Aug 04

Today’s News 4th August 2019

  • The Citadels Of America's Elites: Fractured And At Odds With Each Other

    Authored by Alastair Crooke via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Something is ‘up’.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    When two Financial Times columnists – pillars of the western Establishment – raise a warning flag, we must take note:

    Martin Wolf was first off, with a piece dramatically headlined: The looming 100-year, US-China Conflict. No ‘mere’ trade war, he implied, but a full-spectrum struggle.

    Then his FT colleague Edward Luce, pointed out that Wolf’s “argument is more nuanced than the headline. Having spent part of this week among leading policymakers and thinkers at the annual Aspen Security Forum in Colorado,” Luce writes, “I am inclined to think Martin was not exaggerating. The speed with which US political leaders of all stripes have united behind the idea of a ‘new cold war’ is something that takes my breath away. Eighteen months ago the phrase was dismissed as fringe scaremongering. Today it is consensus.”

    A significant shift is underway in US policy circles, it seems. Luce’s final ‘take’ is that “it is very hard to see what, or who, is going to prevent this great power rivalry from dominating the 21st century”. It is clear that there is indeed now a clear bi-partisan consensus in the US on China. Luce is surely right. But that is far from being the end of it. A collective psychology of belligerence seems to be taking shape, and, as one commentator noted, it has become not just a great-power rivalry, but a rivalry amongst ‘Beltway’ policy wonks to show “who has the bigger dick”.

    And quick to demonstrate his, at Aspen (after others had unveiled their masculinity on China and Iran), was the US envoy for Syria (and deputy US National Security Adviser), James Jeffrey: A US policy boiled down to one overriding component: ‘hammering Russia’. “Hammering Russia” (he insisted repeatedly), will continue until President Putin understands there is no military solution in Syria (he said with heightened verbal emphasis). Russia falsely assumes that Assad has ‘won’ war: “He hasn’t”, Jeffrey said. And the US is committed to demonstrating this fundamental ‘truth’.

    Therefore, the US plans to ‘up the pressure’; will escalate the cost to Russia, until a political transition is in place, with a new Syria emerging as a “normal nation”. The US will ‘leverage’ the costs on Russia across the board: Through military pressure – ensuring a lack of military progress in Idlib; through Israelis operating freely across Syria’s airspace; through ‘US partners’ (i.e. the Kurds) consolidating in NE Syria; through economic costs (“our success” in stopping reconstruction aid to Syria); through extensive US sanctions on Syria (integrated with those on Iran) – “these sanctions are succeeding”; and thirdly, by diplomatic pressure: i.e. “hammering Russia” in the UN.

    Well, the US shift on Syria also takes one’s breath away. Recall how little time ago, the talk was of partnership, of the US working with Russia to find a solution in Syria. Now the talk of the US Envoy is the talk of Cold War with Russia as much as were his Aspen colleagues – albeit in respect to China. Such ‘machismo’ is evidenced too coming from the US President: “I could – if I wanted – end the US war in Afghanistan in a week”, (but it would entail the deaths of 10 million Afghans), Trump excalimed. And, in the same mode, Trump now suggests that for Iran, he is easy: war or not – either path is fine, for him.

    All this braggadocio is reminiscent of late 2003 when the war in Iraq was just entering its insurgent stage: It was said then that mere “boys go to Baghdad; but real men chose to go to Tehran”. It gained wide circulation in Washington at the time. This type of talk gave rise, as I well recall, to something approaching an hysteric elation. Officials seemed to be walking six inches above the ground, in anticipation of all the dominos expected to fall in succession.

    The point here is that the tacit coupling of Russia – now termed a major ‘foe’ of America by US Defence officials – and China, inevitably is being refracted back at the US, in terms of a growing strategic Russo-Chinese partnership, ready to challenge the US and its allies.

    Last Tuesday, a Russian aircraft, flying in a joint air patrol with a Chinese counterpart, deliberately entered South Korean airspace. And, just earlier, two Russian Tu-95 bombers and two Chinese H-6 warplanes — both nuclear capable — reportedly had entered South Korea’s air defense identification zone.

    “This is the first time I’m aware of that Chinese and Russian fighters have jointly flown through the air defence identification zone of a major US ally — in this case two US allies. Clearly it’s geopolitical signalling as well as intelligence collection,” said Michael Carpenter, a former Russia specialist with the US Department of Defense. It was a message to the US, Japan, and South Korea: If you strengthen the US-Japan military alliance, Russia and China have no choice but to react militarily as well.

    So, as we look around, the picture seems to be one in which US bellicosity is somehow consolidating as an éliteconsensus (with but a few individuals courageously pushing-back on the trend). So what is going on?

    The two FT correspondents effectively were signalling – in their separate articles – that the US is entering on a momentous and hazardous transformation. Further, it would seem that America’s élite is being fractured into balkanised enclaves that are not communicating with one another – nor wanting to communicate with each other. Rather, it is another conflict between deadly rivals.

    One such orientation insists on a renewal of the Cold War to sustain and renew that supersized military-security complex, which accounts for more than half of America’s GDP. Another élite demands that US dollar global hegemony be preserved. Another orientation of the Deep State is disgusted at the contagion of sexual decadence and corruption that has wormed its way into American governance – and truly hopes that Trump will ‘drain the swamp’. And yet another, which sees DC’s now explicit amorality as risking the loss of America’s global standing and leadership – wants to see a return of traditional American mores – a ‘moral rearmament’, as it were. (And then there are the deplorables, who simply want that America should attend to its own internal refurbishment.)

    But all these divided Deep State factions believe that belligerence can work.

    However, the more these fractured, rival US élite factions with their moneyed and comfortable lifestyles, cloister themselves in their enclaves, certain in their separate views about how America can retain its global supremacy, the less likely it is that they will understand the very real impact of their collective belligerence on the outside world. Like any cosseted élite, they have an exaggerated sense of their entitlement – and their impunity.

    These élite factions – for all their internal rivalry – however seem to have coalesced around a singularity of talking and thinking that allows the dominant classes to substitute for the reality of an America subject to severe stress and strain – the fable of a hegemon which still can elect which non-compliant governments and peoples to bully and remove from the global map. Their rhetoric alone is curdling the atmospherics in the non-West.

    But a further implication of the incoherence within the élites is applicable to Trump. It is widely assumed that because he says he does not want more wars – and because he is US President – wars will not happen. But that is not how the world works.

    The leader of any nation is never sovereign. He or she sits atop a pyramid of quarrelling princelings (Deep State princelings, in this instance), who have their own interests and agenda. Trump is not immune to their machinations. One obvious example being Mr Bolton’s successful gambit in persuading the Brits to seize the Grace I tanker off Gibraltar. At a stroke, Bolton escalated the conflict with Iran (‘increased the pressure’ on Iran, as Bolton would probably term it); put the UK at the forefront of America’s ‘war’ with Iran; divided the JCPOA signatories, and embarrassed the EU. He is a canny ‘operator’ – no doubt about it.

    And this is the point: these princelings can initiate actions (including false flags) that drive events to their agenda; that can corner a President. And that is presuming that the President is somehow immune to a great ‘switch in mood’ among his own lieutenants (even if that consensus is nothing more than a fable that belligerency succeeds). But is it safe to assume Trump is immune to the general ‘mood’ amongst the varied élites? Do not his recent glib comments about Afghanistan and Iran suggest that he might leaning towards the new belligerency? Martin Wolf concluded his FT piece by suggesting the shift in the US suggests we may be witnessing a stumbling towards a century of conflict. But in the case of Iran, any mis-move could result in something more immediate – and uncontained.

  • As US Ditches INF, Mid-Range Missiles To Be Deployed In Asia "Within Months"

    A mere day after the US officially exited the landmark Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF) which had cooled the Cold War arms race, preventing a build-up in Europe, the Pentagon is looking to deploy intermediate range conventional missiles in the Pacific region “within months”.

    Noting that it will most certainly provoke the ire of China, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Friday of the plans, “It’s fair to say, though, that we would like to deploy a capability sooner rather than later.” Esper made the remarks from Australia. “I would prefer months. I just don’t have the latest state of play on timelines.”

    “I would prefer months… but these things tend to take longer than you expect,” Esper stated.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    File image of US military’s land-based Aegis missile defense testing system based in Hawaii, and being developed jointly with Japan, via the AP. 

    This week’s official end of the INF comes six months after President Trump issued Moscow an ultimatum to cease its alleged violations of the historic treaty.

    At the same time US officials indicated plans to test a new missile which would have been prohibited under the arms control treat in the coming weeks, according to the AP.

    The Pentagon has been sparse on details, and there’s been no indication of which US Pacific or Asian allies might in the near future host new missiles. Both Australia and Japan have lately worked closely with the US on joint missile defense projects, however.

    Interestingly, one of the key reasons both Trump and Bolton have cited over the past year for their view that the INF is “obsolete” is that it fails to include major world powers like China that have made huge advances in their ballistic missile and defense technology since the Cold War. 

    Concerning China, Esper dismissed the potential that new US systems in the Pacific could trigger a crisis amid ongoing tensions with Beijing, per the AP: 

    Esper, who was confirmed as Pentagon chief on July 23, wouldn’t detail possible deployment locations in Asia, saying it would depend on discussions with allies and other factors. He downplayed any reaction from China, saying that “80 percent plus of their inventory is intermediate range systems, so that shouldn’t surprise them that we would want to have a like capability.”

    But perhaps it’s all about geography. Consider for example, how Washington and the American public would react if China were to deploy medium-range missiles in Greenland or anywhere in the Atlantic for that matter. 

    On Friday, 88-year old Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who originally signed the INF alongside Reagan, warned “This US move will cause uncertainty and chaotic development of international politics.”

    Indeed we could already be witnessing the beginning of a new “chaos” and “uncertainty” of a global arms race. 

  • America's Collapse: Paul Craig Roberts Exposes An Economy Based On Plunder

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Capitalists have claimed responsibility for America’s past economic success.  Let’s begin by setting the record straight. American success had little to do with capitalism. This is not to say that the US would have had more success with something like Soviet central planning.

    Prior to 1900 when the frontier was closed, America’s success was a multi-century long success based on the plunder of a pristine environment and abundant natural resources. Individuals and companies were capitalized simply by occupying the land and using the resources present.

    As the population grew and resources were depleted, the per capita resource endowment declined.

    America got a second wind from World War I, which devastated European powers and permitted the emergence of the US as a budding world power.  World War II finished off Europe and put economic and financial supremacy in Washington’s hands.  The US dollar seized the world reserve currency role from the British pound, enabling the US to pay its bills by printing money.  The world currency role of the dollar, more than nuclear weapons, has been the source of American power. Russia has equal or greater nuclear weapons power, but it is the dollar not the ruble that is the currency in which international payments are settled. 

    The world currency role made the US the financial hegemon.  This power together with the IMF and  World Bank enabled the US to plunder foreign resources the way vanishing American resources had been plundered.  

    We can conclude that plunder of natural resources and the ability to externalize much of the cost have been  major contributors right through the present day to the success of American capitalism.  Michael Hudson has described the plunder process in his many books and articles, as has John Perkins in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

    Essentially, capitalism is a plunder mechanism that generates short-run profits by externalizing long-run costs.  It exhausts natural resources, including air, land, and water, for temporary profits while imposing most of its costs, such as pollution, on the environment.  An example is the destruction of the Amazon rain forest by loggers.  The world loses a massive carbon sink that stabilizes the global climate, and loggers gain short-run profits that are a tiny percentage of the long-run costs.

    This destructive process is amplified by the inherently short-run time perspective of capitalist activity which seldom extends beyond the next quarter.  

    US economic success was also a result of a strong consumer demand fed by rising real wages as technological advances in manufacturing raised the productivity of labor and consumer purchasing power. The middle class became dominant. When I was an economics student, Paul Samuelson taught us that American prosperity was based entirely on the large American consumer market and had nothing to do with foreign trade.  Indeed, foreign trade was a minor factor in American GDP.  America had such a large domestic consumer market that the US did not need foreign trade to enjoy economics of scale.

    All of this changed with the rise of free market ideology and the collapse of the Soviet Union. When I was a student we were taught that boards of directors and corporate executives had responsibilities to their employees, their customers, their communities, and to their shareholders.  These responsibilities were all equally valid and needed to be kept in balance.

    In response to liberals, who tried to impose more and more “social responsibilities” on corporations, free market economists responded with the argument that, in fact, corporations only have responsibilities to their owners. Rightly or wrongly, this reactive argument is blamed on Milton Friedman.  Conservative foundations set about teaching jurists and legislators that companies were only responsible to owners.  

    Judges were taught that ownership is specific and cannot be abridged by government imposing obligations on the investments of owners for responsibilities that do not benefit the owners. This argument was used to terminate all responsibilities except to shareholders and left profit maximization as the corporate goal.

    Thus, when the Soviet Union collapsed and China and India opened their economies to foreign capital, US corporations were free to desert their work forces and home towns and use cheaper labor abroad to produce the goods and services sold to Americans. This increased their profits and, thereby, executive bonuses and shareholder capital gains at the expense of the livelihoods of their former domestic work force and tax base of their local communities and states.  The external costs of the larger profits were born by their former employees and the impaired financial condition of states and localities. These costs greatly exceed the higher profits.

    Generally speaking, economists assume away external costs.  Their mantra is that progress fixes everything.  But their measures of progress are deceptive.  Ecological economists, such as Herman Daly, have raised the issue whether, considering the neglect of external costs and the inaccurate way in which GDP is measured, announced increases in GDP exceed in value the cost of producing them.  It is entirely possible that GDP growth is simply an artifact of not counting all of the costs of production.  

    As we approach the end of the second decade of the 21st century, the long history of American capitalism fed by plunder seems to be coming to an end simultaneously with the ability of the US central bank to protect existing financial wealth by creating ever more money with which to support stock, bond, and real estate prices.  The US has a long history of overthrowing reformist governments in Latin America that threatened American control over their resources.  Washington’s coups against democracy and self-determination succeeded until Venezuela.  Washington’s coup against Chavez was overturned by the Venezuelan people and military, and so far Washington’s attempt to overthrow Chavez’s successor, Maduro, has failed.

    Washington’s attempt to overthrow the Syrian government was prevented by Russia, and most likely Russia and China will prevent Washington from overthrowing the government of Iran.  In Africa the Chinese are proving to be better business partners than the exploitative American corporations.  To continue feeding the empire with its heavy costs is becoming more difficult.

    Washington’s policy of sanctions is making it even more difficult. To avoid the arbitrary and illegal sanctions, other countries are starting to abandon the US dollar as the currency of international transactions and arranging to settle their international accounts in their domestic currencies. China’s Silk Road encompasses Russia with much of Asia in a trade bloc independent of the Western financial system.  Other countries hoping to escape US control are turning to Russia and China to achieve sovereignty from Washington.  These developments will reduce the demand for dollars and impair US financial hegemony.  Alternatives to the World Bank will remove areas of the world from the reach of US plunder.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As plunderable resources diminish, American capitalism, which is heavily dependent on plunder, will have one foundation of its success removed.  As aggregate consumer demand collapses from the absence of growth in real income, absence of middle class jobs, and the extreme polarization of income and wealth in the US, another pillar of American capitalism disintegrates.  As business investment has also collapsed, as indicated by the use of corporate profits and borrowing to repurchase the corporations’ equity, thus decapitalizing the companies, total aggregate demand itself collapses. 

    The absence of growth in aggregate demand will make the gap between high stock prices and dismal prospects for corporate profits too great to be bridged by the Federal Reserve flooding money into financial assets.  Without the ability to prop up financial asset prices with money creation, flight from dollar-denominated assets could bring down the US dollar.

    What is left will be a ruin.

  • California's Homeless Crisis Spreads To Orange County, Doubles In Two Years 

    Orange County, California, like much of the state, has seen tremendous house price gains since the great recession. Over time, residents who had access to cheap credit could afford to live in the county, resulting in a significant gap between the rich and poor.

    A new 149-page report from Orange County’s 2019 homeless Point In Time Count published on July 30 to the Board of Supervisors, sheds more light into the expanding wealth gap that has left the county with a homelessness crisis, reported Orange County Register.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the report, 6,860 people were counted as homeless in Orange County in January, up 43% from two years earlier.

    The findings reveal black, African American or multi-racial, as well as Hispanic or Latino families, make up an increasing percentage of homeless people in the county.

    White people represented the largest single group of homeless people: more than two-thirds of individuals with and without shelter.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    About 8.41% of homeless people in the county without shelter were black or American. A little over 12% of the unsheltered are described as “Multiple Races” (no definition provided) or “Other,” compared to 3.5% overall.

    The survey found more men were homeless (4,310 or 62%) than women (2,546).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    County supervisors discussed Tuesday at a meeting about ideas to defeating homelessness. Their plan: build more affordable housing with support services.

    “Not just in Orange County, but across the state, we have a shortage of both affordable and available housing to meet the needs of our populations,” said Susan Price, the county’s coordinator of homeless services.

    Price said 600 shelter beds were created in Orange County over the last several years, in anticipation of a surge in homelessness.

    “We’re working on the system in all components…to the endgame, which is housing for everyone.”

    Other findings:

    • About one in four homeless people in Orange County – totaling 1,654 people – reported having mental health issues.

    A total of 311 homeless veterans were counted in the survey. Price said the county’s plan is to house 20 veterans per month.

    Advocates criticized the county for allowing home prices to soar in the last decade while doing very little for affordable housing. They said many of these homeless people could not afford to rent or own because of prices outpacing their wages.

    Several months ago, we cited ATTOM Data Solutions’ 2Q19 US Home Affordability Report, that said Orange County was one of the most unaffordable housing markets for the average American.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And it certainly seems California’s housing affordability crisis is getting worse, has resulted in an explosion in the homeless population not just in Orange County, but also in San Francisco and Los Angeles County. With no end in sight, California’s homelessness crisis is expected to deepen in the early 2020s.

  • Tulsi Gabbard Challenges Foreign-Policy Assumptions And Moves The Overton Window

    Authored by Ali A. Taj via MintPressNews.com,

    During this week’s Democratic presidential debate, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) exposed Senator Kamala Harris’ (D-CA) horrible prosecutorial record as well as her diluted and compromised solution to America’s healthcare crisis.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Harris failed to respond to Gabbard and, just as Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) did before her, she attacked Gabbard with the tired label of “Assad apologist,” referring to Gabbard’s questioning of the U.S. government narrative on the Syria chemical-weapons attacks as well as her attempts to foster dialogue with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Harris has also used the label in the same weaseling manner that Ryan has — when Gabbard was not present to counter it. 

    While proponents of U.S. foreign policy in Syria have used the label to smear Gabbard before, it was New York Times opinion writer Bari Weiss who arguably made famous the malign smear during an appearance on the Joe Rogan Show. When asked to explain what made Gabbard an Assad apologist, Weiss now infamously responded by calling her a “toady” of Assad. When confronted by Rogan, Weiss admitted she did not know what the term toady meant.

    Post-debate evasion and obfuscation

    Just as Weiss failed to elaborate when confronted about her name-calling of Gabbard, Harris failed to respond to Tulsi’s pointed examination of Harris’ compromised record as a prosecutor. This record, as Gabbard noted, includes the prosecution of over 1,500 people for marijuana charges (the hypocrisy of which was highlighted when Harris laughed when asked if she had herself indulged); blocking evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do; keeping people in prison beyond their sentences, to be used as cheap labor; and fighting to keep the discriminatory cash bail system in place.

    Harris also refused to prosecute Trump lackey, and current Treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin for his unscrupulous use of home foreclosures for profit. As CNBC noted in January: 

    In 2012, the California Department of Justice found in an investigation that One West Bank participated in ‘widespread misconduct’ when foreclosing on homes, recommending that Harris file a civil enforcement action against the bank. However, Harris declined to prosecute One West or its then-CEO Steven Mnuchin, despite the department’s recommendation.”

    So what was Harris’ response to Gabbard’s legitimate and very specific criticisms of her record? In a post-debate interview, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asks Gabbard to comment on a characterization of her he had just elicited from Harris off-camera, recounted by Cooper as: “The only thing she [Harris] said about you is that you are essentially an apologist for Assad.”

    Cooper next repeatedly sought clarification from Gabbard as to whether she agreed with the mainstream media’s one-sided version of events in Syria. Not once, but over and over. Cooper came across as hypocritical for his arbitrary line of questioning regarding what leaders the United States could engage with. If our country can engage with Saudi despots who have dissenting journalists from the Washington Post brutally dismembered, what is his issue with Gabbard’s engagement with Assad? And, as Gabbard pointed out, if FDR could meet with, and even ally with, Josef Stalin — a man responsible for the death of millions — why shouldn’t Gabbard meet with Assad, or any other head of state, to prevent what she accurately refers to as “needless regime-change wars of intervention.”

    What Gabbard has accomplished

    For her blunt assessment of U.S. foreign policy, one that is arguably shared by a large portion of the American electorate, Gabbard is vilified or ignored by most in the mainstream media. Pundits have made careers of maligning anyone who dares go against the neoconservative gospel on foreign policy, and Gabbard, of course, is no exception. Even the late-night comedy shows avoided any significant mention of her compelling performance in their detailed summations of the second night’s debate — this despite the fact that she was the most Googled candidate during the debate.

    Tulsi Gabbard has moved the Overton window on what is acceptable discussion when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. She has punctured the rose-tinted narrative being constructed around establishment favorites like Harris. This has not endeared her to mainstream pundits like Cooper of CNN or Brian Williams of CNBC. To understand her actual positions on the U.S. role in Syria, Kim Iverson’s interview with her exemplifies how mainstream pundits should be doingtheir jobs.

  • China's Generation-Z Is Developing An Ugly Addiction To Easily-Accessible Debt

    China’s generation Z, not unlike millennials in the U.S., are developing an ugly addiction to debt. This was highlighted in a recent Bloomberg piece that highlighted examples like one 23 year old Shanghai resident who found himself $1,500 in debt to a smartphone app. 

    His spending habits are made possible buy Huabei, a credit card that’s part of Alibaba’s ecosystem. He routinely spent more than his sole source of income, which was his parents 8,000 yuan (~$1,200) monthly allowance. When fell under a pile of debt, he tried to borrow his way out of it and pay in installments. It didn’t work, and his parents had to bail him out. Hubei charged him 0.05% per day, which is about 18.25% annualized. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    His story is typical for China’s Generation Z. Born between the mid 90’s and early 2000’s, this generation has little income and “virtually no credit history”. But that doesn’t stop them from having access to banks, fintech startups and peer to peer lenders (in addition to other unregulated channels). 

    Formal household borrowing is now 54% of GDP in the first quarter, rising more than 4% in a year. China’s ratio is still lower than the U.S. (66%), Hong Kong (72%), or South Korea (100%) but the rapid increase is worrying regulators and analysts. Fitch said in July that periods of debt-fueled consumption “can often be followed by sharp market corrections.”

    And it’s the younger generation that’s the concern. 

    Former People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan said last year that the younger generation is being prompted to overconsume from technology. And there could be consequences for the broader economy if this type of debt starts to erode household liquidity, according to the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China, as a country, remains in the midst of a longer-term shift from an export and investment led growth model to a modern consumer economy. A consumer debt crisis would obviously throw a wrench in those gears in a big way. 

    Unsecured lending is up 20% a year in China since 2008. Services like Hubei offer revolving lines of credit for between 500 and 50,000 yuan. Balances can be repaid in monthly installments, as well. Alibaba rivals like JD.com have similar products. 

    Regulators have tried to crack down on peer to peer lending and the sector has shrunk to half of its peak size. Data showed that nearly 70% of peer to peer lenders were younger than 40. 

    The worrying part is that loans on these platforms often aren’t counted in official data. And one consulting firm says that the amount of consumer finance available through the internet will more than double, to 19 trillion yuan, by 2021.

  • 20 Dead, 26 Injured In El Paso Mall Attack, Shooter In Custody

    Live Feed:

    Summary:

    • Mass shooting at a Walmart in a mall in El Paso, Texas

    • At least 26 injured (source)

    • At least 20 dead (source) – America’s 8th deadliest mass shooting

    • One suspect in custody – 21-year-old male – Patrick Crusius (source)

    • Police do not believe there any other suspects.

    • President Trump has been briefed.

    *  *  *

    Update (2000ET): CNN reports that twenty people are dead and more than two dozen are injured following a shooting at a shopping complex in El Paso, Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott said in a press conference on Saturday.

    “We as a state unite in support of the victims and their family members,” Abbott said.

    “We want to do all we can to assist them.”

    El Paso Police Chief Greg Allen said that 26 people were wounded.

    The shooting has a “nexus to a hate crime,” according to Allen.

    The FBI cautioned that more investigative work is needed to determine whether it was a hate crime.

    *  *  *

    Update (1750ET): In a stunning update, NBC News reports that at least 19 people are dead and 40 injured after a shooting Saturday near a shopping mall in El Paso, Texas, law enforcement officials said. One suspect, a 21-year-old man from the Dallas area, is in custody, law enforcement sources said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Multiple law-enforcement sources say police have identified the suspected as Patrick Crusius.

    A second person was also taken into custody by authorities, but it is not immediately known what role, if any, the person played in the shooting, sources familiar with the investigation told NBC News.

    America’s deadliest modern mass shootings

    1. MGM Grand, Las Vegas, October 2, 2017: 58 killed, 527 injured.

    2. Pulse, Orlando, Fla., June 2016: 49 killed and more than 50 injured.

    3. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va., April 2007: 32 killed and 17 injured on campus.

    4. Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Conn., December 2012: 26 killed.

    5. First Baptist Church, Sutherland Springs, Texas, November 2017: 26 killed.

    6. Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, Texas, October 1991: 23 killed.

    7. McDonald’s, San Ysdiro, Calif., July 1984: 21 killed.

    8. Walmart, El Paso, Texas, August 3, 2019: At least 20 killed, 26 injured.

    9. Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Parkland, Fla., February 2018: 17 killed.

    10. University of Texas Tower, Austin, Texas, August 1966: 16 killed around campus.

    11. Inland Regional Center, San Bernardino, Calif., December 2015: 14 killed.

    12. Edmond post office, Edmond, Okla., August 1986: 14 killed.

    13. Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas, November 2009: 13 killed.

    14. Columbine High School, Littleton, Colo., April 1999: 13 killed.

    15. Binghamton Civic Association, Binghamton, N.Y., April 2009: 13 killed.

    16. New Jersey neighborhood and local shops, Camden, N.J, September 1949: 13 killed.

    17. Schoolhouse Lane neighborhood and Heather Highlands Mobile Home Village, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., September 1982: 13 killed.

    18. Wah Mee club in the Louisa hotel, Seattle, Wash., February 1983: 13 killed.

    19. Century 16 movie theater, Aurora, Colo., July 2012: 12 killed, 58 wounded.

    20. Navy Yard, Washington, D.C., September 2013: 12 killed, 8 wounded.

    *  *  *

    Update (1630ET): President Trump has offered his condolences, tweeting on Saturday “Terrible shootings in ElPaso, Texas. Reports are very bad, many killed. Working with State and Local authorities, and Law Enforcement. Spoke to Governor to pledge total support of Federal Government. God be with you all!”

    Update (1500ET): AP reports that Mayor’s aide and police say multiple people were killed in an attack at an El Paso, Texas, shopping complex.

    El Paso Police confirmed one person in custody.

    Walmart has issued a statement:

    We are in shock over the tragic events at the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso, where Walmart store #2201 and Sam’s Club #6502 are located. We’re praying for the victims, the community and our associates, as well as the first responders who are on the scene. We’re working closely with law enforcement and will update as appropriate.

    NBC News allege this is one of the shooters:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    *  *  *

    Update (1400ET): Some reports claim the shooter has been caught

    *  *  *

    At least eighteen people have reportedly  been shot – with one killed – after an active shooter opened fire at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to a police scanner the shooter was armed with an automatic weapon, possibly an AK-47.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Shortly after 11am local time El Paso Police tweeted: “Active Shooting Stay away from Cielo Vista Mall Area. Scene is Still Active.”

    The Mirror reports that the shooter is reported to have opened fire in the car park before going inside the supermarket.

    Live Feed:

    The shooting comes just days after two people were shot and killed in a Walmart store in Southhaven, Mississippi, south of Memphis, and the same week that three people were shot and killed at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California.

    Developing…

     

  • Hell's Top Banker Explains "How To Destroy The Global Economy"

    Bill Blain’s new book, The Fifth Horseman – How to Destroy the Global Economy, has been attracting much comment. It’s a tongue-in-cheek polemical sideswipe at Central Bankers, Regulators and Politicians for the poor and mistaken policies that have fuelled the ongoing global financial crisis since 2017.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Blain’s book claims to be a hack of emails and documents exchanged between Hell’s top banker and his boss as they plan to extend the crisis they created in 2007 and make it worse… Here is an excerpt…

    (Edited version of the speech given by the TJ Wormwood, Chief Demonic Officer – Finance, Lord of 3rd Ring of the 7th Circle, to invited audience at Davos.)

    Dear Colleagues,

    As you all know, I’ve been wrecking finance for millennia. [Pause for effect]

    Nearly every major big idea, evolutionary leap forward, invention and discovery has improved the miserable lot of mankind only through their ability to monetise it. Forget the theft of fire – being able to monetise fire by attracting pretty and willing mates around a warm campfire, or cooking the food others have hunted, is what mattered. Strip out the noise, and the rise of mankind is largely due to improvements in the efficiency and ease of means of exchange.

    From the realisation hunters could barter their furs for other goods, to the rise of complex products to finance global growth – the innovation of financial markets has been a major driver of success for the Other Side in raising the wellbeing and prosperity of mankind. Pretty much anything that holds back or disrupts trade, increases costs and holds back services is naturally positive for our goal of global destabilisation.

    So, here is the big plan:

    Since 2007 we’ve been turning the Other Side’s successful innovation of financial markets against them. Global Financial Markets are incredibly rich in opportunities to distort truth, hide lies, and undermine mankind – generating immediate greed, envy, suspicion and anger. We’ve uncovered previously unimaginable ways in which to financially screw the World with consequences that impact everyone.

    We’ve overlaid the programme with our mastery and understanding of temptation, human greed, avarice and pride, while adding subtlety and cunning. We merely suggest and advise. We are facilitating the train-wreck of the global economy by destroying asset values while confounding their understanding of money and wealth – the pillars of their society.

    At its simplest form we are manipulating and driving constant market instability to keep mankind distracted. Uncertainty clouds their future expectations – so we keep it raining. A Mortgage crisis one year, followed by a Sovereign Debt crisis the next, spiced with a couple of bank failures, and threats of global trade war. Overlay with confusion and distraction such as social media, fake news, Bitcoin and populism, and it all works rather well.

    Keep their leaders arguing.  Keep the blame game going. 

    Our success can be seen in current financial asset prices. These are now hopelessly inflated and distorted by foolish post financial crisis policy decisions. They are bubbles set to pop. Empower the regulators and bureaucrats to compromise finance through zealous over-regulation, making banking safer by destroying it. Usher in a new era of trade protectionism, the end of Free Trade and increase the suspicion some countries are manipulating their currencies for economic advantage. Sprinkle some dust of political catastrophe, the collapse of law, undo the fair, just and caring society, while adding some eye of newt and complex environmental threats. Make the rich so rich they don’t notice, and the poor so poor they become invisible. If the markets remain uncertain, then it distracts mankind from addressing these issues, making society less stable!

    There as some things we’re really proud of, including the Euro, Social Media, Investment Banks, the Tech Boom, and especially Quantitative Easing (which is still delivering confusion and pain). New Monetary Theory could prove even better – it shows tremendous potential to thoroughly unsettle confidence in money. Cybercurrencies are particularly fun – despite coming up with the idea, neither we, nor even the distinguished members of our panel of eternal guests, understand the why of them. They are libertarian nonsense – so, naturally we continue to encourage them as get-rich-quick schemes, but they also further undermine confidence in money and government. We made something up in a bar one night and called it a Distributed Ledger – the humans ran with it and invented Blockchain, whatever that might be..

    Some of the other stuff we’ve encouraged, such as The EU, ETFs, Hi-Frequency Trading, Neil Woodford and Deutsche Bank look likely to be highly effective vectors of short-term economic destruction and destabilisation, triggering systemic market events and regulatory backlashes across markets. We are only now exploring the full potential of market illiquidity to rob billions of pensioners of their savings.

    We’ve persuaded investors to overturn proven tried and tested investment strategies and wisdoms, nurturing a whole range of overpriced unprofitable US Tech “Unicorn” companies which we are confident will prove utterly over-hyped and largely worthless. The success of social media, data mining and new tech has increased levels of dissatisfaction and envy – especially in our target younger demography.

    The way we successfully pinned the blame on banks for the Global Financial Crisis – despite the fact it was people who wanted mortgages to buy houses and fast cars – ensured global regulators would over-react. We’ve allowed regulators to focus on banks while we target the next financial crisis in other parts of the financial ecosystem.

    Regulators forced the banks to de-risk. But risk does not disappear – it just goes somewhere else. While banks understood risk and had massive staffs to manage risk, risk is now concentrated in the hands of “investment managers” who are singularly ill-equipped to withstand the next credit crunch and global recession, (which we’ve planned for next October – Save the Date cards have been sent).

    We are particularly pleased that many banks now exceed the 2.3 compliance officers for every profitable banker ratio. Compliance and regulatory costs now exceed 10% of income at some European banks – a stunning success and substantially decreasing the efficiency of banking and exchanges.

    We’ve some great new financial ideas we are still experimenting with, some of which show great promise for further weakening society. Facebook Money is going to be a cracker, and I particularly like the Spaceship to Mars project… if only they knew what awaits them…

    By hiding inflation in the stock market, we assisted the accumulation of massive wealth by a tiny percentage of the population to ferment income inequality dissatisfaction. When capital is concentrated and the workers under the cosh, it creates all the right conditions for weak disjointed government to aid and abet the rise of destabilising populism.

    It’s highly satisfying to watch the instability we’ve created in financial markets drive fear and distrust across society. The debt crisis we engineered led to global financial austerity, job insecurity, and rising inequality. We were surprised how easily we pushed the Gig economy concept to further exploit and cow workers through regulators and authorities – they barely noticed. Over this we’ve layered whole new levels of anxiety such as the unknowns of data theft, the rise in envy coefficients through social media, fake news while fuelling social distrust through resentment.

    We’ve managed to persuade Governments to follow damaging and contradictory policies. As society reeled in the wake of the financial crisis, we persuaded policy makers to cut back spending through “austerity” spending programmes, simultaneously bailing out bankers while flooding the financial economy with free money through Quantitative Easing.

    Effectively we’ve split the world into two economies. A real economy which is sad, miserable and deflating, and a financial economy that’s insanely optimistic, massively inflated and ripe to pop on the back of free money.

    The resentment, instability, fear and general sense of decay has paid dividends in our drive to break society by undermining the credibility of the political classes. Our approach to politics has been simple – deskill the political classes, reduce their effectiveness as leaders, while engineering economic, social and financial instability to drive rampaging populist politics – just like in 1932! Populism may ultimately prove short-lived, but it’s difficult to see how the political classes will recover their power in time to reverse the damages being done to the global environment.

    While markets have burned, society become increasingly riven, and politics has failed, we’ve distracted the humans from the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which threatens to create global warming and rising sea levels, while plastics poison the oceans and soil erosion threatens agriculture.

    Now I love the ravenous hunger and sharp pointy teeth of polar bears as much as the next demon, but needs must… needs must. I was also rather fond of the dinosaurs…

    Our approach to ensuring destructive climate change has proved very effective. We’ve supported, financed and advised the loudest green lobbies to ensure their message looks ill-considered, wrong and economic suicide. We also paid big bucks to fund the loudest climate change deniers. Our innovation of fake news to discredit and mitigate anything positive means climate change remains a crank topic – even as our polar bears drown.

    Meanwhile, through our dominance of global boardrooms and investment firms, we’ve made sure that large corporates have bought-out and stifled new technologies that could solve the environmental crisis.

    Our future looks great – because their future is bleak!

    Thank you for your kind attention.

    TJ Wormwood,

    Demonic Chief Office – Finance

    *  *  *

    You can get your personally pixelated copy on Kindle or as a Paperback on Amazon. For less than the price of a couple of pints, you are guaranteed at least 2 laughs.. unless you are Neil Woodford or work for Deutsche or Goldman. Go on… you know it makes sense…

  • Harvard Scientists, Funded By Bill Gates, To Begin Spraying Particles Into The Sky To Dim The Sun

    Authored by Matt Agorist via TheFreeThoughtProject.com,

    Harvard has formed an advisory board to begin moving forward with their plan to spray particles into the stratosphere to test the geoengineering method of dimming the sun…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    No, we are not a satire site. We are not a conspiracy theory site. The information you are about to read is factually accurate and 100% real despite the ostensible ‘skeptics’ who claim otherwise. The controversial subject of geoengineering or weather modification – which was popularized, and oversimplified with the term “chemtrails” – is once again stepping from the shadows and into the light of public scrutiny. And it may soon be a reality as Harvard scientists plan first ever experiment to spray particles in the sky to dim the sun.

    What was once a conspiracy theory is now the subject of congressional debate, peer-reviewed studies, and now a Harvard experiment. Harvard scientists will attempt to replicate the climate-cooling effect of volcanic eruptions with a world-first solar geoengineering experiment. The university announced this month that it has created an external advisory panel to examine the potential ethical, environmental and geopolitical impacts of this geoengineering project, which has been developed by the university’s researchers.

    According to Nature Magazine, Louise Bedsworth, executive director of the California Strategic Growth Council, a state agency that promotes sustainability and economic prosperity, will lead the Harvard advisory panel, the university said on 29 July. The other seven members include Earth-science researchers and specialists in environmental and climate law and policy.

    What was once a conspiracy theory will soon be a reality—any day now.

    Known as the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), the experiment will spray calcium carbonate particles high above the earth to mimic the effects of volcanic ash blocking out the sun to produce a cooling effect.

    The experiment was announced in Nature magazine last year, who was one of few outlets to look into this unprecedented step toward geoengineering the planet.

    If all goes as planned, the Harvard team will be the first in the world to move solar geoengineering out of the lab and into the stratosphere, with a project called the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx). The first phase — a US$3-million test involving two flights of a steerable balloon 20 kilometres above the southwest United States — could launch as early as the first half of 2019. Once in place, the experiment would release small plumes of calcium carbonate, each of around 100 grams, roughly equivalent to the amount found in an average bottle of off-the-shelf antacid. The balloon would then turn around to observe how the particles disperse.

    Naturally, the experiment is concerning to many people, including environmental groups, who, according to Nature, say such efforts are a dangerous distraction from addressing the only permanent solution to climate change: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

    The idea of injecting particles into the atmosphere to cool the earth also seems outright futile considering what scientists are trying to mimic—volcanic eruptions. If we look at the second largest eruption of the 20th century, Mount Pinatubo, which erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it injected 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide aerosols into the stratosphere. Scientists from the USGS estimated that this 20 million tons only lowered the temperature of the planet by about 1°F (0.5°C) and this only lasted a year because the particles eventually fell to back to Earth.

    The Harvard team, led by scientists Frank Keutsch and David Keith, has been working on the SCoPEx project for several years but they haven’t always been in total agreement. In fact, as Nature reported, Keutsch—who is not a climate scientist—previously thought the idea to be “totally insane.” But he’s since changed his mind. As Nature reports:

    When he saw Keith talk about the SCoPEx idea at a conference after starting at Harvard in 2015, he says his initial reaction was that the idea was “totally insane”. Then he decided it was time to engage. “I asked myself, an atmospheric chemist, what can I do?” He joined forces with Keith and Anderson, and has since taken the lead on the experimental work.

    Adding to the questionable nature of this experiment is the fact that it is largely funded by none other than Microsoft co-founder, Bill Gates. Gates is no stranger to funding controversial experiments as he’s publicly funded many of them including one that would implant devices into babies to automatically give them vaccines. 

    While the Harvard team’s experiment may sound like something out of a dystopian science fiction movie, the reality is that it has long been on the table of governments and think tanks from around the world. In fact, just last November, a study published in Environmental Research Letters, talked about doing the exact same thing—geoengineering and planes spraying particulates into the atmosphere to curb global warming.

    What’s more, that study echoed the sentiments of then-CIA director John Brennan when he addressed the Council on Foreign Relations in 2016, detailing a similar process of spraying chemical particulates in the atmosphere to cool the planet.

    At the meeting, Brennan addressed instability and transnational threats to global security at a meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations. During his long-winded talk of threats to US interests and how the largely CIA-created ISIL threat is impacting the world, Brennan brought up the topic of geoengineering.

    Another example is the array of technologies—often referred to collectively as geoengineering—that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change. One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun’s heat, in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.

    Brennan went on to echo the calls from some scientists who have called for aerial spraying.

    An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy additional time to transition from fossil fuels. The process is also relatively inexpensive—the National Research Council estimates that a fully deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.

    Again, this is not some conspiracy theory. Watch him say all of this in the video below starting at the 12:05 marker.

    The extent to which Brennan talked about stratospheric aerosol injection shows that he and the CIA have likely been considering this for some time.

    Although we are hearing more and more talk about geoengineering, it has been around for a very long time and not just in the realm of conspiracy theories. In fact, scientists have already suggested that it could be going on right now, unintentionally.

    Researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are suggesting contrails from airplanes may be inadvertently geoengineering the skies.

    Chuck Long is a researcher with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory at the University of Colorado in Boulder. At the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in 2015, Long and his team released their paper, “Evidence of Clear-Sky Daylight Whitening: Are we already conducting geoengineering?” The analysis found that vapor from airplanes may be altering the climate through accidental geoengineering.

    To be clear, no one here is claiming to be an expert on climate change or the effects of geoengineering. But one thing is clear and it’s the fact that there is still much to be debated and learned before humans deliberately begin altering Earth’s climate. Aside from doing nothing to curb carbon emissions, if we are so quick to jump on this method, it could set off a chain reaction that could prove to be catastrophic.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Aug 03

Today’s News 3rd August 2019

  • The Rise Of The American Gestapo

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “Adolf Hitler is alive and well in the United States, and he is fast rising to power.”

    – Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, on the danger posed by the FBI to our civil liberties

    Despite the finger-pointing and outcries of dismay from those who are watching the government discard the rule of law at every turn, the question is not whether Donald Trump is the new Adolf Hitler but whether the American Police State is the new Third Reich.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For those who can view the present and past political landscape without partisan blinders, the warning signs are unmistakable: the Deep State’s love affair with totalitarianism began long ago.

    Indeed, the U.S. government so admired the Nazi regime that following the second World War, it secretly recruited Hitler’s employees, adopted his protocols, embraced his mindset about law and order, implemented his tactics in incremental steps, and began to lay the foundations for the rise of the Fourth Reich.

    Sounds far-fetched? Read on. It’s all documented.

    As historian Robert Gellately recounts, “After five years of Hitler’s dictatorship, the Nazi police had won the FBI’s seal of approval.” The Nazi police state was initially so admired for its efficiency and order by the world powers of the day that J. Edgar Hoover, then-head of the FBI, actually sent one of his right-hand men, Edmund Patrick Coffey, to Berlin in January 1938 at the invitation of Germany’s secret police—the Gestapo.

    The FBI was so impressed with the Nazi regime that, according to the New York Times, in the decades after World War II, the FBI, along with other government agencies, aggressively recruited at least a thousand Nazis, including some of Hitler’s highest henchmen.

    All told, thousands of Nazi collaborators—including the head of a Nazi concentration camp, among others—were given secret visas and brought to America by way of Project Paperclip. Subsequently, they were hired on as spies and informants, and then camouflaged to ensure that their true identities and ties to Hitler’s holocaust machine would remain unknown. All the while, thousands of Jewish refugees were refused entry visas to the U.S. on the grounds that it could threaten national security.

    Adding further insult to injury, American taxpayers have been paying to keep these ex-Nazis on the U.S. government’s payroll ever since. And in true Gestapo fashion, anyone who has dared to blow the whistle on the FBI’s illicit Nazi ties has found himself spied upon, intimidated, harassed and labeled a threat to national security.

    As if the government’s covert, taxpayer-funded employment of Nazis after World War II wasn’t bad enough, U.S. government agencies—the FBI, CIA and the military—have fully embraced many of the Nazi’s well-honed policing tactics, and have used them repeatedly against American citizens.

    Indeed, with every passing day, the United States government borrows yet another leaf from Nazi Germany’s playbook: Secret police. Secret courts. Secret government agencies. Surveillance. Censorship. Intimidation. Harassment. Torture. Brutality. Widespread corruption. Entrapment. Indoctrination. Indefinite detention.

    These are not tactics used by constitutional republics, where the rule of law and the rights of the citizenry reign supreme. Rather, they are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, where the only law that counts comes in the form of heavy-handed, unilateral dictates from a supreme ruler who uses a secret police to control the populace.

    That danger is now posed by the FBI, whose laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, harassment and indoctrination, governmental overreach, abuse, misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property, and that’s just based on what we know.

    Whether the FBI is planting undercover agents in churches, synagogues and mosques; issuing fake emergency letters to gain access to Americans’ phone records; using intimidation tactics to silence Americans who are critical of the government; recruiting high school students to spy on and report fellow students who show signs of being future terrorists; or persuading impressionable individuals to plot acts of terror and then entrapping them, the overall impression of the nation’s secret police force is that of a well-dressed thug, flexing its muscles and doing the boss’ dirty work of ensuring compliance, keeping tabs on potential dissidents, and punishing those who dare to challenge the status quo.

    Whatever minimal restrictions initially kept the FBI’s surveillance activities within the bounds of the law have all but disappeared post-9/11. Since then, the FBI has been transformed into a mammoth federal policing and surveillance agency that largely operates as a power unto itself, beyond the reach of established laws, court rulings and legislative mandates.

    Consider the FBI’s far-reaching powers to surveil, detain, interrogate, investigate, prosecute, punish, police and generally act as a law unto themselves—much like their Nazi cousins, the Gestapo—and then try to convince yourself that the United States is still a constitutional republic.

    Just like the Gestapo, the FBI has vast resources, vast investigatory powers, and vast discretion to determine who is an enemy of the state.

    Today, the FBI employs more than 35,000 individuals and operates more than 56 field offices in major cities across the U.S., as well as 400 resident agencies in smaller towns, and more than 50 international offices. In addition to their “data campus,” which houses more than 96 million sets of fingerprints from across the United States and elsewhere, the FBI has also built a vast repository of “profiles of tens of thousands of Americans and legal residents who are not accused of any crime. What they have done is appear to be acting suspiciously to a town sheriff, a traffic cop or even a neighbor.” The FBI’s burgeoning databases on Americans are not only being added to and used by local police agencies, but are also being made available to employers for real-time background checks.

    All of this is made possible by the agency’s nearly unlimited resources (its minimum budget alone in fiscal year 2015 was $8.3 billion), the government’s vast arsenal of technology, the interconnectedness of government intelligence agencies, and information sharing through fusion centers—data collecting intelligence agencies spread throughout the country that constantly monitor communications (including those of American citizens), everything from internet activity and web searches to text messages, phone calls and emails.

    Much like the Gestapo spied on mail and phone calls, FBI agents have carte blanche access to the citizenry’s most personal information.

    Working through the U.S. Post Office, the FBI has access to every piece of mail that passes through the postal system: more than 160 billion pieces are scanned and recorded annually. Moreover, the agency’s National Security Letters, one of the many illicit powers authorized by the USA Patriot Act, allows the FBI to secretly demand that banks, phone companies, and other businesses provide them with customer information and not disclose those demands to the customer. An internal audit of the agency found that the FBI practice of issuing tens of thousands of NSLs every year for sensitive information such as phone and financial records, often in non-emergency cases, is riddled with widespread constitutional violations.

    Much like the Gestapo’s sophisticated surveillance programs, the FBI’s spying capabilities can delve into Americans’ most intimate details (and allow local police to do so, as well).

    In addition to technology (which is shared with police agencies) that allows them to listen in on phone calls, read emails and text messages, and monitor web activities, the FBI’s surveillance boasts an invasive collection of spy tools ranging from Stingray devices that can track the location of cell phones to Triggerfish devices which allow agents to eavesdrop on phone calls.  In one case, the FBI actually managed to remotely reprogram a “suspect’s” wireless internet card so that it would send “real-time cell-site location data to Verizon, which forwarded the data to the FBI.” Law enforcement agencies are also using social media tracking software to monitor Facebook, Twitter and Instagram posts. Moreover, secret FBI rules also allow agents to spy on journalists without significant judicial oversight.

    Much like the Gestapo’s ability to profile based on race and religion, and its assumption of guilt by association, the FBI’s approach to pre-crime allows it to profile Americans based on a broad range of characteristics including race and religion.

    The agency’s biometric database has grown to massive proportions, the largest in the world, encompassing everything from fingerprints, palm, face and iris scans to DNA, and is being increasingly shared between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in an effort to target potential criminals long before they ever commit a crime. This is what’s known as pre-crime. Yet it’s not just your actions that will get you in trouble. In many cases, it’s also who you know—even minimally—and where your sympathies lie that could land you on a government watch list. Moreover, as the Intercept reports, despite anti-profiling prohibitions, the bureau “claims considerable latitude to use race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion in deciding which people and communities to investigate.”

    Much like the Gestapo’s power to render anyone an enemy of the state, the FBI has the power to label anyone a domestic terrorist.

    As part of the government’s so-called ongoing war on terror, the nation’s de facto secret police force has begun using the terms “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably. Moreover, the government continues to add to its growing list of characteristics that can be used to identify an individual (especially anyone who disagrees with the government) as a potential domestic terrorist. For instance, you might be a domestic terrorist in the eyes of the FBI (and its network of snitches) if you:

    • express libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)

    • exhibit Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership)

    • read survivalist literature, including apocalyptic fictional books

    • show signs of self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)

    • fear an economic collapse

    • buy gold and barter items

    • subscribe to religious views concerning the book of Revelation

    • voice fears about Big Brother or big government

    • expound about constitutional rights and civil liberties

    • believe in a New World Order conspiracy

    Much like the Gestapo infiltrated communities in order to spy on the German citizenry, the FBI routinely infiltrates political and religious groups, as well as businesses.

    As Cora Currier writes for the Intercept: “Using loopholes it has kept secret for years, the FBI can in certain circumstances bypass its own rules in order to send undercover agents or informants into political and religious organizations, as well as schools, clubs, and businesses…” The FBI has even been paying Geek Squad technicians at Best Buy to spy on customers’ computers without a warrant.

    Just as the Gestapo united and militarized Germany’s police forces into a national police force, America’s police forces have largely been federalized and turned into a national police force.

    In addition to government programs that provide the nation’s police forces with military equipment and training, the FBI also operates a National Academy that trains thousands of police chiefs every year and indoctrinates them into an agency mindset that advocates the use of surveillance technology and information sharing between local, state, federal, and international agencies.

    Just as the Gestapo’s secret files on political leaders were used to intimidate and coerce, the FBI’s files on anyone suspected of “anti-government” sentiment have been similarly abused.

    As countless documents make clear, the FBI has no qualms about using its extensive powers in order to blackmail politicians, spy on celebrities and high-ranking government officials, and intimidate and attempt to discredit dissidents of all stripes. For example, not only did the FBI follow Martin Luther King Jr. and bug his phones and hotel rooms, but agents also sent him anonymous letters urging him to commit suicide and pressured a Massachusetts college into dropping King as its commencement speaker.

    Just as the Gestapo carried out entrapment operations, the FBI has become a master in the art of entrapment.

    In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks the FBI has not only targeted vulnerable individuals but has also lured or blackmailed them into fake terror plots while actually equipping them with the organization, money, weapons and motivation to carry out the plots—entrapment—and then jailing or deporting them for their so-called terrorist plotting. This is what the FBI characterizes as “forward leaning—preventative—prosecutions.” In addition to creating certain crimes in order to then “solve” them, the FBI also gives certain informants permission to break the law, “including everything from buying and selling illegal drugs to bribing government officials and plotting robberies,” in exchange for their cooperation on other fronts. USA Todayestimates that agents have authorized criminals to engage in as many as 15 crimes a day. Some of these informants are getting paid astronomical sums: one particularly unsavory fellow, later arrested for attempting to run over a police officer, was actually paid $85,000 for his help laying the trap for an entrapment scheme.

    When and if a true history of the FBI is ever written, it will not only track the rise of the American police state but it will also chart the decline of freedom in America, in much the same way that the empowerment of Germany’s secret police tracked with the rise of the Nazi regime.

    How did the Gestapo become the terror of the Third Reich?

    It did so by creating a sophisticated surveillance and law enforcement system that relied for its success on the cooperation of the military, the police, the intelligence community, neighborhood watchdogs, government workers for the post office and railroads, ordinary civil servants, and a nation of snitches inclined to report “rumors, deviant behavior, or even just loose talk.”

    In other words, ordinary citizens working with government agents helped create the monster that became Nazi Germany. Writing for the New York Times, Barry Ewen paints a particularly chilling portrait of how an entire nation becomes complicit in its own downfall by looking the other way:

    In what may be his most provocative statement, [author Eric A.] Johnson says that ‘‘most Germans may not even have realized until very late in the war, if ever, that they were living in a vile dictatorship.’’ This is not to say that they were unaware of the Holocaust; Johnson demonstrates that millions of Germans must have known at least some of the truth. But, he concludes, ‘‘a tacit Faustian bargain was struck between the regime and the citizenry.’’ The government looked the other way when petty crimes were being committed. Ordinary Germans looked the other way when Jews were being rounded up and murdered; they abetted one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century not through active collaboration but through passivity, denial and indifference.

    Much like the German people, “we the people” have become passive, polarized, gullible, easily manipulated, and lacking in critical thinking skills.  Distracted by entertainment spectacles, politics and screen devices, we too are complicit, silent partners in creating a police state similar to the terror practiced by former regimes.

    Had the government tried to ram such a state of affairs down our throats suddenly, it might have had a rebellion on its hands.

    Instead, the American people have been given the boiling frog treatment, immersed in water that slowly is heated up—degree by degree—so that they’ve fail to notice that they’re being trapped and cooked and killed.

    “We the people” are in hot water now.

    The Constitution doesn’t stand a chance against a federalized, globalized standing army of government henchmen protected by legislative, judicial and executive branches that are all on the same side, no matter what political views they subscribe to: suffice it to say, they are not on our side or the side of freedom.

    From Clinton to Bush, then Obama and now Trump, it’s as if we’ve been caught in a time loop, forced to re-live the same thing over and over again: the same assaults on our freedoms, the same disregard for the rule of law, the same subservience to the Deep State, and the same corrupt, self-serving government that exists only to amass power, enrich its shareholders and ensure its continued domination.

    Can the Fourth Reich happen here?

    As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it’s already happening right under our noses.

  • $100,000 Per Year Is Now The Bare Minimum To Live Alone In New York

    It’s getting extremely difficult to live in New York if you’re making less than six figures, according to a new analysis from Bloomberg. The impact is being felt by those who live alone and it’s taking place in areas that were previously seen as affordable.

    Solo renters in popular Brooklyn neighborhoods like Prospect Heights, Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill now need to be making at least $100,000 per year to live there, a dramatic change from just five years ago. The lower east side of Manhattan has also followed suit.

    Readers can use this interactive map (after the jump) to explore the 5 year differences on many neighborhoods in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A study from StreetEasy looked at neighborhoods with at least 250 rentals available in 2019 and extrapolated the annual salary needed to afford a median one bedroom or studio apartment. They assumed that no more than 40% of income was spent on rent.

    People in Manhattan living alone would need a gross income of $115,800, which is more than twice the city median of $57,782.

    This chart details all of the increases in salary necessary for many neighborhoods over the last five years.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Some of the most “affordable” neighborhoods in the city required the biggest raises in salary over the last five years.

    For instance, renters in East Flatbush need to earn 33% more than they did in 2014 to live alone, with that figure coming in at $68,000. Central Harlem now requires that you make $82,000 to live alone, up 21% and the largest increase in Manhattan for the period.

    But hey, if those prices are too steep and if you want to live within your means in Manhattan, you could always look for something more affordable and rent a 300 square foot apartment…

  • "Debt Book Diplomacy" Across BRI: 'Hidden Debts' Reveal Risks Of China's Lending-Spree

    Authored by Gordon Watts via The Asia Times,

    For many poor nations, it is a long and winding road to ‘debt’ and ‘corruption.’ A journey littered with economic potholes in the shape of China’s signature foreign policy project which was unveiled by President Xi Jinping six years ago.

     

    In short, the US$1 trillion Belt and Road Initiative, along with other foreign funding, has become a magical mystery tour, baffling the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Or, according to critics, a diplomatic car crash waiting to happen.

    “Compared with China’s dominance in world trade, its expanding role in global finance is poorly documented and understood,” a report released last week by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy stated.

    “Over the past decades, China has exported record amounts of capital to the rest of the world. Many of these financial flows are not reported to the IMF, the BIS [the Bank for International Settlements] or the World Bank,” authors Sebastian Horn, of Munich’s Ludwig Maximilian University,  Carmen M Reinhart, of the Harvard Kennedy School in the United States, and Christoph Trebesch, of the Kiel Institute for the World Economyin Germany, wrote.

    “‘Hidden debts’ to China are especially significant for about three dozen developing countries, and distort the risk assessment in both policy surveillance and the market pricing of sovereign debt,” the working paper added.

    The study then went on to highlight that China is now the world’s largest creditor.

    A breakdown of the numbers showed that lending soared to around US$5 trillion by 2018 from roughly $500 billion in 2000, which dwarfs World Bank and IMF credit lines.

    “This dramatic increase in Chinese official lending and investment is almost unprecedented in peacetime history,” the report revealed. “Lower-income developing economies mostly receive direct loans from China’s state-owned banks, often at market rates and backed by collateral such as oil,” the report revealed.

    “Our new dataset covers a total of 1,974 Chinese loans and 2,947 Chinese grants to 152 countries from 1949 to 2017. We find that about one-half of China’s overseas loans to the developing world are ‘hidden,’” it continued.

    “A main challenge to explore China’s large-scale official lending boom is its opacity. Unlike the United States, the Chinese government does not release data on its lending activities abroad or those of its government entities. No data is therefore available from the creditor side,” the working paper added.

    Indeed, the lack of transparency has become an issue with the Belt and Road Initiative. Launched in a fanfare of state-media hype in 2013, the BRI is epic in scale and has become an extension of China’s global ambitions.

    Controversy

    Crucial to the program are strands of the ‘New Silk Road’ superhighways connecting the world’s second-largest economy with 70 nations and 4.4 billion people across Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe in a maze of multi-billion-dollar infrastructure projects, including a web of digital links.

    Yet in the past 18 months, the venture has been mired in controversy after being branded a “debt trap” by the US and its key Western allies.

    “Similarly, China does not provide details on its Belt and Road Initiative and its direct lending activities,” the study by the Kiel Institute pointed out.

    “Apart from the aforementioned omissions in reporting to the Paris Club, China does not divulge data on its official flows with the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System, and it is not part of the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] Export Credit Group, which provides data on long- and short-term trade credit flows,” it continued.

    “With regard to cross-border banking, China recently joined the list of countries reporting to the BIS, but the data [has] not [been] made available on a bilateral basis and the coverage is incomplete. Taken together, these data limitations make it very challenging to do rigorous empirical work on China’s official capital exports,” the report added.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A graphic from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy report.

    Last year, a comprehensive study released by the Center for Global Development, a Washington-based think tank, singled out 23 countries prone to “debt distress.”

    Of the group, Pakistan, Djibouti, the Maldives, Laos, Mongolia, Montenegro, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan were rated in the “high risk” category.

    Sri Lanka was another after it handed over control of the Hambantota Port to China’s state-owned Merchants Port Holdings at the end of 2017 under the weight of massive loans.

    Stung by phrases such as “debt book diplomacy,” Beijing has again pledged to increase transparency when it comes to commercial funding.

    During a keynote speech at the annual BRI Forum in the National Convention Center in Beijing, Xi addressed mounting concerns in front of foreign dignitaries.

    “The Belt and Road is an initiative for economic cooperation, instead of a geopolitical alliance or military league, and it is an open and inclusive process rather than an exclusive bloc or ‘China club’,” he said in April.

    “Everything should be done in a transparent way and we should have zero tolerance for corruption.”

    Since then, the ruling Communist Party has announced plans to expand its anti-corruption campaign to BRI projects.

    In the past, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection had limited involvement in the program but that is starting to change.

    “How can you strike hard on corruption here at home and give a free hand to Chinese people and business groups [that are] reckless abroad,” La Yifan, the director-general for international co-operation at the CCDI, told the Financial Times last week. “Part of the campaign is to go after corruption and stolen assets abroad.

    “[We aim to] create a network of law enforcement of all these Belt and Road countries,” he added.

    So, will this long and winding road finally have flashing warning signs of “debt” and “corruption?” Or will this continue to be a highway to economic hell? BRI nations might want to buckle up for a bumpy ride.

  • California Turns To Farming Photons As Water Woes Result In Central Valley Solar Fields

    California’s Central Valley is going green(er). Thanks to constrained water supplies and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) which requires over 500,000 acres be taken out of production, some of the Golden State’s more than 77,000 farms are embarking on ambitious solar projects, according to the LA Times. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Maricopa West solar project. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

    Converting farmland to solar farms also could be critical to meeting California’s climate change targets. That’s according to a new report from the Nature Conservancy, an environmental nonprofit.

    Working with the consulting firm Energy and Environmental Economics, the conservancy tried to figure out how California could satisfy its appetite for clean energy without destroying ecologically sensitive lands across the American West. The report lays out possible answers to one of the big questions facing renewable energy: Which areas should be dedicated to solar panels and wind turbines, and which areas should be protected for the sake of wildlife, outdoor recreation, farming and grazing?

    One takeaway from the report, released this week: California will need hundreds or maybe thousands of square miles of solar power production in the coming decades — and it would make sense to build one-third to one-half of that solar capacity on agricultural lands, mostly within the state. –LA Times

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The 160-acre Maricopa West project, pictured, would be dwarfed by Westlands Solar Park, planned for the Central Valley, which could extend across 20,000 acres. (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

    By utilizing land which has already been ‘ecologically degraded’ (saving the state’s desert critters from solar annihilation), California can convert a ton of land to solar panels without harming the state’s $50 billion annual agriculture industry. According to a prior study by UC Berkeley, the state has at least 470,000 acres of “least-conflict” lands in the San Juaqin Valley (the lower portion of the Central Valley) where “salty soil, poor drainage or otherwise less-than-ideal farming conditions could make solar an attractive alternative for landowners,” according to the Times. 

    “The next project is going to be 100 megawatts. It’s going to be five times this size,” said John Reiter, a renewable energy developer and farmer who has already gone solar on 160 acres and has big plans for the future. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Jon Reiter, a senior adviser to Maricopa Orchards, walks between a solar array and almond groves. The solar energy project was part of a 6,000-acre habitat conservation plan.
    (Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

    At Maricopa Orchards — a major Fresno-based grower of almonds, oranges and other crops — Reiter hatched a plan to build solar panels on thousands of acres of agricultural land in Kern County.

    He worked with local officials to create a 6,000-acre habitat conservation plan, which allows solar panels on 4,000 acres of the company’s land and sets aside 2,000 additional acres for environmental mitigation. The mitigation lands are now reverting back to habitat for San Joaquin kit foxes, blunt-nosed leopard lizards, burrowing owls and other at-risk species.

    Reiter’s vision is a work in progress: So far, only 160 acres have been developed with solar. The 20-megawatt Maricopa West solar project was built by the German company E.ON and sold to Dominion Energy of Virginia, on land adjacent to almond orchards. –LA Times

    Reiter says he’s negotiating with three developers on seven ‘shovel-ready’ solar projects, with “permits and mitigation lands ready to go, saving them time and money,” according to the report. 

    Big plans

    Meanwhile, other Central Valley agricultural producers are gearing up for their own projects. 

    Wonderful Co. — which grows tree nuts and owns Pom Wonderful, Fiji Water and Justin Wines — is aiming to power its operations with 100% renewable electricity by 2025. Wonderful opened its first solar project in 2007 and this year signed a contract with Florida-based developer NextEra Energy for a 23-megawatt solar installation, to be built on 157 acres of fallow farmland.

    Wonderful sees “tremendous potential for siting solar on agricultural land,” said Steven Swartz, the company’s vice president of strategy. Wonderful, owned by Beverly Hills billionaires Stewart and Lynda Resnick, can make about as much money producing solar power over a 30-year period, Swartz said, as it can growing almonds and pistachios, two of the most lucrative crops grown in California.

    “In one case we’re growing an agricultural product that has value, and in another case we’re producing electrons that have value,” he said.

    Swartz added that he expects “relatively limited competition” between solar and agriculture because there’s already so much farmland that isn’t in production in the Central Valley. Wonderful has 10,000 acres it’s keeping fallow, he said, either due to poor soil conditions or insufficient water. In 2015, at the height of California’s most recent drought, Central Valley farmers kept about 1 million acres idle all year, NASA scientists estimated. –LA Times

    So far the biggest Central Valley solar project is being planned by Westlands Solar Park, which is scheduled to break ground on the first 670 megawatts of a project which could eventually grow to 2,700 megawatts across 20,000 acres. It will be built on “drainage-impaired” land where the soil has been spoiled with tons of “crop-killing salts and toxic selenium” because layers of clay under the dirt prevent irrigation from reaching the underground aquifer. 

    “If you continue to farm these types of lands, you continue to make the drainage problems worse and worse,” said DCaniel Kim, VP of regulatory and government affairs for developer Golden State Clean Energy. 

    How much will it cost to go solar?

    According to the Times, citing the Nature Conservancy’s “Power of Place” report, developing solar farms on in-state land which has regulatory clearance could cost around $110 billion. If the projects were to expand to lands with endangered species or, that figure could rise to $125 billion. Easing land-use rules, meanwhile, would bring the costs down to around $106 billion. 

    “That West-wide scenario is the best-case scenario,” said Arne Olson, a co-author of the Nature Conservancy report and senior partner at the consulting firm Energy and Environmental Economics. 

    The “Power of Place” report doesn’t capture every force that could shape California’s energy future. It assumes no development of offshore wind power, despite enormous potential for turbines off the Pacific coast. It also doesn’t account for other states’ renewable energy needs, which could be substantial.

    Still, clean energy advocates say the document could help California officials balance development with ecosystem protection as they plan for 100% climate-friendly electricity by 2045, the target adopted by lawmakers last year. In 2018, California got 31% of its electricity from renewables including solar and wind, and another 20% from zero-carbon nuclear and large hydropower facilities.

    The Nature Conservancy’s report “appears to outline thoughtful options for how to site the projects we need to meet the climate crisis,” said Shannon Eddy, executive director of the Large-scale Solar Assn., a Sacramento-based trade group. –LA Times

    Read the rest of the report here. 

  • The Last Western Empire?

    Via The Saker blog,

    “Missing the forest for the trees” is an apt metaphor if we take a look at most commentary describing the past twenty years or so. This period has been remarkable in the number of genuinely tectonic changes the international system has undergone. It all began during what I think of as the “Kristallnacht of international law,” 30 August September 1995, when the Empire attacked the Bosnian-Serbs in a direct and total violation of all the most fundamental principles of international law. Then there was 9/11, which gave the Neocons the “right” (or so they claimed) to threaten, attack, bomb, kill, maim, kidnap, assassinate, torture, blackmail and otherwise mistreat any person, group or nation on the planet simply because “we are the indispensable nation” and “you either are with the terrorists or with us“.

    During these same years, we saw Europe become a third-rate US colony incapable of defending even fundamental European geopolitical interests while the USA became a third-rate colony of Israel equally incapable of defending even fundamental US geopolitical interests. Most interestingly looking back, while the US and the EU were collapsing under the weight of their own mistakes, Russia and China were clearly on the ascend; Russia mostly in military terms (see here and here) and China mostly economically. Most crucially, Russia and China gradually agreed to become symbionts which, I would argue, is even stronger and more meaningful than if these two countries were united by some kind of formal alliance: alliances can be broken (especially when a western nation is involved), but symbiotic relationships usually last forever (well, nothing lasts forever, of course, but when a lifespan is measured in decades, it is the functional equivalent of “forever”, at least in geostrategic analytical terms). The Chinese have now developed an official, special, and unique expression to characterize that relationship with Russia. They speak of a “Strategic, comprehensive partnership of coordination for the new era.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This is the AngloZionists’ worst nightmare, and their legacy ziomedia goes to great lengths to conceal the fact that Russia and China are, for all practical purposes, strategic allies. They also try hard to convince the Russian people that China is a threat to Russia (using bogus arguments, but never-mind that). It won’t work, while some Russians have fears about China, the Kremlin knows the truth of the matter and will continue to deepen Russia’s symbiotic relationship with China further. Not only that, it now appears that Iran is gradually being let in to this alliance. We have the most official confirmation possible of that fact in words spoken by General Patrushev in Israel after his meeting with US and Israeli officials: “Iran has always been and remains our ally and partner.”

    I could go on listing various signs of the collapse of the AngloZionist Empire along with signs that a new, parallel, international world order is in the process of being built before our eyes. I have done that many times in the past, and I will not repeat it all here (those interested can click here and here). I will submit that the AngloZionists have reached a terminal stage of decay in which the question of “if” is replaced by “when.” But even more interesting would be to look at the “what”: what does the collapse of the AngloZionist Empire really mean?

    I rarely see this issue discussed and when it is, it is usually to provide all sorts of reassurances that the Empire will not really collapse, that it is too powerful, too rich and too big to fail and that the current political crises in the USA and Europe will simply result in a reactive transformation of the Empire once the specific problems plaguing it have been addressed. That kind of delusional nonsense is entirely out of touch with reality. And the reality of what is taking place before our eyes is much, much more dramatic and seminal than just fixing a few problems here and there and merrily keep going on.

    One of the factors which lures us into a sense of complacency is that we have seen so many other empires in history collapse only to be replaced pretty quickly by some other, that we can’t even imagine that what is taking place right now is a much more dramatic phenomenon: the passage into gradual irrelevance of an entire civilization!

    But first, let’s define our terms. For all the self-aggrandizing nonsense taught in western schools, Western civilization does not have its roots in ancient Rome or, even less so, in ancient Greece. The reality is that the Western civilization was born from the Middle-Ages in general and, especially, the 11th century which, not coincidentally, saw the following succession of moves by the Papacy:

    These three closely related events are of absolutely crucial importance to the history of the West. The first step the West needed was to free itself from the influence and authority of the rest of the Christian world. Once the ties between Rome and the Christian world were severed, it was only logical for Rome to decree that the Pope now has the most extravagant super-powers no other bishop before him had ever dared contemplate. Finally, this new autonomy and desire for absolute control over our planet resulted in what could be called “the first European imperialist war”: the First Crusade.

    To put it succinctly: the 11th century Franks were the real progenitors of modern “Western” Europe and the 11th century marked the first imperialist “foreign war” (to use a modern term). The name of the Empire of the Franks has changed over the centuries, but not its nature, essence, or purpose. Today the true heirs of the Franks are the AngloZionists (for a truly *superb* discussion of the Frankish role in desotrying the true, ancient, Christian Roman civilization of the West, see here).

    Over the next 900 years or more, many different empires replaced the Frankish Papacy, and most European countries had their “moment of glory” with colonies overseas and some kind of ideology which was, by definition and axiomatically, declared the only good (or even “the only Christian”) one, whereas the rest of the planet was living in uncivilized and generally terrible conditions which could only be mitigated by those who have *always* believed that they, their religion, their culture or their nation had some kind of messianic role in history (call it “manifest destiny” or “White man’s burden” or being a Kulturträger in quest of a richly deserved Lebensraum): the West Europeans.

    It looks like most European nations had a try at being an empire and at imperialist wars. Even such modern mini-states like Holland, Portugal or Austria once were feared imperial powers. And each time one European Empire fell, there was always another one to take its place.

    But today?

    Who do you think could create an empire powerful enough to fill the void resulting from the collapse of the AngloZionist Empire?

    The canonical answer is “China.” And I think that this is nonsense.

    Empires cannot only trade. Trade alone is simply not enough to remain a viable empire. Empires also need military force, and not just any military force, but the kind of military force which makes resistance futile. The truth is that NO modern country has anywhere near the capabilities needed to replace the USA in the role of World Hegemon: not even uniting the Russian and Chinese militaries would achieve that result since these two countries do not have:

    1) a worldwide network of bases (which the USA have, between 700-1000 depending on how you count)

    2) a major strategic air-lift and sea-lift power projection capability

    3) a network of so-called “allies” (colonial puppets, really) which will assist in any deployment of military force

    But even more crucial is this: China and Russia have no desire whatsoever to become an empire again. These two countries have finally understood the eternal truth, which is that empires are like parasites who feed on the body which hosts them. Yes, not only are all empires always and inherently evil, but a good case can be made that the first victims of imperialism are always the nations which “host the empire” so to speak. Oh sure, the Chinese and the Russians want their countries to be truly free, powerful and sovereign, and they understand that this is only possible when you have a military which can deter an attack, but neither China nor Russia have any interests in policing the planet or imposing some regime change on other countries. All they really want is to be safe from the USA, that’s it.

    This new reality is particularly visible in the Middle-East where countries like the United States, Israel or Saudi Arabia (this is the so-called “Axis of Kindness”) are currently only capable of deploying a military capable of massacring civilians or destroy the infrastructure of a country, but which cannot be used effectively against the two real regional powers with a modern military: Iran and Turkey.

    But the most revealing litmus test was the US attempt to bully Venezuela back into submission. For all the fire and brimstone threats coming out of DC, the entire “Bolton plan(s?)” for Venezuela has/have resulted in a truly embarrassing failure: if the Sole “Hyperpower” on the planet cannot even overpower a tremendously weakened country right in its backyard, a country undergoing a major crisis, then indeed the US military should stick to the invasion of small countries like Monaco, Micronesia or maybe the Vatican (assuming the Swiss guard will not want to take a shot at the armed reps of the “indispensable nation”). The fact is that an increasing number of medium-sized “average” countries are now gradually acquiring the means to resist a US attack.

    So if the writing is on the wall for the AngloZionist Empire, and if no country can replace the USA as imperial world hegemon, what does that mean?

    It means the following: 1000 years of European imperialism is coming to an end!

    This time around, neither Spain nor the UK nor Austria will take the place of the USA and try to become a world hegemon. In fact, there is not a single European nation which has a military even remotely capable of engaging the kind of “colony pacification” operations needed to keep your colonies in a suitable state of despair and terror. The French had their very last hurray in Algeria, the UK in the Falklands, Spain can’t even get Gibraltar back, and Holland has no real navy worth speaking about. As for central European countries, they are too busy brown-nosing the current empire to even think of becoming an empire (well, except Poland, of course, which dreams of some kind of Polish Empire between the Baltic and the Black Sea; let them, they have been dreaming about it for centuries, and they will still dream about it for many centuries to come…).

    Now compare European militaries with the kind of armed forces you can find in Latin America or Asia? There is such a knee-jerk assumption of superiority in most Anglos that they completely fail to realize that medium and even small-sized countries can develop militaries sufficient enough to make an outright US invasion impossible or, at least, any occupation prohibitively expensive in terms of human lives and money (see here, here and here). This new reality also makes the typical US missile/airstrike campaign pretty useless: they will destroy a lot of buildings and bridges, they will turn the local TV stations (“propaganda outlets” in imperial terminology) into giant piles of smoking rubble and dead bodies, and they kill plenty of innocents, but that won’t result in any kind of regime change. The striking fact is that if we accept that warfare is the continuation of politics by other means, then we also have to admit, that under that definition, the US armed forces are totally useless since they cannot help the USA achieve any meaningful political goals.

    The truth is that in military and economic terms, the “West” has already lost. The fact that those who understand don’t talk, and that those who talk about this (denying it, of course) have no understanding of what is taking place, makes no difference at all.

    In theory, we could imagine that some kind of strong leader would come to power in the USA (the other western countries are utterly irrelevant), crush the Neocons like Putin crushed them in Russia, and prevent the brutal and sudden collapse of the Empire, but that ain’t gonna happen. If there is one thing which the past couple of decades have proven beyond reasonable doubt is that the imperial system is entirely unable to reform itself in spite of people like Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Ross Perrot, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel or even Obama and Trump – all men who promised meaningful change and who were successfully prevented by the system of achieving anything meaningful. Thus the system is still 100% effective, at least inside the USA: it took the Neocons less than 30 days to crush Trump and all his promises of change, and now it even got Tulsi Gabbard to bow down and cave in to Neocons’ absolutely obligatory political orthodoxy and myths.

    So what is likely to happen next?

    Simply put, Asia will replace the Western World. But – crucially – this time around no empire will come to take the place of the AngloZionist one. Instead, a loose and informal coalition of mostly Asian countries will offer an alternative economic and civilizational model, which will be immensely attractive to the rest of the planet. As for the Empire, it will very effectively disband itself and slowly fade into irrelevance. Both US Americans and Europeans will, for the very first time in their history, have to behave like civilized people, which means that their traditional “model of development” (ransacking the entire planet and robbing everybody blind) will have to be replaced by one in which these US Americans and Europeans will have to work like everybody else to accumulate riches. This notion will absolutely horrify the current imperial ruling elites, but I wager that it will be welcomed by the majority of the people, especially when this “new” (for them) model will yield more peace and prosperity than the previous one!

    Indeed, if the Neocons don’t blow up the entire planet in a nuclear holocaust, the USA and Europe will survive, but only after a painful transition period which could last for a decade or more. One of the factors which will immensely complicate the transition from Empire to “regular” country will be the profound and deep influence 1000 years of imperialism have had on the western cultures, especially in the completely megalomaniac United States (Professor John Marciano’s “Empire as a way of life” lecture series addresses this topic superbly – I highly recommend them!): One thousand years of brainwashing are not so easily overcome, especially on the subconscious (assumptions) level.

    Finally, the current rather nasty reaction to the multi-culturalism imposed by the western ruling elites is no less pathological than this corrosive multi-culturalism in the first place. I am referring to the new theories “revisiting” WWII and finding inspiration in all things Third Reich, very much including a revival of racist/racialist theories. This is especially ridiculous (and offensive) when coming from people who try to impersonate Christians but who instead of prayers on their lips just spew 1488-like nonsense. These folks all represent precisely the kind of “opposition” the Neocons love to deal with and which they always (and I really mean *always*) end up defeating. This (pretend) opposition (useful idiots, really) will remain strong as long as it remains well funded (which it currently is). But as soon as the current megalomania (“We are the White Race! We built Athens and Rome! We are Evropa!!!”) ends with an inevitable faceplant, folks will eventually return to sanity and realize that no external scapegoat is responsible for the current state of the West. The sad truth is that the West did all this to itself (mainly due to arrogance and pride!), and the current waves of immigrants are nothing more than a 1000 years of really bad karma returning to where it came from initially. I don’t mean to suggest that folks in the West are all individually responsible for what is happening now. But I do say that all the folks in the West now live with the consequences of 1000 years of unrestrained imperialism. It will be hard, very hard, to change ways, but since that is also the only viable option, it will happen, sooner or later.

    But still – there is hope. IF the Neocons don’t blow up the planet, and IF mankind is given enough time to study its history and understand where it took the wrong turn, then maybe, just maybe, there is hope.

    I think that we can all find solace in the fact that no matter how ugly, stupid and evil the AngloZionist Empire is, no other empire will ever come to replace it.

    In other words, should we survive the current empire (which is by no means certain!) then at least we can look forward to a planet with no empires left, only sovereign countries.

    I submit that this is a future worth struggling for.

  • Australia Housing Slump Prompts Collapse Of One Of The Nation's Largest Developers

    Australia’s construction slump is taking its toll on the major companies in the industry with one of the nation’s largest developers, Ralan Group, forced into voluntary administration, according to ABC Australia. The developer has frozen billions in apartment projects, and has debts of about $500 million to its creditors. 

    Cement manufacturers, like Adelaide Brighton, have also felt the pain. Adelaide Brighton recently suspended its interim dividend after downgrading its profit forecast, sending its shares down 18.3% in recent trading. Similar Australian companies like Boral and CSR also saw their stocks plunge 7.8% and 6.1%, respectively, as a result. This happened one day after building approvals plunged 25.6%. 

    Ralan Group’s administrators, Grant Thornton, said that the company has a “development pipeline of over 3,000 residential units which are in the construction or pre-sale stage as well as operating accommodation assets comprising over 600 rooms”.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Grant Thonton’s national managing partner Said Jahani said: “In terms of the operating businesses within the group, it is as far as possible, business as usual. We are working closely with key stakeholders to identify and preserve value for creditors.”

    The administrators are still conducting an “initial investigation” as to why the company collapsed. In the case of Adelaide Brighton, it warned that its underlying net profit would “fall to $120-130 million this calendar year — a 37 per cent drop compared to the $190.1 million profit it earned last year.”

    The company said “further softening of conditions in the residential and civil construction markets” was to blame. “Continued competitive pressure” in Queensland and South Australia and “sustained increase in raw material costs” were also cited as reasons for the cut. 

    It was the second profit downgrade from the company in less than 3 months. Citi’s building materials analyst Daniel Kang downgraded Adelaide Brighton’s stock two months ago, stating:

    “A vicious cocktail of an accelerating housing downturn, intensifying competition and higher raw material costs triggered the company’s profit warning.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The broader data coming out of Australia’s construction sector continues to be dismal:

    • ABS revealed this week that building approvals had fallen 1.2% in June, driven by a slump in apartment construction.

    • Annualized results were even uglier, with total dwellings receiving construction approvals down 25.6% for the year.

    • Approvals for houses were down 14.8% over the same 12 month period.

    • Apartment approvals posted a catastrophic 39.3% plunge since June 2018.

    • Trend approvals are now at 174,000 for the year, the lowest in 6 years. 

    Morgan Stanley economist Chris Read said: “We expect further declines in building approvals in the coming months, given the elevated level of new supply coming to market and still tight credit conditions.” Meanwhile, UBS chief economist George Tharenou “forecast[s] no recovery, with dwelling commencements to drop to 170,000 this year”.

    Tharenou stated: “Hence, as the still near record pipeline of activity completes, GDP-basis dwelling investment will likely still decline for at least a year, and probably slump by around 10 per cent year-over-year, dragging down construction jobs.”

    BIS managing director Robert Mellor concluded: 

    “Australia’s dwelling stock deficiency will grow once again as rising undersupplies in Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania develop by 2020/21. We anticipate this pressure to facilitate growth in house prices and rents, helping create a renewed upswing in residential building starts through the early to mid-2020s. The downturn has further to run with an additional 8 per cent decline forecast for 2019/20, with the fall in residential building outweighing the growth expected in the non-residential sector.”

    Finally, for those who use Australia as a direct proxy of its biggest trade partner, China, the accelerating slowdown down under is an especially ominous indicator for what is truly taking place below China’s carefully maintained artificial facade.

  • Facebook Wants To Read Your Mind

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    Facebook is one step closer to reading your mind. The social media giant has become one step closer to developing a working brain-computer interface, capable of reading users’ thoughts.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    CNBC reported that Facebook has taken yet another step in developing its brain-computer interface, with the company’s Reality Labs division working alongside researchers from the University of California, San Francisco to develop a device that can decode speech directly from the human brain onto a screen. A new report published in the journal Nature Communications reveals that researchers are becoming closer than ever to connecting human brains directly to computers.

    Researchers reportedly worked with three patients currently undergoing treatment for epilepsy in order to develop the device. The patients had electrodes implanted into their brains and researchers will spend the next year testing the technology. Researchers from UCSF stated that the findings of the research could help to give patients that are unable to speak due to severe brain injuries a new way to communicate. –Breitbart News

    Researchers have claimed that successful trials are more likely to be used as part of Facebook’s efforts to develop augmented reality glasses.

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

    “It’s currently bulky, slow, and unreliable,” Facebook said. “But the potential is significant, so we believe it’s worthwhile to keep improving this state-of-the-art technology over time.”

    Many other Silicon Valley companies are also researching computer-brain interfaces, with Elon Musk’s firm Neuralink working on a similar project.

    Musk claimed at a recent event that the company expects to start human trials before the end of 2020.  Facebook is quickly jumping into artificial intelligence and mind reading at a time when humanity is quickly approaching “singularity.” or the point of no return when it comes to machine learning.

    Father Of Artificial Intelligence: ‘Singularity Is Less Than 30 Years Away’

    Singularity is the point in time when humans can create an artificial intelligence machine that is smarter. Ray Kurzweil, Google’s chief of engineering, says that the singularity will happen in 2045.  Louis Rosenberg claims that we are actually closer than that and that the day will be arriving sometime in 2030. MIT’s Patrick Winston would have you believe that it will likely be a little closer to Kurzweil’s prediction, though he puts the date at 2040, specifically. –SHTFPlan

    Kurzweil has said that the work happening right now “will change the nature of humanity itself.” He said robots “will reach human intelligence by 2029 and life as we know it will end in 2045.”  There is a risk that technology will overtake humanity and make human society irrelevant at best and extinct at worst.

  • What Would Chinese Military Intervention In Hong Kong Look Like? 

    According to a new lengthy Bloomberg exploration outlining the possibilities that China’s military could intervene against the now eight weeks-long increasingly violent protests that have gripped Hong Kong streets, a central question now on everyone’s mind is, What will the Chinese military do?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    2017 PLA military drill at Hong Kong garrison, via CNN

    Reports began appearing late last week of a Chinese security forces build-up just outside the semi-autonomous city, setting nerves on edge, and this week the chief of the Chinese military garrison in Hong Kong warned that the army stands ready to “protect” Chinese sovereignty. And then there was also the extremely provocative just released “riot control” video, showing People’s Liberation Army (PLA) solders conducing a drill to invade a city in an imagined armed crackdown on protesters and unrest. 

    The Bloomberg report begins by noting that though Chinese army occupation of Hong Kong remains unlikely, it remains that “even smaller-scale intervention could spark a knee-jerk exodus from the city’s financial markets, drag down property prices and prompt international companies to reconsider their presence in the territory, analysts say.” The major financial hub could suffer “irreparable damage” by such an exodus, along with severely weakening the “one country, two systems” concept in effect since 1997.

    Chinese military officials, and especially state media have begun floating the argument for “military options” and intervention. Officials also recently described the US as a “black hand” behind the anti-Beijing protests – which began over a proposed extradition bill – something which the US state department dismissed as “ridiculous”. 

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

    Below are some of the key takeaways from the Bloomberg report, which heavily quoted military analysts regarding PLA troop numbers stationed near Hong Kong.

    ***

    Beijing doesn’t want a Tiananmen “massacre” repeat

    “Beijing is unlikely to use the PLA to quell the protests until it feels it has exhausted all other levers at its disposal,” Euan Graham, a former Asia analyst at the U.K.’s foreign office, now at an international Asian affairs think tank. “However much Xi Jinping fears chaos within China’s borders and that the use of the PLA is legitimate in his eyes, above all he does not want to have the stain of another Tiananmen massacre.”

    Some 20,000 PLA officers in neighboring province

    “A senior Trump administration official told reporters Tuesday that the White House was monitoring a congregation of Chinese troops or armed police gathering across the mainland border from Hong Kong. The nature of the build-up was unclear, and the report coincided with a swearing-in ceremony for 19,000 officers in the neighboring province of Guangdong.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Via Bloomberg

    6,000 PLA troops garrisoned in the city

    “While the garrison has never been deployed at the request of Hong Kong’s government, it could in theory be called to action at a moment’s notice. An estimated 6,000 PLA troops are stationed in the city at any given time, with thousands more located across the border in Shenzhen, according to Rand Corp. The PLA’s Hong Kong headquarters sits in the city’s main business district, a few steps from Bank of America Tower.”

    Alternative to PLA intervention: the 600,000+ strong “People’s Armed Police”

    “One alternative form of intervention for Beijing might be the deployment of the People’s Armed Police, said Meia Nouwens, research fellow for Chinese defense policy and military modernization at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. The 660,000-member paramilitary force is often the agency China relies on to guard sensitive sites like Tiananmen and quell unrest in places like the predominately Muslim region of Xinjiang.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    PLA soldiers during a 2016 demonstration at the opening day of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy Base at Stonecutter Island in Hong Kong. Source: CNN

    Major investment bank warns of “worse case scenario” in client letter

    “Aside from calling in the PLA, other “worst-case scenario” options for Hong Kong include declaring martial law or a state of emergency, Kevin Lai, an economist at Daiwa Capital Markets Hong Kong Ltd., wrote in a July 25 report to clients. Intervention from Beijing could prompt the U.S. to revoke its preferential trading designation for Hong Kong, a potentially devastating blow for the city’s economy, Lai said in an interview.”

    “There may be a possibility that they need to call for the PLA,” Lai said, adding that the odds are still low. “If they do that, it would be very negative for Hong Kong.”

    * * *

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image source: Getty

    Should such a “worse case scenario” unfold with a PLA crackdown on Hong Kong’s streets, what would be the likely reaction from the White House?

    Perhaps not as expected, as the Bloomberg report suggests:

    Trump weighed in on Thursday in Washington, calling the Hong Kong protests “riots” — the same label used by Chinese authorities. Trump said he doesn’t know what China’s attitude is on the matter. “Somebody said that at some point they’re going to want to stop that,” he said. “But that’s between Hong Kong and that’s between China, because Hong Kong is a part of China.”

    One analyst cited in the report aptly described, “If it does happen, Hong Kong as we know it will be over.”

  • Modi's Ship Hits The Kashmir Iceberg

    Authored by Melkulangara Bhadrakumar via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    A thoughtful feature of the post-cold war ‘adjustment’ in India’s foreign policies following the disbandment of the former Soviet Union was that Delhi should stick to the proverbial principle ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ when it comes to America.

    The maxim of the three wise monkeys in the ancient Indian folklore stems from the elite’s ‘unipolar predicament’ – a notion that to be on the right side of history in the 21st century means India might as well jump on the US bandwagon.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Delhi’s strategic patience under Prime Minister Modi’s rule has been somewhat stretched to the limits during the Donald Trump presidency. Modi tried everything in the Indian rope trick to pacify the mercurial American president. But with Trump, no one can be quite sure. Where golf-playing statesmen oozing charm – such as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe – failed, India should have drawn conclusions.

    Delhi instead chose to ignore the taunting – at times insulting – Trumpean tweets poking at Modi. Trump even cavalierly turned down the ultimate honour that Modi could bestow on him – an invite to be the chief guest at India’s National Day parade in Delhi.

    Then, on July 22, all hell broke loose with Trump disclosing to the media that Modi has asked him to play the role of a mediator on Kashmir issue – India’s Achilles’ heel – and that he is rolling up the sleeves. And, rubbing salt into the Indian wound, Trump made this sensational disclosure in the presence of the Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.

    Doesn’t Trump know that India publicly disavows third party mediation on Kashmir? Without doubt, he knows. And that’s the whole point. Within hours, the Indian foreign ministry reacted evasively that ‘no such request has been made’ by Modi. The Indian spokesman rolled out the mantra regarding India’s ‘consistent position that all outstanding issues with Pakistan are discussed only bilaterally.’ Delhi added, ‘Any engagement with Pakistan would require an end to cross border terrorism’.

    In the present context, Pakistan’s help to end the Afghan war can mean a big foreign policy achievement for Trump that would have mileage for his campaign for the presidential election next year in the US. Therefore, the probability is that Trump was being boastful by ‘declassifying’ fully or partly what must have been a highly sensitive exchange between him and Modi in Osaka without any aides present.

    Suffice to say, Trump’s mediatory offer on Kashmir and the salience of Imran Khan’s visit to the US hold serious implications for Indian policies.

    First and foremost, the Modi government recoiled from the backlash of Indian public opinion regarding Trump’s mediatory offer. In reality, though, India has selectively accepted US mediation in the past, the best known example being the Kargil War in 1990. Therefore, even if Modi had sought Trump’s mediation, it would have been nothing extraordinary.

    In fact, tactically, it would have been a clever ploy to pin down Trump to the neutral ground as regards India-Pakistan tensions even as Imran Khan was to shortly undertake a momentous visit to the US.

    Indeed, Imran Khan’s visit will cause disquiet in the Indian mind insofar as Trump is promising to Pakistan a seamless alliance. This is happening at an awkward moment for India when the guns have fallen silent on the India-Pakistan border and the cross-border infiltration of militants to J&K has dried up lately.

    The Modi government is just about to roll out a new strategy toward the J&K situation. The Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh publicly announced only last week that a final solution to the J&K situation is ‘imminent’.

    A reasonable guess is that the Modi government plans to integrate J&K by divesting or eroding some of its so-called ‘special status’, taking advantage of the perceived Pakistani capitulation on cross-border terrorism. That plan may now have to be put on the back burner.

    One of the basic assumptions behind that plan is that there isn’t going to be any international repercussions if Delhi robustly pushed the project forward, with coercion if need be, to integrate J&K. But Trump may have now shaken up the Indian confidence. Trump drew attention to the security situation in the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir, the longstanding character of the Kashmir problem and the singular inability of India and Pakistan to resolve the dispute bilaterally.

    The way things are developing in the equations between Washington and Islamabad at the highest level of leaderships, Pakistan has succeeded in getting the US to accept a linkage between any Afghan settlement and a resolution of the Kashmir dispute. Trump’s remarks in their totality implicitly seems to acknowledge such a linkage.

    At any rate, for the big hand that Pakistan is holding out to Trump to help end the Afghan war and claim a foreign-policy trophy in 2020, it will expect far greater US sensitivity toward Pakistan’s legitimate interests in regional security and stability, where its longstanding demand is for ‘strategic balance’ in South Asia. In the Pakistani estimation, ‘strategic balance’ requires a rest of the US’ South Asia policy compass, which tilts in favour of India.

    Trump’s remarks suggest that he accepts in principle that goodwill and cooperation makes a two-way street. Therefore, Trump’s explosive disclosure will also have resonance with the Kashmiri people who are already alienated from the Indian state. Trump may have unwittingly given hope to the Kashmiris.

    J&K’s planned ‘integration’ now becomes an uphill task for the Modi government. Nonetheless, Delhi is not going to be deterred from integrating J&K on terms that Bharathiya Janata Party, India’s ruling party, has unwaveringly set as its goal. From Delhi’s mild reaction to Trump’s remarks, it seems Modi government hopes to continue to tackle POTUS by making concessions elsewhere — such as, more lucrative arms deals.

    The Indian analysts often speak of foreign policy under Modi as one of ‘multi-alignment’. But in practice, Indian policies operate on the ground as if the world community is an animal farm where the US remains more equal than others. Simply put, the Indian elites desire it that way, the bureaucrats are au fait with it and the Diaspora in North America, which roots for Hindu nationalism, demands it.

    This is where the fundamental contradiction lies. When Trump says he is raring to mediate on Kashmir and help normalise India-Pakistan relations, he has unceremoniously trespassed on India’s core interests. Hopefully, this will trigger an Indian rethink in a longer term perspective rather than as a storm in the tea cup, given the high probability that Trump will remain in power for a second term as well.

    Such poignant moments underscore that India’s strategic ambivalence in the contemporary world order, characterised by growing multipolarity, is becoming increasingly untenable. Modi’s forthcoming visit to Russia in September and the visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to India in October will provide significant pointers to the Indian policies in the changing regional and international milieu.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Aug 02

Today’s News 2nd August 2019

  • Russians Are Increasingly Likely To Protest

    Last weekend, Moscow police arrested around 1,400 protestors, the largest gathering in a decade, after people met to contest the dubious circumstances surrounding city-wide elections. Nearly 150 people remain in custody, according to OVD-Info. Alexi Navalny, a prominent critic of the Kremlin, was arrested Wednesday for inciting anti-government protests. The opposition candidate was hospitalized Sunday after being exposed to an undefined chemical substance and released later in the week.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Local election officials alleged that nominating petitions for opposition candidates had insufficient signatures for the September 8th Duma election, which sparked the most recent and violent demonstrations. Police arrested many of the opposition candidates, and most remain behind bars.

    The specific numbers surrounding the event remain unclear, but as Statista’s Sarah Feldman details, official police reports cite 1,074 arrests, while independent monitoring organizations reported 1,373 detentions. The peaceful protestors were broken up violently in what Amnesty International referred to as “indiscriminate use of force by police.” Police report 3,500 people gathered on Saturday, though independent reports and aerial footage put that figure anywhere between 8,000 to 20,000 protestors.

    Last month, Russian police arrested about 500 people at a protest over the jailing of an investigative Moscow journalist. The journalist, Ivan Golunov, was arrested for allegedly dealing drugs, a charge he denies. In an unusual turn of events, the police released him and promised to punish those who allegedly framed him. Not only did hundreds take to the streets to protest the arrest, but the three main newspapers printed front-page headlines criticizing the arrest, an uncommon show of solidarity.

    These widespread protests are unusual for the country but may grow more common.

    Infographic: Russians Are Increasingly Likely to Protest | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    According to Levada, an independent public opinion research organization, Russians are nearly twice more likely to protest now than they were two years ago. In February 2017, only about 12 percent of Russian respondents said they would probably participate in a public mass protest. By May 2019, about a quarter of respondents said they would likely participate in a public mass protest.

  • The "Special Relationship" Is Collapsing… And That's A Good Thing

    Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    British Ambassador Kim Darroch’s return to London from his failed mission in America is being hailed by many naïve commentators as yet another proof that President Trump is a crazed ego-maniac who cannot take criticism from a seasoned professional diplomat.

    During the weeks since the “Darroch memo” scandal erupted, mainstream media has totally mis-diagnosed the nature of the breakdown in US-British relations, and has brushed over the most relevant evidence that has been brought to light by Darroch’s cables. This spinning of the narrative has made it falsely appear that the Ambassador merely criticized the President as “clumsy, diplomatically inept, unpredictable and dysfunctional” and was thus unjustly attacked by the President causing the poor diplomat to resign saying “the current situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like.” Former British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt went so far as to say that Darroch was “the best of Britain” and encouraged all diplomats to continue to “speak truth to power.” International press on both sides of the ocean followed suit portraying Darroch as a hero among men.

    Hog wash.

    The reality is that Darroch’s messages to the British Foreign Office go much deeper and reveal something very ugly that challenges the deepest assumptions about recent history and modern geopolitics.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Sir Darroch and Britain’s Invisible Hand Exposed

    Sir Darroch, (Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George) is not your typical British diplomat. The Knight made a name for himself as a leading agent of Tony Blair while acting as Ambassador to the European Union from 2007-2011 in an effort to win international support for a regime change operation against Iran, Syria and Libya.

    Blair and the highest levels of the British oligarchy had managed America as its “dumb giant” throughout the entire post-9/11 regime change program on the Middle East. While many have labelled this policy as “American”, we shall come to see that it was merely the carrying out of the “Blair Doctrine” announced in the 1999 speech in Chicagocalling for a post-nation state (post-Westphalian) world order.

    It is important to remind ourselves that the dodgy WMD dossier  had been crafted by the British Foreign Office before being used by neo con hawks such as John Bolton and Cheney as justification to blow up Iraq in 2003. It was also the earlier Anglo-Saudi sponsored BAE black operation run by Prince Bandar bin Sultan which funded and directed 9/11 earlier. As US Ambassador beginning in January 2016, Sir Darroch was instrumental in vetting Christopher Steele as “absolutely legit”. Steele’s “dodgy dossier” on Trump was used to justify the greatest witch hunt of a sitting President in history.

    When viewed in the same light as the British-directed Russia-gating of the President, these memos shed valuable light upon the Byzantine methods which British intelligence has used to conduct its subtle manipulation of America for a very long time.

    Trump Whisperers and Britain’s Other Tools

    In his memos, Sir Darroch called for “flooding the zone” with Trump whisperers who can influence the President’s perceptions of the world and push him towards the British agenda on issues such as de-carbonization, Free Trade, and war with Iran.

    Sir Darroch said to his superiors that “we have spent years building the relationships; they are the gatekeepers… the individuals we rely upon to ensure the U.K. voice is heard in the West Wing.” Who are these voices who been built up over years? National Security Advisor John Bolton is a long-standing visitor to the British embassy and former Chief of Staff John Kelly has had regular early morning breakfast dates. A Washington Post assessment of July 8th described Darroch’s “coterie- including Kellyanne Conway, Stephen Miller, Mick Mulvaney, Sarah Sanders and Trump ally Chris Ruddy” who have met at the embassy and “share about the President and his decision-making.”

    Darroch also revealed that Trump’s resistance to the British position on war with Iran was not acceptable when the President chose to cancel an attack on Iran on June 21st after an America drone was shot down. Moments after Trump’s cancellation of the attack, a Darroch memo complained that Trump was “incoherent and chaotic” and that Trump could fall into line once he was “surrounded by a more hawkish group of advisers… Just one more Iranian attack somewhere in the region could trigger yet another Trump U-turn.”

    Only two weeks after sending this cable, Britain orchestrated a crisis by seizing an Iranian ship on July 5th which snowballed into an Iranian seizure of a British tanker and greater danger of confrontation amongst the NATO axis and Iran.

    The biggest confusion spread by the controllers of “officially accepted narratives” when assessing such things as 9-11, regime change wars, or the current debacle in Iran is located in a sleight of hand that asserts that America leads the British in the Special relationship. This belief in an “American empire” betrays a profound misunderstanding of history.

    The Fallacious History of US-British “Friendship”

    For much of the 19th century, Americans generally had a better understanding of their anti-colonial origins than many do today. Even though the last official war fought between Britain and America was in 1812-15, the British failure to destroy America militarily caused British foreign policy to re-focus its efforts on undermining America from within… generally through the dual infestation of British-sponsored ideologies contaminating the American school system on the one hand and British banking practices of Wall Street’s ruling class on the other. This attack from within required more patience, but was more successful and led to the near collapse of America in 1860 when Lord Palmerston quickly recognized the Southern slave power’s call for independence from the Union. Britain’s covert military support for the Confederate cause was exposed by the end of that war and led to Britain’s payment of $15 million settlement to America as part of the Alabama Claims in 1872.

    As the informative 2010 Lpac documentary “The Special Relationship is for Traitors” showcased, during the early 20th century leading American military figures like Brig. General Billy Mitchell understood Britain’s role in supporting the Confederacy and Britain’s manipulation of global wars. General Mitchell fought against the “special relationship” tooth and nail and led the military to create “War Plan Red and War Plan Orange” to defeat Britain under the context of an eventual war between the English-speaking powers. These plans were made US military doctrine in 1930 and were only taken off the books when America decided it was more important to put down London’s Fascist Frankenstein threat than fight Britain head on in WWII.

    The Rhodes Scholars Take Over

    Before the “Churchill gang” (that Stalin accused of poisoning FDR) could take control of America, Franklin Roosevelt described his understanding of the British influence over the US State Department when he told his son: 

    “You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!” I was told… six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office….”

    With FDR’s death, these British operatives took over American foreign policy and wiped out the remaining pro-American forces in the State Department, disbanding the OSS and reconstituting America’s intelligence services as the MI6-modelled CIA in 1948.

    In 1951, the Chicago Tribune published a incredible series of exposes by journalist William Fulton documenting the cancerous penetration of hundreds of Oxford Trained Rhodes Scholars who had taken over American foreign policy and were directing America into a third world war. On July 14, 1951 Fulton wrote:

     “Key positions in the United States department of state are held by a network of American Rhodes scholars. Rhodes scholars are men who obtained supplemental education and indoctrination at Oxford University in England with the bills paid by the estate of Cecil John Rhodes, British empire builder. Rhodes wrote about his ambition to cause “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British empire.” The late diamond and gold mining tycoon aimed at a world federation dominated by Anglo-Saxons.”

    Sir Kissinger Opens the Floodgates

    A star pupil of William Yandall Elliot (a leading Rhodes Scholar based out of Harvard) was a young misanthropic German named Henry Kissinger.

    A decade before becoming a Knight of the British Empire, Kissinger gave a remarkable speech at a May 1981 event on British-American relations at London’s Royal Institute for International Affairs. At this event Kissinger described the opposing world views of Churchill vs. Roosevelt, gushing that he much preferred the post-war view of Churchill. He then described his time working for the British Foreign Office as Secretary of State saying:

     “The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations… In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department… It was symptomatic”.

    As Kissinger spoke these words, another anglophile traitor was being installed as Vice-President of America. George Bush Sr. was not only the son of a Nazi-funding Wall Street tool and former director of the CIA, but was also made a Knight of the Grand Cross and Order of Bath by Queen Elizabeth in 1993. The most disastrous foreign policies enacted under Reagan’s leadership during the 1980s can be traced directly back to these two figures.

    The Potential Revival of the ‘Real’ America

    Think what you may of Donald Trump. The fact is, that he has not started any wars which a Jeb or Hillary were happy to launch. He has reversed a regime change program active since 9/11. He has fought to put America into a cooperative position with Russia. He has undone decades of WTO/City of London free trade. He has called for rebuilding productive industries following through by reviving the protective tariff. To top it off, he has been at war with the British-directed deep state for over three years and survived. Now that Bolton has been outed as an ally of Sir Darroch, there is an open acknowledgement that Trump is gearing up to replace the neocon traitor as we speak. Trump has many problems but being a British asset is not one of them.

    If you’ve made it this far, you shouldn’t be surprised that the collapse of the special relationship is a very good thing, since America now has a real opportunity to rediscover its true anti-imperial nature by working with Russia, China, India and other nations under the new cooperative framework of space exploration and the Belt and Road Initiative.

  • Israel Fought Behind The Scenes To Drop Turkey From US F-35 Program: Report

    A new bombshell report making headlines in Israeli media alleges Tel Aviv went to great lengths to exert pressure on Washington to block the sale of US F-35 stealth fighter jets to Turkey.

    “Israel worked behind the scenes to ensure the United States blocked the sale of its F-35 stealth fighter jets to Turkey as part of its efforts to preserve its military qualitative edge in the region,” The Times of Israel revealed Thursday, citing a prior Israeli Channel 12 report.

    “Israel in recent months lobbied Washington to drop Ankara from the F-35 program after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan went ahead with a purchase of a Russian-made missile defense system that would give Turkey advanced air capabilities,” the report continued.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Though neither US nor Israeli officials have commented on the alleged lobbying campaign, it’s consistent with the fact that Israel has seen growing Russian-Turkish defense ties as a significant threat to both its anti-Iran policy and actions in Syria. And further, Ankara and Tel Aviv have a long history of clashing over Palestinian related issues. 

    Last month the White House announced Turkey has been effectively booted from the F-35 program for procuring Russia’s S-400 anti-air defense system, further entrenching Moscow’s growing influence and security arc in the Middle East. 

    Crucially, both Israel and Turkey were set to be the only countries outside the United States which possessed the advanced Lockheed-made fighter. But it appears Israel did its best to ensure it’d be the only one, as The Times of Israel noted:

    Israel has agreed to purchase at least 50 F-35 fighter jets from the US defense contractor Lockheed Martin. So far, 16 aircraft have been delivered, and the remaining planes are slated to arrive batches of twos and threes until 2024.

    Israel is the second country after the US to receive the F-35 from Lockheed Martin and one of the few allowed to modify the state-of-the-art aircraft, known in Israel as the Adir.

    Compare this to the more than 100 Turkey was slated to receive at around $1.4 billion before the program was halted. 

    The White House has long been on record as saying the American fighter jet program “cannot coexist with a Russian intelligence collection platform that will be used to learn about its advanced capabilities.”

    Aside from the more pressing issues of both Russian and Iranian entrenchment in Syria, and growing Russia-Turkey defense ties, Israel and Turkey also stand on opposite sides of the Kurdish question.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    First batch of S-400 air defense system components were unloaded from a Russian transport aircraft at Murted military airport in Ankara, Turkey, on July 12, 2019.

    While President Erdogan has lately reiterated plans to crush “outlawed” armed Kurdish groups in Syria and Iraq, Israeli military and intelligence has over the past couple of years been rumored to be active in training and supporting these very groups alongside its US ally. 

    All of this and more translates to Tel Aviv viewing Turkey’s large-scale integration into the F-35 stealth program as a serious long term threat to its security interests in the region. 

  • Lessons For America From India's War Against Muslim Illegal Migrants

    Authored by Daniel Greenfield via Sultan Knish blog,

    India’s 2,582 mile border with Bangladesh is even longer than America’s 1,954 mile border with Mexico.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The two countries are divided not only by that border, but by religion. India has an 80% Hindu majority and a rising 13% Muslim minority. Bangladesh has a 90% Muslim majority. And the tide of Muslim migration from Bangladesh to India began to shift the population balance in some Indian states.

    India has spent decades building fences, topping them with barbed wire, and installing lights. The lights are there so that the guards can see. Unlike America, there are guards, they have guns, and they shoot.

     

    What makes America’s border different from those of so many other countries isn’t the lack of fencing. Smugglers, traffickers, and assorted criminals can often find weak points in any security setup. In most countries, the defense of the border is seen as a national security issue backed by real firepower.

    America’s Border Patrol has less than 20,000 people. India’s Border Security Force (BSF) has 186 battalions and 257,363 people. It’s a paramilitary organization with an intelligence network, ten artillery units, air and marine wings, and canine and even camel units. And the weapons aren’t just there for show.

    Over 1,000 illegal infiltrators have been killed trying to enter India from Bangladesh in over a decade.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    BSF personnel are allowed to shoot on sight. Boats are used to monitor river areas that can’t be fenced in. Air units watch from the sky. And intelligence units gather information on smuggling gangs. The first and final line of defense though comes from men with rifles watching the fences and the shadows.

    When a Bangladeshi teenage girl illegally entering India was shot, leftist activists hoped to use her to stop the zero-tolerance border security policy. But India kept building fences and defending them.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And now it’s turning to the problem of the millions of illegal Bangladeshi Muslim ‘infiltrators’ in India.

    Last year, around the same time that the media was fulminating over remarks by President Trump, Amit Shah, the head of India’s conservative ruling BJP, was being attacked for calling illegal aliens, “termites”.

    “Millions of infiltrators have entered our country and are eating the country like termites. Should we not uproot them?” Shah asked voters in West Bengal, which is threatened by illegal Bangladeshis.

    “A Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government will pick up infiltrators one by one and throw them into the Bay of Bengal.”

    Earlier that year, Assam, the part of India where the anti-illegal movement was born, began cracking down on the invading population with a “detect-delete-deport” program. Assam’s program spotted 4 million illegal infiltrators in the state of 33 million. Many of them had made themselves at home in India, but lacked birth certificates and other documents showing that they were citizens.

    Just as when it comes to border security, India’s twin assets are determination and manpower.

    The “detect-delete-deport” program began by digitizing old paper records and then checking them against the documents that were submitted by the population. Tens of thousands of government employees reviewed millions of documents and then began checking and cross-referencing them. The lies weren’t hard to spot as when dozens of people claimed to have been born from the same mother.

    The work is far from finished but the number of Muslim illegal aliens could climb as high as 20 million, and so could the deportations, once “detect-delete-deport” is deployed across the entire country.

    India’s National Register of Citizens is being used to clarify who belongs in the country and who doesn’t. Those who are unable to prove their citizenship potentially face the Foreigners’ Tribunals, courts that ask the accused to prove their citizenship. If the illegals fail to do so, they can be sent to prison and then deported. If they try to dodge the courts, the machinery of the system will move forward anyway.

    Assam’s 1,000 Foreigners’ Tribunals have been busy, but every state in India has now been given the authority to create its own Tribunals. And detention camps are being built in Assam to hold illegals.

    While much of the machinery is in place, the actual process of deporting millions of illegals may prove challenging. But India had previously been able to negotiate agreements with Bangladesh that made the thousands of miles of border fencing possible by using economic and political leverage. Convincing Bangladesh to accept millions of its own people, some who have been in India for a generation, may be harder, but BJP leaders clearly believe that it can be done. And financial arrangements may be a small price to pay for securing India’s future and preventing the rise of Islamic violence in affected areas.

    India is also moving against the 40,000 strong Rohingya illegal Muslim population which have been a problem in that country, as well as in Myanmar. But India is also making it clear that it will respect legitimate refugees by providing sanctuary to Hindu and Buddhist refugees fleeing Islamic violence.

    There are important lessons from this effort for the United States in our immigration challenges.

    India’s Modi has been dubbed a natural counterpart to Trump. Under Modi, the BJP harnessed populist sentiments to begin executing an ambitious plan for tackling India’s longstanding immigration problems. The BJP understood that it had to run on migration issues to gain political sanction for a crackdown. Popular support from Indians allowed the government to ignore protests by leftist activist groups like Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, the domestic opposition, and even the United Nations.

    The BJP understood that border security alone would never be enough. Not unless the illegal infiltrators were made to understand that there was no future for them even if they did make it across the border.

    Building a border wall is a partial answer. But the real answer lies in using military force to secure the border, ending the processing of asylum requests, and distinguishing Americans from illegal aliens.

    India’s example shows that these things can be done. And if India can do them, America certainly can.

    Despite the media’s frenzied shrieks, there is popular support for the Trump administration’s measures from deportation to border security to adding a citizenship question to the census. The obstacle is a radical judiciary determined to protect an illegal base of Democrat voters and voting districts.

    The illegal migrant issue is not about human rights or racism. It’s about political power. Democrats opposed Vietnamese refugees for the same reason that they now support open borders with Mexico.

    The BJP understood this and campaigned by targeting the left-wing opposition as a party of illegals. Its fundamental argument was that leftists had chosen foreign migrants over the country’s own poor.

    That was a winning argument in India. It’s a winning argument in America.
     

  • Berkeley Couple Support Their Children Aged 4 & 8 In Decision To 'Transition'

    It’s not child abuse – it’s being an accepting and loving parent.

    In a Daily Mail article published this week, Ben and Sara Kaplan, of Berkeley, Calif., explained why they allowed their two young children to transition at the ages of eight and four.

    The family is sharing its story in an attempt to “break the taboo” around trans children following studies that showed a rash of suicides among trans children who weren’t accepted by their families.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Their two children, James, who transitioned from female to male, and Olivia, who transitioned from male to female, say that before the transition, they felt like they had “a piece missing.”

    But at the age of eight, James Kaplan, now 11, who was born a biological girl, realized he had to transition from female to male.

    And just a few years later a then-four-year-old Olivia Kaplan, now seven, who was born a biological boy, realized she wanted to transition from male to female. Their names at birth have not been revealed.

    The family are now sharing their story in the hopes of breaking the taboo around trans children, after statistics revealed an alarming number of suicide among young transgender people whose families are not supportive.

    Their parents were surprised when then-8-year-old James (whose birth name wasn’t published, along with the birth name of his sibling) came to them and expressed the desire to transition. They were even more surprised when their then-four-year-old son expressed a similar desire a couple of years later.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But having just been through the transition process, they knew how to handle the transition process as parents. Though one thing they didn’t do: Question whether their extremely young child might simply been copying what their oldest child was doing.

    Even their oldest child felt “competitive” when he learned that his younger sibling wanted to transition.

    However, like with most siblings, he admits there was the usual competitiveness.

    “I reacted to Olivia transitioning like most older siblings would – even though I’m trans,”  James explained. “I was a little confused at first and got a little defensive because I thought it was my thing.”

    “But after like a day of that, I saw that Olivia is a girl and she always will be.”

    For Olivia, having her big brother understand was key: “He was my first supporter and it made me feel very confident that I would have many more.”

    James, who is now 11, has begun taking hormone blockers to put off the onset of puberty and meunstration, which he said would be “distressing.” It will also prevent him from developing breasts. He’s also waiting to start taking testosterone, which would be the first non-reversible step in his transition. Though he’s already legally changed his name to James.

    Their youngest child won’t begin similarly irreversible steps in her transition for a few more years, but when the time comes, she will likely start with a hormone blocker. The parents also insisted that they “parent” their kids “for those who think we just follow our children around doing nothing.”

    The two parents insisted that they’re not ‘imposing an agenda’ on their children – they’re simply supporting their decisions to be who they truly are.

    Ben and Sara want to educate those who accuse them of imposing an agenda on their kids.

    “The reason that we chose to be public at this point is because having two transgender children is not that unique, but it’s very difficult to advocate for the second child without it looking like there’s a problem in the house,” Sara explained.

    “It looks like there is an agenda,” she said. “Like the mother is sick, and that’s not the case here.”

    Instead, the parents insisted that they were “on the right side of history.” They say their research has “proven” that they are doing the right thing.

    “We are on the right side of history and we are not going to allow our kids to feel shame or fear based on other people – they deserve to feel loved and accepted.”

    “We are going about this because we are listening to our children and because we are doing a lot of research, which has proven we are doing the right thing,” Ben added.

    But if that’s true, how come so many readers are skeptical?

  • US Eyeing Militarization Of Antarctic As Well As Arctic

    Authored by Andrea Germanos via CommonDreams.org,

    Treaty that “has been the cornerstone of governance” for most southerly continent could soon be torn up…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A top U.S. military general said Tuesday that the country will be looking at militarizing the Antarctic just as it has the Arctic.

    Air Force general Charles Brown, commander of Pacific Air Force, made the remarks in an address at The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies in Arlington, Virginia.

    Brown pointed to moves already made by Russia and China, a self-declared “near-Arctic state,” and noted both nations “have a presence in the Antarctic right now” as well as the Arctic.

    At several points, Brown mentioned 2048, which is set to be a key moment for the Antarctic—a region “within increasingly convenient reach“—because it’s when the Antarctic Treaty can go under review.

    Brown called the Arctic “kind of a precursor to the way I look at the Antarctic.”

    He continued, “The capabilities we have in the Arctic are the same capabilities we probably want to have in the Antarctic.”

    He added that icebreakers were a lacking capability – “Russia has much more than we do.” And, because the U.S. military will still need the few it has to operate in the Arctic, “we may need more” to bring them to Antarctica.

    As geopolitics professor Klaus Dodds wrote at The Conversation last year, the looming review plunges “the future of the continent into uncertainty.”

    For six decades, the treaty has been the cornerstone of governance for our most southerly, harshest and most pristine continent. It has fostered scientific research, promoted international cooperation, ensured non-militarization, suspended territorial claims and strengthened environmental protections. Its guardians are the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs)—chief among them the U.S., U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Norway, Germany, Chile, and Argentina. […]

    At present ACTPs are focusing on improving cold weather technology and gaining confidence in Antarctic conditions, but it might not be long until they have the capability and incentive to do more. China is already using underwater vehicles to search for gas hydrates and metallic nodules in the South China Sea. Ominously, underwater mining and deep-sea energy prospecting seem set to be growth industries over the coming decades. […]

    After 2048, Antarctica could be carved up between nations like every other land mass and surrounding ocean, and slowly relieved of its resources.

    The Pentagon is already mapping out moves on the Earth’s northernmost region, announcing (pdf) this year that it is looking at “enhancing Arctic operations.”

    “From the security standpoint and the militarizing of the Arctic,” U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Karl Schultz said earlier this month, “that is probably the future place for a contentious situation.”

    Air Force chief scientist Richard Joseph, who this month led a team to visit military installations in Alaska, echoed that message.

    “The Arctic region,” Joseph said in a statement, “is becoming increasingly important and central to defense of our homeland.”

  • America's Poverty Trap: How A Small Financial Setback Can Spiral Into An Inescapable Disaster

    Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

    The problem with poverty in America is that the system is designed to keep you poor. Maybe it’s just because poor people are easier to control. I have written before about how to survive when you’re so broke that you can’t pay your bills and while the comments were largely supportive, there are always a few smug, superior souls who blame the people who are struggling for their problems. The thing is, poverty is a trap, and one seeming small setback can spiral into a disaster from which you cannot extricate yourself.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    When you are living a financially fragile life, it seems like someone somewhere is trying to keep you poor. Why is it so hard to get ahead? Well, because the system is rigged against you when you’re living paycheck to paycheck with fee after fee after fee. Because what makes more sense than charging someone who already can’t pay their bills even more money?

    Land of the Fee

    First, there are the fees. We’ve written here about undisclosed fees that most people are being hit with, but bank fees are even worse.

    If you bounce a payment by so much as a penny, then you are hit with a charge from your bank and most times, a charge from the business that was taking the payment from your account. Most banks charge anywhere from $25-$38.50 when you have non-sufficient funds for a payment. Businesses charge in the same range, so that means that if one payment goes awry, you can lose $50-$77 in the blink of an eye.

    Banks love NSF and overdraft fees. Why? Because in 2017, Americans paid $34 billion in fees for not having enough money to cover a payment.

    Some of these fees come from the automatic payments that come from our accounts. Mortgage, car payments, insurance payments, and other bills are often automatically debited. Other fees come when a person has “overdraft protection” on their debit cards. This is when a person doesn’t have enough money in his or her account for a debit to go through but their credit union or bank covers it anyway.

    The government’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau explains just how insane these fees are. (Emphasis mine)

    Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a report that raises concerns about the impact of opting into overdraft services for debit card and ATM transactions. The study found that the majority of debit card overdraft fees are incurred on transactions of $24 or less and that the majority of overdrafts are repaid within three days. Put in lending terms, if a consumer borrowed $24 for three days and paid the median overdraft fee of $34, such a loan would carry a 17,000 percent annual percentage rate (APR).

    “Today’s report shows that consumers who opt into overdraft coverage put themselves at serious risk when they use their debit card,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Despite recent regulatory and industry changes, overdrafts continue to impose heavy costs on consumers who have low account balances and no cushion for error. Overdraft fees should not be ‘gotchas’ when people use their debit cards.” (source)

    So to be clear, the banking system is set up to take the most money from people with the lowest balances.

    One NSF or overdraft fee can unleash financial chaos.

    Imagine you have a bill that attempts to debt from your account twice, costing you $50. Then another payment, a smaller one, that would have gone through if the other bill hadn’t gotten there first, bounces too. Now you’ve lost $75.  It’s pretty easy to see how another payment – even one for a few bucks, could bounce next. Now you’ve lost $100.

    By the time you actually have the money to cover all the fees, how on earth are you supposed to pay the bill that put your in the negative in the first place?

    I know what a lot of you are thinking. “I’ve never bounced a check in my life” or “these people need to get control of their spending and they wouldn’t have these fees.”

    But this vicious spiral can be caused by something as seemingly trivial as a person’s pay being direct-deposited one hour late on payday. It can occur when payday is on a Saturday but your funds won’t be deposited until Monday but your debits are still coming out regardless that it’s a weekend. It isn’t always personal irresponsibility that causes a person to be unable to cover the payments coming out of his or her account.

    Once you’re in the hole for a couple hundred dollars in NSF or overdraft fees, how in the world do you get out? If your financial situation is so precarious that one bounced payment causes this cartwheel of non-sufficient funds, how are you supposed to ever get caught up?

    And that’s not the only fee a person struggling financially can expect.

    Next, there are late fees and the re-connect fees.

    If one of the payments that went awry in your overdraft avalanche happens to be a utility bill, things get even worse for a person who is struggling. Particularly if you aren’t able to cover the bill in sufficient time to keep your utilities from getting shut off. How much you’ll be charged varies by company but if they really feel like you’ll have trouble paying in the future, they stick it to you, making it nearly impossible to get your power or heat turned back on. Here are some examples

    • PG&E: “To restore service, you must pay the full amount due. You may also be required to pay a deposit twice your average monthly bill to re-establish credit.”

    • Coast Electric: $35-50 fee to reconnect service, $6.50 late fee, $35 NSF fee, and potentially even a $35 collection fee

    • Talgov: $28.50 each for gas, water, and electric

    They can be charged late fees by all sorts of businesses. Now they’re really in trouble.

    How do they bail themselves out of this mess?

    A payday loan can be one way a desperate person chooses to get out of financial trouble.

    Payday loans are short-term cash loans based on the borrower’s personal check held for future deposit or on electronic access to the borrower’s bank account. Borrowers write a personal check for the amount borrowed plus the finance charge and receive cash. In some cases, borrowers sign over electronic access to their bank accounts to receive and repay payday loans.

    Payday loans range in size from $100 to $1,000, depending on state legal maximums. The average loan term is about two weeks. Loans typically cost 400% annual interest (APR) or more. The finance charge ranges from $15 to $30 to borrow $100. For two-week loans, these finance charges result in interest rates from 390 to 780% APR. Shorter term loans have even higher APRs.  Rates are higher in states that do not cap the maximum cost.

    CFPB found that 80 percent of payday borrowers tracked over ten months rolled over or reborrowed loans within 30 days.  Borrowers default on one in five payday loans.  Online borrowers fare worse.  CFPB found that more than half of all online payday instalment loan sequences default. (source)

    Now a bad situation has gotten even worse. You’re only getting a portion of your paycheck which means that you’re not going to be able to meet future bills. You’re going to face more late fees, more NSF charges, and more overdraft interest.

    The cycle is vicious.

    If you’ve ever wondered why broke people tend to stay broke, this is why. Unless the person in financial trouble gets some kind of windfall, they’re going to have great difficulty getting back on their feet. In many cases, it’s impossible.

    And that isn’t the only bad part of the war on the poor.  Homelessness has been practically criminalized. Here are some examples of how poor or homeless people can get in trouble with the law.

    The criminalization of homelessness refers to measures that prohibit life-sustaining activities such as sleeping/camping, eating, sitting, and/or asking for money/resources in public spaces. These ordinances include criminal penalties for violations of these acts.

    There are multiple types of criminalization measures which include:

    • Carrying out sweeps (confiscating personal property including tents, bedding, papers, clothing, medications, etc.) in city areas where homeless people live.

    • Making panhandling illegal.

    • Making it illegal for groups to share food with homeless persons in public spaces.

    • Enforcing a “quality of life” ordinance relating to public activity and hygiene. (source)

    Of course, not all people financially struggling are out on the streets. Many are quietly struggling in middle-class neighborhoods, in nice homes, driving a late-model car. If they’re upside down in their mortgage or car loan, selling those items is not an option because then they’ll still be making the payments but be without a way to get to work or a place to live.

    If they file for bankruptcy, good luck to them getting a cheap place to reside.

    Things get harder.

    And harder.

    And harder.

    How to avoid these traps

    You may already be in financial trouble, or you may just be in a situation with no emergency fund. If that’s the case, you should know that it only takes something small to send you straight to financial disaster.

    Here are a few tips to help you avoid the pitfalls of poverty.

    1. Don’t set up automatic payments. Some businesses force you to do this, but often you can cancel the autopay and pay yourself.

    2. Have one bank account for bills, and one for spending money. This way, you don’t accidentally spend money earmarked for utilities or your car payment.

    3. Don’t have overdraft protection on your account, particularly if the fees and interest rates are high.

    4. Don’t turn to payday loans. This is a cycle from which it’s nearly impossible to extricate yourself.

    5. Build an emergency fund. Even if you only put in $10 a paycheck, you’re still giving yourself a little bit of a cushion.

    Know that you aren’t alone if you’re facing these kinds of problems. Many people in our country are deeply in debt, living paycheck to paycheck, and struggling to pay for basic necessities like food, rent, and medical bills.

    Don’t look for things to become more affordable or for your paycheck to magically increase. That’s not the direction we’re going in America. Your only options are to reduce your expenses, eat cheaper food, and bring in some extra cash.  If you get a windfall, use it wisely to build a financial cushion.

    The American poverty trap keeps poor people poor. And it’s easier to fall into than you think.

  • July Payrolls Preview: Beware The Census Hiring Surge

    Now that the Fed is once again extremely sensitive to incoming data – or at least that’s what the market thinks – and especially bad incoming data as today’s disappointing ISM demonstrated, which sent stocks surging on hopes of more rate cuts (at least until Trump’s subsequent tariff shocker), tomorrow’s payrolls report is suddenly extremely important for the Fed’s reaction function: a strong beat has the potential to crush stocks and send yields sharply higher, and of course, vice versa. That said, a beat to the relatively modest consensus expectation of 165K is virtually assured due to the wildcard that is census hiring which will be between 10K and 50K, and which the BLS will surely fully milk following political instructions from “above.”

    So with that in mind, here is a summary of what consensus expects tomorrow, courtesy of RanSquawk:

    US nonfarm payrolls are seen coming in at 165k in July, a reading which would push the three-month average down to 153k from 171k in June. The jobless rate is seen unchanged at 3.7%, though the Conference Board’s consumer confidence data does signal some potential downside. We have seen only a partial slate of business surveys ahead of the NFP report, and they seem to signal some cooling in labour market momentum.

    EXPECTATIONS:

    • Non-farm Payrolls: Exp. 165k, Prev. 224k.
    • Unemployment Rate: Exp. 3.7%, Prev. 3.7%. (FOMC currently projects 3.6% unemployment by the end of 2019, and 4.2% in the longer-run).
      • U6 Unemployment Rate: Prev. 7.2%.
      • Labour Force Participation: Prev. 62.9%.
    • Avg. Earnings Y/Y: Exp. 3.1%, Prev. 3.1%;
      • Avg. Earnings M/M: Exp. +0.2%, Prev. +0.2%.
    • Avg. Work Week Hours: Exp. 34.4hrs, Prev. 34.4hrs.
    • Private Payrolls: Exp. 160k, Prev. 191k; Manufacturing Payrolls: Exp. 5k, Prev. 17k; Government Payrolls: Prev. 33k

    The Street expects 164k nonfarm payrolls will be added to the US economy in July, following 224k in June (12-month trend rate is 192k). Fed Chair Powell looks at a three-month rolling average of headline payrolls, which after the upside in June, is running at a clip of 171k, and has been ticking higher for three straight months — a consensus 164k in July would knock the three-month average back to 153k.

    Looking at just one bank’s forecasts, Goldman estimates nonfarm payrolls increased 190k in July, 25k above consensus of +165k. While July employer surveys declined on net, jobless claims and job availability measures remain at very strong levels, and we also expect a boost from Census hiring worth 10-20k. Additionally, Hurricane Barry struck the Gulf Coast too late in the survey week to have a significant impact on the report.

    JOBLESS CLAIMS:

    Weekly claims data within the survey periods is unchanged on June, suggesting some stability; initial jobless claims were 216k in the 13th July week vs 217k in the 15th June week; for reference the four-week moving average was also stable, falling slightly from 219k to 218.75k.

    BUSINESS SURVEYS:

    Ahead of this month’s payrolls report, we do not have the release of the non-manufacturing ISM. The manufacturing ISM did not bode well for the labour market data, with the employment sub-index falling more than expected, to 51.7 from 54.5. This theme was also seen in the final Markit manufacturing PMI data for July, where the employment index cooled to 49.8 from 50.8 in June (entering contraction territory) (NOTE: the flash reading showed a print of 49.6, which was the lowest since the GFC, which Capital Economics says was consistent with the manufacturing sector shedding 30k jobs per month). The services equivalent reports have not been released ahead of this month’s payrolls data.

    CONSUMER SURVEYS:

    The differential between ‘jobs plentiful’ and ‘jobs hard to get’ within the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence data rose to 35.4 from 27.6, auguring well for downside in the unemployment rate (analysts note the long-term correlations are decent). The metric was also encouraging since, in June, it declined from a cyclical high suggesting some cooling in labour market momentum. The CB also noted that consumers’ outlook for the labour market was more upbeat in the month, with the proportion expecting more jobs in the months ahead rising from 17.5% to 20.5%, while those anticipating fewer jobs decreased from 13.9% to 11.5%. The CB also said that, in terms of short-term income prospects, the percentage of consumers expecting an improvement rose from 20.5% to 24.7%, while the proportion expecting a decrease declined from 7.5% to 6.3%. RBC cautions, however, that that potential job growth (proxied by the growth in  the labor force) slowed in the last 12 months to just 71k, and accordingly, the bar to continue seeing lower rates of unemployment is low.

    CHALLENGER:

    The pace of announced job cuts eased in July; the headline was 38,845 versus the 41,977 in June, Challenger said, marking the second consecutive drop in monthly job cut announcements since May, and the lowest total since August 2018. “The US is enjoying the longest economic expansion in American history and the June jobs report documented a decidedly strong labor market,” Challenger wrote, “however, slowing GDP growth in the second quarter, cuts in business investment, and trade tensions led the Federal Reserve to cut its key interest rate by a quarter-point. This move signals trouble on the horizon for the current economic cycle.” It notes that employment tends to be a lagging indicator, as companies often keep hiring up to the edge of a recession, but right now, the labour market is strong. “Employees can continue to anticipate moderate wage growth and advantageous employment prospects for the time being.” Challenger noted that manufacturers were not faring particularly well, not only by shifting consumer behaviour and automation, but also by the imposed tariffs.

    ARGUING FOR A STRONGER REPORT:

    • Jobless claims. Initial jobless claims remained unchanged at very low levels during the four weeks between the payroll reference periods (at 219k on average). Continuing claims declined from survey week to survey week for the first time in three months (-17k to 1677k).
    • Job availability. The Conference Board labor market differential—the difference between the percent of respondents saying jobs are plentiful and those saying jobs are hard to get—rebounded by 5.2pt to +33.4 in July, just below the cycle-high. Other job availability readings are somewhat backward-looking at this point, but were somewhat softer on a sequential basis: JOLTS job openings declined but remained high (-49k to 7,323k in May) and the Conference Board’s Help Wanted Online index edged lower (-0.2pt to 102.4 in June).
    • Census hiring. Temporary employment related to the 2020 Census has significantly lagged that of 1999 and 2009. However, address canvassing scheduled for August will require tens of thousands of temporary workers to be hired and trained. Given this and given that the 200+ regional Census offices were opened in late June, expect a visible boost from Census hiring in tomorrow’s report (Goldman assume 10-20k workers).
    • Public Education. We believe some of the 20k decline in public education payrolls over the last two months will reverse in tomorrow’s report. Employment in this industry is highly mean-reverting at the end of the school year, and the May/June declines reflected seasonal adjustment issues as opposed to legitimate labor shedding at state colleges and universities.

    ARGUING FOR A WEAKER REPORT:

    • Hurricane Barry. While Hurricane Barry caused power outages for more than 120k households in Louisiana and other parts of the Gulf Coast, the storm did not make landfall until Friday and Saturday of the payroll survey week. Workers are counted as employed in the establishment survey unless they miss work for the entire payroll reference period. And as shown in Exhibit 1—which plots electricity usage in the areas affected—disruptions during the workweek itself appear minimal. Accordingly, economists do not expect a meaningful impact of the storm in tomorrow’s report.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    • Employer surveys. Business activity business surveys were sequentially firmer in July (with small net gains in the manufacturing sector and a moderate increase in the services sector), but the employment components of those surveys underperformed (-1.2pt to 52.3 for manufacturing, -0.9pt to 53.5 for services). As shown in Exhibit 2, however, the level of the labor-market components still suggests job growth running at a healthy pace (of around 175k per month). Service-sector job growth rose 154k in June and averaged 134k over the last six months, while manufacturing payroll employment rose 17k in June and has increased by 8k on average over the last six months.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    NEUTRAL FACTORS:

    ADP. The payroll-processing firm ADP reported a 156k increase in July private employment, slightly above consensus and a sizeable pickup from the 112k pace it reported in June. The ADP report was slightly firmer than our previous assumptions—and in our view suggests that the underlying pace of job growth remains solid.

    Job cuts. Announced layoffs reported by Challenger, Gray & Christmas remained unchanged in July at 47k (SA by GS), but are still somewhat above their July 2018 level (+15k yoy). A retracing of announced layoffs in the automotive industry (-6k mom sa) roughly offset a rise in the transportation industry (+4k) and smaller increases in other industries.

    WAGES:

    Finally, the other critical data point that could have an outsized impact on risk assets is a hotter than expected wage print: Analysts at Bank of America see average wages growing +0.3% M/M, which is firmer than the consensus view; the bank says this will also push the annualised measure to 3.2% Y/Y. The bank sees average weekly hours worked to  remain unchanged at 34.4hrs. Goldman estimate average hourly earnings increased 0.2% month-over-month, with the
    year-over-year rate a tad below that of BofA and in line with consensus, at 3.1%. The forecast reflects unfavorable calendar effects (survey week ended the 13th of the month) but a boost from a further rebound in supervisory earnings—which are underperforming the production worker subset by two tenths on a year-on-year basis (+3.14% vs. +3.35% in June). A monthly increase of 0.3% or 0.4% or an annual increase of 3.3% or more, and risk assets will find themselves in a world of pain.

  • Global Smartphone Shipments Plunge Again, Huawei Displaces Apple As No.2

    The global smartphone bust is currently underway (has been for some time) – but there’s a new, surprising trend that could highlight one reason why the Trump administration has waged economic war against China.

    First, let’s start with the global smartphone shipment data from the International Data Corporation (IDC) Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker.

    This new data details how worldwide smartphone shipments fell 2.3% in 2Q19 YoY. It also states that smartphone manufacturers shipped 333.2 million phones in 2Q19, which was up 6.5% QoQ.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    An escalating trade war between the US and China contributed to sharp declines in shipments in both countries over the last year. However, the declines weren’t nearly as severe as expected in China over 1H19 versus 1H18, suggesting that three years of a smartphone bust in Asia could be nearing a recovery phase. Asia/Pacific (excluding Japan and China) maintained solid momentum in 2Q YoY, with shipments up 3% in the quarter fueled by Southeast Asia markets.

    The surprising trend IDC detected is that Huawei surpassed Apple in 2Q19, making it the first time in seven years that Samsung and Apple weren’t the top smartphones manufactures in the world.

    Now it seems that a South Korea company [Samsung] and a Chinese company [Huawei] are the world leaders in smartphone shipments, something that has irritated the Trump administration.

    Samsung ranked No.1 with 75.5 million shipments in 2Q19, a 5.5% YoY increase. Huawei was No.2 with 58.7 million shipments in 2Q19, a 8.3% YoY jump. Apple was No.3 with 33.8 million shipments in 2Q19, a -18.2% YoY plunge.

    “Despite a lot of uncertainty surrounding Huawei the company managed to hold its position at number two in terms of market share,” said Ryan Reith, program vice president with IDC’s Worldwide Mobile Device Trackers.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “When you look at the top of the market – Samsung, Huawei, and Apple – each vendor lost a bit of share from last quarter, and when you look down the list the next three – Xiaomi, OPPO, and Vivo – all gained. Part of this is related to the timing of product launches, but it is hard not to assume this trend could continue.”

    IDC Smartphone Company Highlights:

    Samsung

    Samsung maintained the top position in the market for 2Q19 and returned to annual growth of 5.5% with a total of 75.5 million smartphones shipped. As noted in its recent earnings call, the company struggled to sell flagship devices as many consumers are holding onto devices longer than ever and opting for a less expensive replacement option. The pending announcement of the next Galaxy Note device likely held off some of those that are loyal to the brand. Meanwhile, Samsung’s A-series devices did well in the quarter, particularly the A50 and A70.

    Huawei

    Huawei saw its shipment volumes decline 0.6% when compared to 1Q19, which could be regarded as better than expected given U.S.-China trade tensions. Shipment volumes in China hit an all-time high and accounted for 62% of Huawei’s 2Q19 total with 36.4 million units. The China success during the quarter was in part due to actions taken following the US trade ban as Huawei relocated significant human resources back to China with a focus on distribution channel management in the Chinese lower-tier cities. The P30 and P30 Pro, which launched in mid-April, also had a relatively good reception as its predecessor, P20 series, had created a positive ripple effect.

    Apple

    Apple shipped 33.8 million new iPhones during 2Q19, which was down significantly from the same quarter a year ago. However, when factoring in the success of the iPhone upgrade program as well as Apple’s ability to sell more refurbished iPhones through its channels, the argument can easily be made that its position in the market is still dominant. Regardless of slightly lower market share and device selling prices, as pointed out in yesterday’s earnings call, the iPhone installed base continues to grow. So irrespective of the hardware – as a new iPhone, an older model, or a refurbished product – the expansion of iOS users is what appears to matter most going forward.

    IDC provides a clear chart that shows from when the trade war started — Apple lost global market share while Samsung, Huawei, Xiaomi, and OPPO either gained or held their respected market share.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Apple being displaced as No.2 smartphone manufacturer in the world by a Chinese company suggests one reason why the Trump administration has waged economic on the Shenzhen-based smartphone manufacturer.

    Trump is acting like he holds all the cards in the trade war, and as we explained earlier: “he doesn’t.” Apple will continue to hemorrhage global market share as Chinese and South Korean smartphones are dominating Asia and Europe. Apple is a dying fad, more importantly, the American global dominance is a dying empire.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Aug 01

Today’s News 1st August 2019

  • Many Europeans Can't Afford A Vacation

    In major cities across Europe, particularly in Spain and France, a major exodus occurs in August.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In Madrid, for example, traffic becomes quieter, restaurants close and offices lie empty as locals flock to the coast to escape the stifling heat. These holiday migrations, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy explains, are the norm in both countries where people can easily take them for granted.

    There are exceptions, however, with new and depressing data from Eurostat showing that holidays are simply unaffordable for large numbers of Europeans.

    Infographic: Many Europeans Can't Afford A One-Week Holiday | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The highest share of people who could not afford a one-week holiday away from home in 2018 was recorded in Romania at 59 percent. Croatia came second with 51.3 percent while Greece and Cyprus were tied for third with 51 percent. Large proportions of the population in Italy (43.7 percent), Ireland (35.3 percent) and Poland (34.6 percent) also said a one-week holiday was out of their financial grasp. Even in Spain where long holidays in August are typical, 34.2 percent of people said they still could not pay the costs of a week-long break.

  • "The Buck Stops Here": Johnson Positions 'Brexiteers' to Take The Fall For A No-Deal Exit

    Authored by Steven Guinness,

    When devising a plan from the ground up, timing is perhaps the most important component of the process. For instance, building a one hundred story structure does not begin with a spade in the ground. There are blue prints to draw up, consultations to undertake, funding to put in place, planning permission to acquire, before the objective can start to become a reality.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It could be argued that global economic institutions operate in a similar manner. It is evident from their communications that they have as part of their agenda plans to introduce digital only currency to supplant physical capital. But they cannot simply foist these plans onto the population. Instead, they require public consent. Change on this scale takes time to gain approval, which is why globalists invariably utilise the model of gradualism when seeking to centralise powers further for their own benefit.

    Unlike the standard creation of a new building where the intent might simply be to do good, globalists have a track record of using more nefarious means for achieving their ends. Inducing crisis scenarios and presenting themselves as a solution to the subsequent upheaval (the hegelian dialectic approach) is their primary, and I would argue only, method that they have at their disposal.

    Where Brexit is concerned, it has been my contention for a while now that the tool which internationalists can exploit the most in their pursuit for a global currency framework is pound sterling. As of writing, the pound just dropped to the lowest monthly close since 1985 off the back of Boris Johnson’s ascension to Prime Minister and the growing risk of the UK leaving the EU with no withdrawal agreement.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This invites a number of questions. With the Brexit deadline of October 31st just three months away, why has an advocate for no deal risen to power at this moment? A man routinely compared to Donald Trump and classified as a ‘populist‘, why is now the time for Johnson to take direct responsibility for Brexit? I fear the answer may be in the question.

    Stood before No. 10 Downing Street, minutes after becoming Prime Minister, Johnson said this to the nation:

    I will take personal responsibility for the change I want to see. Never mind the back stop. The buck stops here.

    Immediately on taking office, Johnson began surrounding himself with what the media term as ‘Brexiteers‘. Prior to this, the majority in the cabinet – along with Theresa May – supported leaving the EU with a withdrawal agreement. The dynamic has now shifted. Over two thirds of cabinet ministers now support leaving the EU with no deal should no other option be attainable.

    One of the most notable appointments to Johnson’s cabinet was Jacob Rees Mogg as Leader of the House of Commons. Mogg remains chair of the European Research Group (ERG) which was influential in bringing Theresa May’s tenure as Prime Minister to a close.

    With the ‘Brexiteer‘ cabinet in place, the media began perceiving it as an ‘alt-right‘ purge and a ‘right wing coup.’ Ever since the referendum result three years ago, elements of the mainstream press have been cultivating the narrative that Brexit is a product of the hard right. Despite evidence to the contrary (millions of Labour supporters voted to leave the EU), the ever present figures of Nigel Farage and interjections by Donald Trump have served to reinforce the media propaganda on how Brexit is identified.

    Back in 2017 when the Conservatives held on to power following a snap general election, I posted an article (‘Conservative Brexit’ – The Reason the Tories are Still in Office) that discussed specific traits often associated with conservatism – like the championing of national sovereignty and individualism. I argued that these were important factors in being able to maintain Brexit under the banner of conservative doctrine, for the purpose of gradually ostracising these beliefs in favour of the internationalist ideology of global citizenry and collectivism.

    Figureheads from the 2016 Vote Leave campaign were also appointed into key positions under Johnson. Campaign Director of Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings, is now Johnson’s senior advisor. Lee Cain, who was head of broadcast, is director of communications. Two other Vote Leave ‘alumni‘ – Rob Oxley and Oliver Lewis – were made press secretary and Brexit policy advisor respectively.

    As with most events around the world, it did not take long for Donald Trump to attach himself to Johnson’s elevation. After it was announced that Johnson would be the next Prime Minister, Trump told an assembly of high school pupils in Washington:

    They call him Britain Trump and people are saying that’s a good thing.

    The parallels with Trump are clear. On becoming president, Trump took ownership of a boom in the stock market, in spite of calling the post 2008 rise in stocks during the campaign trail as a ‘big fat ugly bubble‘. What we have seen with Boris Johnson is him taking ownership of a potential ‘hard‘ Brexit in three months time.

    Currently, Trump’s repeated criticism of the Federal Reserve and its chairman Jerome Powell has encouraged the narrative of central bank independence being put in jeopardy. It is conceivable that we might see a similar narrative build here in the UK, with a Boris Johnson led government calling for the Bank of England to support Britain should the country leave the EU with no deal. As a back bencher, cabinet member Jacob Rees Mogg accused the current BOE governor Mark Carney of politicising the central bank and called for him to be removed from his position. A sign of things to come perhaps?

    Speaking to the same assembly in the U.S, Trump went on to advocate that Johnson work with Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage in the lead up to the UK’s exit:

    I know he’s going to work well with Boris. They’re going to do some tremendous things.

    There is speculation that after Parliament reconvenes from its summer recess in September that another general election could be called, either directly by Boris Johnson or through a vote of no confidence in his government. Farage’s Brexit party are ready to field candidates throughout the UK in the event of an election. Farage has also stated that Johnson would have his support provided he commits to taking the UK out of the EU with no deal on October 31st. This support would potentially extended to a coalition deal with the Conservatives. For what it is worth, Johnson ruled out a coalition with Farage days before becoming Prime Minister.

    If there is an election prior to the Brexit deadline, I would consider it most likely that Boris Johnson wins an outright majority or the Conservatives enter into coalition with the Brexit party. Either scenario would entrench the perception of Brexit being firmly within the grip of ‘populists‘, and would ensure a no deal exit under this identity.

    A recent announcement that the government will soon commence with a nationwide communications campaign in preparation for a potential no deal outcome is perhaps an indication that an election will occur. The official line is that the campaign would seek to prepare the public and businesses for a October 31st exit. It would encompass billboards, TV adverts, leaflets and social media advertising, at an estimated cost of around £100 million.

    Keep in mind that Johnson’s new senior advisor, Dominic Cummings, was behind the Vote Leave campaign slogan of ‘Take Back Control‘, and played a part in using social media to influence voters to support Brexit.  Perhaps his role in Downing Street and the announcement of this upcoming campaign are not a coincidence.

    As I have debated previously, globalists require a strawman of sufficient size to hold culpable for the next major economic downturn. Central banks have been tightening monetary policy for several years now, and whilst they have been in a ‘holding pattern‘ so far in 2019, they continue to promote their inflation mandates as being fundamental in how they conduct policy.

    With sterling and trade being most vulnerable to a no deal scenario, it was Mark Carney who described Brexit as ‘inflationary‘. The obvious danger here is that the BOE exploit the fallout from a no deal by tightening policy into economic weakness. Much as the Federal Reserve have been doing since Donald Trump was elected.

    A lot will develop before this possibility, however. Right now the government are operating under the delusion that a new withdrawal agreement can be negotiated with the EU inside the next twelve weeks. This is a fallacy when you consider that the agreement Theresa May forged with Brussels took over a year to conceive. There is no discernible plan for how Boris Johnson intends to renegotiate the original withdrawal agreement. All we know for certain is that the government will not re-engage with the EU until they agree to remove the Irish backstop from the text. The EU have insisted that the deal already rejected three times by parliament cannot be changed and remains ‘the only agreement possible.’ There is no reason to suggest that they will relent on this.

    In his first speech as Prime Minister, Johnson attempted to deflect any blame for a no deal Brexit back onto the EU, saying that Brussels may ‘refuse to negotiate any further‘, meaning ‘we are forced to come out with no deal.’

    With Johnson having already taken ownership for his actions, the moment of leaving the EU will be seen as a political decision. I highly doubt that the EU will be held widely accountable, except by those most loyal to the Brexit cause.

    What Johnson is doing now is playing on the traits of positivity and optimism. He has employed the tactic of characterising opponents to Brexit as those who seek to run the country down. So far, the promotion of vacuous, feel good rhetoric is finding a home within people. The upcoming communications campaign may cement this further. Johnson is selling hope over detail, which I suspect is working given that warnings of a no deal Brexit have longed been dismissed by supporters of leaving the EU as ‘Project Fear.’

    The more that ‘remainers‘ ratchet up the scaremongering and try to delay or stop Brexit, the more chance it will draw the electorate over to Johnson. ‘Project Fear‘ has been in full flight since the spring of 2018. If its purpose was to demonise Brexit to the point of turning sentiment against it, then it has failed. Since then The Brexit Party have won an EU election, and Boris Johnson has become Prime Minister.

    If anything, ‘Project Fear‘ has emboldened Brexit. Trust in the establishment has been steadily eroding since the financial crisis. People have become less inclined to believe the warnings of economic armageddon. It would not surprise me if this was the intent from the beginning. De-legitimise Brexit and those behind it, but not to the point of their destruction.

    Where I believe this is going is that we will witness the resurgence in national sovereignty movements and the rise of nationalism being blamed for an impending economic decline, one that will extinguish the post 2008 false recovery. The ‘populists‘ will oversee the immediate fallout, which I consider as inevitable will manifest into the ‘Brexit recession‘. Eventually, when the majority of public sentiment turns against Brexit, the paradigm will shift back to the left in the run up to 2030.

    Over the next few years, globalists are seeking to have reformed payment systems in place that will be able to utilise blockchain technology and work in conjunction with the issuance of central bank digital currencies (CBDC’s). The Bank of England are in the process of reforming the UK’s RTGS system, with a target of 2025 for completion. It is important to recognise that they are not doing this out of necessity, but out of choice. Last month Bank for International Settlements general manager Agustin Carstens linked the rise of CBDC’s to the development of payment systems. This is one of the reasons why the pound’s susceptibility to Brexit is of increasing concern to me.

    Back in June 2016, when the waiting press fully expected Boris Johnson to run for the Tory party leadership, he announced that the next leader ‘cannot be me‘. Now, with the withdrawal agreement with the EU ‘dead‘, he has assumed office and rallied behind the drive for a no deal exit months before the October 31st deadline.

    Is Johnson’s rise to Prime Minister designed to ensure that a ‘hard‘ Brexit happens on his watch and, by extension, under the banner of alt-right populism? We will soon find out.

  • A Million Job Cuts In India Point To Economic Turmoil

    Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi faces severe challenges in stimulating a faltering economy as his second term begins.

    A global synchronized industrial slowdown has hit the Indian automobile and technology sectors somewhat hard, resulting in over a million job cuts in the last several years, reported The Economic Times.

    India is in a cyclical downturn with no signs of abating. The industrial slowdown has already spread into the auto industry, with volume contraction in the June quarter the steepest since 2001.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Indian new car sales plunged 18.4% in May YoY to 308,194 units versus 377,716 units in May 2018. Sales in June were the lowest in 18 years. The auto sector is about half of all manufacturing in the country. About 35 million jobs could be affected if the downturn gains momentum in 2H19.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    India’s technology sector has also been experiencing financial hardships related to the slowdown.

    Since 2017, India’s handset industry slashed 250,000 jobs as growth rates stalled, and Chinese competitors have dominated domestic brands.

    The cut represents about 15% of the handset workforce, included mostly in-store brand promoters who left the industry amid the closure of thousands of small phone-retailing shops.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Industry executives and retailers told The Times that India had 400,000 handset retailing outlets, many of which were smaller family-owned stores.

    “More than 250,000 jobs have been lost over the past two years because many retail shops had closed, in-shop promoters have been laid off, and even distribution chains had also shut shop,” said Pankaj Mohindroo, president of the Indian Cellular and Electronics Association (ICEA).

    Mohindroo said the handset industry had laid off “20,000-25,000 on the manufacturing side…but it is retail and distribution that have seen the maximum impact.”

    The combination of a slowdown in handset sales and Chinese companies commanding 75% of the Indian market, has led to the recent demise of the Indian handset industry.

    With the Indian economy slowing, growth rates plunging across all major industries, a credit crunch that could start making trouble in the industrial sector, India is headed for a prolonged downturn that could be extended well into 2020.

    Rising protectionism from President Trump’s trade war and a hostile global environment could have already started to compound India’s economic troubles.

    Export growth for India hit a 41-month low in June after slowing was seen in automobiles, petroleum oil, gems and jewelry, and engineering goods.

    June outbound goods plunged 10%, after rising 4% in May. Imports dipped 9%, a 34-month low in June.

    Government officials blamed India’s slowdown on the trade war.

    And to summarize the global industrial slowdown in one chart. Here’s Global Trade YoY crashing to levels not seen since the last financial meltdown.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  • The Genocidal Roots Of The Green New Deal: Limits To Growth & The Unchaining Of Prometheus

    Authored by Matthew Ehret via Oriental Review,

    Prince Charles has just given the world 18 months to save the world. Over the past years, the prince and his father (among other inbred aristocrats of Europe) have taken an incredible interest in the safety of the earth from the pollution emitting machines who greedily consume and reproduce without any consideration for Mother Gaia. In recent months this green transformation of the globe has taken the form of the “Green New Deal” promoted in the U.S. by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders. A children’s campaign endorsed by pope Francis and led by Greta Thunberg has spread across Europe and America while a Billionaires Club under the guidance of Al Gore, and George Soros is funding a Sunrise Movement to fight global warming.

    Is this passion to save the planet from humanity genuine? Do these oligarchs and billionaires really care so much that their support for a Green New Deal is as benevolent as the media portrays… or is something darker at play? To answer these questions, we will have to first quickly review what the Green New Deal IS, then where it came from and then finally what its architects have stated they wish to accomplish with its implementation.

    What is it?

    As the name implies, the Green New Deal is a sweeping policy agenda which takes its name from the original New Deal of 1932 enacted under the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt. The New Deal was originally a program for bank reform, and mass infrastructure building in order to heal America from the deep wounds caused by 4 years of Great Depression. While the Green New Deal of 2019 proposes to dramatically overhaul the rules of finance and infrastructure planning, its similarities to the original end there.

    Roosevelt’s New Deal was driven by projects which increased the productive powers of labor of the nation as a whole by investments into hydroelectric projects, transportation corridors, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and thousands of other infrastructure projects. The Green New Deal on the other hand seeks to lower American productive powers of labor and living standards by investments into zero growth green infrastructure. Of course if that were explicitly stated, no one would drink the Kool-Aid.

    As presidents Putin and Trump have both emphasized at various times not only has it never been proven that human-made CO2 drives climate variations, but it has also come to light that since 1998, the warming trend dominant since 1977  has been on an strange “pause”. While CO2 output steadly rose from 1938-1977, it was accompanied by a total cooling causing scientists in 1977 to sound the alarm that we were on the verge of an ice age. This fact reflects the embarrassing reality that CO2 tends to follow climate variations rather than precede them, indicating that this greenhouse gas is actually being effected by the warming of the earth most likely driven by space-based causes as Putin has referred repeatedly. Even more surprising to some, recently published NASA studies have shown that the world’s biomass has increased by 10% in recent years due in large measure to the industrial growth policies of China and India. Plants have, after all, been observed to grow much better when fed by increased levels of carbon dioxide.

    Where did it come from?

    So how could so many respectable scientists, journals and politicians have possibly assumed a fallacy to be so true that an overhaul of the entire global society is being proposed? This obviously didn’t arise over night, but the current pressure to transform our entire world to the undisputed “reality” of man-made global warming finds its true origins in the Malthusian revival of 1968-1972.

    In this short interval of time, a vacuum left by the assassinations of pro-development leaders such as John F. Kennedy, Enrico Mattei, Charles de Gaulle, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy was filled by establishment hacks and cowards. These tools ushered in a paradigm shift towards “conservationism” and rejected the industrial growth ethic that defined western civilization up until that point.

    This Malthusian Revival answered the challenge put forth by Eugenics Society president and UNESCO founder Julian Huxley who wrote in 1946:

     “Political unification in some sort of world government will be required… Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” 

    Of course, just one year after the world had come to realize the horrors of Nazi eugenics, Huxley and his associates among the Anglo-American elite who financed Hitler had a big job to clean up the image of eugenics and re-package it under another name.

    The Club of Rome and 1001 Nature Trust

    In 1968, an organization was formed known as the Club of Rome led by two misanthropes named Aurelio Peccei and Sir Alexander King. The organization quickly set up branches across the Anglo-Saxon world with members ranging from select ideologues from the political, business, and scientific community who all agreed that society’s best form of governance was a scientific dictatorship. Sir Alexander wrote: 

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

    In order to finance this paradigm shift, the 1001 Trust was founded in 1970 by Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands. Bernhardt (card carrying Nazi and founder of the Bilderberger Group in 1954) had worked alongside his close misanthropic associates Prince Philip Mountbatten, and Sir Julian Huxley to create the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) just a few years earlier. The plan was simple: each of the 1001 founding members simply put $10,000 into the trust which was then directed towards the green paradigm shift. Other prominent 1001 Club members included international royalty, billionaires, and technocratic sociopaths who wanted nothing more than to manage this promised Brave New World as “alphas”. Many of these figures were also members of the Club of Rome, including Canada’s Maurice Strong, who later became Vice President of the WWF under Prince Philip’s presidency. Strong had replaced another WWF Vice President by the name of Louis Mortimer Bloomfield. Bloomfield was another 1001 Club member whom New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison discovered to be at the heart of the Montreal-based assassination of the anti-Malthusian President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

    The document which became the bible and blueprint of this new anti-humanist movement that birthed today’s Green New Deal agenda was titled Limits to Growth (1972) and today holds the record as the most widely read book on ecology, having sold 30 million copies published into 32 languages. A recent article celebrating the book’s 40 year anniversary stated “it helped launch modern environmental computer modeling and began our current globally focused environmental debate. After Limits [To Growth], environmentalists, scientists and policy-makers increasingly thought of ecological problems in planetary terms and as dynamically interconnected… It is worth revisiting Limits today because, more than any other book, it introduced the concept of anthropocentric climate change to a mass audience.”

    The book itself was the culmination of a two year study undertaken by a team of MIT statisticians under the nominal heading of Jay Forrester and Dennis Meadows. Like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez today, these young MIT professors were merely cardboard cut-outs selected to deflect from the higher social engineers managing the show from the top.

    The MIT study itself was not even begun in the USA, but rather in Montebellow Quebec in 1971, when Club of Rome-backer Pierre Trudeau allocated tax payer money to begin the project. A network of Rhodes Scholars and Privy Councillors centered around Alexander King, Maurice Strong, Maurice Lamontagne (founder of Environment Canada), Michael Pitfield (Privy Council Clerk and founder of Canada’s CSIS) and Governor General Roland Michener, among others, had presided over that meeting. When the Canadian funds had served their role, the project continued to receive its funding from the Volkswagen Foundation, whose Nazi-supporting past should have made some of the MIT statisticians uncomfortable.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Sir Alexander King (left) and the model produced by the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth predicting an apocalyptic end of the world by 2000 (right)

    Malthusianism in Brief

    These Club of Rome/WWF/1001 Club members dubbed themselves “neo Malthusians” referring to the ideology popularized by the British Empire’s Thomas Malthus. Malthus’ 1799 Essay on the Principle of Population pessimistically noticed that human population grows geometrically while food production grows arithmetically leading invariably to a crisis point of over-population.  This crisis point creates a mathematical foundation for the concept that later came to be dubbed “carrying capacity” by the authors of Limits to Growth. Of course rather than permit those human cattle from developing their minds in order to make more discoveries and inventions which would offset this crisis point, Malthus (and his heirs later) knew that the British Empire which employed him could never exist were that creative power unleashed. Instead, Malthus coldly advocated the elimination of the “unfit to make way for the more fit.” Not adept at the subtleties of modern 21st century newspeak, Malthus went so far as to propose that even children perish:

    “All children who are born beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons… therefore we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality”

    By re-packaging Malthus’ assumptions into a more complex computing system, these neo-Malthusians wanted to create a shame based movement of willful self-annihilation among an entire generation of baby boomers.

    Of course if you assume that technological progress has ended, then it will certainly appear that a closed system of fixed limited resources can only be managed by a technocratic elite choosing who gets diminishing returns as the world settles into some imaginary “mathematical equilibrium” of sustainability. Fortunately for humanity, reality rarely conforms to the pessimistic ideals of racists and imperialists.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Chaining of Prometheus

    A long time London trained asset and close collaborator of Canada’s Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Maurice Lamontagne was Club of Rome member, and former President of the Privy Council. Of all Club of Rome members, Lamontagne was the most candid in identifying the Earth’s greatest enemy to be human creativity itself. Writing in his Senate Committee Reports of 1968-1972 which reformed science policy funding and planning, Lamontagne wrote:

    “Nature imposes definite constraints on technology itself and if man persists in ignoring them the net effect of his action in the long run can be to reduce rather than to increase nature’s potential as a provider of resources and habitable space… But then, an obvious question arises: How can we stop man’s creativeness?”

    Correctly recognizing that the yearning to discover the unknown is built into the human condition, Lamontagne answers his own question, writing:

    “How can we proclaim a moratorium on technology? It is impossible to destroy existing knowledge; impossible to paralyze man’s inborn desire to learn, to invent and to innovate… In the final analysis we find that technology is merely a tool created by man in pursuit of his infinite aspirations and is not the significant element invading the natural environment. It is material growth itself that is the source of conflict between man and nature”

    Thus creativity and its fruits of technological progress are acceptable only IF they reduce the assumed conflict between man and nature posited by Lamontagne!  “Bad” technology in Lamontagne’s formulation, has the effect of increasing humanity’s material growth (ie: powers of productivity). If, on the other hand, we promote technologies of a low energy flux density form, such as windmills, solar panels and biofuels, which lead to the reduction of man’s powers to exist, then technology can be defined as a “good” thing” according to this twisted logic.

    This concept was echoed by another Club of Rome member and collaborator with Lamontagne on his Senate Report named Omond Solandt. Solandt made his career as the science advisor to Lord Mountbatten (Prince Philip’s pedophiliac mentor) during WWII and headed the Defense Research Board until 1957, where he collaborated on MK Ultra alongside the infamous Ewan Cameron at McGill University. Solandt sophistically said: “There is no longer any need to advance science. The need is rather to understand, guide and use science effectively for the welfare of mankind.” What defines “the welfare of mankind” in the mind of an MK Ultra proponent should give one chills.

    In preparation for the “post-industrial order” that was unleashed with the 1971 floating of the US dollar and the destruction of the Bretton Woods monetary system, that at least included a modicum of regulation of the monetarist speculators, Lamontagne prescribed that the “new wisdom” no longer aim at discoveries in atomic, medical and space sciences, in order to focus on more “practical” engineering endeavors. He also proposed that funding to advanced science be diminished by widening the definition of “science” itself to embrace the humanities, monetary economics and social sciences. Those programs then began absorbing the funding that had formerly been directed to research on pure science. Lamontagne stated this in volume one of his Report:

    “The new wisdom prescribes that the additional R&D effort be devoted to the life sciences and social sciences rather than the physical sciences… to economic and social objectives rather than curiosity and discovery.”

    In Defense of Prometheus

    One leading Canadian scientist took an early stand against this Club of Rome-driven transformation. Ronald Hayes, professor of environmental science at Dalhousie University and Canadian Civil Servant wrote his 1973 book “The Chaining of Prometheus: The Evolution of a Power Structure for Canadian Science”, where he identified Lamontagne as a minion of the god Zeus as portrayed in Aeschylus’ famous drama Prometheus Bound. The ancient Greek drama told the story of the demi-god Prometheus who was punished for 10 thousand years for the defiant act of teaching humanity how to use the Fire which Zeus had monopolized for himself.

    Attacking the call to deconstruct the entire 1938-1971 science funding structure and rebuild it under a new technocratic regime, Professor Hayes said that the main problem with the Lamontagne approach was called the Egyptian Syndrome:

     “if only we could destroy all that the Israelis have built up and reduce Palestine to a desert everyone would be equal and we could start to build a better world for the Arabs. Thus Lamontagne wants to destroy the National Research Council, the body that has nurtured and launched much of the government research and got the graduate programs going in our universities. It is a fault of the Trudeau administration which Lamontagne echoes.”

    Hayes attacked the newly-formed powers of the Treasury Board which were now given exceptional control of science policy under a new scientific dictatorship when he said “the most subtle exercise of power, which obviates the necessity of close control, is infiltration by reliable people- the creation of a ruling elite…These Englishmen became known the world over as the rulers of the British Empire… With somewhat similar aims, the Public Service Commission is grooming future Canadian government managers to follow the general policies and precepts of the Treasury Board.”

    There Are No Limits To Growth

    Ten years after the publication of the Limits to Growth, American presidential candidate and founder of the Fusion Energy Foundation Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) responded to the neo-Malthusian movement in more forceful terms than Dr. Hayes. Writing his 1982 “There are no Limits to Growth” as an early publication of the Club of Life, LaRouche wrote:

    “It is not the growth of industry which destroys the world’s forests. In most cases, the cause is a lack of industrial output, a lack of good industrial management of the ecosphere. Over the past fifteen years, the greatest single cause for destruction of the world’s “ecology” has been the toleration of the policies demanded by the so called “ecologists,” the so-called “neo-Malthusians” of the Club of Rome, of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), of the World Wildlife Fund, the Aspen Institute, the Ford Foundation, the ‘Rockefeller Foundation, the U.S. Sierra Club, and so forth and so on. We are not putting enough industrially-produced energy, in the form of water management, chemicals, and so forth, into the farming of the Earth’s biosphere. At the same time, we are using biomass for fuel and other “traditional” uses, in cases we should be using nuclear-generated energy supplies, and using modern, industrially produced materials in place of timber for housing and so forth”

    Describing the extraordinary influence which the Limits to Growth had on consolidating the neo-Malthusian revival as a dominant factor in western policy circles, LaRouche identified the core fallacies which are only now being properly challenged by the efforts of President Trump in America. LaRouche stated:

    “The study itself [Limits to Growth] was most conspicuously fraudulent on two leading counts. First, in attempting to prove that industrial society was using up its remaining natural resources very rapidly, Meadows and Forrester greatly understated the known quantities of such resources. Second, more important, Meadows and Forrester projected the rate of consumption of natural resources by using systems of simultaneous linear equations. The very use of such linear equations for a computer “model” of that sort, builds into the computer projections the assumption that absolutely no technological progress is occurring in society. In fact, technological progress, including fundamental redefinitions of what “natural resources” means, has been the outstanding feature of European civilization for five hundred years. The Limits to Growth depended upon the assumption that such technological progress had come to a sudden, absolute stop.”

    Entropic or Anti-Entropic

    Just like Thomas Malthus centuries earlier, the neo-Malthusians had to deny the existence of technological progress (and its origins in human creative reason) as the means by which humanity’s carrying capacity is changed according to discoveries and inventions. This fact of humanity’s relationship with the universe absolutely defines our existence as a species above all other creatures of the biosphere. As the “carrying capacities” of other species are defined by the environment and genetic characteristics, humans uniquely can transcend those conditions willfully on the condition that we are given access to the best cultural and educational heritage of the past with the inspiration and curiosity to carry that heritage to ever higher limits without ever expecting to reach a “mathematical equilibrium” or “entropic heat death” as so many statisticians from the Limits to Growth school pessimistically presume.

    In opposition to this school, LaRouche’s discoveries in the science of physical economy (made during a period of 1952-1956) were premised on the opposing concept that mankind’s ability to leap from lower to higher forms of energy consumption (ie: wood burning, to coal to oil to nuclear fission to fusion etc.) allows for the upward transformation of humanity’s physical economic potential without limits. Creative leaps into the unknown drive new discoveries of principles which allow for humanity’s potential relative population density to increase with increased standards of living, life expectancies and cognitive potential in ways that no other animal (which the Malthusians wish us to presume we are) can achieve. This fact of life is the essential proof that not only mankind but the universe is unbounded in its potential for constant self-perfectibility and thus ANTI-ENTROPIC in its essence.

    The BRI and the REAL New Deal

    I hope that this report has demonstrated that the Green New Deal is nothing other than a new form of eugenics masquerading as a socially conscious reform of the system. The fact is that not only is this Green New Deal NOT green (as a world covered by solar panels would increase desertification of the earth through heating), but has no connection to the true New Deal. The effects of a program that seeks to reduce global CO2 emissions to “acceptable levels” in accord with the will of today’s British Empire would bring nothing more than chaos, famine and depopulation to humanity.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Luckily, today’s world carries nearly 8 billion souls and (barring a few stubborn oligarchs and technocrats)- all of whom have minds that could be willfully perfected and deployed to make great discoveries in science and the arts. The world in which these people live is increasingly being shaped by a REAL New Deal under the Chinese-led Belt and Road Initiative which now has more than 160 countries on board and is the size of 20 Marshall Plans. This initiative requires a return to an ethic founded upon a love of mankind and belief in scientific and technological progress. This spirit was expressed beautifully by President Xi Jinping who said on May 15 at the Dialogue of Asian Civilizations:

    “For a civilization to endure, efforts must be made to keep it alive and build on its heritage from one generation to the next. More importantly, a civilization needs to adapt itself to the changing times and break new ground. The history of world civilizations tells us that every civilization needs to advance with the times and take in the best of its age in order to develop itself. We need to come up with new ideas to add impetus and inspiration to the development of our civilizations. With these efforts, we will deliver achievements for our civilizations to transcend time and space and have a lasting appeal. To spur people’s innovation and creativity, the best way is to come into contact with different civilizations, see the strengths of others and draw upon them.”

    The fact that such figures as Presidents Xi Jinping and Putin have created an alliance based upon long term planning, great infrastructure projects to uplift the conditions of life of everyone and frontier technological progress indicates that the “great green game” created in the wake of the assassinations of anti-Malthusian leaders in the 1960s is finally coming to an end. America’s slow self-mutilation has finally a chance to heal with the first anti-Malthusian President elected since the days of the well-intentioned (though often dim-witted) Ronald Reagan over 35 years ago.

    While Reagan did not have a Russia-China power alliance to cooperate with during the Cold War, President Trump does. The offer for America to join the Belt and Road and new strategic operating system of cooperation is on the table and awaiting an answer. How Trump will respond remains to be seen.

  • These Are The Fattest States In The US

    Obesity has been on the rise over the past decade across the US, despite the advent of Instagram, “athleisure” and boutique fitness classes. According to data from the CDCP, obesity has risen “significantly” in the past decade, with more than one in three American adults now qualifying as obese.

    Another study from ConsumerProtect cited by MarketWatch looks at this trend in greater detail, breaking down the most and least, obese states in the country.

    So, which state has the worst obesity problem? that would be West Virginia, where 38.1% of adults are obese. WVa. also has the highest diabetes rate in the country, and ranks poorly on other health metrics that often accompany obesity.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    I second place is Mississippi, with 37.3% of its population qualifying for that label.

    There are a long list of accompanying factors that include the lowest life expectancy, the second lowest level of people who report engaging in no exercise and the highest rate of people who eat less than one piece of fruit a day.

    On the other end of the spectrum is Colorado, which has the lowest level of obesity in the country, at less than 23%: “The proximity to beautiful outdoors and better eating habits in Colorado result in the lowest BMI scores in the country among its citizens. Hawaii, the state with the highest life span in the country, has the third lowest obesity rate in the country. On average, people in Hawaii live 6.5 years longer than those in Mississippi,” ConsumerProtect said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One thing that’s important to remember is that obesity comes with costs both to the individual, and to society at large. 

    Obese people shoulder medical costs that are $1,400 per year than people of average wait. Another estimate put that number at about $2,700.

    Obese people generally earn less than their more svelte friends.

    Already, the societal costs of obesity are extremely high: “Treating obesity and obesity-related conditions costs billions of dollars a year. By one estimate, the US spent $190 billion on obesity-related health care expenses in 2005 – double previous estimates.”

    What’s the solution? Since diets have proven largely ineffective in terms of a long-tern solution, Harvard’s School of Public Health recommends that “prevention is key.”

  • From General Electric To General Hospital: Take Your Money & Run

    Almost Daily Grant’s, submitted by Grant’s Interest Rate Observer

    This morning, General Electric reported second quarter results, including $28.8 billion in revenues and 17 cents in earnings per share, down 4% and 6% year-over-year but north of the expected $28.7 billion and 12 cents, respectively. CEO Larry Culp termed the updated outlook “a sign of progress, a sign of stability here.” But those figures were aided by a lower than expected tax rate, and the aviation division saw orders fall 10% from a year ago thanks in part to the Boeing 737 Max saga.

    Some analysts were less than impressed, with Stephen Tusa of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. declaring that “the quarter was a miss operationally, with the combined power/renewable segments worse. . . and a material miss at aviation, the key value driver.” Gordon Haskett Research Advisors’ John Inch summarized the quarter as “a modest step back [relative to] expectations.” Mr. Market agreed, as GE common stock finished slightly lower. Since November 2007, GE shares are down 75%, compared to a 93% rise in the S&P 500 over that period.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s been a long, steep fall from grace for America’s former preeminent industrial concern. As early as the Sept. 14, 1990 issue and many times thereafter, Grant’s expressed a bearish view on then-CEO Jack Welch’s commercial pride and joy. That judgement was long flummoxed by GE’s routine one cent quarterly earnings “beats,” a soaring share price and a pristine triple-A credit rating.  Following GE’s dramatic near-demise (and subsequent government rescue) during the 2008-era crucible, Grant’s issued the postmortem in the Sept. 18, 2009 edition:

    Some day, financial historians will try to make sense of it all: the mere existence of a $100 billion GE commercial paper program (the number today seems incredible); the ideal of “shareholder value” carried to the point of alleged institutionalized fraud; an industrial company recreating itself as a highly and precariously leveraged financial institution with nary a peep of protest from the stockholders; the close brush with insolvency of a company still bearing the imprimatur, triple-A.

    Finally, the historians of the future will scratch their heads to understand why Jack Welch and Alan Greenspan, icons of the late 20th century, put so much stock in an idealized “stability” that can only appear to exist in a dynamic world but can never be present in fact.

    The company’s well-ventilated post-crisis struggles culminated with the Oct. 30 slashing of its dividend to a mere penny, while credit default swaps reached as high as 268 basis points on Nov. 23. In the Nov. 16, 2018 issue, Grant’s returned to the scene of now triple-B-minus-rated GE in search of value. While the company’s “mind-numbing” complexity, the run-off of its insurance operations and various contingent liabilities argued for a “wide berth” to GE common, the 5% series D perpetual preferred, then trading at 80 cents on the dollar for a 16.2% yield-to-call, offered a compelling risk vs. reward proposition in the sharp analytical judgement of colleague Fabiano Santin.

    While the stock has managed only a halting recovery, those preferreds have since flourished, rising to 96 as of yesterday for a yield-to-call of 7.3%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With that strong price run and generous yield, what might a series D preferred holder do now?  A follow-up in the May 3 edition laid out the calculus:

    Take a profit and pay the short-term capital-gains tax (which, for an afflicted New York resident, would total 53.5%)? Or stick with CEO Culp and his GE renovation plan, finally paying the  long-term capital-gains rate (36.5% for the same overburdened New Yorker)?

    With respect to tax advice, both Fabiano Santin, who performed the superb security analysis, and your editor agree that it is better not to live in New York. Fortunately, the self-directed readers of Grant’s have likely already made up their minds on this sensitive point.

  • Yet Another Freight Company Unexpectedly Ceases Operations And Closes Its Doors

    Yet another trucking company has fallen victim to the recession in freight this year, according to FreightWaves. Terrill Transportation of Livermore, California shut its doors unexpectedly on July 30. The company had been in business 25 years. 

    Customer Manny Bhandal, president of Bhandal Bros. Inc., said that three of his trucks arrived at Terrill on July 30 to drop off a shipment and were turned away. Kevin Terrill, president of Terrill Transportation, did not respond to FreightWaves. 

    “We did get an email from one of their receiving clerks, basically apologizing that they couldn’t receive our trucks because they were ceasing operations,” Bhandal said. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “This year has been very tough on a lot of companies,” he continued.

    A chief executive of another trucking company based in the Northwest called Kevin Terrill, who confirmed the news over the phone. 

    “He [Kevin] said rate concessions on both the trucking and warehousing side, driver wages being up and the tough environment to do business in California were to blame for the closure,” the anonymous executive said. 

    Terrill had 30 trucks and 36 company drivers, in addition to 12 owner-operators. This closure marks the seventh freight company to shut down in 2019 alone, after NEMF, Falcon, Williams Trucking of Dothan, Alabama, and Indiana-based A.L.A. and Starlite Trucking and LME.

    Recall, over the last month, we wrote about two other trucking companies that unexpectedly closed their doors due to the freight recession.

    In mid July we announced that 40 year old California trucking outlet Timmerman Starlite Trucking, Inc. was the latest victim in the “trucking apocalypse” and announced that it would be shutting down effective immediately. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Just days prior to that, we documented that regional truck carrier LME “suddenly and abruptly” shut its doors. 

    The company was a regional carrier based in Minnesota that operated throughout the Midwest. The company had terminals in 30 locations across the U.S. and through interline agreements services all of North America. It also worked with major companies like 3M, John Deere and Toro. 

    The company reportedly included “over 600 men and women” and has been listed as having 382 power units and 1,228 trailers, with 424 truck drivers. 

  • Degenerates! Why Are People Recording Themselves Spitting In Food & Other Disgusting Things?

    Authored by Dagny Taggart via The Organic Prepper blog,

    degenerate 

    verb

    de·​gen·​er·​ate | \ di-ˈje-nə-ˌrāt

    to sink into a low intellectual or moral state

    *  *  *

    There are many reasons to be careful about food safety – recalls and contamination with bacteria sure seem fairly common these days – but it turns out, there’s another menace lurking in grocery stores…

    People.

    Yesterday as I was scanning the news, a headline caught my attention:

    Woman Wanted For Urinating On Potatoes At Pennsylvania Walmart, Police Say

    Police released surveillance images of the woman on their website.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Today, it was announced that the woman turned herself in:

    According to police, the woman is accused of urinating on a bin of potatoes after entering the store. She left soon after.

    Police identified that woman as Grace Brown. She is now being charged with criminal mischief, open lewdness, disorderly conduct, and public drunkness. She is awaiting a preliminary hearing. (source)

    Thankfully, employees spotted the urine, cleaned and sanitized the area, and tossed out the potatoes.

    This, unfortunately, is not the only recent case of someone tampering with food in a store.

    People are recording themselves doing disgusting things in grocery stores.

    Last month, a video of a young woman opening a half-gallon of Blue Bell Tin Roof ice cream, licking it, and putting it back in the freezer case went viral (it was viewed more than 13 MILLION times on Twitter). The incident occurred in a Walmart in Lufkin, Texas.

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

    Police later identified the teenager and her boyfriend but did not release their names because they are juveniles. “We do not intend to pursue charges against her as an ‘adult’ and therefore what happens from here is at the discretion of the juvenile justice system,” Lufkin Police said in a statement.

    Blue Bell isn’t too happy about the incident or the bad publicity it has brought to the company. Many are questioning why the ice cream doesn’t have a seal under the lid.

    Blue Bell said in a statement that it was thankful that consumers had notified it about the video.

    “We believe we may have recovered the half-gallon that was tampered with,” Blue Bell’s statement said. “Out of an abundance of caution, we have also removed all Tin Roof half gallons from that location.”

    “The safety of our ice cream is our highest priority, and we work hard to maintain the highest level of confidence of our customers,” the company said. “Food tampering is not a joke, and we will not tolerate tampering with our products.” (source)

    Of course, because stupidity is contagious, another person had to tamper with ice cream.

    And this time, it was an adult.

    A 36-year-old man was arrested in Louisiana after he was allegedly recorded opening a carton of Blue Bell Ice Cream, licking it, and poking it with his finger before putting it back in the freezer case. Police say they found evidence that Lenise Martin III posted the video on Facebook, suggesting that he was seeking attention.

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

    When management became aware of the video, Martin returned to the store to prove he purchased the ice cream, WAFB reported.

    Martin was charged with criminal mischief and unlawful posting of criminal activity for notoriety and publicity and was jailed, according to online records from the Assumption Parish Sheriff’s Office.

    The Blue Bell ice cream company is not thrilled about these incidents.

    The business where the incident happened also released a statement saying Blue Bell’s legal team is investigating the matter and all of the ice cream has been thrown out.

    After the second (known) ice cream licking incident, Blue Bell changed its tune a bit. In a statement, the company said that food safety is their top priority and they are taking the tampering cases very seriously. The Texas company could even consider adding more protection to the carton, reports CBS Austin:

    “We are always looking for ways to improve, including looking at methods within our manufacturing process to add additional protection to the carton,” said a Blue Bell spokesperson in a written statement.

    Blue Bell says that during production half-gallon containers are flipped upside down and sent to a hardening room where the ice cream freezes to create a natural seal. Blue Bell says the lids are frozen so tightly to the carton that any attempt to take them off should be noticeable. But the company is not ruling out adding some type of wrapper around lids in the future. (source)

    Two other incidents recently made the news and are equally disturbing.

    Brace yourself, because the next two installments in “What the heck is wrong with people?” are truly vile.

    It’s like people see others being gross and think, “Yeah, I can top that.”

    We aren’t really sure what the details are on this one – it is likely that this perp was never caught (makes you wonder if the person who recorded it SAID SOMETHING TO THE GUY, or to a store employee – one can only hope)…

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

    According to The Takeout, it appears that this incident occurred in a Mariano’s store (a grocery chain in the Midwest).

    The video went viral last October, the site explains:

    This video, which made the rounds on Reddit and Twitter yesterday, shows a gray-haired man in sweatpants sipping soup from the grocery store’s soup bar directly from the ladle… [pausing to catch my breath]… which he then returns to the communal pot. I did spend a few minute trying to give this man the benefit of the doubt; I did. But there is no explanation. Need to take a taste of the soup? I’m sure there are plastic spoons right there. There is no circumstance under which a person should press their lips to a communal serving utensil, full stop. He’s really relishing it too, going in for multiple slurps. [dry heave] (source)

    Some parents are encouraging their children to engage in degenerate behavior.

    About a week ago, a Florida mom was arrested after her underage daughter was recorded licking a tongue depressor and placing it back with unused depressors at a Jacksonville doctor’s office, reports First Coast News:

    Cori E. Ward, 30, was arrested on a felony charge of tampering with a consumer product without regard for possible death or bodily injury, according to jail records from the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office.

    Ward, who posted the video of her daughter on social media Tuesday, responded to a storm of criticism Wednesday saying that it wasn’t a choreographed prank, let alone anything motivated by a social media fad.

    “What I didn’t know was that there was a “licking challenge” as I don’t scroll social media like that,” the woman said in a Facebook post before apparently deleting her profile.

    She also implied that the materials her kids were handling while waiting for medical appointments were all either cleaned or discarded.

    “The video doesn’t show that the items were thrown away or anything else that happened,” her explanation continued. “I posted this on my personal Snapchat with my 20-something friends, where someone allowed another person to video it. I didn’t post it on Facebook or YouTube as a challenge or whatever.” (source)

    This Tweet sums things up perfectly…

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

    Why do people do things like this?

    It is obvious that some people participate in disgusting stunts and degenerative behavior like the examples above in order to gain attention.

    Teenagers and young adults are prone to impulsive behavior and seeking attention on social media, experts told CNN:

    “It’s just a plain old version of antisocial behavior,” said Susan Whitbourne, professor emerita in the Psychological and Brain Sciences Department at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “It is an antisocial act, and it’s outside the bounds of proper social behavior.”

    “Generally speaking, adolescents are both more reckless and more sensitive to social evaluation than either children or adults. The act(s) you describe seem to me to achieve both,” Laurence Steinberg, a professor of psychology at Temple University, wrote in an email. “Our research has shown that teenagers are more likely to take risks when they are being viewed, or believe they are being viewed, by same-age individuals.”

    This sort of antisocial behavior happens frequently with people younger than 30, Whitbourne said. And throwing in social media only makes everything worse.

    “Added to this rebellious component of the behavior is the anonymity provided by social media and the disinhibition it enables,” she said. “Once posted, these displays will generate a certain amount of social reinforcement (i.e. likes and thumbs ups), and so the behavior spreads.” (source)

    In the article Product lickers symptom of sick, selfie-obsessed nation, Cheryl K. Chumley writes:

    But the bigger question is — why? Why the licking nonsense in the first place?

    And on that, here’s a thought: If there were no such thing as selfies, there probably wouldn’t be as many of these sick product lickers out there.

    They feed off the video. They grab a thrill from the notoriety. They get a quick shot of social media fame — the likes, the shares, the smiley faces, the attention — and bam, there’s their fill of self-esteem for the week.

    They don’t accomplish much in life. So they rely on the fake-ness of social media to create a stir they can point to as substitute accomplishment.

    Fact is, if social media weren’t so targeted toward the lowest common denominator — the low achievers who think, say, 1,000 likes is akin to creation and achievement and production of something ingenious, or necessary, or even wanted and desired — then product licking wouldn’t be a thing.

    It couldn’t be.

    The low levels wouldn’t have any place to showcase their low-level deeds. The selfie-star seekers wouldn’t have an audience to cheer their moronic behaviors. (source)

    Sure sounds like narcissism to me. I think Chumley is right on the money.

    People already don’t trust each other, and incidents like the ones listed in this article are legitimate reasons for that.

    Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? It’s a dystopian science fiction comedy film that was released in 2006. Here’s a synopsis:

    The film tells the story of two people who take part in a top-secret military human hibernation experiment, only to awaken 500 years later in a dystopian society where anti-intellectualism and commercialism have run rampant, and which is devoid of intellectual curiosity, social responsibility, and coherent notions of justice and human rights. (source)

    Sure seems like Idiocracy is now a reality.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Here’s how to check food and other products for tampering.

    I can’t believe I have to provide this information, but here we are.

    Last year, the FDA posted an article titled Food Tampering, An Extra Ounce of Caution. “The deliberate tampering of food to cause major disease outbreaks is rare, particularly in the United States. However, recent news events have focused attention on the increasing possibility of such tampering,” the article states.

    Follow these tips from the FDA to keep you and your family safe.

    How to detect product tampering at the grocery store:

    • Carefully examine all food product packaging. Be aware of the normal appearance of food containers. That way you’ll be more likely to notice if an outer seal or wrapper is missing. Compare a suspect container with others on the shelf.

    • Check any anti-tampering devices on packaging. Make sure the plastic seal around the outside of a container is intact or that the safety button on the lid of a jar is down.

    • Don’t purchase products if the packaging is open, torn, or damaged. This includes products on the shelf or in the refrigerator or freezer sections of the grocery store.

    • Don’t buy products that are damaged or that look unusual. For example, never purchase canned goods that are leaking or that bulge at the ends. Likewise for products that appear to have been thawed and then refrozen.

    • Check the “sell-by” dates printed on some products, and only buy items within that time frame.

    How to detect product tampering at home:

    • When opening a container, carefully inspect the product. Don’t use products that are discolored, moldy, have an off odor, or that spurt liquid or foam when the container is opened.

    • Never eat food from products that are damaged or that look unusual. For example, cans that are leaking or that bulge at the ends.

    If you suspect an item has been tampered with, notify the store manager or report it to your local police department.

    If the food contains meat or poultry, call the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-800-535-4555.

    If the food does not contain meat or poultry (such as seafood, produce, or eggs), notify the Food and Drug Administration. For emergency questions, call the FDA’s 24-hour emergency number at 1-866-300-4374 or 301-796-8240. For non-emergency questions, call the FDA Food Information Line at 1-888-SAFEFOOD.

  • China's Xi To Make Provocative Appearance Near Dueling Military Drills Off Taiwan

    In what would surely be a hugely provocative and symbolic move, breaking reports say China’s President Xi Jinping could be planning a visit to the command center of a People’s Liberation Army annual exercise in waters near Taiwan. 

    Chinese state media last week signaled the drills were by design meant to threaten to pro-independence forces in Taiwan, especially following the US approval of a proposed controversial $2.2 billion U.S.-Taiwan arms deal.

    The state-backed Global Times cited anonymous “military insiders” who said the exercises “might be tailored as a warning to Taiwan secessionists.” The drills were also described as “a large scale joint exercise” possibly involving all five military branches.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Chinese military analysts described this week’s drill as “a large scale joint exercise” aimed at Taiwan. Image via Newsweek.

    Bloomberg reports, citing Taiwan’s official Central News Agency, that Xi may also give a speech on state-run CCTV’s military affairs channel while on a visit to a unit of the Central Military Commission overseeing the military exercises, which kicked off Sunday and is set to go to Friday.

    Beijing declared an expanse of waters off the coast of Guangdong and Fujian provinces off limits due to military activity ahead of the drills. Such “island encirclement” exercises, as China has lately dubbed them, have involved the PLA sending frequent flight patrols overhead as well as warships to the surrounding waters, even as US warships have also increased their own “freedom of navigation” exercises in the region of late. 

    Taiwan, for its part, has recently held its own “anti-PLA” drills in defense of its sovereignty – a claim long actively opposed by China. Taiwan’s drills concluded yesterday, just as the PLA exercise began. 

     “The national army continues to reinforce its key defense capacity and is definitely confident and capable of defending the nation’s security,” Taiwan’s Defense Ministry said in a statement.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Taiwan has launched a military exercise including F-16 fighter jets. Image source: AFP

    The South China Morning Post described an increasingly dangerous situation as both sides appear to flex their military might: 

    Taiwan responded to Beijing’s military drill targeting the self-ruled island by deploying its most advanced fighter jets and firing 117 medium and long-range missiles on Monday and Tuesday.

    Defence ministry spokesman Lee Chao-ming said the missiles were fired from the Jiupeng military base to waters off eastern Taiwan, with a range of 250km (155 miles), in an exercise covering five types of training for the island’s forces.

    And further, just as the PLA drills had kicked off, the SCMP report added, “On Monday, Taiwan’s air force also dispatched two F-16 fighter jets armed with AGM-84 Harpoon missiles in a simulation of an attack off the island’s southeast coast.”

    A visit to the PLA theater of exercises near Taiwan by President Xi would no doubt send a resounding and firm message both to the island and its US backers at a sensitive moment when US-China trade talks have already collapsed before even getting of the ground in nearby Shanghai. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 31

Today’s News 31st July 2019

  • Drug-Resistant Superbug Spreading Throughout European Hospitals

    Antibiotic-resistant superbugs have been spreading in European hospitals, according to the BBC, citing a recent study. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The spread of Klebsiella pneumoniae is “extremely concerning” according to reserarchers with the Sanger Institute, who warn that other bacteria could become similarly resistant to “last resort” drugs known as carbapenems ‘because of the unique way bacteria have sex.’ 

    “The alarming thing is these bacteria are resistant to one of the key last-line antibiotics,” said Dr. Sophia David of the Sanger Institute, adding “The infections are associated with a high mortality rate.” 

    “It’s already worrying that we’re seeing 2,000 deaths in 2015 – but the concern is that if action isn’t taken, then this will continue to rise.”

    It can live completely naturally in the intestines without causing problems for healthy people.

    However, when the body is unwell, it can infect the lungs to cause pneumonia, and the blood, cuts in the skin and the lining of the brain to cause meningitis. –BBC

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Sanger’s study of carbapenem resistance in K. pneumoniae is the largest to date, with 244 hospitals participating from Ireland to Israel. 

    Researchers analysed the bacterium’s DNA – its genetic code – from samples from infected patients.

    “Our findings imply hospitals are the key facilitator of transmission [and suggest that] the bacteria are spreading from person-to-person primarily within hospitals,” said Dr David.

    “The fact that we see the same high-risk clones in many different hospitals around Europe also shows there’s something special about those strains.” –BBC

    Researchers are concerned that K. pneumoniae will continue to spread, or even worse, pass along its resistance to other species of bacteria. According to the report, “two bacteria can meet up and have bacterial sex – called conjugation – and a short string of genetic information, called a plasmid, is shared between them.” Sanger’s study shows that “the instructions that give K. pneumoniae carbapenem resistance written on to plasmids.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “These have the ability to spread very rapidly through bacterial populations,” said David. 

    What to do?

    “This research emphasises the importance of infection control and ongoing genomic surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to ensure we detect new resistant strains early and act to combat the spread of antibiotic resistance,” said Professor Hajo Grundmann of the University of Freiburg. “We are optimistic that with good hospital hygiene, which includes early identification and isolation of patients carrying these bacteria, we can not only delay the spread of these pathogens, but also successfully control them.“

  • German Swimming Pool Forced To Introduce ID Checks To Stop Harassment By Migrant Youths

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit.news,

    A swimming pool in the German city of Düsseldorf has been forced to introduce mandatory ID card checks in an effort to stop sexual assaults and rowdy behavior by migrant youths that has required the police to be called out on numerous occasions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Following a crisis summit between administrators, the mayor and the police chief, an online ticket system linked to people’s IDs has been established to control who is allowed to enter the pool.

    “In Rheinbad we have introduced an identity card for all visitors,” said Düsseldorf Mayor Thomas Geisel.

    “Those who do not comply, will not be let in. It is absolutely unacceptable and inconceivable that families who want to spend their free time here are harassed by youth gangs.”

    As we reported earlier this month, the pool had to be closed twice after hundreds of male migrants harassed a family, prompting a huge police deployment.

    Last Friday, the pool had to be cleared again as around 60 North African migrants began engaging in aggressive beahvior. Outnumbered, the six security guards on patrol had to call police for backup. 20 officers arrived and the pool was closed.

    “It should be known, that before the migrant crisis, German swimming pools didn’t need six security guards to maintain order. It’s likely that they didn’t need any at all,” comments Voice of Europe.

    It remains to be seen how authorities will prevent the kind of people who cause mayhem from using the pool. They could only really do so by barring people from North African countries, which would set off a nationwide controversy and lead to widespread accusations of racism.

  • US And Italy To Conduct Open Skies Spy Missions Over Russia  

    About a week after a Russian spy plane was spotted over Quebec, a Canadian Province, conducting surveillance operations under the Treaty on Open Skies, a new report specifies the US and Italy are currently flying reconnaissance planes over Russia under the treaty.

    On July 22, Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) reported that a modified Russian military Tu-154M-Lk-1 aircraft would be conducting a 3,800-mile surveillance operation between 22 and 28 of July. Red Star said the route had been agreed on with Canadian officials and that officials will be on board to monitor systems that will be taking images of the country’s military sites.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With the Russian surveillance operation over Canada wrapped up, a new report from TASS News indicates US and Italian Armed Forces are now conducting Open Skies observation missions over Russia through August 02.

    It has also been reported that Russia will conduct surveillance operations over Norway, Red Star said Monday, citing Acting Chief of the National Nuclear Risk Reduction Center Ruslan Shishin.

    “Russia plans to conduct an observation flight over Norway in accordance with the Open Skies Treaty using an Antonov An-30 survey aircraft. The flight will be carried out from the Bardufoss Open Skies airfield between July 29 and August 2,” the newspaper wrote.

    “At the same time… the United States and Italy will carry out a joint observation mission over Russia from the Kubinka airfield on an OC-135B Open Skies United States Air Force observation aircraft.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In June, we reported that Russia conducted 3,188 miles of surveillance flights with an An-30B observation aircraft under the treaty.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Red Star said the flight route was agreed upon by the US government, had US aviation officials onboard the plane to oversee the surveillance equipment and compliance with the provisions of the treaty

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Thanks to internet sleuths, the specifications of the Russian surveillance equipment for the planes were made public in April. The imagery can be 1.6 miles to 7.4 miles wide, depending on the altitude.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In March, a Russian reconnaissance plane snapped pictures of Nellis Test and Training Range — also known as Area 51, per the treaty.

    The surveillance flights are intended at increasing transparency in terms of the party states’ military activities.

    The Treaty on Open Skies entered force in 2002. The treaty includes 34 countries, among them, most NATO members, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sweden and Finland. The purpose of the treaty is to develop trust between the countries through checks and balances.

    With the world on the brink of a military conflict following escalating tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, the South China Sea and NATO/Russia border, the geopolitical powderkegs are already lit.

  • Escobar: The Dragon Lays Out Its Road-Map, Denies Seeking Hegemony

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

    The key merit of China’s National Defense in the New Era, a white paper released by the State Council in Beijing, is to clear any remaining doubts about where the Middle Kingdom is coming from, and where it’s going to by 2049, the mythical date to, theoretically, be restored as the foremost global power.

    Although not ultra-heavy on specifics, the white paper certainly should be read as the Chinese counterpoint to the US National Security Strategy, as well as the National Defense Strategy.

    It goes without saying that every sentence is being carefully scrutinized by the Pentagon, which regards China as a “malign actor” and “a threat” – the terminology associated with its “Chinese aggression” mantra.

    To cut to the chase, and to the perpetuating delight of China’s supporters and critics, here are the white paper’s essentials.

    What global stability?

    The Beijing leadership openly asserts that as “the US has adjusted its national security and defense strategies, and adopted unilateral policies” that essentially “undermined global strategic stability.” Vast sectors of the Global South would concur.

    The counterpart is the evolution of “the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for a new era,” now playing “a significant role in maintaining global strategic stability.”

    In parallel, Beijing is very careful to praise the “military relationship with the US in accordance with the principles of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation.” The “military-to-military relationship” should work as “a stabilizer for the relations between the two countries and hence contribute to the China-US relationship based on coordination, cooperation and stability.”

    Another key counterpart to the US – and NATO – is the increasingly crucial role of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which is “forging a constructive partnership of non-alliance and non-confrontation that targets no third party, expanding security and defense cooperation and creating a new model for regional security cooperation.”

    The white paper stresses that “the SCO has now grown into a new type of comprehensive regional cooperation organization covering the largest area and population in the world”, something that is factually correct. The latest SCO summit in Bishkek did wonders in featuring some of the group’s much-vaunted qualities, especially “mutual trust,” “consultation,” “respect for diverse civilizations” and “pursuit of common development.”

    On hot spots, contrary to Western skepticism, the white paper asserts that, “the situation of the South China Sea is generally stable,” and that a “balanced, stable, open and inclusive Asian security architecture continues to develop.”

    There should be no illusion regarding Beijing’s position on “Taiwan independence” – which will never deviate from what was set by Little Helmsman Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s: “Separatist forces and their actions remain the gravest immediate threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the biggest barrier hindering the peaceful reunification of the country.”

    And the same applies to “external separatist forces for ‘Tibet independence’ and the creation of ‘East Turkestan’.” How Beijing dealt with – and economically developed – Tibet will continue to be the blueprint to deal with, and economically develop, Xinjiang, irrespective of the Western outcry over China’s subjugation of more than a million Uighurs.

    In regard to the turmoil Hong Kong and the degree it reflects interference by “external forces,” the white paper shapes Hong Kong as the model to be followed on the way to Taiwan. “China adheres to the principles of ‘peaceful reunification,’ and ‘one country, two systems,’ promotes peaceful development of cross-Strait relations, and advances peaceful reunification of the country.”

    On the South China Sea, the white paper notes that “countries from outside the region conduct frequent close-in reconnaissance on China by air and sea, and illegally enter China’s territorial waters and the waters and airspace near China’s islands and reefs, undermining China’s national security.”

    So there won’t be any misunderstanding, it says: “The South China Sea islands and Diaoyu Islands are inalienable parts of the Chinese territory.” ASEAN and Japan will have to deal with what Beijing says are facts.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Chinese soldiers in the PLA Hong Kong Garrison take part in a drill during an open day on June 30 to mark the 22nd anniversary of the return of the city from Britain to China. Photo: AFP

    No hegemony, ever

    While noting that “great progress has been made in the Revolution in Military Affairs with Chinese characteristics” – the Sino-version of the Pentagon’s – the white paper admits that “the PLA still lags far behind the world’s leading militaries. The commitment is unmistakable to “fully transform the people’s armed forces into world-class forces by the mid-21st century.”

    Special emphasis is placed on China’s relatively quiet, behind-the-scenes diplomacy. “China has played a constructive role in the political settlement of regional hotspots such as the Korean Peninsula issue, the Iranian nuclear issue and Syrian issue.” The corollary could not be more clear-cut. “China opposes hegemony, unilateralism and double standards.”

    Arguably the most important point made by the white paper – in stark contrast with the “Chinese aggression” narrative – is that “Never Seeking Hegemony, Expansion or Spheres of Influence” is qualified as “the distinctive feature of China’s national defense in the new era.”

    This is backed up by what could be defined as the distinctive Chinese approach to international relations – to respect “the rights of all peoples to independently choose their own development path,” and “the settlement of international disputes through equal dialogue, negotiation and consultation. China is opposed to interference in the internal affairs of others, abuse of the weak by the strong, and any attempt to impose one’s will on others.”

    So the road map is on the table for all to see. It will be fascinating to watch reactions from myriad latitudes across the Global South. Let’s see how the “Chinese aggression” system responds.

  • Southeast Asia Is Furious With Millennial "Begpackers"

    Millennials who have delayed marriage, children, and homeownership, have been spending their money not just on servicing their student loans but also on fun adventures throughout Southeast Asia.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Some of these youngsters have been backpacking in countries like Hong Kong and Thailand without money, forced onto the streets to beg for money to fund the remainder of their trip, reported The Guardian. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Locals have called western backpackers: “begpackers,” and government officials in several countries have had enough with these pesky white youngsters asking for money from people who are significantly poorer than they’re.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    To counter begpackers panhandling on the street, Hong Kong implemented new busking laws, banning all street performances due to noise complaints.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Thailand has started asking tourist at airports to provide financial information that shows they’ve enough funds to travel.

    Bali, an Indonesian island known for its beaches, is so furious with begpackers that if caught by the police, they will be sent to their respective countries’ embassies.

    “We tend to report these cases to the relevant embassies so that they can oversee their citizens who are on holiday,” authorities from Bali said.

    Begpacking is not limited to countries in Soth East Asia. The trend has recently extended into South Korea, where a video has surfaced online showed a Korean man verbally blasting a begpacker who was begging for money, telling him that he needs to go back to his own country.

    Sometimes millennials use tricks to deceive locals into guilt who are more impoverished than them, often use the excuse that they lost their wallet or passport. Some even sell art, photographs, and trinkets on city streets, asking for tips to fund their travels. In those cases, it’s more difficult for authorities to catch someone for begpacking.

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

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

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

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

    Asian countries aren’t the only ones affected, local officials in New Zealand are concerned about the rise of begpacking. 

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

  • US Army Major (Ret.): Could President Trump Actually End The Afghan War?

    Authored by Danny Sjursen via TomDispatch.com,

    Could Donald Trump end the Afghan war someday? I don’t know if such a possibility has been on your mind, but it’s certainly been on the mind of this retired U.S. Army major who fought in that land so long ago. And here’s the context in which I’ve been thinking about that very possibility.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Back in the previous century, it used to be said that “only Nixon could go to China.” In other words, only a longtime cold warrior and red-baiter like President Richard Nixon had the necessary tough-guy credentials to break with a tradition more than two decades old in February 1972. It was then that he and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger traveled to Beijing and met with Communist leader Mao Zedong. In that way, they began a process of reestablishing relations with China (now again being impaired by Donald Trump) broken when the Communists won a civil war against the American-backed nationalists led by Chiang Kai-Shek and came to power in 1949.

    By the same token, perhaps no one but Nixon could have eventually — after hundreds of thousands more Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and Americans died — extracted the United States from what was then (but is no longer) America’s longest war, the one in Vietnam. After all, in 1973, it was hard to imagine just about any Democrat agreeing to the sort of unseemly concessions at the negotiating table in Paris that resulted in an actual peace accord with a crew of Communists. But Nixon did so.

    After those “peace” talks and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from that land, the corrupt, battered U.S.-backed South Vietnamese government barely held on for another two gruesome years before a massive Communist offensive finally took Saigon, the capital of the American-backed half of that country in April 1975. Images of U.S. military helicopters hastily evacuating American diplomats and others from Saigon would prove embarrassing indeed. Yet, in the end, little could have altered the ultimate outcome of that war.

    Nixon, a cynic’s cynic, evidently sensed just that. Yes, he would prolong the war to the tune of more than 20,000 additional U.S. troop deaths and seek to create a politically palatable pause between the withdrawal of American troops and the unavoidable Communist victory to come (at the cost of god knows how many more dead Vietnamese). It was what he called “breathing space.”  In the end, in other words, in the bloodiest way imaginable, he finally accepted both his presidential, and Washington’s, limitations in what was, after all, a Vietnamese civil war. 

    Fellow TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich has referred to such realities as “the limits of power.” As a longtime military man who once carried water for the American empire in both Afghanistan and Iraq, let me assure you that, almost two decades into the twenty-first century, those limits still couldn’t be more real.

    Recently, I got to thinking about Vietnam and Bacevich — himself a veteran of that war — while following the strange pace of the Trump administration’s peace talks with the Taliban. It struck me that the president, his negotiators, and his loyally “deplorable” backers might (gulp!) just be America’s best hope for striking a deal, 18 years late, to conclude the U.S. military’s role in Afghanistan. If so, he would end the war that replaced Vietnam as this country’s longest — and that’s without even counting the first Afghan War Washington fought there against the Red Army of the now-defunct Soviet Union from 1979 to 1989.

    An Unwinnable War

    For someone like me who long ago turned his back on America’s never-ending wars on terror, it’s discomfiting to imagine the process that might finally lead to a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, especially one negotiated by The Donald and his strange team of hawks. Of one thing, rest assured: bad things will happen afterward. Afghans whom Americans are sympathetic to, especially women, will suffer under the heel of the kind of extreme Islamism that will be in command in significant parts of the country. And getting there could be no less grim. After all, President Trump, that self-proclaimed “deal-maker,” has so far shown himself to be anything but impressive in striking deals. Nevertheless, he has, at least, regularly criticized the ill-advised Afghan War for years and his instincts, when it comes to that conflict, though unsophisticated and ill-informed, seem sound.

    In a sense, the situation isn’t complicated: the U.S. war in Afghanistan cannot be won. The Kabul-based government’s gross domestic product can’t even support its own military budget, leaving it endlessly reliant on aid from Washington and its allies. Its security forces have been taking what, last December, the American general about to become the head of U.S. Central Command termed “unsustainable” casualties — 45,000 battle deaths since 2014. Those security forces simply can’t recruit enough new members to replace such massive losses. 

    Today, the U.S.-backed regime controls less of Afghanistan than at any point in the nearly two-decade-long war, despite all the American bombs dropped and troops deployed these past 18 years. Rather than grapple with that inconvenient fact, the U.S. military simply stopped counting how much of the country the Taliban now contests or controls. For these and a plethora of other reasons, that military and its Afghan proxies won’t be able to change the ultimate outcome of the Taliban’s war in Afghanistan. Forgive me, then, for placing some hope in President Trump and his negotiators.

    The disconcerting truth is that the brutal, venal, medieval Taliban movement is popular in the ethnic-Pashtun-dominated south and the mountainous east of Afghanistan. In 2011-2012, as a lowly company commander in a sub-district of Kandahar, the province that birthed the Taliban, I saw firsthand just how much sympathy villagers seemed to have for that Islamist cause. Sure, many — so, at least, they said — were opposed to that movement’s violent campaign to control the province and the country, but culturally and religiously in some fashion many of them seemed to agree with the group’s basic agenda and worldview. 

    Most of the Taliban foot soldiers I faced were little more than impoverished farm boys with guns drawn to the movement as much by patriotic opposition to the American military occupation of their country as by any desire for the application of sharia law. In addition, many in the region were making at least modest sums off Afghanistan’s record-breaking opium trade, something the U.S. was never truly capable of controlling or suppressing. The bottom line: the American war in Afghanistan was essentially over then. It’s over now, a defeat that neither politicians in Washington nor Pentagon officials have been able to accept to date.

    A Brief Litany of Messy Wars and Their Endings Since 1945

    The certainty of imperial failure in anticolonial and counterinsurgency conflicts has defined the era of war making since at least 1945. So it shall be in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, it’s worth considering some of those oft-forgotten conflicts.

    In the favored American version of war, endings involve unconditional surrender by a defeated enemy, whether Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865 or imperial Japanese officials on the deck of the USSMissouri in 1945. But such moments, historically speaking, couldn’t be more rare in “the American century.” After World War II, as the last colonial wars of the European powers ended in defeat or the withdrawal of imperial forces, the U.S. military went to war globally with Third World “Communism” — and victory became a thoroughly outmoded word. In the Korean War (1950-1953), which never officially ended, the U.S. finally settled for a status quo truce with its North Korean and Chinese opponents. Tens of thousands of American troops and millions of Koreans died in what essentially amounted to a negotiated draw. Vietnam, as noted, ended in the negotiated version of an outright defeat.

    Meanwhile, the French, already booted out of Vietnam in the First Indochina War (1954-1962), tried to torture and kill their way to victory in colonial Algeria before accepting defeat there, too. (A coup attempt by disgruntled right-wing military officers during that counterinsurgency almost cost France its democracy.) Nor could a declining Great Britain kill its way out of the last of its colonial wars, the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland (1969-1998). That 30-year war with the quasi-socialist, nationalist Irish Republican Army (IRA) only ended when London demonstrated a willingness to negotiate with that group and draw it into electoral politics. Not only was there no military victory to be had, but Britons had to swallow the embarrassing spectacle of former IRA bombers being released from prison and onetime IRA commanders entering parliament at Westminster.

    In smaller conflicts and interventions, the American military withdrew from Lebanon in 1983 after some 220 Marines (and 20 other service personnel) were killed in a suicide bombing and the until-then hawkish President Ronald Reagan realized he’d stepped into an unwinnable morass. In 1994, President Bill Clinton did the same in Somalia after 18 U.S. troops were killed in a chaotic shootout the previous year with a warlord militia in a local civil war. (Twenty-five years later, however, U.S. drones and special operators are still battling it out in that chronically war-ravaged society.)

    One lesson to draw from such an abbreviated version of American and allied morasses and military defeats at the hands of nationalist militants, left and right, is that suppressing people’s movements has historically proven difficult indeed. Most of the insurgencies of the long Cold War era were led by vaguely Marxist or, at least, leftist groups. In this century, however, similar insurgencies are led by right-wing Islamist groups. Either way the results have generally been the same. The insurgents, not the governments the U.S. imposed and/or backed, are almost invariably seen by local populations as the more popular, legitimate fighting forces. 

    Marxism (and its Soviet communist variant) ran its course in local societies as the Cold War wound to its conclusion, but such movements were never truly defeated by the U.S. military and its brutal right-wing proxies, even in the Americas (as in Nicaragua in the 1980s). Islamist theocracy is undoubtedly abhorrent, but it, too, must run its course and (hopefully) sooner or later be defeated by forces within the societies where it’s now conducting its terror wars. Just as in Vietnam, the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan in this century has only served as an accelerant for what might be thought of as political and military arson.

    A Messy End

    Predictions are tricky when it comes to war, but here’s a safe enough bet: in the wake of any Trump administration “peace” deal with the Taliban, like the South Vietnamese government of the Nixon era, a corrupt, scarcely legitimate U.S.-backed Afghan government and its badly battered security forces will, sooner or later, find themselves back at war. And they will be fighting an ever more confident Taliban. The Kabul-based regime could perhaps hold onto the biggest cities (except possibly Kandahar) and significant parts of the country’s north and west where there are Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara minority enclaves long opposed to the Islamist insurgents. The Taliban would then dominate much of the south and east, leaving Afghanistan divided and still violent indeed until, perhaps, like the South Vietnamese government, the one in Kabul collapsed.

    Still, it’s unlikely the Taliban will ever again risk harboring large numbers of transnational terrorists or stand by as a bin Laden-style attack is planned in Afghanistan’s mountains or valleys. After all, its goals have always been Afghan-centric, not global. What’s more, it appears that its negotiators have tacitly promised not to protect or ally with al-Qaeda or its newer offshoot, the Islamic State branch in Afghanistan (which, in any case, is anything but a prospective ally of theirs).

    Of course, transnational terrorists have never needed Afghanistan to hatch attacks on the West. Much of the planning and logistics for the actual 9/11 attacks occurred in Germany and even in the United States itself. In addition, partially thanks to America’s never-ending war on terror, there are increasing numbers of ungoverned spaces and tumultuous regions in dozens of countries in a band stretching from West Africa to Central Asia. Should the U.S. military really station tens of thousands of troops in all those locales? Of course not. Among other things, leaving aside the expense of it to the American taxpayer, U.S. soldiers would only inflame local passions and empower local terror outfits.

    So here we are knowing there is little the U.S. can do to change the ultimate outcome in Afghanistan. The only question of consequence is: Could Donald Trump be the twenty-first century’s Richard Nixon? Could he do what no one in his position over the last 18 years has had the political courage to do and end — his phrase — a “stupid” war that has come to seem eternal? If “only Nixon could go to China,” is it possible that only Trump can extract the U.S. military from Afghanistan? God help us, but that seems conceivable.

    Now, some in the foreign policy establishment will balk at any eventual Trumpian peace agreement. Army General Mark Milley, the president’s nominee for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for instance, recently bucked his boss during confirmation hearings. He told senators that withdrawing from Afghanistan “too soon,” according to the New York Times, would be a “strategic mistake.” Likewise, Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, a typical Washington foreign policy pundit, has already complained that the current U.S. peace talks with the Taliban in Doha will only lead to a Vietnam-style denouement where U.S. negotiators use a negotiated agreement as a fig leaf to save face, declaring “victory,” while essentially accepting future defeat. And, in this case, O’Hanlon is probably right on the mark, even if wrong to reject such an approach.

    Count on this: the end of the American military mission in Afghanistan will be unfulfilling and likely tragic. Still — and here’s where O’Hanlon and his ilk couldn’t be more off the mark — like Vietnam before it, the Afghan war should never have been fought for these last almost 18 years, never could have been won, never will be won, and should be ended in some fashion, even a Trumpian one, as soon as possible.

    *  *  *

    Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular, is a retired U.S. Army major and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. He lives in Lawrence, Kansas. 

  • Smog Alert: Dirty Air Kills 30,000 Americans Each Year, New Study Claims

    New findings from the Imperial College London estimate that air pollution causes heart attacks, strokes, and lung disease that kill over 30,000 Americans each year, which is about the same number of deaths from car accidents each year.

    The study, published last week in the journal PLOS Medicine, found a connection between cardio-respiratory and excess particulate matter pollution, known as PM2.5, is about 30 times smaller than the width of a human hair — comes from automotive, power generation, and industrial engines.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Millions of Americans are inhaling PM2.5 daily, which build up in small blood vessels in the lungs, and over an extended period, can cause lung disease. These dangerous particles also are absorbed into the bloodstream that can increase the risk of heart disease, the researchers suggested.

    Researchers noted that PM2.5 levels have dropped in the last two decades, but in some areas around the country – the levels remain seriously high.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Los Angeles remained one of the worst cities for PM2.5 along with several regions in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Alabama. 

    Inner cities deemed low-income areas across the US also had dangerous levels of PM2.5.

    Researchers said this “inequality in mortality burden” occurred because of the low-income population was already prone to higher rates of preexisting medical conditions.

    “I think the big conclusion is that lowering the limits of air pollution could delay in the US, all together, tens of thousands of deaths each year,” Majid Ezzati, the study’s lead author and a professor of global environmental health told CNN.

    Air quality data between 1999 and 2015 at over 750 monitoring stations across the US were cross-referenced with death records for cardiovascular-related diseases to determine the dangers of PM2.5, the researchers noted.

    The governments acceptable PM2.5 level is 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3).

    In 1999, Fresno County, California, recorded 22.1 ug/m3; by 2015, the level was at 13.2 ug/m3 for Tulare County, a region 20 miles from Fresno.

    In the last several years, the Trump administration has rolled back a wide variety of regulations that protect the air we breathe.

  • The Fed's Unnecessary Rate Cut

    Authored by Danielle Lacalle,

    If there is something that is evident is that the United States does not need a rate cut.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With the economy growing at 2.1%, unemployment at 3.6%, creating 170,000 jobs per month, and estimated underlying core inflation of 2%, no objective data justifies cutting rates that are already artificially low. Wages are rising by 3% and credit growth for companies and families is solid.

    There is also no public sector financing problem. The 10-year US bond trades at a 2.05% yield, consistent with the country’s growth and inflation. In real terms, the United States borrows at almost no cost and without Federal Reserve support, as all bond demand comes from the secondary market.

    If the Federal Reserve cuts rates it can be for two reasons:

    • One, because it expects a drastic and abrupt worsening of the economy, but that is apparently not the case, as the Fed itself talks of a “solid” economy.

    • The second reason would be more concerning. The Federal Reserve would cut rates as a reactive measure against the monetary assault of the ECB (eurozone), the PBOC (China) and the BOJ (Japan).  That is because it is recognizing in a veiled way that we are in a dangerous bubble inflated by central banks, and that we are heading for a currency war. It is no surprise that the dollar index (the DXY) has risen despite expectations of lower rates and even repurchase of bonds via reinvestment of interests in the United States. When all major economies “copy” the Fed without having the financial balance, economic dynamism and global reserve currency of the United States, they are basically implicitly saying “buy dollars”.

    Constant easing has created major imbalances, from asset bubbles to rising zombie companies (“Asset Bubbles to Zombie Companies: The Dark Side of Rate Cuts”).

    In the eurozone, there is a similar case. There is no need to cut rates and launch another stimulus, which by the way has never been abandoned, by the way, since all expirations are repurchased). The excess liquidity in the ECB exceeds 1.79 billion euros, rates are already negative and the eurozone governments issue debt at negative and artificially low yields. The credit market shows the risk of dangerous bubbles when the spread between junk and high-quality bonds has fallen to historic lows.

    The problem of stagnation of the eurozone and other economies has nothing to do with rates. Businesses and consumers are not going to take more credit or invest more due to a 0.5% change in already artificially depressed rates. The problem of stagnation in many economies is not due to lack of monetary stimulus but its excess. Zombie debt is perpetuated, overcapacity is maintained and malinvestment in high risk and low productivity sectors is encouraged.

    The risk to markets is that investors fall again into the trap of betting on “the worse, the better”, that is, taking more risk despite the fact that the earnings’ season and macro data are disappointing, with traders betting it all on new liquidity injections.

    The Fed and the ECB face the devil’s alternative. If they normalize monetary policy, they risk an abrupt and widespread correction in risky asset prices, and if they do not normalize, they lose tools to face a true cycle change. The Federal Reserve still has some tools, but the ECB is already in diminishing return territory in monetary policy.

    The United States does not need a rate cut, but it probably will. Reducing exposure to the most cyclical part of portfolios may be a good idea because the race towards negative rates of the global economy has only one result: secular stagnation. Central banks will keep risky asset prices high, but we cannot forget collateral damages. When high productivity is fiscally penalized and monetary policy is rewarding the most inefficient and indebted parts of the economy, growth suffers and bubbles reach systemic size.

  • 2008 Economic Crisis Has Resulted In A Generation Of Millennial Renters  

    Millennials will tell anyone – the “greatest economy ever” is a hoax. That is because many young adults aren’t just priced out of the housing market; they have never recovered from the 2008 financial crisis.

    The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) investigated several trends that have transformed millennials into a generation of renters. The Journal’s latest report is an eye-opener into the shaky finances of the next generation that will take over the entire U.S. workforce by 2024.

    Alex Ruiz, 29, and his wife, Stephanie Johnson, spoke to WSJ about insurmountable student debt, little savings, rising rents, the affordable housing crisis, and the bleak outlook on life.

    The couple is located in Asheville, N.C., where residential real estate markets have jumped 70% post the financial crisis, making it unaffordable for the pair to buy a home. Rising rents and student loans have drained every last penny out of the two, who are unable to save for a downpayment.

    “Day to day we’re OK generally,” said Mr. Ruiz, a case manager at a government-funded agency.

    “But the depressing part is when we take a hard look at the possibility of our future.”

    For many generations, homeownership was a pillar of the American dream. Since the dream died shortly after the 2008 crisis, many are rethinking what that new dream could be.

    Millennial homeownership rates have crashed over the last decade. The median age of a home buyer is 46, the oldest since the National Association of Realtors began keeping records in 1981. The trend is expected to accelerate into 2020.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Millennials who became young adults in the stock market and real estate crash a decade ago, came out in the aftermath with “no bargaining power when they entered the job market, crimping their earnings ever since,” said The Journal. They watched their families get obliterated with financial hardships, determined that owning a house wasn’t in their interest.

    Now that millennials are generally at an age where it’s accustomed to settling down: buy a home, get married, and have children — many are rethinking the American dream because they cannot afford it.

    From 2012 to 2018, the average price of lower-priced homes jumped 64%, according to mortgage-data tracker CoreLogic, while the price of higher-end homes increased just 40%. During the same period, wage growth for average workers remained depressed.

    A study earlier this year showed that six out of ten millennials don’t have $500 to cover their rent or food expenses; in the event, they lose their jobs in the next downturn.

    The effects of poor financial health have forced many millennials to live in their parents’ basements, according to census data. This means many can’t even afford rising rents in many of the Case-Shiller 20-Cities.

    “Lower homeownership for young adults means lower economic growth,” said Sam Khater, chief economist of mortgage-finance giant Freddie Mac. “That’s it in a nutshell.”

    The millennial homeownership rate is at the lowest levels in three decades. About 40% of young adults, ages 25 to 34, were homeowners in 2018, according to Freddie Mac. That is down from 48% in 2001 when Gen X-ers were young adults.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Stagnate wage growth is the crux of the problem. Home prices have dangerously outpaced wage gains over the last decade. From about the end of 2000 to the end of 2017, median home prices increased 21% after adjusting for inflation, while median household income grew 2%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The median net worth for millennial households crashed by a third from 2001 to 2016 after adjusting for inflation, according to the Federal Reserve.

    Even if millennials start purchasing homes this year through earlier 2020 – they’re likely buying the top of the market.

    The effects of not buying, or buying late, should become more evident through the early 2020s as millennials settle down. The median family net worth of homeowners is $230,000 compared with just $5,000 for renters.

    Without home equity, millennials are screwed in the next economic downturn.

    And several decades from now, around 2040, millennials will keep working through their retirement years.

    Which leaves us to today, as the 2020 U.S. presidential election is around the corner, many Democratic presidential candidates are offering student loan debt forgiveness and universal income to struggling millennials.

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

    Could millennials, who are over 75 million strong, have a much more significant impact on the election than previously thought?

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 30

Today’s News 30th July 2019

  • The World Is Not Enough

    Earth Overshoot Day came on July 29 this year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, this is only the second time the day, which marks the time at which humanity has used up its allotment of natural planetary resources for the year, occurred in the month of July. It had occurred in August between 2010 and 2017.

    The day, whose existence is highlighted by the NGO Global Footprint Network, means that all humans on Earth for this year have already used up more natural resources than mother nature can reproduce annually. Emissions, but also of resources like wood or fish and the use of land for crops, are among the things counted in when calculating Earth Overshoot Day.

    Industrialized nations have the biggest share in pushing its date forward, as seen in the organization’s country profiles. The U.S. is the biggest offender.

    Infographic: The World is Not Enough | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    If all nations lived like U.S. residents, the resources of five Earths would be needed each year in order for the natural environment to regenerate. The U.S. overshoot day is therefore on March 15.

    Australia, which had been ahead of the U.S. for some years, now had its overshoot day on March 31, with 4.1 “Earths” used annually.

    India was among the countries whose style of living would use up less than a whole Earth each year if practiced globally, which also has to do with poverty still being widespread in the country.

  • Nigel Farage Offers Boris Johnson A Chance To Work Together To "Smash Labour"

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    Nigel Farage wants to help Boris Johnson deliver Brexit. Boris should accept the offer gratefully.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a Telegraph Op-Ed Nigel Farage says Boris, the country is crying out for leadership – but with my party’s help, we can resolve Brexit.

    The European elections were a sobering experience for the Tories. Their support fell to only 10 per cent of the vote and I already know of several large-scale Tory donors who switched to the Brexit Party overnight. Arguably, the Conservatives’ future is already in doubt. Suddenly, it is ‘do-or-die’ not just for Brexit, but for the Conservative Party as well.

    Mr Johnson should realize that he is going to have to risk his longed-for position as PM to ensure Brexit is enacted properly. There is no prospect of a meaningful Brexit thanks to the views of most sitting MPs. And any attempt to prorogue Parliament will lead to the PM being brought down by his own side. The inescapable truth, therefore, is that he must hold an Autumn general election. That is his only way out. Doing so will take enormous courage. Inevitably, it will trigger a split in the Conservative Party. But the country is crying out for leadership and a resolution to the Brexit crisis.

    Even on Brexit, he was very late to the cause. He will have a lot of convincing to do to persuade us that an early election will lead to a clean-break Brexit on 31 October.

    If he is able to convince us, then together we would electorally smash the Labour Party, he would assume a big working majority, and he would go down as one of the great leaders in British history. All this is possible, but is Boris Johnson brave enough?

    Johnson Should Accept

    Johnson should accept this offer, just not quite yet. I propose mid-September.

    Johnson should delay long enough there is no mathematical chance an election can stop Brexit.

    By Common’s math, assuming an election is on a Thursday, an election is already too late to stop Brexit. But there is no requirement for a Thursday election.

    My calculation says BJ can seek an election any time after September 10 secure that it cannot be held in time to prevent Brexit on October 31.

    Johnson Bounce

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Tories have had a bounce following Johnson’s election. And his message is “Deliver Brexit – Do or Die.

    What’s Jeremy Corbyn going to offer? Another referendum!

    That’s supposed to carry the day?

    It won’t.

    Meet Jo Swinson

    She is the new head of the Liberal Democrats.

    The Guardian reports Jo Swinson rules out Lib Dem pact with Labour under Jeremy Corbyn

    If that holds, a coalition between Farage and the Tories would indeed smash Labour and the Liberal Democrats to boot.

    Of course, we only know what she says she would do not what she would really do.

    But the Liberal Democrat platform is to return to the EU. Corbyn wants a “People’s Choice”.

    67 Labour Party Members Attack Corbyn’s Anti-Jewish Leadership in Newspaper Ad

    Also recall 67 Labour Party Members Attack Corbyn’s Anti-Jewish Leadership in Newspaper Ad.

    Finally, at least 25% of Labour membership voted for Brexit. It was on those grounds that Corby said he would honor the referendum.

    A significant number of Tories wanted to remain, but Labour has the far bigger problem.

    Early Elections Coming

    I commented on July 20: Early Elections Coming, But How Early?

    The pieces are now falling together nicely. The EU is About to Face 2 Realities: Johnson Will Deliver Brexit, Eurozone in Recession

    Johnson just needs a little more time to meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron.

    He can easily kill a week or two, come back and say they won’t listen, and opt for an election right after he delivers Brexit.

    People’s Choice?

    Will a majority of UK really vote for Corbyn or any other Labour leader if the platform is another People’s Choice referendum?

    I think not.

  • Australia's Largest Casino Exposed: Chinese Whales Washed Money With Triads & Drug Traffickers

    A year-long investigation that examined tens of thousands of leaked emails has revealed the secret inner workings of Australia’s biggest casino, Crown. The investigation, a collaborative effort led by 60 Minutes Australia, highlighted links to Chinese crime bosses and communist party figures in addition to drugs syndicates, money laundering and alleged sex trafficking rings.

    After setting up offices across mainland China in 2010, Crown offered big incentives to its staff to break Chinese law to lure high rollers. When authorities closed in, the company reportedly abandoned its employees.

    Crown employee Jenny Jiang, along with of her 18 colleagues, were arrested on October 13 and 14, 2016 and held in custody, convicted of breaching mainland Chinese laws that ban gambling and its promotion. She lives in Shanghai and now has a criminal record in China. As a Crown employee, her pay was based on incentives that were paid out when their high roller customers reached “appraisal targets” by gambling billions of dollars.

    Jiang claimed that Crown’s promise to bring revenue to the Australian government led to hundreds of visas being stamped for Chinese nationals because they promised to gamble tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on trips to casinos.

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

    Jiang became a whistleblower that refused a $60,000 payment from Crown for her silence.

    The investigation highlighted that Crown was prepared to cooperate with Asian organized crime syndicates, including the Triads and the most powerful drug trafficking syndicate in the world, in order to encourage business at their casinos. Current and former government officials also said that Crown helped bring criminals through the nation’s border in a way that raised serious national security concerns for Australia.

    Chinese high rollers and criminals would look for ways to either “clean” money or smuggle it out of the country. They would work with “junket operators”, who had access to offshore funds and would provide luxury services to high rollers including non-negotiable casino chips. Many of these “junket operators” were familiar with the territory in Macau, the only place in China where you can legally bet in a casino. 

    From there, Crown casino would pay out winnings and unspent money. The junket operator got a commission and the high rollers and criminals would leave the casino with “clean” money. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Junket operators would then “balance the ledger” by having Australian debts repaid in China. Since Chinese courts don’t recognize gambling debts, this would occasionally lead to junkets seeking “alternatives” to collecting on debts, including violence. 

    In 2013, when authorities looked into one Melbourne financial adviser who was licensed by Crown to work as a representative for an Asian junket operator, Roy Moo, they found CCTV video of him passing bundles of $50 notes from a plastic shopping bag to a Crown staff member.

    He claimed that “Crown offered its junkets a financial service with all the hallmarks of an underground banking operation.”

    The money wound up totaling $969,000 and wound up being the proceeds of a drug syndicate’s trafficking operation in Melbourne and Sydney. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Crown said: “Crown does not comment on its business operations with particular individuals or businesses. However, it has a ‘comprehensive’ anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing program in place which is subject to regulatory supervision by AUSTRAC.”

    You can watch the entire investigation here:

    In Australia, there was some outrage over how the segment was promoted by 60 Minutes, who, in teasers called it a story that would “rock the foundation of Australia”. Viewers noted that a similar investigation had also taken place in 2017 by ABC and some said that the story was “overhyped”. 

  • Meet Peter Listerman: Epstein's "World Famous Seller Of Young Models To Oligarchs"

    Authored by Jerry Lambe via LawandCrime.com,

    Back in 2016, the New York Post ran a story alleging that convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein had moved beyond having his assistants “troll local high schools” for girls, and instead had begun “importing his playmates from Russia.”

    One of the men who allegedly “procured” such girls for Epstein and other affluent men is Peter Listerman, was reportedly “running scared” when reporters approached him earlier this month at a film festival asking questions about his ties to Epstein, according to a report from the Daily Beast Monday.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the report, Listerman’s reputation for “matchmaking,” in which he would connect rich men to young models, has been notorious for decades, citing multiple interviews wherein Listerman brags about the number of women he’s hooked up with rich men.

    The 10th annual Odesa International Film Festival in Ukraine, has been described as a haven for young Russian and Ukrainian models who partake in events organized for the festival’s Fashion Weekend. It was here reporters from the Daily Beast were able to find Listerman and question him about allegations that had connected Epstein with young foreign girls. According to the report, Listerman, whom the reporter was able to find based on his social media posts from the party, first responded to questions by attempting to turn the situation into a joke.

    “I invented myths and fairy tales to entertain people,” Listerman said.

    But when reporters refused to relent about his supposed role in exploiting teen models, Listerman refused to respond, eventually blocking the Daily Beast reporter from his Instagram and Facebook pages. But the online news outlet did catch up with model Krista Goncharova, who provided further details regarding Listerman’s reputation and behavior, referring to him as “the world famous seller of young models to oligarchs.”

    Listerman began sending Goncharova private messages in 2016, allegedly trying lure her to become one of his girls.

    “I had enough of a brain to turn him down when I was a minor but many girls look for a chance to meet with him, say yes to his offers, as he is paying them much more than [$334], the average of what we make per day working as professional models in Europe,” she said.

    It’s doubtful that any of the Russians or Ukrainians that Page Six noticed around Epstein were there to be life partners; and, as for Goncharova herself, the Daily Beast concludes by noting that after a lifetime of modeling, at 24 she is disillusioned and says she is planning to quit the business.

  • Chinese Duck Farmers Become Overnight Millionaires As Half Of China's Pigs Die

    The price of China’s favorite food is about to hit all time highs.

    As a result of the decimation of Chinese pig herds, which have been crippled by the ongoing spread of so-called “pig ebola”, i.e. African swine fever which has crippled domestic pork production, RaboBank expects China’s pork prices to hit a record high by the fourth quarter of 2019 even as imports continue to surge.

    Last Tuesday China’s customs data showed that pork imports in June surged from the previous year, as the world’s top consumer of the meat stocked up on supplies after African swine fever swept across the country’s pig herds. China brought in 160,467 tonnes of pork in June, up 62.8% from the same month last year, according to data from the General Administration of Customs. This was down 14% from 187,459 tonnes imported in May.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    China’s pork imports for the first six months of the year came in at 818,703 tonnes, up 26.3% from a year earlier according to Reuters. Meanwhile, pork prices rose by nearly 30% in June compared with a year earlier, according to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, with the spread of African swine fever showing no sign of abating, causing domestic production to plunge.

    Retail pork prices have also increased in recent weeks but at a slower pace than whole sale prices, with prices up 34.6% from a year earlier at 27.29 yuan per kg as of July 10. And while China’s agriculture ministry is investigating local veterinary authorities in 10 provinces as it tries to slow the ongoing spread of the deadly African swine fever virus, few analysts expect it to succeed, and instead see prices rising even higher:

    “China’s pork and hog prices are likely to break the previous record high in 2016 by the fourth quarter,” said Pan Chenjun, senior analyst for animal protein at Rabobank. He also expects pork production to fall by 30% or about 16 million tonnes, leaving a gaping hole in the country’s protein supply. Analysts warn the disease could hit some farms more than once, and ratings agency Fitch forecasts pork output will stay below 2018 levels through 2021.

    Rabobank pointed out that Chinese data showed that sow, or mother pig, inventory had dropped 26.7% and the number of hogs had fallen 25.8% at the end of June compared with a year ago. But it believes that the herd losses in specific regions are much worse, down by 40 to 60 per cent since last August. For 2019, the bank expects the total herd loss to exceed 50 per cent.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Since the first African swine fever outbreak in Liaoning province in August 2018, the disease has affected animals across the country, forcing China to cull more than 1.1 million pigs.

    China began to import more pork in March when domestic wholesale prices started to rise. Imports of US pork – which fell 75% to 1,609 tonnes between July and December 2018 after China retaliated with tariffs in response to US duties on Chinese goods – have soared. Since January, imports from the US have more than tripled from 5,788 tonnes to 17,603 tonnes in May. While US pork imports to China face a 62% tariff, Bloomberg has cited unnamed sources saying that Beijing has approved duty waivers for some Chinese companies.

    African swine fever will also put downward pressure on middle-class consumer spending, which Beijing is counting on to help boost growth in an economy that is expanding at its slowest pace in nearly three decades. China’s middle class accounts for around 400 million people, or 28.6% of the 1.4 billion population.

    According to SCMP, economists at Capital Economics warned that Chinese consumption growth will be weighed down in the near term by consumer price inflation which is set to reach an eight-year high, due in large part to rising pork prices resulting from African swine fever.

    “This will drag down real income growth and likely lead to a further deterioration in consumer sentiment,” they said in a report this month.

    This also means that China is facing its first stagflationary episode since 2011: last month, China’s consumer price index
    rose 2.7% Y/Y, driven by higher food prices in pork and fruits, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. And with spending curtailed, China’s economy will likely continue to contract even as prices of food stables rise.

    * * *

    Meanwhile, and as a result, prices for other meats including chicken and duck, are also expected to rise substantially, putting further pressure on the discretionary spending of Chinese consumers.

    One direct – and soon to be very rich – beneficiary of China’s pig ebola are duck farmers. As the SCMP reports, on a 30-hectare (74-acre) plot of land in China’s Shandong province poultry hub, more than half a million white-feathered ducks are busy eating, chattering and laying eggs to produce cheap meat for thousands of factory canteens.

    With birds already packed into around 60 open-sided buildings, farm owner Shenghe Group is expanding further, aiming to raise output by 30 per cent this year to capture record profits as a plunge in pig numbers shrinks production of pork, China’s favourite meat.

    “The market prospects are very good now because of African swine fever,” said Shenghe Chairman Wang Shuhong, whose firm sells about 300,000 ducklings a day for fattening and slaughter.

    Expect demand for ducks to soar, for the simple reason that the deadly pig disease has already reduced China’s hog herd by more than a quarter, according to official data, however as many as half of the country’s breeding sows are thought to have died or been slaughtered to cope with disease outbreaks.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A farmer surrounded by ducklings at a duck farm on the outskirts of Jiaxing in Zhejiang province on April 5, 2011. Photo: Reuters

    Meanwhile, soaring pork prices have already fueled a surge in poultry meat demand. Chicken breast is about 20%  more expensive than a year ago, while duck breast has nearly tripled in price to 14,600 yuan (US$2,125) a tonne, according to Shenghe. While this is still only about half the cost of pork, but such prices are unheard of in China, where breast is typically the cheapest part of the bird.

    As the SCMP also reports, about 80% of the world’s ducks are raised in China, but are traditionally eaten in the south, where fried duck tongues, braised feet and spicy duck neck are popular snacks, and duck intestines make up a hotpot.

    In recent years, as pork prices spiked, more ducks have been processed for use by cost-conscious catering firms, supplying large canteens feeding schools, factories, businesses and the military. These buyers are now switching as much pricey pork as they can to duck.

    A procurement manager with a catering firm that supplies about 100 large clients around China said he has replaced about 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the pork on menus with either chicken or duck meat. He declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

    “We may switch even more. But our concern is that the poultry price is now going up as well,” he said.

    The price of day-old ducklings, sold by farms like Shenghe, has hovered around 6 yuan, three times the usual level, since July last year. While the torrid price surge eased last month as farmers held off restocking during hot summer weather, they are rising again and set to go higher, said Dong Xiaobo, China general manager for French genetics company Orvia, the No. 2 supplier of breeding ducks.

    Orvia is sold out six months ahead and has even had calls from pig farmers considering raising ducks after losing their hogs to African swine fever.

    “I’ve never seen this in our 10 years in this market,” said Dong.

    As swine fever continues to spread, China’s vice-premier Hu Chunhua has urged poultry farmers to help fill the protein gap to maintain social and economic stability.

    Meanwhile, with output of about 5 million tonnes last year, less than half China’s chicken production, duck meat has plenty of room for growth, especially since the barrier to entry is lower for ducks than broiler chickens and breeding stock is more available, said Rabobank analysts.

    Ironically, any rapid expansion carries its own disease risks, as in densely stocked farms, diseases like bird flu, several  strains of which are circulating in China, will spread easily.And it remains to be seen whether duck farmers can hold on to a bigger share of the meat market when pork output recovers. As a reminder, in 2012 and 2016, duck farmers were forced out of the industry in droves when overproduction killed profits, and most people still want more pork dishes than any other meat, said the catering company manager.

    But Shenghe’s Wang, who is planning to expand downstream with a slaughterhouse later this year, is not worried. “Pork output won’t go up in the next three years and will take at least five years to recover,” he said.

    The bottom line: as China’s pork farmers face a dismal future, their duck farming friends are making more money than ever.

  • Weaponizing Space Is The New Bad Idea Coming From Washington D.C.

    Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The STrategic Culture Foundation,

    When considering the possibility of great-power conflict in the near future, it is difficult to bypass space as one of the main areas of strategic focus for the major powers. The United States, Russia and China all have cutting-edge programs for the militarization of space, though with a big difference.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Donald Trump’s announcement of a “Space Force” is by no means a new idea. During the Reagan presidency, a similar idea was proposed in the form of the famous “Star Wars“ program, formally known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. It aimed to do away with the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) by positioning anti-ballistic-missile (ABM) interceptors in low-Earth orbit in order for them to be able to easily intercept ballistic missiles during their entry into orbit and before their re-entry phase. The costs and technology at the time proved prohibitive for the program, but military planners retained the dream of negating the concept of MAD in Washington’s favor, especially with the dawning of the unipolar era following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    The decisions taken in the years since, such as the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002 during Bush’s presidency and from the INF Treaty during Trump’s, follows Reagan in trying to invalidate MAD, a balance of terror that has served to maintain a strategic stability.

    This hope of doing away with MAD so that the unthinkable may become thinkable has guided the missile developments of Russia and China, which through the development of hypersonic missiles aim to nullify the US’s ABM systems and thereby make the thought of an unreciprocated nuclear first strike MAD again. With Russia’s recent successes in testing hypersoning technologies, and the fast-tracking of other new strategic weaponsannounced by Putin less than 12 months ago, strategic stability seems to have been restored through Russia’s strengthened deterrence posture.

    The weaponization of space is a less known and talked about aspect of Washington’s mad attempts to make mutually assured destruction no longer mutual and therefore thinkable. During the peak of the unipolar moment, the idea of the Pentagon and the lobbyists of the military-industrial complex was to develop the so-called Prompt Global Strike system, which envisioned being able to deliver an air strike with conventional weapons anywhere in the world in the space of an hour. The dream (or delusion) of the US was to have the unique ability to determine the course of events around the globe within an hour. Such experimental craft as the Orbital Test Vehicle seem to confirm that serious efforts have been underway to realize this objective.

    Neither China nor Russia has been sitting idly by waiting to be struck undefended. Russia’s development of its S-500 system has been quite timely. The S-500 system is often considered an upgrade to the better-known S-400 system, but these are in reality different systems with different aims and objectives. The main task of the S-500 is to engage long-distance targets in low-Earth orbit. We are therefore talking about the ability to take out military or any future ABM satellites as those originally conceived with Reagan’s “Star Wars” program.

    Unlike Washington, Moscow and Beijing do not appear to be developing space-based weaponry; they are certainly not going to increase their military budgets to create a space force. On the contrary, both countries have been working for more than a decade on a proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) treaty that seeks to ban the weaponization of space. The aims are summarized as follows:

    “Under the draft treaty submitted to the [Conference on Disarmament] by Russia in 2008, State Parties would have to refrain from carrying out such weapons and threatening to use objects in outer space. State Parties would also agree to practice agreed confidence-building measures.

    A PAROS treaty would complement and reaffirm the importance of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which aims to preserve space for peaceful uses by prohibiting the use of space weapons, and technology related to ‘missile defense’. The treaty would prevent any nation from gaining a military advantage in outer space.”

    The intentions of the draft treaty clearly go against Washington’s plans. It is therefore not surprising that Washington has no intention of acceding to PAROS, and it is probably only a matter of time before Washington withdraws from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.

    Trump is looking at things from a practical point of view. He wants to give a major boost to the military-industrial complex, which is salivating at the prospect of being showered with tens or even hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars in a quest to weaponize space. But the policy makers in Washington and in think-tanks look at the weaponization of space from a different perspective. They look at it from the point of view of Washington as a superpower that must seek to prolong its unipolar moment through the use of force, even from space. While it is delusional nonsense, it has nevertheless been the prevailing outlook in Washington for at least the last 25 years.

    The reason why China and Russia have proposed and continue to discuss the PAROS lies in their political and military philosophies that contrast with that of the US. As an imperial power bent on global domination, the US is always looking for ways to subjugate and dominate what it considers to be its underlings, while Russia and China act to hold back and counterbalance US aggression, in the process serving to enhance global stability.

    The proposal for the non-militarization of space is the latest example of what unites and guides the Eurasian strategy of China and Russia without having any illusions about Washington’s intentions. The development of the SR-72 system seems to confirm that Washington wants to also bridge the gap with its Eurasian competitors in the field of hypersonic technology in addition to wishing to weaponize space.

    Realistically, however, global powers in a multipolar context will seek to defend their territorial and economic sovereignty with every means at their disposal. Likewise, those seeking global hegemony will try to exploit any existing domain to gain an advantage over their rivals.

    China and Russia seek to weaponize distance and speed to make any possible US attack on them impracticable, both in terms of the logistics required and the revivified cost-benefit calculus of MAD. The US, on the other hand, is trying to weaponize all conceivable domains of conflict by all means possible, hoping to be able to find a chink in its opponents’ armor.

    Beijing and Moscow seem to have studied extensively how to respond. All the various defensive systems produced in recent years, from hypersonic anti-ship missiles to multi-layered defense systems like the S-400, S-500 and A-135/A-235, seem to meet the challenge.

    Beijing fears US naval strength, and while seeking to achieve parity and surpass the US in the future, it aims above all to prevent the use of aircraft carriers as launching platforms through the employment of defensive area-denial weapons. In this sense, speed (Mach 10) and extending the range of Chinese anti-ship missiles (DF-21) are fundamental to the success of this strategy. Similarly, Moscow intends to seal Eurasia’s skies, and the S-500 seems to be the final flourish, able to protect up to 800 kilometers above sea level.

    The weaponization of space is the latest issue that the US is exploiting for various political purposes. Be that as it may, this creates an adversarial environment that compels the US’s peer competitors to develop weapons capable of countering US belligerency. Instead of sitting down and defining the parameters of major-power interaction so as to reduce the likelihood of war, we are witnessing an intentional US policy of pursuing an arms race in every possible domain of warfare.

  • Massive Radiation Leak Dwarfing Fukushima Traced To Russian Research Facility

    A massive, unexplained cloud of radiation that swept across Europe in 2017 has been traced to one of Russia’s largest nuclear facilities, according to NewScientist. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Located between the Volga river and the Ural mountains, the leak coming from the Mayak nuclear development facility released up to 100 times the amount of radiation into the atmosphere as the Fukushima disaster. 

    Italian scientists were the first to raise the alarm on 2 October, when they noticed a burst of the radioactive ruthenium-106 in the atmosphere. This was quickly corroborated by other monitoring laboratories across Europe.

    Georg Steinhauser at Leibniz University Hannover in Germany says he was “stunned” when he first noticed the event. Routine surveillance detects several radiation leaks each year, mostly of extremely low levels of radionuclides used in medicine. But this event was different.

    “The ruthenium-106 was one of a kind. We had never measured anything like this before,” says Steinhauser. –NewScientist

    After the radioactivity was detected, the Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Security in Paris soon concluded that the most likely source of the leak was the Mayak facility – something Russian officials denied at the time, instead suggesting that the source may have been emissions from a radionuclide satellite battery burning up during re-entry. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The team which tracked down the source of the emission ruled out a satellite because no space organizations reported missing any at the time, and the pattern of radiation in the atmosphere didn’t match that of a satellite’s reentry. 

    The report claims that despite being so much higher than the Fukushima release, the radiation level in the Mayak incident wasn’t high enough to impact human health. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A nuclear fuel processing facility in Russia looks to have been been the source of the leak
    ITAR-TASS News Agency / Alamy Stock Photo

    After further investigation of 1300 measurements from hundreds of monitoring stations across Europe, Steinhauser and colleagues found that radiation levels were “between 30 and 100 times higher than those measured after Fukushima.” 

    The leak was unusual because the release was limited to radioactive ruthenium. “If there is a reactor accident, one would expect the release of radioactive isotopes of many different elements,” says Steinhauser. Exactly why such a specific element was released remained a mystery until Steinhauser learned that an Italian nuclear research facility had ordered a consignment of cerium-144 from Mayak before the incident. “There are several indications that the release of ruthenium-106 was linked to this order,” he says. –NewScientist

    “This was indeed quite alarming,” said Steinhauser. 

  • Gun Violence In California

    Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    Upon hearing that a man dressed in a military-style outfit was shooting people with an assault rifle at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California on Sunday, I imagine that there were at least some Californians saying to themselves, “That’s impossible. It’s illegal in California to take an assault rifle into a public festival.” Indeed, according to Wikipedia, “The gun laws of California are some of the most restrictive in the United States.”

    So, what are gun-control advocates in California going to do now? Make their gun laws even more restrictive?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For 20 years, I have been writing that people who are going to kill other people with guns don’t give a hoot about gun laws. After all, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, if a person doesn’t care about obeying a law against murder, he’s not going to care about violating a law against taking an assault rifle into a food festival.

    But ordinary, law-abiding people do care about obeying gun laws. That’s because many of these laws make it a felony offense to violate them. That means jail time, big fines, and a serious criminal record. Even when it’s just a misdemeanor offense, oftentimes a conviction can also mean jail time.

    For most people, violating the law in order to have a means of self-defense is just not worth the risk. The chances of being caught in a place where some mass murderer is indiscriminately shooting people is relatively low and, therefore, not enough to justify the risk of a felony conviction if caught with, say, a concealed handgun for self-defense.

    Thus, as we learn, once again, gun-control laws destroy people’s natural, God-given right of self-defense by disarming them, while, at the same time, do nothing to dissuade a mass murderer from wreaking his deadly mayhem on innocent, disarmed victims.

    [ZH: And judging by the avalanche of virtue-signaling demands that “enough is enough” and “gun reform” is needed immediately by any and all politicians able to fog a mirror, that is exactly what we see…]

    U.S. Sen Kamala Harris

    “Simply horrific. I’m grateful to the first responders who are on the scene in Gilroy, and my thoughts are with that community tonight. Our country has a gun violence epidemic that we cannot tolerate.”

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

    “This brutal killing targeting children and families enjoying a day of community breaks the heart of America. We thank the heroic first responders who provided aid and support to those in need, and we send our prayers to all who are mourning the lives that were cruelly cut short by this shocking attack.

    “Enough is enough. Congress has a responsibility to every family torn apart by gun violence to act, and help advance a future that is finally free from this senseless violence. Every day the Senate refuses to act is a stain on the conscience of our nation.

    “May it bring some measure of comfort to the friends and loved ones of those whose lives were cut short that all of America mourns with and prays for them during this sad time.”

    U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Dublin

    “My heart breaks for all of our Bay Area neighbors who attended the Gilroy Garlic Festival. We need gun reform and we need it now. Enough is enough.”

    Assemblyman Marc Berman, D-Palo Alto

    “Instead of sending racist tweets and stoking hate in America, how about Donald Trump put in a real day of work for once and bring legislative leaders together to find real solutions to the gun violence epidemic that’s plaguing our communities? Or is it more thoughts & prayers?”

    Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland

    “As news unfolds of another tragic mass shooting — at the Gilroy Garlic Fest— our communities weep, we grapple with both anger and heartbreak, and we hold our children closer. We send love to those whose lives are forever changed — we must match it with political courage to end this epidemic.”

    Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda

    “Unacceptable. Thoughts and prayers are not enough. Bold action on gun safety is required.You’ve (President Donald Trump) failed to adequately address gun violence even as mass shootings have repeatedly occurred on your watch. Unless you will act to make the US safe from gun violence, don’t talk. Action.”

    Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti

    “Our hearts go out to the victims of the shooting in Gilroy. It is devastating that families cannot enjoy a community festival without fear of gun violence. We have a moral imperative to end this epidemic.”

    Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco

    “No more thoughts and prayers. Time to take more action so we can go to work, school and festivals in peace without fear of getting shot.”

    State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco

    My heart goes out to the people of Gilroy, to the victims of this act of domestic terrorism, and to the families and community that will be impacted forever. Our country must take action — must stop ignoring — the flood of guns plaguing our country. These murders are avoidable.

    “We’ve dramatically tightened access in California to guns whose purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. But, we can’t do it alone. Congress must act and take this tidal wave of gun violence seriously. Too many people, too many of our kids, are dying.”

    Of course, the deeper question is why this sort of thing continues to happen in the United States.

    Here is my personal thesis as to the series of mass killings in America, one that I have set out in previous articles.

    Keep in mind that I am not a psychiatrist and, therefore, that this is just a personal theory. But I remain convinced that it is a valid one.

    I believe that America’s forever wars, sanctions, embargoes, and assassinations overseas are triggering some sort of mechanism within the minds of people who are bit off kilter mentally, which is causing them to wreak the same sort of violent and deadly mayhem here at home that the U.S. government, specifically the Pentagon and the CIA, is wreaking in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

    For some 30 years, U.S. officials have led the American people into believing that all the death and destructive wreaked on people overseas would have no effect on American society. After all, since the killings happen thousands of miles away from American shores, how could that affect the American people?

    For three decades, there have been two separate worlds.

    One world is thousands of miles away and entails constantly killing people with sanctions, embargoes, bombs, shootings, invasions, occupations, wars of aggression, occupations, undeclared wars, coups, and alliances with violent dictators. Hundreds of thousands of people killed, maimed, or exiled or have their homes and businesses destroyed by U.S. forces.

    The other world is here at home. Americans go to work. They go on vacation. They go to sports events and concerts. They engage in their hobbies. And whenever they see a person in military uniform, they go out of their way to thank him for his service, which purportedly consists of protecting the freedoms here at home by killing people abroad.

    But the truth is that the freedom of the American people has never been threatened by any of the hundreds of thousands of people they have killed overseas. At worst, Americans have been threatened by terrorist strikes in retaliation for the death and destruction the U.S. government wreaks overseas.

    Through it all, there has been a remarkable lack of concern for the sanctity of human life over there. Who cares, for example, about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi who have been killed at the hands of U.S. forces, beginning with the Persian Gulf War, continuing through the 11 years of deadly sanctions, followed by the invasion and occupation of Iraq based on those supposed WMDs? The deaths of all those people just don’t matter.

    During the many years of the Iraq occupation (labeled “Operation Iraqi Freedom”), church ministers all across the country exhorted their congregations to pray for U.S. troops in Iraq but never for their victims, even though it is undisputed that neither the Iraqi people nor their government ever attacked the United States. Even while constantly reminding people of the sanctity of life when it comes to the unborn, church ministers have forgotten that in the eyes of God, the lives of the born, including the foreign born, is just as sacred as the lives of the unborn.

    U.S. sanctions and embargoes target innocent foreign citizens with death, with the aim of achieving a political end, i.e., regime change. And there is never an upward limit on the number of people who can be killed in the process of trying to achieve that political end. Any number of deaths is considered “worth it,” the words used by U.S. Ambassador to UN Madeleine Albright to justify the deaths of half-a –million Iraqi children from U.S. sanctions.

    What does all this have to do with the California shooting and, for that matter, other instances of mass violence in America?

    I believe that when a nation’s government has been killing people continuously for three decades, all that death and destruction is inevitably going to seep into the subconscious of individual citizens, even though it’s happening thousands of miles away and even though the government tries to keep us immune from it. Most of us can handle it but my thesis is that there are some people who are a bit off-kilter mentally who cannot handle it. I believe that the massive death and destruction ultimately triggers something within them that causes them to mirror here in the United States what the U.S. government is doing overseas. In their off-kilter minds, they are unable to do what U.S. officials do — place a high value on the sanctity of American life and no value on foreign life. For the off-kilter people, all life is equally valueless. The fact that some of these mass killers are military veterans and may even have participated in the oversea death, destruction, and mayhem makes the psychological situation even more problematic.

    There is an easy way to test my thesis: bring the forever wars to an immediate end and bring all U.S. soldiers home immediately. Even if my thesis isn’t correct, it’s the morally right thing to do anyway.

  • Guggenheim Expects Stocks to Crash 50% In The Next Recession

    One could get whiplash listening to Guggenheim’s Scott Minerd’s rapidly changing opinions these days.

    Back on May 29, the weightlifting CIO of the $265 billion asset manager, made a gloomy forecast on CNBC, predicting that the stock market sell-off is likely far from over, and said stocks would go “somewhere below the lows in December.” Near term, he saw an “immediate move” down to around 2,730 on the before it drops further. Oh, and he also said the next move by the Fed will be a rate hike.

    Oops.

    Not even two months later, everything miraculously changed, and on July 15, again on CNBC, Minerd changed his tune by 180 degrees, and no longer seeing any crash, said that he now thinks the S&P 500 could rise 15% and approach 3,500 before the end of year, comparing the current market environment to a 1998 rally amid interest rate cuts.

    “This rally — whether you’re looking at bonds, you’re looking at stocks, high yield, pick whatever you want — is all being driven by liquidity. And the central banks around the world have basically signaled that they are going to step on the accelerator,” Minerd said adding that the Fed has “kind of hit the panic button” and that “you’re going to see the money flow out of the central banks into bonds, which will free up capital and that will naturally find another place to migrate to and ultimately it will end up in the hands of stocks.”

    And so, Minerd now had all bases covered, with a soundbite to say he was right if stocks crashed, and another if they melted up by another 500 points. Actually, there was one base that needed covering: the same one that Trump has been pounding every single day, namely that if it all goes pear-shaped, it will be the Fed’s fault (he is actually right about that), and today, Minerd – undaunted by his recent dismal track record in making public predictions – slammed the Fed saying that the Fed should hike interest rates, not cut them.

    The consequences of the Fed’s actions in the next week – the U.S. central bank is expected to cut interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point – could be with us for much longer than we think, culminating in the next recession and increasing the risk to financial stability.

    In the meantime, the Fed could be delivering yet another sugar high to the economy that doesn’t address underlying structural problems created by powerful demographic forces that are constraining output and depressing prices.

    Like we said, this time Minerd was correct, though we wonder: why does it take all these sophisticated financial professionals a decade to realize (or admit) what we have been saying since 2009. Must have something to do with vested year-end bonus options…

    In any case, just in case everyone wasn’t completely confused yet, today’s Minerd released yet another research report in which he tried to predict not only when the next recession would hit (“we maintain our view that the recession could begin as early as the first half of 2020, but will be watching for signs that the dovish pivot by the Federal Reserve (Fed) could extend the cycle”), but also how severe it will be.

    It is here that things get ugly, because as Guggenheim notes, credit markets “are likely to be hit harder than usual in the recession. This stems from the record high ratio of corporate debt to GDP and the likelihood of a massive fallen angel wave.”  With that in mind, the bank notes that “when recessions hit, the magnitude of the associated bear market in stocks is driven by how high valuations were in the preceding bull market.” And given that valuations reached quite elevated levels in this cycle, Guggenheim expects “a severe bear market of 40–50 percent in the next recession.”

    Here are some additional details, starting with Guggenheim’s framework for when the next recession will hit: here, the bank notes that its Recession Probability Model rose across all horizons in the first quarter of 2019, and while near-term the recession probability remains subdued, over the next 24 months recession probability more than doubled compared to the third quarter reading. The deterioration in leading indicators, further flattening of the yield curve, and tightening of monetary policy all contributed to rising recession risks through the first quarter. And since Guggenheim expects these trends to continue and growth to weaken in 2019, it expects recession risk to rise throughout the year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The bank’s Recession Dashboard also continues to point to a recession starting by mid-2020.  Recession probability estimates rose across all horizons in the fourth quarter of 2018, most notably in the 24 month time frame.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The pace of decline in the unemployment rate is beginning to slow, with the unemployment rate holding steady, on net, over the last nine months. Past Fed rate increases and balance sheet runoff mean that monetary policy may already be tight enough to induce a recession. Additionally, yield curve flattening is now back in line with the average of prior cycles, with the three-month to 10-year Treasury yield curve having inverted recently (see our previous report, The Yield Curve Doesn’t Lie, for our analysis showing that the yield curve may not be unduly flat due to quantitative easing, but rather unduly steep due to outsized Treasury issuance). The strength of the Leading Economic Index has faded, putting it in line with the range of prior cycles. Hours worked and real retail sales have also cooled, and “these trends will continue this year as fading fiscal stimulus, tighter financial conditions, and rising policy uncertainty increasingly weigh on economic activity.”

    So with a recession coming as soon as under a year from now, there is some good news. First, Guggenheim notes that its work shows that the next recession will not be as severe as the last one, “but it could be more prolonged than usual because policymakers at home and abroad have limited tools to fight the downturn.”

    Recession severity can be defined a number of ways: either by focusing on the i) magnitude of the contraction (the peak to trough decline in real gross domestic product (GDP)), ii) the size of the output gap (the difference between real GDP and potential output), iii) the peak unemployment rate relative to the natural rate, or iv) the length of time the recession lasts. Combining these four indicators to create a recession severity indicator that shows unsurprising results: the 2007–2009 recession was one of the worst of the post-war period, exceeded only by the “double dip” recession of 1980–1981. In contrast, the 2001 recession was mild by comparison.

    Several factors play a role in determining the severity of a recession. From a sectoral basis, an overheated housing market has a strong relationship with severe recessions, reflecting the fact that housing is the largest asset for most households and is closely tied to the banking system. A related factor is stress on the banking system, which also makes recessions worse. Beyond housing, overinvestment (as measured by the private capital stock relative to GDP) contributes to more severe downturns. Other factors that can make recessions worse are monetary policy tightness (and degree of subsequent easing) and weaker global growth. Perhaps surprisingly, Guggenheim found that neither the length nor the magnitude of an expansion seem to have a relationship with the severity of the subsequent contraction. Also contrary to conventional wisdom, there is not a straightforward relationship between debt levels and recession severity, whether debt is measured by sector or from a total economy perspective. This is likely due to debt cycles lasting longer than business cycles, as the negative effects of debt accumulation can sometimes be put off in a downturn as borrowers simply take on even more debt.

    Guggenheim’s analysis of these factors indicates that “the next recession should be about average. On the positive side, the housing market is not currently overheated, the banking system is sound, and the capital stock is only somewhat elevated.” In addition, Fed policymakers will likely act more quickly in response to signs of a slowdown than in the prior cycles, as evidenced by the recent Fed reaction to weaker economic data.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That’s the good news.

    On the negative side, Guggenheim is worried about the limited scope for policy response once the recession hits. From a monetary policy perspective, Fed policymakers will be unable to ease to the same degree that they have in previous recessions, as cumulative rate cuts have averaged 5.5 percentage points in past downturns. Even with another hike or two in this cycle, per the Fed’s March 2019 Summary of Economic Projections, the Fed would have less than 3 percentage points of rate cuts available to combat the next recession.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With limited room to cut rates, it is therefore likely the Fed will again turn to unconventional policy tools, namely forward rate guidance and quantitative easing (QE). While another round of QE will undoubtedly provide some incremental stimulus, the efficacy of QE remains in question, according to Guggenheim. Furthermore, QE could also again come under fire from politicians looking to blame the Fed for economic woes, which could limit the size or duration of future QE programs. Moreover, the bank expects problems to center on corporate credit markets in the next downturn, but unlike some other central banks, the Fed lacks statutory authority to buy corporate debt or loans, at least for now. Policymakers are not likely to seek—nor would we expect Congress to pass—changes to the Federal Reserve Act that would permit the Fed to buy corporates. With these limitations in mind, the Fed is embarking on a review of its policy framework in 2019. This review will explore, among other things, the possibility of adding additional tools to the toolkit. These could include a version of Japan’s yield curve control policy and/or negative short-term rates, though both face hurdles to being deployed in the United States.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At the same time, since the monetary policy’s ability to stimulate the economy is limited, Guggenheim is also worried that fiscal policy will be constrained. Typically, the fiscal balance is countercyclical, meaning that when economic times are good we have small deficits or even surpluses that allow us to run large deficits when recessions occur, in part due to automatic stabilizers, and in part due to discretionary stimulus. However, over the past few years this relationship has reversed, with deficits widening even as the economy has strengthened due to discretionary spending increases and tax cuts.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It gets worse: when the next recession finally hits, the starting point for the federal deficit will likely be much worse than it typically is at the end of an expansion, raising the prospect that fiscal hawks will resurface to raise concerns about deficits and debt. Furthermore, the expected recession interval comes at a particularly challenging time in the political calendar given the presidential election in November 2020. If growth continues to slow, will the Democrat-controlled House really want to pass a spending bill that would stimulate the economy right before the election? Guggenheim see significant obstacles to the bipartisan enactment of proactive fiscal policy measures, which is informed by our analysis of polling data that reveals a historically high degree of political polarization.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But if the US is bad, the rest of the world is far worse as policy space is even more limited overseas. As constrained as Fed policy is likely to be, the problem is much worse for the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BOJ), where the starting point for inflation is lower, policy rates are still negative, and central bank balance sheets hold a much larger share of eligible assets. Given the Japanese yen’s status as a global safe-haven asset, the BOJ faces an especially difficult challenge in fending off what will likely be a deflationary exchange rate appreciation, with fiscal policy unlikely to offer much support.

    Nor is fiscal policy the answer in northern Europe, where austerian ideas still hold sway. In southern Europe, fiscal tools are limited as political pressure from the north and sovereign spread widening will likely force pro-cyclical belt-tightening measures. Meanwhile, the ECB will have limited ability to cushion the downturn. If politicians in Spain, Portugal, Greece and especially Italy are not able to deliver the fiscal tightening that markets will demand, then concerns about the viability of the eurozone are likely to resurface. Advanced economies are therefore likely to be mired in a protracted downturn, spilling back into the U.S. economy by way of weak export demand, tighter financial conditions and potential concerns about exposures to weaker foreign banks.

    But most importantly, during the last recession a major source of global stimulus was China’s massive credit easing and infrastructure spending, without which the global recession would have been even more severe. China has, until recently, actively been working to deleverage its economy, where debt growth over the past 10 years has been on par with some of the biggest debt bubbles in history. When the global economy slows, Chinese policymakers are unlikely to deliver nearly as much stimulus as last time around, even if China manages to avoid a debt crisis or “hard landing” scenario. Other emerging markets (EM) are also unlikely to deliver the needed global stimulus, as balance of payments pressures in many EM countries will limit domestic policy space and force them to intervene in foreign exchange markets to avoid disorderly currency depreciations. This would reduce their net demand for U.S. Treasury and Agency securities, which could further complicate the Fed’s ability to deliver an appropriate degree of monetary stimulus.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Taking these factors together, Guggenheim anticipates a scenario where the magnitude of the decline in the U.S. economy is not especially severe when the recession hits, given the lack of major imbalances and relative soundness of the banking system. However, this downturn is likely to be more prolonged than usual, given the limited ability of policy to respond and the potential spillback from economic weakness abroad. The result could be a cycle that is more “U-shaped” than “V-shaped”.

    Yes but…

    Prepare for a Steep Decline in Risk Assets: On the surface, this scenario may not seem particularly dire for investors,  but Minerd would caution that market behavior is only loosely correlated with economic conditions, and a moderate recession does not mean moderate market movements. On the contrary, as he cautions “years of low interest rates have served to amplify the financial cycle over the past few decades, and this amplification has been further heightened in the current cycle by asset purchases by global central banks.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Worse, as Minerd’s work shows, when recessions hit, the severity of the downturn has a relatively minor impact on the magnitude of the associated bear market in stocks. A far more important factor is how high valuations were in the preceding bull market. A good example is the 2001 recession, which was relatively modest economically, but saw one of the worst bear markets on record given the sky-high valuations of the tech bubble.

    So given that valuations reached elevated levels in this cycle, Guggenheim’s CIO now expects a severe equity bear market of 40–50 percent in the next recession, consistent with the bank’s previous analysis that pointed to low expected returns over the next 10 years.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Credit markets are also likely to be hit harder than usual in the recession due to the record high ratio of corporate debt to GDP and the upcoming massive fallen angel wave that could cause forced selling in an environment where liquidity will already be poor. The 2001 recession offers a relevant case study, as cumulative corporate defaults and realized credit losses were greater than in 2008, which saw a much more severe recession and a higher peak in the annual default rate.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Finally, from a purely asset allocation standpoint, given this historical lesson and the fact that the exits tend to shrink when investors need them most, Guggenheim has been steadily upgrading portfolio credit quality and reducing spread duration in the lead up to the next recession. As Guggenheim concludes last quarter, the Fed’s dovish pivot has supported risk assets, which afforded investors a window of opportunity to further recession-proof client portfolios.

    And the punchline: as Minder concludes, he will be looking to add rate duration this year given his firm’s view that policy rates will return to the zero lower bound during the upcoming recession. In other words, ZIRP is coming back, and NIRP may follow shortly after.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 29

Today’s News 29th July 2019

  • "Unprecedented" Arctic Wildfires Visible From Space As 'Global Cooling' Looms

    Numerous wildfires have been ravaging the Arctic for weeks following the hottest June ever recorded on Earth. Now, the fires are so huge and intense, the smoke can literally be seen from space.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As RT reports, satellite images show more than 100 long-lived wildfires with huge plumes of swirling black smoke covering most of the Arctic Circle including parts of Russia, Siberia, Greenland and Alaska. 

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

    The wildfires have now reached “unprecedented levels,” according to Mark Parrington of the EU’s Copernicus Emergency Management Service, who said the smoke vortex is covering a “mind boggling” two million square kilometers.

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

    Wildfires are burning across 11 regions in Russia with the largest covering Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk and Buryatia. Likely caused by lightning strikes.

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

    “It is unusual to see fires of this scale and duration at such high latitudes in June,” Parrington said.

    “But temperatures in the Arctic have been increasing at a much faster rate than the global average, and warmer conditions encourage fires to grow and persist once they have been ignited.”

    However, for those terrified by this event as a climactic climate change indicator, Armstrong Economics’ Martin Armstrong has something potentially more worrisome…

    One of the serious correlations we see is that the next solar cycle of 11 years may be the lowest in at least 200 years on our model, which calls for the low in a wave of 224 years to be precise.

    Our forecast for this next solar cycle of activity, which rises and falls in an 11-year cycle, is indeed in a bearish trend but it correlates with the ECM – which is rare. If our computer is correct, then the next solar cycle should be at least one-third less solar activity and it could rise to a panic type of decline of 50% as measured in terms of sunspots.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This analysis warns that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025. This further warns not of global warming, but highly volatile weather and crop failures as we hit both extremes.

    The next two solar cycles will be the risk of violent weather and global cooling.

    Will we need a green new deal 2.0 to deal with global cooling? Cue Outrage mob..

  • The EU's Other Periphery

    Authored by Frank Lee via Off-Guradian.org,

    We’ll start with the 10 per-capita poorest-countries in the whole of Europe. In rank order:

    1. Moldova – US$2560

    2. Ukraine – US$3560

    3. Kosovo – US$3990

    4. Albania – US$4450

    5. Bosnia and Herzegovina – US$4769

    6. Republic of Macedonia – US$5150

    7. Serbia – US$5820

    8. Montenegro – US$7320

    9. Bulgaria – US$7620

    10. Romania – US$9420

    Average per capita income in Europe as a whole is US$37,317 (2018 figures).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What is noticeable is that most of these states are situated in either the Balkans or South-Eastern Europe. But that is not the end of the story.

    Portugal, the poorest country in western Europe with GDP standing at US$238billion, is just pipped by the Czech Republic (now Czechia which is actually in the centre of Europe) as the star performer of the East whose national income stands at US$ 240,105 million.

    Thus, in terms of per capita income the Czech Republic is the sole representative of the ex-Soviet states in Europe. This geopolitical and economic cleavage could hardly be starker. These two Euro-zones replicate the division of North and South between the US/Canada and central and Latin America.

    Much of the attention to European development – or the lack of it – has been preoccupied with the gap between the West and South of Europe. This present schism is attributable to tried, tested, and failed economic strategies promulgated by the various institutions of globalization: the IMF, WB, WTO and so forth.

    The single currency, the euro, became legal tender on 1 January 1999 and was adopted by most of the countries in the Euro area. But this proved to be the undoing of the political economy of the South.

    When different sovereign states are responsible for their own economic policies and are able to print and issue their own currencies on world markets, any distortions and maladjustments which occur in trade balances is alleviated by changes in exchange rate values – in short, devaluation. This will hopefully restore such imbalances and return to a trade equilibrium.

    However, this policy is, now, no longer available to the Southern European states since they no longer have their own currencies and, in addition, are under the tutelage the European Central Bank (ECB). The Southern periphery are now are using the same currency as the Northern European bloc, the euro, and required by the ECB to take on a one-size fits all monetary policy.

    Devaluations are therefore ruled out.

    Given the higher productivity levels and lower costs of Germany, Holland, Sweden, France and so forth, the Southern peripheral states have begun to run chronic balance of payments deficits. The only avenue left open to them is what is termed ‘internal devaluation’ – i.e., austerity.

    This results in low growth, high unemployment, high migration, depopulation, cuts in public spending and the rest of the IMF’s Structural Adjustment Policies – policies which have failed just about everywhere. So much for the southern periphery.

    Focus on Eastern Europe sheds light on a different set of problems. Most Eastern European countries, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland kept their own currencies; apart that is from basket cases like Latvia whose government, unlike the people, went where angels feared to tread – into the Eurozone and the euro.

    (N.B. Some Western European countries, e.g., the UK, Denmark, Switzerland and Norway did – wisely – keep their own currencies.)

    Excluding Russia, of course, these Eastern European states – termed ‘transitional economies’ – have become stalled in economic stagnation which so far has been difficult if not impossible to overcome. These obstacles have been specific to the Eastern periphery.

    The European Union now consists of 28 states. No fewer than 10 of these are former states of the Eastern Bloc, and this proportion is set to grow with the impending accession with some minor Balkan nations. Although Georgia and Ukraine are in line for membership of the EU, they are also expected to join NATO as has become customary for aspirant EU states.

    Whether they obtain either is a matter of conjecture, however, as this would be almost certain to cross Russia’s red lines and result in a major geopolitical flareup. Europe’s centre of gravity is shifting. And while the process of joining the European Union is driving change within these countries, it is also changing the nature of Europe itself.

    WHERE’S MY PORSCHE?

    Those Eastern European states which emerged from the break-up of the Soviet Union had been led to believe that a bright new world of West European living standards, enhanced pay levels, high rates of social mobility and consumption were on offer.

    Unfortunately, they were sold an illusion: the result of the transition so far seems to have been the creation of a low-wage hinterland, a border economy on the fringes of the highly developed European core; a Euro version of NAFTA and the maquiladora, i.e., low tech, low wage, low skills production units on the Mexican side of the US’s southern borders.

    This has had wider political and social ramifications for the entire European project. The Brave New World envisaged did not have any basic guiding principles or planning other than the usual neoliberal prescriptions of privatisation-deregulation-liberalisation, the well-thumbed policy triad of the neoliberal playbook.

    Central to this policy implementation was a controversial prescription called ‘shock-therapy’. The fact that this policy had already been tried in Russia and failed spectacularly, didn’t seem to worry the PTB. Such is always the case with religious beliefs.

    The doctrine itself had become popular among the ingenues and opportunists of the old ‘workers states’. Shock-therapy was designed to wipe-away all the old fuddy-duddy notions about state interventionism, welfarism, social and national protection; measures included the sudden removal of subsidies, fire sales of state assets (privatisation), and the abrupt removal of the controls and subsidies that had formerly applied to wages and prices.

    But the neoliberal militants insisted upon a policy of ‘freeing up’ the markets which, according to them, would maximise growth and development. Predictably of course, these policies also opened these countries to maximum – and often predatory – western penetration and influence.

    The shock was timed to occur before the establishment of financial markets within the region and, in the absence of investment capital, restructuring efforts became focused on labour – on reducing the unit cost of labour in order to become “competitive”. It should be understood that in neo-liberal, supply-side, economics the road to wealth and prosperity entailed policies that actually make their populations poorer. There seems to be a slightly Orwellian flavour here. ‘Poverty is Wealth.’

    The wave of mass unemployment that this generated in the early 1990s goes well beyond the experiences of British recessions of the 1980s, with unemployment in some regions reaching 80 per cent. Shock therapy deliberately engineered a slump in the economies of the region, by shattering the region’s economic links, and then creating a massive domestic recession.

    SHOCK-THERAPY – ALL SHOCK NO THERAPY

    Regardless, the show must go on. The neoliberal religion taken up in many of these states, often by former members of the Communist nomenklatura, which resulted in high levels of structural unemployment were actually meant to do that, at least in the short-term. Painful as it was bound to be, this was the necessary shakeout of an inefficient and cosseted workforce and therefore the absolute precondition which would catapult these formerly backward economies into lean and mean competitors on Europe’s markets and the prelude of an entry into the developed economies on the Western European and US model. Yeah, right.

    In the real-world Michael Hudson analysed just how this process panned out in Latvia.

    Like other post-Soviet economies, Latvians wanted to achieve the prosperity they saw in Western Europe. If Latvia had followed the policies that built up the industrial nations, the state would have taxed wealth and income progressively to invest in public infrastructure.

    Instead, Latvia’s Baltic miracle assumed largely predatory forms of rent-seeking and insider privatisation. Accepting the US and Swedish advice to accept the world’s most lopsided set of neoliberal tax and financial policies. Latvia levied the heaviest taxes on labour. Employers had to pay a 25% tax on wages plus a 24% of social service tax, whilst wage-earners pay another 11% tax. These three taxes making up to a 60% flat tax before personal deductions.

    Additionally, in order to make labour high-cost and uncompetitive, consumers must pay a high value-added sales tax of 21% (raised sharply from 7%) after the 2008 blowout. No Western economy taxes wages and consumption at that level.

    Latvia’s heavy taxation of labour finds its counterpart in a mere 10% on dividends, interest and other returns to wealth and the lowest property tax rate of any other economy. Thus, Latvian fiscal policy retarded growth and employment whilst concurrently subsidising a real estate bubble that is the chief feature of Latvia’s “Baltic Miracle”.

    Now Latvia was to open up its economy to foreign capital inflows – hot money – from foreign bank affiliates, mainly Scandinavian, whose chief interest was to finance the property boom. Of course, these cash inflows needed to be serviced and in doing so became a financial tax on the nation’s labour and industry. Other sources in overseas monies came in the form of privatisation of Latvia’s public sector stock. Sweden became a major source of these rent-seeking inflows.

    Yet with all of this money flowing into Latvia absolutely no effort was made to restructure industry and agriculture to generate foreign exchange to import capital and consumer goods not produced at home. Having lost export potentialities during the COMECON period the existing production linkages were uprooted, industrial plants were dismantled for their land value scrapped or transformed into real estate gentrification.

    The Baltic miracle had been nothing more than a property debt-bubble financed by foreign capital inflows. When the flows reversed the extent of debt deflation, deindustrialisation and depopulation (see below) became apparent.

    The Austerity programme … Latvia was suffering was the world’s steepest one-year plunge in house prices which had peaked in 2007. Despite having emerged debt-free in 1991, Latvia had become Europe’s most debt-strapped country, without using some of its borrowed credit to modernize its industry or agriculture.”

    What was true of Latvia was also generally the case in the rest of Eastern Europe’ Thus by 2008 it had become apparent that the post-Soviet economies had not really grown as much as they had been financialized and indebted.

    Forbes economist Adomanis calculated in 2014 that convergence of these economies with those of the West…

    …continues at its 2008-13 pace (about 0.37% per annum) it would take the new EU members over 100 years to match up to the core countries average level of income …to the extent that Central Europe’s most rapid and sustained burst of convergence coincided with a credit bubble that is highly unlikely to be repeated, it seems more likely than not that the regions convergence will be slower in the future than it was in the past.”

    BUDDY CAN YOU SPARE A EURO

    With the decimation of indigenous industry, the role of financialization and debt became crucial, as the new capitalist economies required a financial services industry that could support the growing tendencies towards property speculation and asset manipulation.

    Different vulnerabilities arose from the actions of different institutions, but the overall effect was to create state dependency upon foreign direct investment (FDI), and support from the World Bank, IMF and the specially created European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

    The general financialization of the region led to huge increases in debt, both personal and institutional. Western banks in a number of smaller states, most notably Austria and Sweden, sought to boost their profits through increasing their market share in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) region, by aggressive lending to households.

    Drawing on the general expectation of CEE countries’ membership of the EU to borrow on the wholesale money markets and taking advantage of financial deregulation and poor consumer protection standards in the region, they lent money denominated in Euros, Swiss Francs and Japanese Yen. This allowed them to offer consumers lower interest rates than those available for borrowing in domestic currencies. And this borrowing has driven eye-watering increases in levels of personal household debt – especially in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic States.

    Another consequence of shock-therapy was the pressure that it would generate on the European Union to open up western European markets to the CEE countries. The model that peripheral states adopted – of being low-wage export-based economies – depended on access to EU markets.

    However, in order to sell on EU markets, it is necessary to have something to export. But these states simply did not and do not have the industrial and/or financial capacity to compete with Western European states and are not likely to have in the foreseeable future. Being subordinated to a set of rules empowered by global institutions, the IMF, WB, WTO – neoliberalism – makes such development impossible.

    Of course, there has been some Western investment in CEE but without wishing to be cynical – moi? Never! – not all of this investment has been for CEEs benefit, most of it was purely predatory.

    For example, the US Transnational Conglomerate, General Electric, after sniffing out worthwhile opportunities for a quick buck decided upon buying a lighting company, Tungsram, in Hungary. They swiftly closed profitable product lines and were thus able to remove a source of domestic competition from the market.

    Similarly, the Hungarian cement industry was bought by foreign owners, who then prevented their Hungarian affiliates from exporting; and an Austrian steel producer bought a major Hungarian steel plant only in order to close it down and capture its ex-Soviet market for the Austrian parent company. For a voracious appetite try Volkswagen.

    VW acquired a controlling stake in SEAT in 1986, making it the first non-German marque of the company, and acquired control of Škoda (see below) in 1994, of Bentley, Lamborghini and Bugatti in 1998, Scania in 2008 and of Ducati, MAN and Porsche in 2012.

    But VW’s cherry-picking didn’t stop there.

    Case Study: VWs takeover of Skoda

    Five months after the fall of Communism and before of any kind shock-therapy had been launched Citreon, GM, Renault, and Volvo were clamouring for Skoda. VW won the bid promising DM7.1 billion, promising to raise production to 450,000 cars per year by 2000. Engine parts were to be manufactured in Bohemia and a promise was made to use Czech suppliers. The Czech workforce was to be retained. The Czech government was favourably disposed to this sort of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and gave VW a protected position in the home market in addition to a two-year tax holiday writing off Skoda’s debts.

    Things turned sour, however, when VW reneged on its debts and promises. The original investment of Deutschmark(DM)7.1 billion was reduced to DM3.8 billion, there would be no Czech engine plant, and no commitment to produce 405,000 cars by year 2000. The labour force would be cut to 15,000 followed by more redundancies, and VW would increasingly to German parts suppliers rather than Czech subsidiaries, bringing in 15 such firms to replace their Czech competitors.

    These are examples of the ways in which the “peripheral economy” status of the CEE region was imposed. An exploitative relationship between East and West. The Skoda experience of the negative outcome from opening up of the leading sectors of a target’s country’s (the Czech Republic) production apparatus into the global strategy of a Western TNC is not unique and is a common feature of FDI flows.

    After only a couple of years of “shock-therapy”, much of the core industrial infrastructure of the peripheral states had fallen into the hands of multinational companies – from chains of shops, to power generating plant and steelworks. Two political/social phenomena resulted from the asset-stripping (whoops, I mean productive investment).

    POLITICAL

    Since the advent of the shock therapy, it would have been expected that East European voters would have voted en masse for parties of the left for the usual reasons. Namely to mitigate the worst social and economic effects of the capitalist transition.

    But these parties themselves had become Blairised, i.e., heavily committed to the pseudo-reformist ‘third-way’ along with the orthodoxies of neoliberal economics, as this was seen as part of their commitment to European accession. Into the ideological vacuum and emerging across the region came populist and right-wing movements, in Poland and Hungary in particular as well the semi-fascist Baltics where they have always had a presence.

    These groups have attempted to harness people’s discontent. Political forces that flourished in the time of the Austro-Hungarian empire have re-emerged – such as anti-Semitic “Christian socialism” and patriotic “national liberalism”. and perhaps more important came mass migration and depopulation in the whole area…

    DEPOPULATION

    Depopulation of Eastern Europe is connected not only with the outflow of labour resources: after 1989, the era of wild capitalism began in the former “socialist countries”, accompanied by the collapse of social and medical systems, a sharp increase in mortality, especially among men, with a simultaneous fall in the birth rate…”

    The French newspaper Le Monde diplomatique wrote about the unprecedented demographic catastrophe that hit the countries of Eastern Europe after the collapse of the communist system in its June issue.

    The process began in late 1989, immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall. There followed a massive exodus of the population from East Germany, Poland, and Hungary to the countries of Western Europe in search of higher earnings, which continues to this day, covering practically all former countries of the socialist camp.

    As a result of the new “resettlement of peoples”, the human losses of Eastern Europe were much greater than those of both world wars. Over the past 30 years, Romania lost 14% of the population, Moldova – 16.9%, Ukraine – 18%, Bosnia – 19.9%, Bulgaria and Lithuania – 20.8%, Latvia – 25.3% of the population. Depopulation also affected the parts of Germany (the former DDR), which in the literal sense of the word were emptied.

    A kind of exception was made by the Czech Republic, where it was possible to preserve the main “gains of socialism” in the form of social support for the population, a free medical system, assistance.

    Depopulation of Eastern Europe is connected not only to the outflow of labour resources: after 1989, the era of wild capitalism began in the former “socialist countries”, accompanied by the collapse of social and medical systems, a sharp increase in mortality, especially among men, with a simultaneous fall in the birth rate.

    However, the main blow to demography caused the outcome of the population, especially the youngest, active, qualified group. In the historical homeland remained children, pensioners and persons incapable of actively seeking work abroad. And this despite the fact that for 40 post-war years in the countries of Eastern Europe there was a slow but steady growth of the population.

    According to the UN, all ten of the world’s most “endangered” countries are in Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, the Baltic republics and the former Yugoslavia, as well as Moldova and Ukraine. According to the forecasts of demographers, by 2050 the population of these countries will decrease by another 15-23%.

    This means, in particular, that the population of Bulgaria will drop from 7 to 5 million people, Latvia – from 2 to 1.5 million. According to experts of the Wittgenstein International Demographic Centre in Vienna, “it is unprecedented for peacetime depopulation.”

    Among the main reasons called the killer combination of three factors – low birth rate, high mortality and mass emigration. But if in the countries of Western Europe, the fall in the birth rate is compensated by the new migration waves, the countries of Eastern Europe categorically refuse to accept the “fresh blood” in the person of migrants, and this issue has acquired an extraordinary political poignancy.

    At the height of the migration crisis of 2015, Slovakia and the Czech Republic took 16 and 12 refugees respectively, Hungary and Poland did not accept anyone.

    Meanwhile, Eastern Europe continues to lose its “golden cadres” – the best specialists and young people. In Hungary alone, since joining the EU in 2004, 5,000 doctors have left the country, mostly under the age of 40. There is a shortage of technicians and mechanics who also left for Austria, Germany and other countries of Western Europe.

    This is perfectly understandable since in Hungary they receive 500 euros a month for heavy manual work, and in Austria for the same work – 1 thousand euros per week.

    In other countries, the outflow of specialists of medium qualification is felt even more: hundreds of thousands of nurses, carpenters, locksmiths and skilled workers moved from Poland, Romania, Serbia, and Slovakia to the West. In Romania, the outcome of the population is called a “national catastrophe”. The population of this country declined for the post-communist period from 23 to 20 million people.

    The transfer of labour from the East was not only spontaneous but also systematically predatory. Numerous German and British firms of “head-hunters” in large numbers began to entice Eastern specialists immediately after the accession of Eastern European countries to the EU. As the German Die Welt writes, qualification, youth and money flow from Eastern European countries, while the old people and children remain deeply disappointed in “freedom” and “democracy.”

    Since the early 1990s, Bosnia lost 150 thousand people, Serbia – about half a million. However, the most significant outflow was observed in Lithuania: over 300,000 people out of 3 million left the country.

    But the most tragic consequences of the “post-communist breakdown” have been experienced by Ukraine – once one of the most developed republics of the USSR. If in the early 1990s there were 52 million people in the republic, now the population does not exceed 42 million. According to the forecasts of the Kiev Institute of Demography, by 2050 the population of the republic will be 32 million.

    This means that Ukraine is the fastest dying state in Europe, and possibly, in the world. According to Ukrainian sources, the country was abandoned by 8 million people (experts believe that number is from 2 to 4 million people – ed.), who went to work in the countries of the European Union and neighbouring Russia. According to recent polls, 35% of Ukrainians declared their readiness to emigrate. The process accelerated after Ukraine received a visa-free regime with the EU: about 100,000 people leave the country every month

    It was in Ukraine in the most extreme form three factors coincided: a fall in the birth rate, an increase in mortality (the death rate was twice the birth rate) and mass emigration of the population. Compare the corresponding dynamics in France and Ukraine. If before 1989 the growth rates of the population in these two countries were comparable, then in the subsequent period the population of France increased by 9 million people, and Ukraine lost the same number of people.

    Experts believe that the demographic crisis in Eastern Europe cannot continue indefinitely. The systems of social support and healthcare cannot physically work in conditions when the majority of the population is pensioners and children, at some point, inevitably there will be a collapse of statehood.

    But you should not flatter yourself about Western Europe, where the birth rate is also extremely low. While the developed part of the continent temporarily benefited from human resources from Eastern Europe, a much more rapid influx of migrants from the Middle East and Africa will inevitably change the sociocultural image of Western European countries, where religious and ethnic conflicts already arise.

    If the fertility rate for native French women is 1.6 children per woman, then for adults from the countries of the Middle East and Africa this figure is 3.4 children or more. Today’s kindergartens in France are already three-quarters composed of representatives of ethnic minorities, and in the future, great socio-cultural changes await the country. This has already been written in his best-selling Soumission by the French writer Michelle Houellebecq.

    Is there a solution? Is it possible to stimulate the birth rate mechanism among Europeans? Demographers believe that this is impossible either in Western or Eastern Europe. In the west of the continent, the consumption standard is so high that the appearance of a new child will automatically mean a decrease in the standard of living. In Eastern Europe, another mechanism operates: poverty, lack of prospects and the breakdown of family relations make the birth of children undesirable. Meanwhile, the proportion of Europeans in the world’s total population is decreasing. If in 1900 Europe accounted for 25% of the world’s inhabitants, now it is about 10%

    CONCLUSIONS

    As with other earlier examples of catch-up modernization the development policies, Eastern Europe presents a textbook example of the development of under-development.

    The general liberal theory of gradual evolution was penned by W.W.Rostow, an American economist, professor and political theorist who served as Special Assistant for National Security Affairs to US President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1966 to 1969.

    His theory of 5 Stages of Growth held that all societies progress through similar stages of development, and that today’s underdeveloped areas are thus in a similar situation to that of today’s developed areas at some time in the past, and that therefore the task in helping the underdeveloped areas out of poverty is to accelerate them along this supposed common path of development, by various means such as investment, technology transfers, and closer integration into the world market.

    This view, however, was a source of a major counter-critique. Dependency theory (see Immanuel Wallerstein, Andre Gunder-Frank, Samir Amin and Paul Baran) is essentially a body of social science theories predicated on the notion that resources flow from a “periphery” of poor and underdeveloped states to a “core” of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former.

    It is a central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished, and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the “world system”. Dependency theorists, argued that underdeveloped countries are not merely primitive versions of developed countries, but have unique features and structures of their own; and, importantly, are in the situation of being the weaker members in a world market economy, whereas the developed nations were never in an analogous position; they never had to exist in relation to a bloc of more powerful countries than themselves.

    In opposition to free-market economists (vide supra) the dependency school argued that underdeveloped countries needed to reduce their connectedness with the world market so that they could pursue a path more in keeping with their own needs, less dictated by external pressures.

    About right.

    Peripheral and semi-peripheral states being integrated into the world system are ‘ruled’ if that is the right word, by comprador elites who are part of a cosmopolitan overclass in a global financialised world system. Capital leakages and flight from periphery to core – a common feature of the world system, as are raw material and other energy products from the ‘developing’ world. Eastern Europe and its elites fit entirely into this comprador category supplying raw materials, labour and tourism as well as East to West capital flows/flight.

    As we have seen the notion that FDI brings about growth and development is the wrong way around. No developed economy got that way by opening up its economy to competition and inward (invariably predatory) investment from more highly developed countries and economies. Policies of State-capitalist mercantilism and nation-building have always been the road to development. The UK being the first, followed in short order by the United States and Germany, in the 19th century, and in the 20th century by a number of East Asian states in historical order, Japan, South Korea and China, and a number of others.

    In the case of Russia, this state has a semi-peripheral global position, in both political and economic terms. Too big and to small in economic terms with a small GDP, although very low debt-to-GDP ratio (15%). It is both semi-sovereign and semi-peripheral and a somewhat less than submerged struggle is going on between the Eurasian sovereigntists and the Atlantic integrationists with Putin balanced between the two factions.

    [Russia] is not exactly classical peripheral capitalism but rather a semi-periphery.

    Its phenomenon is characterised, on the one hand, by its dependency on the core, but on the other hand by its ability to challenge the domination of the latter in some particular areas. This semi-dependent position of Russia is conditioned by its shift to capitalism, whilst its semi-independent position is due to the Soviet legacy.

    In particular, this legacy found its manifestation in a significant nuclear arsenal still comparable with that of the United States. If it had not existed, Russia would have been subjugated to Western interests a long time ago, just as Ukraine was.”

    Russia and the world’s future are yet to be played out.

    As for Eastern Europe, it would not be stretching credulity too far to say that it has been had, falling straight into the trap of under-development where it will probably remain for the foreseeable future.

  • CNN: Thou Shalt Have No Other Media Before Ours, Chinamen!

    Authored by Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Donald Trump’s magical term “Fake News” absolutely hit the nail on the head in regards to the dismal behavior of the current Mainstream Media when they fabricate their product. But below Fake News there needs to be another subcategory of “Fake Outrage”. Meaning the news is presented factually and could be of value to the public, however the reaction within said news is hysterical and/or vastly overblown.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Take for example CNN’s rather detailed breakdown of how China is moving into the African media sphere. The information provided looks to be true but it is written to fill the Western reader with some sort of looming dread. The article ends on a perfect doomsday quote by a PhD candidate that they interviewed…

    “In the trade off between letting go of some sovereignty and building a state-of-the-art telecommunications network, most African countries have chosen the latter,”

    Apparently you can be horribly naive and biased while working towards a PhD and/or getting your next paycheck from CNN. The idea that modern Africa is completely independent and free as long as the Chinese stop sending phones and cable TV dishes to the continent is mental.

    “Post colonial” France has 3,000 troops spread over 5 African nations covering from the very west of the continent to the Horn of Africa according to Business Insider. The Washington Post says that during the middle of Obama’s presidency the US had troops in at least 13 Sub-Saharan African nations. Obviously not all bases are pubic knowledge thus there are “at least” 13 bases. Free and independent nations are not smothered by foreign troops.

    Sub-Saharan Africa is also plagued by massive government debts with roughly half the nations being in the red up to half of their national GDP according the Economist. This raises the question of whom are they indebted to? Of course it is lovely white faces at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank not their neighbors. The African Development bank is a player, but behind their local looks they have many foreign (Western) partners. The West still has a financial stranglehold on Africa. Is this Africa’s own fault for having corrupt leaders that took out IMF loans they could never possibly repay? Yes it probably is, but it doesn’t matter how the debt was created, African is beholden to it, thus not very pure and independent.

    CNN in their breakdown of Chinese expansion into the African info space also forgot to mention that media the world over is by default – American. It is false to portray poor Africa (which isn’t that poor anymore if you take a virtual trip through their cities via Google Maps) as this totally free media space filled only with some hapless local content that will be Crushed by Xi’s evil 10,000 Villages plan. If you travel the world and see a movie theatre it will have Hollywood movies guaranteed and translated American shows/movies will be on TV in hotel room guaranteed. The entire campy genre of Ugandan action movies (the only African-made movie you will probably ever see) is founded on imitating Hollywood.

    To say that Africa is empty of media is mad, the author from CNN needs to be less dishonest or more self-reflective. Their real problem with China putting up TV-dishes in 10,000 villages and selling smartphones built for African realities (cheap, good battery life to survive long power outages, gearing phones to local languages) is that it is a threat to US/Western dominance of the continent. The Chinese Communists are doing Capitalism better than the West in Africa and at least subconsciously some people at CNN are spooked.

    There is nothing wrong with an American news outlet saying that they want to keep the world’s eyes seeing history and events through a primarily American filter. There is nothing wrong with wanting America to step up its game in Africa to make sure hearts and minds are won over on a continent that has lots of lovely natural resources. It would be a normal healthy attitude to say something like “If the Chinese want to take Africa, then they’re going to have fight for it, right boys!?”. But somehow trying to make the Chinese look evil for attempting to make money selling products and services and gain soft power influence is Fake Outrage.

    China is just trying to do the rational things that America was doing very well for decades after WWII – bringing their media technology to as many markets as possible to make sweet cash and get those all so important soft power victories. If you have a problem with the Chinese answering certain market demands in Africa then you should honestly advocate for giving them an economic fight for the territory. Many of the biggest tech companies in the world are from the West. If you want your info-colonies back so much then go out and win them over with good tech and great content. Don’t lie to the English-speaking speaking public implying Beijing is somehow that vastly inherently different from Washington and by its very nature doing evil.

    CNN’s view is both racist and a perfect example of “Fake Outrage”.

  • 16 Shot, 3 Dead At California Garlic Festival; Shooter Still At Large

    “Who shoots up a garlic festival?” exclaimed one terrified attendee at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in Gilroy, California as she fled from an active shooter situation tonight.

    NBC Bay Area News is reporting sources say 16 shot and 3 dead.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Santa Clara Valley Medical Center spokeswoman Joy Alexiou told ABC News that the hospital has received two victims from the shooting and expects three more. She had no information on their conditions.

    The shooter is reportedly a white man in his 30s using an automatic weapon.

    Festival-goer Evenny Reyes of Gilroy, 13, told the San Jose Mercury News she thought the gunshots were fireworks at first, but then she saw a man with a bandana wrapped around his leg because he got shot.

    “And there were people on the ground, crying. There was a little kid hurt on the ground. People were throwing tables and cutting fences to get out.”

    The Gilroy Garlic Festival started in 1979 and Sunday was the final day of event, according to the festival website.

    Live Feed from NBC Bay Area:

    President Trump has tweeted that he is aware of the situation:

    Developing…

     

  • Russia And China Display Strategic Coordination In Asia-Pacific

    Authored by M.K.Bhadrakumar via The Indian Punchline blog,

    An exciting new template has appeared in the geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific last week when Russia’s Aerospace Force and China’s Air Force carried out their first-ever joint air patrol in the region.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Steadily and imperceptibly but profoundly, the regional alignments are transforming. Russia and China routinely claim that their entente is neither a military alliance nor is directed against any third country. Yet, the alchemy of that relationship is undergoing a huge transformation, stemming out of a conscious decision by their top leaderships. 

    The so-called joint patrol last Tuesday involved Russia’s Tu-95MS strategic bombers and the H-6K aircraft on China’s part. The Tupolov Tu-95MS (which NATO calls the ‘Bear’) is a is a large, four-engine turboprop-powered strategic bomber and missile platform to carry the new Russian Kh-101/102 stealth cruise missile, which uses use radio-radar equipment and target-acquiring/navigation system based on GLONASS. The ‘Bear’ used to be a veritable icon of the Cold War as it performed a maritime surveillance and targeting mission for other aircraft, surface ships and submarines and a versatile bomber that would deliver the thermonuclear bomb.

    China’s H-6K is a heavily redesigned version of the ‘Bear’, capable of carrying air launched cruise missiles. According to the Pentagon, the bomber gives China a “long-range standoff offensive air capability” with precision-guided munitions. Russia and China deployed two each of the Tu-95MS and H-6K strategic bombers in the air patrol on Tuesday. 

    According to a Russian Defence Ministry statement, the air patrol was undertaken on the “planned route over the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea.” The statement added that the joint air patrol was intended to strengthen Russian-Chinese relations and raise the level of interaction between the armed forces of both countries, in particular, to expand their capabilities for joint operations. 

    Significantly, the Russian statement  said that another goal of the joint patrol is “strengthening global strategic stability.” 

    The South Korean defence ministry, however, insisted that following the Russian-Chinese air patrol by the strategic bombers, a Russian A-50 command and control military aircraft also entered the country’s Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) twice. South Korea claimed that it deployed fighter jets and fired 360 warning shots ahead of the Russian A-50, which  is an unarmed AWACS plane, designed for tracking and observation.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Russian A-50 aircraft. File photo

    Why Russia and China jointly undertook an unprecedented joint air patrol over the disputed islands in the East China Sea (known to the Koreans as Dokdo and to the Japanese as Takeshima) remains unclear. But, quite obviously, it is an affront to the US, which has alliance treaties with both Japan and South Korea. The incident comes barely two months after the release of the Pentagon’s Indo-Pacific Strategy Report, which spelt out the US’ dual containment strategy against China (“a Revisionist Power”) and Russia (“a Revitalised Malign Actor”.) 

    The Chinese Defense Ministry’s official spokesman Col. Wu Qian saidon Wednesday, “I would like to reiterate that China and Russia are engaged in all-encompassing strategic coordination. This patrol mission was among the areas of cooperation and was carried out within the framework of the annual plan of cooperation between the defence agencies of the two states. It was not directed against any other “third state.” 

    “As far as the practice of joint strategic patrols is concerned, both sides will make a decision on the matter on the basis of bilateral consultations. Under the strategic command of the heads of states, the armed forces of the two nations will continue developing their relations. The sides will support each other, respect mutual interests and develop corresponding mechanisms of cooperation.” 

    Clearly, the Chinese statement has been far more assertive than the Russian statement, describing the joint patrol as part of an “all-encompassing strategic coordination” between the two countries and may continue in future as they “support for each other, respect mutual interests and develop corresponding mechanisms of cooperation.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Map of the route of Russian-Chinese joint patrol mission on July 23, 2019

    Moscow also says that the first-ever joint patrol of the long-range aviation in the Pacific was the beginning of a wider program, which aims to boost the Russian and Chinese militaries’ ability to work together and the planned program stretches at least for the remainder of the year.

    Neither Russia nor China is party to the maritime dispute in the East China Sea and when the undertook a joint patrol nonetheless, it bore an uncanny resemblance to the US exercising its ‘freedom of navigation’ in the South China Sea. The US has a big military presence in the region but was rendered an ineffectual observer, unable to go the aid of either of its allies — Japan and South Korea which too could protest and lament from the sidelines. 

    The symbolism is striking. The US National Security Advisor John Bolton who was on a visit to Seoul a day after the flyover of the islands by the Russian and Chinese strategic bombers exhorted South Korea and Japan to work together amid growing security concerns. 

    On the other hand, the incident last Tuesday only served to highlight the conflicting claims over the islands. Eighteen South Korean jets and about 10 from Japan’s Self-Defense Forces were deployed to the area during the incident. Japan, which considers the South Korean-controlled islands as its own, maintains that the South should not have responded to the Russian plane. Meanwhile, a South Korean Defense Ministry spokesperson said Wednesday that Japan’s views are completely irrelevant. 

    In fact, one viewpoint is that China and Russia took advantage of this rift to put their security partnership to the test. The CNN speculated that the Russian-Chinese mission may have been designed to draw out South Korean and Japanese aircraft for intelligence gathering purposes. 

    Either way, Russia and China may have underscored that carrying forward their convergence on the Asia-Pacific region, their two militaries intend to undertake active “strategic coordination” in the Far East where the US has begun deploying advanced missile defence capabilities. For China, the timing is particularly significant in view of the proposed US arms sales to Taiwan. 

    For both Russia and China, the Far East will be of increased importance in the period ahead as forming a gateway to the Northern Sea Route, the shipping lane which the two countries are jointly developing to connect the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean along the Russian coast of Siberia and the Far East. 

  • Democrat Baltimore Mayor Confirms Trump's Comments: "Oh My God, You Can Smell The Rats, Dead Animals"

    Update: As the day progressed and the progressives pontificated as to just how racist the President’s remarks about Baltimore are, a viral video from September 2018 has awkwardly surfaced showing Democratic Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh decrying the state of parts of her city, specifically the smell of “rats” and “dead animals.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As DailyWire.com’s Ryan Saavedra reports, Pugh made the remarks during a Fox 45 segment while touring a Baltimore neighborhood that was supposed to highlight her “violence-reduction initiative.”

    “What the hell? We should just take all this sh*t down. … Whoa, you can smell the rats. … Whew, Jesus. … Oh, my God, you can smell the dead animals.”

    So is Pugh racist too? (And we wonder how long before this clearly racist video is removed from Twitter).

    *  *  *

    The left, the mainstream media, and every virtue-signaling celebrity has quickly jumped on the bandwagon to support Rep. Elijah Cummings following President Trump’s “racist” tweets yesterday about the desperately terrible state of the congressman’s district.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    However, despite tears and furore, none on the left is actually denying Trump’s facts – merely distracting with rage that #OrangeManBad. But Trump would not let it go, doubling down this morning:

    And, some have come to Trump’s defense.

    As expected, White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney argued on “Fox News Sunday” that President Trump’s use of “infested” to attack Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) has “nothing to do with race.”

    MULVANEY: “Does anyone watching this program dispute the fact or the possibility that if Adam Schiff said the same thing about the border, that the president would be attacking Adam Schiff the exact same way today?”

    WALLACE: “I don’t think he would be talking about his crime-investor, rodent-infested district.”

    MULVANEY: “He very well could. It has zero to do with the fact that Adam’s Jewish and everything to do with the fact that Adam would just be wrong for saying that. This is what the president does. He fights — “

    WALLACE: “You’re completely comfortable with him saying that this is a rodent-infested district and no human being would want to live there? You’re comfortable with that personally?”

    MULVANEY: “Have you seen some of the pictures on the Internet? Just this morning from the conditions in Baltimore?”

    WALLACE: “You can do that in any inner city in America. And you could argue why doesn’t the president or something to stop it?”

    MULVANEY: “The richest estate in the nation has abject poverty like that. A state, by the way, dominated for generations by Democrats. I think it’s fair to have that conversation.

    But, Baltimore resident (and awkwardly African American) Michelle speaks out…

    “Trump is not racist.. I’m glad he put [Cummings] on blast. The rats just didn’t come. These houses just didn’t get torn down, they’ve been like this”

    “What he said was definitely true. [Cummings] hasn’t done anything for us”

    “[Cummings is] worried more about [caring for illegal aliens at the border] than his own people”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Sounds racist to us! Don’t believe Michelle?

    So here are some awkward – probably racist – facts about Baltimore…

    Wealth Inequality, Vacant Homes, And Homicides Plague Baltimore

    Baltimore has more than 30,000 abandoned homes according to the Housing Authority of Baltimore City. These vacancies are primarily located in neighborhoods with low incomes and high proportions of households of color.

    Baltimore’s vacant buildings stand as a reminder, the city is rapidly shrinking. As illustrated in the map below, the areas with the highest concentration of homicides correspond precisely with the city’s vacancies.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Out Of Control: Baltimore On The Verge Of Hitting Homicides Record

    Baltimore is on the verge of implosion. The city is an opioid hell-hole that has the most extensive wealth inequality in the country. Its millennial base is fleeing the city, headed to the suburbs to escape the out of control murders.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Baltimore struggles to curb violent crime as the city’s total homicides are expected to breach 300 in the coming days.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “We’ve got to teach folks that life is valuable. These folks don’t get up off the ground and get to live another day or to have another conversation with their daughter their father their mother their sister their cousin – they don’t get to do that,” Pugh said.

    Baltimore Dubbed ‘Most Robbed’ City In America 

    New evidence from ADT security study that examined FBI statistics shows the town is now the “most robbed” city in America.

    Baltimore had the most significant number of robberies per capita – 95.87 for every 10,000 people.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    ADT’s analytic analysts “looked at the FBI’s annual crime data [for 2017] for robbery rates to discover which city in each state experienced the most robberies.”

    While robberies worsened in Baltimore, they declined nationwide, dropping by 28% between 2008 and 2017.

    ‘Neighborhoods Are Crying Out’: Baltimore Is Nation’s Deadliest Big City, Says FBI

    According to The Baltimore Sun, the city has sustained a vicious upcycle in violent crime since 2015, when the per annum number of homicides soared well above 300 for three consecutive years after civil unrest that followed Freddie Gray’s death from injuries suffered in police custody.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     

    And finally, if everything’s so awesome, why are ‘human beings’ leaving Baltimore in droves?

    Exodus: Baltimore Sees Biggest Population Drop Since 2001

    New data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual population that has confirmed our thoughts: Baltimore is descending into chaos as a mass exodus of its residents is currently underway.

    Government data showed the city lost 7,346 people, or 1.2% of its population, during the 12 months that ended July 1, 2018, reported The Baltimore Sun.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The exodus, which puts Baltimore’s population at 602,495 as of July 1, 2018, is one of the biggest losses the city has seen since 2001.

    The overall trend for Baltimore is down. In the mid-1950s, Baltimore was America’s sixth most populous city, with more than 900,000 residents.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The city was one of the beating industrial hearts of America for decades, but since de-industrialization started in the 1970s to the present date, the city teeters on the edge of collapse.

    *  *  *

    So, you decide, is President Trump right about Elijah Cummings’ district? Or is its just “racist” to write about the facts in the Democratic stronghold?

    Of, course, Cummings is not alone..

    Do you see a pattern here?

  • India Launches First-Ever Space War Drill To Defend Satellites

    In the event of war with Pakistan or China, India has determined that the first domain of warfare to defend is low Earth orbit.

    Indian news reported last week that the country’s first space war drill on Thursday [July 25] was focused on defending space assets in the event of a shooting conflict with China.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The two-day war exercise, called IndSpaceEx, was conducted by Indian Armed Forces “in the backdrop of China’s rapidly expanding space and counter-space capabilities,” The Times of India (TOI) said.

    “There is a need to explore effective tactical, operational, and strategic exploitation on the final frontier of warfare. We cannot keep twiddling our thumbs while China zooms ahead. We cannot match China but must have capabilities to protect our space assets,” the TOI said while quoting an unnamed Indian official.

    The Diplomat magazine called the military exercise a “table-top war game,” will allow Indian war planners to design a doctrine that dictates procedures for space battle.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The latest exercise comes after an anti-satellite missile test in March, India emphasized it had developed a level of “deterrence” capabilities on par to the US, Russia, and China.

    “We are working on several technologies like directed-energy weapons (DEWs), lasers, electromagnetic pulses (EMP) and co-orbital weapons,” Dr. Satheesh Reddy, chairman of the state-funded the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) said in a press briefing after the anti-satellite missile test.

    Earlier last week [Monday], India launched its lunar probe Chandrayaan-2 had successfully performed a second earth-bound orbit-raising maneuver on Friday morning.

    “India has paranoia” amid China’s rapid rise across many domains of warfare, including space, Wei Dongxu, a Beijing-based military analyst, told the Global Times Thursday.

    Wei said China continued to hold a peaceful attitude towards India’s space ambitions and opposed its militarization in low Earth orbit.

    The Pentagon established its Space Force, the sixth branch of the armed forces, on August 2018.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Vice President Pence said after the creation of the new force, “Russia and China to North Korea and Iran have pursued weapons to jam, blind and disable our navigation and communications satellites via electronic attacks from the ground,” adding that, “our adversaries have been working to bring new weapons of war into space itself.”

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

    As evident by many of the world superpowers, a race to defend military assets in low Earth orbit is underway, an ominous sign of war preparation as protectionism and nationalism is spreading across the world — straining relations that could ultimately lead to war in the next decade.

  • No Accountability In Washington. The CIA Wants To Hide All Its 'Assets'

    Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Government that actually serves the interests of the people who are governed has two essential characteristics: first, it must be transparent in terms of how it debates and develops policies and second, it has to be accountable when it fails in its mandate and ceases to be responsive to the needs of the electorate.

    Over the past twenty years one might reasonably argue that Washington has become less a “of the people, by the people and for the people” and increasingly a model of how special interests can use money to corrupt government. The recent story about how serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein avoided any serious punishment by virtue of his wealth and his political connections, including to both ex-president Bill Clinton and to current chief executive Donald Trump, demonstrates how even the most despicable criminals can avoid being brought to justice.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This erosion of what one might describe as republican virtue has been exacerbated by a simultaneous weakening of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which was intended to serve as a guarantee of individual liberties while also serving as a bulwark against government overreach. In recent cases in the United States, a young man had his admission to Harvard revoked over comments posted online when he was fifteen that were considered racist, while a young woman was stripped of a beauty contest title because she refused to don a hijab at a college event and then wrote online about her experience. In both cases, freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment was ruled to be inadmissible by the relevant authorities.

    Be that as it may, governmental lack of transparency and accountability is a more serious matter when the government itself becomes a serial manipulator of the truth as it seeks to protect itself from criticism. Reports that the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) is seeking legislation that will expand government ability to declare it a crime to reveal the identities of undercover intelligence agents will inevitably lead to major abuse when some clever bureaucrat realizes that the new rule can also be used to hide people and cover up malfeasance.

    A law to protect intelligence officers already exists. It was passed in 1982 and is referred to as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (I.I.P.A.). It criminalizes the naming of any C.I.A. officer under cover who has served overseas in the past five years. The new legislation would make the ban on exposure perpetual and would also include Agency sources or agents whose work is classified as well as actual C.I.A. staff employees who exclusively or predominantly work in the United States rather than overseas.

    The revised legislation is attached to defense and intelligence bills currently being considered by Congress. If it is passed into law, its expanded range of criminal penalties could be employed to silence whistle blowers inside the Agency who become aware of illegal activity and it might also be directed against journalists that the whistleblowers might contact to tell their story.

    The Agency has justified the legislation by claiming in a document obtained by The New York Times that “hundreds of covert officers [serving in the United States] have had their identity and covert affiliation disclosed without authorization… C.I.A. officers place themselves in harm’s way in order to carry out C.I.A.’s mission regardless of where they are based. Protecting officers’ identities from foreign adversaries is critical.”

    Some Congressmen are disturbed by the perpetual nature of the identification ban, while also believing that the proposed legislation is too broad in general. Senator Ron Wyden expressed had reservations over how the C.I.A. provision would apply indefinitely. “I am not yet convinced this expansion is necessary and am concerned that it will be employed to avoid accountability,” he wrote.

    Agency insiders have suggested that the new law is in part a response to increasing leaks of classified information by government employees. It is also a warning shot fired at journalists in the wake of the impending prosecution of Julian Assange of WikiLeaks under the seldom used Espionage Act of 1918. Covert identities legislation is less broad that the Espionage Act, which is precisely why it is attractive. It permits prosecution and punishment solely because someone either has revealed a “covert” name or is suspected of having done so.

    But up until now, government prosecutors have only used the 1982 identities law twice. The first time was a 1985 case involving a C.I.A. clerk in Ghana and the second time was the 2012 case of John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. officer who pleaded guilty to providing a reporter with the name of an under-cover case officer who participated in the agency’s illegal overseas interrogations. Kiriakou has always claimed that he had not in fact named anyone, in spite of his plea, which was agreed to as a plea bargain. The covert officer in question had already been identified in the media.

    John Kiriakou also observes how the I.I.P.A. has been inevitably applied selectively. He describes how “These two minor prosecutions aside, very few revelations of C.I.A. identities have ever led to court cases. Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage famously leaked Valerie Plame’s name to two syndicated columnists. He was never charged with a crime. Former C.I.A. Director David Petraeus leaked the names of 10 covert C.I.A. operatives to his adulterous girlfriend, apparently in an attempt to impress her, and was never charged. Former C.I.A. Director Leon Panetta revealed the name of the covert SEAL Team member who killed Osama bin Laden. He apologized and was not prosecuted.”

    Kiriakou also explains how the “…implementation of this law is a joke. The C.I.A. doesn’t care when an operative’s identity is revealed — unless they don’t like the politics of the person making the revelation. If they cared, half of the C.I.A. leadership would be in prison. What they do care about, though, is protecting those employees who commit crimes at the behest of the White House or the C.I.A. leadership.” He goes on to describe how some of those involved in the Agency torture program were placed under cover precisely for that reason, to protect them from prosecution for war crimes.

    Even team player Joe Biden, when a Senator, voted against the I.I.P.A., explaining in an op-ed in The Christian Science Monitor in 1982 that, “The language (the I.I.P.A.) employs is so broadly drawn that it would subject to prosecution not only the malicious publicizing of agents’ names, but also the efforts of legitimate journalists to expose any corruption, malfeasance, or ineptitude occurring in American intelligence agencies.” And that was with the much weaker 1982 version of the bill.

    The new legislation is an intelligence agency dream, a get out of jail card that has no expiry date. And if one wants to know how dangerous it is, consider for a moment that if it turns out that serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein was indeed a C.I.A. covert source, which is quite possible, he would be covered and would be able to walk away free on procedural grounds.

  • Israel & US Conduct High Altitude 'Arrow-3' Missile Defense Tests In Alaska

    Following Iran’s provocative test firing last week of its medium-range ballistic missile the Shahab-3, which is capable of hitting Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Sunday the successful test firing of Israel’s own Arrow-3 ballistic missile shield over Alaska, tests previously considered secretive.

    “The performance was perfect – every hit a bull’s eye,” Netanyahu, who doubles as defense minister, said in a statement  following the three secret “live interception” tests held in coordination with the United States and the missile system’s maker, Boeing Co. The Arrow-3 is touted as being able to shoot down incoming missiles in space, or while a hostile missile is still outside the earth’s atmosphere, and is the “bottom tier” and longest range integration on top of the the short-range Iron Dome interceptor.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Specifically the Arrow-3 is designed to take out advanced ballistic missiles in Iran and Syria’s arsenal. The tests were held in Alaska due to Israel not being considered a capable hosting site given the system’s specifications, as well as likely the current soaring regional tensions with Iran.

    “Today Israel has the capabilities to act against ballistic missiles launched at us from Iran and from anywhere else,” Netanyahu said on Sunday. “All our foes should know that we can best them, both defensively and offensively.”

    “They were successful beyond any imagination. The Arrow 3 – with complete success – intercepted ballistic missiles beyond the atmosphere at unprecedented altitudes and speeds,” the Israeli PM added. However, no details regarding what altitudes were reached during the testing were given.

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

    During the Alaska tests the Israeli Arrow-3 missiles were also integrated with the US’ long-range, very high-altitude active electronically scanned array surveillance radar which globally assists in early detection of hostile projectiles with a range up to 2,900 miles. As Reuters summarized:

    Israel’s Ministry of Defense said that, as part of the Alaska tests, Arrow-3 was successfully synched up with the AN-TPY2 radar – also known as X-band – which provides the United States with extensive global coverage. Israel hosts an X-band battery.

    “We are committed to assisting the government of Israel in upgrading its national missile defence capability to defend the state of Israel and deployed U.S. forces from emerging threats,” Vice Admiral John Hill, director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defence Agency, said in a statement.

    The Arrow-3 system, once fully integrated with the Iron Dome and the medium-range ‘David’s Sling,’ will mark the highest level in Israel’s multi-tiered missile defense network.

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

    No doubt, the publication of the weekend tests doubly serves as a strong message of warning to Iran amid soaring tensions and a US military build-up in the Persian Gulf after tit-for-tat drone shoot downs over the past month and ongoing “tanker war”. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 28

Today’s News 28th July 2019

  • Americans Didn't Need The Original "New Deal"

    Authored by Laurence Vance via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    We have heard much this year about how much the country needs a Green New Deal to reverse the negative effects of climate change, ensure economic security, revamp the nation’s transportation system, restore damaged ecosystems, secure a sustainable environment, and achieve justice and equality. Overlooked in all of the analyses of the Green New Deal is that Americans didn’t need the original New Deal.

    The Green New Deal

    On February 7, newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) introduced in the U.S. House a resolution (H.Res.109) “recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” On the same day, the veteran Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a companion resolution (S.Res.59) in the U.S. Senate. According to the U.S. Senate, “A simple resolution addresses matters entirely within the prerogative of one house,” is “also used to express the sentiments of a single house,” or may simply give “advice.” Simple resolutions require neither the approval of the other House of Congress nor the signature of the president, as they do not have the force of law.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Prior to the introduction of her Green New Deal resolution, Representative Ocasio-Cortez issued a “Green New Deal FAQ.” A similar FAQ sheet was sent to the media on the day the resolution was introduced. The Green New Deal “is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.” The Green New Deal achieves this “through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation’s people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.” The Green New Deal also “calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth.” This “upgrade” builds on “FDR’s second bill of rights” by guaranteeing to every American:

    • A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security

    • High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools

    • High-quality health care

    • Clean air and water and access to nature

    • Healthy food

    • Safe, affordable, adequate housing

    • An economic environment free of monopolies

    • Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work

    And that is just the beginning: “The economic securities and programs for justice and equity laid out in this Green New Deal resolution are a bare minimum of what we need to do to successfully execute the Green New Deal.”

    And how will the Green New Deal be paid for? It will be paid for “the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war — with public money appropriated by Congress.” But also, “the Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments,” “new public banks can be created to extend credit,” and the government can “take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment.” In the end, the Green New Deal is not an expenditure; it is “an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation.”

    It’s not just the Democratic Party that is pushing the Green New Deal. Not at all surprising, the Green Party also supports a Green New Deal. Although the centerpiece of the Green New Deal “is a transition to 100% clean energy by 2030,” it also “includes an Economic Bill of Rights, which ensures all citizens the right to employment through a Full-Employment Program that will create 20 million jobs by implementing a nationally funded, but locally controlled direct-employment initiative.” Unemployment offices will be replaced “with local employment offices offering public sector jobs that are ‘stored’ in job banks in order to take up any slack in private sector employment.” The Green New Deal “will provide assistance to workers and local communities that now have workers employed in the fossil fuel industry and to the developing world as it responds to climate-change damage caused by the industrial world.” It will “end unemployment in America once and for all by guaranteeing a job at a living wage for every American willing and able to work.” Once implemented, the Green New Deal “will revive the economy, turn the tide on climate change and make wars for oil obsolete.”

    And how will the Green Party’s Green New Deal be paid for? “We will need revenues between $700 billion to $1 trillion annually for the Green New Deal,” says the Green Party. Cutting the military budget by 50 percent and subsequently saving “several hundred billion dollars per year would go a very long way toward creating green jobs at home.” The revenue from a carbon tax “will provide funding for the Green New Deal as well as safety nets for low-income households vulnerable to higher prices on certain items due to rising carbon taxes.” A tax “on the assets of oil and gas companies” will “help deal with the effects of climate change and smooth the transition to a low-carbon economy.” Wealthy Americans “should pay increased taxes to help with the cost of transitioning to a green economy.” The top income tax rate and the estate tax should both be raised. And on top of all that, “the Green New Deal largely pays for itself in healthcare savings from the prevention of fossil fuel-related diseases, including asthma, heart attacks, strokes and cancer.”

    The Green Party’s Green New Deal invokes Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal several times: “building on the concept of FDR’s New Deal,” “establish a Renewable Energy Administration on the scale of FDR’s hugely successful Rural Electrification Administration,” “this would include a WPA-style public jobs program.” “So it’s like the New Deal that got us out of the Great Depression, but it’s a Green New Deal so it also solves the crisis of the climate,” says Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate in 2012 and 2016.

    The cost of the Green New Deal has been conservatively estimated in the tens of trillions of dollars — and that is the case even if only the costs of guaranteed jobs, universal health care, affordable housing, and food security are considered. Indeed, according to Robert Murphy, senior economist with the Institute for Energy Research (IER), “The Green New Deal is simply a wish list of standard progressive social goals, rather than an actual blueprint for fighting the technical problem of (alleged) human-caused harmful climate change.” The underlying philosophy of the Green New Deal is that government intervention in the economy and society is absolutely essential to effect the change that is needed to right every wrong and fix every problem.

    The original New Deal

    Much as conservative politicians invoke the name of Ronald Reagan when they want to hoodwink grassroots conservatives into believing how “conservative” they are, so liberal and progressive supporters of the Green New Deal invoke the original New Deal. Just as the unregulated free market and unbridled capitalism caused the Great Depression and Roosevelt’s New Deal cured the Great Depression, so only the “massive investment” of government akin to the original New Deal can save the planet and eliminate economic injustice and inequality. The New Deal is viewed as the model for what government should do for the poor, needy, and vulnerable members of society in times of economic instability, crisis, and uncertainty.

    As explained by journalist and New Deal historian Michael Hiltzik, “The New Deal instilled in Americans an unshakable faith that their government stands ready to succor them in times of need. Put another way, the New Deal established the concept of economic security as a collective responsibility.” The only reason the radical goals of the Green New Deal can even get a hearing is that most Americans — of any political persuasion — look favorably on the original New Deal. After all, not only did it (eventually) end the Great Depression, it gave us Social Security — the most popular government program in history, and which is defended by conservative Republicans to this day. Yet it was government intervention by Presidents Herbert Hoover and Roosevelt that exacerbated and prolonged the Depression. The New Deal made the Depression the Great Depression.

    After heading the federal Food Administration during World War I, Hoover concluded, in the words of Jim Powell, author of FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression,“that the vast power of the U.S. government could do wonders during an emergency.” He thought that government could spend its way out of a depression. Hoover supported dramatically increased subsidies to business and agriculture and massive public-works projects. To pay for this spending, he backed both higher tariffs and higher taxes. In 1930, he signed into law the Smoot-Hawley tariff — the most protectionist legislation in U.S. history — that crippled international trade. In 1932, he signed into law the Revenue Act — the largest peacetime tax increase in history — which revived wartime excise taxes, imposed new taxes, restored eliminated taxes, reduced exemptions and credits, raised the corporate income tax, and doubled the estate tax and personal income tax.

    The 1932 Democratic Party platform, as summarized by Lawrence Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, in Great Myths of the Great Depression “called for a 25 percent reduction in federal spending, a balanced federal budget, a sound gold currency, the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise and an end to the extravagance of Hoover’s farm programs.” Throughout the 1932 election campaign, “Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions on the dole.” He accused Hoover of “reckless and extravagant” spending, of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible,” and of presiding over “the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.” Roosevelt’s running mate charged that Hoover was “leading the country down the path of socialism.”

    During a speech on July 2 from the floor of the 1932 Democratic Convention in Chicago, Roosevelt said, “I pledge to myself a new deal for the American people.” The phrase was not original to Roosevelt, but he made it his own. Once elected, he did everything he accused Hoover of and more. His remedies, which were inspired by European socialist or fascist models, were, in the words of Rexford Tugwell, one of the architects of the New Deal, “extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”

    The New Deal greatly increased the power of the presidency. In his first inaugural address, Roosevelt asked for “broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.” He got it. He issued 3,728 executive orders, including one that ordered Americans to surrender their gold to the government or face a fine of $10,000 and ten years in prison. The New Deal’s National Recovery Administration (NRA) forced most manufacturing industries into cartels with codes that regulated prices. The New Deal’s Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA) paid farmers to destroy crops and livestock. The New Deal’s National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) empowered labor unions to organize strikes, seize plants, and commit violence with impunity. The New Deal’s Works Progress Administration (WPA) gave rise to the term “government boondoggle.” No one who valued any degree of individual liberty, private property, free markets, and limited government would ever invoke the New Deal to give credence to any social or economic proposal.

    Laissez faire

    The alternative to a socialist or fascist economy — elements of which can still be found in our interventionist economy in the twenty-first century — is a laissez-faire economy; that is, an economy where exchange, commerce, business, and trade between individuals, groups, companies, and corporations are free from government intervention, whether such intervention takes the form of regulation, mandates, oversight, management, control, licensing, certification, privilege, tariffs, or subsidies. I want to explore three key issues in the context of a laissez- faire economy.

    Trade. In a laissez-faire economy, trade is absolutely free. It is neither managed by the government nor distorted by protectionism. There are no government trade agreements or trade treaties with other countries. There are no government memberships in trade organizations or associations. There is no 3,700-page Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. There is no government trade representative or Export-Import Bank. The government doesn’t calculate a meaningless trade deficit and, even worse, seek to remedy it by intervening in the economy. Managed trade is not free trade. It is a misnomer to call thousand-page trade agreements “free-trade agreements.” The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a globalist bureaucracy.

    It is not the proper role of government to protect domestic industry from foreign competition. Protectionism is not just tariffs; it can also take the form of quotas, barriers, sanctions, or dumping rules. Calls for protectionism are actually calls for Soviet-style central planning. All forms and levels of protectionism require central planning. Government economists and bureaucrats must determine which industries to protect, against which countries to impose protectionist measures, which items should be subject to tariffs, how much the tariffs should be, and what the duration of the tariffs should be. Trade is fair when it is not subject to government interference, regulations, or restrictions.

    Free trade is fair trade. Trade cannot be made more fair by making it less free. Protective tariffs and retaliatory tariffs are counterproductive. Raising tariffs will not make the country great again. Trade is not a zero-sum game in which one party gains at the expense of the other. Trade does not result in winners and losers. In every exchange, both parties give up something they value less for something they value more. Each party to a transaction anticipates a gain from the exchange or it wouldn’t engage in commerce with the other party. Tariffs are no different from taxes. Any way you look at it, a tariff is a tax. American importers suffer when they have to pay a tariff to the U.S. government, just as American exporters suffer when they have to pay a tariff to a foreign government.

    Commerce. In a laissez-faire economy, commerce is unrestricted and free enterprise and the free market are truly free. There is no National Economic Council or Council of Economic Advisers. There is no Small Business Administration, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or Commerce Department. All businesses handle their own security. Private industry delivers the mail, provides utilities, and collects garbage. No place of business is forced to provide handicapped parking spaces or is prohibited from selling alcohol after a certain time of day or on Sunday. No industry is singled out for special protection or provision by the government.

    The banking, education, housing, transportation, and health-care sectors of the economy provide services just like any other business. There are no government grants, subsidies, vouchers, loans, or loan guarantees to any individual, group, organization, profession, occupation, business, or industry. There is no Federal Reserve to manipulate interest rates and distort the money supply.

    There is no AMTRAK or public transit, no government deposit insurance, no rent-control laws, and no government accreditation of educational institutions. There are no departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Transportation, Education, or Housing and Urban Development.

    The free market allows buyers (who want to acquire goods at the lowest price possible) and sellers (who want to sell their goods at the highest price possible) to come together in harmony. Market forces of supply and demand allocate goods and resources and determine prices. Unhampered competition keeps prices in check. There are no government regulations to stifle businesses or anti-trust laws to “protect” consumers. Government intervention is not necessary to ensure competition or prevent
    monopolies. There are no price-control, price-gouging, predatory-pricing, price-discrimination, or usury laws. The just price is the market price.

    Not only is it not the business of government to regulate how people engage in commerce, attempts to regulate markets by governments always have unintended consequences that are often worse than the problems that regulations were meant to cure. Government interference in the market cannot make the market fairer or more competitive; it can only distort or disrupt the market.

    Employment. In a laissez-faire economy, employment is strictly a contract between employer and employee. The government doesn’t interfere in the employer/employee relationship in any way. There is no Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board, Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    There are no government job- training programs. There is no government unemployment-compensation program. Unemployment insurance is private, voluntary, and purchased on the free market just like any other form of insurance. There are no government occupational-licensing or certification requirements to prevent people from working. There are no minimum-wage or overtime-pay laws. Regular wages and overtime pay are set entirely by agreement between employers and employees, as are employee fringe benefits, since there are no other government-mandated employee benefits. Employers can hire anyone regardless of his citizenship or immigration status. Affirmative Action policies are not only voluntary, they can be based on anything, not just race. Union membership and participation in collective bargaining is voluntary, and employers are free to mandate or disallow either. Subject to any restrictions in an employment contract, striking workers can be summarily fired and replaced for the simple reason that any employee can be fired and replaced at any time and for any reason.

    Discrimination in hiring, pay, or promotions on any basis and for any reason is perfectly lawful. No one deserves to have a particular job, even if he is fully qualified for it. No one has the right to a “living wage” or a particular rate of pay. No employee is entitled to pay equal to that of any other employee. Workplace dress codes, hairstyles, headwear, appearance, and religious accommodations related to these things are solely the prerogative of employers.

    Americans don’t need a Green New Deal any more than they needed the original New Deal. Each of them is a grab bag of progressive social and economic goodies with horrific consequences for liberty and property. Americans need laissez faire. They need it now, just as they needed it in the 1930s.

  • Duterte To Put $400,000 Bounty On 'Head' Of Cop-Killing Insurgency Leader

    Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has posted a bounty for the literal head of a communist insurgent leader behind the killings of four police officers in central Philippines, according to SCMP. 

    Members of the New People’s Army (NPA) ambushed and shot the motorcycle officers while they were riding in Negros Oriental province on July 18, according to police. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “Still not satisfied with the blood of their prey, the terrorists also looted the dead of their firearms, valuables and personal belongings, and drove off with the victims’ motorcycle,” reads a statement by the Philippine police. 

    In response, Duterte on Thursday offered three million pesos ($59,000 US) to whoever could bring him the “head” of NPA’s leader – up from one million pesos earlier, for what he said was an Islamic State group-style killing. 

    “They were burned like (by) ISIS that’s why I got mad,” said Duterte in a speech. 

    Duterte – who said he only wants the “head” and not the body of the leader – said he intended to increase the bouty to 20 million pesos ($392,000 US)

    The president said he only wants the “head” and not the body of the leader of the killers because a complete body would only be used by activists in a ceremony to generate sympathy. –SCMP

    The attack was claimed by communist guerillas in the insurgency-hit province, according to the report, however they denied torturning the police officers as claimed earlier. 

    The communist insurgency has raged in the Philippines for more than 50 years in one of Asia’s longest-running rebellions.

    Battle losses, surrenders and infighting, however, have reduced the number of armed insurgents to about 3,500 from more than 20,000 at the height of their rural-based rebellion, the military says.

    Earlier this week, Duterte urged lawmakers to bring back the death penalty as part of his internationally-condemned crackdown on narcotics in which police have already killed thousands. –SCMP

    While giving his State of the Nation address on Monday, Duterte – whose approval ratings are sky-high, urged action on his zero-tolerance stance on crime. 

    “I respectfully request congress to reinstate the death penalty for heinous crimes related to drugs as well as plunder,” he said – drawing condemnation from the likes of Amnesty International. 

    Amnesty International immediately warned over the proposal’s impact on a nation where police claim to have killed more than 5,300 drug suspects, but activists say the true toll is at least four times higher.

    “Talk of bringing back the death penalty for drug-related crimes is abhorrent, and risks aggravating the current climate of impunity,” Amnesty section director in the Philippines Butch Olano said.

    Though Duterte’s campaign is the subject of a recently launched review by the United Nations’ rights body and a preliminary inquiry from International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutors, he was defiant in his address. –SCMP

    “Duterte – extrajudicial killing – report to the ICC,” said Duterte. “If you can provide me with a good comfortable cell, heated during winter time… unlimited conjugal visits, we can understand each other.”

  • Global Endgame Looms As Soaring Debt Smashes Into Shrinking Populations

    Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,

    • Global debt is currently at $246.5 trillion and primarily in the Wealthier, Consumer Nations of the world.

    • The population of young in Consumer Nations has fallen 12% or over 100 million Since Peaking in 1975.

    • Debt on a per capita basis gauged against the consumer nations young is going parabolic.

    For nearly a half century wealthy nations young populations have been declining versus rising young among poor nations…offset by secularly declining interest rates and the addition of over $240 trillion in global debt to maintain unnaturally high rates of economic growth.  The consumer nations population of relatively wealthy young has been declining for nearly 4 and a half decades, falling over 100 million or 12% during that span.  The population of relatively poorer nations young has increased by nearly 190% or increased by 570 million.  On average, each wealthier nations young person represents $26.5k in per capita consumption versus each poor nations young represents $1.5k in per capita consumption. 

    Said otherwise, it takes 15 more poor nations inhabitants to replace the loss of every one wealthier nations inhabitant to simply maintain flat consumption, thus the impetus for interest rate cuts and massive increases in debt among the wealthy.  Obviously, consumption hasn’t been flat but has grown tremendously, primarily thanks to interest rate cuts, cheap debt, and only in a very small part from growth in consumption among the poorer nations population gains.

    As I started in my last article, the world is characterized by stark inequalities among the global nations of “haves” and “have-nots”. The World Bank is kind enough to categorize the world’s nations into four buckets by the Atlas Gross National Income per capita (geographically detailed HERE and listed HERE). High income nations range from $84k to $12k per capita, Upper Middle income nations $12k-$4k per capita, Lower Middle income nations $4k to $1k, and Low income nations less than $1k per capita. To simplify what is taking place, I sweep the high and upper middle income nations 0-15yr/old populations together (blue line below), as these nations represent 90% of the global income, savings, and access to credit. They consume 90% of the global energy and purchase 90% of the global exports. They drive global economic activity. Likewise, I sweep the have-nots 0-15yr/old populations together (tan line, below).  To view the full picture, I include global debt (red line) and the Federal Funds rate (black dashed line).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Looking at the same chart but running through 2050, with UN population projections and debt estimated to continue growing at the same pace it has since 1950 (these #’s are inclusive of the impact of immigration and emigration).  Continued declines among the wealthy young consumers, growth among poor young non-consumers, and debt running from the current $250 trillion up to $2.6 quadrillion.  NIRP (negative interest rate policy) will be necessary to enable this sort of wildly irresponsible debt load.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And looking at the debt on a per capita basis of young in the consumer nations, the chart below shows the impressive rise of debt against a long decline in consumer nations young.  As of 2019, the per capita debt is over $334k per youngster.  But that is nothing compared to what is coming…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The chart below takes the UN population projection and estimated global debt through 2050, and drum roll please, by 2050 every consumer nation under 15 year old will be responsible for over $4 million in per capita debt.  That is the magic of surging debt and declining population…and that is entirely unworkable.  There is no possible way to repay or even service this sort of debt load in any free-market based fashion.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And just to round things out, the chart below shows annual changes in the populations of wealthier versus poorer nations under 15 year olds.  Also included is the rising debt, for some perspective on the role of debt in maintaining the growth of consumption.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Ok, to really round out the picture, here is the flip side of the equation…the 65+ year old populations of the same groupings of nations.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And annual changes in the populations…note the sharp acceleration in annual growth of consumer nations elderly since 2007 and the massive increases still to come.  This isn’t even mentioning the unfunded pensions and liabilities due to these elderly.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And putting the changing population growth in perspective, the same groupings below but showing only the 0-65 year old annual changes among the wealthier and poorer nations alongside the Federal Funds rate (yellow line).  Note the deceleration of wealthier under 65 year old population growth from 2007 to now, and by 2023 turning to secular outright depopulation of consumer nations under 65 year olds throughout the remainder of the century.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Again, the growth in potential consumption among the far poorer populations in no way offsets the declining potential of consumption among the declining wealthier populations…without ZIRP (or more likely NIRP) and debt of gargantuan proportions.

  • FAA Let Boeing Sign Its Own Safety Certifications On The 737 Max

    Thanks to a ‘broken regulatory process,’ the Federal Aviation Administration has been passing off routine oversight tasks to manufacturers for years. In the case of the beleagured 737 Max, however, the plane was so advanced that the regulator “handed nearly complete control to Boeing,” which was able to sign off on its own safety certificates, according to the New York Times. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The lack of regulatory oversight meant that the FAA had no clue how Boeing’s automated anti-stall system, known as MCAS, worked. In fact, “regulators had never independently assessed the risks of the dangerous software” when they issued a 2017 approval for the plane. 

    The company performed its own assessments of the system, which were not stress-tested by the regulator. Turnover at the agency left two relatively inexperienced engineers overseeing Boeing’s early work on the system.

    The F.A.A. eventually handed over responsibility for approval of MCAS to the manufacturer. After that, Boeing didn’t have to share the details of the system with the two agency engineers. They weren’t aware of its intricacies, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. –New York Times

    During the late stages of the Max’s development, Boeing engineers decided to increase the plane’s reliance on MCAS to fly smoothly.  Unfortunately, a new version of the system relied on a single sensor which could malfunction and push the plane into a nosedive. 

    Boeing never submitted a formal assessment of the MCAS system following its upgrade – which wasn’t required by FAA rules. An agency official claims that an engineering test pilot was familiar with the changes, however his job was to evaluate its effect on how the plane flew – not on its safety. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The jet was eventually certified as safe to fly, and the FAA required very little pilot training until the second Max crashed less than five months after the first. 

    The plane remains grounded as regulators await a fix from Boeing. If the ban persists much longer, Boeing said this past week that it could be forced to halt production.

    The F.A.A. and Boeing have defended the plane’s certification, saying they followed proper procedures and adhered to the highest standards. –New York Times

    “The agency’s certification processes are well-established and have consistently produced safe aircraft designs,” said the FAA in a Friday statement undoubtedly written by lawyers. “The 737 Max certification program involved 110,000 hours of work on the part of F.A.A. personnel, including flying or supporting 297 test flights.”

    Boeing, meanwhile, said that “the F.A.A.’s rigor and regulatory leadership has driven ever-increasing levels of safety over the decades,” adding that “the 737 Max met the F.A.A.’s stringent standards and requirements as it was certified through the F.A.A.’s processes.”

    Chris Hart, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board is trying to get to the bottom of these regulatory shortcuts. 

    “Did MCAS get the attention it needed? That’s one of the things we’re looking at,” said Hart, who now leads a multiagency task force investigating the Max’s approval. “As it evolved from a less robust system to a more powerful system, were the certifiers aware of the changes?”

    Rushed Orders

    In an effort to compete with its rival Airbus, Boeing was “racing to finish” the 737, according to the report. And when it came to cutting through red tape to speed that process along, the FAA handing the regulatory reigns over to Boeing was crucial. 

    At crucial moments in the Max’s development, the agency operated in the background, mainly monitoring Boeing’s progress and checking paperwork. The nation’s largest aerospace manufacturer, Boeing was treated as a client, with F.A.A. officials making decisions based on the company’s deadlines and budget.

    It has long been a cozy relationship. Top agency officials have shuffled between the government and the industry.

    During the Max certification, senior leaders at the F.A.A. sometimes overruled their own staff members’ recommendations after Boeing pushed back. For safety reasons, many agency engineers wanted Boeing to redesign a pair of cables, part of a major system unrelated to MCAS. The company resisted, and F.A.A. managers took Boeing’s side, according to internal agency documents. –New York Times

    The FAA, meanwhile, was ‘surprised’ to learn after last October’s Lion Air crash that they didn’t have a complete analysis of the MCAS system – including the fact that the system could “aggressively push down the nose of the plane and trigger repeatedly, making it difficult to regain control of the aircraft, as it did on the doomed Lion Air flight.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And what did the agency do after the October incident? Instead of grounding the plane, they issued a notice reminding pilots of existing emergency procedures (which made no mention of how the MCAS system works – after an FAA manager told agency engineers to remove the only mention of the system). 

    Read the rest of the Times report here. 

  • Bretton Woods Is Dead: What Next?

    Authored Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire has publicly admitted something normally reserved for backroom discussion in the circles of Europe’s governing elite at an event honoring the 75th anniversary of Bretton Woods (the conference which created the foundations for the post WWII world order).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At this event, Le Maire stated ever-so candidly that “the Bretton Woods order has reached its limits. Unless we are able to re-invent Bretton Woods, the New Silk Road might become the New World Order”.

    He went onto state that “the pillars of that order have been the International Monetary Fund and its sister institution, the World Bank since their inception at the Bretton Woods conference in  New Hampshire in 1944.”

    Were a radical transformation not undertaken immediately, then Le Maire laments “Chinese standards on state and on access to public procurements, on intellectual property could become global standards”.

    The finance minister’s statements reflect the growing awareness that two opposing systems operating on two conflicting sets of principles and standards are currently in conflict, where only one can succeed. Yet as much as he appears to be aware of the forces at play between two systems, Le Maire fails miserably to identify what the Bretton Woods System was meant to accomplish in the first place, or what type of “radical transformation” is needed to save Europe from the collapse of its own speculation-ridden system.

    Le Maire dives so deeply out of reality that he actually believes that the radical transformation desperately needed in the west does not involve collaborating with the New Silk Road, but rather to strengthen the power of Brussels, while becoming more technocratic and more green (aka: de-industrialized, de-populated).

    The Bretton Woods of 1944 and New Silk Road of Today

    Seventy five years of revisionist historians largely funded by the British Roundtable/Chatham House and its American branch (The Council on Foreign Relations) have obstructed the true anti-imperial nature of the founding intention of Bretton Woods and the post war order centered on the United Nations.

    Then, much as today, two opposing factions were vying to shape the essence of the world order as the Nazi machine (funded by Wall Street and London’s Bank of International Settlements) was drawing to a close. I am not talking about Capitalism vs. Communism.

    This faction fight was between New Deal nationalists led by Franklin Roosevelt vs those racist imperialists represented by Sir Winston Churchill who wished to use the crisis of the war to establish a revived British Empire strengthened by American muscle. FDR’s New Dealers were characterized by their total adherence to the belief that the plague of colonialism had to be undone and a new age of long term development of great infrastructure projects had to characterize the community of sovereign nations for the coming century. These patriots believed in the internationalization of the New Deal, were committed to working with Russia and China as natural allies of America and profoundly distrusted the British.

    In the case of Bretton Woods, where representatives from 44 nations convened for two weeks to create a new post war system in July 1944, this fight amounted to a battle between FDR’s trusted economic advisor Harry Dexter White (first director of the IMF and ally of FDR’s vice-president Henry Wallace) and Lord John Maynard Keynes (eugenicist, pedophile and defender of the British Empire).

    Churchill and Keynes: Hard Racist/Soft Racist of the Empire

    Where Churchill represented the unapologetic conservative proponent of the “White Man’s Burden” to exercise dominion over the “inferior” colored peoples of the earth, Keynes represented the soft cop of the Empire as a “Fabian Society Socialist” (aka: Social Engineer) from the London School of Economics. Where Churchill’s ilk preferred mowing down their enemies with Canons, body counts and torture as seen in the Boer War or opium wars or WWI, Keynes’ Fabian methods preferred attrition and slow subversion. Either way, the result of either pathway was the same.

    While many know of the racist and pro-fascist views of Sir Churchill who spoke admiringly of Mussolini and even Hitler in the early days when it was still believed that these fascists and corporatists would act as marcher lords for the financial oligarchy, but most people are unaware that Keynes also supported Hitler and despised FDR.

    Contradicting the mythos that FDR was a Keynesian, FDR’s assistant Francis Perkins recorded the 1934 interaction between the two men when Roosevelt told her:

     “I saw your friend Keynes. He left a whole rigmarole of figures. He must be a mathematician rather than a political economist.”

    In response Keynes, who was then trying to coopt the intellectual narrative of the New Deal stated he had “supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking.”

    In his 1936 German edition of his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Keynes wrote:

     “For I confess that much of the following book is illustrated and expounded mainly with reference to the conditions existing in the Anglo Saxon countries. Nevertheless, the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state.”

    Keynes Contaminates Bretton Woods

    Lord Keynes was deployed to lead the British delegation to Bretton Woods and advance a Delphic plan that called for creating an International Clearing Union controlled by the City of London denominating all payments in a common accounting unit: the Bancor.

    The Bancor would be used to measure all nations’ trade or surplus deficits- expropriating surpluses by the end of the year and taxing countries with deficits. The imposition of a “mathematical architecture” upon the physical (non-mathematical) systems of nations was the surest way to keep an invisible cage upon the earth under an ideal of “mathematical equilibrium.” The sadistic fiscal austerity demanded by mathematical economists and other technocrats in Brussels reflect the still active force of Keynes’ spirit haunting the world today.

    The Bretton Woods as a Global New Deal

    In opposition to Keynes, FDR’s America was represented by his close ally Harry Dexter White in Bretton Woods. White (today slandered as a Soviet agent by CFR historians) fought tooth and nail to ensure that Britain would not be in the driver’s seat of the new emerging economic system or the important mechanisms of the IMF that he would go onto lead, World Bank or monetary policy more generally. White ensured the colonial economic “preference” system Britain used to maintain free trade looting across its empire was destroyed, and the pound sterling did not play a primary role in global trade. Instead a fixed exchange rate system was set up to guarantee that speculation could not run rampant over national growth strategies and the dollar (then backed by a powerful PHYSICAL economic platform) was a backbone for world trade (1).

    White, like Franklin Roosevelt, Henry Wallace, and Harry Hopkins believed that the US currency (rather than the pound sterling) had to become the foundation for the world economy as America exited WWII as the most powerful productive, growing nation of the world untouched by the ravages of Eurasian war.

    Just as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) was used like a national bank to fund thousands of great infrastructure, transport, energy, and water projects during the New Deal and just as Glass-Steagall broke the monopoly of private speculative finance over the productive economy, these New Dealers wished to use the World Bank and IMF to issue long term, low interest productive credit for long term mega infrastructure projects around the world. Not just in Europe’s reconstruction.

    FDR’s battle with Churchill on this matter was well documented in his son/assistant Elliot Roosevelt’s book As He Saw It (1946):

     “I’ve tried to make it clear … that while we’re [Britain’s] allies and in it to victory by their side, they must never get the idea that we’re in it just to help them hang on to their archaic, medieval empire ideas … I hope they realize they’re not senior partner; that we are not going to sit by and watch their system stultify the growth of every country in Asia and half the countries in Europe to boot.”

    FDR continued: 

    “The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements–all you’re doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you’re doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.”

    Writing from Washington in a hysteria to Churchill, Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden said that Roosevelt ”contemplates the dismantling of the British and Dutch empires.”

    In 1942, FDR sent his close ally Wendell Wilkie on a world tour to meet with international leaders of colonial nations in order to spread the President’s vision for a global new deal. On his return Willkie gave a speech saying:

    “In Africa, in the Middle East, throughout the Arab world, as well as in China, and the whole Far East, freedom means the orderly but scheduled abolition of the colonial system. I can assure you that this is true. I can assure you that the rule of people by other people is not freedom and not what we must fight to preserve… Men and women all over the world are on the march, physically, intellectually and spiritually. After centuries of ignorant and dull compliance, hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe and Asia have opened the books. Old fears no longer frighten them. They are no longer willing to be eastern slaves for western profits. They are beginning to know that men’s welfare throughout the world is interdependent. They are resolved, as we must be, that there is no more place for imperialism within their own society than in the society of nations.”

    This vision was expressed continually by FDR in his hundreds of speeches, as well as by his Vice-President Henry Wallace, in the creation of the Atlantic Charter, and Four Freedoms. It was embedded in the defense of national sovereignty in the UN Constitution (conspicuously non-existent in the British-directed League of Nations earlier). It was meant to be the governing spirit animating the world as mankind entered a matured age of creative reason.

    So What happened?

    Describing the deep British penetration of the American state department, infested with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians, FDR described his understanding of the problem to his son:

    “You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!” I was told… six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office….”

    As long as FDR was in office, this British-run hive was kept at bay, but as soon as he died, the infestation took over America and immediately began undermining everything good FDR and his allies had created.

    Harry Dexter White was ousted from his position as director of the IMF and labelled a communist agent. Henry Wallace was ousted for similar reasons and worked with White on a 1948 presidential bid as third party presidential candidate. William Wilkie (who had discussed creating a new party with FDR) died in October 1944, and FDR’s right hand man Harry Hopkins who did the most to initiate a close bond of friendship with Stalin, died in 1946.  Elliot Roosevelt interviewed Stalin a few years later, and recorded that Stalin always believed that Elliot’s father was poisoned “by Churchill’s gang.” By 1946, Churchill ushered in the Cold War setting former allies at each other’s’ throats for the remaining 70 years while dropping nuclear bombs on a defeated Japan. Stalin bemoaned Roosevelt’s death saying “the great dream has died”.

    It took the oligarchy another 25 years to dismantle the fixed exchange rate system of the Bretton Woods leading to Nixon’s 1971 floating of the US dollar onto the speculative markets, converting the world ever more into a militarized casino system. Rather than used as instruments for long term growth as they were intended, the IMF and World Bank were used as tools of debt slavery and re-colonialization as outlined in John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

    Today the world has captured a second chance to revive the “great dream”. In the 21st century, this great dream has taken the form of the New Silk Road, led by Russia and China (and joined by a growing chorus of nations yearning to exit the invisible cage of colonialism).

    If western nations wish to survive the oncoming collapse, then they would do well to join this new framework rather than drink more of the poison promoted by the likes of Le Maire, Ursula von Leyen and their masters who want to transform the dying remains of Bretton Woods into a “Green New Deal”.

    *  *  *

    Appendix: Churchill, Keynes and FDR in their own words…

     “Galton’s eccentric, sceptical, observing, flashing, cavalry-leader type of mind led him eventually to become the founder of the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists, namely eugenics.”

    -John Maynard Keynes on Galton’s Eugenics, Eugenics Review 1946

    “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

    – Winston Churchill to the Peel Commission, 1937

    “There never has been, there isn’t now, and there never will be, any race of people fit to serve as masters over their fellow men… We believe that any nationality, no matter how small, has the inherent right to its own nationhood.”

    – Franklin Delano Roosevelt, March 1941

    “They who seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order.”

    – Franklin Roosevelt

  • Meet The Trillion-Dollar Tax-Haven-Whistleblower Who Was Exiled From His Homeland

    John Christensen was a government economist living on the beautiful island of Jersey, off England’s southern coast, in a “hillside villa with views of France.” But that lifestyle ended after he spoke out on a fraudulent currency trading scheme involving a UBS subsidiary in Jersey, according to Bloomberg.

    Christensen had a head of dark hair when he helped to expose the Jersey currency scheme, which resulted in UBS’s Jersey unit and accounting firm Touche Ross & Co. — now Deloitte — paying almost $40 million to settle lawsuits. Regular bike rides keep Christensen as trim as two decades ago, but his hair has turned pearl white.

    He said: “I was set. We had a pretty good lifestyle and plenty of friends.”

    But he was forced to move to London as a result, where he now fights governments and campaigns against financial secrecy, including on his home island of Jersey.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    He founded the Tax Justice Network in 2003 for the purposes of pushing greater regulation of tax havens. It’s estimated that $5 trillion to $32 trillion is currently stashed offshore for tax purposes – this is about a third of the entire global domestic product. Christensen thinks the number is at the “top end of that range”. 

    He said: 

    “We’ve won many of the intellectual and political arguments. And yet we’re not seeing it happen in practice. Look at where we are now. Rates of tax on capital have collapsed, inequality has gone through the roof and we’re now in a very dark place for democracy generally.”

    But there’s some legitimate reasons to keep money offshore. Hedge funds and money managers often pool assets into Cayman Islands master funds to reduce costs. Offshore havens also sometimes offer protection against unstable political regimes. But their lack of transparency also makes them attractive to drug dealers, kleptocrats, and money launderers. 

    After the Panama Papers leaked, governments have been pressuring offshore tax havens to disclose more details. Regulators are starting to hone in on long-established locations, too. So now the tax adverse wealthy are seeking out mainland arrangements in places like Hong Kong, London and the U.S. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Christensen continued: 

    “Capital has moved literally lock, stock and barrel beyond the ability of nation-states to regulate tax. If you don’t have a good referee in a football game, neither team is any good and it becomes a free-for-all and everything deteriorates.”

    Russia leads the way for offshore stashing, with 60% of the country’s GDP held offshore. This compares to 15% in Continental Europe and just a few percent in Scandinavian countries.

    But Russians are leaving one of their favorite offshore spots: the British Virgin Islands. 

    Increased transparency in the BVIs, combined with tighter tax laws, means that Russians can no longer anonymously accumulate tax free funds there. Legislation adopted this year in the BVIs requires companies registered there to actually show economic activity like hiring employees and renting offices or they are faced with fines. 

    Christensen and the Tax Justice Network are campaigning for public registers of company owners, and they’ve had some success so far. The U.K.’s overseas territories and crown dependencies, like Jersey and the BVIs, are set to introduce legislation by the end of 2023. But this still isn’t quick enough for Christensen.

    “It took the allied powers six months to plan and successfully carry out the D-Day landings. It took Thomas Edison two years to create the light bulb,” he said, arguing against the timeline. 

    His Tax Justice Network was started over tea and cake in Jersey in 2002. Christensen and two friends discussed their concerns over the grip of the financial industry on the economy of Jersey. 

    By writing reports, posing questions at conferences and working with nonprofit groups, the network eventually caught the attention of policymakers. Two ideas that Christensen and his colleagues championed from the start — country-by-country breakdowns of multinational firms’ finances and improved exchanges of tax data between nations — helped shape global tax reforms this decade by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    Labour Party lawmaker Margaret Hodge said of Christensen’s group: “Their campaigning work is grounded in good analysis and proper facts. Without them, I wouldn’t have achieved as much as I’ve been able to do in Parliament.”

    Two years ago the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development introduced its tax disclosure system with tropical locations like the Cayman Islands and BVIs adopting it early. Both places have avoided the EU’s blacklist of tax havens, which now includes 15 jurisdictions like Bermuda and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Jeffrey Epstein has a private island. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Instead of signing on to OECD’s system, the U.S. is sticking with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, which has created loopholes for people putting foreign money in the U.S.

    Offshore specialists follow the cash. Geneva-based Cisa Trust Co. has applied for a license in South Dakota and Trident Trust, another offshore trust provider, has moved dozens of accounts from Switzerland and Grand Cayman to Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 

    Christensen said: “It’s kind of Wild West stuff in South Dakota and Wyoming. Anything goes. The law no longer really applies.”

    But the influx into the U.S. doesn’t mean that traditional tax havens still don’t have plenty of foreign cash. 

    Last year, four Chinese tycoons transferred more than $17 billion into family trusts with the ownership structures all involving entities in the Caribbean. Chinese individuals will account for about one-third of the total inflows for offshore financial centers over the next five years, according to an analysis by Boston Consulting Group.

    Even though it resulted in exile, Christensen doesn’t regret outing the UBS subsidiary. 

    “I knew that if I didn’t do that, I would regret it for the rest of my life. Everything I stood for would’ve been shunted to one side if I hadn’t,” he concluded. 

  • Real Corporate Profit Margins "Revised" To Financial Crisis Lows

    Following up on our previous article discussing the unexpected collapse of US corporate operating profits in yesterday’s post-revision GDP data, JPMorgan makes an interesting observation.

    First the good news. As we noted on Friday morning, US GDP grew more rapidly than expected last quarter as a strong 3.5% rise in domestic final sales offset a large drag from net trade and inventories. However, the slowing in stock building was less than expected and corporate efforts to lower its pace further likely will continue.

    However, it was the annual revision to US national accounts that showed a significant change in two key items.

    On one hand, there was a substantial upward revision in labor compensation. This, according to JPMorgan, is encouraging as it promotes a necessary normalization in labor’s income share and breathes life into the wage Phillips curve relationship.

    However, this was more than offset by negative revisions to US corporate profitability showing a sustained decline in US corporate profits, which have slumped to the lowest level in over 5 years even as the S&P has risen by 50% in the same period, indicating that all of the upside in the stock market was due to PE multiple expansion, something Goldman discussed earlier.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It gets worse: in light of solid revenue growth in recent years, and considering stagnant corporate profits, this implies that profit margins have been tumbling, and as shown in the chart below from JPMorgan, US after-tax profit margins have plunged to the lowest level since the financial crisis, despite – as JPM chief economist Bruce Kasman observes – the benefits from last year’s tax cuts.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This is notable for two reasons: non-GAAP profit margins are just off all time highs, yet profit margins as calculated by national accounts which is far more indicative of the underlying profit reality, are near the financial crisis lows, begging the question – just how fake is the non-GAAP, stock repurchasing EPS-boosting world used by analysts and economists to justify the all time high in the S&P 500?

    The second reason this is important is that while margins remain at high levels, such sustained compression has been a sign of  vulnerability preceding recession, according to JPMMorgan, and as a result of this, JPM’s 12-month-ahead US recession probability model rose another 2pts this week, largely because of this news.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And speaking of a coming recession, considering the unexpected revised plunge in corporate profits which has clear adverse consequences for the entire economy, JPM’s model estimate of the risk of recession beginning within one year based on economic data has remained above 40% for much of 2019, as most survey measures of business confidence have stubbornly refused to rebound despite a string of positive policy news. This experience suggests that caution in the business sector could linger even after this week’s budget deal removes another source of tail risk.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The silver lining: this caution has thus far remained quite contained, suggesting additional shocks would be necessary to produce a broader downturn.

  • Here Are The Cities With The Most Student Debt 

    LendingTree has revealed a new study that identifies certain US metropolitan areas with the highest student loan balances.

    The study’s release comes at a time when total student loan debt has reached $1.6 trillion, set to unravel in the next economic downturn. The study gives an eye-opener to the cities where millennials will suffer the most significant financial distress when the crisis unfolds.

    About 70% of the cities and surrounding areas with the highest median loan balances are located in the South, including large balances in Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and the Carolinas. These areas are known for widespread deindustrialization, high opioid addiction, and weak economic activity.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    LendingTree’s map shows high concentrations of student loan balances in the South, Rust Belt, and Mid-Alantic.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Borrowers in Washington, DC, carry the most student debt median balance of $29,314. And about 15% of those borrowers owe more than six figures, the highest percentage among the 100 metros surveyed.

    Atlanta and Charleston, SC, have the second and third highest balances, averaging both around $28,000.

    1. Washington, D.C. (Median balance: $29,314)

    Roughly half of the people over the age of 25 in the Washington, D.C., metro have a postsecondary degree — that’s significantly higher than the 28% of all Americans who’ve earned a bachelor’s or higher.

    Even more significant: Nearly 1 out of 4 have professional or graduate degrees, more than double the national rate of 10.5%. This helps explain why Washington also has the highest percentage of student debt holders who owe more than $100,000.

    But that doesn’t necessarily mean these borrowers are in financial crisis, as most completed their degrees and are earning accordingly. While 22% of Americans left college before finishing, the same is true for only 16.5% of those residing in and around the nation’s capital.

    2. Atlanta (Median balance: $28,706)

    Atlanta is another highly educated city — 37% of Atlanta residents ages 25 and older have completed at least a four-year education, and nearly 14% have a graduate or professional degree, which is higher than the nation as a whole (10.5%).

    However, that doesn’t completely explain why about 13% owe more than $100,000, well above the 8.7% average of the metros we reviewed. The area is home to a plethora of higher learning institutions, including the Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University, Emory University, Morehouse College and Spelman College. Perhaps the need for so many professors helps to explain why Atlanta is more educated — and in more student debt — than the nation as a whole.

    Unfortunately, 1 in 5 Atlanta residents left college before finishing a degree, which is in line with the rest of the country.

    3. Charleston, S.C. (Median balance: $27,591)

    The first of two South Carolina metros among our top five overall, Charleston placed third by a narrow margin. Still, the average borrower here has 4.6 loans, more than any of the 99 other metros we studied.

    More students going to college also equals more student loans overall: About 34% of the metro area’s population has at least a bachelor’s degree, trumping the national average of 28%.

    4. Akron, Ohio (Median balance: $27,363)

    High balances brought Columbia into the top five of metros with the most education debt. About 45% of borrowers in the metro area had at least $50,000 in student debt — and more than 13% of were staring at a six-figure hole.

    Interestingly, while the fellow Palmetto State cities of Columbia and Charleston ranked high on the list, Greenville, S.C., did much better, coming in at 39th overall for median education debt.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And metro areas with the lowest median balances were mostly west of the Mississippi River. College graduates in California, Texas, and Utah had some of the tiniest balances in the country.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Student debt is the fastest-growing consumer debt in the country, with $1.6 trillion outstanding, cracks are already starting to appear with 22% of borrowers defaulting.

    The economic downturn which started in the summer of 2018, has already manifested into a broad industrial slowdown that is already starting to spread into other parts of the economy.

    Millennials will be most impacted in the next recession, and thanks to LendingTree’s study, the exact metro areas of this financial stress are now known.

  • The CIA's "Intelligence Authorization Act" Would Criminalize Whistleblowers And Reporters

    Via MassPrivateI blog,

    A CIA-written Bill called the Intelligence Authorization Act (SB 3153) would criminalize whistleblowers and reporters.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Section 733 Sense of Congress on WikiLeaks:

    “It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States.”

    The Bill is also known as the Damon Paul Nelson and Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020 (H.R. 3494).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Demand Progress warned,

    “House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is once again putting the interests of the intelligence agencies in concealing their misdeeds ahead of protecting the rights of ordinary Americans by criminalizing routine reporting by the press on national security issues and undermining congressional oversight in his Intelligence Authorization bill,” Daniel Schuman, policy director, of Demand Progress said.

    He added:

    “Schiff’s expansion of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act beyond all reason will effectively muzzle reporting on torture, mass surveillance, and other crimes against the American people — all at the request of the CIA. Schiff is clearly the resistance to the resistance, and he should drop this provision from his bill.”

    Ron Paul clarifies the real reason for this bill:

    “The measure is designed – in the CIA’s own words – to prevent the kind of transparency that was provided by Wikileaks. It is a war on the free press!”

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 27

Today’s News 27th July 2019

  • Michael Hudson: U.S. Economic Warfare And Likely Foreign Defenses

    Authored by Michael Hudson via Counterpunch.org,

    Today’s world is at war on many fronts. The rules of international law and order put in place toward the end of World War II are being broken by U.S. foreign policy escalating its confrontation with countries that refrain from giving its companies control of their economic surpluses. Countries that do not give the United States control of their oil and financial sectors or privatize their key sectors are being isolated by the United States imposing trade sanctions and unilateral tariffs giving special advantages to U.S. producers in violation of free trade agreements with European, Asian and other countries.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This global fracture has an increasingly military cast. U.S. officials justify tariffs and import quotas illegal under WTO rules on “national security” grounds, claiming that the United States can do whatever it wants as the world’s “exceptional” nation. U.S. officials explain that this means that their nation is not obliged to adhere to international agreements or even to its own treaties and promises. This allegedly sovereign right to ignore on its international agreements was made explicit after Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State Madeline Albright broke the promise by President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would not expand eastward after 1991. (“You didn’t get it in writing,” was the U.S. response to the verbal agreements that were made.)

    Likewise, the Trump administration repudiated the multilateral Iranian nuclear agreement signed by the Obama administration, and is escalating warfare with its proxy armies in the Near East. U.S. politicians are waging a New Cold War against Russia, China, Iran, and oil-exporting countries that the United States is seeking to isolate if cannot control their governments, central bank and foreign diplomacy.

    * Keynote Paper delivered at the 14th Forum of the World Association for Political Economy, July 21, 2019.

    The international framework that originally seemed equitable was pro-U.S. from the outset. In 1945 this was seen as a natural result of the fact that the U.S. economy was the least war-damaged and held by far most of the world’s monetary gold. Still, the postwar trade and financial framework was ostensibly set up on fair and equitable international principles. Other countries were expected to recover and grow, creating diplomatic, financial and trade parity with each other.

    But the past decade has seen U.S. diplomacy become one-sided in turning the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, SWIFT bank-clearing system and world trade into an asymmetrically exploitative system. This unilateral U.S.-centered array of institutions is coming to be widely seen not only as unfair, but as blocking the progress of other countries whose growth and prosperity is seen by U.S. foreign policy as a threat to unilateral U.S. hegemony. What began as an ostensibly international order to promote peaceful prosperity has turned increasingly into an extension of U.S. nationalism, predatory rent-extraction and a more dangerous military confrontation.

    Deterioration of international diplomacy into a more nakedly explicit pro-U.S. financial, trade and military aggression was implicit in the way in which economic diplomacy was shaped when the United Nations, IMF and World Bank were shaped mainly by U.S. economic strategists. Their economic belligerence is driving countries to withdraw from the global financial and trade order that has been turned into a New Cold War vehicle to impose unilateral U.S. hegemony. Nationalistic reactions are consolidating into new economic and political alliances from Europe to Asia.

    We are still mired in the Oil War that escalated in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, which quickly spread to Libya and Syria. American foreign policy has long been based largely on control of oil. This has led the United States to oppose the Paris accords to stem global warming. Its aim is to give U.S. officials the power to impose energy sanctions forcing other countries to “freeze in the dark” if they do not follow U.S. leadership.

    To expand its oil monopoly, America is pressuring Europe to oppose the Nordstream II gas pipeline from Russia, claiming that this would make Germany and other countries dependent on Russia instead of on U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG). Likewise, American oil diplomacy has imposed unilateral sanctions against Iranian oil exports, until such time as a regime change opens up that country’s oil reserves to U.S., French, British and other allied oil majors.

    U.S. control of dollarized money and credit is critical to this hegemony. As Congressman Brad Sherman of Los Angeles told a House Financial Services Committee hearing on May 9, 2019: “An awful lot of our international power comes from the fact that the U.S. dollar is the standard unit of international finance and transactions. Clearing through the New York Fed is critical for major oil and other transactions. It is the announced purpose of the supporters of cryptocurrency to take that power away from us, to put us in a position where the most significant sanctions we have against Iran, for example, would become irrelevant.”

    The U.S. aim is to keep the dollar as the transactions currency for world trade, savings, central bank reserves and international lending. This monopoly status enables the U.S. Treasury and State Department to disrupt the financial payments system and trade for countries with which the United States is at economic or outright military war.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin quickly responded by describing how “the degeneration of the universalist globalization model [is] turning into a parody, a caricature of itself, where common international rules are replaced with the laws… of one country.” That is the trajectory on which this deterioration of formerly open international trade and finance is now moving. It has been building up for a decade. On June 5, 2009, then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev cited this same disruptive U.S. dynamic at work in the wake of the U.S. junk mortgage and bank fraud crisis.

    Those whose job it was to forecast events … were not ready for the depth of the crisis and turned out to be too rigid, unwieldy and slow in their response. The international financial organisations – and I think we need to state this up front and not try to hide it – were not up to their responsibilities, as has been said quite unambiguously at a number of major international events such as the two recent G20 summits of the world’s largest economies.

    Furthermore, we have had confirmation that our pre-crisis analysis of global economic trends and the global economic system were correct. The artificially maintained uni-polar system and preservation of monopolies in key global economic sectors are root causes of the crisis. One big centre of consumption, financed by a growing deficit, and thus growing debts, one formerly strong reserve currency, and one dominant system of assessing assets and risks – these are all factors that led to an overall drop in the quality of regulation and the economic justification of assessments made, including assessments of macroeconomic policy. As a result, there was no avoiding a global crisis.

    That crisis is what is now causing today’s break in global trade and payments.

    Warfare on many fronts, with Dollarization being the main arena

    Dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991 did not bring the disarmament that was widely expected. U.S. leadership celebrated the Soviet demise as signaling the end of foreign opposition to U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism and even as the End of History. NATO expanded to encircle Russia and sponsored “color revolutions” from Georgia to Ukraine, while carving up former Yugoslavia into small statelets. American diplomacy created a foreign legion of Wahabi fundamentalists from Afghanistan to Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya in support of Saudi Arabian extremism and Israeli expansionism.

    The United States is waging war for control of oil against Venezuela, where a military coup failed a few years ago, as did the 2018-19 stunt to recognize an unelected pro-American puppet regime. The Honduran coup under President Obama was more successful in overthrowing an elected president advocating land reform, continuing the tradition dating back to 1954 when the CIA overthrew Guatemala’s Arbenz regime.

    U.S. officials bear a special hatred for countries that they have injured, ranging from Guatemala in 1954 to Iran, whose regime it overthrew to install the Shah as military dictator. Claiming to promote “democracy,” U.S. diplomacy has redefined the word to mean pro-American, and opposing land reform, national ownership of raw materials and public subsidy of foreign agriculture or industry as an “undemocratic” attack on “free markets,” meaning markets controlled by U.S. financial interests and absentee owners of land, natural resources and banks.

    A major byproduct of warfare has always been refugees, and today’s wave fleeing ISIS, Al Qaeda and other U.S.-backed Near Eastern proxies is flooding Europe. A similar wave is fleeing the dictatorial regimes backed by the United States from Honduras, Ecuador, Colombia and neighboring countries. The refugee crisis has become a major factor leading to the resurgence of nationalist parties throughout Europe and for the white nationalism of Donald Trump in the United States.

    Dollarization as the vehicle for U.S. nationalism

    The Dollar Standard – U.S. Treasury debt to foreigners held by the world’s central banks – has replaced the gold-exchange standard for the world’s central bank reserves to settle payments imbalances among themselves. This has enabled the United States to uniquely run balance-of-payments deficits for nearly seventy years, despite the fact that these Treasury IOUs have little visible likelihood of being repaid except under arrangements where U.S. rent-seeking and outright financial tribute from other enables it to liquidate its official foreign debt.

    The United States is the only nation that can run sustained balance-of-payments deficits without having to sell off its assets or raise interest rates to borrow foreign money. No other national economy in the world can could afford foreign military expenditures on any major scale without losing its exchange value. Without the Treasury-bill standard, the United States would be in this same position along with other nations. That is why Russia, China and other powers that U.S. strategists deem to be strategic rivals and enemies are looking to restore gold’s role as the preferred asset to settle payments imbalances.

    The U.S. response is to impose regime change on countries that prefer gold or other foreign currencies to dollars for their exchange reserves. A case in point is the overthrow of Libya’s Omar Kaddafi after he sought to base his nation’s international reserves on gold. His liquidation stands as a military warning to other countries.

    Thanks to the fact that payments-surplus economies invest their dollar inflows in U.S. Treasury bonds, the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit finances its domestic budget deficit. This foreign central-bank recycling of U.S. overseas military spending into purchases of U.S. Treasury securities gives the United States a free ride, financing its budget – also mainly military in character – so that it can taxing its own citizens.

    Trump is forcing other countries to create an alternative to the Dollar Standard

    The fact that Donald Trump’s economic policies are proving ineffective in restoring American manufacturing is creating rising nationalist pressure to exploit foreigners by arbitrary tariffs without regard for international law, and to impose trade sanctions and diplomatic meddling to disrupt regimes that pursue policies that U.S. diplomats do not like.

    There is a parallel here with Rome in the late 1st century BC. It stripped its provinces to pay for its military deficit, the grain dole and land redistribution at the expense of Italian cities and Asia Minor. This created foreign opposition to drive Rome out. The U.S. economy is similar to Rome’s: extractive rather than productive, based mainly on land rents and money-interest. As the domestic market is impoverished, U.S. politicians are seeking to take from abroad what no longer is being produced at home.

    What is so ironic – and so self-defeating of America’s free global ride – is that Trump’s simplistic aim of lowering the dollar’s exchange rate to make U.S. exports more price-competitive. He imagines commodity trade to be the entire balance of payments, as if there were no military spending, not to mention lending and investment. To lower the dollar’s exchange rate, he is demanding that China’s central bank and those of other countries stop supporting the dollar by recycling the dollars they receive for their exports into holdings of U.S. Treasury securities.

    This tunnel vision leaves out of account the fact that the trade balance is not simply a matter of comparative international price levels. The United States has dissipated its supply of spare manufacturing capacity and local suppliers of parts and materials, while much of its industrial engineering and skilled manufacturing labor has retired. An immense shortfall must be filled by new capital investment, education and public infrastructure, whose charges are far above those of other economics.

    Trump’s infrastructure ideology is a Public-Private Partnership characterized by high-cost financialization demanding high monopoly rents to cover its interest charges, stock dividends and management fees. This neoliberal policy raises the cost of living for the U.S. labor force, making it uncompetitive. The United States is unable to produce more at any price right now, because its has spent the past half-century dismantling its infrastructure, closing down its part suppliers and outsourcing its industrial technology.

    The United States has privatized and financialized infrastructure and basic needs such as public health and medical care, education and transportation that other countries have kept in their public domain to make their economies more cost-efficient by providing essential services at subsidized prices or freely. The United States also has led the practice of debt pyramiding, from housing to corporate finance. This financial engineering and wealth creation by inflating debt-financed real estate and stock market bubbles has made the United States a high-cost economy that cannot compete successfully with well-managed mixed economies.

    Unable to recover dominance in manufacturing, the United States is concentrating on rent-extracting sectors that it hopes monopolize, headed by information technology and military production. On the industrial front, it threatens disrupt China and other mixed economies by imposing trade and financial sanctions.

    The great gamble is whether these other countries will defend themselves by joining in alliances enabling them to bypass the U.S. economy. American strategists imagine their country to be the world’s essential economy, without whose market other countries must suffer depression. The Trump Administration thinks that There Is No Alternative (TINA) for other countries except for their own financial systems to rely on U.S. dollar credit.

    To protect themselves from U.S. sanctions, countries would have to avoid using the dollar, and hence U.S. banks. This would require creation of a non-dollarized financial system for use among themselves, including their own alternative to the SWIFT bank clearing system. Table 1 lists some possible related defenses against U.S. nationalistic diplomacy.

    As noted above, what also is ironic in President Trump’s accusation of China and other countries of artificially manipulating their exchange rate against the dollar (by recycling their trade and payments surpluses into Treasury securities to hold down their currency’s dollar valuation) involves dismantling the Treasury-bill standard. The main way that foreign economies have stabilized their exchange rate since 1971 has indeed been to recycle their dollar inflows into U.S. Treasury securities. Letting their currency’s value rise would threaten their export competitiveness against their rivals, although not necessarily benefit the United States.

    Ending this practice leaves countries with the main way to protect their currencies from rising against the dollar is to reduce dollar inflows by blocking U.S. lending to domestic borrowers. They may levy floating tariffs proportioned to the dollar’s declining value. The U.S. has a long history since the 1920s of raising its tariffs against currencies that are depreciating: the American Selling Price (ASP) system. Other countries can impose their own floating tariffs against U.S. goods.

    Trade dependency as an aim of the World Bank, IMF and US AID

    The world today faces a problem much like what it faced on the eve of World War II. Like Germany then, the United States now poses the main threat of war, and equally destructive neoliberal economic regimes imposing austerity, economic shrinkage and depopulation. U.S. diplomats are threatening to destroy regimes and entire economies that seek to remain independent of this system, by trade and financial sanctions backed by direct military force.

    Dedollarization will require creation of multilateral alternatives to U.S. “front” institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and other agencies in which the United States holds veto power to block any alternative policies deemed not to let it “win.” U.S. trade policy through the World Bank and U.S. foreign aid agencies aims at promoting dependency on U.S. food exports and other key commodities, while hiring U.S. engineering firms to build up export infrastructure to subsidize U.S. and other natural-resource investors. The financing is mainly in dollars, providing risk-free bonds to U.S. and other financial institutions. The resulting commercial and financial “interdependency” has led to a situation in which a sudden interruption of supply would disrupt foreign economies by causing a breakdown in their chain of payments and production. The effect is to lock client countries into dependency on the U.S. economy and its diplomacy, euphemized as “promoting growth and development.”

    U.S. neoliberal policy via the IMF imposes austerity and opposes debt writedowns. Its economic model pretends that debtor countries can pay any volume of dollar debt simply by reducing wages to squeeze more income out of the labor force to pay foreign creditors. This ignores the fact that solving the domestic “budget problem” by taxing local revenue still faces the “transfer problem” of converting it into dollars or other hard currencies in which most international debt is denominated. The result is that the IMF’s “stabilization” programs actually destabilize and impoverish countries forced into following its advice.

    IMF loans support pro-U.S. regimes such as Ukraine, and subsidize capital flight by supporting local currencies long enough to enable U.S. client oligarchies to flee their currencies at a pre-devaluation exchange rate for the dollar. When the local currency finally is allowed to collapse, debtor countries are advised to impose anti-labor austerity. This globalizes the class war of capital against labor while keeping debtor countries on a short U.S. financial leash.

    U.S. diplomacy is capped by trade sanctions to disrupt economies that break away from U.S. aims. Sanctions are a form of economic sabotage, as lethal as outright military warfare in establishing U.S. control over foreign economies. The threat is to impoverish civilian populations, in the belief that this will lead them to replace their governments with pro-American regimes promising to restore prosperity by selling off their domestic infrastructure to U.S. and other multinational investors.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    There are alternatives, on many fronts

    Militarily, today’s leading alternative to NATO expansionism is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), along with Europe following France’s example under Charles de Gaulle and withdrawing. After all, there is no real threat of military invasion today in Europe. No nation can occupy another without an enormous military draft and such heavy personnel losses that domestic protests would unseat the government waging such a war. The U.S. anti-war movement in the 1960s signaled the end of the military draft, not only in the United States but in nearly all democratic countries. (Israel, Switzerland, Brazil and North Korea are exceptions.)

    The enormous spending on armaments for a kind of war unlikely to be fought is not really military, but simply to provide profits to the military industrial complex. The arms are not really to be used. They are simply to be bought, and ultimately scrapped. The danger, of course, is that these not-for-use arms actually might be used, if only to create a need for new profitable production.

    Likewise, foreign holdings of dollars are not really to be spent on purchases of U.S. exports or investments. They are like fine-wine collectibles, for saving rather than for drinking. The alternative to such dollarized holdings is to create a mutual use of national currencies, and a domestic bank-clearing payments system as an alternative to SWIFT. Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela already are said to be developing a crypto-currency payments to circumvent U.S. sanctions and hence financial control.

    In the World Trade Organization, the United States has tried to claim that any industry receiving public infrastructure or credit subsidy deserves tariff retaliation in order to force privatization. In response to WTO rulings that U.S. tariffs are illegally imposed, the United States “has blocked all new appointments to the seven-member appellate body in protest, leaving it in danger of collapse because it may not have enough judges to allow it to hear new cases.”[5] In the U.S. view, only privatized trade financed by private rather than public banks is “fair” trade.

    An alternative to the WTO (or removal of its veto privilege given to the U.S. bloc) is needed to cope with U.S. neoliberal ideology and, most recently, the U.S. travesty claiming “national security” exemption to free-trade treaties, impose tariffs on steel, aluminum, and on European countries that circumvent sanctions on Iran or threaten to buy oil from Russia via the Nordstream II pipeline instead of high-cost liquified “freedom gas” from the United States.

    In the realm of development lending, China’s bank along with its Belt and Road initiative is an incipient alternative to the World Bank, whose main role has been to promote foreign dependency on U.S. suppliers. The IMF for its part now functions as an extension of the U.S. Department of Defense to subsidize client regimes such as Ukraine while financially isolating countries not subservient to U.S. diplomacy.

    To save debt-strapped economies suffering Greek-style austerity, the world needs to replace neoliberal economic theory with an analytic logic for debt writedowns based on the ability to pay. The guiding principle of the needed development-oriented logic of international law should be that no nation should be obliged to pay foreign creditors by having to sell of the public domain and rent-extraction rights to foreign creditors. The defining character of nationhood should be the fiscal right to tax natural resource rents and financial returns, and to create its own monetary system.

    The United States refuses to join the International Criminal Court. To be effective, it needs enforcement power for its judgments and penalties, capped by the ability to bring charges of war crimes in the tradition of the Nuremberg tribunal. U.S. to such a court, combined with its military buildup now threatening World War III, suggests a new alignment of countries akin to the Non-Aligned Nations movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Non-aligned in this case means freedom from U.S. diplomatic control or threats.

    Such institutions require a more realistic economic theory and philosophy of operations to replace the neoliberal logic for anti-government privatization, anti-labor austerity, and opposition to domestic budget deficits and debt writedowns. Today’s neoliberal doctrine counts financial late fees and rising housing prices as adding to “real output” (GDP), but deems public investment as deadweight spending, not a contribution to output. The aim of such logic is to convince governments to pay their foreign creditors by selling off their public infrastructure and other assets in the public domain.

    Just as the “capacity to pay” principle was the foundation stone of the Bank for International Settlements in 1931, a similar basis is needed to measure today’s ability to pay debts and hence to write down bad loans that have been made without a corresponding ability of debtors to pay. Without such an institution and body of analysis, the IMF’s neoliberal principle of imposing economic depression and falling living standards to pay U.S. and other foreign creditors will impose global poverty.

    The above proposals provide an alternative to the U.S. “exceptionalist” refusal to join any international organization that has a say over its affairs. Other countries must be willing to turn the tables and isolate U.S. banks, U.S. exporters, and to avoid using U.S. dollars and routing payments via U.S. banks. To protect their ability to create a countervailing power requires an international court and its sponsoring organization.

    Summary

    The first existential objective is to avoid the current threat of war by winding down U.S. military interference in foreign countries and removing U.S. military bases as relics of neocolonialism. Their danger to world peace and prosperity threatens a reversion to the pre-World War II colonialism, ruling by client elites along lines similar to the 2014 Ukrainian coup by neo-Nazi groups sponsored by the U.S. State Department and National Endowment for Democracy. Such control recalls the dictators that U.S. diplomacy established throughout Latin America in the 1950s. Today’s ethnic terrorism by U.S.-sponsored Wahabi-Saudi Islam recalls the behavior of Nazi Germany in the 1940s.

    Global warming is the second major existentialist threat. Blocking attempts to reverse it is a bedrock of American foreign policy, because it is based on control of oil. So the military, refugee and global warming threats are interconnected.

    The U.S. military poses the greatest immediate danger. Today’s warfare is fundamentally changed from what it used to be. Prior to the 1970s, nations conquering others had to invade and occupy them with armies recruited by a military draft. But no democracy in today’s world can revive such a draft without triggering widespread refusal to fight, voting the government out of power. The only way the United States – or other countries – can fight other nations is to bomb them. And as noted above, economic sanctions have as destructive an effect on civilian populations in countries deemed to be U.S. adversaries as overt warfare. The United States can sponsor political coups (as in Honduras and Pinochet’s Chile), but cannot occupy. It is unwilling to rebuild, to say nothing of taking responsibility for the waves of refugees that our bombing and sanctions are causing from Latin America to the Near East.

    U.S. ideologues view their nation’s coercive military expansion and political subversion and neoliberal economic policy of privatization and financialization as an irreversible victory signaling the End of History. To the rest of the world it is a threat to human survival.

    The American promise is that the victory of neoliberalism is the End of History, offering prosperity to the entire world. But beneath the rhetoric of free choice and free markets is the reality of corruption, subversion, coercion, debt peonage and neofeudalism. The reality is the creation and subsidy of polarized economies bifurcated between a privileged rentier class and its clients, eir debtors and renters. America is to be permitted to monopolize trade in oil and food grains, and high-technology rent-yielding monopolies, living off its dependent customers. Unlike medieval serfdom, people subject to this End of History scenario can choose to live wherever they want. But wherever they live, they must take on a lifetime of debt to obtain access to a home of their own, and rely on U.S.-sponsored control of their basic needs, money and credit by adhering to U.S. financial planning of their economies. This dystopian scenario confirms Rosa Luxemburg’s recognition that the ultimate choice facing nations in today’s world is between socialism and barbarism.

  • These Are The Hardest-Working Cities In America

    Productivity in the US has been a hot topic among economists over the past few years, as the Fed and other academics have puzzled over how the longstanding correlations between unemployment & inflation have unraveled in the years since the financial crisis.

    Americans are working longer hours than ever before. Yet, wage growth remains stagnant, and automation is killing more jobs than ever before.

    Still, the US has perennially ranked as one of the hardest-working countries in the world as American workers clock in more hours than almost any of its peers in both the developed and developing world classifications.

    But, in order to drill down and collect more data on the subject,  Kempler Industries carried out a study to rank the 200 hardest working cities in the US. In order to compare apples to apples, Kempler ignored cities with populations below 150,000.

    A map below shows the top 10 hardest working cities.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Washington DC takes the top spot, scoring 90 points out of 100. But although DC takes the top spot, seven out of the top ten hardest-working cities on the list could be found in the Lone Star state.

    One reason why Texas had so many of the hardest working cities: Across Texas, roughly 20% of the state is of retirement-age.

    And not only were workers in these cities working longer hours than Americans elsewhere, they were also commuting longer. With the exception of Irving, every Texas city within the top 10 had an average commute that is longer than the national average.

    In terms of population, the largest cities on our list are Chicago and New York City while Pembroke Pines, Florida and Grand Prairie, Texas are the smallest cities on our list.

    Taking a step back, as the chart below shows, productivity in the US has been declining since the mid-aughts

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Theories about the underlying causes of this slowdown in productivity abound: one explanation holds that institutions and corporations are not deploying the new technologies very effectively for a variety of reasons: the cost of integrating legacy systems, insufficient training of their workforce, and finally, ill-planned investments by some companies utilizing these technologies scaring off others from following suit (perhaps more successfully).

    To be sure, after years of declines, productivity posted its best quarterly growth during Q4 of 2018, according to BLS.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Productivity

    Courtesy of CNN

    Remember: Productivity is important because producing more value with every unit of energy, every tool and every hour of labor helps drive higher wages, profits, taxes and general prosperity.

    Then again, there’s another explanation that has been catching on recently: Social media is helping to distract workers at unprecedented rates. According to one study, Americans are spending nearly 6 hours a day on their phones, facebooking, snap-chatting, insta-graming and interacting with their friends and others via social media networks.

    That time has got to come from somewhere.

  • Radicalization Of Kids: A Global Threat

    Authored by Raheel Raza via The Gatestone Institute,

    On July 12, a 13-year-old boy blew himself up in a suicide bombing at a wedding in eastern Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province, killing five people and injuring 40, local officials said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The issue of child radicalization has become a global horror-show.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Radicalization is now easy for the extremists, thanks to technology, the new weapon being brandished by Islamist terrorists in accordance with the mandate of the Muslim Brotherhood to “weaken the West from within”.

    Kids today, as early as three years old, are on YouTube watching videos. Unfortunately, it has never been easier for extremists — from white supremacists to radical Islamists — to target vulnerable children and penetrate a child’s consciousness.

    According to the UN, there are more than 250,000 child soldiers fighting around the world in more than 20 different conflicts. The Combating Terrorism Center reports that ISIS had more than 1,500 kids on the front lines and trained 1,000 kids to become suicide bombers in the first six months of 2015.

    This problem has spilled over into North America. CNN reported last year that about 1,000 investigations of connections with ISIS were open in all 50 states.

    • In August 2018, 11 children were found in a compound in New Mexico being trained by an American radical Islamist to commit school shootings

    • In Minneapolis, 45 boys and young men have left the local Somali community to join al-Shabab or ISIS. Dozens more were stopped in 2018 from traveling.

    • In June 2019, a 22-year-old Bangladeshi living in New York was arrested for plotting an attack on Times Square

    These are only a part of the statistics that tell us we are facing a huge crisis; very few people are willing to speak about the dangers of the radicalization of youths.

    On July 18, leaders and experts with the Clarion Project gathered in Washington DC to hold an exclusive pre-release Congressional screening of the new documentary, “Kids Chasing Paradise” (currently in post-production). The organization flew in key experts and other leaders fighting against radical extremism and who are affiliated with the film to educate Congress, hold media briefings and present its program to Prevent Violent Extremism at the National Press Club.

    Kids Chasing Paradise tells the incredible story of ordinary people that have been directly affected by this radicalization and are now trying to prevent it from happening to others.

    Apart from some in-depth coverage of youths being taught hate, violence and radicalization, the film features:

    • Christianne Boudreau, a Canadian mother who was personally affected by the impact of the violent radicalization process; her son, Damian, was killed while fighting for ISIS. She now coordinates the Mothers for Life Network, which brings together mothers of radicalized jihadis to support one another and combat radicalization.

    • Tania Joya, a former extremist who is now working out of Texas on deradicalization. Tania Joya’s ex-husband was radicalized in Texas as a teenager and became ISIS’ main propagandist in Syria. Originally British, Tania Joya and her four children now live in Texas. Tania used to want her children to grow up to be jihadists. Now she embraces human rights and Western values.

    • Nicola Benyahia is a British woman who founded Families for Life, a nonprofit organization focused on deradicalization and support for families of young extremists. When Nicola’s son, Rasheed, unexpectedly joined ISIS, she found Christianne and they started both a professional collaboration and personal friendship

    The movie is accompanied by a workshop called Preventing Violent Extremism, based on the concept that no one is born a terrorist or extremist. Individuals are manipulated into being radicalized. Therefore, we feel that prevention is possible. The workshop is a way of understanding the path to youth radicalization and suggestions on how to prevent it before it happens.

    As people who care deeply about human rights, we are extremely concerned about the way these children are being subverted and abused, as well as about the future of our next generation, and creating awareness is of utmost importance.

  • Washington State Releases Hundreds Of Illegal Aliens Charged With Crimes, Including Felonies

    King County Washington, which identifies as a sanctuary county, has spent the last two years releasing hundreds of illegal aliens charged with crimes, including felonies such as homicide, sexual assault and kidnapping, according to Breitbart, citing records obtained by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI). 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The county, which includes Seattle, refused to honor over 370 detention requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for a 27-month period ending on December 31, 2017. 

    Of those, 290 of which were classified by ICE as under suspicion of threat level 1 or 2 offenses. 

    According to ICE.gov:

    Level 1 offenses include the following state or federal crimes: national security violations, homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, threats of bodily harm, extortion or threat to injure a person, sex offenses, cruelty toward child or spouse, resisting an officer, weapons violations, hit and run involving injury or death, and drug offenses involving a sentencing to a term of imprisonment greater than one year.

    Level 2 offenses are primarily property crimes and Level 3 offenses are other crimes, primarily misdemeanors. 

    According to RLI Executive Director Dale Wilcox: “State and local elected leaders like to congratulate themselves for the compassion of their sanctuary policies, but they are actually bringing violent crime and even death to their residents. The people of King County should be outraged and demand accountability from their leaders. Refusing ICE detainer requests means releasing dangerous criminals into the community, period.”

    Breitbart‘s John Binder notes that “recently in King County, a 32-year-old woman who is bound to a wheelchair was allegedly raped by 35-year-old illegal alien Francisco Carranza Ramirez, as Breitbart News reported.”

    The victim pleaded with the court to give the illegal alien the highest penalty possible, but instead, he was given just 12 months in prison which had already been served and he was released and ordered deported to Mexico.

    Just three days after being released from prison, Ramirez found his rape victim and attacked her while she was with her three-year-old son, pushing her out of her wheelchair and fleeing the scene. Today, Ramirez is wanted by local and state officials and is now an illegal alien fugitive. –Breitbart

     According to former ICE Acting Director Tom Homan, “ICE’s ability to access a jail to speak with an illegal immigrant who’s in violation of federal law and has been locked up for a crime presents no danger at all to victims or witnesses. The fact is if you look up recidivism rates, 50 percent of those criminals will re-offend within the first year, and as many as 75 percent will re-offend within five years.” 

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

  • The Five Faulty Premises Of Russiagate

    Authored by Doug “Uncola” Lynn via TheBurningPlatform.com,

    Having watched some of the questions to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller by congress on Wednesday July 24, 2019, as well as Mueller’s dithering deflections – it was obvious the entire affair was another distraction; more of the same ongoing circus show.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Of course, no minds were changed. Those on the Left still consider Trump to be a comprised capitalist pig guarding his tax returns with all the fervor of any good Manchurian Candidate and those on the Right still viewing Mueller as a tyrannical tool of the Deep State.

    After Mueller’s live testimony, this blogger listened to roughly thirty Americans calling into CNN with their comments. Of those callers, only three were in support of Trump and with the rest of them effusively expressing gratitude to Mueller for his service in revealing Trump’s threat to American Democracy.

    Many conservatives, including talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh and some his callers, agreed that Mueller didn’t seem familiar with the contents of his report, let alone the Steele Dossier, Fusion GPS, and other points-of-factbrought up by the Republicans as they were grilling the former special counsel. To be sure, Limbaugh commented on Mueller’s less-than-stellardemeanor and lack of preparedness – even going so far as to say Mueller deserved absolutely zero sympathies for his contributory efforts in the never-ending farce that the former special counsel has perpetrated on the American people.

    But, at the same time, L-Rushbo painted a picture of Mueller simply being (for lack of better terminology) parochial in his search for justice; as if Mueller was simply a Never-Trumper like Mittens Romney or John Kasich.

    In fact, at the close of the Mueller hearing, even House Republican Devin Nunes complimented Mueller, thanked him for his service, and refused to scorch the doddering old fool in the end.

    Unfortunately, a majority of Americans today, including many conservatives, have swallowed hook, line, and sinker one or more of the following five (5) faulty premises of Russiagate:

    1.)  The Russians actually hacked the 2016 elections

    The Mueller Report, as well as most of the Democrats who questioned Robert Mueller on July 24, 2019 claimed Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential Election in a “sweeping and systematic fashion”.

    This is not true.  It did not happen; at least not sweepingly or systematically.

    What did happen one year ago, on July 13, 2018, was Mueller’s boss at the time, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, announced the Mueller Investigation’s single indictment of Twelve Russian intelligence officers for alleged election hacking under President Obama’s watch.  Of course, this was done in an effort to divert publicity away from the July 12, 2018 Capitol Hill testimony of disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and to subvert President Trump’s impending Russian summit on July 16, 2018.

    Even so, in his very conveniently-timed press conference, Rosenstein acknowledged  that “no American was a knowing participant” in the Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and there was “no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election”.

    In other words, much ado about nothing, in the same way the Mueller Report offered zero forensic evidence other than the reliance of the two (2) now discredited Democratic National Committee (DNC) contractors:  CrowdStrike and “Russian dossier compiler Christopher Steele”.

    Furthermore, other so-called “established” and “confirmed” claims in Mueller’s bogus report cited the Russian company, Concord Management, as “sowing discord” throughout U.S. social media prior to the 2016 Presidential Election – and this was shot down by U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich’s May 28, 2019 ruling which concluded that Mueller had “no evidence”.

    Did you get that?  No evidence.

    Squat.  Zip. Nada.  Zilch.

    2.)  Wikileaks was affiliated with Russia

    Another key premise of Democrats, the U.S. Corporate Media, and The Mueller Report, is that Russian Intelligence hacked into the DNC servers and provided stolen e-mails to WikiLeaks through (according to the Mueller Report) “fictitious online personas including DCLeaks” and Guccifer 2.0”.

    Again, this did not happen because reporting as far back as 2017 indicated that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange possessed the DNC e-mails beforeDCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 were created, yet Assange used these entities to obfuscate his true source.

    Veteran intelligence whistleblowers also reported in 2017 on how the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers were not hacked by Guccifer 2.0 and released to WikiLeaks but, instead, the data actually originated via an external storage device.

    All of this means the “fictitious online personas” allegedly linked to Russian intelligence, according to the Mueller Report, were created after-the-fact in order to conceal the true source of the DNC leaks.

    Additionally, when WikiLeaks released the password to Vault 7, also known as: “The Largest Publication of Confidential CIA Documents Ever”, a program entitled UMBRAGE was revealed. This was a formerly top-secret initiative whereby American intelligence agencies could mimic internet hacks from other countries, including Russia.

    Yet, none of that information was revealed in Robert Mueller’s report, was it?  Why?  Probably, for the same reason Team Mueller refused to interview Julian Assange.  Because, had Mueller done so, he might have been asked later by congress why WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information in the case involving Seth Rich.  Rich was the former voter expansion data director for the DNC who was murdered in Washington DC on July 10, 2016.

    But Team Mueller didn’t care about any of that and, instead, disseminated false conclusions regarding Russian election meddling.

    Are you surprised?

    3.) Robert Mueller is an honorable guy

    Even in light of Robert Mueller’s doddering downfall on Congressional Hill, there are those on both sides of the political aisle who consider him, still, as an ethical and honorable man.

    He is neither.

    Former Texas State Court judge, and now sitting Congressman, Louis Buller Gohmert Jr  (R-Texas), has unmasked Mueller’s “long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence”, citing 18 specific examples, including:

    – Collusion with Boston mobster Whitey Bulger in criminality and framing innocent men for murder that resulted eventually in the release of innocent parties and 100 million dollars in compensation for DOJ Boston Office misconduct.

    – The FBI with Mueller as director harassed and hounded Congressman Curt Weldon in revenge for criticizing FBI failures related to 9-11.

    – Dishonest prosecutions of Senator Ted Stevens.

    – Prosecutorial abuses in the anthrax murder investigations post 9-11, producing one suicide and one award of 6.8 million dollars to the other innocent target.

    – Mueller’s unethical acceptance of the special prosecutor position when he was conflicted by his longtime personal and professional relationship with James Comey.

    – Mueller hired extremely partisan, biased, and conflicted attorneys for his special counsel team.

    – Mueller’s investigation ignored that FISA applications evidence presented to justify warrants to surveil Trump associates were not verified and thus a fraud on the court and illegal.

    As was adequately revealed by the Republicans who grilled Robert Mueller during his congressional hearing, the entire special counsel investigation (and it’s ensuing report) amounted to little more than political opposition research on behalf of the Democratic Party; and a concerted effort to gaslight the American public via it’s bizarre, and even Orwellian, deceptions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Congressman Tom McClintock (R-California) asked Mueller why he couldn’t provide connecting evidence of Russian trolls to the Russian government.  Chris Stewart (R-Utah) questioned Mueller on why his team of angry Democrats always leaked information detrimental to Trump but never a single leak of anything placing Trump in a positive light.  And other Republicans wondered why Hillary Clinton’s “Dirty Dossier” received such extra-special “kid-glove” treatment by Team Mueller.

    Indeed, we now know the following:  In spite of the Mueller probe breaking multiple prosecutorial rules that ensured justice, they were “outfoxed” by Trump’s legal team beginning as far back as June, 2018 – when none other than William Barr sent a 19-page memorandum to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein checkmating Mueller’s apparent “interpretation of a single subsection of a single obstruction-of-justice statute:18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)“.  It was Barr’s contention that Trump could not have violated that particular statute because “he [Trump] was not accused of engaging in any wrongful act of evidence impairment”.

    In his memo to Rosenstein, Barr also claimed Mueller was giving the statute a “new unbounded interpretation” that “would have potentially disastrous implications” for the Executive Branch of government.

    Oh, that Robert Mueller.  What a guy. He folded on collusion and conspiracy before upping the stakes on obstruction via volume two of his report which presented like a legal Chinese finger-trap or Gordian Knot.  Mueller’s “not exonerating” Trump inverted “innocent until proven guilty” into “guilty until proven innocent” and demonstrated the special counsel investigation’s very palpable political prejudice – which was further proven by the specific misrepresentations and selective editing in the final Mueller Report.

    Even, now, if it appears Robert Mueller was a moderately senile figurehead for Andrew Weissmann & Company’s attempted takedown of a sitting president, certainly, history will not be kind to the former special counsel who lent his name to the farce. Undeniably, the former special counsel’s recent fiasco before congress was just the beginning of his once illustrious and ill-deserved reputation becoming a national joke.

    4.) The Democrats actually care about Democracy

    The Democratic Party does not have a political platform beyond Santa Clausian economic initiatives, genitalia, skin color, and disproven conspiracy theories rooted in fraudulent Russiaphobia.  They do not care to secure American elections.  On the contrary.  Why else would they be seeking to turn Texas into a blue state via ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?  Right?

    In truth, the Socialist Party cares only about power; even (as the Mueller hearing demonstrated) to the point of weaponizing their own hypocrisy.

    All throughout The Robert Mueller Show on Wednesday, the former special counsel’s bias and the hypocrisy of the Democrats and sycophants in the media, could not have been more obvious. Mueller’s appearance was meant to provide amplification on behalf of Trump’s political opponents for impeachment, more hearings, and additional investigations.

    Although Mueller received top billing, the Dems and their enablers in the media were always going to be the stars. Mueller was called to testify in order to expand the audience in order to resurrect the dying efforts of Trump’s enemies.

    And it all backfired yugely.

    Even so, during his testimony, Mueller “included some stark warnings” of how the Russians were already attempting to interfere in the 2020 elections.  This allowed the Democrats to continue their Chicken Little cries of how the “sky is falling” while citing Trump’s lackadaisicalness as proof of the president’s political puppetry under Putin.

    Yet, if the Democrats were concerned in the least over alleged Russian election hacking, then why are they not interviewing those who allowed it to happen under the Obama Administration’s watch?  They won’t because they don’t care about democracy or to secure America’s elections.  Instead, they desire to undermine the U.S. electoral process.

    The Democrats currently serving in congress are liars who seek America’s demise.  Sadly, that is the truth.

    5.) Intelligence Agencies under the Obama Administration were working to ensure secure elections

    Anyone even remotely paying attention over the past few years knows that Hillary Clinton and the DNC financed the Russian Dossier on Trump.  According to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the dossier was then used to obtain the FISA warrant required to spy on Team Trump.  A 90-day surveillance warrant on Carter Page was then renewed three times and this was done in order to dig up political dirt and diminish Trump’s chances of winning the 2016 Presidential Election.  Then, later, the FISA warrants were illegally issued to undermine Trump’s presidency.

    At the same time, the now well-known culprits in the Obama Administration (i.e. James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr) were actively concealing the multifarious crimes of Hillary Clinton.

    A mole in Trump’s campaign was also later revealed as Stefan Halper, a 73-year-old Oxford University professor and former U.S. government official who was paid over $1 million by the Obama administration including $411,575 that was made in two payments by September 26, 2016.  That date was three days after a Yahoo News article was published by Michael Isikoff on Trump aide, Carter Page; which the FBI later illicitly used as supporting evidence in the FISA warrant application for Page.

    Then, after Trump won the election, the phony Russian conspiracy was utilized:

    –  By online social networks to censor the alternative media

    –  By President Obama to sign into law the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act”

    –  By Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, to feloniously unmaskTrump administration officials

    –  By Democrats and the Media to pressure the new president’s National  Security Advisor to resign and the nation’s new Attorney General to recuse himself from the Russia investigation

    –  By deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, to appoint his trusted, dear friend and collaborator, Robert Mueller, as Special Counsel to investigate President Trump’s non-existent collusion with Russia

    –  By Robert Mueller to transition the imaginary Russiagate Collusion into illusions of Obstruction of Justice against Trump

    – By Robert Mueller to obtain minor process crimes on Paul Manafort(Trump’s former campaign chairman), Rick Gates (business associate of Manafort), George Papadopoulos (Trump’s former foreign policy advisor) and Michael Flynn (Trump’s former national security advisor) and others

    –  By AP reporters and FBI agents to collude in a conspiracy against Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort

    – By Team Mueller to falsely accuse Russia of meddling in order to undermine the trust of Americans in their electoral process

    – In order to summarily rescind a sitting president’s attorney-client privilege; as well as his presumption of innocence through the special counsel’s “lack of exoneration”.

    – To allow the Democratic candidates in the 2018 Midterm Elections to leverage the issue of election hacking and illegitimately win key senate races as well as control of the U.S. House

    All this from America’s “heroes” who swore an oath to defend America’s constitution.

    Thanks for nothing, you treasonous tribe of traitors.

    Conclusion

    As long as even some of the premises of those who oppose the U.S. Constitution are swallowed hook, line, and sinker by a significant percentage of the U.S. body politic – then these may, in the end, present as evidence in the historical record delineating the downfall of our once-great republic.

    One would like to believe this sordid chapter of corruption will result in the ultimate draining of the American swamp.  The nation now awaits reports from Inspector General Michael Horwitz on FISA Abuse and corruption in the Department of Justice; U.S. Attorney John Huber on Clinton Foundation illegalities; and U.S. Attorney John Durham on the malevolent origins of Russiagate.

    Godspeed gentlemen. Because a very significant percentage of the American public is growing more impatient by the day. Time is of the essence.  Tick tock.

  • MbS Goes Elon Musk On Steroids: Seeks Flying Cars, Electric Dinosaurs, Robot Maids, & Glowing Sand For Barren Saudi Desert

    In northwest Saudi Arabia, where most people see a barren wasteland, Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has envisioned the future, and according to the Wall Street Journal, it is something straight out of an Elon Musk wet dream, complete with flying taxis, robot maids, robot dinosaurs, robot martial arts, endless booze and glow-in-the-dark sand, among other things.

    Perhaps MbS has been following Elon Musk’s Twitter account a little too closely. Or perhaps he has joined him in a microdosing regimen. Regardless, MbS has hatched a $500 billion plan to cover 10,000 square miles of this desert to attract the “world’s greatest minds and best talents” to the world’s best paying jobs in the world’s most livable city.

    A true modern day, pardon, future Shangri-La.

    The ideas have been laid out in 2300 pages of confidential documents at Boston Consulting Group, McKinsey and Company and Oliver Wyman that the Wall Street Journal was able to review. The project is called “Neom”, which – it will come as no surprise – is a mash up of the Greek word for “new” and the Arabic word for “future”. The documents were dated September 2018.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The consultants employed an expansive (and expensive) mix of science fiction and corporate buzzwords to turn the Prince’s imaginary city into a reality. Local tribes would have to be forcibly relocated and a court system developed by law firm Latham & Watkins would have judges reporting directly to the king and operating under Sharia law.

    Neom’s MbS-led founding board said: “This should be an automated city where we can watch everything. A city where a computer can notify crimes without having to report them or where all citizens can be tracked.”

    Perhaps the inspiration was not the Jetsons, but rather 1984. Also, it sounds like what the US is desperately trying to become. The board has adopted the recommendations of its consultants and people familiar with the project say they don’t know how much the plan will become a reality due to both funding issues and potential technological limitations.

    Neom Chief Executive Nadhmi al Nasr said: “Neom is all about things that are necessarily future-oriented and visionary. So we are talking about technology that is cutting edge and beyond—and in some cases still in development and maybe theoretical.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Perhaps inspired by the movie Syriana, the project marks the centerpiece of MbS’s effort to transform Saudi Arabia from an oil-dependent desert wasteland to a forward looking diversified economy. Rather than relying on just petroleum revenue, MbS has stated that he wants Saudi Arabia to produce goods and services that it currently buys abroad (such as chainsaws and sulfuric acid?) He also proposed Neom as a way to keep Saudis spending domestically.

    To ensure that his vision of Future World is truly unique, MbS plans to roll out the following :

    • 1. Flying Taxis: Scientists might take a flying taxi to work. “Driving is just for fun, no longer for transportation (e.g. driving Ferrari next to the coast with a nice view),” planning documents show.

    • 2. Cloud Seeding: The desert won’t always feel like the desert. “Cloud seeding” could make it rain.

    • 3. Robot Maids: Don’t worry about household chores. While scientists are at work, their homes would be cleaned by robot maids.

    • 4. State-of-the-Art Medical Facilities: Scientists would work on a project to modify the human genome to make people stronger.

    • 5. World Class Restaurants: There would be fine dining galore in a city with the “highest rate of Michelin-starred restaurants per inhabitant.”

    • 6. Dinosaur Robots: Residents could visit a Jurassic Park-style island of robot reptiles.

    • 7. Glow-in-the-Dark Sand: The crown prince wants a beach that glows in the dark, like the face of a watch.

    • 8. Alcohol: Alcohol is banned in the rest of Saudi Arabia. But it likely won’t be here, say people familiar with the plan.

    • 9. Robot Martial Arts: Robots would do more than just clean your house. They also could spar head to head in a “robo-cage fight,” one of many sports on offer.

    • 10. Security: Cameras, drones and facial-recognition technology are planned to track everyone at all times.

    • 11. Moon: A giant artificial moon would light up each night. One proposal suggests it could live-stream images from outer space, acting as an iconic landmark.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For those concerned about their safety there, fear not – the Saudi state will have everything under control. Cameras, drones and facial-recognition technology will allow state intelligence to track every single person there. “Everything can be recorded,” the founders’ Board stated. Neom has already engaged IBM for potential facial recognition software. 

    The Board even thought of offering Tesla billions in subsidies to move to Neom, while giving the kingdom a stake.

    Clearly, since it is deep in the realm of science fiction, MbS also considered partnering with unicorn-specialist SoftBank on its “Apollo” project, which seeks to create “a new way of life from birth to death reaching genetic mutations to increase human strength and IQ.” 

    Unfortunately, the $500 billion futuristic nirvana doesn’t come without headwinds.

    According to the Journal, the Saudi government plans to forcibly relocate more than 20,000 people, many whose families have inhabited the area for generations. One resident of the area said “You are dismembering an entire society. For us, it’s like death.” 

    Additionally, companies have often avoided investing in Saudi Arabia due to the country’s opaque legal system, corruption, alcohol ban and rules that require women to get a male relative’s permission to travel. MbS has adopted the stance that these rules are so difficult to change because they are so ingrained in existing Saudi cities, that it is simply easier to just develop a new city and start over.

    “Starting Neom from scratch, with independent systems and regulations, will ensure the availability of best services without social limitations,” MbS said at Neom’s first board meeting.

    None of this is hindering MbS’ enthusiasm to come up with a Disney World for the world’s richest and most powerful. Construction on Neom is under way using thousands of foreign workers that in one section of the development were housed six to a tiny room as of June 17. Earlier this year, MBS issued a decree about an area called Silver Beach. “I want the sand to glow,” he said, according to two people familiar with the project. Engineers haven’t figured out a safe way to do it, the WSJ adds sardonically.

    Each night, he told underlings, a fleet of drones should create the illusion of a rising moon—crescent, half, full. “That’s what he wants this future to be,” a former executive said.

    To make that happen, Boston Consulting Group suggested partnering with NASA to make the fake moon “the biggest in the world.”

    Read the full longform WSJ writeup here. 

  • Escobar: US And Iran Stuck At Negotiation 'Ground-Zero'

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via ConsortiumNews.com,

    All bets are off in the geopolitical insanity stakes when we have the President of the United States (POTUS) glibly announcing he could launch a nuclear first strike to end the war in Afghanistan and wipe it “off the face of the earth” in one week. But he’d rather not, so he doesn’t have to kill 10 million people.

    Apart from the fact that not even a nuclear strike would subdue the legendary fighting spirit of Afghan Pashtuns, the same warped logic – ordering a nuclear first strike as one orders a cheeseburger – could apply to Iran instead of Afghanistan.

    Trump once again flip-flopped by declaring that the prospect of a potential war in the Persian Gulf “could go either way, and I’m OK either way it goes,” much to the delight of Beltway-related psychopaths who peddle the notion that Iran is begging to be bombed.

    No wonder the whole Global South – not to mention the Russia-China strategic partnership – simply cannot trust anything coming from Trump’s mouth or tweets, a non-stop firefight deployed as intimidation tactics.

    At least Trump’s impotence facing such a determined adversary as Iran is now clear: “It’s getting harder for me to want to make a deal with Iran.” What remains are empty clichés, such as Iran “behaving very badly” and “the number one state of terror in the world” – the marching order mantra emanating from Tel Aviv.

    Even the – illegal – all-out economic war and total blockade against Tehran seems not to be enough. Trump has announced extra sanctions on China because Beijing is “accepting crude oil” from Iran. Chinese companies will simply ignore them.

    Okay With ‘OK Either Way’

    “OK either way” is exactly the kind of response expected by the leadership in Tehran. Prof. Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran confirmed to me that Tehran did not offer Trump a “renegotiation” of the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, in exchange for the end of sanctions: “It’s not a renegotiation. Iran offered to move forward ratification of additional protocols if Congress removes all sanctions. That would be a big win for Iran. But the US will never accept it.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Dehghan: U.S. bases would be targeted. (Wikimedia Commons)

    Marandi also confirmed “there is nothing big going on” between Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and tentative Trump administration negotiator Sen. Rand Paul: “Bolton and Pompeo remain in charge.”

    The crucial fact is that Tehran rejects a new negotiation with the White House “under any circumstances,” as expressed by Hossein Dehghan, the top military adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

    Dehghan once again made it very clear that in case of any sort of military adventure, every single base of the U.S. Empire of Bases across Southwest Asia will be targeted.

    This neatly ties in with Iran’s by now consolidated new rules of engagement, duly detailed by correspondent Elijah Magnier. We are well into “an-eye-for-an-eye” territory.

    And that brings us to the alarming expansion of the sanctions dementia, represented by two Iranian ships loaded with corn stranded off the coast of southern Brazil because energy giant Petrobras, afraid of U.S. sanctions, refuses to refuel them.

    Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a fervent Trump groupie, has turned the country into a tropical U.S. neo-colony in less than seven months. On U.S. sanctions, Bolsonaro said, “We are aligned to their policies. So we do what we have to.” Tehran for its part has threatened to cut its imports of corn, soybeans and meat from Brazil – $2 billion worth of trade a year – unless the refueling is allowed.

    This is an extremely serious development. Food is not supposed to be — illegally — sanctioned by the Trump administration. Iran now has to use mostly barter to obtain food — as Tehran cannot remit through the CHIPS-SWIFT banking clearinghouse. If food supplies are also blocked that means that sooner rather than later the Strait of Hormuz may be blocked as well.

    Beltway sources confirmed that the highest level of the U.S. government gave the order for Brasilia to stop this food shipment.

    Tehran knows it well – as this is part of the “maximum pressure” campaign, whose goal is ultimately to starve the Iranian population to death in a harrowing game of chicken.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Chokepoint: The Strait of Hormuz. (Flickr)

    How this may end is described by an ominous quote I already used in some of my previous columns, from a Goldman Sachs derivatives specialist: “If the Strait of Hormuz is closed, the price of oil will rise to a thousand dollars a barrel representing over 45 percent of global GDP, crashing the $2.5 quadrillion derivatives market and creating a world depression of unprecedented proportions.”

    At least the Pentagon seems to understand that a war on Iran will collapse the world economy.

    And Now for Something Completely Different

    But then, last but not least, there’s the tanker war.

    Dutch analyst Maarten van Mourik has noted significant discrepancies involving the UK piracy episode in Gibraltar – the origin of the tanker war. The Grace 1 tanker “was pirated by the Royal Marines in international waters. Gibraltar Straits is an international passage, like the Strait of Hormuz. There is only 3 nautical miles of territorial water around Gibraltar, and even that is disputed.”

    Mourik adds, “The size of the Grace 1 ship is 300,000 MT of crude oil, it has a maximum draught of about 22.2 meters and the latest draught via AIS indicated that she was at 22.1 meters, or fully laden. Now, the port of Banyas in Syria, which is where the offshore oil port is, has a maximum draft of 15 meters. So, in no way could the Grace 1 go there, without first having to offload elsewhere. Probably a very large quantity to get within max draught limitations.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Zarif (r.) negotiating nuclear deal with then US Secretary of State John Kerry in July, 2015. (Wikimedia Common)

    That ties in with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif refusing on the record to say where Grace 1 was actually heading to, while not confirming the destination was Syria.

    The tit-for-tat Iranian response, with the seizure of the Stena Impero navigating under the British flag, is now evolving into Britain calling for a “European-led maritime protection mission” in the Persian Gulf, purportedly to protect ships from Iranian “state piracy.”

    Observers may be excused for mistaking it for a Monty Python sketch. Here we have the Ministry of Silly Seizures, which is exiting the EU, begging the EU to embark on a “mission” that is not the same mission of the U.S. “maximum pressure” campaign. And on top of it the mission should not undermine Britain’s commitment to keep the JCPOA in place.

    As European nations never recede on a chance to flaunt their dwindling “power” across the Global South, Britain, Germany and France now seem bent on their “mission” to “observe maritime security in the Gulf,” in the words of French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian. At least this won’t be a deployment of joint naval forces – as London insisted. Brussels diplomats confirmed the initial muscular request came from London, but then it was diluted: the EU, NATO and the U.S. should not be involved – at least not directly.

    Now compare this with the phone call last week between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and French President Emmanuel Macron, with Tehran expressing the determination to “keep all doors open” for the JCPOA. Well, certainly not open to the Monty Python sketch.

    That was duly confirmed by Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said Iran will “not allow disturbance in shipping in this sensitive area,” while Iranian vice-president Eshaq Jahangiri rejected the notion of a “joint European task force” protecting international shipping: “These kinds of coalitions and the presence of foreigners in the region by itself creates insecurity.”

    Iran has always been perfectly capable, historically, of protecting that Pentagonese Holy Grail – “freedom of navigation” – in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran certainly doesn’t need former colonial powers to enforce it. It’s so easy to lose the plot; the current, alarming escalation is only taking place because of the “art of the deal” obsession on imposing an illegal, total economic war on Iran.

  • For The First Time In 6 Years, No Central Bank Is Hiking

    The global central bank experiment with renormalization is officially over.

    After roughly half the world’s central banks hiked rates at least once in 2018, the major central banks have returned to easing mode, and as the chart below shows, for the first time since 2013, not a single central bank is hiking rates.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Commenting on the violent reversal away from tightening financial conditions which emerged following the Q4 2018 selloff, Goldman’s Jan Hatzius writes that “The FOMC looks set to cut the funds rate next week, the ECB today sent a strong signal that action in September is likely, and China has resumed easing policy after a spring pause. With global growth running at a below-trend rate of 2¾%—down from about 4% a year ago—a synchronized tilt towards easing looks like a natural response to a weaker outlook.”

    Yet even Goldman can’t help but ask just why the Fed is rushing to commence the first easing cycle in years, pointing out that “the US economy is in decent shape, with a tight labor market, inflation close to target and— in our forecast— growth running a little above 2% both this year and next. We are modestly above consensus because we expect the negative inventory cycle to end and final demand to continue growing robustly on the back of easier financial conditions.”

    This, according to the Goldman economist, should limit Fed easing to two 25bp insurance cuts, one next week and another in September, although the bank, which until very recently did not expect any rate cuts at all, fails to justify just why the Fed is doing what it is about to do, unless of course Powell is merely folding to Trump pressure.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But if the Fed’s upcoming rate cut remains a mystery, what the ECB is about to do is relatively straightforward, as the European picture has continued to deteriorate, and as Draghi defined it yesterday, the outlook is “getting worse and worse.” Following the weak manufacturing flash PMIs, Goldman’s Current Activity Indicator for Europe in July stood at just +0.5% on an area-wide basis, and at -0.6% in Germany. Underlying inflation remains stuck at 1% “and the slide in inflation expectations points to risks of de-anchoring.” Moreover, fears of a “no deal” Brexit have re-intensified and volatility is likely to return in Italy as the 2020 budget is prepared. Therefore, Goldman expects forceful action from the ECB in September, “including a 20bp deposit rate cut (flanked by a move to a tiered reserve system), a return to QE (including corporate and sovereign debt) and a further strengthening of forward guidance.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Elsewhere the picture is similar, and after what looked like a strong Q1 rebound, Goldman notes that Chinese growth has slowed again to the bottom end of the government’s 6-6½% target range, with the “slower growth and the threat of trade war escalation have persuaded policymakers to return to a gradual easing path.” As a result, short-term interest rates remain in the mid-2% range, fiscal borrowing has stepped up, and credit growth beat expectations in June. Finally, with the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic coming up in October, Goldman expects policy settings to stay supportive in coming months, “likely easing slightly further on the margin.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Additionally, in a world where China has long become the marginal source of growth for much of the emerging world, EM growth outside of China remains sluggish as well, and most large EMs are growing below Goldman’s estimates of long-term potential, and well below policymakers’ aspirations, to wit:

    Exports have decelerated sharply (mainly due to weak DM growth) and domestic demand has disappointed (reflecting tighter financial conditions, especially where policy tightened in 2018). That said, we see slightly brighter prospects for the second half, as low inflation and a dovish Fed will allow EM policymakers to ease policy and support growth.

    And visually:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Finally, the risk of a no deal Brexit has returned to center stage as Boris Jonson took over as Prime Minister, pledging that the UK will leave the EU by October 31 with “no ifs, no buts” according to Hatzius, who expects the tail risks to intensify into Q4 and raised Goldman’s odds of a no deal Brexit to 20%. Even so, Goldman thinks PM Johnson will, on balance, seek to avoid a general election before having delivered Brexit. The only way to avoid a general election may be to avoid a no deal Brexit, and the only way to avoid a no deal Brexit may be to deliver Brexit with a deal. From this perspective, the scope for the new Prime Minister to depart from his predecessor looks very limited, and Goldman’s base case remains a negotiated Brexit deal (with a 45% probability).

     

    So with the entire world now in easing mode, it is relative easy to predict that Goldman expects smooth sailing. As Hatzius summarizes, “following the sharp rally in most asset prices this year, our near-term market views are fairly neutral.

    • On the rates side, we see scope for a further duration rally as the ECB over-delivers relative to current market pricing, but ultimately see rates drifting higher again as the Fed only delivers two insurance cuts and returns to tightening policy after the presidential election.
    • Pressure on the Euro looks likely in the near term, but we do not expect a large move given that the Euro is already undervalued relative to long-run fundamentals.
    • On the equity side, the S&P 500 trades near fair value relative to interest rates, although we believe policy uncertainty and negative revisions to 2020 earnings forecasts will limit the upside from here.
    • Finally, we see commodity prices stuck in a mid-cycle pause, with no strong near-term direction.

    And now we look ahead to next week’s historic catalyst: the Fed’s first rate cut in over a decade… just as the S&P closes at 3,205 – a new all time high.

  • IRS Sends 1000s Of "Fishing" Letters To Crypto Users

    Authored by Marie Huillet via CoinTelegraph.com,

    The United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is sending letters to crypto investors to apparently scare them into accurately reporting their crypto-related income.  

    “Taxpayers should take these letters very seriously by reviewing their tax filings and when appropriate, amend past returns and pay back taxes, interest and penalties,” IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig said in a statement.

    “The IRS is expanding our efforts involving virtual currency, including increased use of data analytics. We are focused on enforcing the law and helping taxpayers fully understand and meet their obligations.”

    ‘Don’t Panic’

    According to a Forbes report by crypto tax attorney Tyson Cross, published on July 26, a number of Cross’s clients have received a letter “6174-A” from the IRS, threatening “future civil and criminal enforcement activity” if they fail to fully comply with reporting requirements.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    IRS Letter 6174-A. Source: Tyson Cross via Forbes

    While Cross notes that the letter may give the impression that it is a personally targeted enforcement action, he argues that it is much more likely to be a generic mailing campaign intended to encourage voluntary compliance — one year after the IRS first launched its cryptocurrency compliance push. 

    Although the agency could feasibly have identified tax cheats and sent the letter to specific individuals, Cross notes that over a dozen of his clients — all of whom accurately reported their crypto-derived income — had received the letter. 

    Much more likely, he claims, is that the IRS has used its list of taxpayers identified in 2017 by Coinbase and conducted a blanket campaign to exert psychological pressure on investors. He notes: 

    “This would seem to indicate the IRS is sending these letters to taxpayers as a fishing attempt without any real belief that each recipient has under-reported.”

    Cross writes that several other tax professionals have revealed to him that their own clients — despite accurate reporting — had also received Letter 6174-A.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

    The IRS hopes to tighten the noose

    Cross advised investors not to panic should they receive the letter, but to thoroughly ensure the accuracy of their tax returns, given that at the very least it means they are on the agency’s radar. 

    As previously reported, data released ahead of the close of the preceding tax year indicated that just 0.04% of tax filers were reporting capital gains from crypto investments to the IRS.

    Back in July 2017, the IRS had required that major U.S. crypto exchange Coinbase hand over detailed information on every one of its then 500,000+ users in an attempt to prevent tax evasion. However, a court order in November 2017 reduced this number to around 14,000 “high-transacting” users, which the platform later reported as 13,000.

    An alleged presentation by the agency earlier this month reportedly revealed that the IRS hopes to use Grand Jury subpoenas on firms such as Apple, Google and Microsoft to check taxpayers’ download history for crypto-related applications.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 26

Today’s News 26th July 2019

  • Airbus 'Glitch' That Went Undetected For Years Risked Failure Of Critical In-Flight Systems

    Boeing’s unprecedented stumble with the 737 MAX 8, along with President Trump’s trade war, have taken a toll on Boeing’s commercial aerospace business, as its Q2 earnings report, released earlier this week, confirmed. And although Airbus, Boeing’s greatest rival, is now the undisputed leader in building planes for commercial flight, but a scandal or setback could easily shake investors’ confidence in Airbus, and with good reason: reports about potentially dangerous software glitches like this one shouldn’t be ignored.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Register, a British tech news website, reports that some models of Airbus’s A350 airliners, the company’s ‘workhorse’ model, still need to be rebooted after exactly 149 hours of continuous use, even after the EU’s aviation authority ordered Airbus to fix the glitch ASAP.

    Now, the EU is issuing a reminder to pilots to make sure to turn their planes on and off again after 149 hours of power-on time, or risk the loss of critical systems in-flight.

    In a mandatory airworthiness directive (AD) reissued earlier this week, EASA urged operators to turn their A350s off and on again to prevent “partial or total loss of some avionics systems or functions.”

    The revised AD, effective from tomorrow (26 July), exempts only those new A350-941s which have had modified software pre-loaded on the production line. For all other A350-941s, operators need to completely power the airliner down before it reaches 149 hours of continuous power-on time.

    Of even greater concern, the regulator and Airbus weren’t aware of the glitch until 2017, when the original AD was issued, as pilots started suffering unexplained losses of certain systems, putting them and their passengers and crew in a very risky situation.

    And this glitch apparently went undetected for years. It was only after a few planes suffered in-flight systems failures that they started to look into it.

    Concerningly, the original 2017 AD was brought about by “in-service events where a loss of communication occurred between some avionics systems and avionics network” (sic). The impact of the failures ranged from “redundancy loss” to “complete loss on a specific function hosted on common remote data concentrator and core processing input/output modules.”

    In layman’s English, this means that prior to 2017, at least some A350s flying passengers were suffering unexplained failures of potentially flight-critical digital systems.

    The glitch is similar to one of the problems that afflicted Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, as the Register explains.

    Airbus’ rival Boeing very publicly suffered from a similar time-related problem with its 787 Dreamliner: back in 2015 a memory overflow bug was discovered that caused the 787’s generators to shut themselves down after 248 days of continual power-on operation. A software counter in the generators’ firmware, it was found, would overflow after that precise length of time. The Register is aware that this is not the only software-related problem to have plagued the 787 during its earlier years.

    It is common for airliners to be left powered on while parked at airport gates so maintainers can carry out routine systems checks between flights, especially if the aircraft is plugged into ground power.

    The remedy for the A350-941 problem is straightforward according to the AD: install Airbus software updates for a permanent cure, or switch the aeroplane off and on again.

    Airlines that own these planes and are thus subject to the order include Air France, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and Lufthansa, Air China and Taiwan’s China Airlines.

    It also shows that the problem of over-reliance on AI and other advanced software isn’t limited to Boeing: As these technologies become more advanced, and these aerospace companies start to increasingly rely on them, these issues are bound to become more widespread. So, does that make air travel safer, or more dangerous?

  • Time Runs Out On Operation Ukraine

    Authored by Tom Luongo,

    Change is now possible in Ukraine. The conflict between it and Russia has been frozen for nearly five years thanks to former President Petro Poroshenko.

    He’s gone. Volodmyr Zelensky is in power along with Zelensky’s political party which won close to a clear majority in Verkovna Rada elections recently.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Zelensky’s Servent of the People party won 253 seats out of 450, giving him not only the presidency but no need to build a coalition government with smaller parties of known foreign-controlled players, like Yulia Tymoshenko (Fatherland) or from Poroshenko’s party itself, European Solidarity.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Wikipedia

    This was the biggest fear coming into these elections. Ukraine’s system is mixed using both proportional allocation (225 seats) and majoritarian allocation (225).

    Zelensky has a mandate now to begin the process of tearing down the barriers to sanity Poroshenko left in his wake. The big one being, of course, the war against separatists in the Donbass.

    For the first few months of his presidency Zelensky has sent mixed signals as to what he intends to do on the world stage. He’s offered to meet with Putin, who then asked saliently, ‘to what end?’

    He’s tried to pull back on the conflict only to see the shelling continue and, at times, intensify.

    Zelensky is dealing with the same kind of bureaucratic revolt against change that Donald Trump has dealt with. In fact, it’s the same people running the both shows.

    If there was one thing that has become glaringly obvious over the past three years it is that the coup attempt by the bureaucracy against Trump it is that much of it was cooked up in Ukraine under the dutiful eye of former President Poroshenko.

    With Poroshenko out of the way, there is still the inertia of those he put in important positions. Ukraine is practically a failed state so don’t expect good news. If anything it’s become a playground for outside forces to start more fires as Zelensky tries to stamp out the ones currently burning.

    All of these fires have one goal in mind, keep Ukraine and Russia separated and in conflict. This is being directed by both U.S. and British interests, if the Steele Dossier tells us anything.

    That is the way these things go. But, that said, what Zelensky can have control over are the big issues setting Russia and Ukraine at odds. Obviously the Donbass is the big one.

    But what’s really pressing is the gas supply contract between Gazprom and Naftogaz. It’s due to expire in December. I’ve written extensively about the machinations surrounding this and it’s worth your review.

    The U.S. is trying to run out the clock on these negotiations by slowing down completion of Nordstream 2 and put Gazprom in the position of not supplying its written contracts with Europe. If Nordstream 2 can’t deliver and there is no supply agreement with Naftogaz then Gazprom can’t deliver contracted gas for the first time ever.

    So I found it very interesting that Zelensky is now openly asking for talks with Gazprom and Naftogaz about the supply contract. This is not a difficult deal to get done. But, it has some outstanding issues. From TASS:

    After securing control over the Verkhovna Rada, the team of Vladimir Zelensky indicated that it is ready for new gas negotiations with Russia. According to Nezavisimaya Gazeta’s experts, Kiev’s decisiveness is explained by the pressure from the European Union and Ukraine’s interest in receiving transit revenues from Russia. Meanwhile, the real chances of a new transit agreement have grown, the newspaper wrote. Ukrtransgas has not paid for services since March and its debts threaten the company’s stability and question the reliability of its supplies, the European Federation of Energy Traders (EFET) said.

    But none of these issues will be difficult to resolve. Poroshenko left Ukraine at the mercy of Putin and Gazprom because they need the gas and the transit fees while Russia has Nordstream 2 and Turkstream coming on line next year.

    Putin energy embargoed Ukraine earlier in the year making things really dicey for Zelensky. At the end of the day, however, Putin and Gazprom will negotiate a deal quickly that will pay Ukraine based on market demand for that gas to satisfy European regulators allaying worries over Ukraine’s finances.

    Europe has made it clear it is no longer interested in paying for its failed Ukrainian project. Europe’s gas demand is rising so quickly that there will be room for everyone in the market. The only thing holding up completion of Nordstream 2 is a final permit from Denmark, which Gazprom expects to finally receive in October.

    Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller is not sanguine about the prospects of a deal as there are outstanding court cases involved, but the long-term political dividends of signing some kind of deal, even an extension of the existing one pending a more thorough overhaul, would be immense.

    Getting that problem solved would build trust between Putin and Zelensky and could lead to unwinding the problems downstream of 2014’s U.S. sponsored coup against Viktor Yanukovich.

    There are so many forces arrayed within the U.S., UK, northern European and Israeli governments against reconciliation between Ukraine and Russia that it will be difficult for Zelensky and Putin to achieve much.

    Europe’s new leadership, under Ursula von der Leyen, will be more confrontational with Russia while the jury is out on Boris Johnson’s new UK government and whether he can even remain in power for long.

    But it is clear that the people of Europe are tired of these games and want change. The Ukrainian elections are proof of this. And that, by itself, is something worth cheering.

    *  *  *

    Join my Patreon if you agree shadow governments are a blight on humanity. Install Brave to help break the control by big tech and its friends in big government.

  • The Tyranny Of The Police-State Disguised As Law-And-Order

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “But these weren’t the kind of monsters that had tentacles and rotting skin, the kind a seven-year-old might be able to wrap his mind around – they were monsters with human faces, in crisp uniforms, marching in lockstep, so banal you don’t recognize them for what they are until it’s too late.”

    – Ransom Riggs, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children

    Enough already.

    Enough with the distractions. Enough with the partisan jousting.

    Enough with the sniping and name-calling and mud-slinging that do nothing to make this country safer or freer or more just.

    We have let the government’s evil-doing, its abuses, power grabs, brutality, meanness, inhumanity, immorality, greed, corruption, debauchery and tyranny go on for too long.

    We are approaching a reckoning.

    This is the point, as the poet W. B. Yeats warned, when things fall apart and anarchy is loosed upon the world.

    We have seen this convergence before in Hitler’s Germany, in Stalin’s Russia, in Mussolini’s Italy, and in Mao’s China: the rise of strongmen and demagogues, the ascendency of profit-driven politics over deep-seated principles, the warring nationalism that seeks to divide and conquer, the callous disregard for basic human rights and dignity, and the silence of people who should know better.

    Yet no matter how many times the world has been down this road before, we can’t seem to avoid repeating the deadly mistakes of the past. This is not just playing out on a national and international scale. It is wreaking havoc at the most immediate level, as well, creating rifts and polarities within families and friends, neighborhoods and communities that keep the populace warring among themselves and incapable of presenting a united front in the face of the government’s goose-stepping despotism.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We are definitely in desperate need of a populace that can stand united against the government’s authoritarian tendencies.

    Surely we can manage to find some common ground in the midst of the destructive, disrupting, diverting, discordant babble being beamed down at us by the powers-that-be? After all, there are certain self-evident truths—about the source of our freedoms, about the purpose of government, about how we expect to be treated by those we appoint to serve us in government offices, about what to do when the government abuses our rights and our trust, etc.—that we should be able to agree on, no matter how we might differ politically.

    Disagree all you want about healthcare, abortion and immigration—hot-button issues that are guaranteed to stir up the masses, secure campaign contributions and turn political discourse into a circus free-for-all—but never forget that our power as a citizenry comes from our ability to agree and stand united on certain principles that should be non-negotiable.

    For instance, for the first time in the nation’s history, it is expected that the federal deficit will surpass $1 trillion this year, not to mention the national debt which is approaching $23 trillion. There’s also $21 trillion in government spending that cannot be accounted for or explained. For those in need of a quick reminder: “A budget deficit is the difference between what the federal government spends and what it takes in. The national debt is the result of the federal government borrowing money to cover years and years of budget deficits.” Right now, the U.S. government is operating in the negative on every front: it’s spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is borrowing heavily (from foreign governments and Social Security) to keep the government operating and keep funding its endless wars abroad. Meanwhile, the nation’s sorely neglected infrastructure—railroads, water pipelines, ports, dams, bridges, airports and roads—is rapidly deteriorating.

    Yet no matter how we might differ about how the government allocates its spending, surely we can agree that the government’s irresponsible spending, which has saddled us with insurmountable debt, is pushing the country to the edge of financial and physical ruin.

    That’s just one example of many that shows the extent to which the agents of the American police state are shredding the constitutional fabric of the nation, eclipsing the rights of the American people, and perverting basic standards of decency.

    Let me give you a few more.

    Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour)—and that’s just what the government spends on foreign wars. The U.S. military empire’s determination to police the rest of the world has resulted in more than 1.3 million U.S. troops being stationed at roughly 1000 military bases in over 150 countries around the world. That doesn’t include the number of private contractors pulling in hefty salaries at taxpayer expense. In Afghanistan, for example, private contractors outnumber U.S. troops three to one. 

    No matter how we might differ about the role of the U.S. military in foreign affairs, surely we can agree that America’s war spending and commitment to policing the rest of the world are bankrupting the nation and spreading our troops dangerously thin.

    All of the imperial powers amassed by Barack Obama and George W. Bush—to kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which they might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to operate a shadow government, and to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountability—were inherited by Donald Trump. These presidential powers—acquired through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements and which can be activated by any sitting president—enable past, president and future presidents to operate above the law and beyond the reach of the Constitution.

    Yet no matter how we might differ about how success or failure of past or present presidential administrations, surely we can agree that the president should not be empowered to act as an imperial dictator with permanent powers.

    Increasingly, at home, we’re facing an unbelievable show of force by government agents. For example, with alarming regularity, unarmed men, women, children and even pets are being gunned down by twitchy, hyper-sensitive, easily-spooked police officers who shoot first and ask questions later, and all the government does is shrug and promise to do better. Just recently, in fact, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals cleared a cop who aimed for a family’s dog (who showed no signs of aggression), missed, and instead shot a 10-year-old lying on the ground. Indeed, there are countless incidents that happen every day in which Americans are shot, stripped, searched, choked, beaten and tasered by police for little more than daring to frown, smile, question, or challenge an order. Growing numbers of unarmed people are being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

    No matter how we might differ about where to draw that blue line of allegiance to the police state, surely we can agree that police shouldn’t go around terrorizing and shooting innocent, unarmed children and adults or be absolved of wrongdoing for doing so.

    Nor can we turn a blind eye to the transformation of America’s penal system from one aimed at protecting society from dangerous criminals to a profit-driven system that dehumanizes and strips prisoners of every vestige of their humanity. For example, in Illinois, as part of a “training exercise” for incoming cadets, prison guards armed with batons and shields rounded up 200 handcuffed female inmates, marched them to the gymnasium, then forced them to strip naked (including removing their tampons and pads), “bend over and spread open their vaginal and anal cavities,” while male prison guards promenaded past or stood staring. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the entire dehumanizing, demoralizing mass body cavity strip search—orchestrated not for security purposes but as an exercise in humiliation—was legal. Be warned, however: this treatment will not be limited to those behind bars. In our present carceral state, there is no difference between the treatment meted out to a law-abiding citizen and a convicted felon: both are equally suspect and treated as criminals, without any of the special rights and privileges reserved for the governing elite. In a carceral state, there are only two kinds of people: the prisoners and the prison guards.

    No matter how we might differ about where to draw the line when it comes to prisoners’ rights, surely we can agree that no one—woman, man or child—should be subjected to such degrading treatment in the name of law and order.

    In Washington, DC, in contravention of longstanding laws that restrict the government’s ability to deploy the military on American soil, the Pentagon has embarked on a secret mission of “undetermined duration” that involves flying Black Hawk helicopters over the nation’s capital, backed by active-duty and reserve soldiers. In addition to the increasing militarization of the police—a de facto standing army—this military exercise further acclimates the nation to the sight and sounds of military personnel on American soil and the imposition of martial law.

    No matter how we might differ about the deference due to those in uniform, whether military or law enforcement, surely we can agree that America’s Founders had good reason to warn against the menace of a national police force—a.k.a. a standing army—vested with the power to completely disregard the Constitution.

    We labor today under the weight of countless tyrannies, large and small, disguised as “the better good,” marketed as benevolence, enforced with armed police, and carried out by an elite class of government officials who are largely insulated from the ill effects of their actions. For example, in Pennsylvania, a school district is threatening to place children in foster care if parents don’t pay their overdue school lunch bills. In Florida, a resident was fined $100,000 for a dirty swimming pool and overgrown grass at a house she no longer owned. In Kentucky, government bureaucrats sent a cease-and-desist letter to a church ministry, warning that the group is breaking the law by handing out free used eyeglasses to the homeless. These petty tyrannies inflicted on an overtaxed, overregulated, and underrepresented populace are what happens when bureaucrats run the show, and the rule of law becomes little more than a cattle prod for forcing the citizenry to march in lockstep with the government.

    No matter how we might differ about the extent to which the government has the final say in how it flexes it power and exerts its authority, surely we can agree that the tyranny of the Nanny State—disguised as “the better good,” marketed as benevolence, enforced with armed police, and inflicted on all those who do not belong to the elite ruling class that gets to call the shots— should not be allowed to pave over the Constitution.

    At its core, this is not a debate about politics, or constitutionalism, or even tyranny disguised as law-and-order. This is a condemnation of the monsters with human faces that have infiltrated our government.

    For too long now, the American people have rationalized turning a blind eye to all manner of government wrongdoing—asset forfeiture schemes, corruption, surveillance, endless wars, SWAT team raids, militarized police, profit-driven private prisons, and so on—because they were the so-called lesser of two evils.

    Yet the unavoidable truth is that the government has become almost indistinguishable from the evil it claims to be fighting, whether that evil takes the form of terrorism, torture, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, murder, violence, theft, pornography, scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering and servitude on humanity.

    No matter how you rationalize it, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

    So how do you fight back?

    How do you fight injustice? How do you push back against tyranny? How do you vanquish evil?

    You don’t fight it by hiding your head in the sand.

    We have ignored the warning signs all around us for too long.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government has ripped the Constitution to shreds and left us powerless in the face of its power grabs, greed and brutality.

    What we are grappling with today is a government that is cutting great roads through the very foundations of freedom in order to get after its modern devils. Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow.

    Therein lies the problem.

    The consequences of this failure to do our due diligence in asking the right questions, demanding satisfactory answers, and holding our government officials accountable to respecting our rights and abiding by the rule of law has pushed us to the brink of a nearly intolerable state of affairs.

    Intolerable, at least, to those who remember what it was like to live in a place where freedom, due process and representative government actually meant something. Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we now find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives.

    The hour grows late in terms of restoring the balance of power and reclaiming our freedoms, but it may not be too late. The time to act is now, using all methods of nonviolent resistance available to us.

    “Don’t sit around waiting for the two corrupted established parties to restore the Constitution or the Republic,” Naomi Wolf once warned. Waiting and watching will get us nowhere fast.

    If you’re watching, you’re not doing.

    Easily mesmerized by the government’s political theater—the endless congressional hearings and investigations that go nowhere, the president’s reality show antics, the warring factions, the electoral drama—we have become a society of watchers rather than activists who are distracted by even the clumsiest government attempts at sleight-of-hand.

    It’s time for good men and women to do something. And soon.

    Wake up and take a good, hard look around you. Start by recognizing evil and injustice and tyranny for what they are. Stop being apathetic. Stop being neutral. Stop being accomplices. Stop being distracted by the political theater staged by the Deep State: they want you watching the show while they manipulate things behind the scenes. Refuse to play politics with your principles. Don’t settle for the lesser of two evils.

    As British statesman Edmund Burke warned, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing.”

  • Mapping All The Major Bitcoin Forks

    The emergence of Bitcoin took the world by storm through its simplicity and innovation. Yet, as Visual Capitalist’s Ashley Viens details, plenty of confusion remains around the term itself.

    The Bitcoin blockchain – not to be confused with the bitcoin cryptocurrency – involves a vast global network of computers operating on the same distributed database to process massive volumes of data every second.

    These transactions tell the network how to alter this distributed database in real-time, which makes it crucial for everyone to agree on how these changes should be applied. When the community can’t come to a mutual agreement on what changes, or when such rule changes should take effect, it results in a blockchain fork.

    Today’s unique subway-style map by Bitcoin Magazine shows the dramatic and major forks that have occurred for Bitcoin. But what exactly is a Blockchain fork?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Types of Blockchain Forks

    Forks are common practice in the software industry and happen for one of two reasons:

    • Split consensus within the community
      These forks are generally disregarded by the community because they are temporary, except in extreme cases. The longer of the two chains is used to continue building the blockchain.

    • Changes to the underlying rules of the blockchain
      A permanent fork which requires an upgrade to the current software in order to continue participating in the network.

    There are four major types of forks that can occur:

    1. Soft Forks

    Soft forks are like gradual software upgrades—bug fixes, security checks, and new features—for those that upgrade right away.

    These forks are “backwards compatible” with the older software; users who haven’t upgraded still have access to the network but may not be able to use all functionality in the current version.

    2. Hard Forks

    Hard forks are like a new OS release—upgrading is mandatory to continue using the software. Because of this, hard forks aren’t compatible with older versions of the network.

    Hard forks are a permanent division of the blockchain. As long as enough people support both chains, however, they will both continue to exist.

    The three types of hard forks are:

    • Planned
      Scheduled upgrades to the network, giving users a chance to prepare. These forks typically involve abandoning the old chain.

    • Contentious
      Caused by disagreements in the community, forming a new chain. This usually involves major changes to the code.

    • Spin-off Coins
      Changes to Bitcoin’s code that create new coins. Litecoin is an example of this—key changes included reducing mining time from 10 minutes to 2.5 minutes, and increasing the coin supply from 21 million to 84 million.

    3. Codebase Forks

    Codebase forks copy the Bitcoin code, allowing developers to make minor tweaks without having to develop the entire blockchain code from scratch. Codebase forks can create a new cryptocurrency or cause unintentional blockchain forks.

    4. Blockchain Forks

    Blockchain forks involve branching or splitting a blockchain’s whole transaction history. Outcomes range from “orphan” blocks to new cryptocurrencies.

    Splitting off the Bitcoin network to form a new currency is much like a religious schism – while most of the characteristics and history are preserved, a fork causes the new network to develop a distinct identity.

    Summarizing Major Bitcoin Forks

    Descriptions of major forks that have occurred in the Bitcoin blockchain:

    • Bitcoin / Bitcoin Core
      The first iteration of Bitcoin was launched by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009. Future generations of Bitcoin (aka Bitcoin 0.1.0) were renamed Bitcoin Core, or Bitcore, as other blockchains and codebases formed.

    • BTC1
      A codebase fork of Bitcoin. Developers released a hard fork protocol called Segwit2x, with the intention of having all Bitcoin users eventually migrate to the Segwit2x protocol. However, it failed to gain traction and is now considered defunct.

    • Bitcoin ABC
      Also a codebase fork of Bitcoin, Bitcoin ABC was intentionally designed to be incompatible with all Bitcoin iterations at some point. ABC branched off to form Bitcoin Cash in 2017.

    • Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, Other Fork Coins
      After the successful yet contentious launch of Bitcoin Cash, other fork coins began to emerge. Unlike the disagreement surrounding Bitcoin Cash, most were simply regarded as a way to create new coins.

    Some of the above forks were largely driven by ideology (BTC1), some because of mixed consensus on which direction to take a hard fork (Bitcoin ABC), while others were mainly profit-driven (Bitcoin Clashic)—or a mix of all three.

    Where’s the Next Fork in the Road?

    Forks are considered an inevitability in the blockchain community. Many believe that forks help ensure that everyone involved—developers, miners, and investors—all have a say when disagreements occur.

    Bitcoin has seen its fair share of ups and downs. Crypto investors should be aware that Bitcoin, as both a protocol and a currency, is complex and always evolving. Even among experts, there is disagreement on what constitutes a soft or hard fork, and how certain geopolitical events have played a role in Bitcoin’s evolution.

  • Pentagon Wants 16-Year-Old Kids To Fight The Empire's Wars

    Authored By Kurt Nimmo via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    The Pentagon is desperate. Far too many millennials are criminals, so luring them in to become the latest crop of bullet stoppers for the state is a nonstarter. 

    Solution? Recruit 16-year-olds. Most have yet graduated to petty and violent crime, although a lot of them are in video game training for a future of violence and self-destructive stupidity. 

    It’s not being widely reported in the media. Recruiters are ready to go after tenth-graders. They are itching to snag kids before they engage in a life of crime, or before they have fully-mature brains (well, some of them) and decide to kill and be killed isn’t much of a career choice.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    First, though, the state will have to give these little darlings the “right” to vote for a crop of handpicked carnival barkers, euphemistically called representatives of the people. 

    I don’t know about you, but when I was sixteen all I thought about was cruising in my father’s car with a freshly minted state permission to drive card in my wallet as I searched desperately for girls willing to make-out in the backseat. 

    It took a year or two before I was politically aware, mostly as a result of Richard Nixon’s plan to “draft” me (polite speak for slavery) into the meat grinder he inherited from LBJ, aka the Vietnam War, where I would either be minced, traumatized for life, or lucky enough to stay behind lines and scrub latrines while other kids fought and senselessly died. 

    Around this time college, high school students, and millions of other concerned Americans marched against the war, a truly remarkable one-time event now impossible in America because the military is “volunteer” and our wars are “humanitarian.” 

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

    Most of these so-called volunteers “joined” the military because they have so few other career options (if you consider killing other people a career choice). Brought up in largely single-parent homes and taught all manner of nonsense in public schools that now resemble locked down prisons, these “volunteers” are completely ignorant of the reason the state needs them to fight and die. 

    It’s all about the psychopathic dominance of a tiny elite. The elite doesn’t send its Harvard-bound kids into its neoliberal meat grinder (because so many of these silver spoon darlings have bone spurs and such). 

    But this system is breaking down, mostly because the state upholds standards that worked in the 1940s and 50s, but are completely irrelevant now. They insist it is not permissible to fill the empty ranks with criminals. Hired killers must be held to the highest moral standard. 

    So, like the United Kingdom, the US is looking to 16-year old kids to fight in the name of the corporate state and, of course, our freedom to live hand-to-mouth in a political and cultural cesspool. 

    Democrats like the idea of 16-year-old voters. Most are far more impressionable and less cantankerous than your average middle-age deplorable. They also approve the idea of feeding kids into the military, but you don’t hear a lot about that because Democrats and progressives don’t think much about war. It’s a big blind spot for them. There are more important issues, for instance trans-gender bathrooms.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    I don’t think this is going to turn out like they think it will. Far too many 16-year olds will flunk out of basic training. Most don’t have what it takes, never mind all those formative years killing bad guys on computer screens. 

    If The Donald gets us into a big shooting war over in the Middle East or in the South China Sea, the mandatory servitude of conscription will be required. It won’t be a turkey shoot like Iraq or Libya. It will be an existential threat, so all males —criminally inclined or not — between 16 and 45 will be inducted, same as they were after FDR tricked the Japanese into invading Pearl Harbor, or Johnson said the North Vietnamese attacked our warships in the Gulf of Tonkin. 

    But the kids are oblivious. They were taught to be so. And the propaganda machine will tell them they’re sacrificing their lives (or limbs and mental health) for the noble cause of star-spangled democracy, which most of them know close to zero about. 

  • US Targets Vast 'Food Corruption Scam' In Fresh Venezuela Sanctions

    Though international and mainstream media have largely moved on from Venezuela following a failed US-backed coup against socialist president Nicolas Maduro, the US continues to hit the economically collapsed country with more sanctions. 

    On Thursday the US Treasury announced it’s taking aim at a vast “food corruption network,” imposing sanctions on 10 people and 13 groups alleged to be running a Venezuelan food subsidy scheme, the proceeds of which went straight to lining Maduro’s pockets. 

    The Treasury called it a “vast” corruption network profiting from “overvalued contracts” tapping to into Caracas’ food subsidy program, and spearheaded by Colombian national Alex Nain Saab.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Maduro and Alex Nain Saab, Source: Semana Newspaper

    Reuters reports, based on the Treasury statement, that “Saab bribed Maduro’s three stepsons to win no-bid, overvalued government contracts, said Sigal P. Mandelker, under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.”

    “Alex Saab engaged with Maduro insiders to run a wide-scale corruption network they callously used to exploit Venezuela’s starving population,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced Thursday.

    “Treasury is targeting those behind Maduro’s sophisticated corruption schemes, as well as the global network of shell companies that profit from” the country’s military-controlled food distribution program, Mnuchin added.

    Saab’s operation is said to have imported “only a fraction of the food” that was supposed to go to the poor and needy of Venezuela, all while reaping major profits from overvalued contracts. Other individuals considered close to Maduro were also named as part of the new sanctions roll out, including a stepson of the Venezuelan president. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Alex Nain Saab, left.

    The Treasury also detailed how Saab was previously involved in a secret scheme to swindle gold from the cash strapped Latin American country, which benefited corrupt Maduro government elites. Reuters detailed further: 

    Saab also began in 2018 to help the Venezuelan government liquidate gold mined in Venezuela and convert it into foreign currency, Treasury said. The gold was then flown to destinations including Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, it said.

    The United States imposed sanctions on the Venezuelan gold sector last year. U.S. envoy to Venezuela Elliott Abrams estimated on Wednesday that Maduro’s government had sold roughly $1 billion in gold in 2019. 

    Interestingly, this week new Miami Herald report detailed that the Trump administration “appears willing to offer guarantees to Nicolas Maduro that the U.S. will leave him alone if he leaves Venezuela.” 

    Though originating from an unnamed “high official” in the US administration, it’s the first time any Trump officials have suggested the US may be willing to “negotiate” an exit for Maduro. 

  • Escobar: How To Kill 10 Million Afghans And Not Win

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    Afghanistan, bombed and invaded under the Cheney regime, was never a just war…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “We’re like policemen. We’re not fighting a war. If we wanted to fight a war in Afghanistan and win it, I could win that war in a week. But I don’t want to kill 10 million people. Afghanistan could be wiped off the face of the Earth. I don’t want to go that route.”

    Even considering the rolling annals of demented Trumpism, bolstered every single day by a torrent of outrageous tweets and quotes, what you’ve just read is simply astonishing. Here we have the President of the United States asserting that, 1) The US is not fighting a war in Afghanistan;  2) If the US wanted a war, the President would win it in a week; 3) He would kill 10 million people – although he doesn’t want it; 4) “Afghanistan” as a whole, for no meaningful reason, could be wiped off the face of the Earth.

    Trump said all of the above while sitting alongside Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan – who, in a deft move, is trying to appease the White House even as he carefully positions Pakistan as a solid node of Eurasia integration alongside Russia, China and Iran.

    When Trump says the US is not fighting a war in Afghanistan, he’s on to something, although it’s doubtful that Team Trump have told the boss that the real game in town, from the beginning, is the CIA heroin rat line.

    It’s also doubtful Trump would ask for input from his hated predecessor Barack Obama. Obama may not have killed 10 million people, but the forces under his command did kill scores of Afghans, including countless civilians. And still Obama did not “win” – much less “in a week.”

    Barack Obama did entertain the notion of “winning” the war in Afghanistan. After deliberating in solitary confinement for 11 hours, as legend goes, he “methodically” settled for a two-step surge, 21,000 troops plus 30,000. Obama believed the war on Afghanistan was a noble crusade and during his presidential campaign in 2008 always defined it as “the right war.”

    Obama defended his surge on humanitarian imperialist grounds; “For the Afghan people, the return of Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people, especially women and girls.” The New York Times and the Washington Post applauded.

    But, Kabul, we got a problem. Afghanistan, bombed and invaded under the Cheney regime, was never a “right” or “just” war. There was never any established Taliban connection to 9/11. Plotting and financing for 9/11 involved Saudis and cells in Germany, Pakistan and the UAE. Mullah Omar never dispatched any “terra-rists” on one-way tickets to America.

    Nevertheless, the Taliban leadership in Kandahar did agree to a deal – brokered by Moscow – to surrender Osama bin Laden, who, without even the hint of an investigation, was proclaimed the evil 9/11 culprit only a few hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers. The Cheney regime rejected the Taliban offer, as well as a subsequent one, to hand over Osama to a Muslim nation for trial. The Cheney regime only wanted an extradition to the US.

    The SCO steps in

    With puppet Hamid Karzai barely reigning in Kabul, and the neocons already focused on their real target, Iraq , the occupation of Afghanistan was handed over to NATO. This had already been decided even before 9/11, at the G8 in Genoa in July, when it became clear Washington had a plan to strike Afghanistan by October. The Cheney regime badly needed a beachhead in the intersection of Central Asia and South Asia not only to monitor Russia and China but also to coordinate a drive to take over Central Asia’s massive gas wealth.

    Notoriously fickle history in the Hindu Kush ruled otherwise. Incrementally, the Taliban started to get their mojo back throughout the 2010s, to the point that now they control as much as half of the country.

    Even that fountain of vanity Gen. David Petraeus – who had crafted the (failed) Iraq surge – always knew the Afghan war was un-winnable. Disgraced Gen. Stanley McChrystal at least was more surgical: “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number, and to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat.”

    Still, certified fun and games were assured by stuff such as Lockheed Martin’s high mobility artillery rocket system laying waste to Pashtun villages and devastating wedding ceremonies. Pentagon propaganda about “low collateral damage” never disguised the absence of real, actionable intel on the ground.

    Seymour Hersh argued that Obama’s version of the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 was an elaborate work of fiction – subsequently duly enshrined by Hollywood. One year later, Obama’s surge still had 88,000 soldiers in Afghanistan plus nearly 118,000 contractors. The surge then died a slow, ignominious death.

    Anyone remotely familiar with the fractious geopolitics at the intersection of Central and South Asia knows that, for the US military-industrial-security complex, to withdraw from Afghanistan is anathema. Trump may be emitting some noise – but that’s just noise. Bagram air base is an invaluable asset in the Empire of Bases to monitor the evolving Russia-China strategic partnership.

    The only feasible solution for Afghanistan is a pan-Eurasia mechanism being advanced by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, with Russia and China at the helm, India and Pakistan as full members and Iran and Afghanistan as observers. Afghanistan will then be fully integrated as a node of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative, as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor as well as the Indian mini-Silk Road through Afghanistan towards Central Asia starting from the Iranian port of Chabahar.

    This is what all major Eurasia players want. This is how you “win” a war. And this is how you don’t need to kill 10 million people.

  • Iran Just Test Fired A Medium-Range Ballistic Missile: Pentagon

    Pentagon officials confirmed Thursday night that Iran has test fired a ballistic missile, which occurred late Wednesday, in a new show of defiance amid soaring tensions related to both the continued detention of the British-flagged Stena Impero and Iranian threats that it will resist any US-led or European efforts to “secure” the Strait of Hormuz for Persian Gulf shipping. Fox reports the breaking news as follows: 

    Iran successfully test-fired a medium-range ballistic missile Wednesday which flew more than 600 miles from the southern part of the country to an area outside the capital, Tehran, in the north, a U.S. official told Fox News

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    File image of a prior Iranian-made Shahab-3 missile test.

    “We are aware of reports of a projectile launched from Iran, and have no further comment at this time,” a senior administration official said.

    It’s been identified as the Shahab-3 missile, an Iranian-made medium-range, liquid-fueled, road-mobile ballistic missile with a maximum range of 800 miles, and designed to reach regional targets in the Mideast region. Notably it’s theoretically capable of reaching Israel. 

    Citing the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA), the report noted it’s “not clear whether Wednesday’s test was in violation of any sanctions against Iran.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    CNN’s Barbara Starr said separately based on Pentagon sources, “While the Shabaab-3 missile did not pose a threat to shipping or U.S. bases, the intelligence assessment is [that] it’s part of Iran’s efforts to improve the range and accuracy.”

    This comes as contradictory and accusatory statements have continued to fly this week between Tehran and the Pentagon related to last week’s controversial Iranian drone downing. The US Navy says it destroyed up to two Iranian drones after they came within 1,000 yards of the USS Boxer in the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran has continued to deny it lost any drones, with even the suggestion from Iranian officials that the US may have taken out its own drone. 

    The new missile test has also been made public just as US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made very surprising remarks, saying in a Bloomberg television interview Thursday that he would travel to Iran for direct talks “if necessary”. Asked if he’d contemplate the dramatic step of going to Tehran, Pompeo said:

    “Sure. If that’s the call, I’d happily go there… I would welcome the chance to speak directly to the Iranian people.”

    However, he could quickly walk back the statement following news of the latest deeply provocative Iranian missile test. 

  • Ron Paul: Forget Russiagate, Look At FBI-gate Instead

    Via 21stCenturyWire.com,

    Yesterday, the Democratic Congress had their big moment – the testimony of Russiagateprobe figurehead Robert Mueller, whose 448-page report detailing the findings of his nearly-two-year-long investigation into alleged “Trump-Russian collusion” and alleged “Russian interference” in the US 2016 elections.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    After no evidence of collusion or interference could be found, the remit was then shifted over to “possible obstruction of justice. ” And when no evidence of obstruction could be unearthed, the Democrat and Mueller position then became, ‘the Mueller Report has not cleared Trump of obstruction,’ or the report does not exoneration of the President. Here they are trying to prove a negative, something which could be said about about any unproven accusation leveled against anyone – which makes that spurious declaration meaningless.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Even the most ardent Never Trump partisan journalists, like NBC News political director Chuck Todd, admitted that the former special counsel Robert Mueller’s performance in front of the House Judiciary Committee hearing was a “disaster” and did nothing to advance the cause for impeachment.

    As the dust subsides from yesterday’s debacle, the real issues are finally coming into focus.

    Former US Congressman Dr Ron Paul highlights some of the deeper,  fundamental problems with the Russiagate fiasco. RT International reports…

    The Democrats’ dream of impeaching President Trump over the Russiagate scandal has “totally failed,” its fate confirmed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s disastrous showing in Congress, former congressman Ron Paul told RT.

    The utterly anticlimactic hearing saw the ex-special counsel serving up reheated details of his two-year probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, reminding both the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees that there was no proof that members of the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

    “Hopefully, this will end it all, because Mueller did not have any evidence,” Paul said.

    “I think we should never use the word Russiagate again. I think we ought to use the FBIgate because there was a conspiracy to try to frame Trump.”

    “If they have impeachment hearings next year, it is going to backfire on them, just as I think this hearing today backfired on the Democrats,” Paul said, suggesting that lawmakers should instead investigate the origins of the Russia probe – in particular the Steele dossier, which was partially funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party. The document, produced by Fusion GPS, was full of unsubstantiated tales about Trump and helped to kick off the FBI probe, yet when pressed on the key role of the opposition research firm, Mueller didn’t even appear to be familiar with the organization.

    Both parties have much bigger problems, Paul pointed out, marveling at how Democrats and Republicans are “bosom buddies,” marching in lockstep on “more debt, more interference, more involvement overseas, more welfare-ism,” yet “they hate each other’s guts when it comes to power.”

    “The empire’s broke, the empire’s in trouble, yet [both parties] don’t want to talk about that.”

Digest powered by RSS Digest