream media has launched a massive fear campaign hinting at a contested election and both sides of the aisle are accusing the other of encouraging ballot fraud. I have no doubt that whichever way the election goes, millions of Americans will refuse to accept the results.

  To be clear, I don’t really view modern elections from the perspective of “winning” and “losing”. It’s hard for me to say exactly what was going on behind the curtain in 1876, but today I think it is foolish to engage in election analysis without first accepting the reality that the game is rigged. Biden is a full blown globalist and is proud of it; Trump is surrounded by globalists and banking elites in his own cabinet. Regardless of who loses the election, the elites win. The only question I am here to ask is, which candidate serves the globalist agenda most effectively right now?

  My original prediction for the 2020 election this past summer was that the White House would go to Donald Trump, but under sharply contested conditions. I predicted Trump’s win in 2016 based on the premise that the establishment needed a conservative scapegoat for the impending collapse of the US economy as we know it along with the civil unrest and calamity this event would inspire. I stated unequivocally on numerous occasions that Trump would preside over America’s rapid decline and that conservative ideals and principles would be blamed by extension.

  And behold, in 2020 this is exactly what is happening, with a pandemic and the implosion of the “Everything Bubble” now in full swing and the media placing it all in the lap of Trump and conservatives.

  Now, whether or not people believe this tripe is another matter. As it stands, the worst hit states economically are states controlled by leftist politicians that are enforcing draconian lockdown restrictions on the public. States populated predominantly by conservatives are fairing much better overall.

  The bottom line is, which outcome serves the establishment narrative? Do the elites need Trump in office longer in order to crash the system completely on his watch? I believe this is the case. Like Clinton, Biden represents one of the worst possible candidates that could have been chosen as a believable opponent for Trump if the intent is to remove Trump from the Oval Office. His odd mental breaks, embarrassing gaffs, his habit of being creepily over-familiar with women and young girls and his exposure to corruption through foreign ties make him a poor contender.

  To be sure, democrats and leftists will vote for him anyway out of spite, but I have a hard time seeing him rallying a wide cross section of Americans that would give him an edge. If the establishment wanted to be rid off Trump, they could have chosen better.

  But what if I’m wrong and a Biden presidency is forthcoming? What if ballots are rigged to one side, as they were in 1876? What if a contested election leads to an “agreement” in which Trump steps down? What would it mean to have Biden in the White House?

  Well, the US system as we know it is going to fall either way, at least in terms of the economy. This is a process that was initiated many years ago, with the impetus of financial bubbles hitting disaster proportions in 2008. Nothing has improved since then; in fact, the central bank bailouts and stimulus measures only INCREASED the likelihood of a collapse event by inflating corporate and national debt levels while simultaneously diminishing the buying power of the dollar. The only difference between Trump and Biden in this regard is how fast the collapse will happen.

  With Trump, the crash will most likely happen slower and more methodically as the establishment takes its time building the narrative that conservative ideals, nationalism, sovereignty movements, etc. “caused” the calamity.

  They need time to condition the masses to the idea that such philosophies are “inherently selfish” and destructive. Meaning, at least with Trump, we have a little more time to prepare for the inevitable.

  With Biden in office the time frame changes completely and the crash must move faster. Why? Because the globalists cannot allow a Biden Administration (and by extension the globalists themselves) to be labeled as the culprits behind the crash. They would have to expedite the downturn in the early months of Biden’s first term so that the media can claim the crisis is an aftereffect of Trump’s presidency.

  If Biden does enter the White House in 2021, expect a hard plunge in economic fundamentals almost immediately.

  Another factor of a Biden presidency would be the near certainty of federally enforced pandemic lockdowns similar to those now being implemented in countries like France and Germany. Forget about the current state-by-state lockdown orders and nuances; Biden WILL attempt a national lockdown mandate because he is not held back by a need to appeal to a conservative and liberty minded constituency like Trump is. Biden will go for broke, and the economy will take another massive hit as more businesses go into bankruptcy at breakneck speed. And again, this would have to be implemented quickly so that Trump and conservatives can be blamed. They will claim harsh lockdowns “have to be pursued” because conservatives refused to accept them during the early stages of the pandemic.

  In light of a Trump “win”, it is obvious that a second term would be used as an invitation for mass demonstrations and riots by extreme leftists, but, this threat doesn’t go away with Biden in office. Actually, the riots may become worse under Biden. The social justice cult will see Biden as a “malleable” and easily controlled political figure who will do anything to appease them. Biden will placate the hard left; not because he fears them, but because he has a role to play in this great Kabuki theater and it serves the interests of the globalist agenda at the moment.

  Finally, if the establishment puts Biden in the White House it means they want national gun restrictions or outright confiscation within the first couple years of his term. Biden’s anti-2nd Amendment views are hardly ambiguous. With Trump, the chances of a gun grab are much slimmer (though he has voiced support for Red Flag laws in the past). Under Biden, the gun grab attempt will be swift. This threat along with Level 4 lockdowns on a national level would elicit the only logical response for conservatives – armed rebellion.

  I do not think this is what the globalists want at this point in time. I do not think they have the capacity to handle it, and I do not think they would be able to get a majority of law enforcement and the military to go along with such policies. This is why I continue to believe they prefer Trump in office and that they will use economic decline and the “failure” of conservative policies as a false rationale for the “global reset” the elites seem to be so excited about.

  Be warned, however, that if Biden ends up in office, this should be treated as a sign that a high speed collapse is on the way.

  *  *  *

  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.

  

• Apartment Prices Are Crashing In Major Cities Worldwide
  Apartment Prices Are Crashing In Major Cities Worldwide
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 22:05

  Covid’s effect on cities is starting to hit the price of rentals – and it’s not just in the United States. 

  Apartment prices in some of the richest cities in the world are starting to show the effects of an exodus out of crowded city areas in order to move to more spacious suburbs. A slowing ebb and flow of international students, combined with a younger generation growing disinterested in paying city-price premiums, are both helping the demand side of the rental equation dry up. 

  Tim Lawless, Asia Pacific head of research for data provider CoreLogic Inc., told Bloomberg: “You’re daft if you aren’t negotiating lower rent right now. Supply is high and occupancy has fallen off a cliff.”’

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Renters across the country and renegotiating with their landlords. For example, Christine Chung just negotiated a 9% reduction in rent for the house she lives in in Sydney, Australia. 

  She told Bloomberg: “I’ll push for another rent reduction at the end of the lease. The market has changed.”

  In New York, Manhattan apartments are the “cheapest they’ve been since 2013”.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The number of listings in the city have tripled from a year ago and the city’s median rent has fallen 11%. Studio rents have plunged even further, disproportionately. 

  In San Francisco, the median monthly rent for a studio fell 31% in September from a year prior, to $2,285. This far outpaced the national average of a 0.5% drop. 

  Rents have also plunged in Toronto, down 14.5% in Q3 compared to the year prior. Properties are staying on the market longer, as well. The average time for a property to stay on the market has risen to 26 days in August versus 14 days a year prior. 

  Toronto also has a significant amount of new property supply hitting the market, as Airbnb operators move to longer term leases and new apartment projects are completed. 

  Some sellers are “dumping units below market value” in anticipation of prices falling further, Bloomberg notes. An economist at Canada’s national housing agency said: “The overall housing system seems to be dividing in two. This is where risks start to appear.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  London is a city feeling the brunt of slowing international students and executives traveling. Rents in the city’s priciest areas are down 8.1% year-to-date through September. 

  7 out of 10 respondents to a recent survey in London say they expect prices to continue to fall over the next three months. London West End appraiser Mark Wilson said: “Applicants are noticeably fewer. Rents are still a one-way bet in our view, and it’s south.”

  Singapore has also seen a drop in rental volumes as a result of a drop in expats in Asia. Rental volumes of private units were down 8% from a year prior and rents are 17% below their 2013 peak. Despite the country being in the midst of a recession, home sales (indicating a desire to move out of the city) are at the highest level in more than 2 years. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  As mentioned above, Sydney is experiencing record high vacancy rates, which spiked to 16% in May. These rates have stabilized to about 13% now, as compared to the 5% pre-pandemic. Sydney also suffers from a lack of international student travel. 

  Despite the dip now, experts predict cities will eventually once again become hot spots. Christian A. Nygaard, a researcher in social economics at Swinburne University of Technology, concluded: “History tells us cities can be remarkably resilient. Covid doesn’t evaporate all the investment that has gone into the central parts of our cities.”

  

• Welcome To COVID-World
  Welcome To COVID-World
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 21:45

  Authored by Ian James Kidd and Matthew Ratcliffe via TheCritic.co.uk,

  On 8 September, the World Health Organisation (WHO) warned of a deadly condition that is likely to kill around 11 million people worldwide every year.

  This includes 2.9 million deaths among children, most of which are preventable. Given these awful projections, it is surely clear that urgent action is needed: social distancing; facemasks; lockdowns; unprecedented investment in vaccine development.

  But that wouldn’t address the problem, because we’re talking about sepsis, something that affects 49 million people annually and also leaves many survivors with long-term health problems.

  While its press release about sepsis received little media attention, the WHO’s subsequent warning that Covid-19’s global death toll could reach 2 million, even if a vaccine is found, was awarded a prominent position on the BBC News website and elsewhere.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  So which should we be more worried about and where should our efforts be invested so as to minimise suffering, long-term illness and deaths?

  The emphasis has been placed firmly on prevention of Covid-19 deaths, most of which involve elderly people with significant comorbidities. Forget about sepsis. Forget about numerous other serious and preventable diseases.

  And while we’re at it, let’s also set aside the enormous and wide-ranging collateral damage caused by lockdowns and other measures: deaths due to other diseases that were left undiagnosed or untreated; widespread mental health problems; the health and well-being costs of unemployment and poverty; massive disruption of education; countless precious life-moments lost that can never be recovered; traumatic birth experiences; increased domestic abuse; and many people living out the last few months of their lives in isolation and misery, after which friends and relatives feel unable to grieve properly due to social distancing measures. And that’s without even looking beyond the UK.

  Perhaps, when the costs of responding to Covid-19 by doing nothing or doing less are considered carefully, it will become clear that the emphasis is appropriate and the costs justified. Nevertheless, there is surely room for public disagreement and debate. How great a risk does the disease pose, compared to other risks that are routinely accepted? Is locking down entire populations a proportionate or morally justifiable response? These are some of the questions important to a robust public debate.

  Academic philosophers, such as us, like to question assumptions, consider alternative perspectives and find holes in arguments. However, in questioning the orthodox Covid-19 narrative (according to which there is an unprecedented threat, best dealt with via extreme social restrictions), we are rarely met with careful consideration and counterarguments. More often, we get awkward looks, expressions of discomfort or disapproval, and a steadfast refusal to even contemplate the possibility of certain claims being mistaken or certain actions misguided.

  Sometimes, there is the feeling of being estranged from it all, watching — with detached curiosity — the dedicated social-distancing and confident virtue-signalling of those evidently immune from doubt. They know what is happening; they know what is right; they know what to do. How easy it would be to set aside any remaining doubts, immerse oneself fully in these performances, and — with time — recover a sense of solidarity and certainty.

  That said, there must be a place for honest, high-quality, critical debate, especially at a time like this, involving considerable uncertainty and extremely high stakes. So, rather than falling in line, we instead want to offer a diagnosis of others’ confidence. Why do so many people appear reluctant to even consider the possibility that lockdowns might be ineffective or inappropriate responses to the situation, that the widespread imposition of non-medical facemasks is based on inadequate evidence, and that the costs of certain measures, in terms of lives lost or blighted, may turn out to be higher than the gains?

  We could point to an assortment of reasoning biases at work here, some of which play an especially prominent role in situations of uncertainty and threat. Think of the availability bias, for instance: the prospect of being attacked by a shark while swimming may be considerably more worrying than that of being run over while crossing the road to the beach, although the latter is more likely.

  However, there is also an overarching shortcoming that unites various biases, one that we see time and time again: a failure to consider things in their wider context. Granted, the virus is a serious problem, but how does it compare to other threats we face? Perhaps we do need to lock down our societies to slow the rate of transmission, but are such radical steps consistent with how various other kinds of risks are appraised? It is clear that non-medical facemasks reduce the spread of large droplets, but simple interventions can have complex effects in the context of actual social environments. Is it really so obvious that the various behavioural changes they elicit will collectively serve to reduce transmission?

  it is difficult to address such questions when Covid deaths are reported without any reference to all-cause mortality, when mask-wearing is presented as obviously right, and when calls for cost-benefit analyses are met with quiet disapproval or blunt charges of callousness, as though this were a straightforward matter of deciding to save lives or instead to protect the economy.

  Sometimes, it can feel as though one’s interlocutors live in another world, a place where different rules and standards apply, where different things seem obvious, and where certain facts are not up for debate at all. They operate with different sets of certainties, in ways that lock out the possibility of critical discussion. We think this may actually be what is happening: there really is a way in which many people have come to inhabit a different world. Let’s explore the idea further.

  Back in 1889, the philosopher and psychologist William James suggested that, during the course of our lives, we slide between different “worlds” or “sub-universes”, including the worlds of “sense”, “science”, “the supernatural”, “individual opinion”, and “sheer madness”. These worlds are connected to varying degrees, although immersion in one can lead one to lose sight of others. According to James, all of us place the flag of truth in one or another of these worlds, taking it to be our “world of ultimate realities”. It is not something we seek evidence for or subject to critical scrutiny. Rather, it is a context we take as given when thinking through matters and weighing up evidence.

  Consider how, during the course of daily life, some things appear more salient than others — they light up for us, stand out, grab our attention. These things also matter to us in different ways: maybe they excite us, threaten us, comfort us, draw us in, or repel us. Whether and how we find various things salient or significant depends on our projects, commitments, and values, which become engrained over many years and operate as a lens through which we see and think about everything. But there is more to having a world than having such a lens, and recognising this takes us closer to understanding certain reactions to the pandemic.

  For James, what is most fundamental is an underlying, inarticulate feeling of how things are. This includes a deeply-felt sense of the essential character of the world, whether it is fundamentally good or bad, what is up for debate and what is to be accepted without question. Also included is a sense of the kinds of people we should take seriously in our personal efforts to understand things. For instance, writing a few years earlier, James describes his philosophical opponent, the rationalist, as inhabiting a world that is too crisp, clean, simplified, and abstract — “too buttoned-up … and clean-shaven” to capture “the vast slow-breathing unconscious Kosmos”.

  We suspect that many people have slipped into a sort of “Covidworld” and moved the flag of truth to that world, via a process that resembles religious conversion more than it does the adoption of new beliefs that remain open to critical scrutiny. As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once put it, some people get converted to a very different “picture of the world”, complete with its own certainties, practices and ways of speaking.

  To understand how this could have happened, consider the swift and profound effects that the March lockdown had on our practically meaningful worlds. Intricate webs of well-established projects and pastimes were suddenly suspended or lost. Work stopped or changed radically. Over the ensuing months, our everyday habits of life were replaced with something new and unfamiliar.

  More usually, our efforts to cope with profound life-disruptions and negotiate instability involve turning to other people for advice, guidance, and support. When this works, our interrupted sense of what is compelling or reasonable is renewed and our sense of stability returns. Lockdown reduced this kind of support, as we were all affected by it and cut off from many of our usual social interactions. Constantly subjected to the mantra, “stay at home; protect the NHS; save lives”, the variety and spontaneity of our collective social life was replaced by the clapping, the rainbows, the daily government briefings, the charts of new cases and deaths, the burgeoning signage telling us all to keep our distance, the arrows on the pavements, and the social media bombardment. Then came facemasks, the threat of Long Covid, socially distanced classrooms, ominous predictions of a “second wave”, an increasingly elaborate set of new restrictions, a tier system, and calls for circuit-breakers.

  Along with all of this, there has been a subtler and more pervasive alteration in many people’s sense of how things are with the world. It is no longer homely in the way it once was. Everything is shrouded in danger and distrust. A world that was once a theatre of possibilities is now suffused with an air of dread. People we might once have passed on the street with a smile or a nod are now experienced as potential disease carriers, to be met with suspicion or avoided.

  In the context of this altered way of finding ourselves in the world, a new system of rules, projects, practices and pastimes has taken hold. Fear of the virus is the single fulcrum around which everything now turns, shaping our attention, concerns, conversations, and activities. For many, the world feels altogether different, like the inevitable onset of a winter that must be endured with grim resignation.

  Over time, Covidworld tightens its grip, eclipsing all other concerns. It reminds us of Wittgenstein’s example of a culture dominated by belief in a Last Judgment, a conviction expressed “not by reasoning or by appeal to ordinary grounds for belief”, but through its role in “regulating” all aspects of life. Similarly, Covidworld offers a simple, internally coherent substitute for the messier and more complicated reality we once inhabited.

  A reluctance on the part of many people to engage in serious debate can be understood in terms of the transition into this different world, a place complete with its own foundational beliefs and performances. Lockdowns work; masks lessen transmission; the second wave is an unacceptable threat and must be suppressed.

  Since all of this is beyond doubt, questions about the adequacy of evidence are often reinterpreted in moral terms and dismissed as irresponsible acts of “covidiocy”. Many of those who would more usually insist on examining alternative possibilities or challenge the party line now fall strangely silent. Lack of critical reflection is further fuelled by a distrust of those who do not belong to Covidworld.

  Granted, there are conspiracy-mongers who fail to grasp that 5G masts cannot spread viruses, but there are also those who ask questions that really ought to be seen as sensible, like whether a range of social restrictions are proportionate, in view of their human, social, and economic costs. For those firmly embedded in Covidworld, however, such questions may seem no less far-fetched than that of someone who seriously wonders whether the world is just a dream. The flag of truth now flies in Covidworld; it is not a place to be questioned, but the place within which questioning takes place.

  Could something like this really be happening? We think so. It would certainly explain a curious detachment of the standards applied to Covid-19 from standards normally applied elsewhere, especially concerning attitudes towards risk. The world has always been a tough place to live in. Our sense of safety and security could be shattered at any time by accident, serious illness, loss of abilities, bereavement, mistreatment at the hands of others, unemployment, failure, or humiliation. And, whatever else happens, death will catch up with us eventually.

  Ordinarily, most of us don’t pay much attention to the risks we face, instead sleepwalking past them until they strike. Yet we still know, in a sort of detached way, that more than 10,000 people die most weeks in the UK, that many of those deaths are preventable, that influenza kills thousands of people every winter, and that many human lives are constantly marred by disease, poverty, neglect and cruelty. The Covid-19 pandemic has shone a light on the death and suffering caused by the virus, but at the same time eclipsed other concerns. Yes, this is really horrible, but things have always been horrible. Shine the light more widely and you will find much more of the same.

  Even allowing that Covid-19 is a significantly greater risk to many people than, say, influenza, there remains a curious disconnection between attitudes towards risk in the two cases. Winter flu deaths have been an accepted part of life for many years, while Covid-19 takes centre-stage. What seems different now is that the rules, standards, practices, values, and attitudes internal to Covidworld have become cut off, to varying degrees, from the wider context of human life.

  One might respond that we should have been more concerned about influenza all along and that we should have taken more care with easily implementable hygiene measures long ago. That is right and there are lessons to be learned. Similarly, there are good grounds for suggesting that more should be done to tackle sepsis.

  But what would happen if we eliminated all of the inconsistency by taking the standards applied to Covid-19 and applying them to every other form of risk?

  The social world would come to present itself as an all-enveloping threat, a harsh realm within which life would be intolerable.

  Human life is replete with risks, but we manage them by making judgments shaped by a sense of salience and proportionality, rooted in the wider context of our social world. That is why it is important to understand and challenge the widespread decontextualisation that attends Covid-19. However, the extent of this challenge should not be underestimated. When the gulf seems somehow too vast for critical debate to get off the ground, when you are struck by the uncanny feeling of encountering a perspective that is quite alien, maybe that’s because they really are from another world.

  

• WeWork CEO Says Company Will Give IPO Another Shot After Anticipated Return To Profitability In 2021
  WeWork CEO Says Company Will Give IPO Another Shot After Anticipated Return To Profitability In 2021
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 21:25

  Earlier today, the FT reported on new discovery evidence showing that SoftBank’s Masayoshi Son essentially ordered WeWork’s CEO to postpone a $3 billion tender offer for shares held by WeWork founder Adam Neumann and a group of early WeWork investors. For months now, WeWork related news has consisted mostly of back-and-forth related to the lawsuit, and musings about how the coronavirus couldn’t have arrived at a worse time for the company.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  A week ago, Fitch projected that even though WeWork’s cash burn rate had been cut by nearly 40% between 2019 and 2020 under the new management team, the ratings agency still downgraded the company, arguing that the virus and its aftermath could threaten the company’s ability to continue making debt payments for bonds that are due to be paid back in 2025.

  While those bonds have repriced substantially lower over the past year, there’s been whispers about SoftBank planning a SPAC, possibly with the intention of giving WeWork another go at it.

  Well, in the most telling sign yet that SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son might be coming back to give WeWork another shot, the Telegraph is reporting that WeWork is considering making a second attempt at an IPO in the not-too-distant future as it projects to finally become “profitable” in 2021.

  Sandeep Mathrani, who joined the office space rental business in February, told Bloomberg that the business is on track to become profitable next year after it laid off around a third of employees.

  “I’m a big believer in one step at a time so let’s hit profitable growth first, and we’ll then revisit the IPO plan,” he said.

  Mr Mathrani said the company does not have any plans to lay off more staff, saying that WeWork is “100pc done with rightsizing.

  The business saw occupancy rates of 66pc in the first three months of 2020, according to its chief executive. “With the cost cuts that would be where we see cash coming in,” he said. “We will get to that level by next year.”

  To be sure, the Telegraph didn’t specify if this “profitability” metric would be net profit, or some kind of “community adjusted” profitability that aims to project how profitable WeWork would have been if it the virus had never hit – or something like that (for more on this topic, see this interview with Berkshire Hathaway’s Charlie Munger from earlier this year).

  Mathrani also said he’s still in contact with his predecessor, despite the ongoing and increasingly acrimonious lawsuit mentioned above. “We chitchat twice a month and the conversation is about the business,” Mathrani said. “He wants to know how I’m doing”.

  Of course, if Neumann loses his lawsuit and gets stuck with his WeWork shares, a miraculous turnaround would be the only way for him to ever that third comma back to his net worth. As of now, the company’s executive chairman, Marcelo Claure, is insisting that the business won’t go bankrupt.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  We must admit, the notion of a WeWork comeback sounds pretty unlikely considering the shellacking the company took in the business press. But as the last few years have taught us, anything is possible in this wacky world. Especially if the Fed’s money taps are still running when the dust has settled.

  

• Here's The 'Censored' Biden Story That Forced Glenn Greenwald To Quit The Firm He Founded
  Here’s The ‘Censored’ Biden Story That Forced Glenn Greenwald To Quit The Firm He Founded
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 21:12

  Via Glenn Greenwald’s substack,

  I am posting here the most recent draft of my article about Joe and Hunter Biden – the last one seen by Intercept editors before telling me that they refuse to publish it absent major structural changes involving the removal of all sections critical of Joe Biden, leaving only a narrow article critiquing media outlets. I will also, in a separate post, publish all communications I had with Intercept editors surrounding this article so you can see the censorship in action and, given the Intercept’s denials, decide for yourselves (this is the kind of transparency responsible journalists provide, and which the Intercept refuses to this day to provide regarding their conduct in the Reality Winner story). This draft obviously would have gone through one more round of proof-reading and editing by me – to shorten it, fix typos, etc – but it’s important for the integrity of the claims to publish the draft in unchanged form that Intercept editors last saw, and announced that they would not “edit” but completely gut as a condition to publication:

  An attempt to assess the importance of the known evidence, and a critique of media lies to protect their favored candidate, could not be published at The Intercept

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA USES FALSEHOODS TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN FROM HUNTER’S EMAILS

  Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, relating to Vice President Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine, and subsequent articles from other outlets concerning the Biden family’s pursuit of business opportunities in China, provoked extraordinary efforts by a de facto union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories.

  One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions — the natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election — journalists have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence.

  After the Post’s first article, both that newspaper and other news outlets have published numerous other emails and texts purportedly written to and from Hunter reflecting his efforts to induce his father to take actions as Vice President beneficial to the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter sat for a monthly payment of $50,000, as well as proposals for lucrative business deals in China that traded on his influence with his father.

  Individuals included in some of the email chains have confirmed the contents’ authenticity. One of Hunter’s former business partners, Tony Bubolinski, has stepped forward on the record to confirm the authenticity of many of the emails and to insist that Hunter along with Joe Biden’s brother Jim were planning on including the former Vice President in at least one deal in China. And GOP pollster Frank Luntz, who appeared in one of the published email chains, appeared to confirm the authenticity as well, though he refused to answer follow-up questions about it.

  Thus far, no proof has been offered by Bubolinski that Biden ever consummated his participation in any of those discussed deals. The Wall Street Journal says that it found no corporate records reflecting that a deal was finalized and that “text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture.”

  But nobody claimed that any such deals had been consummated — so the conclusion that one had not been does not negate the story. Moreover, some texts and emails whose authenticity has not been disputed state that Hunter was adamant that any discussions about the involvement of the Vice President be held only verbally and never put in writing.

  Beyond that, the Journal’s columnist Kimberly Strassel reviewed a stash of documents and “found correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published by the New York Post,” including ones where Hunter was insisting that it was his connection to his father that was the greatest asset sought by the Chinese conglomerate with whom they were negotiating. The New York Times on Sunday reached a similar conclusion: while no documents prove that such a deal was consummated, “records produced by Mr. Bobulinski show that in 2017, Hunter Biden and James Biden were involved in negotiations about a joint venture with a Chinese energy and finance company called CEFC China Energy,” and “make clear that Hunter Biden saw the family name as a valuable asset, angrily citing his ‘family’s brand’ as a reason he is valuable to the proposed venture.”

  These documents also demonstrate, reported the Times, “that the countries that Hunter Biden, James Biden and their associates planned to target for deals overlapped with nations where Joe Biden had previously been involved as vice president.” Strassel noted that “a May 2017 ‘expectations’ document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding another 10% for ‘the big guy’—who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden.” And the independent journalist Matt Taibbi published an article on Sunday with ample documentation suggesting that Biden’s attempt to replace a Ukranian prosecutor in 2015 benefited Burisma.

  All of these new materials, the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son’s business associates. But in the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union of the nation’s most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them.

  The initial documents, claimed the New York Post, were obtained when the laptops containing them were left at a Delaware repair shop with water damage and never picked up, allowing the owner to access its contents and then turn them over to both the FBI and a lawyer for Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani. The repair store owner confirmed this narrative in interviews with news outlets and then (under penalty of prosecution) to a Senate Committee; he also provided the receipt purportedly signed by Hunter. Neither Hunter nor the Biden campaign has denied these claims.

  Publication of that initial New York Post story provoked a highly unusual censorship campaign by Facebook and Twitter. Facebook, through a long-time former Democratic Party operative, vowed to suppress the story pending its “fact-check,” one that has as of yet produced no public conclusions. And while Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for Twitter’s handling of the censorship and reversed the policy that led to the blocking of all links the story, the New York Post, the nation’s fourth-largest newspaper, continues to be locked out of its Twitter account, unable to post as the election approaches, for almost two weeks.

  After that initial censorship burst from Silicon Valley, whose workforce and oligarchs have donated almost entirely to the Biden campaign, it was the nation’s media outlets and former CIA and other intelligence officials who took the lead in constructing reasons why the story should be dismissed, or at least treated with scorn. As usual for the Trump era, the theme that took center stage to accomplish this goal was an unsubstantiated claim about the Kremlin responsibility for the story.

  Numerous news outlets, including the Intercept, quickly cited a public letter signed by former CIA officials and other agents of the security state claiming that the documents have the “classic trademarks” of a “Russian disinformation” plot. But, as media outlets and even intelligence agencies are now slowly admitting, no evidence has ever been presented to corroborate this assertion. On Friday, the New York Times reported that “no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation” and the paper said even the FBI has “acknowledged that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.”

  The Washington Post on Sunday published an op-ed — by Thomas Rid, one of those centrists establishmentarian professors whom media outlets routinely use to provide the facade of expert approval for deranged conspiracy theories — that contained this extraordinary proclamation: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Even the letter from the former intelligence officials cited by The Intercept and other outlets to insinuate that this was all part of some “Russian disinformation” scheme explicitly admitted that “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement,” though many media outlets omitted that crucial acknowledgement when citing the letter in order to disparage the story as a Kremlin plot:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Despite this complete lack of evidence, the Biden campaign adopted this phrase used by intelligence officials and media outlets as its mantra for why the materials should not be discussed and why they would not answer basic questions about them. “I think we need to be very, very clear that what he’s doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation,” said Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield about the possibility that Trump would raise the Biden emails at Thursday night’s debate. Biden’s senior advisor Symone Sanders similarly warned on MSNBC: “if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation.”

  The few mainstream journalists who tried merely to discuss these materials have been vilified. For the crime of simply noting it on Twitter that first day, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman had her name trend all morning along with the derogatory nickname “MAGA Haberman.” CBS News’ Bo Erickson was widely attacked even by his some in the media simply for asking Biden what his response to the story was. And Biden himself refused to answer, accusing Erickson of spreading a “smear.”

  That it is irresponsible and even unethical to mention these documents became a pervasive view in mainstream journalism. The NPR Public Editor, in an anazing statement representative of much of the prevailing media mentality, explicitly justified NPR’s refusal to cover the story on the ground that “we do not want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories . . . [or] waste the readers’ and listeners’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”

  Why haven’t you seen any stories from NPR about the NY Post’s Hunter Biden story? Read more in this week’s newsletter➡️ https://t.co/CJesPgmGvo pic.twitter.com/jAi7PnpbZf

  — NPR Public Editor (@NPRpubliceditor) October 22, 2020

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

  To justify her own show’s failure to cover the story, 60 Minutes’ Leslie Stahl resorted to an entirely different justification. “It can’t be verified,” the CBS reporter claimed when confronted by President Trump in an interview about her program’s failure to cover the Hunter Biden documents. When Trump insisted there were multiple ways to verify the materials on the laptop, Stahl simply repeated the same phrase: “it can’t be verified.”

  After the final presidential debate on Thursday night, a CNN panel mocked the story as too complex and obscure for anyone to follow — a self-fulfilling prophecy given that, as the network’s media reporter Brian Stelter noted with pride, the story has barely been mentioned either on CNN or MSNBC. As the New York Times noted on Friday: “most viewers of CNN and MSNBC would not have heard much about the unconfirmed Hunter Biden emails…. CNN’s mentions of “Hunter” peaked at 20 seconds and MSNBC’s at 24 seconds one day last week.”

  On Sunday, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour barely pretended to be interested in any journalism surrounding the story, scoffing during an interview at requests from the RNC’s Elizabeth Harrington to cover the story and verify the documents by telling her: “We’re not going to do your work for you.” Watch how the U.S.’s most mainstream journalists are openly announcing their refusal to even consider what these documents might reflect about the Democratic front-runner:

  These journalists are desperate not to know. As Taibbi wrote on Sunday about this tawdry press spectacle: ” The least curious people in the country right now appear to be the credentialed news media, a situation normally unique to tinpot authoritarian societies.”

  All of those excuses and pretexts — emanating largely from a national media that is all but explicit in their eagerness for Biden to win — served for the first week or more after the Post story to create a cone of silence around this story and, to this very day, a protective shield for Biden. As a result, the front-running presidential candidate knows that he does not have to answer even the most basic questions about these documents because most of the national press has already signaled that they will not press him to do so; to the contrary, they will concoct defenses on his behalf to avoid discussing it.

  The relevant questions for Biden raised by this new reporting are as glaring as they are important. Yet Biden has had to answer very few of them yet because he has not been asked and, when he has, media outlets have justified his refusal to answer rather than demand that he do so. We submitted nine questions to his campaign about these documents that the public has the absolute right to know, including:

  • whether he claims any the emails or texts are fabricated (and, if so, which specific ones);

  • whether he knows if Hunter did indeed drop off laptops at the Delaware repair store;

  • whether Hunter ever asked him to meet with Burisma executives or whether he in fact did so;

  • whether Biden ever knew about business proposals in Ukraine or China being pursued by his son and brother in which Biden was a proposed participant and,

  • how Biden could justify expending so much energy as Vice President demanding that the Ukrainian General Prosecutor be fired, and why the replacement — Yuriy Lutsenko, someone who had no experience in law; was a crony of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko; and himself had a history of corruption allegations — was acceptable if Biden’s goal really was to fight corruption in Ukraine rather than benefit Burisma or control Ukrainian internal affairs for some other objective.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Though the Biden campaign indicated that they would respond to the Intercept’s questions, they have not done so. A statement they released to other outlets contains no answers to any of these questions except to claim that Biden “has never even considered being involved in business with his family, nor in any business overseas.” To date, even as the Biden campaign echoes the baseless claims of media outlets that anyone discussing this story is “amplifying Russian disinformation,” neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign have even said whether they claim the emails and other documents — which they and the press continue to label “Russian disinformation” — are forgeries or whether they are authentic.

  The Biden campaign clearly believes it has no need to answer any of these questions by virtue of a panoply of media excuses offered on its behalf that collapse upon the most minimal scrutiny:

  First, the claim that the material is of suspect authenticity or cannot be verified — the excuse used on behalf of Biden by Leslie Stahl and Christiane Amanpour, among others — is blatantly false for numerous reasons. As someone who has reported similar large archives in partnership with numerous media outlets around the world (including the Snowden archive in 2014 and the Intercept’s Brazil Archive over the last year showing corruption by high-level Bolsonaro officials), and who also covered the reporting of similar archives by other outlets (the Panama Papers, the WikiLeaks war logs of 2010 and DNC/Podesta emails of 2016), it is clear to me that the trove of documents from Hunter Biden’s emails has been verified in ways quite similar to those.

  With an archive of this size, one can never independently authenticate every word in every last document unless the subject of the reporting voluntarily confirms it in advance, which they rarely do. What has been done with similar archives is journalists obtain enough verification to create high levels of journalistic confidence in the materials. Some of the materials provided by the source can be independently confirmed, proving genuine access by the source to a hard drive, a telephone, or a database. Other parties in email chains can confirm the authenticity of the email or text conversations in which they participated. One investigates non-public facts contained in the documents to determine that they conform to what the documents reflect. Technology specialists can examine the materials to ensure no signs of forgeries are detected.

  This is the process that enabled the largest and most established media outlets around the world to report similar large archives obtained without authorization. In those other cases, no media outlet was able to verify every word of every document prior to publication. There was no way to prove the negative that the source or someone else had not altered or forged some of the material. That level of verification is both unattainable and unnecessary. What is needed is substantial evidence to create high confidence in the authentication process.

  The Hunter Biden documents have at least as much verification as those other archives that were widely reported. There are sources in the email chains who have verified that the published emails are accurate. The archive contains private photos and videos of Hunter whose authenticity is not in doubt. A former business partner of Hunter has stated, unequivocally and on the record, that not only are the emails authentic but they describe events accurately, including proposed participation by the former Vice President in at least one deal Hunter and Jim Biden were pursuing in China. And, most importantly of all, neither Hunter Biden nor the Biden campaign has even suggested, let alone claimed, that a single email or text is fake.

  Why is the failure of the Bidens to claim that these emails are forged so significant? Because when journalists report on a massive archive, they know that the most important event in the reporting’s authentication process comes when the subjects of the reporting have an opportunity to deny that the materials are genuine. Of course that is what someone would do if major media outlets were preparing to publish, or in fact were publishing, fabricated or forged materials in their names; they would say so in order to sow doubt about the materials if not kill the credibility of the reporting.

  The silence of the Bidens may not be dispositive on the question of the material’s authenticity, but when added to the mountain of other authentication evidence, it is quite convincing: at least equal to the authentication evidence in other reporting on similarly large archives.

  Second, the oft-repeated claim from news outlets and CIA operatives that the published emails and texts were “Russian disinformation” was, from the start, obviously baseless and reckless. No evidence — literally none — has been presented to suggest involvement by any Russians in the dissemination of these materials, let alone that it was part of some official plot by Moscow. As always, anything is possible — when one does not know for certain what the provenance of materials is, nothing can be ruled out — but in journalism, evidence is required before news outlets can validly start blaming some foreign government for the release of information. And none has ever been presented. Yet the claim that this was “Russian disinformation” was published in countless news outlets, television broadcasts, and the social media accounts of journalists, typically by pointing to the evidence-free claims of ex-CIA officials.

  Worse is the “disinformation” part of the media’s equation. How can these materials constitute “disinformation” if they are authentic emails and texts actually sent to and from Hunter Biden? The ease with which news outlets that are supposed to be skeptical of evidence-free pronouncements by the intelligence community instead printed their assertions about “Russian disinformation” is alarming in the extreme. But they did it because they instinctively wanted to find a reason to justify ignoring the contents of these emails, so claiming that Russia was behind it, and that the materials were “disinformation,” became their placeholder until they could figure out what else they should say to justify ignoring these documents.

  Third, the media rush to exonerate Biden on the question of whether he engaged in corruption vis-a-vis Ukraine and Burisma rested on what are, at best, factually dubious defenses of the former Vice President. Much of this controversy centers on Biden’s aggressive efforts while Vice President in late 2015 to force the Ukrainian government to fire its Chief Prosecutor, Viktor Shokhin, and replace him with someone acceptable to the U.S., which turned out to be Yuriy Lutsenko. These events are undisputed by virtue of a video of Biden boasting in front of an audience of how he flew to Kiev and forced the Ukrainians to fire Shokhin, upon pain of losing $1 billion in aid.

  But two towering questions have long been prompted by these events, and the recently published emails make them more urgent than ever: 1) was the firing of the Ukrainian General Prosecutor such a high priority for Biden as Vice President of the U.S. because of his son’s highly lucrative role on the board of Burisma, and 2) if that was not the motive, why was it so important for Biden to dictate who the chief prosecutor of Ukraine was?

  The standard answer to the question about Biden’s motive — offered both by Biden and his media defenders — is that he, along with the IMF and EU, wanted Shokhin fired because the U.S. and its allies were eager to clean up Ukraine, and they viewed Shokhin as insufficiently vigilant in fighting corruption.

  “Biden’s brief was to sweet-talk and jawbone Poroshenko into making reforms that Ukraine’s Western benefactors wanted to see as,” wrote the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler in what the Post calls a “fact-check.” Kessler also endorsed the key defense of Biden: that the firing of Shokhin was bad for Burima, not good for it. “The United States viewed [Shokhin] as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and Ukraine’s corrupt oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky,” Kessler claims.

  But that claim does not even pass the laugh test. The U.S. and its European allies are not opposed to corruption by their puppet regimes. They are allies with the most corrupt regimes on the planet, from Riyadh to Cairo, and always have been. Since when does the U.S. devote itself to ensuring good government in the nations it is trying to control? If anything, allowing corruption to flourish has been a key tool in enabling the U.S. to exert power in other countries and to open up their markets to U.S. companies.

  Beyond that, if increasing prosecutorial independence and strengthening anti-corruption vigilance were really Biden’s goal in working to demand the firing of the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, why would the successor to Shokhin, Yuriy Lutsenko, possibly be acceptable? Lutsenko, after all, had “no legal background as general prosecutor,” was principally known only as a lackey of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, was forced in 2009 to “resign as interior minister after being detained by police at Frankfurt airport for being drunk and disorderly,” and “was subsequently jailed for embezzlement and abuse of office, though his defenders said the sentence was politically motivated.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Is it remotely convincing to you that Biden would have accepted someone like Lutsenko if his motive really were to fortify anti-corruption prosecutions in Ukraine? Yet that’s exactly what Biden did: he personally told Poroshenko that Lutsenko was an acceptable alternative and promptly released the $1 billion after his appointment was announced. Whatever Biden’s motive was in using his power as U.S. Vice President to change the prosecutor in Ukraine, his acceptance of someone like Lutsenko strongly suggests that combatting Ukrainian corruption was not it.

  As for the other claim on which Biden and his media allies have heavily relied — that firing Shokhin was not a favor for Burisma because Shokhin was not pursuing any investigations against Burisma — the evidence does not justify that assertion.

  It is true that no evidence, including these new emails, constitute proof that Biden’s motive in demanding Shokhin’s termination was to benefit Burisma. But nothing demonstrates that Shokhin was impeding investigations into Burisma. Indeed, the New York Times in 2019 published one of the most comprehensive investigations to date of the claims made in defense of Biden when it comes to Ukraine and the firing of this prosecutor, and, while noting that “no evidence has surfaced that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general’s dismissal,” this is what its reporters concluded about Shokhin and Burisma:

  [Biden’s] pressure campaign eventually worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was voted out months later by the Ukrainian Parliament.

  Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general.

  The Times added: “Mr. Shokhin’s office had oversight of investigations into [Burisma’s billionaire founder] Zlochevsky and his businesses, including Burisma.” By contrast, they said, Lutsenko, the replacement approved by Vice President Biden, “initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within 10 months of taking office.”

  So whether or not it was Biden’s intention to confer benefits on Burisma by demanding Shokhin’s firing, it ended up quite favorable for Burisma given that the utterly inexperienced Lutesenko “cleared [Burisma’s founder] of all charges within 10 months of taking office.”

  The new comprehensive report from journalist Taibbi on Sunday also strongly supports the view that there were clear antagonisms between Shokhin and Burisma, such that firing the Ukrainian prosecutor would have been beneficial for Burisma. Taibbi, who reported for many years while based in Russia and remains very well-sourced in the region, detailed:

  For all the negative press about Shokhin, there’s no doubt that there were multiple active cases involving Zlochevsky/Burisma during his short tenure. This was even once admitted by American reporters, before it became taboo to describe such cases untethered to words like “dormant.” Here’s how Ken Vogel at the New York Times put it in May of 2019:

  “When Mr. Shokhin became prosecutor general in February 2015, he inherited several investigations into the company and Mr. Zlochevsky, including for suspicion of tax evasion and money laundering. Mr. Shokin also opened an investigation into the granting of lucrative gas licenses to companies owned by Mr. Zlochevsky when he was the head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources.”

  Ukrainian officials I reached this week confirmed that multiple cases were active during that time.

  “There were different numbers, but from 7 to 14,” says Serhii Horbatiuk, former head of the special investigations department for the Prosecutor General’s Office, when asked how many Burisma cases there were.

  “There may have been two to three episodes combined, and some have already been closed, so I don’t know the exact amount.” But, Horbatiuk insists, there were many cases, most of them technically started under Yarema, but at least active under Shokin.

  The numbers quoted by Horbatiuk gibe with those offered by more recent General Prosecutor Rulsan Ryaboshapka, who last year said there were at one time or another “13 or 14” cases in existence involving Burisma or Zlochevsky.

  Taibbi reviews real-time reporting in both Ukraine and the U.S. to document several other pending investigations against Burisma and Zlochevsky that was overseen by the prosecutor whose firing Biden demanded. He notes that Shokhin himself has repeatedly said he was pursuing several investigations against Zlochevsky at the time Biden demanded his firing. In sum, Taibbi concludes, “one can’t say there’s no evidence of active Burisma cases even during the last days of Shokin, who says that it was the February, 2016 seizure order [against Zlochevsky’s assets] that got him fired.”

  And, Taibbi notes, “the story looks even odder when one wonders why the United States would exercise so much foreign policy muscle to get Shokin fired, only to allow in a replacement — Yuri Lutsenko — who by all accounts was a spectacularly bigger failure in the battle against corruption in general, and Zlochevsky in particular.” In sum: “it’s unquestionable that the cases against Burisma were all closed by Shokin’s successor, chosen in consultation with Joe Biden, whose son remained on the board of said company for three more years, earning upwards of $50,000 per month.”

  The publicly known facts, augmented by the recent emails, texts and on-the-record accounts, suggest serious sleaze by Joe Biden’s son Hunter in trying to peddle his influence with the Vice President for profit. But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew about and even himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption. Specifically, these newly revealed information suggest Biden was using his power to benefit his son’s business Ukrainian associates, and allowing his name to be traded on while Vice President for his son and brother to pursue business opportunities in China. These are questions which a minimally healthy press would want answered, not buried — regardless of how many similar or worse scandals the Trump family has.

  But the real scandal that has been proven is not the former Vice President’s misconduct but that of his supporters and allies in the U.S. media. As Taibbi’s headline put it: “With the Hunter Biden Exposé, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than the Actual Story.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The reality is the U.S. press has been planning for this moment for four years — cooking up justifications for refusing to report on newsworthy material that might help Donald Trump get re-elected. One major factor is the undeniable truth that journalists with national outlets based in New York, Washington and West Coast cities overwhelmingly not just favor Joe Biden but are desperate to see Donald Trump defeated.

  It takes an enormous amount of gullibility to believe that any humans are capable of separating such an intense partisan preference from their journalistic judgment. Many barely even bother to pretend: critiques of Joe Biden are often attacked first not by Biden campaign operatives but by political reporters at national news outlets who make little secret of their eagerness to help Biden win.

  But much of this has to do with the fallout from the 2016 election. During that campaign, news outlets, including The Intercept, did their jobs as journalists by reporting on the contents of newsworthy, authentic documents: namely, the emails published by WikiLeaks from the John Podesta and DNC inboxes which, among other things, revealed corruption so severe that it forced the resignation of the top five officials of the DNC. That the materials were hacked, and that intelligence agencies were suggesting Russia was responsible, not negate the newsworthiness of the documents, which is why media outlets across the country repeatedly reported on their contents.

  Nonetheless, journalists have spent four years being attacked as Trump enablers in their overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal cultural circles: the cities in which they live are overwhelmingly Democratic, and their demographic — large-city, college-educated professionals — has vanishingly little Trump support. A New York Times survey of campaign data from Monday tells just a part of this story of cultural insularity and homogeniety:

  Joe Biden has outraised President Trump on the strength of some of the wealthiest and most educated ZIP codes in the United States, running up the fund-raising score in cities and suburbs so resoundingly that he collected more money than Mr. Trump on all but two days in the last two months….It is not just that much of Mr. Biden’s strongest support comes overwhelmingly from the two coasts, which it does…. [U]nder Mr. Trump, Republicans have hemorrhaged support from white voters with college degrees. In ZIP codes with a median household income of at least $100,000, Mr. Biden smashed Mr. Trump in fund-raising, $486 million to only $167 million — accounting for almost his entire financial edge….One Upper West Side ZIP code — 10024 — accounted for more than $8 million for Mr. Biden, and New York City in total delivered $85.6 million for him — more than he raised in every state other than California….

  The median household in the United States was $68,703 in 2019. In ZIP codes above that level, Mr. Biden outraised Mr. Trump by $389.1 million. Below that level, Mr. Trump was actually ahead by $53.4 million.

  Wanting to avoid a repeat of feeling scorn and shunning in their own extremely pro-Democratic, anti-Trump circles, national media outlets have spent four years inventing standards for election-year reporting on hacked materials that never previously existed and that are utterly anathema to the core journalistic function. The Washington Post’s Executive Editor Marty Baron, for instance, issued a memo full of cautions about how Post reporters should, or should not, discuss hacked materials even if their authenticity is not in doubt.

  That a media outlet should even consider refraining from reporting on materials they know to be authentic and in the public interest because of questions about their provenance is the opposite of how journalism has been practiced. In the days before the 2016 election, for instance, the New York Times received by mail one year of Donald Trump’s tax returns and — despite having no idea who sent it to them or how that person obtained it: was is stolen or hacked by a foreign power? — the Times reported on its contents.

  When asked by NPR why they would report on documents when they do not know the source let alone the source’s motives in providing them, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner David Barstow compellingly explained what had always been the core principle of journalism: namely, a journalist only cares about two questions — (1) are documents authentic and (2) are they in the public interest? — but does not care about what motives a source has in providing the documents or how they were obtained when deciding whether to reporting them:

  Why NYT’s David Barstow does not care who leaked us Trump’s tax return, or what the motivation was. Listen: https://t.co/Bm5nGQ1oQM

  — Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb) October 4, 2016

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

  The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it.

  A media outlet that renounces its core function — pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people — is one that deserves to lose the public’s faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored.

  As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday: “The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear.” Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi summed up the most important point this way: “The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it’s true.”

  

• "A Long Slog" – NYC Recovery Lags Rest Of Country As Downturn Could Last Years
  “A Long Slog” – NYC Recovery Lags Rest Of Country As Downturn Could Last Years
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 20:45

  While the virus pandemic depression is over, the conventional recession could be nearing as economic growth falters. The fiscal cliff will soon enter the third month; high unemployment is rampant and small and mid-sized businesses remain in financial distress as daily virus caseloads hit new record highs.

  For some economic realities, one that is far from President Trump’s “V-shaped” recovery narrative, Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, told NYT the US economy “is going to be a long slog” from here, with estimates of a downturn lasting until 2023. 

  A multi-year downturn comes as no surprise following one of the steepest economic contractions in history. Zandi also examined NYC, the largest municipal and regional economy in the US, only to discover a recovery might not be seen until 2025:

  “This is an event that struck right at the heart of New York’s comparative advantages,” Zandi said. “Being globally oriented, being stacked up in skyscrapers and packed together in stadiums: the very thing that made New York the pandemic undermined New York, was upended by it.” 

  Zandi said NYC’s recovery could take two years longer than the rest of the country as the virus-induced downturn has severely damaged five key industries – restaurants, hotels, the arts, transportation, and building services – most of which heavily rely on travel and tourism. 

  For more color on the recovery, high-frequency data from Opportunity Insights shows the percentage change in all consumer spending on a national level is still below March levels, even though the federal government helicopter dropped stimulus checks to tens of millions of Americans. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Percent change in small business revenue on a national level shows a muted recovery. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The national employment picture is not a good one, as well.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Employment claims could be ready to turn up as a double-dip recession could be nearing. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  What’s happening now is the awesome recovery narrative touted by President Trump and Wall Street are quickly fading as stimulus hopes collapse. 

  

• Von Greyerz: "Get Ready For The Biggest Collapse In Human History"
  Von Greyerz: “Get Ready For The Biggest Collapse In Human History”
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 20:25

  Authored by Egon von Greyerz via GoldSwitzerland.com,

  Liftoff & Collapse

  Get ready for the biggest collapse in the history of mankind. It will be devastating and reach all parts of society, economic, financial, political & social.

  But wait, it won’t happen just yet. Because before that the world will experience a LIFTOFF in markets of gigantic proportions. This will be the grand finale of this financial era. It will involve inflationary liquidity injections of proportions never seen before in history and lead to a massive explosion in many asset markets.

  Most investment assets will benefit as the disconnect between markets and reality grows to distortionary proportions.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  TRUMP – YOU WIN! BIDEN – YOU WIN!

  So there we have it. For investors the outcome of this election is totally irrelevant. In four years time, the difference for the economy and markets between a Trump or Biden victory will be insignificant.

  Either one of them only has one choice. They are both facing a bankrupt country which has been running budget deficits since 1930 with four years of exception in the 1940s-50s. The Clinton surpluses were fake. Also, the US has had trade deficits for almost 50 years. The consequence has been an exponentially surging debt which was under $1 trillion when Reagan became President in 1981 and is now $27t. In the next four years, a $40t debt is guaranteed as I forecast four years ago but as the financial system implodes, the debt could easily run into $100s of trillions or $ quadrillions when the derivative bubble bursts.

  The global financial system should have collapsed already in 2006-9 but the central banks managed to delay the inevitable demise for over a decade.

  SUPER CYCLE BULL MARKETS END IN EUPHORIA

  What we must understand is that the end of an economic supercycle doesn’t happen quietly. No, the conditions need to be uber-euphoric with maximum bullishness for the economy and stocks. This means that before this era is over, markets must surge in the final months, even double over a 9-18 months period.

  Multiple factors are now in place for this to happen. Firstly both presidential candidates will need not just fistfuls of dollars but quantum computers that can print the required trillions and quadrillions of dollars.

  The convenient excuse they have is of course Covid. Individuals not working need money, companies need money, municipalities, states and the Federal government need money.

  But we mustn’t forget how the end of the final phase of this economic era started. This was back in Aug-Sep 2019 when the Fed and the ECB shouted out from the roof tops that were going to do what it takes to save the system. They didn’t tell us what the problems were, but it was clear to some of us who understood the fragility of the financial system that it was in dire straits. When the last crisis started in 2006, the Fed’s balance sheet was $830b. At the end of the Great Financial Crisis in 2009, the balance sheet had grown to $2t.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  But no one must believe that the problem had been solved by 2009. All it was, was a temporary stay of execution. Why otherwise would the Fed’s balance sheet have grown by another $5t since 2009. Just looking at the predicted budget deficits in the next 4 years, plus accelerating problems in the financial system the Fed’s balance sheet is likely to explode in coming years.

  LIQUIDITY INJECTIONS WILL GIVE SHORT TERM BENEFIT TO THE ECONOMY

  So the conditions are in place for the biggest liquidity injection in financial history. For many years we have experienced a total disconnect between economic reality and markets. The coming acceleration in money printing and liquidity injections in to the financial system will be so overwhelming that it will not just fuel markets but also give a short term, albeit artificial, boost to the economy.

  This is a typical course of events at the beginning of an inflationary phase which leads to hyperinflation as the currency collapses.

  The paralysation of the world economy due to Covid will probably peak with the current second wave and therefore add to the optimism in markets. But no one must believe that the pandemic is the cause of the problems in the world economy. No, it has just been a very vicious catalyst which hit an already fragile financial system.

  When Covid gradually slows down, the initial optimism combined with the flooding of the system with printed money might last for a year or so. But as the world realises that you cannot solve a debt problem with more debt, the real difficulties in the economy and the financial system will reemerge with a vengeance.

  FROM BOOM TO BUST

  So let us look at a possible scenario of events following the election:

  New president will flood the economy with money & boost stocks

  Initial market volatility will settle down quickly and investors will respond optimistically to the new president’s promises of support to every corner of the economy.

  Stock markets will surge and could double over a 9-18 month period. No cash will be left on the sidelines. Both institutions and retail investors will throw all the cash they have at the stock market. There will be a frenzy which will surpass the tech stock boom in the 1990s. There will be fanfares and blazing guns as the market seems unstoppable.

  But after the likely short-term boom, there will be tears as markets fall by over 90% in real terms. And sadly most investors will ride the stock market all the way down. The big difference this time is that central banks will not and cannot save them.

  COMMODITIES WILL BOOM

  The biggest beneficiary of this coming boom will be commodity markets which are at a 50 year low versus stocks. Looking at the chart below, the minimum target would be commodities outperforming stocks by 4 to 1. Eventually a new high in commodities against stocks is likely. This would mean commodities outperforming stocks by 20x. The first part of this outperformance will come as stock markets rise. But the final phase will be when general stock markets collapse and commodities continue to strengthen. Goldman Sachs expect commodities to rise 28% in 2021. They expect inflation plus a commodities deficit will drive prices higher. And this is of course what the chart below tells us.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  PRECIOUS METALS WILL SHINE

  Gold, silver and platinum will vastly outperform stocks. The Dow – Gold ratio will initially reach 1 to 1 where it was in 1980 when gold was $850 and the Dow index 850. Eventually the ratio will reach at least 0.5 to 1 which means that the Dow will lose 97% against gold in the next five years.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Goldman Sachs expects gold to reach $2,300 in 2021 but I believe that target is too conservative. Before gold breaks out above the August high at $2,074, a correction down to $1,800-20 is possible and would not change gold’s unstoppable rise. In this latest phase, gold is in a bull market or more correctly, the currencies are in a bear market since 1999. The continued debasement of the currencies is guaranteed by the central banks since they only have one option – TO PRINT AND PRINT AND PRINT until money dies.

  We must remember that gold is the king of the metals and therefore the safest precious metal to hold. But initially at least, silver and platinum will strongly outperform gold but with massive volatility.

  Vital to hold physical metals stored in safe vaults in the investor’s name, outside the banking system. It is important not to forget that the risks in the financial system will be at a maximum for the next few years and a failure can happen at any time.

  PRECIOUS METALS MINING STOCKS

  For the smart investor, this is where more money will be made than in any area of stocks or other investments. Especially the juniors will really shine. But this is a market for specialists. So either best to follow some of the smartest investors in this area or to buy an index of these stocks. There will be many 10-20 baggers and even some 100 baggers but obviously also some losers. So important to have a spread.

  The biggest risk with mining stocks is that they are normally held within the financial system. So even though they are a terrific investment opportunity, they are not the best form of wealth preservation. Therefore it is safer to have a much bigger allocation to the physical metals which, even though they will underperform the mining stocks, will see massive capital appreciation.

  The chart below shows XAU gold – silver index against the Dow since 1983 when the XAU was introduced. Since then the XAU has lost 95% against the Dow. This fall is likely to be reversed in the next few years with the XAU going up 20x against the Dow . For Dow investors this means losing 95% against mining stocks.

  And sadly, this is what will happen to 99% of investors as they stick to their ordinary stocks and miss the most incredible opportunity.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  DOLLAR

  Printing unlimited amounts of money always has consequences. Since 1971 the dollar has lost 98% in real terms which means against gold since gold is the only money that has survived in history.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The dollar is now starting its final journey to ZERO and as the table shows, even a weak and artificial currency like the euro will outperform the doomed dollar.

  A falling dollar will accelerate US inflation until it leads to hyperinflation.

  INTEREST RATES

  Interest market is probably the most contrarian of all trades today. The whole investment world, including the Fed and the ECB believe that rates will stay at zero or below for years to come. Normally when consensus is that strong, the opposite is more likely to happen.

  Also, rising a weaker dollar will cause higher inflation which will put upward pressure on rates. As investors start selling the long end of the bond market, short rates will eventually follow.

  Precious metals normally benefit from negative real rates which means that inflation is higher than interest rates. Gold can still rise strongly with high nominal rates as long as inflation is higher. We saw this happen in the 1970s to the early 1980s when rates reached 20% and gold went from $35 to $850. During that time, inflation remained higher than rates.

  I remember this period well as I experienced it in the UK with my first mortgage reaching 21%.

  FROM BOOM TO BUST

  So there is now an opportunity for all investors to double their money in the stock market in the next 9-18 months as ever more liquidity will fuel stock markets.

  But a Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware) warning is in place here. Asset markets are already in a major bubble and the financial system is so fragile that it could break at any time.

  So rather than chasing the last leg of this bull market which most investors will do, it will be much better to look at safer alternatives.

  I have outlined them above. Physical precious metals and precious metals stocks will outperform all other markets. And these all present the best risk. Both the metals and the metal stocks will boom in the final phase of the stock market boom. And as stock markets top and then crash, the precious metals sector will continue to perform extremely well as currencies are debased.

  As I stated above, the general stock market is likely to lose at least 95% against the precious metals sector in the next five years.

  There has probably never before been such a clear choice in investment markets but sadly most investors will miss it. They will instead stick to their conventional portfolio which will include a lot of the already overvalued tech stocks.

  Holding gold and silver stocks will be the investment opportunity of a life time. But since they are held within a vulnerable financial system, we believe that a these holdings should represent a much smaller percentage than physical metals.

  To hold physical gold, silver and platinum outside the fragile banking system is the ultimate form of wealth preservation and insurance against a debt infested and unsafe financial system.

  With a portfolio of some precious metals stocks and physical metals, investors will be able to ride out the coming storm and volatility in markets and also benefit financially. Of course there will be volatility also in the metals market but the trend in the next 5+ years is virtually guaranteed.

  So better to avoid the coming boom and bust in the general stock markets and stick to metals.

  

• The ACLU Is Suing Police Across The Country For "Brutality" In Response To Riots And Looting This Summer
  The ACLU Is Suing Police Across The Country For “Brutality” In Response To Riots And Looting This Summer
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 20:05

  In addition to having to deal with inept politicians and their respective police forces being harassed and assaulted across the U.S., cities are also starting to face another hurdle: lawsuits are stacking up alleging “police brutality” in dealing with “peaceful” protesters.

  The New York ACLU, for example, has sued Mayor Bill de Blasio and police leadership and officers for how the city responded to protests over the summer, claiming NYPD used “brutal force”, according to Bloomberg. 

  Which is funny, because all we remember seeing from the summer was property destruction, looting, boarded up businesses and all hell generally breaking loose while Mayor De Blasio appeared to do nothing at all.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  But, we digress. Regardless of whether they have merit, the lawsuits in New York and in other cities create even more financial liabilities for many U.S. cities that are already under distress. Similar cases are also being filed in Omaha, Nebraska; Los Angeles; New York; and Minneapolis.

  A lawsuit filed this week against the NYPD said that they “unnecessarily used tools like batons and pepper spray on demonstrators and deployed tactics like kettling, in which police surround and trap a group in a location.”

  Otherwise known as maintaining law and order.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The lawsuit, which also claims false imprisonment, alleges that the tactics resulted in a broken arm for one plaintiff. Daniel Lambright, an ACLU attorney, said: “What everybody saw in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder was egregious police misconduct and violations of protesters’ rights across the country but particularly in New York City. We don’t think there was a ‘bad apple’ problem. We think these were part of policies and practices endorsed by the mayor and the commissioner.”

  Yes, the same mayor who, as far as we can remember, has worked to decriminalize everything he can get his hands on, from turnstile jumpers to people who urinate in public. 

  De Blasio commented: “From what I’ve heard of the lawsuit’s allegation, it doesn’t sound right at all to me. You know, there’s been a conscious effort for seven years now to change the relationship between the NYPD and communities.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The lawsuits put economic pressure on cities when they can least afford it. State and local governments face a $467 billion decline in revenue from 2020 to 2022 as a result of the pandemic, Bloomberg notes:

  In some localities, public safety already exceeds a third of general fund spending. Louisville, Kentucky, where Breonna Taylor was killed by police in March, spends 29% of its general fund budget on police. In Minnesota and Omaha, it’s 35% and 36%, respectively. New York City spends nearly 6% of its vast general fund on police, which comes out to more than $5 billion. Misconduct payouts are a further way departments pull on city purse strings.

  Ironically, Joanna Schwartz, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, said that the lawsuits – filed against several cities where “defunding the police” is being called for by protesters – would “force cities to spend more on police”. 

  

• Nine COVID Controversies
  Nine COVID Controversies
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 19:45

  Authored by Jeff Harris via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

  Ever since the alleged pandemic erupted this past March the mainstream media has spewed a non-stop stream of misinformation that appears to be laser focused on generating maximum fear among the citizenry. But the facts and the science simply don’t support the grave picture painted of a deadly virus sweeping the land.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Yes we do have a pandemic, but it’ a pandemic of ginned up pseudo-science masquerading as unbiased fact. Here are nine facts backed up with data, in many cases from the CDC itself that paints a very different picture from the fear and dread being relentlessly drummed into the brains of unsuspecting citizens.

  1) The PCR test is practically useless

  According to an article in the New York Times August 29th 2020 testing for the Covid-19 virus using the popular PCR method results in up to 90% of those tested showing positive results that are grossly misleading.

  Officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada compiled testing data that revealed the PCR test can NOT determine the amount of virus in a sample. (viral load) The amount of virus in up to 90% of positive results turned out to be so miniscule that the patient was asymptomatic and posed no threat to others. So the positive Covid-19 tests are virtually meaningless.

  2) A positive test is NOT a CASE

  For some reason every positive Covid-19 test is immediately designated a CASE. As we saw in #1 above up to 90% of positive Covid-19 tests result in miniscule amounts of virus that do not sicken the subject. Historically only patients who demonstrated actual symptoms of an illness were considered a case. Publishing positive test results as “CASES” is grossly misleading and needlessly alarming.

  3) The Centers for Disease Control dramatically lowered the Covid-19 Death Count

  On August 30th the CDC released new data that showed only 6% of the deaths previously attributed to Covid-19 were due exclusively to the virus. The vast majority, 94%, may have had exposure to Covid-19 but also had preexisting illnesses like heart disease, obesity, hypertension, cancer and various respiratory illnesses. While they died with Covid-19 they did NOT die exclusively from Covid-19.

  4) CDC reports Covid-19 Survival Rate over 99%

  The CDC updated their “Current Best Estimate” for Covid-19 survival on September 10th showing that over 99% of people exposed to the virus survived. Another way to say this is that less than 1% of the exposures are potentially life threatening. According to the CDC the vast majority of deaths attributed to Covid-19 were concentrated in the population over age 70, close to normal life expectancy.

  5) CDC reveals 85% of Positive Covid cases wore face masks Always or Often

  In September of 2020 the CDC released the results of a study conducted in July where they discovered that 85% of the positive Covid test subjects reported wearing a cloth face mask always or often for two weeks prior to testing positive. The majority, 71% of the test subjects reported always wearing a cloth face mask and 14% reported often wearing a cloth face mask. The only rational conclusion from this study is that cloth face masks offer little if any protection from Covid-19 infection.

  6) There are inexpensive, proven therapies for Covid-19

  Harvey Risch, MD, PhD heads the Yale University School of Epidemiology. He authored “The Key to Defeating Covid-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It” which was published in Newsweek Magazine July 23rd, 2020. Dr. Risch documents the proven effectiveness of treating patients diagnosed with Covid-19 using a combination of Hydroxychloroquine, an antibiotic like azithromycin and the nutritional supplement zinc. Medical Doctors across the globe have reported very positive results using this protocol particularly for early stage Covid patients.

  7) The US Death Rate is NOT spiking

  If Covid-19 was the lethal killer it’s made out to be one would reasonably expect to see a significant spike in the number of deaths reported. But that hasn’t happened.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  According to the CDC as of early May 2020 the total number of deaths in the US was 944,251 from January 1 – April 30th. This is actually slightly lower than the number of deaths during the same period in 2017 when 946,067 total deaths were reported.

  8) Most Covid-19 Deaths Occur at the End of a normal Lifespan

  According to the CDC as of 2017 US males can expect a normal lifespan of 76.1 years and females 81.1 years. A little over 80% of the suspected Covid-19 deaths have occurred in people over age 65. According to a June 28th New York Post article almost half of all Covid suspected deaths have occurred in Nursing Homes which predominately house people with preexisting health conditions and close to or past their normal life expectancy.

  9) CDC Data Shows Minimal Covid Risk to Children and Young Adults

  The CDC reported in their September 10th update that it’s estimated Infection Mortality Rate (IFR) for children age 0-19 was so low that 99.97% of those infected with the virus survived. For 20-49 year-olds the survival rate was almost as good at 99.98%. Even those 70 years-old and older had a survival rate of 94.6%. To put this in perspective the CDC data suggest that a child or young adult up to age 19 has a greater chance of death from some type of accident than they do from Covid-19.

  Taken together it should be obvious that Covid-19 is pretty similar to typical flu viruses that sicken some people annually. The vast majority are able to successfully fight off the virus with their body’s natural immune system. Common sense precautions should be taken, particularly by those over age 65 that suffer from preexisting medical conditions.

  The gross over reaction by government leaders to this illness is causing much more distress, physical, emotional and financial, than the virus ever could on its own. The bottom line is there is NO pandemic, just a typical flu season that has been wildly blown out of proportion by 24/7 media propaganda and enabled by the masses paralyzed by irrational fear.

  State and local governments in particular have ignored the rights of the people and have instituted outrageous attacks on freedom and liberty that was bought and paid for by the blood and sacrifice of our forefathers.

  Slowly the people are recognizing the great fraud perpetrated on them by bureaucrats and elected officials who have sworn to uphold rights and freedoms as spelled out in the US Constitution. The time has come to hold these criminals accountable by utilizing the legal system to bring them to justice.

  Either we act now to preserve freedom and liberty for our children and future generations yet unborn, or we meekly submit to tyrants who crave more power and control. I will not comply!

  

• The Intercept Responds To Greenwald Resignation, Says He's 'Throwing Tantrum' Over 'Dubious' Biden Claims
  The Intercept Responds To Greenwald Resignation, Says He’s ‘Throwing Tantrum’ Over ‘Dubious’ Biden Claims
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 19:35

  Update 1650ET: In a post with comments disabled, the editors of The Intercept have responded to Greenwald’s decision to leave – writing “The narrative Glenn presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies — all of them designed to make him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum.“

  They suggest that Greenwald was “attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign — the Trump campaign — and launder them as journalism.”

  We assume they’re referring to the undisputed contents of the Hunter Biden laptop, along with evidence from two former Biden associates, implicating Joe Biden in numerous corrupt acts involving his son Hunter.

  The Intercept includes several low-blows in their response;

  “We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be“

  “We have no doubt that Glenn will go on to launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors… — such is the era of Substack and Patreon “

  Read it here.

  Perhaps allowing divergent opinions would help the beleaguered outlet’s traffic, which appears to have been cut in half over the last six months.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

   

  *  *  *

  The Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald resigned from the outlet on Thursday, after ‘editors censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.’

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  “The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression.”

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 29, 2020

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

  More:

  3) Given their claims, I’m going to publish — along with the censored article — the emails about it so people can decide for themselves if it was censored.

  4) I understand TI’s editors will slam my journalism as “changed”; I wish they had had the courage to do it before today.

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 29, 2020

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

  5) Like I said in my statement, The Intercept does still have some great journalists and publishes good things. I hope they can figure out how to induce some people to read it.

  6) This is the CIA-mimicking paragraph I referenced that I was shocked to see at The Intercept: pic.twitter.com/q9jILPwret

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 29, 2020

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

  Greenwald writes at his new home (greenwald.substack.com):

  The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.

  I had no objection to their disagreement with my views of what this Biden evidence shows: as a last-ditch attempt to avoid being censored, I encouraged them to air their disagreements with me by writing their own articles that critique my perspectives and letting readers decide who is right, the way any confident and healthy media outlet would. But modern media outlets do not air dissent; they quash it. So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.

  Apparently he’s also blocked from publishing the article elsewhere, though he’s “asked my lawyer to get in touch with FLM to discuss how best to terminate my contract.”

  What did The Intercept do in response to Greenwald leaving? They’re attempting to raise money off of it!

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Greenwald has found support across the political spectrum for his decision to walk.

  .@ggreenwald and i have disagreed about lots of things over the years — he’s taken shots at me and vice versa — but i have always respected his mind, courage and voice. today, i respect him even more. https://t.co/MyWWy7W3S6

  — Andrew Ross Sorkin (@andrewrsorkin) October 29, 2020

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

  Much respect for the principled move, Glenn.

  It’s been a tragedy to see The Intercept increasingly abandon adversarial reporting and adopt Democratic orthodoxy, especially in its international coverage of Washington-appointed bogeymen.

  I look forward to seeing your future work.

  — Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 29, 2020

  It’s sad that it’s come to this. As I’ve said, I do not always agree with you, but you are one of very few people who says exactly what they believe and can be trusted to call things exactly how you see them without fear or favor. That is rare and vital. I wish you all the best.

  — Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) October 29, 2020

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

  

• China Reveals First Glimpse Into Its Economic Plans For Next Five Years
  China Reveals First Glimpse Into Its Economic Plans For Next Five Years
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 19:25

  On Thursday, the Fifth Plenum of China’s 19th Party Congress which was held to discuss the proposals for the 14th Five-Year Plan, concluded after 4 days of discussions and China unveiled the first glimpse of Beijing’s economic plans for the next five years, promising to build the nation into a technological powerhouse as it emphasized quality growth over speed.

  The post conference communique released today provided a brief summary of the proposals. The summary reiterated the direction towards higher quality growth, laid out non-numerical goals over the long term, and particularly highlighted the importance of innovation and a push for market reform. A more detailed report on the 14th Five-Year Plan will be released during the National People’s Congress (NPC) in March 2021

  As previewed on Monday, the Communist Party’s Central Committee Thursday stressed the need for sustainable growth and also pledged to develop a robust domestic market. Of note: the communique released by state media following a four-day closed-door meeting did not specify the pace of growth policy makers would target, a first for a nation which in past was obsessed with its goalseeked GDP number.

  Yet even though the plan doesn’t mention a specific rate of growth for gross domestic product, analysts said the government remains ambitious in its outlook: “The leadership still expects the size of the economy, household income as well as GDP per capita to reach a ‘new milestone’ by 2035,” said Raymond Yeung, chief greater China economist at Australia and New Zealand Banking Group quoted by Bloomberg. “China did not abandon GDP targeting, it’s just expressed in a more subtle way.”

  Below are the main points from the plenum, via Goldman Sachs:

  1. The summary reiterated the increasingly challenging environment for development and rising uncertainties in external conditions, and highlighted major problems at the current phase of development, including development still unbalanced and insufficient, the lack of innovation, still substantial income inequality, and further room for improvement in environment protection.

  2. In contrast to the 13th Five-Year Plan where a “doubling income” goal was emphasized, the summary of the 14th Five-Year Plan today didn’t mention any specific numerical goal, and re-emphasized the direction towards “higher quality growth.” Regarding key economic goals for the 14th Five-Year Plan, the proposals particularly highlighted the importance of innovation and a push for market reform, facilitation of internal circulation through expanding domestic demand strategy and supply-side structural reform, significant improvement in household income and narrower income inequality in urban and rural areas, and “high-quality opening up” (trade and financial liberalization). The summary also mentioned long-term goals through 2035, for instance, GDP per capita reaching the level of middle-income developed economies and expansion in middle-income population.

  3. The key elements highlighted in the summary are not new and have been mentioned previously by policymakers. From an economic perspective, this means boosting total factor productivity and rebalancing economic development across sectors/regions. Although the Chinese government has been calling for a transition in the development model for a number of years, given that the broad external and domestic environment has changed, we think the government is likely to accelerate the pace of relevant reforms in the next five years, to achieve sustainable, balanced and high quality growth and enter the high income group from the upper middle income group.

  4. Over the coming months, the National Development and Reform Committee (NDRC) will consult specialists and other government ministries to prepare a more detailed draft of the 14th Five Year Plan. It will be submitted to the National People’s Congress (NPC) for final approval during the “Two Sessions” in March 2021, which would be the next key event to watch out for. Detailed plans on a sectoral level from ministries will likely be released several months after the “Two Sessions”.

  

• The "Adults In The Room" With Trump Weren't Adults At All
  The “Adults In The Room” With Trump Weren’t Adults At All
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 19:05

  Authored by Doug Bandow via TheAmericanConservative.com,

  When President Donald Trump took office, his aides promised there would always be adults in the room. Especially when it came to foreign policy, learned, stable professionals would ensure responsible and intelligent actions.

  Except the adults turned out to be idiots. They fought the president at every turn when he sought to withdraw from endless wars. They insisted that Washington remain allied to the worst of the worst, supporting the vile Saudi regime in its aggressive and murderous war against Yemen. They urged policies that treated Russia as a permanent enemy. They backed American dominance of every existing alliance and relationship, infantilizing America’s friends and maximizing Washington’s obligations.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Now former national security adviser H.R. McMaster has reminded Americans that many members of the infamous Blob, the foreign policy elite, are brain dead. Their thinking about the world ended decades ago. They mouth hypocritical platitudes while seeing everything through an antiquated prism.

  For instance, McMaster recently charged that Tehran, a political, economic, and military wreck, has “hegemonic designs.” He made this claim after serving at the center of foreign policymaking in the world’s dominant power which is determined to be the global hegemon in control of every region on earth, essentially imposing the Monroe Doctrine on every continent. Supportive policymakers insist that the U.S. should intervene everywhere while no one else can intervene anywhere. Indeed, in their view America is entitled to meddle at any time for any reason.

  Within the administration, McMaster orchestrated American support for Saudi Arabia, which did far more than Tehran to play regional hegemon. The antediluvian royals invaded one neighbor, deployed troops in a second, supported jihadist rebels against a third, kidnapped the prime minister of a fourth, launched a diplomatic/economic offensive against a fifth, and are promoting a civil war in a slightly more distant sixth. Riyadh’s behavior is reckless, dangerous, criminal, and, yes, hegemonic.

  But it is in deploying the Munich comparison that McMaster, once thought to be an innovative military thinker, demonstrated that his time in government apparently killed off some of his once-abundant gray matter. In this he is not alone. Virtually every minor dictator in the most distant and underpopulated lands has been compared to Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler at least once. If we avert our glance for merely a moment, we are warned, Dictator X in Country Y is likely to launch a campaign of conquest across Continent Z. Or something similar. Thus only American intervention can prevent the onset of a new global dark age.

  McMaster has been on a book tour promoting his latest tome with its utterly conventional demand for a harder line against, well, everyone. And why not? After all, surely America has money to burn after running a $3.1 trillion deficit during the 2020 fiscal year. With the federal debt already over 100 percent of GDP. Another $2 trillion or more in red ink expected in 2021. And the total “COVID deficit” predicted to run between $8 trillion and $16 trillion. But why worry: it’s only money!

  Anyway McMaster was asked about President Donald Trump’s negotiation with Afghanistan. Is it America’s “Munich agreement” and “a policy of appeasement with Taliban”? Yes, replied McMaster.

  It is hard to believe that McMaster doesn’t understand the concept of appeasement or know Munich’s circumstances. More likely, he doesn’t care about the facts and preferred to take a cheap shot at Trump, always an easy target.

  First, appeasement is a time-tested and oft-successful strategy. It usually is better to make a deal than go to war. A little more appeasement before World War I involving Austro-Hungary and Serbia, which armed the gang that assassinated the Hapsburg heir, an obvious casus belli, might have forestalled a global conflict that consumed around 20 million lives and ultimately led to the Munich agreement and the far deadlier and more destructive World War II.

  Second, on its face, Munich was a sensible attempt at appeasement. It redressed the World War I injustice of treating millions of ethnic Germans as pawns in a global chess game. At the Versailles Treaty conference, the oh-so-moral allies grabbed territorial plunder here, there, and everywhere, while prattling about self-determination. Hitler did not arise in a vacuum; allied avarice and myopia helped bring him to power.

  Munich was a tragedy because the allies sought to appease the one person in Europe who could not be satiated. The pact transferred from Czechoslovakia to Germany the Sudetenland, which was taken by Prague from the long-gone Austro-Hungarian Empire against the wishes of its ethnic Germans residents. Berlin won, yet Hitler was irritated that the settlement denied him the war he desired. He invaded Poland the following year. However, Germany was not as well prepared for conflict in 1938 and Hitler might have been removed by his own military, which was contemplating a coup because of his apparent recklessness.

  The short lesson of the agreement: the problem was Hitler, not appeasement. Most Europeans probably believed that preserving the continent’s peace warranted shifting to Germany territory filled with people who should not have been given to Czechoslovakia in the first place. In the abstract, Britain and France had good reason not to back Prague in a war over what were frankly ill-gotten gains. Unfortunately, London and Paris didn’t understand who and what they were dealing with—but they were not alone in sharing that delusion.

  As for Afghanistan, one must hope that McMaster is not confused by the difference between Nazi Germany and the insurgent Taliban. A generation earlier, the Germans demonstrated their ability to wreak continental and even global murder and mayhem. In contrast, the Taliban’s motley mix of Islamists and opportunities at most threaten to gain control over additional territory in an impoverished, isolated land, located thousands of miles from America, which never had a strong central government to begin with.

  Nevertheless, McMaster declared that “We will pay the price, and we’ll be back. We’ll have to go back, and at a much higher cost.” Why? Central Asia has no intrinsic value for America. The Taliban want to rule their villages and values, not threaten the U.S. at home.

  Moreover, Afghanistan has no inherent connection to terrorism; the link was Osama bin Laden, who was initially involved there fighting the Soviets. After the U.S. intervened, he fled to and operated from Pakistan, a nominal American ally. And of course, he now is dead. Al-Qaeda’s remnants could operate anywhere, as do many of its spin-offs today. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, located in Yemen, has long been viewed as the most dangerous affiliate.

  In any case, the region matters far more to the powers nearby, which have an incentive to promote a reasonably stable if not liberal Afghanistan. They do not want to see the return of terrorism. In fact, Christian Russia, Hindu India, and Shia Iran all have been targeted by Sunni terrorists. Communist China, busy locking up Sunni Uyghurs in reeducation camps, could be next on the terrorists’ target list. This gaggle of states has the makings of a good coalition to guard against growth in the Islamic State and revival of al-Qaeda, neither of which is in the Taliban’s interest, which would not want to trigger another round of U.S. retaliation.

  As for humanitarian considerations, America has spent more than 19 years at war trying to create a liberal, centralized government where none previously existed. That is more than enough commitment of American lives and wealth.

  McMaster’s strategic judgment is no better than his historical analysis. He complained that Trump’s exit plan “renders the war unjust, because we no longer have defined a just end.” It’s not clear why he believes leaving makes the conflict unjust. The U.S. got in for good reason, to retaliate against both al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the 9/11 attacks, sending the clear message that attacking America and hosting terrorists that strike America is a very bad idea. Washington foolishly stuck around for another 18-plus years trying to make Afghanistan into a better place, a theoretically moral but highly imprudent objective. And now, years late, an administration is finally trying to stop wasting American lives and wealth.

  In the end, McMaster sounds like just all the other policymakers who misled the public over faux progress in Afghanistan year after year. As the Washington Post reported in its devastating “Afghanistan Papers” project nearly a year ago: “U.S. officials constantly said they were making progress. They were not, and they knew it.” Yet upon these claims, Washington wasted thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

  That is the true immorality, the shocking injustice, the criminal misconduct.

  President Trump has gotten much wrong. But on Afghanistan he is far closer to the truth than the faux adults who surrounded him throughout his time in office. During McMaster’s next PR event for his book, he ought to be asked why purported leaders like him have so much trouble confronting their own failures.

  

• New Research Points To The People's Liberation Army Hospital In Wuhan As Origin For Global Coronavirus Pandemic
  New Research Points To The People’s Liberation Army Hospital In Wuhan As Origin For Global Coronavirus Pandemic
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 18:45

  A paper published on Zenodo (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.4119263) by Dr. Steven Quay, M.D., PhD., head of two COVID-19 therapeutic programs at Atossa Therapeutics, illuminates new scientific observations and conclusions documenting that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic began at the General Hospital of Central Theater Command of People’s Liberation Army (PLA Hospital) in Wuhan, China, located at 627 Wulon Road, Wuchang District, Wuhan.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  According to the paper, international biospecimen data repositories indicate as early as December 10, 2019 COVID patient records were being created by PLA personnel, weeks before the Chinese government informed the WHO of the pandemic.

  The paper documents four patients from the PLA Hospital that have the earliest genetic signature of direct human-to-human coronavirus transmission. It also includes the patient whose coronavirus is genetically closest to a bat virus from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) that WIV scientists call “the closest relative of 2019-nCoV.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The PLA Hospital is three kilometers from WIV and both are located on Line 2 of the Wuhan Metro System. The paper documents an analysis of the hospitals where the earliest COVID patients were seen, between December 1, 2019 to early January, and shows that all these hospitals were also located on the Metro Line 2.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  This is the first paper in the world to observe that Line 2 is uniquely positioned to have been the worldwide human-to-human COVID pandemic conduit as it carries five percent of the population of Wuhan every day, allowing rapid spread throughout Wuhan and the entire Hubei Province; it includes the high-speed rail station, allowing rapid spread throughout China; and it terminates at the international airport station, allowing rapid spread throughout the world.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Line 2 also services the Hunan Seafood Market, previously suggested to be associated with the origin of the pandemic.

  The full paper can be read below (pdf link)

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• France's Charlie Hebdo Sparks Turkish Fury With Cartoon Of "Erdogan In Private"
  France’s Charlie Hebdo Sparks Turkish Fury With Cartoon Of “Erdogan In Private”
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 02:45

  A new satirical cartoon from the French weekly Charlie Hebdo has sparked fury in Turkey and is worsening the diplomatic spat between Turkey and France after Paris already recalled its ambassador when President Erdogan questioned Macron’s mental health while accusing the French president of attacking Islam over remarks made in the wake of the horrific beheading of a middle school teacher Samuel Paty on October 16.

  The latest edition of the newspaper, first released online Tuesday night, features a front page cartoon mocking President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – he’s in his underpants, holding a can of beer and gazing up a skirt of a hijab wearing woman. 

  “Ooh, the prophet!” the character says in the French speech bubble, with the title reading: “Erdogan: in private, he’s very funny”.

  Erdogan : dans le privé, il est très drôle !

  Retrouvez :

  👉 Laïcité : zoom sur le CCIF par @LaureDaussy
  👉 Voyage dans la crackosphère parisienne par @AntonioFischet8 et Foolz
  👉 Reportage à Lunéville et son théâtre par Juin

  ➡ Disponible demain ! pic.twitter.com/jxXqKrvXbK

  — Charlie Hebdo (@Charlie_Hebdo_) October 27, 2020

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

  It has set off outrage among the Turkish public especially after Erdogan shot back Wednesday saying the “worthless” cartoon had nothing to do with free speech but is in reality an attack on Islam. He accused European countries of wanting to “relaunch the Crusades”. There’s also been growing demonstrations in other parts of the Middle East over charges of France’s “anti-Islamic” stance.

  Erdogan’s top press aide, Fahrettin Altun, additionally said in a tweet: “We condemn this most disgusting effort by this publication to spread its cultural racism and hatred.”

  “French President Macron’s anti-Muslim agenda is bearing fruit! Charlie Hebdo just published a series of so-called cartoons full of despicable images purportedly of our President,” he added.

  On Monday Erdogan called for a Turkish boycott of all French goods over what he called France’s ‘anti-Islamic’ stance towards Muslims and the Turkish people. Erdogan had said during a televised speech in Ankara: “As it has been said in France, ‘don’t buy Turkish-labelled goods’, I call on my people here. Never give credit to French-labelled goods, don’t buy them.”

  Meanwhile Erdogan is threatening to sue every European leader that posts or defends the cartoons, as is happening with a Dutch politician:

  European leaders were out in force again today against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, amidst news that he is suing a Dutch politician for posting a cartoon of him.

  Here’s how the growing standoff between Europe and Ankara started 🧵https://t.co/cGIKykOOWs

  — POLITICOEurope (@POLITICOEurope) October 27, 2020

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

  Macron has emphasized a freedom of speech message, vowing that the French “not give up our cartoons” – in reference to both the latest row but also the events and controversy surrounding the January 7, 2015 Charlie Hebdo massacre, which left 12 people dead after the newspaper published a series of cartoons perceived as mocking the founder of Islam Muhammad.

  According to Reuters, Turkey has launched an investigation into the French newspaper, saying it will take “all necessary legal, diplomatic steps against Charlie Hebdo caricature on President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.”

  

• The Armenian-Azerbaijani War After One Month
  The Armenian-Azerbaijani War After One Month
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Thu, 10/29/2020 – 02:00

  Submitted by SouthFront.org,

  After a month of war, the Turkish-Azerbaijani bloc continues to keep the initiative in the conflict, exploiting its advantage in air power, artillery, military equipment and manpower. The coming days are likely to show whether Ankara and Baku are able to deliver a devastating blow to Armenian forces in Karabakh in the nearest future or not.

  If Armenian forces repel the attack on Lachin, a vital supply route from Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh, they will win the opportunity to survive till the moment when the ‘international community’ finally takes some real steps to pressure Turkey and Azerbaijan enough to force them to stop the ongoing advance. If this does not happen, the outcome of the war seems to be predetermined.

  Meanwhile, Azerbaijani forces continue their advance in the region amid the failed US-sponsored ceasefire regime. Their main goal is Lachin. In fact, they have been already shelling the supply route with rocket launchers and artillery. The distance of 12-14km at which they were located a few days ago already allowed this. Now, reports appear that various Azerbaijani units are at a distance of about 5-8 km from the corridor. Armenian forces are trying to push Azerbaijani troops back, but with little success so far.

  The advance is accompanied by numerous Azerbaijan claims that Armenian forces are regularly shelling civilian targets and that the ongoing advance is the way to deter them. Baku reported on the evening of October 27 that at least four civilians had been killed and 10 wounded in Armenian strikes on Goranboy, Tartar and Barda. On the morning of October 28, the Armenians allegedly shelled civilian targets in Tovuz, Gadabay, Dashkesan, and Gubadl.

  On the morning of October 28, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry claimed that in response to these Armenian violations its forces had eliminated a large number of enemy forces, an “OSA” air-defense system, 3 BM-21 «Grad» rocket launchers, 6 D-30, 5 D-20, and 1 D-44 howitzers, 2 2A36 «Giatsint-B» artillery guns, a 120 mm mortar, a “Konkurs” anti-tank missile and 6 auto vehicles.

  On October 27, Azerbaijani sources also released a video allegedly showing the assassination of Lieutenant General Jalal Harutyunyan by a drone strike. Azerbaijani sources claim that he was killed. These reports were denied by the Armenian side, which insisted that the prominent commander was only injured. Nonetheless, the Karabakh leadership appointed Mikael Arzumanyan as the new defense minister of the self-proclaimed republic.

  On the evening of October 27 , the Armenian Defense Ministry released a map showing their version of the situation in the contested region. Even according to this map, Armenian forces have lost almost the entire south of Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijani forces are close to the Lachin corridor. An interesting fact is that the Armenians still claim that the town of Hadrut is in their hands. According to them, small ‘enemy units’ reach the town, take photos and then run away.

  Al-Hadath TV also released a video showing Turkish-backed Syrian militants captured during the clashes. Now, there is not only visual evidence confirming the presence of members of Turkish-backed militant groups in the conflict zone, but also actual Syrian militants in the hands of Armenian forces.

  Experts who monitor the internal political situation in Armenia say that in recent days the Soros-grown team of Pashinyan has changed its rhetoric towards a pro-Russian agenda. Many prominent members of the current Pashinyan government and the Prime Minister himself spent the last 10 years pushing a pro-Western agenda. After seizing power as a result of the coup in 2018, they then put much effort into damaging relations with Russia and turned Armenia into a de-facto anti-Russian state. This undermined Armenian regional security and created the conditions needed for an Azerbaijani-Turkish advance in Karabakh. Now, the Pashinyan government tries to rescue itself by employing some ‘pro-Russian rhetoric’. It even reportedly asked second President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan to participate in negotiations with Russia as a member of the Armenian delegation. It should be noted that the persecution of Kocharyan that led to his arrest in June 2019 was among the first steps taken by Pashinyan after he seized power. Kocharyan was only released from prison in late June 2020. Despite these moves in the face of a full military defeat in Karabakh, the core ideology of the Pashinyan government remains the same (anti-Russian, pro-Western and NATO-oriented). Therefore, even if Moscow rescues Armenia in Karabkah, the current Armenian leadership will continue supporting the same anti-Russian policy.

  

• Will They Really Get Away With It?
  Will They Really Get Away With It?
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 23:45

  Authored by Chris Farrell via The Gatestone Institute,

  Obama administration officials committed crimes against the constitution. They engaged in a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Will they really get away with it?

  Forty government officials were indicted or jailed as a result of Watergate. White House staffers H.R. Haldeman and John Erlichman went to jail. White House counsel John Dean went to jail. Attorney General John Mitchell went to jail. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, Charles Colson and James McCord – all jailed. Nixon Press Secretary Ronald L. Ziegler called Watergate a “third-rate burglary.” It toppled a president.

  “Obamagate,” or the “Russia Hoax” is a political and criminal scandal exponentially more serious and damaging to the constitution. Like the Richter Scale measurements of earthquakes, Obamagate can be measured in “orders of magnitude” greater seriousness than the third-rate burglary. Obamagate is the First American Coup. Not from the militaristic right, as fantasized by liberal Hollywood. Oh, no – from the “fundamental transformation” artists of the Bolshevik Left.

  Writing in the New York Post on October 24, 2020, columnist Michael Goodwin listed his reasons for voting for Donald Trump, again. His reasoning included:

  “The other side must not be rewarded for its efforts to sabotage and remove a duly-elected president.

  “Russia, Russia, Russia was a scam that ruined lives and put a cloud over the White House for nearly three years. The sequel was partisan impeachment, a clumsy coup attempt orchestrated by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Trump haters in Congress, the deep state, and the media.

  “The press corps’ bias of 2016 has morphed into full-blown partisanship on a daily basis at print, digital and broadcast outlets. Facebook, Twitter and other platforms openly use their power to censor pro-Trump news and opinion while promoting anything that makes the president look bad.

  “It’s not the algorithms; it’s the people behind them.

  “Their decision to block The Post’s groundbreaking reports on Hunter Biden’s business deals and Joe Biden’s involvement should scare anyone who treasures the First Amendment. To censors, Orwell’s nightmare is their dream.

  “All fairness has been abandoned in a frenzy to destroy Trump and everything he represents. This culture war extends backward, too.”

  This is all very important stuff. It is still defective in one key area: it ignores (largely) the crime. The details of the criminal seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States.

  How are we still missing this?

  The (awesome and formidable) law enforcement and intelligence powers of the United States were perversely twisted and abused to advance a partisan political agenda by the sitting president (Barack Obama); his paid political operatives; and officers, agents and employees of the United States Government against Candidate Trump, President-elect Trump and President Trump.

  There are handy references to keep track of the cast of characters involved in the coup plot. The Epoch Times has a resource, as does the Capital Research Center. One hopes John Durham has a reference, file or graphic that is something close to those analytical pieces. He seems to need some sort of help, since he apparently is unable to move past the anemic, pathetic Clinesmith indictment.

  Seasoned investigators and attorneys can take the publicly available records and assemble sufficient facts, documentation and evidence to meet the legal threshold (“probable cause”) for successfully presenting a bill of indictment to a grand jury.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Why is there reluctance today? How is it that Attorney General William Barr and John Durham are consumed with prosecutorial ennui when the crimes and cover-ups are so painfully obvious? One is left to conclude that it really all comes down to political will. Do Barr and/or Durham have the stomach to seek the indictment of people like James Comey, John Brennan, Andy McCabe and (many) others?

  Granted, Lindsey Graham is certainly no Sam Ervin; and Richard Burr abdicated the running of the Senate Intelligence Committee to Mark Warner years ago – but AG Barr and Prosecutor Durham do not need committees of Congress for “cover” to pursue the criminality of the Obama administration and their operatives in the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA and State Department.

  Just remember: 40 jailed for Watergate.

  

• Russia's Top Arms Dealer Reveals New Multi-Caliber Sniper Rifle  
  Russia’s Top Arms Dealer Reveals New Multi-Caliber Sniper Rifle  
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 23:25

  Russia’s armed forces have benefited from a decade of investment, resulting in widespread modernization efforts and an increased defense-industrial base. 

  From hypersonic weapons to fifth-generation fighter jets to drones to advanced main battle tanks to new service weapons, Russia has been busy upgrading its military as geopolitical tensions soar. 

  Some of these new weapons were displayed at an international military-technical forum “Army-2020” outside Moscow in August. 

  Russia’s state arms seller Rosoboronexport recently unveiled a new multi-caliber sniper rifle developed by Lobaev Arms at the “Interpolitex 2020” defense show held in Moscow last week, reported TASS News.  

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  “The new sniper rifle is more compact in its dimensions compared to the guns earlier developed by Lobaev Arms,” said Rosoboronexport Senior Expert Alexander Slobodyanyuk, in the company’s video presentation on its YouTube channel.

  “The DVL-10M3 rifle’s weight has been reduced to 4.5 kg while it features a barrel length of 500mm. The gun’s effective firing range is up to 1 km,” the Rosoboronexport senior expert said.

  “It [the DVL-10M3] is characterized by a very good accuracy of fire that does not exceed 0.38 minute of arc, and can be used together with a silencer,” he added. 

  TASS notes the sniper’s barrels are interchangeable with 7.62x51mm, 6.5x47mm Lapua, and 6.7mm Federal.

  Russia’s military-modernization efforts indicate that not only is it growing its defense-industrial base but has ambitions to become more dominant in the world as the US supremacy fades.  

  

• Hunter Biden Documents Mysteriously Vanish From Overnight Envelope, Tucker Carlson Says
  Hunter Biden Documents Mysteriously Vanish From Overnight Envelope, Tucker Carlson Says
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 23:05

  Authored by Ivan Pentchoukov via The Epoch Times,

  A collection of confidential documents related to the Biden family mysteriously vanished from an envelope sent to Fox News host Tucker Carlson, the host said on Wednesday night.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Carlson’s team allegedly received the documents from a source on Monday. At the time, Carlson was on the West Coast filming an interview with Tony Bobulinski, the former business partner of Hunter Biden and James Biden. Carlson requested the documents to be sent to the West Coast.

  According to Carlson, the producer shipped the documents overnight to California using a large national package carrier. He didn’t name the company, saying only that it’s a “brand name company.”

  “The Biden documents never arrived in Los Angeles. Tuesday morning we received word from our shipping company that our package had been opened and the contents were missing,” Carlson said. “The documents had disappeared.”

  Damning Hunter Biden documents suddenly vanish pic.twitter.com/B2qsajZlID

  — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 29, 2020

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

  The company took the incident seriously and immediately began a search, Carlson said. The company traced the package from when it was dropped off in New York to the moment when an employee at a sorting facility reported that the package was opened and empty.

  “The company’s security team interviewed every employee who touched the envelope we sent. They searched the plane and the trucks that carried it. They went through the office in New York where our producers dropped the package off. They combed the entire cavernous sorting facility. They used pictures of what we had sent so that searchers would know what to look for,” Carlson said.

  “They far and beyond, but they found nothing.”

  “Those documents have vanished,” he added.

  “As of tonight, the company has no idea and no working theory even about what happened to this trove of materials, documents that are directly relevant to the presidential campaign just six days from now.”

  Executives at the shipping company were “baffled” and “deeply bothered” by the incident, Carlson said.

  Carlson’s interview with Bobulinski aired on Tuesday night. In the interview, Bobulinski opined that Joe Biden and the Biden family are compromised by China due to the business dealings of Hunter Biden and James Biden. Joe Biden has not publicly responded to Bobulinski’s allegations, but during a presidential debate on Oct. 22 said he had “not taken a penny from any foreign source ever in my life.”

  Bobulinski provided more than 1,700 pages of emails and more than 600 screenshots of text messages to Senate investigators and handed over to the FBI the smartphones he used during his business dealings with the Bidens. The documents detailed a failed joint venture between a billionaire tied to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and a company owned by Hunter Biden, James Biden, Bobulinski and two other partners.

  While the corporate documents don’t mention Biden by name, emails sent between the partners suggest that either James Biden or Hunter Biden held a 10 percent stake for the former vice president. In the email, the stake is assigned to “the big guy,” who Bobulinski says is Joe Biden.

  

• Tsunami Of Empty College Dorms Risks Student Housing Market Implosion
  Tsunami Of Empty College Dorms Risks Student Housing Market Implosion
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 22:45

  Fall enrollment has plunged, some colleges are shuttering operations, revenues across the entire higher education industry are collapsing, and the shift from physical to virtual education due to the virus pandemic could prick the next bubble: the student housing debt market. 

  Our warning about the coming implosion of the higher education industry (see here from 2014), as a whole, has become louder and louder over the last six-plus years as the student debt bubble has recently swelled to more than $1.6 trillion. Years ago, no one at the time, could’ve forecasted a virus pandemic would doom colleges and universities. 

  Credit rating agency Moody’s recently downgraded the entire higher education sector to negative from stable, and the American Council on Education estimates colleges and universities will experience a $23 billion decline in revenues over the next academic year.

  Bloomberg outlines the increase of virtual education in a virus pandemic has resulted in an abundance of empty dorms at colleges and universities, creating a $14 billion headache for the student housing debt market. 

  “West Virginia State University, already hit with a 10% enrollment drop, plans to give money to a school foundation so it can meet its bond covenants for residence hall debt. A community college in Ohio is using part of a $1.5 million donation for a financially-strapped student housing project. And officials at New Jersey City University, which serves largely first-generation and lower-income students and has recorded years of deficits, are prepared to shore up a dorm there,” Bloomberg said. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The squeeze on university finances comes as the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center warned about a 16% drop in first-year undergraduate students enrolled for the fall semester. This means new revenue streams are quickly drying up for overleveraged colleges and universities. 

  “The limiting factor is some of these schools themselves are facing uncertainty with many of their revenue streams,” S&P Global Ratings analyst Amber Schafer said in an interview. “It’s a matter of not only willingness, but if they’re able to support the project.”

  “Typically, privatized student housing debt is paid off by the revenue generated by the dorms — meaning there’s little recourse for bondholders if things go south,” Bloomberg said. With occupancy rates already declining as coronavirus cases are surging, well, this could be bad news for colleges and universities heading into 2021. 

  “Borrowers have begun revealing how empty residence halls are as the pandemic spurs many campuses to keep classes online. According to the school foundation that sold the debt, West Virginia State University’s dorm is 71% full, putting it about 20 percentage points from where it needs to be to satisfy debt covenants. Other privatized student housing projects, like two on Howard University’s campus, are virtually empty due to online-only instruction there,” Bloomberg said. 

  Bloomberg warns: “Privatized dorms are struggling the most given that they weren’t structured to withstand 20% to 30% drops in occupancy — or no students at all.”

  “West Virginia State University may have to step in to help student housing bonds at risk of violating a debt service coverage ratio, Moody’s warned this month. The historically-black college faces “considerable” challenges in backstopping the bonds, Moody’s said.

  The nearly 290-bed residence hall with rents of $3,881 per semester was just 71% occupied this fall, while it needed to be about 92% occupied, said Patricia Schumann, president of the university foundation that sold the debt. Schumann said the university is projected to provide a $75,000 payment in January. In the meantime, she said the school was working to bolster its financial position and boost recruitment and donations.

  “We’re not standing still,” she said.

  Ohio’s Terra State Community College, which has more than 2,100 students, was downgraded deeper into junk over the risk posed by a dorm owned by a nonprofit, given that the school “appears to provide an unconditional guarantee” to meet the debt obligations, Moody’s said. The project was financed through a bank note.

  The dorm’s occupancy fell to 62%, and the college is using a previously-received donation to cover a shortfall in project revenue amounting between $500,000 to $600,000, the ratings company said in a report this month.

  At New Jersey City University, a student housing project financed though a separate entity will likely miss a required debt service coverage ratio. The public school having to step in to help the bonds would be a challenge, but a surmountable one, said Jodi Bailey, the university’s associate vice president for student affairs. The student housing bonds aren’t a debt of the university, so the school would be choosing to provide financial support, according to bond documents.

  The school is working to cut expenses related to the dorm. “Is it a harder year? Most definitely,” she said.

  The student housing bonds, issued by West Campus Housing LLC in 2015, were slashed deeper into junk in September by S&P, which said in a report that residence halls’ occupancy there had fallen to 56% so the school could accommodate social-distancing guidelines,” said Bloomberg. 

  To summarize, plunging enrollments, resulting in falling occupancy rates for dorms, is a debt bomb waiting to go off for many overleveraged colleges and universities that are panicking at the moment to divert enough funds to service debts, as the usual revenue streams, that being rent checks from students, are nowhere to be found as virtual learning keeps young adults in their parents’ basements and out of dorms. 

  If occupancy rates continue to slide through 2021, then we must revisit what we said months before the virus pandemic began in the US: 

   “…20% of colleges and universities will shut down or merge in the next ten years, and probably more.”  

  Absent of a federal bailout, things could get ugly for colleges and universities in 2021. 

  

• America's Imperial Expenditures And Escapades Are Stranger Than Fiction
  America’s Imperial Expenditures And Escapades Are Stranger Than Fiction
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 22:25

  Authored by Major Danny Sjursen (ret.) via AntiWar.com,

  Who needs dystopian novelists or absurd satirists when otherwise banal bureaucrats of the U.S. national security state do the job for them? It’s an old story with a new tech-savvy twist. The late great Joseph Heller knew a thing or two about war’s foundational farce. He joined the army air corps at age 19 and flew 60 combat missions as a bombardier on World War II’s Italian front.

  In his classic 1961 novel Catch-22, his wounded protagonist lamented that “outside the hospital the war was still going on. Men went mad and were rewarded with medals.” Yet in today’s confusing modern twist, with the citizenry and even soldiery now opposing America’s endless wars, the only men going mad are inside Washington. Even now they’re looking for reasons to keep awarding medals to overtaxed and unenthused overseas warriors.

  It makes for a strange state of affairs here in year 20 of the crusade formerly known as the “war on terror.” Just last week, two assumedly unrelated stories offered case studies (or are they clinics) in America’s national security politics and procedures of absurdity.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Fit for Heller: An (Open) Secret Intel Budget

  First, there was a passing annual footnote in the Pentagon’s bland bureaucratic budget line.

  Part of that military budget goes to what DefenseNews labeled the “Pentagon’s secret intelligence fund” – last year they went with “black intel funding.” Its officially titled the more mundane Military Intelligence Program, or MIP. Last week’s obligatory announcement was that Congress appropriated $23.1 billion for its operations in fiscal year 2020, a nine year high. In fact, the boys on the Hill tacked on a $100 million dollar bonus on top of the Pentagon’s request. So super sleuth are the MIP’s black ops, that the DOD waits until after the fiscal year to admit how many tax dollars unknowingly funded missions the tax-payers aren’t allowed to know about.

  It’s a shadowy program by its very nature, separate from the “white-side” National Intelligence Program (NIP), and vaguely described as “defense intelligence activities intended to support operational and tactical level intelligence priorities supporting defense operations.” That’s a 15-word method of saying nothing at all.

  Per annual tradition, the Pentagon’s four sentence statement declared that beyond the top line amount, “No other MIP budget figures or program details will be released, as they remain classified for national security reasons.” But have no fear, the war department – which hasn’t even eked out a minor war since Gorbachev sat in the Kremlin – assures us all that cash “is aligned to support the National Defense Strategy.” After all the abject adventurism and counter-productivity of America’s agents and analysts, this seems explanation feels exceedingly inadequate.

  No one is asking for the Pentagon – or Langley, for that matter – to release info on their sources and methods for stymying still active terror plots. Then again, these days, odds are Langley’s spooks (at least) might do just that if it served the designedly “politically independent” Agency’s political interests. But why aren’t check-writing citizens entitled to more than the current description – which clocks in at $6 billion-per-sentence – of what’s being cashed in their name?

  After all, given the hardly distinguished recent track record of America’s 17 different intelligence agencies – eight of them within the DOD – a bit more oversight and skepticism seems sensible. Especially since, in any given year, combined intelligence programs account for some 11 percent of the total defense budget. Call me crazy, but it seems that an Intel community known for their mischievousness can do plenty of mischief carrying a cool $23 billion in unsupervised cash.

  Even ex-Captain Joseph Heller might chuckle at a secret Intel program too vital not to fund, but too secret to reveal what’s being funded. He might mumble, “That’s some catch, that Catch-2020;” to which a better read Defense Secretary Mark Esper might quip: “It’s the best there is.”

  In other words, trust us. And, after lying on, then botching up, minor matters like 9/11, Iraq’s WMD, torture, Libyan regime change, Syria’s “moderate rebels,” and Russian “bounties” – why of why wouldn’t we? The whole thing strikes me as an Obi-Wan Kenobi “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for” mind-trick. Welcome to the Star Wars universe…come to think of it, didn’t Trump recently stand-up a literal Space Force?

  Fit for Orwell: JSOC’s “Taliban Air Force”

  Which brings us to last week’s second textbook profile in absurdity: according to a Washington Post (no, an Onion) headline, “The U.S. is secretly helping the Taliban fight ISIS in Afghanistan.” Beyond their shared commitment to that S-word, the two reports may be more linked than it seems.

  That’s because, thanks to a 2019 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report we do have some vague idea of who nets some of those black intel bucks: US Special Operations Command, to pursue “several current acquisition efforts focused on outfitting aircraft — both manned and unmanned, fixed and rotary wing…that will work in multiple environments.” And guess which outfit has reportedly been surveilling and bombing on the Taliban’s behalf in our impalable 19-year enemy’s fight with the local chapter of ISIS-wannabes? The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) counterterrorism task force, of course – which has been “using strikes from drones and other aircraft to help the Taliban.” According to a member of the elite team, “What we’re doing with the strikes against ISIS is helping the Taliban move,” by pinning down or destroying ISIS defenders.

  In reality, most foot-soldiers for the “Khorasan Province” (ISIS-K) of the now defunct Iraq-Syria-centered caliphate aren’t Arab – but disgruntled Afghans (often ex-Taliban), or Pakistani Tehrik-i-Taliban refugees from Islamabad’s crackdown on its own incubated Islamists. Furthermore, much of the fighting and US airstrike assistance described in recent reports unfolded in Kunar Province’s Korengal Valley – where some 40 US troops have been killed in rather infamous combat over the years. There, as even WaPo admits, the Taliban, U.S.-backed Kabul government, local criminal gangs, and now ISIS(K), have often really “tussled for control of the Korengal and its lucrative timber business.” It’s about wood as much as Wahhabism.

  If the US taking and switching sides in a 10,000 miles-from-home lumber war seems strange, remember that what the CIA – these days in tandem with JSOC – lacks in competence it compensates with consistency. Notice that every time – and there’ve been a lot of times – the Agency founds or fuels some jihadi Frankenstein’s Monster, it quickly loses control of it. Then it all but inevitably turns on America or its allies As if that wasn’t bad enough, another more monstrous splinter or offshoot rises like a problematic Phoenix. This, of course, prompts panic and expedient alliances with the original ogres – themselves threatened by more radical challengers. Only it turns out “enemy of my enemy” friendships rarely endure.

  Patient Zero: “American” Iraq

  Indeed, Washington – spearheaded by its intelligence agencies and special operators – has a long and sordid history of switching enemies without skipping a beat or bothering to explain.

  Take just Iraq:

  Long before President George H.W. Bush hinted that he was a Hitler-reprise, Sunni-secularist Saddam Hussein was seen as a necessary counterweight to revolutionary Iran. Thus, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan essentially green-lighted, then definitively backed, Iraq’s 1980-88 invasion of the Islamic Republic. Saddam was our autocrat; that is until he invaded Kuwait in 1990. After a touch of waffling, Bush’s team rhetorically transformed Saddam into the fuhrer himself. Therefore, anything less than a full-fledged U.S.-led counterattack was akin to “Munich” style appeasement.

  Just before kicking Saddam’s overrated army out of Kuwait, Bush’s had perhaps a triumphal flight of fancy and – speaking at a Raytheon plant! – encouraged Iraqi Shia to “take matters into their own hands” and rise up. Yes, the very same Shia Washington once feared as a potential Iranian Fifth Column. Sure enough, they did revolt; but Bush lost his nerve (or thought better of it) and abandoned them. Saddam slaughtered at least 30-60,000 of them.

  In 2003, when Bush’s less-savvy son conquered a country that hadn’t an iota to do with the 9/11 attacks, the once-jettisoned Iraqi Shia were suddenly back in favor. They’d form the democracy’s vanguard for the whole Arab World. Unfortunately it turned out their leaders largely sprung from expat-Shia Islamist parties, militias, and terror outfits. Having sought refuge in Iran – some even fighting against their countrymen in the eight-year war – many were uncomfortably close to their recent hosts. Plenty were a tad too authoritarian, to boot.

  By 2005-06, we US military occupiers found ourselves propping-up a corrupt, legitimacy-challenged Shia sectarian regime. American troops were also regularly attacked by Shia militias, various Sunni (nationalist and Islamist) factions, and jihadi foreign fighters. Bush II’s team finally realized something had to give. So, in a fresh turnabout, the Sunni tribes – many with ample American blood on their hands – were rebranded the “Awakening,” and billed as the next last great hope for democracy on the Tigris. That let President Barack Obama tardily pull US troops, but the Shia plurality clung to power and proceeded to sideline and suppress America’s Sunni frenemies.

  Boosted by the U.S.-aggravated chaos over Syria’s porous border, Iraq’s Al Qaeda faction (AQI) staged a striking comeback and regained the allegiance of alienated Sunnis. Radicalized, empowered, and fed on a healthy diet of triumphalist delusions of caliphate grandeur, a significant AQI splinter pronounced itself the Islamic State (ISIS) and ran roughshod over Iraq’s hollow U.S.-raised and -trained army. After conquering huge swathes of the country’s west/northwest and driving to Baghdad’s outskirts, Iraq’s desperate government announced a wholesale Shia levée en masse – conscripting all comers, who counted a cornucopia of militia loyalties. Many were vaguely aligned with Iran.

  Unwilling to see America’s troubled Iraqi progeny go extinct, Obama sent drones, planes, and “non-combat” combat advisors to steady a wavering Iraq’s soldiers and melange of green militiamen. The US advisers were advised to avoid getting themselves killed, and stay mute about embarrassing contradictions and cleavages among the sundry Shia cannon-fodder sent to the front. Appearances and all. By December 2017, when Baghdad’s U.S.-assisted gypsy army had retaken all significant caliphate territory, some 26,000 Iraqi and at least 20 American soldiers had been killed – along with a mid-range estimate of 8,000 civilians killed.

  One might think Washington would make nice with its tacit Iranian allies and the Tehran-backed Shia militias after their shared victory over ISIS, then bolt back out of Baghdad. No such luck. Instead the aptly-titled US mission “Inherently Resolved” to inevitably persist under the guise of an ISIS-mop-up operations. The real reason for staying constitutes another American open secret – admitted by hawkish think-tankers, mainstream Democrats, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, alike: to “balance” and/or “contain” Iran and “reign in” its Shia militias. Of course, the latter only attack US forces because they’re there – uninvited, I’d add. American service members have overstayed their welcome by almost 11 months – Iraq’s parliament voted to expel them last January. Details, mere details.

  Finally (for now), in the wake of ISIS’s de facto defeat, its aggressive escalation of tensions with Iran – including assassinating its top general and national icon in Baghdad – and Iraq’s parliamentary expulsion vote, Washington’s tacked back towards the wayward Sunnis and any pliant Shia figureheads willing to work with their sectarian rivals. One of the “sophisticates” over at the Brookings Institution even recommends the Baghdad government pin its post-ISIS, post-COVID recovery hopes on petro-princelings heading the Sunni Gulf States – the very countries who’ve long-fueled assorted Islamist groups, including (initially) ISIS itself.

  To review Iraq’s cursory case study by the numbers: since 1979, the loosely Shia side has switched from American enemy-to-ally at least four times; the sketchy Sunni squad did so five times and counting.

  Orwell in Afghanistan

  That’s just one extreme example among among many. In other words, there’s plenty of precedent for the Taliban-ISIS-K swap – and the latter group is itself consequence and outgrowth of counterproductive US policies in Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan. Plus, the merger between ISIS-K and Tehrik-i-Taliban was a product of Washington’s sometime Pakistani proxies own devil’s bargains. They raised and fostered Pashtun Islamists to control Afghanistan and harass India’s occupation of Kashmir. When these groups predictably turned on on the state, Islamabad’s resultant bloody crackdown sent plenty of fighters to the Afghan hills – whence many offered bayat (loyalty pledge) to the Taliban’s ISIS-K competitors.

  Washington’s and its proxies’ games of ally-enemy musical chairs have almost been too easy. The sad fact that those few citizens keeping tabs and throwing rational barbs have generally been dismissed as cranks and conspiracy theorists counts as proof positive.

  Look to the breezy, offhanded nature JSOC-jocularity. The operators’ inside jokes about serving as the “Taliban’s Air Force” go beyond the standard darkness of soldierly sarcasm. There’s something resignedly fatalistic about their acceptance – almost expectation – of such absurd mission twists. After all, the more senior leaders among them have likely swapped sides, ditched friends, and befriended ex-enemies a time or two – and on a few continents – during their own careers. According to recent headlines Afghan veteran fathers are now watching their sons deploy to the same war. This grotesque scenario conjures Orwell’s dystopian classic, 1984:

  Winston could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war…war had literally been continuous, though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil.

  Americans were once told by Reagan that the Soviets represented an absolute “evil empire.” Therefore helping raise, fund, and arm the Taliban’s Islamist precursors to fight off Moscow’s invasion was deemed obligatory – in fact it had already begun, under President Carter. After 9/11, the Taliban – which Washington had long tolerated even as they terrorized the populace – became the new absolute evil incarnate. We had to win what Bush called, nineteen Octobers ago, “a war between good and evil” – and save those embattled Afghan women we hadn’t cared a lick about a few months before.

  Only we couldn’t. It took an utterly ridiculous president, Donald J. Trump, to admit as much and try making messy peace instead of endless war with the Taliban. Now the US has not-so-tacitly allied with evil to defeat an ostensibly eviler evil ISIS-K outfit birthed by America’s ludicrous folly in Iraq.

  The American people aren’t meant not to notice. Orwell described such matters in 1984 – when Great Britain’s fictional facsimile suddenly switched enemies in its own forever war:

  The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

  Funny, if – and I’m just spit-balling here, of course – a vocal wing of senior military officers, their now retired superiors-turned-pundits, plus a basically conjoined political-media establishment wanted to indefinitely prolong the Afghan zombie war, shifting its justification to a nasty franchise facsimile of ISIS might seem just the trick. Especially if Trump’s “peace” deal appeared to end US involvement in a wildly unpopular war had rendered Taliban-baiting obsolete. No one much cares about the reigning king of the pundit-generals, H.R. McMaster, and his protestations that the done-deal is (you guessed it!) a “Munich” appeasement “travesty.”

  Which raises the question: when do conspiracy theories stop being conspiratorial? Unlike their black budget’s details, the intelligence community’s past policy fiascoes are public record, and they read like broken ones. Time and again the spooks find an enemy to justify their funding and relevance – short of that, they’ll produce or provoke one.

  Establishment Republican and Democratic politicians and their media mouthpieces – who are utterly out-of-step rank-and-file – have prolonged the Afghan War and the broader interventionist apparatus that funds it (and their campaigns) for a good while. Even those who once opposed the war now oppose ending it because they don’t like the ender. Informed citizens ought fear the new U.S.-Taliban anti-ISIS alliance will be used to justify and breathe life into a walking dead Afghan deployment. Washington’s war-hawks have done it before, and they’ll try it again – regardless of who wins the White House a week from today.

  Joking about serving as a Taliban air force is clearly counterintuitive, paradoxical, and absurd – but taken to its logical conclusion it’s also dangerously dystopian. The thing about an empire shuffling and substituting enemies is that eventually the war-state’s shuffled substitute becomes the citizenry itself. In 1984, the state’s ultimate targets were domestic dissenters like the novel’s protagonist, Winston. Brought before the government’s torturers, he assumes he’s meant to confess but is quickly corrected by the inquisitor:

  We are not interested in those stupid crimes that you have committed. The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies, we change them.

  After two decades, the America’s military and intelligence forces are clearly incapable of destroying the Taliban, so now Washington may once again change enemies and ally with its old jihadi friends and reminisce about the good old Cold War battles against those bad old Soviets. The real target though, the real audience, is us. Victory for the state isn’t defined militarily anymore – that ship has sailed. True victory comes when the people hardly notice the foe-flipping at all. Changing thought, compliance through apathy – that’s the trick.

  In Heller’s classic satirical antiwar novel Catch-22, when the semi-autobiographical protagonist, the bombardier Captain Yossarian, takes shrapnel in the thigh, he awakes to find the lead pilot of tending his wound mid-flight. Confused and suddenly struck with growing horror, Yossarian asked “Who’s minding the store?” Though quickly assured that Lieutenant Nately (played by Art Garfunkel in the 1970 film version) was “at the controls” of the soaring bomber, it’s clear that Heller – through Yossarian – was really asking about the cockpit of the broader war. And so should we still.

  Whether it’s the annual furtive funding gymnastics or another round of friend-foe contortionism in Afghanistan, such stories never fail to engender head shakes at my youthful naïveté. Back when, at 17, I followed uncritical patriotism, aspirational masculinity, and visions of martial glory to West Point – and for much of the next five years – whenever a U.S. policy seemingly failed efficacy or ethics tests, I, like most Americans, assumed some “they” must know something a Main Street “we” didn’t. Trust the process and policy, no matter how strange, became way of life and sanity-defense mechanism.

  I wanted to believe, needed to believe – even in the face of mounting evidence of early blunders and own goals – that some omniscient and benevolent insiders were manning the nation’s controls. In my case, the delusion had an expiration date of October 2006 – as I took the reins in tiny sub zones of treacherous backwater sub-districts of Southeast Baghdad.

  It’s remarkable how stark a turnabout can result from fighting two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) sold and waged on lies, watching two others (Libya and Syria) born of the same, plus launching countless raids against innocents – instigated by embarrassingly bad intel. What first I feared, then suspected, and finally knew at ground-level applies to the aggregate – and Americans ought learn it fast:

  Whether in Washington, Arlington, or Langley – there are no adults “in the room“…or minding the store.

  

• Nurses Were 36.3% Of All COVID-19 Healthcare Worker Hospitalizations This Spring: CDC Study
  Nurses Were 36.3% Of All COVID-19 Healthcare Worker Hospitalizations This Spring: CDC Study
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 22:05

  Proof continues to emerge that nurses, who are usually the first line of help in any hospital setting, are bearing the worst brunt of the Covid epidemic amongst healthcare workers.

  More than 33% of all healthcare workers that have been hospitalized with Covid-19 between March and May turned out to be in nursing-related positions, a new report from Becker’s Hospital Review notes, citing CDC analysis. 

  In general, healthcare workers have accounted for about 6% of total adults that have been hospitalized due to Covid. 36.3% of these hospitalizations have been nurses or Certified Nurses Assistants. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The CDC analysis looked at 6,760 hospitalizations across 13 states, including New York, Ohio and California. It also revealed that 90% of healthcare workers hospitalized due to Covid-19 had underlying conditions, such as obesity.

  28% of those hospitalized were admitted to the ICE and 15.8% required invasive ventilation. 4.2% of those admitted died during hospitalization. The analysis didn’t differentiate whether or not the healthcare workers caught Covid-19 as part of their job duties, or within their respective communities. 

  The CDC stated: “Healthcare workers can have severe COVID-19-associated illness, highlighting the need for continued infection prevention and control in healthcare settings as well as community mitigation efforts to reduce transmission.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  And while the study doesn’t take into account pay associated with being a nurse, we’re willing to bet that they are hardly being compensated appropriately for the risks they have been taking across the nation.

  Recall, months ago, this was an issue we pointed out with EMTs. We noted that many were leaving their jobs in “alarming numbers” because the Covid pandemic had made it overwhelming and not worth the menial salary they were making. 

  Robert Baer, an EMT in New York City who was formerly one of the first responders on September 11, told CBS several months ago: “I knew it would probably kill me if I went out there and had multiple exposures — and I’m not a chicken. I love the job, but my doctors were telling me I shouldn’t be going in the field, that it was very dangerous.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  He was supposed to be deployed to Elmhurst Hospital in Queens back in March, but decided his risks were too high and, instead, quit his job. As a result of the September 11 response, he suffers with asthma, chronic bronchitis and sleep apnea that put him at a higher risk for Covid. 

  Oren Barzilay, president of the FDNY-EMS Local 2507, representing New York City medics noted that about 60 EMTs had left the department over the last 4 months. Many of those retiring are over the age of 50. 

  Barzilay said: “Some people like to complete 30 years on the job so they can maximize their pension, but I noticed a trend in recent weeks that they aren’t really concerned about that anymore. As soon as they reach their eligibility, which is 25 years, they are leaving.”

  “They see the risks associated with the job and the low pay, and it’s just not worth it,”  Barzilay continued. EMTs start at just $30,000 per year in New York and pay tops out at about $50,000. Nationally, the job pays just $38,830 per year on average. 

  

• Trump's Executive Order On Race And Sex Lessens The Political Madness Thrown At Men
  Trump’s Executive Order On Race And Sex Lessens The Political Madness Thrown At Men
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 21:45

  Authored by Wendy McElroy via The Mises Institute,

  On September 22, President Trump signed the Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping. The order speaks of “race or sex stereotyping,” which is defined as the act of “ascribing character traits, values, moral and ethical codes, privileges, status, or beliefs to a race or sex, or to an individual because of his or her race or sex.” Federal agencies or entities that receive federal funds are prohibited from stereotyping in their training or educational procedures. If an organization wants federal money, for example, its material cannot claim that individual males are racist, sexist, or oppressive simply because they are male, white, or heterosexual. Doing so is racial and sexual stereotyping.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The order has teeth in two ways. Presumably, the executive can compel compliance within its own federal agencies. Tax recipients, including contractors, who do not comply can be defunded or stripped of “licenses”; a university could lose federal money, student access to federal loans, or accreditation.

  People object to government involvement in issues of discrimination, and justly so, because individuals have a right to freedom of association. The law has no business regulating peaceful interactions or refusals to interact. But government is already involved to the hilt, and the executive order seeks to take several steps back. Moreover, the dynamic of discrimination or stereotyping changes when it is a government agency or tax-funded entity that is discriminating. They are accountable to the public for how tax money is used, or they should be. And the pool of money should never be used to promote the unequal treatment of people because of their race or sex. (Whether the laws or funding should exist at all is an important but separate discussion.)

  Discrimination against males is currently commonplace in government agencies and with federal tax recipients. Recent decades have turned men into an underclass who are virtually shut out of federal services, such as DOJ-funded domestic violence (DV) programs.1 The executive order’s redefinition of discrimination—race and sex stereotyping—is a long-overdue challenge and rejection of identity politics and its dogmatic mantra that men oppress women, that men and women are class enemies, and that men have it coming. Only after discrediting the ideology of identity politics can the laws, policies, and institutions based on it be dismantled.

  What specifically does the order redefine?

  It begins with Martin Luther King Jr.’s most famous statement.

  “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

  Today, King’s dream has been turned inside out so that justice to his children is said to require discrimination based on race and sex. The content of character is secondary, at best.

  Two ideological trends accomplished this feat: identity politics and critical race theory.

  • Identity politics claims individuals are not defined by their choices or character but by the class(es) to which they belong—white or minority, male or female, for example.

  • Critical race theory is a postmodern framework by which all institutions and dynamics of society are analyzed in terms of race and hierarchy.

  The executive order summarizes these trends, “Many people are pushing a different vision that is grounded in hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than in the inherent and equal dignity of every person as an individual.”

  This vision sees America as “an irredeemably racist and sexist country” in which “some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors.” By contrast, the executive order returns to King’s dream by defunding the tax-paid diversity and antiracism training that is based on identity politics and critical race theory. 

  In theory, the order means that all such federally funded training will cease.

  This seems to be a serious push. A September 4 memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget broke ground for the executive order. “Training in Federal Government” instructed agencies to “begin to identify all contracts or other agency spending related to any training on critical race theory” or institutional racism. The memo outraged and alarmed its targets, of course, who seem equally serious about resisting the push. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents seven hundred thousand federal and DC employees, quickly condemned it.

   “As racial injustice continues to rock this nation,” the AFGE national president declared, “we ought to be building more bridges of understanding. But all this president seems to know how to do is build walls of division.”

  Obstruction in some form is likely.

  To ground the coming conflict in practical reality: Which sort of agency is being targeted, and specifically for what? Three examples are instructive. The order singles out:

  • The Department of the Treasury, an executive department, which held a seminar that argued “virtually all white people…contribute to racism.” Attendees were instructed to avoid advocating either color blindness or letting people’s “skills and personalities be what differentiates them.” Judging people on merit is considered racist.

  • Argonne National Laboratories, a federal entity, which stated in its material that racism is “interwoven into every fabric of America” and described “color blindness” or advocating a “meritocracy” as “actions of bias.”

  • The Smithsonian Institution, heavily funded by federal money, claimed that concepts like “[o]bjective, rational linear thinking,” “[h]ard work,” and the “nuclear family” were divisive “aspects and assumptions of whiteness.”

  Clearly, the new policy will apply aggressively across the board.

  The most interesting institutions to watch may well be universities.

  They are wellsprings of identity politics and critical race theory, as well as pioneers in the demonization of men. Virtually all universities receive federal funds—if not directly then indirectly through mechanisms like student loans. In theory, this means all of them will drastically alter both their training material and probably their curricula. Academics have also reacted with outrage and alarm. In a joint statement, the deans of all five University of California law schools gave an unusually passionate defense of critical race theory, calling Trump’s “rhetoric redolent of McCarthyism and the Red Scare.” Obstruction in some form is likely.

  The universities have reason to be scared, because a day of reckoning may be nigh. Consider just one way in which this policy change could alter the American campus. Every women’s studies program promotes the theory of patriarchy, which is defined as an “unjust social system that subordinates, discriminates or is oppressive to women.” The oppressors are males as a class; the victims are women and minorities. This makes every women’s studies program guilty of the sex stereotyping described in the order. In theory, these programs need to abandon their ideology or face defunding and the possible loss of accreditation.

  The words in theory must be emphasized when discussing the executive order’s impact, because a bureaucratic backlash is inevitable, and it will be fierce. Universities are bastions of impenetrable infrastructure that closes ranks when under attack. Exposing the system as intellectually corrupt, rawly discriminatory, and vicious toward young men in its care will make the wagons circle. Universities are the hill on which this executive order may die.

  The bill is due. This time the cost is falling on universities rather than male students. Will the system pay up? If happens on campus, then it will happen everywhere else.

  Or universities could become the springboard for a saner method of how people should associate with each other—that is, as individuals who connect based on their own assessment of each other’s merit. Social justice spilled out of the campus onto Main Street; perhaps the same can be true of reason and a respect for the individual.

  

• "God Of Chaos" Accelerates Towards Earth With 2068 Impact Date 
  “God Of Chaos” Accelerates Towards Earth With 2068 Impact Date 
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 21:25

  An asteroid measuring 300 meters across is gaining speed as it tacks towards Earth – and could be on a collision path with the planet by 2068, experts at the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy revealed on Tuesday. 

  Astronomers at UH warned, the asteroid, named 99942 Apophis, or has been dubbed by some as the “God of Chaos” – is speeding up due to something known as the Yarkovsky effect. This means the asteroid’s speed is increasing because of thermal radiation from the sun. 

   

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  “The new observations we obtained with the Subaru telescope earlier this year were good enough to reveal the Yarkovsky acceleration of Apophis,” UH astronomer Dave Tholen said. 

  “They show that the asteroid is drifting away from a purely gravitational orbit by about 170 meters per year, which is enough to keep the 2068 impact scenario in play,” Tholen sad. 

  Apophis will make an “extremely” close pass by the Earth in April 2029:

   “We have known for some time that an impact with Earth is not possible during the 2029 close approach,” he said. 

  The asteroid’s size and proximity to the Earth have resulted in NASA categorizing it as a “Potentially Hazardous Asteroid.” NASA scientists are aware of the asteroid’s track could shift from now till the potential impact date. 

  If, for whatever reason, the asteroid strikes Earth in 2068, its potential impact would be the equivalent of 880 million tons of TNT, making it 65,000 times more destructive than Hiroshima. 

  A horrifying simulation shows what could happen if Apophis hits Earth. 

  

• A Tale Of Two Chicagos
  A Tale Of Two Chicagos
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 21:05

  By John Hirschauer, via Real Clear Education,

  A recent survey of nearly 20,000 undergraduates at 55 major American colleges and universities suggests that students at the University of Chicago enjoy the most robust free-speech rights – and not just on paper, but in practice.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The 2020 College Free Speech Rankings is a joint venture of RealClearEducation, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and research firm College Pulse. Questions gauge students’ commitment to free expression and their perception of peer and administrative tolerance for controversial speech. Responses were coded and partitioned by institution and were used to create an Overall Score, grading the colleges and universities on their relative commitment to free speech. The Overall Score aggregates an institution’s performance in five areas: tolerance, openness, administrative support for free speech, self-expression, and the existence of speech codes on campus.

  Of the 55 institutions included in the survey, none ranked higher than the University of Chicago. Its Overall Score of 64.2 outpaced second-ranked Kansas State (57.3) by 6.9 points, a larger gap than the one between 10th-ranked University of Arizona (55.3) and 50th-ranked Oklahoma State University (49). Chicago ranked first in student tolerance of controversial speakers, student perception of administrative support for free speech, and students’ perception of their ability to express themselves on campus.

  Ninety-two percent of Chicago’s students felt confident that the administration would defend an embattled speaker caught in a free-speech controversy—by far the highest mark received by any institution. In a press release, FIRE quipped that while the Ivy League “offers students sterling credentials,” students should “try the University of Chicago instead” if they’re interested in being “offer[ed] free speech.”

  Chicago created the Committee on Free Expression in 2014 and charged it with “articulating the University’s overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the University’s community.” The Committee’s final report, released in January 2015, affirmed Chicago’s commitment “to free and open inquiry in all matters” and promised “all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.”

  The resulting “Chicago Statement” is widely considered a landmark in the ongoing battles over speech on campus. FIRE president Greg Lukianoff said that Chicago “should be proud” of the university’s free speech statement and compared it with other canonical free-speech declarations, like Yale University’s Woodward Report and the American Association of University Professors’ Declaration of Principles.

  Some Chicago students dispute the survey’s depiction of the situation on campus. Undergraduate Evita Duffy claims that if her university was considered a leader on free-speech issues, then the “repression of conservative ideas on campuses is worse than most people think.”

  Duffy highlighted an open letter signed by more than 120 faculty members in January 2018, which called for the disinvitation of former White House adviser Stephen Bannon from a scheduled debate, as an example of Chicago’s intolerance for controversial speech on campus. The letter’s signatories argued that Bannon “should not be afforded the platform and opportunity to air his hate speech on this campus” and implicitly accused the event organizers of “normalizing hate speech by granting it a privileged forum.”

  The university released a statement defending Bannon’s right to speak on campus but failed to condemn the faculty members who wanted to deny him a platform. As of this writing, the debate in which Bannon was scheduled to participate has not occurred.

  A University of Chicago spokesman told RealClearEducation that it was because of the University’s commitment to free inquiry and free expression that it refused to condemn the faculty members’ attempted disinvitation of Steve Bannon.

  “The University does not limit the speech of faculty or mandate apologies for their speech, unless there has been a violation of University policy or the law,” the spokesman said. “Nor does the University insulate speakers from criticism of the manner or content of their speech or writing.”

  Seventy-four percent of Chicago students identified themselves as liberal on the survey, while only 11% identified as conservative. Still, Chicago would rank third overall in the College Free Speech Rankings even if only the opinions of conservative students were considered. And when the views of all students are taken into account, the university is a clear leader over its peers.

  Located just seven miles away, the University of Illinois at Chicago did not fare nearly as well, placing 44th in the survey rankings. More than half of UIC students surveyed said that shouting down a speaker on campus might be acceptable, and only 55 percent were confident that the university administration would support a speaker embroiled in a free-speech controversy.

  Many students found the atmosphere on campus hostile to certain points of view. One self-described “moderate” student noted that “UIC is a very safe and protected place to speak if you’re liberal” but is “an incredibly prickly and volatile place to express any view that’s not in keeping with liberal . . . principles.” Several students expressed fear of reprisal from faculty members if they disagreed with a professor’s political opinions in class.

  FIRE gave UIC a “Red” speech-code grade after reviewing the university’s codes of conduct, highlighting several passages in campus regulatory documents that could stifle students’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. By contrast, the University of Chicago earned FIRE’s “Green” speech-code grade, reflecting the institution’s strong written policies on student speech.

  At the time of publication, the University of Illinois at Chicago had not responded to multiple requests for comment.

  

• ECB Meeting Preview
  ECB Meeting Preview
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 20:45

  Submitted by NewsSquawk

  • ECB policy announcement due Thursday 29th October; rate decision at 1245GMT/0745CDT, press conference 1330GMT/0830CDT

  • The upcoming meeting takes place against a backdrop of a resurgence in COVID-19 which has led to the reimposition of various lockdown measures in the EZ

  • Policymakers are likely to wait until December to unveil any further easing measures, at which point the GC will have greater clarity on the impact of recent developments

  OVERVIEW: Policymakers are once again expected to stand pat on rates with the balance sheet remaining the tool of choice for the Governing Council. Expectations are for an eventual expansion of the current Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP) remit of EUR 1.35trl and extension of its duration, however, consensus suggests that December is viewed as a more opportune time for this action. In December, policymakers will be able to present their winter economic projections and have greater clarity on the impact of various lockdown measures on the Eurozone economy. As such, the upcoming meeting will be more of an opportunity to set the stage for further stimulus, rather than unleash it in the immediacy.

  PRIOR MEETING: At the prior meeting, policymakers opted to stand pat on rates, whilst leaving policy settings unchanged for its bond-buying operations, as was expected. The introductory statement noted that incoming data suggested a strong rebound in activity, which was broadly inline with previous expectations, though, ultimately activity will remain at pre-pandemic levels. The GC’s conviction in its outlook resulted in just minor tweaks to the accompanying growth projections which saw the 2020 GDP forecast raised to -8% (prev. -8.7%), 2021 held at +5.0% and 2022 tweaked lower to 3.2% from 3.3%. The 2021 HICP outlook was upgraded to 1% (prev. 0.8%) with 2020 and 2022 held at 0.3% and 1.3% respectively. With regards to the EUR, in an interesting turn of events, Lagarde’s comments were front-run by a sources piece suggesting that the ECB were in agreement that there is no need to “overreact” to EUR gains. Lagarde herself remarked the ECB does not target an FX level but will continue to monitor developments, including the EUR. With regards to further stimulus, the press conference offered little beyond the guidance provided in the policy statement with Lagarde suggesting that there was no discussion on an expansion to the PEPP envelope and a reiteration that the Governing Council’s baseline scenario envisages a full usage of that envelope.

  RECENT DATA: The upcoming meeting will take place against a backdrop of Y/Y CPI remaining in negative territory of -0.3%, with the core-reading at 0.4%. Q3 growth data will not be published until the day after the meeting, however, survey data signals a waning of activity in Q4. The latest PMI releases saw the EZ-wide composite reading fall into contractionary territory of 49.4 (prev. 50.4) with IHS Markit warning that “the eurozone is at increased risk of falling into a double-dip downturn as a second wave of virus infections led to a renewed fall in business activity”. On the labour market front, the unemployment rate sits at 8.1%, however the true extent of the damage from COVID-19 continues to be masked by various government support schemes. The greatest cause of concern for policymakers will be the recent reimposition of lockdown measures across the region. Restrictions thus far have not been as harsh as those seen in the spring, however, they will provide a greater headwind to activity than envisaged at the prior meeting.

  RECENT COMMUNICATIONS: Since the September meeting, President Lagarde has continued to stress the Bank’s willingness to provide further stimulus if required whilst attempting to reassure markets that the Bank’s toolbox has not been exhausted. That said, remarks have done little to suggest that any further easing is on the cards for the upcoming meeting. Chief Economist Lane, who many regard as one of the thought-leaders on the Governing Council, has drawn attention from his warnings that “there is no room for complacency” in the Bank’s efforts to restore inflation back to target with the central banker cautioning that the resurgence of COVID cases is “posing new problems”. Interestingly, Lane has suggested that there is “no indication that we are hitting the lower bound in rates”. Potentially of greater interest moving forward (subject to no policy tweaks this week) will be assessing the balance of views at the Bank and whether or not a consensus will be reached at the December meeting. The hawks have been vocal in their stance with Germany’s Weidmann opining that the current policy stance is “appropriate” and cautioning that relaxing PSPP constraints could present legal issues. Additionally, Austria’s Holzman recently remarked that it would need a significant worsening in the economy before more stimulus would be required; it’s unclear exactly how bad things would need to get before he would consider further easing. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the peripheral nations whose economies have been hit harder by the crisis are likely to lean more in favour of further stimulus, however, the calls for such action at the upcoming meeting have not been made, yet.

  RATES: From a rates perspective, consensus looks for the Bank to stand pat on the deposit, main refi and marginal lending rates of -0.5%, 0.0% and 0.25% respectively. Despite holding the deposit rate at -0.5% throughout the crisis, recent remarks from Chief Economist Lane and Germany’s Weidmann have noted that the reversal rate (the rate at which accommodative monetary policy reverses its intended effect) is yet to be reached, with the latter suggesting that rate cuts are possible at some stage. As a guide, markets currently have around 2bps of further loosening priced in by year-end and around 10bps by the end of 2021.

  BALANCE SHEET: With the balance sheet seen as the preferred easing tool for the Governing Council, focus remains on any adjustments to its bond-buying operations. Its PEPP currently has an envelope of EUR 1.35trl and is set to run at least until the end of June 2021, whilst its regular Asset Purchase Programme (of which the Public Sector Purchase Programme is a component) runs at a monthly pace of EUR 20bln together with the purchases under the additional EUR 120bln temporary envelope until the end of 2020. As mentioned above, no action on this front is expected to be taken at the upcoming meeting as policymakers wish to see how the economy responds to the reimposition of lockdown measures and the presentation of the December economic forecasts. From a technical perspective, the ECB has also been given some opportunity to hold fire on a decision given that PEPP purchases are set to run until the middle of next year as planned, according to SEB (who assume H1 2021 will see around EUR 83bln PEPP per month). As such, market participants will be looking for any indication of the nature and extent of potential easing in December. Investors will be looking to see if policymakers have any preference over whether any balance sheet expansions will come via the PEPP or PSPP. A recent Bloomberg News poll suggested that surveyed economists predict on average that EUR 500bln will be added to the EUR 1.35trl PEPP, with most anticipating action in December. In terms of house views, Goldman Sachs look for a EUR 400bln PEPP extension until the end of 2021 and a lengthening of the PEPP reinvestment commitment at the December meeting with the Bank highlighting that the account of the September meeting shows that PEPP remains the primary tool at the Bank. Taking a contrary view, ING lean in favour of an expansion to the PSPP in December on the basis that “PEPP was aimed at bringing inflation expectations and projections back to their pre-Covid-19 levels, while in the second stage PSPP should be used to bring these expectations and projections from their pre-Covid-19 levels in line with the ECB’s own aim.”

  EUR: The EUR exchange rate could provide another line of inquiry for journalists at the accompanying press conference, however, since EUR/USD has failed to venture meaningfully close to 1.20 since the prior meeting, there is little need for President Lagarde to weigh in further on the matter. As such, the central bank chief will likely reiterate that the “ECB does not target an FX level” and will “continue monitoring developments, including the exchange rate”.

  STRATEGIC REVIEW: One issue lingering at the Bank is its ongoing strategic review. The review has been delayed by the pandemic with its findings now not due to be released until September 2021. However, on the 30th September, President Lagarde delivered a speech in which she highlighted some preliminary considerations for the review. Lagarde noted that the ECB would be considering whether or not to depart from its current inflation target of “below, but close to 2%” and move towards a more “symmetric” target that would tolerate overshooting the 2% threshold. Morgan Stanley suggests that accelerating the release of the outcome of the review could amount to another policy option for the Bank. However, MS notes that given the current H2 2021 timeframe, it seems implausible that the findings could be released in the near-term, particularly given reports of differing views on the Governing Council, which will make fostering consensus a more difficult task.

  TLTROs: After easing terms of Targeted Longer-Term Refinancing Operations (TLTROs) in April, TLTROs have also been seen as another potential policy tool for the Bank with the account of the September meeting noting that they remain in the toolbox. However, no action is expected to be taken on this front at the upcoming meeting. Adjustments to TLTRO-III are likely to be more of a feature of the December meeting, at which Goldman Sachs expect further operations to be announced and a sweetening of their terms.

  TIERING: Morgan Stanley notes speculation that the current tiering multiplier of six (exempt from negative interest rates) might need to be increased as a result of rising excess liquidity in the Eurozone. However, the Bank suggests that such a move would be unlikely unless accompanied by a rate cut; something that the Bank’s economists do not currently forecast.

  SCENARIO ANALYSIS: Finally, courtesy of ING Economics here is a brief recap of all the possible scenarios in tomorrow’s announcement:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

• The Golden Solution To America's Debt Crisis
  The Golden Solution To America’s Debt Crisis
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 20:25

  Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

  Right now, the United States is officially $27 trillion in debt. Nearly $7 trillion was added since President Trump took office.

  This year’s budget deficit is projected at $3.3 trillion, over three times last year’s estimate. The coronavirus is responsible, and the number should be an outlier. But annual deficits will be at the trillion dollar level for the foreseeable future.

  Basically, the United States is going broke.

  I don’t say that to be hyperbolic. I’m not looking to scare people or attract attention to myself. It’s just an honest assessment, based on the numbers.

  Now, a $27 trillion debt would be fine if we had a $50 trillion economy. But we don’t have a $50 trillion economy. We have about a $21 trillion economy (at least we did), which means our debt is bigger than our economy.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  When is the debt-to-GDP ratio too high? When does a country reach the point that it either turns things around or ends up like Greece?

  Economists Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart carried out a long historical survey going back 800 years, looking at individual countries, or empires in some cases, that have gone broke or defaulted on their debt.

  They put the danger zone at a debt-to-GDP ratio of 90%. Once it reaches 90%, they found, a turning point arrives…

  At that point, a dollar of debt yields less than a dollar of output. Debt becomes an actual drag on growth. What is the current U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio?

  About 130% (the reaction to the pandemic caused a spike. It was previously about 105%).

  We are deep into the red zone, that is. And we’re not pulling out. The U.S. has a dangerous debt to GDP ratio, trillion-plus dollar deficits, more spending on the way.

  We’re heading for a sovereign debt crisis. That’s not an opinion; it’s based on the numbers. How do we get out of it?

  For elites, there is really only one way out at this point is, and that’s inflation.

  And they’re right on one point. Tax cuts won’t do it, structural changes to the economy wouldn’t do it. Both would help if done properly, but the problem is simply far too large.

  There’s only one solution left, inflation.

  Now, the Fed printed trillions over the past several years, and trillions more over the past several months. But we’ve barely had any inflation at all.

  Most of the new money was given by the Fed to the banks, who turned around and parked it on deposit at the Fed to gain interest. The money never made it out into the economy, where it would produce inflation.

  The bottom line is that not even money printing has worked to get inflation moving.

  Is there anything left in the bag of tricks?

  There is actually.

  The Fed could actually cause inflation in about 15 minutes if it used it. How?

  The Fed can call a board meeting, vote on a new policy, walk outside and announce to the world that effective immediately, the price of gold is $5,000 per ounce.

  They could make that new price stick by using the Treasury’s gold in Fort Knox and the major U.S. bank gold dealers to conduct “open market operations” in gold.

  They will be a buyer if the price hits $4,950 per ounce or less and a seller if the price hits $5,050 per ounce or higher. They will print money when they buy and reduce the money supply when they sell via the banks.

  The Fed would target the gold price rather than interest rates.

  The point is to cause a generalized increase in the price level. A rise in the price of gold from $1,900 per ounce to $5,000 per ounce is a massive devaluation of the dollar when measured in the quantity of gold that one dollar can buy.

  There it is — massive inflation in 15 minutes: the time it takes to vote on the new policy.

  Don’t think this is possible? It’s happened in the U.S. twice in the past 80 years.

  The first time was in 1933 when President Franklin Roosevelt ordered an increase in the gold price from $20.67 per ounce to $35.00 per ounce, nearly a 75% rise in the dollar price of gold.

  He did this to break the deflation of the Great Depression, and it worked. The economy grew strongly from 1934-36.

  The second time was in the 1970s when Nixon ended the conversion of dollars into gold by U.S. trading partners. Nixon did not want inflation, but he got it.

  Gold went from $35 per ounce to $800 per ounce in less than nine years, a 2,200% increase. U.S. dollar inflation was over 50% from 1977-1981. The value of the dollar was cut in half in those five years.

  History shows that raising the dollar price of gold is the quickest way to cause general inflation. If the markets don’t do it, the government can. It works every time.

  But what people don’t realize is that there’s a way gold can be used to work around a debt ceiling crisis. I call it the weird gold trick, and it’s never seen discussed anywhere outside of some very technical academic circles.

  It may sound weird, but it actually works. Here’s how…

  When the Treasury took control of all the nation’s gold during the Depression under the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, it also took control of the Federal Reserve’s gold.

  But we have a Fifth Amendment in this country which says the government can’t seize private property without just compensation. And despite its name, the Federal Reserve is not technically a government institution.

  So the Treasury gave the Federal Reserve a gold certificate as compensation under the Fifth Amendment (to this day, that gold certificate is still on the Fed’s balance sheet).

  Now come forward to 1953.

  The Eisenhower administration was up against the debt ceiling. And Congress didn’t raise the debt ceiling in time. Eisenhower and his Treasury secretary realized they couldn’t pay the bills.

  What happened?

  They turned to the weird gold trick to get the money. It turned out that the gold certificate the Treasury gave the Fed in 1934 did not account for all the gold the Treasury had. It did not account for all the gold in the Treasury’s possession.

  The Treasury calculated the difference, sent the Fed a new certificate for the difference and said, “Fed, give me the money.” It did. So the government got the money it needed from the Treasury gold until Congress increased the debt ceiling.

  That ability exists today. In fact, it is exists in much a much larger form, and here’s why…

  Right now, the Fed’s gold certificate values gold at $42.22 an ounce. That’s not anywhere near the market price of gold, which is about $1,900 an ounce.

  Now, the Treasury could issue the Fed a new gold certificate valuing the 8,000 tons of Treasury gold at $1,900 an ounce. They could take today’s market price of $1,900, subtract the official $42.22 price, and multiply the difference by 8,000 tons.

  I’ve done the math, and that number comes fairly close to $500 billion.

  In other words,the Treasury could issue the Fed a gold certificate for the 8,000 tons in Fort Knox at $1,900 an ounce and tell the Fed, “Give us the difference over $42 an ounce.”

  The Treasury would have close to $500 billion out of thin air with no debt. It would not add to the debt because the Treasury already has the gold. It’s just taking an asset and marking it to market.

  It’s not a fantasy. It was done twice. It was done in 1934 and it was done again in 1953 by the Eisenhower administration. It could be done again. It doesn’t require legislation.

  Would the government consider the gold trick I just described? I don’t know.

  But the real message is that the solutions to current debt levels are inflationary. That means revaluing the dollar either through a higher gold price or marking the gold to market and giving the government money.

  There’s a lot of moving parts here, but they all point in one direction, which is higher inflation.

  It’s the only way to keep America from going broke. Unfortunately, it will also make your dollars worth less.

  

• Roughly Half Of Americans Will Do Most, Or All, Holiday Shopping Online This Year: Survey
  Roughly Half Of Americans Will Do Most, Or All, Holiday Shopping Online This Year: Survey
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 20:05

  As millions of Americans prepare for the holidays, retailers are wondering what the traditional Black Friday shopping stretch is going to look like, now that the CDC has effectively declared sales unsafe.

  While customers might not pack into physical stores like they did in years’ past, many expect the virus to hasten the shift toward e-commerce spending.

  In a recent report, a team of analysts at Piplsay asked thousands of American adults about their plans and attitudes toward what will undoubtedly be remembered as a unique holiday season.

  * * *

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Black Friday is coming this year amid the continuing threat of COVID-19. Despite this, consumer expectations remain high as the reopening brings in the sense of normalcy and a return to routine. This report delves into the excitement around the big day and the increasing shift towards online shopping. Retailers can leverage this data in their decision making.

  COVID-19 and the focus on social distancing are fast changing the face of Black Friday as we know it. With major retailers like Amazon and Target holding their mega sale just a month prior and several others jumpstarting holiday sales early, Black Friday seems to be slowly losing its clout as the official kickoff day for holiday shopping. Despite the changes, how excited are Americans about the big day, and different will it be this year amid the pandemic? Piplsay polled 30,223 people nationwide to get the insights.

  Here is a summary of what we found:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Other Insights

  • 34% of women and 23% of men have no plans to shop this Black Friday
  • 62% of men are interested in buying electronic goods as compared to just 38% of women
  • 51% of Millennials and 46% of Gen Zers plan to do most of their shopping online this year
  • 38% of Millennials plan to increase their shopping budget this year as compared to 33% of Gen Zers and 29% of Gen Xers

  

• A 20-Year-Old Book Suggests China Is Already Quietly At War With The US
  A 20-Year-Old Book Suggests China Is Already Quietly At War With The US
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 19:45

  Authored by Robert Wheeler via The Organic Prepper blog,

  October 14, Chinese President Xi Jinping appeared in Chaozhou City on a visit to the Marine Corps in the Southern province of Guangdong. He addressed the soldiers there and urged them to “maintain a state of high alert” and “put all [their] minds and energy on preparing for war.”

  He urged soldiers to be “absolutely loyal” and “reliable” in these times. Jinping did not elaborate on why he needed to voice those words now. He has also recently made and delivered more aggressive and direct statements by CCP members and even Chinese military members.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Why would Chinese President Xi urge soldiers to prepare for war?

  It may surprise many readers that the Chinese President would be so bold as to suggest that war is on the horizon. After all, it’s undeniable that the United States, Western Europe, and the United Nations built China from the blood-soaked nation of Communist horror that it was into the industrial powerhouse that it is today.

  Western nations, particularly the United States, did so by sending essential manufacturing jobs to China. The U.N. allowed China to join the WTO as a “developing” nation. That description still maintains today. Despite all the international assistance China has received in building itself up to today’s powerhouse, China has always preferred to play the long game. Preparing to become the leader of the world’s affairs and eventually even dominate the United States.

  Is China on the verge of becoming the world’s superpower?

   After the United States squandered its credibility, economy, and manpower in wars overseas, it seems even more likely China will do just that. The United States’ struggles may be just the opening China needs to advance the Made in China 2025 strategy, an attempt to become the world’s superpower in technology, manufacturing, and cybertechnology. Part of their strategy is to buy up Western businesses.

  While the West has been shipping jobs overseas, even manufacturing sectors that are important to national security like medical supplies, China is poised to assume its global standard-bearer role. China has been preparing to take the United States down for at least twenty years.

  “Unrestricted Warfare,” the book written by two Chinese colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, focuses on how China can defeat an opponent seen as technologically superior, such as the United States.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Keep in mind Unrestricted Warfare was written in 1999, before China’s leap forward in technological and military development. Still, the book does not focus on direct military vs. military war doctrine but indirect, soft tactics. The book argues that the main weakness of the United States (in strictly military terms) is that the U.S. views the concept of revolution in military thought solely in terms of technology.

  Is the U.S. focusing on the wrong tactics and methods to win a war?

  The U.S. views the development of military capability directly linked to the development of new technology. The authors of Unrestricted Warfare argue there are many ways to win a war. Not all of those ways involve using military methods. 

  The writers contend the latter techniques are the ones to which the United States is most susceptible. They also say there are many ways to “reduce” an opponent, and these methods “have the same and even greater destructive force than military warfare…”

  Several methods and strategies are mentioned in the book that can be utilized to achieve victory with the absence of military involvement. Keep in mind this book and its description of these tactics was written twenty years ago. 

  What are some of these 20-year-old methods mentioned?

  Trade War – “Some of the means used include: the use of domestic trade law on the international stage; the arbitrary erection and dismantling of tariff barriers; the use of hastily written trade sanctions; the imposition of embargoes on exports of critical technologies; the use of the Special Section 301 law; and the application of most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment, etc., etc. Anyone of these means can have a destructive effect that is equal to that of a military operation.”

  Notice that the authors mention trade wars, which are taking place today between China and the U.S. A “trade war” became a necessity if one wanted to claw back the jobs sent to China decades ago since China would not let them go back willingly. It also points out how removing tariffs and “Most-Favored-Nation” trade status used as weapons.

  Financial War – What is more, such a defeat on the economic front precipitates a near-collapse of the social and political order. The casualties resulting from the constant chaos are no less than those resulting from a regional war, and the injury done to the living social organism even exceeds the injury inflicted by a regional war.

  Many have suggested that WWIII would be an economic one. China was clearly paying attention to the Western tactics used worldwide then (and currently still being used) to destroy sovereign governments who refused to follow Washington’s dictates. Today’s China has been hard at work with the same tactics, creating its version of the book’s foundations. 

  Terrorism – Due to the limited scale of a traditional terror war, its casualties might well be fewer than the casualties resulting from a conventional war or campaign. Nevertheless, a traditional terror war carries a stronger flavor of violence. Moreover, in terms of its operations, a traditional terror war is never bound by any of the traditional rules of the society at large. From a military standpoint, then, the traditional terror war is characterized by the use of limited resources to fight an unlimited war.

  This characteristic invariably puts national forces in an extremely unfavorable position even before War breaks out, since national forces must always conduct themselves according to certain rules and therefore are only able to use their unlimited resources to fight a limited war.

  Many terrorist organizations and attacks, such as the simultaneous attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam are mentioned in this portion of the book. Also mentioned are terrorists using new high technologies combined with their other methods. The authors even said these new technologies would evolve into superweapons.  

  Terrorism and urban warfare described in these paragraphs may have seemed impossible to create on a massive scale in the United States before and even after 9/11. However, decades of economic decay, destruction of the family unit, degradation of the education system, mainstream media, and social media outlets have combined to create the perfect storm for violence. One need only look as far as the recent battles in most major American cities’ streets to see that such urban warfare and abject chaos are beginning to take hold in the United States. 

  Ecological War – Ecological War refers to a new type of non-military warfare in which modern technology is employed to influence the natural state of rivers, oceans, the crust of the earth, the polar ice sheets, the air circulating in the atmosphere, and the ozone layer. By methods such as causing earthquakes and altering precipitation patterns, the atmospheric temperature, the composition of the atmosphere, sea level height, and sunshine patterns, the earth’s physical environment is damaged or an alternate local ecology is created. Perhaps before very long, a man-made El Nino or La Nina effect will become yet another kind of superweapon in the hands of certain nations and/or non-state organizations.

  This one is interesting. The Chinese military knows and is willing to speak openly about a human-made superweapon used to damage the earth. Meanwhile, Western governments continue to claim this is “conspiracy theory” nearly twenty years on.

  Are there any other tactics mentioned?

  • Psychological War – “Spreading rumors to intimidate the enemy and break down his will” (Example)

  • Smuggling War – “Throwing markets into confusion and attacking economic order”

  • Media War – “Manipulating what people see and hear in order to lead public opinion along” (Example)

  • Drug War – “obtaining sudden and huge illicit profits by spreading disaster in other countries”

  • Network War – “Venturing out in secret and concealing ones identity in a type of warfare that is virtually impossible to guard against” (Example)

  • Technological War – “creating monopolies by setting standards independently”

  • Fabrication War – “presenting a counterfeit appearance of real strength before the eyes of the enemy”

  • Resources War – “grabbing riches by plundering stores of resources”

  • Economic Aid War – “bestowing favor in the open and contriving to control matters in secret”

  • Cultural War – “leading cultural trends along in order to assimilate those with different views” (Example)

  • International Law War – “seizing the earliest opportunity to set up regulations”

  China is contributing and benefiting from America’s chaos

  Brandon Turbeville warned of these strategies in his articles, where he pointed out the Chinese long game. Like the United States, it is a game of empire, but it is the tortoise instead of the hare.

  China has finally seen the finish line. America is burning its credibility overseas with each bombed dropped, and it is wasting its valuable resources in the process. It is drumming up hatred and driving developing nations into the arms of China as it threatens and proceeds to overthrow sovereign governments.

  Though improving under the Trump administration’s meager implementation of Americanist policies, its economy is a shell of its former self. The American people are more divided than ever, thanks to the insidious mainstream corporate media.

  Has a war started without a shot being fired?

  China did not cause any of this, but we have to be smart enough to realize that it is and will continue to benefit them and they will take advantage of it.

  As an American, watch nearly every aspect of the tactics listed in the “Unrestricted Warfare” book take shape before your eyes and ask yourself, “Has the potential war with China already quietly started without the shooting?” 

  

• Supreme Court Deals Double-Blow To Republicans In Pennsylvania, North Carolina Ballot Battles
  Supreme Court Deals Double-Blow To Republicans In Pennsylvania, North Carolina Ballot Battles
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 19:40

  With freshly-confirmed Amy Coney Barrett standing ready on the sidelines, the already-supposedly-conservative-leaning Supreme Court dealt a double-blow to Republicans tonight over mail-in-ballot cases in two key states.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  First, the Supreme Court said that it will not intervene before the election to stop Pennsylvania officials from receiving mail-in ballots up to three days after Election Day, refusing a Republican request that the high court expedite review of the issue.

  While this is a “loss”, WaPo reports that there is a modest silver-lining in that three conservative justices indicated the votes ultimately might not be counted and signaled they would like to revisit the issue after the election.

  “There is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

  “The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”

  As a reminder, Pennsylvania was critical in President Trump’s success during the election four years ago and is once again considered a key battleground state.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Second, as AP reports, the Supreme Court voted 5-3 to allow absentee ballots in North Carolina to be received and counted up to 9 days after Election Day, in a win for Democrats.

  The justices on Wednesday refused to disturb a decision by the State Board of Elections to lengthen the period from three to nine days, pushing back the deadline to Nov. 12. The board’s decision was part of a legal settlement with a union-affiliated group.

  Under the Supreme Court’s order, mailed ballots postmarked on or before Election Day must be received by 5 p.m. on Nov. 12 in order to be counted.

  Three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, dissented.

  Trump said earlier that he was depending on courts to keep states from counting ballots received after Election Day.

  “Hopefully the few states remaining that want to take a lot of time after Nov. 3rd to count ballots, that won’t be allowed by the various courts,” the president said.

  So far things are not going that way.

  

• Fighter Jet Intercepts "Non-Responsive" Plane Near Trump Rally
  Fighter Jet Intercepts “Non-Responsive” Plane Near Trump Rally
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 19:25

  A General Dynamics F-16 fighter jet intercepted a plane that breached restricted airspace near President Trump’s rally in Bullhead City, Arizona, Wednesday afternoon. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Video shows Trump looking up at the sky as the fighter jet fired off warning flares. He told the crowd: “Oh, look at that – they [fighter jet] gave the president a little display.”

  MOMENTS AGO: Fighter jet flies over Trump rally in Arizona and appears to fire off flares; crowd chants “USA!” pic.twitter.com/8znBkEJrcb

  — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) October 28, 2020

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

  After the incident, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) officials tweeted that the plane was intercepted around 1400 MDT after it breached the Temporary Flight Restriction area surrounding Bullhead City.

  A second tweet from NORAD said the plane’s pilot was “non-responsive to initial intercept procedures, but established radio communications after NORAD aircraft deployed signal flares.” 

  NORAD continued: “The aircraft was escorted out of the restricted area by the NORAD aircraft without further incident.”

  (2/2) The violating aircraft was non-responsive to initial intercept procedures, but established radio communications after NORAD aircraft deployed signal flares. The aircraft was escorted out of the restricted area by the NORAD aircraft without further incident. #WeHaveTheWatch

  — North American Aerospace Defense Command (@NORADCommand) October 28, 2020

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

  

• How Long Will It Take To Count All The Votes?
  How Long Will It Take To Count All The Votes?
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 19:05

  Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

  For months the American people have been told that we may not know the winner of the presidential election right away like we normally do.  So if we aren’t going to have a winner on November 3rd, when will we finally have a clear result? 

  Well, that is going to depend on how long it takes to count the votes, and that is going to be different for each state.  I know that is a frustrating answer, but every one of our 50 states has different election laws, and things have been greatly complicated in 2020 by the fact that so many people will be voting by mail. 

  So far, more than 60 million Americans have already voted by mail, and that number just keeps growing with each passing day.  Some states allow mail-in ballots to be counted before Election Day, but a majority of states do not…

  A majority of states won’t start actually counting ballots until the morning of Election Day or after polls close. Most counting rules have remained unchanged this year, though some states have adjusted their timelines due to the pandemic to ease the burden of increased absentee ballots.

  So that means that there will be tens of millions of mail-in ballots that will be piled up waiting to be counted in addition to all of the ballots that come in on Election Day.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  I feel sorry for those that have to open up all of those ballots and get them counted, because that is going to be a monumental task.

  As I discussed yesterday, there are six key swing states that are pretty much going to determine the outcome of this election.  In three of them, the lack of a sufficient head start in counting ballots is likely to greatly delay voting results…

  But final results in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan could be unclear on election night because these states are expected to be the three slowest to count the high volume of absentee ballots.

  The reason: Pennsylvania and Wisconsin don’t allow the processing of mail-in ballots to begin until Election Day and Michigan only has a 10-hour start, compared to other states that start that can start the process days or weeks in advance.

  Whoever wins Pennsylvania is probably going to win the presidency, but it could be quite a while before we get a final result from that state.

  You see, the truth is that counting mail-in ballots is much more tedious that running normal ballots through a machine.  There are several steps involved, and each step takes time…

  Processing absentee ballots generally includes steps short of tabulating them — such as removing them from the envelope, confirming voter eligibility, matching signatures to what’s on record and scanning them.

  And on top of everything else, sometimes unexpected problems occur.

  For example, ballot counting machines in one county in Texas have been “rejecting about one-third of mail-in ballots” and authorities are scrambling to get this issue resolved…

  Ballot scanning machines are rejecting about one-third of mail-in ballots returned by voters in Tarrant County. The problem has impacted more than 22,000 ballots so far.

  Ballot board members are now working in 12-hour shifts to accurately replicate the ballots so they can be counted.

  As I have warned before, you will want to vote in person to give yourself the best chance of having your vote actually count.

  In addition to everything that I have already discussed, it is important to remember that mail-in votes will continue to be accepted in many states long after Election Day is over.

  I know that sounds really bizarre, but this is what is actually going to happen.  In fact, Washington State will count votes that are received as late as November 23rd…

  The last day to vote in-person in the general election is Nov. 3. Absentee and mail-in ballots also typically must be received or postmarked by that date, if not earlier, depending on a state’s rules. That leaves some room for mail-in ballots to be received after Election Day. In Washington State, mail-in ballots received as late as Nov. 23 are still valid, as long as they were postmarked by Nov. 3.

  National polls have shown that Biden voters are much more likely to vote by mail and Trump voters are much more likely to vote in person.

  The votes that are cast in person will be counted very quickly.  Meanwhile, the votes that are sent in by mail will take weeks to fully count.

  The mainstream media and the big tech companies have been working very hard to mentally prepare us for a massive “blue shift” after Election Day.  One of the reasons why they are so adamant that Trump should not declare victory on November 3rd is because they are confident that Joe Biden will ultimately win once all of the mail-in ballots are finally counted.

  In some states we will have final results almost immediately, but in other states counting could take quite a few weeks.

  But the counting cannot take too long, because by law election results must be officially certified by certain deadlines…

  According to Ballotpedia, citing state laws, six states must certify election results within a week of the general election; 26 states and Washington, D.C., have a deadline between Nov. 10 and Nov. 30; 14 have a deadline in December, and four do not have deadlines in their state laws.

  Among key battleground states, those deadlines range from Nov. 11 (Pennsylvania) to Dec. 1 (Nevada and Wisconsin). For potential battleground Texas, it is Dec. 3.

  I don’t know how some of those states are going to possibly meet those deadlines.

  In particular, I have no idea how Pennsylvania is going to be done counting by November 11th.  Hopefully they have a vast army of counters and a whole lot of coffee.

  To give you an idea of how long it takes to count mail-in ballots, just consider what we witnessed in California earlier this year…

  Consider this year’s California primary, in which 5.8 million people voted for president. Only 3 million of those ballots were counted by election night; the other 2.8 million votes took an additional seven weeks to count, said John Couvillon, a pollster and political analyst.

  If it took California seven weeks to count a couple million mail-in ballots, how in the world is Pennsylvania going to count a similar number of mail-in ballots in just one week?

  Personally, I am anticipating that this election is going to be a colossal mess.  As I have been documenting on The Most Important News, voting anomalies have already been popping up all over the nation, and I think that counting all of the mail-in ballots is going to take much more time than anticipated.

  And any legal battles over the counting of the votes will just make the process even more painful.

  We were once a great example for the rest of the world, but in 2020 we are going to show the rest of the planet the exact wrong way to conduct an election, and that is a real shame.

  *  *  *

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

  

• NSA Dodges Questions About Controversial "Backdoors" In Tech Products 
  NSA Dodges Questions About Controversial “Backdoors” In Tech Products 
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 18:45

  Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing campaign exposed the National Security Agency in 2013 for having “backdoors” into commercial technology products. The US spy agency worked with some Silicon Valley tech firms to develop covert methods of bypassing the standard authentication or encryption process of a network device so it could scan internet traffic without a warrant. 

  Snowden revealed the NSA’s special sauce in how it conducted domestic and foreign backdoor operations to collect vital intelligence, resulted in the agency reforming its spying process, and had to formulate new rules to limit future breaches and how it conducts spy operations, three former intelligence officials told Reuters. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  However, a recent inquiry into the new guidelines by Senator Ron Wyden, a top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, yielded absolutely nothing as the spy agency dodged questions. 

  “Secret encryption back doors are a threat to national security and the safety of our families – it’s only a matter of time before foreign hackers or criminals exploit them in ways that undermine American national security,” Wyden told Reuters. 

  “The government shouldn’t have any role in planting secret back doors in encryption technology used by Americans,” he continued:

  The agency refused to comment on its updated policies on current backdoor processes. NSA officials did say they were in the rebuilding trust phase with the private sector. 

  “At NSA, it’s common practice to constantly assess processes to identify and determine best practices,” said Anne Neuberger, who heads NSA’s year-old Cybersecurity Directorate. “We don’t share specific processes and procedures.”

  Three former senior intelligence agency officials told Reuters that before a backdoor operation is conducted, the agency must “weigh the potential fallout and arrange for some kind of warning if the back door gets discovered and manipulated by adversaries.”

  Critics of the agency’s spy tools say backdoors create targets for adversaries and undermine US technology trust among buyers across the world. According to Juniper, in 2015, a foreign adversary used the NSA’s backdoor in its equipment. The NSA told Wyden’s aides in 2018 the Juniper incident was a “lesson learned.” 

  Reuters cites one of the clearest examples of the NSA working with private tech firms to build backdoors: 

  “… NSA’s approach involved an encryption-system component known as Dual Elliptic Curve, or Dual EC. The intelligence agency worked with the Commerce Department to get the technology accepted as a global standard, but cryptographers later showed that the NSA could exploit Dual EC to access encrypted data.” 

  What this all suggests is that Snowden’s revelations of NSA’s spy tools really didn’t change the agency’s practices over the last seven years. Backdoors are still being used as the surveillance state marches on. 

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Wastewater Exposes Dutch As Europe's Greatest Nose-Candy Fans
  Wastewater Exposes Dutch As Europe’s Greatest Nose-Candy Fans
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 02:45

  Half eaten kebabs, a broken high heel, a puddle of sick in a shop doorway – typical remnants of a Saturday night out in the city.

  However, as Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes, The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) though, measure a much less visible indicator of a city’s partying habits.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Every year, they analyse waste water samples around the continent for traces of illicit drugs such as cocaine and MDMA.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Looking at traces of cocaine found at the weekend, renowned party town Amsterdam is at the top of the scale with 1,028mg of the drug per one thousand people flowing through the drains.

  In second is Swiss banking hub Zurich with 976mg and rounding off the top three is the Danish capital, Copenhagen, with 780mg.

  

• French Ambassador After Islamist Beheading: "France Is A Muslim Country"
  French Ambassador After Islamist Beheading: “France Is A Muslim Country”
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 02:00

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

  Responding to the beheading of a school teacher by an Islamist in Paris, French ambassador to Sweden Etienne de Gonneville told broadcaster SVT, “France is a Muslim country.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Yes, really.

  Samuel Paty was decapitated by an 18-year-old Chechen jihadist in revenge for showing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad to pupils in a class on free speech.

  The country responded with mass protest marches in major cities and President Emmanuel Macron vowed to protect freedom of expression in honor of the victim.

  However, Macron’s vow to take the fight to Islamists has caused uproar in many Muslim countries, notably Turkey, who have effectively sided with jihadism by announcing boycotts on French products.

  Now France’s ambassador to Sweden has himself appeared to capitulate to Islamists by declaring, “France is a Muslim country.”

  Etienne de Gonneville told Sweden’s national broadcaster SVT, “First, France is a Muslim country. Islam is the second-largest religion in France. We have anywhere between 4 and 8 million French citizens who have a Muslim heritage.”

  The ambassador then claimed that “al-Qaeda propaganda” and not “Islam” was to blame for Paty’s murder, despite the fact that the local Muslim community had incited retribution against the teacher for showing the cartoons.

  “The media must know how to address the issue of Islamic terrorism and not fall into the trap of that idea that it would supposedly offend Islam. Islam is very diverse,” said de Gonneville.

  “Those who we hear now are speaking for these radical Islamist outfits. We should not give them more weight than they have. They are a tiny minority.”

  As we highlighted yesterday, following the beheading of Paty, 79% of French people believe Islamism has “declared war” on their country.

  *  *  *

  New limited edition merch now available! Click here.

  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. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

  

• China's Top Censor Orders Another Crackdown On Dissent
  China’s Top Censor Orders Another Crackdown On Dissent
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 01:00

  While Facebook readies emergency measures to halt the spread of viral election day misinformation, contributing to a bout of social media hysteria that is starting to feel vaguely reminiscent of the perturbation that preceded Y2K, the censors over in Beijing are as busy as ever.

  Reuters reports that China’s “top cyber authority” has declared that it will carry out a “rectification” of China’s mobile internet browsers. The campaign is a response to concerns about “chaos” in terms of information being shared online.

  Doesn’t sound too different from what’s happening over at Twitter and Facebook. But we digress.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Anyway, the Cyberspace Administration of China, or CAC – the regulator in question – has told mobile browser owners that they have until Nov. 9 to finish a “self examination” (sounds fun) and rectify any previously unaddressed “problems.”

  Some suspect that President Trump’s attacks on China, combined with the pro-independence party that continues to rule Taiwan and the pro-democracy protests that preceded a wave of street violence in Hong Kong last year, may push President Xi to drastic action to assert China’s dominance once and for all. If accurate, than this would be only the latest example of China cracking down on what has been an unprecedented year for that, with all that has happened in Hong Kong.

  But circling back to the mainland, browsers will need to upgrade their censorship tools surrounding sensationalist headlines and “rumors” spread online. We wonder how they plan on accomplishing all this?

  “For some time, mobile browsers have grown in an uncivilised way…and have become a gathering place and amplifier for dissemination of chaos by ‘self-media’,” the CAC said, referring to independently operated social media accounts, many of which publish news.

  “After the rectification, mobile browsers that still have outstanding problems will be dealt with strictly according to laws and regulations until related businesses are banned.”

  The campaign is focusing on eight of the most widely-used mobile browsers in China, including those operated by Huawei, Alibaba’s UCWeb and Xiaomi, also a major smartphone manufacturer. Others include the QQ platform owned by Tencent, Qihoo-owned 360, Oppo and Sogou.

  It’s just the latest reminder that economic engagement in China hasn’t improved political freedoms in China one bit since Mao Zedong’s death.

  

• Hmm… America Keeps Getting Attacked By Nations It Hates In Ways Only The CIA Can See
  Hmm… America Keeps Getting Attacked By Nations It Hates In Ways Only The CIA Can See
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Wed, 10/28/2020 – 00:05

  Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via CaitlinJohnstone.com,

  I’d like to tell you a folktale. It’s called “The Emperor’s New 9/11”.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Once upon a time there was an Emperor who loved war and military expansionism. He was always searching for new ways to instigate military conflicts without losing the support of the international community or waking up the populace to the fact that they’re just propagandized cogs in the machine of a globe-spanning Empire which uses endless military and economic violence to maintain its unipolar hegemony.

  One day two men calling themselves Intelligence Experts came into town claiming that they had devised a wondrous new type of enemy threat that is invisible to the common folk.

  “Is it as good as 9/11?” asked the Emperor excitedly. “Oh how I loved how that one allowed me to initiate a new era of military expansionism on the pretence of fighting global terrorism!”

  “It’s even better!” explained the Intelligence Experts. “This magical enemy threat is comprised of Cyber Attacks which are completely invisible to public scrutiny, and you have complete control over where and when they happen. You just name a foreign government you don’t like, and we’ll say they have attacked the democracy of the Empire!”

  “You mean the pretend democracy I lied to them about having?” asked the Emperor.

  “Of course,” said the Intelligence Experts. “So you just name the disobedient government you want a fight with and we’ll give you your new 9/11.”

  “Hmm, well I’m not very fond of the Russians,” said the Emperor. “They’ve been brazenly acting against our interests on the world stage and they keep getting friendlier with China. Let’s set to work on them first.”

  So the Intelligence Experts set to work weaving their narrative about Russian Cyber Attacks. The Emperor put his mass media to work knitting together wonderful yarns of the Emperor’s wonderous new 9/11, simultaneously invisible to commoners yet outrageous and necessitating an aggressive response.

  A Consensus Emerges: Russia Committed an “Act of War” on Par With Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Should the U.S. Response be Similar? https://t.co/bh0x8NHG7s

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 19, 2018

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

  The Empire’s military budget was inflated, treaties were ended, and a new arms race was begun. Sanctions were rolled out against the Russian government, the Empire’s Nuclear Posture Review was readjusted with a much more hostile stance toward Moscow, troops were deployed and NATO was expanded. Anyone who objected to any of this was labeled Russian propaganda by the Empire.

  “Oh, this is wonderful!” exclaimed the Emperor. “Let’s do Iran now! Ooh! And China too!”

  “Iran and China have been attacking the Empire’s democracy!” announced the Intelligence Experts. “It’s like another 9/11!”

  All was going swimmingly, until one day the Emperor was parading his new 9/11 around town for the commoners to admire.

  “Oh, this 9/11 is even more impressive than the last one!” exclaimed the people. “I would happily throw my body into the gears of the war machine for it! Praise be to our mighty Emperor!”

  Then one tiny voice rang out above the rest.

  “But the Emperor hasn’t got a 9/11!” said a small child. “There’s nothing there at all!”

  The child was immediately branded a Russian propagandist and banned from Facebook and Twitter.

  No Matter Who Wins, The War Machine Wins

  “US government agencies are advancing the narrative that unabsorbed governments are attacking the United States in a completely invisible yet extremely outrageous way.”https://t.co/s41nyXV5d4

  — Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) October 23, 2020

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

  It is not a coincidence that all these alleged attacks on American democracy are happening in ways that only the US intelligence cartel can see. It is not a coincidence that the US propaganda machine is constantly announcing invisible new attacks upon the nation from governments that have been longtime targets of that same intelligence cartel. It is not a coincidence that whenever these alleged attacks happen, the hard evidence that they happened is always classified.

  There are all sorts of ways that a country can be attacked, but the only ways the country that is literally always at war ever gets attacked is in ways that nobody can see and we just have to take the word of the same government agencies that are responsible for the wars that they actually occurred. This is not a coincidence.

  Foreign “election interference” is 9/11 minus 9/11. It gets all the same urgent media coverage of 9/11, all the same outrage and all the same demand for forceful retaliation; it just doesn’t have the fallen buildings that people can look at or the bereaved family members that you can talk to. It’s a 9/11 that is completely invisible to everyone, so we have to take the word of intelligence agencies with an extensive history of lying that they happened at all.

  Meanwhile, as the US is being victimized by these attacks that only the CIA and NSA can see, the US government is harming the American people to an infinitely greater degree than Russia, China and Iran are. The US government is destroying untold millions of lives at home and abroad, but Americans are being told to worry about invisible attacks by foreign countries that have literally never done anything to them.

  Don’t be a sucker. Be the child at the Emperor’s parade.

  *  *  *

  Thanks for reading! 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, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. 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

  Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!

  

• Charting 20 Years Of Home Price Changes In Every U.S. City
  Charting 20 Years Of Home Price Changes In Every U.S. City
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 23:45

  At the turn of the century, the average U.S. home value was $126,000. Today, that figure is at a record high $259,000 – a 106% increase in just two decades. Of course, as Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley notes, the path from A to B was anything but linear with a financial crisis, housing bubbles in major cities, and now COVID-19, which is drastically altering market dynamics.

  How has the housing market evolved, on a city-by-city basis?

  Two Decades of Housing Prices

  The interactive visual below – created by Avison Young Global, using data from Zillow – is a comprehensive look at U.S. home price data over the past two decades.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  The Lay of the Land

  A number of things become apparent when looking at historical data of hundreds of U.S. cities.

  First, the trajectory of home prices is defined by the 2008 Financial Crisis. After prices took a steep dive, it took a full decade for the average home price to rise back up to the 2007 peak.

  Next, broadly speaking, the U.S. average is being “pulled up” by the hottest regional markets. The majority of housing markets have seen between a 50% and 100% increase in price over the past 20 years. This is also true at the state level, where booming markets such as Hawaii saw price increases double the U.S. average.

  Going West

  The West Coast has seen dramatic home price appreciation in over the last two decades, a trend that permeated the entire region. Every single city tracked in this database beat the U.S. average.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  California and Hawaii saw the biggest gains, with a number of cities ending up with a 200%+ increase over prices in 2000.

  The biggest gains in the entire country over the time period was Madera, California, which is located just north of Fresno. The nearby cities of San Jose and San Francisco rose by an impressive 235% and 219%, respectively. As a practical example – during the meteoric rise of Silicon Valley, average prices in San Francisco shot up from $364,000 to $1.12 million.

  Even the bottom city (Yakima, Washington) on the left coast saw an increase of 114%.

  Slower Home Price Changes

  In general, cities located in America’s “Rust Belt” states saw slower home price growth. In fact, every city in these five states saw price growth below the U.S. average.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Of the top 20 U.S. metros, Detroit and Chicago saw the slowest price growth over the past two decades. Flint, Michigan, was the only city in the country to see a price decline.

  At the state level, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio were the bottom three in terms of home price appreciation.

  A Useful Barometer

  Looking at country or state level data fails to capture the incredible nuance of home values around the country.

  That said, since the value of a primary residence makes a significant portion of wealth for most Americans, these price movements serve as a useful barometer of the health of the real estate market, and the economy as a whole.

  

• Something Wicked This Way Comes: Anarchy Is Being Loosed Upon The Nation
  Something Wicked This Way Comes: Anarchy Is Being Loosed Upon The Nation
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 23:25

  Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “Every day I ask myself the same question: How can this be happening in America? How can people like these be in charge of our country? If I didn’t see it with my own eyes, I’d think I was having a hallucination.

  – Philip Roth, novelist

  Things are falling apart.

  How much longer we can sustain the fiction that we live in a constitutional republic, I cannot say, but anarchy is being loosed upon the nation.

  We are witnessing the unraveling of the American dream one injustice at a time.

  Day after day, the government’s crimes against the citizenry grow more egregious, more treacherous and more tragic. And day after day, the American people wake up a little more to the grim realization that they have become captives in a prison of their own making.

  No longer a free people, we are now pushed and prodded and watched over by twitchy, hyper-sensitive, easily-spooked armed guards who care little for the rights, humanity or well-being of those in their care.

  The death toll is mounting.

  The carnage is heartbreaking.

  The public’s faith in the government to do its job—which is to protect our freedoms—is deteriorating.

  It doesn’t take a weatherman to realize when a storm is brewing: clouds gather, the wind begins to blow, and an almost-palpable tension builds.

  It’s the same way with freedom.

  The warning signs are everywhere.

  “Things fall apart,” wrote W.B. Yeats in his dark, forbidding poem “The Second Coming.”

  “The centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, the blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned … Surely some revelation is at hand.”

  The upcoming election and its aftermath will undoubtedly keep the citizenry divided and at each other’s throats, so busy fighting each other that they never manage to present a unified front against tyranny in any form. Yet the winner has already been decided. As American satirist H.L. Mencken predicted almost a century ago:

  “All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

  In other words, nothing will change.

  You cannot have a republican form of government—nor a democratic one, for that matter—when the government views itself as superior to the citizenry, when it no longer operates for the benefit of the people, when the people are no longer able to peacefully reform their government, when government officials cease to act like public servants, when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, when the government routinely violates the rights of the people and perpetrates more violence against the citizenry than the criminal class, when government spending is unaccountable and unaccounted for, when the judiciary act as courts of order rather than justice, and when the government is no longer bound by the laws of the Constitution.

  For too long, the American people have obeyed the government’s dictates, no matter now unjust.

  We have paid its taxes, penalties and fines, no matter how outrageous. We have tolerated its indignities, insults and abuses, no matter how egregious. We have turned a blind eye to its indiscretions and incompetence, no matter how imprudent. We have held our silence in the face of its lawlessness, licentiousness and corruption, no matter how illicit.

  We have suffered. Oh how we have suffered.

  How much longer we will continue to suffer at the hands of a tyrannical police state depends on how much we’re willing to give up for the sake of freedom.

  It may well be that Professor Morris Berman is correct: perhaps we are entering into the dark ages that signify the final phase of the American Empire. “It seems to me,” writes Berman, “that the people do get the government they deserve, and even beyond that, the government who they are, so to speak. In that regard, we might consider, as an extreme version of this… that Hitler was as much an expression of the German people at that point in time as he was a departure from them.”

  For the moment, the American people seem content to sit back and watch the reality TV programming that passes for politics today. It’s the modern-day equivalent of bread and circuses, a carefully calibrated exercise in how to manipulate, polarize, propagandize and control a population.

  As French philosopher Etienne de La Boétie observed half a millennium ago:

  “Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.”

  The bait towards slavery. The price of liberty. The instruments of tyranny.

  Yes, that sounds about right.

  “We the people” have learned only too well how to be slaves. Worse, we have come to enjoy our voluntary servitude, which masquerades as citizenship.

  This presidential election is yet another pacifier to lull us into complacency and blind us to the monsters in our midst.

  I refuse to be pacified, patronized or placated.

  Here’s my plan: rather than staying glued to my TV set, watching politicians and talking heads regurgitate the same soundbites over and over, I’m going to keep doing the hard work that needs to be done to keep freedom alive in this country.

  That’s why, almost 40 years ago, I founded The Rutherford Institute: as a nonpartisan, apolitical organization committed to the principles enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that would work tirelessly to reshape the government from the bottom up into one that respects freedom, recognizes our worth as human beings, resists corruption, and abides by the rule of law.

  It’s a thankless, never-ending job, but someone’s got to do it. And I can promise you that when I do eventually turn on the TV, John Carpenter—not Donald Trump or Joe Biden—will be my pick for escapist entertainment.

  Carpenter’s films, known primarily for their horror themes, are infused with strong anti-authoritarian, overarching themes that speak to the filmmaker’s concerns about the unraveling of our society, particularly our government. Even among a pantheon of dystopian films such as Minority Report, Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Matrix, V for Vendetta, and Land of the Blind, Carpenter’s work stands out for its clarity of vision.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Carpenter sees the government working against its own citizens.

  Yet while Carpenter is a skeptic and critic, there’s also a strange optimism that runs through his films. “A close view of Carpenter’s work reveals a romantic streak beneath the skepticism,” John Muir writes in his insightful book The Films of John Carpenter, “a belief down deep—far below the anti-establishment hatred—that a single committed and idealistic person can make a difference, even if society does not recognize that person as valuable or good.”

  In fact, Carpenter’s central characters are always out of step with their times. Underneath their machismo, they still believe in the ideals of liberty and equal opportunity. Their beliefs place them in constant opposition with the law and the establishment, but they are nonetheless freedom fighters. When, for example, John Nada destroys the alien hypno-transmitter in They Live, he restores hope by delivering America a wake-up call for freedom.

  This is the theme that runs throughout Carpenter’s films—the belief in American ideals and in people. “He believes that man can do better,” writes Muir, “and his heroes consistently prove that worthy goals (such as saving the Earth from malevolent shape-shifters) can be accomplished, but only through individuality.”

  Thus, John Carpenter is more than a filmmaker. He is a cultural analyst and a keen observer of the unraveling of the American psyche.

  “I’m disgusted by what we’ve become in America,” said Carpenter.

  “I truly believe there is brain death in this country. Everything we see is designed to sell us something. The only thing they want to do is take our money.”

  The following are my favorite Carpenter films.

  Assault on Precinct 13 (1976): This is essentially a remake of Howard Hawks’ 1959 classic western Rio Bravo—much beloved by Carpenter. A street gang and assorted criminals surround and assault a police station. Paranoia abounds as the police are attacked from all sides and can see no way out. Indeed, Carpenter repeatedly has his characters comment, in disbelief, that “This can’t happen, not today!” or “We’re in the middle of a city … in a police station … someone will drive by eventually!” Or will they?

  Halloween (1978): This low-budget horror masterpiece launched Carpenter’s career. Acclaimed as the most successful independent motion picture of all time, the story centers on a deranged youth who returns to his hometown to conduct a murderous rampage after fifteen years in an asylum. This film, which assumes that there is a form of evil so dark that it can’t be killed, deconstructs our technological existence while reminding us that in the end, we all may have to experience Orwell’s stamping boot on our faces forever.

  The Fog (1980): This is a disturbing ghost story made in the mode of Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds (1963). Here the menace besieging a small town is not a pack of winged pests but rather a deadly fog bank that cloaks vengeful, faceless, evil spirits from which there may be no escape.

  Escape from New York (1981): This is the ultimate urban nightmare. A ruined Manhattan of the future is an anarchic prison for America’s worst criminals. When the U.S. president is captured as a hostage, the government sends a disgraced, rebellious war hero into Manhattan in what seems to be an impossible rescue mission. In fact, this film sees fascism as the future of America.

  The Thing (1982): Considered by many as one of Carpenter’s best films, this is a remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name. A team of scientists in a remote Antarctic outpost discover a buried spaceship with a ravenous, mutating alien that eventually creates a claustrophobic, paranoid environment within their compound. The social commentary is obvious as the horrible creature literally erupts and bursts out of human flesh. This film presupposes that increasingly we are all becoming dehumanized. Thus, in the end, we are all potential aliens.

  Christine (1983): This film adaptation of Stephen King’s novel finds a young man with a classic automobile that is demonically possessed. The car, representing technology with a will and consciousness of its own, goes on a murderous rampage. Do we now face the same possibility with the predominance of artificial intelligence?

  Starman (1984): An alien from an advanced civilization takes on the guise of a young widow’s recently deceased husband. The couple then takes off on a long drive to rendezvous with the alien spacecraft so he can return home. Surprisingly, as John Muir recognizes, this film is a Christ allegory with the alien visitor possessing extraordinary powers to heal the sick, resurrect the dead, and perform miracles. The question posed is whether the only hope for humanity is a visitor from another world.

  They Live (1988): This film, which I explore in detail in my books, assumes the future has already arrived. John Nada is a homeless person who stumbles across a resistance movement and finds a pair of sunglasses that enables him to see the real world around him. What he discovers is a monochrome reality in a world controlled by ominous beings who bombard the citizens with subliminal messages such as “obey” and “conform.” Carpenter makes an effective political point about the underclass (everyone except those in power, that is): we, the prisoners of our devices, are too busy sucking up the entertainment trivia beamed into our brains and attacking each other to start an effective resistance movement. As the Bearded Man in They Live tells us:

  The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are non-existent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices . . . They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.

  In the Mouth of Madness (1995): A successful horror novelist’s fans become so engrossed in his stories that they slip into dementia and carry out the grisly acts depicted in his books. When this film was being conceived, politicians were criticizing horror movies for promoting violence. Carpenter parodied this argument while noting that evil grows when people lose “the ability to know the difference between reality and fantasy.” As we lose ourselves in ever-evolving technology, we are increasingly blurring that distinction. Does that mean evil will eventually overcome us all?

  Madness. Delusion. Denial. Paranoia. Inhumanity. These are some of the monsters of our age.

  In the cinematic world of John Carpenter, whenever freedom falls to tyranny, it is because the people allowed it to happen.

  It works that way in the real world, too.

  The lesson, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People: they – the tyrants, the bogeymen, the strongmen, the enemies of freedom – live, because “we the people” sleep.

  Time to wake up, America, and break free of your chains.

  Something wicked this way comes.

  

• Instagram Stars Fake Private Jet Rides For $34.99 Per Hour At This LA Studio 
  Instagram Stars Fake Private Jet Rides For $34.99 Per Hour At This LA Studio 
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 23:05

  Judging by Instagram photos and TikTok videos, some users appear to be living the high life, driving fancy cars, living in mansions, and of course, flying in the latest and most modern private jets. 

  While scrolling through Instagram photos or swiping through TikTok videos, has it ever occurred to you just how much of the content on these social media platforms are fake?

  We can’t quantify the percentage of users using fake sets or elaborate greenscreen sets to fake a photo or video but have stumbled across one company that Instagram and TikTok stars are using to produce the illusion they’re on a private plane. 

  Meet FD Photo studio, with studios in Los Angeles, NYC, and Chicago; they offer social media stars an entire mock cabin of a private jet for just $34.99 per hour. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  “First in Los Angeles, rental photo studio with unique Private Jet (Airplane) set and artificial window lights,” FD Photo studio’s website read. 

  The inside of the jet’s cabin looks authentic, but diving deeper into the pictures, one starts to notice it’s actually a mock cabin within a studio. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In today’s environment, social media stars learn the ins and outs of maintaining their luxury life on social media while in a virus-induced recession. So why charter a 4 to 6 passenger private jet for tens of thousands of dollars to snap a few pictures and a couple of short videos while one can do it for $34.99? 

  Makes sense, right? These people thought so:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  YouTube account Marc Freccero recently rented out the private jet studio to expose how social media influencers were using the studio. 

  “We’ve all seen the recent fake private jet Instagram news, as a lot of the Instagram influencers have been called out for pretending they’re on luxury private jets. I decided to do my own mini fake private jet photoshoot in Los Angeles, California, showing you the fake private jet interior and also taking my own creative shots,” Freccero said. 

  Video: So I Rented the FAKE Private Jet Studio in Los Angeles…

  

• Minority Rights
  Minority Rights
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 22:45

  Authored by Robert Wright via The American Institute for Economic Research,

  Didn’t we all agree that governments can’t constitutionally oppress minorities or blame victims? And that private persons or organizations that do so are rightly called by the name of a stinky body part that we all possess?

  Yet every new minority group that comes along suffers. The latest people to feel the wrath of government and the unthinking stinky members of society are Covid-19 survivors, individuals who tested positive and lived. With the recent spike in cases and ever higher survivorship rates, their ranks swell daily, but their oppression remains palpable.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  While everyone has lamented the 225,000 or so deaths with/from Covid in America so far, the 8 million plus survivors reside in a sort of Limbo betwixt the Heaven of normalcy and the Hell inhabited by the rest of us. (Those who have not yet been infected, or, like myself, suspect infection but cannot prove it because they became ill before widespread testing was available, or because they remained asymptomatic or nearly so, constitute yet a different minority.)

  Alarmist claims to the contrary, the vast majority of Covid-19 survivors will not contract the virus again, any time soon anyway, and will not pass it on to others. They are more heroes than anything else but the (m)ass media treats them as pariahs — literally, as most hail from our lower, serf-like castes composed of apparently inessential people doing essential tasks on behalf of their putative superiors.

  But our political caste is not done with them yet. Out of mere expedience, social distancing mandates apply to Covid-19 survivors as well as the great masses of those as yet (putatively) uncleansed by a bout of the malady.

  The whole policy battle between the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration and the John Snow thing aside, there is no justice in forcing innocent yutes and heroic survivors of the worst pandemic in half a century to wear a mask or forgo drinking, face-to-face education, live music, sports, and theater and what not. It is clearly unconstitutional. I think the whole lockdown approach is unconstitutional but any differences of interpretation there do not apply to those who cannot get sick or spread the dang virus!

  You might think, “I haven’t gotten the virus so I don’t care that the rights of 8 million Americans are being trampled upon.” Well you should care because the precedent being set right now is one where governments can force business closures and enforce sumptuary (consumption, including dress) laws with no public health pretext whatsoever. They do not want to admit to this right now, but in the future, perhaps not so distant, some government official will justify an arbitrary act by pointing to the treatment of Covid-19 survivors in this pandemic. “Well we [some euphemism for stripping the civil liberties of people] who posed no health risk in 2020, so why can’t we do it now? There is precedent.”

  But don’t get me wrong, I don’t think oppressing Covid-19 heroes is about setting that precedent; it is about mere expediency. Allowing freedom to some while denying it to others would fracture the increasingly tentative grip our most authoritarian leaders have on power. Some citizens would respond by flaunting social distancing rules, arguing that “If he can go without a mask (go to a bar, etc.), so can I.” Others would deliberately get Covid-19 so they can regain their liberty lawfully after surviving, as almost all who are not ancient or obese do. I do not see a problem with such voluntary actions. Some will lose the lottery and die, the biggest heroes of all, but clearly the follies of March are behind us and even most of those hospitalized will survive, especially if not placed on the death machines, a.k.a. respirators, that doctors and politicians once claimed were desperately needed.

  And rest assured, Covid-19 survivors do have constitutional rights but as a small minority everywhere they are not a voting bloc this Fall, so no politician gives a dang about them. For that reason, I must admit that I am not as big a fan of James Madison’s famous Federalist #10 as I once was. That was the one where Jemmy argued that a bigger republic could fend off faction and tyrannical majorities more easily than a smaller republic, ceteris paribus of course. 

  This claim appears particularly laughable today:

  “In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.”

  If half of the mud that U.S. Senate candidates David Perdue (Elephant) and Jon Ossoff (Donkey) have slung at each other on the public airwaves is true, Georgians ought to take both of them “out back of the barn” and save themselves the embarrassment of having either of those miscreants represent them in DC! Many other “races” also pit candidates of dubious merit against each other. No matter which candidate wins any given election, the American people lose because they come to be led by knaves instead of statesmen. 

  Madison was right that “a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it.” But what happens when an improper and wicked project does consume large parts of the country? Many of the checks that Madison and the other Framers built into the Constitution have become frail, if not worthless.

  As the power of politicians has waxed, the power to restrain them has waned. The two lines crossed in 2020 and a rapid disintegration of some important remaining checks appears imminent. With ballots no longer secret (and hence again alienable) in many states, the Electoral College under siege, and the independence of the Supreme Court threatened, minorities tremble with trepidation. Barring disunion or a return to states rights, the only real question now is, who shall be the next minority? Besides our heroic Covid-19 survivors that is.

  

• World's Biggest IPO Is 284x Oversubscribed As Chinese Banks Give Retail Investors 33x Margin Leverage
  World’s Biggest IPO Is 284x Oversubscribed As Chinese Banks Give Retail Investors 33x Margin Leverage
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 22:25

  Yesterday we reported that the world’s biggest IPO – that of Jack Ma’s fintech giant Ant Group – which priced on Monday at a valuation of over $320 billion and which will raise $34 billion in new capital, is set to break for trading later this week.

  Earlier today, Bloomberg reported that Ant Group’s bankers would stop taking investor orders for the Hong Kong leg of the IPO a day earlier than scheduled as the record stock sale has already been heavily subscribed. According to the report, demand has been so great the Hangzhou-based firm is set to close the institutional investor. The company was initially planning to close the Hong Kong book at 5 p.m. Thursday for each region globally. The potential move would bring the closing in line with the Shanghai leg.

  As a reminder, the financial technology company, which is controlled by Alibaba’s billionaire founder Jack Ma, priced its Shanghai stock at 68.8 yuan ($10.27) apiece and its Hong Kong shares at HK$80 ($10.32) each, valuing the company at about $280 billion before it makes its market debut on November 5. Those sums would eclipse the $25 billion raised in 2014 by its former parent Alibaba and the $29.4 billion of shares sold more recently by Saudi Aramco, in what is to date the largest-ever IPO.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  As an aside, Ant will trade under the ticker symbol 688688 in Shanghai and 6688 in Hong Kong, in keeping with Ma’s fondness for the number eight, which is associated with wealth in China. Ma’s Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., which owns about a third of Ant, trades under the ticker 9988 in Hong Kong.

  So just how big was investor demand? Well, according to Ant’s Shanghai offering announcement in the preliminary price consultation of its Shanghai IPO, institutional investors subscribed for over 76 billion shares, which means it is more than 284 times oversubscribed!

  Things are just as frothy in neighboring Hong Kong, where a late Tuesday update revealed that the retail portion of Ant’s Hong Kong IPO has been 64 times oversubscribed so far, Hong Kong Economic Journal reports, citing data from banks and brokerages. Ant is offering 41.8 million H shares, at HK$80 apiece, for retail investors in Hong Kong.

  These are staggering numbers, unprecedented for most Western IPOs. How are they possible?

  It turns out the answer is quite simple: local banks are showering potential buyers with margin loans, just to make sure that the stock soars after it opens for trading.

  According to SCMP, Hong Kong’s banks and brokers are offering record margin loans of almost HK$300 billion (US$38.7 billion) for retail investors to buy into the IPO. HSBC, Hong Kong’s biggest bank, is ready with an IPO lending capacity of over HK$100 billion to support retail investors subscribing to the mammoth flotation, according to a statement from the lender issued on Friday. At the same time, Bright Smart Securities, the biggest local broker to offer IPO margin financing, is prepared to lend HK$50 billion to customers wanting a slice of the action. Other banks such as Bank of China (Hong Kong), Hang Seng Bank as well as many of the 600 local stockbrokers have prepared over HK$150 billion for their customers to borrow for the red hot IPO, brokers estimate.

  But wait, if banks are basically giving out hundreds of billions in loans, do retail investors have to put up any capital?

  That’s a great question: here’s the math.

  According to SCMP, Huatai International, the Hong Kong arm of the fourth-largest mainland securities house, will lend at 33 times leverage for Ant’s IPO, meaning an investor would only need to put down roughly HK$3 as a deposit to borrow every HK$100 they borrow.

  It’s not just banks: brokerages are also seeking to attract business by offering leverage to retail clients applying for Ant’s shares. Online brokerage Tiger Brokers said apart from a lending capacity of “several tens of billion” dollars, it will offer 20 times leverage to investors to subscribe to Ant’s IPO.

  This is absolute bubblelicious insanity, and it explains not only why the Ant IPO is so massively oversubscribed, but why the stock will shoot up on the first day of trading. The reason: because this particular IPO is nothing but a government mandated ponzi scheme, one in which state-owned banks give loans to retail investors who have to put almost no capital of their own down, to ensure there is massive demand for a stock which, by going public just days before the election, has a special political appeal to it: it is meant to symbolize China’s superiority over the US.

  And since retail investors are basically getting a free ride, institutional investors have zero downside and are also piling in for what is effectively a risk-free flip. According to the SCMP, “overseas investors are piling funding into Hong Kong ahead of the listing, as they jostle for a piece of the deal. More than HK$211.52 billion has flowed into the city since September 14, forcing the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the de facto central bank, to intervene 41 times to try to weaken the Hong Kong dollar.“

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  This is also why contrary to the expectations by China skeptics such as Kyle Bass, Hong Kong’s fund flows continue to flood into the territory rather than out, because China has figured out that the simplest way to ensure it never has a dollar shortage is to guarantee that foreign investors will always make money on such massive equity offerings.

  And as long as China has companies that go public – and are 100x+ or more oversubscribed – the foreign capital inflows will continue. Which is the Ant IPO is about so much more than the world’s biggest IPO – it explains how HK, and by extension China, funnels foreign (mostly dollar) capital to make sure that there is never a full-blown run on the world’s reserve currency.

  

• CJ Hopkins: The Last Days Of The Trumpian Reich
  CJ Hopkins: The Last Days Of The Trumpian Reich
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 22:05

  Authored (mostly satirically) by CJ Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

  So, according to the corporate media, this is it for Russian-backed Hitler. Game over. The walls are closing in. It’s the last days of the Trumpian Reich. Get those vuvuzelas ready!

  Yes, apparently, the American people, who were all a bunch of Putin-worshipping, white-supremacist neo-Nazis when they elected Trump in 2016, have come to their senses and are going to deliver a landslide victory to “Slappy” Joe Biden and bring down the curtain on this “Age of Darkness,” or save the world from “racial Orwellianism” or the “bottomless pit of facsism,” or whatever.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  White supremacy will be defeated and globalization will rise from the ashes! Decency will be restored! Love will trump hate! Black lives will matter!

  Slappy and Kamala will immediately fly down and liberate the concentration camps. Trump will face some sort of Nuremberg trial, where he will have to answer for mass-murdering six million people with the Coronavirus by taking off his mask on the White House balcony.

  Hillary Clinton will be appointed … something.

  Exuberant liberals will pour into the streets, chanting unintelligible slogans through their designer masks and plastic head bubbles. OK, sure, the global economy will be ruined, and millions of people will be unemployed, and homeless, or will have needlessly died, so that GloboCap could simulate an apocalyptic global plague, and foment racialized civil unrest, and just generally create an atmosphere of confusion, depression, and paranoia, but the War on Populism will finally be over … and GloboCap will start to “Build Back Better!”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  OK, it won’t be “better” right away. As our friends at the World Economic Forum note:

  “Thanks to the ongoing pandemic, the world is off-balance – and it will remain so for years to come. Far from settling into a ‘new normal’, we should expect a Covid19 domino effect, triggering further disruptions – positive as well as negative – over the decade ahead. The wave of civil unrest that spread across America and beyond recently may be one example …”

  So, all right, maybe not quite the end of the War on Populism, but at least a new stage of it. A chaotic, destructive, violent stage of it, which will require a lot of “emergency measures” and will end up radically transforming the planet into one big pathologized-totalitarian marketplace.

  We conspiracy theorists are calling it The Great Reset … but don’t take it from us, take it from TIME magazine, which just happens to be owned by a guy named Marc Benioff, a World Economic Forum Board of Trustees member, whose net worth is approximately $7.8 billion, and who is deeply concerned about the environment, and inclusivity, and economic fairness, as is everyone at the WEF these days.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Fortunately, just by sheer coincidence, this apocalyptic global plague has provided Marc and his billionaire buddies (who own the majority of the corporate media, and who meet once a year in a remote location guarded by heavily-armed security to discuss our future with major government leaders) with an opportunity to “reset” capitalism and save the planet from … well, themselves.

  That’s not how they see it, naturally. No, the way they see it, they’re not the problem. The problem is … well, the problem is people. Not rich and powerful people like themselves, or the people they need to continue working, consuming, and servicing the interest on their loans, but … you know, all those other people. Uneducated, un-woke, working-class people. Gun-toting, fanatically religious people. Racist, conspiracy-theorizing people. Deplorable people. “Populist” people. People they don’t need anymore.

  These people have been a problem recently. Not only are they a drag on the system, they have been actively interfering with it, voting for Brexit, electing Donald Trump, refusing to abandon their traditional values and outmoded ideas (e.g., national sovereignty, freedom of speech, and mammalian biology) and get on board with global capitalist ideology, and have been otherwise being a real pain in the ass.

  It was one thing when these problem people were mostly black- and brown-skinned people with “extremist” beliefs in faraway countries that most Western consumers couldn’t care less about, because GloboCap could just bomb the crap out of them, but they can’t really do that here in the West. Hence, the War on Populism that we have been experiencing for the last four years … and whatever new, dystopian stage of it that awaits us in the post-Trump future.

  2020 has been a preview of it. The lockdowns, the masks, the “social distancing,” and other so-called “emergency measures,” the Orwellian propaganda, the censorship of dissent, the banning of political protests, the corporate media finally transforming into a full-blown Goebbelsian keyboard instrument, the goon squads raiding people’s homes, the cult-like, totalitarian conformity … it’s just a taste of what’s to come.

  This was always in the cards, of course. It was just a matter of time until we got here. The folks at GloboCap are no fools. They know they can’t remake the world into one big happy neo-feudal marketplace without breaking a few proverbial eggs … and not just in those “terrorist” countries, but everywhere, throughout the global capitalist empire. And that is exactly what they intend to do. So, they needed a new official narrative to justify all the broken eggs.

  They haven’t settled on an official slogan yet. “The New Normal,” “The Great Reset,” “The Green New Deal” … they’re all just trial balloons at this point. It doesn’t really matter what they call it. It amounts to a new type of totalitarianism. As I noted in my previous column, “[i]t isn’t national totalitarianism, because we’re living in a global capitalist empire, which isn’t ruled by nation-states, but rather, by supranational entities and the global capitalist system itself.” But it is totalitarianism nonetheless.

  They aren’t hiding it. They’re spelling it out, not in spittle-flecked Hitlerian speeches, but, clearly, unmistakably, in corporate-speak. Here is Klaus Schwab, Chairman of the WEF:

  “[T]he world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

  I added emphasis for those new to corp-speak. And, for those interested in reading more about Klaus Schwab, Winter Oak has published this disturbing profile, which you can also read on Cory Morningstar’s blog (along with a lot of other censored content).

  Sorry … I was supposed to be writing about the final days of the Trumpian Reich, and I got all sidetracked with this GloboCap business.

  I hope you’ll forgive me for not being able to get all fired up about the election next week. Given everything else that is happening, and everything that has happened over the last four years, I’m just having a little trouble believing that there is any realistic scenario wherein GloboCap lets Trump serve a second term, regardless of who actually wins. So, that kind of takes all the suspense out of it.

  Don’t worry, though, I’ll get back on the horse when the post-election rioting begins, and Donald Trump finally goes full-Hitler, declares himself Führer, dissolves the Congress, and orders his legions of Russia-loving white supremacists to start rounding up the Jews, as the corporate media, the fake “left” media, the Intelligence Community, the Democratic Party, fascism experts, Hollywood celebrities, and every hysterical liberal in existence have been promising he would since 2016.

  Seriously, if he doesn’t go full-Hitler this time, and start rounding up and mass-murdering somebody, or else order the nuking of the United States and then blow his brains out in his underground bunker, some people are going to have some explaining to do.

  

• Chicago On Verge Of Credit Downgrade As Mayor Lightfoot Suggests Novel Idea Of Raising Taxes
  Chicago On Verge Of Credit Downgrade As Mayor Lightfoot Suggests Novel Idea Of Raising Taxes
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 21:45

  Today in “Democrat-run utopia” news…

  The city of Chicago appears to be on the precipice of a credit downgrade, according to its Chief Financial Officer Jennie Huang Bennett. She said on Tuesday that she’s “not sure” the city could make it through budget season without facing an inevitable downtick in its rating, according to Bloomberg.

  The admission came during a virtual City Council Committee on Budget and Government Operations meeting while answering a question from an alderman about why the city doesn’t take on more debt to keep property taxes lower. Bennett is working to try and balance the city’s budget for a longer term horizon by raising taxes and trying to create consistent revenue streams.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Mayor Lori Lightfoot is looking to implement a property tax increase of $94 million and a refinance of the city’s $1.7 billion in outstanding bonds to try and alleviate some of the financial distress. Because we’re sure citizens of Chicago are in a major rush to fork over more money to a city government that has enabled protests and riots that turned the city into chaos over the summer. 

  In fact, back in August, we wrote about how Chicago citizens were looking to move out of the city amidst the rise in chaos and Lightfoot’s ineptitude. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The city’s soaring crime was national news this year and many residents were claiming they “no longer feel safe” in the city’s epicenter. Aldermen say their constituents are leaving the city and real estate agents say they are seeing the same.

  Real estate broker Rafael Murillo said people were moving to the suburbs quicker than planned: “And then you have the pandemic, so people are spending more and more time in their homes. And in the high-rise, it starts to feel more like a cubicle after awhile.”

  Additionally, those who once planned on buying downtown were reconsidering, he said. He said over the summer that had had talked to “three or four” sellers who lived downtown and wanted out so they can move to the suburbs. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  He commented: “They want to feel safe. They want to be able to come outside their homes and enjoy their neighborhood amenities, whether it’s running at the park, enjoying a nice little dinner, shopping. But with everything going on, there are a lot of residents who are not feeling safe right now.”

  Resident Neil Spun, who has lived in Chicago for more than 30 years, said: “There have been riots before, and looting. It just seems to me now that the city isn’t doing anything about it. I don’t see this getting any better, and so I’d like to leave.”

  S&P has the city at BBB+, which is three levels above junk, with a negative outlook. “Ability to absorb the additional pension expenditures and stay on a course to structural balance will be critical to maintaining the rating,” S&P said. 

  And newsflash to Lori Lightfoot: it’s going to be awfully tough to bring in that extra property tax revenue as citizens turn tail and flee the city…

  

• 'You're Gonna Bury All Of Us': Whistleblower Describes Brazen Biden-China Dealings In Explosive Interview With Tucker Carlson
  ‘You’re Gonna Bury All Of Us’: Whistleblower Describes Brazen Biden-China Dealings In Explosive Interview With Tucker Carlson
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 21:29

  Former Biden insider Tony Bobulinski – a registered Democrat who’s donated to Democrats – just gave a smoking gun interview  to Fox News’ Tucker Carlson on Tuesday, where he described his dealings with the Biden family in their bid to do business with China.

  Bobulinski says that “Joe Biden and his family is compromised,” after describing dealings that included purchasing a portion of a Russian state-owned energy company.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In May, 2017, Bobulinski agreed to spearhead a deal between the Bidens and a CCP-linked Chinese company – meeting with Hunter Biden and Rosemont Seneca partner Rob Walker “multiple times,” and meeting with former Vice President Joe Biden twice.

  Text messages obtained by @FDRLST show Hunter Biden personally arranging a meeting with his business partners and Joe Biden to discuss a major deal with CEFC, a Chinese energy company. The meeting occurred at the Beverly Hilton in L.A. in early May. Texts are from May 2, 2017. pic.twitter.com/nrSZC9vrtf

  — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 22, 2020

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

  Bobulinski described a May 2nd meeting at the Los Angeles Beverly Hilton with Hunter and Jim Biden. A short while later, Joe Biden reportedly showed up to the meeting “because they were sort of, wining and dining me, and presenting the strength of the Biden family to get me more engaged” in their China deal with CEFC “both in the United States and around the world.”

  Tony Bobulinski: “I didn’t request to meet Joe. They requested that I meet with Joe … They were putting their entire family legacy on the line. They knew exactly what they were doing. They were dealing with a Chinese-owned enterprise.”pic.twitter.com/hXDqQl76Ui

  — Alex Salvi (@alexsalvinews) October 28, 2020

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

  Tony Bobulinski: I asked James Biden point blank at the Peninsula Hotel about how they were structuring all these deals and getting away with it without putting Joe Biden’s career at risk.

  “James Biden said, ‘Plausible deniability,’” Bobulinski said.

  — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 28, 2020

  Plausible deniability:

  This is maybe THE clip from this interview.

  Bobulinski to #Tucker: “I remember looking at Jim Biden in saying how are you guys getting away with this? Like, aren’t you concerned? And he looked at me and he laughed a little bit and said. ‘plausible deniability.'” pic.twitter.com/GMDL1JNZtB

  — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) October 28, 2020

  “There was no other reason for me to be in that bar meeting Joe Biden then to discuss what I was doing with his family’s name and the Chinese.“

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

  Tony Bobulinski on Tucker says it is a “blatant lie” when Joe Biden says he had no knowledge of his son’s business dealings:

  “There was no other reason for me to be in that bar meeting Joe Biden then to discuss what I was doing with his family’s name and the Chinese.” pic.twitter.com/famy4WaxOk

  — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 28, 2020

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

  Adam Schiff

  When Hunter Biden’s laptop became national news – Rep. Adam Schiff suggested it was Russian disinformation, implying that he was a Russian asset. Bobulinsky made it explicitly clear that he would go public if Schiff didn’t retract his Russia smear – to which Biden family adviser Rob Walker said “You’re just gonna bury all of us.”

  In Tucker Carlson’s interview with Hunter Biden’s ex-business partner Tony Bobulinski, they play a tape of Rob Walker, a self-described Biden family representative, telling him “you’re just gonna bury all of us” if he went through with his plan to go public on business dealings pic.twitter.com/zbfvaXtw13

  — Daniel Chaitin (@danielchaitin7) October 28, 2020

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

  The Biden camp is smearing Navy veteran Tony Bobulinski’s evidence as Russian disinformation because he blew the whistle on their secret business deals with the Chinese.

  He says that’s “disgusting.” pic.twitter.com/SvEDrB0v3D

  — Trump War Room – Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) October 28, 2020

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

  Democrats and corporate media accused Trump of being compromised by Russia.

  In reality, Hunter Biden personally represented a top communist Chinese official in China’s purchase of a 14% stake in Rosneft, Russia’s state-owned energy company, per a Biden family whistleblower.

  — Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 28, 2020

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

  More:

  -Joe Biden gave “an emphatic no” to “putting proper governance in place.”

  Tony Bobulinski: Joe Biden gave “an emphatic no” to “putting proper governance in place” for business with Hunterhttps://t.co/GoF5zaTock pic.twitter.com/FuyIi6bTZf

  — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 28, 2020

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

  – “I think Joe Biden and his family are compromised…”

  TUCKER: If Biden is elected, how does this constrain his ability to deal with China?

  BOBULINSKI: I think Joe Biden and the Biden family are compromised. I’ve held a [security] clearance … I just don’t see, given the history here, how Joe can’t be influenced. pic.twitter.com/2moTCX87yY

  — August Takala (@AugustTakala) October 28, 2020

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

  – A former Seal Team is protecting his family:

  Tony Bobulinski: “I have a former Seal Team protecting my family… I’m not at home right now.” pic.twitter.com/BoAC5xFxC6

  — Kyle Morris (@RealKyleMorris) October 28, 2020

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

  Watch the entire interview below:

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

  This is just like the Russian collusion story except with verified evidence and on-the-record sources.

  — David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) October 28, 2020

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

  Meanwhile on the latest episode of ‘enemies of the state’:

  oh. pic.twitter.com/61wwoPo0I2

  — Mollie (@MZHemingway) October 28, 2020

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

  

• The COVID "Casedemic" & Biden's "Dark Winter" Plan
  The COVID “Casedemic” & Biden’s “Dark Winter” Plan
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 21:25

  Authored by Stacey Lennox via PJMedia.com,

  Joe Biden has made President Trump’s handling of COVID-19 one of his central arguments for electing him on November 3. Since March, I have followed the research and dissenting medical experts while I watched Dr. Fauci and the public health bureaucracy ignore anyone not willing to push the preferred narrative. I find this infuriating, to put it mildly.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  However, there are only two courses of action for how Sleepy Joe will handle the pandemic if he wins.

  • One will make you think he is doing a great job – unless you know better.

  • The other will start us down a path to crush our freedom.

  So, come back to this column if the worst of all possible outcomes becomes reality.

  The COVID-19 “Casedemic”

  The first one I will call solving the “casedemic.” This is the elevated number of cases we see nationwide because of a flaw in the PCR test. The number of times the sample is amplified, also called the cycle threshold (Ct), is too high.

  It identifies people who do not have a viral load capable of making them ill or transmitting the disease to someone else as positive for COVID-19.

  The New York Times reported this flaw on August 29 and said that in the samples they reviewed from three states where labs use a Ct of 37-40, up to 90% of tests are essentially false positives. The experts in that article said a Ct of around 30 would be more appropriate for indicating that someone could be contagious – those for whom contact tracing would make sense.

  Just a few days earlier, the CDC had updated its guidelines to discourage testing for asymptomatic individuals. It can only be assumed that the rationale for this was that some honest bureaucrat figured out the testing was needlessly sensitive. He or she has probably been demoted.

  This change was preceded by a July update that discouraged retesting for recovered patients. The rationale for the update was that viral debris could be detected using the PCR test for 90 days after recovery. The same would be true for some period of time if an individual had an effective immune response and never got sick. Existing immunity from exposure to other coronaviruses has been well documented. These are many of your “asymptomatic” cases.

  However, due to political pressure and corporate media tantrums, the new guidance on testing was scrapped, and testing for asymptomatic individuals is now recommended again. Doctors do not receive the Ct information from the labs to make a diagnostic judgment. Neither the CDC nor the FDA has put out guidelines for an accurate Ct to diagnose a contagious illness accurately.

  Hence, our current “casedemic.” Positive tests as they are counted today do not indicate a “case” of anything. They indicate that viral RNA was found in a nasal swab. It may be enough to make you sick, but according to the New York Times and their experts, probably won’t. And certainly not sufficient replication of the virus to make anyone else sick. But you will be sent home for ten days anyway, even if you never have a sniffle. And this is the number the media breathlessly reports.

  *  *  *

  Biden Option 1 – The Fake Rescue

  In option one, Biden will issue national standards, like the plexiglass barriers in restaurants he spoke about during the debate, and pressure governors to implement mask mandates using the federal government’s financial leverage.

  Some hack at the CDC or FDA will issue new guidance lowering the Ct the labs use, and cases will magically start to fall.

  In reality, the change will only eliminate false positives, but most Americans won’t know that.

  Good old Uncle Joe will be the hero, even though it is Deep-State actors in the health bureaucracies who won’t solve a problem with testing they have been aware of for months. TDS is a heck of a drug.

  The new administration will reverse President Trump’s ban on critical-race theory training and start requiring its toxic curriculum throughout all of our institutions. Conflict in the streets will continue and escalate. The divisions we perceive today will only become larger.

  Biden Option 1 – A Dark Winter…

  Option two is far worse.

  The testing won’t be modified, and more mandatory testing will be ordered. “Cases” will rise, mask mandates, national standards, and rolling lockdowns will continue. You should take note that Governor Andrew Cuomo, who arguably presided over the deaths of thousands in nursing homes, is held up by Dr. Fauci and the corporate media as a success story.

  New York’s “model response” will become the national standard.

  …Which Will Lead To The Great Reset

  The goal is to keep you scared, isolated, and demoralized for a purpose. Only a beaten nation would stand for what comes next.

  We will reenter global agreements such as the Paris Climate Accords that disadvantage American workers and U.S. industries. The Biden/Harris climate agenda will kick off. Eventually, U.S. foreign and domestic policy will merge with a program the World Economic Forum (WEF) calls “The Great Reset.” This program takes every left-wing premise as fact and “reimagines” capitalism.

  Time Magazine has now devoted an entire issue to The Great Reset. It rolls in the sustainability goals from the U.N.’s Agenda 2030 and seeks to reform the global economy into what  WEF founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab calls “stakeholder capitalism.” It has been his vision for 50 years. Now he sees it supported by global elites such a Prince Charles, Bill Gates, and multi-national CEOs.

  Schwab is also inspired by, not kidding, Greta Thunberg, #MeToo, and Black Lives Matter when he thinks about “reimagining” capitalism. Stakeholder capitalism makes corporations functional units of the government with a reduced emphasis on business operations. Individuals will be able to own businesses, but they will have such heavy dictates from the government—regulating things workforce demographics, required wages, and excessive taxes—that it will make entrepreneurial success and innovation impossible.

  Two modern economies have been modeled in private ownership with essential government control: China and Nazi Germany. Unlike the Soviet Union, there was never a complete government takeover of the means of production in these two economies. Still, there was no escaping the central planning of the government to modify and dictate operations.

  I have been reading the WEF website for some time. It is impossible to summarize in a single article. However, now that Time is showcasing it, it is time for everyone to do their own homework. The global elites are using the pandemic as a pretext to make major changes to the global economy with the intended effect of reducing the United States’ dominance. As the COVID-19 threat wanes, they will plow ahead using climate change. Bill Gates has already formed the argument they will use to make that transition.

  

• As Pompeo & Esper Push Anti-China Message In India, PLA Vows "Defeat Of Attempts To Separate Taiwan"
  As Pompeo & Esper Push Anti-China Message In India, PLA Vows “Defeat Of Attempts To Separate Taiwan”
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 21:05

  Late in the day Monday the US State Department formally approved sails of $2.37 billion in advanced weapons, namely Coastal Missile Defense Systems and related hardware to Taiwan. 

  And on Tuesday Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense chief Mark Esper were in India meeting with their counterparts, reportedly discussing military satellite information sharing as well as Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific region.

  India is a major regional nuclear armed power that Washington sees as key in humbling Chinese ambitions. Pompeo’s statements articulated this precisely: 

  “The United States will stand with the people of India as they confront threats to their freedom and sovereignty.” Pompeo said in specific reference to the Chinese Communist Party. “Our leaders and our citizens see with increasing clarity that the CCP is no friend to democracy, the rule of law, transparency, nor to freedom of navigation — the foundation of a free and open and prosperous Indo-Pacific.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  Esper’s remarks after signing a key defense agreement with India, which importantly comes amid the Himalayan border standoff and tensions between New Delhi and Beijing, also highlighted the importance of a united front against China:

  During a press conference Tuesday in the Indian capital, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and his Indian counterpart Rajnath Singh announced the signing of the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA), enabling greater information-sharing and further defense cooperation between the two countries.

  “The defense ties between our two nations remains a key pillar of our overall bilateral relationship,” Esper said. “Based on our shared values and common interests, we stand shoulder to shoulder in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific for all, particularly in light of increasing aggression and destabilizing activities by China.”

  No doubt this will raise tensions surrounding what Beijing sees as the most immediate threat of Taiwan’s independence. It’s lately been accusing the US of undermining the longtime status quo ‘One China’ policy which has kept relative peace and order in the region.

  Pompeo, Esper to Push Trump’s Anti-China Message in India https://t.co/n6ysdBmJYm

  — Military.com (@Militarydotcom) October 25, 2020

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

  China’s response to the US approval of the coastal defense missile sales to Taiwan came in state media as follows:

  Chinese mainland experts warned that although these missiles won’t be able to threaten the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) effectively, this is a greater provocation than in the past, as the weapons are not for self-defense but can reach the coastal regions of the mainland. 

  China urged the US to stop the relevant arms sales and military connections with the island, and cancel relevant arms sale plans to prevent further damage to China-US relations, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at a routine press conference on Tuesday, noting that “China will take legitimate and necessary measures to safeguard its sovereignty and security interests with firm determination.”

  Following this on Tuesday, the Chinese Ministry of Defense (MoD) issued its most threatening statement to date on the Taiwan issue.

  The MoD statement assured that the Chinese PLA Army is fully capable of “defeating attempts to separate Taiwan” in a message unmistakably meant to put the US on notice that it would mean certain war.

  

• CNN's "Not Even Pretending Anymore"
  CNN’s “Not Even Pretending Anymore”
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 21:00

  Repress (use force to extinguish alternate views), Suppress (prevent normal expression), Depress (force ‘the other’ into submission by collapsing the Overton Window)… that appears the modus operandi of the mainstream media as we enter the vinegar strokes of this ‘unusual’ presidential election.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Nowhere was this strategy better exhibited than on CNN this week when Christiane Amanpour sparred with Liz Harrington over the Hunter Biden scandal revelations. Amanpour disparaged Harrington as liberals do: “You actually sound like you’re on a Fox News show.”

  Translation: you’re spreading crazy conservative conspiracies…

  Amanpour then embarrassed herself further as the CNN anchor accused the Trump campaign of “spreading Russian disinformation”…

  “Pretty audacious of CNN — who spread actual Russian disinformation w/the leak of the dossier set up briefing in Trump tower to subvert the peaceful transition of power — to accuse anyone else of spreading Russian disinformation. And the emails about the “big guy” are real, btw.”

  Harrington added:

  “Why don’t you want to report this? This is one of the most powerful families in Washington,” she asked.

  “And you’re okay with our interests being sold out to profit Joe Biden and his family, while we’re suffering during a pandemic from communist China?”

  Watch the full clip here…

  Glenn Greenwald – one of the few ‘reporters’ left – noticed the sham:

  “The only silver lining in all of this is that media outlets are so desperate to help Biden win that they’re not even pretending anymore. No pretense. There’s great clarity in that. “

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  So, with the unquestionable Amanpour having embarrassed herself, here’s another reporter – WSJ’s Kimberley Strassel – showing the world what ‘reporting’ actually should look like…

  Why Hinter matters. pic.twitter.com/j7YAGQL6yS

  — Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 27, 2020

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

  

• How I Became A Heretic To My Liberal Friends
  How I Became A Heretic To My Liberal Friends
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 20:45

  Authored by Tom Couser via AntiWar.com,

  My wife has become increasingly nervous when political topics arise in conversations with our friends over dinner or drinks. She’s afraid I’ll disrupt a pleasant occasion by expressing views that are anathema to our liberal, Democratic friends.

  Like what? you might ask.

  Well, there are several, but the most inflammatory one is my denial that Russia meddled in the 2016 Presidential election in a consequential way, much less with the intention of electing Trump.

  “What?” you say. Every MSNBC-watching, New York Times WaPo-reading Democrat knows that the Russians hacked the DNC emails and passed them on to WikiLeaks to hurt the Clinton campaign. And how about all those social media posts?

  The second I express myself, I am invariably accused of parroting Fox News or even of endorsing Trump. But I despise Trump and have never watched Fox news live for more than a minute or two. (Occasionally, I watch an interview with a left-leaning heretic like myself, who cannot get airtime on the “legacy media.”)

  How did this happen? How did I come to reject beliefs my liberal friends hold sacred?

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Well, to paraphrase an old commercial, I came by my heretical views the old-fashioned way: I earned them. I looked beyond the MSM to independent sources of news and commentary, reading widely and open-mindedly and thinking critically. Some of these sources publish reporting, others opinion; many are left-leaning; most oppose American foreign policy. I weighed them against one another, and the MSM, to assess their reliability.

  In short, I investigated American journalism – and found corporate media woefully misleading. I would say I found it unprofessional but, as a friend reminded me, the job of corporate journalism is to maximize profit; doing so is not conducive, to say the least, to challenging the dominant power structure and its ideology.

  My current morning routine is this. Over breakfast, I read the hard copy of the New York Times, selectively and skeptically. Then I repair to my study and spend an hour or so surfing online news sources. I consult more than a dozen daily: e.g., The Intercept, Truthout, Consortiumnews.com, Antiwar.com, Current Affairs, Jacobin, RealClearInvestigations, CommonDreams, Grayzone, FAIR, Counterpunch, The Nation, and even RT. Among journalist/bloggers I consider trustworthy on Russiagate are Aaron Maté, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Caitlin Johnstone, Moon of Alabama, and Elizabeth Voss.

  While still teaching (at Hofstra University), I would pick up a free copy of the New York Times on campus and read it over the course of the day. I would listen to NPR while commuting. I considered myself well informed. I was quite trustful of these sources on most topics. My views did not diverge sharply from those of my liberal friends.

  But after my retirement in 2011, I began to look deeper. I’m not sure why; I did not set out to shift my politics to the left. One factor was my interest in Syria, where my father had taught at Aleppo College during the 1930s. In 2009, just before violence broke out there, I followed in his footsteps, traveling to Aleppo with my family. When the protests against the notoriously brutal and repressive Assad began, I was very sympathetic. Like the Western media, I favored the “moderate rebels.”

  But eventually, by reading alternative media, I came around to the view that there were not enough moderate rebels to bring about a change of regime. (The notion of a viable moderate opposition was the product of a Western PR campaign.) Eventually, I learned that the U.S was arming militant Islamists (as with the Mujahaddin earlier in Afghanistan, helping bring the Taliban to power) and eventually sending in troops in violation of international law. (They are still there.) The result was a terrible civil war. I reluctantly came to believe that the least bad short-term outcome for the Syrian people was for the Assad regime to prevail, with Russia’s help. That is what has happened. Removing Assad would have done to Syria what removing Saddam did to Iraq: worsened the havoc and suffering in the nation and the surrounding region.

  But what about Assad’s gassing of his own people, you say, which was investigated by the purportedly neutral OPCW (the UN-sponsored Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Warfare) and widely reported in the Western media? Sorry, but whistleblowers among the actual inspectors eventually came forward to reveal that their firsthand findings had been distorted to fit the desired verdict. (Remember Iraq and its WMD?) But of course, the whistleblowers testimony was largely ignored by the very media that blamed the atrocity on Assad and fawned over Trump’s retaliatory attack. (The next day, Fareed Zakaria declared on CNN that “Donald Trump became president of the United States last night.”)

  Looked at critically, this narrative made no sense. Why would Assad, who was winning the war, risk antagonizing the world (and his people)? Why would he cross a redline drawn by the US, risking retaliation? He wouldn’t, and he didn’t. Almost certainly, these gas attacks were false flag attacks by the rebels to trigger American attacks against Syria (which they did). I have learned to ask the basic question, Cui bono? (who benefits) when reading the news. The answer is often not the party being blamed by the MSM.

  As with Syria, so with Venezuela and Bolivia, with Russia and Ukraine: if you can put aside the dominant narrative promulgated by the MSM, you can find dedicated, dogged investigative journalists who challenge and debunk it. Unfortunately, the debunking necessarily lags well behind the false story. And in our short news cycle, it gets lost. Moreover, skeptical journalism gets published only in small, independent outlets. The MSM generally does not retract its stories. If it does, it does so in a whisper, someplace where the retractions will not get noticed. If you look for them, you can find them, but you have to know to look.

  The most authoritative debunkers of the Russiagate/Ukrainegate narrative have been, interestingly, a group that calls itself Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Its work appears regularly at Consortiumnews.com, which was founded by Robert Parry, who broke the Iran-Contra story. The VIPs are retired intelligence officers who resent the cooking of intelligence for political ends. (Their first post was published on the day that Colin Powell testilied [sic] to the UN Security Council and the MSM stenographers published his lies; since then, they have an excellent track record.) Their retirement frees them to voice their views without permission or repercussions. The VIPs, one of whom, Ray McGovern, briefed Presidents during the Cold War, can hardly be accused of being soft on Russia.

  They have shown that the so-called “hack” of the DNC emails was almost certainly a leak. Forensic examination of the megadata by William Binney, former NSA Director, indicates that the data could not have been stolen over the internet; so much information could not have been transferred as quickly as claimed. In any case, recently declassified documents reveal that Shawn Henry, the president of CrowdStrike Services, the company tasked by the DNC with examining the server (which the DNC refused to release to the FBI) admitted under oath that there was no evidence of email having been “exfiltrated,” as had been reported in the corporate media and universally believed by liberals.

  One irony of this, of course, is that the emails published by WikiLeaks, whose authenticity no one has challenged, were proof of the rigging of the Democratic primary by the DNC: i.e., election meddling. Given the damaging content, it seems far more likely that this was a leak by a disgruntled insider, but the blame of course is put on Russia.

  As for the supposedly election-meddling social media activity. It was not directed by the Kremlin; it began before Trump was nominated and continued well past the election. The actual ads were mostly puerile, unsophisticated (and not in fluent English); many favored Clinton; some were not even about politics. It was mostly clickbait. The bottom line is that the financial investment was infinitesimal compared to those of the two candidates. This can’t have had any discernible effect on the outcome, much less a decisive one. (This is leaving aside the glaring hypocrisy of Americans complaining about meddling in our elections, when the US is the world champ in that endeavor.)

  But the Russiagate narrative has served, as it was intended, to deflect attention from the failures of the Clinton campaign – and more generally from the Democratic party’s embrace of neoliberalism at home, betraying the working class, and imperialism abroad. Regrettably, too, it masks far more serious obstacles to fair elections: the Electoral College, voter-suppression, gerrymandering, Citizens United, and so on – i.e., the factors presumably in American control.

  Its promotion by the MSM has fostered widespread paranoia about Russia. Thanks to the DNC and the MSM, neo-McCarthyism is epidemic among Democrats, who see Russians (I almost said Commies) under every bed.

  As the late Stephen F. Cohen insisted (not in MSM, which blackballed him), this is a dangerous delusion; it significantly increases the possibility of a hot (nuclear) war.

  Perhaps most alarming, in the MSM Russiagate eclipses the truly existential threat of the climate emergency. The MSM fiddles while the world burns.

  Most of my friends are academics, artists or other intellectuals. It makes me sad – and crazy – that these people, who are smart and sophisticated – not “low information” voters – fall for this stuff, which is counterfactual faith-based journalism.

  I could go on to list other MSM truths that I regard as “fake news.” But there’s little point. It’s not that I expect my friends to believe me rather than the New York Times. What I’d like is for them to be willing to consider alternative interpretations of events and to explore non-corporate media.

  Why? Well, consider the view of Noam Chomsky, who (with Edward S. Herman) long ago exposed how the MSM “manufacture” consent; he considers Russiagate a huge gift to Trump, which could hand him the election. Or consider what William Casey, director of the CIA, said when asked by incoming President Ronald Reagan to describe his agency’s mission, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public knows is false.” Part of the mission of the intelligence agencies has been to infiltrate American media and gaslight the public. But, as I suggested above, this does not prevent honest analysts from reaching their own conclusions.

  I try not to blame my friends for being misguided by the MSM. After all, only a few years ago, when I read only what my friends read, I believed as they do. It’s not that I’m smarter, or more (or less) liberal than they; it’s just that I’ve made the effort to peek outside my info silo, the liberal echo chamber.

  I try not to be too disputatious in conversations with friends. I don’t want to alienate them. Life is lonely enough during the pandemic without becoming persona non grata, never invited back.

  On the other hand, why should I silence myself? Why should I nod sagely as friends spout what I regard as nonsense? Well, there’s no percentage in it. Sadly, conversation alone doesn’t convince or convert. Politics has become polarized and tribalized to a frightening degree; evidence and argument don’t seem to matter. People believe what they want to believe. The light bulb has to want to change. Or at least, to be open to changing. And, to be fair, it takes time and effort to explore alternative media.

  But I want my friends to know that while we may all oppose Trump, we are hardly on the same page. In such circumstances, old friends should be able to agree to disagree. But how can my friends and I agree to disagree if they don’t know that we disagree?

  So I will continue to speak out. Silence feels like collusion in delusion. And the stakes are high.

  

• Hunter Biden Confesses Partnership With China 'Spy Chief' — Fumes After He And Joe Named As Criminal Witnesses: Audio
  Hunter Biden Confesses Partnership With China ‘Spy Chief’ — Fumes After He And Joe Named As Criminal Witnesses: Audio
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 20:30

  [Updated below, as audio corroborates Typhoon Investigations research]

  *  *  *

  Authored by Raheem Kassam and Natalie Winters via The National Pulse (emphasis ours)

  An audio recording exclusively obtained by the National Pulse reveals Hunter Biden discussing business involvement with a “spy chief of China” and how his business partner Devon Archer named him and his father as witnesses in a Southern District of New York Criminal case.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Hunter Biden – in an audio file labelled “Most Genius Shit Ever” – appears to be referencing Patrick Ho, who was a former Secretary for Home Affairs in Hong Kong, as a “spy chief of China” while lamenting how his business partner Ye Jianming of CEFC China Energy had disappeared.

  Ho was also involved in the CEFC venture, as originally reported by the New York Post and suppressed by the media and Big Tech firms.

  The audio breaks the mainstream media’s narrative that the hard drive is somehow “fake” or does not implicate Hunter or Joe Biden in criminal investigations and/or business deals with the Chinese Communist Party.

  The former veep’s son also bemoans longtime business partner Devon Archer naming him and his father Joe as witnesses “in a criminal case” without notifying him.

  I get calls from my father to tell me that The New York Times is calling but my old partner Eric, who literally has done me harm for I don’t know how long, is the one taking the calls because my father will not stop sending the calls to Eric. I have another New York Times reporter calling about my representation of Patrick Ho – the fucking spy chief of China who started the company that my partner, who is worth $323 billion, founded and is now missing. The richest man in the world is missing who was my partner. He was missing since I last saw him in his $58 million apartment inside a $4 billion deal to build the fucking largest fucking LNG port in the world. And I am receiving calls from the Southern District of New York from the U.S. Attorney himself. My best friend in business Devon has named me as a witness without telling me in a criminal case and my father without telling me.

  The recording adds to the litany of e-mails and stories broken by The National Pulse about the grift of the Biden family, including yesterday’s scoop about the VP’s son using White House access in exchange for resort villa stays and artwork.

  Listen to Hunter’s “Most Genius Shit Ever” at The National Pulse.

  Meanwhile:

  This is just the first of the Hunter tapes

  — Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) October 27, 2020

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

  *  *  *

  [ZH: Reviewing with more context – as Typhoon Investigations notes (emphasis ours)]:

  Our research shows that for more than decade, HUNTER has been personally targeted by China’s
  intelligence apparatus and its various `foreign relations agencies‘. A U.S. Senate Committee on
  Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs published on September 23, 2020, details
  HUNTER’S recent payoffs from a PLA linked tycoon, Ye Jiamning , chairman of Chinese energy
  company CEFC China Energy Company Limited iCEFC>..

  YE’s first break came when he purchased a small piston factory that supplied the Chinese army, after
  which he was a proxy for PLA officials, based on a New York Times article, and our proprietary research
  of the PLA’s logistics network. In the early 2000s, YE was the deputy secretary of CAIFC, according
  to his CEFC biography.. As explained, the CAIFC is a PIA front organization that has dual roles of
  intelligence collection and propaganda work, and worked with LIN and the SLLF a few years after YE
  left the organization?. YE also knows Xu, who was a CAIFC special advisor, and arranged for LIN and
  HUNTER’S access to the highest levels of government.

  In line with his intelligence role YE arranged events that brought together retired American and
  Chinese military officers. In 2215, YE arranged for an aide to meet with HUNTER and in May 2017, YE
  met privately with HUNTER at a Miami hotel. The purpose of the meeting was for HUNTER to use his
  contacts to help “identify investment opportunities for Ye’s company LEM China Energy,. and
  afterwards YE gave HUNTER a 2.8-carat diamond.

  According to HSGAC’s Confidential Document 9, YE and his associate Dong Gongwen applied to a bank
  and opened credit lines for a business named Hudson West III, LLC, giving HUNTER, his brother James
  (and James’ wife Sarah Eiden), credit cards which the Bidens used to buy extravagant items. The
  HSGAC report details a series of transfers and transactions worth millions of US dollars between CEFC,
  Hudson West and the Bidens. This — 11 years after HUNTER and James denied selling their political
  connections to foreigners for personal gain.

  In March 2018, YE was detained and put under investigation on suspicion of economic crimes. CEFC
  was then declared bankrupt in March 2020 alleged to have faked deals and bribed foreign govemments
  for oil rights. Some of these were facilitated by Patrick Ho , CPPCC member and the former Hong
  Kong Secretary for Home Affairs in Tung’s administration. On November 113, 2017, Ho was arrested
  at the John F. Kennedy International Airport on bribery and money-laundering charges, and called
  HUNTER for legal assistance. HUNTER later told The New Yorker that he doesn’t see Ye as a”shady
  character at all,” and he characterized the outcome . “bad luck.”

  Whether he understands it or not, it is apparent that HUNTER has been compromised by Chinese
  intelligence, who most likely have detailed files on HUNTER’s time spent in China, encompassing his
  personal meetings and any other activities. Furthermore, YE is associated with the P19’s General
  Political Department, which directly opposes the VS military in Asia, creating a serious conflict of
  interest for his father BIDEN.

  

• JPMorgan Asks "What If Trump Wins?"
  JPMorgan Asks “What If Trump Wins?”
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 20:25

  On Monday, we were amused to note that amid a relentless barrage of Wall Street “analysis” predicting a Blue Wave on Nov 3, or at least a Joe Biden landslide victory, none other than the largest US Bank came out with a jarring counter-narrative when JPMorgan head of global equity strategy Dubravko Lakos-Bujas, said that not only is a Blue Sweep not the best possible outcome – instead it “is expected to be mostly neutral in the short term as it would likely be accompanied by some immediate positive catalysts (i.e. larger fiscal stimulus / infrastructure) but also negative catalysts (i.e. rising corporate taxes)” – but that  “an orderly Trump victory as the most favorable outcome for equities (upside to ~3,900).”

  Needless to say, this was a striking reversal to the now dominant narrative because over the past few weeks, Wall Street had spent so much digital ink “explaining” just why the Blue Wave scenario is the “best possible” one since the “positive catalysts” would greatly outweigh the negative ones, or said otherwise: dear clients if you believe the polls that Democrats will sweep Republicans, please don’t sell your stocks amid fears of sharply higher corporate and capital gains taxes (and a surge in business-crushing regulations). To which we asked: was Wall Street (or in this case JPMorgan) starting to hedge in case the priced-in “sweep” does not happen, and traders need a fall back “narrative cushion” in case of a Trump win and/or Congress gridlock?

  The answer appeared to be yes, because overnight Goldman’s Alessio Rizzi echoed JPM’s sudden skepticism that a “Blue Wave” was virtually assured, writing that while the likelihood of a Democratic Senate majority has risen since September, “more recently it fell from 69% on Oct 8 to 60% based on prediction markets.” And although a Biden victory with a divided congress might also be market friendly, Goldman “thinks it could introduce renewed risks to the current reflationary rotation.” The bank then went on to recommend what it thought was the best trade in case a Blue Sweep does not happen (read about it here).

  Finally, as to why JPMorgan was suddenly “hedging” in such a counter-trend way, the JPM strategist wrote that “last week we analyzed voter registration data and their possible implication for State outcomes, while this week we analyzed Twitter sentiment on US election and compared it with the traditional polling data – they all point to a tightening race.”

  Which, we wrote, “of course means that JPM needs to prepare a narrative for why a Biden victory is bullish but a Trump victory is even more bullish: just in case anyone gets the crazy idea of selling on Nov 4.“

  So fast forward to today, when in another peculiar instance of “doubt” about the fully priced-in “Blue Wave” scenario, a second JPMorgan analyst, this time Nick Panigirtzoglou who authors the popular weekly Flows and Liquidity newsletter, asked the apocryphal question: “What If Trump Wins?”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  But why is the largest US bank suddenly uproot the meticulously crafted narrative that Trump, and the GOP, have has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning any of the three major races on Nov 3?

  Well, as Panigirtzoglou explains, “polls and betting odds are still pointing to a high probability of a Biden win or a Democratic sweep in next week’s US presidential election.” Of course, this is similar if not identical to the backdrop four years ago when the probability of a Trump win was perceived to be rather low, in fact even lower than Trump’s odds now.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Then there is the latest RealClearPolitics battleground polling average, which shows that Trump’s average approval just hit its highest yet, with the president reportedly turning the critical Florida state in his favor, and is rapidly catching up in other “must win” states such as Pennsylvania,  North Carolina and Arizona.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  So, JPMorgan continues, what would happen to markets if the US election surprises the consensus like in 2016 and Trump wins again?

  According to the JPM strategist, a simple way of answering this question is by looking at the pre-and post-2016 election pattern across asset classes, and consider where pledges from the candidates differ from 2016. This is shown in Figure 6 to Figure 23 across equities, rates, currencies and commodities.

  Here are the main findings by looking at these charts:

  For US and global equities, the market reaction favored US over non-US global equities. Given the betting odds and polls suggest that a Trump win would again be a surprise, there seems little reason not to expect a similar favoring of US vs. non-US equities. Among equity market sectors, the sectors that saw disproportionate gains relative to the rest of the index include financials and industrials, for both US and non-US equities. For the financials in the US, the reduced prospects for regulatory tightening could again see the sector gain in the event of a surprise Trump win. By contrast, those that lagged the broader index include consumer staples as well as tech.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Regionally, among global equities and FX Asian assets are likely to be sensitive to a continued Trump Presidency as it would likely mean further US/China conflict on trade, technology and investments. Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the performance of the Bloomberg JPM Asian Dollar Index (ADXY) as well as the relative performance of the MSCI Asia Free float index vs. the MSCI AC World. The 2016 election result saw a depreciation on the ADXY in the month after the election and an underperformance in Asian equities relative to the MSCI AC World index. A depreciation/ underperformance of a similar order of magnitude would not be  unreasonable as markets price in a continued escalation in the US-China conflict

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  What about rate markets? Here, it is less clear-cut how different market pricing ought to be under a Biden or Trump Presidency under a split Congress than under a ‘Democratic Sweep’ scenario given the prospect of a more modest further fiscal support package. A clear victory by either candidate could reduce uncertainty, by dispelling fears of a contested outcome, and hence term premia priced in longer-maturity yields. But while the immediate reaction to a ‘Democratic Sweep’ scenario could in principle be to add some uncertainty given the potential for tax policy changes, the prospect of a significant further fiscal package would likely have a larger impact on yields and the curve in the medium term by adding to the already increased issuance needs of the US Treasury as well as potentially higher inflation expectations via infrastructure spending and minimum wage increases. As a result, while under a Trump victory there could be some pressure for further steepening and rise in 10y yields, it is less likely to be of a similar order of magnitude as in 2016 when markets began to price in prospects of significant deficit-financed tax cuts (Figure 17and Figure 18).

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  What about gold? Figure 19 shows the moves in gold around the time of the 2016 election and currently. However, the 2016 moves came amid a combination of a steepening US yield curve and more than 30bp rise in 10y real yields in the month after the election as markets began to price in deficit-financed tax cuts and infrastructure investment that featured in then candidate Trump’s election campaign. This time around, the prospect for a similar decline in gold prices appears to be more limited for similar reasons to why we see more limited upside for yields and the curve compared to 2016.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Among industrial metals, copper saw a sharp rise in the aftermath of the 2016 result, likely at least in part as markets priced in a prospect of infrastructure investment that then-candidate Trump’s election platform contained. In the current election, infrastructure investment has featured prominently on the Biden campaign platform but not on the Trump campaign, suggesting less of a prospect of a post-election rally in copper in the event of a Trump victory.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  What about the dollar? As the global recovery began to take hold after the sharp contraction in 1H20, the trade-weighted dollar gradually gave back its March gains and is currently close to its levels at the start of the year. While questions over around the global cycle, in particular the degree to which its resurgence in Europe and the US would stall the recovery, are clearly key medium-term influences on the dollar, a re-pricing by markets of a Trump victory implying more risk of US exceptionalism and trade wars would likely see market reaction similar to what occurred after the 2016 election. This move in the trade weighted dollar in 2016 was mirrored by declines in both the euro and the yen vs. the dollar as well, and a market reaction to price in further US exceptionalism and trade conflicts could gain see a similar initial reaction.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

• Meet Eric Feigl-Ding: How A Nutritionist-Turned-Politician Became A "COVID-19 Expert" With A Far-Left Agenda
  Meet Eric Feigl-Ding: How A Nutritionist-Turned-Politician Became A “COVID-19 Expert” With A Far-Left Agenda
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 20:05

  Authored by Jordan Schachtel via The Dossier substack,

  If you’re on social media and you follow news related to the coronavirus pandemic, chances are you’ve stumbled upon some panicked pandemic posts coming from a man named Eric Feigl-Ding, a nutritionist and longtime democrat political operative who has succeeded in impersonating a medical professional, and is generating a cult following in the process.

  With one hysterical tweet after another, Feigl-Ding went from having a small social media following to accumulating a massive army of influence. Feigl-Ding’s consistent elevation of fear and panic, doom and gloom, and his relentless themes of chaos and destruction related to a virus with a 99.8% recovery rate has brought his accounts millions of clicks and views, and hundreds of thousands of new followers.

  And he did it all without having a clue what he’s talking about.

  The ‘Charlatan’

  At the beginning of 2020, Feigl-Ding was an unpaid, visiting scientist in Harvard’s nutrition department. His academic research centered entirely around nutrition, diet, and exercise. If Eric Feigl-Ding was interested in pandemics and the study of viruses, his research and academic credentials did not reflect that.

  When the coronavirus pandemic began to make waves in the media, everything changed. Feigl-Ding, an aspiring politician, appeared to see an opening to influence the masses and build up his brand.

  Feigl-Ding’s rise to coronavirus stardom began with this since-deleted tweet falsely describing the coronavirus as “the most virulent virus epidemic the world has ever seen.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  But not everyone associated with Feigl-Ding was thrilled with the early panic promotion act. Feigl-Ding’s frequent use of Harvard-associated credentials to elevate his baseless COVID-19 proclamations greatly upset some of his colleagues (despite many of them advocating for the same draconian measures proposed by Feigl-Ding to “combat” the virus), and landed him in hot water with the academic institution.

  Twitter, for reasons unknown, decided to credential him as a “COVID-19 health expert,” which further elevates his supposed legitimacy as an “expert” on the pandemic.

  In mid March, Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard, described him as a “charlatan exploiting a tenuous connection for self-promotion.” 

  The Association of Health Care Journalists also took notice, reporting that he has “precisely zero experience in infectious diseases.” 

  An unnamed source at Harvard told The Chronicle on Higher Education in April that Feigl-Ding has “been asked many times to stop promoting himself as having specialized knowledge.” 

  In recent months, Feigl-Ding updated his profile to show that he is no longer associated with Harvard. The reasons for his departure have not been made public.

  Impersonator

  In order to sell his purported expertise on COVID-19, Feigl-Ding has repeatedly misrepresented his credentials. As seen in this screenshot from 2019, prior to the pandemic, Ding clarified that he was a PhD nutritionist, and not a medical doctor. He has since removed the PhD label from his account.

  May 8, 2019 (wayback archive):

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  January, 25 2020 (wayback archive):

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Feigl-Ding has continued to muddy the waters surrounding his credentials, taking it to new heights in a new political advertisement. He recently appeared in a pro-Biden Super PAC (funded by Silicon Valley billionaires) ad about the coronavirus pandemic. It features “Dr” Feigl-Ding in a lab coat with tie ensemble that is associated with the attire worn by a medical doctor, not a PhD academic with a background in nutrition research.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  “Joe Biden has a plan,” Feigl-Ding says in the ad. “He listens to medical experts. Joe Biden will do what needs to be done so we can live a healthy, normal life again.”

  Many reporters were falsely led to believe that Feigl-Ding was one of the medical doctors featured in the ad spot.

  Here’s a group of doctors speaking out in support of Joe Biden in ad spot for the Future Forward PAC, a pro-Biden PAC backed by some major Silicon Valley names that’s spending big $$ on ad blitzes in the final days of the presidential election pic.twitter.com/TSbGo3fkDA

  — Grace Panetta (@grace_panetta) October 20, 2020

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

  Far-left politician/Soros ties

  Feigl-Ding has long been a far-left activist who advances his agenda under a healthcare reform label.

  In 2018, he ran unsuccessfully for a congressional seat in Pennsylvania. Universal healthcare and medicare for all, or socialized medicine, was the centerpiece platform of his congressional run. According to Science Magazine, Feigl-Ding was supported in his run by political networks associated with far-left democrat mega donor George Soros, and FEC records reflect that. Feigl-Ding’s ties with Soros go back many years. In 2008, he received a Soros scholarship for his medical school studies (he would later drop out).  Despite his far-left mega donor support base, Feigl-Ding finished an unimpressive third place in the PA-10 2018 Democratic Primary. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Feigl-Ding remains closely connected to the Soros network. He currently serves as Treasurer of the The Paul and Daisy Soros Fellows Association (PDSFA).

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  And through his Twitter and Facebook feeds, Feigl-Ding has utilized his unwarranted credential as a “COVID-19 health expert” to promote his far-left politics, disguised as healthcare expertise, to hundreds of thousands of people.

  Gosh… it’s as if… a social safety net and universal healthcare protections might help us get out of this pandemic. #COVID19 https://t.co/VGYbZD6BmM

  — Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) July 30, 2020

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

  Universal healthcare. Medicare for All. Universal basic income. Healthcare should be a fundamental human right. It’s a UN declaration that the US doesn’t have sadly. Most other OECD countries have UHC. America should too.

  — Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) December 14, 2019

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

  Things that “murder” in 2020:

  📌Guns
  📌Police brutality
  📌Murder hornets
  📌#COVID19 pandemic
  📌Anti-mask mandate governors
  📌Scott Atlas promoting “herd immunity”
  📌Trump White House promoting “herd immunity”
  📌Mark Meadows muzzling Pence staff’s outbreak

  Did I miss anything? pic.twitter.com/NXy1nCCHjY

  — Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) October 26, 2020

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

  Most members of Congress just don’t know how to Twitter—too boring & tame. But love this piece on @tedlieu. He calls out racist and socially unjust bullshit like it is. He’s been one of my Twitter favorites for years—second now only to @AOC 🙂 https://t.co/FRKIZiPDYY

  — Eric Feigl-Ding (@DrEricDing) July 25, 2020

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

  Feigl-Ding’s political aspirations did not cease with his failed congressional run. During this election cycle, he has contributed over $110,000 of his own money to a non-profit he founded called Health Justice For All.

  His organization’s website claims to be “building a grassroots network to expose Big Pharma, to fight for affordable medications, and to elect a bold new generation of leaders who will not stop fighting Big Pharma until there is health justice for all.” 

  However, there is nothing particularly health oriented about this organization. FEC records show that Feigl-Ding uses Health Justice for All to run attack ads against Republicans and supportive ads for Democrats.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Social media’s foremost COVID-19 hysteric has leveraged his baseless pandemic panic promotion to achieve newfound fame. This month, the hyper-political nutritionist turned “COVID-19 expert” has dedicated his social media feed to nonstop promotion of Joe Biden’s candidacy for president. What happens next is anyone’s guess, but it’s safe to say that Eric Feigl-Ding’s rise to “public health” stardom has delivered plenty of opportunities to resurface as a true contender in the future political arena.

  *  *  *

  Thanks for reading! I would be honored if you are willing to support my work and subscribe to The Dossier, my publication for journalism in the age of our “new normal.”

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Norwegian Police Apologize After Confronting Citizen Posting Drawings Of Prophet Mohammed Around Town
  Norwegian Police Apologize After Confronting Citizen Posting Drawings Of Prophet Mohammed Around Town
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 02:45

  In the progress Nordic countries, officials and police are still acting to censor any critical discussion of Islam’s role in European society. 

  Norwegian police apologized to a man from Kongsberg for showing up at his house last week and demanding him to tear down posters featuring cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, which he hung up across town in response to the grisly beheading of a teacher in France. 

  According to local broadcaster NRK, the man, 40, went around the Kongsberg town center, mostly in “visible places such as the shopping center, the train station, and the library” and hung 20 of these posters. 

  The man wanted to remain anonymous, NRK notes, but the man revealed his motive: To highlight the importance of freedom of expression and that “Islam cannot have any special protection in a free society.” 

  He said: “I want us to have an honest conversation about Islam without people being branded as racists and fascists.” 

  NRK said the man “wanted to see if he could provoke the police” with posters. 

  “I had a feeling that if I did this, the police would take it up with me. But it was far worse than I ever thought,” the man said.

  The man’s identity was compromised by surveillance camera footage, allowing police to identify him. On the same day, four police officers showed up at the man’s house, requesting him to remove the offensive posters. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Later, police walked back their request and apologized for overstepping the man’s freedoms. 

  “I regret that the person was approached in this way. It just demands an apology,” Kongsberg police station chief Havard Reva said. 

  Regional leader Øyvind Aas in the Southeast police district also offered an apology to the man:

  “We cannot order him to take them away. We shouldn’t also say anything about statements that are hung up,” Aas said, describing it a “mistake”.

  Before Kongsberg, French teacher, Samuel Paty, was beheaded by a Chechen refugee on Oct. 16 for showing his students cartoons of Prophet Mohammed as part of a lesson on freedom of expression.

  French President Emmanuel Macron characterized the brutal murder as an “Islamist terrorist attack” while urging France to resist such extremism. Macron’s comments did not sit well with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who lashed out at the French president this past weekend, calling for Macron to undergo a mental health check due to his position on Muslims. 

  And maybe, just maybe, the Western world is starting to wake up and perhaps agree with Macron’s condemnation of Islamic extremist violence. As the Norwegian man said, there needs to be an “honest conversation” about Islam in Europe without being labeled a racist or having their head chopped off.

  

• "Nobody Believes In Peace": Azerbaijan Attacks Armenian Forces Despite US-Sponsored Ceasefire
  “Nobody Believes In Peace”: Azerbaijan Attacks Armenian Forces Despite US-Sponsored Ceasefire
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 02:00

  Submitted by SouthFront,

  As of October 26, Azerbaijan and Turkey kept their operational initiative in the war with Armenia in the contested Nagorno-Karabakh region. Their forces continue developing their offensive in southern Karabakh by trying to remove Armenian forces from of the Lachin corridor area in order to cut off the link between the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Armenia itself.

  Attempts of Armenian forces to retake the initiative and counter—attacks near the Iranian border did not lead to any breakthrough results. In turn, the Armenian Defense Ministry was forced to admit that it in fact has lost the south of Karabakh. Nonetheless, according to its version of events, the towns of Fuzuli and Hadrut are still not controlled by Azerbaijan. This goes contrary to videos from the ground. At the same time, the Azerbaijani advance on the town of Qubadli faced particular difficulties and in fact the town remains contested. Further development of the Azerbaijani forces’ advance poses a direct thereat to the town of Shushi, near the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic capital, Stepankert, and the Lanchin corridor. Both these directions are considered as strategically vital by the Armenian leadership and it will likely contribute every possible effort to prevent this scenario.

  On October 25, the General Prosecutor’s Office of Armenia announced that it has factual evidence that numerous operators of Turkish Special Forces took part in clashes in Karabakh. According to the report, since August, Turkish personnel have been training the Azerbaijani military and participating in the conflict. Earlier it became known that after the joint Turkish-Azerbaijani drills in August a large number of Turkish military specialists, service members and equipment remained in Azerbaijan. The presence of Turkish F-16 fighter jets at the airbases of Ganja and Qabala were confirmed by satellite images. The Armenian side insists that the Turkish F-16s were involved in the shooting down of Armenian aircraft and providing air cover for Azerbaijani combat drones bombing Armenian positions in Karabakh. Turkish weapon supplies and the contribution of Turkish intelligence and top officers to the planning and employment the Azerbaijani advance in Karabakh are another open secret. The presence of members of Turkish-backed Syrian militant groups in the combat zone area was also confirmed by photo and video evidence.

  Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev insists that the Turkish military and Syrian militants do not participate in the war while simultaneously making loud statements about victories of Azerbaijani forces. During an operational meeting with the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and commanders of units on the front line, Aliyev claimed that his forces eliminated or captured about 300 Armenian battle tanks and destroyed 6 S-300 air defense systems. The Azerbaijani leader also stated that Armenia received modern weapons every day somehow forgetting to mention various Turkish and Israeli weapon systems employed by the Azerbaijani military.

  Meanwhile, Armenian Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan and Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov met with Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun in Washington and agreed on the establishment of another humanitarian ceasefire, the third one since the start of the war on September 27. Nonetheless, it does not look like it will allow for any strategic breakthrough as the previous two ceasefires collapsed immediately after their formal start. Moreover, the current situation on the frontline does not sit well with the goals of both sides.

  The Turkish-Azerbaijani bloc still seeks to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh question by military means dismantling the Armenian republic there and pushing the Armenians out of the region. At the same time, for the Armenians the current configuration of the frontline, even if the conflict is temporarily frozen, will be a source of permanent threat to the vital infrastructure of Karabakh. In these conditions, the resumption of the Azerbaijani advance will be almost inevitable.

  The Iranian leadership is also skeptical regarding the diplomatic settlement of the conflict. Iran has deployed large forces to the border with Karabakh and launched large-scale military drills in the area.

  

• 3 Things Americans Are Doing Amid Election Angst, COVID Chaos, & Economic Entropy
  3 Things Americans Are Doing Amid Election Angst, COVID Chaos, & Economic Entropy
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Tue, 10/27/2020 – 00:05

  Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

  Do you remember how crazy things got when the COVID-19 pandemic first hit the United States and widespread hoarding caused serious shortages of certain goods all over the United States? 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Well, it is starting to happen again. 

  As we approach the end of 2020, a “perfect storm” of circumstances is causing the anxiety level of many Americans to go through the roof, and millions are preparing for the worst.  I have been hearing from so many people that are deeply concerned about what the outcome of this presidential election could mean for our nation, and a lot of them truly believe that we will witness tremendous civil unrest.  But as an article in the Washington Post recently noted, that isn’t the only thing we are potentially facing…

  Add a frightening pandemic, a burst of protest and anger about racial inequalities, and a sudden economic collapse, and the result is pervasive mistrust, a sense that the world’s most powerful nation can no longer come together in common cause.

  “We’re facing a difficult time,” Barkun said. “The threat — the virus — is invisible, and that makes it more frightening. There’s an increasingly widespread belief that authority — scientific, political, informational — is suspect. It can be more comforting to believe in an unpleasant outcome than to embrace uncertainty.”

  In modern times, there has never been a year quite like 2020 when we have had to face so many major challenges all at once, and now a lot of people out there are convinced that things could shortly go to an entirely new level.

  Many believe that the civil unrest after the election could be even worse than what we saw earlier this year, others believe that the worst part of the COVID-19 pandemic lies in the weeks ahead, and our economic problems just seem to keep escalating.

  With so much going wrong, many have decided that now is the time to prepare for worst case scenarios.  The following are three ways that Americans are preparing for the chaotic months that are in front of us…

  #1 The stockpiling has already started

  If there are some things that you want to purchase before things get really crazy out there, you may want to do it as soon as possible, because retailers around the country have already been reporting new shortages…

  Shoppers and retailers are reporting that certain items are already running low, including liquid hand soap, disinfecting wipes and canning jars (especially lids). Some products have been difficult to find ever since the first wave.

  But a wintery second wave could trigger new shortages, as Americans spend even more time indoors. In a panel discussion with doctors from Harvard Medical School in September, White House adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci said Americans should prepare to “hunker down to get through this fall and winter.”

  As I write this article, the election is just over a week away.  If the outcome of the presidential election causes protests and rioting to erupt in cities all over the nation, that is likely to make the emerging shortages even worse.

  #2 Americans are buying lots and lots of guns

  We have never seen Americans purchase guns as fast as they have been buying them this year.  At one gun shop in Orange County, the owner literally has a hard time keeping any guns on the shelves at all…

  At Ade’s Gun Shop in Orange County, owner Emily Atkinson can’t keep up with demand – she’s seeing a run on guns during this pandemic, similar to the run on toilet paper.

  “We would put 20 guns out and they would be sold in three hours,” Atkinson said. “We were doing in two weeks what we would do in a quarter.”

  And I am being told that in some parts of the country ammunition is in very short supply right now.  We have already seen so much senseless violence all over the U.S. so far this year, and a lot of people believe that much more is on the way and they want to be ready to protect their families.

  #3 Concern about what is coming has fueled a crazy real estate boom

  It is very strange to talk about a massive real estate boom during the midst of an economic depression, but that is precisely what we are witnessing.

  In recent months we have seen an unprecedented mass exodus out of our major cities, and “millions of house hunters” have been driving up prices in desirable rural and suburban locations all across the nation…

  The COVID-19 pandemic, the loss of millions of jobs, a weaker economy—none of it stopped millions of house hunters from flocking to Zillow, Redfin, and other online platforms to browse, plan their move, and, in many cases, purchase their first home.

  Home prices have been climbing steadily over the past few months, and industry players are projecting they are likely to peak in some markets this fall, causing a tempering of the market driven by a decline in supply and a prolonged economic recovery.

  I certainly can’t blame anyone that wants to move.  If I was living in one of our major cities, I would be looking to get out too.

  Coming into this year, I kept warning that we were heading into a “perfect storm”, and that is precisely what has happened.  It has just been one thing after another here in 2020, and many believe that 2021 will be even more chaotic.

  As for the immediate future, so much depends on the outcome of the election.

  If a clear winner is declared shortly after Election Day, that may help to minimize the amount of chaos that we witness in the streets.

  But if the results are very close and are bitterly contested for weeks, things could get out of hand very rapidly.  And no matter which side ends up winning in that sort of a scenario, there are going to be millions upon millions of people on the other side that will feel like the election was stolen from them.

  There are countless numbers of people out there that will never accept a Trump victory under any circumstances, and there are countless numbers of others that will never accept Joe Biden as president.

  I feel like we are on the precipice of a really bad chapter in American history, and at this point it is going to take some sort of a miracle to avoid it.

  *  *  *

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

  

• China's Top Leaders Meets To Set Policy Direction For The Next 5 Years
  China’s Top Leaders Meets To Set Policy Direction For The Next 5 Years
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 23:45

  Today China’s top leaders represented by the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee started the Fifth Plenum of its 19th Party Congress where they will chart the course for the economy’s development for the next 15 years and set the country’s long-term priorities, with are expected to focus on boosting technological self-sufficiency and domestic demand while Xi cements his influence over the party.

  The Plenum will run until Thursday, and will conduct the country’s most important exercise in central-planning: drafting the next Five-Year Plan against the backdrop of a worsening global economy and US sanctions (it’s unclear what if any role the recordings China intelligence has of Hunter Biden will play in this exercise). The plenum will also discuss a broad plan for the next 15 years, with goals that are likely to endure for at least the rest of 67-year-old President Xi Jinping’s rule, who as a reminder made himself ruler for life several years ago.

  According to the FT, the process to draft a plan typically reveals the biggest worries and priorities for the Chinese leadership, although these are usually for private consumption and rarely officially disclosed to the public. This year’s meeting comes as the deadline for meeting the previous overarching goal of achieving a “moderately prosperous society”, is due to expire in 2021, the centenary of the founding of the Chinese Communist party.

  Beijing has recently hinted it would broaden out its focus on economic growth to include targets for environmental protection, innovation and self-sufficient development — such as in food, energy, and in chips. The Planum will also explain how the government will meet Xi’s target of zero net carbon emissions by 2060, which is ironic since China is the world’s biggest emitter of CO2.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Xi is also expected to use the exercise to consolidate his influence over the party and the party’s influence over governance, said Holly Snape, a fellow in Chinese politics at the University of Glasgow. “It’s useful to understand these broad goals in the context of an expression Xi seems fond of: the party, government, military, people, education, east, west, south, north, and centre — the party leads everything.”

  At the end of the meeting, China will release a brief summary of the proposals to describe the broader directions of the 14th Five-Year Plan at a high level, including discussions on “dual circulation” – in which China will develop domestic demand and self-sufficiency as the rest of the world remains stalled by coronavirus – strategy, a focus on technological innovation and a push for factor market reform. However, Goldman does not expect a GDP growth target to be announced in either the proposals or the detailed plan when it is released next March.

  Below is a preview from Goldman on what to expect from China’s 14th Five-Year Plan:

  Main points

  The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will hold the Fifth Plenum of its 19th Party Congress on October 26–29 to discuss the proposals for the 14th Five-Year Plan. The finalized proposals from the party will be released to the public shortly afterwards in a brief summary. Over the next several months, the National Development and Reform Committee (NDRC) will consult specialists and coordinate efforts from other government ministries to prepare a detailed plan draft to be submitted to the National People’s Congress (NPC) for final approval during the “Two Sessions” in March 2021.

  Challenging external environment and key domestic development stage

  The external environment is likely to get more challenging for China in the next five years, and China’s senior leadership’s view on the external environment has changed significantly. As President Xi has emphasized since the 19th Party Congress, the world is undergoing profound changes , both economically and politically, which are being accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, on the economic front, global growth may be low in the coming years, and trade protectionism, which has increased in recent years may continue, with disturbances to the global supply chain.

  On the domestic front, the 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021-2025) will mark the first five years of China’s moves towards its second centenary goal to build a “modern socialist country” after achievement of the first centenary goal of building a “moderately prosperous society”. And as the government has emphasized, China’s development has entered a new stage, focusing more on quality. However, Chinese economic growth has decelerated notably in recent years, with accumulation of many structural issues/imbalances. The contribution of total factor productivity (TFP) to GDP growth has declined notably in recent years. The share of household consumption in China remains low at 39%, compared to 51% for the upper middle income countries and 60% across OECD countries. The share of service sector value-added in GDP has been trending up in recent years to around 54%, but remains below the average level for upper middle income (56%) and OECD (70%) countries. Regional disparity/household income inequality in China has increased or remained large.

  Overall, how China can achieve sustainable, balanced and high quality growth in coming years and enter the high income group from the upper middle income group currently is the key long-term question for policymakers in China. Although the Chinese government has been calling for a transition in the development model for a number of years, we think the next five years will be particularly important, both politically and economically.

  Growth target expectation

  In proposals for prior five-year plans, the government typically mentioned their growth expectation for the next five years, citing “doubling income” goals (except for the 12th five-year plan), and an average GDP growth rate target was included as a key indicator in the detailed plan. These “doubling income” goals were proposed by Deng Xiaoping (for the period between 1980 and 2000) and Jiang Zemin (for the period between 2000 and 2020), with the goal of doubling income between 2010 and 2020 reiterated by President Xi. But for the period beyond 2020, there have been no official comments like these goals so far, and although President Xi mentioned in 19th Party Congress about the second centenary goal beyond 2020, he didn’t make similar numerical remarks on growth.

  With the increasing focus on growth quality, we think there is a high chance that the government may not mention growth expectations in the proposals for the 14th five-year plan (and probably the five-year average growth rate indicator could be also missing from the detailed plan released next year). For major indicators in the detailed plan, we think the government may adjust to reflect a focus on quality (there were 25 indicators in the 13th Five-Year Plan, categorized into four groups–economic development, people’s well-being, innovation, resources and environment).

  “Dual circulation” strategy to follow in coming years

  Against a more challenging external environment, and at a key domestic development stage, recently President Xi has stressed the facilitation of national economic circulation to establish a new development pattern, which takes the domestic market as the mainstay and allows the domestic and foreign markets to boost each other. This has been called the “dual circulation” strategy. There has been a lot of discussion on how to interpret “dual circulation”. Based on President Xi’s remarks, we think there are two key elements:

  • First, an emphasis on demand and supply being more domestically driven (“internal circulation”). From a demand perspective, this means growth more driven by consumption and investment. This is consistent with the “expanding domestic demand strategy”. From a supply perspective, this could imply production to rely more on domestic technology and supply chains. In our view, this does not mean “external circulation” is not important, but the way China participates in global trade/supply chain and the role it plays could change.
  • Second, an emphasis on supply-side structural reform to facilitate economic circulation and to make supply better match demand. As Chinese policymakers have said, currently the major issues with China’s development are on supply side and are structural. On the top of supply-side reform initiated in 2015 focusing on “five major tasks”, in 2018 the government expanded the content and came up with a more comprehensive strategy—reinforcing previous structural adjustments, energizing micro market entities, promoting innovation and supply chain upgrading; and facilitating economic circulation.

  Overall, “dual circulation” is about the long-term development landscape Chinese policymakers would likely to achieve, primarily through supply-side structural reform. The key elements are actually not new and have been mentioned previously by policymakers. From an economic perspective, this means boosting total productivity factor and rebalancing economic development across sectors/regions. But given that the broad external and domestic environment has changed, as we mentioned, we think the government should accelerate the pace of relevant reforms. From a high level, we think the government may stress several key broad areas (the table at the end of this report lists some announcements from government authorities related to 14th Five-Year Plan).

  Promoting innovation—key for TFP growth

  As President Xi recently mentioned, strengthening innovation capacity and achieving breakthroughs in core technologies is key for the “dual circulation” strategy. The Chinese government has been fostering innovation and industrial upgrading (and development of the digital economy) in recent years, but there remains significant room to improve. R&D expenditure in GDP has been rising and reached around 2.2% in 2019, higher than the average level in upper middle income countries but still well below the OECD level (also likely to fall short of the 2.5% target set in 13th five-year plan). The Economic Complexity Index for China, measuring the capability of a country to produce varied and more complex goods has been trending higher persistently, but still has notable gap with the frontier economy Japan.[1] We have seen strong policy support through measures such as the establishment of government supported funds (e.g., national chip funds) and tax incentives, we believe the efforts would ramp up in coming years. In addition to provide financing support/policy incentive, in order to upgrade supply chain, optimizing industrial allocation across regions based on their comparative advantage would be also key, which is also part of coordinated regional development strategy the government has been pushing.

  Factor market reform—key for TFP growth and economic rebalancing

  The Chinese government has released two important documents this year aiming to accelerate improving the market economy/allocation, particularly in factor markets (e.g., labor, capital, land, technology, data). One source of slowdown in China’s TFP growth in recent years may reflect misallocation. And distortions in the markets have also contributed to economic imbalances. For instance, regarding the relatively low household consumption to GDP ratio in China, in theory, this could potentially be related to several factors—distribution of national income (between labor and capital), income inequality which is also affected by redistribution effects of tax/benefit systems, and consumption/saving propensity. Distortions in the labor market, such as Hukou system and related regional segregation of the social security system (China’s public spending on healthcare and pension benefits is also quite low as a share of GDP based on international comparisons) has negatively affected household consumption.[2] Spatial mismatch of supply/demand in the land market (undersupply in regions with more population inflow) may have also pushed up housing prices and negatively affected household consumption. As a major part of the “new urbanization” strategy, reform on labor market and land market could accelerate in coming years. Existing regulation on interest rates and SOE privilege in credit availability may have distorted capital allocation and contributed to a high investment ratio in China. Recently, the government released an SOE reform plan for the next three years, as a guide to optimize sectoral distribution of SOEs and improve their efficiency. Further pushes in market reform and reducing distortions will be important to mitigate economic imbalances and boost TFP growth, in our view.

  Reduce inequality across regions/households

  Less inequality across both households and regions is a focus for the government. China’s Gini index, which measures household income inequality, remains at a high level relative to many other countries and has even increased in recent years, and inequality in wealth is higher still.[3] Regional inequality has also trended up in recent years. On the one hand, these may reflect structural issues/distortions in the economy as we mentioned above, and on the other hand, these may worsen economic imbalances. To address this, the government has been trying to reform the personal income tax system, but in China the share of people paying personal income tax is small. Also, the share of GDP that makes up spending on the social assistance that targets the poor and vulnerable is comparatively low. The overall redistribution effect of China’s tax/benefit systems is pretty limited currently. On a regional basis, the Chinese government has implemented a coordinated regional development strategy, which is also related to factor market reform and could help narrow regional disparity.

  Environment

  Over the past decades, the Chinese economy has expanded at a very fast pace but at the expense of deterioration in environmental conditions. In recent years, the Chinese government has been increasingly strict on environmental regulations. For instance, ten of the 25 indicators in the 13th five-year plan concerned the environment and resources, with the targets for these indicators all required (in contrast, some other targets are just for guidance, e.g., urbanization ratio). As a key element in high quality growth, we think the government will continue to focus on environment protection in coming years. There might be economic costs incurred by environment regulations — in addition to a short-run shock on growth, environmental regulations might lead to lower long-run growth. [4] But innovation and further market-oriented reforms could help offset.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

   

  

• Welcome To The Corruptocracy
  Welcome To The Corruptocracy
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 23:25

  Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog,

  Most political philosophy is just an elaborate justification for theft and fraud.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  What’s called the silent majority is really the ignored majority, who for the most part are happy being ignored. Their lives revolve their families, jobs, friends, and community, not the media, publicity, polls, or politics. They’re sick of elections well before they’ve seen their hundredth campaign ad, received their hundredth mailer, or ignored their hundredth telephone call. They know that politicians are phony and corrupt and make jokes about them, but hope that their rulers don’t screw things up too badly, cross their fingers, and vote for the perceived lesser of two evils.

  There’s a shortage of blue-ribbon pedigrees, Ivy League degrees, and gold-plated resumés among the ignored majority, but a surfeit of hard-knocks wisdom and common sense. Benjamin Franklin said, “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.” Everybody does foolish things, but by and large, the ignored majority learns from the dear school and puts its lessons to good use.

  The gilded class denigrates those outside it: Hillary Clinton deploring the “deplorables,” Barack Obama saying working-class voters, “cling to guns or religion,” and Obama telling entrepreneurs, “you didn’t build that.” Yet, it consistently, almost invariably, demonstrates a complete lack of the common-sense street smarts found in abundance among those it disparages.

  The quotes’ condescending arrogance rankles, but at a deeper level illustrate the real division in American politics—between the productive class and those it supports. At the intellectual level it’s the irreconcilable difference between those who believe that value can and should be conferred by the government, and those who know it must be created and produced. It’s believing or not believing that something can be had for nothing.

  Freeloaders’ delusion stems from psychology, not ignorance. Every human faces a choice. They can produce value or they can beg, borrow, defraud, or steal it from someone else. For every advance humanity has made, there’s always been someone claiming their unfair share. Most of what we call history is merely an account of who’s stealing or defrauding from whom.

  Because production is necessary for human survival, not producing anything of value creates a gaping psychological fissure, one not generally recognized or acknowledged. What’s generally accepted is that humans grasp at rationales and justifications for their actions, not just for the audience to which they’re playing, but for themselves. Most political philosophy is just an elaborate justification for theft and fraud. Political systems don’t spring from philosophies, the philosophies spring from the systems’ actual or potential beneficiaries.

  Governments can take every scrap of what is produced. They can pledge every scrap of future production as repayment for their debts. The legitimization of unlimited current and future plunder leads to ever-increasing plunder and debt—and ever-diminishing production. Present governments are merely repeating a cycle that’s played out countless times throughout history.

  You would think that government rapacity would be curbed when taxes, regulatory extortion, and debt disincentivize and begin reducing legitimate production. Unfortunately, that assumption flies in the face of historical fact; countless regimes have killed their golden geese. The only regimes that haven’t are those that are currently in the process of doing so.

  One among many of rulers’ delusions is that the ruled are buying their lies.

  Over time the victims see through the propaganda and narrative management. The lies fool the rulers more than the ruled and are essential psychological support for this predatory and parasitic class.

  Commentators from the alternative media bemoan the lack of intelligence and awareness of the American people, and the supposed dominance of the mainstream media narrative. Yet, any number of alternative media commentators, YouTubers, and sites routinely receive more readers or viewers than touted mouthpiece media “powerhouses.” More people watch dissident Paul Joseph Watson’s videos than Rachel Maddow’s nightly screeds, but Maddow receives an inordinate amount of attention from the alternative and mainstream alike and Watson virtually none.

  The alternative media’s thousands of sites have eclipsed the mouthpiece media, which exists in a bubble of its own creation. It’s a hugely underreported trend—without fanfare millions of people rejecting the mainstream, reading, researching, and coming to their own conclusions. There’s 330 million Americans and many of them are neither stupid nor duped. It’s just that nobody pays attention to them.

  The media bubble envelopes the government-centered corruptocracy and allows those within to preserve the self-deception of personal worth. Someone who lives off the corporate-lobbyist-political food chain, shuffles paper in a government bureaucracy, enforces tax or regulatory extortion, or is otherwise supported in a something-for-nothing scheme cannot have the self-respect that comes from producing value. Instead, the predatory and parasitic classes cling to psychological crutches: conceit, arrogance, condescension, delusion, and willful ignorance.

  The most intense predator and parasite condescension is directed at the producers who provide their sustenance. This may seem paradoxical but it’s not. Honest production is an obvious moral rebuke to those who live by theft and fraud. Acknowledging either the value of producers or their own dependence on them would undermine the fragile edifice of their rickety substitutes for self-worth.

  Disaffected veterans were the core of a group that would grow to millions, their “faith” in government and the people who ran it obliterated by its repeated failures and lies. Revolutions dawn when an appreciable number of the ruled realize their rulers are intellectual and moral inferiors. The mainstream media is filled with vituperative, patronizing, and insulting explanations of what’s “behind” the Trump phenomenon. It all boils down to revulsion with the self-anointed, incompetent, pretentious, hypocritical, corrupt, prevaricating elite that presumes to rule this country. It is, in a word, inferior to the populace on the other side of the yawning chasm, the ones they have patronized and insulted for decades, and the other side knows it.

  “Much More Than Trump,” Robert Gore, SLL, March 3, 2016, reposted November 6, 2016

  Nothing has changed over the last four years, except that the ranks of disaffected have swollen. Trump gave voice to them in 2016 and he’ll do it again in 2020. Once more it’s the productive businessman outsider against a government hack insider. After Russiagate, the impeachment, the coronavirus power-grab, leftist and Marxists riots, and endless media-driven tempests in teapots, the somethings in this country are far more contemptuous of the nothings who presume to rule them—and farcically, have designs on the whole world—than they were four years ago.

  The ultimate farce is the Harris/Biden ticket: a corrupt, doddering, old fool and a nakedly ambitious shrew who even Democrats don’t like, neither with a scintilla of detectable principle, waging the most inept campaign ever in front of face-masked, socially distanced audiences that number in the tens.

  If he gets anything approaching an honest vote count Trump will win in a landslide. The “reputable” pollsters have become another arm of the entrenched powers’ narrative management. Like everything else the corruptocrats have tried, this effort will prove inept. The purported double-digit Biden leads will motivate, not discourage, Trump’s voters. By every other indicator—voter registrations, growing black and hispanic support, the crumbling entertainment and sports complex, the crumbling mainstream media, the ascendent alternative media, millions of new gun owners, backlash against the riots, slowly fading coronavirus hysteria, and off-the-charts attendance and enthusiasm at Trump rallies—Trump’s winning by a country mile.

  And let’s not forget Hunter Biden’s hard drive, much as the corruptocracy, Twitter, Facebook, and most of the mainstream media would like us to. The revelations are important not because they reveal that the Bidens are a criminal enterprise—we already knew that—but because they further confirm the suspicions of millions of street-smart, disaffected Americans: our country is a corruptocracy.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  If Trump wins and quells the Super Tantrum, he’ll have to do more than give voice to the disaffected. He’s forced the corruptocrats from the depths of their swamp, and he may or may not be blackmailing them for his own purposes. But not a drop of swamp has been drained, and if nothing happens the next four years, Trump’s tenure will be nothing more than a feel-good fantasy for his fans.

  He’ll have to either blackmail paid up swampsters William Barr and Christopher Wray to do their jobs or get rid of them for people who will. Nothing less than indictments and prosecutions that cuts a wide swath across the corruptocracy— Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Mueller, Page, Strzok, Haspel, the Biden crime family, Obama, the Clintons, many of the listings in Jeffrey Epstein’s black book, and the rest of their insidious ilk—will do. Arresting Hunter and Joe Biden the day after the election would be a good start.

  Trump must put up or shut up on draining the swamp before he can proceed to his long list of other unfinished business. The swamp is the inevitable backwash of a government that has arrogated unlimited power to itself, has first claim on everything produced within the United States, issues debt without limit, and maintains a confederated global empire. Power creates corruptocracies. There is a one in a trillion chance that Trump or any other ostensible outsider changes any of this, and a one in a quadrillion chance that the system reforms itself.

  Trump or no Trump, the disaffected will get more disaffected, at least until the system collapses, which it will. The failing of all governments is that they can’t produce, only coerce. What they can force their citizens to produce is astonishingly low compared to what those citizens would produce if left to their own devices in free markets. The productive economy is straining under the tax and debt loads it’s being forced to carry. The debt orgy this year is probably the last straw. The shut-down real economy and debt-bloated financial markets will force a reckoning.

  That reckoning will be global and governments will get smaller. Not because anyone within them experiences an intellectual conversion towards less government—and consequently less power—but because they are bankrupt and access to credit will be severely limited. Central banks may continue to buy their governments’ debt with their own devalued debt, but that daisy chain will come to an end as well. A bear market in debt of all stripes and a bull market in interest rates loom. The silver lining: long suffering savers (both of them) and creditors will finally be compensated for the credit risks they bear.

  With the crumbling of governments will come the crumbling of current political institutions and boundaries. The breakdown of the corrupt and doomed old order presents the opportunity for the establishment of new orders. What seems inconceivable now may occur with astonishing speed. A year ago, who envisioned what’s transpired so far in 2020?

  Millions of salt-of-the-earth, common sense Americans have watched in horror as their country has imploded from lockdown insanity and riots. There’s an exodus from urban hellholes to safer and saner locales. The response to those who say breakdown can’t happen is that it’s already begun.

  Alasdair Macleod is writing about Europe, but what he says applies to the United States:

  The fate of the euro will be shared with the majority — if not all — of other fiat currencies for reasons specific to them. The recovery from the ashes of government incompetence can be swift — a matter of a year or two, so long as successor governments quickly learn that free markets, sound money and minimal interference from government are all required for the restoration of economic progress. Additionally, all socialist policies must be discarded, and the profit motive and individual wealth creation embraced.

  “The destruction of the euro,” Alasdair Macleod, goldmoney.com, October 22, 2020

  There will be jurisdictions, some borne out of secession or insurrection, that will institute “free markets, sound money, and minimal interference from government,” along with the concomitant essentials: freedom and the protection of individual rights, because they work and have worked throughout history. They are the quickest way to recover from economic and financial devastation. Most importantly, freedom is the only moral system, the only system compatible with productive survival, and the only system that promotes human happiness.

  Freedom, rather than Trump, represents the best hope for the righteously disaffected.

  

• NASA Scientists "Detect Water On Sunlit Surface Of Moon" As Lunar Drilling Begins In 2022
  NASA Scientists “Detect Water On Sunlit Surface Of Moon” As Lunar Drilling Begins In 2022
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 23:05

  NASA scientists used a robotic spacecraft and a Boeing 747SP plane modified with a special telescope to detect water on the Moon’s sunlit surface for the first time. This discovery indicates water could be more widespread than previously thought, and it allows for NASA’s return of humans to the lunar surface via the Artemis program by 2024. 

  Two studies were published in the journal Nature Astronomy Monday morning, describing how NASA detected “widespread hydration” on the lunar surface. The research is based on data collected by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, as well as the agency’s Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy airborne telescope, also known as SOFIA, mounted within a heavily modified Boeing 747. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  The first study, titled “Molecular water detected on the sunlit Moon by SOFIA,” detected water molecules on the lunar surface. 

  The second study, titled “Micro cold traps on the Moon,” found “water ice is thought to be trapped in large permanently shadowed regions in the Moon’s polar regions, due to their extremely low temperatures.” Using data from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, lead planetary scientist Paul Hayne of the University of Colorado, Boulder, discovered “small-scale shadows in the polar regions, which we term ‘micro cold traps,’ substantially augment the cold-trapping area of the Moon, and may also influence the transport and sequestration of water.” 

  “Our research shows that a multitude of previously unknown regions of the moon could harbor water ice,” Hayne said, who was quoted by Reuters.”Our results suggest that water could be much more widespread in the moon’s polar regions than previously thought, making it easier to access, extract, and analyze.”

  The findings were also released during a NASA press conference that began around lunchtime on Monday.  

  “For the first time, water has been confirmed to be present on the sunlit surface of the moon,” CNN quoted Hayne at Monday’s press conference. 

  Findings Are Discussed At NASA’s Press Conference 

  The water found on the Moon might be challenging to extract. We noted, by 4Q22, NASA is planning to send an ice-mining drill rig to the south pole of the moon to extract “water ice.” 

  NASA is planning to return humans, or to be politically correct this time, land the first women on the Moon in 2024 as part of its Artemis program. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine released a statement last month, announcing the new mission to put a human back on the lunar surface would be the first time since 1972.

  Astronauts’ ability to harvest water on the Moon is essential for their survival as the US prepares to erect a moon base this decade, with the prospects of moon mining rare materials by 2025. 

  

• What 1930 Thought About 1929
  What 1930 Thought About 1929
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 22:45

  By Nicholas Colas of DataTrek Research

  We recently picked up an original copy of then-NYSE president Edward Simmons’ 1930 report on the 1929 stock market crash. In recognition of that event’s upcoming anniversary, we have a summary of Simmons’ key observations. The comparisons to 2020 are remarkable, ranging from uncertainty on how technology might change business, to questions regarding sustainable corporate earnings, and even a sudden rush of retail investors.

  We want to introduce you to Edward Henry Harriman Simmons. Born in 1876, he was the nephew and namesake of the famed US railroad magnate. He trained to be a doctor at Columbia University, but switched from the healing arts to finance in 1900. Simmons became a member of the New York Stock Exchange in that year and was named president of the institution in 1924.

  The reason for this introduction is that we recently acquired a copy of Simmons’ May 1930 annual report to the NYSE’s Governing Committee, which includes his detailed analysis of the October 1929 stock market crash. Since we are coming up on the 91st anniversary of the event next week, this week’s story is his near-contemporaneous review of that event.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  As a starting point, here is a brief description of what sorts of companies were listed on the NYSE at the time of the October 1929 Crash, as listed in the Appendix to Simmons’ report. At the time there were 821 companies on the Big Board, with 1,261 issues (common, preferred, etc.) between them.

  Half of all NYSE stocks were in eight capital-intensive industry sectors:

  • Railroads: 11.1 percent of all listed companies
  • Autos: 7.1 pct
  • Machinery and metals: 6.9 pct
  • Foods: 6.3 pct
  • Chemicals: 6.0 pct
  • Petroleum: 5.8 pct
  • Mining: 5.0 pct
  • Steel and Iron: 4.1 pct

  Despite the Roaring 20’s reputation for rampant consumerism, outsized Wall Street profits, and the growth of innovative technologies like telephony and mass market radio, industries related to these trends were not heavily represented on the NYSE:

  • Chain stores/department stores: 6.7 percent combined of all listings
  • Finance: 2.9 pct
  • Cable, Telegraph, Telephone and Radio: 1.1 pct

  This brings us to our first observation: unlike the world today, the stock market of 1929 wasn’t just “the economy”; it represented the highest fixed cost, most operationally levered parts of America’s economic output, employing millions of workers.

  Moving on to Simmons’ own thoughts about the 1929 Crash, 3 quotes from his report and our thoughts.

  Pages 3 and 4, where he lays out his analysis of what has just occurred in American capital markets:

  “… it is particularly difficult to draw comprehensive and at the same time positive conclusions upon the business and financial developments of 1929, for the very fact that the period in American economic history since 1924 or 1925 has so largely been one of almost universal change and flux.”

  “In the field of manufacturing, the steady installation of quantity production and standardization methods had in recent years wrought a transformation in industrial earnings power which astonished the economists and business men of the whole world; at the same time, newly invented products superseded old ones so rapidly as to render accurate estimation of corporate earnings power highly speculative.”

  “Some students, bewildered by these and other novel changes in business, declared that we were living in a ‘new era’. This phrase … has been much ridiculed after the 1929 stock market collapse… Nevertheless … it is an equally serious error to disregard these momentous changes occurring through American business and economic life.”

  Our take: the comparisons to today are clear. Just as now, the 1920s saw dramatic advances in the use of technology. What Simmons failed to appreciate in that upbeat final sentence was that a severe economic contraction could, and did, reverse adoption rates for technologies like the telephone and companies could, and did, cut their workforces in response to economic conditions regardless of technological advancement. Thanks to fiscal and monetary stimulus, the 2020 recession has not created the same negative feedback loop.

  Page 21, where Simmons discusses US stock market valuations through the lens of dividend payouts:

  “While it seems apparent that low yields in the summer of 1929 constituted an important reason for the readjustment of stock prices the following autumn, at the same time it is not equally certain what should be considered normal share yields, particularly under the many complicated circumstances of that extraordinary financial year.”

  “While security buyers should undoubtedly consider this factor of yields more carefully in the future, at the same time dogmatic formulas in this regard are also capable of producing much misunderstanding.”

  This is the chart opposite the page where that text appears:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Our take: price earnings ratios and other more modern valuation approaches make no appearance in Simmons’ 112-page analysis, but his thoughts on dividend payouts capture the right message. 1929/1930 saw a large dislocation in the US economy, and he was right to question the validity of using historical yield analysis as it did not capture uncertainty about future cash flows. There is much the same debate about 2021 earnings at the moment, of course.

  Page 52, where Simmons outlines an explanation for why the American public suddenly embraced stock investing in the 1920s, which had been considered a rich person’s game before:

  “The vast spread of security investment in this country which followed the gigantic Liberty Loans fundamentally altered this situation. Where previously American security buyers had been few and – supposedly at least – fairly well posted as a class in regard to Stock Exchange technique, now millions of small and often quite experienced investors appeared as a permanent factor with which American finance and the American security market must reckon.”

  Explanation/Our take: the US issued 4 tranches of Liberty Bonds in 1917/1918 to fund World War I, and the first 3 were partially/fully repaid in the 1920s. These were very large issues, the first 3 amounting to $92/person for every US citizen, or $1,585 in today’s dollars. Simmons’ point is that it was this capital, often held in brokerage accounts, that when redeemed for cash ignited public interest in equity investing. The similarities to 2020’s stimulus checks and the recent increase in retail investing is, needless to say, uncanny.

  Summing up: whenever we do one of these historical retrospectives, we can’t help but think there’s literally nothing new under the sun and policy makers in many ways still look at the 1929 Crash and Great Depression as their “don’t do this” playbook. Simmons, as both a member of a powerful family and NYSE Chair, could and should have been ringing the alarm bell in his 1930 review but his report is nothing more than a detailed recitation of fact and figure. He did not see 1929 as a historical turning point. While his name is mostly lost to history now, no policy maker wants to replicate his error. They may end up doing too much (we’ll see if that proves to be the case in 2020), but they never want history to judge them as doing too little.

  

• Pentagon "Activated" MQ-9 Attack Drone To Fight Wildfires In California
  Pentagon “Activated” MQ-9 Attack Drone To Fight Wildfires In California
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 22:25

  A large military drone, commonly used for classified missions over the Middle East, was recently “activated” by the Department of Defense (DoD) to combat wildfires in California, read an Air Force press release.

  “At the request of the National Interagency Fire Center and upon approval by the DoD, U.S. Northern Command activated the 432nd to provide Incident Awareness and Assessment support using the MQ-9 aircraft to aid civil authorities in California,” the release stated. 

  The release continued, “This is the first time active-duty aircraft from the 432nd have supported in a Defense Support of Civil Authorities capacity.” 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The MQ-9’s specialized optical sensors provided the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) with “real-time video to map fire perimeters and alert first responders of the spread and potential impact of the fires, proximity to infrastructure or buildings, and containment,” the Air Force said.

  Lt. Gen. Kirk Pierce, commander, First Air Force, Air Forces Northern, said, “The 432nd’s ‘near-real-time’ support to CAL FIRE enhanced both agencies’ ability to move limited resources quickly to protect lives, save property, and be postured for next day operations.” 

  From Sept. 26 to Oct. 17, the MQ-9 conducted more than 120 hours, providing real-time data on the fire situation. The activation came as devastating wildfires scorched more than 4 million acres so far. The Utility Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E) meteorology team warned Friday that some of the strongest winds of the fire season could arrive in Northern California by Sunday.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  PG&E said hundreds of thousands of customers might have their electricity shut off Sunday to avoid trees and branches from blowing into power lines and sparking accidental fires. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Besides monitoring wildfires, we noted the federal government used the MQ-9 to monitor social unrest in Minneapolis this past summer. The military drone was also seen flying above other parts of the US. 

  The proliferation of military drones flying above American skies should be very concerning as it merely suggests the country is diving deeper into a surveillance state. 

  

• Student Newspaper Condemns Harvard Republicans For Endorsing Trump
  Student Newspaper Condemns Harvard Republicans For Endorsing Trump
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 22:05

  Authored by John Hanson and Adam Sabes via Campus Reform,

  The Harvard Crimson Editorial Board condemned the Harvard Republican Club in an editorial for endorsing President Donald Trump, drawing a contrast to the Republican club’s position in 2016. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  While noting that the group has “every right to endorse the candidate of their choosing,” The Crimson’s editorial board harshly criticized the group for endorsing the president for re-election after the “shameful debate showing” of September 29.

  “The Republican Club has every right to endorse the candidate of their choosing; free country and all. But how they could possibly come to this conclusion – the day after Trump’s shameful debate showing, when their predecessors left them a blueprint on how to denounce Trump last election cycle – evades us,” the editorial board wrote.

  The board further accused the club of striking a “nerve on campus,” since President Donald Trump failed to denounce the Proud Boys. Because of this, the editorial accuses the Harvard Republican Club of partially endorsing white supremacy.

  “Not only is it impossible to separate an endorsement of Trump from tacit approval of white supremacy, it’s impossible not to see this endorsement as a provocation that willfully belittles other students’ identity and disregards their safety,” the editorial reads.

  The editorial noted the group’s different stance in the last general election, pointing to a 2016 statement by the Harvard Republican Club where the group chose not to endorse then-candidate Donald Trump because of his “authoritarian tendencies.”

  “His authoritarian tendencies and flirtations with fascism are unparalleled in the history of our democracy,” the Republican Club said in a statement to The Harvard Crimson.

  “He hopes to divide us by race, by class, and by religion, instilling enough fear and anxiety to propel himself to the White House.”

  Based on the group’s endorsement of Trump, the editorial board said that it’s evidence that President Trump is “consolidating his support among young conservatives.”

  “Polling evidence suggests that Trump is consolidating his support among young conservatives. 21 percent of 18-29 year olds backed him against Hillary R. Clinton, while 27 percent have backed him this cycle. These trends suggest Trumpism may well persist in elite conservative circles for a good while,” the editorial board wrote.

  Harvard’s incoming freshman class was overwhelmingly supportive of Joe Biden, with 90.1% of the class supporting the former Vice President, while just 7.1% of them expressed support for Trump.

  Campus Reform reached out to the Harvard College Republicans and the Harvard Crimson but did not receive a response.

  

• US State Department Halts All Diversity Training After Trump's Exec Order
  US State Department Halts All Diversity Training After Trump’s Exec Order
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 21:45

  A US State Department cable, obtained by Reuters, shows “all training programs for employees related to diversity and inclusion” have been halted after President Trump directed the federal agency in September to end the programs. 

  “Beginning Friday, October 23, 2020, the Department is temporarily pausing all training programs related to diversity and inclusion in accordance with Executive Order … on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” the cable said.

  “The pause will allow time for the Department and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to review program content,” it said.

  Reuters said the order comes nearly two months after a White House Office of Management and Budget’s memo advised federal agencies that taxpayer dollars were no longer allowed to fund “un-American propaganda sessions” that taught critical race theory, white privilege, and or “taught that the United States is an inherently racist or evil” country. 

  The days of taxpayer funded indoctrination trainings that sow division and racism are over. Under the direction of @POTUS we are directing agencies to halt critical race theory trainings immediately.https://t.co/dyMeJka9rt

  — Russ Vought (@RussVought45) September 4, 2020

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

  Trump signed the executive order suspending the diversity training program on September 22. The order forbids any teaching by federal agencies of “divisive concepts,” implying that the US is “fundamentally racist or sexist.”

  President @realDonaldTrump just signed an Executive Order to prohibit discrimination by Federal contractors through divisive #CriticalRaceTheory. This is another important step that builds off his directive to agencies to stop trainings that push a radical anti-American agenda. https://t.co/vAAYYKO7Hu

  — Russ Vought (@RussVought45) September 22, 2020

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

  And the move to stop the spread of diversity training doesn’t just stop with the Trump administration. The UK’s equalities minister has warned schools against teaching some aspects of critical race theory. 

  MP Kemi Badenoch said the rise of critical race theory was a “dangerous trend in race relations.”

  “We do not want to see teachers teaching their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt,” she said.

  “Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police, without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.”

  Notably, Badendoch also warned against importing the rhetoric on race from America.

  “Our history of race is not America’s history of race. Most black British people who have come to our shores were not brought here in chains, but came voluntarily due to their connections to the UK and in search of a better life. I should know. I am one of them.

  But, as Tucker Carlson recently discussed, the ideology is nothing but “divisive,” reiterating President Trump’s recent warning that “this ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as human beings and Americans.”

   

  

• 'Iraq War Diaries' At Ten Years: Truth Remains Treason
  ‘Iraq War Diaries’ At Ten Years: Truth Remains Treason
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 21:25

  Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

  The purpose of journalism is to uncover truth – especially uncomfortable truth – and to publish it for the benefit of society. In a free society, we must be informed of the criminal acts carried out by governments in the name of the people. Throughout history, journalists have uncovered the many ways governments lie, cheat, and steal – and the great lengths they will go to keep the people from finding out.

  Great journalists like Seymour Hersh, who reported to us the tragedy of the Mai Lai Massacre and the horrors that took place at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, are essential.

  Ten years ago last week, Julian Assange’s Wikileaks organization published an exposé of US government wrongdoing on par with the above Hersh bombshell stories.

  Publication of the “Iraq War Diaries” showed us all the brutality of the US attack on Iraq. It told us the truth about the US invasion and occupation of that country. This was no war of defense against a nation threatening us with weapons of mass destruction. This was no liberation of the country. We were not “bringing democracy” to Iraq.

  No, the release of nearly 400,000 classified US Army field reports showed us in dirty detail that the US attack was a war of aggression, based on lies, where hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed and injured.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  We learned that the US military classified anyone they killed in Iraq as “enemy combatants.”

  We learned that more than 700 Iraqi civilians were killed for “driving too close” to one of the hundreds of US military checkpoints – including pregnant mothers-to-be rushing to the hospital.

  We learned that US military personnel routinely handed “detainees” over to Iraqi security forces where they would be tortured and often killed.

  Ten years after Assange’s brave act of journalism changed the world and exposed one of the crimes of the century, he sits alone in solitary confinement in a UK prison. He sits literally fighting for his life, as if he is successfully extradited to the United States he faces 175 years in a “supermax” prison for committing “espionage” against a country of which he is not a citizen.

  On the Iraq war we have punished the truth-tellers and rewarded the criminals. People who knowingly lied us into the war like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, the Beltway neocon “experts,” and most of the media, faced neither punishment nor professional shaming for their acts. In fact, they got off scot free and many even prospered.

  Julian Assange explained that he published the Iraq War Diaries because he “hoped to correct some of the attack on truth that occurred before the war, and that continued on since that war officially ended.” We used to praise brave journalists not afraid to take on the “bad guys.” Now we torture and imprison them.

  President Trump has made a point of singling out the US attack on Iraq as one of the “stupid wars” that he was committed to ending. But we wouldn’t know half of just how stupid – and evil – it was were it not for the brave actions of Julian Assange and whistleblower Chelsea Manning. Journalism should not be a crime and President Trump should pardon Assange immediately.

  

• Russian Airstrikes Obliterate Turkish-Backed 'Rebel' Camp In Idlib, Killing Over 60
  Russian Airstrikes Obliterate Turkish-Backed ‘Rebel’ Camp In Idlib, Killing Over 60
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 21:05

  Though Syria has long fallen out of featured coverage in international media, it appears the war to take back Idlib province is heating up once again. Recall that on prior occasions over the past few years Washington has threatened some level of military intervention each time Syria and Russia prepared to finally liberate the northwest region from al-Qaeda and Turkish-backed jihadists (especially connected with ‘rebel’ claims of chemical weapons usage by government forces). 

  On Monday Russian jets pounded a camp full of Turkish-backed militants in Idlib, killing at least 60. Some media sources are reporting possibly over 70 killed and 100+ injured, making it one of the single deadliest airstrikes of the entire almost decade long war.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  “The strike targeted the group Faylaq al-Sham, whose base is near several refugee camps in the heavily populated province of Idlib,” The New York Times reports.

  And further according to the report, it’s likely to escalation tensions with Turkey, given not only Faylaq al-Sham works closely with Turkey’s military and intelligence, but also given the strike happened so near the border: 

  The fighters’ camp was at Kafr Takharim, near the Turkish border. The attack was the most violent breach of a cease-fire agreement that Russia and Turkey reached in March. Russia has occasionally made smaller strikes on militant groups, but such a large strike so close to the Turkish border is unusual.

  The earliest reports put the death toll at over 34, which continued to rise through the day. The NY Times notes further that “Video footage from the scene showed the bodies of at least a dozen fighters wrapped in blankets on the floor of a clinic.”

  Update: I’m told the death toll from #Russia‘s strike is now 76, with 100+ injured.

  = One of the most deadly single airstrikes in #Syria‘s 9-year conflict. https://t.co/DJ2ZAqtG3t

  — Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) October 26, 2020

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

  Previous Russian-Turkey ceasefire agreements related to Idlib have been conditioned on Turkey rooting out clearly designated terrorist groups. However, groups which Turkey and the West have dubbed “moderate” are often seen by Russia and Damascus as terrorists. 

  In this case the Western allies that have been covertly involved in Syria have long thought of Faylaq al-Sham as supposedly moderate. Russia clearly thought otherwise.

  Currently, some analysts are speculating that Russia could be sending a message to Turkey at a moment Ankara appears to be getting more deeply involved supporting its ally Azerbaijan against Armenia in the contested Nagorno-Karabakh region.

  

• NYPD Officer Suspended Without Pay For Blaring "Trump 2020" On Loudspeaker
  NYPD Officer Suspended Without Pay For Blaring “Trump 2020” On Loudspeaker
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 20:45

  The New York Police Department is investigating an incident Saturday evening where a police officer in a patrol cruiser in Brooklyn blared “Trump 2020” through the loudspeaker – and urged bystanders to film it, reported RT News. 

  “Trump 2020,” the officer said several times. Multiple videos show the incident, which appears to include at least three officers. By Monday morning, the video uploaded to Twitter has a little more than 2 million views, sparking backlash from officials and residents.

  Police officer in Brooklyn uses a loudspeaker to say “Trump 2020” while on the job pic.twitter.com/ZujQIfqonH

  — Fifty Shades of Whey (@davenewworld_2) October 25, 2020

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

  The NYPD tweeted Sunday morning they were aware of the incident and said, “it is under investigation by our Brooklyn South Investigation Unit.” 

  “Police officers must remain apolitical,” the department said.

  We are aware of this video and it is under investigation by our Brooklyn South Investigation Unit.

  Police officers must remain apolitical. https://t.co/a3XyWCNceb

  — NYPD NEWS (@NYPDnews) October 25, 2020

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

  In another tweet, the NYPD said the officer who used the “vehicle’s loudspeaker for political purposes had been suspended, effective immediately.” 

  Suspended without pay; The police officer who is under investigation for using a department vehicle’s loud speaker for political purposes has been suspended, effective immediately.

  — NYPD NEWS (@NYPDnews) October 25, 2020

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

  A second video, recorded by a passerby, told the officer in the car to “do it again,” referring him to use the loudspeaker to tout “Trump 2020.” Sure enough, the officer did, blaring “Trump 2020,” causing the passerby, presumably a liberal, to ignite in hate and called the officer a “f**king fascist.” 

  NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said the incident was “one hundred percent unacceptable. Period.” 

  “Law Enforcement must remain apolitical, it is essential in our role to serve ALL New Yorkers regardless of any political beliefs,” Shea said. “It is essential for New Yorkers to trust their Police.”

  One hundred percent unacceptable. Period.

  Law Enforcement must remain apolitical, it is essential in our role to serve ALL New Yorkers regardless of any political beliefs.

  It is essential for New Yorkers to trust their Police.

  Updates to follow after initial investigation. https://t.co/C4zyVYWZvN

  — Commissioner Shea (@NYPDShea) October 25, 2020

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

  While some commend the NYPD for immediately suspending the officer, critics, or mainly liberals, went berserk, saying City Hall and NYPD were not doing enough to enforce division in policing and politics. 

  “My tax dollars did not pay for NYPD officers to broadcast Trump 2020 from their cruiser,” one resident tweeted. 

  “Meanwhile, NYPD is using taxpayer dollars to blast ‘Trump 2020’ from their loudspeakers,” activist Matt Sutton said.

  This is not the first time a police department has launched a similar investigation. Last week, the Miami Police Department investigated one of its officers wearing a “Trump 2020” face mask while in uniform. 

  

• How The DoJ's Anti-Trust Lawsuit Against Google Could Hammer Apple At A Critical Time
  How The DoJ’s Anti-Trust Lawsuit Against Google Could Hammer Apple At A Critical Time
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 20:25

  The DoJ’s push to punish Google in the first of what’s expected to be a flurry of civil actions against the Big Tech players could have seriously negative repercussions for a third party: Apple.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  As the Wall Street Journal highlighted in a recent story highlighting commentary and research recently produced by Toni Sacconaghi, a longtime tech analyst at A.B. Bernstein, Apple and Google have a special link – and it’s one of the elements of Google’s business that’s come under the microscope as a key element of the government’s case.

  The government says Google’s arrangement to pay Apple billions of dollars to set Google’s search engine as its default has been essential in maintaining its market dominance, and preventing another rival search engine from rising up to challenge Google.

  “There’s a risk, if you play it out, that there actually could be more financial impact to Apple than there is for Google,” said Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst for Bernstein. He estimates that Apple’s stock could fall as much as 20% if the deal with Google were to be eliminated entirely. At the same time, he and others say, any damage could be far less if Apple is able to offset it through other deals involving Google and its competitors, as many investors and analysts say could happen.

  The two companies first struck a deal in 2005, when Steve Jobs was still Apple’s CEO, to make Google the default in Apple’s Safari web browser on Mac computers. The deal expanded with the arrival of the iPhone two years later, according to the government’s lawsuit.

  But back in 2016, details about the agreement were revealed in an unrelated court battle. It showed Apple received a cool $1 billion in 2014 as part of the deal to default its products to Google’s search engine. When the deal was first struck in 2005, back when Steve Jobs was still CEO, Google paid Apple to default Safari to Google’s search engine. That default setting was later included on iPhones, iPads etc. At that time, Apple booked nearly $200 billion in sales during the 2014 fiscal year.

  While $1 billion back then might not have seemed like such a large chunk, Wall Street analysts believe the amount Google has been paying Apple for the privilege has likely expanded significantly, with some projecting that Google might be paying as much as $12 billion annually for the arrangement across all of Apple’s products and services. 

  Since the costs associated with licensing something like a default browser setting are negligible for the company that controls the browser and the devices, losing out on $12 billion in pure profit would be equivalent to a 20% hit to annual profits (Apple reported $55.26 billion in profits for fiscal 2019).

  With so many close links between Google and Apple, disrupting this relationship could also hurt Apple’s service business in other ways, but as another analyst pointed out, there’s more than enough standing to argue that what Apple and Google are doing is no different than every supermarket’s relationship with the brands that it sells.

  Apple is expected to report its fiscal 2020 results Thursday. We suspect Tim Cook & Co, will have some more to say about the DoJ/State AG legal antitrust push, which threatens to upend the big tech status quo.

  Of course, as Sacconaghi points out, Google has just as much to lose. Should the arrangement unravel, Apple could scoop up a small competitior, say DuckDuckGo, and start to muscle in on Google’s search traffic, which supplies much of the data that the company repackages for resale to its clients.

  As far as American courts are concerned, this isn’t the first time a lawsuit or civil action has exposed collusion between the biggest American tech firms in the area of personnel (informal no-poaching agreements). It’s reasonable to expect that while Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook are nominally “competitors”, when it comes to this antitrust action, they’re all in the same boat.

  

• Judge Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed, Radical Dems Demand "Expand The Court"
  Judge Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed, Radical Dems Demand “Expand The Court”
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 20:03

  If you feel like some self-flagellation, you can watch the entire Schumer show before the vote here:

  “You may win this vote and Amy Coney Barrett may become a justice on the Supreme Court. But you will never, never get your credibility back,” Mr Schumer said, side-eyeing his GOP colleagues on the Senate floor.

  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell fired back that Democrats would have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.

  “The reason we were able to make the decision we did in 2016,” he said, referring to the GOP blocking Mr Garland’s nomination, “is because we had become the majority in 2014. The reason we were able to do what we did in 2016 and 2018 and 2020 is because we had the majority. No rules are broken whatsoever.”

  The GOP-controlled Senate has voted on Barrett’s nomination and as widely expected confirmed her as the 115th justice on the nation’s highest court, sealing a 6-3 conservative majority on the panel that has become more and more instrumental in steering the course of US domestic policy in recent decades.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  As McConnell punctuated his point earlier on: “Elections have consequences.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Ms Barrett, 48, who has served on the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since 2017, is the fifth woman to serve on the Supreme Court, and just the second woman appointed by a Republican president.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  A senior White House official confirmed that Justice Clarence Thomas will swear in Judge Amy Coney Barrett as an associate justice on the Supreme Court later this evening.

  CNN made it clear what they would be focusing on..

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  as did NBC News…

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  And all of this happened on Hillary’s birthday!

  Happy Birthday, honey… pic.twitter.com/4VMDkhSDkB

  — James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) October 26, 2020

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

  So what happens next (apart from an avalanche of whiney, angry press statements from Democratic party leaders)?

  After today’s confirmation vote, (and soon to occur, socially-distanced swearing-in-ceremony at The White House), Jonathan Turley details in the following op-ed at The Hill, what he calls ‘the parade of horribles’ proposed by academics for changing the Court to legislatively negate the majority of conservative justices after the addition of Amy Coney Barrett to the Court.

  The Radicals are demanding it…

  Remember that Republicans have lost 6 of the last 7 popular votes, but have appointed 6 of the last 9 justices.

  By expanding the court we fix this broken system and have the court better represent the values of the American people.

  — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) October 27, 2020

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

  We are going to take back the White House & Senate next week with a resounding mandate from the people to fight back against Trump’s illegitimately stacked judiciary. We must expand the Court if we’re serious about the transformational change the people are crying out for.

  — Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) October 27, 2020

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

  The concern is that this is little beyond enablement by commission as Democrats claim license to do lasting harm to one of the most important institutions in our constitutional system.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  As Turley explains, the vote on Monday to make Judge Amy Coney Barrett the 115th Supreme Court justice will be more than a confirmation. It will be a dispensation, according to former Vice President Joe Biden and various Democratic senators. They have cited the vote as relieving them of any guilt in fundamentally changing the court to manufacture a liberal majority. Like school kids daring others to step over a line as an excuse to fight, Democrats insist that filling this vacancy will invite changes ranging from “packing” the court to stripping it of authority to rule in certain cases.

  The problem is that the line the Senate will step over is set by the Constitution, while the proposals by Democrats would retaliate against the use of a power granted by the Constitution. Democrats are floating a parade of horribles to “reform” the Supreme Court and negate its growing conservative majority. Biden said this week that the court is “out of whack” and, as president, he would assemble a commission of “experts” to explore “a number of alternatives that go well beyond packing.” The commission would report to him 180 days after his inauguration.

  Polls show almost 60 percent of Americans oppose the court packing scheme supported by Democrats, including Biden’s running mate, Senator Kamala Harris. One person not polled was the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who denounced such a scheme as guaranteeing the court’s destruction.

  A New York Times and Siena College poll found only 31 percent favor court packing. That is a familiar figure: For the last four years, the same 30 percent of both parties have supported the most destructive political measures and rhetoric. Those extremes continue to control our politics, while the vast majority of us in the middle watch in disbelief as virtually every Democratic senator embraces one of the most reviled tactics in American history.

  Those senators are not alone.

  A host of professors (who likely will be on the short list for Biden’s commission) are giving credibility to court packing.

  Harvard professor Michael Klarman attacked the foundations of Congress before attacking the foundations of the court. Klarman condemned a “malapportionment” in the Senate that he believes gives Republicans greater power, and referred to their refusal to vote on Obama court nominee Merrick Garland as “stealing a seat.” While controversial (and I was among those calling for a vote on Garland), that decision was clearly constitutional. Yet Klarman illogically calls it “court packing” to justify any act of retaliation: “Democrats are not initiating this spiral. They are simply responding in kind.”

  He then says not to worry about Republicans responding with their own court packing when they return to power. He insists Democrats can change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election,” at least not without abandoning their values. Of course, Klarman concedes “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described” so the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur. Here are some of the other wacky ideas to get the court back into “whack.”

  Jurisdiction stripping

  Several professors argue for a court packing alternative that moves to the opposite approach: If you cannot make the court bigger, then shrink its authority. By using “jurisdiction stripping,” Democrats would bar federal courts from reviewing certain types of legislation. So, faced with a conservative court, a Democratic Congress would make the courts into a nullity to give itself unchecked authority in various areas. Assuming courts would allow such a move, it would create a race to the bottom as more and more legislation was protected from judicial review.

  Supermajority voting

  Another approach is to leave the Supreme Court at its current size but effectively “pack” the vote by requiring supermajority decisions. A Democratic Congress would enhance the votes of the court’s minority by requiring a two-thirds vote or even unanimity for certain types of cases or laws. It is an ironic idea since, against the advice of many, Democrats got rid of the Senate filibuster for judicial nominations when it held the majority — fundamentally changing longtime protections for a Senate minority. In this case, Democrats would designate favored areas or types of cases protected by supermajority rules, thereby manipulating the court’s votes.

  Balanced bench

  Pete Buttigieg and some academics have proposed disregarding any pretense of nonpartisan justices. They would convert the court into a kind of judicial Federal Communications Commission, with Democrats and Republicans each picking five justices who would then pick five more from federal appeals courts to serve terms of one year. That would make the Supreme Court a crude reflection of our dysfunctional political times.

  Notably, the Supreme Court is reviewing such a partisan court system in Carney versus Adams. The case must be familiar to Biden, since it deals with a moronic Delaware constitutional requirement that the five seats on the state’s Supreme Court be divided between Democrats and Republicans — preventing an independent from becoming a justice. In Delaware, a “balanced court” apparently means you must first establish that you are from the right party before you can mete out justice The proposal would have a continually shifting court and, since the five transient justices would be selected based on party affiliation, they likely would become pawns in a partisan calculation.

  Another proposal would “solve” the “problem” of a conservative majority by literally turning every judge into an associate justice. A lottery would be held every two weeks to randomly select nine justices to hear cases, with each panel limited to no more than five judges nominated by a president of the same political party. Senator Bernie Sanders actually endorsed this looney idea. It is akin to the character “Syndrome” in “The Incredibles” explaining he would give everyone superpowers because “when everyone’s super … no one will be.” Most Americans are unlikely to want to replace today’s court with a law by lottery approach.

  As someone who proposed expanding the Supreme Court decades ago, I am not opposed to reform. However, Biden’s proposed commission is not about reform. It is about packing, stacking, and stripping schemes to achieve political outcomes on the Supreme Court. Biden is offering up the institution to the 30 percent demanding extreme measures to satiate their anger. Biden once denounced court packing as a “bone headed idea” — but he may now appoint a commission to convert a variety of bone headed ideas into bona fide proposals.

  

• CDC Reaffirms Warning Against Nonessential Travel, Including Cruises
  CDC Reaffirms Warning Against Nonessential Travel, Including Cruises
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 19:50

  By Evan Gove of Porthole Cruise

  The CDC has updated a level 3 warning to avoid nonessential travel, citing cruises in particular as a known spreader of COVID-19.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The update on the CDC website doesn’t leave any room for interpretation: 

  Cruise passengers are at increased risk of person-to-person spread of infectious diseases, including COVID-19, and outbreaks of COVID-19 have been reported on several cruise ships.

  It goes on to say the following: 

  Recent reports of COVID-19 on cruises highlight the risk of infections to cruise passengers and crew. Like many other viruses, COVID-19 appears to spread more easily between people in close quarters aboard ships and boats. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, there remains a risk of infected passengers and crew on board cruise ships.

  With the CDC’s no-sail order scheduled to end at the conclusion of this month, the updated warnings against traveling by cruise ship send mixed messages about whether or not the agency will truly lift the order in six days time. At the very least, it’s the CDC reaffirming their position that it’s too early for cruising to come back.

  According to the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), the suspension of the industry has cost more than 160,000 jobs and billions in lost revenue since it began in March. 

  Optimism for 2020 Cruises

  At Seatrade Cruise Virtual earlier this month, cruise line brass expressed optimism that America would see ships sailing again by the end of the year. Carnival Corporation CEO Arnold Donald even said he had a 4.9 out of 5 confidence level that it could be done.

  Since then, nothing has gone right for an industry relegated to inactivity for the better part of this year. A call scheduled with the Whitehouse Coronavirus Task Force, including Vice President Michael Pence and CDC Director Robert Redfield, had to be postponed due to a COVID-19 outbreak among those at the highest levels of government.

  While the call did happen a week later, news broke over this past weekend that five people close to the Vice President, including his chief of staff Marc Short, have tested positive for the virus. From a sheer optics standpoint, it looks bad when the head of an infectious disease task force is struggling to protect his own team from said disease.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  While we know you want to cruise, public perception around the industry is at an all-time low and that could potentially hamstring any sort of restart for the rest of this year. Many cruise lines have already pushed their start date back well into December with others already looking ahead to 2021. 

  

• Al Qaeda #2 Commander Killed In Secretive Raid In Afghanistan
  Al Qaeda #2 Commander Killed In Secretive Raid In Afghanistan
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 19:30

  A terrorist being described as al-Qaeda’s #2 in central Asia has been killed by Afghan special forces days ago. The national government in Kabul made the announcement Sunday that Husam Abd al-Rauf, also known as Abu Muhsin al-Masri, had been killed in an Afghan special forces raid in Ghazni province which happened last week.

  Al-Rauf is listed on the FBI most-wanted list as al-Qaeda’s top propagandist. However, it’s interesting that while a decade or more ago such news as a top Qaeda commander being taken out would have featured central in American media, the successful operation was barely covered on the major networks. This also as foreign policy has essentially been completely dropped from the presidential debates or pre-election coverage.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  Few details were immediately released of the classified raid as US and allied Afghan elite forces continue their operations against Islamic State and Qaeda terrorists is the area which lies some 90 miles southwest of Kabul.

  Politico reports of the scant details which have been released: “Amanullah Kamrani, the deputy head of Ghazni’s provincial council, told The Associated Press that Afghan special forces led by the intelligence agency raided Kunsaf, which he described as being under Taliban control.”

  The report continues: “On the village’s outskirts, they stormed an isolated home and killed seven suspected militants in a firefight, including al-Rauf, Kamrani said.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The red-headed al-Rauf is an Egyptian national who got his start fighting with the US-backed mujahedeen against the Soviets.

  Like other foreign jihadists of the 1980’s this top al-Qaeda commander was initially supported by the CIA and US allies like Pakistan at the end of the Cold War.

  By the mid-2000s he was accused of conspiring to kill American citizens and belonging to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

  

• "Can I Change My Vote": Voter's Remorse Sets In As Searches For Do-Over Spike
  “Can I Change My Vote”: Voter’s Remorse Sets In As Searches For Do-Over Spike
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 19:25

  As politicians pushed the constituents throughout the summer to vote early, and by mail – driving early vote totals to exceed 2016 levels nine days before Election Day, some people are having second thoughts.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  According to Google Trends, searches for “can I change my vote” have spiked following the second presidential debate, and the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

  “Can I change my vote” surges in Google search after the final debate and Hunter’s Laptop drop. pic.twitter.com/nyjf2av7uF

  — The Based Grandma (@TheBasedGrandma) October 26, 2020

  The last time searches to change votes surged like this was October 30 – November 5, 2016 – followed by midterms, however the recent search trend suggests longer, more sustained interest in the topic.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  By state, West Virginia, New Mexico and Idaho are the top three regions interested in changing votes.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  And aside from Florida Republicans crushing Democrats in early voting, Democrats accounted for the lion’s share of some 52 million votes cast so far this year.

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

  

• Your Personal Gold Standard
  Your Personal Gold Standard
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 19:10

  Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

  Elites are extremely hostile to the idea that gold should have any role whatsoever in the monetary system. To them, gold is truly a barbarous relic, as John Maynard Keynes was supposed to have said. You might as well propose bringing back the horse and buggy.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Except Keynes never said gold was a barbarous relic.

  What he did say was more interesting. In his 1924 book Monetary Reform, Keynes in fact wrote “the gold standard is already a barbarous relic.”

  Keynes was discussing not gold, but the gold standard. There might not seem to be a difference, but there is. In the 1924 context, he was right.

  The classical gold standard ended in 1914 with the outbreak of WWI. To pay for the war, combatants printed massive amounts of money.

  After the war many wanted to return to the pre-war gold standard. In 1925, for example, the British Exchequer was Winston Churchill. He wanted to return to the old gold price, ignoring the fact that the wartime money printing demanded a much higher gold price. He in effect overvalued the pound.

  Keynes told Churchill this would be a deflationary disaster. If Britain was to go back on a gold standard, it would have to set the gold price higher. But Churchill ignored his advice.

  The result was massive deflation and depression in Great Britain, years before depression struck the rest of the world.

  The notoriously flawed gold exchange standard that prevailed until 1939 should never have been adopted, and should have been eliminated before WWII did the job.

  These days, there isn’t a central bank in the world that wants to go back to a gold standard. But that’s not the point. The question is whether they will have to.

  I’ve had conversations with several Federal Reserve Bank presidents. When you ask them point-blank, “Is there a theoretical limit to the Fed’s balance sheet?” they say no. They say there are policy reasons to make it higher or lower, but that there’s no limit to the amount of money you can print.

  That is completely wrong. That’s what they say; that’s how they think; and that’s how they act. But in their heart of hearts, some people at the Fed know it’s wrong. Luckily, people can vote with their feet…

  I always tell people who say we’re not on the gold standard that, in a way, we are. You can put yourself on a personal gold standard just by buying gold. In other words, if you think that the value of paper money will be in some jeopardy, or confidence in paper money may be lost, one way to protect yourself is by buying gold. And there’s nothing stopping you.

  The typical response is, “What’s the point of owning gold? They’re just going to confiscate it, like Roosevelt did in 1933?” I find that extremely unlikely.

  In 1933, we’d just come through four years of the Great Depression, and Roosevelt was new in office. People talk about the first hundred days, but he closed the banks right after he was sworn in. And he confiscated gold only a few weeks later.

  And it wasn’t as if Elliot Ness was going door to door, breaking into your house and taking gold. They wanted to get a small number of people who had 400-ounce bars in bank vaults. And they got those people because they were able to close the banks and use them as intermediaries to confiscate that gold.

  But now, gold is far more dispersed, and there’s far less trust in government.

  If the government tried to confiscate gold today, there would be various forms of resistance. The government knows this. So they wouldn’t issue that order, because they know it couldn’t be enforced, and it might cause various kinds of civil disobedience or pushback.

  As long as you can own gold, you can put yourself on your own gold standard by converting paper money to gold. I recommend you do that. I’m not suggesting you convert all your dollars to gold. Not at all.

  But I do recommend having 10% of your investable assets in gold for the conservative investor, and maybe 20% for the aggressive investor — no more than that.

  Those are very high allocations relative to what people have. Most people own no gold.

  If demand spiked suddenly, there’s not enough gold in the world — at current prices — to satisfy that demand. Gold prices would have to rise dramatically to bring them in line with demand.

  If some scenarios play out, you are going to see the price of gold rocket to the moon. And it may happen in a very short period of time. You shouldn’t expect a steady, gradual increase. Gold may to drift along sideways, going nowhere for a period. Then you’ll see a spike, then another spike, and then a super-spike. It could happen within months.

  At that point, gold becomes a major force. Ultimately I expect gold to reach $10,000-$15,000 an ounce or more. Those figures are not made up. I didn’t come up with them to be provocative. They’re a product of the actual math. They’re the numbers you get when you simply divide the money supply by the amount of gold in the market.

  When the super-spike happens, you’re going to have two Americas. You’re going to have one America that was not prepared. Paper savings will be wiped out; 401(k)s will be devalued; pensions, insurance and annuities will be devalued through inflation. That’s because it’s not just the price of gold going up. It’s the dollar going down. Gold is an indicator.

  It’s like taking the temperature of a patient with a fever and blaming it on the thermometer when it reads 104. The thermometer’s not to blame for the fever; it’s just telling you what’s going on.

  Likewise, the price of gold is not an economic object or aim in itself; it’s a price signal. It tells you what’s going on in the economy. And gold at the levels I’m talking about would mean that you’ve now verged into hyperinflation, or something close to it, because nothing happens in isolation.

  It seems unlikely now, but once expectations shift towards inflation, it can be dramatic. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), for example, is now big in Democratic circles. MMT is basically a recipe for massive money printing. If it ever comes into being, expectations could shift dramatically towards inflation.

  Still, central banks will never voluntarily return to a gold standard. But if gold is such a barbarous relic, if gold has no role in the monetary system, if gold is a “stupid” investment, then why are the Russians and Chinese stockpiling gold hand over fist? Are they stupid?

  Well, I’ve spoken with many of them and I can assure you they’re not stupid.

  But if there’s a run on paper currencies (which is entirely possible) or borderline hyperinflation (also possible), central banks may have to go to a gold standard. Not because they want to, but because they find it necessary to calm the markets.

  I suggest you buy your gold at current levels — around $1,900 — and ride the wave up to much higher levels. It’ll protect your wealth in the days ahead.

  Like every market, it will fluctuate. Nothing goes up in a straight line. But you want to focus on the longer term picture. And it looks very bright for gold.

  So I invite you to go on your own personal gold standard. One day, the rest of the world may join you.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Chinese Authorities Scramble To Suppress Biggest COVID-19 Outbreak In Months
  Chinese Authorities Scramble To Suppress Biggest COVID-19 Outbreak In Months
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 02:45

  Chinese authorities are scrambling to suppress yet another outbreak in far-flung Xinjiang after a 17-year-old garment factory worker tested positive. 

  Health authorities reported 137 new cases on Sunday, all of which were confirmed in Xinjiang Province, making this by far the largest new outbreak since the Spring. In keeping with Beijing’s prescribed “wartime posture” approach, authorities last night launched a mass-testing campaign to try and test all 4.75 million residents in and around the city of Kashgar. A couple of weeks ago, authorities pulled off a similarly massive testing drive in Qingdao, a city in the eastern Shangdong Province. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Thanks to sweeping smartphone-based mass surveillance/case-tracking, scapegoating and outright suppression of case numbers and deaths, China has managed to drive COVID-19 case numbers to almost zero. In Wuhan, locals travel to bars and concerts, sometimes, taking rapid COVID-19 tests, with their infection status logged on their smartphones in a way that can be examined by bouncers at the door. 

  To further confuse the international community, along with the Chinese public, China’s national health authorities have divided case classifications into imported vs. domestic and asymptomatic vs symptomatic. 

  Here’s how the ‘official’ tally of cases has evolved in recent weeks. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The new cases, all classified as asymptomatic, were linked to a factory in Shufu county where the 17-year-old girl and her parents worked, according to the Xinjiang health commission, which held a press briefing on Sunday following an exhaustive investigation of the source of the outbreak by Beijing’s NHC. 

  As of Sunday afternoon more than 2.8 million samples had been collected in the area and the rest would be completed within two days, the city government said in a statement.

  Kashgar, near the country’s borders with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, is the cultural home of China’s Turkic Muslim ethnic Uighurs, a group that the CCP has relentlessly pressed into reeducation camps and concentration camps to force them to accept the country’s governing Communist ideology.

  The crackdown as provoked international outbreak, and a barrage of sanctions imposed by the US on officials and companies involved with the mass-detention program.

  

• The Cult Of The Brave New Normal
  The Cult Of The Brave New Normal
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Mon, 10/26/2020 – 02:00

  Authored by Dr. Bruce Scott via Off-Guardian.org,

  In March, it was just a three-week lockdown, to flatten the curve so as not to overwhelm the NHS. The narrative has quickly evolved. It has progressed from what seemed a reasonable idea of keeping NHS bed space free based on the completely false Neil Fergusson prediction that hospitals would be overwhelmed by patients suffering from COVID19.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  This never happened. Many weeks passed where face masks were not needed and then suddenly in July, long after the majority of supposed COVID19 deaths had occurred, face masks were made compulsory.

  Indeed, the UK government advice from the likes of Chris Whitty and the World Health Organisation was that face masks were not effective in stopping the spread of COVID19 or in contracting it; science does not change that quick – anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.

  The result is that we have now fallen deep into a Covidian Cult, a totalitarian psychotic narrative that has little connection to reality or to the facts.

  The opposition to official government narratives regarding Covid19 are well known. I will not bother again telling you what is already known or can be readily ascertained.

  Suffice to say, one just needs to type into Google “The Great Barrington Declaration” or ACU2020, where one can read about the doctors, scientists and lawyers who are opposing multi-governmental COVID19 restrictions and laws of social distancing, lockdown, mandatory/coerced consent to vaccines, and mandatory face masks, amongst other things.

  Their essential argument, contra the multi-government policy on COVID19, is that virus is not the danger we are being told it is; the data on COVID19 is clear: we do not need to lockdown society, wreck the economy, or frighten people into death as they are scared to leave home for fear of catching COVID19 or seek medical treatment for non-COVID19 illness, which has happened.

  Specifically, many doctors and scientists argue that face masks are not protective and could be very harmful. Dr Jay Bhattacharya, a signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration, which 40,000 medical, public health scientists and medical practitioners have signed, said that the use of face masks are not supported in the scientific literature. There is no randomised data to indicate if they are effective in reducing the spread of COVID19.

  Indeed, face masks have no effectiveness in the spread of influenza. This is backed up by the fact that social distancing and face masks have not made a difference on yearly rate of influenza deaths in the UK.

  On the 15th October 2020 the stark reality that we are being led by a psychotic Covidian cult narrative became even more evident; Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, announced with great glee that couples marrying would no longer have to wear face masks when tying the knot. Of course, the Priest, Vicar, or Registrar etc conducting the ceremonies never had to wear a mask to conduct the marriage ceremony. What kind of political leader would impose on couples, who for all intent and purposes will be living together and spending the night together after the wedding, have to wear a mask during their wedding ceremony? Would a mask be required for the happy couple to consummate their marriage on their wedding night?

  This ridiculous face mask rule imposed by Nicola Sturgeon shows quite clearly the dark side of Scottish politics. It is ridiculous because Nicola Sturgeon (as well as all the other MSP’s and Holyrood staff) has met many people from other households indoors in parliament (before and after face masks were imposed), whilst at the same time continually telling the masses that they cannot meet people from other households indoors. One rule for me, one for thee.

  The paranoid fuelled COVID19 rules delivered by Sturgeon on a daily basis during the week and even reiterated on her twitter account on a frequent basis, and the blatant inconsistent and illogical nature of these rules, are not meant to console or comfort the masses. No, they are a deliberate attempt to disorientate and control the minds of the masses.

  Cult leaders do this to their followers to short circuit their critical thinking. Cult leaders will also change the rules or the narrative at a whim for no apparent reason. Hence the change of now being able to get married without a face mask, even though the COVID19 restrictions are being tightened again all over the UK; it makes no sense, its not meant to, and the masses are meant to follow, not question and obey.

  Cult leaders want to make the masses follow chaos.

  This kind behaviour is equally applicable to the realm of BDSM (bondage, domination, sado-masochism) or the Master-Slave dialectic. In the world of BDSM, a master or mistress will impose illogical rules, but demand to be obeyed. As a slave in BDSM scenario might say, “Mistress is correct even when Mistress is wrong”.

  This forms the basis for a human subject becoming an object, of becoming alienated from themselves. This logical structure underpins the dictates from politicians in relation to COVID19 restrictions. The blatant flaunting of the dictates by the likes of Catherine Calderwood, Neil Fergusson, Dominic Cummings, Margaret Ferrier (and the many more we have not heard about yet) is testament to the fact that they don’t really take this COVID19 restrictions all that seriously.

  This abusive objectification and alienation are what totalitarians and cult leaders want to achieve and impose on their followers. Initiation rituals like mask wearing (especially when getting married) and social distancing, attack a person with terror, pain, humiliation and subjugation. Of course, anyone who has been in an abusive relationship will tell you that pointless rituals or behaviours are demanded by the abusive and sadistic abusive partner to wear the other person down.

  As is so often found in cults and individuals in abusive relationships, the cult members or abused partner will even go to great lengths to defend the cult leader’s demands or the person who abuses them. In our current predicament, this is highly ironic as the Scottish government have recently introduced psychological abuse as a crime.

  This abusive dialectic that is playing out between the UK government/Scottish government/devolved assemblies and the masses might explain why so many people cannot perceive the totalitarianism that is being inflicted upon them right in front of them, or right on their faces in the guise of masks and up till recently masked up in front of the alter getting married.

  The problem we have is this: people generally find it very difficult to recognise the delusional nature of a totalitarian master narrative. One case in point was Nazi Germany; cognitive dissonance was a prevalent characteristic of people during these times. People who cannot see the totalitarian moves made upon them are not ignorant or unintelligent; they have been initiated into a cult through the methods of initiation, chaos, confusion and the short circuiting of critical thinking.

  We are being initiated and conditioned for a future way of life where there will be no return to normality, and it has nothing to do with a virus. This is why children are being socially distanced in schools, are made to wear masks in certain contexts, are treated like bio-hazards by their teachers and are frightened half to death by being made to obsessively wash their hands multiple times a day with an abrasive hand sanitiser.

  Drawing on psychoanalytic thought, such directives pushed onto children will ensure that many children will grow up to be socially anxious and fearful of social interaction. It begs belief that the Adverse Childhood Experiences “movement” (ACEs) in Scotland are utterly silent about the harms being committed upon children as a result of these scientifically challengeable COVID19 restrictions and rules.

  As the Centre for Disease Control state, the survival rate estimates for people aged 0-19 years for COVID19 is 99.997%, 20-49 years is 99.98%, 50-69 years 99.5%, and 70 years+ 94.6% respectively. And now we have a casedemic where the rates of false positives (89%-94% of positives potentially false) and the PCR test does not even test for COVID19 (See ACU, 2020). Of course, the politicians ignore the fact that the PCR test was never intended to be a diagnostic instrument to be used to inform public health policy, never mind mandate it.

  The culture of deindividuation that the totalitarian abusive cult-like rituals of social distancing, mask wearing and not being able to meet people freely is also primed to be ramped up even further; Nicola Sturgeon has stated that she is considering face masks to be compulsory even in outside spaces-seven months into this COVID19 nightmare-another illogical and ridiculous idea with no basis in science.

  We are now entering a precarious tipping point; not from the virus, but from deindividuated members of the cult slavishly following these new rules and not challenging the wearing of masks outside. No doubt the “nudging” from the Government will work a treat on the masses

  This is because the UK and Scottish governments are manipulating, coercing and frightening us into following the rules and shaming us when we don’t. The UK and Scottish Governments are using applied behavioural psychology, breaking the ethical guidelines for psychologists, to deliberately ramp up fear in the population. A group of psychologists called Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) of SAGE have been tasked with advising the UK and Scottish Governments how to get people to adhere to COVID 19 restrictions.

  From their document which is freely available on the UK Government website, it is written:

  A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened.”

  And:

  The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.”

  The psychologists of SPI-B and the UK government knew fear alone would not be enough. Therefore, SPI-B suggested to government to use and promote social approval for desired behaviours, to consider enacting legislation to compel required behaviours, and to consider the use of social disapproval for failure to comply.

  They have used the Mainstream Media and Social media, along with false fact-checking and censorship to get their message across and it has been working.

  The tactics of the SPI-B psychologists informing UK and Scottish Governments’ policies on the COVID19 response are in my opinion contrary to the ethical and practice guidelines of The British Psychological Society (BPS); the psychology equivalent of the Hippocratic oath for medicine.

  The mainstream media are silent on these unethical practices of deliberately ramping up people’s sense of personal threat, creating a culture of feeling shame to follow COVID19 regulations and encouraging people to shame others for not following regulations. From the reports of several mental health charities, UK and Scottish Government reports, mental ill-health is in a crisis because of the COVID19 response/measures.

  Suicide risk factors have undoubtedly been hugely multiplied (house repossessions, unemployment, poverty and stress etc); when the official figures are completed, I have no doubt that there will have been, and there will be to come, many suicides because of the COVID19 lockdown and associated measures.

  Our political leaders, despite their lip service to mental health, are aware of the mental health and suicide crisis that now engulfs us, yet they proceed onwards with the COVID19 agenda regardless complicit in more psychological abuse being foisted upon people, knowing full well that this will cause untold misery.

  Vladimir Bukovsky, a Soviet dissident who was imprisoned in a psychiatric hospital (enforced incarceration for political dissidents) described well our current predicament:

  The peculiar features of the Soviet political system, the Communist ideology, the uncertainties and difficulties of the science of psychiatry, the labyrinths of the human conscience-all these have weirdly woven themselves together to create a monstrous phenomenon, the use of medicine against man.”
  Forward from Russia’s political hospitals, 1977 (S. Bloch and P. Reddaway) by Vladimir Bukovsky.

  Like the Soviet Union today the monstrous phenomenon is again the use of science and medicine against the masses by many Governments in the battle against COVID19. Not only do our political leaders want to “keep us safe until a vaccine” but they seem to want to destroy the economy, create huge unemployment and destroy businesses. They also want to monitor our every move and impose restrictions on work, travel and social and family life.

  There will be no end to this nightmare; there never is an end when one is in an abusive relationship. The goalposts always keep moving. The victim is broken down until they can offer no resistance.

  Indeed, Bill Gates recently indicated that even if we get a vaccine for COVID19, there will be no return to normal as it will probably take a second or third generation vaccine to get us back to normal. Of course, we know full well, when we get that second or third generation vaccine, it will not herald a return to the old normal.

  Unfortunately, at the moment there is not enough people (especially politicians and mainstream media journalists) with the necessary courage to call out the tyranny and call out the abuser. Historically this has also been a problem; politically and within an abusive context (e.g., the victim finds great difficulty calling out their abuser). In a critical remark and warning to the West, Alexander Solzhenitsyn said in his Harvard address in 1973:

  A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations…..Should one (have to) point out that from ancient times declining courage has been considered the beginning of the end?”

  Is this Scotland’s beginning of the end? Will the masses start to wake up to the dictatorial and totalitarian measures? Only time will tell. It might be too late. If it is the end, just don’t say you didn’t see it coming or nobody told you.

  There is hope. We can learn from history and enact that famous dictum after World War II; it should never happen again. Perhaps our politicians should mediate upon the Nuremberg Code of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime and UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights Article 6.

  Nuremberg Code:

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

  UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: Article 6 – Consent

  1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

  2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.

  3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.

  The Nuremberg Code and UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights Article 6 make for sobering reading when it comes to governmental mandates or ideas in the pipeline regarding COVID19.

  Just think of face masks (especially for children), social distancing, travel restrictions, work restrictions, immunity passports and ideas about giving people a rushed out unlicensed vaccine for COVID19 (which will be indemnified) which has not been assessed for the long-term side effects.

  The cult-like nature of the Brave New Normal that is COVID19 is insidiously pervading more and more aspects of our lives, with seemingly less and less science to back it up, and curiously being seen by those in power as an opportunity to reshape our society, not for our good, but for the good of those in power.

  Perhaps we should all think about what all this means for us, our children, our grandchildren and democracy in the UK and wider world.

  

• 'Renminbi Diplomacy': How China Bought The US Government?
  ‘Renminbi Diplomacy’: How China Bought The US Government?
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 23:30

  Submitted by Nauman Sadiq,

  In an explosive scoop, alternative news outlet Zero Hedge has laid bare how China’s state apparatchik clandestinely baited the family members of the Obama-era vice president and secretary of state into joint business ventures in order to surreptitiously influence the trade and economic policies of the US government favoring China’s geo-economic interests spanning the globe.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Here are a few relevant excerpts from the investigative report authored by Christopher Balding, Associate Professor at Peking University HSBC School of Business Shenzhen, China, and also a Bloomberg contributor:

  “Hunter Biden partnered with the Chinese state. Entire investment partnership is Chinese state money from social security fund to China Development Bank. It is actually a subsidiary of the Bank of China. This is not remotely anything less than a Chinese state-funded play.

  “Though the entire size of the fund cannot be reconstructed, the Taiwanese cofounder who is now detained in China, reports it to be NOT $1-1.5 billion but $6.5 billion. This would make Hunters stake worth at a minimum at least $50 million if he was to sell it.

  “The believed Godfather arranging Hunter’s business ventures is a gentleman named Yang Jiechi. He is currently the CCP Director of Foreign Affairs leading strategist for America, Politburo member, one of the most powerful men in China, and Chinese President Xi Jingpin’s confidant.

  “He met regularly with Joe Biden during his stint as Chinese ambassador the US when Biden chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Later he was Minister of Foreign Affairs when the investment partnership was made official in 2013.

  “Hunter Biden’s 2013 Bohai Harvest Rosemont investment partnership was set-up by Ministry of Foreign Affairs institutions which are tasked with garnering influence with foreign leaders during Yang’s tenure as Foreign Minister.

  “Hunter’s BHR stake (purchased for $400,000) is now likely be worth approx. $50 million (fees and capital appreciation based on BHR’s $6.5 billion AUM as stated by Michael Lin).

  “Joe Biden’s foreign policy stance towards China (formerly hawkish), turned positive despite China’s country’s rising geopolitical assertiveness.”

  China is known to follow the economic model of “state capitalism,” in which although small and medium enterprises are permitted to operate freely by common citizens, large industrial and extraction companies, especially multi-billion dollar corporations doing business with foreign clients, are run by the Communist Party stalwarts masquerading as business executives.

  In addition, China is alleged to practice “debt-trap diplomacy” for buying entire governments through extending financial grants and loans, and what better way to buy the rival government of the United States than by financing the Biden campaign through bestowing financial largesse on the Biden and John Kerry families and other prominent former officials of the Obama-Biden administration.

  In an exclusive report for the Breitbart New on October 16, Peter Schweizer and Seamus Bruner allege that newly obtained emails from a former business associate of Hunter Biden’s inner-circle reveal that Hunter and his colleagues used their access to the Obama-Biden administration to peddle influence to potential Chinese clients and investors—including securing a private, off-the-books meeting with the former vice president.

  The never-before-revealed emails, unconnected to the Hunter Biden emails being released by the New York Post, were provided to Schweizer by Bevan Cooney, a one-time Hunter Biden and Devon Archer business associate. Cooney is currently in prison serving a sentence for his involvement in a 2016 bond fraud investment scheme. The report notes:

  “On November 5, 2011, one of Archer’s business contacts forwarded him an email teasing an opportunity to gain ‘potentially outstanding new clients’ by helping to arrange White House meetings for a group of Chinese executives and government officials.

  “The group was the China Entrepreneur Club (CEC) and the delegation included Chinese billionaires, Chinese Communist Party loyalists, and at least one ‘respected diplomat’ from Beijing. Despite its benign name, CEC has been called ‘a second foreign ministry’ for the People’s Republic of China—a communist government that closely controls most businesses in its country. CEC was established in 2006 by a group of businessmen and Chinese government diplomats.

  “CEC’s leadership boasts numerous senior members of the Chinese Communist Party, including Wang Zhongyu (vice chairman of the 10th CPPCC National Committee and deputy secretary of the Party group), Ma Weihua (director of multiple Chinese Communist Party offices), and Jiang Xipei (member of the Chinese Communist Party and representative of the 16th National Congress), among others.

  “‘I know it is political season and people are hesitant but a group like this does not come along every day,’ an intermediary named Mohamed A. Khashoggi wrote on behalf of the CEC to an associate of Hunter Biden and Devon Archer. ‘A tour of the white house and a meeting with a member of the chief of staff’s office and John Kerry would be great.’

  “The gross income of the CEC members’ companies allegedly ‘totaled more than renminbi 1.5 trillion, together accounting for roughly 4% of China’s GDP.’ The overture to Hunter Biden’s associates described the Chinese CEC members variously as ‘industrial elites,’ ‘highly influential,’ and among ‘the most important private sector individuals in China today,’ dubbed as the China Inc.

  “Hunter Biden and Devon Archer apparently delivered for the Chinese Communist Party-connected industrial elites within ten days … The Obama-Biden administration archives reveal that this Chinese delegation did indeed visit the White House on November 14, 2011, and enjoyed high-level access.

  “The visitor logs list Jeff Zients, the deputy director of Obama’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as the host of the CEC delegation. Obama had tasked Zients with restructuring and ultimately consolidating the various export-import agencies under the Commerce Department—an effort in which the Chinese delegation would have a keen interest.”

  Schweizer suggests that the meeting may have opened the door for Hunter and Devon Archer down the road—as just two years later they formed the Chinese government-funded Bohai Harvest RST (BHR) investment fund which saw Chinese money pour into it for investments in CEC-linked businesses.

  According to the report, “One of BHR’s first major portfolio investments was a ride-sharing company like Uber called Didi Dache—now called Didi Chuxing Technology Co. That company is closely connected to Liu Chuanzhi, the chairman of the China Entrepreneur Club (CEC) and the founder of Legend Holdings—the parent company of Lenovo, one of the world’s largest computer companies. Liu is a former Chinese Communist Party delegate and was a leader of the 2011 CEC delegation to the White House. His daughter was the President of Didi.”

  After reading the names of these high-profile Chinese business and political elites visiting the White House and cultivating personal friendships and business relationships in the highest echelons of the Obama-Biden administration, one wonders whether the latter formulated trade and economic policies serving the interests of the American masses or took care of financial stakes of global power elites.

  During the last decade, all the manufacturing has outsourced to China, Chinese entrepreneurs are stealing American jobs and the American working classes are finding it hard to make ends meet, yet neoliberal Democrats are dogmatically sticking with market fundamentalism of globalization and free trade.

  In order to understand the real and perceived grievances of Donald Trump’s “alt-right” electoral base, we need to understand the prevailing global economic order and its prognosis. The predictions of pragmatic economists about free market capitalism have turned out to be true. A kind of global economic entropy has set into motion, and money is flowing from the area of high monetary density to the area of low monetary density.

  The rise of BRICS countries in the 21st century is the proof of this tendency. BRICS are growing economically because the labor in developing economies is cheap; labor laws and rights are virtually nonexistent; expenses on creating a safe and healthy work environment are minimal; regulatory framework is lax; expenses on environmental protection are negligible; taxes are low; and, in the nutshell, windfalls for multinational corporations are massive.

  Thus, BRICS are threatening the global economic monopoly of the Western capitalist bloc: North America and Western Europe. Here we need to understand the difference between manufacturing sector and services sector. Manufacturing sector is the backbone of economy; one cannot create a manufacturing base overnight.

  It is based on hard assets: the national economies need raw materials; production equipment; transport and power infrastructure; and, last but not the least, a technically educated labor force. It takes decades to build and sustain a manufacturing base. But the services sector, like the Western financial institutions, can be built and dismantled in a relatively short period of time.

  If we take a cursory look at the economy of the Western capitalist bloc, it has still retained some of its high-tech manufacturing base, but it is losing fast to the cheaper and equally robust manufacturing base of the developing BRICS nations. Everything is made in China these days, except for high-tech microprocessors, software, several internet giants, some pharmaceutical products, the Big Oil and the military hardware and defense production industry.

  Apart from that, the entire economy of the Western capitalist bloc is based on financial institutions: the behemoth investment banks that dominate and control the global economy, like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs in the US; BNP Paribas and Axa Group in France; Deutsche Bank and Allianz Group in Germany; and Barclays and HSBC in the UK.

  After establishing the fact that the Western economy is mostly based on its financial services sector, we need to understand its implications. Like I have contended earlier that it takes time to build a manufacturing base, but it is relatively easy to build and dismantle an economy based on financial services.

  Moreover, the manufacturing sector is labor-intensive whereas the financial services sector is capital-intensive, therefore the latter does not create as much job opportunities to keep the workforce of a nation gainfully employed and sufficiently remunerated as the industrial sector does.

  Although the bankers and corporate executives of the Western economies are the beneficiaries of such exploitative practices, the middle and working classes are suffering. Besides the Trump supporters in the United States, the far-right populist leaders in Europe are also exploiting popular resentment against free trade and globalization.

  The Brexiteers in the United Kingdom, the Yellow Vest protesters in France and the far-right movements in Germany and across Europe are a manifestation of a paradigm shift in the global economic order in which nationalist and protectionist slogans have replaced the free trade and globalization mantra of the nineties.

  Though the “alt-right agenda” of the Trump presidency has been scuttled by the political establishment and the deep state, Trump’s views regarding global politics and economics are starkly different from the establishment Democrats and Republicans pursuing neoliberal economics masqueraded as globalization and free trade.

  With his anti-globalist and protectionist agenda, Trump represents a paradigm shift in the global economic order. Trump withdrawing the United States from multilateral treaties, restructuring trade agreements, bringing investments and employments back to the US and initiating a trade war against China are a silent revolution against neoliberal ideals of globalization and free trade of which China is the new beneficiary with its strong manufacturing base and massive export potential.

  Thus, it’s only natural for the Chinese government to try to oust Trump from the presidency with all available means, including providing financial support to his neoliberal Democratic rivals, favoring globalization and free trade, in the upcoming US presidential elections slated for November 3.

  

• Air Force Selects BAE Systems To Design Combat Drone For Skyborg Program 
  Air Force Selects BAE Systems To Design Combat Drone For Skyborg Program 
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 23:00

  The Air Force, under the Skyborg program, has awarded defense firm BAE Systems with a contract of up to $400 million to develop a “digital design” for a fully autonomous drone that will fly with the service’s stealth fighters. 

  The aim is for BAE to produce a low-cost autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle that will fly with manned stealth fighters to increase air combat power. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Ehtisham Siddiqui, vice president and general manager of Controls and Avionics Solutions at BAE Systems, said the “need to generate combat power faster than our adversaries is critical to address near-peer threats.” 

  Siddiqui said, “this award will accelerate the development and deployment of manned-unmanned teaming technologies to give the U.S. Air Force a decisive edge in the battlespace.”

  The robotic wingmen for manned aircraft will be designed with BAE Systems’ autonomous systems. The drone will be outfitted with advanced sensors and other high-tech, likely classified, payloads. Paternering, an autonomous combat drone with a manned stealth fighter jet, could be game-changing on the modern battlefield to defend against emerging threats. 

  Currently, the Air Force has awarded nine defense firms for competing in the service’s autonomous Skyborg drone wingman program. Flushed with cash, the service is purchasing as many prototypes as possible, with testing currently underway. 

  Air Force envisions the winning defense firm to produce a drone that can conduct at least 15 different mission sets. We noted not too long ago that an operational capability timeline for the drone could be around 2023. 

  In August, a Boeing-made wingman drone was spotted in Australia. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  And maybe the 2005 American military science fiction action film “Stealth” accurately predicted combat drones were to become human pilots new “wingman.” 

  

• One Man's (Data-Driven) Journey From Zombie Apocalypse To Lockdown-Skeptic
  One Man’s (Data-Driven) Journey From Zombie Apocalypse To Lockdown-Skeptic
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 22:30

  Authored by Mark Jeftovic via OutOfTheCave.io,

  A couple of recurring conspiracy theory themes keep being circulated to me, they are specific to Canada but I’m sure these are typical across all locations.  I find these maddening because there is plenty of factual, well sourced and scientifically verified counterfactuals to draw from when being critical of the near universal mishandling of pandemic response by national governments worldwide.

  For lockdown skeptics, embracing or amplifying fact-free hysterical conspiracy theories makes them look like lunatics, so they should stop doing that.

  Allow me to dispense with the two big Canuck-themed conspiracy theories and then inject some much needed sanity into the conversation via a recent Triggernometry podcast with guest Ivor Cummins.

  These conspiracies are:

  #1) The Federal Government RFP to build “internment camps”

  Sent to be multiple times privately. “Have you heard about the interment camps?”. Etc. They all refer to this actual, Canadian federal tender #6D112-202772/A “Service Provider(s) for Federal Quarantine / Isolation sites” which really does exist.

  It sounds bad, doesn’t it. “Federal Quarantine / Isolation Sites” you mean like this kind of thing, nationally?

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  That’s actually a screen grab from Amazon’s Utopia series, which is a reboot of an earlier BBC series by the same name. I haven’t finished watching the Amazon version, but the BBC was originally about an elite cabal’s conspiracy to depopulate the planet by creating a false pandemic and then releasing a vaccine that would make people who took it, sterile. Pretty far out,  huh?

  Anyhoo, back to reality and the Canadian RFP for “The Interment Camps”. If you actually read the tender, you would see that the specification calls for  bids to provide “Lodging for up to 1600 people spread across Canada”.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  1600 people. Nationwide. And mostly in hotel rooms. You can argue whether or not the government has the right to detain people in the midst of a public health crisis. You can even debate if COVID-19 really would be a public health crisis if cooler heads prevailed (more on that below).

  What you can’t argue, is that lodging for 1600 people, nationwide, are “internment camps”, because they’re not.

  Apparently MPP Randy Hillier asked about this in Parliament “and was kicked out of the caucus for asking about them”. Nice try, Hillier did bring it up in provincial session. But he had already been kicked out of the PC’s in 2019 for mocking autistic children. He now sits as an independent (as a friend of mine far more plugged into Conservative politics once remarked to me “I often wonder myself where do we actually get these clowns from?” He was referring to career politicians in general).

  #2) Liberal Party Whistleblower leaks “Great Reset” plan to end private property globally

  I see this one more on social media, it purports to be a leak from a Liberal Party whistleblower which was posted to an indie website nobody had ever heard of before this, and a lot more people have heard of since. I won’t link to it here.

  It outlines a plan from within the PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) “Strategic Planning Committee” to begin introducing more lockdowns this fall, and then faced with the emergence of with a new strain of COVID in 2021 (“COVID-21”) engineer, in concert with national governments worldwide, a global economic collapse. The collapse would be followed by a debt jubilee and the implementation of UBI, with recipients of debt relief and UBI renouncing their claim on private property for the remainder of their lives.

  All of this based on an anonymous email (purportedly) sent from a throw-away protonmail account. As I pointed out to the first few people who sent me this, it is so absent of corroboration or attribution that believing it is entirely, 100% faith based. It is totally devoid of evidence.

  I can tell you that the only references to the PMOs “Strategic Planning Committee” seem to be in connection with this purported leak. It’s almost as if it doesn’t really exist and it’s not a thing. In Canada, committees are convened by the House of Commons, not the PMO (although it’s possible they informally call their groupings “committees”). The list of House of Commons Committees is here, and there is no Strategic Planning Committee in the list.

  I can also tell you that wiping out everybody’s debt also wipes out a lot of other people’s assets, and most of those people whose assets are other people’s debts are: banks, pension funds, endowments and other forms of Big Money. And I don’t think they would sit still for a political drive to wipe out gigantic chunks of their assets. I’ve said it before, and plan to expand on it in the future: “Thank God for Big Money”. Because if you can count on at least one class of participants to act semi-rationally when faced with uncertain outcomes and trade-offs, it’s that.

  Now it’s understandable that these kinds of rumours would run rampant, with the likes of the Davos crew in The World Economic Forum calling for using the COVID-19 pandemic as a type of “Great Reset”

  …as I remarked on Facebook, it is hard not to imagine Herr Von Schwab delivering this speech wearing a monocle and a red armband.

  Yet all this posturing is endemic to the type of catabolic collapse the existing power and institutional structures are facing today. As Jesse and Charles and myself frequently observe in our Axis Of Easy podcasts, we are transitioning from the Age of Nation States into an era of Network States and while it is too early to tell what this going to look like, today’s political class and plutocrats are trying hard to make sure they’re still the ones in charge after this huge tectonic phase shift.

  Usually however, that doesn’t happen. When societies transition from one form of organizational structure to another, leadership changes as well. That could be why there is such a push to the hoop to keep a lid on things “as they are” over these past few years and the polarization and disarray is simply the old order turning into dust in the wind…

  Enough conspiracy, let’s stick to data and science to end the lockdowns…

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  There is no shortage of science and data to challenge the flawed policies of the nation states whose basic playbook has been: lockdown, close economy, print money, ignore data, and double down.

  This may be a good time to quickly outline my arc of how my views on the pandemic shifted over time.

  My journey from Zombie Apocalypse to lockdown skeptic

  I began monitoring the reports of a new virus emerging out of China in January. On January 23rd I emailed a friend advising him to go out tomorrow and pick up some N95 masks, and by the first week of February I was stocking up food, medical supplies, cash, and weapons. I was expecting a full breakdown of the global supply chain and a collapse of the global economy.

  Based on early reported numbers of an R0 around 3.1 with an IFR of 5%, it looked like we’d see doubling times of 15 days. By March all three levels of government, city, province and national were reporting case rates and fatalities daily. I put together a spreadsheet and using those numbers as a model I forecasted Toronto to have 1.7M cases by the end of June. If the IFR really was 5%, or even 3%, it would mean between 51,000 and 136,000 fatalities.

  This was terrifying, so as the world started locking down, it seemed to make sense. In fact I was wondering why we were still allowing inbound flights from hotspots like China? There were rumblings from The Clerisy like the New York Times that blocking flights from China would be racist. This was the early innings of the politicization that was to follow.

  But then, a curious thing happened. The rate of change in infections and fatalities started coming down, drastically.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  By June it was clear to anybody following the data that this was, at least for now, largely in the rearview mirror. I had been in touch with an old friend who now ran IT for several hospitals. In January he was trying to get administrators to take COVID seriously. By May, they had built 4 additional ICUs across the hospitals and they were sitting empty. Worse, resources were being denied to other medical uses. He was beginning to wonder if maybe this wasn’t going to be as bad as we both originally thought.

  Then, over the summer despite the clear slowdown in the severity of the pandemic, the policy response to it intensified. And then it all became political. Questioning the efficacy of continuing the lockdowns became associated with being alt-right. Pro-Trump. Or worse. A Narrative War ensued. If you questioned official policy, you got deplatformed. I documented numerous instances of this over on AxisOfEasy.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Now we’re in the fall and the case counts are back up and Second Wave Hysteria is in full effect. The only problem is, the fatality rate is on the floor. Another problem is this shouldn’t be a problem. It should be good news!

  The fatalities are up slightly with the season, but nowhere close to tracking the case counts as they did in wave 1. This could be for a number of reasons (more testing, the most vulnerable were hit in wave 1, etc) but no matter how you slice it, the graphs pretty well everywhere look like this:

  That spike on the deaths chart in early October was from a data adjustment from the previous 75 days. Source here.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In this case, we’re talking about the Province of Ontario, which has to date nearly 70,000 cases total and slightly over 3,000 deaths. Nothing like the 1.7M cases and 50K to 136K fatalities my original model predicted.

  What does that mean?

  It means my model was wrong!

  Which is ok, and fortunate, in fact. Now I’m not an epidemiologist, so I’m allowed to get my models wrong. But what I did do, that policy makers and experts are not doing, is re-examining the premises in the face of new data.

  The Imperial College / Neal Ferguson model that inspired much of the global lockdowns is an extreme example of this. It turned out to be total shitcode, but it hasn’t impacted the policy response. Not one bit.

  There is no justification for more lockdowns

  Which brings us to the Triggernometry podcast I mentioned above, which I never did get around to adequately explaining. It’s a great conversation with those merry comics Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster and their guest this episode: biological engineer Ivor Cummins.

  When you challenge the prevailing orthodoxy around anything COVID, it’s not uncommon for people to hysterically shriek at you that have to follow science and look at the data! Well, that’s what Cumins has done and here’s the upshot of what he (and many others) have found:

  • We should not have locked down over the summer. With cases and fatalities down it was the ideal time to let the virus spread amongst the low risk population to get further toward herd immunity.

  • Forcing mask wearing at the nadir of the pandemic (the summer) was a flawed policy that leaves no exit strategy. We’re basically in masks forever now.

  • 40 years of published science indicates that masks (especially surgical and cloth masks, as opposed to N95) don’t make much of a difference when it comes to these types of pathogens, but four or five hastily rushed papers from over the summer of this year say otherwise.

  • The argument against pursuing a herd immunity strategy because of the so-called “long timers”, people who get COVID, and experience ongoing, long term and possibly life long effects is not a compelling argument. Statistically these cases are low, but more importantly they are not unique to COVID-19. We always have these edge cases with long term effects in seasonal flus and other diseases.

  • The fatality curve is playing out along established patterns regardless of whether their were lockdowns or not.

  • The first lockdown was understandable. A second one is completely unjustified.

  Unfortunately what has happened is this has become about politics and ideology instead of public health. The real world, long term health effects of lockdowns and a crashed economy, the mental health issues, suicide, domestic violence and substance abuse are very real, and have now surpassed the damage being caused by the virus itself. I seem to remember two doctors in California who warned this would happen who were deplatformed and vilified for saying it.

  The science and the data are out there, but those who push it forward are frequently accused of “reading what they want to see in the data”. If you revisit the two charts I posted above, that clearly show how case counts have diverged from fatalities, which are flat, I was told exactly that by people when I posted those charts a month ago.

  Them: You’re just seeing what you want in that data.

  Me: Aren’t these two curves clearly diverging, and one is flat?

  Them: Just wait two weeks.

  Me: Aren’t you literally extrapolating what you want to see in the data by saying that?

  Them: These alt-right denialists are too much.

  Well the two weeks, four weeks, six weeks everybody keeps telling me to wait for their extrapolation to kick in have come and gone and we can clearly see that the worst of the COVID-19 induced destruction is in the rear-view mirror. If the numbers change and new data emerges that changes things, I will modify my opinion accordingly. That’s the way it’s supposed work. 

  But we live in an age where policy makers working off of hypothetical models and career politicians with zero real world experience no economic skin in the game are egged on by billionaire monopolists philanthropists and their pet projects in narcissism re-imagining society.  They don’t know how to do anything other than double-down on failure while everybody else bears the consequences.

  We need to reopen the economy and start picking up the pieces from all the other collateral damage we’ve caused.

  Here is the entire Triggernometry video, I highly recommend watching it and circulating it among your colleagues.

  

• Hunter Biden Ex-Biz Associate Was Livid Over $5MM Side-Deal With Chinese: Texts
  Hunter Biden Ex-Biz Associate Was Livid Over $5MM Side-Deal With Chinese: Texts
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 22:00

  Former Biden business associate-turned-whistleblower, Tony Bobulinski, was absolutely livid after learning that the Bidens received an alleged $5 million interest-free loan from a now-bankrupt Chinese energy company following the release of a damning Senate report.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  “You can imagine my shock when reading the report yesterday put out by the Senate committee.  The fact that you and HB were lying to Rob, James and I while accepting $5 MM from Cefc is infuriating,” wrote Bobulinski to Jim Biden. (Via the Daily Caller‘s Chuck Ross):

  Tony Bobulinski found out through the Senate report a few weeks ago that Hunter and Jim Biden had a side deal with CEFC China Energy.

  Here’s Bobulinski’s message to Jim Biden about that.

  “The fact that you and [Hunter Biden] were lying…” https://t.co/wn47I87tID pic.twitter.com/C79mXN4GXP

  — Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) October 25, 2020

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

  On Aug. 8, 2017, per Senate report, CEFC began a series of wire transfers to a pass through to Biden’s law firm that totaled $4.7 million over the next year.

  Bobulinski says he had no idea that CEFC struck deal with Hunter and Jim.

  — Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) October 25, 2020

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

  CEFC refers to CEFC China Energy, a PLA-linked company which was paying Hunter $850,00 per year according to an email from Biden business associate James Gilliar to Bobulinksi – which is also the source of the “10 held by H for the big guy” email.

  Emails obtained by the New York Post show that Hunter “pursued lucrative deals involving China’s largest private energy company — including one that he said would be “interesting for me and my family.”” according to the report.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  You can read more on Hunter and the CEFC here. As an aside, but of course not coincidental we’re sure, the Clinton Foundation accepted a donation between $50,001 and $100,000 from CEFC.

  And as the National Pulse notes, the Bidens weren’t the only members of the DC political establishment that the CEFC tried to ‘purchase.’

  *  *  *

  A New York Times article, “A Chinese Tycoon Sought Power and Influence. Washington Responded.”, outlined how Ye sought influence in D.C., attempting to connect with powerful individuals like those from the Biden family.

  “Ye Jianming, a fast-rising Chinese oil tycoon, ventured to places only the most politically connected Chinese companies dared to go. But what he wanted was access to the corridors of power in Washington — and he set out to get it. Soon, he was meeting with the family of Joseph R. Biden Jr., who was then the vice president,” the article noted.

  However, members of D.C.’s political class didn’t always accept Ye’s overtures:

  “Ye Jianming’s early efforts to break into the Washington power broker scene didn’t always pan out. Five years ago, CEFC approached Bobby Ray Inman, a retired admiral and national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, about setting up a joint venture, Mr. Inman said in an interview. The company promised it would pay him $1 million a year, without specifying what business they would go into. He turned down the offer. Later, Mr. Inman said, CEFC officials called him and said they were considering acquiring oil fields in Syria. Could he help them persuade the American military not to bomb them? Again, he said no.”

  The Clintons, however, had no qualms about accepting money from Ye, a Chinese Communist Party member with ties to the People’s Liberation Army. The New York Times noted:

  “Mr. Ye also further loosened CEFC’s purse strings, donating as much as $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.”

  *  *  *

  Meanwhile, Hunter Biden sought to avoid registering as a foreign agent in doing business with CEFC, suggesting that he and his prospective partners set up a shell company to be able to bid on contracts with the US government, according to documents obtained by the Daily Caller.

  A day after sending the message, Biden arranged a meeting between his father, Joe Biden, and Tony Bobulinski, one of the prospective partners in a deal with CEFC China Energy, a Chinese conglomerate whose chairman had links to the communist regime in Beijing.

  “We don’t want to have to register as foreign agents under the FCPA which is much more expansive than people who should know choose not to know,” Hunter Biden wrote to Bobulinski on May 1, 2017, according to a message obtained by the DCNF.

  “No matter what it will need to be a US company at some level in order for us to make bids on federal and state funded projects.” –Daily Caller

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  And according to Bobulinski, Joe Biden was in on the whole thing.

  

• Why Equality Of Outcome Can Never, Ever Work
  Why Equality Of Outcome Can Never, Ever Work
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 21:30

  Authored by Troy Smith via AmericanThinker.com,

  A sharp, divisive cultural debate in the United States is that of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In the early 20th century, in support of equality of outcome, Soviet communist dictator Vladimir Lenin coined the phrase, “Who, Whom.”  The concept was simple.  

  In a socialist society, where equality of outcome takes precedence over equality of opportunity, a critical question arises: who plans, directs, and redistributes the resources of a society, and to who is the beneficiary, or victim — the object, the “whom” — of said redistribution?  

  Politically speaking, the central maxim is to represent “disenfranchised” groups, provide them with monetary resources and government or state positions, and reshape any imbalances of power that have come to exist.  The catch is that once power is given to central planners to initiate such action, “there will be no economic or social questions that would not be political questions in the sense that their solution will depend exclusive on who wields the coercive power” (Hayek, p. 138).  In other words, the question of Who, Whom is what equality of outcome hinges upon.  All internal struggles are squashed. 

  In a society structured to foster equality of opportunity, three things tend to determine how successful someone is or isn’t: intelligence (or skill), industriousness, and luck.  On the surface, these things may seem unfair.  For example, someone born into a family that promotes and develops education, who was taught about the value of hard work and had resources and connections on hand, would clearly have an enormous advantage over someone born into a split or uninterested family, enduring a failing public school system, with few or no mentors.  Despite this, the equality of opportunity has two overwhelming advantages:

  • first, success, or the lack thereof, is not predetermined by any bureaucracy or person in charge but instead by one’s own ability and fortune.  

  • Second, it is the only guarantee that we have freedom to own property and control our own lives, whereas with equality of outcome, all properties and liberties must be tightly regulated by the bureaucrat.  

  As Hayek notes,

  “In a planned society we shall all know that we are better or worse off than others, not because of circumstances which nobody controls, and which it is impossible to foresee with certainty, but because some authority wills it” (p, 138). 

  Who would these bureaucrats then be in a landscape that promotes equality of outcome?  One thing is for certain: it can never be the most qualified, honest candidates, as they would always promote meritocracy and the ability to achieve positive results as a primary criterion for redistributing resources.  Instead, tribes must be used or created to “be able to obtain the support of the docile and the gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently” (p. 160).  The bureaucrat must then be a person who collectivizes individuals based upon skin color, sex, orientation, or other superficial traits.  The bureaucrat must then create and enforce policy that is based solely on a) those superficial traits as a lowest common denominator to b) be able to rally behind the political establishment in sufficient to secure elections and power.  Equality of outcome, then, seeks not equality at all, but special privileges. 

  Professor Jordan Peterson notes that the confusion of how to properly seek and apply equality lies in a philosophical disagreement between individualists and postmodernists.  Peterson claims that individualists seek to create hierarchies of competence — to produce the best brain surgeons, plumbers, carpenters, etc. — and to reward them based upon that competence.  Conversely, a postmodernist believes that hierarchies can exist only via power and is thus willing to use pure political power to seek his objectives (Peterson, 2017).

  If true, this is a dilemma that can be addressed not just politically, but philosophically.  Politically speaking, it’s worth noting that an emphasis on utilizing the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, giving states powers not specifically given to the federal government, can act as a bulwark to protect citizens from the equality of outcome mindset with the totalitarian consequences that come with it.  Philosophically, it’s critical to educate and continually reinforce the notion that, in fact, the smallest minority is the individual himself.  Protect the individual, and one comes closer and closer to achieving equality of opportunity while preserving the liberties of U.S. citizens.  Failure to do so results in the ever increasing power and scope of the federal government. 

  In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek laments that “twenty-five years ago there was perhaps still some excuse for the naive belief that ‘a planned society can be a far more free society than the competitive laissez faire order it has come to replace’.  But to find it once more held after twenty five years of experience and the reexamination of the old beliefs to which this experience has led, and at a time when we are fighting the results of those very doctrines, is tragic beyond words” (p. 209).  The fact that this fight has become existential over a half-century since that statement was made, in the most free, prosperous nation ever to exist to boot, adds a whole new dimension to the word “tragic.”

  

• Tropical Storm Zeta To Intensify Into Hurricane Leading To More Gulf Coast Chaos
  Tropical Storm Zeta To Intensify Into Hurricane Leading To More Gulf Coast Chaos
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 21:00

  Tropical Storm Zeta formed in the Caribbean Sunday morning, with the National Hurricane Center (NHC) forecasting the storm could strengthen into a hurricane Tuesday as a midweek landfall is expected on the US Gulf Coast. Zeta could strike the northern Gulf Coast on Wednesday. More specifically, hurricane models, as of Sunday afternoon, predict storm surge, rainfall, and hurricane wind impacts could be seen from Louisiana to the Florida Panhandle.

  To remind readers, on June 1, day one of hurricane season, we said this season “could be above average, with 13 to 19 named storms.” And to our surprise, Zeta is the 27th named storm, tying 2005 as the most active hurricane season on record. 

  In early August, one month before La Nina was declared, we said the hurricane season is about to go “from bad to worse with La Nina odds up.” By Sept. 10, the Climate Prediction Center confirmed La Nina, a weather pattern in the Northern Hemisphere that fuels more tropical activity. 

  On Sunday afternoon, Zeta was located a few hundred miles southeast of Cozumel, Mexico, and had maximum sustained winds of up to 40 mph. Here’s NHC’s 1700 ET Tropical Storm Zeta Outlook:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In early October, Hurricane Delta forced offshore oil and gas production on the Gulf Coast to reduce output by nearly two-thirds. Now Zeta is headed for the same region. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Ahead of potential landfall on the northern Gulf Coast next week, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards tweeted Sunday that “it’s unfortunate we face another tropical threat this late in a very active season.” 

  Edwards said, “We must roll up our sleeves, like we always do, and prepare for a potential impact to Louisiana.” 

  If Zeta makes landfall in Louisiana, it would be the fifth named storm this season, with the previous landfalls made by Cristobal, Laura, Marco, and Delta.

  

• Big Profits Are No Longer The Top Priority For Oil Investors
  Big Profits Are No Longer The Top Priority For Oil Investors
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 20:30

  By Irina Slav of OilPrice.com

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  For years, the oil industry drew in investors with sizable—and regular—returns. Even when oil prices fell, Big Oil found ways to keep paying dividends, even if it had to cut them, which happened only in extreme cases. Now, it is becoming increasingly clear that dividends—and profits—are no longer king. Today’s investors want other things from their oil investments.

  Returns are not what they used to be

  To be perfectly fair, returns are still important. They are just not the only reason for an investor to buy into or stay with an oil company. The sustainability of an oil company is garnering growing attention, too. But more on that later. Even if returns were the one and only priority of investors today, they would be unhappy.

  Back in 2006, the average return on capital employed in upstream activities among Big Oil majors stood at more than 27 percent, a recent study by Boston Capital Group revealed. In 2019, that average was no more than 3.5 percent. That’s before the pandemic pummeled oil prices and forced severe spending cuts. The oil industry’s returns, the study showed, had become much less resilient to price movements.

  The difference is too stark to be brushed off as coincidental. Indeed, the authors of the study note that one marked change in the industry during the period between 2006 and 2019 was a shift in companies’ upstream asset portfolios.

  The myths about shale and deepwater

  Until about 2006, BCG noted in its report, up to 80 percent of Big Oil’s portfolio was made up of conventional oil and gas assets. Since then, they have gone into things such as deepwater and shale. And while investors have been hearing for years how production costs in both deepwater and shale are going down, this has not been the case for all deepwater fields or all shale plays.

  Unconventional and deepwater exploration and production continue, overall, to be a lot costlier than shallow water and conventional oil wells. For deepwater, this is because of purely physical challenges such as, as the name suggests, depth. For shale, it is because of the capital intensity of fracking.

  A focus has been put on the quick turnaround time of fracked wells: they take a lot less than conventional wells to start bringing in returns on the investment employed. But unlike conventional wells, they have much shorter life spans. In short, the promise of unconventional and deepwater oil has, based on the rates of investment return, fallen well short of promises.

   The ESG path

  Oil investors have been growing unhappy with Big Oil for a while now, ever since the environmental, sustainable, and social governance trend gathered speed. A growing number of people looking for a company to buy into now want to know that this company’s business is environmentally responsible. That’s not just out of altruistic motives. Investors are being told that climate change constitutes an existential threat for many companies, and the more environmentally responsible a company is, the greater chance of survival it has.

  Obviously, oil companies are in a delicate place, to put it mildly, when it comes to environmental responsibility. But it is not as delicate a spot as many may imagine. Global demand for energy is growing, and it will continue growing for the observable future despite the pandemic. And this means that oil and gas will continue to be needed.

  “On one hand, the energy transition is real and here to stay,” Bob Maguire, managing director of Carlyle Group, told the Energy Intelligence Forum as quoted by Argus Media. “On the other hand, there are 280mn cars on the road in the US today, 279mn of them running on oil, and the average lifespan of a vehicle is 12 years.”

  Oil and gas will continue to be needed, but they would need to be produced differently to satisfy investors’ changing sentiment towards the industry. According to Boston Capital Group’s study, 65 percent of oil investors want companies to prioritize ESG factors over profits, even if this has a negative on said profits.

  As much as 83 percent say Big Oil should invest in low-carbon alternatives to their core business. An even greater majority of 86 percent believe investments by oil companies in clean energy technology would make them more attractive for investors. That should provide a pretty clear picture of where Big Oil needs to go.

  The way forward is not all green

  Some would argue that Big Oil is already going in that direction, with the European supermajors leading the way with renewable energy investment commitments worth tens of billions. Others would counter that they are still only making promises but little actual work on changing their business.

  Indeed, whatever Big Oil’s green ambitions, they would need to stick with their core business of extracting fossil fuels, too. They need the revenues from this core business to fund their renewable energy ambitions. But they could do this differently, too. The BCG study suggests reinforcing their focus on lower-cost production, taking steps to reduce the capital intensity, and pay more attention to risk mitigation. All that in addition to the clearly unavoidable diversification into alternative energy that should make them more resilient to oil price shocks in the future.

  

• Putin Defends Bidens, Becomes 'Visibly Irritated' When Asked About $3.5 Million Moscow Payment To Hunter
  Putin Defends Bidens, Becomes ‘Visibly Irritated’ When Asked About $3.5 Million Moscow Payment To Hunter
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 20:00

  Russian President Vladimir Putin defended Hunter Biden on Sunday, saying the saw ‘nothing criminal’ regarding his past business ties with Ukraine or Russia, according to Reuters.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Putin’s statement would seem to fly in the face of the MSM’s latest conspiracy theory that he’s somehow behind the release of Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop contents, and you should believe that ‘whether or not it’s true.’ It would also suggest that Putin never possessed, or hasn’t read the New York Post‘s undisputed evidence that Hunter introduced a Burisma adviser to his father eight months before Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire their Prosecutor General, who was investigating Burisma at the time.

  Putin appeared less friendly towards Trump in remarks broadcast by Russian state TV on Sunday. In what may be seen by some analysts as an attempt to try to curry favour with the Biden camp, he took the time to knock down what he made clear he regarded as false allegations from Trump about the Bidens.

  “Yes, in Ukraine he (Hunter Biden) had or maybe still has a business, I don’t know. It doesn’t concern us. It concerns the Americans and the Ukrainians,” said Putin. –Reuters

  “But well yes he had at least one company, which he practically headed up, and judging from everything he made good money. I don’t see anything criminal about this, at least we don’t know anything about this (being criminal),” said the Russian leader – who leftists in America have spent four years insisting is extremely corrupt, and will now lionize as a paragon of truth.

  According to the report, Putin “reacted with visible irritation” over question regarding an alleged $3.5 million payment made to Hunter Biden the ex-Moscow Mayor’s widow – responding that he knew nothing about a commercial relationship between Hunter and the woman who President Trump said was tied to Putin during last week’s debate.

  Lol again. I’d be more likely to see it as Putin defending the honor of a onetime director of a Yanukovich-aligned enterprise, but sure, it works the other way if you like. https://t.co/hNl8Z3sTSF

  — Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) October 25, 2020

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

  In September, top Republicans called for the FBI and DOJ to investigate a series of wire transfers from Russian and Chinese businesspeople to Hunter Biden, after Senate Republicans released a report detailing the suspicious transactions – including a $3.5 million wire from a Russian billionaire whose late husband was the mayor of Moscow.

  Russian Billionaire wired Hunter Biden 3 1/2 Million Dollars. This on top of all of the other money he received while Joe was V.P. Crooked as can be, but Fake Mainstream Media wants it to just go away!

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2020

  Coincidentally, the same Senate report infuriated ex-Biden business partner Tony Boboulinski after he learned that the Bidens received an alleged $5 million interest-free loan from a now-bankrupt Chinese energy company following the release of a damning Senate report.

  Bobulinski emailed CEFC executives on Aug. 3, 2017 regarding the joint venture he thought he had with the Bidens and CEFC.

  The next day, unknown to Bobulinski, CEFC wired $100k to Hunter.

  That wire was flagged for possible criminal activity.

  — Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) October 25, 2020

  In any event, looks like Putin backs Biden.

  $3.5 million wire transfer to Hunter Biden from former Mayor of Moscow’s wife, that nobody knows what it was for, is apparently not “improper.” According to Rand Paul it’s criminal! – Supercut: Biden Insists There’s ‘Not One Single Scintilla of Evidence’ of Hunter Improprieties pic.twitter.com/a7f6sqlLzj

  — Alexandra Datig | Front Page Index (@alexdatig) September 24, 2020

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

  

• JPMorgan Sees Bitcoin Rising Up To Ten-Fold As Millennials Flood Into The "Alternative" Currency
  JPMorgan Sees Bitcoin Rising Up To Ten-Fold As Millennials Flood Into The “Alternative” Currency
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 19:35

  Nearly a year ago we highlighted a schism in generational views toward “fiat alternatives”: whereas older Americans would buy physical gold and precious metals, younger generations, including Millennials and Gen-Zers would primarily purchase cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. To this point, Charles Schwab showed that the Grayscale Bitcoin Trusts is the 5th largest holding in Millennials retirement accounts (including 401(k)s) with almost 2% of their assets tied to the success (or failure) of the largest cryptocurrency.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  And now that Bitcoin is back over $13,000 for the first time since the infamous “spike” of Dec 2017, breaching the previous high of June 2019, following this week’s endorsement by Paypal – which in turn followed corporate support from Square and MicroStrategy – none other than JPMorgan’s quant Nick Panigirtzoglou writes in his closely followed Flows and Liquidity that all of this “is another big step toward corporate support for bitcoin, which in our opinion would facilitate and enhance over time Millennials’ usage of bitcoin as an “alternative” currency.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Which brings us to the focus of the JPM quant’s note, which is rather familiar as it is precisely what we discussed back in 2019: namely the divergence between the behavior of the older vs. younger cohorts of the retail investors’ universe in their preference for “alternative” currencies.

  As the JPMorgan strategist writes, echoing was we said last December, “the older cohorts prefer gold, while the younger cohorts prefer bitcoin as an “alternative” currency. Both gold and bitcoin ETFs have been experiencing strong inflows this year, as both cohorts see the case for an “alternative” currency.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Panigirtzoglou then notes several correlation shifts as a result of this concurrent inflow:

  • it has caused a change in the correlation pattern between bitcoin and other asset classes, with a more positive correlation between bitcoin and gold but also between bitcoin and the dollar (Figure 2).
  • In addition, the simultaneous buying of US equities and Bitcoin by Millennials has increased the correlation between bitcoin and S&P500 since March, so it is more appropriate to characterise bitcoin as a “risk” asset rather than “safe” asset also, given its still very high 50%-60% volatility.

  It’s not just bitcoin though: gold’s correlation with the S&P500 has been predominantly positive this year and its volatility at 20% is more similar to that of equities than currencies or bonds (Figure 3).

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In other words, according to JPM, both bitcoin and gold could be increasingly characterized as “risk” rather than “safe” assets based on their behavior this year and (mostly young)  investors’ preference for them is likely more of a reflection of a need for an “alternative” currency rather than a need for a “safe” asset or “hedge”.

  This means that when it comes to millennials, there is an entirely “untapped” market from the perspective of utility, and as the JPM strategist predicts, bitcoin could compete more intensely with gold as an “alternative” currency over the coming years given that millennials will become over time a more important component of investors universe .

  Whether or not that would result in weakness for gold is a different matter, but given how big the financial investment into gold is at the moment, a crowding out of gold as an “alternative” currency implies big upside for bitcoin over the long term.

  Here, Panigirtzoglou calculates the total market capitalization for bitcoin is $240bn. While superficially this makes it comparable to the total size of gold ETFs at $210BN, this is erroneous since the bulk of gold as an investment is not in the widely derided “paper gold” class but physical. And indeed, as JPM notes, gold ETFs is not the main way wealth is stored via gold; instead wealth is mostly stored via gold bars and coins the stock of which, excluding those held by central banks, amounts to 42600 tonnes or $2.6tr including gold ETFs.

  This means that mechanically “the market cap of bitcoin would have to rise 10 times from here to match the total private sector investment to gold via ETFs or bars and coins“, and while that may be optimistic (it would send the price of bitcoin to $130,000), even a modest crowding out of gold as an “alternative” currency over the longer term would, according to JPMorgan, imply “doubling or tripling of the bitcoin price from here.”

  In other words, as Panagirtozglou summarizes, “the potential long-term upside for bitcoin is considerable as it competes more intensely with gold as an “alternative” currency we believe, given that Millennials would become over time a more important component of investors’ universe.”

  Furthermore, as recent corporate forays into the cryptcurrency demonstrate, the market value of cryptocurrencies could eventually rise beyond what could be justified by only valuing them as a store of wealth; as JPMorgan explains, unlike gold cryptocurrencies derive value not only because they serve as stores of wealth but also due to their utility as means of payment: “The more economic agents accept cryptocurrencies as a means of payment in the future, the higher their utility and value.”

  Contrary to Bloomberg’s traditionally myopic take on cryptos (which just today was out with the amusing “Bitcoin Resurgence Leaves Institutional Acceptance Unanswered“), the JPM quant then writes that Millennials and corporates endorsement of bitcoin have also induced greater interest by institutional investors as evidenced by the spike in activity across both bitcoin futures and options at CME, and that was before Paypal’s announcement this week.

  JPM calculates that CME bitcoin futures open interest averaged a record of 10.5K contracts per day in Q3, up 32% compared
  with Q2 and up 127% vs. Q3 2019. Institutional flow in particular saw strong growth, with 692 new accounts added. The number of large open interest holders averaged 79 in Q3, up 64% compared to Q3 2019.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Meanwhile, JPM’s proxy for CME futures contacts is shown in the next chart. This position proxy spiked to a new high for the year as the bitcoin price breached $13k following Paypal’s announcement. In other words, JPM warns that for the near term, bitcoin looks “rather overbought and vulnerable to profit taking.”

  Of course, the near-term selling would be only temporary, because as JPM concludes “the potential long-term upside for bitcoin is considerable we think as it competes more intensely with gold as an “alternative” currency given that Millennials would become over time a more important component of investors’ universe.”

  And the punchline: “Mechanically, the market cap of bitcoin would have to rise 10 times from here to match the total private sector investment to gold via ETFs or bars and coins.”

  

• Rickards: Here's The Gold Price In 2026
  Rickards: Here’s The Gold Price In 2026
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 19:30

  Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

  The first two major gold bull markets were 1971–80 and 1999–2011. Today, gold is in the early stages of its third bull market in 50 years.

  How far can gold go during this bull run?

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  If we simply average the performance of the past two bull markets and extend the new bull market on that basis, we would expect to see prices peak at $14,000 per ounce by 2026.

  What specifically is driving the new gold bull market?

  From both long-term and short-term perspectives, there are three principal drivers: geopolitics, supply and demand and Fed interest rate policy (the dollar price of gold is just the inverse of dollar strength. A strong dollar equals a lower dollar price of gold, and a weak dollar equals a higher dollar price of gold. Fed rate policy determines if the dollar is strong or weak).

  The first two factors have been driving the price of gold higher since 2015 and will continue to do so.

  Geopolitical hotspots like Iran, Korea, Crimea, Venezuela, China and Syria remain unresolved. Some are getting worse. Now we have armed conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Caucasus.

  Turkey, a NATO member, backs Azerbaijan, while Russia backs Armenia. While direct conflict between Turkey and Russia is remote, it cannot be ruled out.

  Each flare-up drives a flight to safety that boosts gold along with Treasury notes.

  The second factor driving gold prices is supply.

  Gold’s supply/demand situation remains favorable with Russia and China steadily building up their reserves while global mining output has been flat for at least five years.

  The third factor, Fed policy, is the most powerful on a day-to-day basis.

  Rates are at zero after the Fed reacted aggressively in response to the COVID-19 crisis. But there’s little chance that the Fed will be raising rates anytime soon, which the Fed itself has admitted.

  Meanwhile, debt levels are exploding. Debt was already growing faster than the economy before the lockdowns. Now it’s skyrocketing.

  Debt is now at the highest levels since World War II. We’re nearly in the same position on a relative basis as we were in 1945.

  Because of the natural deflationary state of the world and the high debt-to-GDP ratio, growth has been snuffed out.

  And based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections — which I think are conservative — the debt-to-GDP ratio is going to keep going up.

  Last year’s budget deficit was $984 billion. But the 2020 deficit is projected at $3.3 trillion, mostly because of the response to the pandemic. And federal debt is almost 100% of GDP.

  Looking further ahead, annual deficits are projected to increase from 5% of GDP in 2030 to nearly 13% in 2050, when federal debt is projected to be an astonishing 195% of GDP.

  There is no way out except inflation.

  Add it all up and the environment is highly favorable for gold. But if you want evidence that owning gold is probably the best way to guard your wealth, just look at the “smart money.”

  I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of billionaire hedge fund managers on business TV or streaming live from Davos. They like to discuss their investments in Apple, Amazon, Treasury notes and other stocks and bonds.

  They love to “talk their book” in the hope that other investors will piggyback on their trades, run up the price and produce more profits for them.

  What they almost never discuss in public is gold. After all, why have gold when stocks and bonds are so wonderful?

  Well, I worked on Wall Street and in the hedge fund industry for decades. I also lived among the players in New York and Greenwich, Connecticut, at the same time. I’ve met the top hedge fund gurus in private settings. And here’s the thing:

  I’ve never met one of them who does not have a large hoard of physical gold stored safely in a nonbank vault. Not one.

  Of course, they won’t say so on TV because they don’t want to spook retail investors into dumping stocks and bonds. But watch what they do, not what they say.

  If gold bullion is the go-to asset for billionaires, why don’t small investors have at least a 10% allocation to gold and silver bullion?

  Some do, but most don’t. They’ll find out the hard way what individuals have learned over centuries and millennia:

  Gold preserves wealth; paper assets do not.

  The world is obviously not on a gold standard.

  

• Odds Of A "Blue Wave" Tumble, Hammering Risk
  Odds Of A “Blue Wave” Tumble, Hammering Risk
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 19:08

  Futures were hammered right off the start on Sunday evening amid what Bloomberg describes as “pessimism that a U.S. stimulus deal can be reached before the Nov. 3 election.” Which is great, only it’s dead wrong as the ridiculous “deal or no deal” narrative has been meaningless for weeks now and only 5-year-old Robinhooders still pretend it is a catalyst to asset prices.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  What has, however, changed is a dramatic shift in online polling sentiment regarding what until just days ago was a certainty that a “Blue Sweep” would take place.

  As a reminder, it is a Blue Sweep – not just a Biden victory – that is instrumental for the reflation trade, or what BofA called the “Bullish Elevation” scenario, as only unified governance will enable the continued CARES Act-style economic support that can return the US economy to the levels achieved at the end of 2019 (“a step-change to 3%+ GDP & higher productivity requires major new investments in R&D, capex, and a broader base of household demand; such policy shifts “require bold leadership and a governing majority, not tepid incrementalism”).

  Well, for whatever reason – perhaps it just the latest newsflow, or that Trump gaining on Biden in key Battleground states to within a margin of error, various analyses from Marko Kolanovic, or just plain “optimism fatigue” – the Predictit odds of a Democratic Sweep have slumped from 62 cents two weeks ago to just 51 cents currently…

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  … and at one point in the past 24 hours, even dipping below 50, before recovering modestly, although a sweep is as of this moment a coin flip.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  And since online odds still have a Biden victory as virtually assured, the reason for the slide in the chart above is the sudden surge in doubt that Democrats will wrest control of the Senate. Only without the Senate, the key anchor of the “stimulus” and “reflation” trades is gone.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In fact, according to BofA the only scenario worse than a Trump presidency and a Democratic Congress (which results in Stagnation), is a Biden presidency and a GOP Senate, which would lead to Deflation. This is how the bank described this particular scenario:

  President Biden + Republican Senate = Bearish Gridlock

  If Republicans retains the Senate they are very likely to block further stimulus under a Democratic President, which BofA says would be bearish for economic growth, corporate profits and financial markets (but it would be bullish for more stimulus from the Fed). In any case, as BofA sarcastically puts it, “after $21tn of monetary & fiscal stimulus in 2020, $0 of follow-on support would be deflationary.”

  Indeed, political parties historically have used obstructionist tactics when out of power to thwart key legislation, most often through the “rediscovery” of commitments to “fiscal discipline”. As an example, BofA cites the budget austerity during 2012-2015 as a major reason for the slow economic recovery.

  Such a scenario would mean a deflationary reset, as “investors should prepare for lower returns and higher volatility. Raise cash and buy Treasuries, munis, and high-quality corporate bonds.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Meanwhile, as we discussed last week when we observed the latest record net short in 30Y futures across leveraged funds and speculators – which in the week ending Oct 20 turned even more record short – all that is needed for the mother of all bond short squeezes is a “deflationary” catalyst.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Republicans holdings on to the Senate would be just that catalyst, and with online odds suddenly suggesting that there are even odds that Democrats can not take the Senate going long the 30Y here could not only be the best hedge to a “shock” outcome on Nov 3, but make some trader’s career if on election night we learn that the GOP has held on to the senate.

  Incidentally, the unwind of the consensus trade would “work” even if there is no clarity on the presidency for weeks, as the GOP has no chance of retaking the House, and so the real trigger that would crush consensus is not what happens to the presidency but the Senate, and by implication to the Blue Wave.  As of right now, the odds of such a Wave happening are no better than a coin toss.

  

• Trump To 'Immediately Fire' FBI, CIA Directors If Reelected
  Trump To ‘Immediately Fire’ FBI, CIA Directors If Reelected
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 19:00

  President Trump will ‘immediately’ move to fire FBI Director Christopher Christopher Wray and CIA Director Gina Haspel, along with Defense Secretary Mark Esper, according to Axios – which spoke to “people who’ve discussed these officials’ fates with the president.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  And while the list of pink slips is allegedly much longer, Trump’s top priority is getting rid of Wray – whose FBI sat on alleged evidence of Biden corruption in Ukraine contained on Hunter Biden’s laptop (along with alleged child porn), while Trump was impeached for asking the Ukrainians to investigate exactly that.

  According to Axios:

  • Wray and Haspel are despised and distrusted almost universally in Trump’s inner circle. He would have fired both already, one official said, if not for the political headaches of acting before Nov. 3.

  Recall that Haspel served as station chief for the CIA’s London branch, and was – in Senator Rand Paul’s words, “a close acolyte of John Brennan” (who, as CIA chief, couldn’t legally spy on Americans on domestic soil). And what took place in London? For starters, the FBI’s spy operation spy operation on Trump campaign aides conducted by US intelligence operative Stephan Halper. Most notably, the UK-based Cambridge professor (and longtime US intelligence asset whose father-in-law was former director of the CIA, and who allegedly spied on the Carter administration), lured Trump aide George Papadopoulos into an espionage operation aimed at the Trump campaign – predicated on ‘Russian dirt’ rumors allegedly fed to him by a Clinton ally, Joseph Mifsud.

  London was also the venue for a summer, 2016 meeting between former FBI agent Peter Strzok and Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer – another Clinton ally who claimed that Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowledge that the Russians had Hillary Clinton’s emails.

  More recently, Haspel was accused of personally blocking the release of documents exposing the Russiagate hoax. “This isn’t just a scandal about Democrat projection, this is a scandal about what was a coup planned against the incoming administration at the highest levels and I can report here tonight that these declassifications that have come out,” The Federalist‘s Sean Davis told FOX News host Tucker Carlson last month. “Those weren’t easy to get out and there are far more waiting to get out.”

  Downer and Halper, meanwhile, are linked through UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm – founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for select governments and Fortune 500 corporations.

  Downer – a good friend of the Clintons, had been on Haklyut’s advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to the research firm through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books (h/t themarketswork.com). Also interesting via Lifezette – “Downer is not the only Clinton fan in Hakluyt. Federal contribution records show several of the firm’s U.S. representatives made large contributions to two of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign organizations.”

  Back the the point – much of the Obama DOJ’s operation against the Trump administration occurred on UK soil when Haspel, a Brennan acolyte, was CIA station chief.

  Accrording to Axios, “The view of Haspel in the West Wing is that she still sees her job as manipulating people and outcomes, the way she must have when she was working assets in the field.“

  

• The Elephant In The Room: Florida School Revokes Parking Privileges Of Student With Trump Display On Truck
  The Elephant In The Room: Florida School Revokes Parking Privileges Of Student With Trump Display On Truck
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 18:40

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  We recently discussed the case of a Louisiana high school senior who had his parking space mural to President Donald Trump painted over by his school.

  Now a Florida senior has an equally troubling free speech case involving the Volusia County School District. Tyler Maxwell is suing the District after it barred him from parking his pickup truck with a large elephant in the back featuring Trump’s name. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The District declared that such “political statements” are now banned.

  The school district’s position is at odds with cases protecting non-disruptive political statements or symbols. Many of us in the free speech community have long complained that the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is often dismissed in cases addressing the free speech rights of students. The famous decision declared that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Yet, school officials routinely try to regulate speech. Indeed, we just saw a Vermont district fire a principal for questioning the BLM movement on Facebook.

  The controversy is a classic example of how school officials have become emboldened in acts of censorship and speech regulation. We have been discussing the alarming rise of speech limitations and sanctions imposed by school officials. We have seen a steady erosion of the free speech rights of students in the last decade. The Supreme Court accelerated that trend in its Morse decision. Former JDHS Principal Deb Morse suspended a student in 2002 during the Olympic Torch Relay for holding up a 14-foot banner across from the high school that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The case ultimately led to the Supreme Court which ruled in Morse v. Frederick ruling in 2007 for the Board — a decision that I strongly disagreed with and one that has encouraged over-reaching by school officials into protected areas.  Cheerleaders are expected to conform their free speech to accept positions or risk removal from their teams and even liking images on social media can get students suspended.

  We have seen school officials even crackdown on bumper stickers on cars.

  Maxwell not only was barred from showing his elephant but he was barred from parking on school grounds.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  A judge has imposed a temporary restraining order against the District to allow Maxwell (and his elephant) to return to the parking lot pending consideration of his case.

  Nancy Wait of Volusia County Schools declared:

  “The school board has an obligation to provide politically neutral campuses for all students,” Wait wrote. “We allow political expression by students in the form of a t-shirt or bumper sticker. But large signage is a different situation. A passerby could interpret a large sign in a school parking lot to be an endorsement by the school district. We don’t allow our parking lot to be used for political statements.”

  I do not see why this elephant is disruptive. Indeed, I find it quite impressive. This is an 18-year-old senior who will be voting for the first time this year. He is showing an excitement and engagement that we should be fostering. Why is that a bad thing? Instead, the District is teaching students to live with censorship and speech controls.

  It is time we have a discussion of the elephant in the room in education from K-12 to colleges.  We are embracing censorship as a value while increasingly treating free speech as inherently dangerous or destabilizing. That is one lesson we should not be teaching to a new generation of citizens.

  

• California Begins Cutting Power To 361,000 Customers As Fire Risk Surges 
  California Begins Cutting Power To 361,000 Customers As Fire Risk Surges 
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 18:20

  Facing bone-crushing dryness and the strongest winds of the wildfire season, California’s largest utility company, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) which filed for historic bankruptcy due to its role in previous infernos sweeping across the state has “de-energized certain electrical lines” in Northern California, which may result in what could be the largest mass blackout of the year. 

  PG&E released a statement Sunday morning, informing customers that 361,000 homes and or businesses were part of the blackout, affecting 36 counties, mainly in Northern California, starting at 10:00 PST. Listed below are the counties affected by the planned blackouts:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  PG&E’s initial projection of homes and businesses that would lose power on Sunday is down 105k from Friday’s 466k estimate. The power company’s primary reason to de-energize some of its power lines is that high winds are expected on Sunday, increasing the risk for trees and or limbs to fly into powerlines and potentially ignite fires in regions of low humidity and dry vegetation.  

  “This event looks particularly dangerous due to a combination of factors that we continue to track,” said Scott Strenfel, PG&E’s head of meteorology and fire science, who was quoted by Bloomberg. Strong winds and low humidity were expected throughout the day on Sunday, he said.

  The next round of blackouts, expected imminently, will be a devastating blow for the state, already battered by extreme weather this fire season, scorching more than 4 million acres so far. PG&E has preemptively cut power four times this season. 

  High wind gusts are expected for some regions in Northern California through Monday, tweeted The National Weather Service (NWS) Sacramento. 

  Here is a timing loop of the forecast wind gusts over Norcal from 11 am Sunday to 5 pm Monday, Oct 25-26, 2020. #sacwx pic.twitter.com/bdRdKm5JgU

  — NWS Sacramento (@NWSSacramento) October 25, 2020

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

  NWS Sacramento outlines a “dangerous” fire risk for Northern California through Sunday.

  “Dangerous Critical to Extremely Critical fire weather conditions are expected across portions of northern California today, as strong offshore winds occur over critically dry fuels. Strongest winds are expected tonight into early Monday morning.” 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  A red flag warning was posted for much of Northern California today. What this means is that fire weather conditions are ripe for wildfires. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  More on the red flag warning.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  New wildfires are already starting to emerge. 

  New incident: #PointFire off Gas Point Rd and Libby Ln, Cottonwood in Shasta county is 50 acres. @CALFIRESHU https://t.co/O4qj6z3Q5l pic.twitter.com/WvywUB5VWB

  — CAL FIRE (@CAL_FIRE) October 25, 2020

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

  #PopeFire off Lower Chiles Valley Rd and Chiles Pope Valley Rd in Napa County remains 61 acres and 80% contained. @CALFIRELNUhttps://t.co/8eonzAbfk3 pic.twitter.com/jaDiOLCjKi

  — CAL FIRE (@CAL_FIRE) October 25, 2020

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

  Here are the current wildfires burning in California: 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  As rolling blackouts begin, Californians are frantically searching on the internet to see if their homes will be in the affected areas.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  California’s fire season generally lasts through October but given La Nina conditions, it could extend into November.  

  

• Morgan Stanley: There Is More Downside Than Upside From Current S&P500 Levels
  Morgan Stanley: There Is More Downside Than Upside From Current S&P500 Levels
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 18:00

  From Michael Wilson, Morgan Stanley chief US equity strategist

  With just one week to go until the US elections, the outcome remains uncertain. It’s also holding up the next round of fiscal stimulus. This political uncertainty along with the arrival of the second wave of COVID-19 has pushed equity volatility higher and the S&P 500 hasn’t been able to make a new closing high in eight weeks, the longest period since the new bull market began in March.

  From a technical perspective, I have been watching a key resistance area for the S&P 500 since early September that comes in around 3550.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Two weeks ago, the index failed to break through that level for the second time. This technical failure is not the end of the bull market, but it does suggest that this level of resistance is formidable and will be difficult to surmount in the near term. On the downside, I continue to like the 200-day moving average, which comes in around 3125. Bottom line, from a technical perspective I stick with our call from early September that the S&P 500 will be range-bound between 3100 and 3550 into November.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  From a valuation perspective, the S&P 500 is trading at an equity risk premium of 380bp. That’s a fair but full level based on the current realized equity volatility.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  However, with so much uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the US elections, the second wave of COVID-19, and the upward pressure on long-term interest rates and volatility, the equity risk premium should be about 10% higher, in my view. In short, we like our 3100-3550 range on the S&P 500 as a good guide for US equity risk-taking from both a technical and valuation perspective.

  Beyond this simple trading range view for the S&P 500, there is a more important opportunity for investors to consider. With the re-valuation of equities largely over at this point, we believe that investors should favor companies that can deliver higher earnings growth than what’s already priced. While many seem to favor companies that have been able to operate normally during this pandemic and take share, this may not be the best investment strategy from here. Essential businesses/services or digital transformation enablers have been spectacular performers this year, but this just means that expectations are high and comparisons difficult. Furthermore, there is likely to be some payback on demand and loss of wallet share next year for such companies. In contrast, businesses and services that have not been able to operate normally may provide better investments at this time primarily because expectations remain low and wallet share gains are likely.

  Investors need to be selective of course because many of these companies that are not able to operate normally today may never recover, at least not fully. One thing that is certain about this pandemic is that many things we used to take for granted are likely to be different going forward. However, many things will return to exactly the way they were before and experience pent-up demand next year. Secondarily, there are changes afoot that will require significant investment as the world demands better and safer ways of doing things. One such area is infrastructure, where the world has underinvested for years, especially in the United States. With central banks willing and able to finance such a popular endeavor, we think that this is one very attractive investment opportunity today.

  This would favor companies in the industrial and materials sectors, particularly base metals like copper. We also think that there could be pockets of acute inflation next year as demand comes roaring back to the parts of the economy where supply has been destroyed. This means higher long-term interest rates even if the Fed remains on hold with overnight rates. While that is a headwind for fixed income investments and stocks levered to lower interest rates, it’s also a tailwind for stocks levered to higher rates, which includes those same infrastructure beneficiaries as well as financials and other cyclicals.

  Bottom line, we expect the S&P index to remain range-bound in the near term, with more downside than upside from current levels. We recommend taking advantage of any near-term correction in the headline index to add to investments in areas that are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of the economy reopening further next year. In short, the bull market is intact as it broadens out to smaller, more cyclical parts of the market – a strategy we’ve advocated since April but one that is still underappreciated and in its early days in terms of its upside potential.

  

• Outrage After WaPo Says To 'Treat Biden Leaks As Foreign Intel Operation – Even If They Probably Aren't'
  Outrage After WaPo Says To ‘Treat Biden Leaks As Foreign Intel Operation – Even If They Probably Aren’t’
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 17:50

  As MSM outlets twist in the wind waiting for anyone to deny the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop contents (while blurry images of M&M’s spanning Hunter’s penis and crack-smoking footjob videos permeate dark corners of the web), the Washington Post is advising people to just assume that it’s a foreign intelligence operation, and ignore Occam’s razor, or two former Biden business associates who have gone on record and provided direct evidence.

  Theory 1: Hunter Biden, an admitted drug abuser, took a damaged laptop full of incriminating evidence to a repair shop less than 5 miles from his father’s house and forgot about it

  Theory 2: Putin did it https://t.co/EVnPtWDZ85

  — Relax, I didn’t vote for the guy you hate (@jtLOL) October 23, 2020

  Holding the Post accountable for their literal propaganda is journalist Glenn Greenwald, who not only shreds WaPo‘s farcical attempts at journalism – but the rest of the MSM’s as well.

  This is absolutely how mainstream US outlets think: exactly what is said there by Rid (one of those centrist Professor outlets use to elevate their unhinged conspiracy theories with a facade of expertise):

  *We have no idea if this conspiracy is true, but we will say it anyway.* pic.twitter.com/9upWmi5BtP

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 25, 2020

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

  US media outlets outside of right-wing sites were desperate not to report the Hunter emails and to block their reporters from doing so. So they just started printing that it was “Russian disinformation,” knowing there was no basis for that, until they could figure out what to do.

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 25, 2020

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

  Independent journalists like Taibbi, and platforms and outlets that won’t censor, are more rare than ever, especially now when most national journalists are in full-on Elect Biden mode at the expense of everything else. Support them:https://t.co/SdO96ulLhr

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 25, 2020

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

  No purported news outlet has worth if it constrains or censors writers and reporters and forces them to advance the partisan preferences of editors or to flatter the ideological presuppositions of their audience. Support independent journalism: only those outlets that are free.

  — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 25, 2020

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

  Oddly, we don’t recall the Post‘s kneejerk over an unverified anti-Trump dossier created by a British spook, which the FBI referred to as “Crown material,” being that it was part of a ‘foreign intelligence operation’ prior to its investigation and subsequent debunking.

  Of course, in the fullness of time it turned out to be a domestic hit-job with significant foreign assistance.

  Meanwhile…

  Joe Biden & surrogates are lying. On 2/2/16, Ukrainian prosecutor seizes property of Burisma owner, so he’s clearly under investigation. For next two weeks, Biden repeatedly calls Ukrainian president, who eventually fires prosecutor. Check link for more: https://t.co/NLy80G66xj https://t.co/U7txnAFo2d

  — Lee Smith (@LeeSmithDC) October 24, 2020

  And of course, social media platforms’ masks are all the way off in terms of suppressing a story which would damage their favored candidate. 

  So ⁦@MCM_ct⁩ was locked out of Twitter for 12 hours because he pointed out censorship and showing a link that showed an error message. Wild days. pic.twitter.com/hURWdd8xgQ

  — Ed ☯️ (@DowdEdward) October 25, 2020

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

  RT! Ali Alexander (@ALI) has been locked out of his Twitter account for sharing evidence that Hunter Biden had sex and smoked crack with a Chinese agent of compromise. pic.twitter.com/4Q9oyKE9g0

  — alialexander.org (@alialexanderorg) October 24, 2020

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

  

• In Bizarre Freudian Slip, Biden Brags About Assembling "Most Extensive Voter Fraud Organization In History"
  In Bizarre Freudian Slip, Biden Brags About Assembling “Most Extensive Voter Fraud Organization In History”
  
  Tyler Durden
  
  Sun, 10/25/2020 – 17:44

  Former Vice President Joe Biden suffered from either a senior moment or a Freudian slip on Saturday, when he told Pod Save America host Dan Pfeiffer – a longtime Obama aide – that his campaign has assembled the “most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  “What’s your message to the folks who have not yet voted or do not yet have a plan to vote. And part two, for the 50 million Americans who’ve already voted, what can they do over the last ten days to help make sure that you’re the next President of the United States?” Pfeiffer asked Biden.

  Biden returned word salad at first, saying “Well, first of all, you know, uh, what really rankles, uh, my opponent is I say that, uh, the thing that bothers him most is he’s not a patch on Barack’s jeans. I mean, you know Barack was one hell of a president, and I tell you what, man, what an honor it was — I think you guys believe it, too — to serve with him. I mean, incredible honor. And, uh, I’m not being solicitous. I really mean that. Um, he had more integrity in his little finger than most people have in their whole body and he had a backbone like a ramrod. Has one.”

  Then Biden touted his ‘voter fraud’ organization:

  “Secondly, we’re in a situation where we have put together — and you’d [sic] guys, did it for our, the president Obama’s administration, before this — we have put together, I think, the most extensive and and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics. What the president is trying to do is discourage people from voting by implying their vote won’t be counted, it can’t be counted, we’re gonna challenge it, and all these things. If enough people vote, it’s gonna overwhelm the system. You see what’s happening now. You guys know it as well as I do. You see the long, long lines in early voting. You see the millions of people who have already cast a ballot.”

  Watch: