Today’s News 24th June 2019

  • World's First All-Electric Passenger Plane Unveiled At Paris Airshow

    An Israeli startup called Eviation Aircraft unveiled the world’s first commercial all-electric passenger plane last week at the Paris Airshow, reported GeekWire.

    Called Alice, the all-electric plane is powered by three rear-facing pusher-propellers, one in the back and two at the wingtips that rotate.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Eviation CEO Omer Bar-Yohay told reporters that the plane seats nine passengers and can travel 276mph at 10,000ft altitude over the distance of about 650 miles. Flight testing is expected in the near term at Moses Lake’s airport in partnership with Seattle-based AeroTEC. The plane is scheduled to enter service by 2022, could transform small distance travel across America.

    “This plane looks like this not because we wanted to build a cool plane, but because it is electric,” said Bar-Yohay.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “You build a craft around your propulsion system. Electric means we can have lightweight motors; it allows us to open up the design space.”

    Eviation logged its first orders this year from regional airline Cape Air, which runs a fleet of 90 aircraft. Retail price is $4 million per plane, Bar-Yohay said.

    He said the new electric plane is being “built the way a plane should be built in the 21st century.”

    Clermont Group, a private investment fund of Singapore-based billionaire Richard Chandler, has been the top funder of Eviation since inception. Clermont has given Eviation $76 million in exchange for a 70% stake, according to the latest SEC filing dating January 3.

    In a memo, Chandler told his staff that commercial electric planes would “change the culture of air travel for future generations,” and that the aerospace industry is about to enter a new golden era.

    “45% of all flights are under 500 miles – approximately the distance from London to Zurich, or New York to Detroit. This puts almost half of all global flights within the range of an electric motor.”

    Clermont has also invested millions of dollars into magniX, the firm that manufactures the plane’s electric motors. Bar-Yohay claimed if there was an air-emergency, the aircraft could fly on two engines.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bar-Yohay said, “This is an exciting accomplishment…especially here on the grounds in Paris, but it’s also very clearly just the beginning.”

    If Alice passes upcoming flight tests and goes into production; it could enter service by 2022. By the mid-2020s, the plane could completely revolutionize small distance travel.

  • Meotti: The Suicide Of France

    Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,

    • “Frenchness” is disappearing and being replaced by a kind balkanization of enclaves not communicating with one another…. this is not a good recipe.

    • The more the French élites with their disposable incomes and cultural leisure cloister themselves in their enclaves, the less likely it is that they will understand the everyday impact of failed mass immigration and multiculturalism.

    • The globalized, “bobo-ized [bourgeois Bohemian] upper classes” are filling the “new citadels” — as in Medieval France — and are voting en masse for Macron. They have developed “a single way of talking and thinking… that allows the dominant classes to substitute for the reality of a nation subject to severe stress and strain the fable of a kind and welcoming society.” — Christophe Guilluy, Twilight of the Elites,Yale University Press, 2019.

    “Regarding France in 2019, it can no longer be denied that a momentous and hazardous transformation, a ‘Great Switch’, is in the making”, observed the founder and president of the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute, Michel Gurfinkiel. He was mourning “the passing of France as a distinct country, or at least as the Western, Judeo-Christian nation it had hitherto been presumed to be”. A recent cover story in the weekly Le Point called it “the great upheaval“.

    Switch or upheaval, the days of France as we knew it are numbered: the society has lost its cultural center of gravity: the old way of life is fading and close to “extinction“. “Frenchness” is disappearing and being replaced by a kind balkanization of enclaves not communicating with one another. For the country most affected by Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, this is not a good recipe.

    The French switch is also becoming geographical. France now appears split between “ghettos for the rich” and “ghettos for the poor”, according to an analysis of the electoral map by France’s largest newspaper, Le Monde. “In the poorest sector, 6 out of 10 newly settled households have a person born abroad”, notes Le Monde. A kind of abyss now separates peripheral France — small towns, suburbs and rural areas – from the globalized metropolis of the “bourgeois Bohemians”, or “bobos”. The more the French élites with their disposable incomes and cultural leisure cloister themselves in their enclaves, the less likely it is that they will understand the everyday impact of failed mass immigration and multiculturalism.

    A recent European poll reflected these “two Frances that do not cross or speak to each other”, observed Sylvain Crepon of the University of Tours, in analyzing the success of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party in the recent European Parliament election. Le Pen and President Emmanuel Macron, the two winners in the election, speak to completely different sociological groups. In the Paris suburbs — Aulnay-sous-Bois, Sevran, Villepinte and Seine-Saint-Denis — the far-right National Rally has been experiencing a boom. In the cities, Le Pen is largely behind: she came fifth in Paris, third in Lille, fourth in Lyon. According to Crepon:

    “[T]hese cities will be protected from the National Rally’s vote by their sociological structuring. It gives credit to the populist talk that diagnoses a disconnected elite. This [view] backs the idea of ​​a sociological break, which is not completely wrong”.

    On one side of this break are towns such as Dreux, which Valeurs Actuelles called“the city that prefigures the France of tomorrow”:

    “On one side, a royal city with the vestige of a history believing that all things are being changed [millenarian]; on the other, cities imbued with [drug] trafficking and Islam. The bourgeois of the city center vote for Macron, the ‘small whites’ for Le Pen”.

    On the other side, is Paris. “All the metropolises of the world know the same fate. This is where wealth flows and where the alliance between the ‘winners of globalization’ and their ‘servants’, immigrants who have come to serve the new masters of the world, keep their children, bring their pizzas or work in their restaurants”, writes the distinguished social commentator Èric Zemmour in Le Figaro. From now on, he writes, “Paris is a global city, not really a French city”.

    The globalized, “bobo-ized [bourgeois Bohemian] upper classes”, according to one of France’s most respected authors. Christophe Guilluy, are filling the “new citadels” — as in Medieval France — and are voting en masse for Macron. They have developed “a single way of talking and thinking… that allows the dominant classes to substitute for the reality of a nation subject to severe stress and strain the fable of a kind and welcoming society”. Guilluy has been criticized by some French media for addressing this reality.

    The recent “yellow vests” movement — whose demonstrators have been protesting every Saturday in Paris, for months, against President Macron’s reforms — is a symbol of this division between the working class and the gentrified progressives.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Pictured: “Yellow vests” protestors occupy the steps leading to the Basilique du Sacré-Cœur on March 23, 2019 in Paris, France.

    According to Guilluy, it is a “social and cultural shock“. This shock, according to the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, consists of the “ugliness of peripheral France and its effects on concrete lives, the sadness of these working classes who have lost not only a standard of living but also a cultural referent”. In France, there is now a pervasive sense of “dispossession“.

    Marine Le Pen’s party won more than twice as many electoral department as Macron. Le Pen won in the depressed and deindustrialized areas of northern, south-central and eastern France that spawned the yellow vests.

    “Since moving to France in 2002, I’ve watched the country complete a cultural revolution”, Simon Kuper recently wrote in the Financial Times.

    “Catholicism has almost died out (only 6 per cent of French people now habitually attend mass), though not as thoroughly as its longtime rival ‘church’, communism. The non-white population has kept growing”.

    Macron, Kuper explains, is the symbol of “a new individualised, globalised, irreligious society”.

    France’s flight from Catholicism is so evident that a new book, L’archipel français: Naissance d’une nation multiple et divisée, by the pollster Jerôme Fourquet, has described the cultural failing of the French society as a “post-Christian era“: French society’s displacement from its Catholic matrix has become almost total. The country, Fourquet states, is now implementing its own de-Christianization. And there is only one strong substitute at the horizon. There are today already, according to a new academic study, as many Muslims as Catholics among 18-29 year-olds in France; and Muslims represent 13% of the population of France’s large cities, more than double the national average.

    Sometimes Muslim feelings of community solidarity appear to have been taking advantage of this fragmentation by creating their own “ghettos of sharia“. A report from Institut Montaigne, “The Islamist Factory“, has detailed the radicalization of the French Muslim society. Instead of integration, assimilation and Europeanization, Muslim extremists in France are pursuing multiculturalism, separation and partition. The enclaves of immigrants at the edges of French cities, posits Gilles Kepel in his book, La Fracture, foment “a rupture in values with French society, and a will to subvert it”. “People do not want to live together”, said France’s former Interior Minister, Gérard Collomb, in comments reported by Valeurs Actuelles.

    This “fracture” was noted again in the same publication: “Four out of ten boys in Seine-Saint-Denis have Arab-Muslim first names”. Pollster Jérôme Fourquet revealed in a new study that “18 percent of newborn babies in France have an Arab-Muslim name”.

    France’s “Great Switch” is underway. As the philosopher Alain Finkielkraut recently wrote, “The Notre-Dame fire is neither an attack nor an accident, but a suicide attempt.”

  • Escobar: One Quadrillion Reasons Why Washington Fears Iran's "Maximum Counter-Pressure"

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Sooner or later the US “maximum pressure” on Iran would inevitably be met by “maximum counter-pressure”. Sparks are ominously bound to fly…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For the past few days, intelligence circles across Eurasia had been prodding Tehran to consider a quite straightforward scenario. There would be no need to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if Quds Force commander, General Qasem Soleimani, the ultimate Pentagon bête noire, explained in detail, on global media, that Washington simply does not have the military capacity to keep the Strait open.

    As I previously reported, shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would destroy the American economy by detonating the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market; and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world’s $80 trillion GDP and causing an unprecedented depression.

    Soleimani should also state bluntly that Iran may in fact shut down the Strait of Hormuz if the nation is prevented from exporting essential two million barrels of oil a day, mostly to Asia. Exports, which before illegal US sanctions and de facto blockade would normally reach 2.5 million barrels a day, now may be down to only 400,000.

    Soleimani’s intervention would align with consistent signs already coming from the IRGC. The Persian Gulf is being described as an imminent “shooting gallery.” Brigadier General Hossein Salami stressed that Iran’s ballistic missiles are capable of hitting “carriers in the sea” with pinpoint precision. The whole northern border of the Persian Gulf, on Iranian territory, is lined up with anti-ship missiles – as I confirmed with IRGC-related sources.

    We’ll let you know when it’s closed

    Then, it happened.

    Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Baqeri, went straight to the point; “If the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined to prevent export of oil from the Persian Gulf, that determination would be realized in full and announced in public, in view of the power of the country and its Armed Forces.”

    The facts are stark. Tehran simply won’t accept all-out economic war lying down – prevented to export the oil that protects its economic survival. The Strait of Hormuz question has been officially addressed. Now it’s time for the derivatives.

    Presenting detailed derivatives analysis plus military analysis to global media would force the media pack, mostly Western, to go to Warren Buffett to see if it is true. And it is true. Soleimani, according to this scenario, should say as much and recommend that the media go talk to Warren Buffett.

    The extent of a possible derivatives crisis is an uber-taboo theme for the Washington consensus institutions. According to one of my American banking sources, the most accurate figure – $1.2 quadrillion – comes from a Swiss banker, off the record. He should know; the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) – the central bank of central banks – is in Basle.

    The key point is it doesn’t matter how the Strait of Hormuz is blocked.

    It could be a false flag. Or it could be because the Iranian government feels it’s going to be attacked and then sinks a cargo ship or two. What matters is the final result; any blocking of the energy flow will lead the price of oil to reach $200 a barrel, $500 or even, according to some Goldman Sachs projections, $1,000.

    Another US banking source explains:

    “The key in the analysis is what is called notional. They are so far out of the money that they are said to mean nothing. But in a crisis the notional can become real.  For example, if I buy a call for a million barrels of oil at $300 a barrel, my cost will not be very great as it is thought to be inconceivable that the price will go that high.  That is notional.  But if the Strait is closed, that can become a stupendous figure.”

    BIS will only commit, officially, to indicate the total notional amount outstanding for contracts in derivatives markers is an estimated $542.4 trillion. But this is just an estimate.

    The banking source adds, “Even here it is the notional that has meaning.  Huge amounts are interest rate derivatives. Most are notional but if oil goes to a thousand dollars a barrel, then this will affect interest rates if 45% of the world’s GDP is oil. This is what is called in business a contingent liability.”

    Goldman Sachs has projected a feasible, possible $1,000 a barrel a few weeks after the Strait of Hormuz being shut down. This figure, times 100 million barrels of oil produced per day, leads us to 45% of the $80 trillion global GDP. It’s self-evident the world economy would collapse based on just that alone.

    War dogs barking mad

    As much as 30% of the world’s oil supply transits the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Wily Persian Gulf traders – who know better – are virtually unanimous; if Tehran was really responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident, oil prices would be going through the roof by now. They aren’t.

    Iran’s territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz amount to 12 nautical miles (22 km). Since 1959, Iran recognizes only non-military naval transit.

    Since 1972, Oman’s territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz also amount to 12 nautical miles. At its narrowest, the width of the Strait is 21 nautical miles (39 km). That means, crucially, that half of the Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian territorial waters, and the other half in Oman’s. There are no “international waters”.

    And that adds to Tehran now openly saying that Iran may decide to close the Strait of Hormuz publicly – and not by stealth.

    Iran’s indirect, asymmetric warfare response to any US adventure will be very painful. Prof. Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran once again reconfirmed, “even a limited strike will be met by a major and disproportionate response.” And that means gloves off, big time; anything from really blowing up tankers to, in Marandi’s words, “Saudi and UAE oil facilities in flames”.

    Hezbollah will launch tens of thousands of missiles against Israel. As Hezbollah’s secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah has been stressing in his speeches, “war on Iran will not remain within that country’s borders, rather it will mean that the entire [Middle East] region will be set ablaze. All of the American forces and interests in the region will be wiped out, and with them the conspirators, first among them Israel and the Saudi ruling family.”

    It’s quite enlightening to pay close attention to what this Israel intel op is saying. The dogs of war though are barking mad.

    Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo jetted to CENTCOM in Tampa to discuss “regional security concerns and ongoing operations” with – skeptical – generals, a euphemism for “maxim pressure” eventually leading to war on Iran.

    Iranian diplomacy, discreetly, has already informed the EU – and the Swiss – about their ability to crash the entire world economy. But still that was not enough to remove US sanctions.

    War zone in effect

    As it stands in Trumpland, former CIA Mike “We lied, We cheated, We stole” Pompeo – America’s “top diplomat” – is virtually running the Pentagon. “Acting” secretary Shanahan performed self-immolation. Pompeo continues to actively sell the notion the “intelligence community is convinced” Iran is responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident. Washington is ablaze with rumors of an ominous double bill in the near future; Pompeo as head of the Pentagon and Psycho John Bolton as Secretary of State. That would spell out War.

    Yet even before sparks start to fly, Iran could declare that the Persian Gulf is in a state of war; declare that the Strait of Hormuz is a war zone; and then ban all “hostile” military and civilian traffic in its half of the Strait. Without firing a single shot, no shipping company on the planet would have oil tankers transiting the Persian Gulf.

  • Oregon Militias Threaten Violence Over GOP Carbon Credit Standoff; Capitol Closed For Safety

    Oregon militias have reportedly threatened violence over an ongoing standoff between GOP and Democratic state legislators over climate change legislation, according to the Wall Street Journal

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “The State Police Superintendent just informed the Senate president of a credible threat from militia groups coming to the Capitol tomorrow,” reads a text message sent out to senators on Friday. “The Superintendent strongly recommends that no one come to the Capitol.”

    It is unclear what the threats were, as the state’s Democratic leadership did not provide evidence of their claim. 

    On Saturday, Oregon State Police said that they were monitoring threats and that they were closing the building. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The safety of legislators, staff and citizen visitors could be compromised if certain threatened behaviors were realized,” said state police captain Tim Fox. 

    On Thursday, the Three Percenters, a group that joined the armed takeover in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016, said it would do whatever was necessary to keep the Republican senators safe. The Republicans said they wouldn’t accept the group’s help. –Wall Street Journal

    What began as a disagreement over a cap-and-trade bill that exacerbated a growing divide between city-dwelling Oregon liberals and their conservative rural counterparts erupted into a full-fledged standoff after eleven GOP senators banded together and are refusing to show up for the vote

    Despite holding an 18 to 12 supermajority in the House and Senate, Democrats cannot approve the bill without at least two Republicans present. After several days of heated debate between the two sides, eleven GOP members mutually agreed to boycott the vote. 

    The bill, HB 2020, would make Oregon the second state in the country to set up a cap-and-trade system for all sectors of the economy. California was the first, after passing a similar bill in 2016.

    Democrats had scheduled a vote on the bill Thursday, but all 11 Republican senators fled the state. At least 20 senators must be present for a quorum, so Democrats need at least two Republicans present to hold a vote. –Wall Street Journal

    After Governor Brown (D) authorized state police to hunt down and wrangle the absentee GOP lawmakers, Sen. Brian Boquist (R) said he was prepared for a bloody standoff if state troopers show up – warning “Send bachelors, and come heavily armed; I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon, it’s just that simple.” 

    The eleven senators are also being hit with a $500 daily fine for each day they refuse to show up for the vote. They say they won’t come back until Democrats agree to major changes in the bill, which they have argued would cripple manufacturing and other industries in the state. 

    “This bill needs to be referred to the voters” due to its profound impact on Oregon’s economy, said Republican senate leader Sen. Herman Baertschiger Jr., speaking by phone from outside the state.

    Sen. Michael Dembrow, one of the Democratic architects of the bill, said manufacturers had already been given major exemptions under the bill and that Republicans were only stalling to kill the bill. Voters could still gather signatures for a ballot measure to repeal the bill, he said, but unlike with a referendum, work on it could proceed in the meantime.

    He said the Democrats’ resolve had been strengthened by the Republicans’ flight from the state. “The last thing we can do is make this kind of behavior the norm, because then it’ll happen every session,” Mr. Dembrow said. –Wall Street Journal

    Democratic legislators say they will return to the Senate floor Sunday whether or not Republicans had returned.

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

  • Dead On Arrival: A Brief Post-Mortem On The US' Regime-Change Operation In Venezuela

    Authored by Joaquin Flores via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    They say hindsight is 20/20, and nothing exemplifies that more than the kind of post-mortem that can be done on the failed attempt by the US to overthrow the government of Venezuela.  Working through the lack of options that the US has in terms of regime-change in Venezuela, should lead towards a higher degree of investor confidence in the Bolivarian Republic.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We understand that there are ultimately only three ways to attack a target state until it collapses:

    1. Supporting an internal coup/revolution or terrorism;

    2. Economic embargo perhaps leading to or justified by 1, and;

    3. Military invasion justified by the government’s reaction to 1

    Then we can see that US has failed in the first two. While the US does appear on the rhetorical level to be willing to embargo the rest of planet earth, they would have to effectively do so in order to embargo Venezuela. By promoting globalization as a virtue, at the institutional level, and not simply recognizing it with problems and all as an inherent component of market economies, the US has withered its own ability to control other civilizations and states in the world’s growing multipolar system.

    While the US can place sanctions on Venezuela, and get some countries to even go along with these sanctions, it only improves or strengthens the role and power of those middle-man countries like China which act as ‘value transactors’ of Venezuelan commodities into the global economy. Because it is impossible to ‘cut’ China out of the global economy, it is impossible to cut Venezuela out as well.  Given how much China is invested into Venezuela’s economy, as the Wall Street Journal notes, there’s little chance that will change either.

    Despite an effort to unseat the democratically elected PSUV government, we were offered some keen insights into the US’s own self-realization regarding their failed process, and publicly so by Pompeo himself.

    The level of honesty coming from the Trump administration in the US is refreshing even as it is only half the truth. When we read that Pompeo has explained that the Venezuelan opposition is ‘divided’, this is of course nothing other than good news for those concerned with regional stability, economic development, and a de-escalation of tensions that can lead towards war and instability.

    It is also tremendously true, even if Pompeo doesn’t really explain why it’s the case, at least not entirely. But the facticity of the claim in itself reveals that there can be no US sponsored ‘internal regime change’ in Venezuela. Both the governments of Brazil and Colombia – close US allies under their present administrations – have ruled out any sort of military intervention into Venezuela.

    Pompeo’s Confession

    In comments published by the Washington Post, from an audio recording, it was reported then that Pompeo admitted that:

    “We were trying to support various religious institutions so that the opposition would unite,” Pompeo remarked, going on to explain that “they [the opposition] remain divided on how to confront the Maduro regime.”

    This admission came on the heels of the recorded statement to the WP, where he previously explained:

    “Our dilemma, which is to keep the (Venezuelan) opposition together, has turned out to be tremendously difficult,”

    He continued, saying that:

    “At the moment when (Nicolás) Maduro leaves, everyone will raise their hands and say: ‘Choose me, I’m the next president of Venezuela.’”

    Subsequent to that comment, he would explain that an excess of 40 different Venezuelan opposition politicians have come forward expressing their view that as Guaido is but a transitional figure, that they ought to be ‘selected’ by the US to win an actual (i.e. staged) election. This would be, ideally for them, an election that comes on the heels of an absolute restructuring of the security apparatus of Venezuela. The idea would be to ensure the marginalization of the PSUV forces from the electoral process, a ‘counter-revolution’ of sorts. The staged elections involving various opposition parties and leaders would be an afterthought in all reality. And still, there is no consensus among this opposition on who should lead.

    Pompeo expressed tremendous exasperation with this state of affairs, commenting that his realization of the problem isn’t one that came about recently, but is one in fact he was aware of since he began his work in the Trump administration with the CIA. To that point he stressed that these are problems which not only manifested themselves in “public during these last months, but since the day I became director of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), this was something that He was at the center of what President Trump was trying to do. ”

    That’s to say, Pompeo understood this problem all along. The whole project was dead on arrival.

    There is no military option

    Given that Venezuela can’t really be effectively more embargoed than it presently is, the US is left with one option remaining. Yes, that leaves military options, nominally on the table in terms of US pressure tactics and techniques. But the reality is that these are something much less tangible than the US has historically relied upon. A lot of this has to do with the general decline of the US military in comparative terms. While the US maintains something approximating its military capacity in absolute terms, compared to a decade or two ago, it has not managed to maintain that in relative or comparative terms. The ‘gap’ between the U.S and other rising powers, military speaking – and this reflects economic changes as well – has become smaller.  Even the Washington Post, as well as other mainstream US billionaire blogs, has admitted as much.

    The fact of Venezuela’s anti-air capabilities in the form of the S-300 system are enough to bring unacceptable levels of material and human loss to the US air forces (Navy/Marine, Army, etc.). These could potentially bring the number of downed US fighters to many dozens in the first hours, of the first sortie. The loss of prestige alongside the scores of Cindy Sheehans this would produce, makes the venture a non-starter from go.

    So this leaves the US in something of a conundrum. It has indeed brought Venezuela to the near point of collapse over the course of recent years, creating an economic catastrophe through a combination of sanctions and the manipulation of oil prices. But it failed to push it over the edge, and its thanks to a growing and new international consensus that this was the case.

    Venezuelan leadership for its part has admitted also that there are a number of measures and policies that ought to have been in place, long term economic measure in terms of diversifying the economy that would have helped to off-set the worst of the damage done by the manipulated attack on Venezuela’s economy. We’ll recall that Russia experienced similar, based in the same manipulation of oil prices, leading to a temporary ‘shock’ to the Ruble, which plummeted in value relative to the Dollar overnight, stoking a major crisis between June and December of 2014. Russia was in a better position to manage this, and though without hiccups, has managed to avoid the sorts of repercussions that Venezuela has faced.

    Strong reasons for optimism and the coming bullish trend

    The inability of the US to move further against Venezuela’s economy has only given Caracas time, and organization, to work around them. These work-around measures by Venezuela can improve, but the distance between the economic attacks from the US, and the operationalizing of Guiado in a coup gambit, was too great for the US to use them in combination in an effective way.

    It’s worth noting also that the general ‘game plan’ of the US has been effectively written about, expounded publicly, and absorbed by private intelligence agencies and government networks alike. The science and art of regime change has given rise to the science and art of the counter-coup.

    When we understand that there is no really viable military option, Caracas knows that it is bracing for further acts of terrorism and sabotage on its critical infrastructure. International help in combatting such state-sponsored terrorism, as reported by Venezuelan state news agency TeleSur has already been had, however, and so we can expect that we will see how effective this has been through the lack of much materializing in this direction.

    Taken all together, the essentials for a rebounded Venezuelan economy are in place. Investor confidence and the assurances to Spanish, and therefore by extension German, banking interests operating without the US as a middle-man in Latin America, are well-founded and lead towards a bullish trend.

    As a post-mortem on the US’s failed regime change operation in Venezuela, it is an excellent case study in how the international community can properly deal with and respond to the often irrational and potentially destabilizing actions of former global hegemons when in a state of decline. As far as Venezuela is concerned, it’s an excellent case study in sovereignty in the 21st century, despite a west-centric socio-economic focus on globalization.

  • Black, Latino Enrolment In US Colleges Is Almost Double What It Would Be On "Merit" Alone

    Researchers wondered what the nation’s most selective colleges and universities would look like if they admitted students solely on the basis of SAT scores.

    Their answer: Campuses would be wealthier, whiter, and more male.

    Horror of horrors, we know, but there’s no arguing with the data from the Georgetown Universitry study. As The Wall Street Journal reports, rather shockingly to many, more than half the students now enrolled at the top 200 colleges and universities would lose their seats to students who performed better on the SAT.

    The result, as the chart below shows, is that black and Latino students, would be worst-affected with enrolments cut nearly in half, to 11% of all students from 19%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Wall Street Journal

    The share of Asian students would slip to 10% from 11%. The principal winners were wealthy white male students, whose ranks would increase. But a large number of white students would lose their seats and be replaced with other white students.

    “The SAT does not and should not measure excellence on its own. Data are overwhelming that grades and test scores together better predict college success than either does alone,” a spokesman for The College Board said in a statement.

    “Comprehensive research demonstrates that sustained commitment to an activity in high school outside of class further predicts success in college and beyond. Resourcefulness in response to challenges has long been honored in college admissions as a dimension of merit and success in life. A focus on a single score would leave so much talent unseen.”

    So black and Latino college enrolment is almost twice what it would be based on “merit” alone, and this is before The College Board introduces its so-called “adversity score” to accompany a student’s SAT results.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    All of which has us wondering, how long before well-off, so-called ‘advantaged’ families start moving into poor lower-class neighborhoods for just long enough to benefit from the adversity score… making it even easier to game the system for the wealthy? (Easier than paying off cheats to take SATs or bribing soccer and crew teams for entry).

    Jeremy Frost summed this farce up best:

    “Education by its nature is supposed to be elitist, the better you preform the greater your opportunities. This is just madness, it undermines the entire point of selective admission to institutions of higher education.”

    This unbelievable factor in the college admission process discriminates against hard-work and true academic achievement when America, as a nation, is rapidly sliding down the global scale of intelligence as it is.

    As The Council of Foreign Relations detailed, among people ages 55 to 64, Americans rank first in the percentage who’ve earned high school degrees and third in those who’ve earned college and graduate degrees. But Americans ages 25 to 34 only rank 10th in the world in high school diplomas, and they’ve dropped to 13th in attaining post-secondary degrees.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    U.S. vs. Global Education Attainment Rankings by Age

    It’s not that 25-to-34-year-olds are less educated than boomers: 88 percent of them earned high school diplomas, compared with 90 percent of boomers, and they actually managed a tiny edge – 42 percent to 41 percent – in post-secondary degrees. The real problem is that they’re slipping in relation to their global counterparts.

    Paradoxically, younger Americans are entering college at a higher rate – 70 percent – than the boomer generation managed. In 1970, only 48.4 percent of high school graduates went on to higher education, according to a study published in 2010 in the American Journal of Applied Economics. But that edge is negated, because fewer than half of today’s students manage to stay in school and earn degrees, a slightly lower completion rate than boomers.  

    Finally, one wonders if the graduation rate is going to be monitored between the high and low student’s adversity scores? If not, why not? It would seem that without such information no valid evaluation of the program can be made. And as Mark Soane concludes:

    The SAT was the last bastion of objective measurement in the sea of subjectivity that makes up a college application.  It is profoundly disappointing to see that the SAT is now subject to the same identity politics bias that everything else is in college admissions.  The SAT and the ACT were the best predictors of college preparedness. 

    If you debase the results, you will get one or all of the following:  higher dropout rates; debased teaching standards, resentment and distrust among students.”

    Lawsuits charging unfair admission practices have also been filed against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of California system.

    How do we look our kids in the eyes, urge them to work their hardest, study endlessly, never stop trying because that’s what counts in America… and then apologize for reducing their chance of making it to their dream school by daring to live in a low-crime, low-poverty, high-cost, two-parent home.

  • The Lessons Of Rome: Our Neofeudal Oligarchy

    Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

    Our society has a legal structure of self-rule and ownership of capital, but in reality it is a Neofeudal Oligarchy.

    The Inheritance of Rome: Illuminating the Dark Ages 400-1000 is not an easy, breezy read; its length and detail are daunting.

    The effort is well worth it, as the book helps us understand how the power structures of societies change over time in ways that may be largely invisible to those living through the changes.

    The Inheritance of Rome focuses on the lasting influence of Rome’s centralized social and political structures even as centralized economic power and trade routes dissolved.

    This legacy of centralized power and loyalty to a central authority manifested 324 years after the end of the Western Roman Empire circa 476 A.D. in Charlemagne, who united much of western Europe as the head of the Holy Roman Empire. (Recall that the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire endured another 1,000 years until 1453 A.D.)

    But thereafter, the social and political strands tying far-flung villages and fiefdoms to a central authority frayed and were replaced by a decentralized feudalism in which peasants were largely stripped of the right to own land and became the chattel of independent nobles.

    In this disintegrative phase, the central authority invested in the monarchy of kings and queens was weak to non-existent.

    In the long sweep of history, it took several hundred years beyond 1000 A.D. for central authority to re-assert itself in the form of monarchy, and several hundred additional years for the rights of commoners to be established.

    Indeed, it can be argued that it was not until the 1600s and 1700s–and only in the northern European strongholds of commoners’ rights, The Netherlands and England–that the rights of ownership and political influence enjoyed by commoners in the Roman Empire were matched.

    It can even be argued that the rights of Roman citizenship granted to every resident of the late Empire were only matched in the 19th and 20th centuries.

    The rights of commoners were slowly chipped away by civil authorities and transferred to the feudal nobility. As the book explains, these rights included limited self-rule within village councils and ownership of land. These rights were extinguished by feudalism.

    The connections between these civil society/legal freedoms (of self-rule and ownership of land/capital), the Protestant Reformation and the birth of modern Capitalism are explained by historian Fernand Braudel’s masterful 3-volume history Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century, a series I have long recommended:

    The Structures of Everyday Life (Volume 1) The Wheels of Commerce (Volume 2) The Perspective of the World (Volume 3)

    The self-reinforcing dynamics of religious, civil and economic freedoms are key to understanding the transition from feudalism/monarchy to the world systems of today, in which some form of self-rule or political influence and economic freedom are expected of every civil authority.

    Let’s fast-forward to today and ask what relevance these histories have in the present era.

    There are two points worth discussing. One is the acceleration of change; what took 300 years now takes 30, or perhaps less.

    The second is the slow erosion of commoners’ self-rule and ownership of meaningful, productive capital.

    This gradual, almost imperceptible erosion is what I call neofeudalism, a process of transferring political and economic power from commoners to a new Financial Aristocracy/Nobility.

    If we examine the “wealth” of the middle class/working class (however you define them, the defining characteristic of both is the reliance on labor for income, as opposed to living off the income earned by capital), we find the primary capital asset is the family home, which as I have explained many times, is unproductive–in essence, a form of consumption rather than a source of income.

    Ultimately, all pensions, public and private, are controlled by central authorities, even though “ownership” is nominally held by commoners. (Ask middle class Venezuelans what their pensions are worth once central authorities debauch the nation’s currency.)

    In a globalized, financialized economy, the only capital worth owning is mobile capital, capital that can be shifted by a keystroke to avoid devaluation or earn a a higher return.

    Housing and pensions are “stranded capital,” forms of capital that are not mobile unless they are liquidated before crises or expropriations occur.

    I am also struck by the ever-rising barriers to starting or even operating small businesses, a core form of capital, as enterprises generate income and (potentially) capital gains.

    The capital and managerial expertise required to launch and grow a legal enterprise is extraordinarily high, which is at least partly why a nation of self-employed farmers, shopkeepers, artisans and traders is now a nation of employees of government and large corporations.

    What sort of capital can be acquired by the average commoner now? Enough to match the wealth and political power of financial Nobility? This is the source of our fascination with tech millionaires and billionaires: a few commoners have leveraged technology to join the Nobility.

    As for political influence: a recent study found that voters had very little power in the U.S., which is effectively an oligarchy: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.

    Summary: “The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country’s citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.”

    Neofeudalism is not a re-run of feudalism. It’s a new and improved, state-corporate version of indentured servitude. The process of devolving from central political power to feudalism required the erosion of peasants’ rights to own productive assets, which in an agrarian economy meant ownership of land.

    Ownership of land was replaced with various obligations to the local feudal lord or monastery– free labor for time periods ranging from a few days to months; a share of one’s grain harvest, and so on.

    The other key dynamic of feudalism was the removal of the peasantry from the public sphere. In the pre-feudal era (for example, the reign of Charlemagne), peasants could still attend public councils and make their voices heard, and there was a rough system of justice in which peasants could petition authorities for redress.

    From the capitalist perspective, feudalism restricted serfs’ access to cash markets where they could sell their labor or harvests. The key feature of capitalism isn’t just markets– it’s unrestricted ownership of productive assets–land, tools, workshops, and the social capital of skills, networks, trading associations, guilds, etc.

    Our system is Neofeudal because the non-elites have no real voice in the public sphere, and ownership of productive capital is indirectly suppressed by the state-corporate duopoly.

    Our society has a legal structure of self-rule and ownership of capital, but in reality it is a Neofeudal Oligarchy.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    *  *  *

    Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 ebook, $12 print, $13.08 audiobook): Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF). My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. New benefit for subscribers/patrons: a monthly Q&A where I respond to your questions/topics.

  • Maher: Democrats Screwed If They Run On 'Reparations And Concentration Camps' In 2020

    Establishment comedian Bill Maher warned that if 2020 Democrats run “a campaign based on reparations and concentration camps” it will be “very hard to win the election” against President Trump. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Maher was responding last week’s latest outrage when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called migrant detention facilities to “concentration camps,” a remark she has doubled and tripled-down on despite receiving considerable backlash from Jewish groups and others over the comparison. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While conservative political consultant Liz Mair tried to argue that Democrats can win the argument without invoking Nazi Germany, liberal guests Thom Hartmann and Dan Savage disagreed, with Savage arguing “the use of the term concentration camp has caused people to debate what is actually going on.” Mair replied “that was already happening,” to which a triggered Savage spat back “these are fucking concentration camps. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Maher pushed back. 

    “Come on, when we think of concentration camps, I think of mass graves, I think of experimenting on human people.” 

    If you want to run a campaign based on reparations and concentration camps, then it’s going to be very hard to win the election, I’m not saying you can’t do it, I’m not saying you can’t do it, but very hard to argue that this is helping,” said Maher. 

     

  • New Theory Suggests We Live In A Gigantic Higher Dimensional Black Hole

    Authored by Jake Anderson via The Mind Unleashed blog,

    New research into black holes has accelerated in recent years, producing some outlandish – though mind boggling – ideas. The newest theoryadvanced by researchers may take the cake in this regard.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A team of astrophysicists at Canada’s University of Waterloo have put forth a theory suggesting that our universe exists inside the event horizon of a massive higher dimensional black hole nested within a larger mother universe.

    Perhaps even more strangely, scientists say this radical proposition is consistent with astronomical and cosmological observations and that theoretically, such a reality could inch us closer to the long-awaited theory of “quantum gravity.”

    The research team at Waterloo used laws from string theory to imagine a lower-dimensional universe marooned inside the membrane of a higher dimensional one.

    Lead researcher Robert Mann said:

    The basic idea was that maybe the singularity of the universe is like the singularity at the centre of a black hole. The idea was in some sense motivated by trying to unify the notion of singularity, or what is incompleteness in general relativity between black holes and cosmology. And so out of that came the idea that the Big Bang would be analogous to the formation of a black hole, but kind of in reverse.”

    The research was based on the previous work of professor Niayesh Afshordi, though he is hardly the only scientist who has looked into the possibility of a black hole singularity birthing a universe.  

    Nikodem Poplawski of the University of New Haven imagines the seed of the universe like the seed of a plant – a core of fundamental information compressed inside of a shell that shields it from the outside world. Poplawski says this is essentially what a black hole is, a protective shell around a black hole singularity ravaged by extreme tidal forces creating a kind of torsion mechanism.

    Compressed tightly enough – as scientists imagine is the case at the singularity of a black hole, which may break down the known laws of physics – the torsion could produce a spring-loaded effect comparable to a jack-in-the-box. The subsequent “big bounce” may have been our Big Bang, which took place inside the collapsed remnants of a five-dimensional star.

    Poplawski also suggested that black holes could be portals connecting universes. Each black hole, he says, could be a “one-way door” to another universe, or perhaps the multiverse.

    Regardless of whether or not this provocative theory is true, scientists increasingly believe that black holes could be the key to understanding many of the most vexing mysteries in the universe, including the Big Bang, inflation, and dark energy. Physicists also believe black holes could help bridge the divide between quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 23rd June 2019

  • Trump Ordered Secret Cyber Attacks On Iran As An "Alternative" To War Thursday Night

    It’s been revealed that President Trump did order an attack on Iran – but not a military assault – instead, the US initiated a major cyber attack against an Iranian intelligence outfit the Pentagon believes was part of last week’s limpet mine incident involving two tankers in the Gulf of Oman. 

    According to Yahoo Newswhich first broke the story – which was later confirmed Saturday evening by CNN and The Washington Post – the “retaliatory digital strike” was launched on Thursday evening just as the world was bracing itself for possible US airstrikes on Iran

    On Thursday evening, U.S. Cyber Command launched a retaliatory digital strike against an Iranian spy group that supported last week’s limpet mine attacks on commercial ships, according to two former intelligence officials.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via FT.com

    <p content="The group, which has ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, has over the past several years digitally tracked and targeted military and civilian ships passing through the economically important Strait of Hormuz, through which pass 17.4 million barrels of oil per day. Those capabilities, which have advanced over time, enabled attacks on vessels in the region for several years.” data-reactid=”16″ type=”text”>The report relies on unnamed defense sources, which further added more details in a CNN follow-up, including that the group is tied to Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and that the spy group had used unique software to track tankers that had been targeted in last week’s June 13 incident. 

    <p content="The group, which has ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, has over the past several years digitally tracked and targeted military and civilian ships passing through the economically important Strait of Hormuz, through which pass 17.4 million barrels of oil per day. Those capabilities, which have advanced over time, enabled attacks on vessels in the region for several years.” data-reactid=”16″ type=”text”>CNN reported as follows

    USCC [U.S. Cyber Command] attacked the spy group, which has ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, after Iran attacked ships in the region, the officials said.

    The US official added the strike targeted an Iranian spy group’s computer software that was used to track the tankers that were targeted in the Gulf of Oman on June 13.

    <p content="The group, which has ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, has over the past several years digitally tracked and targeted military and civilian ships passing through the economically important Strait of Hormuz, through which pass 17.4 million barrels of oil per day. Those capabilities, which have advanced over time, enabled attacks on vessels in the region for several years.” data-reactid=”16″ type=”text”>And the AP also noted that Thursday night’s cyber operation involved disabling computer systems which control Iran’s rocket and missile launchers, according to anonymous US officials. Trump was said to have ordered the cyber operations against IRGC computer systems as an alternative to starting an overt war. 

    <p content="The group, which has ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, has over the past several years digitally tracked and targeted military and civilian ships passing through the economically important Strait of Hormuz, through which pass 17.4 million barrels of oil per day. Those capabilities, which have advanced over time, enabled attacks on vessels in the region for several years.” data-reactid=”16″ type=”text”>”Two officials told The Associated Press that the strikes were conducted with approval from Trump. A third official confirmed the broad outlines of the strike,” according to the AP’s reporting.  

    <p content="The group, which has ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, has over the past several years digitally tracked and targeted military and civilian ships passing through the economically important Strait of Hormuz, through which pass 17.4 million barrels of oil per day. Those capabilities, which have advanced over time, enabled attacks on vessels in the region for several years.” data-reactid=”16″ type=”text”>The Pentagon has neither confirmed or denied the report; however, the Department of Homeland Security over the weekend said that cyber attacks from Iranian state-linked sources have increased dramatically in the past weeks as tensions have soared. 

    The DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said in a statement Saturday that it “is aware of a recent rise in malicious cyber activity directed at United States industries and government agencies by Iranian regime actors and proxies.”

      “We will continue to work with our intelligence community and cybersecurity partners to monitor Iranian cyber activity, share information, and take steps to keep America and our allies safe,” the DHS statement added.

      <p content="The group, which has ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, has over the past several years digitally tracked and targeted military and civilian ships passing through the economically important Strait of Hormuz, through which pass 17.4 million barrels of oil per day. Those capabilities, which have advanced over time, enabled attacks on vessels in the region for several years.” data-reactid=”16″ type=”text”>The effectiveness of this latest alleged American cyber-attack is completely unknown at this point, and has not been confirmed by either the US or Iranian side.

      <p content="The group, which has ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, has over the past several years digitally tracked and targeted military and civilian ships passing through the economically important Strait of Hormuz, through which pass 17.4 million barrels of oil per day. Those capabilities, which have advanced over time, enabled attacks on vessels in the region for several years.” data-reactid=”16″ type=”text”>Assuming it is indeed accurate, there’s little doubt this is a well-timed controlled and purposeful “leak” out of the Pentagon or White House designed to underscore the “tough” response to the Iranians out of Washington. 

    • Revolutionary Weapon-Detection-Machine Uses 3D-Radar And AI To Detect Guns

      As the nation experiences frequent mass shootings, Liberty Defense is developing Hexwave, a new disruptive technology that was exclusively licensed from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) uses 3D radar imaging and artificial intelligence to detect concealed weapons in urban settings.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Earlier this week, the company announced a partnership with German sports club FC Bayern München to test the new detection system inside the Allianz Arena stadium in Munich, reported Venture Beat.

      “The reception to our Hexwave product has been fantastic, and we are excited about working alongside FC Bayern Munich, a team that is a household name in both Europe and North America,” said CEO Bill Riker.

      “Our ability to deploy in either indoor or outdoor settings with both covert and overt applications sets us apart and has also been driving increasing interest from the market.”

      Liberty Defense also signed deals with several other notable parties, including Vancouver Arena Limited Partnership, which operates Rogers Arena; Sleiman Enterprises, 150 shopping malls, and the Utah Attorney General.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Hexwave’s real-time active 3D radar imaging can detect metallic and non-metallic objects (guns, knives, explosives) on individuals, in clothing and bags.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Liberty Defense’s proprietary weapon detection and identification product consist of four major subsystems that work together:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Hexwave could be the next technology that replaces X-ray machines, such as for scanning bags in airports or other venues, and it also provides 3D scans of a person’s exterior as where X-ray can only provide 2D scans.

      “Hexwave provides 3D imaging at a rate that is in real time — it can assess for threats while the person is still walking, which means it is well suited for higher, faster throughput,” Riker told VentureBeat.

      The urban security market by 2020 to 2025 in North America is set to increase by 33%. The new 3D detection machine can revolutionize security at indoor high traffic crowded areas, like schools, malls, hotels, and places of worship, and protect outdoor high traffic areas, like airports, sports venues, government buildings, and bus/subway stations.

    • China’s Aircraft Carrier Battle Group Emerges

      Submitted by Richard D. Fisher, a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center. Via the Epoch Times.

      It’s been a long time coming, but Japanese reports on June 11 revealed that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have realized a long-held ambition: to build and deploy an aircraft carrier battle group.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      China’s first domestically manufactured aircraft carrier, known only as “Type 001A”, leaves port in the northeast city of Dalian early on May 13, 2018. AFP/Getty Images

      That means that China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) isn’t just able to deploy an aircraft carrier with a working air-wing of combat aircraft, but this carrier is also protected by escort combat ships and sustained by large, fast replenishment ships. This allows the carrier to undertake offensive missions against adversaries, while escort ships carry the burden of defending the carrier.

      Also on June 11, the Japanese Ministry of Defense reported that a PLAN aircraft carrier battle group had cruised past the strategic Japanese island of Okinawa and was on its way to the Miyako Strait to depart the “First Island Chain.”

      So deployed, this PLAN carrier battle group could assist blockade or strike operations directed at the eastern side of Taiwan. It also could assist attacks against the southern islands of Japan’s Ryukyu island chain, which might host combat aircraft and anti-ship missiles to disrupt attacks against Taiwan.

      At the center of the group is the PLAN’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoningwhich, in January 2019, emerged from a period of maintenance and upgrading of its electronic combat systems. This 58,000-ton carrier was first purchased uncompleted from Ukraine and towed to China, reaching the port of Dalian in March 2002. A cover story was hatched that it was to be converted into a casino, but by 2005–2006, its reconstruction had begun in earnest, and by 2012, Liaoning was commissioned and was testing its new Shenyang J-15 carrier fighters.

      Liaoning can carry 20 to 25 J-15s, an improved copy of the Russian Sukhoi Su-33 carrier fighter. While its range and payload are slightly limited because it’s launched via a “ski jump” instead of a catapult as on U.S. carriers, it’s a respectable fourth-generation fighter, which will be improved. Liaoning also carries about 12 large Z-18 helicopters equipped for anti-submarine and early-warning radar missions.

      A second PLAN carrier, modeled on Liaoning with slight modifications, is in advance trials. It may soon begin testing with J-15 fighters and could be commissioned in one or two years.

      What is also important to note is the composition of the Liaoning battle group. It includes one Type 052D multi-role destroyer; one Type 051C air defense destroyer; two Type 054A multi-role frigates; and one new large Type 901 underway replenishment ship. The combat support ships feature 128 vertical launchers for anti-aircraft, anti-submarine, and soon, anti-ship ballistic missiles. The Type 051C is equipped with 48 Russian-made S-300MF anti-aircraft missiles.

      While the PLAN may in the next few years have only two carrier battle groups, compared to the 10 maintained by the U.S. Navy, it’s important to note that China’s is the only aircraft carrier battle group operated by an Asian navy.

      On June 12, the South China Morning Post cited the People’s Daily social media account Xiakedao saying, “It is very unlikely that Chinese carriers will ever be involved in resolving maritime disputes with neighboring countries.” Such statements are not credible.

      Also, while the Liaoning carries fewer aircraft than a U.S. carrier (up to 90), the PLAN can today compensate for its weakness—both in carrier battle groups and in carrier aircraft—with weapons the U.S. Navy doesn’t have today.

      For example, in January, the PLAN held exercises in the South China Sea with the PLA’s new Rocket Force. PLAN ships, and perhaps submarines, coordinated simulated strikes with the Rocket Force’s medium- and intermediate-range anti-ship ballistic missiles. In addition, the PLA Air Force is testing a new medium-range air-launched ballistic missile, most likely carried by Xian H-6 medium bombers. The PLA will first try to sink U.S. Navy carriers with long-range ballistic missiles, coordinated with strikes by land-based aircraft, submarines, and then aircraft carriers and ships.

      Of special note, the Liaoning carrier battle group has included the new 50,000-ton Type 901A underway replenishment ship. Capable of transferring fuel, ammunition, and solid stores, Type 901A’s are very similar to the U.S. Navy Supply-class.

      Replenishment ships of this size can support global deployments for the PLAN’s carrier battle groups. In the next one or two years, it should be expected that the PLAN carrier battle groups may deploy into the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean, or to advance China’s naval diplomacy in the South Pacific. They also will be calling into ports in Africa and Latin America before long.

      At the end of May, China’s state television aired a program stating that China would build 10 aircraft carriers by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the CCP dictatorship. The PLA will likely build its first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the mid- to late-2020s, followed by nuclear-powered escort cruisers and perhaps also nuclear-powered replenishment ships.

      Washington must now determine how best to counter multiple globally deployed PLAN carrier battle groups. While it will remain important for the U.S. Navy to sustain 10 or more of its own carrier battle groups, the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Army require large numbers of medium- and intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles capable of attacking China’s aircraft carrier battle groups at very long ranges.

      In the 2002 issue of the congressionally mandated Department of Defense “China Military Power Report,” on page 20, it was stated that “while continuing to research and discuss possibilities, China appears to have set aside indefinitely plans to acquire an aircraft carrier.”

      Such an ingrained tendency to downplay the intentions and capabilities of the People’s Republic of China likely is reinforced by a hubristic susceptibility to PRC deception and denial efforts; both flaws are costly and must be corrected. The United States should expect that China will deploy many carrier battle groups to challenge global American interests, and Washington must both develop forces to counter them, and begin developing new weapons systems to succeed the aircraft carrier. 

    • AI Can Be Used To Detect Deepfakes – For Now

      Over the past several years, software has emerged which can create a lifelike digital model of just about anyone. Known as “deepfakes,” the technology can be used to deceive or entertain – such as Game of Thrones’ Jon Snow apologizing for the absolute disaster that was season eight. 

      Early deepfakes were easy to identify; while the AI-generated dupe looked real enough, there were many tells – such as jerky mouth movements or unnatural eye movements. As time has passed, however, deepfakes are getting harder to spot.

      Here’s a far less convincing example: 

       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

      A post shared by Bill Posters (@bill_posters_uk) on

      //www.instagram.com/embed.js

       

      Meanwhile, last week we reported that the staff at the Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Princeton University and Adobe Research have developed software that allows you to now edit and change what people are saying in videos, allowing anyone to edit anybody into saying anything – by using machine learning and 3-D models of the target’s face. 

      AI to the rescue?

      As deepfakes become harder and harder to identify, recent research from USC’s Information Sciences Institute concludes that artificial intelligence can be used to spot the real McCoy, according to VICE

      To automate the process, the researchers first fed a neural network—the type of AI program at the root of deepfakes—tons of videos of a person so it could “learn” important features about how a human’s face moves while speaking. Then, the researchers fed stacked frames from faked videos to an AI model using these parameters to detect inconsistencies over time. According to the paper, this approach identified deepfakes with more than 90 percent accuracy.

      Study co-author Wael Abd-Almageed says this model could be used by a social network to identify deepfakes at scale, since it doesn’t depend on “learning” the key features of a specific individual but rather the qualities of motion in general. –VICE

      Our model is general for any person since we are not focusing on the identity of the person, but rather the consistency of facial motion,” said Abd-Almageed. 

      Social networks do not have to train new models since we will release our own model. What social networks could do is just include the detection software in their platforms to examine videos being uploaded to the platforms.” 

      It’s anyone’s guess what happens AIs can’t detect the work of other AIs, but might want to protect John Connor at all costs just in case it’s a slippery slope. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    • Fake Meat: Big Food's Attempt To Further Industrialize What We Eat

      Authored by Vandana Shiva via ConsortiumNews.com,

      We need to decolonize our food cultures and our minds of food imperialism…

      Food is not a commodity, it is not “stuff” put together mechanically and artificially in labs and factories. Food is life. Food holds the contributions of all beings that make the food web, and it holds the potential of maintaining and regenerating the web of life. Food also holds the potential for health and disease, depending on how it was grown and processed. Food is therefore the living currency of the web of life.

      As an ancient Upanishad reminds us “Everything is food, everything is something else’s food.”

      Good food and real food are the basis of health.

      Bad food, industrial food, fake food is the basis of disease.

      Hippocrates said “Let food be thy medicine.” In Ayurveda, India’s ancient science of life, food is called “sarvausadha” the medicine that cures all disease.

      Industrial food systems have reduced food to a commodity, to “stuff” that can then be constituted in the lab. In the process both the planet’s health and our health has been nearly destroyed.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      This project aims at enhancing the competiveness of agricultural value chains in Pakistan with a focus on horticulture and livestock including dairy, meat and fisheries. (USAID Agribusiness Project, via Wikimedia Commons)

      Planetary Impacts

      Seventy five percent of the planetary destruction of soil, water, biodiversity, and 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial agriculture, which also contributes to 75 percent of food-related chronic diseases. It contributes 50 percent of the greenhouse gases driving climate change. Chemical agriculture does not return organic matter and fertility to the soil. Instead it is contributing to desertification and land degradation. It also demands more water since it destroys the soil’s natural water-holding capacity. Industrial food systems have destroyed the biodiversity of the planet both through the spread of monocultures, and through the use of toxics and poisons which are killing bees, butterflies, insects, birds, leading to the sixth mass extinction.
      Biodiversity-intensive and poison-free agriculture, on the other hand, produces more nutrition per acre while rejuvenating the planet. It shows the path to “zero hunger” in times of climate change.

      The industrial agriculture and toxic food model has been promoted as the only answer to economic and food security. However, globally, more than 1 billion people are hungry. More than 3 billion suffer from food-related chronic diseases.

      It uses 75 percent of the land yet industrial agriculture based on fossil fuel intensive, chemical intensive monocultures produce only 30 percent of the food we eat. Meanwhile, small, biodiverse farms using 25 percent of the land provide 70 percent of the food. At this rate, if the share of industrial agriculture and industrial food in our diet is increased to 45 percent, we will have a dead planet. One with no life and no food.

      The mad rush for fake food and fake meat, ignorant of the diversity of our foods and food cultures, and the role of biodiversity in maintaining our health, is a recipe for accelerating the destruction of the planet and our health.

      GMO Soya is Unsafe

      In a recent article “How our commitment to consumers and our planet led us to use GM soy,” Pat Brown, CEO & founder of Impossible Foods, says: “We sought the safest and most environmentally responsible option that would allow us to scale our production and provide the Impossible Burger to consumers at a reasonable cost.”

      Given the fact that 90 percent of the monarch butterflies have disappeared due to Roundup ready crops, and we are living through what scientists have called an “insectageddon,” using GMO soya is hardly an “environmentally responsible option.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Monarch butterflies roosting in Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge, Iowa. (USFWS Midwest Region via Flickr)

      In writing this, Pat Brown reveals his ignorance about weeds evolving to resist Roundup and becoming “superweeds” now requiring more and more lethal herbicides. Bill Gates and DARPA are even calling for the use of gene drives to exterminate amaranth, a sacred and nutritious food in India, because the Palmer Amaranth has become a superweed in the Roundup Ready soya fields of the U.S.

      At a time when across the world the movement to ban GMOs and Roundup is growing, promoting GMO soya as “fake meat” is misleading the eater both in terms of the ontology of the burger, and on claims of safety.

      The “Impossible Burger” based on GMO, Roundup sprayed soya is not a “safe” option.

      Zen Honeycutt and Moms across America just announced that the Impossible Burger tested positive for glyphosate. “The levels of glyphosate detected in the Impossible Burger by Health Research Institute Laboratories were 11 X higher than the Beyond Meat Burger. The total result (glyphosate and its break down AMPA) was 11.3 ppb. Moms Across America also tested the Beyond Meat Burger and the results were 1 ppb.

      “We are shocked to find that the Impossible Burger can have up to 11X higher levels of glyphosate residues than the Beyond Meat Burger according to these samples tested. This new product is being marketed as a solution for ‘healthy’ eating, when in fact 11 ppb of glyphosate herbicide consumption can be highly dangerous. Only 0.1 ppb of glyphosate has been shown to destroy gut bacteria, which is where the stronghold of the immune system lies.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      An Impossible Burger given out in 2016 promotional event, San Francisco. (Dllu, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

      Recent court cases have showcased the links of Roundup to cancer. With the build up of liabilities related to cancer cases, the investments in Roundup Ready GMO soya is blindness to the market.

      Or the hope that fooling consumers can rescue Bayer/Monsanto.

      There is another ontological confusion related to fake food. While claiming to get away from meat, “fake meat” is about selling meat-like products.

      Pat Brown declares “we use genetically engineered yeast to produce heme, the “magic” molecule that makes meat taste like meat — and makes the Impossible Burger the only plant-based product to deliver the delicious explosion of flavor and aroma that meat-eating consumers crave.”

      I had thought that the plant-based diet was for vegans and vegetarians, not meat lovers.

      Big Food & Big Money Driving Fake Food Goldrush

      Indeed, the promotion of fake foods seems to have more to do with giving new life to the failing GMO agriculture and the junk food industry, and the threat to it from the rising of consciousness and awareness everywhere that organic, local, fresh food is real food which regenerates the planet and our health. In consequence, investment in “plant-based food companies” has soared from nearly zero in 2009 to $600 million by 2018. And these companies are looking for more.

      Pat Brown declares, “If there’s one thing that we know, it’s that when an ancient unimprovable technology counters a better technology that is continuously improvable, it’s just a matter of time before the game is over.” He added, “I think our investors see this as a $3 trillion opportunity.”

      This is about profits and control. He, and those jumping on the fake-food goldrush, have no discernible knowledge, or consciousness about, or compassion for living beings, the web of life, nor the role of living food in weaving that web.

      Their sudden awakening to “plant-based diets,” including GMO soya, is an ontological violation of food as a living system that connects us to the ecosystem and other beings, and indicates ignorance of the diversity of cultures that have used a diversity of plants in their diets.

      Interconnections

      Ecological sciences have been based on the recognition of the interconnections and interrelatedness between humans and nature, between diverse organisms, and within all living systems, including the human body. It has thus evolved as an ecological and a systems science, not a fragmented and reductionist one. Diets have evolved according to climates and the local biodiversity the climate allows. The biodiversity of the soil, of the plants and our gut microbiome is one continuum. In Indian civilization, technologies are tools. Tools need to be assessed on ethical, social and ecological criteria. Tools/technologies have never been viewed as self-referential. They have been assessed in the context of contributing to the wellbeing of all.

      Through fake food, evolution, biodiversity, and the web of life is being redefined as an “ancient unimprovable technology.” That ignores sophisticated forms of knowledge that have evolved in diverse agricultural and food cultures in diverse climate and ecosystems to sustain and renew the biodiversity, the ecosystems, the health of people and the planet.

      The Eat Forum, which brought out a report that tried to impose a monoculture diet of chemically grown, hyper-industrially-processed food on the world has a partnership through FrESH with the junk food industry, and Big Ag such as Bayer, BASF, Cargill, Pepsico amongst others.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Fake food is thus building on a century and a half of food imperialism and food colonization of our diverse food knowledges and food cultures.

      Big Food and Big Money are behind the Fake Food Industry. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are funding startups.

      We need to decolonize our food cultures and our minds of food imperialism

      The industrial West has always been arrogant, and ignorant, of the cultures it has colonized. “Fake Food” is just the latest step in a history of food imperialism.

      Soya is a gift of East Asia, where it has been a food for millennia. It was only eaten as fermented food to remove its anti-nutritive factors. But recently, GMO soya has created a soya imperialism, destroying plant diversity. It continues the destruction of the diversity of rich edible oils and plant-based proteins of Indian dals that we have documented.

      Women from India’s slums called on me to bring our mustard back when GMO soya oil started to be dumped on India, and local oils and cold press units in villages were made illegal.

      That is when we started the “sarson (mustard) satyagraha” to defend our healthy cold pressed oils from dumping of hexane-extracted GMO soya oil.

      Hexane is a neurotoxin. While Indian peasants knew that pulses, or legumes, fix nitrogen, the West was industrializing agriculture based on synthetic nitrogen, which contributes to greenhouse gases, dead zones in the ocean and dead soils. While we ate a diversity of “dals” in our daily “dal roti” the British colonizers, who had no idea of the richness of the nutrition of pulses, reduced them to animal food. Chana became chick pea, gahat became horse gram, tur became pigeon pea.

      We stand at a precipice of a planetary emergency, a health emergency, a crisis of farmers livelihoods. Fake food will accelerate the rush to collapse. Real food gives us a chance to rejuvenate the earth, our food economies, food sovereignty and food cultures. Through real food we can decolonize our food cultures and our consciousness. We can remember that food is living and gives us life.

      Boycott GMO Impossible Burger. Make tofu. Cook Dal.

    • How Trump Outplayed Powell, And Here's What Happens During Next Week's Critical Trump-Xi Meeting

      When it comes to the near- and medium-term trajectory of the market, there were two events that mattered: as we summarized back on June 14, the first major catalyst was last Wednesday’s FOMC meeting, where Powell had a choice – lose the “patience” and end the rate hike cycle or stun the market risking a crash, and continue tightening financial conditions. Of course, as everyone knows by now, “Powell threw in the towel”, capitulating to both the market and president Trump’s relentless barrage and confirmed that a July rate cut is virtually assured, at least according to the market which now see greater than 100% odds of such an event. The second catalyst is next week’s G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, where Trump will meet with China’s president Xi and perhaps put an end to the trade war.

      The updated 2×2 matrix from Bank of America of these events is shown below, with the hawkish FOMC outcome no longer in play.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      However, unlike the FOMC where a dovish outcome was virtually assured, a fvorable outcome next week is a far less likely outcome. Indeed, as we noted last Wednesday, Goldman has created a “barometer” index tracking the probability of a trade resolution. It now stands at just 20%, or a one in five chance that the two superpowers will find an amicable resolution, and while this is up from 7% one month ago, it is down from 80% back in March.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      So does that mean that traders betting on a bullish outcome from this week’s main event should start buying puts? According to a Friday follow up analysis from Goldman’s chief political economic, Alec Phillips, the answer is “while the meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi at the G20 meeting will clearly be an important event for financial markets, it seems unlikely to be decisive, as the odds of a formal detailed agreement at the meeting seem very low”, although the silver lining is “that further tariff escalation would probably not be announced right away either.

      This in turn means that both sides will seek to kick the can and avoid the downside scenario portrayed by BofA which sees the S&P dropping to 2,750, propped up by the backstop of the newly-dovish Fed.

      Here is what Phillips believes is the most likely outcome from next week’s G-20 meeting which the Goldman strategist dubs “A hiatus, not a breakthrough.” Below is the executive summary:

      The G20 meeting is important but is unlikely to be decisive. Financial markets are once again focused on trade policy, in anticipation of the upcoming meeting between President Trump and President Xi at the G20 meeting in Osaka, Japan (June 28-29). However, we do not expect whatever announcement they make following the meeting to provide very much clarity on whether the US has finished increasing tariffs or whether a deal will eventually be reached with China. While we can imagine several potential outcomes from the upcoming meeting, the most likely outcome seems likely to prolong trade policy uncertainty.

      So while continuation of the status quo is the most likely outcome that is announced next Saturday, what are the nuances? Below we repost some of the key observations by Phillips:

      A formal agreement at the G20 seems very unlikely. There has been little communication among US and Chinese officials since talks broke down over a month ago, and discussions over the next week seem insufficient to result in a formal detailed agreement. Chinese officials might also look at the tariffs that President Trump recently threatened on Mexico as a sign that reaching a formal agreement (as the US and Mexico did in the USMCA) might not be sufficient to eliminate the risk of tariffs, which would reduce their incentive to offer concessions.

      Immediate post-G20 escalation is possible but fairly unlikely. The public comment period on the next round of tariffs ends July 2, after which the White House would be free to issue a final tariff notice on imports from China (implementation of tariffs would probably take another couple of weeks). In light of the breakdown in talks in early May, there is clearly a chance that the two leaders might be unable to reach even a preliminary understanding. If so, we expect that President Trump would indicate that additional tariffs would be imposed, as the time to negotiate an agreement before the 2020 presidential election is growing shorter, and we expect that President Trump would be unwilling to postpone further tariffs if he believed there was little chance of reaching a deal without further pressure. While we view this as a possibility, we think immediate escalation is fairly unlikely.

      A commitment to re-engage seems the most likely outcome. US officials, including President Trump and US Trade Representative Lighthizer, have emphasized their interest in restarting talks. In the two analogous face-to-face meetings that President Trump previously held with foreign leaders—with European Commission President Juncker in July 2018 and President Xi in December 2018—he agreed to postpone tariff increases in return for an unspecified commitment to negotiate an agreement. This seems to be the most likely outcome once again.

      The White House might set a new deadline. We note that the only agreements the White House has reached with major US trade partners have come at the last minute ahead of clear deadlines. USMCA was finalized on August 27, 2018, just a few days before an important procedural deadline. More recently, Mexico agreed to an immigration-related deal less than three days before tariffs would have taken effect. By contrast, the White House indefinitely delayed the step-up in the tariff rate from 10% to 25% on $200bn of imports from China, and talks ultimately broke down. While imposing a new deadline on negotiations might add counterproductive public pressure on China, it would not be surprising for the White House to take this approach in light of the failure of open-ended negotiations to produce agreements.

      A pause in escalation in the near-term could still lead to additional tariffs later this year. In the two analogous leader-to-leader meetings noted earlier, President Trump agreed to postpone further tariffs. However, in both cases, this détente was only temporary, as the White House eventually imposed additional tariffs on imports from China and has indicated it will impose auto tariffs on the EU and Japan if an agreement is not reached by November.

      Financial markets do not appear to be an obstacle to tariff escalation… The last two times President Trump seriously escalated trade tensions with China, the S&P 500 was near record highs. By contrast, President Trump’s decision to delay tariff escalation in December 2018 came after two months of equity market declines. The S&P 500 closed on June 20 slightly higher than its level during the prior instances of escalation, suggesting that concerns regarding financial markets are unlikely to deter the White House from imposing tariffs.

      And monetary policy considerations might motivate the President to prolong trade policy uncertainty. One of the factors that led financial markets to reprice expectations for monetary policy is rising trade policy uncertainty, as demonstrated by the sharp repricing in fed funds futures after the President proposed tariffs on Mexico on May 30. More recently, Chair Powell’s press conference comments also referenced trade policy uncertainty. While it seems unlikely that President Trump had monetary policy in mind when he made the latest round of tariff proposals, we would expect that the President now views tariff threats as not only a successful negotiating tactic following the immigration agreement with Mexico but also a useful tool in pressing for looser monetary policy. If so, this suggests that the White House will at least threaten further tariff increases and might follow through with some of them.

      Tariffs still seem more likely to rise before the 2020 presidential election than to hold at current levels. While it is a close call, we still think tariffs are slightly more likely to rise further over the next several months. The White House seems likely to continue to use tariff threats as a negotiating tactic. However, since not all trading partners will be willing to make the concessions the US wants, it seems likely that at some point the President will follow through with at least one of the tariff increases he has proposed. It is hard to predict when this will happen or on which imports. A further increase in tariffs on imports from China seems more likely than other targets, since the White House has already formally proposed further tariffs and will be in a position to impose them in July, and political support for tariffs on imports from China is still much greater than support for tariffs on Mexico or the EU.

      However, we doubt that the White House will impose a 25% tariff on all remaining imports from China. Our expectation continues to be that the Trump Administration will impose a 10% tariff on remaining imports from China to reduce the economic disruption and impact on consumers that a 25% tariff would have. We note that in congressional testimony this week, USTR Lighthizer described the pending tariff notice as providing authority to impose tariffs of “up to 25%”.

      A “deal” between the US and China seems more likely than not prior to the 2020 election. Like most other aspects of the trade policy outlook, this also has become a closer call. We believe that President Trump will want to demonstrate success in the US-China negotiation prior to the 2020 election, which could bring him to accept a deal that stops short of the agreement that the US sought a couple of months ago. That said, while the political pressure to reach an agreement will increase as the election approaches, the political scrutiny of the specifics of the agreement will also increase. Since domestic political pressures in the US and China will push against either side making meaningful concessions, we expect that the most likely scenario for an eventual deal would be for a few genuine reforms coupled with a commitment to purchase a substantial amount of US exports, in return for a phase-out of US tariffs.

      Of all of the above – much of which focuses on the period 6-9 months ahead of the 2020 elections and is therefore less relevant for the immediate future, the one aspect of Goldman’s analysis we find most relevant (and credible) is the bank’s consideration of interplay between trade policy – and trade war – and Trump’s growing indirect influence over the Fed, to wit:

      … we would expect that the President now views tariff threats as not only a successful negotiating tactic following the immigration agreement with Mexico but also a useful tool in pressing for looser monetary policy. If so, this suggests that the White House will at least threaten further tariff increases and might follow through with some of them.

      As was extensively reported last week, Trump considered firing or demoting Powell at the start of the year; realizing he can’t do so directly, he instead decided to pressure Powell to do his bidding in response to Trump’s actions!

      To be sure, by now Trump has certainly figured out that his strongest leverage over the Fed is by escalating the uncertainty in the trade and political arena, forcing the Fed to tip its cards and unveil its open-ended dovish policy which the market now expects will result in as many as 4 rate cuts in the next 12 months, setting up Trump nicely for the election, with the S&P at or near all time highs, even if the overall economy continues to deteriorate (it is, however, unclear how much longer markets will ignore the growing risk of a recession just because the Fed has promised to cut rates further).

      As such, if Trump feels the need to extract more concession from Powell, all he needs to do is to make good in part or in whole on his $300BN in new Chinese tariffs, which will force the Fed to take on an even more dominant role to preserve the economic cycle by doing the only thing it knows how to do: push assets to new all time highs with even more dovish policies.

      And since for Trump the stock market is the only barometer that matters for his “approval rating” as today’s tweet on the topic confirmed…

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

      … the perverse outcome is that the White House is now confident that the more it pushes China – in word or in deed – toward a full blown trade war, the more Powell will be forced to concede to Trump in the simmering feud between the executive and the money printing branches of US government. Which is why, even if Goldman is confident that a perpetuation of the status quo is the most likely outcome, traders may be wise to buy the occasional put: if Trump really wants the Fed to consider doing QE (or more), all he has to do is to achieve a total collapse in trade with China, which will leave the Fed, and its money printers, the last recourse the US has to avoid a recession, effectively taking the ball out of Trump’s court and strategically putting it into Powell’s, where depending on what Powell does, the consequences could be dire on both sides: as DB’s Aleksandar Kocic explained earlier:

      In the case of unresponsive Fed it is a recession, while in the case of an accommodative Fed it is the loss of central bank independence and potentially another round of trade wars and even more pressure on the Fed to cut rates with further markets addiction to stimulus and possibly higher inflation etc.

      What is most surprising about all of the above, is how skillfully Trump played both China and the Fed to get his desired outcome: a continued belligerent stance with his superpower adversary even as Powell – who is hardly Trump’s biggest fan – is forced to do everything in his power to protect Trump’s back.

    • "Somebody" Finally Cares About Gold

      Authored by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

      …and now that $1,400/oz has been breached, there’s plenty of room to run…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Grant Williams pithily summed up the situation that has been plaguing gold since 2013: No One Cares.

      Yes, it’s highly likely that the price has been suppressed. But not enough buyers cared to fight the bullion bank/central bank cartel or make life difficult enough for the politicians — and thus, the regulators — to change things.

      So gold languished. For years.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But last August, gold quietly entered a bull market after breaking above $1200.

      As the price began rising (for both fundamental & technical reasons), we’ve been tracking its progress closely.  We do so on a daily basis via Peak Prosperity’s Precious Metals Daily Commentary updates (outstanding authored by user davefairtex), as key developments happened via our premium reports (like this prediction), and via expert interviews such as our recent in-depth discussions with TFMetals and Incrementum’s Ronni Stoeferle.

      As we entered 2019, the increasingly dovish/desperate policy retracements of the central banks — which now appear will NEVER normalize their balance sheets — have boosted the bull run.

      Lower real interest rates are gold price-positive. And not only are real rates falling right now, there’s already currently $13 trillion in negative *nominal* debt trading worldwide right now:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And based on this week’s further dovish announcements from both the Fed and the ECB, we can expect more $trillions to be added to that pile soon.

      On Tuesday, Mario Draghi apparently went rogue on his fellow policymakers and launched into a swan song version of his all-time hit “Whatever it takes”. The next day, Jerome Powell at the Fed confirmed his willingness to ease and let the market know he stands ready to cut rates multiple times over the next year.

      That — plus a downed US drone patrolling the Iran border — poured gasoline on gold, which spiked as high as $1,410/oz, finally breaking free of the $1,350 ceiling that had blocked its advance for years.

      Technically, if gold can hold above $1,385, it has a lot of room to run from here. As the chart below shows, gold has traced out a reverse head-and-shoulders pattern and has now punched through the neckline — a bullish breakout — currently trading at $1,400/oz at the time of this writing, the highest price it has traded at since 2013.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      source: Northman Trader

      Short of a raid orchestrated by the central planners to fasten tighter the cap on gold (which remains a real possibility given the historical record), the yellow metal shouldn’t encounter much price resistance until above $1,500/oz.

      The metal itself and the miners are now in uptrends across all three timelines of the proprietary forecaster maintained by Peak Prosperity’s Precious Metals analyst davefairtex . We haven’t seen such strong indicators in, well…forever.

      Here’s gold, which while registering overbought after its recent $100 spike, remains in a very strong uptrend:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      source: Peak Prosperity Gold forecaster 6.20.19

      And here are the miners (represented by the XAU index), following gold nicely as would be expected, confirming a breakout:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      source: Peak Prosperity’s Gold Miner forecaster 6.20.19

      While we may see some price retracement over the immediate term, to be expected after such a monster run-up and as war-with-Iran fears (hopefully) ebb, Dave explains why the current macro situation remains bullish for gold:

      The problem is, we have a newly-semi-dovish Fed happening at the same time as renewed interest in a US-China trade deal, a possible impending lockup of China’s banking system (!), the Iranian shoot-down of a US drone (over either Iranian territory – or Iranian waters – or International Airspace, take your pick), while Draghi over in Europe has been accused of lying about the ECB’s renewed dovishness, for which there is apparently no consensus after all. And Draghi is almost out the door himself, so there’s that uncertainty too.  Who will replace him?  Will they still be as print-happy?  Italy may be about to pay its debts using a new currency (the mini-BOT) which may or may not be illegal, and the EU is looking to fine Italy for having a high debt/GDP. This, while Apple has apparently decided to diversify its globalized supply chain outside China. Oh yeah. Boris Johnson appears to be a shoo-in for UK PM.

      Enough moving parts?

      So what can we expect going forward?

      Well if peace breaks out, gold will probably retrace. Silver isn’t quite keeping up with gold, so it will probably retrace also.

      This is the problem with safe haven moves. They spike higher, and then they deflate. And that history is why the commercials (I’m guessing here) play the odds and assume the world won’t end this time, and they go short into these big spikes. That, and there is probably some official intervention too.

      Ultimately today’s breakout above 1382 is bullish.  Even if we do retrace the safe haven move, the 5-year resistance has been broken.  Although it appears as though it was the “Iran drone shootdown” snowflake that caused today’s gold buying avalanche, in truth it was probably a whole collection of snowflakes that led to an increase in overall uncertainty.  After all, gold has rallied for 4 weeks now.  The drone shootdown just pushed prices over the edge – turning it into a spike higher that even 134 “tons” of paper gold was unable to stop.

      On the fundamental side, more and more experts and pundits are waking up to what PP has been saying all along: the central banks have painted themselves into a corner they don’t know how to get out of. So they keep using the one tool they have, hoping for a different outcome (and yes, perhaps pushing all of the wealth into the hands of the 0.1% *is* their desired outcome).

      But that strategy is based on perverted logic; it can’t be sustained. You can’t print prosperity. There’s only so far asset prices can rise while real wages remain stagnant. Housing prices can’t long stay above people’s ability to put food on the table, even with <3% mortgages. There’s a point at which more stimulus no longer has any effect.

      The smarter minds we talk with agree with us that the unfolding action we’re watching in real time is the total capitulation of the central banks. There’s nothing left after this one except money for Main Street, which we think the banks will hold in store to have *something* left for the arriving global recession (to be cutting rates at this point is absolutely insane).

      So it’s quite likely a nasty deflationary downdraft lies in our future. While this may initially cause gold to drop in price, the metal should fare much better than the pantheon of risk-assets falling from their current all-time bubble highs. As we often say in our live presentations: “In a bear market, expect to lose money. The trick is to lose a lot less than everybody else”.

      But even if the central banks succeed in preventing such a deflationary rout, then it will soon become confetti time for the word’s fiat currencies.

      Do you realize that if you have a cool $1mil of cash on hand, you make only $20k/year if you have it in T-bills, or (much) less than that if kept in your bank account? Less than 5% of Americans have that kind of scratch on hand, and yet it produces an income below the US poverty level. If we stay on the trajectory we’re on, that $1 million won’t be worth diddly soon.

      But gold? Gold should truly shine in this situation: both by maintaining its purchasing power and increasing in value as $trillions in capital look for safe haven.

      Remember that the $7 trillion gold market is a small doorway compared to the $164 trillion held in stocks and bonds. (And the <$1 trillion silver market is ridiculously tiny relatively). If (more likely, “when”) just a few $trillion flee risk assets into the precious metals, the prices of gold and silver will explode.

      Of course, our long-standing advice remains the same: Position yourself for this predictable outcome in advance.

      Especially since the long awaited breakout above $1,350 has finally taken place. That technical milestone, combined with the last-gasp desperation the Fed and ECB have shown this week, indicate that the really big moves for the precious metals are now cleared to happen. Things could move quite quickly from here.

      Specifically, we recommend availing yourself of the following three free resources if you haven’t yet already:

      • Get educated on how/where to buy & store gold and silver. Read our free primer here.

      • For the rest of your portfolio, talk with an advisor who understands the risks warned of here. If your current professional doesn’t fit the bill, schedule a free consultation & portfolio crash-audit with our endorsed advisor.

      • Follow the daily action in the precious metals by reading our excellent Precious Metals Commentary (referenced several times in the article above). You can do so here.

      Finally, gold is no longer being ignored.

      Someone Cares. Which is why we’re now at the highest levels seen in over half a decade.

      Just imagine what the price will be like when Everybody Cares…

    • Iran Activated Air Defenses In Syria After Learning Of US Attack: Report

      Via AlMasdarNews.com,

      The Iranian forces in Syria activated their air defenses after learning of the U.S. planned attack this week, the Russian publication Avia.Pro reported on Friday.

      According to the Russian publication, the Iranian forces learned of the U.S. planned attack and prepared for their air defense systems for the confrontation.

      The Iranians got intelligence about a coming US attack on the IRGC in Syria. Following this, the Iranian military contingent located in the eastern part of the country was placed on high alert, including the air defense systems, which, as it turned out, are located in the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic— Google translate of Avia.Pro reporting

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is seen near a “3 Khordad” system which is said to had been used to shoot down a U.S. military drone, according to news agency Fars, in this undated handout picture. Photo by Fars news/Handout via Reuters.

      Prior to this, a source from the Syrian military in Damascus told Al-Masdar that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had placed their troops on high alert near the border city of Albukamal.

      The Iranian presence in the border city of Albukamal is incredibly close to the U.S. Armed Forces, who are currently deployed in eastern Deir Ezzor.

      While the U.S. and Iran often avoid each other in eastern Syria, the American forces have attacked the Iranian-backed paramilitaries near the Tanf Zone in southeastern Syria.

      These attacks were often carried out by the U.S. Air Force after the Iranian-backed paramilitaries and their allies from the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) approached the rebel groups near Tanf.

      The IRGC is primarily based in two locations in Syria: Al-Safira (southern Aleppo) and Albukamal (eastern Deir Ezzor). While Iran’s downing of a U.S. drone near the Strait of Hormuz has made headlines across the world, this is not the first time that they have targeted American unmanned aerial vehicles.

      In February, Iran allegedly hacked a U.S. drone in eastern Syria, reportedly forcing the American forces to destroy the UAV.

    • Mysterious Flying Objects Over Kansas Turn Out To Be Top-Secret DARPA Experiment

      There was such as vast public response to the mystery objects spotted over Kansas City that none other than the National Weather Service of Kansas City felt compelled to tweet on Thursday, June 20 that “we honestly have no explanation for the floating objects over Kansas City,” along with a sub-tweet of an image showing two “floating objects” in the sky.
       

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

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

      Social media was ignited by this news (or lack thereof) with many speculating (and the NWS’s vague tweet not helping) that an alien invasion was taking place. However, just hours later it was revealed that the mystery flying objects were a top-secret DARP (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) project, dubbed Adaptable Lighter Than Air (ALTA) program.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      ALTA was developed to test high altitude lighter-than-air vehicle capable of wind-borne navigation over extended ranges. The balloons can fly at altitudes of more than 75,000 feet while carrying a small payload.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      DARPA launched three ALTA balloons from Cumberland, Maryland, about 80 miles west of Camp David, on June 18, 2019. According to C⁴ISRNET, DARPA was tracking the balloons, the agency said the ALTA balloon flights are coordinated with the FAA.
       

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

      “The balloons are controlled from fixed and mobile ground stations, with consistent point-to-point links and satellite relays,” said Dr. Alexander M.G. Walan, ALTA program manager, noting that the balloons have sensors used to assess flight performance. Also, the ballons have an entirely different shape from weather balloons because they are larger and look like orbs.

      The real purpose of the mission is classified, as apparently is the reason why DARPA decided to make the balloons look like giant alien spaceships.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A group of unknown Kansas City residents spotted giant balloons floating across the sky. Some thought it was, who esle, the Russians while others were concerned it was an alien invasion.

      On Twitter, many speculated the balloons were alien spaceships.

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

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

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

      According to Flightradar24, two of the balloons are approaching Denver, Colorado this weekend.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The news of alien-looking ballons over the Midwest comes at a time when the US government is officially starting to acknowledge reports of “unidentified aerial phenomenon” more seriously than ever before, and last week three senators received a detailed report of UFO sightings.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 22nd June 2019

    • The Jackboots Are Coming: Mass Arrests, Power Grabs, & The Politics Of Fear

      Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

      “Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest—forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries.” – Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

      How do you persuade a populace to embrace totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      You persuade the people that the menace they face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.

      This is how you use the politics of fear to persuade a freedom-loving people to shackle themselves to a dictatorship.

      It works the same way every time.

      The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence and illegal immigration have been convenient ruses used to terrorized the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.

      The more things change, the more they stay the same.

      Case in point: on June 17, the same day President Trump announced that the government would be making mass arrests in order to round up and forcibly remove millions of illegal immigrants—including families and children—from the country, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling in Gamble v. United States that placed the sovereignty (i.e., the supreme power or authority) of federal and state governments over that of the citizenry, specifically as it relates to the government’s ability to disregard the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause.

      At first glance, the two incidents—one relating to illegal immigration and the other to the government’s prosecutorial powers—don’t have much to do with each other, and yet there is a common thread that binds them together.

      That common thread speaks to the nature of the government beast we have been saddled with and how it views the rights and sovereignty of “we the people.”

      Now you don’t hear a lot about sovereignty anymore.

      Sovereignty is a dusty, antiquated term that harkens back to an age when kings and emperors ruled with absolute power over a populace that had no rights. Americans turned the idea of sovereignty on its head when they declared their independence from Great Britain and rejected the absolute authority of King George III. In doing so, Americans claimed for themselves the right to self-government and established themselves as the ultimate authority and power.

      In other words, in America, “we the people”— sovereign citizens—call the shots.

      So when the government acts, it is supposed to do so at our bidding and on our behalf, because we are the rulers.

      That’s not exactly how it turned out, though, is it?

      In the 200-plus years since we boldly embarked on this experiment in self-government, we have been steadily losing ground to the government’s brazen power grabs, foisted upon us in the so-called name of national security.

      The government has knocked us off our rightful throne. It has usurped our rightful authority. It has staged the ultimate coup. Its agents no longer even pretend that they answer to “we the people.”

      So you see, the two incidents on June 17 were not hugely significant in and of themselves.

      Trump’s plan to carry out mass arrests of anyone the government suspects might be an illegal immigrant, and the Supreme Court’s recognition that the government can sidestep the Constitution for the sake of expediency are merely more of the same abuses that have been heaped upon us in recent years.

      Yet these incidents speak volumes about how far our republic has fallen and how desensitized “we the people” have become to this constant undermining of our freedoms.

      How do we reconcile the Founders’ vision of our government as an entity whose only purpose is to serve the people with the police state’s insistence that the government is the supreme authority, that its power trumps that of the people themselves, and that it may exercise that power in any way it sees fit (that includes government agents crashing through doors, mass arrests, ethnic cleansing, racial profiling, indefinite detentions without due process, and internment camps)?

      They cannot be reconciled. They are polar opposites.

      We are fast approaching a moment of reckoning where we will be forced to choose between the vision of what America was intended to be (a model for self-governance where power is vested in the people) and the reality of what she has become (a police state where power is vested in the government).

      This slide into totalitarianism—helped along by overcriminalization, government surveillance, militarized police, neighbors turning in neighbors, privatized prisons, and forced labor camps, to name just a few similarities—is tracking very closely with what happened in Germany in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power.

      We are walking a dangerous path right now.

      The horrors of the Nazi concentration camps weren’t kept secret from the German people. They were well-publicized. As The Guardian reports:

      The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler’s Holocaust… They knew concentration camps were full of Jewish people who were stigmatised as sub-human and race-defilers. They knew that these, like other groups and minorities, were being killed out of hand. They knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters… The reports, in newspapers and magazines all over the country were phases in a public process of “desensitisation” which worked all too well, culminating in the killing of 6m Jews….

      Likewise, the mass of ordinary Americans are fully aware of the Trump Administration’s efforts to stigmatize and dehumanize any and all who do not fit with the government’s plans for this country.

      These mass arrests of anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant may well be the shot across the bow.

      You see, it’s a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing government agents to lock large swaths of the population up in detention centers unless or until they can prove that they are not only legally in the country to empowering government agents to subject anyone—citizen and noncitizen alike—to similar treatment unless or until they can prove that they are in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books, and not guilty of having committed some crime or other.

      It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.

      You may be innocent of wrongdoing now, but when the standard for innocence is set by the government, no one is safe. Everyone is a suspect, and anyone can be a criminal when it’s the government determining what is a crime.

      Remember, the police state does not discriminate.

      At some point, once the government has been given the power to do whatever it wants—the Constitution be damned—it will not matter whether you’re an illegal immigrant or a citizen by birth, a law-breaker or someone who marches in lockstep with the government’s dictates. Government jails will detain you just as easily whether you’ve obeyed every law or broken a dozen. And government agents will treat you like a suspect, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, simply because they have been trained to view and treat everyone like potential criminals.

      Eventually, all that will matter is whether some government agent—poorly trained, utterly ignorant of the Constitution, way too hyped up on the power of their badges, and authorized to detain, search, interrogate, threaten and generally harass anyone they see fit—chooses to single you out for special treatment.

      We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late.

      All of the excessive, abusive tactics employed by the government today—warrantless surveillance, stop and frisk searches, SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, asset forfeiture schemes, private prisons, indefinite detention, militarized police, etc.—started out as a seemingly well-meaning plan to address some problem in society that needed a little extra help.

      Be careful what you wish for: you will get more than you bargained for, especially when the government’s involved.

      Remember, nothing is ever as simple as the government claims it is.

      The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police.

      The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention.

      The war on immigration is turning out to be yet another war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”

      Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

      If you’re inclined to advance this double standard because you believe you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, beware: there’s always a boomerang effect.

      As commentator Shaun Kenney observed:

      What civil liberties are you willing to surrender in the apprehension of 12 million people? Knock and drags? Detention centers? Checkpoints? House-to-house searches? Papers, please? Will we be racially profiling folks to look for or are we talking about people of Chinese… Indian… Irish… Polish… Italian… people-who-might-look-like-you descent as well? If the federal government makes a 1% rounding error and accidentally deports an American citizen, that’s 120,000 Americans… what means will be used to restore their rights? Who will remunerate them for their financial loss? Restore their lost homes? Personal property? Families? … What happens when these means are turned against some other group of undesirables in America by a president who does not share your political persuasion, but can now justify the act based on previous justifications?

      We are all at risk.

      The law of reciprocity applies here. The flip side of that Golden Rule, which calls for us to treat others as we would have them treat us, is that we shouldn’t inflict on others what we wouldn’t want to suffer ourselves.

      In other words, if you don’t want to be locked up in a prison cell or a detention camp—if you don’t want to be discriminated against because of the color of your race, religion, politics or anything else that sets you apart from the rest—if you don’t want your loved ones shot at, strip searched, tasered, beaten and treated like slaves—if you don’t want to have to be constantly on guard against government eyes watching what you do, where you go and what you say—if you don’t want to be tortured, waterboarded or forced to perform degrading acts—if you don’t want your children to be forcibly separated from you, caged and lost—then don’t allow these evils to be inflicted on anyone else, no matter how compelling a case the government makes for it or how fervently you believe in the cause.

      You can’t have it both ways.

      You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

      You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.

      You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.

      Indeed, when the government is allowed to operate as a law unto itself, the rule of law itself becomes illegitimate. As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’ It was ‘illegal’ to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.”

      In other words, there comes a time when law and order are in direct opposition to justice.

      Isn’t that what the American Revolution was all about?

      Finally, if anyone suggests that the government’s mass immigration roundups and arrests are just the government doing its job to fight illegal immigration, don’t buy it.

      This is not about illegal immigration. It’s about power and control.

      It’s about testing the waters to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in re-shaping the country in the image of a totalitarian police state.

      It’s about the rise of an “emergency state” that justifies all manner of government misconduct and power grabs in the so-called name of national security.

      It’s about how much tyranny “we the people” will tolerate before we find our conscience and our voice.

      It’s about how far we will allow the government to go in its efforts to distract and divide us and turn us into a fearful, easily controlled populace.

      Ultimately, it’s about whether we believe—as the Founders did—that our freedoms are inherently ours and that the government is only as powerful as we allow it to be. Freedom does not flow from the government. It was not given to us, to be taken away at the will of the State. In the same way, the government’s appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine our freedoms, but to safeguard them.

      We must get back to this way of thinking if we are to ever stand our ground in the face of threats to those freedoms.

      As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it’s time to draw that line in the sand.

      The treatment being meted out to anyone that looks like an illegal immigrant is only the beginning. Eventually we will all be in the government’s crosshairs for one reason or another.

      This is the start of the slippery slope.

      Martin Niemöller understood this. A Lutheran minister who was imprisoned and executed for opposing Hitler’s regime, Niemoller warned:

      First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

    • Watch: Dishwashing Robot Cleans Plates At Restaurant 

      A new wave of investments in automation is expected to eliminate 20% to 25% of current jobs by 2030 (40 million displaced jobs). In the latest installment of robots taking jobs, we have found a robot dishwasher that threatens to replace 550,000 jobs in the coming years.

      A startup called Dishcraft Robotics is set to disrupt commercial kitchens with robot dishwashers. The new robot is designed to reduce the time and energy that humans spend washing plates by using automation to make sure dishes are cleaned faster and cheaper than a typical human. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      CEO and founder Linda Pouliot and CTO Paul Birkmeye figured out through careful examination of restaurants that robots haven’t disrupted the dish room as it has remained the same for decades.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In a typical restaurant, dishwashers could break plates and or glasses, get burned and even slip on the wet floor, Birkmeyer noticed. Getting someone to scrub dishes all-day was one of the most challenging jobs in the kitchen to fill, he stated.

      “We found the problem is universal. It didn’t matter if you were the French Laundry, a hospital cafeteria or Chili’s; everyone is having a hard time hiring dishwashers,” Pouliot said.

      To solve the uncertainties in the dish room, Dishcraft’s robotic system gives restaurants a more sustainable, less costly option than humans.

      The new system has four main components: a dish drop, robotic dishwasher, rolling racks, and a sanitizing machine.

      First, dishes are pre-sorted and stacked in carts by humans. The cart is then wheeled into the Dishcraft system, a robot arm then uses magnets to pick up a dirty dish and places it in a washer.

      After the dish is cleaned with special scrubbers, it’s rotated and examined for cleanliness using computer vision and machine learning algorithms. 

      Restaurants like the Dishcraft because “Robots do not call off, robots don’t take breaks, and robots do not take vacation,” Pouliot said.

      Dishcraft’s main goal is to remove the human element from the kitchen.

      The US economy is in the midst of a significant transformation of its economy – one where automation, artificial intelligence, and robotics will take over. These forces will disrupt at least 40 million jobs in the next ten years, and as we’ve shown in this latest piece, robots are now coming for dishwashers.

    • Iran And US Officials Attend A Russian Security Forum But Nobody Is Talking About It

      Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      The tenth international meeting on security has just concluded in the Russian the city of Ufa. The forum has been under-reported, but it represents one of the few global examples of multilateral meetings between high-level representatives of countries that are in conflict. Hundreds of representatives from as many as 120 countries attended the meeting over three days to discuss humanitarian crises, hybrid warfare, terrorist threats and ways to recover from armed conflict.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      President Putin’s opening speech was read aloud by Russian Security Council chief Nikolai Patrushev, which explained the forum’s agenda and objectives, namely, to create a positive atmosphere that should succeed in reducing various areas of tension between countries around the globe.

      “I expect your communication to be substantial and fruitful, and will help achieve our common goal of creating a reliable, flexible, indivisible and equal for all security system at the regional and global level. US exit from arms reduction treaties undermines global security. This forum has fully proved to be in demand and effective, ensuring a dialogue on countering global challenges. The meeting’s agenda addresses problems requiring joint solutions and collective action, overcoming the consequences of armed conflict and humanitarian problems, as well as ensuring information security.”

      The most important news of the day coming from Ufa was revealed by Tass:

      A high-ranking official from the US National Security Council will take part in an international meeting of high security representatives at Ufa on June 18-20, Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council Alexander Venediktov said in an interview with the Rossiyskaya Gazeta daily on Sunday.”

      This disclosure is particularly relevant as the US has not sent any representatives to attend the international security meeting in the last four years. This is an event where leading figures can meet and discuss ways of overcoming disagreements in spite of any current difficulties that may exist between countries, such as between Iran and the US.

      The Ufa forum has drawn little attention from the international press and has even been little reported on in the host country, with only Tass putting out a couple of reports on the gathering. The lack of media exposure is probably intentional, with the lack of a media spotlight allowing for diplomacy to calmly do its work without any unnecessary distractions.

      The world is at a critical historical juncture, with potential or already volatile situations present on the Korean peninsula, in Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Ukraine, the Arctic, the Persian Gulf, and the Baltic, Black and South China Seas. Other volatile situations can be found in the cyber and information-warfare domains, as well as in the competition in space.

      With so many potential flashpoints, a conference to address these dangers is most welcome. The fact that 120 countries have the opportunity to talk and think about possible ways for de-escalation is a rare opportunity that should not be left to go to waste.

      Given current global events, the most significant attendees in Ufa are a senior US National Security Council member and the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Ali Shamkhani. As of now, the only official news comes from Ali Shamkhani’s words concerning the possibility of mediation with the US and the possibility of Iran acquiring weapons systems to fend off US threats. Shamkhani stated:

      “We currently face demonstrative threats. Nevertheless, when it comes to air defense of our country, we consider using the foreign potential in addition to our domestic capacities… Mediation is out of question in the current situation. The United States has unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA, it has flouted its obligations and it has introduced illegal sanctions against Iran. The United States should return to the starting point and correct its own mistakes. This process needs no mediation,”

      “This [gradually boosting of uranium enrichment and heavy water production beyond the levels outlined in the JCPOA] is a serious decision of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] and we will continue doing it step by step until JCPOA violators move toward agreement and return to fulfilling their obligations. [If JCPOA participants do not comply with the deal, Iran will be reducing its commitments] step by step within legal mechanisms that the JCPOA envisions.”

      He also accused the US of “exercising pressure on the Islamic Republic through claims that Iran was behind the attack on oil tankers attack in the Gulf of Oman”. Speaking about the possibility of a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, he reiterated that “Iran will protect its borders and repel any encroachment”. The official also stated that “Iran and the United States will not come to war as there is no reason for this war to happen”.

      Ali Shamkhani also held an important meeting with his Armenian counterpart to reaffirm how strategic trust and cooperation between Tehran and Yerevan is fundamental to the region, resisting external pressure from third parties. Currently Iran needs all the possible international support it can get in light of tensions with the US. The Ufa forum seems to be the perfect place for Iran to make this happen. The meeting between Ali Shamkhani and his Afghan counterpart, Hamdullah Mohib, seems to reflect this, being another example of how Iran is seeking more political allies.

      Afghanistan is a central player in Eurasian integration, and Russia, India, China and Iran are all too keenly aware of the devastation wrought by the American occupation of the country.

      The situation in Afghanistan seems to have improved recently, with regional powers increasingly acting independently of Washington’s desire to plunge the country into a perpetual state of chaos and underdevelopment. In fact, the next regional meeting on Afghanistan is set to be held in Tehran, with the participation of all five countries bordering Afghanistan, namely, Iran, Russia, China, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan. Notably, Shamkhani asked neighboring countries to interact with the opposition in Afghanistan in order to draw them to the negotiating table, thereby limiting the influence of external actors in the country.

      The meeting between Mohib and Shamkhani also served to reiterate how strategic cooperation between all relevant parties is fundamental to sustaining progress, peace and development in an area that is fundamental to Eurasian integration.

      Ali Shamkhani also released some statements directed at Trump and the current state of Iran-US relations, statingthat “[Donald Trump’s America] is the most warmongering country in its history… If a wide range of countries decide to stand up to the illegal US blackmail and bullying, we can make the US retreat and adopt a rational and responsible behavior in the international system.”

      Speaking of the US’s weaponization of the banking system and international finance, Shamkhani stated: “No title other than economic terrorism suits this US behavior.” He urged countries to create multilateral mechanisms to break US dominance on the global monetary system. He also pointed out that the US withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was a blow against the role of diplomacy and dialogue in solving security challenges. However, most countries, he added, were appreciative of Iran’s “wise” behavior in giving diplomacy a chance and were dragging their feet with regard to US pressure to suspend the nuclear deal.

      Shamkhani’s words testify to the level of dissatisfaction and annoyance that Iran feels, being treated as it is so aggressively by Washington following years of negotiation to finally agree on the nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

      Guo Shengkun, a Senior Chinese security official who attended the conference, underlined the importance of countries increasing dialogue and cooperation to avoid unnecessary conflicts and trade wars, a pointed reference to Washington’s actions in its trade war against the People’s Republic of China.

      His Russian counterpart was even more direct, highlighting Washington’s fear of full-scale Eurasian integration led by China and Russia. Sergey Naryshkin, Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, stated: “The US uses methods of hybrid war trying to hamper Russian cooperation, particularly with China. We are witnessing that. Moreover, there is no need to make any effort to see it, it is all happening before our very eyes.”

      He also commented on how Washington exploits the US dollar as the global reserve currency for economic warfare. “It seems bewildering that the US continues to be the holder of the main reserve currency while behaving so aggressively and unpredictably. The monopoly position of the dollar in international economic relations has become anachronistic. Gradually, the dollar is becoming toxic.”

      The political climate in Ufa seems very serene and inclined to favour dialogue and collaboration, showing how the Eurasian giants China, Russia and Iran are working together with enormous efforts to pacify the region and beyond. The statement of the Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergey Naryshkin, about new US sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) reveal the profound cooperation between Moscow and Tehran in various fields including terrorism.

      “It’s no secret that over the past several years sanctions have become a favored method of the US policy. What is especially alarming is that the restrictions are introduced absolutely arbitrarily, spontaneously and impulsively. Their initiators do not take into account not only the long-term consequences but also the opinion of the closest economic partners… [Regarding US sanctions against the IRGC] The IRGC has made a huge contribution to the fight against ISIL in Syria and Iraq.”

      The Ufa meeting is not attracting any particular attention from the mainstream press (no mention of it has been made in the major Western news outlets). While it has been given some coverage by the Russian and Chinese media, most coverage has been given by Iranian media. This is an aspect worth considering given the current geopolitical environment. Moscow and Beijing have no intention of increasing the tension between Washington and other countries. Keeping a low media profile is a way of helping the Ufa forum act in a way that eases global tensions.

      A war against Iran is a red line for virtually all forum participants. The fact that the US is represented at the forum at a time of elevated tensions with Iran, especially after having not attended for the previous four years, is a good signal from the Trump administration that it is willing to open dialogue with Iran despite the risk of continued provocations or intentional accidents between the two countries.

      The explicit and direct words used by the Russian, Chinese and Iranian representatives suggest a complete coordination on essential issues like terrorism, especially when it is used by the US as a tool against geopolitical opponents around the world, whether it be on Russia’s southern border, in Syria, or in the Chinese province of Xinjiang. Terrorism used as tool of imperialism is something that Ufa places at the center of current global problems, trying to limit its impact and effectiveness.

      Iran and Russia’s energy ministers met in the Iranian city of Isfahan on Tuesday to continue discussions about an oil-for-goods program in which the proceeds from the sale of Iranian oil would be used to pay for Russian agricultural equipment and products.

      The Ufa forum shows the combined power of Russia and China in a multipolar global order. Beijing and Moscow seem to be the only two global superpowers able to mediate and gather countries around a table in spite of increasing tensions.

      Putin and Xi Jinping’s ability to de-escalate global tensions in such low-key forum as the one in Ufa (now in its tenth edition) is the only hope we have for avoiding or defusing conflicts and trade wars that may be erupt around the world.

    • United Flight Taken Out Of Service After Ants Spill Out From Carry-On Bag

      A United Airlines flight arriving at Newark International Airport in New Jersey, had to be taken out of service after ants spilled out of a carry-on bag and into the cabin, according to CBS Philadelphia.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      One passenger on the flight, from Venice to Newark, described the situation by saying: “The guy in front pulls down his case (which btw isn’t zipped shut, as middle aisle guy notes to me in an aside) and ants ants ants spill out, running in every which direction.”

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

      The passenger had documented her discovery of the ants on the plane on her Twitter account.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A spokesperson for United said that the plane was sidelined to be cleaned and exterminated. The spokesperson also said that the airline notified “airport customs and agriculture personnel”. 

      The spokesperson didn’t comment on whether or not the airline charged the ants additional baggage fees.

    • Dr.Doom Warns Of Imminent Sino-American Bust-Up After G-20

      Authored by Nouriel Roubini via Nepal24Hours.com,

      The nascent Sino-American cold war is the key source of uncertainty in today’s global economy. How the conflict plays out will affect consumer and asset markets of all kinds, as well as the trajectory of inflation, monetary policy, and fiscal conditions around the world. Escalation of the tensions between the world’s two largest economies could well produce a global recession and subsequent financial crisis by 2020, even if the US Federal Reserve and other major central banks pursue aggressive monetary easing.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Much, therefore, depends on whether the dispute does indeed evolve into a persistent state of economic and political conflict. In the short term, a planned meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at the G20 Summit in Osaka on June 28-29 is a key event to watch. A truce could leave tariffs frozen at the current level, while sparing the Chinese technology giant Huawei from the crippling sanctions that Trump has put forward; failure to reach an agreement could set off a progressive escalation, ultimately leading to the balkanization of the entire global economy.

      JAW-JAW OR WAR-WAR?

      Viewed broadly, there are three scenarios for how the situation might develop between now and the end of 2020, when the United States will hold its next presidential election.

      One possibility is that Trump and Xi will find a truce or modus vivendi in Osaka, paving the way for a negotiated settlement toward the end of this year. On the trade front, the US wants China to buy more American goods, reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers, open more financial and service sectors to foreign direct investment, and commit to maintaining currency stability and transparency with respect to foreign-exchange data.

      On technology, the US is demanding that China strengthen intellectual-property protections, cease making the transfer of technology to Chinese firms a condition of market entry for US (and other) companies, and crack down on corporate cyber espionage and theft. A temporary deal could include any of the above, with the US offering medium-term (through the end of 2020, and possibly longer) exemptions to Chinese tech firms that use US components, semiconductors, and software. This would leave Huawei severely constrained, but not dead in the water.

      The second possibility is a full-scale trade, tech, and cold war within the next 6-12 months. In this scenario, the US and China would adopt rapidly diverging positions after failing to successfully restart negotiations (with or without a truce). The US would follow through with import tariffs – starting at 10% but increasing to 25% – on the remaining $300 billion worth of Chinese goods that have so far been spared. And the Trump administration would pull the trigger on Huawei and other Chinese tech firms, barring them from purchasing components and software from US companies.

      China, meanwhile, would take steps to protect its economy through macro-level stimulus, while retaliating against the US through measures that go beyond tariffs (such as expelling American firms). Huawei might survive within the Chinese market, but its growing global business would effectively be crippled, at least for the time being.

      Beyond trade and technology, this scenario also implies increased geopolitical and military tensions. The possibility of some type of conflict over the East and South China Seas, Taiwan, North Korea, Xinjiang, Iran, or Hong Kong could not be ruled out.

      Finally, in the third scenario, China and the US would fail to reach a deal on trade and technology, but they would forego rapid escalation. Instead of plunging into a total trade and technology war, the two powers might ratchet up their conflict more gradually. The US would impose new tariffs, but keep them at 10%, while renewing only temporarily exemptions that allow Huawei and other Chinese firms to continue purchasing key US-made inputs, while retaining the option of pulling the plug on Huawei at its discretion. Negotiations could continue, but the US would essentially hold a veto over Huawei’s bid to develop 5G and other key technologies of the global economy. Given that Trump could suddenly pull the plug on the company whenever it suits him, China’s leaders would probably abstain from blatant full-scale retaliation, but would still intervene to minimize the economic damage.

      THE GOLDILOCKS OPTION…

      The third scenario is the most likely for now, because China is playing a waiting game until November 2020, to see if the US elects a more even-keeled president. Even with a truce, therefore, any negotiations that are relaunched after the G20 summit will probably drag on indefinitely, with no real signs of progress. In the meantime, the Trump administration will want to apply additional pressure on China, while keeping its options open. Better, then, to start with a 10% tariff on that remaining $300 billion worth of exports. The US could always hike the rate to 25%, but at the risk of raising the costs of goods that many of Trump’s own lower-income voters rely on.

      In the absence of a trade deal, the same modulated escalation is likely on the tech front. With Chinese firms already on a tight leash, the US could convince European countries and other allies not to grant Huawei tenders or licenses relating to 5G and consumer products such as smartphones, thereby undercutting Huawei’s current advantage in this market. That would buy the US a couple of years to cultivate its own national champions in 5G and related technologies, and to get a head start on 6G.

      Moreover, a managed escalation has potential political advantages for Trump, and even for Xi. Trump will not be exposed to charges from Democrats that he got suckered or went soft on China. At the same time, the lingering uncertainty from an unresolved conflict will probably prompt the Fed to start cutting its policy rate in July – or September at the latest. Those cuts could reach 150 basis points if the slow rise in tensions starts to take a toll on business confidence. In fact, if the conflict is managed well, the US could avoid a recession altogether, albeit with a deceleration of annual growth from 2% toward the 1-1.5% range.

      Whether the stock market would suffer a correction (a decline of 10% or more) or merely a sideways shift in the third scenario would depend on a variety of factors, such as investor confidence, growth trends, and monetary-policy measures. One also cannot rule out some type of fiscal stimulus in the US and other advanced economies. For example, Trump could try to broker a partial infrastructure-spending deal with congressional Democrats or seek to rebate tariff revenues to politically sensitive constituencies such as farmers and low- and middle-income households in the Rust Belt. Though Democrats would balk at granting Trump such favors, they would block rebates for the “losers” of the trade war at their peril.

      The “managed-warfare” scenario also has advantages for Xi. The Chinese economy, after all, can be backstopped with monetary, fiscal, and credit stimulus, not to mention a weakening of the renminbi (above CN¥7 to the dollar). The government could also make a modest show of retaliation, such as by threatening to restrict (but not ban) exports of rare-earth metals, which are used in a wide range of high-tech products. At the same time, the authorities could make life harder for the hundreds of US firms with business and investments in China, not with a full boycott, but through a thousand small cuts and abuses.

      … ISN’T REALLY AN OPTION

      Because China and the US both know that they are in for a decades-long rivalry, they may well conclude that it is better not to risk a full-scale conflict and global recession in the short run. Only through proper preparation over the medium term can the two powers manage a long-term cold war and the de-globalization that will be necessary to protect their respective supply chains.

      But this scenario is not particularly stable, and could easily morph into the first or the second after a few months. If China and the US are both motivated by concerns about growth and financial-market stability, they could overcome their immediate differences, which would allow for a temporary agreement that postpones the question of how to manage a larger cold-war rivalry.

      In principle, both countries would be better off with a deal, which is why markets had priced in the first scenario up until this past May, when negotiations collapsed. For the US, an agreement on good terms would boost consumer and business confidence, and thus growth, while reducing inflationary risks from the tariffs.

      The sequencing of a potential deal also matters. As matters stand, persistent uncertainty will lead the Fed to loosen its monetary policy one way or another. Suppose that Trump and Xi restart negotiations that then drag on until late fall or early winter of this year. The Fed would have to cut its policy rate by at least 50 basis points, after which point the Trump administration may agree to a deal. Because the impact of monetary easing takes time, the Fed would have to remain on hold until November 2020. (Even if the economy and inflation were to rebound, monetary policymakers would be hesitant to reverse course before the election, lest they appear to be acting politically.)

      In this sequence, Trump’s re-election prospects would be doubly improved. The Fed would have locked in rate cuts as insurance, and a new agreement would have bolstered investor confidence and the stock market. But, of course, this could happen only by chance. Trump’s “art of the deal” does not involve such multistep, multidimensional thinking, after all.

      As for China, an agreement would, at a minimum, prevent further damage to its economy, and particularly its tech sector. The government would secure a few more years with which to prepare for a longer-term conflict over trade, investment, artificial intelligence, 5G, and geopolitical dominance in Asia and beyond.

      The Chinese tend to think long term, and they are well aware of the “Thucydides trap” – a self-fulfilling prophecy in which a hegemon and an emerging power end up at war. Still, they clearly need more time to prepare. A major short-term shock today would be hard for China to absorb, especially if it knocks the country’s national champions offline for the medium to long term.

      And indeed, Trump now appears to be opening the door to a truce at the G20, tweeting that critical preparatory work for an extensive meeting with Xi will now begin. But that meeting may still fail, even if both sides pretend that a truce was reached. If there is no substance to the terms of an agreement at the G20 – only painted smiles and stiff handshakes – the subsequent negotiations may quickly fail and lead to a gradual escalation of the trade and tech war.

      THUCYDIDES RETURNS

      Unfortunately, an even more likely course of events is that the third scenario – a managed trade and tech war, which is my baseline of how the rivalry will evolve over the next few months – would then devolve into the second (a full-scale confrontation). A Sino-American trade and tech deal in the coming months is far from assured. The negotiations broke down in May as a result of substantial differences between the two sides. And now, the complex preparations needed to stage a successful Trump-Xi summit in Osaka are being rushed at the last moment, after six weeks were wasted with no contact.

      Even if the Americans and Chinese can overcome differences in their negotiating style, the US will still want legislative commitments from China, and China will still view such demands as a violation of its national sovereignty. The Chinese are highly sensitive to anything resembling the imperial interference that weakened China in the nineteenth century. Like Trump, Xi cannot afford to lose face.

      Moreover, as the war of words has escalated over the last month, the spillover of trade frictions into the technology domain has intensified. Once kept formally separate, the two issues are now inextricably intertwined, which will make a resolution even harder to achieve. The Chinese cannot agree to any deal that does not rescue Huawei, but now that Huawei has become a bargaining chip, national-security hawks in the Trump administration and Congress will force Trump to take a hard line on the company.

      Each side seems to think that the other will blink first. For example, the US assumes it can inflict more economic pain on China than China is capable of returning, because US exports to China ($130 billion) are a fraction of China’s exports to the US ($560 billion). Hence, when it comes to tariffs, China seems to have more to lose.

      Yet, as we have seen, the conflict is about much more than tariffs, and China can retaliate in a number of ways. In addition to imposing new non-tariff barriers, it can strike a blow against major US firms that rely on Chinese supply chains and consumer markets, while allowing the renminbi to weaken. And if tensions escalate too far, China could even resort to the nuclear option of dumping its massive holdings of US Treasuries; it has already started to reduce its holdings of such US assets.

      Moreover, US leaders may be underestimating the costs of the conflict. According to the prevailing narrative, the tariffs now in place have had only a modest impact on US growth and inflation. But the latest economic data suggest otherwise, as the US and global economy are slowing. In fact, one reason why the Fed has started considering preemptive insurance rate cuts – likely to start in July – may be that it is worried that tariffs are hurting the US economy more than was initially anticipated.

      Making matters worse, the US has nowhere near as many tools to respond to macroeconomic shocks as China does. In addition to massive stimulus and currency depreciation, China’s government can bail out private and public enterprises at will. The US, by contrast, must rely on traditional monetary and fiscal tools, all of which are already severely constrained. And while Trump must worry about re-election, Xi has abolished presidential term limits, faces few constraints on his power, and presides over a sprawling apparatus of social control, including the Great Firewall of online censorship.

      THE ART OF “NO DEAL”

      Politically, then, it is much easier for China to take the long view, which is what Xi has done by announcing a “new Long March” – a reference to the People’s Liberation Army’s long, painful retreat in the 1930s to a new stronghold in Shaanxi province, from which it broke out and took over all of China, under Mao Zedong, in 1949. By wrapping himself in the Chinese flag and fomenting nationalism at home, Xi is preparing Chinese society for a protracted struggle. If a full-scale cold war ensues, he will be able to remind the Chinese of the need to suffer today to achieve glory tomorrow.

      In fact, it is possible that Xi actually wants a full-scale economic war as a means of damaging Trump’s re-election chances. A new Democratic president – even one who accepts the reality of a more contentious Sino-American rivalry – would almost certainly be a more constructive and honest broker for China to deal with. In the parlance of the foreign-policy establishment, Xi may see de facto escalation as the quickest route to regime change in the US.

      Moreover, Xi is not an absolute ruler. While he controls most of the levers of power, there are still factions within the Communist Party of China (CPC) that could turn on him if he does not mount a sufficiently aggressive response to the US. He is not in a position to accept a deal in which he – or China – loses face or power. If America’s medium- to long-term goal is to contain China, as the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy clearly suggests, Xi cannot agree to anything in the short term that advances that agenda. In the grand scheme of things, it might be better to start a full-scale conflict now than to grant the US a tactical advantage for the next two years.

      The danger is that Trump, too, would prefer a partial or full-scale trade and technology war to a weak deal. If Trump makes any notable concessions, he will be accused by both Democrats and right-wing pundits of appeasing China and betraying American blue-collar workers. Even if he can’t secure a favorable deal, at least he can say he remained tough. Among those who have Trump’s ear are national-security hawks – some of them modern-day Dr. Strangeloves – who believe that China is so fragile that an economic shock could precipitate a political collapse, and even regime change. This is a dangerous game to play, because it could lead to actions that turn a cold war into a hot war. The mere presence of such extreme voices in Trump’s orbit suggests that the administration’s intent is to contain China at any cost.

      Worse, these hawks have the upper hand now that the “adults in the room” have long since departed. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Adviser John Bolton, acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, and Vice President Mike Pence all appear to be China hawks. And the situation is no better with respect to trade and economic advisers, where Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, White House Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, and Peter Navarro, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, have sidelined moderates such as Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin (who is unwilling to stand up to the president anyway).

      SUMMIT SIGNALS

      Where does that leave us? If both Xi and Trump find the third scenario attractive, neither will be willing to meet halfway on a deal. That makes the second scenario – a full-scale trade and technology war – the most likely outcome, given that a controlled escalation is inherently unstable.

      As matters stand, the probability of a deal eventually being reached is low (my colleagues and I put it at just 25%). Still, we will know more after the G20 summit later this month. If Trump and Xi fail to broker a truce or a temporary agreement regarding Huawei, the US will probably follow through with 10% tariffs on the remaining $300 billion worth of Chinese exports. We will then be in the initial stages of the third scenario.

      On the other hand, if Trump and Xi hold a friendly meeting and agree to a truce, the US will probably withhold new tariffs, and we will be in the early stages of the first scenario. This would make the probability of the two sides reaching a deal slightly higher. But a lurch to the third scenario – a precipitous escalation of the current confrontation – would still be more likely, followed eventually by a descent into a full-scale conflict. Where it will end is anyone’s guess, but an escalating trade and tech war is, in my view, more likely than an eventual deal.

    • "Come Heavily Armed": Oregon Senator Threatens Violence As Governor Hunts Down Lawmakers

      A standoff between Republican and Democratic Oregon state senators escalated on Friday after Governor Kate Brown (D) authorized state police to track down Republican lawmakers who have stalled a vote on carbon credit legislation by walking out and refusing to vote. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Under the proposed cap-and-trade bill, Oregon would put an overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions and auction off pollution “allowances” for each ton of carbon industries plan to emit. The legislation would lower that cap over time to encourage businesses to move away from fossil fuels: The state would reduce emissions to 45% below 1990 levels by 2035 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. 

      Those opposed to the cap-and-trade plan say it would exacerbate a growing divide between the liberal, urban parts of the state and the rural areas. The plan would increase the cost of fuel, damaging small business, truckers and the logging industry, they say. –ABC13

      While Oregon Democrats have a rare 18 to 12 supermajority in the House and Senate, they cannot approve the bill without at least two Republicans present. After several days of heated debate between the two sides, eleven GOP members mutually agreed to boycott the vote. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Senate Democrats have requested the assistance of the Oregon State Police to bring back their colleagues to finish the work they committed to push forward,” Brown said on Thursday, adding “As the executive of the agency, I am authorizing the State Police to fulfill the Senate Democrats’ request.

      (Of note, Oregon House Democrats once fled the capitol in 2001 for five days over a redistricting proposal – which Brown said at the time was “appropriate under the circumstances.)

      Sen. Brian Boquist (R) didn’t take too kindly to Brown’s threat – telling a reporter he was prepared for a bloody standoff if state troopers show up for him. Boquist had previously told Brown that “hell is coming to visit you personally” if she went forward with the threat. 

      Send bachelors, and come heavily armed; I’m not going to be a political prisoner in the state of Oregon, it’s just that simple,” 

      Meanwhile, Oregon’s Senate President Peter Courtney’s office told ABC13 that each missing Senator was hit with a $500 fine on Friday, which would continue daily until they vote on the legislation

      Republicans immediately pushed back.

      “We will file legal action,” said Sen. Tim Knopp, a Republican from Bend who has said he has been in three states in the past three days. “If they were trying to bring us back, threatening to arrest us and impose fines isn’t going to work.”

      Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick said Republicans have no legal recourse as the fine is explicitly written in statute. A GoFundMe to cover the rogue lawmakers’ expenses and fines raised nearly $30,000 in less than a day. State ethics laws prohibit officials from receiving gifts exceeding $50, so it’s unclear whether senators could access the money. –ABC13

      State police, meanwhile, will have the ability to track down senators and force them into a patrol car to return to the capitol, though the agency promises to use “polite communication” and patience throughout the process. 

      If Boquist starts shooting, we imagine that could change rapidly. 

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

    • U.S. College Grads Are In For An Unpleasant Surprise

      U.S. college students currently working on their degree are in for an unpleasant surprise when negotiating their first salaries.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      That’s because, as Statista’s Felix Richter details, according to a new study conducted by Clever, undergraduate students in the United States are overestimating what they’re worth by a varying degree, depending on the major. Comparing average expected salaries to median actual salaries as reported in PayScale’s College Salary Report, Clever reveals which majors are particularly prone to unrealistic expectations.

      “Bushy-tailed and bright-eyed, the average Generation Z undergraduate expects to make $57,964 one year out of college, while the national median salary is $47,000 for recent grads with bachelor degrees who have between zero and five years of on-the-job experience,” Clever writes, concluding that many students have “seriously unrealistic” expectations for their early career salaries.

      Infographic: U.S. College Grads Are in For an Unpleasant Surprise | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      As the chart above shows, Business majors are in for the rudest awakening, overestimating their early career salary by almost $15,000 a year.

      At the other end of the spectrum, Computer Science majors are in for a pleasant surprise when they enter the working world: according to Clever’s findings, they are underestimating their earnings potential by nearly $10,000.

    • Global Warming, Carbon Dioxide, And The Solar Minimum

      Authored by Renee Parsons via Off-Guardian.org,

      Since Climate Change (CC) has been a constant of life on Gaia with the evolution of photosynthesis 3.2 billion years ago and has more complexities than this one essay can address; ergo, this article will explore co2’s historic contribution to global warming (GW) as well as explore the relationship of Solar Minimum(SM) to Earth’s climate.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Even before the UN-initiated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formed in 1988, the common assumption was that carbon dioxide was thekey greenhouse gas and that its increases were the driving force solely responsible for rising climate temperatures. 

      At that time, anthropogenic (human caused) GW was declared to be the existential crisis of our time, that the science was settled and that we, as a civilization, were running out of time.

      And yet, in the intervening years, uncertainty remained about GW’s real time impacts which may be rooted in the fact that many of IPCC’sessential climate forecasts of consequence have not materializedas predicted.  Even as the staid Economist magazine recently noted:

      Over the past fifteen years, air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar.”

      Before the IPCC formed, NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii registered co2 levelsat under 350 ppm (parts per million) with the explicit warning that if co2 exceeded that number, Mother Earth was in Big Trouble – and there would be no turning back for humanity.  Those alarm bells continue today as co2 levels have risen to 414 ppm as temperatures peaked in 1998.

      From the outset, the IPCC controlled the debate by limiting its charter

      to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

      In other words, before any of the science had been done, the IPCC’s assumption was that man-made activity was responsible and that Nature was not an active participant in a process within its own sphere of interest. 

      As an interdisciplinary topic of multiple diversity, the IPCC is not an authority on all the disciplines of science within the CC domain.

      While there is no dispute among scientists that the Sun and its cyclical output is the true external force driving Earth’s energy and climate system as part of a Sun-centered Universe, the IPCC’s exclusion of the Sun from its consideration can only be seen as a deliberate thwarting of a basic fundamental law of  science, a process which assures a free inquiry based on reason and evidence.

      It is the Sun which all planets of the solar system orbit around, that has the strongest gravitational pull in the solar system, is the heaviest of all celestial bodies and its sunspots in relation to Earth’s temperatures has been known since Galileo began drawing sunspots in 1613.

      Yet the IPCC which touts a ‘scientific view of climate change’would have us believe the Sun is irrelevant and immaterial to the IPCC’s world view and Earth’s climate; hardly a blip on their radar.

      In the GW debate, co2 is dismissed as a colorless, odorless pollutant that gets little credit as a critical component for its contribution to life on the planet as photosynthesis does not happen without co2.  A constant presence in Earth’s atmosphere since the production of oxygen, all living organisms depend on co2 for its existence. 

      As a net contributor to agriculture, plants absorb co2 as they release oxygen into the atmosphere that we two- and four-leggeds depend on for sustenance and oxygen as necessities for survival on Earth. 

      There are scientists who believe that Earth has been in a co2 ‘famine’ while others applaud Earth’s higher co2 levels in the last three decades as a regreening of the planet.

      While An Inconvenient Truth (2006) and An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power (2016) stage managed the climate question as a thoroughly politicized ‘settled science’ with former veep Al Gore declaring the drama a ‘moral’ issue, there is no room for any preference that does not depend on a rigorous, skeptical, independent investigation based on evidentiary facts rather than the partisan politics of emotion and subjective opinion.

      Given the prevalence of weather in our daily lives, it would seem elementary for engaged citizens and budding paleoclimatologists to understand Earth’s ancient climate history and atmospherein order to gain an informed perspective on Earth’s current and future climate.

      As a complicated non-linearsystem, climate is a variable compositionof rhythmic spontaneity with erratic and even chaotic fluctuations making weather predictions near-impossible.  

      Climate is an average of weather systems over an established long term period while individual weather events indicative of a short term trend are not accurate forecasts of CC.  While ice core readings provide information, they do not show causation of GW but only measure the ratio between co2 and rising temperatures. It is up to scientists to interpret the results.  And that’s where this narrative takes, like ancient weather and climate patterns, an unpredictable turn.

      It might be called an inconvenient truth that ‘skeptic’ scientists have known for the last twenty years that the Vostok ice core samples refute co2’s role as a negative and even question its contribution as the major greenhouse gas.  

      It is no secret to many climate professionals that water vapor with co2at 3.6%.

      Located at the center of the Antarctica ice sheet, the Vostok Research Center is a collaborative effort where Russian and French scientists collected undisturbed ice core data in the 1990s to measure the historic presence of carbon dioxide levels. 

      The Vostoksamples provided the first irrefutable evidence of Earth’s climate history for 420,000 year including the existence of four previous glacial and interglacial periods. 

      Those samples ultimately challenged the earlier premise of co2’s predominant role and that carbon dioxide was not the climate culprit once thought.  It is fair to add that IPCC related scientists believe Vostok to be ‘outliers’ in the GW debate.

      The single most significant revelation of the ice core studies has been that GW could not be solely attributed to co2 since carbon dioxide increases occurred aftertemperature increases and that an extensive ‘lag’ time exists between the two.

      Logic and clear thinking demands that cause (co2) precedes the effect (increased temps) is in direct contradiction to the assertion that carbon dioxide has been responsible for pushing higher global temperatures.  Just as today’s 414 ppm precedes current temps which remain within the range of normal variability.

      Numerouspeer-reviewedstudies confirmed that co2 lags behind temperature increases, originally by as much as 800 years

      That figure was later increased to 8,000 years and by 2017 the lag timebetween co2 and temperature had been identified as 14,000 years.   As if a puzzlement from the Quantum world, it is accepted that CO2 and temperatures are correlated as they rise and fall together, yet are separated by a lag time of thousands of years.

      What is obscure from public awareness in the GW shuffle is that geologic records have identified CC as a naturally occurring cyclewith glacial periods of 100,000 year intervals that are interrupted by brief, warming interglacial periods lasting 15,000-20,000 years.

      Those interglacial periods act as a temperate respite from what is the world’s natural normal Ice Age environment.  Within those glacial and interglacial periods are cyclical subsets of global cooling and warming just as today’s interglacial warm period began at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age about 12,000 years ago.   Since climate is not a constant, check these recent examples of Earth’s climate subsets:

      200 BC – 600 AD: Roman warming cycle

      440 AD – 950 AD: Dark Ages cool cycle

      950 AD – 1300 AD: Medieval warming cycle

      1300 AD – 1850 AD: Renaissance Little Ice Age

      1850 – Present: Modern warming cycle

      In addition, climate records have shown that peak co2 temperatures from the past are relative to today’s co2 level without the addition of a fossil fuelcontribution.  For instance, just as today’s measurement at 414 ppm contains a ‘base’ co2 level of approximately 300 ppm as recorded in the 19th century, any co2 accumulation over 300 ppm would be considered anthropogenic (man-made) and be portrayed as “historic” or ‘alarmingly high’ and yet remain statistically insignificant compared to historic co2 norms.

      During the last 600 million years, only the Carboniferous period and today’s Holocene Epoch each witnessed co2 levels at less than 400 ppm.

      During the Early Carboniferous Period, co2 was at 1500 ppm with average temperatures comparable to 20 C; 68 F before diving to 350 ppm during the Mid Carboniferous period with a reduced temperature of 12 C;54F. In other words, current man-made contributions to co2 are less than what has been determined to be significant.

      Contrary to the IPCC’s stated goal, NASA recognizes thatAll weather on Earth, from the surface of the planet into space, begins with the Sun” and that weather experienced on Earth’s surface is “influenced by the small changes the Sun undergoes during its solar cycle.”

      Solar Minimum(SM) is a periodic 11 year solar cycle normally manifesting a weak magnetic field with increased radiation and cosmic rays while exhibiting decreased sunspot activity that, in turn, decreases planetary temperatures.

      Today’s solar cycle is referred to as the Grand Minimum which, according to NOAA, predicts reductions from the typical 140 – 220 sunspots per solar cycle to 95 – 130 sunspots.

      As the Sun is entering “one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age,” a NASA scientist predicted a SM that could ”set a Space Age record for cold” but has recently clarified his statement as it applies only to the Thermosphere.

      In October 2018, NOAA predicted “Winter Outlook favors Warmer Temperaturefor much of the US,” as above-normal precipitation and record freezing temperatures were experienced throughout the country.

      As of this writing, with the Sun noticeably intense, Earth has experienced 22 consecutive dayswithout sunspots for a 2019 total of 95 spotless days at 59%. 

      In 2018, 221 days were spotless at 61%. Spaceweather.com monitors sunspot (in)activity.

      With the usual IPCC and Non-IPCCsplit, the SM is expected to be at its lowest by 2020 with a peak between 2023 and 2026 as it exhibits counterintuitive erratic weather anomalies including cooler temps due to increased cloud cover, higher temps due to solar sunspot-free brilliance, potential electrical events,  heavy rain and flooding and drought, a shorter growing season, impacts on agriculture and food production systems or it may all be a walk in the park with shirt sleeves in January.

      While there is clearly an important climate shift occurring even as the role of co2 and human activity as responsible entities remains problematic, the elimination of co2 and its methane sidekick would be exceedingly beneficial for a healthy planet.  It is time to allow scientists to be scientists without political agendas or bureaucratic interference as the Sun and Mother Earth continue in their orbit as they have for eons of millennia.

      As Earth’s evolutionary climate cycles observe the Universal law of the natural world, the Zero Point Field, which produces an inexhaustible source of ‘free’ energy that Nikola Tesla spoke of, is the means by which inter stellar vehicles travel through time/space.  The challenge for ingenious, motivated Earthlings is to harness and extract the ZPF proclaiming a new planetary age of technological innovation with no rapacious industry, no pollution, no shortages, no gas guzzlers and no war.

    • Border Patrol Holding Contest For Robotic Tech Used In Underground Smuggling Tunnels

      The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has put out the call for companies to provide robotic surveillance and technology that can map out underground tunnels and report on structures, contents, threats and obstacles along the southern border. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “DHS S&T is interested in evaluating robotic communication capabilities to characterize underground structures, contents, threats and obstacles along the U.S. southern border,” reads the Request for Information (RFI). “These environments range in size and shape, but are all characterized by lack of GPS-signal, short distance—less than 50 meters—line of sight, and a variety of building materials.” 

      In order to test out potential technologies, the DHS Science and Technology Directorate is hosting invite-only field trials in Arizona to be held in August of this year. 

      The government is interested in the following capabilities:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      DHS will award cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) following the August demonstrations. 

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 21st June 2019

    • China Says Ex-Interpol Chief Confessed To Accepting $2 Million In Bribes

      China claims that former Interpol President Meng Hongwei admitted to accepting over $2 million in bribes, and has expressed regret according to a Chinese court in the northeastern port city of Tianjin. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      On Thursday, the No. 1 Intermediate Court read Hongwei’s confession aloud, assuring a conviction according to the Associated Press

      Admitting guilt and expressing regret can result in slightly lighter punishment, although China has been quick to hand out life sentences as it cracks down on corruption and political disloyalty under a campaign run directly by the president and head of the ruling Communist Party, Xi Jinping.

      Meng, who was elected president of the international police organization in 2016, disappeared into custody while visiting China from France at the end of September. Interpol was not informed of Meng’s detention and was forced to ask China about his whereabouts. –Associated Press

      According to the Tianjin court, Meng curried favor in exchange for bribes throughout his positions – including as a vice minister of public security as well as maritime police chief. The 65-year-old was shown on television dressed in a plain brown windbreaker, and appeared older and more grey than in previous photographs. His wife, Grace, continues to reside in France where Meng was stationed while working at the Lyon-based Interpol. She has accused Chinese authorities of cooking up a “fake case” against her husband for political reasons, and questions whether he is even still alive – suggesting she isn’t certain the person who appeared on TV was actually her husband. 

      “I love him, trust him, respect him and am proud of him,” Grace Meng told AP. “No matter how they insult him or frame him, they can’t change the facts: He is worthy of his motherland, worthy of police honor, and worthy of the people who love him,” adding “The international community will know the truth.”

      Shortly before Meng’s disappearance, Grace says that her husband sent her an emoji of a knife. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Grace Meng said she believes that sending the image was her husband’s way of trying to tell her that he was in danger

      She added that she has had no further contact with him since the message was sent on 25 September. 

      Ms Meng also said that four minutes before Mr Meng shared the image, he sent a message saying “wait for my call”. –Independent

      Some suspect that Meng fell out of political favor with Chinese president Xi Jinping, who has been on a ‘corruption hunt’ that some say has been a calculated effort to get rid of those who might challenge his authority.  

    • Why The Swiss Voted For More Gun Control

      Authored by José Niño via The Mises Institute,

      On May 19, 2019, Swiss voters approved a new set of gun control restrictions. This newly-approved gun control measure would put Switzerland’s gun control laws in line with European Union standards. Under this new law, military-style, semi-automatic weapons would be heavily restricted, while also tightening up gun registration standards. A few exemptions were made forparticipants in shooting sports who will still be able to nominally exercise their right to own arms without going through many more hurdles.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Those in the international gun community expressed concern after this vote, where Swiss voters resoundinglycast their ballots in favor of these new regulations by a 64-36 percent margin. Switzerland is commonly viewed as having relatively pro-gun laws similar to countries like the United States, so it’s generally used as an international example for the feasibility of civilian firearms ownership. Proponents of the right to self-defense have every reason to be worried, but this vote has implications that go beyond gun rights.

      The European Firearms Directive

      According to Claudio Grass, a frequent contributor at Mises based in Switzerland, and Dimitrios Papadopoulos, an officer in the Swiss militia, 80 percent of shooters in Switzerland use semi-automatic weapons, which will effectively be prohibited under this new directive. The only way people can acquire the newly prohibited weapons is through an exemption where the prospective gun owner declares himself to be a sports marksman. The only proof that he needs to provide is that he was shooting at least five times within a five-year timespan. Whether this exception will be maintained in the future is unknown, as the EU announced further restrictions and the Swiss law will have to adopt these, too, according to the Schengen treaty.

      The Militia Origins of Switzerland’s Gun Culture

      Switzerland has a militia tradition dating back to the Middle Ages. Unlike other European countries during the period, Swiss cantons did not have nobility systems. Thus, defense and security were provided by villages and citizens themselves. One caveat to note is that military service is compulsory in Switzerland for healthy Swiss male citizens.

      Servicemen in Switzerland receive a SIG550 assault rifle or a SIG P220 pistol and are required to keep their firearms at home as long as they are enlisted. After serving, veterans can keep these weapons, however, the automatic and burst-fire functions of the SIG550 must be disabled. Military service in Switzerland is inextricably tied to marksmanship, with servicemen having to go to the shooting range once a year to demonstrate their shooting chops. The SIG550 and SIG510 are the preferred rifles of choice for shooting sports and also for civilians in Switzerland. However, under the new EU Directive, the SIG550 and SIG510 have been reclassified as “prohibited” weapons even though the Swiss government issues about 20,000 of these weapons to recruits every year.

      The Decentralized Approach to Gun Control in Switzerland

      Cantons still handle all weapons permitting in Switzerland, and in fact, there is no centralized bureaucracy for guns in Switzerland. Even though the firearms law is federal, certain cantons have stricter permitting requirements than others. (Although not libertarian, this system does show the benefits of decentralization, where people can choose between competing jurisdictions.)

      In the past, to attain a weapons license in a Swiss canton, one did not have to give local authorities a special reason for why they’re acquiring a firearm. It was only a matter of asking the police of the canton an individual is residing in for a permit — a “Waffenerwerbsschein.” Authorities are obliged to grant a permit unless the person applying has a glaring criminal record, mental health issues, or other pertinent indicators of being dangerous. Once obtained, the firearm cannot be confiscated except for extreme circumstances in which the person presents an immediate threat to others.

      However, this new EU directive now requires that all military-style, semi-automatic weapons used by Swiss marksmen and serviceman be re-classified as “prohibited weapons.” In other words, these semi-automatic firearms fall under the same category as machine guns and fully automatic weapons which require an “Ausnahmebewilligung” (exception permit) to attain. In these cases, authorities have more discretion in rejecting potential applicants. A prospective gun owner would have to justify his reasons for owning a gun and fully document that they are not criminals.

      This New Gun Control Scheme Threatens Swiss Sovereignty

      Grass and Papadopoulos highlight that the EU directive could lead to potential gun control micromanagement by the EU, as it now will be confident in knowing that Swiss voters will comply with any of its threats when it decides to pressure the country into accepting its pet policies.

      Papadopoulos makes a candid assertion that strikes at the heart of this debate:

      What is particularly scary is that the whole argument for the new law was not really about saving lives or reducing gun violence, but rather focused on Brussels ordering Switzerland to modify gun laws to comply with EU gun control standards. Failure to do so could lead to a potential expulsion from the Schengen Agreement. We did not vote on a subject but on avoiding potential punishment by Brussels.

      The Swiss value neutrality as evidenced by their decision to stay out of the EU. However, Switzerland is a member of the Schengen Area which was established by the Schengen Agreement in 1985. Countries within the Schengen Area have abolished all passport and border controls at their mutual borders. Given their membership in the Schengen Area, non-EU members such as Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein must comply with certain EU Laws. In 2017, when the EU expanded firearms restrictions in light of mass shootings in Paris, it became clear that this standard was about to be extended to the non-EU members of the Schengen Area.

      Switzerland was originally given an August 2018 deadline to implement these changes, which the Swiss parliament decided to implement. This decision generated backlash among gun and other right-wing groups such as the Swiss People’s Party. In response, they immediately wanted to take this issue to the ballot. One of the most outspoken figures in right-wing politics in Switzerland, Christoph Blocher, went on record saying that Switzerland should consider leaving the Schengen system of passport-free travel if Swiss voters reject this gun control proposal at the polls.

      The European Union was clever in dangling the carrot of the Schengen Agreement while also wielding the gun control stick, which was enough to get Swiss voters to comply with EU gun regulations. Had voters not approved this ordinance, the EU may have taken more punitive alternatives to break Swiss sovereignty.

      Switzerland Should Resist the Temptation of Centralization

      What has made Switzerland truly exceptional among countries, is its decentralized approach to governance, which has effectively depoliticized it, unlike other traditional states in the EU and North America, which are mired in identity politics, welfarism, or militarism of some sort. Switzerland offers a pragmatic alternative that many of Europe’s budding separatist movements can look at as an example.

      More than just Switzerland capitulating to gun control, this referendum demonstrates the EU’s universalistic vision for the European continent. There’s a good reason to believe that this won’t be the last time that the EU will coax Switzerland into accepting other top-down schemes. If Switzerland wants to remain Europe’s most decentralized state, it will have to stand up against Brussels in future battles. Not doing so, will put it on the path of being another lifeless political appendage of the EU superstate.

    • North Korea Missiles Lack Capability To Strike US, Top General Says

      A top American general has given an assessment which downgrades North Korean nuclear warhead delivery capability, saying Pyongyang has only made minimal advances, but doesn’t yet possess capability of hitting the American mainland, contrary to recent North Korean claims.

      General Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – the US’s number 2 military official, said in an interview that, “Probably the only thing they’ve advanced is their understanding of mixing and fabrication of solid-rocket fuel,” which helps with more rapid reloading of mobile missiles.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A 2016 North Korean intermediate range ballistic missile test launch. Image source: KCNA via Reuters.

      Gen. Selva’s comments were in reference to North Korea’s controversial tests of short-range systems in May and and were made just ahead of China’s President Xi Jinping’s visit to Pyongyang to discussed the stalled nuclear issue with Kim Jong Un.

      Per Bloomberg, Selva said that:

      Short-range missile tests aren’t subjected to “the dynamic forces that are put on” a reentry vehicle that carries a warhead “over a longer distance.” He explained, “they’re going to have to launch one at some distance to actually get that kind of the heat and the twisting forces.”

      He concluded that, “I have seen no indication that they’ve done that kind of work” — throwing cold water on Kim’s prior 2018 New Year speech claim that his rockets could strike “anywhere in the US”.

      Despite no reported intercontinental ballistic missile test since November 2017, something the White House has cited as a success in its engagement efforts, a May 2018 report delivered to Congress by Pentagon leaders found that “North Korea is committed to developing a nuclear-armed ICBM that is capable of posing a direct threat to the United States.” 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Via Bloomberg

      Meanwhile, President Xi and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are meeting in Pyongyang Thursday after Xi became the first Chinese leader in 14 years to visit North Korea. And although nobody could say for sure what the two would be discussing, most believed that their mutual difficulties with Washington would likely be on the agenda.

    • Escobar: Brazilgate Is Turning Into Russiagate 2.0

      Authored by Pepe Escobar via ConsortiumNews.com,

      The Intercept‘s bombshell about Brazilian corruption is being ludicrously spun by the country’s media and military as a “Russian conspiracy”…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      It was a leak, not a hack. Yes: Brazilgate, unleashed by a series of game-changing bombshells published by The Intercept, may be turning into a tropical Russiagate.

      The Intercept’s Deep Throat – an anonymous source — has finally revealed in detail what anyone with half a brain in Brazil already knew: that the judicial/lawfare machinery of the one-sided Car Wash anti-corruption investigation was in fact a massive farce and criminal racket bent on accomplishing four objectives.

      • Create the conditions for the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff in 2016 and the subsequent ascension of her VP, elite-manipulated puppet, Michel Temer.

      •  Justify the imprisonment of former president Lula in 2018 – just as he was set to win the latest presidential election in a landslide. 

      • Facilitate the ascension of the Brazilian extreme-right via Steve Bannon asset (he calls him “Captain”) Jair Bolsonaro.

      • Install former judge Sergio Moro as a justice minister on steroids capable of enacting a sort of Brazilian Patriot Act – heavy on espionage and light on civil liberties.

      Moro, side by side with prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol, who was leading the Public Ministry’s 13-strong task force, are the vigilante stars of the lawfare racket. Over the past four years, hyper-concentrated Brazilian mainstream media, floundering in a swamp of fake news, duly glorified these two as Captain Marvel-worthy national heroes. Hubris finally caught up with the swamp.

      The Brazilian Goodfellas

      The Intercept has promised to release all the files in its possession; chats, audio, videos and pics, a treasure trove allegedly larger than Snowden’s. What has been published so far reveals Moro/Dallagnol as a strategic duo in synch, with Moro as a capo di tutti i capi, judge, jury and executioner rolled into one – replete with serial fabrications of evidence. This, in itself, is enough to nullify all the Car Wash cases in which he was involved – including Lula’s prosecution and successive convictions based on “evidence” that would never hold up in a serious court.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Moro: Installed as justice minister.
      (Wikipedia/Marcos Oliveira/Agência Senado.)

      In conjunction with a wealth of gory details, the Twin Peaks principle — the owls are not what they seem — fully applies to Brazilgate. Because the genesis of Car Wash involves none other than the United States government (USG). And not only the Department of Justice (DoJ) – as Lula has been stressing for years in every one of his interviews. The op was Deep State at its lowest.

      WikiLeaks had already revealed itfrom the start, when the NSA started spying on energy giant Petrobras and even Rousseff’s smart phone. In parallel, countless nations and individuals have learned how the DoJ’s self-attributed extraterritoriality allows it to go after anyone, anyhow, anywhere.

      It has never been about anti-corruption. Instead this is American “justice” interfering in the full geopolitical and geo-economic spheres. The most glaring, recent case, is Huawei’s.

      Yet Mafiosi Moro/Dallagnol’s “malign behavior” (to invoke Pentagonese) reached a perverse new level in destroying the national economy of a powerful emerging nation, a BRICS member and acknowledged leader across the Global South.

      Car Wash ravaged the chain of energy production in Brazil, which in turn generated the sale – below market prizes – of plenty of valuable pre-salt oil reserves, the biggest oil discovery of the 21stcentury.

      Car Wash destroyed Brazilian national champions in engineering and civil construction as well as aeronautics (as in Boeing buying Embraer). And Car Wash fatally compromised important national security projects such as the construction of nuclear submarines,

      essential for the protection of the “Blue Amazon”.

      For the Council of Americas – which Bolsonaro visited back in 2017 – as well as the Council on Foreign Relations—not to mention the “foreign investors”–to have neoliberal Chicago boy Paulo Guedes installed as finance minister was a wet dream. Guedes promised on the record to virtually put all of Brazil for sale. So far, his stint has been an unmitigated failure.

      How to Wag the Dog

      Mafiosi Moro/Dallagnol were “only a pawn in their game,” to quote Bob Dylan– a game both were oblivious to.

      Lula has repeatedly stressed that the key question – for Brazil and the Global South – is sovereignty. Under Bolsonaro, Brazil has been reduced to the status of a banana neo-colony – with plenty of bananas. Leonardo Attuch, editor of the leading portal Brasil247, says “the plan was to destroy Lula, but what was destroyed was the nation.”

      As it stands, the BRICS – a very dirty word in the Beltway – have lost their “B”. As much as they may treasure Brazil in Beijing and Moscow, what is delivering for the moment is the “RC” strategic partnership, although Putin and Xi are also doing their best to revive “RIC”, trying to show India’s Modi that Eurasian integration is the way to go, not playing a supporting role in Washington’s fuzzy Indo-Pacific strategy.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Dallagnol: Serial fabricator. (Wikimedia Commons/José Cruz/Agência Brasil)

      And that brings us to the heart of the Brazilgate matter: how Brazil is the coveted prize in the master strategic narrative that conditions everything happening in the geopolitical chessboard for the foreseeable future—the no-holds-barred confrontation between the U.S. and Russia-China.

      Already in the Obama era, the U.S. Deep State had identified that to cripple BRICS from the inside, the “weak” strategic node was Brazil. And yes; once again it’s the oil, stupid.

      Brazil’s pre-salt oil reserves may be worth as much as a staggering $30 trillion. The point is not only that the USG wants a piece of the action; the point is how controlling most of Brazil’s oil ties up with interfering with powerful agribusiness interests. For the Deep State, control of Brazil’s oil flow to agribusiness equals containment/leverage against China.

      The U.S., Brazil and Argentina, together, produce 82 percent of the world’s soybeans – and counting. China craves soybeans. These won’t come from Russia or Iran – which on the other hand may supply China with enough oil and natural gas (see, for instance, Power of Siberia I and II). Iran, after all, is one of the pillars of Eurasian integration. Russia may eventually become a soybean export power, but that may take as long as ten years.

      The Brazilian military knows that close relations with China – their top trade partner, ahead of the U.S. — are essential, whatever Steve Bannon may rant about. But Russia is a completely different story. Vice-President Hamilton Mourao, in his recent visit to Beijing, where he met with Xi Jinping, sounded like he was reading from a Pentagon press release, telling Brazilian media that Russia is a “malign actor” deploying “hybrid war around the world.”

      So the U.S. Deep State may be accomplishing at least part of the ultimate goal: to use Brazil in its Divide et Impera strategy of splitting the Russia-China strategic partnership.

      It gets much spicier. Car Wash reconditioned as Leak Wash could also be decoded as a massive shadow play; a wag the dog, with the tail composed of two American assets.

      Moro was a certified FBI, CIA, DoJ, Deep State asset. His uber-boss would ultimately be Robert Mueller (thus Russiagate). Yet for Team Trump, he would be easily expendable – even if he’s Captain Justice working under the real asset, Bannon boy Bolsonaro. If he falls, Moro would be assured the requisite golden parachute – complete with U.S. residency and talks in American universities.

      The Intercept’s Greenwald is now celebrated by all strands of the Left as a sort of American/Brazilian Simon Bolivar on steroids – with and in may cases without any irony. Yet there’s a huge problem. The Intercept is owned by hardcore information-war practitioner Pierre Omidyar.

      Whose Hybrid War?

      The crucial question ahead is what the Brazilian military are really up to in this epic swamp – and how deep they are subordinated to Washington’s Divide et Impera.

      It revolves around the all-powerful Cabinet of Institutional Security, known in Brazil by its acronym GSI. GSI stalwarts are all Washington consensus. After the “communist” Lula/Dilma years, these guys are now consolidating a Brazilian Deep State overseeing full spectrum political control, just like in the U.S..

      GSI already controls the whole intel apparatus, as well as Foreign Policy and Defense, via a decree surreptitiously released in early June, only a few days before The Intercept’s bombshell. Even Captain Marvel Moro is subjected to the GSI; they must approve, for instance, everything Moro discusses with the DoJ and the U.S. Deep State.

      As I’ve discussed with some of my top informed Brazilian interlocutors, crack anthropologist Piero Leirner, who knows in detail how the military think, and Swiss-based international lawyer and UN adviser Romulus Maya, the U.S. Deep Stateseems to be positioning itself as the spawning mechanism for the direct ascension of the Brazilian military to power, as well as their guarantors. As in, if you don’t follow our script to the letter – basic trade relations only with China; and isolation of Russia – we can swing the pendulum anytime.

      After all, the only practical role the USG would see for the Brazilian military – in fact for all Latin America military – is as “war on drugs” shock troops.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Intercept Exclusive: Brazilian Judge in Car Wash Corruption Case Mocked Lula’s Defense and Secretly Directed Prosecutors’ Media Strategy During Trial.

      There is no smoking gun – yet. But the scenario of Leak Wash as part of an extremely sophisticated, full spectrum dominance psyops, an advanced stage of Hybrid War, must be seriously considered.

      For instance, the extreme-right, as well as powerful military sectors and the Globo media empire suddenly started spinning that The Intercept bombshell is a “Russian conspiracy.”

      When one follows the premier military think tank website– featuring loads of stuff virtually copy and pasted straight from the U.S. Naval War College – it’s easy to be startled at how they fervently believe in a Russia-China Hybrid War against Brazil, where the beachhead is provided by “anti-national elements” such as the Left as a whole, Venezuelan Bolivarians, FARC, Hezbollah, LGBT, indigenous peoples, you name it.

      After Leak Wash, a concerted fake news blitzkrieg blamed the Telegram app (“they are evil Russians!”) for hacking Moro and Dallagnol’s phones. Telegram officially debunked it in no time.

      Then it surfaced that former president Dilma Rousseff and the current Workers’ Party president Gleisi Hoffmann paid a “secret” visit to Moscow only five days before the Leak Wash bombshell. I confirmed the visit with the Duma, as well as the fact that for the Kremlin, Brazil, at least for the moment, is not a priority. Eurasian integration is. That in itself debunks what the extreme-right in Brazil would spin as Dilma asking for Putin’s help, who then released his evil hackers.

      Leak Wash – Car Wash’s season two – may be following the Netflix and HBO pattern. Remember that season three of True Detective was an absolute smash. We need Mahershala Ali-worthy trackers to sniff out patches of evidence suggesting the Brazilian military – with the full support of the U.S. Deep State – might be instrumentalizing a mix of Leak Wash and “the Russians” Hybrid War to criminalize the Left for good and orchestrate a silent coup to get rid of the Bolsonaro clan and their sub-zoology collective IQ. They want total control – no clownish intermediaries. Will they be biting more bananas than they can chew?

    • Visualizing The World's 100 Most Valuable Brands In 2019

      Brand equity can be a challenging thing to build.

      Even with access to deep pockets and an innovative product, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, it can take decades of grit to scrape your way into the mainstream consciousness of consumers.

      On the path to becoming established as a globally significant brand, companies must fight through fierce competition, publicity scandals, changing regulations, and rapidly-evolving consumer tastes – all to take a bite from the same piece of pie.

      Cream of the Crop

      Today’s visualization comes to us from HowMuch.net, and it showcases the 100 most valuable brands in the world, according to Forbes.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Here are the powerful brands that sit at the very top of the list:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      It should be noted that the list is ordered by brand value, a measure that tries to calculate each brand’s ultimate contribution in financial terms to the parent company. You can see that full methodology here.

      Finally, it’s also worth mentioning that brands with only a token representation in the United States have been excluded from the rankings. This means companies like Alibaba or Vodafone are not represented in this particular visualization.

      Tech Rules Again in 2019

      For another straight year, technology dominates the list of the 100 most valuable brands in 2019 – this time, with six of the top seven entries.

      Most of these brands saw double-digit growth in value from the previous year, including Apple (12%), Google (27%), Amazon (37%), Microsoft (20%), and Samsung (11%). The one notable exception here is Facebook, which experienced a 6% drop in value attributed to various strugglesaround the company’s reputation.

      Here’s a look at how industries break down more generally on the list:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As you can see, technology brands make up 20% of the list in terms of the number of entries – and a whopping 43% of the list’s cumulative valuation.

      In total, technologies brands combined for $957.6 billion in value. Even when including Facebook’s recent drop, this is an impressive 9.7% increase on last year’s numbers.

      Will the double-digit increases for the world’s largest tech giants continue into 2020, or are brands such as Amazon and Google going to start seeing the same type of pushback that Facebook has grappled with among consumers and regulators?

    • Washington's Dr. Strangeloves

      Authored by Stephen Cohen via TheNation.com,

      Is plunging Russia into darkness really a good idea?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Occasionally, a revelatory, and profoundly alarming, article passes almost unnoticed, even when published on the front page of The New York Times. Such was the case with reporting by David E. Sanger and Nicole Perlroth, bearing the Strangelovian title “U.S. Buries Digital Land Mines to Menace Russia’s Power Grid,” which appeared in the print edition on June 16. The article contained two revelations.

      First, according to Sanger and Perlroth, with my ellipses duly noted, The United States is stepping up digital incursions into Russia’s electric power grid . . . . Advocates of the more aggressive strategy said it was long overdue . . . ” The operation “carries significant risk of escalating the daily digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow.” Though under way at least since 2012, “now the American strategy has shifted more toward offense . . . with the placement of potentially crippling malware inside the Russian system at a depth and with an aggressiveness that had never been tried before.” At this point, the Times reporters add an Orwellian touch. The head of the U.S. Cyber Command characterizes the assault on Russia’s grid, which affects everything from the country’s water supply, medical services, and transportation to control over its nuclear weapons, as “the need to ‘defend forward,’” because “they don’t fear us.”

      Nowhere do Sanger and Perlroth seem alarmed by the implicit risks of this “defend forward” attack on the infrastructure of the other nuclear superpower. Indeed, they wonder, “Whether it would be possible to plunge Russia into darkness . . . ” And toward the end, they quote an American lawyer and former Obama official, whose expertise on the matter is unclear, to assure readers sanguinely, “We might have to risk taking some broken bones of our own from a counter response . . . . Sometimes you have to take a bloody nose to not take a bullet in the head down the road.”  The “broken bones,” “bloody nose,” and “bullet” are, of course, metaphorical references to the potential consequences of nuclear war. 

      The second revelation comes midway in the Times story: “[President] Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place ‘implants’ . . . inside the Russian grid” because “he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials.” (Indeed, Trump issued an angry tweet when he saw the Times report, though leaving unclear which part of it most aroused his anger.)

      What is the significance of this story, apart from what it tells us about the graver dangers of the new US-Russian Cold War, which now includes, we are informed, a uniquely fraught “digital Cold War”? Not so long ago, mainstream liberal Democrats, and the Times itself, would have been outraged by revelations that defense and intelligence officials were making such existential policy behind the back of a president. No longer, it seems. There have been no liberal, Democratic, or for the most part any other, mainstream protests, but instead a lawyerly apologia justifying the intelligence-defense operation without the president’s knowledge.

      The political significance, however, seems clear enough. The leak to the Times and the paper’s publication of the article come in the run-up to a scheduled meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 meeting in Japan on June 28–29. Both leaders had recently expressed hope for improved US-Russian relations. On May 4, Trump again tweeted his longstanding aspiration for a “good/great relationship with Russia”; and this month Putin lamented that relations “are getting worse and worse” but hoped that he and Trump could move their countries beyond “the games played by intelligence services.”

      As I have often emphasized, the long historical struggle for American-Russian (Soviet and post-Soviet) détente, or broad cooperation, has featured many acts of attempted sabotage on both sides, though most often by US intelligence and defense agencies. Readers may recall the Eisenhower-Khrushchev summit meeting that was to take place in Paris in 1960, but which was aborted by the Soviet shoot-down of a US spy plane over the Soviet Union, an intrusive flight apparently not authorized by President Eisenhower. And more recently, the 2016 plan by then President Obama and Putin for US-Russian cooperation in Syria, which was aborted by a Department of Defense attack on Russian-backed Syrian troops.

      Now the sabotaging of détente appears be happening again. As the Times article makes clear, Washington’s war party, or perhaps zealous Cold War party, referred to euphemistically by Sanger and Perlroth as “advocates of the more aggressive strategy,” is on the move. Certainly, Trump has been repeatedly thwarted in his previous détente attempts, primarily by discredited Russiagate allegations that continue to be promoted by the war party even though they still lack any evidential basis. (It may also be recalled that his previous summit meeting with Putin was widely and shamefully assailed as “treason” by influential segments of the US political-media establishment.)

      Détente with Russia has always been a fiercely opposed, crisis-ridden policy pursuit, but one manifestly in the interests of the United States and the world. No American president can achieve it without substantial bipartisan support at home, which Trump manifestly lacks. What kind of catastrophe will it take—in Ukraine, the Baltic region, Syria, or somewhere on Russia’s electric grid—to shock US Democrats and others out of what has been called, not unreasonably, their Trump Derangement Syndrome, particularly in the realm of American national security? Meanwhile, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has recently reset its Doomsday Clock to two minutes before midnight.

    • Here Are The Most Debt-Ridden Places In California 

      A new report from LendingTree analyzed thousands of MyLendingTree users’ anonymized credit reports in 165 metropolitan cities across California reveals the most debt-ridden places in the state.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      LendingTree found the highest median non-mortgage debt was located in Southern California (SoCal). About 60% of the top 25 cities with the highest non-mortgage debt were located in SoCal cities.

      Temecula, a city in SoCal, is the most debt-ridden city in the sate. Its residents had approximately $30,100 in debt, with 41% of their debt linked to auto loans.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Residents of SoCal have some of the highest non-mortgage debt in the state. In Hanford, residents typically had 50% of the non-mortgage debt in auto loans.

      La Mesa, a city in SoCal, located 9 miles east of Downtown San Diego in San Diego County, was found to have the most amount of student loan debt than any other city in the state, at 28%, totaling $10,504 per resident.

      Student loan debt was the largest share of non-mortgage debt in 19 California cities. Berkeley was one of the least indebted California cities (No.156); nearly half of the non-mortgage debt carried by a resident was student loan related.

      Non-revolving credit, i.e., credit card, was a top source of debt in only eight of the cities.

      Across all cities, credit card and student debt was about 50% of the consumers’ debt portfolio. About 86% of Californians carried a credit card balance, while 19% had student debt.

      Santa Cruz, a city on central California’s coast, had the least amount of non-mortgage debt among residents on average was $8,563.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Los Angeles, the largest California city, ranked no. 135 for median non-mortgage debt amount. San Jose was at no. 137, San Francisco ranked no. 157, and San Diego ranked no. 77.

      Besides Santa Cruz and San Jose, residents in Palo Alto, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale, also carried some of lightest non-mortgage debt.

      And with the US economy cycling down through the summer, the probabilities for a recession in 1H20 have been surging. Californians are in no way shape or form prepared for the next downturn.

    • Stockman: America Last – The Real Meaning Of Trump's Deplorable Aggression Against Iran

      Authored by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

      In the present era of 24/7 “breaking news”, the journalistic information intermediated by the internet and the cable networks has largely been reduced to noise, devoid of signal. Or at least any historical context beyond the here and now.

      The currently threatened escalation of Washington’s economic war on Iran into an actual shooting war is a fraught case in point. Based on the news coverage since the two oil tankers were damaged yesterday you’d think that a crew of bloody-minded aggressors in Tehran had up and decided out of the blue to attack the whole world via disrupting its 18 million barrel per day oil lifeline through the Straits of Hormuz.

      The truth of the matter, however, is just the opposite. The blatant aggressor is Washington and the dangerous confrontation now unfolding is utterly unnecessary.

      That’s the foundational reality, and it’s far more important to understand than the momentary disputation about whether the Japanese oil tanker got hit by an Iranian mine or incoming projectile of uncertain origin.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Indeed, the Bombzie Twins, Pompeo and Bolton, have been in such heavy war heat for years that you can virtually bet when the dust settles the following false flags and manufactured pretexts for war per Max Blumenthal will have a Gulf of Oman coda:

      Remember the Maine, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Kuwaiti incubator babies, Saddam’s WMD’s, Qaddafi soldiers’ Viagra spree, Last Messages From Aleppo, Douma, burning aid on Colombia-Venezuela bridge…. and now today’s attacks in the Gulf of Oman.

      So whatever deliberate or accidental incident may next materialize on the Persian Gulf waters, the truth is that it will happen because:

      the US 5th Fleet naval and air war machine is all over the Gulf and it shouldn’t even be there; and,

      Washington has blatantly attacked Iran via crushing economic sanctions designed to close the entire global market to its oil exports and suffocate its domestic economy to the point of collapse – yet Iran is zero threat to the security of the American homeland, and, for that matter, Europe and Asia as well.

      That’s right. Iran has no blue water Navy that could even get to the Atlantic and only 18,000 sailors including everyone from admirals to medics; an aging, decrepit fleet of war planes with no long range flight or refueling capabilities; ballistic missiles that mainly have a range of under 800 miles; a very limited air defense based on a Russian supplied S-300 system (not the far more capable S-400); and a land Army of less than 350,000 or approximately the size of that of Myanmar.

      Indeed, Iran’s defense budget of less than $15 billion amounts to just 7 days of spending compared to the Pentagon’s $750 billion; and it is actually far less even in nominal terms than Iran’s military budget under the Shah way back in the late 1970’s.

      In inflation-adjusted dollars, Iran’s military expenditure today is less than 25% of the level prior to the Revolution. Whatever the foibles of today’s Iranian theocratic state, a thriving military power it is not.

      Iran’s Military Budget In US Dollars (millions)

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In fact, that’s the real irony. Mostly what comprises the core of Iran air force is left over 40-50 year-old planes that had been purchased from the US under the Shah, and which have been Jerry-rigged with bailing wire and bubble gum to stay aloft and to accommodate some modest avionics and armaments modernizations.

      As one analyst further noted, some of its planes were actually gifts from Saddam Hussein!

      Much of the IRIAF’s equipment dates back to the Shah era, or is left over from Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi air force, which flew many of its planes to Iran during the 1991 Persian Gulf War to avoid destruction. American-made F-4, F-5 and F-14 fighters dating from the 1970s remain the backbone of the Iranian air force.

      So military threat has absolutely nothing to do with it. Washington is knee deep in harms’ way and on the verge of starting a war with Iran solely on account of a misguided notion that the Persian Gulf is an American Lake that needs to be policed by the US Navy; and, more crucially, that Washington has the right to control Iran’s foreign policy and determine what alliances it may and may not have in the region – including whether or not they pass muster with Bibi Netanyahu.

      Stated differently, the missions of protecting the oil supply lines and regulating the foreign policy of what amounts to a two-bit economic power is straight out of the playbook of Empire First. As such, it amounts to a foolish policy of putting America’s actual security last.

      The fact is, Iran doesn’t even matter in the context of an $80 trillion global economy.

      Its GDP of $450 billion (and shrinking fast under Washington’s oil embargo) amounts to just 0.6% of world output. Moreover, that’s well smaller than Argentina ($650 billion), Sweden ($535 billion), Belgium ($500 billion) and Thailand ($455 billion); and really it is not much larger than Austria ($420 billion), Norway ($400 billion) or even Nigeria ($375 billion).

      None of these countries can threaten America’s homeland security or even world peace – regardless of whatever mischief might be attributable to their foreign policies. That is, the world doesn’t need an Empire to keep the small fry of the likes of Iran and its economic peers in line.

      In the current instance that admonition includes whether Iran chooses to ally with and provide aid to its Shiite confessional brethren in Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah-Lebanon or the Houthis government of northern Yemen.

      Every one of these entities are either sovereign governments or major political forces based on popular support, as we detail below, and have every right to invite the assistance of Tehran. To therefore describe them as terrorist proxies for the Iranians is the height of Imperial arrogance.

      As to the American Lake rationale, Washington obviously has that upside down. In a world unencumbered by Washington’s pretensions to Empire, Iran would be a beneficent helpmate to the global oil market and economy and the number# 1 source of production stability among the producers in the region.

      That’s because unlike Saudi Arabia and the lesser gulf oil kingdoms which can afford to hoard their reserves, Iran is inherently motivated to produce every barrel of oil it can economically extract – given that its 80 million population desperately needs the income.

      As is evident in the chart below, during recent times it has produced about 4 million barrels per day – a figure that was sharply reduced during the Obama sanctions period of 2013-2015. But the recovery back to 4 million barrels per day after Iran implemented all of its commitments under the nuke deal has again been reversed owing to the brutal sanctions imposed when Trump withdrew from that agreement entirely on the basis of regional politics, not violations of its terms.

      Moreover, it is now about to get worse because most of the temporary exemptions from the oil embargo expired last month when Iran exported roughly 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) and produced a total of 2.4 million bpd, with the balance going into domestic use.

      It is now anticipated that exports will be forced down to less than 600,000 barrels per day owing to Washington relentless pressure campaign on every port in the world that dares to accept Iranian tankers, and that total production will drop below 2 million bpd.

      It also happens that Iran has about 160 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, which puts it right behind Canada (170 billion barrels), Saudi Arabia (266 billion barrels) and Venezuela (300 billion barrels of mostly heavy oil) in the global league tables.

      That’s relevant because in a world free of Washington hegemonic impositions, global capital would flow to Iran’s oilfields massively. It therefore has the potential to take production from its ample and drastically underdeveloped reserves to 6 million bpd or even 8 million bpd with sufficient investment and world-class technology.

      So even if you accept protection and stabilization of oil production in the Persian Gulf as a legitimate aim of policy, which it is not as explained below, Washington’s economic war on Iran has it ass-backwards. In the great geo-political/economic scheme of things, Iran is the natural force for maximum production owing to the aspirations of its very large and reasonably well-educated population.

      To wit, the GDP per capita of Iran is about $5,500 compared to $21,500 per capita in Saudi Arabia. Were Iran to achieve per capita income parity, it would need a GDP of $1.7 trillion, not $450 billion, and that would take a pretty hefty oil and energy investment boom and full throttle production to bring about.

      What we are saying is that there is not really need for a policeman in the Persian Gulf in the first place. If Iran were not threatened by Washington it would produce all it could and would have no reason whatsoever to interfere with commerce and shipping through the straits of Hormuz.

      But none of the gulf kingdoms can afford to disrupt production for political or military purposes, either. That is to say, without abundant oil revenues to placate their powerless but large populations (50 million people in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait are ruled and plundered by a few thousand princes and their armies of retainers), the princes and royals would all be living in Switzerland, anyway.

      At the end of the day, the whole misbegotten notion that oil security in the Persian Gulf requires the presence of the 5th Fleet is a left over canard from the Cold War, which ended 29 years ago. The 1970s theory of Kissinger and his team of hegemonists was that the dying Soviet Union was on the verge of pushing into the Persian Gulf from the north.

      Needless to say, it never had the military capacity or economic resources to accomplish that feat, and the now open Soviet archives show that there wasn’t even a paper plan to do so.

      Iran Oil Production (000 barrels per day)

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      So at the root of today’s total unnecessary military clash in the Persian Gulf is the long-standing Washington error that America’s security and economic well-being depends upon keeping an armada there in order to protect the surrounding oilfields and the flow of tankers through the straits of Hormuz.

      That doctrine has been wrong from the day it was officially enunciated by one of America’s great economic ignoramuses, Henry Kissinger, at the time of the original oil crisis in 1973. The 46 years since then have proven in spades that it doesn’t matter who controls the oilfields, and that the only effective cure for high oil prices is the free market.

      Every tin pot dictatorship – from Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to Saddam Hussein, to the bloody-minded chieftains of Nigeria, to the purportedly medieval Mullahs and especially the Revolutionary Guards of Iran – has produced oil. And usually all the oil they could because almost always they desperately needed the revenue.

      For crying out loud, even the barbaric thugs of ISIS milked every possible drop of petroleum from the tiny, wheezing oilfields scattered around their backwater domain before they were finally driven out. So there is no economic case whatsoever for Imperial Washington’s massive military presence in the middle east or for talking sides among the local powers.

      The truth is, there is no such thing as an OPEC cartel – virtually every member produces all they can and cheats whenever possible. The only thing that resembles production control in the global oil market is the fact that the Saudi princes treat their oil reserves not much differently than Exxon.

      That is, they attempt to maximize the present value of their 270 billion barrels of reserves. Yet ultimately they are no more clairvoyant at calibrating the best oil price to accomplish that objective at any given time than are the economists employed by Exxon, the DOE or the International Energy Agency.

      For instance, during the run-up to the late 2014 collapse of the world oil price, the Saudis overestimated the staying power of China’s temporarily surging call on global supply.

      At the same time, they badly underestimated how rapidly and extensively the $100 per barrel marker reached in early 2008 would trigger a flow of investment, technology and cheap debt into alternative sources of supply. That is, the US shale patch, the Canadian tar sands, the tired petroleum provinces of Russia, the deep offshore of Brazil etc. – to say nothing of solar, wind and all the other government subsidized alternative source of BTUs.

      Way back when Jimmy Carter was telling us to turn down the thermostats and put on our cardigan sweaters, those of us on the free market side of the so-called energy shortage debate said high oil prices are their own best cure. Now we know for sure.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      To wit, the Fifth Fleet and its overt and covert auxiliaries should never have been in the Persian Gulf and it environs. And we mean from the very beginning – going all the way back to the CIA’s coup against Iranian democracy in 1953 that was aimed at protecting the oilfields from nationalization.

      But having turned Iran into an enemy, Imperial Washington was just getting started, When 1990 rolled around the American Lake theory got a new lease on life – one that carries down to the stupidity of Washington’s military presence there to this very day.

      Once again in the name of “oil security” it plunged the American war machine into the politics and religious fissures of the Persian Gulf; and did so on account of a local small beans conflict between Iraq and Kuwait that had no bearing whatsoever on the safety and security of American citizens.

      As US ambassador Glaspie rightly told Saddam Hussein on the eve of his Kuwait invasion, America had no dog in that hunt. After all, Kuwait wasn’t even a proper country: It was merely a bank account sitting on a swath of oilfields surrounding an ancient trading city that had been abandoned by Ibn Saud in the early 20th century.

      That’s because the illiterate Bedouin founder of the House of Saud didn’t know what oil was or that it was there; and, in any event, Kuwait had been made a separate protectorate by the British in 1913 for reasons that are lost in the fog of British diplomatic history.

      The Folly of the Bush Clan’s Persian Gulf Wars

      As it happened, Iraq’s contentious dispute with Kuwait was over its claim that the Emir of Kuwait was “slant drilling” across his own border and into Iraq’s Rumaila field. Yet it was a wholly elastic boundary of no significance whatsoever.

      In fact, the dispute over the Rumaila field started in 1960 when an Arab League declaration arbitrarily marked the Iraq–Kuwait border two miles north of the southernmost tip of the Rumaila field.

      Yet there was nothing sacred about that demarcation line. Both of the combatants in the 1990 Iraq/Kuwait war were recently minted artifacts of late-stage European imperialism. That Bush the Elder choose to throw American treasure and blood into the breach is, accordingly, one of the stupidest crimes every committed from the Oval Office.

      The truth is, it didn’t matter who controlled the southern tip of the Rumaila field – the brutal dictator of Baghdad or the opulent Emir of Kuwait. Not the price of oil, nor the peace of America nor the security of Europe nor the peace of the world depended upon it.

      But once again Bush the Elder got persuaded to take the path of war. This time it was by Henry Kissinger’s economically illiterate protégés at the national security council and his Texas oilman Secretary of State. They falsely claimed that the will-o-wisp of “oil security” was at stake, and that 500,000 American troops needed to be planted in the sands of Arabia.

      That was a catastrophic error, and not only because the presence of crusader boots on the purportedly sacred soil of Arabia offended the CIA-trained Mujahedeen of Afghanistan, who had become unemployed when the Soviet Union collapsed. It is the factor that lead Washington into the folly of the Iraq war, the drastic intensification of the historic Sunni/Shiite divide that metastasized in Iraq and then spread to the region via ISIS, and the perpetuation of Washington’s massive military presence in the gulf and its environs.

      Indeed, when you look at the map above you understand why the whole neocon spiel about the so-called Shiite Crescent is to ludicrous. The right spatial metaphor is encirclement, and Iran is the victim, not the aggressor.

      The fact is, the claim that Iran is the expansionist leader of the Shiite Crescent is based on nothing more than the fact that Tehran has an independent foreign policy based on its own interests and confessional affiliations – legitimate relationships that are demonized by virtue of not being approved by Washington.

      Likewise, the official charge that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism is not remotely warranted by the facts: The listing is essentially a State Department favor to the Netanyahu branch of the War Party.

      We can start with Iran’s long-standing support of Bashir Assad’s government in Syria. That alliance that goes back to his father’s era and is rooted in the historic confessional politics of the Islamic world.

      The Assad regime is Alawite, a branch of the Shiite, and despite the regime’s brutality, it has been a bulwark of protection for all of Syria’s minority sects, including Christians, against a majority-Sunni ethnic cleansing. The latter would surely have occurred if the Saudi (and Washington) supported rebels, led by the Nusra Front and ISIS, had succeeded in taking power.

      Likewise, the fact that the Baghdad government of the broken state of Iraq – that is, the artificial 1916 concoction of two stripped pants European diplomats (Messrs. Sykes and Picot of the British and French foreign offices, respectively) – -is now aligned with Iran is also a result of confessional politics and geo-economic propinquity.

      For all practical purposes the old Iraq is no more. The Kurds of the northeast have declared their independence and seized their own oil. At the same time, the Sunni lands of the Upper Euphrates, which were temporarily lost to the short-lived ISIS caliphate, are now a no man’s land of rubble and broken communities.

      Accordingly, what is left of the rump of the Iraqi state is a population that is overwhelmingly Shiite, and which nurses bitter resentments after two decades of violent conflict with the Sunni forces. Why in the world, therefore, would they not ally with their Shiite neighbor?

      Likewise, the claim that Iran is now trying to annex Yemen is pure claptrap. The ancient territory of Yemen has been racked by civil war off and on since the early 1970s. And a major driving force of that conflict has been confessional differences between the Sunni south and the Shiite north.

      The Houthi tribes – who profess a variant of Shiite Islam – have dominated much of northern and western Yemen for centuries. They generally ruled North Yemen during the long expanse after it was established in 1918 until the two Yemen’s were reunified in 1990.

      So when a Washington installed government in Sana’a was overthrown and Yemen disintegrated into warring religious factions, the Houthi took power in northern Yemen, while Sunni tribes aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda held sway in the south.

      Needless to say, the Houthis have no Navy, Air Force or regular Army. So they are no threat whatsoever to Saudi Arabia, bristling with $250 billion of advanced weapon bought from America over recent decades.

      In fact, the entire GDP of the war-torn and impoverished nation of Yemen is just $27 billion, and much of that lies outside of areas controlled by the Houthis government in Sana’a.

      By contrast, Saudi Arabia has the third largest defense budget in the world at $69 billion or 2.5X the entire economy of Yemen, and it is a lethal modern military force trained and equipped with the Pentagon’s best.

      In a word, the Houthis are being brutally bombed and droned by Saudi Arabia in what amounts to a genocidal proxy attack on its Iranian rival across the Persian Gulf. So it is the Houthis who are the victims of a vicious aggression that has left more than 10,000 civilians dead and the land plagued with famine, cholera, rubble and economic collapse.

      There is no telling which faction in Yemen’s fratricidal civil war is the more barbaric, but the modest aid provided by Iran to its Shiite kinsman in northern Yemen is absolutely not a case of state sponsored terrorism.

      Finally, there is the fourth element of the purported Iranian axis – the Hezbollah controlled Shiite communities of southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. Like everything else in the Middle East, Hezbollah is a product of historical European imperialism, Islamic confessional politics and the chronically misguided and counterproductive security policies of Israel.

      In the first place, Lebanon was not any more a real country than Iraq was when Sykes and Picot laid their straight-edged rulers on a map. The result was a stew of religious and ethnic divisions – Maronite Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Copts, Druse, Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Kurds, Armenians, Jews and countless more – that made the fashioning of a viable state virtually impossible.

      At length, an alliance of Christians and Sunnis gained control of the country, leaving the 40% Shiite population disenfranchised and economically disadvantaged. But it was the inflow of Palestinian refugees in the 1960s and 1970s that eventually upset the balance of sectarian forces and triggered a civil war that essentially lasted from 1975 until 1990.

      It also triggered a catastrophically wrong-headed Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in 1982, and a subsequent brutal occupation of mostly Shiite territories for the next eighteen years. The alleged purpose of this invasion was to chase the PLO and Yassir Arafat out of the enclave in southern Lebanon that they had established after being driven out of Jordan in 1970.

      Eventually Israel succeeded in sending Arafat packing to north Africa, but in the process created a militant, Shiite-based resistance movement that did not even exist in 1982, and which in due course became the strongest single force in Lebanon’s fractured domestic political arrangements.

      After Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, the then Christian President of the county made abundantly clear that Hezbollah had become a legitimate and respected force within the Lebanese polity, not merely some subversive agent of Tehran:

      “For us Lebanese, and I can tell you the majority of Lebanese, Hezbollah is a national resistance movement. If it wasn’t for them, we couldn’t have liberated our land. And because of that, we have big esteem for the Hezbollah movement.”

      So, yes, Hezbollah is an integral component of the so-called Shiite Crescent and its confessional and political alignment with Tehran is entirely plausible. But that arrangement – -however uncomfortable for Israel – does not represent unprovoked Iranian aggression on Israel’s northern border.

      Instead, it’s actually the blowback from the stubborn refusal of Israeli governments – especially the rightwing Likud governments of modern times – to deal constructively with the Palestinian question.

      In lieu of a two-state solution in the territory of Palestine, therefore, Israeli policy has produced a chronic state of war with the large majority of the population of southern Lebanon represented by Hezbollah.

      The latter is surely no agency of peaceful governance and has committed its share of atrocities. But the point at hand is that given the last 35 years of history and Israeli policy, Hezbollah would exist as a menacing force on its northern border even if the theocracy didn’t exist and the Shah or his heir was still on the Peacock Throne.

      In short, there is no alliance of terrorism in the Shiite Crescent that threatens American security. That proposition is simply one of the Big Lies that was promulgated by the War Party after 1991; and which has been happily embraced by Imperial Washington since then in order to keep the military/industrial/security complex alive, and to justify its self-appointed role as policeman of the world.

      So at the end of the day,the claim that Iran is the expansionist leader of the Shiite Crescent is based on nothing more than the fact that Tehran has an independent foreign policy based on its own interests and confessional affiliations – legitimate relationships that are demonized by virtue of not being approved by the Washington War Party and especially its Bibi Netanyahu branch.

      And for this, the Donald shit-canned the only decent thing Obama did in foreign policy arena – the Iranian nuke deal – and has unleashed the beef below to actually bring us to the point of military conflict.

      If it happens, the trio of aggressors behind it have already posed for their official portrait.

    • The Arguments For And Against Marijuana Legalization

      Late last year, Gallup found that U.S. public support for legalizing marijuana surged to 66 percent. The poll’s results were particularly noteworthy because, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, a newfound majority of Republicans and Americans over 55 supported legalization for the first time.

      The increasing popularity about giving marijuana the green light raises a pretty obvious question which has been rarely asked: why do supporters want it legalized and why do opponents want it to remain out of reach? Gallup polled Americans once again about marijuana last week, this time focusing on the arguments for and against legalization.

      Infographic: The Arguments For And Against Marijuana Legalization | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      They found that 86 percent of supporters think medical benefits are a very important reason to legalize the drug. 70 percent cited freeing up legal resources to tackle other crime as important while 60 percent said its very important for people to have freedom and personal choice. How did supporters feel about the economic benefits of pot given that Colorado surged passed $1 billion in state revenue from the green stuff last week? Just over half of supporters think tax revenue for local and state governments is an important reason for legalization.

      Around a third of Americans oppose giving recreational marijuana the thumbs up but what are their most important reasons for wanting it to stay out of circulation? Driver safety was at the top of list with 79 percent of opponents polled saying it was the most important factor in their opposition. There is also a fear that marijuana could become a gateway drug and 69 percent of those opposed said “leading people to use stronger drugs” is a very important reason in being against legalization.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 20th June 2019

    • $hithole Countries? 673 Million People Still Defecate Outdoors

      The United Nations has released a new report focusing on water, sanitation and hygiene around the world. It has found that approximately 2.2 billion people worldwide lack access to safe drinking water, 4.2 billion have to go without safe sanitation services and three billion lack basic handwashing facilities.

      The report also examined the state of open defecation and progress in eliminating it. As Statista’s Niall McCarthy reports, as recently as 2015, close to a billion people were still defecating outdoors, resulting in widespread disease and millions of deaths. That drove the UN to call for an end to the practice and some parts of the world have proven hugely successful in eradicating it.

      In 2000 for example, the rate of open defecation was even worse with 21 percent of the global population – 1.3 billion people – practicing it. The impact of the UN’s call to action has been telling and by 2017, the global share of people practicing open defecation had fallen to just 9 percent – 673 million people. Ethiopia saw the largest fall during that period, -57 percent. Cambodia and India also experienced declines of -53 and -47 percent respectively. The latter has been particularly ambitious in installing proper toilets. Before Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power, just under 40 percent of India’s population had access to a household toilet. He promised to change that and billions of dollars were invested under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (“Clean India”) campaign which kicked off in October 2014. India’s Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation states that toilet coverage today stands at an impressive 99.22 percent.

      Altogether, 91 countries reduced open defecation by a combined total of 696 million people between 2000 and and 2017 with Central and Southern Asia accounting for three quarters of that figure.

      Infographic: 673 Million People Still Defecate Outdoors | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      The news isn’t positive everywhere though and 39 countries experienced increases during the same period, totaling 49 million people. The majority of that increase occurred in Sub-Sahara Africa which has experienced steady population growth since 2000.

      That of course means that there’s still a lot of work to do but as India has shown with its toilet building marathon, progress can be rapid.

    • Is The US Ambassador To Greece Faithfully Conveying Trump Administration Policy?

      Authored by Maria Polizoidou via The Gatestone Institute,

      A recent speech by U.S. Ambassador to Greece Geoffrey Pyatt is causing Greek officials and the media alarm about American policy.

      In an address to the 7th Annual Hellenic Air Force Academy Air Power Conferenceon May 15, Pyatt stressed America’s strong support for its long-standing alliance with Greece, but he seemed to imply that the State Department would be pressuring Athens and Cyprus to cede to Ankara in its dispute over drilling rights in the Aegean Sea.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      U.S. Ambassador to Greece Geoffrey Pyatt (right) at the 7th Annual Hellenic Air Force Academy Air Power Conference, on May 15, 2019. (Image source: U.S. Embassy & Consulate in Greece)

      The first hint that Pyatt — an appointee of the Obama administration — was about to say something unpopular among Greeks was in his opening remarks:

      “…[O]ne of the reasons I enjoy speaking to military audiences like this is that you always test me with your straight shooting. The fact is, militaries tend to operate with a black-and-white, shoot/no-shoot frankness, whereas us diplomats work in shades of gray.”

      Given what Pyatt said during the question period that followed the lecture, his “shades of gray” comment took on a more ominous meaning.

      When asked by a member of the audience about U.S. policy vis-a-vis Turkish drilling activities in the Aegean Sea, Pyatt responded:

      “…[T]he United States has placed a lot of attention on the emerging trilateral relationship between Greece, Cyprus, and Israel. This reflects our recognition that the Eastern Mediterranean has reemerged as a zone of great power competition, and in that context our relationship with our three democratic partners is particularly important. That is why Secretary of State Pompeo traveled to Jerusalem this spring in order to participate in the trilateral with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Prime Minister Tsipras. On the question specifically of the Cypriot EEZ and Turkish drilling activities, you saw the very quick and clear reaction of my government through our spokesperson in Washington, DC, and in particular, our emphasis on avoiding provocative and escalatory actions.

      “From that perspective… our long-term hope is that energy issues in the Eastern Mediterranean should become a driver of cooperation, a win-win, as opposed to a driver of conflict. It’s very important in that regard that President Anastasiadis has explicitly proposed the creation of an escrow account so that any resources from Cypriot drilling activities would be shared equally among the communities.

      “I would note also the very strong support of my government for the efforts that the Greek government has made to engage with and develop rules of the road with Turkey. It’s very important that Prime Minister Tsipras traveled to Ankara and Istanbul. It’s extremely important that Minister Apostolakis and Secretary General Paraskevopoulos at the Foreign Ministry continue to offer and encourage a dialogue between Athens and Ankara on confidence-building measures. At the end of the day, Turkey is a NATO ally. We all seek to ensure that that NATO ally remains anchored in the West, anchored in Euro-Atlantic institutions, and indeed I would argue that among 29 NATO member states, the United States has no ally more closely aligned with us on the importance of keeping Turkey anchored in the West than Greece. So, we have spoken clearly on the escalatory nature of these drilling activities but we also are focused not just on stating our policy but also trying to reframe and redirect these issues in a way that’s to everybody’s benefit.”

      Pyatt’s answer, which emphasized dialogue with Turkey, was construed by Greek politicians and the press as pressure from the State Department on Greece and Cyprus to cede their sovereign rights and natural-gas resources to Turkey. The phrase: “win-win” — and the sentence: “At the end of the day, Turkey is a NATO ally” — triggered Greek fears that U.S. President Donald Trump intends to use Greece as a decoy in order to bring Turkey back in NATO’s orbit. These fears have triggered anti-Trump sentiment among Greeks at home, and among millions of Greek-Americans abroad.

      This anger was fueled further by former Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis. In an op-ed on June 9 in the newspaper KathimeriniSimitis wrote:

      “It is indicative that the U.S. ambassador in Greece, who was asked about Turkey’s challenges in the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone, ‘noted the need for stability in the Eastern Mediterranean and talked about agreements equally beneficial to the parties involved’ – an answer which suggests initiatives that may not be profitable for our country [Greece]… [However]…the risk of incidents with negative consequences will be true if we do not try to find solutions that are not always pleasant, but they guarantee peace in the region. In an effort like that, Greece will have – I believe – the support of the European Union and the United States.”

      After the negative reactions that Simitis’ article elicited, the American embassy’s press attaché, Eshel William Murad, claimed in a “letter to the editor” that Simitis had misinterpreted Pyatt’s statements. Murad’s letter read, in part:

      “We read the editorial… by Costas Simitis… with special respect and consideration given the former prime minister’s deep knowledge of the topic and the recent, strong US government policy statements on these issues…

      “I note here that [the article] does not accurately describe Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt’s response to the question at the May 15 Air Power Conference at the Hellenic Air Force Academy, which is the event where certain media misinterpreted his remarks.

      “He [Pyatt] never spoke about agreements being equally beneficial. Instead, he said: ‘On the question specifically of the Cypriot EEZ and Turkish drilling activities, you saw the very quick and clear reaction of my government through our spokesperson in Washington, DC, and in particular our emphasis on avoiding provocative and escalatory actions. From that perspective, I would note also that our long-term hope – and this is again embodied in our support for the Greece-Israel-Cyprus trilateral – our long-term hope is that energy issues in the Eastern Mediterranean should become a driver of cooperation, a win-win, as opposed to a driver of conflict. It’s very important in that regard that [Cyprus] President [Nicos] Anastasiades has explicitly proposed the creation of an escrow account so that any resources from Cypriot drilling activities would be shared equally among the communities.’

      “…In fact, the first outlets which misinterpreted the ambassador’s remarks were Pronews.gr and Pentapostagma.gr and, we would argue, they did so intentionally given their well-known slant toward Russian positions.

      “Unfortunately, the narrative spread, despite other factual coverage, including on Defense-Point.gr and HellasJournal.com.

      “I am writing to correct the record so that your readers have the text of what the ambassador said on this topic.”

      Placing blame on pro-Russian news outlets for what Murad claims is a false narrative appears to be a form of verbal acrobatics, however. Simitis did not need to get his information from obscure websites that he probably never even heard of, let alone encountered.

      Furthermore, Simitis is not the only figure, political or otherwise, to have interpreted Pyatt’s words as he did. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for instance, is likely to have understood Pyatt’s remarks to mean that the U.S. is preparing to impose an “agreement” on Greece that favors Turkey. Such a sense on Erdogan’s part would only make him hungrier for hegemony in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

      In his speech, Pyatt twice referred to Pompeo as his boss, but the feeling among Greek elites is that the State Department — or at least its embassy in Greece — is still operating according to the policies and worldview of Pompeo’s predecessor, John Kerry, in particular, and the Obama administration in general. The sense in Greece is that the American embassy in Athens is not conveying Trump’s messages in many areas, such as illegal immigration, Islamic terrorism, Iran and U.S. trade disagreements with the Eurozone.

      Do Pyatt’s recent comments mean that Turkey’s claims to Greek and Cypriot drilling rights in the Eastern Mediterranean can be added to the list?

    • US Army Buys 9,000 Tiny 'Black Hornet' Drones Ahead Of Afghanistan Deployment

      The US Army will deploy soldiers to Afghanistan with a new handheld drone it claims will dramatically reduce dead space on the battlefield.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The 1.16-ounce Black Hornet drone, developed by Prox Dynamics of Norway and later acquired by US-based FLIR Systems, is designed for local surveillance missions over the modern battlefield. The tiny drone has high-tech sensors that allow it to operate in day or night and has a flight time of approximately 25 minutes. Here’s a FLIR Systems promotional video of the Black Hornet:

      According to Breaking Defense, the Army is procuring 9,000 systems over the next three years.

      According to the service, each Black Hornet kit includes “the ground control system, which is composed of a base station with hand controller and display unit, and two air Vehicles (one day and one night). The display acts as the main hub for Soldiers to interact with the system, while the air vehicles are small, highly maneuverable airborne sensors with low visual and audio signatures that support pre-planned and on-the-fly reconnaissance missions.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The drones were purchased under a $40 million contract in 1Q19 between the Army and FLIR Systems.

      Paratroopers of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, will be using Black Hornets during their next deployment to Afghanistan, slated for later this summer.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Black Hornet, for the first time, will allow a squad leader to scout ahead by air before exposing soldiers on the ground.

      “It is the start of an era where every squad will have vision beyond their line of sight,” Nathan Heslink, Assistant Program Manager PEO Soldier, said in an Army press release.

      Drones, automation, artificial intelligence, hypersonics, and fifth-generation warplanes have been a modernization effort spurred in part by former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The Army has also been working on a next-generation assault rifle, high-tech targeting goggles, and robots.

       

    • China: The Perfect High-Tech Totalitarian State

      Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,

      • In China, censorship, now largely automated, has reached “unprecedented levels of accuracy, aided by machine learning and voice and image recognition.” — Cate Cadell, Reuters, May 26, 2019.

      • As in other Communist regimes, such as that of the former Soviet Union, the Communist ideology does not tolerate any competing narratives. “Religion is a source of authority, and an object of fidelity, that is greater than the state… This characteristic of religion has always been anathema to history’s totalitarian despots…” — Thomas F. Farr, President of the Religious Freedom Institute, in testimony before the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, November 28, 2018.

      • In 2018, China had an estimated 200 million surveillance cameras, with plans for 626 million surveillance cameras by 2020. China’s aim is apparently an “Integrated Joint Operations Platform” which will integrate and coordinate data from surveillance cameras with facial recognition technology, citizen ID card numbers, biometric data, license plate numbers and information about vehicle ownership, health, family planning, banking, and legal records, “unusual activity”, and any other relevant data that can be gathered about citizens, such as religious practice, travels abroad, and so on, according to reports of local officials and police.

      • At the moment, China is in the process of fulfilling what Stalin, Hitler and Mao could only dream about: The flawless totalitarian state, powered by digital technology, where the individual has nowhere to flee from the all-seeing eye of the Communist state.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The 30th anniversary on June 4 of the Chinese regime’s 1989 massacre of pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square served to highlight the extreme censorship in China under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and President Xi Jinping.

      The Tiananmen anniversary is referred to euphemistically in mainland China, as ‘the June Fourth Incident’. The regime there evidently fears that any talk, let alone public commemoration, of that historical event will stir up anti-regime unrest, which could endanger the Chinese Communist Party’s absolute power.

      The internet in China is under control of the Chinese Communist Party, especially through the rigorous censorship practiced by the party’s top internet censor, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), established in 2014. In May 2017, according to a Reuters report, the CAC introduced strict guidelines requiring all internet platforms that produce or distribute news “to be managed by party-sanctioned editorial staff” who have been “approved by the national or local government internet and information offices, while their workers must get training and reporting credentials from the central government”.

      Freedom House, in “Freedom on the Net 2018,” its 2018 assessment of freedom on the internet in 65 countries, placed China dead last. Reporters without Borders, in its 2019 worldwide index of press freedom, ranked China 177 out of 180 countries, surpassed only by Eritrea, North Korea and Turkmenistan. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), at the time of its 2018 prison census, counted at least 47 journalists jailed in China, but according to the CPJ, the number could be much higher: “authorities are deliberately preventing information from getting out”. In March 2019, the CPJ was investigating at least a dozen additional cases, including the arrests in December 2018 of 45 contributors to the human rights and religious-liberty magazine, Bitter Winter, which China targets as a “foreign hostile website“.

      On ‘sensitive’ occasions such as the Tiananmen anniversary, entire websites are blocked. Since April, ahead of the Tiananmen anniversary, Wikipedia had been blocked in all languages. Wikipedia’s Chinese-language site has been blocked by China since 2015. Websites such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other websites have also long been blocked in China.

      Search terms are also blocked on such ‘sensitive’ occasions. In the past, even common, innocuous words such as ‘today’ or ‘tomorrow’ have been blocked.

      For the anniversary of Tiananmen, the Chinese Communist Party reportedly began its crackdown in January 2019: On January 3, the Cyberspace Administration of China announced on its website that it had launched a new campaign against “negative and harmful information” on the internet. The campaign was to last for six months — coinciding with Tiananmen’s June 4 anniversary. The definition of “negative and harmful information” was all-inclusive: Any content that was “pornographic, vulgar, violent, horrific, fraudulent, superstitious, abusive, threatening, inflammatory, rumor, and sensational,” or related to “gambling,” or spreading “bad lifestyles and bad culture” had to be removed from every conceivable internet platform. The CAC added, “Those who let illegal behavior go free will not be tolerated but be severely punished”.

      In China, censorship, now largely automated, has reached “unprecedented levels of accuracy, aided by machine learning and voice and image recognition”, according to a recent Reuters report. It quotes Chinese censors as commenting:

      “We sometimes say that the artificial intelligence is a scalpel, and a human is a machete… When I first began this kind of work four years ago there was opportunity to remove the images of Tiananmen, but now the artificial intelligence is very accurate”.

      China’s severe censorship runs parallel to its severe suppression of religious freedom. The President of the Religious Freedom Institute, Thomas F. Farr, at a November 2018 hearing at the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, described China’s religious suppression as “the most systematic and brutal attempt to control Chinese religious communities since the Cultural Revolution”. As in other Communist regimes, such as that of the former Soviet Union, the Communist ideology does not tolerate any competing narratives.

      “Religion is a source of authority, and an object of fidelity, that is greater than the state,” Farr wrote. “This characteristic of religion has always been anathema to history’s totalitarian despots, such as Stalin, Hitler, and Mao…”

      The brutal religious and cultural oppression of Tibetans in China has been ongoing for nearly 70 years, but China has not only sought to destroy the Tibetan religion. Christianity, for instance, was seen from the beginning as a threat to the People’s Republic of China when it was established in 1949. “This was especially true at the height of the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), when places of worship were demolished, closed, or reappropriated and religious practices were banned”, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Some Christian clerics have been imprisoned for nearly 30 years. In recent years, oppression of Christians in China has apparently surged. Since the late 1990s, the Chinese regime has also targeted the Falun Gong.

      China has been shutting down churches and removing crosses. They have been replaced with the national flag, and images of Jesus have been replaced with pictures of President Xi Jinping. Children, future bearers of the Communist ideology, have been banned from attending church. In September 2018, China shut down one of the largest underground churches, Beijing’s Zion Church. In December 2018, the pastor of the underground Early Rain Church, Wang Yi, and his wife were arrested and charged with ‘inciting subversion’, a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Along with the pastor and his wife, more than 100 church members were also arrested. In April 2019, Chinese authorities forcibly took away an underground Catholic priest, Father Peter Zhang Guangjun, just after he celebrated Palm Sunday Mass. He was reportedly the third Catholic priest to be taken by the authorities in one month.

      According to a confidential document obtained by Bitter Winter, China is currently also getting ready for a clampdown on Christian churches with ties with foreign religious communities.

      The government has also been sending Uighurs, a populace that includes around 11 million people, mostly Muslim, in the western Xinjian province of China, to internment camps for ‘political reeducation’. China has said that the camps are vocational education training centers aimed at stemming the threat of Islamic extremism. Uighurs have launched several terror attacks in China, according to one 2017 report, “Uighur Foreign Fighters: An Underexamined Jihadist Challenge” by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague. The report also states:

      “Uighurs consider themselves separate and distinct in ethnicity, culture, and religion from the Han Chinese majority that governs them. These distinctions form the basis of the Uighurs’ religious ethno-nationalist identity, leading some of them to engage in violent activities aimed at establishing their own state, East Turkestan…

      “… the appeal of radical Islamic ideology outside of China has attracted many Uighurs to participate in violent jihadism as part of their religious identity and as a way to further their struggle against the Chinese authorities.”

      “The [Chinese] are using the security forces for mass imprisonment of Chinese Muslims in concentration camps,” Randall Schriver, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs recently said. “[G]iven what we understand to be the magnitude of the detention, at least a million but likely closer to three million citizens out of a population of about 10 million” could be imprisoned in the detention centers.

      According to The Epoch Times, in the Chinese detention camps, Uighurs have been drugged, tortured, beaten and killed by injection. “I still remember the words of the Chinese authorities when I asked what my crime was,” said Mihrigul Tursun, a woman who escaped to the United States with two of her children. “They said, ‘You being a Uyghur is a crime'”.

      Physically persecuting religious minorities, however, does not suffice for the Chinese Communist Party. It also seems to have campaigned against Christianity in schools throughout the country. It has, for instance, forced students to swear an oath to resist religious belief. Teachers were also indoctrinated to “ensure that education and teaching adhere to the correct political direction.” Classics taught in schools have been censored: In Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, references to the Bible were deleted, and references to Sunday service or God in stories by Anton Chekhov and Hans Christian Andersen were expunged.

      Additionally, the use of ‘sensitive’ words related to religion, such as ‘prayer’, are not allowed in the classroom.

      In both the oppression of religion, as in the censorship of free speech, the Chinese Communist Party is utilizing high-tech means to achieve its goals. There are reports that Xinjiang is being used as a testing ground for surveillance technology: Uighurs in Xinjiang, according to a report published in the Guardian, are “closely monitored, with surveillance cameras mounted over villages, street corners, mosques and schools. Commuters must go through security checkpoints between all towns and villages, where they undergo face scans and phone checks”. China uses facial recognition technology that matches faces from surveillance camera footage to a watch-list of suspects.

      In 2018, China had an estimated 200 million surveillance cameras, with plans for 626 million surveillance cameras by 2020. China’s aim is apparently an “Integrated Joint Operations Platform,” which will integrate and coordinate datafrom surveillance cameras with facial recognition technology, citizen ID card numbers, biometric data, license plate numbers and information about vehicle ownership, health, family planning, banking, and legal records, “unusual activity”, and any other relevant data that can be gathered about citizens, such as religious practice and travels abroad.

      At the moment, China is in the process of fulfilling what Stalin, Hitler and Mao could only dream about: The flawless totalitarian state, powered by digital technology, where the individual has nowhere to flee from the all-seeing eye of the Communist state.

    • "Migration Is Part Of The Model": The Real Roots Of Central America's Migrant Crisis

      When the average American thinks about Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, their initial impression is typically that these are destitute countries overrun by crime, poverty and malnutrition, with central governments that are, at best, only semi-functioning. The crisis at the southern border has only helped reinforce these perceptions, as the mainstream media spins a narrative about impoverished migrant families fleeing the ravages of gang violence.

      But if these Central American countries are so extremely impoverished  poor,

      then why are bond investors willing to lend to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador at interest rates on par with the preferential terms enjoyed by regional economic powerhouses like Brazil? The truth, as it turns out, is more complicated: All three countries are viewed as stable, even safe, investments because they spend almost nothing on government services. And most of what little is spent is siphoned off by graft.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Migrants

      But if these countries can borrow so cheaply, then why aren’t they? Until last week, the group of three countries had gone more than two years without issuing a bond.

      Fearing the type of runaway inflation presently plaguing Venezuela, fiscal austerity has become “almost like a religion” among the leaders of all three countries. Even the IMF, an institution that’s been criticized for years for pushing draconian budget cuts, has urged Guatemala to spend more.

      “There’s an obsession with this issue,” said Ricardo Castaneda, an economist with ICEFI, a Guatemala City-based think tank that focuses on fiscal policy.

      But with their infrastructure in shambles and their people reportedly suffering from high maternal mortality rates, why aren’t these governments willing to borrow more?

      Well, as it turns out – and as a team of Bloomberg reporters explained in a lengthy report published on Wednesday – there’s a good reason. And it’s that the corrupt leaders of these countries don’t want to upset the apple cart that allows the system of widespread corruption and graft to flourish.

      Perhaps inadvertently, the region has developed a system that encourages the poorest members of the population to emigrate by offering inadequate social services and almost no opportunities for advancement. That system is reinforced by the role that the growing remittance payments sent by illegal migrant workers in the US send back to their families. The payments represent a reliable flow of dollars that serves to underpin the financial systems of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. That sum is larger  more than 30 times greater than the annual aid payments President Trump just scrapped.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Chart

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Qick

      Put all of these factors together, and this is what you get: an economic model that appears to be based upon the illegal export of citizens.

      When all of these elements are stitched together and viewed holistically, it can appear as if the economic model these governments have adopted is one based on exporting people. That might be an oversimplification – and it may not be the governments’ intent – but it is the net effect of the policy mix, according to longtime observers of the region.

      “Migration is part of the model,” said Seynabou Sakho, the World Bank’s director for Central America. “A country may not have a big deficit, but at the same time, the needs of its people aren’t being met.”

      Regardless of the political class’s intentions, this is the situation and it doesn’t look likely to change any time soon. As the NYT just reported, Guatemalans have elected a new president who leveraged her connections within the country’s corrupt legal system to secure her victory.

      And with Guatemala’s citizens receiving almost no support from the government…

      The World Bank also tracks social spending on a per-capita basis. In El Salvador, the number came to $562. It was even lower in Honduras, $278, and Guatemala, $258. That’s a fraction of the $2,193 spent in Costa Rica or the $2,269 in Brazil. The World Bank hasn’t updated that data set since 2012, but analysts say there have been few signs of improvement in recent years. Patronage and corruption, they say, is compounding the shortfall, siphoning off funds earmarked for the poor. Transparency International ranks the three nations in the bottom half of its Corruption Perceptions Index, with Guatemala in the lowest quartile.

      Lucrecia Mack said she was astonished by how rampant graft was when she took the top job at Guatemala’s Health Ministry in 2016. It’s “everywhere,” she said. Documents are falsified, signatures are forged, invoices are made up. She remembers one scheme where officials bought new tires for ambulances, re-sold them to pocket the cash and left the old ones on the vehicles..

      The little money that the Health Ministry has winds up in the wrong hands,” said Mack, the daughter of a renowned human rights activist who was slain in 1990.

      According to her calculations, Guatemala only spends about one-fifth of what it should annually on health care. “The budget has always been extremely tight.” As a result, she said, the ministry only has enough public clinics and hospitals to attend to about 6.5 million people. That was the population in 1975. It’s more than doubled since.

      …As one analyst put it: People don’t just pick up and  cross multiple borders for no reason.

      “Immigration is a symptom of the diseases we have: violence, lack of economic growth, lack of investments in all of the rural areas,” Nayib Bukele said at a conference in Washington a few weeks before being sworn in as president of El Salvador this month. “People don’t leave their families and country to cross three frontiers and a desert because things are fine.”

      DHS is installing a contingent of boots-on-the-ground agents to work with these governments to try and dampen the flow of migrants.

      But without structural reform, there’s little hope for real, lasting change on the immigration front.

    • Dominoes, Hegemonies, & The Future Of Humanity

      Authored by Mahwah Salamah via Off-Guardian.org,

      What did the domino tile say to its neighbour?

      “Don’t worry, it is happening far away!” and they both happily continued to stare at their ‘white dots’, ignoring the collapsing carnage down the line. Dominoes aren’t very smart; they are, after all, inanimate objects!

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      People, however, are supposed to have brains and are expected to be cognizant of what’s happening around them and able to assess its implications on their wellbeing. Unfortunately, this rarely is the case, which may add credence to the theory that by settling into early agrarian communities, humans became more caring and supportive of each other, thus undermining the successful natural selection process by retaining idiot genes!

      It is not as though the concept of danger is a new phenomenon. Ever since humans got over the fear of carnivorous beasts and learnt how to kill them, they have concentrated on killing each other. Hegemonic tendencies have existed for thousands of years; as early as the Sumerians and Assyrians and continued through to the colonization monsters of the past few hundred years.

      STATUS OF HEGEMONY

      Hegemonies come in different sizes; small, medium and big; an amusing “pecking order” whose interaction can be observed on the daily news broadcasts. It also comes in different styles; softly spoken but treacherous, generous with economic assistance but containing hidden strings to hang you, belligerent with a viscous warmongering streak and lastly, schizophrenic; oscillating between all the previous styles. There are also the would-be-hegemons if given half a chance.

      More recently, the hegemony arena has, though knock-out matches, been narrowed down to one grand hegemon and a couple of runners-up, and the heat is now rising as the final tournament approaches – Let us hope it will not be too bloody and Armageddon-ish.

      Despite that, many nations continue to dream of becoming hegemons. But at the same time, they continue to concentrate on their ‘white dots’ and disregard the likelihood that they are already in the crosshairs of a bigger hegemon.

      They seem oblivious to the hegemonic ploys that undermine their political and economic structures through unending sanctions, onerous trade or military treaties, contemptuous disregard for local and international laws, negative and false news reporting, regime change tactics, false flag incidences, scaremongering, and outright threats that are occasionally translated into destructive military action. Like the proverbial deer, they are frozen in the headlights of the oncoming speeding car and wait until it is too late to save themselves.

      What happened in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Somalia, Grenada, Venezuela, Argentine, Brazil, Cuba, Greece, Iran, North Korea and many other places are only the tip of the iceberg. What is likely to happen elsewhere is still being baked in the oven and will come out once done and ready. What is surprising is that, not only were the signs written on all the walls but, again, the victims failed to comprehend the messages and continued to stare at their ‘white dots’!

      Southeast Asia, South China Sea, Ex-Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South & Central America and Africa are all candidates for destabilization and possible splintering into smaller pieces – especially those that exhibit economic weakness or cracks in their demographic, ethnic, religious makeup and are rife with internal disharmony.

      Even the European EU is now beginning to feel the brunt of the hegemon pressure of tariff and sanctions threats. Japan, Mexico, India and Canada too, have just got a taste of an ear pinching to remind them to dance to the grand hegemon’s tune. Who is left? Not even Timbuktu!

      What about the runner-up hegemons? What about the smaller hegemons? Well, all hegemons have the same strain of nasty genes. However, they are dormant and only begin to grow as their host’s power increases. This, most likely, is a genetic relic from the early human hunters-gatherers’ need for viciousness to survive. Maybe natural selection and/or wisdom will eventually weed out those nasty genes, but don’t bet your farm or country on it.

      IS ALL LOST?

      Not necessarily, because all hegemons (big and small) also suffer from the same weaknesses and dis-harmonies that beset their victims, although they cunningly keep them secret. Powerful mass media and propaganda are used extensively to camouflage all the ills that would otherwise stumble their seemingly confident and steady footsteps. This means that they are as also vulnerable to the same ploys that they have repeatedly used on others.

      Also, history confirms that all empires eventually collapse and disappear, regardless of how long they last. Some lasted over a thousand years, which may sound too long, but in the modern world of technology, digital communications, social media and financialized economies, the average lifespan of hegemons has been drastically cut short.

      Empires and hegemons generally start with a strategic vision of expansion and moderate usurpation of other nations’ resources; then, gluttony takes over at a rapidly increased pace.

      But as the world and its resources are limited, they sooner or later bump into and clash with other hegemons; and are forced to change their tactics. As matters heat up, their tactics not only become shorter and shorter-term, but become ad hoc not fully thought through and, even haphazard – until they begin to shoot themselves in the foot.

      This usually is an early sign of their demise (compare this to the Roman/Byzantine, Safavid Iran and Ottoman empires and their confusion with multi-front wars – in addition to their poor governance systems and economic mismanagement).

      WHAT TO DO

      In all events, we cannot wait out the hegemons to die out as the dinosaurs did; it would take far too long.

      More realistically, we can address the modern hegemonic world threat via a two-pronged approach. The first is individual effort and the second is collective action.

      Individual effort means to treat the sources of weakness and internal disharmony that make individual countries susceptible to hegemonic ploys. This requires the recreation of the governance systems to tackle all the maladies that drag nations down, including poor economic policies, corruption, inequality, ineffective representative systems, etc.

      In short, seal the cracks that invite enemies to destabilize a country. It is not easy but is certainly better than being sucked dry off your freedom, resources and future.

      As for collective action, this means getting together with other small and medium nations to form groups/alliances that can stand up to hegemons and resist, at least, their economic sanctions and threats. The Non-Aligned Movement was, and still is a good idea, but needs more teeth. Alternatively, new and more practical types of groupings could be envisaged and created – always conditional that no one nation, big or small, is allowed to become the group’s hegemon.

      Dominoes may be flimsy and unstable, but if laid in parallel rows and columns and closely bonded (zero-spaced), they become much more difficult to topple. So, don’t be a lone domino dumbly staring at your ‘white dots’!

    • Lululemon Shutters Two Men's Stores, Despite Luring Beta Males With Cold Brew Coffee And Ping Pong

      Shockingly, the appeal of men in yoga pants isn’t anywhere near as close to the appeal of women. Lululemon is finding this out the hard way, watching two of its “Men’s exclusive” stores shutter in short order, despite the fact that a large part of the company’s business going forward is going to be reliant on men’s clothing, according to Bloomberg

      Instead, Lululemon is finding out that it works better “as a dual-gender brand,” company spokeswoman Erin Hankinson said. She continued: “We continually test and learn at Lululemon — which is what we did with the men’s stores.”

      That, of course, will beg the question from millennials: what if I don’t identify as one of the two genders? Riots and protests incoming…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Toronto location had opened in December 2016 – and even had a ping pong table and cold brew coffee. Because, what better ways to lure in beta males than table tennis and pretentious drinks? It shuttered last year and the New York location in Soho that opened in 2014 was made part of a larger women’s store about 4 blocks away. 

      But this doesn’t mean that Lululemon is giving up on men. Instead, it says that it expects to “more than double its men’s revenues by 2023.” And in the first quarter, Lululemon men’s same-store sales were up 26%. 

      Lululemon has also recently announced its intention to introduce shoes and personal care products for both men and women. 

      Its new stores “will continue to create space for category expansions and will help to grow our business, specifically in men’s,” Hankinson commented.

      She continued: “When we expand our stores, we create space to merchandise the men’s assortment in a more impactful way.”

    • Rejoice. The End Of Banking Is Nigh…

      Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

      On January 3, 2009, about six months before I launched Sovereign Man more than a decade ago, the Bitcoin blockchain came into existence.

      50 bitcoins were mined by the network’s creator in that very first transaction. And within a few days, the first open-source Bitcoin software was released.

      Few people noticed. By October of 2009, the value of a single Bitcoin was still just $0.0009 (9/100th of a penny).

      A decade later, Bitcoin has seen a 10,000,000x increase and triggered perhaps the most spectacular financial bubble in human history.

      For the next few weeks I plan on writing about how the world has changed over the last decade– Sovereign Man just celebrated its 10-year anniversary a few days ago, and I thought it was an appropriate opportunity for reflection.

      Today I want to kick off that series of emails and discuss crypto.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Ten years of cryptocurrency has been a wild roller coaster. In 2009 few people had heard of it. Today, most of the world knows about Bitcoin. Tens of millions of people have bought some. And a fair number of those have been burned.

      The 2017 bubble saw the Bitcoin price rise from less than $1,000 in January to nearly $20,000 by the end of the year.

      It was a classic bubble mentality– people threw money at something they didn’t understand based solely on an uninformed belief that the Bitcoin price would keep rising.

      And no one wanted to miss out. Some people even went into debt and mortgaged their homes to speculate in cryptocurrency.

      By the end of 2017, there were far more cryptocurrencies than fiat currencies, not to mention innumerable ‘tokens’ and ICOs that had taken place.

      It got to the point that anyone under the age of 30 who could write a White Paper was able to raise a few million dollars through an ICO.

      By the middle of 2018, most cryptocurrencies had been left for dead.

      But now there are real signs of life: just yesterday, Facebook announced details on a cryptocurrency that they have been developing for more than a year.

      They’re calling it the Libra. It’s quite a bit different than most existing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin:

      Libra is less decentralized. It’s backed by fiat currency. And it has already attracted huge partners like Visa– the same types of companies that early cryptocurrency developers hoped to displace.

      But out of everything in the marketplace, Facebook’s Libra is the only cryptocurrency that could have global, mainstream appeal.

      Within the next 12 months there could be hundreds of millions of users worldwide sending payments to one another as easily as sending an email… or using their Libra to buy coffee at Starbucks.

      I doubt this is the end of the road, either. While I’m wary of Facebook, I believe Libra will likely serve as a catalyst, opening doors for more interest, more development, and better applications of the technology.

      One thing is certain– banks are in big trouble.

      They’ve had a monopoly on our money for thousands of years and have abused this trusted privilege countless times.

      Today, the primary functions of banks– holding deposits, making loans, payments & transfers, and exchanging currency– can all be done better, faster, and cheaper outside of the banking system.

      There are already plenty of Peer-to-Peer websites where borrowers and lenders can arrange their own loans.

      And even more ways to send money, make payments, and exchange currency– from older establishments like Western Union to newer ones like Google Wallet, TransferWise, and PayPal.

      Facebook’s Libra represents a direct threat to the banks’ sole remaining monopoly– holdings customer deposits.

      We already have a few alternatives for holding our savings, including physical cash, short-term government bonds, gold, crypto, etc.

      But with Libra, people will have an easy, mainstream option to hold their money, as well as make transfers and payments. They won’t really need a bank account any longer.

      Just in the same way that a lot of people stopped signing up for home telephone lines in favor of their mobile phones, it’s now much more realistic that people (especially younger people) will forgo bank accounts for their crypto wallets.

      This is an enormous change from where we were ten years ago. Over the past decade crypto has seen its genesis, bubble, collapse, and resurgence.

      And now there’s finally a catalyst to mainstream use that poses a direct threat to banks’ financial dominance. It’s about time.

    • 10,000 Of The 'World's Best' Spies Operating In Washington DC

      Over a million people flood into the nation’s capital every day; lawmakers, lobbyists, civil servants, students and tourists – and around 10,000 of the world’s best spies

      As WTOP‘s J.J. Green notes in his three-part series on Washington D.C.; “Woven into that orderly bedlam are sophisticated networks of foreign nationals whose sole purpose is to steal secrets.

      Green’s figure for 10,000 spies comes from the International Spy Museum in D.C. – and while there is “some quabbling about the numbers,” the FBI apparently agrees with the premise. 

      “It’s unprecedented — the threat from our foreign adversaries, specifically China on the economic espionage and the espionage front,” said the FBI’s Brian Dugan – Assistant Special Agent in Charge of Counterintelligence in the Washington Field Office. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A spy is nondescript. A spy is going to be someone that’s going to be a student in school, a visiting professor, your neighbor. It could be a colleague or someone that shares the soccer field with you,” Dugan added. 

      The archetypal international spy in Washington for many years has been undercover diplomats and foreign intelligence agency assets.

      There are more than 175 foreign embassies, residences, chanceries and diplomatic missions in D.C. Tens of thousands of international students reside in the region. And untold numbers of business people with links to foreign intelligence services flow in and out every day.

      The training of highly skilled spies, especially those who work in Washington, makes them virtually invisible to ordinary, unsuspecting people.

      Washington, according to current and former U.S. intelligence sources, is normally the place where most countries send their best spies. –WTOP

      Longtime CIA covert operative Robert Baer told WTOP that even the best spy chasers have a hard time catching foreign operatives in Washington. 

      “Everybody in the espionage business is working undercover. So if they’re in Washington, they’re either in an embassy or they’re a businessman and you can’t tell them apart because they never acknowledge what they’re doing. And they’re good, so they leave no trace of their communications,” according to Baer, who added: “With the darknet and various private encryption platforms, algorithms and the rest of it, you can operate right here in Washington, D.C., and if you’re good and you’re disciplined and careful, the FBI will never see it.

      Russia Russia Russia

      According to Kremlin defector Sergei Tretyakov before his untimely death in 2010, Russia regards the USA as its “main target,” where they sent their best assets. 

      Retired CIA official and Russia expert John Sipher agrees – telling WTOP in April 2018 that Moscow has hundreds of spies living on American soil

      “They have somewhere on the order of 175 to 200 spies in the United States,” said Sipher. That said, Green notes that Russia’s actual intelligence footprint in the United States is much larger. 

      “The Russians are hyper focused on the United States. They see us as their main adversary, the main enemy. All the elements of state power — whether it be their diplomatic service or intelligence services or police services — are focused on the United States, Sipher added.” 

      Accomplices

      According to Baer, one focus of D.C. spies is enlisting the help of Americans willing to break the law to help them. 

      “There’s a large population in retirement or getting close to retirement. The baby boomers are all leaving and that population is looking for post-government jobs,” said Dugan, adding that foreign spies are using social media and other resources to recruit those with national security and intelligence backgrounds. 

      “Of course there’s always going to be moments that we’re going to have people decide to cooperate with the enemy. And we’re going to find them, and we’re going to catch them,” said an optimistic Dugan. 

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 19th June 2019

    • Is News Polarization An American Problem?

      Depending on who you are in the United States, trust in the news has either sky-rocketed or nose-dived, according to Reuters Digital News Report.

      As Statista’s Sarah Feldman notes, about half of people on the left trust the news most of the time, while merely 9 percent of people on the right trust the news most of the time. Looking at the data, President Trump’s entrance into the presidential election certainly acted as an inflection point, driving the public’s perception of news trust worthiness to either side of the political spectrum.

      As a point of comparison, the United Kingdom has seen the opposite trend. Back in 2015, there was about a 10-percentage point gap in the trust worthiness of news between people on the opposite side of the political spectrum. During that time, the U.S. had a similar spread in trust between partisans. After 2015, the UK had its own inflection point: Brexit. Instead of being further driven apart, that trust gap has narrowed, though overall both sides trust the news less than they did in 2015.

      Infographic: Is News Polarization an American Problem? | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      Generally, people in the United Kingdom do not hold that same level of distrust as their counterparts in the U.S. do.

    • Escobar: Iran Is At The Center Of The Eurasian Riddle

      Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

      With the dogs of war on full alert, something extraordinary happened at the 19th summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) late last week in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

      Virtually unknown across the West, the SCO is the foremost Eurasian political, economic and security alliance. It’s not a Eurasian NATO. It’s not planning any humanitarian imperialist adventures. A single picture in Bishkek tells a quite significant story, as we see China’s Xi, Russia’s Putin, India’s Modi and Pakistan’s Imran Khan aligned with the leaders of four Central Asian “stans”.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani walk as they attend a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Council of Heads of State in Bishkek on June 14, 2019. Photo: AFP / Vyacheslav Oseledko

      These leaders represent the current eight members of the SCO. Then there are four observer states – Afghanistan, Belarus, Mongolia and, crucially, Iran – plus six dialogue partners: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and, crucially, Turkey.

      The SCO is bound to significantly expand by 2020, with possible full membership for both Turkey and Iran. It will then feature all major players of Eurasia integration. Considering the current incandescence in the geopolitical chessboard, it’s hardly an accident a crucial protagonist in Bishkek was the ‘observer’ state Iran.

      Iranian President Hassan Rouhani played his cards masterfully. Rouhani speaking directly to Putin, Xi, Modi and Imran, at the same table, is something to be taken very seriously. He blasted the US under Trump as “a serious risk to stability in the region and the world”. Then he diplomatically offered preferential treatment for all companies and entrepreneurs from SCO member nations committed to investing in the Iranian market.

      The Trump administration has claimed – without any hard evidence – that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which Washington brands as a “terrorist organization” – was behind the attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman last week. As the SCO summit developed, the narrative had already collapsed, as Yutaka Katada, president of Japanese cargo company Kokuka Sangyo, owner of one of the tankers, said: “The crew is saying that it was hit by a flying object.”

      Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif had accused the White House of “sabotage diplomacy” but that did not derail Rouhani’s actual diplomacy in Bishkek.

      Xi was adamant; Beijing will keep developing ties with Tehran “no matter how the situation changes”. Iran is a key node of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It’s clear for the leadership in Tehran that the way forward is full integration into the vast, Eurasia-wide economic ecosystem. European nations that signed the nuclear deal with Tehran – France, Britain and Germany – can’t save Iran economically.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets with Kyrgyz President Sooronbay Jeenbekov, right, in Bishkek at the SCO summit on June 14. Photo: Nezir Aliyev / Anadolu / AFP

      The Indian hedge

      But then Modi canceled a bilateral with Rouhani at the last minute, with the lame excuse of “scheduling issues”.   

      That’s not exactly a clever diplomatic gambit. India was Iran’s second largest oil customer before the Trump administration dumped the nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, over a year ago. Modi and Rouhani have discussed the possibility of India paying for Iranian oil in rupees, bypassing the US dollar and US sanctions.

      Yet unlike Beijing and Moscow, New Delhi refuses to unconditionally support Tehran in its do-or-die fight against the Trump administration’s economic war and de facto blockade.

      Modi faces a stark existential choice. He’s tempted to channel his visceral anti-Belt-and-Road stance into the siren call of a fuzzy, US-concocted Indo-Pacific alliance – a de facto containment mechanism against “China, China, China” as the Pentagon leadership openly admits it.

      Or he could dig deeper into a SCO/RIC (Russia-India-China) alliance focused on Eurasia integration and multipolarity.

      Aware of the high stakes, a concerted charm offensive by the leading BRICS and SCO duo is in effect. Putin invited Modi to be the main guest of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok in early September. And Xi Jinping told Modi in their bilateral get together he’s aiming at a “closer partnership”, from investment and industrial capacity to pick up speed on the stalled Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) Economic Corridor, another BRI stalwart.

      Imran Khan, for his part, seems to be very much aware how Pakistan may profit from becoming the ultimate Eurasia pivot – as Islamabad offers a privileged gateway to the Arabian Sea, side by side with SCO observer Iran. Gwadar port in the Arabian Sea is the key hub of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), much better positioned than Chabahar in Iran, which is being developed as the key hub of India’s mini-New Silk Road version to Afghanistan and Central Asia.

      On the Russian front, a charm offensive on Pakistan is paying dividends, with Imran openly acknowledging Pakistan is moving “closer” to Russia in a “changing” world, and has expressed keen interest in buying Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets and Mi-35M attack helicopters.

      Iran is at the heart of the BRI-SCO-EAEU integration road map – the nuts and bolts of Eurasian integration. Russia and China cannot allow Iran to be strangled. Iran boasts fabulous energy reserves, a huge internal market, and is a frontline state fighting complex networks of opium, weapons and jihadi smuggling – all key concerns for SCO member states.

      There’s no question that in southwest Asia, Russia and Iran have interests that clash. What matters most for Moscow is to prevent jihadis from migrating to the Caucasus and Central Asia to plot attacks against the Russian Federation; to keep their navy and air force bases in Syria; and to keep oil and gas trading in full flow.

      Tehran, for its part, cannot possibly support the sort of informal agreement Moscow established with Tel Aviv in Syria – where alleged Hezbollah and IRGC targets are bombed by Israel, but never Russian assets.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani attends a meeting with his Russian counterpart on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Bishkek on June 14, 2019. (Photo by Alexey DRUZHININ / SPUTNIK / AFP)

      But still, there are margins of maneuver for bilateral diplomacy, even if they now seem not that wide. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued the new rules of the game; reduce imports to a minimum; aim for less reliance on oil and gas exports; ease domestic political pressure (after all everyone agrees Iranians must unite to face a mortal threat); and stick to the notion that Iran has no established all-weather friends, even Russia and China.

      St Petersburg, Bishkek, Dushanbe

      Iran is under a state of siege. Internal regimentation must be the priority. But that does not preclude abandoning the drive towards Eurasian integration.

      The pan-Eurasian interconnection became even more glaring at what immediately happened after Bishkek; the summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. 

      Bishkek and Dushanbe expanded what had already been extensively discussed at the St Petersburg forum, as I previously reported. Putin himself stressed that all vectors should be integrated: BRI, EAEU, SCO, CICA and ASEAN.

      The Bishkek Declaration, adopted by SCO members, may not have been a headline-grabbing document, but it emphasized the security guarantees of the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone Treaty, the “unacceptability of attempts to ensure one country’s security at the expense of other countries’ security, and condemning “the unilateral and unlimited buildup of missile defense systems by certain countries or groups of states”.

      Yet the document is a faithful product of the drive towards a multilateral, multipolar world.

      Among 21 signed agreements, the SCO also advanced a road map for the crucial SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group, driving deeper the Russia-China strategic partnership’s imperative that the Afghan drama must be decided by Eurasian powers.

      And what Putin, Xi and Modi discussed in detail, in private in Bishkek will be developed by their mini-BRICS gathering, the RIC (Russia-India-China) in the upcoming G20 summit in Osaka in late June. 

      Meanwhile, the US industrial-military-security complex will continue to be obsessed with Russia as a “revitalized malign actor” (in Pentagonese) alongside the all-encompassing China “threat”.

      The US Navy is obsessed with the asymmetrical know-how of “our Russian, Chinese and Iranian rivals” in “contested waterways” from the South China Sea to the Persian Gulf.

      With US conservatives ratcheting up “maximum pressure” trying to frame the alleged weak node of Eurasia integration, which is already under total economic war because, among other issues, is bypassing the US dollar, no one can predict how the chessboard will look like when the 2020 SCO and BRICS summits take place in Russia.

    • Smith: An Examination Of The Leftist Cult And Their Religion

      Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

      There is a common misconception among newer activists in the liberty movement that the idea of the “false left/right paradigm” means that there is no political spectrum; that the entire notion of left vs right is a fabrication. This is not exactly the case. When we talk about false paradigms in regards to politics (or geopolitics), what we are actually referring to is the elitist class, otherwise known as globalists, and the fact that they have no left or right political orientation. They do not care about Democrats or Republicans, they have no loyalty to either party. Their loyalty is to their own agenda, and they will exploit BOTH sides to get what they want whenever possible.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Beyond the globalists, average people do indeed fall on a political spectrum that could be broken down and simplified to a set of basic ideals or ideologies. On the left side of the spectrum we find the collectivists and socialists, who believe that society (the group) is vastly more important than the individual and that the actions of individuals must be strictly monitored and governed to prevent negative effects on the group.

      The core argument of the leftists is:

      “We are all a part of society and must act in harmony with society so that the system continues to function. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…”

      On the right side of the spectrum we find the individualists, sovereignty activists and true conservatives. People who, in varying degrees, believe that society should be restricted from dictating the life of the individual and that group participation should be voluntary. Where leftists seek to centralize, people on the right seek to decentralize.

      The argument of the conservative is:

      “Without the individual the group does not exist. The group is an abstraction created in the mind. When groups do form they should only exist to serve and protect the inherent rights of individuals, not be used as a mechanism of control by weak people who are afraid to function on their own…”

      This separation of philosophies is simple and easy to follow. Where things start to become confused and convoluted, however, is when political “gatekeepers” or globalist controlled pundits and media outlets get involved and muddy the waters. For example, there are some egregious misinterpretations of conservative principles in the mainstream, especially in places like Europe where the word “conservative” is considered dirty and is barely spoken. Gatekeepers who have no loyalties to actual conservative values have attempted to soil the image of conservatives as a whole by misleading them down the wrong path or acting as false representatives.

      Inevitably, these pied pipers try to lure conservatives to support leftist ideologies, like big government interference in people’s lives, or in the politics of other nations, or even in free markets. In other words, they want to sabotage real conservatives by making them look like hypocrites. But, the ideals of conservativism and centralization are mutually exclusive – If a conservative supports big government control, they are no longer a conservative. Period.

      It is certainly the case that similar gatekeepers on the left side of the spectrum are misleading leftists to destructive ends, but not in the same way that they try to mislead conservatives. While globalists will attempt to trick conservatives to act more like socialists, they do not try to trick leftists into acting more like conservatives. Rather, they trick leftists into becoming even more extreme in their collectivist tendencies.

      The end goal of the globalist cabal is to eventually reach a point where EVERYONE in the world is a supporter of totalitarian centralization – a world where everyone is a leftist, whether they realize it or not.

      How they plan to achieve this goal is rather indirect but potentially very effective. By pushing one side (the political left) to extremes, they hope to drive the other side (conservatives) to respond with extreme measures that they would otherwise consider contrary to their principles. To avoid this outcome, conservatives must understand the root motivations and contradictions of what has become the leftist cult. To avoid falling into madness, we must examine the behaviors of the insane.

      It is hard to say exactly where the left began to migrate away from more centrist politics and go full bore communist. Some would say it started when the Frankfurt School of academics transplanted to the US during and after WWII, bringing with them the ideology of cultural Marxism. Some might argue that they have been this way since the 1960’s and 1970’s during the rise of the antiwar movement and second wave feminism. But if leftists were raging socialists back then, for decades after that chaotic generation there was at least some self discipline among them in terms of revealing their true intentions outright.

      I would place their transformation, or violent mutation, closer to 20 years ago as college campuses shifted completely away from a focus on practical skill sets and STEM fields over to hackneyed social sciences. This was the moment that the conspiracy to completely radicalize the left was truly implemented.

      Colleges became centers of worship, but of a new religion called “social justice”. This religion relies on rehashing and reigniting old social conflicts as if they had not already been tackled by far smarter people decades beforehand. SJWs act as if America had never come to terms with slavery, racism, women’s rights, sexual orientation, etc., as if all of these problems were boiling in the background waiting for the social justice warriors to finally grace us with their presence and solve them. The reality is that while there will ALWAYS be some conflict related to these issues, there is no need for the existence of “social justice” today. They are rebels without a legitimate cause, and so they create causes out of thin air.

      Many pundits on the political left are careful not to publicly associate with SJWs, and attempt to portray democrats and progressives as somehow separate. And for some of these people this might be true. But social justice mantras and disinformation have absolutely permeated democrat language and conversation. Gatekeeping media outlets like The New York Times, Vox, and The Atlantic have seen to this, as they flood democrat oriented web spaces with article after article of rant laden editorials presented as if they are factual journalism.

      Many of these articles are written more like personal biographical accounts and anecdotal tales; each leftist writer clamoring to become the next Steinbeck rather than an objective investigator of facts.  True journalism is now dead in the mainstream – hot garbage factories like The New York Times and Vox killed it and replaced it with a Roman bathhouse of narcissism and iniquity.

      The only job of these outlets now is to continue fueling leftist faith. Colleges made them zealots; insane devotees of the cult, but the media keeps them on the path and ensures they do not stray. But what beliefs define this religion beyond vague notions of “social justice”?  Let’s examine a few…

      Burn It All Down?

      While the Molotov cocktail was actually invented (or at least popularized) by the Finnish during the Winter War to help stop a massive communist invasion from the Soviet Union, it has now become a kind of symbol of communist rebellion in the West today. The Frankfurt School and Marxism in general teaches that existing systems are not changed diplomatically, but demolished violently through the exploitation of social conflicts. In traditional Marxism the idea was to use economic class conflict; to rally the lower classes to overthrow the upper classes. Cultural Marxism relies not just on economic disparities but also racial and political tensions to bring down a civilization.

      After the dust settles the socialists/communists seek to introduce their own “Utopian” system and take control as the nation lays weak and helpless in the midst of complete breakdown.  When the existing system and government works in their favor and feeds their sense of public influence, leftists sing its praises. When it stops working 100% for them (even if only on the surface), they seek to tear it apart and remake it. These are the people you cannot play a game of chess with.  The moment they start losing they cry foul and dash the board to the ground in a rage.

      Everyone Is Born The Same?

      This notion is biologically absurd but it is gaining momentum in leftists movements.  Essentially, collectivists believe that all human beings are born as blank slates and that their entire personality is a product of their environment. While psychologists, anthropologists and scientists from across the spectrum from Carl Jung to Joseph Campbell to Stephen Pinker have all shown extensive evidence of inborn psychological traits and inherent constructs within the human psyche, this evidence is utterly ignored by leftists as it runs counter to most of their fundamental assumptions.

      If everyone is born different, then fairness in society becomes subjective and inapplicable, and only accomplishment, hard work and merit can be trusted to determine what is “fair”.  If people’s characters are not necessarily ruled by their environment, then this means there is no point in creating a social Utopia to micro-manage every aspect of our lives. If psychopaths are not made but born, then the question of inherent evil becomes a possibility, and according to leftists there is no such thing as evil people, only evil systems that spoil the minds of good people. If gender is inborn and the vast majority of people fall on one side or the other psychologically, not just biologically, then leftists can no longer claim that gender is a social construct that must be dismantled.

      The blank slate, or Tabula Rasa, is a key factor in the leftist religion that must be defended at all costs. Otherwise, half their ideology falls apart.

      Everything Can And Should Be Fair?

      Anyone who has actually lived in the world for a while on their own knows full well that life is not designed to be fair. Some people are born with advantages while others are born with handicaps. Some advantages and disadvantages have to do with family and wealth, while others are simply genetic. There is nothing that can ever be done about this that would not devastate our species.  What leftists don’t seem to grasp is that perceived disadvantage is not always a bad thing.

      People who struggle and overcome life’s obstacles tend to be much wiser and more skilled than people who never had to put in the effort. Leftists want to take away all adversity, not in the name of equal opportunity, but in the name of equal outcome. In the process, they make all of society weaker, wimpier, less innovative and less productive. In a leftist world, humanity would have to create artificial “adversity camps” just to retain its survival instincts. But then, of course, those camps would eventually be put through the fairness filter as well…

      “Intellect” Is More Important Than Experience?

      Leftists worship intellect as a divine power. So much so that the notion of real world experience rarely crosses their minds as important in making decisions or forming opinions. When social justice warriors talk of things like “racism”, most of them have never and probably will never experience or witness legitimate racism. They read about it in books and hear about it in lectures, but have no personal relationship to it. They believe it is rampant everywhere, around every corner and under every bed because they must. Their reality depends on blind faith that this is true.

      The idea of social inequality between men and women also relies on blind faith in misrepresented statistics and fraudulent accounts of crimes that were never committed. To this day these people still argue that the “gender wage gap” is a real thing despite the fact that it has been debunked endlessly. This behavior requires a cult-like devotion to fantasy. It is not normal or logical, it is extreme mental illness. If these people were to go into the working world and study real business models and talk to men and women who are not members of their own echo chamber, they would see through experience that their assumptions are wrong, but when intellectual notions outweigh first hand observation there is no hope of this.

      Conservatives Are Evil Incarnate?

      I started writing this essay in part because I’ve noticed a steady stream of articles in mainstream media outlets posing as studies of “conservative extremists”. I figure, if they are going to analyze us inaccurately then we can do them one better and analyze them as accurately as possible. In reading some of these pieces I find that leftists have created their own language completely separate from the rest of the world and reality. That which they interpret as “racism”, or “misogyny”, or “fascism” does not fit the textbook definition of said labels. They have developed their own bewildering vocabulary filled with made-up words and illogical concepts to describe the world in a way that fits their desires and supports their accusations.

      Conservatives don’t live in this world and frankly, we don’t ever want to. To them we are heretics, or barbarians. In their eyes we are the dirty untouchables, the “deplorables”. We cannot be saved, and should be destroyed. Zealots always seek to treat ideological outsiders as mortal enemies even when those individuals have done nothing to them. The fact is, most modern political crimes and genocides have been enacted in the name of socialist ideals; in the name of concepts the left holds dear. We continue to suffer under these ideals in the name of globalism.

      How many people have suffered because of decentralization and individual rights?  not many, if any.  How many people have been exterminated in the name of the non-aggression principle? Answer:  Zero.  Conservatives are certainly not evil, or extreme. But in the twilight zone of leftist thought, we are the monsters.

      This is why leftist behavior is becoming so incomprehensible.  Corporate behemoths like Sony, Disney, Netflix, Facebook, Google, etc. have chosen to force feed the public social justice ideology, and have placed their business at risk because less and less people are buying the religion they are selling.  The same is true with companies like Gillette or Starbucks, which are willing to insult their own customer base and sabotage themselves just to preach the social justice gospel.  Why would they do this?  Because they see conservatives as demonic force that must be erased from civilized society.  We are not even allowed to be heard, otherwise the evil magic of our arguments will mesmerize the masses and turn them away from the light of cultural Marxism.

      Another more covert reason is that through the use of popular media and corporate influence globalists are able to exploit the useful idiots on the left and manipulate them into acting even more absurd than they already do.  And, by extension, they hope to terrify conservatives into throwing out the Constitution and going full fascist as a defensive response.  They are absolutely willing to bring down entire corporate structures to make this possible.  They are going for broke.

      The Leftist Gods

      The social justice embrace of Atheism seems to have left them feeling unfulfilled as their explanations of existence do not satisfy the innate human relationship to the metaphysical. As a result the leftist cult is always seeking out gods these days, with all encompassing government filling in as a proxy for now. The next deity of the left is clearly nature, or “mother earth”, as this god satisfies their need for a vengeful and omnipotent force.

      Many leftists desperately desire a kind of apocalypse, but an apocalypse on their terms. The globalists are giving them one, or at least a farcical version called “climate change”, in which mankind angers nature with his production and progress, but is smote down with catastrophe while the devout leftists watch on in their purity saying “We tried to warn you, but you would not repent…” This is of course fiction, based on junk science funded by organizations with agendas to undermine real science and common sense.

      The solution to this apocalypse, coincidentally, always ends up being more government, more control over human trade and progress, population reduction, and perhaps even global governance of every aspect of life. Otherwise, we might incur the wrath of the great leftist war god of destruction – carbon fed global warming. In the minds of leftists that will be the moment when we will all understand that they were the sane ones, that their cult was right all along, and we will come to them willingly, prostrating ourselves before their mighty intellectual superiority.

      It is this type of ignorant thinking that makes the left an easily exploited tool for the powers that be. It is also the source of calamity throughout the ages.  Attempting to appeal to these people’s better nature is not going to help us as they are too far lost in their own dimension, and neither would using big government as a weapon against them.  It is quite a conundrum.

      *  *  *

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

    • China Unveils New Radar System To Detect US Stealth Jets  

      China, the rising power, has designed a new radar system that can detect American stealth warplanes and is also immune to their “radar killer” missiles, its creator told Naval and Merchant Ships magazine, first published by Global Times.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The new radar can be deployed on vehicles, on land and warships, but its creator Liu Yongtan said this particular model would be a land-based mobile system, can detect naval and aerial hostiles from hundreds of kilometers away in any weather condition.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Liu, who is an expert in radar systems, said the new radar features “high-frequency electromagnetic waves that have long wavelengths and wide beams.”

      He said the long wavelength can detect stealth warplanes, which use high-tech materials to evade detection from microwave radars, but currently, there are no planes that can escape detection against high-frequency surface waves.

      The Global Times said the new radar system has “immunity” from anti-radiation missiles, which track and destroy the source of the electromagnetic waves. This is because the anti-radiation missiles would need special antennas to track high-frequency surface waves, but these antennas are too large to fit inside the missiles. 

      Shi Lao, a Shanghai-based military commentator, said Liu’s radar system could be an effective coastal monitoring system that would be able to protect about 250 miles of coastline.

      “HFSWR could work 24 hours in all weathers, which would be much cheaper than operating early warning aircraft,” Shi said.

      “They can be deployed relatively quickly with high mobility if they are mounted on vehicles, and may be loaded onto warships in the future.”

      This comes at a time when America, the status quo power, is being challenged militarily in the Eastern Hemisphere by China. In response, Washington has supplied Australia, South Korea, and Japan with stealth jets, dubbed the F-35 friends cycle.

      Beijing would most likely deploy this new radar system across the militarized islands in the South China Sea.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      State broadcaster CCTV had recently reported that China had already installed the new radar in Weihai, on the country’s east coast in Shandong province.

      Upgrading the China maritime early warning defense system to detect stealth warplanes is happening as Washington and Beijing duke it out in an economic war that could one day lead to a shooting war in the South China Sea.

    • Declassified: The Sino-Russian Masterplan To End U.S. Dominance In Middle East

      Authored by Yossef Bodansky via OilPrice.com,

      Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin’s early June 2019 summit in Moscow with People’s Republic of China (PRC) Pres. Xi Jinping seems likely to have a disproportionate influence on the next phases of the crises unfolding in the greater Middle East, and therefore on the future of the region.

      The escalating confrontation between Iran and the US is both influencing and influenced by the mega-trends set by Russia and the PRC.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Although the key meetings took place on June 5, 2019, the seeds of the new joint strategy were already planted during the May 13, 2019, summit in Sochi between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. They went over all the key topics in preparation for the Putin-Xi summit.

      On June 5, 2019, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping met in Moscow and decided to not only markedly upgrade the bilateral relations and alliance of their countries, but to use the new relations in order to shape the long-term posture of the entire Eastern Hemisphere in their favor. Emphasis was to be put on the Eurasian Sphere (the Kremlin’s high priority) and the New Silk Road (the Forbidden City’s high priority), as well as the Korean Peninsula which is most important for both.

      One of the first major confrontations with the US by Russia and the PRC was to be over the greater Middle East. The main reason was the advance negotiations with all key oil producers – including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran – on substituting the petrodollar with a basket of currencies where the yuan, the euro and the ruble dominate. Using the currency basket would enable the sellers and buyers to go around the US-imposed sanctions and quotas. Indeed, Beijing and Moscow were now enticing the oil producers with huge, long-term export deals which were both financially lucrative and politically tempting by offering guarantees for the well-being of the participating governments.

      The crux of the proposal is regional and includes flagrant disregard of the US sanctions on Iran.

      However, the key to the extent of the commitment of both Beijing and Moscow lies in the growing importance and centrality of the New Silk Road via Central Asia.

      Persia had a crucial rôle in the ancient Silk Road, and both the PRC and Russia now expect Iran to have a comparable key rôle in the New Silk Road.

      The growing dominance of heritage-based dynamics throughout the developing world, including the greater Central Asia and the greater Middle East, makes it imperative for the PRC to rely on historic Persia/Iran as a western pole of the New Silk Road. It is this realization which led both Beijing and Moscow to give Tehran, in mid-May 2019, the original guarantees that Washington would be prevented from conducting a “regime change”.

      Therefore, even though both Russia and the PRC were not satisfied with the Iranian and Iran-proxy activities and policies in the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon area, it was far more important for them to support Iran, and also Turkey, in their confrontations with the US in order to expedite the consolidation of the New Silk Road.

      Tehran and its key allies in “the Middle Eastern Entente” — Turkey and Qatar — are cognizant of the core positions of Russia and the PRC. Since mid-May, Tehran and, to a lesser extent, Ankara and Doha, were appraised by Moscow and Beijing of their overall direction of political decisions. Hence, since early June 2019, Tehran has felt confident to start building momentum of Iranian assertiveness and audacity.

      Tehran has been raising its profile in the region.

      Tehran insists that it is now impossible to make decisions, or do anything else, in the greater Middle East without Iran’s approval. On June 2, 2019, the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Maj.-Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, touted the new strategic posture of Iran. “The Islamic movement has affected the entire world and on top of that, it has succeeded in intimidating the American hegemony and Zionism,” he said. Bagheri attributed the new influence of Iran to the acquisition of regional strategic depth; that is, reaching the shores of the Mediterranean.

      “At the advent of the fifth decade of Revolution, it should be noted that the expansion of the strategic depth of Iran has brought about new and undisputed conditions that today no issue in West Asia can be solved without Iran’s participation.” No outside pressure, particularly US pressure, could, he said, compel an Iranian withdrawal and a reversal of its surge. “The Iranian nation will not retreat in the slightest from its position on the country’s defensive capabilities and will turn enemy’s threats to golden opportunities to develop core achievements of the Revolution, especially in the defensive and missile sectors.”

      Senior IRGC commanders with political affiliations repeated the message over the coming days. On June 7, 2019, Brig.-Gen. Morteza Ghorbani, an adviser to the Chief of the IRGC, called on the region’s Muslim countries to join Iran. Instead of “seeking the wishes and objectives of the global arrogance and the Zionists”, all Muslim countries should back Iran, Ghorbani explained, because “together, we can establish an Islamic superpower”.

      On June 10, 2019, Mohsen Rezaei, the Secretary of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council and a former Chief of the IRGC, stressed Iran’s regional prowess. The Americans “are aware that Iran’s military strength is at a point where if they take the smallest action, the whole region will be set on fire. … We are moving towards becoming a regional power and that is costly for America.” On June 12, 2019, Maj.-Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, the senior Military Aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene‘i, stressed that with Iraq and Syria, Iran has created an unassailable bloc.

      “The pivot of Iran, Iraq, Syria and the Mediterranean [region] is an economic, political, security and defensive axis against the Zionist regime and the US,” Safavi explained. “Iraq and Syria strategically play a complementary rôle to Iran.”

      Little wonder that Tehran has also made clear that Iran intends to stay in Syria long after the war is over despite the misgivings of the Kremlin.

      Damascus accepts Tehran’s position, and should now be expected to reject all US-Israeli pressure to compel Iran to withdraw or even reduce the size of its forces. “Damascus has no intention of turning away Iran’s military assistance or demanding an Iranian troop withdrawal,” Syrian senior officials told their Russian counterparts in early June 2019.

      At the same time, although he is wary of confronting Iran directly, Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad demonstrated his displeasure with the Iranian presence. In early June 2019, for example, he rejected flagrantly Tehran’s initiative for HAMAS and Syria to reconcile on account of the HAMAS cooperation with Iran and the HizbAllah against Israel. Assad justified the refusal by arguing that the HAMAS remained part of the Muslim Brothers’ networks which had been fighting Damascus since the late-1970s and which continued to sponsor jihadist forces.

      Meanwhile, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Qods Force continued to expand the Iranian strategic deployment in Syria. Most important was the completion, in the first week of June 2019, of the forward emplacement of ballistic missiles in addition to the deployments in southern-western Iraq and nearby in Iran. The Iranians maintained Qods Force missile sites (as distinct from storage sites for the HizbAllah) — mainly Fatah-110 and Zulfiqar SSMs — at the T-4 airbase in Homs province, in Jubb el-Jarah east of Homs, in al-Safira near Aleppo, and in the Al-Kiswah area south of Damascus. In early June 2019, the Qods Force brought Toophan-1 anti-tank missiles to the T-4 airbase. These are all areas and installations that Israel has bombed repeatedly. Yet, the Qods Force keeps repairing the damage and redeploying new weapons and missiles; an expression of their growing importance to the forthcoming regional war.

      Russia has accepted the Iranian presence up to a point.

      In early 2019, the Kremlin formulated a worst-case scenario focusing on maintaining a Russian presence along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean (beyond the Aleppo-Damascus highway) while blocking US/Western encroachment. Moscow is cognizant that such an area of influence along the shores of the Mediterranean also means blocking the vital arteries of transportation which both Iran and Turkey are determined to establish.

      In early June 2019, the Russians demonstrated the point that the western zones are Russia’s, and only Russia’s. Toward this end, the Russians compelled the Syrian military to force the PasdaranHizbAllah and Afghan Fatemiyoun units out of the Syrian base in Latakia.

      Meanwhile, the cooperation between Iran and Turkey has expanded as agreed, but faster than expected.

      Starting late May 2019, senior officials of both countries increased the number of bilateral visits in a concentrated effort “to find common ground in which Turkey helps Iran overcome the consequences of US sanctions”. By June 1, 2019, Iran and Turkey established a “new anti-sanction financial mechanism” with priority given to increasing the imports of natural gas and oil from Iran (with some of the oil laundered as Iraq-origin from Kirkuk). Iran and Turkey also agreed to protect mutual trade and economic ties, including the establishment of a joint bank, in the face of US sanctions. As well, both countries finalized an agreement to restart direct cargo train and passenger/tourist train services between Tehran and Ankara.

      On June 8, 2019, Iranian Pres. Hassan Rouhani had a lengthy phone conversation with his Turkish counterpart, Reçep Tayyip Erdo?an. They finalized and formulated the new era in bilateral relations, ranging from economic cooperation to effecting regional dynamics.

      Rouhani opened by emphasizing the importance of the expansion of relations between Iran and Turkey in the global and all-Islamic spheres. “Development of relations and cooperation between Iran and Turkey, as two powerful effective countries in the world of Islam, is important for stability and security of the region.” He pointed to the instability and bloodshed in countries such as Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan, and invited Erdo?an to work with Iran to resolve conflicts throughout the Muslim world. “Together, Iran and Turkey can cooperate with other friendly, brotherly countries to put an end to this regretful process and resolve the issues of the region and the world of Islam as well.” Rouhani said that Iran was most interested in markedly expanding bilateral economic cooperation, including providing highly-subsidized oil and gas to Turkey, while using national currencies in trade transactions to avoid the US sanctions.

      In his response, Erdo?an largely agreed with Rouhani and reiterated Turkey’s commitment to confronting the US. Closer bilateral cooperation was a must. “As two brotherly, friendly countries, cementing of relations between Iran and Turkey can be beneficial for both nations and the region.”

      Erdo?an concurred that it was imperative to “enhance bilateral relations in all fields, especially in economy and trade”, and agreed with Rouhani on “the importance of using national currencies in trade”. He termed the US “unilateral sanctions against Iran” as “tyrannical”. Hence, Turkey “will never accept these cruel sanctions and seek to increase our friendships and cooperation with Iran”. Erdo?an agreed that both countries must influence the region and “the world of Islam”. Erdo?an concluded: “Iran and Turkey can play a greater rôle by expanding their engagement and cooperation in the development of regional stability and security and counter-terrorism.”

      Both Presidents agreed to escalate their joint anti-Kurdish campaign, as well as better coordination of their activities in Iraq and Syria.

      By the time of the Rouhani-Erdogan conversation, Turkish and Iranian forces were already engaged in a comprehensive anti-Kurdish offensive for more than a week.

      The raids and bombings were conducted both in northern Iraq and along their mutual border. At first, the heaviest fighting took place in Turkey’s Igdir province, close to the borders with Armenia and Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan Autonomous Region. The Turkish forces then moved to the Aralik district, close to the Turkish-Iranian border. At that point, the IRGC conducted a parallel operation in Chaldoran County bordering Igdir-Aralik. The Turkish and Iranian forces continued to move southward along the border, destroying the Kurdish pockets between them.

      Meanwhile, Turkey launched a major offensive, Operation Claw, into Iraqi Kurdistan. As a separate element of the operation, the Turkish forces conducted deep raids closely coordinated with the Iranian forces. Most important were the attacks against PKK positions in the Hakurk mountainous region near the Iraqi border with Iran. The Iranian forces have been preventing the Kurds from escaping across the Iranian border as in previous Turkish raids. IRGC forces also clashed with Kurdish groups; both the Iranian-Kurdish PJAK and the Turkish-Kurdish PKK forces usually based in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Iranian raids, which include crossing of the Iraqi border, were coordinated with heavy air-strikes by the Turkish Air Force of the nearby regions of Zap and Qandil.

      Concurrently, Qatar, on behalf of the bloc, challenged and effectively neutered the Mecca summits from within. The Qatari Prime Minister Abdallah bin Nasser bin Khalifa Al Thani participated in all three summits on May 30-31, 2019.

      Despite the Saudi-led GCC boycott on Qatar, he had a most courteous exchange with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz al Sa’ud. The main reason for Qatar’s presence in Mecca was to obtain and relay messages from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz al Sa’ud (aka MBS) and his close partner the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan (aka MBZ) to Tehran.

      The key message was that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States did not want war with Iran, and would do whatever they could to prevent the US from launching one. Both MBS and MBZ noted that the US was stopping short of direct confrontation, with the USS Abraham Lincolnaircraft carrier strike group remaining out in the Arabian Sea rather than venturing across the Strait of Hormuz and into the Persian Gulf as US carriers had done in the past.

      Tehran, however, would not legitimize any stand of either MBS or MBZ even though Tehran welcomed their message as transferred by Doha. Therefore, within days after the end of the summits, Qatar started to openly criticize and contradict the Mecca Summits’ resolutions and communiqués. Doha thus flagrantly shattered the delicate consensus which Riyadh had worked so hard to create, including the Saudi statement that “reconciliation with Qatar [is] possible” given the right circumstances.

      On June 2, 2019, Doha asserted that the Mecca communiqués reflected “America’s policies on Iran” and not the self-interests of the region’s states. Qatari Foreign Minister SheikhMohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, who also attended the Mecca summits, criticized the declaratory refusal to negotiate with Iran even though Doha passed secret messages to Iran throughout the summits. “The statements condemned Iran but did not refer to a moderate policy to speak with Tehran,” he said on Al Jazeera TV. “They adopted Washington policy towards Iran, rather than a policy that puts neighborhood with Iran into consideration.” Al-Thani argued that any cooperation with Tehran should be based on “non-interference in other countries”.

      On June 5, 2019, Iranian Pres. Hasan Fereidun Rouhani coordinated policies in a phone conversation with the Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. Rouhani reiterated that Iran was not interested in a war with the US or anybody else. However, should “any foolish anti-Iranian act start in the region”, Iran would deliver “a firm response” which would harm the Arabian Peninsula more than anybody else. War would be futile, he noted. “Regional problems don’t have a military solution and we believe that threat, pressure, blockade, and economic sanction are wrong approaches in relations between governments.” Rouhani hailed Qatar’s stance because it contributed to easing regional tensions. “Certainly, any meeting will be ineffective, unproductive and even harmful, if it doesn’t draw regional countries to each other,” Rouhani affirmed Doha’s policy.

      Sheikh Tamim responded by emphasizing that the policies and stances of Tehran and Doha were “close to each other” on most issues. He reiterated that Doha believed that “dialogue is the only way to ease tensions,” and that Doha wanted “to expand ties with Iran in all areas”. Sheikh Tamim concluded that all Qataris are “appreciating Tehran for supporting [Qatar] during the blockade”.

      Apprehensive of the specter of a US escalation, Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Thani traveled to London on June 9, 2019, to try and get “a friendly message” across to Washington. He warned the US not to fall into the trap set by MBS and MBZ. He explained that the “Saudi and Emirati plan to impose stability on the region by supporting authoritarian governments and military councils in Africa, Egypt, Libya, and throughout the Arab world was a recipe for chaos”. These “policies are [only] creating more terrorism, conflict and chaos in the Middle East and Africa”.

      For its own good, the US must not be part of the scheme. Discussing the situation in the Persian Gulf, Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Thani noted that “while Qatar respects US policy towards Iran, it cannot fully support it because Qatar views the matter from a regional perspective”. He criticized Washington’s stance. “The current US position on Iran lacks any indication of a way forward, or any type of positive or constructive message.” Doha did “not want to see any confrontation between the two powers, US and Iran, because we are stuck in the middle,” he concluded.

      But the US kept escalating its covert war with Iran, both in the Persian Gulf and in Syria. The extent of the escalation and the focusing on objectives of great importance for Iran could not but lead to Iranian harsh reaction.

      First came escalation of the campaign against the transfer of oil along the long desert road stretch between Deir ez-Zor and Damascus. Since the beginning of the war, Damascus had been purchasing oil from whomever controlled the oilfields east of the Euphrates, be it DI’ISH or the US-sponsored Kurdish PKK/YPG/SDF forces. As well, with the opening of the road from Iran via Iraq, the Iranians increased the shipment of oil in tanker-trucks. Since the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF) would not strike and shut down the lucrative oil trade, the US chose to rely heavily on the jihadist forces being trained and equipped in the al-Tanf area.

      According to tribal leaders in the Deir ez-Zor area, the US launched at first “a campaign … to prevent smuggling [oil] from areas under SDF control in Deir ez-Zor to the Syrian regime by way of ferries across the river”. The first major escalation took place in the early morning hours of May 31, 2019. Jihadist forces near al-Shuhayl opened heavy machinegun fire on four tanker-barges ferrying oil across the Euphrates. When the ambush failed to cause any tangible damage, US combat helicopters and strike aircraft showed up and strafed the barges, blowing up three of them and causing at least four fatalities.

      Although the US denied that the May 31, 2019, attack took place, the mere involvement of US forces compelled the US to change tactics. The emphasis moved to on-land raids and ambushes along the desert stretch north of al-Tanf, the vast Badiyah al-Sham (eastern desert) area. There, properly trained and equipped light forces could, on their own, strike and burn the tanker trucks moving in small convoys. As well, there was no question of conflict of interests with the US-proxy Kurdish forces. According to Syrian military officials, “the ISIL’s movements have taken place in line with US’ objectives to exert pressure on the Syrian Army and its allies in Syria”. The officials stressed that “the US is trying to help the ISIL block roads leading to Badiyah due to Badiyah’s strategically important oil and gas reserves”.

      The main jihadist operations were taking place between Eastern al-Sukhnah and Deir ez-Zor, including the important T-3 Pumping Station and the Palmyra area. Some of these jihadistforces were using HUMMER-type vehicles in addition to the ubiquitous Japanese-made light trucks. Starting June 3, 2019, the jihadists used US-made TOW anti-tank missiles to strike Syrian armored combat vehicles escorting the tankers. The first such strike took place in the Jabal Bishri area.

      By June 7, 2019, the jihadists had escalated their concentrated attacks on the traffic in the main desert route, hitting both Syrian and Iranian vehicles, and not just oil tankers and their escorts. The jihadists deployed several hundred fighters from the camps in the al-Tanf area, compelling the Syrian military to divert forces from their anti-DI’ISH operations in the Baqouz region in Eastern Euphrates province. The jihadist forces were operating over wider areas including the area of Jabal al-Bashri in south-eastern Raqqa, al-Dafinah in southern Deir ez-Zor, between Palmyra and al-Sukhnah, and the surrounding areas of al-Tanf in Eastern Homs. On June 11, 2019, the jihadists launched their first attack on the western axis of the T-3 Pumping Station near Palmyra. The jihadists also stormed army positions near the desert road east of Palmyra, causing heavy damage and numerous casualties.

      By mid-June 2019, the intensity and frequency of jihadist ambushes had increased still further. These ambushes, Syrian defense officials explained, “are well-coordinated and [a] proof that the terrorist group possesses the ability to wreak havoc inside the country”. By now, according to these officials, there were some 2,000 to 3,000 jihadist fighters in the entire Badiyah al-Sham region who were living off the main US-sponsored bases in the al-Tanf area. The escalation has strategic impact because the Syrian military has had to divert reinforcements earmarked for the major offensive in Idlib (the last major pocket of the US-sponsored al-Qaida affiliated jihadists, both Syrian and foreign) to secure the desert roads.

      Then, as promised to the jihadist fighters by the US recruiters in March 2019, on June 2, 2019, the US-proxy Kurdish authorities running the al-Hawl camp released more than 800 women and children — all families of DI’ISH fighters — and handed them to their families who happened to live in the al-Tanf area. This was the first such transfer of non-combatants and more were expected soon.

      Meanwhile, a “mysterious” escalation took place in the northern part of the Persian Gulf.

      On June 5, 2019, huge fire consumed a storage facility for oil products at the Shahid Rajaee port in southern Hormozgan Province. Located west of Bandar Abbas, the Shahid Rajaee port is Iran’s largest container shipping port. Reportedly, a vehicle used for transporting shipping containers exploded and caught fire. Since there were oil products near the site of the explosion, the blaze spread quickly to several tanks and storage sites and caused heavy damage to the port. The spreading fire set off huge explosions which shot fireballs and heavy smoke high into the air.

      On June 7, 2019, six Iranian merchant ships were set ablaze almost simultaneously in two Persian Gulf ports.

      First, five ships “caught fire” in the port of Nakhl Taghi in the Asaluyeh region of Bushehr Province. Three of these ships were completely burned and the two others suffered major damage. Several port workers and sailors were injured. As well, at least one cargo ship burst into flames and burned completely at the port of Bualhir, near Delvar. The fire was attributed to “incendiary devices” of “unknown origin”. The local authorities in Bushehr Province called the fires a “suspicious event” and went no further.

      In Tehran, senior Iranian officials first attributed the incident to “fires caused by high temperatures”. Subsequently, they pointed out to statements by Iranian opposition activists in Europe (NOT the MEK) who “made the connection between the mysterious fires that hit the Iranian ships and the sabotage” of the tankers in Fujairah. Several diplomats in Tehran reported that the local grapevines were attributing the fires to “expert mercenaries” of “unknown origin”. “Knowledgeable Iranians” opined, the diplomats reported, that “ferocious revenge” was only a question of time.

      Indeed, in the early morning hours of June 13, 2019, two large tankers were repeatedly attacked and set aflame in the middle of the Gulf of Oman. Both tankers were subsequently abandoned by their crews and left to drift, burn and sink. By end of the day, there were conflicting reports whether they already sank. The tankers did not sink and most of the flames died down on June 15, 2019. Hence, efforts started tow the tankers to UAE ports.

      A few hours before the attack, a US MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) observed IRGC fast attack boats, most likely from the nearby Bandar-e-Jask naval base, gather and advance toward the area where the tankers would be struck. When the Iranians noticed the UAV, they launched a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile. The missile overshot, narrowly missed the MQ-9, and crashed into the water. However, the UAV was pulled away from the scene so that there would be no evidence of the attack that unfolded shortly afterwards.

      Both tankers were subjected to repeated attacks over three hours in order to ascertain their destruction. The Norwegian owned MT Front Altair was first hit by a torpedo attack which stopped it and started a small fire. The Front Altair was then subjected to two cycles limpet-mine attacks which caused at least three major explosions and set the tanker aflame. The Japanese owned Kokuka Courageous was also subjected first to a torpedo attack which breached the hull above the water line. Over the next three hours, the Kokuka Courageous was subjected twice to limpet-mine attacks, as well as a couple of 107mm rockets (most likely launched from an IRGC Seraj-1-class fast attack boat), which also set the tanker aflame. Both tankers were first hit in the engine-room area so that they stopped. The main tanks were then repeatedly bombed until they burned out of control.

      The predominantly Russian crew of the Front Altair was rescued by an Iranian vessel and brought to a nearby port in Iran. The predominantly Filipino crew of the Kokuka Courageouswas rescued by local tugboats and then moved to the US destroyer Bainbridge. Tehran continued to insist that all 44 crew members of both tankers were rescued by the Iranian Navy and safety authorities.

      The initial expert analysis of the attacks strongly suggested a professional operation.

      “These appear to be well planned and coordinated attacks,” wrote shipping experts in the Gulf States. They noted that the two tankers were first hit in close proximity to the engine room and thus were stopped. They were then subjected to strong explosions at or below the waterline. Such explosions were most likely caused by limpet-mines similar to those used in Fujairah on May 12, 2019. The USS Bainbridge reported that it saw “an unexploded limpet mine on the side of one of the ships attacked in the Gulf of Oman”. The next day, a US UAV spotted an IRGC Zulfiqar-class fast attack boat approaching the tanker where the crew removed the unexploded mine. The experts concluded that “a state actor is responsible” for the attack.

      In all likelihood, the strike was carried out by members of the Sepah Navy Special Force, an independent Takavar unit of the IRGC Navy, and/or foreign Shi’ite jihadists trained by them. The attackers operated from the military port in Bandar-e-Jask in the Southern Hormozgan Province of Iran. The mother ship of the Fujairah attackers was believed to have sailed from Bandar-e-Jask. The IRGC Navy base was established there in 2008. Several years later, it was expanded to include the headquarters of the Iran Navy’s 2nd Naval District. Bandar-e-Jask is the home base of a unit of the IRGC’s Ghadir midget submarines, a wide variety of IRGC fast attack boats, (including the Seraj-1 and Zulfiqar classes), and long-range UAVs used for operations over the Persian Gulf. The Ghadir midget submarines are equipped with the Jask-2 anti-ship missiles and Valfajr torpedoes (which might have been used to attack the two tankers).

      The initial media coverage of the incident was of significance.

      The first reports came rather quickly on the Iranian Al-Alam News Network which broadcasts in Arabic and covers the entire Arabian Peninsula. Al-Alam reported that two “giant oil tankers” had come under “attack”, that “two explosions” took place, and that the tankers were aflame. These reports were then picked up by the Persian-language Iranian media; first the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News and then the propaganda channel, Press TV, which broadcasts in several languages worldwide. Only then the media in the Middle East and the global media started to pay attention to the strike.

      Subsequently, official Tehran began addressing the issue; warning Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States against hastily attributing the attack to Iran. “All regional states should be careful not to be entrapped by deception of those who benefit from instability in the region,” Iranian Government Spokesman Ali Rabie said. “The Iranian Government is ready for security and regional cooperation to guarantee security, including in the strategic waterways.”

      The attack on the tankers in the Gulf of Oman cannot be seen in isolation.

      They were part of a comprehensive policy against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, but timed in the aftermath of the attacks on the Iranian ports. In early April, a three-phase escalating war plan was drawn under Maj.-Gen. Qassem Soleimani in order to deprive the West of access to the Arabian Peninsula’s oil if US sanctions persisted and Iran could no longer sell oil.

      The first phase was to signal Iran’s resolve and might;

      the second, sinking tankers transferring oil from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, as well as blocking the Strait of Hormuz;

      and the third was to destroy the entire oil and gas infrastructure throughout the Arabian Peninsula.

      In late-April 2019, Maj.-Gen. Mohammed Hossein Bagheri alluded to the Iranian resolve. “If our oil fails to go through the Strait, others’ crude will not either,” Bagheri warned. The Fujairah attack and the Gulf of Oman attack corresponded with the first two phases of Soleimani’s plan. The third was also tocome.

      The attack on the Japanese owned Kokuka Courageous was fortuitous because it happened just as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was visiting Tehran in effort to convince Tehran that US Pres. Donald Trump was serious about comprehensive negotiations with Iran. On June 13, 2019, Abe met with Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamene‘i who set the tone for Iran’s harsh policies.

      After pleasantries, Abe told Khamene‘i that the primary objective of his visit was to convey a special message from Pres. Trump. “I would like to give you a message from the President of the United States,” Abe told Khamene‘i. Khamene‘i exploded and told Abe his mission was doomed and futile from the very beginning. “We have no doubts about your goodwill and seriousness, but with regard to what you relayed from the US President, I see no merit in Trump as a person to deserve the exchange of any messages, and I do not have any answer for him and will not give him any either,” Khamene‘i replied.

      Khamene‘i then addressed the nuclear issue, repeating the falsehood of his own fatwaforbidding nuclear weapons. However, Khamene‘i stressed that the US or the EU had no say in whether Iran would or would not have nuclear weapons. “We are against nuclear weapons and my fatwa bans their development. However, you should know that if we decide to develop nuclear weapons, the United States will be unable to do anything,” Khamene‘i told Abe.

      According to the Mehr News Agency, Abe delivered five specific requests from Trump to Khamene‘i. Mehr cited “Trumps’ five requests and the Leader’s direct answers to them:

      “Trump: The US is not intended to change the regime in Iran.

      “Leader: This is a lie for if the US could do that it would but this is what US is not capable of doing.

      “Trump: We want to re-negotiate nuclear issues.

      “Leader: Iran held talks with the US for five to six years over nuclear issues and reached a conclusion but the US withdrew from the deal. This is not reasonable to re-negotiate things with a country who has ruined all the agreements.

      “Trump: The US seeks to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons.

      “Leader: We disagree with nuclear weapons and I have announced it Haram in a Fatwa but you should know that if we wanted to make nuclear weapons the US could not prevent us.

      “Trump: The US is ready to start honest negotiations with Iran.

      “Leader: We do not believe in that, since honest negotiations are far from a person like Trump. Honesty is rare among American officials.

      “Trump: Holding talks with the US will make Iran improve.

      “Leader: Under the mercy of God, we will improve without having negotiations with the US and despite the imposed sanctions.”

      The other important meeting Prime Minister Abe had was with Pres. Rouhani. According to Rouhani, they discussed “stability and security of the region”. Most important was Abe’s reiteration that Japan remained interested in purchasing Iranian oil despite the sanctions. “Japan’s willingness to continue purchase of oil from Iran and to boost financial, scientific and cultural cooperation will be a guarantee for development of ties,” Rouhani stated.

      Ultimately, Russia and the PRC were the prime, long-term beneficiaries of the brewing crisis in the Persian Gulf.

      Both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping were in Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic, on June 14, 2019, for the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Rouhani was also participating. After the attack on the tankers, the US attention again focused on the Persian Gulf and away from the escalation of the confrontation with the PRC and Russia.

      Meanwhile, both Putin and Xi were, in Bishkek, leading the dramatic strengthening of both the Eurasian Sphere and the New Silk Road. The US handling of both the trade/tariff war with the PRC, and the Persian Gulf crisis, as explained by Rouhani, had convinced Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Central Asian leaders in attendance to seek closer ties with Russia and the PRC. The SCO was further enthused by the decision, announced by Xi Jinping, to divert major PRC investment funds from the US to Central Asia and the New Silk Road. Indeed, Russian and PRC officials defined the Xi-Putin-Modi meeting in Bishkek as being “vital for re-shaping the world order” and as a major setback to the US attempt to dominate the forthcoming G20 summit in Osaka, Japan.

      Meanwhile, Tehran continued to prepare for an escalation to come. On June 14, 2019, Iranian Intelligence Minister Mahmoud Alavi led a senior delegation to Damascus where it met with leaders of Palestinian terrorist organizations, HizbAllah and other Shi’ite jihadist factions. In the meeting, the Palestinian leaders emphasized the “interconnected rôle of the resistance axis’ forces and countries in the region in confronting schemes and threats that target Iran, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon”. Indeed, Egyptian senior intelligence officials now claim that the recent launching of rockets from the Gaza Strip was conducted by “regional elements” tied with “the attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.”

      Concurrently, Qods commander Qassem Soleimani continued traveling clandestinely throughout the Middle East, preparing his extensive and growing forces, both Iranian and Iran-proxy, for a direct clash with the US and its allies should Khamene‘i give the order.

    • Diarrhea In The Dominican; Teens Fall Ill At Same Hotel Where Tourists Mysteriously Died

      A group of seven Oklahoma teens fell ill during their senior trip to the Dominican Republic after eating dinner at the beleaguered Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Punta Cana, where at least two Americans have died recently out of nine total on the island, and others have reported falling ill. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The recent graduates of Deer Creek High School arrived on the island, where they enjoyed themselves on the beach. After dining at the resort’s Japanese restaurant, however, they became violently ill and had to be rushed to the ER where they received antibiotics and hydration, according to KOCO

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “I just woke up, and my stomach was cramping and I was sweating,” teenager Bennett Hill told KOCO. “I was freezing.” 

      We’ve been hooked up to IVs since we first got here with antibiotics, just getting hydrated,” Hill added. 

      Parent Liz McLaughlin said her daughter Libby was one of the seven sickened graduates, and that they have “no idea what’s going on.” 

      “We just don’t know what is happening,” McLaughlin told KOTV. “Is it the water? Is it the ice? Is it the food? Is it the food handling? Is it the pesticides?”

      Linked to other cases?

      It is unclear whether whatever sickened is teens is related to a spate of Nine US tourists who have suddenly died while visiting the Dominican Republic – at least two of whom became violently ill after drinking from their hotel room minibars, according to reports. 

      The latest victim was 55-year-old Joseph Allen of New Jersey, who was found dead in his hotel room at the Terra Linda Resort in Sousa. 

    • Tanker War In Persian Gulf And US-Iranian Conflict

      Submitted by SouthFront

      The Persian Gulf region has turned into a new hot point in the Middle East.

      On May 12, a supposed sabotage attack targeted very large crude carrier Amjad and crude tanker Al Marzoqah (both owned by Saudi shipping firm Bahri).  The UAE-flagged fuel bunker barge A Michel and Norwegian-registered oil products tanker MT Andrea Victory were also targeted, all off of UAE’s Fujairah. The attack did not cause any casualties or an oil spill.

      Jaber Al Lamki, an executive director at the UAE’s National Media Council, claimed that the attack was “aimed at undermining global oil supplies and maritime security.” Mainstream media outlets came out with various speculations regarding the incident providing contradictory claims from ‘anonymous sources’. Most of these speculations were focused on supposed Iranian involvement in the situation.

      The US de-facto blamed Iran for the situation with National Security Adviser John Bolton claiming that the attacks were the work of “naval mines almost certainly from Iran.” Adm. Michael Gilday, director of the Joint Staff, issued a statement saying that “the leadership of Iran at the highest level” ordered a spate of disruptive attacks in the region.

      In its own turn, Iran stated that it played no part in the attacks and said that it was a false flag fabricated by the US. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif stressed that Iran “had previously predicted that such actions would occur to create tensions in the region.”

      On June 12, a fire broke out on an Iranian oil platform of the South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf. The fire was subsequently contained and no fatalities were reported. State TV said the cause of the fire was under investigation.

      On June 13, another suspicious incident took place in the Gulf of Oman. Marshall Islands-flagged Front Altair and Panama-flagged Kokuka Courageous oil tankers were rocked by explosions. This development also appeared to be surrounded by multiple speculations immediately after first reports about the situation. Initial versions varied from a torpedo attack to naval mines with the aforementioned tendency regarding supposed Iranian involvement. Nonetheless, once again, no casualties were reported in the supposed attack.

      On June 14, Washington claimed that it had evidence confirming Iranian involvement in the June 13 incident. According to a statement by US Central Command, Iranian forces were spotted removing “a probable unexploded limpet mine” from Kokuka Courageous. Central Command also released photos supposed to confirm the claim regarding the non-exploded mine.

      Iran denied involvement in the incident labeling it a provocation. The US version of the story was met with serious skepticism among more or less independent media outlets, and even by the owner and operator of the Kokuka Courageous and some European allies of the US.

      Yutaka Katada, the president of Kokuka Sangyo, called reports of a mine attack “false”.

      “A mine doesn’t damage a ship above sea level,” he said “We aren’t sure exactly what hit, but it was something flying towards the ship.”

      He added that sailors on board the ship saw “flying objects” just before Kokuka Courageous was hit. This is further evidence suggesting the vessel wasn’t damaged by mines, but by objects that could have been fired from a distance.

      On June 16, Central Command claimed that Iranian forces attempted to shoot down an MQ-9 Reaper drone in the Gulf of Oman hours before the attack on the tankers.

      Such reporting is a logical continuation of earlier hysteria over supposed Iranian preparations to attack US forces and infrastructure in the Middle East. The “Iran is readying for an attack” propaganda campaign was used by the US to justify its ongoing military buildup in the region.

      Taking into account the military and political situation established in the region, and the obvious loopholes in Washington’s version of the June 13 ‘attack’, it’s quite possible it was a pre-planned provocation. The main party standing to benefit from such a development is the US.

      • Rising tensions in the Persian Gulf region allow the Trump administration to continue exploiting the “Iranian threat” to justify its internal and foreign policies. Inside the US, it allows Washington to increase military-industrial complex spending even further. In terms of foreign policy, it gives the US an additional justification to continue its hard-core anti-Iranian and pro-Israeli policy as well as to boost its military and diplomatic presence in the Middle East.
      • The geo-economic goal of this provocation is to create tensions in the Persian Gulf region and near it (the western part of the Indian Ocean). The growing threat to maritime security would increase logistical costs for key oil consumers. DHT Holdings and Heidmar, two of the biggest oil tankers operators in the world, have suspended new bookings to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The oil price rose. Insurance rates for logistical operations in the region are also expected to increase. This situation directly impacts China, one of the key oil consumers, as well as European states with large industrial potential, such as Germany. The pressure on possible economic competitors through economic tariffs and sanctions, military and diplomatic means are the consistent policy of the Trump administration.

      The recent escalation of the conflict in Yemen also plays a role in the current tensions. Over the past months, Ansar Allah (the Houthis) have drastically increased the number of missile and drone attacks on key infrastructure objects in Saudi Arabia, which still continues its military invasion of Yemen.

      At the same time, the Iranian leadership uses the threat of an aggressive and artful enemy (the US-Israeli alliance) to justify its policies and boost influence on Shia armed groups and movements across the Greater Middle East.

      Ansar Allah, supported by Iran, will likely continue these strident attacks on Saudi Arabia.  In the event of further escalation of the regional situation, it is conceivable that groups allied with Tehran could attack US forces or infrastructure objects. Despite this, the chances of a new open hot war in the region remains low.

      Strategically, Iran will focus on developing asymmetric means and measures, including tactical missile forces and its mosquito-craft fleet. Any chosen asymmetric responses will be in line with Iran’s economic capabilities and designed to cause maximum damage in the event of military confrontation.

    • New Zealand Man Gets 21 Months In Prison For Sharing Mosque Shooting Video

      A New Zealand businessman who pleaded guilty to two charges of distributing footage of the March 15 Christchurch mosque shootings was sentenced to 21 months in prison on Tuesday, according to the Straits Times

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      44-year-old Philip Arps admitted that he sent 30 people the unmodified video of Brenton Tarrant’s rampage that killed 50 people in consecutive terrorist attacks on two Christchurch mosques. He also pleaded guilty to sending the video to another person to overlay crosshairs and a “kill count” onto the footage which he intended to distribute over the internet. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Tuesday morning in the Christchurch District Court, judge Stephen O’Driscoll said when Arps was asked for his opinion of the video, he said it was “awesome”. Because of Arps’ extreme ideological outlook, there was no prospect of his rehabilitation and his sentence should rule out home detention, said the judge.

      Arps also faces six months of post-release conditions when he must attend psychological assessment, no access the internet and undergo assessment and counselling for alcohol and drug use. –Straits Times

      Arps, who owns a neo-Nazi-themed insulation company, wanted to glorify the deaths of members of the local Muslim community, according to Judge O’Driscoll, who said that any sentence short of imprisonment would be inappropriate. 

      Arps is the owner of a company called Beneficial Insulation that uses a sunwheel, or black sun, as its logo, which is commonly used by neo-Nazis. The company states that it charges 14.88 NZ dollars per metre for insulation, a reference to a white supremacist slogan and to Adolf Hitler.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In 2016, Arps was convicted of offensive behavior for filming himself giving a hitler salute while delivering boxes of pigs heads and offal to the Al Noor mosque, according to the New Zealand Herald, which added that Arps said: “White power. … Bring on the cull.” 

    • All The Cyber-Attack Stories From The Past Few Days Can't Be Linked…Can They?

      Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

      A very important skill for anyone who hopes to be in the know is the ability to put together seemingly unrelated stories for consideration.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Over the past few days, stories about grid incursions, Russians, cyber attacks, and technological failures seemed to be at the top of the headlines. A massive cyber attack could happen far more easily than most people realize.

      The good folks over in Prep Club have been posting a lot of interesting links this weekend. Let’s take a peek at each one. All these stories can’t be linked…can they?

      The US Is Hacking Russia’s Grid

      On Saturday, the New York Times reported (rather irresponsibly in my opinion) that the United States is escalating their “digital incursions into Russia’s electric power grid in a warning to President Vladimir V. Putin” according to nameless current and former government officials.

      Of course, this kind of stuff has been going on for a while. A friend of mine with a military intel background said it’s similar to how we have nukes so that other people with nukes won’t nuke us.

      But the NYT story goes far beyond the mutually assured destruction theory.

      The American strategy has shifted more toward offense, officials say, with the placement of potentially crippling malware inside the Russian system at a depth and with an aggressiveness that had never been tried before. It is intended partly as a warning, and partly to be poised to conduct cyberstrikes if a major conflict broke out between Washington and Moscow…

      …the action inside the Russian electric grid appears to have been conducted under little-noticed new legal authorities, slipped into the military authorization bill passed by Congress last summer. The measure approved the routine conduct of “clandestine military activity” in cyberspace, to “deter, safeguard or defend against attacks or malicious cyberactivities against the United States.”

      Under the law, those actions can now be authorized by the defense secretary without special presidential approval.

      “It has gotten far, far more aggressive over the past year,” one senior intelligence official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity but declining to discuss any specific classified programs. “We are doing things at a scale that we never contemplated a few years ago.” (source)

      And apparently, the NYT knows about this but President Trump doesn’t.

      Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place “implants” — software code that can be used for surveillance or attack — inside the Russian grid.

      Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister. (source)

      So to sum it up, anonymous sources say the US is about ready to take down Russia’s infrastructure without the knowledge of the President, because he might tell someone, so instead, the New York Times just published the super-duper-secret plan.

      President Trump responded via Twitter.

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

      And the NYT responded:

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

      But there’s other stuff to contemplate from just this weekend.

      Russia is upping their game against us.

      After the irresponsible reporting by the NYT, Russia has responded with their own anonymous sources.

      Russia has uncovered and thwarted attempts by the United States to carry out cyber attacks on the control systems of Russian infrastructure, Russian news agencies cited an unnamed security source as saying on Monday.

      The disclosure was made on Russia’s state-run RIA and TASS news agencies days after the New York Times cited unnamed government sources as saying that the United States had inserted potentially disruptive computer code into Russia’s power grid as part of a more aggressive deployment of its cyber tools. (source)

      Isn’t it funny how the NYT has accused Trump and a whole bunch of other people of helping out the Russians but they just tipped off the Russians to an American operation if any of this stuff is true? And I say “any” because who can really take the word of a bunch of anonymous sources. My neighbor’s 94-year-old father could be an anonymous source. Some dude on 4Chan could be an anonymous source. Anonymous sources are not credible in the first place, and certainly not credible enough to kick off a freaking cyberwar with Russia.

      Either way, the Kremlin is ticked. TASS, the Russian News Agency, reports:

      Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov believes that the United States’ cyberwar against Russia is a hypothetical possibility. He made the statement to the media in response to claims by The New York Times that US secret services over the past year were increasingly active in their attempts to cripple computer malware inside Russia’s power grid.

      According to the Kremlin spokesman, Russia has repeatedly said “that the vital areas of our economy are under continuous attacks from abroad.” “We regret to say that,” Peskov said, adding that the relevant Russian agencies continued to counter those attacks in order to prevent damage to the country’s economy.

      Peskov also pointed out that “it was President Putin who has on numerous occasions sought to initiate international cooperation to counter any sort of cyber crime.” “Unfortunately, our American partners never responded to our initiatives,” he noted. (source)

      Arstechnica reported:

      While it remains unclear precisely how the new, more aggressive digital incursions into Russia’s power grid are manifesting themselves, Saturday’s report has clearly gotten the attention of Russian foreign policy commentators. “This is a direct challenge that Moscow cannot leave unanswered,”Ruslan Pukhov, an arms expert and head of the Center for Strategies and Technologies, told the Russian business daily Kommersant.(source)

      To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “And just like that, the New York Times started a cyberwar.”

      Our own power grid is being probed by hackers.

      Arstechnica reported that the very same hackers who caused issues in the gas and oil industry with Triconex malware are poking around in our power grid.

      “In a new troubling escalation, hackers behind at least two potentially fatal intrusions on industrial facilities have expanded their activities to probing dozens of power grids in the US and elsewhere, researchers with security firm Dragos reported Friday.

      The group, now dubbed Xenotime by Dragos, quickly gained international attention in 2017 when researchers from Dragos and the Mandiant division of security firm FireEye independently reported Xenotime had recently triggered a dangerous operational outage at a critical-infrastructure site in the Middle East. Researchers from Dragos have labeled the group the world’s most dangerous cyber threat ever since…

      …Now, Dragos is reporting that Xenotime has been performing network scans and reconnaissance on multiple components across the electric grids in the US and in other regions. Sergio Caltagirone, senior VP of threat intelligence at Dragos, told Ars his firm has detected dozens of utilities—about 20 of them located in the US—that have been subjected to Xenotime probes since late 2018. While the activities indicate only an initial exploration and there’s no evidence the utilities have been compromised, he said the expansion was nonetheless concerning.

      “The threat has proliferated and is now targeting the US and Asia Pacific electric utilities, which means that we are no longer safe thinking that the threat to our electric utilities is understood or stable,” he said in an interview. “This is the first signal that threats are proliferating across sectors, which means that now we can’t be certain that a threat to one sector will stay in that sector and won’t cross over.” (source)

      Nobody knows who is behind Xenotime. although some suspect New Russia Iran.

      Oh, and South American had a massive blackout

      Millions of South Americans in Argentina, Uraguay, and Paraguay were in the dark for hours this past weekend. Although officials don’t currently have proof of cyber-malfeasance, they’re not ruling it out.

      “At this moment we cannot rule out any possibility….as anything can happen as per the current cyber landscape”, said Gustavo Lopetegui, Energy Secretary of Argentina.

      “Millions of people were left in darkness and still some regions were reigning under the incident pressure,” says Mauricio Macri, President, Argentina. (source)

      So what exactly happened?

      The problem in the energy network left Argentina cut off from power at 7:06 a.m. local time (10:06 UTC) Sunday in what Argentine energy company Edesur attributed to “a massive failure in the electrical interconnection system.”

      Argentine President Mauricio Macri said on Twitter the outage was “unprecedented.” (source)

      NPR reported on the outage.

      In Buenos Aires, the Constitucion railway station was empty, with trains halted, according to Bloomberg.

      Traffic lights failed across the city, and some shopkeepers ran generators to keep the lights on. Water supplies were disrupted, as were mobile phone and internet services.

      The Argentinian news site Infobae reported that the power cut stopped trains and subway service; however, two airports in Buenos Aires continued to run on generators.

      Uruguay’s state energy department wrote that “a flaw in the Argentine network” left Uruguay without light, according to Infobae.

      The power outage fell on a day of provincial elections in some of Argentina’s provinces. (source)

      There have been a lot of significant cyber attacks since 2006.

      The Center for Strategic and International Studies has documented a lot of significant cyber attacks in the past 13 years. This chart sums it up with cyber attacks that cost the victim a million dollars or more.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      This is just a summary but you can go here to see CSIS’s full list of cyber attacks.

      The prospect of a massive cyber attack seems a lot more likely.

      We know that the American infrastructure has not really been hardened against…well…much of anything. It seems like it’s only a matter of time. One computer expert showed the DHS how easy it was to get inside the grid and there’s evidence our grid has been hacked before. It was just recently that a hack disrupted grid operations on an unprecedented level.

      Can you imagine the chaos if we had a widespread grid failure in the United States? Heck, look at the upheaval caused by Target’s registers being offline for two hours this weekend. (I’m looking at YOU, Russia.)

      It would only take a few days of no power, no internet, no cell phones, no stores, no hospitals, and no gasoline to completely change the world we live in.

      Getting prepped for a cyber attack should be pretty high on your list of priorities if it’s not already.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 18th June 2019

    • The UK Is Among Europe's Least Family-Friendly Countries

      A new analysis of OECD data by UNICEF has revealed the European countries with the most and least family-friendly policies

      Infographic: UK among Europe's least family-friendly countries | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      As Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes, at the top of the overall ranking, Sweden has the highest average ranking when considering the following indicators: paid parental leave available to mothers, paid parental leave reserved for fathers, childcare enrollment (under 3) and childcare enrollment (3 to school age).

      The United Kingdom however, is among the least family-friendly countries in Europe according to these measures, with an average ranking among the 31 countries of 26.75. The UK performed best in terms of childcare enrollment for children under the age of three – 29 percent leading to a rank of 19th.

    • Covering Up Our Culture To Avoid Giving Offense

      Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,

      Three years ago, the Italian government made a shameful decision. It veiled its antique Roman statues to avoid offending Iran’s visiting President Hassan Rouhani. Nude statues were encased in white boxes. A year earlier, in Florence, another statue featuring a naked man in Greco-Roman style had also been coveredduring the visit of the crown prince of Abu Dhabi. Now, one of the most famous British art galleries has covered two paintings, after Muslim complaints that they were “blasphemous“.

      At the Saatchi Gallery in London, two works, again featuring nudes, this time overlaid with Arabic script, prompted complaints from Muslim visitors, who requested that the paintings be removed from the Rainbow Scenes exhibition. In the end, the paintings were covered with sheets. “The Saatchi is behaving like Saudi Arabia, hiding from public view artworks that blaspheme against Islam”, commented Brendan O’Neill on Spiked. One expert described the paintings as “The Satanic Verses all over again“. The reference was to the book by Salman Rushdie, a British citizen, published in 1988. Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 condemned Rushdie to death for writing the book. The bounty on Rushdie’s head was increased to $4 million in 2016 when a group of Iranians added $600,000 to the “reward” — with no protest from Britain.

      It was after Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses that many Western publishing houses began bowing to Islamist intimidation. Christian Bourgois, a French publishing house that had bought the rights, refused to publish The Satanic Verses. It was the first time that, in the name of Islam, a writer was condemned to disappear from the face of the earth — to be murdered for a bounty.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In 1988, The Satanic Verses was published, written by Salman Rushdie (left), a British citizen. Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (right) in 1989 condemned Rushdie to death for writing the book. The Rushdie affair seems to have deeply shaped British society. (Image sources: Rushdie – Andrew H. Walker/Getty Images; Khomeini – Mohammad Sayyad/Wikimedia Commons)

      Rushdie is still with us, but the murder in 2004 of Theo van Gogh for producing and directing a film, “Submission”, about Islamic violence toward women; the death of so many Arab-Islamic intellectuals guilty of writing freely, the Danish cartoon riots and the many trials (for instance, here and here) and attempted murders (such as here and here), the slaughter at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the attacks after Pope’s Benedict speech in Regensburg, the booksand scripts cancelled, the depictions of Muhammad closeted in the warehouses of museums, and the increasing threats and punishments, including flogging, to countless journalists and writers such as Saudi Arabia’s Raif Badawi, should alarm us — not bring us to our knees.

      As the Saatchi Gallery’s capitulation shows, freedom of speech in Europe is now exhausted and weak. So far, we have caved in to Islamic extremists and Western appeasers. It is the tragic lesson of the Rushdie case 30 years later: no author would dare to write The Satanic Verses today; no large publishing house such as Penguin would print it; media attacks against “Islamophobes” would be even stronger, as would the bottomless betrayal of Western diplomats. Also today, thanks to social media as a weapon of censorship and implicit mass threats, any author would probably be less fortunate than Rushdie was 30 years ago. Since that time, we have made no progress. Instead, we have been seeing the jihad against The Satanic Verses over and over again.

      “Nobody would have the balls today to write ‘The Satanic Verses’, let alone publish it,” said the writer Hanif Kureishi.

      “Writing is now timid because writers are now terrified”.

      According to the author Kenan Malik, writing in 2008:

      “What we are talking about here is not a system of formal censorship, under which the state bans works deemed offensive. Rather, what has developed is a culture of self-censorship in which the giving of offence has come to be seen as morally unacceptable. In the 20 years since the publication of The Satanic Verses the fatwa has effectively become internalised”.

      The Rushdie affair also seems to have deeply shaped British society. The Saatchi Gallery’s surrender in London is not unique. The Tate Britain gallery shelved a sculpture, “God is Great”, by John Latham, of the Koran, Bible and Talmud embedded in glass. Christopher Marlowe’s “Tamburlaine the Great” was censoredat the Barbican Centre. The play included a reference to the Prophet of Islam being “not worthy to be worshipped” as well as a scene in which the Koran is burned. The Whitechapel Art Gallery in London purged an exhibit containing nude dolls which could possibly have upset the Muslim population. At the Mall Galleries in London, a painting, “ISIS Threaten Sylvania”, by the artist Mimsy, was censoredfor showing toy stuffed-animal terrorists about to massacre toy stuffed-animals having a picnic.

      At the Royal Court Theatre in London, Richard Bean was forced to censor himself for an adaptation of “Lysistrata”, the Greek comedy in which the women go on a sex strike to stop the men who wanted to go to war. In Bean’s version, Islamic virgins go on strike to stop terrorist suicide bombers.

      Unfortunately, in the name of fighting “Islamophobia”, the British establishment now appears to be submitting to creeping sharia: and purging and censoring speech on its own.

      Recently, some major conservative intellectuals have been sacked in the UK. One is the peerless philosopher Roger Scruton, who was fired from a governmental committee for saying that the word “Islamophobia” has been invented by the Muslim Brotherhood “to stop discussion of a major issue“.

      Then it was the turn of the great Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, whose visiting fellowship at Cambridge University was rescinded for posing with a man wearing an “I’m a proud Islamophobe” T-shirt. Professor Peterson later said that the word “Islamophobia” has been “partly constructed by people engaging in Islamic extremism, to ensure that Islam isn’t criticised as a structure”.

      The instances of Scruton and Peterson only confirm the real meaning of “Islamophobia”, a word invented to silence any criticism of Islam by anyone, or as Salman Rushdie commented, a word “created to help the blind remain blind”. Where is the long-overdue push-back?

      Writing in 2008, The Telegraph‘s Tim Walker quoted the famous playwright Simon Gray saying that Nicholas Hytner, director of London’s National Theatre from 2003-2015, “has been happy to offend Christians,” but “is wary of putting on anything which could upset Muslims.” The last people who did so were the journalists of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. They paid with their lives. By refusing to confront the speech police, or to support freedom of expression for Salman Rushdie, Roger Scruton, Jordan Peterson, Charlie Hebdoand Jyllands-Posten — just the tip of a huge iceberg — we have started down the road of submission to sharia law and to tyranny. We all have been covering up our supposedly “blasphemous” culture with burqas to avoid offending people who do not seem to mind offending us.

    • The Road To Perdition – 10 Cautionary Tenets About US Air Power

      Authored by William Astore via TomDispatch.com,

      The American Cult of Bombing and Endless War

      From Syria to Yemen in the Middle East, Libya to Somalia in Africa, Afghanistan to Pakistan in South Asia, an American aerial curtain has descended across a huge swath of the planet.

      Its stated purpose: combatting terrorism.

      Its primary method: constant surveillance and bombing — and yet more bombing.

      Its political benefit: minimizing the number of U.S. “boots on the ground” and so American casualties in the never-ending war on terror, as well as any public outcry about Washington’s many conflicts.

      Its economic benefit: plenty of high-profit business for weapons makers for whom the president can now declare a national security emergency whenever he likes and so sell their warplanes and munitions to preferred dictatorships in the Middle East (no congressional approval required).

      Its reality for various foreign peoples: a steady diet of “Made in USA” bombs and missiles bursting here, there, and everywhere.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Think of all this as a cult of bombing on a global scale. America’s wars are increasingly waged from the air, not on the ground, a reality that makes the prospect of ending them ever more daunting. The question is: What’s driving this process? 

      For many of America’s decision-makers, air power has clearly become something of an abstraction. After all, except for the 9/11 attacks by those four hijacked commercial airliners, Americans haven’t been the target of such strikes since World War II. On Washington’s battlefields across the Greater Middle East and northern Africa, air power is always almost literally a one-way affair. There are no enemy air forces or significant air defenses. The skies are the exclusive property of the U.S. Air Force (and allied air forces), which means that we’re no longer talking about “war” in the normal sense. No wonder Washington policymakers and military officials see it as our strong suit, our asymmetrical advantage, our way of settling scores with evildoers, real and imagined. 

      Bombs away!

      In a bizarre fashion, you might even say that, in the twenty-first century, the bomb and missile count replaced the Vietnam-era body count as a metric of (false) progress. Using data supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped at least 26,172 bombs in seven countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS’s “capital,” the U.S. and its allies dropped more than 20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to literal rubble. Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600 civilians, according to Amnesty International.

      Meanwhile, since Donald Trump has become president, after claiming that he would get us out of our various never-ending wars, U.S. bombing has surged, not only against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq but in Afghanistan as well. It has driven up the civilian death toll there even as “friendly” Afghan forces are sometimes mistaken for the enemy and killed, too. Air strikes from Somalia to Yemen have also been on the rise under Trump, while civilian casualties due to U.S. bombing continue to be underreported in the American media and downplayed by the Trump administration.

      U.S. air campaigns today, deadly as they are, pale in comparison to past ones like the Tokyo firebombing of 1945, which killed more than 100,000 civilians; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later that year (roughly 250,000); the death toll against German civilians in World War II (at least 600,000); or civilians in the Vietnam War. (Estimates vary, but when napalm and the long-term effects of cluster munitions and defoliants like Agent Orange are added to conventional high-explosive bombs, the death toll in Southeast Asia may well have exceeded one million.) Today’s air strikes are more limited than in those past campaigns and may be more accurate, but never confuse a 500-pound bomb with a surgeon’s scalpel, even rhetorically. When “surgical” is applied to bombing in today’s age of lasers, GPS, and other precision-guidance technologies, it only obscures the very real human carnage being produced by all these American-made bombs and missiles.

      This country’s propensity for believing that its ability to rain hellfire from the sky provides a winning methodology for its wars has proven to be a fantasy of our age. Whether in Korea in the early 1950s, Vietnam in the 1960s, or more recently in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, the U.S. may control the air, but that dominance simply hasn’t led to ultimate success. In the case of Afghanistan, weapons like the Mother of All Bombs, or MOAB (the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. military’s arsenal), have been celebrated as game changers even when they change nothing. (Indeed, the Taliban only continues to grow stronger, as does the branch of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.) As is often the case when it comes to U.S. air power, such destruction leads neither to victory, nor closure of any sort; only to yet more destruction.

      Such results are contrary to the rationale for air power that I absorbed in a career spent in the U.S. Air Force. (I retired in 2005.) The fundamental tenetsof air power that I learned, which are still taught today, speak of decisiveness. They promise that air power, defined as “flexible and versatile,” will have “synergistic effects” with other military operations. When bombing is “concentrated,” “persistent,” and “executed” properly (meaning not micro-managed by know-nothing politicians), air power should be fundamental to ultimate victory. As we used to insist, putting bombs on target is really what it’s all about. End of story — and of thought. 

      Given the banality and vacuity of those official Air Force tenets, given the twenty-first-century history of air power gone to hell and back, and based on my own experience teaching such history and strategy in and outside the military, I’d like to offer some air power tenets of my own. These are the ones the Air Force didn’t teach me, but that our leaders might consider before launching their next “decisive” air campaign.

      Ten Cautionary Tenets About Air Power

      1. Just because U.S. warplanes and drones can strike almost anywhere on the globe with relative impunity doesn’t mean that they should. Given the history of air power since World War II, ease of access should never be mistaken for efficacious results.

      2. Bombing alone will never be the key to victory. If that were true, the U.S. would have easily won in Korea and Vietnam, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. American air power pulverized both North Korea and Vietnam (not to speak of neighboring Laos and Cambodia), yet the Korean War ended in a stalemate and the Vietnam War in defeat. (It tells you the world about such thinking that air power enthusiasts, reconsidering the Vietnam debacle, tend to argue the U.S. should have bombed even more — lots more.) Despite total air supremacy, the recent Iraq War was a disaster even as the Afghan War staggers on into its 18th catastrophic year. 

      3. No matter how much it’s advertised as “precise,” “discriminate,” and “measured,” bombing (or using missiles like the Tomahawk) rarely is. The deaths of innocents are guaranteed. Air power and those deaths are joined at the hip, while such killings only generate anger and blowback, thereby prolonging the wars they are meant to end.

      Consider, for instance, the “decapitation” strikes launched against Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein and his top officials in the opening moments of the Bush administration’s invasion of 2003. Despite the hype about that being the beginning of the most precise air campaign in all of history, 50 of those attacks, supposedly based on the best intelligence around, failed to take out Saddam or a single one of his targeted officials. They did, however, cause “dozens” of civilian deaths. Think of it as a monstrous repeat of the precision air attacks launched on Belgrade in 1999 against Slobodan Milosevic and his regime that hit the Chinese embassy instead, killing three journalists. 

      Here, then, is the question of the day: Why is it that, despite all the “precision” talk about it, air power so regularly proves at best a blunt instrument of destruction? As a start, intelligence is often faulty. Then bombs and missiles, even “smart” ones, do go astray. And even when U.S. forces actually kill high-value targets (HVTs), there are always more HVTs out there. A paradox emerges from almost 18 years of the war on terror: the imprecision of air power only leads to repetitious cycles of violence and, even when air strikes prove precise, there always turn out to be fresh targets, fresh terrorists, fresh insurgents to strike.

      4. Using air power to send political messages about resolve or seriousness rarely works. If it did, the U.S. would have swept to victory in Vietnam. In Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, for instance, Operation Rolling Thunder(1965-1968), a graduated campaign of bombing, was meant to, but didn’t, convince the North Vietnamese to give up their goal of expelling the foreign invaders — us — from South Vietnam. Fast-forward to our era and consider recent signals sent to North Korea and Iran by the Trump administration via B-52 bomber deployments, among other military “messages.” There’s no evidence that either country modified its behavior significantly in the face of the menace of those baby-boomer-era airplanes.

      5. Air power is enormously expensive. Spending on aircraft, helicopters, and their munitions accounted for roughly half the cost of the Vietnam War. Similarly, in the present moment, making operational and then maintaining Lockheed Martin’s boondoggle of a jet fighter, the F-35, is expected to cost at least $1.45 trillion over its lifetime. The new B-21 stealth bomber will cost more than $100 billion simply to buy. Naval air wings on aircraft carriers cost billions each year to maintain and operate. These days, when the sky’s the limit for the Pentagon budget, such costs may be (barely) tolerable. When the money finally begins to run out, however, the military will likely suffer a serious hangover from its wildly extravagant spending on air power.

      6. Aerial surveillance (as with drones), while useful, can also be misleading. Command of the high ground is not synonymous with god-like “total situational awareness.” It can instead prove to be a kind of delusion, while war practiced in its spirit often becomes little more than an exercise in destruction. You simply can’t negotiate a truce or take prisoners or foster other options when you’re high above a potential battlefield and your main recourse is blowing up people and things.

      7. Air power is inherently offensive. That means it’s more consistent with imperial power projection than with national defense. As such, it fuels imperial ventures, while fostering the kind of “global reach, global power” thinking that has in these years had Air Force generals in its grip.

      8. Despite the fantasies of those sending out the planes, air power often lengthens wars rather than shortening them. Consider Vietnam again. In the early 1960s, the Air Force argued that it alone could resolve that conflict at the lowest cost (mainly in American bodies). With enough bombs, napalm, and defoliants, victory was a sure thing and U.S. ground troops a kind of afterthought. (Initially, they were sent in mainly to protect the airfields from which those planes took off.) But bombing solved nothing and then the Army and the Marines decided that, if the Air Force couldn’t win, they sure as hell could. The result was escalation and disaster that left in the dust the original vision of a war won quickly and on the cheap due to American air supremacy.

      9. Air power, even of the shock-and-awe variety, loses its impact over time. The enemy, lacking it, nonetheless learns to adapt by developing countermeasures — both active (like missiles) and passive (like camouflage and dispersion), even as those being bombed become more resilient and resolute. 

      10. Pounding peasants from two miles up is not exactly an ideal way to occupy the moral high ground in war. 

      The Road to Perdition

      If I had to reduce these tenets to a single maxim, it would be this: all the happy talk about the techno-wonders of modern air power obscures its darker facets, especially its ability to lock America into what are effectively one-way wars with dead-end results.

      For this reason, precision warfare is truly an oxymoron. War isn’t precise. It’s nasty, bloody, and murderous. War’s inherent nature — its unpredictability, horrors, and tendency to outlast its original causes and goals — isn’t changed when the bombs and missiles are guided by GPS. Washington’s enemies in its war on terror, moreover, have learned to adapt to air power in a grimly Darwinian fashion and have the advantage of fighting on their own turf.

      Who doesn’t know the old riddle: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Here’s a twenty-first-century air power variant on it: If foreign children die from American bombs but no U.S. media outlets report their deaths, will anyone grieve? Far too often, the answer here in the U.S. is no and so our wars go on into an endless future of global destruction.

      In reality, this country might do better to simply ground its many fighter planes, bombers, and drones. Paradoxically, instead of gaining the high ground, they are keeping us on a low road to perdition.

    • Cat-Filter Clusterf**k Crushes Pakistani Government Credibility During Live Presser

      A Pakistani politican’s very serious press conference turned into a feline fiasco on Friday after the entire meeting was broadcast over Facebook Live with the “cat filter” setting turned on. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Secretary General Shaukat Yousafzai of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial government conducted the meeting, completely unaware that he was sporting a pair of moving cat ears, a black nose and whiskers. 

      The man sitting to his right was also given feline features.

      As Mr Yousafzai spoke, the comical filter superimposed pink ears and whiskers on his face, and that of other officials sitting beside him.

      “I wasn’t the only one – two officials sitting along me were also hit by the cat filter,” Mr Yousafzai told AFP news agency. –BBC

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

      We’re guessing Pakistan’s furry community has never been more interested in politics. 

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

    • The "Mass Shootings Map" Propaganda Should Convince You To Carry At All Times

      Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

      If you use any form of social media whatsoever, you’ve probably seen the scary “mass shootings map” published by PBS, leading people to believe that they live in a terrifying place and that strict gun control is the only answer. You’ve probably read some of the cries for gun control and the stat of “more than one mass shooting a day” happening in the US. To see this propaganda, you’d think that people walk around with Uzis, randomly opening fire all the time. You’ve probably had this map indignantly posted at you in response to something you said about guns on social media.

      But, you see, the map is BS. It’s a big old truckload of baloney sandwiches, steaming in the sun. It’s a manipulation that is being used to frighten people into thinking they’d be safer if none of us had the tools that we need to protect ourselves.

      These terrifying dots are not all brazen shoot-outs in malls or movie theaters, during which someone takes out as many people as they can. But that’s how it’s portrayed. It’s posted without any real criteria except for the fact that it is incidents in which 4 or more people are shot, including the initial perpetrator. (A reader pointed out that these dots indicate shootings, not deaths in every case. This reduces  the dramatic effect of the map even more.)

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Since biblical times, murders of groups have been recorded. I’m obviously not saying it’s okay, by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m saying that acting like this is a new thing fueled by ammo this is a blatant misrepresentation, designed to scare people into begging the government for protection.

      But why would responsible gun owners being disarmed make anyone safer? 

      I know it has been said so many times that it’s become a cliche, but when law-abiding people give up their guns, who do you think will have guns?

      We’ll have another horrifying incident and no one…NO ONE… will be prepared to stop it.

      The Mass Shootings Map is missing important information

      There are many vital stats missing. Here are just a few of the questions you should ask yourself when you look at that ridiculous mass shooting map.

      • Are any of these homeowners protecting their family from a home invasion? We don’t know – we just know that 4 people were shot.

      • Are any of these incidents of gang violence? We don’t know – we just know that 4 people were shot. Also, I’m pretty sure they don’t register their firearms or get permits to carry them

      • Are any of these shooters victims of the mental health industry, taking SSRI anti-depressants? Actually we do know that quite a few of them were. Despite the fact that SSRIs don’t work on everyone who takes them, and on some they actually cause the person taking them to become violent and act on their thoughts, I don’t see anyone calling for a ban on SSRIs.

      • Are these all legally obtained guns? We don’t know – we just know that 4 people were shot. This most recent incident happened in California, home of some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. (It was nearly an 8-month process to get my own concealed carry permit here, and many were the hoops I had to jump through.)

      If anything, this map should make you more convinced of the importance of carrying a firearm everywhere you go. You have an inalienable right as a human being to preserve your own life.

      This is a scare tactic for non-critical thinkers

      It’s full of holes. It’s a scare tactic, meant to frighten those who won’t think more deeply about the issue. It’s for people who read the headlines, but not the articles.

      The map was published by PBS, who is sponsored in part by Pew Charitable Trust. While the map makes it look like gun violence is on the uptick, Pew reported in a recent article that it actually dropped in half a decade ago, and has remained steady since.

      Several mass shootings this year have brought renewed attention to the issue of gun violence in America, and President Obama has again called for Congress to change the nation’s gun laws.

      But the increased spotlight on guns does not reflect the overall gun violence trend in the country. Although most Americans think the number of gun crimes has risen, the U.S. gun homicide rate has actually stabilized somewhat in recent years, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of death certificate data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

      Between 1993 and 2000, the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half, from 7.0 homicides to 3.8 homicides per 100,000 people. Since then, the gun homicide rate has remained relatively flat. From 2010 to 2013, the most recent year data are available, the number of gun homicides has hovered between 11,000 and 12,000 per year.

      More mass shootings since Obama became president than… umm… forever

      And speaking of Obama, there was a dramatic increase in “mass shootings” since he took office. And by dramatic, I mean it will blow your ever-loving-mind when you see the numbers.

      Truthstream Media collected the following statistics on mass shootings since the Reagan administration. I knew it was bad under Obama, but wowza. Seeing it in print like this certainly shows that increased gun control isn’t slowing down the criminals one little bit.

      When all incidents where four or more people were shot in a single event are broken out by president going back to Reagan (considering the database only stretches back to 1982), there just so happens to have been a startling increase in mass shootings since Obama, the most pro-gun control president America has had in modern history, took office.

      Mass Shootings under the Last Five Presidents

      Ronald Reagan: 1981-1989 (8 years) 11 mass shootings
      Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

      George H. W. Bush: 1989-1993 (4 years) 12 mass murders
      Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3

      Bill Clinton: 1993-2001 (8 years) 23 mass murders
      Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4

      George W. Bush: 2001-2009 (8 years) 20 mass murders
      Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

      Barrack H. Obama: 2009-2015 (in 7th year) 162 mass murders
      Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18

      (You can download the full list of names, dates, locations, and numbers of deaths per mass shooting by president prepared for this article here.)

      This article was originally written before Donald Trump became president, but as of 2018, there were 4 mass shootings under his watch. President Obama finished off with 24 mass shooting events.

      I like a good conspiracy as much as the next prepper, even though I take a lot of them with a grain of salt. But ONE HUNDRED SIXTY TWO????????????

      So no, this doesn’t make me want gun control.

      Coincidentally, the day of one recent shooting, I had just written an article explaining why I felt it was vital that preppers be armed. The day before the Pulse night club shooting, I used a gun to protect my family. These incidents did nothing to change my mind. In fact, they solidified my stance even more.

      Gun control does not keep you safer, which is a lesson we learned with the 2015 atrocity in Paris. No one had a firearm with which they could fight back.  They hid. And when hiding didn’t work, they were slaughtered. They were as helpless as a newborn kitten with its eyes closed. They were victims and weren’t even allowed a fighting chance to level the playing field.

      It’s maps like these that make me more determined than ever to exercise my 2nd Amendment right and protect my family, wherever we go.

      According to this mass shootings map, criminals are everywhere.  According to this mass shootings map, a jaunt to the mall, a field trip to the museum, walking into a bank, or going to a movie are all adventures that are fraught with danger. This mass shootings map doesn’t make me want to give my gun away. It makes me want to double up and avoid any place I’m not able to carry.

      In fact, I think I’ll go throw a couple of extra magazines in my purse.

    • China To Roll Out New Rare Earth Policy As Soon As G-20 Meeting

      Amid the ongoing trade war with the US, consultations between China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and rare earth industry executives have laid the groundwork for limiting rare-earth element (REE) exports.

      During a Monday press conference, the Chinese NDRC said it was developing new state policies on rare earth metals, and intends to make them public as soon as possible.

      According to Deutsche Bank, the key conclusion from the recent meetings is that Chinese authorities are preparing to limit shipments of rare-earth permanent magnets in addition to rare-earth elements, thereby closing off what was termed an  “escape route” by the Global Times. Beijing’s veiled threats to restrict exports of rare earth metals to the US have been called by many as one of China’s nuclear options in a trade conflict with Washington. The US relies on China for about 80 percent of its rare earths supplies. The metals are used in everything from electric car motors and electronics to oil refining.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      This corroborates the widespread assessment that REE exports are hardly the only outlet for such strategic materials. In order for China to more effectively leverage its strategic position, downstream products will also be included. The dollar value of US imports of two key categories of downstream product, NdFeB and SmCo magnets, is larger than the total imports of REEs from China.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A second key conclusion, according to Deutsche Bank’s Michael Hsueh, reflected the idea that traceability and illegal mining must be considered as possible circumvention modes. Traceability was tagged by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) as an objective in January, along with suspension of licenses for companies violating limits. While China has yet to provide a description of the tracing technology, traceability would be doubly helpful in preventing the use of illegally mined materials domestically and enforcing any export ban. Illegal production was estimated at 40-50 kt in rare-earth oxides in 2015, compared to official output of 105kt that year.

      As a reminder, the June 4-5 symposium between the NDRC and officials from key production regions resulted in recommendations to:

      1. broaden, deepen and advance development of the rare earth materials industry,
      2. study suggestions from local levels for innovation,
      3. tighten total output control and crackdown on illegal activities,
      4. strengthen export management with a traceability and review mechanism, and
      5. improve protection of intellectual property in the rare earth industry.

      What happens next?

      In terms of timing, Deutsche believes that a post-G20 escalation of the trade conflict would likely be required for China to enact any export ban. From China’s point of view, the ideal scenario would preferably involve a short period of export limits. Without the assurance of sustainably high prices, the rest of world is more likely to remain cost challenged and deficient in investment. In this regard, the ability to engineer rapid price declines is just as much of a ‘weapon’ as price spikes. To the extent that ex-China investment was hampered by the decline in prices after 2011, this suggests  ex-China incentive costs are likely above the USD 40/t level for PrNd oxide.

    • Why The Empire Is Failing: The Horrid Hubris Of The Albright Doctrine

      Authored by Doug Bandow via National Interest,

      Albright typifies the arrogance and hawkishness of Washington blob…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      How to describe U.S. foreign policy over the last couple of decades? Disastrous comes to mind. Arrogant and murderous also seem appropriate.

      Since 9/11, Washington has been extraordinarily active militarily—invading two nations, bombing and droning several others, deploying special operations forces in yet more countries, and applying sanctions against many. Tragically, the threat of Islamist violence and terrorism only have metastasized. Although Al Qaeda lost its effectiveness in directly plotting attacks, it continues to inspire national offshoots. Moreover, while losing its physical “caliphate” the Islamic State added further terrorism to its portfolio.

      Three successive administrations have ever more deeply ensnared the United States in the Middle East. War with Iran appears to be frighteningly possible. Ever-wealthier allies are ever-more dependent on America. Russia is actively hostile to the United States and Europe. Washington and Beijing appear to be a collision course on far more than trade. Yet the current administration appears convinced that doing more of the same will achieve different results, the best definition of insanity.

      Despite his sometimes abusive and incendiary rhetoric, the president has departed little from his predecessors’ policies. For instance, American forces remain deployed in Afghanistan and Syria. Moreover, the Trump administration has increased its military and materiel deployments to Europe. Also, Washington has intensified economic sanctions on Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, and even penalized additional countries, namely Venezuela.

      U.S. foreign policy suffers from systematic flaws in the thinking of the informal policy collective which former Obama aide Ben Rhodes dismissed as “The Blob.” Perhaps no official better articulated The Blob’s defective precepts than Madeleine Albright, United Nations ambassador and Secretary of State.

      First is overweening hubris. In 1998 Secretary of State Albright declared that

      “If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.”

      Even then her claim was implausible. America blundered into the Korean War and barely achieved a passable outcome. The Johnson administration infused Vietnam with dramatically outsize importance. For decades, Washington foolishly refused to engage the People’s Republic of China. Washington-backed dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and elsewhere fell ingloriously. An economic embargo against Cuba that continues today helped turn Fidel Castro into a global folk hero. Washington veered dangerously close to nuclear war with Moscow during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and again two decades later during military exercises in Europe.

      U.S. officials rarely were prepared for events that occurred in the next week or month, let alone years later. Americans did no better than the French in Vietnam. Americans managed events in Africa no better than the British, French, and Portuguese colonial overlords. Washington made more than its share of bad, even awful decisions in dealing with other nations around the globe.

      Perhaps the worst failing of U.S. foreign policy was ignoring the inevitable impact of foreign intervention. Americans would never passively accept another nation bombing, invading, and occupying their nation, or interfering in their political system. Even if outgunned, they would resist. Yet Washington has undertaken all of these practices, with little consideration of the impact on those most affected—hence the rise of terrorism against the United States. Terrorism, horrid and awful though it is, became the weapon of choice of weaker peoples against intervention by the world’s industrialized national states.

      The U.S. record since September 11 has been uniquely counterproductive. Rather than minimize hostility toward America, Washington adopted a policy—highlighted by launching new wars, killing more civilians, and ravaging additional societies—guaranteed to create enemies, exacerbate radicalism, and spread terrorism. Blowback is everywhere. Among the worst examples: Iraqi insurgents mutated into ISIS, which wreaked military havoc throughout the Middle East and turned to terrorism.

      Albright’s assumption that members of The Blob were far-seeing was matched by her belief that the same people were entitled to make life-and-death decisions for the entire planet. When queried 1996 about her justification for sanctions against Iraq which had killed a half million babies—notably, she did not dispute the accuracy of that estimate—she responded that “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.” Exactly who “we” were she did not say. Most likely she meant those Americans admitted to the foreign policy priesthood, empowered to make foreign policy and take the practical steps necessary to enforce it. (She later stated of her reply: “I never should have made it. It was stupid.” It was, but it reflected her mindset.)

      In any normal country, such a claim would be shocking—a few people sitting in another capital deciding who lived and died. Foreign elites, a world away from the hardship that they imposed, deciding the value of those dying versus the purported interests being promoted. Those paying the price had no voice in the decision, no way to hold their persecutors accountable.

      The willingness to so callously sacrifice so many helps explain why “they” often hate us, usually meaning the U.S. government. This is also because “they” believe average Americans hate them. Understandably, it too often turns out, given the impact of the full range of American interventions—imposing economic sanctions, bombing, invading, and occupying other nations, unleashing drone campaigns, underwriting tyrannical regimes, supporting governments which occupy and oppress other peoples, displaying ostentatious hypocrisy and bias, and more.

      This mindset is reinforced by contempt toward even those being aided by Washington. Although American diplomats had termed the Kosovo Liberation Army as “terrorist,” the Clinton Administration decided to use the growing insurgency as an opportunity to expand Washington’s influence. At the 1999 Rambouillet conference Albright made demands of Yugoslavia that no independent, sovereign state could accept: that, for instance, it act like defeated and occupied territory by allowing the free transit of NATO forces. Washington expected the inevitable refusal, which was calculated to provide justification for launching an unprovoked, aggressive war against the Serb-dominated remnant of Yugoslavia.

      However, initially the KLA, determined on independence, refused to sign Albright’s agreement. She exploded. One of her officials anonymously complained: “Here is the greatest nation on earth pleading with some nothingballs to do something entirely in their own interest—which is to say yes to an interim agreement—and they stiff us.” Someone described as “a close associate” observed: “She is so stung by what happened. She’s angry at everyone—the Serbs, the Albanians and NATO.” For Albright, the determination of others to achieve their own goals, even at risk to their lives, was an insult to America and her.

      Alas, members of the Blob view Americans with little more respect. The ignorant masses should do what they are told. (Former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster recently complained of public war-weariness from fighting in Afghanistan for no good reason for more than seventeen years.) Even more so, believed Albright, members of the military should cheerfully patrol the quasi-empire being established by Washington’s far-sighted leaders.

      As Albright famously asked Colin Powell in 1992:

      “What’s the use of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” To her, American military personnel apparently were but gambit pawns in a global chess game, to be sacrificed for the interest and convenience of those playing. No wonder then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell’s reaction stated in his autobiography was: “I thought I would have an aneurysm.”

      When asked in 2003 about the incident, she said “what I thought was that we had—we were in a kind of a mode of thinking that we were never going to be able to use our military effectively again.” Although sixty-five years had passed, she admitted that “my mindset is Munich,” a unique circumstance and threat without even plausible parallel today.

      Such a philosophy explains a 1997 comment by a cabinet member, likely Albright, to General Hugh Shelton, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Hugh, I know I shouldn’t even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event—something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough—and slow enough—so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?” He responded sure, as soon as she qualified to fly the plane.

      For Albright, war is just another foreign policy tool. One could send a diplomatic note, impose economic sanctions, or unleash murder and mayhem. No reason to treat the latter as anything special. Joining the U.S. military means putting your life at the disposal of Albright and her peers in The Blob.

      Anyone of these comments could be dismissed as a careless aside. Taken together, however, they reflect an attitude dangerous for Americans and foreigners alike. Unfortunately, the vagaries of U.S. foreign policy suggest that this mindset is not limited to any one person. Any president serious about taking a new foreign-policy direction must do more than drain the swamp. He or she must sideline The Blob.

      *  *  *

      Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.

    • Iran's UK Ambassador: "Unfortunately We Are Heading Towards A Confrontation" With The US

      The Iranian Ambassador to the UK Hamid Baeidinejad warned that the United States and Iran are “unfortunately headed toward a confrontation which is very serious for everybody in the region.”

      In an interview with Christiane Amanpour, the Ambassador reacted to rapidly escalating tensions between the two countries – late on Monday the US announced it was sending another 1,000 troops to the Middle East – as the United States continues to blame Iran for an attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

      Ambassador Baeidinejad, a senior Iranian official within the Foreign Ministry, denied the allegations, and cautioned the White House would be “very sorry” to underestimate Iran, should a military conflict ensue. Baeidinejad stopped short of predicting the possibility of U.S. plans for a limited strike in the Persian Gulf, but argued that such plans may already be underway in a bid to spark a fight.

      “I’m sure this is a scenario where some people are forcefully working on it, they will drag the United States into a confrontation. I hope that the people in Washington will be very careful not to underestimate the Iranian determination,” Baeidinejad told CNN. “If they wrongly enter into a conflict, they would be very sorry about that, because we are fully prepared by our government and our forces that we would not be submitting to the United States.”

      He explained that Iran was not opposed to negotiations but that the U.S. should “not interfere” Iran’s economic relationships with other countries, a tactic he referred to as “economic terrorism.”

      When asked who else could be responsible for the attack, Baeidinejad pointed to other countries in the region “who have invested heavily, billions and billions of dollars to draft the United States into a military conflict with Iran.”

      And since everyone knows who they are, he didn’t even have to name them.

    • Are Microsoft & The Pentagon Quietly Hijacking US Elections?

      Authored by Lee Camp via TruthDig.com,

      Good news, folks! We have found the answer to the American election system!

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Why do we need an answer? Well, our election system is… how do you say… a festering rancid corrupt needlessly complex rigged rotten infected putrid pus-covered diseased dog pile of stinking, dying cockroach-filled rat shit smelling like Mitch McConnell under a vat of pig farts. And that’s a quote from The Lancet medical journal (I think).

      But have no fear: The most trustworthy of corporations recently announced it is going to selflessly and patriotically secure our elections. It’s a small company run by vegans and powered by love. It goes by the name “Microsoft.” (You’re forgiven for never having heard of it.)

      The recent headlines were grandiose and thrilling:

      Microsoft offers software tools to secure elections.”

      Microsoft aims to modernize and secure voting with ElectionGuard.”

      Could anything be safer than software christened “ElectionGuard™”?! It has “guard” right there in the name. It’s as strong and trustworthy as the little-known Crotch Guard™—an actual oil meant to be sprayed on one’s junk. I’m unclear as to why one sprays it on one’s junk, but perhaps it’s to secure your erections? (Because they’ve been micro-soft?)

      Anyway, Microsoft is foisting its ElectionGuard™ software on us, but worry not that we Americans will be tied down by laborious public debate as to the effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of said software. According to MintPress, “The election technology is already set to be adopted by half of voting machine manufacturers and some state governments for the 2020 general election.” Hardly any public discussion will plague our media or tax our community discourse.

      Microsoft describes ElectionGuard™ as “a free open-source software development kit” that “will make voting secure, more accessible, and more efficient anywhere it’s used.” Wow, those are genuinely great words to hear—free and open source. The only words I like more than “open source” are “open bar,” but my dream of an open bar at every polling location remains elusive.

      MintPress News’ Whitney Webb recently reported on ElectionGuard™ (and in fact much of the information in this column is coming from her impressive exposé). She spoke to journalist Yasha Levine, who said, “What open source does is give a veneer of openness that leads one to think that thousands of people have vetted the code and flagged any bugs. But, actually very few people have the time and ability to look at this code. So, this idea that open source code is more transparent isn’t really true.”

      And as WikiLeaks proved when it revealed the CIA’s Vault 7, whenever the CIA discovers holes in important code, they don’t reveal it to the American people. They keep it to themselves to exploit secretly, which is what could be done with ElectionGuard™, resulting in America’s continued descent into Banana Republic™ (in both senses of the phrase).

      So while open source is better than not open source, it’s also not a silver bullet. It’s like saying that having 90 zombies chasing you is better than 100 zombies chasing you. Sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s time to sit down and have a cold beer.

      The press releases on ElectionGuard™ also touted a dizzying array of election security measures. I’ve reprinted the list of security measures, beginning with the most powerful measure and ending with the least powerful.

      1. Homomorphic encryption

      2. Waterproof keyboards

      I imagine some of you are a bit overwhelmed by such an extensive and confusing list. Feel free to take a mental breather now and rejoin this column in a few minutes. Also, I made up number two.

      I do acknowledge that “homomorphic encryption” sounds pretty freaking awesome. “Homomorphic” makes you think there might be a gay member of the X-Men. But in fact, it’s a malleable form of encryption, which apparently is not the most secure nor most sought-after form of encryption according to nerds who study the Crypto-verse (a term I conjured up just now to sound smarter). I won’t get into the details, but the experts seem to agree homomorphic encryption will not turn our elections into an impenetrable wall of democracy, renowned the world over.

      On top of that, as Webb stated: “… there is an added layer of concern given Microsoft’s past, particularly their history of working with U.S. government agencies to bypass encryption.”

      So, the company setting up the encryption for our elections is a company with a resumé of helping the U.S. government break encryption. This is like setting up a system to test for steroids in baseball and asking Sammy Sosa to help you do it.

      Yet, the Microsoft takeover gets even worse because it’s not only Microsoft. They’re doing it in partnership with a cyber security firm called Galois. Whitney Webb again:

      “Though it describes itself as “a privately held U.S.-owned and-operated company,” public records indicate that Galois’ only investors are DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and the Office of Naval Research, both of which are divisions of the Department of Defense.”

      Did you catch that? Galois claims to be a private company, but its onlyinvestor is the fucking Pentagon. To rephrase something you already understood in another way so that you get mildly annoyed with me: Microsoft and our war machine are taking over the American election system.

      Honestly, who would put election software in the hands of DARPA? DARPA’s the department that tries to put microchips in soldiers’ brains to create Terminators or Robocops or other dystopian hounds of hell. If your first response upon hearing about an invention is, “That’s fucking awful!”—DARPA came up with that.

      I wouldn’t even let someone from DARPA look after my cat for the weekend. We all know I’d come home, the cat would have half a head and a Game Boy duct-taped to its ass. “Fuck you, DARPA! I don’t care if the Mario Kart theme song plays when it shits. Get out of my apartment!”

      Now, imagine that scenario but replace the cat with our entire election system.

      MintPress further revealed Galois has a spin-off company called “Free & Fair” that creates technology for elections and worked with Microsoft to make ElectionGuard™.

      Unfortunately, Free & Fair is connected to every form of neocon think tank, government agency and large corporation. They’re especially in bed with the Department of Homeland Security.

      So what’s wrong with that?, you might ask.

      As Webb details, “before, during and after the 2016 election, the Department of Homeland Security was caught attempting to hack into state electoral systems in at least three states — Georgia, Indiana, and Idaho — with similar accusations also made by Kentucky and West Virginia. … DHS, which initially denied it, later responded that the attempted breach was ‘legitimate business.’ ”

      Legitimate business? Anytime someone from DHS says they’re involved in legitimate business, immediately duck and put your head between your knees.

      Plus the fact that Microsoft wants to introduce this software to us for freeshould set off an alarm bell the size of Lake Michigan. Microsoft doesn’t do anything for free. Microsoft execs don’t say hello to their grandmas for free. Microsoft is one of the most powerful companies in America because of its predatory practices. If the Mafia offered you something for free, would you just say “Thanks!” and wander off? Or would you start appreciating your final days with knees that bend?

      In this world free does not mean no ulterior motive. One motive could be to control or rig our entire government. But who would want that? A tiny little country like America? Please. Our country is so inconsequential that we have a third-rate game show host as president.

      MintPress may have found another ulterior motive.

      “Microsoft President Brad Smith announced that the company ‘is going to provide the U.S. military with access to the best technology … all the technology we create. Full stop.’ ” A month prior to that, “Microsoft secured a $480 million contract with the Pentagon to provide the military with its HoloLens technology.”

      So right after getting hundreds of millions of dollars from our military, Microsoft partners with Pentagon front companies to develop free software to safeguard our elections. It seems clear the real goal is to hand over our elections systems to the military industrial complex—your friendly neighborhood death machine—and bury the reality of our votes under enough encryption and complex technology that no average citizen really knows what’s happening.

      Then, if (read: when) an election is rigged with this technology, we won’t be able to prove it because we don’t have reliable exit polls anymore.

      There’s essentially only one remaining exit poll company, Edison Research, and they say outright that they manipulate the exit polls to fit the machine results, which is the opposite of a legitimate exit poll. That’s the same as a math teacher saying, “I give the kids an algebra test, and when I’m comparing their answers to the correct answers, I adjust their answers to better fit the correct ones.” That sounds lovely, but it means you’re going to have idiots getting into MIT on fake math scores. If you do it with elections, you have idiots getting into Congress. Won’t that be a sad day … when Congress is filled with idiots.

      Election forensics analyst Jonathan Simon said, “The great irony, and tragedy, here … is that we could easily go the opposite direction and quickly solve all the problems of election security if we got the computers out of the process and were willing to invest the modicum of effort needed for humans to count votes observably in public as they once did.”

      Jonathan Simon, god bless him, has used 55 words to say 11: We could easily fix our fraudulent election system, but we won’t.

      The answer is not to hand it over to Microsoft and the Pentagon and the ass clowns who make robotic death machines. The Pentagon can’t keep track of $21 TRILLION DOLLARS over the past 20 years—what makes us think they can keep track of hundreds of millions of votes?

      The ruling elite have no interest in making sure our voices are heard. They want that as much as they want nunchucks to the balls. If they sought to have our voices heard, we would have paper ballots, ranked choice voting, real exit polls and a president who doesn’t look and act like an over-cooked ham-and-cheese sandwich.

      It’s time to demand real elections.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 17th June 2019

    • UK Millennials 'Have Secret Cocaine Addiction And Drug Is Used Everywhere'

      Researchers at Substance abuse charity, Addaction, discovered cocaine use in the UK is much higher than previously thought.

      Approximately 80% of the respondents admitted using marijuana, while 70% said they use cocaine and crack cocaine.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      This is the most extensive study of its kind, surveyed 8,500 drug users in Scotland through social media polls. They shared their findings exclusively with Sky News, determined that cocaine is being used “everywhere” in the UK.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Seven in 10 drug users believe cocaine is their first drug of choice, only 14% of them have sought help from healthcare professionals or charities about their addiction problems.

      About 90% of respondents said they’re millennials (aged between 18 and 45). Another 90% said they’re employed or in college.

      “Cocaine is generally seen as a party drug, has a stigma attached with it, is widely used and still nobody is talking about it,” said Andrew Horne, Director of Addaction, Scotland.

      “Even to this day, people think that cocaine is a middle-aged dinner party, middle-class drug, but the results of the survey show it’s everywhere.”

      The study comes as prime ministerial candidate Michael Gove was criticized for previous cocaine addiction, and Boris Johnson recently refused to deny using the drug.

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

      Sky News noted that Author and columnist Bryony Gordon had described her addiction with cocaine: “My addiction to cocaine crept up on me while I was busy with a hectic social life. Cocaine destroys lives; it makes one inherently risky.”

      A millennial in his 30s, who remained anonymous in a Sky News interview said: “It’s usually just a weekend thing, when I’m out with the lads, in a pub or club or festival or something like that.”

      And since it appears a vast majority of UK millennials are blowing lines or smoking crack, a separate report has shown small amounts of cocaine have been found in freshwater shrimp in the country.

    • Putin, Xi Urge End To MAD World. Lord Russell's Spectre Frowns

      Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      The spectre of nuclear war has long hung over the world like a nightmarish sword of Damocles offering humanity much cause for despair at the dual nature of science as a beautiful source of creative power that uplifts and ennobles on the one hand and acts as a harbinger of death and chaos on the other.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      However, it would be wrong to blame science for the crisis which mankind unlocked with the atom, when the reality is that we have never freed ourselves from the pest of oligarchical systems of rule. Going back to records of the Roman, Persian and Babylon empires, such systems have always sought to manipulate the masses into patterns of behaviour of self-policing and constant conflict.

      Whether we are talking about the Crusades, European religious wars, Napoleonic wars, Crimean War, Opium Wars, or WWI and WWII, it has always been the same recipe: Get victims to define their interests around material constraints, diminishing resources, or religious/ethnic/linguistic biases that prevent each person from recognizing their common interests with their neighbor and then get them to fight. Classic divide and conquer.

      By the close of WWII, that ancient recipe for managed chaos no longer functioned as a new ingredient was introduced into the geopolitical “great game”. This atomic ingredient was so powerful that those “game masters” managing the affairs of the earth from above like detached Olympian gods, understood that they could now be annihilated as fast as their victims and a new set of rules had to be created post haste.

      Lord Russell’s Nuclear Gamble

      A leading representative of the genocidal mind of the British Empire was one Lord Bertrand Russell, 7th generation member of the hereditary elite known today for his celebrated pacifism and profound philosophical depth. It is an uncomfortable fact that this paragon of “logic” and peace was one of the earliest thinkers on record calling for the nuclear annihilation of the Soviet Union in the wake of the surrender of Nazi Germany. Should the Soviet Union not submit to a One World Government, argued Lord Russell in the September 1946 Bulletin for Atomic Scientists, then it would simply have to face a nuclear punishment.

      Of course that threat was short lived, as Russia’s surprise announcement of their “cracking the atomic code” broke the monopoly which the Anglo-Americans had been salivating over in 1945 as they watched Japan (whose backchannel surrender had already been negotiated) burn under the shadow of a newly emerging Anglo-American Leviathan.

      Lord Russell, then heading the CIA/MI6 Congress for Cultural Freedom (whose goal was to create a new anti-culture of hedonism and irrationalism in the arts during the Cold War) was forced to change tune and instead unleash a new doctrine which came to be known as “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD). Russell’s obsession with trying to enslave all of physics to a strict mathematical determinism as displayed in his Principia Mathematica (1910) and his leading role in the CIA’s promotion of abstract art/atonal music under the CCF banner is a useful insight into how societies are managed by oligarchs.

      In a BBC interview years after Russell changed his views on a first strike on Russia, the British aristocratic, now-turned anti-nuclear advocate described his change of heart thus:

      “Q: Is it true or untrue that in recent years you advocated that a preventive war might be made against communism, against Soviet Russia?”

      RUSSELL: It’s entirely true, and I don’t repent of it now. It was not inconsistent with what I think now…. There was a time, just after the last war, when the Americans had a monopoly of nuclear weapons and offered to internationalise nuclear weapons by the Baruch proposal, and I thought this an extremely generous proposal on their part, one which it would be very desirable that the world should accept; not that I advocated a nuclear war, but I did think that great pressure should be put upon Russia to accept the Baruch proposal, and I did think that if they continued to refuse it might be necessary actually to go to war. At that time nuclear weapons existed only on one side, and therefore the odds were the Russians would have given way. I thought they would … .

      Q: Suppose they hadn’t given way.

      RUSSELL: I thought and hoped that the Russians would give way, but of course you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your bluff called.”

      An End to the MAD World

      The new game became “geopolitical balance of terror” under MAD, and in many ways the power it offered an oligarchy was greater than anything a pre-atomic society had to offer. While major wars were no longer desirable (though always a risk in this psychotic game of high stakes poker), asymmetric warfare and regime change became the new “big things” for the next 70 years. A population in constant terror of annihilation created a ripe ground for the spread of a new inquisition under the guidance of a megalomaniac cross-dresser running the FBI. This inquisition purged the west of qualified leaders who were committed to peace between east and west and included great scientists, artists, professors and politicians who watched their careers destroyed as the Deep State grew ever more powerful and atomic bombs more abundant.

      While many foolishly celebrated the success of MAD with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of a unipolar world that would supposedly usher in a peaceful “end to history”, others recognised the grand sleight of hand as NATO continued to expand even though WWs raison d’être had disappeared. Yevgeni Primakov and a circle of Russian patriots (which included a rising Vladimir Putin) were among those who saw through the fraud. This network worked diligently with their Asian counterparts to create a foundation for survival which manifested in the form of the G20 in 1999 and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in 2001.

      As 2007 began, the wars in the Middle East unleashed after 9-11 had no end in sight, and an intention much darker than many ever imagined was emerging amidst the chaos. A NATO-led Anti-Ballistic Missile shield began construction around Russia’s southern perimeter on Dick Cheney’s initiative and was joined soon thereafter by an “Asia-Pivot” encirclement of China under Obama in 2011. Only the most naive fools then believed that Iran or North Korea were the real reasons for this Hobbesian power grab for a first strike monopoly. Lord Russell’s ghost could be felt across the world threatening a nuclear war if national sovereignty were not abandoned in favor of a world government managed by a “scientific dictatorship”,

      Russia and China Call to Control the Fiery Serpent

      President Putin along with Sergei Lavrov and President Xi Jinping have signalled an end to the era of MAD with an important call for a new international security doctrine based upon a “new operating system”.

      Coming out of the St. Petersburg Economic Summit on June 6, Putin said:

      “if we do not keep this ‘fiery serpent under control- if we let it out of the bottle, God forbid, this could lead to global catastrophe. Everyone is pretending to be deaf, blind or dyslexic. We have to react to this somehow, don’t we? Clearly so.”

      Putin’s words were amplified by Sergei Lavrov on June 11 speaking at the Primakov Readings 2019 conference in Moscow which brought together diplomats, experts and politicians from 30 countries on the theme of “Returning to Confrontation: Are there Any Alternatives?” Lavrov said:

      “It is of principle importance that Russia and the U.S. calm the rest of the world and pass a joint statement at a high level that there can be no victory in a nuclear war and therefore it is unacceptable and inadmissible. We do not understand why they cannot reconfirm this position now. Our proposal is being considered by the U.S. side.”

      Since putting themselves between an Anglo-American firing squad and the nations of Syria and Venezuela, in tandem with the surprising unveiling of an array of new military technologies in March 2018, Putin has transformed the geopolitical “rules of the game” so that Lavrov’s proposal is now a real possibility. The new technologies unveiled by Russia in 2018 include supersonic missiles, underwater drones and other nuclear powered rockets that guarantee Russia’s retaliatory attack capability should anyone be stupid enough to launch a first strike against Russia.

      The BRI and the New Operating System

      The St. Petersburg Economic Summit from June 5-6 not only saw 19 000 participants from 145 countries signing $47.8 billion in agreements, but also featured an important meeting by China’s Xi Jinping and Putin who described their relationship as the best of friends and locked their nations ever more deeply into the new operating framework of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which is quickly extending into the Arctic.

      This meeting will be carried to a yet higher level with the June 13-14 Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Summit in Bishkek Kyrgyzstan which will integrate Eurasian nations ever more into the BRI. Putin and Xi will not only meet at this summit once again, but will also be joined by India’s newly re-elected Narendra Modi, whose participation is vital for the re-organisation of the world system.

      After the SCO summit, the world will await the potential meeting at the June 28-29 G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, where U.S. President Donald Trump has indicated his desire to meet with all three leaders for bilateral negotiations. Many onlookers have criticised the idea that Trump could actually desire an honest meeting, but Lavrov has indicated his higher understanding of the strategic complexity in America by making the point in a June 6 interviewthat President Trump’s failures to build constructive relations with Russia are due to sabotage by forces embedded within the government when he said: 

      “Certain US politicians, including those who tied President Trump’s hands, not allowing him to deliver on his campaign promises to normalise and improve relations with Russia, are still unable to accept this fact.”

      In fact at a June 12 press conference alongside the President of Poland, Trump was pressed by a reporter to take a hard line against Russia who is apparently “threatening Poland”. While paying lip service to the Russia=bully narrative, Trump ended his response saying “I hope that Poland is going to have a great relationship with Russia. I hope we’re going to have a great relationship with Russia and, by the way, China and many other countries.” Trump had earlier called for Russia, China and America to convert their hundreds of millions of dollars in military spending into projects that are in the common interests of everyone.

      During his keynote address to the Economic Forum, Putin called out the elephant in the room by bringing up the breakdown of the global financial system: 

      “the degeneration of the universalist globalisation model and its turning into a parody, a caricature of itself, where common international rules are replaced with the laws… of one country.” 

      Putin went on to warn of a “fragmentation of the global economic space by a policy of completely unlimited economic egoism and a forced breakdown. But this is the road to endless conflict, trade wars and maybe not just trade wars. Figuratively, this is the road to the ultimate fight of all against all.”

      The point was driven home that ultimately without a new economic system, the danger of global annihilation and injustice will always hang over humanity. Echoing Xi Jinping’s philosophy of win-win cooperation, Putin said what is ultimately needed is “a more stable and fair development model. These agreements should not only be written clearly but should also be observed by all participants. However, I am convinced that talk about an economic world order like this will remain wishful thinking unless we return to the centre of the discussion, that is, notions like sovereignty, the unconditional right of every country to its own development road and, let me add, responsibility for universal sustainable development, not just for ones own development.”

    • UK Deploying 100 Elite Royal Marines To Gulf After Tanker Attacks

      Iran says it has summoned the British ambassador over the weekend after the UK publicly came out in support of the White House assessment pinpointing Iranian forces behind last Thursday’s two tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman. 

      Last Friday Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said the attacks were “almost certainly” carried out by Tehran. Hunt also warned of the “great risk” of Iran drifting toward war against the US and its allies during a television interview. 

      Crucially, Britain is set to deploy 100 Royal Marines to the Persian Gulf in order to form a “rapid reaction force” to protect UK assets in the region.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Image source: Royal Navy

      According to the Sunday Times:

      Military sources said that 100 marines from 42 Commando, based near Plymouth, will form a rapid reaction force, Special Purpose Task Group 19. They will operate from ships patrolling the region from Britain’s new naval base in Bahrain.

      The marines are expected to arrive in Bahrain “within weeks” as well as a team of British experts to assist in investigating precisely what materials were used in the tanker attacks, which contradictory accounts say could have been mines or torpedoes, or even an aerial projectile. 

      UK defence minister and MP Tobias Ellwood told Sky’s Ridge on Sunday: “We have a substantial presence in the Middle East that looks after our interests there. We understand the Middle East, we have a number of allies there as well.”

      He added that Britain would beef up its presence in coordination with US forces: “We will be working with the United States to make sure this area is safe and to make sure that we actually deescalate the tensions there but I don’t think Iran should be under any doubt [about] that fact that we will be determined to protect our assets and our interests in the region.”

      Among the more interesting quotes from the Sunday Times report suggests the ease with which a direct firefight between US-UK allied forces and Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) forces – which patrol the vital Strait of Hormuz – could erupt

      A military source said that having marines with machine guns on the decks of warships or merchant ships was likely to see off any Iranian speedboats trying to sneak up on them.

      Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News Sunday that while the US maintains the view that it is “unmistakable” that Iran is responsible for the attacks, and that it has “lots of data, lots of evidence”  the White House does not actually want war

      “President Trump has done everything he can to avoid war. We don’t want war,” he said. “The United States is going make sure that we take all the actions necessary, diplomatic and otherwise that achieve that outcome,” Pompeo added.

      But given the potential for a rapid build-up of western forces in the already crowded Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, and with Iran’s IRGC on a heightened state of alert, it could be too little too late given both sides appear “war ready” and are already blundering precisely toward that dire scenario. 

    • Gottfried: No, America Isn't In Danger Of Becoming A Socialist Nation

      Authored by Paul Gottfried via The American Conservative,

      The old S-word bugaboo has surfaced again but the real threat comes from globalism and social progressivism…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      At a dinner in his New Jersey home to which John O’Sullivan and I had both been invited, former president Richard Nixon posed the question: “What is politics?”

      My response was “friend-enemy relations.”

      “No,” said O’Sullivan. “It’s about finding themes for an electoral campaign.”

      Our differing answers reflected a difference in backgrounds: I had just published a book on the very dark German political theorist Carl Schmitt and was a great fan of Thomas Hobbes; O’Sullivan had been a campaign advisor to Margaret Thatcher before going on to become National Review ‘s chief editor.

      Of course, both of us were right. Political life in Western countries is about the organization of electoral campaigns, in which one side depicts the other as the Devil. Typically the ideological confrontations are not as substantive as they’re made to appear; the ritualized battles are waged over issues that politicians and their donors want to talk about.

      I thought about this conversation while recently listening to political talking points, namely the babble coming from our Republicans and from Emmanuel Macron and his centrist coalition in France about a looming “socialist” danger. In neither country is this claim persuasive. I’m not denying that the Left isn’t demanding lots of “free stuff,” including free college education in the US, even for those who have neither the interest nor the inclination to engage in serious academic studies.Young people who hang around universities also want to restructure the economy around various “green deals,” such as the plan recently trotted out by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Her Green New Deal scheme would be incredibly costly and in any case would have only minimal effect on the environment. But the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Joe Biden, doesn’t seem too eager to sign on to a radical ecological proposal anyway (though he does advocate a $1.7 trillion “clean energy” plan).

      Simply put, what these “socialists” want is certainly not what exists in Venezuela, China, or Cuba. None of our Democratic presidential candidates are trying to establish economies that are similarly nationalized. A Democratic administration would likely slow down economic growth and impose more PC requirements on the commercial sector. But this would hardly make us Castro’s Cuba or the former German Democratic Republic. Someone who was once a true socialist is Bernie Sanders, but even Bernie is now pushing mostly the “free stuff,” together with “intersectional politics.”

      Having socialized medicine may be a good or bad thing (I personally abhor it), but as I’ve argued before, advocating for it doesn’t make one a socialist. Countries that even our Republican think tanks consider to be “capitalistt”, like Canada, Germany, and Britain, all have single-payer medical systems.

      Moreover, major corporate interests are backing our political Left and don’t seem concerned that the culturally leftist Democratic presidential hopefuls plan to inflict socialism on the hand that feeds. Procter and Gamble, Citibank, Coca Cola, Gillette, and Silicon Valley lavish gifts on Democrats, while pushing LGBTgutting the Second Amendment , expanding abortion rights , and trying to weaken national borders.

      I’m sure these corporate titans aren’t interested in having the state seize their holdings and redistribute their profits. They are backing the Left because the real ideological cleavage in our society doesn’t run in any case between capitalists and socialists.

      Rather, it lies, as Steve Bannon recently pointed out in the French monthly L’incorrect, between globalists and “those who value their nations and civilization.”

      The center-right in Western countries has rightly or wrongly decided that it can’t win elections by designating the real Leftist enemy for what they are – globalists who want to push their social values on everyone else. So they instead attack their adversaries as “socialists,” or what Macron denounces as “les socialo-communistes.”

      Over the decades, Western countries have moved sharply to the Left on social issues. For example, even our supposedly ultra-rightist president is now seen posing beneath an LGBT rainbow flag and expressing his commitment to promoting gay rights everywhere . And though Mayor Pete may dispute the intensity of Trump’s enthusiasm for gay marriage, Trump himself has told us in no uncertain terms that he finds an institution that most Americans vehemently opposed 20 years ago to be “absolutely fine.” Significantly, most young Republicans are fervently in favor of gay marriage .

      On immigration and abortion, the goalposts have also moved leftward – at least in national electoral campaigns. The GOP is now officially against late-term abortion or killing newly born infants, but some states are seeking to prohibit abortions at an earlier point in pregnancy. Republican operatives call for controlling illegal immigration but avoid talking explicitly about reducing immigration.

      In view of what is perceived as the declining utility of highlighting “Judeo-Christian values,” the RNC will in all likelihood run against that golden oldie: “socialism.” It may also bring back such ideas as being for the individual against the state and (better yet) “getting government off our backs.” In France, it’s also “déjà vu all over again.” There the globalists are railing against the ghost of the French Communists, who once collected a quarter of the national vote. But Macron’s major opponents are now on the nationalist Right and on the multicultural globalist Left, represented by the Greens—not real socialists.

      Both the French president and the GOP need to find timelier and more honest rhetoric, or else risk losing more elections and partisan support. The socialist bugaboo has a limited shelf life, which may expire far sooner than its critics realize.

    • Visualizing The Father-Absence Crisis In America

      There is a crisis in America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 19.7 million children, more than 1 in 4, live without a father in the home. Consequently, there is a “father factor” in nearly all of the societal ills facing America today. Research shows when a child is raised in a father-absent home, he or she is aected in the following ways…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: National Fatherhood Initiative, 2017. U.S. Census Bureau. Data represent children living without a biological, step, or adoptive father.

    • Russia Expert's 2017 Prophecy About The Nuclear Threat Of Russiagate Is Coming True

      Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

      The New York Times has published an anonymously sourced report titled “U.S. Escalates Online Attacks on Russia’s Power Grid” about the “placement of potentially crippling malware inside the Russian system at a depth and with an aggressiveness that had never been tried before” which could potentially “plunge Russia into darkness or cripple its military,” with one anonymous official reporting that “We are doing things at a scale that we never contemplated a few years ago.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Obviously this is yet another serious escalation in the continually mounting series of steps that have been taken into a new cold war between the planet’s two nuclear superpowers. Had a report been leaked to Russian media from anonymous Kremlin officials that Moscow was escalating its cyber-aggressions against America’s energy grid, this would doubtless be labeled an act of war by the political/media class of the US and its allies with demands for immediate retaliation.

      To put this in perspective, The New York Times reported last year that the Pentagon was pushing for the US Nuclear Posture Review to include the strategy of retaliating against serious Russian cyberattacks on American power grids with nuclear weapons.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      So that’s scary enough. What’s even scarier is the information that the Timesburied way down in the 21st to 23rd paragraphs of its report:

      “Two administration officials said they believed Mr. Trump had not been briefed in any detail about the steps to place ‘implants’ — software code that can be used for surveillance or attack — inside the Russian grid.

      “Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister.

      “Because the new law defines the actions in cyberspace as akin to traditional military activity on the ground, in the air or at sea, no such briefing would be necessary, they added.”

      In an article titled “Pentagon Keeps Trump in the Dark About its Cyber Attacks on Russia”, Rolling Stone’s Peter Wade described this jarring revelation as follows:

      “New laws, enacted by Congress last year, allow such ‘clandestine military activity’ in cyberspace to go ahead without the president’s approval. So, in this case, those new laws are protecting American interests… by keeping the sitting president out of the loop. What a (scary) time to be alive.”

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

      So Trump is in a bit of a bind now. The escalation has already been put in place, which will likely see an equal response from Moscow if it isn’t scaled back. But scaling it back would mean a whole new wave of shrieking alarmism from the political/media class about the conspiracy theory that just won’t die no matter how much evidence is mounted against it: that Trump is a controlled puppet of the Kremlin. All as he’s working to build the case for re-election in 2020.

      Stephen F Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton University and one of America’s leading experts on US-Russia relations, has been warning for years that exactly this would happen. In an April 2017 interview on Democracy Now, Cohen warned that placing political pressure on a US president to never step back from escalations during a showdown between nuclear superpowers could have potentially world-ending consequences should mounting tensions see a situation similar to the Cuban missile crisis again.

      “I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the Cuban missile crisis,” Cohen said. “And arguably, it’s more dangerous, because it’s more complex. Therefore, we — and then, meanwhile, we have in Washington these — and, in my judgment, factless accusations that Trump has somehow been compromised by the Kremlin. So, at this worst moment in American-Russian relations, we have an American president who’s being politically crippled by the worst imaginable — it’s unprecedented. Let’s stop and think. No American president has ever been accused, essentially, of treason. This is what we’re talking about here, or that his associates have committed treason.”

      “Imagine, for example, John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis,” Cohen said.

      “Imagine if Kennedy had been accused of being a secret Soviet Kremlin agent. He would have been crippled. And the only way he could have proved he wasn’t was to have launched a war against the Soviet Union. And at that time, the option was nuclear war.”

      People rarely take time to deeply reflect on the uniquely important fact that our species came within a hair’s breadth of total annihilation during the Cuban missile crisis. We learned long after it was all over that the only reason a nuclear-armed Soviet submarine didn’t discharge its payload on the US Navy and set off a full-scale nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR was because one of the three men in the sub needed to authorize the weapon’s use stood against the other two and refused. That man’s name was Vasili Arkhipov, and he’s responsible for the fact that you and everyone you love exists today. There’s a good PBS documentary about the event on YouTube if you’re curious.

      President Kennedy was constantly going back and forth in communication with the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis, and any number of things could have gone cataclysmically wrong during that exchange had Kennedy not made certain concessions at certain times and known when to hold back instead of pressing forward. He made a series of diplomatic moves that would not be possible in this current paranoid, leak-prone climate, including secretly recalling the USA’s Jupiter missiles from their position in Turkey at Khrushchev’s request.

      For all the outrage that liberals display whenever a high-profile Republican utters the phrase “deep state”, it sure is interesting that the Commander-in-Chief has found himself in a situation where he is at the whim of a collective of warmongers who are advancing pre-existing agendas against a nation they perceive as a geostrategic threat to US hegemony. It begs the question, who is really in charge?

      The US war machine is the most powerful military force in the history of civilization, and the alliance of nations that it upholds is functionally the most powerful empire that the world has ever seen. Because so much power depends on the behavior of this gargantuan war engine, it is seen by those with real power as too important to be left to the will of the electorate, and too important to be left to the will of the elected Commander-in-Chief. This is why Americans are the most propagandized people in the world, this is why Russia hysteria has been blasted into their psyches for three years, and this is why we are all at an ever-increasing risk of dying in a nuclear holocaust.

      UPDATE: Trump now seems like he might be denying that what The New York Times’ sources said is happening is happening. It’s unlikely that the Timeswould fabricate a story whole cloth, so if Trump is in fact denying the story then either the sources are lying about what they’re doing in their own purported jobs, or Trump is still being kept in the dark, or Trump is just lying.

      “Do you believe that the Failing New York Times just did a story stating that the United States is substantially increasing Cyber Attacks on Russia,” Trump tweeted.

      “This is a virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our Country. ALSO, NOT TRUE! Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today. They will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! These are true cowards and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

      Curiouser and curiouser.

      *  *  *

      The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalpurchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

      Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    • Israel Unveils Newest Golan Settlement: 'Trump Heights'

      First in Poland it was the proposed “Fort Trump,” but now in Israel it is “Trump Heights”. In a breaking story that had us doing a double take just to assure it is indeed real, a new Israeli settlement in the occupied Golan Heights has been named ‘Trump Heights’ in honor Trump’s deeply controversial decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the territory

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Image source: AFP

      None other than Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu presided over the opening ceremony, which featured the unveiling of a large sign bearing Trump’s name and US-Israeli criss-crossing flags. 

      The United Nations and other countries have not given international backing to the US recognition, which further last month involved the State Department officially changing world maps to reflect the new status. The settlement is yet to be established though the sign is in place, in what is sure to unleash a new wave of controversy and protests in Syria and the Palestinian territories. 

      Israel’s premier pledged in April to name a new settlement after Mr Trump, soon after the president overturned decades of US policy by recognising Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan.

      The region is located about 60km (40 miles) south-west of the Syrian capital, Damascus, and covers about 1,000 sq km (400 sq miles).

      The new settlement is expected to be built near Kela in the northern Golan Heights. —BBC

      Israel fully annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 after capturing it from Syria during the Six-Day War of 1967. The United Nations has never recognized Israeli annexation and settlement there, but has repeatedly condemned it — all of which has resulted in a Syria-Israel state of war ever since. 

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

      Later in the day Sunday President Trump retweeted a congratulations and photos highlighting the event – which had been sent from the US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who was on hand representing the United States during the ceremony.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Friedman noted it was the “first time Israel has dedicated a village in honor of a sitting president since Harry Truman (1949)” and further wished the president a happy birthday weekend (June 14). 

      Apparently, Israel’s Golan Regional Council has already received hundreds of requests from Jewish applicants abroad, especially in the US and Canada, who wish to move into the settlement. 

      According to local Israeli media, the Golan authority offices “have been ‘flooded’ with requests for information about new Golan community.”

    • President Trump Is Repainting Air Force One To Look Like His Personal Commercial Jet

      It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that the President who did most of his campaigning traveling in his own private branded commercial airliner has plans to revamp Air Force One. And that’s exactly what President Donald Trump is doing, according to Bloomberg. Trump unveiled a new paint job for Air Force One on ABC late last week – one that looks similar to the “TRUMP” branded jets he flew around commercially while campaigning. 

      He told ABC: “There’s your new Air Force One, and I’m doing this for other presidents, not for me.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      He also claimed he got $1.6 billion in savings off the price of the project, while the Air Force said that Trump negotiations with Boeing yielded $1.4 billion in savings. The Air Force is responsible for managing the $5.3 billion program for Boeing to build two new presidential plans. 

      But Trump’s plan is being held up in congress – an amendment to the annual defense policy bill approved by the House Armed Services Committee (H.R. 2500) would bar changes to plans for the planes.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Air Force One’s paint job isn’t the first time that Trump has intervened in defense department projects. He personally pushed for cost cuts for Air Force One and the F-35 fighter and has demanded that “the Navy use old-fashioned steam-based catapults on its new aircraft carriers instead of a more advanced but occasionally unreliable electromagnetic system.”

      A final decision on the paint job will come in 2021, so the plans could be abandoned if Trump loses his re-election bid next year. Estimates put the actual production of the plane – should Trump win – at September 2024, meaning he may never even get to fly on the plane, once completed. 

    • From Friendster To Facebook – 20 Years Of Social Networks In 85 Seconds

      Nothing lasts forever…

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

       

       

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 16th June 2019

    • Think Media Won't Help Lead US Into War With Iran Based On False Intelligence? Looks Like They Already Are

      Authored by Jake Johnson and Jon Queally via Common Dreams

      If there were any lingering hopes that the corporate media learned from its role in perpetuating the lies that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and would never again help start a Middle East war on the basis of false or flimsy evidence, the headlines that blared across the front pages of major U.S. news websites Thursday night indicated that such hopes were badly misplaced.

      The U.S. military late Thursday released blurry, black-and-white video footage that it claimed — without any underlying analysis or further details — to show an Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded limpet mine from the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous, one of the oil tankers damaged in attacks in the Gulf of Oman.

      Here’s how CNN presented the U.S. military’s video:

      Iran has denied any involvement in the attacks, and Yutaka Katada — the owner of the Kokuka Courageous — contradicted the Trump administration’s account during a press conference on Friday.

      “Our crew said that the ship was attacked by a flying object,” Katada said. “I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship.”

      Independent critics were quick to call for extreme skepticism in the face of U.S. government claims, given the quality of the “evidence” and the warmongering track records of those presenting it.

      But the media displayed no such caution.

      Just taking a random sample of screenshots after the news broke Thursday night, major outlets largely did the Pentagon’s dirty work by posting uncritical headlines that took the claims at face value

      The Washington Post used the word “purported” in its headline, but erroneously reported that the video was taken “before” the explosion on the vessel, not after. The headline was later changed, but was made no more critical of the military’s claim:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The U.K.-based Guardian also offered a simple “U.S. says” headline construction:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In the New York Times rendition — which appeared prominently on their homepage — the claim of what the U.S. military intelligence “believed” the video to show was framed with the more objective-sounding and vague phrase “what analysts believed”:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Like the GuardianPolitico made no attempt to go beyond the “U.S. says” framework:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Fox News, of course, went further than most by characterizing the Pentagon video as a “major clue” to who was behind the alleged attack:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      CNN, meanwhile — specifically in the subhead of the headline story that appeared at the top of their page late Thursday night — took the military’s claim of what the video showed as actual fact:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Hill‘s version, similar to the error made by the Post, reported that the video was taken before the explosion — a detail likely to leave readers much more suspicious of Iran’s involvement than if one of its vessels had approached the ship in the wake of the incident:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Though no single headline could be construed as explicit pro-Pentagon propaganda on its own, the uncritical nature of the coverage and ensuing echo chamber effect — or what is sometimes referred to as “propaganda reinforcement” — is one of the ways that the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies are empowered to turn a flimsy claim into a pervasive and widely-accepted fact.

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

      In a blog post on Friday, historian and Middle East expert Juan Cole wrote that the Trump administration’s narrative that Iranians were removing an unexploded mine from the damaged oil tanker “doesn’t make any sense at all” and said the video footage released by the U.S. “needs to be carefully analyzed” before any conclusions are drawn.

      “[Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo alleged that only the Iranians had the expertise to deploy these mines,” Cole wrote. “We heard this crock for 8.5 years in Iraq—all shaped charges had to be Iran-backed, even those of al-Qaeda, because Iraqis didn’t have the expertise…. Sure. Had to be Iran, helping those hyper-Sunni al-Qaeda. Very likely story.”

      On Twitter, Sina Toossi, research associate at the National Iranian American Council, echoed Cole’s call for skepticism and an investigation.

      “What we need is an impartial investigation,” Toossi wrote, “and to be highly skeptical of claims and intel assessments from Bolton/Pompeo.”

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

      In a column published last month as the U.S. aggressively escalated military tensions with Iran and pushed the two nations to the brink of all-out war, The Intercept‘s Mehdi Hasan asked a straightforward question that remains relevant in the present: “Do U.S. reporters, anchors, and editors really want more Middle Eastern blood on their hands?”

      “If not,” Hasan wrote, “they need to fix their rather credulous and increasingly hawkish coverage of Iran and the Trump administration — and fix it fast.”

    • Colorado Hits $1 Billion In Marijuana State Revenue

      Colorado has passed another major marijuana milestone, surpassing $1 billion in state revenue since it legalized the drug in 2014.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: Colorado.gov

      Up to May of this year, Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes that the state has seen more than $6 billion in total marijuana sales since the industry was given the green light.

      Infographic: Colorado Hits $1 Billion In Marijuana State Revenue | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      According to CNBC, Colorado now has 2,917 licensed marijuana businesses and 41,076 people licensed to work in the industry.

      As SafeHaven.com’s Alex Kimani notes, marijuana companies face a pretty hostile tax environment.

      First off, they are not allowed any tax deductions or credits for business expenses which can mean effective federal tax rates of as high as 90 percent. Hemp producers are luckier since recent changes to the law now allows them to deduct ordinary business expenses for tax purposes on condition that their products contain no more than 0.3 percent THC.

      Second, most banks and financial institutions will not touch them with a 10-foot pole, meaning they have to pay their taxes in cash and not through checks or electronic means.

      Yet, they continue to tough it out, making an important mark where they are officially recognized. According to the Tax Policy Center, states with marijuana taxes are obligated to put a portion of their funds toward important social programs ranging from education programs in Colorado and Nevada to administrative costs in California and crime reduction in Alaska.

      Luckily, the IRS is trying to get a handle on the situation and hopefully, cannabis companies will soon be able to enjoy the same benefits that other industries take for granted.

    • Why The S-400 Is A More Formidable Threat To US Arms Industry Than You Think

      Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      Generally, when discussing air-defense systems here, we are referring to Russian devices that have become famous in recent years, in particular the S-300 (and its variants) and the S-400. Their deployment in Syria has slowed down the ability of such advanced air forces as those of the United States and Israel to target the country, increasing as it does the embarrassing possibility of having their fourth- or fifth-generation fighters shot down.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Air-defense systems capable of bringing down fifth-generation aircraft would have a devastating effect on the marketability and sales of US military hardware, while simultaneously boosting the desirability and sales of Russian military hardware. As I have often pointed out in other analyses, Hollywood’s role in marketing to enemies and allies alike the belief that US military hardware is unbeatable (with allies being obliged to buy said hardware) is central to Washington’s strategies for war and power projection.

      As clashes between countries in such global hot spots as the Middle East increase and intensify, Hollywood’s propaganda will increasingly struggle to convince the rest of the world of the continued efficacy and superiority of US weapons systems in the face of their unfolding shortcomings.

      The US finds itself faced with a situation it has not found itself in over the last 50 years, namely, an environment where it does not expect to automatically enjoy air superiority. Whatever semblance of an air defense that may have hitherto been able to pose any conceivable threat to Uncle Sam’s war machine was rudely dismissed by a wave of cruise missiles. To give two prime examples that occurred in Syria in 2018, latest-generation missiles were intercepted and shot down by decades-old Russian and Syrian systems. While the S-400 system has never been employed in Syria, it is noteworthy that the Serbian S-125 systems succeeded in identifying and shooting down an American F-117 stealth aircraft during the war in the Balkans.

      There is a more secret aspect of the S-400 that is little disclosed, either within Russia itself or without. It concerns the S-400’s ability to collect data through its radar systems. It is worth noting Department of Defense spokesman Eric Pahon’s alarm over Turkey’s planned purchase of the S-400:

      “We have been clear that purchasing the S-400 would create an unacceptable risk because its radar system could provide the Russian military sensitive information on the F-35. Those concerns cannot be mitigated. The S-400 is a system built in Russia to try to shoot down aircraft like the F-35, and it is inconceivable to imagine.

      Certainly, in the event of an armed conflict, the S-400’s ability to shoot down fifth-generation aircraft is a huge concern for the United States and her allies who have invested so heavily in such aircraft. Similarly, a NATO country preferring Russian to American systems is cause for alarm. This is leaving aside the fact that the S-400 is spreading around the world, from China to Belarus, with dozens of countries waiting in line for the ability to seal their skies from the benevolent bombs of freedom. It is an excellent stick with which to keep a prowling Washington at bay.

      But these concerns are nothing when compared to the most serious threat that the S-400 poses to the US arms industry, namely, their ability to collect data on US stealth systems.

      Theoretically, the last advantage that the US maintains over her opponents is in stealth technology. The effectiveness of stealth has been debated for a long time, given that their costs may actually outweigh their purported benefits. But, reading between the lines, what emerges from US concerns over the S-400 suggests that Moscow is already capable of detecting US stealth systems by combining the radars of the S-400 with those of air-based assets, as has been the case in Syria (despite Washington’s denials).

      The ability of the S-400 to collect data on both the F-35 and F-22 – the crown jewels of the US military-industrial complex – is a cause for sleepless nights for US military planners. What in particular causes them nightmares is that, for the S-400 to function in Turkey, it will have to be integrated into Turkey’s current “identification friend or foe” (IFF) systems, which in turn are part of NATO’s military tactical data-link network, known as Link 16.

      This system will need to be installed on the S-400 in order to integrate it into Turkey’s defensive network, which could potentially pass information strictly reserved for the Russians that would increase the S-400’s ability to function properly in a system not designed to host such a weapon system.

      The final risk is that if Turkey were to fly its F-35s near the S-400, the Link 16 system would reveal a lot of real-time information about the US stealth system. Over time, Moscow would be able to recreate the stealth profile of the F-35 and F-22, thereby making pointless Washington’s plans to spend 1.16 trillion dollars to produce 3,000 F-35s.

      What must be remembered in our technological age is that once the F-35’s radar waveform has been identified, it will be possible to practice the military deception of recreating fictitious signals of the F-35 so as to mask one’s own aircraft with this shape and prevent the enemy’s IFF systems from being able to distinguish between friend or foe.

      Of particular note is the active cooperation between China and Russia in air-defense systems. The S-400 in particular has already been operational in China for several years now, and it should be assumed that there would be active information sharing going on between Moscow and Beijing regarding stealth technology.

      It turns out that the S-400 is a weapon system with multiple purposes that is even more lethal than previously imagined. It would therefore not be surprising that, were S-400s to be found in Cuba and Venezuela, Washington’s bellicose rhetoric against these two countries would come to an abrupt halt.

      But what US military planners fear more than the S-400 embarrassing their much-vaunted F35 and F22 is the doubts they could raise about the efficacy of these stealth aircraft in the minds of allies and potential buyers. This lack of confidence would deal a mortal blow to the US arms industry, a threat far more real and devastating for them than a risk of conflict with Moscow or Beijing.

    • Trade War Nightmare Causes Collapse In Demand For US Industrial Space, Says Cushman & Wakefield

      The latest Cushman & Wakefield commercial real estate report shows demand for US industrial space collapsed 60% on year in 1Q19, reflecting the global synchronized decline and the deepening trade war.

      Cushman & Wakefield’s economists warned President Trump’s trade war is unraveling complex supply chains around the world that have led to a slump in demand for industrial space. They also said the restocking trend by importers forced by the tariffs is likely over. There is also another possibility that the slowdown could be linked to some seasonal factors, the economist said.

      “It is possible that the trade dispute is causing disruptions to supply chains which are causing demand for industrial space to slow. Another possibility is companies may have overstocked before the implementation of tariffs in 2018. Seasonality, a general slowing in the global economy and lagging supply may also have been the main culprits,” economists Kevin Thorpe and Rebecca Rockey said in the report.

      The report said world export volumes are expected to have no growth this year, dropping from a 5% annual expansion rate in the last two years.

      To best visualize the global slowdown is YoY changes in global trade as measured by the IMF’s Direction of Trade Statistics, courtesy of BMO’s Ian Lyngern. It shows the collapse in global exports as broken down into three categories:

      • Exports to the world (weakest since 2009),

      • Exports to advances economies (also lowest since 2009), and

      • Exports to the European Union (challenging 2009 lows).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      President Trump slapped 25% tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods last month. Trump then threatened to slap tariffs on another $300 billion of Chinese exports if China’s leader Xi Jinping doesn’t meet him at the 2019 G20 Osaka summit in Japan. If the meeting doesn’t occur, this could mean a full-blown trade war would be in effect, would spark a global trade recession and lead to a further collapse in demand for US industrial space.

      The economist noted that the trade war has driven up construction costs and has damaged global business confidence for the year.

      “There are also anecdotal reports in the US that construction costs for steel, aluminum, cabinetry, flooring, etc, are being driven up as China is ‘taken out’ as a supplier… Although it is challenging to parse out the impact, it is not difficult to conclude that the longer the trade war drags out the more disruptive it will be,” the report said.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
      Separately, the trade war has left corporate America uncertain about the future by pulling back investments, Eugene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, said.

      Tariffs are having the most significant impact on Los Angeles and Long Beach ports, the nation’s busiest container ports, which both handle about 47.5% of US containerized trade with China. But it’s not just the ports that are feeling the pressure from the trade war, trucking, railroads, warehousing, construction, manufacturing, and farming, have also been impacted. About one million jobs related to international trade around the port are also in question as the trade war continues to deepen.

      As the US economy cycles down through summer with the threat of a full-blown trade war, industrial space demand is likely to drop further, which could suggest that the commercial real estate bubble is about to burst.

    • Goldman: Here's Why The Fed Is About To Shock The Market

      As discussed earlier, and as both Bank of America and JPM explained, the biggest risk for the market next week is if the Fed not only doesn’t cut – the market assigns a very low probability to such a “pre-emptive” move – but fails to signal an aggressive dovish reversal in the form of a rate cut in July. And yet, despite its upbeat outlook – it still expects the S&P to close the year at 3,000, Goldman’s strategists are certainly taking the over on how hawkish the Fed will sound next week.

      As Goldman’s chief economist Jan Hatzius writes, the bank expects “unchanged” policy at the June 18-19 FOMC meeting and sees the subjective odds of a June cut at only 10%. More importantly, while Goldman looks for a dovish tilt to the proceedings it won’t be nearly enough to appease markets that have aggressively priced rate cuts in the fall.

      Barring an unlikely surprise on the funds rate, we expect the market to focus on four key developments:

      1. the statement’s policy stance/balance of risks paragraph,
      2. the number of participants projecting cuts in the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP),
      3. the extent of dovish changes to the statement and economic forecasts, and
      4. the tone of Powell’s press conference.

      In Goldman’s view, the main reason why the Fed is poised to disappoint markets is simply that not enough has changed to warrant a clear signal of an upcoming cut. Indeed, “since the March SEP meeting, stock prices are higher, the unemployment rate fell to a 50-year low, consensus growth forecasts are unchanged, and the very tariffs on Mexico that prompted the latest calls for rate cuts have been taken off the table.” Not only that, but the economy continues to chug along largely as expected: outside of May payrolls, the growth data still look decent: Goldman’s Q2 GDP tracking estimate has rebounded to +1.6%, Atlanta Fed GDPNow is +2.1%, and the bank’s own tracker of private final demand is at an even healthier pace (+2.8%).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Rather than Goldman’s standard “Then and Now” table, the chart below “plots the setup for next week’s meeting across three dimensions, as well as their averages ahead of three major dovish shifts: September 2007 (at which the Fed abandoned the hiking bias and cut 50bps in response to subprime turmoil), September 2010 (formally signaled QE2), and March 2016 (scuttled the hiking cycle until global risks abated). Here, Hatzius also shows the three-month evolution of these four variables: stock prices, IG credit spreads, and consensus GDP growth.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      What is remarkable, is that the June 2019 values show little resemblance ro prior dovish reversals: “risk assets performed much better, and annual GDP forecasts are little changed, vs. -0.3pp on average across the three alternate episodes.

      So how do one reconcile this with the outspoken consensus forecasting major dovish changes next week? According to Hatzius, one possibility is that most salient changes over the last 6 weeks “relate to investor sentiment and global news headlines” instead of the actual economy and market conditions. If so, there may not be sufficient reasons to expect or implement changes in the path of monetary policy, Goldman concludes in what may be a major disappointment for the market bulls.

      So what about all those predictions of an upcoming recession? Here, too, Goldman is skeptical and writes that it remains to be seen whether US growth will fall below potential in the back half of the year because of the trade war and related uncertainty. But, as shown in the first chart above, outside of May payrolls, the growth data still look decent —particularly the solid rise and significant upward revisions in Friday’s retail sales report.

      Taken together, Goldman’s chief economist thinks Fed officials “will view recent data as evidence that growth has indeed slowed from its brisk mid-2018 clip (of 3.5-4.0%) but remains at a healthy pace (of around 1.75%-2.0%).

      Will this be sufficient to sway those expecting a major dovish concession by the Fed? Probably not, and they will point to the recent slowdown in inflation. And while inflation it has undoubtedly been soft (four consecutive core CPI misses, core PCE inflation hovering just above 1.5%), the Committee has gone out of their way  recently to attribute the weakness to transitory factors, Hatzius writes. In fact, the FOMC has emphasized the Dallas Fed trimmed-mean measure—which based on CPI and PPI source data is similar to its levels at the March and May meetings (in fact, slightly higher at 1.99%).

      Furthermore, as shown in Exhibit 4, the Dallas Fed measure is consistent with core inflation of 1.75%, and it has also more clearly trended up in recent years. Such well-measured inflation (also adjusted for its average gap vs. core PCE) is consistent with above-target inflation for the first time since 2010 (of around 2.5%).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Looking ahead, the inflationary outlook is even more conflicted, and Goldman believes core PCE inflation is on its way back to 2% by late 2019, especially given the 0.3-0.4% boost from tariffs that is expected to hit shortly after Trump hikes tariffs on the remaining $300BN in Chinese imports. On the other hand, don’t expect a hike either:

      But even if inflation has resurfaced as a predominant concern on the Committee in recent weeks, now would be a curious time to launch a reflation campaign, given vocal pressure from the White House to cut rates and the fact that the framework review itself won’t be completed for another 6+ months.

      But while all this is known, why is the market pricing in roughly 4 rate cuts by the end of 2020, and why does Goldman refuse to drink the Dove-Aid? Playing Devils’ advocate, Hatzius explains that “one common pushback to our view is that if the Fed fails to deliver the rate cuts now priced, financial conditions will tighten and force the Fed’s hand anyway” To this, Goldman counters that it expects Fed officials to be “very careful not to deliver an unconditional hawkish message, but to continue emphasizing that they will respond to shocks as needed to attain their mandate.” And so, with hikes very unlikely (for now, although the market has started to price in rising rates in 2020 and early 2021), this would keep the market priced for a reasonable amount of easing.

      Meanwhile, even if the Fed does shock the market in the opposite direction, and the Committee disappoints markets this summer and Treasury yields rebound sharply, Goldman’s statistical estimates, identified via changes in bond yields around FOMC meetings, suggest that a 50bp exogenous rise in short-term rate expectations tightens our FCI by 30-40bp on average. This is not insignificant, but neither is it dramatic when measured against the last two major FCI tightening episodes, according to Goldman.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Some examples: the index moved up by 150bp in 2018 Q4, and even that change affected only the expected pace of monetary tightening as opposed to producing outright increases in accommodation.

      Here Goldman brings up another key consideration: the market has recently been even more inaccurate in its predictions than the notoriously terrible at forecasting Federal Reserve.

      Case in point: market pricing implies four rate cuts by the end of next year, a sharp divergence to the FOMC’s median projection at that horizon (one hike as of March). Goldman next compares the policy rate paths implied by the median SEP dot with those of Fed funds futures. And over the seven years that the Committee has tracked and published their projections (an admittedly small sample), the bank finds that the Fed’s two-year-ahead forecasting performance has actually been somewhat better than the market’s: more accurate forecasts in both 2012 and in 2018, a comparable forecast in 2014, and a less accurate one in 2016.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Which brings us to perhaps the biggest concern of all: will the Fed’s own rate cuts telegraph that a recession is about to commence? Goldman’s answer is that history suggests that the hurdle for mid-cycle easing is rather high (perhaps as opposed to late-cycle, as a recession looms anyway). The 1990s saw two such episodes, in 1995 and 1998, the former of which represented a normalization in policy from clearly restrictive levels (from 6.0% to 5.25% from July 1995 to February 1996). At the same time, pre-emptive ”insurance” cuts of 1998 seem more relevant today, as interest rates are low, global risks appear to be rising, and US data has shown only pockets of weakness. Chairman Greenspan said at the time, “There are only limited hard data that suggest any loss of momentum in the current expansion… The crucial development… is that we are observing an important shift in attitudes toward risk… a change in psychology clearly is what we are observing. The opening up of risk spreads is a very significant indication of increased risk aversion.”

      But, Hatzius observes, just as today’s FCI evolution and growth outlook look very different from those that preceded the Fed’s dovish pivots in 2007, 2010, and 2016, the tightening in credit spreads in summer 1998 was nearly 10 times as large as that of recent experience (+102bp in the three months leading up to the Sep ‘98 meeting vs. +11bps currently, US IG). And even in that instance (1998), fixed income markets too aggressively priced the Fed’s intentions: markets priced more than a 125bp cumulative decline in Fed Funds, whereas the Fed only cut by 75bps and resumed the hiking cycle less than a year later.

      The bottom line, according to Goldman, is that:

      “…while markets are aggressively priced for rate cuts, we believe the dovish shift indicated by Fed commentary has been more marginal in nature. For example, we take much less signal than other commentators and market participants from Chair Powell’s promise that “as always, we will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion.” In our view, this was not a strong hint of an upcoming cut but was simply meant to provide reassurance that the FOMC is well aware of the risks.

      Additionally, Hatzius sees the “as always” caveat declaring an ever-present ability to ease policy if the situation warrants—as opposed to an imminent rate cut this summer, and furthermore doubts it is a coincidence that New York Fed President John Williams used the same language two days later: “My baseline is a very good one but at the same time we obviously, as always, need to be prepared to adjust our views.”

      In sum, and broadening the analysis to all participants that have offered a view on monetary policy since the May meeting, Goldman – unlike the majority of the market – has trouble finding more than a couple outright endorsements of easier policy.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The importance of this caveat is also visible in the history of the FOMC statement itself, Hatzius writes, and shows in the next chart that “act as appropriate” / “act as needed” is a strong signal of imminent policy change (in contrast to, “monitor/closely monitoring,” which has been used over 30 times since 2010 alone). For the Fed-watching pedants, since 1999, Goldman has found only four  examples of “as needed” or synonymous verbiage that did not signal a policy action at the upcoming meeting, out of 34 meetings in which this language was used to explain the policy outlook. In each of these four exceptions, the statement included strongly worded caveats that leaned in the other direction (slowing “aggregate demand” in June 2006 and the “uncertain” inflation outlook in April, June, and August 2008). This may underscore just how important Powell’s and Williams’s “as always” caveats truly are.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      One final semantic note: when the “as needed” language includes a qualification (that leans against the policy bias), Goldman has found that since 1999, there is only one instance where the Committee followed through at the next meeting, and those were truly exceptional circumstances (Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in September/October 2008).

      So unless a major bank defaults in the next few days, Goldman is confident that the odds of a major dovish signal by the Fed are virtually nil, and in that case, should Trump fail to strike a trade war deal with Xi Jinping at the G-20, then the worst case scenario as laid out by Bank of America…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      … is in play, which to those who may have missed it, is the following:

      … the worst possible outcome would be if there is a 1) a hawkish Fed surprise and 2) no Deal at the G-20, which would send the S&P below 2,650, or potentially resulting in a 12% drop in the market, while slamming 10Y yields to 1.50% and helping gold rise above its 5 year breakout zone as the VIX surges.

      In short: if Goldman is right (and that’s a big if), brace for market correction.

    • Credit Card Debt Spikes In Hawaii As Economy Falters  

      Total credit card debt among American consumers jumped 29% since 2015, reaching a whopping $807 billion in 1Q19, according to the latest Experian data. In the past year, as the economy cycles down, overall credit card debt rose 6%.

      More than 60% of Americans used credit cards for basic purchases in 1Q19. That’s an 11% increase when compared to 1Q16, and a 3% increase from 1Q18.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The average American carries four credit cards with a balance of $6,028.

      Experian said all 50 states plus Washington, DC, saw an increase in its average credit card debt on a YoY basis.

      Hawaii had an average credit card debt increase of 3.4% over the past year, experienced the most significant growth in credit card usage among any state.

      Experian said the average credit card debt in Hawaii is approximately $6,500, which is $500 more than the national average.

      Separately, a report from WalletHub suggests why Hawaiians are increasingly using their credits cards. The report collected data from 28 key indicators of economic performance and growth from the island state, determined its economy is the worst in the country because of slow GDP growth, low exports per capita, and relatively few tech jobs.

      US Bankruptcy Court District of Hawaii reported last week that the number of Hawaiians filing for bankruptcy in May jumped by double digits over the same month the previous year. May cases showed a 14.3% increase from 2018, with 144 cases filed last month as compared to 126 cases in May last year. May’s readings are the highest since 2014, a sign that the consumer is experiencing financial stress. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Some of the stress is due to massive student loan debt, the housing affordability crisis, and out of control living costs.

      Growth in student loan debt is expected to outpace mortgage debt in the state in the near term.  Student debt also exceeds credit card debt. 

      Hawaii ranked 26th in the country for its household income, even though the cost of living is the highest in the country.

      The sobering reports come as travel experts warn Hawaii could see an imminent downturn, as tourism dollars are expected slow and the labor market softens.

      Americans, and more importantly, Hawaiians, continue to drown even deeper in debt as the economy cycles down.

    • Williams: How To Create Conflict

      Authored by Walter Williams, op-ed via Townhall.com,

      We are living in a time of increasing domestic tension. Some of it stems from the presidency of Donald Trump. Another part of it is various advocacy groups on both sides of the political spectrum demanding one cause or another. But nearly totally ignored is how growing government control over our lives, along with the betrayal of constitutional principles, contributes the most to domestic tension.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Let’s look at a few examples…

      Think about primary and secondary schooling. I think that every parent has the right to decide whether his child will recite a morning prayer in school. Similarly, every parent has the right to decide that his child will not recite a morning prayer. The same can be said about the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag, sex education and other hot-button issues in education. These become contentious issues because schools are owned by the government.

      In the case of prayers, there will either be prayers or no prayers in school. It’s a political decision whether prayers will be permitted or not, and parent groups with strong preferences will organize to fight one another. A win for one parent means a loss for another parent. The losing parent will be forced to either concede or muster up private school tuition while continuing to pay taxes for a school for which he has no use. Such a conflict would not arise if education were not government-produced but only government-financed, say through education vouchers. Parents with different preferences could have their wishes fulfilled by enrolling their child in a private school of their choice. Instead of being enemies, parents with different preferences could be friends.

      People also have strong preferences for goods and services. Some of us have strong preferences for white wine and distaste for reds while others have the opposite preference — strong preferences for red wine. Some of us love classical music while others love rock and roll music. Some of us love Mercedes-Benz while others love Lincoln Continentals. When’s the last time you heard red wine drinkers in conflict with white wine drinkers? Have you ever seen classical music lovers organizing against rock and roll lovers or Mercedes-Benz lovers in conflict with Lincoln Continental lovers?

      People have strong preferences for these goods just as much as they may have strong preference for schooling. It’s a rare occasion, if ever, that one sees the kind of conflict between wine, music and automobile lovers that we see about schooling issues. Why? While government allocation of resources is a zero-sum game — one person’s win is another’s loss — market allocation is not. Market allocation is a positive-sum game where everybody wins. Lovers of red wine, classical music and Mercedes-Benz get what they want while lovers of white wine, rock and roll music and Lincoln Continentals get what they want. Instead of fighting one another, they can live in peace and maybe be friends.

      It would be easy to create conflict among these people. Instead of market allocation, have government, through a democratic majority-rule process, decide what wines, music and cars would be produced. If that were done, I guarantee that red wine lovers would organize against white wine lovers, classical music lovers against rock and roll lovers and Mercedes-Benz lovers against Lincoln Continental lovers.

      Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made in the political arena. Again, the prime feature of political decision-making is that it’s a zero-sum game. One person’s win is of necessity another person’s loss. If red wine lovers win, white wine lovers would lose. As such, political allocation of resources enhances conflict while market allocation reduces conflict. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena, the greater the potential for conflict. That’s the main benefit of limited government.

      Unfortunately, too many Americans want government to grow and have more power over our lives. That means conflict among us is going to rise.

    • 2.2 Million Homes In America Still Have Negative Equity, Despite Record High Prices

      As the boom in mortgage applications and refinancing activity last week would suggest, the return of interest rates toward multi-year lows this year is helping to pump more froth into the already bubblicious American housing market.

      But while somebody will inevitably be left holding the bag when the bubble bursts, for now, at least, the inexorable rise in American home prices has bequeathed an outsize benefit on at least one group of people: American homeowners who were stuck with underwater mortgages following the last housing bust.

      However, even with average national home values back above their pre-crisis highs, CoreLogic’s most recently quarterly survey of national homeowner equity found that there are still 2.2 million homes underwater in the US – a sign of just how bad the last bubble was, and a warning for where we might be headed.  

      The percentage of homes with underwater mortgages in the US has shrunk between Q4 2018 and Q1 2019 by a full percentage point to just 4% of all mortgaged properties (or just 2.2 million homes). On a YoY basis, negative equity fell 11% from 2.5 million homes, or 4.7% of all mortgaged properties.

      However, in terms of national aggregate value, negative equity climbed slightly to approximately $304.4 billion at the end of the first quarter of 2019, an increase of $2.5 billion, from $301.9 billion in the fourth quarter of 2018.

      To be sure, this represents a massive shift from the final quarter of 2009, when negative equity peaked at 26% of all mortgaged residential properties.

      The national aggregate value of negative equity was approximately $304.4 billion at the end of the first quarter of 2019. This is up QoQ by approximately $2.5 billion, from $301.9 billion in the fourth quarter of 2018. Over the full year, the average homeowner gained approximately $6,400 in equity. Nevada homeowners saw the highest increase, with an average of $21,000 (likely thanks to that flood of California refugees fleeing to Sun Belt states for more affordable lifestyles.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Map

      Some of the frothiest housing markets (think San Francisco and the rest of the Bay Area) are now the least burdened by negative equity. But it’s almost more surprising that even in San Francisco, still nearly a full 1% (0.7%) of mortgaged properties are underwater, though that is the lowest rate in the nation. The scars of the housing crisis are even more visible in some of the hardest hit markets, despite the torrid recovery: Las Vegas (4.7%), Chicago (8.7%) and Miami (10%) still have among the highest rates of underwater mortgages in the country.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Map

      Either way, with home prices at such unaffordable level, homeowners who suffered through the crisis might be thinking one of two things: Those who were underwater but have seen their equity miraculously right-sized might be so amazed by the turnaround in their fortunes, that they might soon start seeking buyers, hoping to get out ahead (and possibly downsize) before the whole thing comes crashing down again.

      And those whose homes are still under might finally be ready to cut their losses, before another down turn drags them all the way back to square one.

    • JPMorgan: "Significant Risk" Is Coming Next Week… And Nobody Is Prepared

      With arguably the most important two weeks of the year looming, on Friday Bank of America’s Chief Investment Officer, Michael Harnett, laid out a 2-by-2 matrix summarizing the four possible scenarios that could result from the Fed’s announcement next week, and the G-20 meeting on June 28-29, where there is a chance (if minuscule) that Trump and Xi will announce the trade war ceasefire, although far more likely, will simple lead to further trade war escalation.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Of these 4 scenarios, two are most remarkable: the best/best and the worst/worst cases. The first one sees a Dovish Fed statement, coupled with a G-20 deal, which according to BofA will send the S&P > 3000, and the 10Y yield to 2.00%, while the worst possible outcome would be if there is a 1) a hawkish Fed surprise and 2) no Deal at the G-20, which would send the S&P below 2,650, or potentially resulting in a 12% drop in the market, while slamming 10Y yields to 1.50% and helping gold rise above its 5 year breakout zone as the VIX surges.

      And yet while the market’s reaction to a favorable outcome from the G-20 meeting will undoubtedly be bullish, and vice versa, we disagree that a dovish Fed would necessarily push stocks higher (recall that the Fed cut rates on average 3 months before the last three recessions, effectively telegraphing a start to the economic contraction), because as JPMorgan noted last week, the trajectory for the equity market during Fed rate cut cycles has differed historically depending on whether the Fed was seen as preemptive and cutting rates to provide insurance or seen as simply reacting to weak growth.

      So, in picking up where Hartnett left off, JPMorgan’s Nikolas Panigirtzoglou writes in his latest Flows and Liquidity report, that next week’s FOMC meeting provides an opportunity where the Fed can act pre-emptively in the current cycle. Considering how little probability of a cut is priced in next week (as opposed to July), a cut by the Fed would surprise markets while signaling an openness to a July cut, closer to JPM’s house view which expects rate cuts in 2019, and could essentially ‘validate’ market pricing. So a rate cut next week which is not priced in, JPM argues, “would show that the Fed is moving ahead rather than staying behind the curve.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But what if Powell doesn’t cut?

      By remaining on hold and failing to convey an overall dovish message, JPM echoes what Hartnett said, warning that “there is a risk of a shift in equity market thinking away from a preemptive towards a reactive Fed.”

      The resilience of the equity market is in our opinion showing that equity investors have been leaning towards the thesis of a preemptive Fed, i.e. a Fed that is keen to provide insurance against downside growth risks in the current cycle similar to the 1995 and 1998 rate cut cycles.

      As a result, a more “cautious and patient” Fed next week could cast doubt on the above thesis, creating what JPM simply calls “the risk of an equity market correction”… and which BofA quantified as a potential drop of as much as 12% from current levels.

      Further complicating the picture is the feedback loop between deteriorating trade and monetary policy (with Trump chiming in periodically on his twitter account). Which is why a negative outcome in US-China trade talks into the G20 meeting on June 28th-29th could further raise the hurdle for the Fed in the future by intensifying rate cut expectations for the July meeting and beyond, according to JPM. In turn, if the Fed does nothing next week, it would add to the perception of a policy error, as a collapse in G-20 talks “could make it even more difficult to surprise markets and move ahead of the curve in future FOMC meetings.”

      But wait there’s more, because if the next US payroll report at the beginning of July is as weak as the one released in early June could intensify fears in markets of a US downturn or recession, which in turn could require an even larger cut for the Fed not to be seen by equity investors as reacting belatedly to weak economic data.

      Yet the biggest paradox remains that fear of a US recession seems to be far from priced in equity markets. Indeed, as JPM calculates, its framework of assessing the probability of a US recession embedded across asset classes “is still showing a large disconnect between equity and rate markets with equity markets still pricing in very little probability of a US recession.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      This complacency is also consistent with consensus earnings expectations. The S&P500 earnings per share expectations at $167 for this year are pricing a modest 3% increase from last year, i.e. far from a severe contraction likely to be seen in a recession.

      The above discussion, according to the JPM strategist, exposes what he calls “the significant event risk” markets are facing over the coming weeks, which will likely result in a spike in volatility, especially if rate vol finally spills over into equities.

      This leaves us with one last question: are markets (especially option and vol) anticipating this potential rise in volatility, something we touched on yesterday when we showed that equity vol remains stubbornly low even as equity and oil vol has been rising sharply.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      To JPMorgan, one way of answering this question is by assessing the volatility premium embedded in option markets via calculating the implied to realized volatility ratio across asset classes. This is shown in the next chart which depicts a cross asset implied to realized vol metric based on a weighted average of 12 implied vols across 5 asset classes with 20% weight on each of the five asset classes. The 12 implied vols used are: V2X Index, VIX Index, VNKY Index, JPMVXYG7 Index, Cl1 Comdty, HG1 Comdty, GC1 Comdty, C 1 Comdty, iTraxx, CDX.IG, Euro 10y swap rate and US 10y swap rate. The implied to realised volatility ratio uses 3-month implied volatilities and 1-month (around 21 trading days) realized volatilities for each asset. Figure 3 shows that the cross-asset implied to realized ratio stands significantly below its historical average of 1.2x pointing to little volatility risk premium embedded in option markets.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Of course, that’s not all, and other vol-related indicators are also pointing to complacency; for example a simple   inspection of the spec positions on VIX futures suggest that there still a large short base not different from the levels  seen in September 2018 or January 2018 which at the time were followed by a sharp rise in vol (Figure 5).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Finally, the Put to Call Open Interest ratio for S&P500 options points to low rather than high hedge ratios (Figure 6).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Putting it all together, JPM finds that “option markets do not appear to embed enough cushion against the significant event risk markets are facing over the coming weeks.” In other words, if Powell for some reason unveils a hawkish surprise next week, it’s going to get very, very messy.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 15th June 2019

    • Army Major (Ret.): Why America's No-Fault Generals Won't Save Us From The Next War

      Authored by Danny Sjrusen via The American Conservative,

      The brass are careerists, never punished for their mistakes, quietly assenting to the latest doomed interventions.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Poll after poll indicates that the only public institution Americans still trust is the military. Not Congress, not the presidency, not the Supreme Court, the church, or the media. Just the American war machine.

      But perhaps that faith in the U.S. Armed Forces is misplaced. I got to thinking about this recently after I wrote articles calling for dissent among military leaders in order to stop what seems to be a likely forthcoming war with Iran. While I still believe that dissent in the ranks stands the best chance of galvanizing an apathetic public against an ill-advised, immoral conflict in the Persian Gulf, I also know its a pipe dream.

      These are company men, after all, obedient servants dedicated—no matter how much they protest otherwise—to career and promotion, as much or more than they are to the national interest. The American military, especially at the senior ranks, is apt to let you down whenever courage or moral fortitude is needed most. In nearly 18 years of post-9/11 forever war, not a single general has resigned in specific opposition to what many of them knew to be unwinnable, unethical conflicts. Writing about the not-so-long-ago Vietnam War, former national security advisor H.R. McMaster, himself a problematic war on terror general, labeled in his book title such military acquiescence Dereliction of Duty. That it was, but so is the lack of moral courage and logical reasoning among McMaster and his peers who have submissively waged these endless wars in Americans’ name.

      Think on it: of the some 18 general officers who have commanded the ill-fated, ongoing war in Afghanistan, each has optimistically promised not only that victory was possible, but that it was “around the corner” or a “light at the end of the tunnel.” All these generals needed, naturally, was more time and, of course, more resources. For the most part they’ve gotten it, billions in cash to throw away and thousands of American soldiers’ lives to waste.

      Why should any sentient citizen believe that these commanders’ former subordinates—a new crop of ambitious generals—will step forward now and oppose a disastrous future war with the Islamic Republic? Don’t believe it! Senior military leaders will salute, about-face, and execute unethical and unnecessary combat with Iran or whomever else (think Venezuela) Trump’s war hawks, such as John Bolton, decide needs a little regime changing.

      Need proof that even the most highly lauded generals will sheepishly obey the next absurd march to war? Join me in a brief trip down an ever so depressing memory lane.

      Let us begin with my distinguished West Point graduation speaker, Air Force General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers. He goes down in history as as a Donald Rumsfeld lackey because it turns out he knew full well that there were “holes” in the Bush team’s inaccurate intelligence used to justify the disastrous Iraq war. Yet we heard not a peep from Myers, who kept his mouth shut and retired with full four-star honors.

      Then, when Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki accurately (and somewhat courageously) predicted in 2003 that an occupation of Iraq would require up to half a million U.S. troops, he was quietly retired.

      Rummy passed over a whole generation of active officers to pull a known sycophant, General Peter Schoomaker, out of retirement to do Bush the Younger’s bidding. It worked too. Schoomaker, despite his highly touted special forces experience, never threw his stars on the table and called BS on a losing strategy even as it killed his soldiers by the hundreds and then the thousands. Having heard him (unimpressively) speak at West Point in 2005, I still can’t decide whether he lacked the intellect to do so or the conscience. Maybe both.

      After Bush landed a fighter plane on a carrier and triumphantly announced “mission accomplished” in Iraq, poor Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the newest three-star in the Army, took over the hard part of conquest: bringing the “natives” to heel. He utterly failed, being too reliant on what he knew—Cold War armored combat—and too ambitious to yell “stop!”  Soon after, it came to light that Sanchez had bungled the investigation—or coverup (take your pick)—of the massive abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison.

      General John Abizaid was one of the most disappointing in a long line of subservient generals. It seems Abizaid knew better: he knew the Iraq war couldn’t be won, that it was best to hand over control to the Iraqis posthaste, that General David Petraeus’s magical “surge” snake oil wouldn’t work. Still, Abizaid didn’t quit and retired quietly. He’s now Trump’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, which is far from comforting.

      Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster was heralded as an outside-the-box thinker. And indeed, he was a Gulf War I hero, earned a Ph.D., taught history at West Point, and wrote a (mostly) well-received book on Vietnam. Yet when Trump appointed him national security advisor, he brought only in-the-box military beliefs with him into the White House. He then helped author a fanciful National Defense Strategy that argued the U.S. military must be ready at a moment’s notice to fight Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and “terror.” Perhaps at the same time! No nuance, no diplomatic alternatives, no cost-benefit analysis, just standard militarism. These days, McMaster is running around decrying what he calls a “defeatist narrative” and arguing for indefinite war in the Middle East.

      Then there was the other Washington insider and “liberal” favorite, one of a trio of “adults in the room,” General Jim Mattis. Though sold to the public as a “warrior monk,” Mattis offered no alternative to America’s failing forever wars. In fact, when he decided his conscience no longer allowed him to stay in the Trump administration, his reason for leaving was that the president had called for a reduction of troops in Afghanistan after 18 senseless years. U.S.-supported Saudi terror bombings that killed tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians? A U.S.-backed Saudi blockade that starved at least 85,000 Yemeni children to death? Yeah, he was fine with that. But a modest troop withdrawal from a losing 18-year-old war in landlocked Central Asia, that he couldn’t countenance.

      Then there’s the propensity for politics and pageantry among senior military officers. This was embarrassingly and unconscionably on display in the tragic cases of Private First Class Jessica Lynch and Corporal Pat Tillman. When, during the initial invasion of Iraq, the young Lynch’s maintenance convoy got lost, she was captured and briefly detained by Saddam’s army. Knowing a good public relations opportunity when they saw it, Bush’s staff and the generals concocted a slew of comforting lies: Lynch was a hero who had fought to her last bullet (she’d never fired her rifle), she’d been tortured (she hadn’t), her combat-camera equipped commando rescue had come just in the nick of time (she was hardly guarded and in a hospital). Who cares if it was all lies, if this young woman’s terrifying experience was co-opted and embellished? The Lynch story was media fodder.

      More tragic was the Pat Tillman escapade. Tillman was an admirable outlier, the only professional athlete to give up a million dollar contract to enlist in the military soon after 9/11. Tillman and his brother went all in, too, choosing the elite Army Rangers. It was quite the story. Rumsfeld even wrote the new private a congratulatory letter. Then reality got in the way. Tillman was killed in Afghanistan during a friendly fire incident that can only be described as gross incompetence. Almost immediately, President Bush’s staff and much of the Army’s top brass went to work crafting the big lie: a heroic narrative of Tillman’s demise, replete with dozens of marauding Taliban fighters and a one-man charge befitting the hard-hitting former NFL defensive back. Promoted to corporal posthumously, he was awarded the Silver Star. Some of his fellow Rangers were instructed to lie to the Tillman family at the memorial service regarding the manner of Pat’s death.

      Only Bush’s neophytes and the Army’s complicit generals didn’t count on the tenacity of Tillman’s parents. They waged something nearing war with the U.S. military for several years until they found out the truth, unearthing a coverup that implicated Bush’s civilians and many of the military’s four-star generals (including Stanley McChrystal, John Abizaid, and Richard Myers). The Tillman family got their congressional hearing, but the sycophantic representatives on the Hill refused to seriously criticize the top brass and no one was seriously punished.

      It turns out, by the way, that Tillman was much more intriguing in real life than the generals’ concocted tale. Far from some ubiquitous jock, he was a genuine thinker with immense intellectual curiosity. And he was antiwar, at least when it came to Iraq. He told a close buddy in his squad that “this war is just so fucking illegal” and even maintained a correspondence with Noam Chomsky. That the military would use and abuse this gifted, principled man as a tool to sell an illegal war ought to have at last dispelled any delusions of general officer duty or ethics.

      Then there’s what I’ve seen at (admittedly) the most micro level. I’ve generally worked for majors and colonels more interested in pleasing their “bosses” and earning promotions than fighting off ill-advised missions and protecting their precious troops. I’ve buried more brave young men than I wish to count. Some of my commanders were driven by ambition; some could barely spell Afghanistan. Most were promoted anyway.

      It is they who will be obediently leading the next war when it comes…in Iran.

      *  *  *

      Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to The American Conservative. His work has also appeared in Harper’s, the LA TimesThe Nation, Tom Dispatch, The Huffington Post, Truthdig, and The Hill. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge.

    • US First Responders Fly Chinese Drones To Save American Lives 

      Acting division chief of operations with the Fremont (California) Fire Department, Jeff Kleven, told VOA News that every firetruck would carry a drone. The department already operates 14 drones, uses the aerial vehicles to conduct reconnaissance and surveillance of an incident scene.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The fire department is supplied with drones from Shenzhen-based SZ DJI Technology Co.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Several years ago, the US Army halted the use of all DJI products from the modern battlefield.

      The DHS’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) recently urged US firms to “be cautious” of Chinese-built drones “as they may contain components that can compromise your data and share your information on a server accessed beyond the company itself.”

      Kleven told VOA that his department wouldn’t be transferring sensitive material over the internet through DJI products, which means they’re on a localized system where it’s impossible to hack.

      “We are well aware of the accusations that are being made. It’s not something new. There are ways we localize our data so it doesn’t go out,” Kleven said. “There are ways we don’t have to be connected to the internet. We don’t have to transfer things over the internet. We can isolate our data within our system. We are confident with that.”

      Romeo Durscher, head of public safety integration at DJI, dismissed the cyber theft allegations and said more than1,000 US fire, police, and other first responders have put their trust into DJI drones.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As DJI becomes one of the most popular drone brands for first responders, it has been caught in the middle of the trade war between Beijing and Washington.

      “We certainly live in a very different and challenging time right now with what is happening politically worldwide,” Durscher said. “We’re putting mitigative solutions in place so the data security risk is managed and manageable.”

      Despite DHS’ warning about Chinese drones and the risk the Trump administration could target DJI with sanctions, it seems that America’s first responders are very confident that Chinese drones save American lives.

    • McGovern: DoJ Bloodhounds On the Scent Of John Brennan

      Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

      With Justice Department investigators’ noses to the ground, it should be just a matter of time before they identify Brennan as fabricator-in-chief of the Russiagate story…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The New York Times Thursday morning has bad news for one of its favorite anonymous sources, former CIA Director John Brennan.

      The Times reports that the Justice Department plans to interview senior CIA officers to focus on the allegation that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered Russian intelligence to intervene in the 2016 election to help Donald J. Trump. DOJ investigators will be looking for evidence to support that remarkable claim that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report failed to establish.

      Despite the collusion conspiracy theory having been put to rest, many Americans, including members of Congress, right and left, continue to accept the evidence-impoverished, media-cum-“former-intelligence-officer” meme that the Kremlin interfered massively in the 2016 presidential election.

      One cannot escape the analogy with the fraudulent evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As in 2002 and 2003, when the mania for the invasion of Iraq mounted, Establishment media have simply regurgitated what intelligence sources like Brennan told them about Russia-gate.

      No one batted an eye when Brennan told a House committee in May 2017, “I don’t do evidence.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The lead story in Thursday’s New York Times.

      Leak Not Hack

      As we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have warned numerous times over the past two plus years, there is no reliable forensic evidence to support the story that Russia hacked into the DNC. Moreover, in a piece I wrote in May, “Orwellian Cloud Hovers Over Russia-gate,” I again noted that accumulating forensic evidence from metadata clearly points to an inside DNC job — a leak, not a hack, by Russia or anyone else.

      So Brennan and his partners, FBI Director James Comey and National Intelligence Director James Clapper were making stuff up and feeding thin but explosive gruel to the hungry stenographers that pass today for Russiagate obsessed journalists.

      Is the Jig Up?

      With Justice Department investigators’ noses to the ground, it should be just a matter of time before they identify Brennan conclusively as fabricator-in-chief of the Russiagate story. Evidence, real evidence in this case, abounds, since the Brennan-Comey-Clapper gang of three were sure Hillary Clinton would become president. Consequently, they did not perform due diligence to hide their tracks.

      Worse still, intelligence analysts tend to hang onto instructions and terms of reference handed down to them by people like Brennan and his top lieutenants. It will not be difficult for CIA analysts to come up with documents to support the excuse: “Brennan made me do it.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Brennan: Is the jig up? ( LBJ Library photo/ Jay Godwin)

      The Times article today betrays some sympathy and worry over what may be in store for Brennan, one of its favorite sons and (anonymous) sources, as well as for those he suborned into making up stuff about the Russians.

      The DOJ inquiry, says the Times, “has provoked anxiety in the ranks of the C.I.A., according to former officials. Senior agency officials have questioned why the C.I.A.’s analytical work should be subjected to a federal prosecutor’s scrutiny.” Attorney General William Barr is overseeing the review but has assigned the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, John Durham, to conduct it.

      No Holds Barred

      Barr is approaching this challenge with a resoluteness and a calm candor rarely seen in Washington — particularly when it comes to challenging those who run the intelligence agencies.

      The big question, once again, is whether President Donald Trump will follow his customary practice of reining in subordinates at the last minute, lest they cross the vindictive and still powerful members of the Deep State.

      Happily, at least for those interested in the truth, some of the authors of the rump, misnomered “Intelligence Community Assessment” commissioned by Obama, orchestrated by Brennan-Clapper-Comey, and published on January 6, 2017 will now be interviewed. The ICA is the document still widely cited as showing that the “entire intelligence community agreed” on the Russia-gate story, but this is far from the case. As Clapper has admitted, that “assessment” was drafted by “handpicked analysts” from just three of the 17 intelligence agencies — CIA, FBI, and NSA.

      U.S. Attorney Durham would do well to also check with analysts in agencies — like the Defense Intelligence Agency and State Department Intelligence, as to why they believe they were excluded. The ICA on Russian interference is as inferior an example of intelligence analysis as I have ever seen. Since virtually all of the hoi aristoi and the media swear by it, I did an assessment of the Assessment on its second anniversary. I wrote:

      “Under a media drumbeat of anti-Russian hysteria, credulous Americans were led to believe that Donald Trump owed his election victory to the president of Russia, whose “influence campaign” according to theTimesquoting the intelligence report,helped “President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton.”

      Hard evidence supporting the media and political rhetoric has been as elusive as proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2002-2003. This time, though, an alarming increase in the possibility of war with nuclear-armed Russia has ensued — whether by design, hubris, or rank stupidity. The possible consequences for the world are even more dire than 16 years of war and destruction in the Middle East. …

      The Defense Intelligence Agency should have been included, particularly since it has considerable expertise on the G.R.U., the Russian military intelligence agency, which has been blamed for Russian hacking of the DNC emails. But DIA, too, has an independent streak and, in fact, is capable of reaching judgments Clapper would reject as anathema. Just one year before Clapper decided to do the rump “Intelligence Community Assessment,” DIA had formally blessed the following heterodox idea in its “December 2015 National Security Strategy”:

      “The Kremlin is convinced the United States is laying the groundwork for regime change in Russia, a conviction further reinforced by the events in Ukraine. Moscow views the United States as the critical driver behind the crisis in Ukraine and believes that the overthrow of former Ukrainian President Yanukovych is the latest move in a long-established pattern of U.S.-orchestrated regime change efforts.”

      Any further questions as to why the Defense Intelligence Agency was kept away from the ICA drafting table?

    • Retail Investors Bet, And Lost, Billions On Ghost Suburbs That Were Never Built

      Calgary-based Walton Group had delivered 12% annual returns in the past, so when the company made its pitch to retail investors, planning to build suburbs on speculative land in the U.S., it likely looked like a good bet. The group was selling the idea of investing $10,000 or more in rural properties outside of fast growing cities like Toronto and Atlanta, according to Bloomberg.

      But years later, investors are claiming that their shares are worth only about 20% of what they put in, based on 2017 appraisals. And after $20 billion in land assets, 92,000 investors, and 106,000 acres, about 90 Canadian investors have hired a private investigations firm to track the proceeds of Walton’s land syndication.

      Meanwhile, the company says it has a new strategy for selling its investors’ land and has found potential buyers for almost half of its buildings. An attorney for the company said that a recent project brought in almost double what investors originally paid for it and the company has “a number of important initiatives and opportunities on the horizon and we are excited about what the coming years have in store for Walton and our investors.”

      Ryan Kretschmer, general counsel for a Walton affiliate called Walton Global Holdings Ltd. also said that the “severity of the real estate recession was unforeseen, and the recovery in the U.S. has been much slower than expected.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The investors’ experience provides a cautionary tale for land speculation years in advance and the perils of being a smaller retail investor. A majority of more than 300 Walton land projects stretching from Alberta to Washington, are delayed, Bloomberg said. 

      Rob Ivanhoe, a real estate attorney with Greenberg Traurig said: 

      “Syndication of raw land to retail investors is, in my 35+ years of experience, a very rare approach to investment in real estate both before and after the Great Recession. It does not seem to be the kind of high-risk investment that an unsophisticated individual retail investor can properly evaluate.”

      Retiree Bruce Coristine invested in Walton’s Arcade, Georgia project 11 years ago. Today, the area remains “mostly pastureland for grazing cattle” and Coristine’s original $41,000 investment is now worth just $9,300. 

      Coristine said: 

      “It seemed to be a very good investment and they were a well respected company, until a point when they weren’t. It was not the worst investment ever, but pretty close.”

      Walton’s original investors profited back in the 1980’s after buying land during a deep Alberta recession. Investors netted a 12% IRR in Calgary and Edmonton based projects from 1987 to 2007. Walton was paying sales commissions as high as 13.25% in some cases, despite 6% being more typical for speculative investments. 

      In the mid 2000’s the company moved “heavily” into the U.S., using the same model to buy land outside of Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta and Washington, D.C. It sold its securities through an “exempt” market intended for savvier investors, but investors were willing to take the risk based on the company’s track record.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A markup of five times Walton’s own price wasn’t unusual across hundreds of properties. In one 2008 investment vehicle, Walton bought 304 acres northeast of Atlanta at a price of $13,600 an acre in U.S. dollars, and syndicated it to investors at about $68,000 an acre. Investors didn’t seem to mind as long as Walton sold it to home builders for some multiple of $68,000, and Walton had successfully sold land in Alberta in such fashion a few years earlier. Also, Walton’s efforts to obtain zoning changes and to get rights to develop the land would boost its value.

      Steven Kelman, a Canadian investment consultant said: “Still, a reasonably intelligent investor who had seen the markup would have some questions.”

      Investors began worrying in 2017 when some Walton entities filed for creditor protection in Canada and when some Walton owned land was revalued. Walton then rolled up 133 separate projects across North America into a single vehicle (anyone having housing crisis flashbacks yet?) called Roll Up Corp. After being revalued, on average, “investors got 57 cents of equity in Roll-Up Corp. for each dollar they had originally invested. Some people got as little as 17 cents per dollar, while others got as much as $1.75.” 

      Harlow Russell, an American expat who sold Walton securities from a glassy waterfront office in Singapore said: “We pioneered the ability to say to investors, ‘You can make money anywhere in the planet. Why don’t you do it in a safe environment like Canada?”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Walton touted the stability of the U.S. and Canada, holding sales presentations inside Singapore’s luxurious colonnaded Fullerton Hotel, and salespeople even won lavish trips to places like New Zealand and Prague.

      But after the initial Canadian boom, the joy for Walton was short lived. 

      Russell recalled that, at one point, the company had 92,000 investors worldwide and he was so confident in the project, he invested personally. Now, he just hopes to get his principle back:

      Walton said it expected most projects to sell three to seven years after it had syndicated them, while others were “fast-tracked” and given two-to-four-year timelines, Russell said. He was so much a believer he invested personally in an Edmonton project in 2004 that paid him a return two years later. A more recent investment in Texas, which he put about $10,000 into, was targeted for sale by 2014 but is still vacant. Walton recently said it has a buyer for part of that land. A second Canadian project Russell invested about $7,500 into also hasn’t sold, he said.

      At this point, “If I just got my principal back, I’d be thrilled,” said Russell, who lives in Austin, Texas.

    • Flores: The Democrats' Sinister Strategy To Win In 2020

      Authored by Joaquin Flores via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      The wildest single phenomenon as we come close to a clearer picture of the Democratic Party’s election strategy for 2020, is that there really isn’t a single candidate that the party has been able to coalesce around. And without this, it would appear difficult to see whether the Democrats intend to focus their strategy on flipping the Rust Belt or the Sun Belt states blue. The truth is that this really isn’t their strategy at all. It’s their strategy to talk about these strategies. But what they will rely on instead is something far more dark and sinister – something we’ve already seen and felt the ramifications of, and something every vigilant citizen needs to focus their primary concerns on.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      What strategy won’t work for Democrats? The one they’ve been trying since Trump won.

      Most of the chatter we’ve seen so far tends to focus on that question, Rust Belt or Sun Belt (or both), and then which set of policies should the party focus on, and then naturally who will be the candidate to deliver the victory on that platform.

      It’s well understood how misleading it is to look at the wide margin at the level of the Electoral College that saw Trump’s sweep. In the real battle-ground states, his victory was in some cases incredibly slim. If three or four of those states had gone for Clinton, then we’d be in a very different electoral reality today. So it goes without saying that Democrats think that they only need to keep all the states they won in 2016, and ‘simply’ (oh, it will not be simple!) flip three or four swing states.

      This is very ‘by the books’ and old-model thinking however, and it’s precisely this lack of imagination that saw Democrats lose in 2016. They ran a top-down campaign, not realizing that we live in a post-modern electoral paradigm, where voters are less motivated in ways that can even be broken down by states, state politics, or state interests in the old sense. Yes, mid-term elections tell us something, but this translates less and less so to national politics. We are moving away from the swing-state, and towards the swing-individual.

      The internet, at the risk of being extraordinarily cliché, keeps changing the rules. But it’s true. While state secession sentiments actually grow, politics itself has become increasingly national-oriented and also broader in scope – that is to say, paradigmatic.

      Trump’s people brilliantly understood that something more was needed in addition to the standard stitching together the standard Republican big tent coalition of anti-Coastal fly-over country America, Christian Zionists and evangelicals, with small-government, low tax business conservatives.

      They understood that there had to be a bigger story, a grand narrative, an entire paradigm. Something that would penetrate Reddit and 4Chan, and go full-on memetic. Tropes like the ‘Rising Chinese Menace’, ‘Pizza Gate’, the unappreciated and ‘politically incorrect White Man’, and even some Ron Paul related tropes related to currency ‘metal heads’ and the Fed – these came together to give his campaign some meaning, and meaning is what motivates the grass roots in the digital era.

      Not ‘policies’ in the mundane think-tank, policy wonk sense of the term. No, not at all. If Occupy Wall Street taught us anything, is that what has radicalized people is not this or that policy – even though polling people by policy will naturally (obviously) produce policy-edible results – but instead people are radicalized by the much larger questions of our time.

      And Democrats keep referring to these, because as an institutional machine, this is what it’s built on, this is the essence of its bureaucratic inertia, and where the relationships exist.

      Democrats will have to use the institutions and machines they have built, not the ones they should have been building and haven’t.

      What strategy will Democrats try?

      In contrast to this paradigmatic approach which is required to win, Democrats seem to be stuck in trying to simulate grass roots, through the older model of ‘grass roots organizations’, a series of endorsements by way of Astro-turfing, and relying on the mobilization of students at the orders of professors and teachers, and of organized labor by order of the shop steward and internal organizer, following the SEIU model that saw Obama elected in swing-states states like Colorado.

      But as Democrats have switched posture to being a pro-war party, they are seriously going to be lacking in the activism of the anti-war constituency, a constituency which may indeed view Trump at least neutrally. And trying to switch the anti-war elements of the most progressive, leftist wing of the party and the ‘left of the party adjacent’, into a pro-war party of xenophobic pogromist, neo-McCarthyite Russophobic minions, would seem to be a Herculean task. That is, of course, if those elements still have internet access. And herein lies the rub.

      Democrats are going to have to rely on the most sinister and anti-democratic strategy, one that threatens democracy itself

      The very sick and sad reality is that Democrats are working directly with the internet tech and platform giants, Google-Adsense, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon, to broaden the scope of censorship, to shut down websites, to deplatform, demonetize, and derank thousands of YouTube vloggers, even big ones, and shadow-ban countless tens, even hundreds of thousands more.

      They are creating an ever-more walled garden, a fake internet, the very thing American Sinophones have been accusing the Chinese of doing. And strangely, the average Chinese appears to be more plugged into the inner-workings of American life and politics than the other way around – so much for censorship.

      This is the single-most winning component of their strategy. Democrats have an institutional machine that cannot win using the internet as it had evolved until around 2016 – the war now has been a war against the internet and its denizens themselves, against online activism which challenges the status quo – even if its anti-Trump on issues of war and imperialism, since the Democrats themselves promise at least as much if not more.

      If the Democrats cannot beat the internet, they will destroy it. And destroying it they have been doing.

      While censorship strategy this is the main idea for their campaign – to silence the genuine progressives and socialists in their own party, and to double-down on censoring the broadly paradigmatic elements of Trump’s organic and grass-roots base – they will need to plaster on some kind of plausible pseudo-strategy to get them from here to there. And as we have seen, there isn’t really a candidate. Democrats are lacking in anyone that has anything to say, because the Democrats aren’t looking forward, they are trying to turn the clock backwards to reproduce a political geography that existed twelve years ago as Obama-esque tropes gained ascendency. To do this means to erase the real-existing internet, under the rubric of a war against ‘fake news’, and ‘alternate facts’. Only here can they win, using a victory by the numbers, not winning the battle of ideas.

      This time around, their push-polling and fake-polling might work. This is the plan that aims to get their candidate to win by claiming that their candidate is winning, in all the news online or TV that you’d ever have a chance to see. They thereby win low-cognitive undecideds who want to vote for the projected winner, for low-cognitive and base-emotional reasons at the level of the amygdala, as was their plan in 2016. This plan would have worked except for the digital democracy of paradigmatic proportions, the one that Trump so masterfully mobilized, and so it is clear and obvious that Democrats aim to win by erasing digital freedoms, since the 1st amendment questions haven’t been properly sorted in the digital era. The big tech and platform firms are private agencies, have their own bizarre and discriminatory TOS’s, and have been censoring and deplatforming anyone who sniffs of paradigm.

      Who are Democrats pushing on the public as the potentials?

      Biden, Harris, Sanders Booker, O’Rourke, Warren, even Yang to some extent. Surely, but they don’t give us a whole lot. Besides Yang, what do any of these candidates really stand for? Like Yang, all of these candidates appear to tend to focus on single-issue policy questions; Warren with student loan debt; Harris isn’t so much an issue candidate as she is a symbolic one; and with the exception of Yang, no-one is broadly paradigmatic.

      O’Rourke has charisma, and has some of the appeal of a Kennedy meets Jimmy Stewart. This Jimmy Stewart vibe carries with it both pop-psychologist and YouTube celebrity Jordan Peterson, along with elements of Ron Paul vibes. On the subconscious level, telegraphing and channeling this tremendously powerful essence has carried O’Rourke this far. Added is O’Rourke’s relative youth, indie rock scene credentials, and some resonance with the Latino community – that’s all he really has to stand on. Like the forgettable Tim what’s-his-name-? Kaine, these are white men who nominally stand for the Latino community. O’Rourke goes by Beto, like Kaine speaks Spanish.

      Besides the actual strategy of relying on internet censorship, the nominal, plastered, plausible strategy is to run everyone at once, until the very end. There isn’t a single candidate because democrats in fact do not have a candidate to run. They have a censorship plan, and then simply run half a dozen people simultaneously and work their virtual supporters up into some ‘anyone but Trump’ frenzy, with each candidate taking the historic vow to officially throw their support and their supporters behind the candidate that wins the DNC primaries.

      This is a very interesting approach strategically, because historically we’d find coalescence around a sense of the general electoral paradigm we are in first – the real set of issues at play – and then narrow down the candidates based on who best serves, or reflects, that paradigm in terms of electability, charisma, and ability to deploy a field campaign, especially in the swing states. That was the case for Obama in 2008.

      No more Obama

      For Obama, coming off of eight years of Bush and the destruction of the neoconservative brand, it was a simple strategy that worked in the targeted states. The anti-war demographic while not huge in their own, are among the most active campaigners who are absolutely fine with adjusting their talking points to reach voters on the ideas and policies that matter to them most, anything to unseat the ‘war monger in chief, Bush’. The rise of the national security state, Homeland Security, the wars in the middle-east, Guantanamo Bay and torture, extraordinary rendition, warrantless tapping and spying on Americans at home – these all had the civil libertarians against Bush as well.

      Necessary for Obama’s victory also was a very strong appeal to the progressive left, still based in the last generation’s relationship to symbolic politics.

      To be clear, symbolic politics of this type no longer motivates new voters, who are economically and culturally at odds with the present system, and aren’t looking for a symbolic politics based in abstract progressivism, if it doesn’t reflect in their own pocket-books and employment opportunities. That is, after all, one of the biggest reasons that Trump took the swing states in 2016. The symbolic politics that elected Obama won’t work for Democrats again, even if they tap the double-minority vein of Harris. The reality is that even Democrat voters are no longer interested in a candidate to best represent or serve the underserved or underrepresented if those are conceived of as some ‘urban other’. The reality is that the middle-class progressive base of Democrat activism really no long exists. It began to evaporate under Obama’s policies themselves, in 2008 with quantitative easing, when the too big to fail banks were bailed out, instead of Americans themselves.

      Democrat strategy unlocked – Silence the Public, pretend Clinton isn’t in charge, and run half a dozen candidates representing some puerile pastiche of demography, until the very end.

      While at first glance this may seem to be reflective of an incoherent strategy, we need to step back and see how there is indeed a certain logic at play here. Censorship will have a huge impact on this election, and all politics moving forward.

      Not having a single candidate to focus on, that is, to draw fire on, isn’t the same thing as not having a single strategy. Single candidates and single strategies are not the same thing, not in the DNC, which is still clearly under a unified command structure under H.R Clinton. Yes indeed.

      It’s clear to insiders and anyone nominally looking at the facts on paper that the DNC is still a Clinton monopoly, there was at least some thinking, at least for some time, that the technocratic and professional elements of the party who actually want to win the race, were having some significant pull. We saw signs of this in early 2017 when Tom Perez came into to chair the DNC, a former Obama Secretary of Labor in the second term, signaling at least symbolically that team blue was breaking out of the Clinton club – at least that which was dedicated to the cult of Clinton.

      But to believe this, one would have to believe the old insider story going back to 2007 that Clinton and Obama represent different power factions within the party. But given that, besides the necessary myths and promises required to get elected, the real point of Democratic Party governance relates to the international questions. And H.R Clinton’s role as Secretary of State saw the significant transatlantic networking and alliances necessary to pull off the Arab Spring and the Ukrainian Maidan. And so even here it’s wildly questionable that Obama was much more than a Clinton faction ally, at best.

      The Democrats’ real problem here and now is that Clinton is widely despised by real voters, especially the kinds of voters that the party needs to win in the old and emergent swing states alike. That means that the party has to give off some essence, some inkling, some notion that the DNC and the party itself isn’t still run by Clinton.

      And this will be very hard to do, given that it is. The way that Sanders entirely buckled under the weight of the DNC’s corruption and gaming the delegate process during the nomination process, only served to induct a new generation of progressive voters – the real activists of the party generally tied to organized labor and astro-turf community organizations on the NGO model – into the ‘anyone but Hillary’ camp.

      That’s to say that the party strategy to win the White House in 2020 can’t be based around some focus on Hillary Clinton in any way. This is the real kicker. What we’ve seen until recently to be frank is, rather than a positive program moving forward, is instead a never ending series of accusations and apologia – in the non-remorseful, Greek sense of the word – on how and why Clinton was robbed of the election. This in turn, however, has had profound effects on censorship and the erosion of digital democracy.

      More recently we’ve seen some major concessions from Democratic Party leaders in their talking points around some of the culture-war issues, and related to that, immigration policy. Democrats, in tandem with their transatlantic neoliberal partners in the EU, especially in the case of France with Macron, have begun to push in a populist direction on immigration. In plain terms, Democrats hope to win over the ‘moderate’ cross section of the ‘build the wall’ crowd, at least in swing states where that subject ranks in the top five but under the top three main concerns.

      But such concessions may act, in reality, not as game-changers but instead as plausible-deniability insurance, that they won voters this way, and not through a possibly illegal collaboration and collusion with the Silicon Valley tech and platform giants.

      The initial ‘excitement’, scare quotes intentional, around Joe Biden’s announcement in April that he would be in the race, has steadily deflated ever since, by and by a startling rate.

      When we look at the overall picture, it is difficult to see Biden being the candidate. But given that Biden has his own ‘grab em by the p%$$#’ reputation, is both white and a male, and has a masculine-aggressive personality component – important demographic cross-sections for Trump – these may all indeed, in the end, serve successfully as cover for the Democrats plan to steal this election through censorship.

    • Uber Will Use Drones To Deliver Piping-Hot Food

      Uber on Wednesday announced that it will begin using drones for its Uber Eats service, and had gained regulatory approval to begin testing the service in San Diego, California. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Uber announced it will begin testing drones for food delivery for its Uber Eats service, and over time will land the aircraft on its cars for final delivery (AFP Photo/EVA HAMBACH)

      “Our goal is to expand Uber Eats drone delivery so we can provide more options to more people at the tap of a button,” said Luke Fischer, head of flight operations at Uber Elevate during a company ‘summit.’ 

      “We believe that Uber is uniquely positioned to take on this challenge as we’re able to leverage the Uber Eats network of restaurant partners and delivery partners as well as the aviation experience and technology of Uber Elevate.” 

      Not quite to your driveway… 

      According to AFP, the drones won’t deliver directly to customers. Instead, food will be flown from the restaurant to a safe drop-off location where Uber Eats drivers will be waiting to complete orders. The company eventually plans to land the drones on parked vehicles located near key delivery hotspots in order to allow for final delivery by hand. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Uber said it had developed a proprietary airspace management system called Elevate Cloud Systems that will guide the drones to their location.

      While not the first food drone delivery service, Uber is aiming for a potentially large-scale service through its food service partners across the United States.

      Initial testing in San Diego was done with McDonald’s, and will be expanded to include additional Uber Eats restaurants later this year. –AFP via Yahoo!

      New autonomous car

      Uber also announced its newest self-driving venture with Volvo, which will produce an XC90 prototype “capable of fully driving itself,” according to a statement by Uber. The vehicle will house sensors galore which should allow it to operate in an urban environment. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “Working in close partnership with companies like Volvo is a key ingredient to effectively building a safe, scalable, self-driving fleet,” said Uber Advanced Technologies Group CEO Eric Meyhofer. That said, fully autonomous are at least 15 years away according to Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. 

      Uber signed a deal in 2017 with Volvo, which is owned by China’s Geely, to produce “tens of thousands” of self-driving cars for a fleet of autonomous taxis.

      Volvo said it will use a similar autonomous base for the introduction of its first commercially available autonomous drive technology in the early 2020s.

      This week, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said he does not expect fully self-driving vehicles to be deployed for at least 15 years, but that autonomous features will be gradually introduced and that some “easy” trips may be made autonomously. -AFP

      Uber also announced the latest versions of its electric bicycles and scooters as part of the summit.  

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    • Stockman Slams The "Deficits Don't Matter" Folly

      Authored by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

      Well, that was timely. The US Treasury just posted a record $207 billion deficit for May and record monthly spending of $440 billion. That brought the rolling 12 month deficit to just shy of the trillion dollar mark at $986 billion.

      The timely part is two-fold.

      First, it just so happens that May marked month #119 of the current expansion, making it tied for the duration record with the 1990s cycle. But even JM Keynes himself would be rolling in his grave in light of the chart below.

      To wit, even by the lights of hardcore Keynesians of yore, fiscal deficits were supposed to be falling sharply at the end of a business cycle or even moving into surplus as they did in 1999-2000, not erupting toward 5% of GDP as has now happened.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The second timely note, of sorts, is that the Wall Street Journal was Johnny on the Spot this AM with a front page story entitled, “How Washington Learned to Love Debt and Deficits”.

      The story’s quote from the current Dem Chairman of the House Budget Committee, John Yarmouth, says it all. There simply has never been such bipartisan complacency about the nation’s public finances in all of modern history—-including during the biggest borrow and spend days of FDR, LBJ and every president since Gerald Ford:

      Rep. John Yarmuth (D., Ky.), House Budget Committee chairman, says he rarely hears from constituents concerned about rising deficits and debt. Many voters’ attitudes, he says: “There haven’t been any cataclysmic consequences, so why worry about it?”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The WSJ story is a dog’s breakfast of rationalizations, non sequitirs, political double-talk and Keynesian tommyrot. What is the most telling, however, is that it was co-authored by Jon Hilsenrath, who was the paper’s long-time Fed reporter. Yet it contains not a single word about the role of central banks in fostering the utter collapse of fiscal responsibility described by his lengthy report.

      So for want of doubt, here is the culprit. The central banks of the world have expanded their balance sheets by upwards of $22 trillion since the turn of the century, thereby massively monetizing the erupting public debt of the US and most of the world via fiat credit snatched from thin air.

      So did that massive $22 trillion “buy” order from the central banks weigh heavily on the supply of funds side of the scales in the fixed income market, thereby driving bond prices skyward and yields ever lower?

      Why, goodness gracious, yes it did!

      The chart below drops the dime on the $22 trillion elephant in the room. Yet the current worldwide regime of Keynesian central banking has so corrupted both financial discourse and pricing in the bond pits that this central bank balance sheet explosion is treated as inert financial wallpaper—-utterly irrelevant to the whys and wherefores of daily action on both ends of the Acela Corridor. 

      Combined Global Central Bank Balance Sheets

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Moreover, the entire system is so mired in the fantasy called “debt doesn’t matter” (both public and private) that we get the chart below. Apparently, not a single one of the hundreds of high paid Wall Street analysts who cover or strategize on the fixed income markets came within a country mile of guessing where the 10-year UST yield would be today in their start of the year projections.

      That is, as of January they were essentially blind, deaf and dumb as to what would materialize in a mere 180 days. And the utterly hideous level of forecast error shown below is not due to the fact that the Trade War and global growth outlook have deteriorated since the beginning of the year.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Here’s why Wall Street jabber about emerging macroeconomic weakness does not explain the above chart.

      All things being equal in an honest financial system, of course, the bond market might well price-in modestly lower bond yields in the face of an expected or actual recession. The reason would be reduced demand—especially from business and consumers—for credit.

      But that shouldn’t happen in today’s world because government borrowing explodes during a recession by a far larger magnitude than any off-setting reduction in demand for business working capital credit or long-term debt. And households are so extended that use of credit barely declines at all.

      For instance, during the financial crisis and Great Recession, the rate of Federal borrowing soared from $161 billion in FY 2007 to $1.4 trillion in FY 2009. In cumulative terms, Federal debt outstanding on the eve of the crisis in September 2007 was $5.994 trillion and by the time the worst of the recession had passed in September 2009 the figure was $8.616 trillion.

      So on the basis of honest finance, Uncle Sam alone absorbed $2.622 trillion of private savings during that two year period. But unlike the theory, household and business borrowings did not go down.

      In fact, the debts of non-financial businesses (corporate and noncorporate) actually rose from $9.845 trillion in September 2007 to $10.387 trillion two years later, representing a gain of $542 billion.

      Likewise, total household debt barely budged, notwithstanding the massive mortgage foreclosures which occurred during this period. To wit, household debt of $14.03 trillion in September 2007 had dipped to $13.96 trillion by September 2009, representing a tiny $65 billion decline (0.5%) decline.

      In sum, US Treasury demand for funds rose by $2.62 trillion during the 2007-2009 recessionary decline, but private household and business demand also rose—by a net of $474 billion.

      There was no weakening of demand for borrowings at all, meaning the theory that private demand for borrowings falls during a recessionary downturn is belied by the relevant facts from the last go-round.

      Whatever may have been the case back in the Keynesian heydays of the 1960s and 1970s is no longer relevant. That’s because the American economy is now entombed in $72 trillion of public and private debt—upon which the daily turning of the economic wheels vitally depend.

      Accordingly, households have not de-levered since the 2008-2009 crisis, with total outstanding debt now posting at a record $15.7 trillion and business debt has veritably soared by 58% to $15.6 trillion.

      So the questions recurs: Why were analysts so far off the mark on bond yields just six months ago, and why has the 10-year yield collapsed from 3.24% on November 8 last fall to just 2.096% at today’s close?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      That’s a whopping 35% decline in the yield in the face of only a mild mark-down of the economic outlook. And it is occurring under financial conditions which have not improved at all from the last recession, when there was no decline in private sector debt at all.

      Stated differently, if the bond market was actually discounting an impending recession under current financial conditions, yields would be going up because Federal borrowing is certain to soar and private demand is virtually guaranteed to remain constant or probably rise as per 2007-2009.

      Needless to say, all things are not equal and the bond market does not trade any of the facts cited above.

      What it trades is the Fed and the other central banks, and it is now pricing-in a biblical flood of new liquidity that is expected to monetize the $1.5 to $2.0 trillion Federal deficits that are sure to emerge during the upcoming recession; and to do so without any “crowding out” of the now massive $31.2 trillion mountain of household and nonfinancial business debt.

      But here’s the thing. The implicit assumption that indefinite and virtually infinite levels of public debt can be monetized can’t be true. Nor can the implicit assumption that the real yield on the 10-year bond can remain at virtually zero (it was 0.09% today) for the indefinite future with no harm, no foul consequences.

      After all, that amounts to one epic free lunch proposition: Namely, that no one needs to save or defer gratification in the private sector because the central banks can always print enough new credit to monetize the public debt and keep interest rates aberrantly and irrationally low.

      The truth is, massive central bank monetization of the debt has essentially pulled the plug on fiscal management, as underscored by today’s Wall Street Journal story, but in so doing it is also setting up the system for a thundering day of reckoning.

      A hint of that can be seen in the chart below, which tracks net national savings. The latter is the real McCoy among savings measures because it subtracts today’s massive and chronic public sector dis-savings (i.e. deficits) from the meager level of positive savings generated by households and undistributed corporate profits.

      It therefore shows what’s left for net investment in the private sector, and the current answer is “not much”. In fact, net national savings in Q1 2019 was just $506 billion at an annual rate.

      Incredibly, that figure is 26% below the $681 billion rate recorded in Q1 of 1999. And it’s also stated in nominal dollars!

      Adjusted for the 46% rise in the GDP deflator since 1999, today’s net national savings level stands at $340 billion (1999 $) or 50% below where it was exactly 20 years ago.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In a word, the radically artificial bond rates that have been generated by massive central bank debt monetization have fostered the foolish belief in the Imperial City that the public debt is benign and that borrowing a trillion dollars at the tippy-top of the business cycle is no sweat at all.

      In truth, it has led to a financial metastasis down below the surface. To wit, America has been eating its seed corn (private savings) to fund the most irresponsible spree of fiscal excess in recorded history. The public debt has gone from $5.5 trillion to $22 trillion during that 20-year period, and after 30-years based on current built-in policy, the public debt will be $42 trillion or nearly 8X higher.

      Stated differently, today as the economy struggles to grow after the longest, weakest business expansion ever, the private economy has 50% less in real terms to invest in future productivity and growth than it had two decades ago—-and this is occurring at the worst possible moment in history.

      That is, on the eve of the tsunami of Baby Boom retirements which will hit 11,600 per day by 2022 and 80 million Social Security/Medicare beneficiaries by the end of the 2020s.

      What is worse, the central bankers and their Keynesian apologists who are responsible for this impending catastrophe have become actual Debt Deniers, claiming there is plenty of savings elsewhere in the world to cover America’s fiscal profligacy. Thus, the long-time head of the New York Fed and Goldman Sach’s plenipotentiary at the central bank is quoted by the WSJ as saying—nothing to sweat here:

      “There are plenty of savings around the world to be invested,” says former Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley.

      What he is suggesting is that apparently the prudent folks in the rest of the world have not followed the US pattern and have increased their savings rates to compensate; and, once more, are happy to send their hard-earned savings stateside to earn hardly a pittance after inflation and currency risk.

      In fact, it is even more ludicrous at the moment. After adjusting for the cost of currency hedges, Mrs. Watanabe in Japan would be earning a negative return on today’s 2.096% Treasury rate.

      Perhaps, the people of Japan are secretly paying America reparations for World War II. That would be as good an explanation as any—were not the entire global fixed income market in complete breakdown owing to the depredations of central banks.

      In fact, we are now apparently at near an all-time high of negative yielding debt at $11 trillion on a worldwide basis. So, indeed, somewhere on the planet there must be some kind of massive pool of stranded excess savings lapping this stuff up in order help the governments of the world make ends meet.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Except there isn’t. The alleged savings glut was invented by Bernanke and B-Dud (Bill Dudley) and it is one of the proverbial Big Lies. Most of the developed world economies, in fact, have experienced a net national savings rate decline which looks exactly like that of the US.

      Relative to GDP it has been heading south for decades, and now stands at barely one-fourth of the level that prevailed during the growth heydays of the 1960s.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In the case of Japan, for instance, its net household savings rate has plummeted from 12-14% of disposable income as recently as the mid-1980s to barely 2.0% today. The image below hardly suggests that the world largest retirement colony has got a surfeit of savings to spare.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Or take the case of Australia. Just since 2008, the household savings rate has fallen more than 50%.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      With respect to the major European economies, the story is the same. Since the mid1980s, the savings rate in the UK (red line) and Italy (dark green line) has virtually disappeared. Likewise, in the case of France (light green line) and Germany (yellow line), savings rates have drifted steadily lower, albeit not so precipitately as the first two.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      So where does all the purported excess savings come from?

      Why, the Red Ponzi, of course!

      But even that is a statistical trick owing to the Keynesian assumptions built into the national income and product accounts (NIPA). To wit, since the late 1990s, China’s total debt outstanding has exploded from $2 trillion to $40 trillion, and that massive gain has been cycled back into the economy to fund its runaway investment in public infrastructure and private industry.

      In the first round of accounting, all of that new debt fuels wage and salary income and business profits. But, alas, there is no off-set in the NIPA accounts for the permanent liability which funded these GDP account entries.

      So, presto!

      A savings glut, if you believe it.

      Unfortunately, the politicians of Washington and the punters of Wall Street apparently do.

    • 1000s Of Illegals Quarantined After Exposure To Chicken Pox, Mumps

      Approximately 5,200 adult migrants in US custody for illegally entering the country have been quarantined by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after being exposed to mumps or chicken poxaccording to the agency. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      An ICE official told CNN on Friday that of the quarantined individuals, approximately 80% (4,200) were exposed to mumps, 800 were exposed to chicken pox, and around 100 migrants were exposed to both. They will be quarantined for 25 days. 

      Just because individuals are quarantined doesn’t mean they have the mumps, but they’ve at least been exposed to it. From September 2018 to June 13, 297 people in ICE custody had confirmed cases of mumps, proven by blood test. –CNN

      The agency began recording cases of mumps last September, with 297 cases for the period of time ending June 13.

      I think there is heightened interest in this situation because it’s the mumps, which is a new occurrence in custody, but preventing the spread of communicable disease in ICE custody is something we have demonstrated success doing,” said ICE executive associate director for enforcement and removal operations, Nathalie Asher. 

      “From an operational perspective, the impact is significant in the short and long term and will result in an increase in cohorted detainees’ length of stay in detention, an inability to effect removal of eligible cohorted detainees, and postponing scheduled consular interviews for quarantined detainees,” Ascher added. 

      According to the report, ICE staff has been put on alert

      “This week, the ICE Health Service Corps issued a reminder to senior field leadership reminding their staff to review vaccination records and take appropriate actions,” said CNN‘s source. 

      In May, almost 133,000 illegals were apprehended by Customs and Border Protection, the vast majority of whom were families and unaccompanied minors. 

      CBP employees are overwhelmed

      This week, Acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan said that employee morale among border officials is low. 

      “Their morale is impacted. They’re tired. A lot of them have gotten sick. They’ve been exposed to flu, chicken pox, measles, mumps — all kinds of challenges in terms of the medical care,” he said. “They’re spending time overnight in hospitals instead of patrolling the border.”

      Late last month, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general released a report detailing some of the issues facing border patrol facilities amid the swell of migrant arrivals.

      In particular, the IG found “dangerous overcrowding” and unsanitary conditions at an El Paso, Texas, Border Patrol processing facility following an unannounced inspection, according to a new report.

        The IG found “standing room only conditions” at the El Paso Del Norte Processing Center, which has a maximum capacity of 125 migrants. On May 7 and 8, logs indicated that there were “approximately 750 and 900 detainees, respectively.” –CNN

        We also observed detainees standing on toilets in the cells to make room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to the toilets,” according to the report. 

        We wonder how far along Trump’s wall would be by now if Congress had played ball on day one.

      • Top US Regulator Warns Financial System Is At Risk Due To… Climate Change

        Submitted by Nick Cunningham of OilPrice.com

        A top U.S. financial regulator is worried that climate change could threaten global financial markets.

        Rostin Behnam, a commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), said that the financial system was at risk from the growing frequency and severity of storms.

        “The impacts of climate change affect every aspect of the American economy – from production agriculture to commercial manufacturing and the financing of every step in each process,” Behnam said at the meeting of the CFTC’s market risk advisory committee on Wednesday. “As most of the world’s markets and market regulators are taking steps towards assessing and mitigating the current and potential threats of climate change, we in the U.S. must also demand action from all segments of the public and private sectors, including this agency.”

        He added: “Our commodity markets and the financial markets that support them will suffer if we do not take action to mitigate the risk of contagion.”

        The message is not necessarily a new one, but it is significant since it comes from the CFTC, which is not exactly a hippy enclave. Also of significance is the fact that Behnam was appointed to the CFTC by President Trump, although by law the vacancy that he filled had to be a Democrat.

        Behnam will help set up a panel of experts to study the risks to the financial system from climate change.

        “If climate change causes more volatile frequent and extreme weather events, you’re going to have a scenario where these large providers of financial products — mortgages, home insurance, pensions — cannot shift risk away from their portfolios,” Benham said in an NYT interview. “It’s abundantly clear that climate change poses financial risk to the stability of the financial system.”

        Benham said that the world saw $160 billion in economic costs last year from natural disasters. More recently, the U.S. Midwest is facing a crisis with biblical levels of flooding that have decimated American farms – the type of disaster that is expected to become more frequent.

        Financial regulators have begun to pay greater attention to the risk of climate change. A global network of roughly 40 central banks have formed the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), an initiative intended to “manage risks and to mobilize capital for green and low-carbon investments.” If climate change presents threats to the global financial system, then it is imperative that central banks prepare for such dangers. “The NGFS recognises that there is a strong risk that climate-related financial risks are not fully reflected in asset valuations,” the NGFS said in an April 2019 report.

        “A transition to a green and low-carbon economy is not a niche nor is it a ‘nice to have’ for the happy few. It is crucial for our own survival,” Frank Elderson, Chair of the NGFS, said in the report. “There is no alternative.”

        In March, the San Francisco Fed also raised the alarm, noting the widespread risks across various industries. “These risks include potential loan losses at banks resulting from the business interruptions and bankruptcies caused by storms, droughts, wildfires, and other extreme events,” the San Francisco Fed said. “There are also transition risks associated with the adjustment to a low-carbon economy, such as the unexpected losses in the value of assets or companies that depend on fossil fuels.”

        That last point is an argument that has been gaining credence in the energy industry. The idea is that the oil and gas industry may have inflated valuations given that a large portion of the reserves on their books may never be extracted and burned. They will be stuck with “stranded assets.” These oil and gas companies may be worth only a fraction of what they are currently trading at if this turns out to be the case.

        David Fickling of Bloomberg Opinion recently observed that Royal Dutch Shell seems to be bucking the trend of oil companies aggressively trying to replace every last barrel of oil extracted. Shell, instead, appears content to let its reserves run down, an apparent strategy to begin to prepare for a low-carbon future. Shell is scaling up investment in power generation.

        But the risk is not limited to oil and gas companies. “[F]inancial firms with limited carbon emissions may still face substantial climate-based credit risk exposure, for example, through loans to affected businesses or mortgages on coastal real estate,” the San Francisco Fed warned. “If such exposures were broadly correlated across regions or industries, the resulting climate-based risk could threaten the stability of the financial system as a whole and be of macroprudential concern.” Ultimately, climate risks threaten the economy “through elevated credit spreads, greater precautionary saving, and, in the extreme, a financial crisis.”

      Digest powered by RSS Digest