Sep 15

Today’s News 15th September 2018

  • Politicians Warn Spy Chief: There Is A New Threat Called "Deep Fakes"

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    United States politicians are coming up with some wonderful descriptive terms to help use fear to get more restrictive laws passed.  Now lawmakers are warning the spy chief of a real threat called the “deep fakes.”

    Thanks to modern technology, the U.S. government ruling class now has another scary fear-mongering problem they are dubbing “deep fakes.”

    Technology has reached a point where people can now create near-perfect faked videos of people saying things they never actually said, reported Tech Crunch. “Deep fakes” use existing footage mixed with artificial intelligence and machine learning to be made to look like, or at least come close to, the real thing.

    Who else can see the writing on the wall and believes this could be nothing more than a fear mongering attempt to cull free speech even more? Politicians are always looking for reasons to remove rights from others, so it makes sense that they ‘d make a huge deal out of people being able to make realistic videos.  The fight to remain relevant as a politician has begun.

    US lawmakers are so worried about these faked videos that they now claim they can be “used by the enemy to harm national security.” Yet, unsurprisingly, one of the first uses of deep fake videos was for porn. Creators would make videos by superimposing faces onto the bodies of others.  The real issue to the political elites though is scaring the public over “national security.”

    Lawmakers think that deep fakes could be used as part of wider disinformation campaigns in an effort to sway elections or spread false news.  There it is… the fake news shadow. It isn’t the disinformation they care about, its that people just might be able to figure out for themselves who is oppressing them (hint: it isn’t Russia.)

    “Deep fakes could become a potent tool for hostile powers seeking to spread misinformation,” wrote Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a letter to Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence.

    “As deep fake technology becomes more advanced and more accessible, it could pose a threat to United States public discourse and national security, with broad and concerning implications for offensive active measures campaigns targeting the United States,” said the letter, co-signed by Representatives Stephanie Murphy (D-FL) and Carlos Curbelo (R-FL). 

    If you guessed that the government is more likely than not going to use this as an excuse to continue to kill free speech, you’d most likely be correct.

    Schiff, Murphy, and Curbelo want the director of national intelligence (who oversees the nation’s intelligence community) to report back on its assessment of how deep fake technology could harm national security interests, reported Tech Crunch.  They want to know if there are countermeasures (laws, regulations, and the reduction of freedom) to protect against “foreign influence.” The DNI’s office was asked to report back to Congress by mid-December.

  • The Bailouts For The Rich Are Why America Is So Screwed Right Now

    Authored by Matt Stoller via Vice.com,

    Did they prevent a full-scale collapse? Yes. Was it necessary to do it the way we did? Not at all.

    These guys got off pretty easy. (Photo by Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images)

    In 1948, the architect of the post-war American suburb, William Levitt, explained the point of the housing finance system. “No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist,” he said. “He has too much to do.”

    It’s worth reflecting on this quote on the ten-year anniversary of the financial crisis, because it speaks to how the architects of the bailouts shaped our culture. Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and Hank Paulson, the three key men in charge, basically argue that the bailouts they executed between 2007 and 2009 were unfair, but necessary to preserve stability. It’s time to ask, though: just what stability did they preserve?

    These three men paint the financial crisis largely as a technical one. But let’s not get lost in the fancy terms they use, like “normalization of credit flows,” in discussing what happened and why. The excessively wonky tone is intentional – it’s intended to hide the politics of what happened. So let’s look at what the bailouts actually were, in normal human language.

    The official response to the financial crisis ended a 75-year-old American policy of pursuing broad homeownership as a social goal. Since at least Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American leaders had deliberately organized the financial system to put more people in their own homes. In 2011, the Obama administration changed this policy, pushing renting over owning. The CEO of Bank of America, Brian Moynihan, echoed this view shortly thereafter. There are many reasons for the change, and not all of them were bad. But what’s important to understand is that the financial crisis was a full-scale assault on the longstanding social contract linking Americans with the financial system through their house.

    The way Geithner orchestrated this was through a two-tiered series of policy choices. During the crisis, everyone needed money from the government, but Geithner offered money to the big guy, and not the little guy.

    First, he found mechanisms, all of them very technical—and well-reported in Adam Tooze’s new book Crashed—to throw unlimited amounts of credit at institutions controlled by financial executives in the United States and Europe. (Eric Holder, meanwhile, also de facto granted legal amnesty to executives for possible securities fraud associated with the crisis.)

    Second, Geithner chose to deny money and credit to the middle class in the midst of a foreclosure crisis. The Obama administration supported this by neutering laws against illegal foreclosures.

    The response to the financial crisis was about reorganizing property rights. If you were close to power, you enjoyed unlimited rights and no responsibilities, and if you were far from power, you got screwed. This shaped the world into what it is today. As Levitt pointed out, when people have no stake in the system, they get radical.

    Did this prevent a full-scale collapse? Yes. Was it necessary to do it the way we did? Not at all.

    Geithner, Bernanke, and Paulson like to pretend that bank bailouts are inherently unpopular—that they were wise stewards resisting toxic (populist) political headwinds. But it’s not that simple. Unfair bank bailouts are unpopular, but reasonable ones are not. For an alternative, look at how a previous generation of Democrats handled a similar, though much more serious, crisis.

    In 1933, when FDR took power, global banking was essentially non-functional. Bankers had committed widespread fraud on top of a rickety and poorly structured financial system. Herbert Hoover, who organized an initial bailout by establishing what was known as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, was widely mocked for secretly sending money to Republican bankers rather than ordinary people. The new administration realized that trust in the system was essential.

    One of the first things Roosevelt did, even before he took office, was to embarrass powerful financiers. He did this by encouraging the Senate Banking Committee to continue its probe, under investigator Ferdinand Pecora, of the most powerful institutions on Wall Street, which were National City (now Citibank) and JP Morgan. Pecora exposed these institutions as nests of corruption. The Senate Banking Committee made public Morgan’s “preferred list,” which was the group of powerful and famous people who essentially got bribes from Morgan. It included the most important men in the country, like former Republican President Calvin Coolidge, a Supreme Court Justice, important CEOs and military leaders, and important Democrats, too.

    Roosevelt also ordered his attorney general “vigorously to prosecute any violations of the law” that emerged from the investigations. New Dealers felt that “if the people become convinced that the big violators are to be punished it will be helpful in restoring confidence.” The DOJ indicted National City’s Charles Mitchell for tax evasion. This was part of a series of aggressive attacks on the old order of corrupt political and economic elites. The administration pursued these cases, often losing the criminal complaints but continuing with civil charges. This bought the Democrats the trust of the public.

    When Roosevelt engaged in his own broad series of bank bailouts, the people rewarded his party with overwhelming gains in the midterm elections of 1934 and a resounding re-election in 1936. Along with an assertive populist Congress, the new administration used the bailout money in the RFC to implement mass foreclosure-mitigation programs, create deposit insurance, and put millions of people to work. He sought to save not the bankers but the savings of the people themselves.

    Democrats did more than save the economy – they also restructured it along democratic lines. They passed laws to break up banks, the emerging airline industry, and electric utilities. The administration engaged in an aggressive antitrust campaign against industrial monopolists. And Roosevelt restructured the Federal Reserve so that the central bank was not “independent” but set interest rates entirely subservient to the wishes of elected officials.

    In 1938, Franklin Delano Roosevelt offered his view on what causes democracies to fail.

    “History proves that dictatorships do not grow out of strong and successful governments,” he said, “but out of weak and helpless ones.”

    Did the bailouts of ten years ago work? It’s a good question. I don’t see a strong and vibrant democracy in America right now. Do you?

  • China Pressures Wall Street To Intervene In Trade Fight

    If anyone still doubted President Trump’s determination to slap tariffs on all – or even more than all – Chinese goods flowing into the US, they probably don’t anymore. So far this week, the president has taken to twitter to trash his own Treasury Secretary’s efforts to restart talks with the Chinese, before Trump publicly declared on Friday that he intends to move ahead with plans to slap 25% tariffs on another $200 billion worth of goods.

    Given the president’s unflinching resolve in pursuing his trade agenda, it’s understandable why a shrewd businessmen would go to great lengths to avoid getting in the middle of what looks to be a protracted geopolitical dogfight.

    WS

    But unfortunately for top Wall Street firms, many of which harbor ambitions of expanding their business in China, that may no longer be an option. Because while the Trump administration has largely left them alone, the Chinese are now trying to use whatever leverage they can (i.e. preferential access to the world’s second-largest economy) to push America’s top bankers to intervene on Beijing’s behalf.

    Reuters reported Friday that top Chinese officials have hastily organized an investment conference in Beijing and requested the presence of several top Wall Street firms. The conference will be chaired by former PBOC Governor Zhou Xiaochuan and ex-Goldman Sachs President John Thornton, and feature an appearance by Chinese vice-president Wang Qishan. Dubbed “the firefighter” by the Chinese people, Quishan, in addition to being the most powerful of China’s vice presidents, is also one of the senior Communist officials involved in managing the trade dispute. 

    While market liberalization is certainly a priority for the Chinese, it’s difficult to imagine that these top officials are planning to attend this conference – especially with so much else going on – just to brainstorm ideas about how China can proceed with opening up its financial sector.

    The subtext here is obvious: China wants to figure out who in the US financial services community can help them get through to Trump and help stop this conflict before losses in China’s currency and stock market spiral out of control. And if the carrot of access doesn’t work, China has already proven adept at leveraging the stick.

    HONG KONG (Reuters) – China will ask Wall Street firms for ways to improve ties with the United States and suggestions to open up its financial sector at a day-long meeting in Beijing on Sunday, people familiar with the matter said.

    The Chinese government sent invitations for the hastily-convened meeting a few weeks ago as trade tensions between the world’s two largest economies appeared to be headed for a full-blown trade war.

    Given the impossible nature of the task at hand, it’s hardly surprising that several top executives – afraid of enraging Trump – are planning to avoid the meeting altogether, citing unspecified “scheduling conflicts”.

    Top financial firms in both countries are sending representatives to the meeting, although heavyweight invitees such as Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman were unable to rearrange their schedules to attend the meeting, a source said.

    While Reuters’ reporters apparently didn’t question this excuse, a “scoop” published on twitter earlier this week by Fox Business correspondent Charlie Gasparino, who reported that the Schwartzman & Co. are avoiding the meeting because they don’t want to feel coerced into carrying water for the Chinese.

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

    The tweet didn’t stop Reuters from swallowing the official narrative spoon-fed to them by the “anonymous sources” cited in Reuters‘ story.

    Zhou and Thornton have asked participants to give one or two specific ideas on how to further open up China’s financial sector as well as suggest ways to “forge normal U.S.-China relations for the benefit of our two countries and the world,” according to the people and a meeting agenda seen by Reuters.

    The people, who have knowledge of the meeting, declined to be named as the roundtable details were not public.

    The meeting ideas should be accompanied by specific action points, said one source who was briefed on the agenda.

    “They don’t want something feel-good. It’s got to be specific actionable areas where reform and opening markets is needed,” said one of the sources.

    Chinese government officials will aim to reassure the U.S. financial firms that Beijing is genuinely receptive to their ideas, the source added.

    Reuters reported that several heavyweight names will be attending the conference…

    U.S. participants at the roundtable include Citigroup’s Asia head of corporate investment banking Jan Metzger, Goldman Sachs’ newly-named president John Waldron, JPMorgan Asia CEO Nicolas Aguzin, and Morgan Stanley head of international business Franck Petitgas, the people familiar with the meeting said.

    … however when approached by Reuters’ reporters, most of these companies declined to comment.

    CICC, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Hong Kong’s stock exchange and securities regulator, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley declined to comment.

    If anything, Wall Street’s response to these overtures is, in a way, proof that Trump is right: The Chinese are getting desperate, and the US clearly has the upper hand – at least for now.

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

    Fut fortunately for the Chinese, Wall Street isn’t the only industry where China has the leverage to push for a quid-pro-quo. We imagine we’ll be hearing more about China’s efforts to turn Apple’s Tim Cook and his now confirmed anti-Trump Silicon Valley peers into unwitting advocates for China’s cause in the not-too-distant future.

  • The Mueller Investigation Is Sending People to Jail – But Not For Collusion

    Submitted by the Strategic Culture Foundation

    The anonymous government official who revealed a “resistance” inside the White House has heightened the sense of doom hanging over Donald Trump’s presidency. A stream of disparaging claims from other White House insiders, the multiple criminal cases enveloping Trump’s inner circle, and the ongoing special-counsel investigation into possible collusion with the Russian government have all also added to anticipation of Trump’s imminent downfall. But the widespread perception that “the walls are closing in”; on a “ “teetering” Trump presidency is getting ahead of reality. While figures eyed as central to the suspected Trump-Russia conspiracy—campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos, longtime fixer Michael Cohen, and campaign manager Paul Manafort—have been convicted of criminal activity, their cases have not bolstered the case for collusion as many liberals had hoped.

    Last week, Papadopoulos was sentenced to 14 days in prison for lying to the FBI about the timing of his contacts with a Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud. According to Papadopoulos, Mifsud claimed to have connections to Russia and information that the Kremlin had obtained Hillary Clinton’s stolen e-mails. In May 2016, Papadopoulos relayed vague details about his conversation with Mifsud to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer. According to press accounts, a tip from Downer about his encounter with Papadopoulos sparked the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into alleged Trump-Russia ties.

    Because Papadopoulos may have purportedly heard about stolen e-mails before their public release, he has been widely scouted as “Exhibit A” for a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy, part of a “secret channel through which the Russian government was able to communicate with the Trump campaign as it stole Democratic emails and weaponized them to help Trump win the presidency,” according to James Risen of The Intercept. In the end, Papadopoulos did not fill that role. According to special counsel Robert Mueller’s sentencing memo, Papadopoulos “did not provide ‘substantial assistance’” during his interviews in August and September of 2017. But in remarks made after his sentencing, Papadopoulos says that “I did my best…and offered what I knew.” It is not a surprise that he did not have much to offer. Not only did the Trump campaign rebuff Papadopoulos’s proposals to set up meetings with Russian officials, Papadopoulos now says that “I never met with a single Russian official in my life.”

    Mueller’s sentencing memo also confirms that after FBI agents interviewed Papadopoulos in January 2017, they interviewed Mifsud just weeks later in Washington, DC. Despite his being the figure whose comments ostensibly led to the opening of the Trump-Russia investigation—making him a suspected Kremlin cutout—Mifsud was not detained then, nor has he been charged since.

    Mueller appears to blame Papadopoulos for this. Papadopoulos, Mueller claims, “substantially hindered investigators’ ability to effectively question” Mifsud when they spoke to him just a few weeks later. Papadopoulos’s lies, they allege, “undermined investigators’ ability to challenge the Professor or potentially detain or arrest him while he was still in the United States.… The defendant’s lies also hindered the government’s ability to discover who else may have known or been told about the Russians possessing ‘dirt’ on Clinton.”

    The claim is puzzling. In his sentencing memo, Mueller acknowledges that Papadopoulos “identified” Mifsud to FBI agents voluntarily, though “only after only after being prompted by a series of specific questions.” That is why Papadopoulos has not pleaded guilty to lying about Mifsud, but only about the timing of his contacts with them: He falsely told agents that he was not yet a member of the Trump campaign when he and Mifsud spoke. In that same interview, Papadopoulos told agents that Mifsud informed him that the Russians “have dirt on [Clinton]” in the form of “thousands of emails.” Given that Papadopoulos not only informed FBI agents of Mifsud’s identity but also of the “dirt” he floated, how could Papadopoulos have “hindered” their ability to find out what Mifsud knows?

    As Papadopoulos appears to exit the collusion bracket, longtime Trump fixer Michael Cohen has recently emerged front and center. On July 26, CNN reported that Cohen is prepared to tell Mueller that Trump had advance knowledge of the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with Russian nationals. The incident has been the subject of intense focus because Donald Trump Jr. was promised compromising information about Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

    Veteran Clinton operative turned Cohen spokesperson Lanny Davis fanned the flames. Hours after Cohen’s indictment on August 21, Davis told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that Cohen “is more than happy to tell the special counsel all that he knows,” including about “the obvious possibility of a conspiracy to collude.… in the 2016 election” and even “whether or not Mr. Trump knew ahead of time” about Russian e-mail hacking “and even cheered it on.”

    Davis’ qualified language (“obvious possibility,” “whether or not”) was easily overlooked, but the specter of perjury could not be. The co-chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr and Mark Warner, noted that Cohen had testified to them last fall that that he has no knowledge of any Trump-Russia collusion and that he didn’t even find out about the Trump Tower meeting until it was publicly reported in June 2017—one year after it took place. Burr and Warner also revealed that in response to CNN’s story, Cohen’s attorneys informed them that he is not changing his testimony.

    Davis quickly dropped the innuendo. Asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper on August 22 if Cohen has information that Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting in advance, Davis replied, “ No, he does not.” Davis also abandoned his suggestion, made just 24 hours earlier to Maddow, that Cohen can tie Trump to advance knowledge of Russian e-mail hacking. Davis told Cooper that he was “more tentative on that” and that he only meant that he believes Cohen “may or not be useful” to Mueller, even though “it’s not a certainty the way [Cohen] recalls it.” Davis was, he clarified in the same CNN interview, just relying on his own “intuition.”

    Yet this clarification proved to be more consequential than perhaps Davis intended. The Washington Post and the New York Post revealed that they had used Davis as an anonymous source for their own stories “confirming” the initial July 26 CNN report. “I should have been more clear—including with you—that I could not independently confirm what happened,” Davis told The Washington Post, adding his regrets. Davis also continued to back off of his hacking claims, explaining that he was merely “giving an instinct that [Cohen] might have something to say of interest,” though, yet again, “I am just not sure.”

    But Davis was not done; he then revealed that he had also been used as anonymous source for CNN’s initial story. This did not just raise a sourcing issue for CNN but a potential scandal: In its initial report, CNN had falsely claimed that Davis had declined to comment. This meant that CNN had not just relied on a source who no longer stood by his story, but mislead readers into believing that he was not a source. To date, CNN has yet to offer an explanation for the gaffe—which, along with the failure to explain it—is not a first.

    In his dizzying retraction tour, Davis also raised doubts about another story that had been circulating for months. In April, McClatchy reported that Mueller’s team has information about Cohen that could corroborate a key claim in the Steele dossier, the DNC-funded report alleging a high-level conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. The dossier claims that Cohen visited Prague in August or September 2016 to meet with Russian officials as part of his key role “in a cover up and damage limitation operation” over the hacking of Democratic Party emails. Citing two sources, McClatchy claimed that Mueller “has evidence” that Cohen secretly visited Prague during the period in question. Davis now says that that claim is false. Cohen, Davis told MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, was “never, ever in Prague.”

    The only story Cohen has affirmed is the one he shared in court: that Trump, in order to influence the election outcome, directed him to make a hush-money payment to cover up for an extramarital affair. That allegation may or may not prove to be sufficient grounds for impeachment, but they decidedly do not fall under Robert Mueller’s purview.

    Cohen’s indictment coincided with Paul Manafort’s conviction on tax-evasion and bank-fraud charges related to his political consulting work in Ukraine. It is often speculated that Manafort’s Ukraine stint is relevant to a Trump-Russia conspiracy plot because, the theory goes, he served Kremlin interests during his time there. The opposite is the case, as Manafort’s former partner-turned-prosecution-witness, Rick Gates, reaffirmed during trial. Gates testified that Manafort pushed his client, then–Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, to align with the European Union and away from Russia. According to Gates, Manafort was paid lucratively to craft a policy known as “Engage Ukraine,” which “became the strategy for helping Ukraine enter the European Union.” Given that the tug-of-war between Russia and the EU (with US backing) over Ukraine sparked a full-blown international crisis and a new Cold War, Manafort’s strategy would be an odd one for a supposed Kremlin stooge.

    Putting aside Manafort’s record in Ukraine, there have been attempts to tie him to a potential Russia conspiracy via his financial debts to Russian tycoon Oleg Deripaska. During the campaign, Manafort wrote to an associate about leveraging his position in the Trump camp in order to “get whole” with Deripaska, even suggesting that he offer “private briefings.” Could this have been, pundits suggest, where a collusion plot was hatched?

    Deripaska denies ever having been offered private briefings by Manafort. Another impediment to tying Deripaska to a Trump-Russia collusion plot is that Deripaska has connections to the figure arguably most responsible for the allegations of collusion. Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence agent whose DNC-funded “dossier” alleged a longstanding Trump-Kremlin conspiracy, has served as an intermediary for contacts between Deripaska and US officials. Deripaska even has a link to Mueller and the federal agency he once headed. In 2009, when Mueller was in charge of the FBI, Deripaska ponied up millions of dollars for a secret effort to rescue a captured CIA operative, Robert Levinson, in Iran. In return, the FBI—with the encouragement of Steele—helped secure a visa for Deripaska, who had been banned from the United States for alleged ties to Russian organized crime. In short, Deripaska’s various contacts make plain that Manafort’s financial ties to him, illicit or not, do not necessarily lead to a Kremlin conspiracy.

    Most critically, Mueller has yet to allege one. Prosecutors openly acknowledged before Manafort’s first trial that the case had nothing to do with “evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government,” while the judge in Manafort’s upcoming second trial notes that the collusion investigation is “wholly irrelevant to the charges in this case.”

    The same could be said for all of the other charges in the Mueller investigation to date. Mueller has uncovered criminal activity, but not as of yet a conspiracy with a foreign power. Should that trend continue, it need not be a defeat for the resistance. The Russiagate fixation has diverted attention from many of Trump’s damaging policies and turned vast segments of the public into spectators of an endless drama. A political opposition mobilized around a range of issues that materially impact Americans—and no longer counting on Mueller’s investigation—may be the strongest threat that Trump could face.

    Aaron MATÉ | thenation.com

  • NFL Hell Continues As Ratings Crater For Dallas Cowboys 

    The NFL – suffering from dismal ratings for last week’s opening game and Sunday Night Football, may be in for a serious decline in viewers this season if Dallas local TV ratings are any indicator – after the Cowboys registered their lowest local ratings since 2009. 

    the Dallas market is an important market for one of the most watched teams in the country. There is a reason the Cowboys are valued at over $4 billion dollars. They absolutely own Dallas Fort-Worth. Nothing else really matters.

    …

    The NFL does not want to see one of it’s most important market losing fans. It’s not a good look. It’s cause for concern. –Touchdownwire

    That said, some have pointed out that the cowboys are “boring” now…  

    No one should be surprised. The Cowboys, while still a compelling aspect of the overall fabric of the NFL, have become a somewhat boring team, with a Salisbury-steak-and-lumpy-spuds offense that features two stars, a diminished offensive line, and a collection of No. 2 and No. 3 receivers. –Profootballtalk

    Less viewers, more money

    Despite a steady decline in viewership over the last three years, advertising revenues have continued to climb. 

    “Everyone loves to focus on the ratings, and everyone loves to focus on the NFL because it is the biggest ratings on television,” said Brian Rolapp, the league’s head of media. “But the reality is: Historically, the ratings of the NFL have always gone up, they’ve just never gone up in a straight line.”

    With ratings for regular-season games having fallen 17% over the past two years according to Nielsen, and youth participation in tackle football declined nearly 22% since 2012, Smith College Econ professor Andrew Zimbalist thinks “The NFL probably peaked two years ago,” adding “It’s basically treading water.” 

    Yet even a middling franchise, the Carolina Panthers, sold in May for a league record $2.3 billion. Advertisers spent a record $4.6 billion for spots during NFL games last season, as well as an all-time high $5.24 million per 30 seconds of Super Bowl time. The reason is clear: In 2017, 37 of the top 50 broadcasts on U.S. television were NFL games, including four of the top five.

    The Green Bay Packers, the only NFL team that shares financial statements with the public, has posted revenue increases for 15 straight seasons. Leaguewide revenue has grown more than 47 percent since 2012. Commissioner Roger Goodell’s official target is $25 billion in revenue by 2027, or roughly 6 percent annual growth. –Bloomberg

    That said, the future of the NFL’s advertising model may be on shaky footing – as their three-hour blocks of big-screen television run counter to the shorter formats, smaller screens and zero interruption format consumers have been gravitating towards. 

    “If I’m sitting at the NFL, I’m certainly getting nervous about the future of broadcast TV,” says BTIG media analyst Rich Greenfield.

    That said, the NFL’s Rolapp doesn’t seem too concerned. “The fundamental rule in media is money always follows consumption,” says Rolapp. “If you have the consumption, figuring out how to make money off it is not the hard part.”

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

  • Visualizing The AI-mazing Patent Race

    Artificial Intelligence is transforming the way we live, and the tech giants are racing to stay ahead of the curve.

    AI-related funding totaled an estimated $15.2 billion in 2017, a 144% increase over the previous year. The U.S. tech industry leads with a 50% share of those investments, even with China swiftly closing the gap in terms of patents and AI research.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    AI itself isn’t new, but, as Visual Capitalist’s Jenny Scribani points out, boosted computing power, increased connectivity, and the sheer volume of data has paved the way for the fourth industrial revolution of AI.

    “The coming era will be looked back upon as the ‘AI era,’ when AI became the defining competitive advantage for corporations, government agencies, and investment professionals,” predicts David Nadler, founder of Kensho Technologies.

    THE POTENTIAL OF AI

    Artificial Intelligence is less about sentience and more about accelerated learning.

    AI technology looks for patterns, learns from experience, and predicts responses based on historical data. An AI-powered computer can’t produce a unique thought, but it can probably predict yours. The end result: AI is able to learn new things at such a speed that it can predict your behavior and preempt your requests.

    From the advancements in natural language processing that make Siri and Alexa possible, to the machine learning advancements that give robo-advisors their trading chops, AI’s ability to simulate human thinking means it can also streamline our lives. It can preempt our needs and requests, making products and services more user friendly as machines learn our needs and figure out how to serve us better.

    This makes AI a vital source of competitive advantage.

    AI’S COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

    In their quest to stay on top of the Silicon Valley food chain, familiar tech and retail giants are dipping their toes in AI to execute diverse strategies:

    Amazon
    Amazon leverages AI technology to analyze and predict your shopping patterns. Alexa is very Artificially Intelligent indeed, and the revolutionary Amazon Go model continues to push the boundaries of AI tech on the ground.

    Google
    Google uses machine learning and pattern recognition in its search and facial recognition services, as well as natural language processing for real-time language translation. The company has also released a series of smart home products, like the Nest thermostat. After acquiring more than 50 AI startups in 2015-16, this seems like only the beginning for Google’s AI upgrade.

    Microsoft
    Microsoft’s Cortana is powered by machine learning, allowing the virtual assistant to build insight and expertise over time. In 2016, the tech giant added Research and AI as their fourth silo alongside Office, Windows, and Cloud, with the stated goal of making broad-spectrum AI application more accessible and everyday machines more intelligent.

    Apple
    Apple is notoriously tight-lipped about their AI research, but it’s safe to say Siri is only the tip of the iceberg. The tech giant received a patent this year for augmented-reality glasses, slated for a release in 2020.

    Facebook
    Facebook uses artificial intelligence to suggest photo tags, populate your newsfeed, and detect bots and fake users. The social media giant has also come under fire for their widespread use of AI analytics to target users for marketing and messaging purposes.

    These tech kings are driving the research that will increasingly intertwine our lives with artificial intelligence, and it’s that investment that just might secure their future.

  • Yet Another Unfunded Liability: Too Many People In Hurricane Alley

    Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

    One of the big recent changes in American life is the ongoing mass-migration from the middle of the country to the coasts, especially those of the Southeastern and Gulf States. Florida and the Carolinas, along with Houston and surrounding Texas counties, have gained millions of new residents seeking to trade snow and monotony for sun and water. Coastal state governments have by-and-large encouraged this immigration and the resulting construction, paving, and deforestation because new residents pay taxes and developers contribute to political campaigns.

    This is turning out to be a huge, perhaps insanely expensive mistake, similar in a lot of ways to out-of-control public pensions: A short-term benefit that produces long-term costs – i.e., an unfunded liability – which accumulates more-or-less secretly until something happens to turn an accounting issue into a cash flow nightmare.

    Consider Houston. Over the past few decades hundreds of thousands of people have moved in, and developers have accommodated them by paving over much of the land that used to absorb floodwaters during storms. When hurricane Harvey hit in 2017, the city found itself underwater for days, with damages totaling $125 billion. Much of this was covered by tax payers via federal flood insurance.

    Now fast forward to today’s North and South Carolina, also very popular destinations for Americans from colder climes, and the scene of rapid construction of homes, hotels and stores within a few miles of the ocean. In the following article, the New York Times lays out the downside of this kind of short-sighted public policy.

    Why the Carolinas Have Become More Vulnerable to Hurricanes

    Twenty-nine years ago this month, Hurricane Hugo barreled ashore just north of Charleston, S.C., a category 4 storm with maximum winds estimated at 140 miles an hour and the highest storm tide ever recorded on the East Coast.

    Here is where people lived in the region in 1990. Hugo was the nation’s costliest hurricane ever at the time, with damages of about $7 billion.

    Over the next three decades, an estimated 610,000 homes were added within 50 miles of the coastline, according to my research.

    Most will be affected by Hurricane Florence, the monster storm that is advancing on the coast, with landfall expected Friday morning.

    We often hear that climate change is influencing the frequency and strength of tropical storms, heat waves and wildfires, and this is certainly true, though it is too early to say what influence the warming temperatures may be having on Hurricane Florence. That answer must await a post-mortem by climate scientists. But it is also true that rapid coastal development is amplifying the impact of weather and climate events like Hurricane Hugo and those expected with Hurricane Florence over the next few days.

    In fact, according to research by me and colleagues, the root cause of the country’s escalating number of weather- and climate-related disasters is not necessarily a rise in the frequency or intensity of these events but the increasing exposure and vulnerability of populations that lie in their path.

    That may seem obvious, though perhaps not for the people who have moved to places that are likely to end up disaster areas someday. That fact has either escaped their notice or seems to be of little consequence to them.

    This process of population and development growth that influences disaster frequency and magnitude is known as “expanding the bull’s-eye effect.” It isn’t just the population increase that is important in raising the disaster potential but also how the population and built environment are distributed across a landscape. As the targets — people, homes and businesses — become more numerous and spread, so does the likelihood that it will be hit by a tornado or hurricane or wildfire. And that expanding pattern determines the severity of the disaster.

    Since 1940, development within 50 miles of the Carolina coastline has increased an estimated 2,180 percent, or by 1.3 million homes. And as I mentioned, nearly half of this development has taken place since Hurricane Hugo, and many of these homes were added in high-risk areas like floodplains.

    There seems to be something of a “disaster amnesia” going on with respect to our land development practices after a calamity.

    More than a decade ago, 10 leading climate experts felt compelled to issue a statement saying the debate then about whether global warming was intensifying hurricanes was a distraction from “the main hurricane problem facing the United States.” The problem, they said, was the continued “lemming-like march to the sea” in the form of unabated coastal development in vulnerable places. “These demographic trends,” they said, “are setting us up for rapidly increasing human and economic losses from hurricane disasters.”

    We know much more about how the warming climate is influencing tropical storms. And in many places along the nation’s coastlines, the lemmings are still marching toward the sea.

    Nearly 30 percent of the American population lives along a coast, and an even larger percentage resides in flood-prone regions. The Census Bureau recently reported that the Atlantic and Gulf Coast regions have continued to grow despite costly and damaging hurricanes, with their combined populations rising to 59.6 million people in 2016 from 51.9 million in 2000.

    It is not a matter of whether a disaster will strike, but when for individuals living in many of these regions.

    And when disaster knocks at the door, the bill is left to taxpayers who subsidize the National Flood Insurance Program. That money is often used to rebuild homes in the same high-risk locations. Unfortunately, given current insurance programs, rates that don’t reflect the true risk of insured entities in hazard-prone regions and the lack of incentives to persuade people not to live in these areas, the system we have is unsustainable.

    We need to be smarter about where we are developing and how we’re doing it, building in resilience in any new construction in areas prone to weather and climate extremes. People who choose to live in high-risk areas should bear the cost when disaster strikes. Of course, we should be helping people hit by storms like Hurricane Florence. But I’d rather see those dollars directed to hazard mitigation, and making existing and future development better able to withstand a disaster before one hits.

    Just because we can live somewhere doesn’t mean we should. After all, as the saying goes, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”

    Among the many crucial quotes from the above article: “In fact, according to research by me and colleagues, the root cause of the country’s escalating number of weather- and climate-related disasters is not necessarily a rise in the frequency or intensity of these events but the increasing exposure and vulnerability of populations that lie in their path.”

    In other words, you don’t need climate change to make the policy of encouraging people to move to hurricane alley a bad idea. There have always been – and always will be — monster storms, so a continuation of historically normal weather guarantees the occasional Cat-5 direct hit on the Eastern Seaboard. The more people we put there, the higher the cost of cleaning up afterward.

    And since we haven’t had a direct hit in quite a while, no one seems to understand just how much all those extra buildings will cost to replace. In this sense, Cat-2 Hurricane Florence is a taste of things to come, but just a taste. The main course is the inevitable “big one” that hits Miami, after which we’ll finally be able calculate this latest unfunded liability.

  • Pat Buchanan On The "Unpardonable Heresy" Of Tucker Carlson

    Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

    Our diversity is our greatest strength.

    After playing clips of Democratic politicians reciting that truth of modern liberalism, Tucker Carlson asked, “How, precisely, is diversity our strength? Since you’ve made this our new national motto, please be specific.”

    Reaction to Carlson’s question, with some declaring him a racist for having raised it, suggests that what we are dealing with here is not a demonstrable truth but a creed not subject to debate.

    Yet the question remains valid:

    Where is the scientific, historic or empirical evidence that the greater the racial, ethnic, cultural and religious diversity of a nation, the stronger it becomes?

    From recent decades, it seems more true to say the reverse: The more diverse a nation, the greater the danger of its disintegration.

    Ethnic diversity, after all, tore apart our mighty Cold War rival, splintering the Soviet Union into 15 nations, three of which — Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia — have since split further along ethnic lines.

    Russia had to fight two wars to hold onto Chechnya and prevent the diverse peoples of the North Caucasus from splitting off on ethnic grounds, as Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan had done.

    Ethnic diversity then shattered Yugoslavia into seven separate nations.

    And even as we proclaim diversity to be our greatest strength, nations everywhere are recoiling from it.

    The rise of populism and nationalism across Europe is a reaction to the new diversity represented by the Arab, Asian and African millions who have lately come, and the tens of millions desperate to enter.

    Center-left and center-right parties are losing ground in European elections because they are seen as feckless in meeting what more and more indigenous Europeans believe to be an existential threat — mass migration from across the Med.

    Japan’s population has ceased to grow, and each year brings fewer toddlers into its schools. Yet Tokyo resists the racial and ethnic diversity greater immigration would bring. Why, if diversity is a strength?

    What South Koreans dream of is uniting again with the 22 million separated members of their national family who live in the North, but share the same history and blood.

    This summer, in its Basic Law, Israel declared itself an ethnonational state and national home of the Jewish people. African migrants crossing the Sinai to seek sanctuary in Israel are unwelcome.

    Consider China, which seeks this century to surpass America as the first power on earth. Does Xi Jinping welcome a greater racial, ethnic and cultural diversity within his county as, say, Barack Obama does in ours?

    In his western province of Xinjiang, Xi has set up an archipelago of detention camps. Purpose: Re-educate his country’s Uighurs and Kazakhs by purging them of their religious and tribal identities, and making them and their children more like Han Chinese in allegiance to the Communist Party and Chinese nation.

    Xi fears that the 10 million Uighurs of Xinjiang, as an ethnic and religious minority, predominantly Muslim, wish to break away and establish an East Turkestan, a nation of their own, out of China. And he is correct.

    What China is doing is brutalitarian. But what China is saying with its ruthless policy is that diversity — religious, racial, cultural — can break us apart as it did the USSR. And we are not going to let that happen.

    Do the Buddhists of Myanmar cherish the religious diversity that the Muslim Rohingya of Rakhine State bring to their country?

    America has always been more than an idea, an ideology or a propositional nation. It is a country that belongs to a separate and identifiable people with its own history, heroes, holidays, symbols, songs, myths, mores — its own culture.

    Again, where is the evidence that the more Americans who can trace their roots to the Third World, and not to Europe, the stronger we will be?

    Is the Britain of Theresa May, with its new racial, religious and ethnic diversity, a stronger nation than was the U.K. of Lloyd George, which ruled a fourth of mankind in 1920?

    Was it not the unity Bismarck forged among the diverse Germanic peoples, bringing them into a single nation under the Kaiser in 1871, that made Germany a far stronger and more formidable power in Europe?

    Empires, confederations and alliances are multiethnic and multicultural. And, inevitably, their diversity pulls them apart.

    The British Empire was the greatest in modern history. What tore it apart? Tribalism, the demands of diverse peoples, rooted in blood and soil, to be rid of foreign rule and to have their own place in the sun.

    And who are loudest in preaching that our diversity is our strength?

    Are they not the same people who told us that democracy was the destiny of all mankind and that, as the world’s “exceptional nation,” we must seize the opportunity of our global preeminence to impose its blessings on the less enlightened tribes of the Middle East and Hindu Kush?

    If the establishment is proven wrong about greater diversity bringing greater strength to America, there will be no do-over for the USA.

  • Strzok Wanted To Hunt Down Trump Ties Using FBI "Steele Dossier" Report Leaked To CNN
    • Uncovered text messages reveal that FBI agent Peter Strzok wanted to use CNN’s “bombshell” report about the infamous “Steele Dossier” to interview witnesses in the Trump-Russia probe
    • CNN used leaked knowledge that Comey briefed Trump on the dossier as a trigger to publish 
    • The FBI knew of CNN’s plans to publish, confirming a dialogue between the FBI and CNN
    • This is particularly damning in light of revelations of FBI-MSM collusion against the Trump campaign

    Newly revealed text messages between former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page reveal that Strzok wanted to use CNN’s report on the infamous “Steele Dossier” to justify interviewing people in the Trump-Russia investigation, reports CNN. 

    “Sitting with Bill watching CNN. A TON more out,” Strzok texted to Page on Jan. 10, 2017, following CNN’s report. 

    “Hey let me know when you can talk. We’re discussing whether, now that this is out, we use it as a pretext to go interview some people,” Strzok continued. 

    Recall that CNN used the (leaked) fact that former FBI Director James Comey had briefed then-President-Elect Donald Trump on a two-page summary of the Steele Dossier to justify printing their January report. 

    This is a troubling development in light of a May report that the FBI knew that CNN was “close to going forward” with the Steele Dossier story, and that “The trigger for them is they know the material was discussed,” clearly indicating active communications between CNN and the FBI. 

    Weeks later, as the Daily Caller‘s Chuck Ross notes, the FBI approached former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos “under the guise of interviewing him about his contacts with an alleged source for the dossier.” 

    In short, knowledge of the Comey-Trump briefing was leaked to CNN, CNN printed the story, Strzok wanted to use it as a pretext to interview people in the Trump-Russia investigation, and weeks later George Papadopoulos became ensnared in their investigation. 

    And when one considers that we learned of an FBI “media leak strategy” this week, it suggests pervasive collusion between Obama-era intelligence agencies and the MSM to defeat, and then smear Donald Trump after he had won the election. 

    Text messages discussing the “media leak strategy” were revealed Monday by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC). The messages, sent the day before and after two damaging articles about former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, raise “grave concerns regarding an apparent systematic culture of media leaking by high-ranking officials at the FBI and DOJ related to ongoing investigations.” 

    A review of the documents suggests that the FBI and DOJ coordinated efforts to get information to the press that would potentially be “harmful to President Trump’s administration.” Those leaks pertained to information regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant used to spy on short-term campaign volunteer Carter Page.

    The letter lists several examples:

    • April 10, 2017: (former FBI Special Agent) Peter Strzok contacts (former FBI Attorney) Lisa Page to discuss a “media leak strategy.” Specifically, the text says: “I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ before you go.”
    • April 12, 2017: Peter Strzok congratulates Lisa Page on a job well done while referring to two derogatory articles about Carter Page. In the text, Strzok warns Page two articles are coming out, one which is “worse” than the other about Lisa’s “namesake”.” Strzok added: “Well done, Page.” –Sara Carter

    Recall that Strzok’s boss, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, was fired for authorizing self-serving leaks to the press.

    Also recall that text messages released in January reveal that Lisa Page was on the phone with Washington Post reporter Devlin Barrett, then with the New York Times, when the reopening of the Clinton Foundation investigation hit the news cycle – just one example in a series of text messages matching up with MSM reports relying on leaked information, as reported by the Conservative Treehouse. 

    ♦Page: 5:19pm “Still on the phone with Devlin. Mike’s phone is ON FIRE.”

    ♥Strzok: 5:29pm “You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there’s news on.”

    ♦Page: 5:30pm “He knows. He just got handed a note.”

    ♥Strzok: 5:33pm “Ha. He asking about it now?”

    ♦Page: 5:34pm “Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now.”

    At 5:36pm Devlin Barrett tweets:

    Meadows says that the texts show “a coordinated effort on the part of the FBI and DOJ to release information in the public domain potentially harmful to President Donald Trump’s administration.“ 

    Revisiting the FBI-CNN connection

    Going back to the internal FBI emails revealed in May by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), we find that McCabe had advance knowledge of CNN’s plans to publish the Steele Dossier report.

    In an email to top FBI officials with the subject “Flood is coming,” McCabe wrote: “CNN is close to going forward with the sensitive story … The trigger for them is they know the material was discussed in the brief and presented in an attachment.” McCabe does not reveal how he knew CNN’s “trigger” was Comey’s briefing to Trump.

    McCabe shot off a second email shortly thereafter to then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates along with her deputy, Matthew Alexrod, with the subject line “News.” 

    “Just as an FYI, and as expected,” McCabe wrote, “it seems CNN is close to running a story about the sensitive reporting.” Again, how McCabe knew this is unclear and begs investigation. 

    Johnson also wanted to know when FBI officials “first learned that media outlets, including CNN, may have possessed the Steele dossier. ”  

    As The Federalist noted in May, “To date, there is no public evidence that the FBI ever investigated the leaks to media about the briefing between Trump and Comey. When asked in a recent interview by Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier, Comey scoffed at the idea that the FBI would even need to investigate the leak of a secret briefing with the incoming president.”

    “Did you or your subordinates leak that?” Baier asked.

    “No,” Comey responded. “I don’t know who leaked it.”

    “Did you ever try to find out?” Baier asked.

    “Who leaked an unclassified public document?” Comey said, even though Baier’s question was about leaking details of a briefing of the incoming president, not the dossier. “No,” Comey said.

    And now it looks like we have an answer for why the FBI never investigated the leak…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Sep 14

Today’s News 14th September 2018

  • Merkel Melts Down After Thousands Of Germans Protest Violent Migrants

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel was heckled as she condemned thousands of right-wing protesters in eastern Germany, who took to the streats after the deadly stabbing of a 22-year-old German man at the hands of two Afghan nationals in the town of Chemnitz.

    The German chancellor was heckled during a lively Bundestag debate by the head of the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party (AfD), Alexander Gauland, who accused her of dividing Germany with her immigration policy, endangering peace and spreading fake news by supporting controversial evidence that far-right protesters were hounding foreigners through the streets. –Guardian

    Merkel shot back, acknowledging the anger felt over the stabbing – however she said that “there is no excuse or explanation for rabble-rousing, in some cases the use of violence, Nazi slogans, hostility towards people who look different, to the owner of a Jewish restaurant, attacking police.”

    She also responded to comments made by the head of Germany’s BfV domestic intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maaßen, who criticized her spokesman for characterizing the anti-immigrant protesters as “hunting” immigrants.

    Gauland accused Merkel of “spreading fake news when your spokesman spoke of ‘Hetzjagd’ (hunting),” adding “The truth is, there was no hunting down of people in Chemnitz.“

    Merkel shot back: “Abstract rows about ‘Hetzjagd’ are not helpful.” 

    Gauland came under fire for his comments; 

    In an interruption to Gauland, allowed under the rules of Bundestag discourse, Martin Schulz, the former leader of the Social Democrats, referred to him as “belonging to the dungheap of German history” over what he saw as the AfD’s contribution to the spread of anti-immigrant sentiment. –Guardian

    Meanwhile, Maaßen faced questioning Wednesday by Germany’s interior affairs committee over public remarks he gave to a newspaper in which he questioned the veracity of a video which allegedly depicts protesters chasing foreigners. A police report from the night in question emerged on Wednesday, claiming that “right-wing extremists” did in fact chase foreigners through the streests. 

    According to the document, leaked to an investigative journalism program, several officers on scene during the protest reported witnessing an increasing number of hooligans arriving in the city. At approximately 9:42 p.m., officers reported that “masked persons (right-wing) are looking for foreigners,” and that at 9:47 p.m. “20 to 30 masked persons armed with stones” were reported to be “heading towards Brühl, to the Schalom restaurant.” 

    As referred to by Merkel in her speech, the Jewish restaurant was attacked, a window was smashed and its owner, Uwe Dziuballa, was injured after being hit by a stone. Masked men shouted at him: “Clear out of Germany, you Jew-pig.”

    The programme, Frontal 21, revealed that one of the men in the video at the centre of the controversy had worked as a security guard at a refugee shelter in Chemnitz, but that his employer, Securitas, had sacked him with immediate effect after his identity was made known to the company. The man is said to be appealing his dismissal.

    On Wednesday, Wolfgang Schäuble, the president of the Bundestag, appeared on national radio to defend Merkel’s decision in the summer of 2015 to allow nearly 1 million refugees into Germany – denying that it had been a mistake, and insisting that Germany had responded to an urgent humanitarian crisis by accepting refugees who needed help. 

    “But what we didn’t manage well enough was to prevent the impression the whole world was under: that now everyone, anywhere, who was living somewhere worse than Germany, could come. That’s what you always have to consider in politics, the impact of your communication,” he said.

  • The US 'Deep State' Is Trying To Split Putin & Deripaska But It Won't Succeed

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

    The New York Times broke what would be a major story over the weekend even if it’s only partially true, and it’s that the FBI supposedly had a decade-long relationship of an unclear nature with Mr. Deripaska that eventually fizzled out after he refused to go along with the “deep state’s” Russiagate witch hunt fake news narrative about Trump, which eventually resulted in him being sanctioned by the American authorities.

    The full accuracy of the report can’t be ascertained at this time, and it should be assumed that some parts of it might be exaggerated or outright fabricated as part of a new infowar offensive against Russia, but that’s actually why it deserves to be analyzed.

    All facts and domestic political nuances aside, the very act of publishing this story suggests that the New York Times and their “deep state” partners partially intend to send a signal to President Putin that the US’ secret services are trying to penetrate his trusted circle of confidants, which includes Mr. Deripaska and other big business representatives in Russia that are commonly described in the Western press as so-called “oligarchs”, an unclear number of whom were also supposedly contacted by the FBI as well.

    Building off of this, the US might be trying to sow the seeds of paranoia within the inner ranks of Russia’s political and economic elite, hoping that this will cause the government to counterproductively overreact and generate fault lines within the establishment that could then be exploited from abroad.

    Russian metals magnate Oleg Deripaska and Russian President Vladimir Putin

    To be clear, such a scheme won’t succeed because it’s based off of a fundamental misreading of the Russian Establishment that’s irredeemably clouded by wishful thinking and false expectations, but it does have one thing going for it and it’s the national security vulnerabilities inherent in big business representatives having homes and economic interests in countries that are waging Hybrid Warfare against their homeland. That’s not at all to question the patriotism of these individuals, but just to point out that foreign forces will always try to take advantage of this state of affairs to provoke discord between these individuals and their governments, meaning that the devious infowar attack over the weekend won’t by any means be the last.

  • Understanding The Tactics Of Subversive Globalism

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    When the ideology of globalism is discussed in liberty movement circles there are often misunderstandings as to the source of the threat and what it truly represents. This may in some cases be by design. In the latest era of supposed “populism” led by figures like Donald Trump, an entirely new and very green generation of liberty activists find themselves hyper focused on the political left in general, but they seem to be obsessed with attacking the symptoms of globalism rather than the source. I attribute this to a clever propaganda campaign by globalist institutions.

    For example, when globalism is brought up in terms of its conspiratorial influences, the name of George Soros is usually mentioned. Soros is an obvious bogeyman for liberty activists because his money can be found flowing to numerous Cultural Marxist (social justice) organizations and his influence is easily grasped and digested in that way. Conservatives like placing emphasis on Soros because he appears decidedly leftist and thus globalism becomes synonymous with leftist movements. But what about all the globalists within the political right?

    Globalism has its gatekeepers in both political camps; people that manipulate or outright control political leaders and political messages on the right just as they do on the left. While someone like George Soros acts as a gatekeeper for the left, we also have people like Henry Kissinger, a globalist gatekeeper for the right. Kissinger’s close relations with the Trump administration or his long time friendship with Russia’s Vladimir Putin are brought up far less in the liberty movement these days. Why? Because this does not fit with the false narrative that the globalists are “targeting” Trump or Putin. When you examine these leaders and their ties to a vast array of globalist proponents, this claim becomes absurd.

    In 2016, months before the presidential election, the globalist media outlet Bloomberg published an article which salivated over the possibility that Trump would swallow up and assimilate what they called the “Tea Party,” ultimately destroying it. At that time the media used the term “Tea Party” as code for any sovereignty or constitutional group, just as the media tried to wrap us all up in the term “alt-right” after Trump’s election.

    There was a reason why Bloomberg found particular glee in the notion that Trump would absorb the liberty movement. The movement was becoming a decentralized threat to the globalist agenda, a threat that could not be easily quantified or dominated because it had no identifiable leadership. We were a movement based on knowledge and individual action. Our best “leaders” have been teachers, not politicians, and these were people that led by personal example, not by mandate or rhetoric.

    The liberty movement was winning ground in every conceivable arena, from the dismantling of the mainstream media through alternative platforms, to the great push back against social justice cultism. Something had to be done.

    Enter Trump, a brash pop culture icon with a flare for sensationalism. He was no statesman like Ron Paul explaining the intricacies of America’s problems in a measured way. No, Trump was like a wrecking ball, a loud and blatant message to the left that we were tired of being on the defensive and we were coming for them. But the reality was that Trump was not a necessary element of the fight. He never was. Anti-globalism and anti-social justice were already hitting the mainstream. The left was already on the run. Trump didn’t create that wave, the liberty movement did that for him, he just rode it into the White House. You’re welcome, Donald.

    The problem was that Trump was not what he seemed to be to many people. With all his rhetoric against the banking elites which he referred to as creatures of the “swamp” choking Washington, Trump then proceeded to load up his presidential cabinet with elitists and globalists as soon as he was elected. These very same cabinet members and advisers went on to attend globalist meetings like the secretive Bilderberg Group AFTER Trump had been elected. People like Rothschild banking agent and Commerce Secretary Wilber Ross who officially attended in 2017, or adviser Peter Thiel who officially attended in 2018.

    This was not at all surprising to me. I predicted this would be the likely outcome (along with a Trump presidency) in my article “Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement,” published in September 2016.

    The point is, simply picking the side of the political right is not enough to protect activists from globalist subversion. By rallying around controlled politicians and bottle-necking our actions the liberty movement makes itself vulnerable and decidedly impotent.

    So, the question arises – how do we continue to fight against the 4th Generation warfare being levied against us? Part of the solution continues to rest in our own understanding of the enemy.

    I still hold to the idea that the best way to understand globalism is to study and expose the efforts of a group called the “Fabian Society,” otherwise known as Fabian Socialists. The society was founded in England in 1884 and was an extension of the “Round Table” groups being established by global elitists in the West at the time. The Fabians have been at the forefront of almost every pro-socialist and pro-globalist movement of the past century, and while they do not get as much attention as institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations or even the Bilderberg Group, their open discussions on their own motivations and goals make them a prime source of data on the psychology of our opponents.

    The Fabian Society has multiple mascots which hint at the nature of globalism. One symbol of the group is an angry turtle with the slogan “When I strike I strike hard,” indicating the slow and deliberate nature of globalism and its methodical spread into every aspect of our daily lives. Another mascot they have used in the past is a wolf dressed up as a sheep, a symbol which I think is self explanatory, but to clarify – a person that appears to be anti-globalist in rhetoric or who is criticized by people like the Fabians may still be a Fabian in disguise.  Their relationships with elitists will expose their true nature as a Trojan Horse.

    I think that the best representation of these people and their thinking resides in their own words, however. Here are some choice quotes from past members:

    …The Open Conspiracy will appear first, I believe as a conscious organization of intelligent, and in some cases wealthy men, as a movement having distinct social and political aims, confessedly ignoring most of the existing apparatus of political control, or using it only as an incidental implement in the stages, a mere movement of a number of people in a certain direction, who will presently discover, with a sort of a surprise, the common object toward which they are all moving. In all sorts of ways, they will be influencing and controlling the ostensible government.” — H.G. Wells: The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution, 1928.

    “I also made it quite clear that socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.” — George Bernard Shaw, The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928

    “I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.” — Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

    “I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. … Various results will soon be arrived at: that the influence of home is obstructive… although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generatio will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen … Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism. … A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.” — Bertrand Russell: The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

    “And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods.” — Aldous Huxley, “The Ultimate Revolution” March 20, 1962 Berkeley Language Center

    Today, the Fabian Society still exists and operates as a think tank much like any other globalist think tank. Their articles and essays push the latest globalist propaganda from the erasure of national sovereignty to the promotion of gender politics and gender “fluidity.” But what can we draw from these writings and the statements of past members?

    First, globalists use guerrilla-like tactics to achieve their goals and they often act slowly and quietly over the course of years or decades. The Fabian Society was named after the Roman General Quintus Fabius Maximus who famously used tactics of attrition and delay to defeat his enemies. Liberty activists need to start thinking in terms of the long game, much like a chess player does, in order to grasp the globalist agenda. The events triggered today may have intended effects which are not necessarily obvious to us now unless we consider how they relate to the greater scheme.

    This is especially true in terms of economics.  Globalists stage fiscal bubbles many years in advance, and use economic crisis as a catalyst for social change on a grand scale.  Usually this results in ever increasing centralization of wealth and power.  However, the shift of financial dominance is subtle to those who do not pay particular attention to the details.  A market bubble might take a decade to develop before it is deliberately popped.  In the meantime all the fundamentals are screaming that something is very wrong, but the majority of the public remains oblivious until it is too late.

    Second, control of governments and political leaders is paramount to the success of globalism. The notion that ANY major political leader comes to power without globalist influence is utterly naive. Trump and his swamp creature appointed cabinet are perfect examples of this. Rhetoric is meaningless, and while such leaders may throw their base a bone now and then, in the end their actions only push the ball forward for the globalists. This may even include sabotaging their own presidency to make way for a globalist “solution.”

    Third, mass psychology is a globalist obsession. All power stems from perception. Figureheads and ideological groups sometimes offer the promise of social advantage to the public without much effort on their part. The temptation of this offer can lead people to hand over their free will in exchange. But not all “progress” is actually advantageous for the masses and misery usually follows such Faustian deals with the elites. Escape is difficult.

    Therefore, globalists must control the narrative at all costs. The public has to be divided as much as possible in order to keep them distracted from the guiding hand of the cabal itself. And, any group that opposes them directly has to be co-opted or destroyed. The more people focus on globalists and their organizations as the core source of social instability, the more uncomfortable they become.

    Fourth, most globalist actions today rely on 4th Generation warfare; meaning, few things are exactly as they seem, ever. I suspect the success of liberty activists has forced them into more elaborate forms of theater. Nothing they do is ever simple unless you have studied the motivations and mindset of the globalists, then they become rather predictable, unoriginal and bizarrely robotic in their behavior. They appear brilliant in the execution of their agendas only because they have centuries of experience implementing the same con games over and over. They are sociopathic grifters; they are clever and without remorse, but not geniuses in any sense of the word.

    For now, educating the general liberty movement and the people around us on these issues remains the best method for throwing a monkey wrench into the globalist machine. Countering their psyops should be our pinnacle task, and falling into the narrative traps they create must be avoided. They have spent a considerable amount of thought and energy trying to co-opt our efforts, and that should give everyone pause. For if we were not a true threat, why would they bother with us?

    *  *  *

    If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

  • Trump Slams Kerry's "Illegal Meetings" With Iran Which "Undercut" White House

    update: On Thursday night, after news of John Kerry’s Wednesday Hugh Hewitt Show radio interview in which he admitted meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif “three or four times” since Donald Trump took office for unauthorized discussions touching on the Iran nuclear deal, President Trump slammed the “illegal meetings” as serving to “undercut” White House diplomatic dealings with Iran. 

    Trump further hinted that Kerry violated the Logan Act by rhetorically asking whether Kerry is officially registered as a foreign agent.

    The president tweeted: John Kerry had illegal meetings with the very hostile Iranian Regime, which can only serve to undercut our great work to the detriment of the American people. He told them to wait out the Trump Administration! Was he registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? BAD!

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

    Multiple conservative commentators said Kerry finally admitted to prior charges that he was conducting secretive talks behind Trump’s back aimed toward salvaging the 2015 nuclear deal. 

    Later in the same day as the Hugh Hewitt Show admissions, former Secretary of State Kerry appeared on FOX and was interviewed by Dana Perino.

    “I think everybody in the world is sitting around talking about waiting out President Trump,” Kerry said to Perino. “You’ve got our allies, remarkably — the people that we’ve worked with the closest through the years — who are sitting there saying, ‘What’s next?'” Kerry added. 

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

    In reaction to the Dana Perino interview former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said on “Special Report” Kerry was likely advising Iran on how to “wait out” the tenure of President Trump.

    * * * 

    Earlier

    Though he previously denied it when allegations first surfaced last Spring, former Secretary of State John Kerry has now disclosed he’s personally had semi-frequent face to face contact with top Iranian officials to discuss US-Iran relations since Trump entered office.

    Kerry confirmed and explained in detail his recent meetings with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt to promote his new memoir, Every Day Is Extra.

    During the interview Kerry disclosed that he met with Zarif “three or four times” and discussed political issues and challenges between the United States and Iran in what could constitute a significant and clear violation of the Logan Act. 

    Back when Kerry was actually authorized to do this sort of thing as Secretary of State under Obama in 2015. Via the Iran Project

    While it’s almost never been enforced, the 1799 Logan Act states that unauthorized diplomacy with foreign powers by private American citizens is a crime. Notably, two Trump-connected individuals that prominent Liberals and editorials demanded be prosecuted under the Logan Act include former national security advisor Michael Flynn and Trump senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner. 

    When asked point blank during the radio show about his rumored meetings with top Iran officials, Kerry admitted, “I think I’ve seen him three or four times,” but attempted to claim he was not trying to “coach” Iran on how to navigate President Trump’s pullout of the Iran nuclear deal.

    Kerry is of course now a private citizen out of government but holds significant clout and influence with the Iran FM as the two hammered out the details of the JCPOA brokered under President Obama in the first place. 

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

    However, by Kerry’s own explanation it looks precisely like he was doing this: “What I have done is tried to elicit from him what Iran might be willing to do in order to change the dynamic in the Middle East for the better,” Kerry said. He also shared his belief that American policy in the Middle East would be much better off if the White House had stayed in the agreement, and that the global community would be more stable and secure. 

    It sure sounds like unauthorized diplomacy behind Trump’s back by a high ranking member of the former administration to us…

    Soon after the interview, some Iran hawks in Congress took to Twitter to decry the hypocrisy of the whole thing. 

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

    Here’s a key part of the transcript via the Hugh Hewitt Show:

    Hugh Hewitt: Okay, it’s been reported you’ve met with him a couple of times at least since leaving office as well. So you still…

    John Kerry: Yes, I have. That’s accurate.

    HH: And is it a half dozen times, a dozen times?

    JK: No. No, no, no. I met with him at a conference in Norway. I think I saw him in a conference in Munich at the World Economic Forum. So I’ve probably seen him three or four times.

    HH: Are you trying to coach him through the Trump administration’s rejection of the JCPOA?

    JK: No, that’s not my job, and my coaching him would not, you know, that’s not how it works. What I have done is tried to elicit from him what Iran might be willing to do in order to change the dynamic in the Middle East for the better. You know, how does one resolve Yemen? What do you do to try to get peace in Syria? I mean, those are the things that really are preoccupying, because those are the impediments to people, to Iran’s ability to convince people that it’s ready to embrace something different. I mean, and I’ve been very blunt to Foreign Minister Zarif, and told him look, you guys need to recognize that the world does not appreciate what’s happening with missiles, what’s happening with Hezbollah, what’s happening with Yemen. You’re supporting you know, an ongoing struggle there They say they’re prepared to negotiate and to resolve these issues. But the administration’s taken a very different tack. I don’t know as I talk to you today if there’s been any dialogue or sit down. I don’t think there has, which would open up any kind of diplomatic channel. And it appears right now as if the administration is hell bent for leather determined to pursue a regime change strategy to bring the economy down and try to isolate further. And I would simply caution that the United States historically has not had a great record in regime change strategies, number one. And number two, that makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for any Iranian leader to sit down and negotiate anything, because they’re not going to do it in a capitulatory, you know, situation. It’s just not going to happen.

    It certainly appears that Kerry by his own admission is indeed trying to “coach” the Iranian FM on how to deal with the current White House. And the discussions clearly included chiding the Trump administration over its Iran policy while in Kerry’s own words the “open[ing] of diplomatic channels” was on his mind. 

    Meanwhile some Republican lawmakers have already, hours after the interview, unleashed charges that Kerry is engaged in rogue diplomacy and is undermining the active, elected administration.  

    It was only a matter of time before he put his foot in his mouth, and promoting his new book means we’re likely about to hear a lot more self implicating details spilled. 

  • More Evidence Of Economic Turmoil In NYC As Garment District Unravels

    Yesterday we noted that New York City is turning into a retail wasteland, after the New York Times documented a plague of vacant storefronts along the city’s most popular retail corridors. 

    Today, RetailDive shines a spotlight on the Manhattan-focused Garment District’s rapid unraveling, as office spaces from other industries encroach on the highly sought after real estate. 

    The area, which roughly encompasses the streets between 35th Street and 40th Street, and the avenues between Broadway and Ninth, has been protected by strict zoning laws since 1987.

    But times have changed. New York City has lost 95% of its manufacturing workforce since its heyday in the 1950s, and a 2011 report from the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), a non-profit centered on economic growth in New York City, indicated that fashion manufacturing jobs in NYC had further declined 61% since 2001. Recently, the Garment District Alliance reported that “from March 2017 to March 2018, New York City’s apparel manufacturing industry shrunk by an additional 7.7%, a loss of approximately 1,000 jobs.” And as of August 2018, the AP estimated that only 5,000 garment manufacturing workers remained. –RetailDive

    New York’s Garment District isn’t the only part of the country to suffer from evaporating jobs in apparel; In 2012, the US Department of Commerce reported that “since 1990, employment in apparel, leather, and allied product manufacturing has shrunk by 912,000 jobs, or 84 percent.” Most of the remaining jobs are located in New York, California and Texas. Moreover, textile and apparel manufacturing shrunk from 0.57% of US GDP to 0.16% from 1998 – 2015, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

    Preserving the district?

    In February of last year, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said that it would rezone the Garment District; removing some outdated restrictions, while developing Brooklyn’s rapidly gentrifying Sunset Park district. The next month, the NYCEDC teamed up with the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) and the Garment District Alliance to provide financial incentives to companies who wished to relocate from Manhattan to Brooklyn. 

    This did not sit well with some people…

    Outrage over rumors of a Brooklyn relocation of the Garment District led to heated debates in public forums, and in summer 2017, the Garment Center Steering Committee was formed by Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer, Council Member Corey Johnson, and Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development Alicia Glen. The committee engaged with NYCEDC, as well as New York fashion industry interests, including costume theater industry workers and the Garment District Alliance. They released a report that provided recommendations on real estate and business development that would help the Garment District transition into a more sustainable manufacturing center. –RetailDive

    The plan to pay companies to move was ultimately scrapped over the outcry.  

    “People had it in their heads that the Garment District was being asked to move, but no one was being asked to move,” said Julieanne Herskowitz, vice president in the development department at NYCEDC. “But what was clear is that we had not sufficiently thought of the Garment District, and [Manhattan Borough President] Gale Brewer and [Council Member] Corey Johnson pushed the city to think about how the Garment District could remain a hub of fashion in the city if zoning were to be lifted. There are about 400 companies in the area, employing about 4,000 people. It’s still a critical hub.”

    “We had agreed to help with relocation costs, and then Gale Brewer said she won’t support a plan that doesn’t include retaining a core in the Garment District,” said Garment District Alliance president Barbara Blair. “She didn’t want all these jobs being encouraged to leave for Brooklyn.”

    Brewer’s office responded, insisting that “The whole fashion industry in New York depends on the tight-knit cluster of specialty suppliers and skilled workers in the heart of Manhattan, which is why we’re acting to keep it strong and successful,” adding “It’s not about choosing between the Garment Center or growth in the other boroughs. A strong foundation here lays the groundwork for success everywhere.” 

    Brooklyn Exodus

    Despite efforts to rescue Manhattan manufacturing, it seems nothing can stop the exodus. 

    “People think this is a neighborhood-centric issue, but it’s not,” Blair said. “We used to have 150,000 manufacturing jobs in this neighborhood, and now we have 5,000 jobs. And this is a 40-year national trend.”

    Blair said that although a lot of people blame the loss of jobs on rent issues, it’s more complex than that. “It’s easy to blame the landlords, but basically a lot of their business dried up,” she said. “If designers were still producing locally, [manufacturers would] be able to pay their rent. One of the manufacturers said to me, ‘if Ralph Lauren would manufacture even 1% of his product in New York City, that would be enough to save New York City manufacturing.‘ Of course, NAFTA also had a huge impact too, back in the early 1990s. There are definitely property owners in this neighborhood who have pushed people out. But that’s not the majority.”

    Certainly, some brands, such as Yeohlee, still do all their manufacturing in Manhattan. But others have moved further afield, in search of bigger spaces and a different community. Complexes such as Industry City in Sunset Park, are attracting many of New York’s young creatives. “Over the past five years, we have leased more than 1 million square feet to manufacturers, including a wide range of fashion and garment production companies,” said Lisa Serbaniewicz, spokesperson for Industry City, in an email to Retail Dive. –RetailDive

    Out with the old… 

    While the garment district suffers, Brooklyn is flourishing. “Brooklyn is the second largest hub for apparel design [in New York City],” said Herskowitz. “The EDC manages and operates over 6 million square feet of industrial space at the Bush Terminal and the Brooklyn Army Terminal, and has been investing in these assets. And then also the Made in NY Campus, which will have a campus dedicated to the New York City fashion industry. The EDC is still actively doing that along with the city.” 

    At the end of the day, however, manufacturers just can’t beat the allure of that cheap, cheap foreign labor. 

    “There’s such a huge financial gap between overseas labor and local labor, and you could never close that gap,” said Blair. “We believe that manufacturing should be here [in New York City]. I always thought we would lose some manufacturing, but that eventually, the water would find its level. It just hasn’t yet. There’s an industry in decline that hasn’t found its footing in the new world.”

  • On The Brink With Russia In Syria Again, 5 Years Later

    Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

    The New York Times, on September 11, 2013, accommodated Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s desire “to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders” about “recent events surrounding Syria.”

    Putin’s op-ed in the Times appeared under the title: “A Plea for Caution From Russia.” In it, he warned that a military “strike by the United States against Syria will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders … and unleash a new wave of terrorism. … It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.”

    Three weeks before Putin’s piece, on August 21, there had been a chemical attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was immediately blamed. There soon emerged, however, ample evidence that the incident was a provocation to bring direct U.S. military involvement against Assad, lest Syrian government forces retain their momentum and defeat the jihadist rebels.

    In a Memorandum for President Barack Obama five days before Putin’s article, on September 6, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) had warned President Barack Obama of the likelihood that the incident in Ghouta was a false-flag attack.

    Despite his concern of a U.S. attack, Putin’s main message in his op-ed was positive, talking of a growing mutual trust:

    “A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action. [Syria’s chemical weapons were in fact destroyed under UN supervision the following year.]

    “I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive … and steer the discussion back toward negotiations. If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust … and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.”

    Obama Refuses to Strike

    In a lengthy interview with journalist Jeffrey Goldberg published in The Atlantic much later, in March 2016, Obama showed considerable pride in having refused to act according to what he called the “Washington playbook.”

    Clapper (far right): No slam dunk Assad did it. (Office of DNI)

    He added a telling vignette that escaped appropriate attention in Establishment media. Obama confided to Goldberg that, during the crucial last week of August 2013, National Intelligence Director James Clapper paid the President an unannounced visit to caution him that the allegation that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack in Ghouta was “not a slam dunk.”

    Clapper’s reference was to the very words used by former CIA Director George Tenet when he characterized, falsely, the nature of the evidence on WMD in Iraq while briefing President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in December 2002. Additional evidence that Ghouta was a false flag came in December 2016 parliamentary testimony in Turkey.

    In early September 2013, around the time of Putin’s op-ed, Obama resisted the pressure of virtually all his advisers to launch cruise missiles on Syria and accepted the Russian-brokered deal for Syria give up its chemical weapons. Obama follow public opinion but had to endure public outrage from those lusting for the U.S. to get involved militarily. From neoconservatives, in particular, there was hell to pay.

    Atop the CNN building in Washington, DC, on the evening of September 9, two days before Putin’s piece, I had a fortuitous up-close-and-personal opportunity to watch the bitterness and disdain with which Paul Wolfowitz and Joe Lieberman heaped abuse on Obama for being too “cowardly” to attack.

    Five Years Later

    In his appeal for cooperation with the U.S., Putin had written these words reportedly by himself:

    “My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is ‘what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.’ It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

    In recent days, President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, has left no doubt that he is the mascot of American exceptionalism. Its corollary is Washington’s “right” to send its forces, uninvited, into countries like Syria.

    “We’ve tried to convey the message in recent days that if there’s a third use of chemical weapons, the response will be much stronger,” Bolton said on Monday. “I can say we’ve been in consultations with the British and the French who have joined us in the second strike and they also agree that another use of chemical weapons will result in a much stronger response.”

    As was the case in September 2013, Syrian government forces, with Russian support, have the rebels on the defensive, this time in Idlib province where most of the remaining jihadists have been driven. On Sunday began what could be the final showdown of the five-year war. Bolton’s warning of a chemical attack by Assad makes little sense as Damascus is clearly winning and the last thing Assad would do is invite U.S. retaliation.

    Haley: Already knows who did it. (UN Photo)

    U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, with remarkable prescience, has already blamed Damascus for whatever chemical attack might take place. The warnings of direct U.S. military involvement, greater than Trump’s two previous pin-prick attacks, is an invitation for the cornered jihadists to launch another false-flag attack to exactly bring that about.

    Sadly, not only has the growing trust recorded by Putin five years ago evaporated, but the likelihood of a U.S.-Russian military clash in the region is as perilously high as ever.

    Seven days before Putin’s piece appeared, citizen Donald Trump had tweeted: “Many Syrian ‘rebels’ are radical Jihadis. Not our friends & supporting them doesn’t serve our national interest. Stay out of Syria!”

    In September 2015 Trump accused his Republican primary opponents of wanting to “start World War III over Syria. Give me a break. You know, Russia wants to get ISIS, right? We want to get ISIS. Russia is in Syria — maybe we should let them do it? Let them do it.”

    Last week Trump warned Russian and Syria not to attack Idlib. Trump faces perhaps his biggest test as president: whether he can resist his neocon advisers and not massively attack Syria, as Obama chose not to, or risk the wider war he accused his Republican opponents of fomenting.

    *  *  *

    If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

  • Tepper: Trump's China Tariffs Could Trigger A 20% Pullback In US Stocks

    David Tepper was probably riding high after his Carolina Panthers bested the Dallas Cowboys in Sunday’s NFL season opener until Thursday afternoon, when he was forced to reckon with the fact that he’s been underweight US equities since he predicted back in April that the “highs are in.”

    Of course, Tepper isn’t the only hedgie who dialed back his exposure after February’s volocaust whiplashed many funds and forced them to adopt a defensive posture as they waited for the other shoe to drop. And he deserves at least some credit for readily admitting during Thursday afternoon’s interview with CNBC’s Scott Wapner that he’s only been “about 25% exposed” to US equities – which, in retrospect, is about 75% short of the ideal allocation.

    I probably don’t have enough exposure I’ve taken down my exposure. So I’m still long. But you know, not – I would in percentage terms of s&p-type exposure, might be 25% or something of that. And that’s been wrong, because the market has been very hot and the problem for people like me is I’ve had that express with long individual stocks and short you know, futures of some sort or the market in some fashion. And quite frankly our stocks have not done that well this quarter. Which you probably know, you’re going to ask me next or something like that, right

    All things considered, assuming the market was fairly valued, a reasonable investor might expect to reap returns of up to 8% over the next year. But Tepper feels like some caution is warranted, which is why he still has cash he can put to work. Because anybody who has taken the president at his word would probably agree that the market has been too naive in pricing in the possibility that Trump’s trade conflict with China will come to an amicable resolution. In fact, Tepper said, he’s been surprised by investors unflinching optimism in the face of a conflict that could potentially disrupt the global free-trade order – particularly after Trump’s declaration that he’s ready to slap tariffs on another $267 billion worth of Chinese goods.

    Trump, Tepper believes, will probably slap tariffs on most, if not all, of the Chinese goods streaming into the US. And when that happens, stocks could experience a pullback in the range of 5% to 20%.

    Yeah. I have cash I can put to work.Listen I can change things very fast, okay, if we did something, china was solved, somehow which I don’t think is so easy to do. It may be this, we may have to get used that the tariffs just may be on, okay? Then there will be an adjustment in the stock market. Whatever it is, a 5%, 10%, to whatever, 15%, 20% adjustment. Then you’ll move up from there and look, that’s what will be. You know whatever that adjustment, because the currency adjusts, that’s what will happen if that’s the way it goes.

    Tepper has taken some widely publicized swipes at President Trump’s trade policies in the past. But when asked for his assessment on the administration’s policies – and, more to the point, whether they’ve been responsible for the market’s resilience (not to mention the booming economy – Tepper had a few kind words to say about Trump and his policies.

    While he isn’t convinced that Trump’s confrontational trade policies were the best response, as a “patriotic American” Tepper agreed that something needed to be done about China’s predatory IT policies.

    Tepper: I’m a little surprised at the level it is right now. Okay a little surprised I’m not totally surprised. But a little surprised like I said, I don’t think everything is discounted in this price right now. I do think if you do get — again, I’m, listen, I’m a very patriotic American citizen, okay I do think we have to protect our national jewels, our technology so this is a very serious matter when you have very serious matters, sometimes you might have it take a little pain it’s just the way it goes. And I don’t know if this is the right strategy or not. That we’re taking, but we may have to. If it is the right strategy, it’s the right strategy. And we got to make a point I think that that’s not wrong because it’s been going on, I mean listen, as you asked me, trying to avoid it you asked me about some of my stocks, micron. Micron has a very famous case where they stole technology in Taiwan.

    Wapner: Been getting beaten up a lot lately.

    Tepper: I’m talking about the technology stuff. Absolutely happened in Taiwan with a Chinese basically were trying to steal technology from micron that can’t happen. We can’t allow that to happen. There’s other cases across the country I could bring up and stuff. We have to figure out a way to stop them and there’s been other things where they force the technology transfers I don’t know if this is the right policy but attacking it is not wrong. I think that is probably right policy.

    To be sure, Tepper is also anxious about Trump’s decision to blow out the budget deficit, particularly at a time when growth was already robust as the economic expansion enters its ninth year. But will there definitely be a reckoning for these rising debt levels? It’s certainly possible, Tepper said. But as for when that reckoning will arrive, it’s just too difficult to try and time it. Particularly after the market and economy have proven so many doomsayers wrong.

    Watch some excerpts from Tepper’s interview below:

  • Chinese Data Dump Shows Continued Slowdown In Local Economy

    One month after China’s latest data dump disappointed across the board, moments ago the National Bureau of Statistics, released the latest Retail sales, Industrial output and Fixed investment data, which was a modest improvement with 1 beat, 1 meet, and 1 miss as follows:

    • China Jan.-Aug. Fixed Investment Miss; Rises 5.3% Y/Y; Est. 5.6%
    • China Aug. Industrial Output Meet: Rises 6.1% Y/Y; Est. 6.1%
    • China Aug. Retail Sales Beat: Rise 9.0% Y/Y; Est. 8.8%

    While the rebound in retail sales was welcome (if modest) after several months of missing analyst expectations, China’s fixed investment – historically the biggest driver behind the economy – rose at the lowest pace on record.

    On the positive side, property investment continues to be strong:

    • China Jan.-Aug. Property Dev. Investment Rises 10.1%
    • China Jan.-July Property Dev. Investment Rises 10.2% Y/Y

    This was offset by another drop in car sales, while jewelry demand rose 14.1%.

    While some have praised the beat in retail sales, recall that over the weekend Goldman showed the wide divergence between public (strong) and private (weak) consumption data, suggesting that Beijing is goalseeking yet another data set in addition to GDP.

    That said, the latest drop in fixed investment – potentially a consequence of the trade war with the US and China’s own shadow deleveraging – will probably mean more pressure on the government to push growth, meaning more fiscal stimulus. In fact, the record low fixed investment suggests that contrary to the trade war rhetoric, China’s growth woes are homegrown, not just the trade tensions. And, as we have discussed previously, the ongoing sharp decline in investment spending by local governments due to develeraging campaign may be to blame.

    Commenting on the data, Tring Nguyen of Natixis, summarized that “retail sales up but fixed asset investment down again. Not great news for growth expectations & growth is increasingly more dependent on consumption. So what is the reaction from the government? More pump priming? The worse the data, the more the easing?”

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

    Meanwhile, as Bloomberg also notes, an August jump in local government bond sales from a year ago may be a signal that China’s infrastructure projects are kicking off again to support a wilting economy which has been hit by the twin risks of trade wars and deleveraging.

    • The data dump release was accompanied by the usual propaganda from the NBS in Beijing which claimed that:
    • There is no stagflation or stagflation-like conditions in China
    • China’s infrastructure investment may stabilize in the next few months
    • China fixed-asset investment may stabilize
    • China household debts remain at reasonable level
    • Effects of China pro- growth measures are showing up
    • China inflation pressure remains moderate

    Maybe, but for now China’s modest slowdown is a sharp contrast to the sharp uptick up in U.S. growth, which has helped to explain why Chinese stocks have fallen into a bear market while the U.S. has hit record highs, and why Trump continues to press China on trade concessions: after all he is confident that the US is winning the trade war.

    Ultimately, the biggest risk to China is whether the ongoing slump in the credit impulse accelerates. And if Goldman’s forecast is correct, and the credit impulse is about to plummet, China is about to unleash the biggest global recession since the financial crisis.

  • US Biological Warfare Program In The Spotlight Again

    Authored by Peter Korzun via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    This is a scoop to bring the US biological warfare effort back into the spotlight. On Sept. 11, Russian media reported that the Richard Lugar Center for Public Health Research laboratory, a research facility for high-level biohazard agents located near Tbilisi, Georgia, has used human beings for conducting biological experiments.

    Former Minister of State Security of Georgia Igor Giorgadze said about it during a news conference in Moscow, urging US President Donald Trump to launch an investigation. He has lists of Georgians who died of hepatitis after undergoing treatment in the facility in 2015 and 2016. Many passed away on the same day. The declassified documents contain neither the indication of the causes of deaths nor real names of the deceased. According to him, the secret lab run by the US military was established during the tenure of former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. The viruses could spread to neighboring countries, including Russia, Igor Giorgadze warned.

    The laboratory’s work is tightly under wraps. Only US personnel with security clearance have access to it. These people are accorded diplomatic immunity under the 2002 US-Georgia Agreement on defense cooperation.

    Eurasia Review reported that in 2014 the Lugar Center was equipped with a special plant for breeding insects to enable launching the Sand Fly project in Georgia and the Caucasus. In 2014-2015 years, the bites of sand flies such as Phlebotomins caused a fever. According to the source, “today the Pentagon has a great interest to the study of Tularemia, also known as the fever of rabbits, which is also equated with biological weapons. Distributors of such a disease can be mites and rodents”.

    It makes remember the statement made by Nikolai Patrushev, Head of Russia’s Security Council, in 2015. He warned about the threat stemming from biological weapons laboratories that operate on the territories of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). He specifically mentioned the Richard G. Lugar Center in Georgia.

    The US has bio laboratories in 25 countries across the world, including the post-Soviet space. They are funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). Foreign inspectors are denied access to them. It should be noted that independent journalist investigations have been made public to confirm the fact that the US military conducts secret research to pose a threat to environment and population. Jeffrey Silverman, an American journalist who has lived in Georgia for many years, is sure the Richard Lugar Center, as well as other labs, is involved in secret activities to create biological weapons. Georgia and Ukraine have been recently hit by mysterious disease outbreaks, with livestock killed and human lives endangered. The US military operates the Central Reference Laboratory in Kazakhstan since 2016. There have public protests against the facility.

    In 2013 a Chinese Air Force Colonel Dai Xu accused the US government of creating a new strain of bird flu now afflicting parts of China as a biological warfare attack. According to him, the American military released the H7N9 bird flu virus into China in an act of biological warfare. It has been reported that the source of Ebola virus in West Africa were US bio-warfare labs.

    Russian experts do not exclude the possibility of using a stink-bug by the US military as a biological weapon. A couple of years ago, mosquitoes with Zika virus have been spotted in Russia and South Ossetia to cause outbreaks of human and animal flu.

    The US activities violate the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), a legally binding treaty that outlaws biological arms. It effectively prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, retention, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons and is a key element in the international community’s efforts to address the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In force since 1975, the convention has 181 states-parties today. The BWC reaffirms the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the biological weapons use. In 1969, US President Richard Nixon formally ended all offensive aspects of the US biological warfare program. In 1975, the US ratified both the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the BWC.

    Negotiations on an internationally binding verification protocol, which would include on-site inspections by an independent authority to the BWC, took place between 1995 and 2001. The US did not sign up. Its refusal to become a party to the verification mechanisms makes any attempt to enhance the effectiveness of the BWC doomed. A Review Conference is held every five years to discuss the convention’s operation and implementation. The last one, which convened in November 2016, was a frustration with minimal agreement on the final document and no substantive program of work to do before the next event takes place in 2021. There is little hope the BWC will ever be strengthened to have teeth. With no verification mechanism, the US military bio-warfare labs will always be a matter of concern. The issue is serious enough to be included into global security architecture. The UN General Assembly is the right place to raise it. Its 73rd session will open on September 18. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Sep 13

Today’s News 13th September 2018

  • 'Catastrophic': EU Passes Copyright Directive Including Internet 'Link Tax' and 'Upload Filter'

    Submitted by Planet Free Will

    The European Parliment has passed a controversial copyright directive that contains provisions which force tech giants to install content filters and sets in place a potential tax on hyperlinking.

    The bill was passed in a final vote of 438 – 226 and will need to be implemented by individual EU member states.

    Critics of the directive have been laser-focused on two key provisions: Articles 11 and 13, which they have dubbed the “link tax” and “upload filter.”

    The most important parts of this are Articles 11 and 13. Article 11 is intended to give publishers and papers a way to make money when companies like Google link to their stories, allowing them to demand paid licenses. Article 13 requires certain platforms like YouTube and Facebook stop users sharing unlicensed copyrighted material.

    Critics of the Copyright Directive say these provisions are disastrous. In the case of Article 11, they note that attempts to “tax” platforms like Google News for sharing articles have repeatedly failed, and that the system would be ripe to abuse by copyright trolls.

    Article 13, they say, is even worse. The legislation requires that platforms proactively work with rightsholders to stop users uploading copyrighted content. The only way to do so would be to scan all data being uploaded to sites like YouTube and Facebook. This would create an incredible burden for small platforms, and could be used as a mechanism for widespread censorship. This is why figures like Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee came out so strongly against the directive. – The Verge

    Member of the European Parliament, Axel Voss, who played a lead roll in pushing for both articles 11 and 13, thanked his fellow MEPs “for the job we have done together” in the wake of the vote.

    “This is a good sign for the creative industries in Europe,” Voss said.

    Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake was not nearly as excited as Voss after the vote. In a statement, the Dutchman said: “The Parliament squandered the opportunity to get the copyright reform on the right track. This is a disastrous result for the protection of our fundamental rights, ordinary internet users and Europe´s future in the field of artificial intelligence. We have set a step backwards instead of creating a true copyright reform that is fit for the 21st century.”

    Opponents of the directive have been using the hashtag #SaveYourInternet on social media.

    Some are pointing out that the new copyright push could potentially block or ban memes from being shared on the European internet.

    Julia Reda, a German Pirate Party lawmaker, reacted to the result of the vote by saying it was “catastrophic” for sports fans. 

    A summary of the directive describes the internet as the main marketplace for distribution and access to copyright-protected content. Those who support further EU intervention in copyright law say that the difficulty for content creators to enforce their rights to the work they post online “could put at risk the development of European creativity and production of creative content.”

    According to a letter signed by world-renowned computer scientist Tim Berners, and internet pioneer Vint Cerf, articles 11 and 13 will not only affect the professional content creator but also the average internet user:

    In particular, far from only affecting large American Internet platforms (who can well afford the costs of compliance), the burden of Article 13 will fall most heavily on their competitors, including European startups and SMEs. The cost of putting in place the necessary automatic filtering technologies will be expensive and burdensome, and yet those technologies have still not developed to a point where their reliability can be guaranteed. Indeed, if Article 13 had been in place when Internet’s core protocols and applications were developed, it is unlikely that it would exist today as we know it.

    The impact of Article 13 would also fall heavily on ordinary users of Internet platforms—not only those who upload music or video (frequently in reliance upon copyright limitations and exceptions, that Article 13 ignores), but even those who contribute photos, text, or computer code to open collaboration platforms such as Wikipedia and GitHub.

    While it will be interesting to see how EU member states take to the copyright overhaul, this latest piece of legislation isn’t the only move by the superstar which should have those suspicious of censorship worried

    And just as a side note, it appears Twitter doesn’t want its users to know about Article 13.

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

    ******

    As PFW reported on September 5, the European Union is in the final stages of crafting legislation that will force big tech and internet companies to censor “extremist” content and cooperate with law enforcement

    The bill is expected to be released by the end of the month and will absolutely require companies such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter to swiftly remove any content considered terroristic from their platforms.

    EU Commissioner in charge of Justice, Consumers and gender equality, Věra Jourová , speaks at a news conference on a second monitoring of the illegal online hate speech code of conduct in Brussels, Belgium, 1 June 2017. [Olivier Hoslet/EPA]

    In March, the European Commission told such companies that they had three months to show they were removing “extremist” content more rapidly or face legislation forcing them to do so.

    EU recommendations were sent out at the time regarding the speedy removal of all content including terrorist content, incitement to hatred and violence, child sexual abuse material, counterfeit products, and copyright infringement.

    The threat eventually led to the creation of an online “code of conduct” aimed at fighting racism and xenophobia across Europe, an effort both the EU and big tech collaborated on.

    According to European Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova, that an existing code of conduct to counter hate speech could remain voluntary.

    “(But on) terrorist content, we came to the conclusion that it is too serious a threat and risk for European people that we should have absolute certainty that all the platforms and all the IT providers will delete the terrorist content and will cooperate with law enforcement bodies,” Jourova said on Wednesday.

    “Yes, this is in the final stage,” she added, addressing the new bill.

    While details of the new legislation remain hidden, the Financial Times in August learned that law enforcement will be in charge of flagging content for censorship.

    EU security commissioner Julian King also had mentioned last month that the bill will “likely” turn the agreed upon “code of conduct” into mandatory law, placing the prediction by Jourova that it will remain voluntary on shakey grounds.

    The big tech – EU code of conduct establishes “public commitments” for tech companies, including the requirement to review the “majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech” in less than 24 hours. It was also crafted to make it easier for law enforcement to notify firms directly of any unwanted content.

    Within the code is a narrow explanation of “hate speech,” being defined as “all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.”

    The nature of enforcing censorship based on a narrow and subjective term such as “hate speech” is likely to keep suspicions high that these types of decision aren’t about creating a safer world, but rather a world in which superstates like the EU control the content people see online for political purposes.

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

  • White House Threatens Military Response Against Iran-Backed Militias in Iraq

    Iraq may once again, for the first time in nearly a decade, become a theater of US-Iran confrontation according to a White House statement published Tuesday evening.

    “The United States will hold the regime in Tehran accountable for any attack that results in injury to our personnel or damage to United States government facilities,” press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a written statement posted to WhiteHouse.gov. “America will respond swiftly and decisively in defense of American lives.”

    Image source: Long War Journal

    The threat of military force comes after the American embassy in Baghdad’s ‘green zone’ came under a brazen overnight mortar attack last Thursday, which left no one injured but started a blaze near the sprawling embassy’s gate.

    Up to four mortars were fired in what officials confirmed was a targeted assault American diplomatic soil. Defense analysts and officials were quick to blame Iran-backed militias in the area, which had previously in the week vowed in a joint statement to expel all “foreign occupying forces” from the country. 

    And days later multiple rockets were fired at the Basra airport, which is also site of the United States consulate for the area. Though denying it had a role in events in Basra or Baghdad, Tehran’s leaders did admit to a major missile attack on the headquarters of the Kurdistan Democratic Party in Northern Iraqi Kurdistan, which resulted in up to a dozen killed and scores wounded. 

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

    The White House statement, which condemns “life threatening attacks” against “the United States consulate in Basra and against the American embassy compound in Baghdad” also follows two weeks of heightened sectarian tensions across various parts of the country, but especially the southern Sunni-majority city of Basra, where the Iranian consulate was burned to the ground after it was stormed by a mob late last week. 

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

    The statement puts Iran on notice and pledges that it will be held responsible for such incidents: “Iran did not act to stop these attacks by its proxies in Iraq, which it has supported with funding, training, and weapons,” reads the press release. 

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

    US officials have yet to reveal any evidence that Iran was directly behind either the embassy or Basra consulate attacks, but days prior ten pro-Iran Shia militias in the country published a statement vowing to expel foreign troops and advisers by force if they didn’t immediately leave Iraq. 

    “We will deal with them [foreign troops in Iraq] as occupying forces, and we will use our legitimate rights by employing all possible means to force them out of the country,” the Iraqi factions warned, adding that foreign troops were “in their sights”.

    The statement first published last Tuesday further declared there was an “Anglo-American-led dirty and dangerous conspiracy to impose a devilish coalition” on the people of Iraq which seeks to weaken the government and make Baghdad a puppet of Brett McGurk, who is the White House appointed special envoy for the anti-ISIL coalition. 

    The Shia militias later blamed Washington for being behind the mass anti-Iran and anti-Iraqi government protests that engulfed Basra and resulted in the Iranian consulate being burned down along with dozens of Shia militia headquarters and other facilities across the city. 

    “The American Embassy is directing the situation in Basra,” charged Abu Medhi al-Mohandis in public statements. Mohandis is a well-known Shiite militia commander who U.S. officials accuse of long being on Iran’s payroll. 

    All of this also comes after allegations that Iran has transferred ballistic missiles to its proxy forces in Iraq, which are said to be easily capable of hitting Tel Aviv and Riyadh, according to Western and Iraqi intelligence sources cited in a recent Reuters report. 

    Given current broader tensions in the region and charges of “Iranian expansion” it will be interesting to see if the US again ramps up operations in Iraq. Should the proxy war waging across the border in Syria actually come to an end, it may very well be that Iraq again becomes the new ground zero for the West’s anti-Iran proxy war.  

  • Turkey's Latest Power Grab: A Naval Base In Cyprus?

    Authored by Debalina Ghoshal via The Gatestone Institute,

    • The possibility of a Turkish naval base on Cyprus does not bode well for the chances of a Cyprus reunification deal, particularly after the breakdown of the July 2017 peace talks, which were suspended when “Turkey had refused to relinquish its intervention rights on Cyprus or the presence of troops on the island.”

    • Turkey has 30,000 soldiers stationed on Cyprus, the northern part of which it has illegally occupied since 1974.

    • “If Greek-Turkish tensions escalate, the possibility of another ill-timed military provocation could escalate with them… Moreover, such a conflict might open up an even greater opportunity for Russian interference.” – Lawrence A. Franklin.

    Turkey’s Naval Forces Command has “submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that Turkey should establish a naval base in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” according to Turkey’s strongly pro-Erdogan daily, Yeni Safak, which recently endorsed the proposal for the base in an article entitled, “Why Turkey should establish a naval base in Northern Cyprus.”

    “The base will enable the protection of Northern Cyprus’ sovereignty as well as facilitate and fortify Turkey’s rights and interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, preventing the occupation of sea energy fields, and strengthening Turkey’s hand in the Cyprus peace process talks.”

    Having a naval base in northern Cyprus would also strengthen the self-proclaimed “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” which is recognized only by Turkey. Cyprus is strategically important: a naval base there would give Turkey easier access to the Eastern Mediterranean’s international trade routes and greater control over the vast undersea energy resources around Cyprus. In the past, Turkey has blocked foreign vessels from drilling for these resources; in June, Turkey began its own exploration of the island’s waters for gas and oil.

    Turkey’s Naval Forces Command has “submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that Turkey should establish a naval base in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.” Pictured: The Turkish Navy frigate TCG Oruçreis. (Image source: CC-BY-SA-3.0/Brian Burnell via Wikimedia Commons)

    This is not the first time that Turkey has set its sights on the area’s resources. In 2014, Ankara dispatched surveillance vessels and warships to Cyprus’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to search for hydrocarbons. This incident took place just before the leaders of Greece, Cyprus and Egypt deepened their an energy-cooperation, “freezing Turkey out.” As soon as the accord was signed, Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades blasted “Turkey’s provocative actions,” saying that they “do not just compromise the peace talks [between Greek and Turkish Cypriots]… [but] also affect security in the eastern Mediterranean region.”

    At the time, UN-brokered reunification negotiations, which had been renewed after a long hiatus, ended unsuccessfully yet again, as a result of Turkey’s search for hydrocarbons in the EEZ. According to a November 2014 report in the Guardian:

    “Turkey’s decision to dispatch a research vessel into disputed waters last month not only resulted in talks being broken off but has exacerbated the row over drilling rights.”

    The possibility of a Turkish naval base does not bode well for the chances of a Cyprus reunification deal, particularly after the breakdown of the July 2017 peace talks between Turkish-Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci and Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades. The talks were suspended when “Turkey had refused to relinquish its intervention rights on Cyprus or the presence of troops on the island.” Turkey has 30,000 soldiers stationed on Cyprus, the northern part of which it has illegally occupied since 1974.

    Another factor that may be contributing to the Turkish Navy’s desire for a base in Cyprus is Israel. Aside from Ankara’s extremely rocky relations with Jerusalem, Israel and Cyprus have been working to forge an agreement to join their electricity grids and construct a pipeline to link their gas fields to mainland Europe. Although they are in a dispute over development rights of one of these gas fields, Aphrodite, they are invested in reaching a solution that will not damage their increasingly friendly relations.

    Erdogan’s considerations should concern NATO, of which Turkey, surprisingly, is still a member, and the rest of the West. As Lawrence A. Franklin recently wrote for Gatestone:

    “If Greek-Turkish tensions escalate, the possibility of another ill-timed military provocation could escalate with them. The ability of NATO to respond to other conflicts in the area could be affected, as well as NATO air and naval assets based in both countries. Moreover, such a conflict might open up an even greater opportunity for Russian interference.”

  • Putin and Xi Jinping Affirm Both "Oppose Unilateralism And Trade Protectionism" In Summit

    Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping met on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok on the Sino-Russian border Tuesday. Simultaneously Russia and China kicked off unprecedented joint military exercises as part of Russia’s annual Vostok war games, which will run for a week and includes thousands of Chinese People’s Liberation Army troops, and some 300,000 Russian personnel. 

    President Putin has of late sought closer relations with China, which Russia shares a massive 4,200km border with, amidst both countries experiencing deep tensions with the West, including US sanctions against Moscow and a growing trade war between China and Washington.

    It’s the third time this year the two leaders have met and the fact that it was planned at the inauguration of Vostok 2018 no doubt sent a strong signal to Washington that the two countries’ usually chilly relations are warming fast in the face of a common increased threat from the West. 

    According to China’s state broadcaster CCTV, Xi affirmed to Putin that, “Both nations have to oppose unilateralism and trade protectionism, and build a new type of international relations and shared human destiny.”

    The two leaders toast improved relations at the Eastern Economic Forum on Tuesday. 

    Putin in return reportedly pledged mutual good faith commitment to boosting ties, noting the wide range of mutual national interests: “We have a relationship of trust in the sphere of politics, security and defense,” he said. “We know that you [Xi] personally pay great attention to the development of Russian-Chinese relations.”

    The two also discussed areas of potential greater cooperation in science and technology, counterterrorism, as well as China’s ambitious “Belt and Road Initiative”. The two acknowledged their prior one-on-one summits as “fruitful” — the last being their July Johannesburg meeting, and before that a June meeting in Beijing.  

    And significantly, simultaneous to the Putin-Xi meeting, The Hindu reports, it’s more than the Vostok games where on the ground improvement of ties are already happening: 

    On Tuesday, Russia-China Investment Fund (RCIF) — a joint undertaking of the state-owned China Investment Corporation and Russian sovereign wealth fund — announced that a group of of Russian and Chinese businesses are considering 73 joint investment projects, with a cumulative value of more than $100 billion. CNBC reported that cooperation between China and Russia is an issue of global importance as both nations try to achieve economic stability despite the pain of U.S. penalties — sanctions against Russia and an escalating tariff war against China.

    Ahead of Tuesday’s meeting China’s ambassador to Russia, Li Hui, described Sino-Russian relations as being “at their best in history” in statements made on Sunday. President Xi’s attendance at the annual economic forum constitutes the first ever by a Chinese leader.

    Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping make pancakes during a visit to the Far East Street exhibition on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russia. Image source: Reuters

    And concerning China’s sending some 3,200 PLA elite forces troops, along with 30 fix-wing aircraft and helicopters to deploy during the exercise, Carnegie Moscow Center analyst, Alexander Gubuev, summarized why the West will closely monitor the games with increased alarm, per a Financial Times report:

    “This is pretty huge. These major exercises are designed to simulate responses to aggression from external enemies. For decades, China has been considered one of those potential threats. Thus, to invite them to participate suggests that now they are seen as allies against other aggressors.”

    The exercises, which are annual and held in different regions which Moscow considers among four strategic military sectors, are designed to simulate an attack on a foreign power. 

    “Both Beijing and Moscow are looking to demonstrate that trade wars and sanctions will only push them to develop new alliances,” comments senior analyst Florence Cahill for a risk consultancy group as cited in FT. And explained further, “As long as their prevailing worldview is shaped by an animus towards a US-led international order, co-operation on all levels between Moscow and Beijing will likely be more pronounced than competition between them.”

    China’s defense ministry put out a statement Tuesday saying that the country’s participation in Vostok 2018 would enhance the counter-attacking capabilities of its armed forces and reinforce ties with Russia.

    The remarks, no doubt, were intended directly for the Trump administration. 

  • John Whitehead: What I Don't Like About Life In Post-9/11 America

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

     – Edward Abbey, American author

    Life in a post-9/11 America increasingly feels like an endless free fall down a rabbit hole into a terrifying, dystopian alternative reality in which the citizenry has no rights, the government is no friend to freedom, and everything we ever knew and loved about the values and principles that once made this country great has been turned on its head.

    We’ve walked a strange and harrowing road since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties.

    We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade the citizenry to march in lockstep with a police state.

    Osama Bin Laden right warned that “freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”

    These past 17 years have proven Bin Laden right in his prediction.

    What began with the passage of the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse. 

    The citizenry’s unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has resulted in a society where the nation is being locked down into a militarized, mechanized, hypersensitive, legalistic, self-righteous, goose-stepping antithesis of every principle upon which this nation was founded.

    This is not freedom.

    This is a jail cell.

    Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, roving VIPR raids and the like—all of which have been sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—our constitutional freedoms have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded.

    Our losses are mounting with every passing day.

    Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since 9/11.

    Since the towers fell on 9/11, the American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, and denied due process.

    In allowing ourselves to be distracted by terror drills, foreign wars, color-coded warnings, underwear bombers and other carefully constructed exercises in propaganda, sleight of hand, and obfuscation, we failed to recognize that the true enemy to freedom was lurking among us all the while.

    The U.S. government now poses a greater threat to our freedoms than any terrorist, extremist or foreign entity ever could.

    While nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government and its agents have easily killed at least ten times that number of civilians in the U.S. and abroad since 9/11 through its police shootings, SWAT team raids, drone strikes and profit-driven efforts to police the globe, sell weapons to foreign nations, and foment civil unrest in order to keep the military industrial complex gainfully employed.

    No, the U.S. government is not the citizenry’s friend, nor is it our protector, and life in the United States of America post-9/11 is no picnic.

    In the interest of full disclosure, here are some of the things I don’t like about life in a post-9/11 America:

    I don’t like being treated as if my only value to the government is as a source of labor and funds.

    I don’t like being viewed as a consumer and bits of data.

    I don’t like being spied on and treated as if I have no right to privacy, especially in my own home.

    I don’t like government officials who lobby for my vote only to ignore me once elected. I don’t like having representatives incapable of andunwilling to represent me. I don’t like taxation without representation.

    I don’t like being bullied by government bureaucrats, vigilantes masquerading as cops, or faceless technicians.

    I don’t like being railroaded into financing government programs whose only purpose is to increase the power and wealth of the corporate elite.

    I don’t like being forced to pay for wars abroad that serve no other purpose except to expand the reach of the military industrial complex.

    I don’t like being subjected to scans, searches, pat downs and other indignities by the TSA.

    I don’t like VIPR raids on so-called “soft” targets like shopping malls and bus depots by black-clad, Darth Vader look-alikes.

    I don’t like fusion centers, which represent the combined surveillance efforts of federal, state and local law enforcement.

    I don’t like being treated like an underling by government agents who are supposed to be working for me. I don’t like being threatened, intimidated, bribed, beaten and robbed by individuals entrusted with safeguarding my rights. I don’t like being silenced, censored and marginalized. I don’t like my movements being tracked, my conversations being recorded, and my transactions being catalogued.

    I don’t like free speech zones, roving bubble zones and trespass laws that restrict Americans’ First Amendment rights.

    I don’t like laws that criminalize Americans for otherwise lawful activities such as holding religious studies at home, growing vegetables in their yard, and collecting rainwater.

    I don’t like the NDAA, which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely.

    I don’t like the Patriot Act, which opened the door to all manner of government abuses and intrusions on our privacy.

    I don’t like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has become America’s standing army in direct opposition to the dire warnings of those who founded our country. 

    I don’t like military weapons such as armored vehicles, sound cannons and the like being used against the American citizens.

    I don’t like government agencies such as the DHS, Post Office, Social Security Administration and Wildlife stocking up on hollow-point bullets. And I definitely don’t like the implications of detention centers being built that could house American citizens. 

    I don’t like the fact that police departments across the country “have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.”

    I don’t like America’s infatuation with locking people up for life for non-violent crimes. There are thousands of people in America serving life sentences for non-violent crimes, including theft of a jacket, siphoning gasoline from a truck, stealing tools, and attempting to cash a stolen check.

    I don’t like paying roughly $29,000 a year per inmate just to keep these nonviolent offenders in prison.

    I don’t like having my hard-earned taxpayer dollars used against me.

    I don’t like the partisan nature of politics today, which has so polarized Americans that they are incapable of standing in unity against the government’s abuses.

    I don’t like the entertainment drivel that passes for news coverage today.

    I don’t like the fact that those within a 25-mile range of the border are getting a front row seat to the American police state, as Border Patrol agents are now allowed to search people’s homes, intimately probe their bodies, and rifle through their belongings, all without a warrant.

    I don’t like public schools that treat students as if they were prison inmates. I don’t like zero tolerance laws that criminalize childish behavior. I don’t like a public educational system that emphasizes rote memorization and test-taking over learning, synthesizing and critical thinking.

    I don’t like police precincts whose primary purpose—whether through the use of asset forfeiture laws, speed traps, or red light cameras—is making a profit at the expense of those they have sworn to protect. I don’t like militarized police and their onerous SWAT team raids.

    I don’t like Department of Defense and DHS programs that transfer surplus military hardware to local and state police. I don’t like local police dressing and acting as if they were the military while viewing me as an enemy combatant.

    I don’t like government programs that reward cops for raiding homes and terrorizing homeowners.

    I don’t like being treated as if I have no rights.

    I don’t like cash-strapped states cutting deals with private corporations to run the prisons in exchange for maintaining 90% occupancy rates for at least 20 years. I don’t like the fact that American prisons have become the source of cheap labor for Corporate America.

    I don’t like answering to an imperial president who operates above the law.

    I don’t like the injustice that passes for justice in the courts.

    I don’t like prosecutors so hell bent on winning that they allow innocent people to suffer for crimes they didn’t commit.

    I don’t like the double standards that allow government officials to break laws with immunity, while average Americans get the book thrown at them.

    I don’t like cops who shoot first and ask questions later.

    I don’t like police dogs being treated with more respect and afforded more rights than American citizens.

    I don’t like living in a suspect society.

    I don’t like Americans being assumed guilty until they prove their innocence.

    I don’t like technology being used as a double-edged sword against us.

    Most of all, I don’t like feeling as if there’s no hope for turning things around.

    Now there are those who would suggest that if I don’t like things about this country, I should leave and go elsewhere. Certainly, there are those among my fellow citizens who are leaving for friendlier shores. 

    However, I’m not giving up on this country without a fight.

    I plan to keep fighting, writing, speaking up, speaking out, shouting if necessary, filing lawsuits, challenging the status quo, writing letters to the editor, holding my representatives accountable, thinking nationally but acting locally, and generally raising a ruckus anytime the government attempts to undermine the Constitution and ride roughshod over the rights of the citizenry.

    Our country may be in deep trouble, but all is not yet lost.

    The first step begins with you. 

    1. Get educated. Know your rights. Take time to read the Constitution. Study and understand history because the tales of those who seek power and those who resist them is an age-old one. The Declaration of Independence is a testament to this struggle and the revolutionary spirit that overcame tyranny. Understand the vital issues of the day so that you can be cognizant of the threats to freedom. Stay informed about current events and legislation.

    2. Get involved. Become actively involved in local community affairs, politics and legal battles. As the adage goes, “Think nationally, act locally.” America was meant to be primarily a system of local governments, which is a far cry from the colossal federal bureaucracy we have today. Yet if our freedoms are to be restored, understanding what is transpiring practically in your own backyard—in one’s home, neighborhood, school district, town council—and taking action at that local level must be the starting point. Responding to unmet local needs and reacting to injustices is what grassroots activism is all about. Getting involved in local politics is one way to bring about change.

    3. Get organized. Understand your strengths and weaknesses and tap into your resources. Play to your strengths and assets. Conduct strategy sessions to develop both the methods and ways to attack the problem. Prioritize your issues and battles. Don’t limit yourself to protests and paper petitions. Think outside the box. Time is short, and resources are limited, so use your resources in the way they count the most.

    4. Be creative. Be bold and imaginative, for this is guerilla warfare—not to be fought with tanks and guns but through creative methods of dissent and resistance. Creatively responding to circumstances will often be one of your few resources if you are to be an effective agent of change. Every creative effort, no matter how small, is significant.

    5. Use the media. Effective use of the media is essential. Attracting media coverage not only enhances and magnifies your efforts, it is also a valuable education tool. It publicizes your message to a much wider audience. 

    6. Start brushfires for freedom. Take heart that you are not alone. You come from a long, historic line of individuals who have put their beliefs and lives on the line to keep freedom alive. Engage those around you in discussions about issues of importance. Challenge them to be part of a national dialogue. As I have often said, one person at a city planning meeting with a protest sign is an irritant. Three individuals at the same meeting with the same sign are a movement. You will find that those in power fear and respect numbers. This is not to say that lone crusaders are not important. There are times when you will find yourself totally alone in the stand you take. However, there is power in numbers. Politicians understand this. So get out there and start drumming up support for your cause.

    7. Take action. Be prepared to mobilize at a moment’s notice. It doesn’t matter who you are, where you’re located or what resources are at your disposal. What matters is that you recognize the problems and care enough to do something about them. Whether you’re 8, 28 or 88 years old, you have something unique to contribute. You don’t have to be a hero. You just have to show up and be ready to take action.

    8. Be forward-looking. Beware of being so “in the moment” that you neglect to think of the bigger picture. Develop a vision for the future. Is what you’re hoping to achieve enduring? Have you developed a plan to continue to educate others about the problems you’re hoping to tackle and ensure that others will continue in your stead? Take the time to impart the value of freedom to younger generations, for they will be at the vanguard of these battles someday.

    9. Develop fortitude. What is it that led to the successful protest movements of the past headed by people such as Martin Luther King Jr.? Resolve. King refused to be put off. And when the time came, he was willing to take to the streets for what he believed and even go to jail if necessary. King risked having an arrest record by committing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience. A caveat is appropriate here. Before resorting to nonviolent civil disobedience, all reasonable alternatives should be exhausted. If there is an opportunity to alter the course of events through normal channels (for example, negotiation, legal action or legislation), they should be attempted.

    10. Be selfless and sacrificial. Freedom is not free—there is always a price to be paid and a sacrifice to be made. If any movement is to be truly successful, it must be manned by individuals who seek a greater good and do not waver from their purposes. It will take boldness, courage and great sacrifice. Rarely will fame, power and riches be found at the end of this particular road. Those who travel it inevitably find the way marked by hardship, persecution and strife. Yet there is no easy way. 

    11. Remain optimistic and keep hope alive.  Although our rights are increasingly coming under attack, we still have certain freedoms. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we can still fight back. We have the right to dissent, to protest and even to vigorously criticize or oppose the government and its laws. The Constitution guarantees us these rights. In a country such as the United States, a citizen armed with a knowledge of the Bill of Rights and the fortitude to stand and fight can still be a force to be reckoned with, but it will mean speaking out when others are silent.

    Practice persistence, along with perseverance, and the possibilities are endless. You can be the voice of reason. Use your voice to encourage others. Much can be accomplished by merely speaking out. Oftentimes, all it takes is one lone voice to get things started. So if you really care and you’re serious and want to help change things for the better, dust off your First Amendment tools and take a stand – even if it means being ostracized by those who would otherwise support you.

    It won’t be easy, but take heart. And don’t give up.

  • Cryogenics Firm Sued For $1 Million After Mistakenly Cremating Scientist's Body

    Apparently somebody wasn’t using their head.

    A cryogenics firm based in Scottsdale, Ariz. is in hot water after it mistakenly cremated the body of a renowned scientist, preserving only his head, against the wishes of the scientists’ surviving family. Now, the man’s son is hoping to sue the company for $1 million due to the “emotional distress” he suffered as a result of the mistake made by the. The firm, known as the Alcor Life Extension Foundation, has been freezing clients’ heads and bodies since 1982, according to the Daily Telegraph.

    The company is facing a $1 million lawsuit after Kurt Pilgeram said he was sent a package from Alcor “which purportedly contained his father’s cremated remains, except allegedly for his father’s head,” which was being preserved in one of the company’ coolers.

    Max

    Dr. Max More, founder of Alcor (courtesy of the Daily Telegraph)

    According to legal documents, Pilgeram was “shocked, horrified and extremely distressed” when he learned the fate of his father’s body (we imagine he also wanted a refund for $120,000, the difference between the $200,000 the company charges for full-body preservation and the preservation of just a head)

    The younger Pilgeram said having his full body preserved was extremely important to his late father. Meanwhile, Alcor, which is run by Dr. Max More, a British-born scientist, was obligated under an agreement to preserve all of his father’s remains “no matter how damaged” and that the company violated this agreement when it cremated him.

    Dr. Laurence Pilgeram devoted much of his career to researching the aging process. He died back in 2015 at the age of 90 of what’s believed to have been a heart attack.

    The Pilgeram family is now suing Alcor for $1 million.

    “Mr. Pilgeram claims his father would never have paid for the service if he knew his entire body wasn’t going to be preserved,” the lawsuit states.

    Alcor is presently responsible for preserving the remains of 159 individuals.

  • China's 'Digital' Totalitarian Experiment

    Authored by Gordon Chang via The Gatestone Institute,

    • China’s “social credit” system, which will assign every person a constantly updated score based on observed behaviors, is designed to control conduct by giving the ruling Communist Party the ability to administer punishments and hand out rewards. The former deputy director of the State Council’s development research center says the system should be administered so that “discredited people become bankrupt”.

    • Officials prevented Liu Hu, a journalist, from taking a flight because he had a low score. According to the Communist Party-controlled Global Times, as of the end of April 2018, authorities had blocked individuals from taking 11.14 million flights and 4.25 million high-speed rail trips.

    • Chinese officials are using the lists for determining more than just access to planes and trains. “I can’t buy property. My child can’t go to a private school,” Liu said. “You feel you’re being controlled by the list all the time.”

    • Chinese leaders have long been obsessed with what Jiang Zemin in 1995 called “informatization, automation, and intelligentization,” and they are only getting started Given the capabilities they are amassing, they could, the argument goes, make defiance virtually impossible. The question now is whether the increasingly defiant Chinese people will accept President Xi’s all-encompassing vision.

    By 2020, Chinese officials plan to have about 626 million surveillance cameras operating throughout the country. Those cameras will, among other things, feed information into a national “social credit system.”

    That system, when it is in place in perhaps two years, will assign to every person in China a constantly updated score based on observed behaviors. For example, an instance of jaywalking, caught by one of those cameras, will result in a reduction in score.

    Although officials might hope to reduce jaywalking, they seem to have far more sinister ambitions, such as ensuring conformity to Communist Party political demands. In short, the government looks as if it is determined to create what the Economist called “the world’s first digital totalitarian state.”

    China’s President Xi Jinping is not merely an authoritarian leader. He evidently believes the Party must have absolute control over society and he must have absolute control over the Party. He is taking China back to totalitarianism as he seeks Mao-like control over all aspects of society. (Photo by Lintao Zhang/Getty Images)

    That social credit system, once perfected, will surely be extended to foreign companies and individuals.

    At present, there are more than a dozen national blacklists, and about three dozen various localities have been operating experimental social credit scoring systems. Some of those systems have failed miserably. Others, such as the one in Rongcheng in Shandong province, have been considered successful.

    In the Rongcheng system, each resident starts with 1,000 points, and, based upon their changing score, are ranked from A+++ to D. The system has affected behavior: incredibly for China, drivers stop for pedestrians at crosswalks.

    Drivers stop at crosswalks because residents in that city have, as Foreign Policyreported, “embraced” the social credit system. Some like the system so much that they have set up micro social credit systems in schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Social credit systems obviously answer a need for what people in other societies take for granted.

    Yet, can what works on a city level be extended across China? As technology advances and data banks are added, the small experimental programs and the national lists will eventually be merged into one countrywide system. The government has already begun to roll out its “Integrated Joint Operations Platform,” which aggregates data from various sources such as cameras, identification checks, and “wifi sniffers.”

    So, what will the end product look like? “It will not be a unified platform where one can type in his or her ID and get a single three-digit score that will decide their lives,” Foreign Policy says.

    Despite the magazine’s assurances, this type of system is precisely what Chinese officials say they want. After all, they tell us the purpose of the initiative is to “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”

    That description is not an exaggeration. Officials prevented Liu Hu, a journalist, from taking a flight because he had a low score. The Global Times, a tabloid that belongs to the Communist Party-owned People’s Daily, reported that, as of the end of April 2018, authorities had blocked individuals from taking 11.14 million flights and 4.25 million high-speed rail trips.

    Chinese officials, however, are using the lists for determining more than just access to planes and trains. “I can’t buy property. My child can’t go to a private school,” Liu said. “You feel you’re being controlled by the list all the time.”

    The system is designed to control conduct by giving the ruling Communist Party the ability to administer punishments and hand out rewards. And the system could end up being unforgiving. Hou Yunchun, a former deputy director of the State Council’s development research center, said at a forum in Beijing in May that the social credit system should be administered so that “discredited people become bankrupt”.

    “If we don’t increase the cost of being discredited, we are encouraging discredited people to keep at it,” Hou said. “That destroys the whole standard.”

    Not every official has such a vindictive attitude, but it appears that all share the assumption, as the dovish Zhi Zhenfeng of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said, that “discredited people deserve legal consequences.”

    President Xi Jinping, the final and perhaps only arbiter in China, has made it clear how he feels about the availability of second chances. “Once untrustworthy, always restricted,” the Chinese ruler says.

    What happens, then, to a country where only the compliant are allowed to board a plane or be rewarded with discounts for government services? No one quite knows because never before has a government had the ability to constantly assess everyone and then enforce its will. The People’s Republic has been more meticulous in keeping files and ranking residents than previous Chinese governments, and computing power and artificial intelligence are now giving China’s officials extraordinary capabilities.

    Beijing is almost certain to extend the social credit system, which has roots in attempts to control domestic enterprises, to foreign companies. Let us remember that Chinese leaders this year have taken on the world’s travel industry by forcing hotel chains and airlines to show Taiwan as part of the People’s Republic of China, so they have demonstrated determination to intimidate and punish. Once the social credit system is up and running, it would be a small step to include non-Chinese into that system, extending Xi’s tech-fueled totalitarianism to the entire world.

    The dominant narrative in the world’s liberal democracies is that tech favors totalitarianism. It is certainly true that, unrestrained by privacy concerns, hardline regimes are better able to collect, analyze, and use data, which could provide a decisive edge in applying artificial intelligence A democratic government may be able to compile a no-fly list, but none could ever come close to implementing Xi Jinping’s vision of a social credit system.

    Chinese leaders have long been obsessed with what then-President Jiang Zemin in 1995 called “informatization, automation, and intelligentization,” and they are only getting started. Given the capabilities they are amassing, they could, the argument goes, make defiance virtually impossible.

    Technology might even make liberal democracy and free-markets “obsolete” writesYuval Noah Harari of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the Atlantic. “The main handicap of authoritarian regimes in the 20th century — the desire to concentrate all information and power in one place — may become their decisive advantage in the 21st century,” he writes.

    There is no question that technology empowers China’s one-party state to repress people effectively. Exhibit A for this proposition is, of course, the country’s social credit system.

    Yet China’s communists will probably overreach. The country’s experience so far with social credit systems suggests that officials are their own worst enemies. An early experiment to build such a system in Suining county in Jiangsu province was a failure:

    “Both residents and state media blasted it for its seemingly unfair and arbitrary criteria, with one state-run newspaper comparing the system to the ‘good citizen’ certificates issued by Japan during its wartime occupation of China.”

    The Rongcheng system has been more successful because its scope has been relatively modest.

    Xi Jinping will not be as restrained as Rongcheng’s officials. He evidently believes the Party must have absolute control over society and he must have absolute control over the Party. It is simply inconceivable that he will not include in the national social credit system, when it is stitched together, political criteria. Already Chinese officials are trying to use artificial intelligence to predict anti-Party behavior.

    Xi Jinping is not merely an authoritarian leader, as it is often said. He is taking China back to totalitarianism as he seeks Mao-like control over all aspects of society.

    The question now is whether the increasingly defiant Chinese people will accept Xi’s all-encompassing vision. In recent months, many have taken to the streets: truck drivers striking over costs and fees, army veterans marching for pensions, investors blocking government offices to get money back from fraudsters, Muslims surrounding mosques to stop demolition, and parents protesting the scourge of adulterated vaccines, among others. Chinese leaders obviously think their social credit system will stop these and other expressions of discontent.

    Let us hope that China’s people are not in fact discouraged. Given the breadth of the Communist Party’s ambitions, everyone, Chinese or not, has a stake in seeing that Beijing’s digital totalitarianism fails.

  • Fear, Intimidation And Wage Theft: Amazon Delivery Drivers Suffer 'Inhumane' Working Conditions

    As Whole Foods workers push back against the crushing demands of their Amazonian overlords, stories of more labor abuses perpetuated by the e-commerce giant – which has developed a reputation for ruthless efficiency – are coming to light.

    AMZN

    The latest horror story was published on Tuesday by Business Insider, and purports to tell the stories of drivers for Amazon delivery subcontractors who complain about unsafe working conditions and pressure to deliver packages on time at all costs – even if it means speeding, peeing in bottles or delaying critical medical care.

    In interviews over the course of eight months, drivers described a variety of alleged abuses, including lack of overtime pay, missing wages, intimidation, and favoritism. Drivers also described a physically demanding work environment in which, under strict time constraints, they felt pressured to drive at dangerously high speeds, blow stop signs, and skip meal and bathroom breaks.

    Many of their accounts were supported by text messages, photographs, internal emails, legal filings, and peers.

    BI reportedly spoke with 31 current or former drivers for its subcontracted “Amazon Flex” delivery service. These drivers have become a crucial part of its push to circumvent FedEx and UPS, and some of the stories that the organization managed to corroborate wold be unacceptable anywhere else.

    The BI story began with one worker’s story about being told by their supervisor to drop off their packages before heading to the hospital after slicing his hand to the bone.

    Zachariah Vargas was six hours into his shift delivering packages for Amazon.

    He was about to drop off a package when he accidentally slammed the door of his truck on his hand. The door clicked shut, trapping his middle and ring fingers.

    Once he freed his fingers, the blood began to pour. Both of Vargas’ arms started to shake involuntarily. The lacerations were deep. Vargas thought he glimpsed bone when he wiped away the blood.

    Panicked, Vargas called his dispatch supervisor, who was working at a nearby Amazon facility.

    He said he received no sympathy.

    “The first thing they asked was, ‘How many packages do you have left?'” he told Business Insider.

    When the employee pushed back, his supervisor, who operated out of an Amazon facility using Amazon equipment, even though they technically functioned as a subcontractor, gestured to an Amazon floor employee and issued a chilling warning.

    The same manager ordered Vargas to unload his truck and pointed toward an Amazon official at the warehouse and told him: “Amazon is watching you. They don’t like when undelivered packages come back.”

    But while these employees suffer abuses and indignities meted out by their mercenary bosses, Amazon is reveling in its “cost-effective” employment structure whereby it can utilize employee labor without taking responsibility for the employees.

    For Amazon, paying third-party companies to deliver packages is a cost-effective alternative to providing full employment. And the speed of two-day shipping is great for consumers. But delivering that many packages isn’t easy, and the job is riddled with problems, according to interviews with 31 current or recently employed Amazon-affiliated delivery workers with experience across 14 third-party companies spanning 13 cities.

    Given the company’s reputation for treating its workers like expendable meat puppets, it’s hardly a surprise that Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced the Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (Stop BEZOS) Act. The bill, which was named to implicate Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, would tax corporations with at least 500 employees for the value of public assistance those workers receive.

    * * *

    But while Amazon contractors struggle to make ends meet, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and the rest of the company’s board are heading to Washington for a series of meetings, dinners and even a widely hyped speaking engagement that have kick-started rumors that Washington DC will be the location of Amazon’s HQ2. The company, which launched the search a year ago, has reportedly been kicking the tires of different locations in the DC metro area, including towns in Maryland and Virginia, according to the Washington Post. 

    Amazon has booked the Renwick Gallery for a 40-person dinner on Tuesday, though neither the museum or Amazon would offer any details about the event. On Thursday, Bezos is set to give a talk at the Economic Club of Washington that is expected to be its most popular event since Warren Buffett spoke there in 2012. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser are all expected to attend. Bezos will also deliver the keynote address at an Air Force conference at National Harbor on Sept. 19, which WaPo suggested could be tied to Amazon Web Services’ pursuit of a massive contract with the Pentagon that could be worth $10 billion over 10 years.

    And despite the recent FAANG pullback, Amazon shares continue to hover just below $2,000 a share, leaving Bezos, the world’s wealthiest man, with a fortune of more than $150 billion.

  • ECB Preview: Taper On Autopilot As Growth Is Downgraded

    Unanimous expectations for tomorrow’s ECB policy decision – due at 7:45AM ET with a press conference at 8:30AM ET – is for the central bank to leave its three key rates and tapering schedule unchanged, while macroeconomic projections are set to see a minor downgrade to growth forecasts. During the presser, Draghi is set to be grilled on trade protectionism, concerns surrounding Italy and the Bank’s reinvestment policy.

    Below is a full preview of what to expect tomorrow, courtesy of RanSquawk.

    BACKGROUND

    PREVIOUS MEETING: The July meeting saw little in the way of fireworks after the Bank reiterated their view that they expect key rates to remain at present levels at least through the Summer of 2019, and as long as necessary to ensure the continued sustained convergence of inflation. During the accompanying press conference, Draghi gave little away and pushed back on questions trying to get him to pin down an exact timeframe for the next rate move by the ECB. Furthermore, Draghi stated that uncertainties relating to the trade environment remain prominent, but the Euro area economy is solid and broad-based.

    ECB MINUTES: The minutes from the meeting were equally uninspiring and provided the market with little in the way of traction with the account highlighting that the threat of protectionism and prominent trade tensions could weigh on confidence. Furthermore, policymakers were unanimous in maintaining the policy stance and were satisfied that the June decisions are well understood.

    SOURCE REPORTS: The only noteworthy sources since the previous meeting came this week with people familiar with the matter suggesting that the ECB will marginally downgrade growth forecasts and see downside risks to growth due to weaker external demand; inflation outlook set to be unchanged.

    ECB RHETORIC: Commentary from the Bank has also been quiet over the summer period with little in the way of market moving rhetoric. Some have placed focus on the recent comms from ECB’s Rehn who some view as a potential successor to Draghi next year, with the central banker recently suggesting that markets are correctly interpreting the ECB’s rate guidance. Elsewhere, the new(ish) VP at the Bank, de Guindos, stated that economic growth in the Euro area remains solid and broad-based whilst noting that risks surrounding the growth outlook are balanced, but uncertainties remain; something which appears to be in-fitting with the central narrative on the governing council. Finally, Nowotny has continued to stick to his hawkish stance by recommending that the ECB should focus on getting the deposit rate out of negative territory and is in favour of a faster pace of policy normalisation.

    DATA: In terms of developments since the previous meeting, Q2 Q/Q GDP printed at 0.4% (ECB Exp. 0.5%) with Y/Y growth slowing to 2.2% vs. 2.5% seen in Q1. On the inflation front, July headline Y/Y CPI rose to 2.1% (highest since Dec 2012) from the 2.0% seen in June, whilst core CPI rose to 1.1% in July (highest since Sep 2017) but remains subdued overall, according to GS. Elsewhere, for soft data, UBS highlights that “the July and August PMIs indicate an unchanged pace of growth, at 0.4% Q/Q; this would imply a Y/Y rate of 1.8%. In terms of the FX rate, GS states that the EUR has risen around 1% on a TWI-basis. Finally, encouraging signs have been seen on the wage front with Q2 wage growth picking up by 2.2%.

    CURRENT ECB FORWARD GUIDANCE (INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT)

    RATES: We continue to expect them to remain at their present levels at least through the summer of 2019, and in any case for as long as necessary to ensure the continued sustained convergence of inflation to levels that are below, but close to, 2% over the medium term. (Jul 26th)

    ASSET PURCHASES: We anticipate that, after September 2018, subject to incoming data confirming our medium-term inflation outlook, we will reduce the monthly pace of the net asset purchases to €15 billion until the end of December 2018 and then end net purchases. We intend to reinvest the principal payments from maturing securities purchased under the APP for an extended period of time after the end of our net asset purchases, and in any case for as long as necessary to maintain favourable liquidity conditions and an ample degree of monetary accommodation. (Jul 26th)

    GROWTH/TRADE: The risks surrounding the euro area growth outlook can still be assessed as broadly balanced. Uncertainties related to global factors, notably the threat of protectionism, remain prominent. Moreover, the risk of persistent heightened financial market volatility continues to warrant monitoring. (Jul 26th)

    INFLATION: The underlying strength of the economy confirms our confidence that the sustained convergence of inflation to our aim will continue in the period ahead and will be maintained even after a gradual winding-down of our net asset purchases. Nevertheless, significant monetary policy stimulus is still needed to support the further build-up of domestic price pressures and headline inflation developments over the medium term. (Jul 26th)

    POTENTIAL ADJUSTMENTS TO ECB FORWARD GUIDANCE (INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT)

    RATES: No changes expected given that the guidance was altered at the June meeting and there has been little in the way to alter their expectations for rate lift-off, particularly given that the forecast is towards the back-end of next year. Changes on this front are not expected until nearer the time of the first rate hike. Interestingly, SocGen have floated the idea of a potential Fed-style dot-plot but there has been little sign thus far of such a policy being implemented.

    ASSET PURCHASES: Similar to rate guidance, given that changes were made on this front at the June meeting and there has been little reason for the ECB to make adjustments on curtailing bond purchases, this part of the statement is expected to remain the same. At this stage, only a major imminent economic crisis could deter the ECB from carrying on with their planned unwind.

    GROWTH/TRADE: As stated above, this week’s ECB source reports suggested the Bank sees downside risks to growth due to weaker external demand. That said, a complete overhaul of communication is seen as unlikely as policymakers attempt to navigate their way out of their PSPP without incident. On the trade front, SocGen suggests that “the Governing Council is not expected to have a better picture of the risk of a trade war with the US,” whilst Morgan Stanley expect the issue of trade protectionism to be continued to be described as a ‘prominent risk’.

    INFLATION: RBC “don’t expect Draghi’s central message on inflation to change much from the last meeting” with the ECB President due to downplay the importance of the recent performance for headline CPI given the struggles the Bank continues to face with core inflation.

    WHAT TO WATCH OUT FOR

    ECB STAFF PROJECTIONS:

    • ECB JUNE 2018 HICP PROJECTIONS: HICP 1.7% in 2018 (Prev. 1.4%), 1.7% in 2019 (Prev. 1.4%), 1.7% 2020 (Prev. 1.7%).
    • ECB JUNE 2018 GROWTH PROJECTIONS: GDP in 2018 2.1% (Prev. 2.4%), 1.9% in 2019 (Prev. 1.9%), 1.7% in 2020 (Prev 1.7%)

    Growth: Overall, growth forecasts are set to see little in the way of material changes as per source reports. UBS argues that there is a possibility for a minor downward revision to the 2018 2.1% forecast given the failure of Q2 EZ GDP (0.4% Q/Q) to show the rebound that some had been looking for (including the ECB) to 0.5%. However, UBS tempers this by highlighting that upward revisions to prior GDP prints could act as an off-setting factor. 2019 and 2020 growth forecasts are largely seen as unchanged.

    Inflation: Inflation projections are set to come in unchanged from the levels predicted in June (as per sources) with RBC explaining that given the cut-off period for forecasts, the energy weakness seen in mid-August will lead to a lower oil price assumption than in June. Furthermore, RBC anticipate the ECB using a slightly firmer trade-weighted exchange rate but ultimately don’t see either of these changes being of sufficient magnitude to impact the inflation profile.

    PRESS CONFERENCE:

    In a similar vein to the previous press conference, this week’s offering by Draghi could once again disappoint those looking for volatility. With the ECB seemingly on auto-pilot mode ahead of the conclusion of its PSPP programme and not expected to move on rates until “at least through the summer of 2019”, the topics for discussion are relatively limited.

    It is unlikely that journalists will use this meeting as an opportunity to grill the ECB President on what exactly “at least through the summer of 2019” means given his resistance to such questions last time around. Furthermore, Draghi will also likely take a similar approach this time to any questions about his tenure despite continued speculation over who his successor could be next year.

    Naturally, a bulk of the focus for the press conference could centre around the updated economic projections, trade protectionism and general economic commentary (as discussed above) with no immediate policy decisions expected.

    That said, one matter that could be a line of inquiry at the conference could be the Bank’s view on reinvestments. More specifically, with the PSPP winding down during Q4, markets will require greater clarity on the ECB’s approach to reinvestments with speculation fuelled by reports in July over a potential “operation twist” mechanism. UBS believes that the “ECB has some flexibility to extend the duration of monthly PSPP purchases to at least partially offset the PSPP portfolio maturity decay”. However, the Swiss-bank concedes that such an issue faces “implementation constraints due to issue(r) limits, limited flexibility on capital key allocation and fragmented liquidity across the EGB markets are likely to prevent the ECB from formalising a duration target for the PSPP portfolio”. Overall, SocGen do not see this as a pressing issue and ultimately “see no material policy impact from these decisions”.

    Focus continues to reside on Italy with the newly-installed government taking an increasingly conciliatory tone with regards to their budgetary intentions. Despite this seemingly new approach from the populists, a clash between the nation and the EU seems almost inevitable. Such a clash would lead to grave concerns over Italy’s fiscal discipline with worries also heightened by fears over the nation’s intentions for debt held at the ECB. Subsequently, journalists will likely probe Draghi on his views on the matter and what mechanisms the Bank has to counter any potential Italian crisis. However, Goldman Sachs expect “Mr. Draghi to avoid making any direct market commentary related to Italy or Italian policy proposals. With regards to ECB treatment of Italian debt, we expect Mr. Draghi to be nonspecific and refer to the general rules already in place.

    MARKET REACTION:

    See below for ING’s ECB scenario analysis chart

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Sep 12

Today’s News 12th September 2018

  • Former Barclays' CEO: "We Have to Continue Raising Rates"

    Bob Diamond, former CEO of Barclay’s, went on record with Bloomberg this week and stated that the Federal Reserve needs to raise interest rates so that the central bank could have resources for use in the future, should they need it.

    Of late, there has been a significant amount of discussion about whether or not the Fed’s monetary policy is doing more harm than good, potentially backing the Fed into a corner and leaving it without tools for recourse in the event of an upcoming recession. Diamond is the latest voice to chime in, and he knows a little about crises: he helped lead Barclays’ purchase of parts of Lehman brothers after its bankruptcy ten years ago.

    “There is no question that we have to continue raising rates and get back to a more normalized level. The thing I worry about is, if there is a crisis or accident, and something has to be done, do we have the tools? Have we used all the ammunition in monetary policy?” Diamond asked on Bloomberg TV this week.

    He also states the obvious in noting that the slashing of interest rates and the purchase of $1 trillion in mortgage related securities helped generate a “recovery” after the crisis in 2008. But now, here we are, a decade later and interest rates don’t yet sit above 3%, despite the stock market’s record run over the last decade. And Diamond is concerned by that.

    He believes that quantitative easing has left central banks “ill-equipped” to act the next time a crash hits. He believes that it may be difficult for the Fed to raise rates now, especially given the fact that about $8 trillion dollars in US corporate debt comes due by 2020, but that raising them now would certainly be a better option than waiting until we are in the midst of a full blown (probably inflationary) crisis that would force such a move.

    The economy can bear the brunt of rate hikes now, and so we should start to get more aggressive as a way to prepare for the future.

    Diamond stressed the importance of having options. “We have a recipe for issues, and how we manage through that is the single biggest impact of the financial crisis today,” he told Bloomberg.

    Yesterday, we wrote an article about former IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard, who took the opposite view and didn’t seem to think the Fed was out of tools at all: he suggested that the Fed could start buying stocks, as well as goods and services, during the next recession.

    We found it hilarious that economists are only now starting to realize that this lack of firepower could be a detriment to the Federal Reserve in the future. Blanchard stated over the weekend that the Fed could probably handle a small recession, but a more major recession, like the one we experienced in 2008, should prompt the Fed to resort to “previously unheard of policies”.

    As we concluded yesterday, nobody seems to realize that the reason we are in a place where central banks had to buy $15 trillion in assets is because of this type of thinking to begin with. 

    We asked yesterday, “What will this discussion look like in another 10 years, after the next crisis?”

    But the only certainty we could arrive at was that every problem we’ll be dealing in the future will be exactly what we deserve.

  • US Efforts To Halt Eurasian Integration Are Failing Miserably

    Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The operation of the Syrian Arab Army in the province of Idlib represents the last step of the central government of Damascus in the liberation of the country from the scourge of Islamist terrorism. With the defeat of Daesh and the removal of the remaining pockets of resistance, Assad’s soldiers have accomplished an extraordinary task. Meanwhile, the United States continues its illegal presence in Syria, through its support of the SDF in the north of the country for the purposes of sustaining the destabilizing potential of terrorist networks in the region and beyond. In light of this unfavorable situation for the Americans, it is easy to explain the transfer of commanders and high terrorist spheres from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan, as confirmed by several official Russian, Iranian, Syrian and Iraqi sources.

    The logic behind such a move has everything to do with the ongoing process of Eurasian integration. Progress in this regard has been multifaceted in recent months and years. It ranges from the most important event, namely the entry of Pakistan and India into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), to other less known events, such as the signing of the Caspian Sea treaty by Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan. The United States is committed to stopping this integration. Staying true to Brzezinski’s grand strategy, based on the concepts of Heartland and Rimland, it has not been difficult for policy makers and advisors of the current US administration to understand the importance of Afghanistan in helping the process of Eurasian integration by fomenting terrorism. Afghanistan plays an important double role as a hinge between both Eurasia and the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

    The central geographical position of the Afghan state gives it an important geopolitical role, especially from 2001, when it was illegally invaded under false pretenses and without justifying proof (as recently documented by The Corbett Report). The complicated relations between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan derive essentially from the destabilizing role played by Pakistan (especially its military and intelligence wings) in Afghanistan from the 1980s to today, courtesy of financial support received from Saudi Arabia and the political, and military and intelligence support from the US. Islamabad has for decades made itself available as a launching pad for more or less official operations since the times of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The Mujahideen, supported by Reagan and declared “Freedom Fighters”, are none other than the forebears of today’s Al Qaeda terrorists, which has mutated into other appellations in Syria like Al Nusra and Daesh. The formula has changed little over the last 30 years, the ingredients being Saudi money, Pakistani support, and American weaponry and intelligence.

    Eurasian integration has accelerated considerably in recent years thanks to the influence of Russia and China in the region. Over a short time, Beijing has proposed the construction of various infrastructure projects (the most famous being the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC) in Pakistan to improve the transport network as well as the delivery of goods and trade. Pakistan was one of the first countries to adhere politically and economically to the Chinese initiative known as One Belt One Road (renamed the Belt Road Initiative, or BRI). Thanks to Moscow’s skilful diplomatic and political work, New Delhi’s pronounced distrust of the new alliance between China and Pakistan has decreased. Putin and Xi Jinping have literally accompanied over months, if not years, the process of rapprochement between Pakistan, India, Russia and China, with the aim of laying the foundations for an entry of the two countries into the SCO. The idea of ​​Xi and Putin is based on a strategic parity between New Delhi and Islamabad, well balanced thanks to two friendly countries like Russia and China.

    The entry into the SCO was already broached in 2015 as a revolutionary act for the region, with the clear objective of working together to pacify Afghanistan and to advance the commercial and social integration of the Eurasian continent. Terrorism is a monumental challenge in this context and one of the main threats to the Chinese BRI project. Both Moscow and Beijing need to protect their commercial and financial projects in the region by preventing the use of terrorism as a means of sabotaging future rail, road and energy-development projects. The intention to use the SCO as an international framework to bring the five key players of the region (Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, China and Russia) to the same table is a master stroke for which Xi Jinping and Putin will be remembered.

    Putin and Xi Jinping have a lot to offer in almost all the proposals made, from military defense guaranteed by alliances or arms sales, to economic benefits stemming from Beijing’s financial power. Moscow and Beijing offer both military sovereignty and economic cover to countries that have always been easy targets for terrorism, corruption and malfeasance as a result of the attention they attract from Beijing and Moscow’s political opponents, mainly Washington. Afghanistan is an example, but the agreement signed concerning the Caspian Sea is also a clear example of Eurasian integration prevailing over every external attempt to influence events in Washington’s favor. The agreement signed in Aktau, between Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan, forever seals any military expansionist aims of the United States or its allies. In the Caspian Sea, no foreign military presence will ever be allowed, not even temporarily.

    The agreement on the Caspian Sea is a great victory for Moscow, together with the tripartite discussions between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, which allow for Russia to strengthen its southern borders, expand new trade alliances, and actively combat terrorism in all its forms (including the Taliban in Afghanistan). For Beijing, these tripartite talks advance two key factors influencing the development of the BRI.

    Firstly, it mitigates, and if necessary combats, the danger of terrorism, often used as an instrument against the BRI’s infrastructure by China’s adversaries, typically the US.

    Secondly, it deepens talks with the Indian counterpart and opens more channels of communication between Beijing and New Delhi as well as between Modi and Xi Jinping.

    Although both countries are members of the BRICS, India has an intense relationship with Washington allies Australia and Japan. New Delhi tries to present itself as a balancing actor that offers an alternative to minor countries in Southeast Asia. Washington would like to use Indian influence to play these countries against China, but New Delhi and Beijing are working to prevent this in favor of broader Eurasian integration.

    In spite of what Washington may hope for and encourage, New Delhi’s role does not necessarily come into conflict with Beijing’s policies in the region. To overcome existing tensions, especially after the clashes on their common border more than a year ago, it was crucial to create a framework suitable to eliminate distrust between the two countries and increase mutual confidence. In this sense, India’s entry into the SCO represents a great incentive for a constant improvement in relations between the two countries. It should be remembered that trade between Beijing and New Delhi is constantly increasing and personal relations between Modi and Xi Jinping have repeatedly shown themselves to be at important levels. The entry of Pakistan and Afghanistan into the equation makes the picture more complicated, but certainly not impossible. Such forums for negotiations as the SCO provides allows for the ironing out of differences.

    Meanwhile, Washington is not standing idly by watching this Eurasian integration proceed unopposed, and has begun to create the ideal conditions for further chaos in Afghanistan. The Taliban, having remained undefeated over the last 18 years of war, have started new offensives in the country, even expanding into areas they have never controlled since the Americans arrived. They could end up controlling more territory than before the War on Terror began. Washington struggles to impose stable control over the territory. But it also has every interest in ensuring that Afghanistan remains a source of instability in the region, also involving Pakistan in this process, exacerbating the frictions between New Delhi and Islamabad and possibly involving Beijing as well.

    Persistent and credible reports continue to indicate the relocation from Syria of a large number of local leaders and commanders of terrorist groups supported by Washington. In addition to saving them from sure defeat at the hands of the Syrian Arab Army, the United States has begun to relocate numerous extremist Salafists loyal to the ISIS to the Eurasian country for more than a year. It is therefore not surprising that the increasing presence of ISIS in Afghanistan has led to clashes with the Taliban, engaging in a power struggle over money and drug-trade routes.

    As the contrasting examples of Syria and Libya showed, alliances between countries is what make a genuine struggle against international terrorism effective. In Afghanistan the situation is complicated by the presence and interference of the United States. But after 18 years, the White House’s excuse of being there to fight terrorism is wearing thin. Not coincidentally, Afghanistan is an observer member of the SCO, holding increasingly frequent talks with all the parties involved, specifically with China, Russia, India and Pakistan. The direction is decidedly towards an alliance that has as its ultimate objective the elimination of Daesh in the country and a political dialogue with the Taliban, even if this second objective is only currently a vague possibility.

    The United States is committing the same mistake in Afghanistan that it committed in Iraq following the war in 2003 and and in Libya following the killing of Gaddafi in 2011. These countries, which were not openly hostile to the United States (especially Saddam Hussein, who was strongly anti-Iranian), today find themselves in chaos (Libya), with Washington and Italy playing a weak hand in supporting the Fayez al-Sarraj government while that of General Haftar controls more than half of the country with Russian and French support. In Iraq, the government is openly pro-Shia, maintaining privileged, direct relations with Iran and allowing Russia to use its airspace to target US-backed terrorists.

    Washington, using tactics of destruction and chaos, has forced several countries to seek protection from the likes of Russia and Iran. Afghanistan is moving in the same direction, even though the country currently has tens of thousands of foreign troops who will eventually have to end their war mission under the the NATO banner, finally freeing the region from the negative influence of Washington and her allies.

    Washington’s recent choices certainly do not help advance American interests in the region. Trump has blocked some funding for the Pakistani armed forces as well as several joint training courses between the Pakistani and American intelligence services. Washington is also blocking 300 million dollars of aid on the basis of Islamabad not acting sufficiently to combat militants.

    Russia in the north, China in the east and Iran in the South are ready to integrate the strategic triangle between their borders (the Caspian Sea, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India), into the Eurasian plan of development and progress. Despite Washington’s attempts at sabotage, whether economically or militarily, covertly or overtly, the path towards a new Eurasian century seems linked to events like the treaty on the Caspian Sea, the ending of the war in Syria, and the deterioration of security conditions in Afghanistan. These are all events that mark the end of American hegemony in the region.

    Piece by piece, China, Russia and Iran are snatching historic allies such as Turkey and Pakistan away from Washington, with the ultimate goal of pushing American influence out of the region. Without these key allies, Washington’s capacity to destabilize the region is reduced considerably. The agreement on the Caspian Sea, like the SCO in Central Asia, therefore serves the purpose of preventing external interference, especially by the United States.

    In the name of effectively fighting terrorism and stabilizing key countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria, China and Russia are advancing the project of Eurasian integration for the benefit of the whole region and beyond. Washington will have little capacity to throw a spanner in the works and attempt to sabotage the whole project as it finds itself progressively pushed out of the region.

  • There Is No Patriot Or Spartacus Here – Just Politics

    Authored by Peter van Buren via The American Conservative,

    There are ways for officials to honorably dissent, like blowing a whistle, resigning, or penning a protest with your actual name on it.

    The anonymous New York Times op-ed writer inside government thwarting Trump’s plans does not understand how government works. Amplified by worn accusations in Bob Woodward’s new book, the op-ed is nonetheless driving calls for Trump’s removal under the 25th Amendment to save America. But look closer: there are no patriots here, and little new; it’s all nasty politics.

    You don’t join government to do whatever partisan thing you think is right; you serve the United States, and take an oath to a Constitution which spells out a system and chain of command. There is no Article 8 saying “but if you really disagree with the president it’s OK to just do what you want.”

    I served 24 years in such a system, joining the State Department under Ronald Reagan and leaving during the Obama era. That splay of political ideologies had plenty of things in it my colleagues and I disagreed with or even believed dangerous. Same for people in the military, who were told who to kill on America’s behalf, a more significant moral issue than a wonky disagreement over a trade deal or a boorish tweet.

    But the only way for America to function credibly was for us to work on her behalf, and that meant following the boss, the system created by the Constitution, and remembering you weren’t the one elected, and that you ultimately worked for those who did the electing. There were ways to honorably dissent, such as resigning, or writing a book with your name on the cover (my choice), and otherwise taking your lumps.

    But acting as a wrench inside the gears of government to disaffect policy (the Washington Post warned “sleeper cells have awoken”) is what foreign intelligence officers recruit American officials to do, and that doesn’t make you a hero acting on conscience, just a traitor.

    It seems odd someone labeled a senior official by the New York Times would not understand the difference before defining themselves forever by writing such an article. (Then again, Sen. Cory Booker didn’t seem to know the documents he was so bravely disclosing were already declassified before he called the gesture his “I am Spartacus moment.”)

    So don’t be too surprised if the op-ed author turns out to be a junior official not in a position to know what they claim to know, a political appointee in a first government job reporting second- or third-hand rumors—maybe an ex-Bushie in over their head. That will raise important questions about whether the NYTexaggerated the official’s importance, and thus credibility, and whether anonymity was being used to buff up the narrative by encouraging speculation.

    Next up: sorting out the “new” facts forming the underbelly of calls to end the Trump presidency. The op-ed’s release was set by the Times to perfectly dovetail with Bob Woodward’s new book, Fear (It would be interesting to know how much of this was created by the Times — did the paper encourage the heretofore unidentified ‘patriot’ to write? Did they have to be persuaded? How much editing was done? How far from the role of journalism into political activism did the Timesstray?)

    Neither the book nor the op-ed breaks any new ground. Both are chock full of gossip, rumors, and half-truths present from Trump day one and already ladled out by Michael Wolff’s own nearly-forgotten book and Omarosa’s unheard recordings: the man is clinically insane, has the mind of a child, acts impulsively, and is thus dangerous. Same stuff but now 18 months shinier and sexier—Woodward! Watergate! Anonymous! Deep Throat! It’s clever recycling, a way to appear controversial without inviting skepticism by telling people what they already believe because they’ve already heard it. What seems like confirmation is just repetition.

    There are plenty of accusations in Woodward’s book (“Trump is not smart“) that were quickly denied by those quoted (Jim Mattis and JohnKelly, for example.) But one new item, the claim that Gary Cohn, Trump’s former economic adviser, walked into the Oval Office and snatched a letter off Trump’s desk, suggests how sloppy the reporting is. Cohn supposedly stopped Trump from pulling out of a trade agreement with South Korea by stealing an implementing letter, preventing Trump from signing it. Woodard writes Cohn did the same thing on another occasion to stop Trump pulling out of NAFTA.

    “Paper” inside government, especially for the president’s signature, does not simply disappear. Any document reaching a senior official’s desk has been tasked out to other people to work on. The process usually begins when questions are asked at higher levels and then sent down to the bureaucracy; no president is expected to know it’s Article 24.5 of an agreement that allows withdrawal. That request creates a paper trail and establishes stakeholders in the decision, for example, people standing by to implement a decision or needing to know ahead of negotiations with Seoul POTUS changed his mind.

    So paper isn’t forgotten. I know, I had a job working as the Ambassador’s staff assistant in London where most of my day was spent tracking letters and memos on his behalf. Inside the State Department an entire office known as The Line does little else but keep track of paper flowing in and out of the Secretary of State’s actual In/Out boxes. This isn’t just bureaucratic banality at work; this is how things get done in government, as documents with the president’s signature instantly turn into orders.

    So even if, playing to the public image of a dotard-in-chief, Trump didn’t remember calling for that letter on South Korea, and thus never missed it after Cohn allegedly stole it to change history, a lot of other people would have gone looking for it. Stealing a letter off the president’s desk is not the equivalent of hiding the remote to keep grandpa from changing channels. And that’s to call the claim absurd even before noting how few individuals the Secret Service allows into the Oval Office on their own to grab stuff. While the example of the stolen letter is a bit down in the bureaucratic weeds, it is important because what is being widely reported, and accepted, is not always true.

    The final part of all this which doesn’t pass a sniff test is according to the op-ed, 25th Amendment procedures to remove the president from office were discussed at the Cabinet level. The 25th, passed after the Kennedy assassination, created a set of presidential succession rules, historically used for short handovers of power when a president has gone under anesthesia. Most relevant is the never-used full incapacitation clause.

    An 2018 interpretation of that clause made popular by TV pundits is now the driver behind demands that Trump is so stupid, impulsive, and insane he cannot carry out his duties, and so power must be transferred away from him today. While the op-ed writer says the idea was shelved only to avoid a Constitutional crisis, in fact it makes no sense. The 25th’s legally specific term “unable” does not mean the same thing as the vernacular “unfit.” An unconscious man is unable (the word used in the Amendment) to drive. A man who forgot his glasses is unfit (not the word used in the Amendment), but still able, to drive, albeit poorly.

    The use of the 25th to get Trump out of office is the kind of thing people with too much Google time, not senior officials with access to legal advice, convince themselves is true. The intent of the amendment was to create an administrativeprocedure, not a political thunderbolt.

    But intent aside, the main reason senior officials would know the 25th is not intended to be used adversarially is the Constitution already specifies impeachment as the way to force an unfit president out. The 25th was not written to be a new flavor of impeachment or a do-over for an election. It has to be so; the Constitution at its core grants ultimate power to the people to decide, deliberately, not in panic, every four years, who is president. Anything otherwise would mean the drafters of the 25th wrote a backdoor into the Constitution allowing a group of officials, most of whom were elected by nobody, to overthrow an elected president they simply think turned out to be bad at his job.

    The alarmist accusations against Trump, especially when invoking mental illness to claim Americans are in danger, are perfectly timed fodder, dropped right after Labor Day into the election season, to displace the grinding technicalities of a Russiagate investigation. Political opponents of Trump had been counting on Mueller by now to hand them November amid a wash of indictments, and thus tee up impeachment with a Democratic majority in the House.

    The op-ed does indeed signal a crisis, but not a Constitutional one. It is a crisis of collusion, among journalists turned to the task of removing a president via what some would call a soft coup.

    Because it’s either that, or we’re meant as a nation to believe an election should be overturned two years after the fact based on a vaguely-sourced tell-all book and an anonymous op-ed.

  • How To Explain The Cause Of The Syrian War In 2 Minutes

    The last time time President Trump launched massive strikes on Syria in April of 2018, Jeffrey Sachs went on MSNBC’s Morning Joe just two days before the attack to give the American public a perspective they had never heard aired on a major cable network.

    Importantly, Sachs is not some random unknown blogger or obscure editorial writer, but a renowned Columbia University professor and career Harvard academic who has won numerous awards and serves as special economic adviser to the U.N.

    During the panel Sachs appeared to shock his hosts with erudite analysis of how the seven-year long war in Syria has fundamentally been fueled by covert regime change from the West and its Gulf allies — a rare if not unheard of subject for the show. 

    In a mere two minutes Sachs cut through the soundbites even as — just like now — the Trump administration was advancing completely unverified claims of an Assad chemical attack on civilians in order to prep the public for military intervention. 

    Sachs told the MSNBC panel:

    We know they sent in the CIA to overthrow Assad. The CIA and Saudi Arabia together in covert operations tried to overthrow Assad. It was a disaster.

    Eventually it brought in both ISIS as a splinter group to the jihadists that went in, it also brought in Russia. 

    So we have been digging deeper and deeper and deeper. What we should do now is get out, and not continue to throw missiles, not have a confrontation with Russia…

    As we now have nearly the exact same situation a mere six months later with the current war of words between the US and Russia, and the potential for a “chemical provocation” in Idlib which could ignite a dangerous escalation toward World War 3, Jeffrey Sachs’ words are now more urgent than ever.

    Here’s how to explain the cause of the Syrian war in 2 minutes…

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

    In the full interview, Sachs went on to summarize:

    This happened because of us… We started a war to overthrow a regime. It was covert… a major war effort, shrouded in secrecy, never debated by Congress, never explained to the American people… And this created chaos, and so just throwing more missiles in right now is not a response.

    He also insisted in the full segment:

    This is the CIA, this is the Pentagon, wanting to keep Iran and Russia out of Syria. But no way to do that. And so we have made a proxy war in Syria. It’s killed 500,000 people, displaced 10 million. And I’ll say – predictably so.

    There was wasn’t much the talking heads sitting across from the UN economist could say after that. 

  • Paul Craig Roberts: Armageddon Rides In The Balance

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    For some time I have pointed out the paradox of the American liberal/progressive/left being allied with the CIA, FBI, military/security complex and deep state. Now leftist Ann Garrison has noticed the paradox of this alliance. She concludes that the left has lost its mind.

    Indeed, it has.

    Out of its hatred of Trump the left has united with the forces of evil and war that are leading to conflict with Russia. The left’s hatred of Trump shows that the American left has totally separated from the interests of the working class, which elected Trump. The American left has abandoned the working class for the group victimizations and hatreds of Identity Politics. As Hillary put it, the working class comprises the “Trump deplorables.” The Democratic Party, like the Republicans, represents the ruling oligarchy.

    I have explained that the leftwing lost its bearings when the Soviet Union collapsed and socialism gave way to neoliberal privatizations. The moral fury of the leftwing movement had to go somewhere, and it found its home in Identity Politics in which the white heterosexual male takes the place of the capitalist, and his victim groups—blacks, women, homosexuals, illegal immigrants – take the place of the working class.

    The consequences of the leftwing’s alliance with warmongers and liars is the leftwing’s loss of veracity. The left has endorsed a CIA orchestration – “Russiagate” – for which there is no known evidence, but which the left supports as proven truth.

    The purpose of “Russiagate” is to prevent President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia. In these times when so many Americans are hard pressed, normal relations could adversely impact the budget and power of the military/security complex by reducing the “Russian threat.” If there is no real Russian threat, only an orchestrated perceived one, the question arises: why does the military/security complex have a taxpayer-supported annual budget of $1,000 billion dollars?

    The presstitutes have kept the truth from emerging that the “Russiagate” investigation has found no sign of a Trump/Putin plot to steal the 2016 presidential election from Hillary. Indeed, it has been proven beyond all questioning that the Hillary emails were not hacked but were downloaded on a thumb drive. This proof collapses the entire premise of “Russiagate.”

    Nevertheless, the hoax continues.

    Mueller’s indictments are for unrelated matters, such as income tax evasion in the distant past of Republican fund raisers and consultants. These charges have nothing whatsoever to do with Mueller’s mandate. Indeed, as Andrew C. McCarthy, a former US attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, has made clear, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller to head the “Russiagate” investigation is not in compliance with the regulations that govern the appointment of a special prosecutor.

    The appointment of a special prosecutor requires evidence of a specific federal crime that is to be investigated. You only have a special prosecutor when there is factual basis for believing that a federal crime has been committed. What is the federal crime? What is the factual basis? Mueller’s appointment does not say. Therefore, Mueller’s appointment is invalid. Rosenstein has violated the process. In my opinion, this is grounds for Rosenstein to be removed from office. 

    At one time, Congress—both parties—would have been all over the invalid Mueller appointment. However, after 16 years of Cheney/Bush and Obama regime lawlessness, even Republicans accept that the Constitution’s restraints on executive branch power, along with the laws and regulations Congress has established specifying the exercise of these powers, have been rendered meaningless by the “war on terror,” a hoax designed to further Israel’s interests in the Middle East and the neoonservative doctrine of US hegemony, while making billions of dollars for the military/security complex.

    Charlie Savage’s book, Takeover, and David Ray Griffin’s book, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, accurately document how 9/11 was used to destroy the Constitution’s balance of power within the government and to create unaccountable executive branch powers that over-ride the Constitution’s protection of civil liberty. This demand for an unaccountable executive branch, pushed by VP—actually President in fact—Dick Cheney and his minions, such as Addington and John Yoo, was the agenda of the Republican Federalist Society. An early book laying out the legally invalid and legally incompetent argument that the president had powers unchecked by Congress or the judiciary was Terry Eastland’s book, Energy in the Executive. This collection of nonsense became Cheney’s bible as he proceeded in secret to remove constraints on executive branch power. The elevation of the executive branch above the law of the land is documented in Charlie Savage’s book. Read it and weep for your country destroyed by Dick Cheney.

    On top of Cheney’s coup against accountable government, we have in America today another coup, organized by former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI director Comey, deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, the Democratic National Committee, the departed Republican senator John McCain, a coup fully supported by the entirety of the US presstitute media. This coup is against the democratically elected President of the United States for the sole reason that he threatens the power and profit of the entrenched military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us 57 years ago, by wanting to normalize relations with Russia, the world’s premier nuclear power.

    The question is unavoidable: Why do the American people put up with this? Are they so insouciant that they have no realization that, if a president can be driven from office because he wants peace with Russia, the removed president’s successor will have to stand against Russia or also be driven from office. Trust and negotiation between the nuclear powers becomes impossible. Why do Americans support conflict with a nuclear power that can completely destroy America?

    During the entirety of the Cold War, in which I was a participant, the emphasis was on reducing tensions and creating trust. Today Washington’s interest is piling provocation after provocation on a country that can wipe us off the face of the earth. The liberal/progressive/left, the Democratic National Committee, the CIA and the rest of the covert state, and the media whores all share this same commitment to the reckless and irresponsible provocation of a powerful nuclear power. As the US military itself acknowledges, Russia’s weapons are far beyond America’s defenses.

    So what is going on? Is it the liberal/progressive/left’s desire that evil America be destroyed? Is this desired destruction of evil America the reason the left has allied itself so tightly with the warmongers in Washington? Is this the reason that the left and the Democrats and a handful of Republicans want to impeach President Trump for attempting to make peace with Russia?

    How can these crazed immoral people present themselves as some sort of moral arbiter when they are locked on a trajectory that will destroy Earth?

    This destruction might be closer than anyone thinks. Here is the situation in Syria:

    Russia and Syria, in cooperation with Iran and Turkey, have begun the assult on Iblid province, the last stronghold of Washington’s proxy army consisting of Al Qaeda, Al Nursra, and ISIS mercenaries hired by Washington.

    According to reports, which might or might not be true considering the lack of veracity that is the defining characteristic of the Western media, the US and UK have troops among the mercenary forces, hoping apparently that this presence will deter the attack. As the attack has already begun, this is a false hope.

    The Russians discovered Washington’s plot to explode a chemical weapon in Iblid province and exposed Washington’s plot to the UN. Washington had it set up that once its proxies created the appearance of a chemical weapon explosion, Washington would send Tomahawk missiles upon the Syrian forces, thus protecting its proxy army that it sent to overthrow Assad for Israel. The Russian exposure of Washington’s conspiracy has denied Washington UN support. Moreover, Russia has sent a naval force armed with the new Russian hypersonic missiles to Syria and has announced that its aircraft in the area are also armed with these missiles. As the US Navy and Air Force have no defense whatsoever against these missiles, if the US attacks the Syrian/Russian forces, it will be Putin’s decision whether any US ship or military aircraft in the area exists as anything but a smoldering ruin.

    In other words, the entire power in the area lies in Russian hands. If Washington had any sense—and it doesn’t, Washington has hubris and arrogance in the place of sense—Washington would be nowhere close to Syria.

    The question is this: Will the hotheads in Washington conclude that the Russian announcements and marshalling of forces is “just another Putin bluff.” So far Putin has been loaded up with never-ending insults and provocation— blame for the crash of the Malaysian airliner, blame for poisoning a variety of people in England, blame for invading Ukraine, blame for interfering in US elections, blame for supporting the “dictator” Assad, a person democratically elected by a large vote who obviously has the support of the Syrian people as he liberates Syria from the forces Washington sent to put the country into the same chaos that exists in Iraq and Libya.

    Have we reached the situation about which I have been worried, worries shared with my readers, in which Washington makes the miscalculation, based on the incorrect understanding of Russia’s resolve, to launch an attack on the Syrian/Russian forces that have begun the final liberation of Syria from Washington’s paid mercenaries? Yesterday the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity sent a letter to President Trump advising him of the war danger that the Trump administration has created by its continued illegal interference in Syria’s internal affairs.

    The Russian government cannot accept Washington’s military intervention in behalf of Al Qaeda, Al Nursa, and ISIS without completely losing all credibility, not only in the world, but inside Russia itself.

    A realistic alternative to military action would be for Washington to stand aside as Syria reconstitutes itself and use a propaganda war to blame Syria and Russia for civilian deaths and for destroying “democratic rebels” who rose against a “dictator.” The fear could be expanded to the Baltics and Ukraine by reviving the propaganda that Putin intends to reconstruct the Soviet Empire.

    Washington has long used an expertly manufactured fear of Russia to control Europe. Fear can keep Europe in line, whereas military action against Russia could scare Europe into taking refuge in a revival of its sovereignty.

    Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported: “President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has approved the use of chlorine gas in an offensive against the country’s last major rebel stronghold, U.S. officials said, raising the prospects for another retaliatory U.S. military strike as thousands try to escape what could be a decisive battle in the seven-year-old war.” According to the Wall Street Journal, the US strikes could target Russian and Iranian forces as well as Syrian forces.

    It is difficult to believe that Washington thinks attacks on Russian forces would go unanswered. Such a reckless and irresponsible act could initiate Armageddon.

    The claim that Assad has approved the use of chlorine gas in the liberation of Iblid is propagandistic nonsense put out by Washington as an excuse for Washington’s effort to protect its proxy army in Syria with military strikes. All Syrian chemical weapons were removed by Russia and turned over to the US during the Obama regime. Moreover, Russia would not permit Assad to use chemical weapons if he had them.

    Life on earth is faced with a situation in which Washington is so determined to overthrow Assad and to leave Syria in the same chaos as Libya and Iraq that Washington is willing to risk war with Russia. Never before have irrationality and immorality had such a firm hold on a government. The world should be scared to death of the recklessness and irresponsibility of the US government.

    *  *  *

    PCR Readers: This is your website. Support it. Where else do you get truthful analysis? I am at risk speaking like this in a police state. If you don’t support truth, why should I put myself at risk?

  • Vizio Smart TV's Caught Spying; Will Display Pop-Up Notification For Class Action Lawsuit

    Vizio Smart TV owners who haven’t heard that the internet-connected televisions had been spying on them may find out about it directly from their Smart TV itself, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

    The secret “feature” was exposed in November 2015, when journalistic watchdog ProPublica revealed that Vizio TVs track viewing habits and share them with advertisers. 

    Vizio’s technology works by analyzing snippets of the shows you’re watching, whether on traditional television or streaming Internet services such as Netflix. Vizio determines the date, time, channel of programs — as well as whether you watched them live or recorded. The viewing patterns are then connected your IP address – the Internet address that can be used to identify every device in a home, from your TV to a phone. –Propublica

    Following the report, several class action lawsuits ensued which were consolidated. The company argued in court that it was innocent and only recorded customers anonymously, however a California Federal Judge disagreed, once in March and once in July, in a class action lawsuit against the company. 

    Vizio insisted that it was only collecting and sharing nonpersonal information such as IP addresses and zip codes, but the plaintiffs had researchers coming forward to say that it was easy to figure out who was watching what. –Hollywood Reporter

    Last Wednesday, attorneys in the class action suit asked the same judge to extend the deadline for a preliminary settlement – originally scheduled to be publicly detailed on September 12, so that they can notify owners through their TVs. 

    According to a court filing, “The Parties are developing a class notice program with direct notification to the class through VIZIO Smart TV displays, which requires testing to make sure any TV notice can be properly displayed and functions as intended. The additional time requested will allow the parties to confirm that the notice program proposed in the motion for preliminary approval is workable and satisfies applicable legal standards.” 

    Attorneys leading the class action say they wish to detail the terms of the settlement by October 3. 

    The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also investigated the company, settling with Vizio for just $2.2 million – a slap on the wrist. 

    Vizio has legal issues all around – as the company has also been pursuing a separate fraud case against China’s LeEcho over a failed $2 billion merger, after the Smart TV manufacturer accused the Chinese company of misrepresenting its financial health and “concocting a secret plan to obtain confidential consumer information,” according to the Reporter.

  • National Solar Observatory Mysteriously Closed As Geomagnetic Storm Looms

    The National Solar Observatory in Sunspot, New Mexico has been closed since last Thursday.

    ABC-7 Monday spoke with Shari Lifson, who is with AURA, the company that co-manages the Observatory with NMSU.

    “The Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy who manages the facility is addressing a security issue at this time. We have decided to vacate the facility at this time as precautionary measure. It was our decision to evacuate the facility.”

    Lifson told ABC 7 there is no time-table for the Observatory to be re-opened.

    ABC-7 also reached out to the FBI, but did not hear back from the federal agency in time for deadline. The FBI did speak with local law enforcement about the length of the observatory closure.

    “The FBI is refusing to tell us what’s going on. We’ve got people up there (at Sunspot) that requested us to standby while they evacuate it. Nobody would really elaborate on any of the circumstances as to why.

    The FBI were up there. What their purpose was nobody will say. But for the FBI to get involved that quick and be so secretive about it, there was a lot of stuff going on up there.

    There was a Blackhawk helicopter, a bunch of people around antennas and work crews on towers but nobody would tell us anything.”

    The FBI did not tell Sheriff House the reason for the closure. Sheriff Benny House did tell ABC 7 that his local law enforcement did not have anything to do with either the observatory closure.

    For the conspiracy-minded, Sunspot is a mere 130 miles from Roswell, New Mexico, and about 90 miles from the White Sands Missile Range. Established in 1958, the observatory predates the unincorporated area in the Sacramento Mountains that was named for it.

    All of which would be odd enough, but as SHTFplan.com’s Mac Slavo details below, the observatory is closed just as a massive hole has opened up in the Sun’s corona, which means we’re officially on watch for a geomagnetic storm.  Auroras will be likely across much of North America as the sun heads into a solar minimum.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has issued a storm watch for a G2-level solar storm on September 11.

    That’s a moderate storm on the 5-level scale, with G5 being the highest, according to Science Alert.  We’re currently heading into a solar minimum, the least active period of the Sun’s 11-year cycle. That means there will be a much lower sunspot, coronal mass ejection, and solar flare activity.

    If you are one of those who loves seeing the aurora borealis or the “Northern Lights,” have your camera handy, because it could be a beautiful show. As the holes open up in the Sun’s corona, although these are cooler, less dense regions of plasma in the Sun’s atmosphere, they are also more dramatic with open magnetic fields. These open regions allow the solar winds to escape the Sun’s surface more easily, blowing electromagnetic radiation into space at high speeds. If Earth is in the way of those solar winds, we could experience some intense outcomes.

    While the effects of this wind will be slightly stronger than those of a G1 storm, according to Science Alert, they’ll probably pass most of us by. High-latitude power systems may experience voltage alarms due to surges from geomagnetically induced currents, and longer storms can cause transformer damage, but it looks like this storm will be a relatively short one. According to the British Met Office, the solar winds could travel at speeds of up to 600 kilometers per second (372 miles per second) in the next two days.

    Spacecraft operations may be affected as the storm impedes GPS, which means corrections may need to be issued by ground control. And high-frequency radio propagation can fade at high latitudes.

    The biggest effect will probably be the light show since the solar winds are responsible for auroras. As they blow in from space, they interact with charged particles (mainly protons and electrons) in our magnetosphere.

    These charged particles then rain into the ionosphere and travel along the planet’s magnetic field lines to the poles, where interactions with other particles, such as oxygen and nitrogen, manifest as dancing lights in the sky. –Science Alert

    According to a map released by NOAA, the auroras resulting from this storm will likely be visible from Alaska, as well as the states across the United States’s Northern border with Canada and as far south as Iowa and Illinois. There will also be aurora australis visible from Antarctica.

    * * *

    Just in case you were blowing off the tin-foil-hat views of the observatory closure, we note that all these solar/space cams down at the same time:

  • Dramatic Footage From Vostok-2018, Russia's Largest War Games Since The Soviet Union

    The Vostok 2018 military exercise kicked off in Russia’s far east on Tuesday, involving 300,000 troops and close to 40,000 military vehicles. It’s been billed as the most expansive war games on Russian soil since 1981 under the Soviet Union. 

    It further includes 1,000 aircraft, two Russian naval fleets and all airborne units, along with a contingent from China, and a Mongolian troop deployment. 

    Controversially, China is to deploy an unprecedented number of its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops and equipment numbering in the thousands, which also constitutes the first time a country not from the former Soviet bloc has conducted joint games with Moscow and on Russian soil. 

    All images via the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD

    According to the South China Morning Post (SCMP) China has sent about 3,200 PLA elite forces troops, along with 30 fix-wing aircraft and helicopters to deploy during the exercises.

    A Financial Times report described the joint deployment as including  “Hundreds of Russian and Chinese tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets and thousands of soldiers…” in “a show of strength and friendship between Asia’s two largest military powers”.

    At a moment when NATO is expanding up to Russia’s Western border and with “non-aligned” Scandinavian countries Sweden and Finland increasingly cooperating in NATO war games, one major element to the games sure to attract the attention of Washington military planners is the inclusion of simulated nuclear weapons attacks.

    Both Russia and China are among the world’s major longtime nuclear armed powers, and both are experiencing soaring tensions with the United States.

    In response to the impending Vostok-18 games Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon announced late last month, “We urge Russia to take steps to share information regarding its exercises and operations in Europe to clearly convey its intentions and minimize and potential misunderstanding.”

    Prior Pentagon reports suggest the games will be closely watched by U.S. intelligence agencies especially due to Russia’s willingness to simulate nuclear combat. 

    On Monday Russian state sources began publishing dramatic footage of the extent of the military deployment on the eve of the exercises beginning. 

    Valery Gerasimov, chief of Russia’s general staff, described some of strategic maneuvers to be employed in the games: “There are plans to practice massive air strikes, cruise missile training, defensive and offensive operations, raids, and bypass maneuvers.”

    And this unusual commandeering of a civilian highway: 

    * * *

    Putin is expected to observe the exercises this week first-hand in the far eastern region alongside Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, who is overseeing them. As president, Putin has the title of armed forces commander-in-chief.

    And likely entire civilian highways will be commandeered as military aircraft landing strips as happened during the lead-up to this week’s major military exercise last month:

    A busy motorway in Russia was turned into an emergency runway as part of a military exercise which saw warplanes thunder over stunned motorists. 

    Vehicles were halted on the Khabarovsk to Komsomolsk-on-Amur motorway to allow Su-30SM, Su-35S and MiG-31 pilots to test their landing and takeoff skills on the narrow road.

    Halted motorists filmed the amazing scenes as they got a grandstand view for the military exercise close to the Chinese border in the Russian Far East.  

    Meanwhile, the US-funded official news source VOA News has cited experts who dispute the Russian defense ministry’s much touted numbers on total troop deployment.

    “Numbers and figures for these kinds of exercises are typically what we might call to be true lies, in that they’re statistical lies whereby the Russian army’s General Staff tallies every single unit-formation that either sends somebody to the exercise or has some tangential command component in it,” said Michael Kofman, Russia and Eurasia security and defense analyst at the Kennan Institute, as cited by VOA.

    “This basically means that if a brigade sends one battalion, then they count the whole brigade,” he explained. “So these numbers are not entirely fictional, but you have to divide them by a substantial amount to get any sense of how big the exercise actually is.”

    “And they typically revise the numbers after the fact,” Kofman added. “For example, originally after Vostok 2014, they said that they had 100,000 participants, and then I guess they decided it wasn’t impressive enough, because they later posted an official figure of 155,000.”

    * * * 

    A map of estimated deployment numbers, via VOA News:

  • Americans Need Constitutionally-Compliant Social Media

    Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.

    – Potter Stewart, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

    This past Friday, Alex Jones was de-platformed from the last couple of third party tools he had been using to publicly communicate his message after Twitter and Apple permanently banned him and his website Infowars. This means an American citizen with a very large audience who played a meaningful role in the 2016 election, has been banned from all of the most widely used products of communication of our age: Twitter, Facebook, Google’s YouTube and Apple’s iTunes.

    You can point out he still has his radio show and website, and this is unquestionably true, but when it comes to the everyday tools most people interact with to receive information and communicate in 2018, Alex Jones has been thrown down the memory hole. Not because he was convicted of a crime or broke any laws, but because corporate executives decided he crossed an arbitrary line of their own creation.

    To prove the point that tech oligarchs are acting in a completely arbitrary and subjective manner, let me highlight the following tweet.

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

    It’s not against the law to be crazy or say crazy things in this country. It’s also not against the law to say hateful things. It’s pretty obvious the main reason Alex Jones was deleted from public discourse by Silicon Valley executives relates to his impact and popularity. As highlighted in the tweet above, unabashed bigots like David Duke and Louis Farrakhan continue to have active presences across social media, and rightly so. The difference is neither David Duke nor Louis Farrakhan played a major role in the election of Donald Trump, whereas Alex Jones did. Jones and Infowars were having an outsized impact on the U.S. political discourse in a manner tech giant executives found threatening and offensive, so they collectively found excuses to silence him.

    When the outrage mob consisting of politicians, corporate media outlets like CNN, and even his own employees, complained to Twitter’s Jack Dorsey on the issue of Alex Jones, he couldn’t hold the line on free speech because his company’s own policies are junk. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube should have a clear policy when it comes to speech, and it should be this:  If it isn’t breaking the law – in other words, if it’s protected speech under the First Amendment – it stays up. Period. When you have corporate rules against “hate speech,” you’re relying on a concept that doesn’t really have any sort of legal standing when it comes to free speech in this country. There is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution.

    As such, when Twitter, Facebook or Google executives throw someone off their platforms for hateful speech, this isn’t because someone broke the law, but because the individuals in charge of these platforms decided such speech wasn’t something they wanted on their products. If these products are the primary ones used for communication in this country, then we lose our speech rights in practice, even though they remain protected under the law.

    Americans like to talk a big game about how proud they are of their country and how exceptional it is, but what in fact are we so proud of? Is it GDP growth, a booming stock market, or is it something else? For me, it’s the Bill of Rights. The civil liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution are non-negotiable as far as I’m concerned, but we as a people have been dangerously complacent as these rights have been systematically eroded since the post 9/11 power grab. Despite all the anti-freedom trends that have transpired in 21st century America, free speech rights remain quite expansive and very much in place. In theory that is.

    I say in theory because in practice we’re learning how easily speech can be marginalized to the point of becoming erased from public discourse. We’ve allowed the digital public square to be dominated by corporations focused on profit maximization and whose policies quite explicitly do not reflect the law of the land and values that we supposedly hold dear.

    If you’re like me and you think the civil liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution are fundamental to who we are as a people, it must necessarily be unacceptable that a handful of private technology corporations that do not adhere to these principles have dominated the rails of public communication to the point a handful of executives get to decide what acceptable speech is.

    This has ushered in suppression of free speech by other means, and reminds me of a 1975 quote by Henry Kissinger:

    Kissinger: Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, “The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer.” [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I’m afraid to say things like that. 

    As such, we now find ourselves in a situation where we as Americans continue to have expansive free speech rights under the law, but face subjectively minimized free speech rights in practice. So what are we supposed to do about it?

    First, we need to recognize and accept that this problem exists, and then admit that it will only get worse the longer we rely on these tech giants to provide the rails of public communication.

    Second, we need to understand that creating digital public squares that adhere to constitutional principles is not a luxury, but a necessity at this point if we want to actually flex our civil liberties in the digital world.

    Third, we need to think about why the tech giants are so vulnerable to pressure when push comes to shove on free speech. It’s this last point I want to discuss further.

    If we’re going to create and embrace communications platforms for both video and text dedicated to protecting the civil liberties defined by the constitution, I don’t think they can be structured as for-profit corporate entities focused on making shareholders happy. Facebook, Twitter and Google rely on advertisers for their revenue, so if big business starts to get uncomfortable with certain types of speech they can effectively pressure these entities to censor. Likewise, if these companies become concerned that “hate speech” could affect expansion into lucrative overseas markets that have laws against such behavior, they will typically make the best business decision as opposed to the best civil liberties decision. As such, in order to create successful, anti-fragile communications platforms guided by constitutional civil liberties, such platforms must be driven by principle instead of profit. Profit focused entities are far more likely to quickly fold under pressure.

    The other fundamental problem with our current suite of social media companies is their use of proprietary algorithms. Hidden code can conceal all sorts of practices you wouldn’t want at work in a genuine free speech focused platform. Corporations can use such algos to suppress content from certain people, while promoting that of others. When code is secret, users can only guess what’s going on behind the scenes, while the companies can just brush off concerns as conspiracy theory and claim the code must stay hidden for proprietary business purposes. Speech and human communication is too important to leave in the hands of profit-focused tech oligarchs. Code must be open source.

    Let me wrap up by sharing an interesting video on the dangers of our growing acceptance of censorship, by Canadian organic farmer Curtis Stone. While the points he brings up aren’t anything we haven’t discussed before, I find it meaningful when people not hyper-focused on politics begin to get seriously concerned about the existential dangers of allowing tech oligarchs to control the public square of human communication.

    *  *  *

    If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Sep 11

Today’s News 11th September 2018

  • China Joins Russia In Massive War Games In Sign Of Growing Military Ties

    More details have emerged revealing just how extensive the joint China-Russia week long ‘Vostok’ war games will be, set to kick off Tuesday, which is to involve a combined total of 300,000 troops, 36,000 military vehicles, 1,000 aircraft, two Russian naval fleets and all airborne units, along with a contingent from China, a clear sign to the west of just how close military ties between the two nations have become.

    The two powers are cooperating in the military games, said to be the largest such exercise since 1981 under the Soviet Union. During Vostok, China is to deploy an unprecedented number of its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops and equipment, which also constitutes the first time a country not from the former Soviet bloc has conducted joint games with Moscow and on Russian soil. 

    According to the South China Morning Post (SCMP) China has sent about 3,200 PLA elite forces troops, along with 30 fix-wing aircraft and helicopters to deploy during the exercises.

    And a new Financial Times report describes that the joint deployment will include “Hundreds of Russian and Chinese tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets and thousands of soldiers…” in “a show of strength and friendship between Asia’s two largest military powers”.

    Image via Tribune India/iStock

    In total it’s expected that 300,000 troops and close to 40,000 vehicles will participate in Vostok, which is to coincide with talks between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in Vladivostok on Tuesday. This further includes another hundreds of aircraft and helicopters. 

    President Putin has of late sought closer relations with China, which Russia shares a massive 4,200km border with, amidst both countries experiencing deep tensions with the West, including US sanctions against Moscow and a growing trade war between China and Washington. Over the past century the powerful neighbors have laid claim to contested energy resources in border areas at different times, resulting in sporadic conflict, in spite of for most of the 20th century sharing communist ideology. 

    A Carnegie Moscow Center analyst, Alexander Gubuev, summarizes why the West will closely monitor the games with increased alarm, per FT:

    “This is pretty huge. These major exercises are designed to simulate responses to aggression from external enemies. For decades, China has been considered one of those potential threats. Thus, to invite them to participate suggests that now they are seen as allies against other aggressors.”

    The exercises, which are annual and held in different regions which Moscow considers among four strategic military sectors, are designed to simulate an attack on a foreign power. 

    “Both Beijing and Moscow are looking to demonstrate that trade wars and sanctions will only push them to develop new alliances,” comments senior analyst Florence Cahill for a risk consultancy group as cited in FT. And explained further, “As long as their prevailing worldview is shaped by an animus towards a US-led international order, co-operation on all levels between Moscow and Beijing will likely be more pronounced than competition between them.”

    What is widely reported to be a growing personal friendship between Presidents Putin and Xi is also said to be driving increased closeness in military relations between the two powers. 

    Crucially, with NATO expanding up to Russia’s Western border and with “non-aligned” Scandinavian countries Sweden and Finland increasingly cooperating in NATO war games, one major element to the games sure to attract the attention of Washington military planners is the inclusion of simulated nuclear weapons attacks.

    Both Russia and China are among the world’s major longtime nuclear armed powers, and both are experiencing soaring tensions with the United States.

    In response to the impending Vostok-18 games Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon announced late last month, “We urge Russia to take steps to share information regarding its exercises and operations in Europe to clearly convey its intentions and minimize and potential misunderstanding.”

    Prior Pentagon reports suggest the games will be closely watched by U.S. intelligence agencies especially due to Russia’s willingness to simulate nuclear combat. 

    Valery Gerasimov, chief of Russia’s general staff, described some of strategic maneuvers to be employed in the games: “There are plans to practice massive air strikes, cruise missile training, defensive and offensive operations, raids, and bypass manoeuvres.”

    Image via NYT

    Gerasimov described further, “Aircraft will practice support to an offensive mounted by ground forces and beach defense. Planes and helicopters will practice bombings and [the] use of air-launched missiles.”

    Meanwhile Russia’s foreign ministry has sought to downplay the significance of the sheer volume of forces deployed for Vostok-2018 as well as Chinese cooperation. Spokeswoman for Russia’s foreign ministry, Maria Zakharova, said: “Unfortunately, we are used to the allegations that Russia is preparing for some big conflict. We have been hearing such statements from Nato representatives and some of its members. But there are absolutely no grounds for that.”

    Apart from China, a contingent of Mongolian troops will also be part of the games. 

    No doubt, both Russia and China relish the opportunity of flexing military muscle just as US threats are heating up and tensions are at boiling point over Syria, where both countries have condemned past American and Western military actions targeting the Assad government. 

  • Britain Should Be In The Dock Over Skripal Saga, Not Russia

    Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The latest announcement by British authorities of two named Russian suspects in connection with the alleged poison assassination of a former Russian spy and his daughter is more absurd drama in a long-running tawdry saga.

    No verifiable evidence is ever presented, just more lurid innuendo and more refusal by the British authorities to abide by any due process and international norms of diplomacy. It is all scurrilous sound and fury aimed at smearing Russia.

    This week, Britain’s Metropolitan Police released video shots of two alleged Russian men purporting to show them arriving at London’s Gatwick airport on March 2. Other video shots purport to show the same men walking the streets of Salisbury on March 3, the day before former Russian Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were apparently stricken with a powerful nerve agent. The two would-be assassins then allegedly flew back to Moscow from London late on March 4.

    One preposterous claim, among several by the British authorities, is that traces of the putative nerve poison Novichok were found in the London hotel room where the alleged Kremlin agents stayed. The incompetence of the two supposed super assassins beggars belief. More realistically clumsy, however, is the attempt by the British to lay an incriminating trail.

    The day after the Met police announcement implicating the two Russian culprits, Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May stood up in front of her parliament and claimed that the two individuals were members of Russian military intelligence, the GRU. Another British minister, Ben Wallace, accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of having personal responsibility for ordering the alleged assassination plot.

    Then on Thursday Britain summoned the United Nations Security Council to hash over the lurid claims against Russia without providing any further substantiating details to back up the sensational accusations.

    This is nothing other than more trial-by-media, a process of railroading allegations against Russia, not on any basis of legal due process, but simply by bluster and prejudice. The credulous British news media play a dutiful secondary role in giving the claims a semblance of credibility, instead of asking the gaping questions that are warranted.

    As Vasily Nebenzia, Russia’s envoy to the UN, remarked, the whole aim of the British claims is to whip up more international anti-Russia frenzy and hysteria. No sooner had Britain unleashed its latest allegations, a joint statement was released by the United States, Canada, Germany and France supporting the British claims.

    Britain is now calling for more punitive sanctions against Moscow just as it had triggered earlier this year when the Skripals apparently fell ill on a park bench in the southern English town of Salisbury. Some 28 countries have expelled Russian diplomats over those earlier and as-yet unfounded claims. More expulsions can thus be expected, with the intended effect of framing Russia as a pariah state.

    The timing of this week’s twist in the Skripal saga seems pertinent. The US, Britain and France are threatening to launch military strikes on Syria just as the Syrian army and its Russian ally move to defeat the last-remaining stronghold of NATO-backed terror groups in that country, potentially bringing an end to the Western-backed criminal war for regime change against the Assad government in Damascus.

    Last month, too, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel held a productive, cordial summit with President Putin near Berlin, where the two leaders appeared to solidify a rapprochement over a crucial energy project between Russia the European Union.

    The British government is also teetering on political implosion from the Brexit debacle and growing public contempt.

    As Russia’s UN envoy Nebenzia further pointed out, how is it possible that the British prime minister can make the categorical claim that the two alleged Russian men in the video shots released this week are members of the GRU? Typically, she made the claim without providing any substantiating information.

    This was the same kind of plucking from thin air that Theresa May performed only days after the Skripals were apparently poisoned in Salisbury on March 4. Again, back then, May stood in front of parliament and dramatically accused Russia of a state-sponsored assassination attempt. The British authorities have cast, and continue to cast, a verdict without any legal case. That verdict relies entirely on Russophobia and prejudice of Russian malfeasance.

    Former British ambassador Craig Murray and other astute observers have noted that the latest video shots released by Britain’s counter-terrorism police are highly questionable. The images could have been easily fabricated with modern digital methods. They are not evidence of anything. Yet, suspiciously, the British authorities are in unseemly haste to make their sensational charges of Russian state culpability.

    Moscow has condemned the reprehensible rhetoric used by the British prime minister and senior members of her cabinet in throwing grave allegations against the Russian leadership. Britain’s trashing of diplomatic norms is deplorable, befitting a rogue state that is itching for conflict.

    The fact is that the British have spurned any normal legal attempt by Russia to access the supposed investigation in order to ascertain the nature of the alleged information incriminating Moscow. If Britain had a case, then why doesn’t it permit an independent assessment? Russia is being denigrated with foul accusations, and yet Moscow is denied the right to defend itself by being able to ascertain the information. The British technique is that of an inquisition making a mockery of legal standards.

    Another salient fact is that the whereabouts of the Skripals is not known – six months after the alleged poisoning incident. Russia has been repeatedly denied consular contact with one of its citizens, Yulia Skripal, whose bizarre one-off appearance in a video, released by the British authorities three months ago, conveyed her wish to return to her homeland of Russia. Britain is violating the legal principle of habeas corpus.

    Far from any evidence implicating Russia in a crime, the evidence so far points to the British authorities illegally detaining the Skripals for propaganda purpose. That nefarious purpose is clear: to demonize and delegitimize Russia as a sovereign state.

    The Skripal saga and official British clowning around would be laughable if the consequences for international relations were not so dire.

    The British authorities should be the ones in the dock, not Russia, to answer a case of forced abduction and incitement of international conflict.

  • How To Lose Friends And Encourage Terrorism

    Submitted by Brian Cloughley of Strategic Culture Foundation

    Quite a lot happened at the beginning of September, including threats by the US president against a mainstay American ally, Canada; the total cutting of US aid to Palestinians; and release of a national survey showing that 60 per cent of Americans disapprove of President Trump’s performance. The President of the United States certainly shows the world that he has influence. The trouble for Washington is that its mop-haired mover and shaker doesn’t realise the potential effects of his antics and insults.

    Then the White House announced that in November Trump will go to Paris to attend a military parade like the one he enjoyed so much last year, after which he’ll travel to Buenos Aires for a global economic forum. He’s not going to bother going to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Papua New Guinea or to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Singapore. This means he will have visited only one single Asian nation in 2018 — and that was Singapore, to meet the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The Australians are far from impressed, because it had been hoped he would visit their country, which has nailed its flag firmly to the mast of US expansionism rather than being sensible and forging closer ties with China, on which it relies so much as an export market.

    Contrast Trump’s behaviour with that of his opposite number in China, President Xi, who has just finished hosting a Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in Beijing, attended by the leaders of almost every African country who, of course, were treated with appropriate civility. (Trump refers to African countries with his customary insulting vulgarity.)

    African statements in Beijing were eminently practical, with, for example, Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame (the rotating chair of the African Union), saying that China engaged Africa as an equal partner. He commended the two sides’ growing economic and political partnership, and observed that “Africa is not a zero-sum game. Our growing ties with China do not come at anyone’s expense. Indeed, the gains are enjoyed by everyone who does business on our continent.”

    Eat your hearts out, Canada and Australia, who are somewhat annoyed with the US because of its president’s spurning of the best allies the Washington Establishment could wish for. But not content with treating friends with spiteful contempt, Trump decided to punish the Palestinians by stopping US aid to the UN Relief and Works Agency, a saintly organisation which works all the hours on the clock in order to “provide assistance and protection for some 5 million registered Palestine refugees to help them achieve their full potential in human development.”

    Now : UNRWA isn’t perfect. It’s a UN body, which means that it’s under all sorts of peculiar rules, like being unable to always choose the best person for a job because of such things as “rostering” — but make no mistake, most members of such teams as UNRWA and the UN High Commission for Refugees are worth their weight in gold. And it’s gold we are talking about, because some of that lifesaving 300 million dollars that Trump cut off from the Palestinians will now go to increasing US aid to Israel by 200 million dollars next year.

    This handout is in addition to the 3.8 billion dollars that the US is giving Israel in military aid for ten years. And that’s not all, because there are lots of cherries and a great deal of cream on that aid cake. Israel can use 26% of US military aid to purchase equipment from Israeli manufacturers. According to the Congressional Research Service, “no other recipient of US military assistance has been granted this benefit.” In Israel, what goes around, comes around, just as it does, in a very different fashion, in Palestine.

    The effects of Trump’s vicious punishment of Palestinians, wholeheartedly endorsed by the US Congress, which is unconditional in its support of Israel, was much regretted by all those of merciful and humanitarian inclination, and especially by the Relief Agency, whose spokesperson said “this decision is likely to have a devastating impact on the lives of 526,000 children who receive a daily education from UNRWA; 3.5 million sick people who come to our clinics for medical care; 1.7 million food insecure people who receive assistance from us, and tens of thousands of vulnerable women, children and disabled refugees who come to us.”

    There are going to be countless thousands of young Palestinians who will be gravely affected by this callous, vindictive and totally unnecessary ruling. And this brings us to what is probably going to be the longest-term and most hideous effect of the Trump anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel policy.

    Place yourself in the body, in the mind, of a clever teenage Palestinian boy. Try to imagine what he might feel about the United States of America. Is he going to regard the US as a benevolent democracy that exercises compassionate guidance throughout the world?

    Of course he’s not. He is going to loathe Trump and America and every American with a profound, unrelenting, everlasting hatred that could well find release explosively, in all meanings of the word.

    There he is, a thin, malnourished, ill-clad, intelligent Palestinian young man whose ambition is limited entirely by what he sees in the world around him. He sees life stretching before him in a confined line dictated by malevolent outsiders. He sees little ahead but poverty and persecution. His people are downtrodden, and he has experienced nothing but suffering in his entire life, so far. The lure of revenge by terror must beckon with compelling attraction.

    The young Palestinian has seen and will continue to see demolition of Palestinian villages by the Israeli army in order to build condo-blocks for Israeli settlers; if he lives in Gaza he will have witnessed the slaughter of 152 unarmed Palestinians by the Israeli army; he will have seen thousands of his compatriots wounded by Israeli army gunmen; and he will know well that “across the Gaza Strip, psychological trauma, poverty and environmental degradation have had a negative impact on residents’ physical and mental health; many, including children, suffer from anxiety, distress and depression.”

    And many feel anger. Anger at their Israeli oppressors, and anger at the United States. What Trump and Washington do not realise is that they could win over the Palestinians and remove or at least diminish their hatred of everything that is American by behaving in a reasonable manner. Simple recognition of their right to their lands, combined with expressions of understanding and compassion, would at least initiate an approach to tranquillity, as well as benefitting millions of utterly blameless Palestinians. But of much more importance, it would remove the anger that one of these days is most probably going to result in a terrorist strike of catastrophic proportions. 

  • Nearly Half Of All Teens Wish They Could Travel Back In Time To An Era Before Social Media

    It should come as no surprise to anybody who hasn’t been living under a rock for the past decade that teenagers’ lives now revolve around social media and texting. Instead of interacting face-to-face, most teenagers now conduct most of their socializing using smartphone screens as their intermediaries.

    Axios

    And while studies have shown that the advent of social media has been, overall, detrimental to the mental health of young people, a study conducted by a nonprofit called Common Sense Media has revealed some interesting new details about the social lives of the modern-day American teenager. While their parents have probably long been aware of the myriad ills of their childrens’ digital lives, teenagers are also beginning to realize that all of this time spent on Instagram simply isn’t healthy. To wit, the study found that today’s teens overwhelmingly believe that social media interferes with homework, personal relationships and sleep.

    Here’s Axios with more:

    Today’s teens prefer texting over in-person communication, use social media multiple times a day, and admit that digital distractions interfere with homework, personal relationships and sleep, according to a new survey of 13- to 17-year-olds.

    Why it matters: Concerns over the negative impact of social media use have increased recently with reports of teen depression, suicide and cyberbullying on the rise. The study by Common Sense Media, a non-profit group focused on tech and media’s impact on kids, shows teens have a complicated relationship with technology.

    In what was perhaps the study’s most surprising finding, roughly 40% of the teens surveyed said they wish they could go back in time to an era before social media.

    The impact: Interestingly, despite the increased use of social media, teens are more likely to say that social media has a positive effect on them. For instance, 25% say using social media makes them feel less lonely, compared to 3% who say it makes them feel more lonely.

    Yes, but: Still, more than two-thirds of teens agree with the statement, “social media has a negative impact on many people my age.”

    And 40% agree with the statement, “I sometimes wish I could go back to a time when there was no such thing as social media.”

    Here’s a roundup of some of the study’s other key findings, courtesy of Axios:

    • 81% of teens use social media, with 70% saying they use it multiple times a day, up from 34% in 2012. And 89% have their own smartphone, more than doubling since 2012.
    • 72% of teens believe that tech companies manipulate users to spend more time on devices.
    • The proportion of teens who prefer in-person interaction has plummeted from 49% in 2012 to 32% in 2018. Texting is now the favorite mode of communication.
    • 13% of teens say they’ve been cyber-bullied.
    • 33% of teens say they wish their parents would spend less time on their devices, up from 21% in 2012.
    • In 2012, 68% said their go-to social site was Facebook. That number fell to 15% in 2018, with Snapchat and Instagram the new favorites.

    The study also revealed an interesting conundrum: 54% of teens say they agree that social media distracts them during social interactions, and 44% say they get frustrated when their friends whip out their phones while they’re hanging out. However, 55% say they rarely put their phones away when hanging out.

    The 1990s really were a kinder, simpler time.

  • Harvard Prof: Merit-Based Admissions "Reproduce Inequality"

    Submitted by Toni Airaksinen of Campus Reform

    A Harvard University professor claims in a new academic study that merit-based admission processes at elite universities “reproduce inequality.”

    Harvard education professor Natasha Warikoo draws on interviews with 98 white, native-born students at Harvard, Brown University, and the University of Oxford in “What Meritocracy Means to its Winners: Admissions, Race, and Inequality,” published in the journal Social Sciences.

    During interviews Warikoo conducted between 2009 and 2011, these students were asked to sound-off on whether they felt their school had meritocratic admissions and if they supported affirmative action. Many answered the second question affirmatively and hailed the benefits of a diverse student body. 

    But Warikoo seems concerned with students’ responses. Analyzing data from these interviews years later, Warikoo points out that students’ approaches to diversity suggest that they’ve “internalized” the tokenistic rhetoric of the school admissions office, even if they had disagreed with policies like athletic recruitment or legacy admissions before coming to campus.

    “Unlike in other campus domains in which there is a history of social protest among college students, in the realm of admissions, students seem to agree quite strongly with their universities, and come to even more agreement rather than critique upon arriving to campus,” she writes. “They suggest that most actors in elite institutions espouse views that reproduce their elite status, rather than engaging in symbolic politics or protest.”

    According to Warikoo, “US students espouse a collective understanding of merit,” but only “value collective merit for its impact on themselves, not for social justice, or for the collective good of society.”

    “They are not espousing, for example, a vision of multiculturalism that emphasizes group identities and the need to support ethnic and racial groups in society, as many scholars define multicultural state policies,” she elaborates.

    Notably, Warikoo addressed the same issue in her 2016 book The Diversity Bargain, which criticizes white students for understanding “the value of diversity abstractly, but [ignoring] the real problems that racial inequality causes.” 

    White students “stand in fear of being labeled a racist, but they are quick to call foul should a diversity program appear at all to hamper their own chances for advancement,” Warikoo claims in that book, asserting for instance that white students “reluctantly agree with affirmative action as long as it benefits them.”

    Her new study, too, criticizes white students for believing in meritocracy and supporting affirmative action, suggesting that white students only support affirmative action for selfish reasons. 

    One white student, Naomi, was criticized for saying “diversity is really how you learn here,” as Warikoo suggested that Naomi only valued diversity because it added to the “collective merit” of her cohort of students.

    Warikoo also reports that “some students used the collective merit framework to express support for legacy admissions…even while lamenting the inequality legacy admissions engenders.”

    She bemoans that, ultimately, the students she interviewed were more motivated by “self-interest” than a commitment to social justice.

    “They value collective merit for its impact on themselves, not for social justice, or for the collective good of society,” she writes. “They are not espousing, for example, a vision of multiculturalism that emphasizes group identities and the need to support ethnic and racial groups.”

    According to Warikoo’s interviews, students who attended elite high schools “no longer see a large number of their peers gaining admission to the likes of Harvard, Brown, and Oxford,” which they interpret “as evidence that the system is fair, even while ignoring the fact that students like them and their peers are vastly overrepresented at elite universities.”

    The professor suggests that when the legitimacy of how they obtained seats at elite institutions gets called into question, students only become more convinced that they deserve to occupy those seats.

    “This paper shows how admissions systems often reproduce inequality not only by how they select students, but also by defining ‘merit’ for admitted students in ways that will reproduce inequality in the future,” she concludes. 

    Warikoo claims that schools have “unequal” admission processes because black, working class, and first-generation students are underrepresented in student bodies. To fix this, Warikoo recommends that elite universities employ an “admissions lottery,” which the schools would use to randomly admit students who meet certain minimum standards.

    “An admissions lottery would shift the meaning of selection from an absolute sense of merit—the best of the best—to an understanding that admission is somewhat arbitrary,” she predicts.

    Warikoo’s study was published in the journal Social Sciences, which boasts of a “rapid peer-review” system. While most articles take months if not a year to be accepted, Warikoo’s article was accepted by reviewers in 48 days. 

    Though Warikoo initially agreed to answer a few questions by email, she ultimately did not respond to Campus Reform. Harvard University also did not respond. 

  • Five Likely Hurricane Aftermath Scenarios To Prepare For

    Submitted by Lisa Egan of Ready Nutrition

    It is currently hurricane season for the Atlantic and Pacific regions of the United States.

    As I write this article, Hurricane Florence is a Category 3 storm with the potential to reach Category 4 status. As of now, the storm has an uncertain path, but East Coast folks – please watch this one closely, as some models suggest it could head right for you.

    Helene and Issac could form in the Atlantic later this week. In the Pacific, Hurricanes Olivia and Norman are being watched closely.

    Hurricanes are unpredictable, as anyone who has experienced one knows. This makes them challenging to prepare for, but fortunately, there are things you can do to increase your odds of survival, should one head for your region.

    It is important to understand that a hurricane need not be a Category 5 to be incredibly dangerous and cause serious damage. When Hurricane Isabel hit my Virginia neighborhood in 2003, the storm was barely a Category 1. It was the first (and to date, the only – thankfully) hurricane I’ve experienced personally, and back then I really had no idea how difficult the aftermath would be.

    I fully expected the “authorities” to take care of everything after Isabel passed. I thought they’d clean up all the debris and have the roads cleared and power on within a day or two.

    I was seriously mistaken.

    Isabel had an unusually large wind field (an example of a hurricane doing “unpredictable” things). Thousands of trees were uprooted. Power lines and telephone poles were downed all over. Hundreds of houses were damaged…many beyond repair. Hundreds of roads, including major highways, were blocked by fallen trees and other debris. The heavy rainfall caused inland flooding, which closed roads and damaged homes and businesses.

    We were without power for over two weeks. Because we – and most of our neighbors – did not think to purchase generators in advance, one neighbor decided to head out to buy them for us. He wasn’t able to find any until he reached Pennsylvania – every store he checked in Virginia and Maryland was either closed due to the storm or had already sold their entire stock of generators. That gives you an idea of how hard it can be to find important supplies in the aftermath of a natural disaster.

    Preparing for a Hurricane

    In The Prepper’s Blueprint, the importance of understanding how unpredictable hurricanes can be is discussed and emphasized. This type of natural disaster is truly one of the most difficult emergencies to prepare for simply because there are so many variables to account for. These storms can range from mild to severe and can cause wind damage, flooding, and tornadoes. You can be fully stocked with provisions, but what good will that do if your home is flooded in a matter of minutes and all of your supplies are destroyed or inaccessible? Before Hurricane Harvey made landfall last year, it was predicted as merely a tropical storm or Category 1 hurricane. In fact, many living in the area did not think much of it in terms of severity and only stocked up on supplies for a few days. Within those few days, it had developed into a Category 4 with 132 mph winds.

    This hurricane primer has essential articles with supply lists that can aid you in preparing for a storm.

    Should you stay or should you go?

    Often, when a hurricane is approaching, government officials will issue evacuation orders to people in designated evacuation areas. Most governments use one of two terms when issuing evacuation notices. An evacuation order is when officials strongly encourage people in certain areas to move to a safer location. Personal discretion is allowed, but not advised. A mandatory evacuation order means that emergency management officials are ordering all people in the designated area to move to a safer location – personal discretion is NOT an option. People who refuse to comply need to understand that this kind of order means they should not expect to be rescued or given any kind of assistance once the storm has reached the area.

    If you can leave the area before the disaster strikes, then do so, and seek shelter elsewhere.

    Should you decide to stay put for whatever reason during a hurricane, adequate preparation is crucial to survival. Please check out our guide here – now, so you can prepare far ahead of the storm: Last Minute Preparedness: How To Prep For Sheltering in Place.

    What about disaster shelters?

    While disaster shelters may be the only option for many, it is important to understand the risks associated with them. In the article, Just How Unhealthy And Unsafe Are Disaster Shelters, Sara Tipton explains the harsh truth about such shelters:

    In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, many found themselves in non-profit disaster shelters, and many reported conditions that were not healthy or safe for human beings, especially children. As hundreds of thousands of people packed in close proximity to one another in Houston’s convention centers, churches, mosques, and schools all serving as temporary shelters, their basic needs seemed to be met. Food, water, and a place to sleep were provided. But the danger of an infection -both viral and bacterial– and subsequent horrible illness was high. And in close quarters, these infections could easily spread sickening many in a short amount of time.

    There is another danger associated with spending time in a disaster shelter: sexual assault. Overcrowded and understaffed shelters unintentionally put all those who stay at them at risk. There’s no way a handful of people can monitor hundreds of others at all times.

    The elderly are a part of the population that is particularly vulnerable during times of evacuation and emergency. They face many concerns both before a disaster strikes and immediately afterward. Hurricane Katrina is a tragic example of how devastating big storms can be to the elderly: roughly 71 percent of the hurricane’s victims were older than age 60, and 47 percent of those were over the age of 75. Most of these victims died in their homes and communities. At least 68 (some of whom were allegedly abandoned by their caretakers) were found in nursing homes. If you are elderly or have loved ones who are, please plan accordingly. Staying at home and local shelters may not be the best places for those who have special health concerns and are not able to adequately care for themselves.

    Also, please don’t forget about your furry and feathered family members: take your pets’ needs into account when you are preparing for an impending hurricane as well.

    What to expect in the aftermath of a hurricane

    Many Americans believe that FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) will come to their rescue after a natural disaster. Unfortunately, the agency has many challenges (to put it lightly). Even if you are one of the few who manages to successfully navigate FEMA’s confusing red tape and complicated bureaucratic system to get aid, help from the agency often becomes something many describe as an “inescapable hell.”

    Prepare for the worst and make sure you can survive on your own. We cannot emphasize this enough.

    While the bad weather hurricanes bring usually sticks around for 12 to 24 hours, there are other dangers that often linger for much longer. As I mentioned earlier, after Hurricane Isabel struck my city, my neighborhood was without power for over two weeks. Some areas in the Hampton Roads region were without electricity for even longer. Some roads were closed for more than a week.

    There are five possible life-threatening scenarios that hurricane victims must understand and prepare for.

    1. Contaminated water

    Water contamination is common after a hurricane. The facilities that remove contaminants from drinking water are typically unusable if they’re inundated with floodwaters, or if they do not have the power needed to run their pumps or the ability to get fuel for their generators. The water supply could be tainted with anything from unpleasant but relatively harmless gastrointestinal invaders like Norovirus to more serious bacteria like Vibrio, a potentially deadly microorganism.

    Ideally, you’ll have enough water stored for you and your family. Water is a top preparedness priority. Aim for a supply of 3 gallons of water per person/day, minimum, stored in food-grade containers. If you have pets, you’ll need to make sure you have enough water for them too. Remember, while water is crucial for proper hydration, you’ll also need to use it to prepare food and for sanitation purposes. I don’t think there’s such a thing as having TOO much water stored.

    For more on water storage, please see Emergency Water Storage Ideas for Every Type of Disaster and 5 Short-Term Methods to Store Water.

    Even if you believe you have adequate water stored, be sure to learn about water purification methods and devices as well…just in case. Always ensure the safety of your water by properly filtering or boiling it before use.

    There are portable water filtration systems you can keep on hand in case of emergency. The Sawyer Mini Water Filtration System is one of them. It’s a compact, portable, three-part system that can be put together and placed over a drinking vessel like a water bottle. This system comes with a straw that you can use to drink directly through the filter itself. It can also be hooked up to a Camelbak water pouch.

    2. Flooding

    The risk of contracting an infectious disease is heightened after a hurricane, in large part due to flooding. Flood water is a perfect vehicle for pathogens: it can harbor bacteria, different viruses, and fungi – and often is contaminated with sewage and hazardous chemicals.

    There are numerous reasons to avoid flood water entirely. Wading through it – even if it is shallow – can cause drowning because moving water can sweep you off your feet, and can rapidly transport you to deeper bodies of water. Snakes and other dangerous creatures (depending on where you live) can lurk in flood waters. Debris could be floating in it, and could cause serious harm. And, of course, electrocution is a deadly risk – fallen power lines may have exposed the water to electricity.

    To protect your home from flood damage, learn how to properly create a sandbag barrier or consider investing in a system called AquaDam.

    If you live in a flood zone, special preparations are in order. The following articles can help you better prepare.

    3. Blackouts

    A major risk after any hurricane, blackouts can be devastating for those without a plan.

    From refrigerators to cell phones, people have almost become completely reliant on electronic devices for their survival, and for this reason, a blackout can have disastrous implications for the ill-prepared.

    In late October 2012, Hurricane Sandy devastated the East Coast and left widespread, long-term power outages in her wake. On October 31, over 6 million customers were still without power in 15 states and the District of Columbia. On November 7, 2012, 600,000 people were still without power. After Hurricane Ike hit in September 2008, our very own Tess Pennington and her family experienced a power outage that lasted more than three weeks!

    In an article about her experience, Tess wrote, “In retrospect, I was naive in my preparedness planning. I was planning for the best-case scenario rather than the latter, as well, there were many aspects of preparedness that I hadn’t considered and paid the price for it.”

    The grid in New York City is still vulnerable, nearly 6 years later. But NYC is not the only part of the US that has an aging and weak grid that is susceptible to damage – much of the US power grid is vulnerable.

    Fortunately, there are steps you can take to prepare your family for power outages.

    • Be ready to prepare food off the grid.
    • Stock your pantry and bug-out bags with nutrient-dense food that does not need to be refrigerated or cooked to eat, like nut butter, nuts, seeds, granola bars, protein bars, and dried fruit.
    • Fill up your vehicle’s tank while you still can – gas stations rely on electricity to power their pumps.
    • Be aware that most medication that requires refrigeration can be kept in a closed refrigerator for several hours without a problem. If unsure, check with your physician or pharmacist. Have a backup plan in case your power is out longer than a few hours.
    • Know where the manual release lever of your electric garage door opener is located and how to operate it. Garage doors can be heavy, so know that you may need help to lift it.
    • Keep a key to your house with you if you regularly use the garage as the primary means of entering your home, in case the garage door will not open.
    • Have cash on hand in case ATMs are down and stores are not able to process credit cards.
    • Learn how to protect your food supply when the power is out. To be proactive, begin using perishable foods in the freezer and refrigerator to minimize food spoilage. Also, to keep items as cool as possible during a power outage, limit the number of times the refrigerator or freezer door is opened. If you are concerned that your meat may spoil, preserve it beforehand, by either the canning method or the dehydration method.
    • Freeze soda bottles filled with water and place them in the refrigerator during outages – they will help to maintain the optimum temperature.
    • Stay indoors and try and keep your body temperature as normal as possible.
    • Close window blinds and curtains to keep your home cool.
    • Turn off or disconnect appliances, equipment (like air conditioners) or electronics in use when the power went out. Power may return with momentary “surges” or “spikes” that can damage computers as well as motors in appliances like the air conditioner, refrigerator, washer or furnace.
    • Consider purchasing at least one gas-powered generator. They require about a quarter gallon of gasoline for each hour of use. This means you will need to keep plenty of extra fuel on hand. For a blackout period lasting 3 days, it would be wise to keep at least 15 gallons stored in your house for use in your generator (or car).
    • Do not connect a generator to a home’s electrical system. If you use a generator, connect the equipment you want to run directly to the outlets on the generator. Do not run a generator inside a home or garage. For more on safe generator use, please read This is One of the Unspoken Dangers That (Silently and Quickly) Kills During Emergencies.
    • Leave on one light so that you’ll know when your power returns.
    • Use the phone for emergencies only. Listen to a portable radio for the latest information.
    • Access to fire will be critical in a blackout. Be sure to have at least three different ways to make fire, such as a magnesium and steel fire-starter, matches, and butane lighters.
    • Lanterns will be effective alternative light sources as long as you keep kerosene in storage. Speaking of fuel, you may also want to use propane for use in a barbecue grill or for other propane-powered appliances.
    • Having extra flashlights will make a fundamental difference during a power outage. Keep extra sets of batteries for each flashlight.
    • If you don’t already have a first-aid kit now is the time to get one. Sanitizing gel is also a smart item to have in your supplies.
    • A radio with a crank generator will enable you to hear emergency alerts without having to ubackup-up power.
    • Have at least 3 days of clean clothes ready for each family member.

    4. Supply shortages

    If you live in an area where people shift into panic mode at the mere mention of snow flurries, you know that grocery stores can become a chaotic scene in the days prior to the expected weather. We rarely get snow in this part of Virginia, so when it pops up in the forecast, stores quickly run out of bread, milk, and water.

    As you can imagine, everyone and their second cousin will be scrambling to stock up on supplies in the days before an impending hurricane. The closer it gets to landfall, the worse the situation gets. This is why getting ahead of the crowd is crucial – to your stockpile and your sanity.

    Obviously, food, water, and gasoline are items that can quickly become scarce in the event of an emergency. But, there are other items that some might not think to purchase in advance of a big weather event. These include bleach and other chemical disinfectants, cleaning supplies, disposable gloves, trash bags, toilet paper, and home repair supplies.

    Regarding toilet paper – hurricane survivors tend to grossly (pun intended) underestimate how much they are going to need. Toilet paper is used every day and when it runs out, things can get very, very unpleasant. Why add to your misery? This is an item that is very much worth stocking up on. On average, consumers use 8.6 sheets per trip – a total of 57 sheets per day. Multiply that by a week-long storm and a family of 5 and you are going to run out quickly if you don’t buy enough.

    5. Tornadoes

    As if dealing with a hurricane isn’t enough, it can bring along a particularly dangerous partner in crime: tornadoes.

    Hurricanes and tropical storms are collectively known as tropical cyclones. Tropical cyclones and tornadoes are both atmospheric vortices.

    According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Tropical cyclones may spawn tornadoes from a day or two prior to landfall to up to three days after landfall. Statistics show that most of the tornadoes occur on the day of landfall, or the next day. The most likely time for TC tornadoes is during daylight hours, although they can occur during the night, too. Although statistically, the largest number of tropical cyclone tornadoes occurs on the day of landfall, some of the biggest and most damaging outbreaks have taken place 1 or 2 days after landfall.”

    “A tropical storm has all the ingredients necessary to form a tornado: They have multiple supercell thunderstorms, they contain the necessary instability between warm and cold air, and they create wind shear, an abrupt change in wind speed and direction which can create swirling vortices of air,” explains 6abc.

    Most hurricanes that make landfall do create at least one tornado. “The majority of those tornadoes are short-lived and of the weaker EF0 or EF1 variety, but some can reach EF2 or EF3 intensity,” according to The Weather Channel:

    Tornadoes from tropical systems make up an average of over 20 percent of all United States tornadoes during the month of August, and sometimes 50 percent or more of all tornadoes in September, said Dr. Greg Forbes, severe weather expert for The Weather Channel. Most of the tornadoes develop in bands of thunderstorms and intense showers outside of the eyewall about 50 to 250 miles from the hurricane or tropical storm center, he said.

    Brian McNoldy, a researcher at the University of Miami, explained the phenomenon to Live Science:

    “It’s pretty uncommon to not have tornadoes with these,” he said. Tornadoes mostly form over land, instead of over water, because the land slows down surface-level winds, creating even more wind shear, McNoldy said. Tornadoes form wherever these pre-existing supercells happen to be, he added, but meteorologists are still unable to predict exactly where tornadoes will strike.

    Most tornadoes occur in a tropical cyclone’s outer rain bands, about 50 to 200 miles from the center, but some have been spawned near the inner core. “In a hurricane’s outer bands, tornadoes represent a burst of concentrated destruction in an area that otherwise might not see the devastating levels of wind produced by the hurricane’s core,” according to a CNN report.

    Hurricane-produced tornadoes are difficult to predict – they tend to appear quickly and with little to no warning. For this reason, it is very important to pay attention to the weather and to be prepared for a tornado (or several tornadoes!) to strike.

  • Google Was "Working To Get Hillary Clinton Elected" With "Silent Donation" According To Leaked Internal Email

    Tucker Carlson just blew the cover off the 2016 election influence charade, after he read an internal email on Monday night’s show from a senior Google employee who admitted to using company resources to make a “silent donation” to a liberal group that was creating ads and donating funds to bus Latinos to voting stations during the 2016 election in key swing states, in an effort to help Hillary Clinton win. 

    The email was sent by the former head of Google’s multicultural marketing department, Eliana Mario, on November 9, 2016. 

    “That email was subsequently forwarded by two Google VP’s to more staff members throughout the company,” says Carlson, adding “In her email, Mario touts Google’s multi-faceted efforts to boost Hispanic turnout in the election. She noticed that Latino voters did record-breaking numbers, especially in states like Florida, Nevada and Arizona – the last of which she describes as “a key state for us.” She brags that the company used its power to ensure that millions of people saw certain hashtags and social media impressions, with the goal of influencing their behavior during the election.”

    Elsewhere in the email Mario says “Google supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states.” 

    She describes this assistance as a “silent donation” 

    Mario then says that Google helped Voto Latino create ad campaigns to promote those rides. Now officially Voto Latino is a non-partisan entity, but that is a sham. Voto Latino is vocally partisan. Recently the group declared that Hispanics – ALL Hispanics are in President Trump’s “crosshairs.” They said they plan to respond to this by registering another million additional Hispanic voters in the next Presidential cycle.

    …

    It was, in effect, an in-kind contribution to the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.

    …

    In the end, Google was disappointed. As Mario herself conceded “ultimately after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us. We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. –Tucker Carlson

    Watch: 

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

    This, of course, isn’t the first evidence of Google doing all they could to help Hillary win the election. In an April 15, 2014 email from Google’s then-Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt found in the WikiLeaked Podesta emails, titled “Notes for a 2016 Democratic Campaign,” Schmidt tells Cheryl Mills that “I have put together my thoughts on the campaign ideas and I have scheduled some meetings in the next few weeks for veterans of the campaign to tell me how to make these ideas better.  This is simply a draft but do let me know if this is a helpful process for you all.” 

    While there are numerous curious nuances in the plan, presented below in its entirety, the one section that caught our – and Wikileaks’ attention – is the following which implicitly suggests Google planned the creation of a voter tracking database, using smart phones:

    Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them.  In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter. A dynamic volunteer can easily speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the voter videos and other answers to areas they care about (“the benefits of ACA to you” etc.)

    As a reminder, in late October of 2016 it was revealed that just days prior to the April 15, 2014 email, Schmidt had sent another email in which he expressed his eagerness to “fund” the campaign efforts and wants to be a “head outside advisor.” In the email from John Podesta to Robby Mook we learned that:

    I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he’s ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn’t pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn’t seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going. He’s still in DC tomorrow and would like to meet with you if you are in DC in the afternoon. I think it’s worth doing. You around? If you are, and want to meet with him, maybe the four of us can get on t

    Another email from February 2015 suggested that the Google Chairman remained active in its collaboration with the Clinton campaign: John Podesta wrote that Eric Schmidt met with HR “about the business he proposes to do with the campaign. He says he’s met with HRC” and adds that “FYI. They are donating the Google plane for the Africa trip”

    Meanwhile, according to a Breitbart report by Allum Bokhari, “By inserting negative search suggestions under the name of a candidate, search engines like Google can shift the opinions of undecided voters by up to 43.4 percent, according to new research by a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and reported exclusively by Breitbart News.” 

    The lead author of the study, Dr. Robert Epstein, has previously conducted research into what he calls the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME). This research showed that the manipulation of results pages in search engines can shift the voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic.

    His latest research looks at how search engines can affect voters by suggesting negative or positive search terms when a political candidate’s name is entered into the search bar. Dr. Epstein’s research found that when negative search terms are suggested for a candidate, it can have a dramatic effect on voter opinion. –Breitbart

    So, despite Google’s best efforts to help Clinton win the election, it simply wasn’t enough.

    Meanwhile, Google has yet to answer why their search results for the word “Idiot” are vastly different from DuckDuckGo: 

    VS: 

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

  • Chinese Fishermen Wage "Hybrid War" On Asian Seas

    The U.S. Department of Defense’s annual report to Congress, released in August, detailed military and security developments of the Chinese armed forces and drew attention to the “People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia” (PAFMM), a weaponized fishing fleet funded by Beijing – a new asset for low-intensity maritime confrontations, and a forward screen for its growing military force in the South China Sea.

    “The PAFMM is a subset of China’s national militia, an armed reserve force of civilians available for mobilization,” the Pentagon noted. “The PAFMM plays a major role in coercive activities to achieve China’s political goals without fighting.”

    The “maritime militia” played significant roles in many military operations and incidents in the last decade, including the 2009 harassment of the USNS IMPECCABLE, the 2012 Scarborough Reef standoff, the 2014 Haiyang Shiyou-981 oil rig standoff, and chaos around the Senkaku Islands in 2016.

    In August 2017, China used the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), China Coast Guard (CCG), and PAFMM ships to patrol around Thitu Island, in response to the Philippines’ reported plan to upgrade the runway on the Island.

    Andrew Erickson, a professor at the US Naval War College, said the Pentagon performed a signal service by officially defining the threat of fishing vessels that lurk off the waters of China, which was also spoken about in the Japanese Defense Ministry’s annual white paper, “Defense of Japan, 2018.”

    The commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Admiral Scott Swift, recognizes the PAFMM as a legitimate threat. “Let’s be careful not to characterize them as a ragtag group of fishermen,” he said in a 2017 interview. “I think they have clear command and control; they are not acting randomly.”

    The Chinese maritime militia is unique. “Only Vietnam is known to have a roughly equivalent force, but it is not in the same league as China,” said Erickson. “Beijing has what is clearly the world’s largest and most capable maritime militia.”

    While the total amount of fishing boats in the Maritime Militia is unknown, the Pentagon noted that the Hainan provincial government, ordered 84 large fishing vessels with reinforced hulls and ammunition storage, were delivered to Hainan militia unit at the end 2016. This particular PAFMM unit is also China’s most professional, paid salaries independent of any clear commercial fishing responsibilities, and recruited from …veterans” the Pentagon noted in its report.

    “Although unarmed, many boats reportedly have strengthened their hulls for ramming attacks: Several Vietnamese boats were rammed and sunk in the dispute caused by China erecting an oil-drilling rig in Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone, and in 2016, Korean coast guard boats capsized after being rammed. Some Chinese fishing vessels have been equipped with water cannons, and crew members carry hand-to-hand weapons to counter boarding: A South Korean coast guard was fatally knifed in the Yellow Sea while boarding a Chinese fishing boat engaged in illegal fishing in 2011,” said Asia Times. 

    Asia Times refers to the Maritime Militia as Beijing’s “third fleet,” giving the communist regime the ability to encircle a conflict zone with hundreds of fishing boats, turning any confrontation with the enemy into a chaotic situation. Asia Times said this could cause serious problems for democracies, as the US, Japanese and South Korean and Southeast Asia vessels may be fearful of sinking “civilian” boats.

    Erickson said Beijing is becoming more and more sophisticated in deploying all elements of the three sea services. “In 2017 the Chinese conducted a coordinated operation made up of navy, coast guard and militias around the Philippine-occupied Thitu island.”

    Also in 2017, a fleet of 260 Chinese fishing boats swarmed the waters around Senkaku/ Diaoyu island group, backed up by six Chinese coast guard vessels and navy vessels that kept their distance overseeing the operation.

    The massive fleet of fishing vessels under Beijing’s control allows the Chinese government to post lookouts on sensitive features throughout the disputed waters of the Spratlys without deploying large naval assets – coast guards, naval units or marines.

    “Chinese forces are in and around all disputed features [in the South China Sea] not just the ones they occupy,” said former US Pacific Command commanding admiral and current U.S ambassador to South Korea Harry Harris in testimony before Congress.

    Asia Times said the militia has been heavily involved in recent confrontations over the disputed islands that make up Beijing’s South China Sea empire.

    To sum up, the 21st-century of maritime hybrid warfare has been recognized by China. It has successfully “fleeted” hundreds of civilian fishing vessels with militia units that are actively patrolling the waters of the South China Sea all the way up to the Sea of Japan. This is the first line of defense for the “communist” regime and a new type of warfare that conventional navies like the US, Japan, and South Korea have very limited war scenarios on how to engage. This could be problematic because if a conventional navy attacked a militia fishing ship, it would be considered an attack on a civilian vessel, and a potential PR nightmare for that country.

  • What To Expect If Ether Futures Become A Reality?

    Authored by Gareth Jenkinson via CoinTelegraph.com,

    Less than a year after the launch of the first ever futures contracts for Bitcoin, Ethereum could be the second cryptocurrency to be traded on regulated futures exchanges.

    image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

    It’s understood that the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE), the same platform that launched Bitcoin futures in December 2017, is waiting for the green light from the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to launch Ethereum options by the end of 2018.

    The CBOE will base its ETH contracts on the Gemini cryptocurrency exchange market – the base it already uses for its Bitcoin futures.

    With the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) formally declaring that Ethereum was not classed as a security in June, the path ahead was seemingly paved for the prospective launch of ETH futures.

    At the time, CBOE president Chris Concannon hailed the decision, saying ETH contracts had been a talking point since late 2017:

    “We are pleased with the SEC’s decision to provide clarity with respect to current Ether transactions. This announcement clears a key stumbling block for Ether futures, the case for which we’ve been considering since we launched the first Bitcoin futures in December 2017.”

    Just three months later, there are very real grumblings that this could come to fruition, much like the build up to the eventual launch of Bitcoin futures in 2017.

    The CBOE has indicated to Cointelegraph that it is indeed looking at Ethereum futures, highlighting Concannon’s interview with Quarts in June, where he laid out their thoughts on the cryptocurrency and the possibility of a futures contract:

    “Ether is one of the more highly liquid cryptocurrencies out there. Along with Bitcoin, the demand is much higher in Ether than any other cryptocurrency on the market. We’ll look at launching futures in the near term, but there’s a process we have to go through before even announcing such a launch. That process is something we’ve talked to the CFTC about at length and certainly want to take steps along that process and make sure everybody is comfortable with the next product we announce.”

    According to Concannon, there is significant demand and appetite for Ether futures. Having successfully launched Bitcoin futures, the CBOE hopes to use that same product design and structure and apply it to any cryptocurrency futures that may be looked at in the future.

    The CBOE wouldn’t divulge any more details at this point in time, saying the relevant information would be communicated in due time.

    What could happen

    While the finite details of when we can expect to see these Ether futures launched is yet to be revealed, the possibility of these new offerings had a neutral effect on different cryptocurrency values.

    The price of ETH turned around from a slight slump on August 31, which could be attributed to these initial reports...but has collapsed since…

    In response to the first reports of the CBOE’s plans, Fundstrat’s co-founder Tom Lee told Business Insider that Ether futures would have an initial negative impact on the price of the cryptocurrency:

    “Since December of this year, if one was bearish on any aspect of crypto but did not want to own the underlying, they could short BTC. They can now short Ethereum, [which] means the net short on BTC in futures would fall.”

    Good or bad?

    It is not easy to predict what any market will do, and this is especially true for cryptocurrencies. However, big moves like this by mainstream financial institutions seem to influence the price of cryptocurrencies.

    Cointelegraph spoke to eToro senior market analyst Mati Greenspan to get an educated view on how the launch of Ether futures could potentially affect the price of the cryptocurrency.

    Greenspan was upbeat about the possibility, saying that Wall Street is working hard to build bridges to the crypto market, calling the launch of Ether futures a critical next step.

    While some people on social media cited concerns that aggressive shorting would hurt the value of Ether, Greenspan offered a counterargument to that point:

    “The ability to go short is a critical component of price discovery. So this is ultimately a healthy thing for the market.”

    Furthermore, Greenspan believes that an Ether futures contract will put the cryptocurrency in the spotlight, which could very well attract new investors with deep pockets. The eToro analyst also believes that it could have a knock-on effect for other cryptocurrencies:

    “Crypto prices are correlated strongly with each other. So anything that’s good for Ethereum should be good for Bitcoin and vice versa. So far, the futures volumes on Bitcoin have been relatively small and insignificant to the rest of the market, but as interest from institutional investors changes, we should be seeing higher volumes and new ways to trade them.”

    While Greenspan offers a far more optimistic prediction of things to come, there are those that have a more cautious view of the potential launch of Ether futures.

    Phillip Nunn, CEO of Wealth Chain Capital, told Cointelegraph that there is potential for certain investors to short Ether, which could have some serious consequences for companies that have launched ICOs on the Ethereum blockchain.

    Nunn likens the launch of BTC futures to the FX markets some 30 years ago, where futures markets had a big sway on markets:

    “2018 has seen a massive shift in the behaviour of crypto mainly due to the advent of Bitcoin futures, the charts have been different and clearly there has been market manipulation and “whales” dominating the market either way. Someone is making a lot of money. It’s similar the the FX markets in the 80’s and 90’s where it was easy to influence markets via longs and shorts.”

    Furthermore, Nunn sites the risk futures pose to companies that have raised money using ERC20 tokens:

    “I worry for ETH on a couple of levels. Firstly it’s market cap is a lot smaller than Bitcoin and I think ETH futures could see it dipping under $150 maybe even $100. Add to that that 95% of ICO’s raise money with ERC20 tokens in ETH, if an ICO has raised say $20m dollars and holds in ETH, suddenly that halves and I think it will trigger sell offs by these companies to BTC or FIAT to protect their interests.”

    A different outcome?

    While the crypto futures trail has been blazed by Bitcoin, it may well be difficult to draw any early conclusions from the launch of BTC futures in December 2017.

    Shortly after the CBOE and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) launched their respective futures offerings, Bitcoin reached its all-time high of just over $20,000, before a humbling correction left markets in the red and reeling for months.

    While various factors played a role in the significant pull-back in the cryptocurrency markets, it made life difficult when it came to judging how BTC futures affected the markets and influenced prices.

    In July, CME indicated that it would not launch any other cryptocurrency futures offerings. However, it did release data that showed BTC futures average daily volume had increased by 93 percent over the first quarter of 2018.

    Considering the growth in the number of BTC futures contracts midway through 2018, it could be fair to assume that there is a growing appetite for these type of financial offerings in the cryptocurrency space.

    Nevertheless, the possible launch of Ether futures will be a space that will be keenly monitored in the months to come. As Nunn summed up in his comments to Cointelegraph, price prediction in the crypto space have been as good as a shot in the dark:

    “Of course I could be wrong and it could fly to $1000 but it seems the futures strategies serve to stifle the true growth of crypto, This has certainly been the case with Bitcoin as all price predictions are out of the window.”

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Sep 10

Today’s News 10th September 2018

  • France Says Russia Spied On Military Satellite In "Star Wars" Space Encounter

    On Friday France’s defense minister lashed out at Moscow in an usual accusation, saying a Russian satellite “with big ears” got so close to a French satellite last year that it could mean nothing but a clear attempt to eavesdrop.

    Defense Minister Florence Parly accused Russia of attempting to sweep up French military secrets in what she likened to a “Star Wars” type move far above Earth. She identified that the Russian satellite, named Louch-Olymp, approached its own, the Athena-Fidus (which was co-launched by Italy in 2014), in an act of military espionage.

    The Athena-Fidus is a French-Italian joint satellite reportedly used for secure military communications and the planning of operations.

    “Trying to listen to one’s neighbor is not only unfriendly. It’s called an act of espionage,” Parly charged in a speech in the southern city of Toulouse on Friday. “It got close. A bit too close. So close that one really could believe that it was trying to capture our communications,” she said. 

    Her comments grabbed global media attention after likening the incident to events in the movie Star Wars: “this little Stars Wars didn’t happen a long time ago in a galaxy far away. It happened a year ago, 36,000 kilometers above our heads,” she said.

    Parly further explained that the Russian satellite has “big ears” and is “well-known but a bit indiscreet.” She added that France had taken “the necessary measures” and is still monitoring the Russian satellite closely.

    However, it’s curious that while slamming Russia over the “close encounter” and crafting her words as media soundbites by using pop-culture references at the Toulouse-based France space agency conference, Defense Minister Parly is preparing to pitch a new space defense strategy by the end of the year, which no doubt will require a massively expanded budget. 

    And referencing President Trump’s controversial and massively expensive plan for an American “Space Force” unveiled this summer, Parly affirmed “France is and will be a space power”.

    She said she considers the new White House plans as an “extremely powerful signal: the signal of confrontations to come, the signal of the weight of the space sector, the signal of tomorrow’s challenges.”

    * * * 

    Meanwhile, hundreds of miles above the Earth…

  • A Diabolic False Flag Empire: Is The American Trajectory Divine Or Demonic?

    Authored by Edward Curtin via EdwardCurtin.com,

    The past is not dead; it is people who are sleeping.  The current night and daymares that we are having arise out of murders lodged deep in our past that have continued into the present.  No amount of feigned amnesia will erase the bloody truth of American history, the cheap grace we bestow upon ourselves. 

    We have, as Harold Pinter said in his Nobel address, been feeding on “a vast tapestry of lies” that surrounds us, lies uttered by nihilistic leaders and their media mouthpieces for a very long time.  We have, or should have, bad consciences for not acknowledging being active or silent accomplices in the suppression of truth and the vicious murdering of millions at home and abroad.

    But, as Pinter said,

    “I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.”

    No one is more emblematic of this noble effort than David Ray Griffin, who, in book after book since the attacks of 11 September 2001, has meticulously exposed the underside of the American empire and its evil masters.  His persistence in trying to reach people and to warn them of the horrors that have resulted is extraordinary.  Excluding his philosophical and theological works, this is his fifteenth book since 2004 on these grave issues of life and death and the future of the world.

    In this masterful book, he provides a powerful historical argument that right from the start with the arrival of the first European settlers, this country, despite all the rhetoric about it having been divinely founded and guided, has been “more malign that benign, more demonic than divine.”  He chronologically presents this history, supported by meticulous documentation, to prove his thesis.  In his previous book, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, Griffin cataloged the evil actions that flowed from the inside job/false flag attacks of September 11th, while in this one – a prequel – he offers a lesson in American history going back centuries, and he shows that one would be correct in calling the United States a “false flag empire.”

    The attacks of 11 September 2001 are the false flag fulcrum upon which his two books pivot. Their importance cannot be overestimated, not just for their inherent cruelty that resulted in thousands of innocent American deaths, but since they became the justification for the United States’ ongoing murderous campaigns termed “the war on terror” that have brought death to millions of people around the world.  An international array of expendable people.  Terrifying as they were, and were meant to be, they have many precedents, although much of this history is hidden in the shadows.  Griffin shines a bright light on them, with most of his analysis focused on the years 1850-2018.

    As a theological and philosophical scholar, he is well aware of the great importance of society’s need for religious legitimation for its secular authority, a way to offer its people a shield against terror and life’s myriad fears through a protective myth that has been used successfully by the United States to terrorize others.  He shows how the terms by which the U.S. has been legitimated as God’s “chosen nation” and Americans as God’s “chosen people” have changed over the years as secularization and pluralism have made inroads.  The names have changed, but the meaning has not. God is on our side, and when that is so, the other side is cursed and can be killed by God’s people, who are always battling el diabalo.

    He exemplifies this by opening with a quote from George Washington’s first Inaugural Address where Washington speaks of “the Invisible Hand” and “Providential agency” guiding the country, and by ending with Obama saying “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.”  In between we hear Andrew Jackson say that “Providence has showered on this favored land blessings without number” and Henry Cabot Lodge in 1900 characterize America’s divine mission as “manifest destiny.”  The American religion today is American Exceptionalism, an updated euphemism for the old-fashioned “God’s New Israel” or the “Redeemer Nation.”

    At the core of this verbiage lies the delusion that the United States, as a blessed and good country, has a divine mission to spread “democracy” and “freedom” throughout the world, as Hilary Clinton declared during the 2016 presidential campaign when she said that “we are great because we are good,” and in 2004 when George W. Bush said, “Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom.”   Such sentiments could only be received with sardonic laughter by the countless victims made “free” by America’s violent leaders, now and then, as Griffin documents.

    Having established the fact of America’s claim to divine status, he then walks the reader through various thinkers who have taken sides on the issue of the United States being benign or malign.  This is all preliminary to the heart of the book, which is a history lesson documenting the malignancy at the core of the American trajectory.

    “American imperialism is often said to have begun in 1898, when Cuba and the Philippines were the main prizes,” he begins. “What was new at this time, however, was only that America took control of countries beyond the North American continent.”

    The “divine right” to seize others’ lands and kill them started long before, and although no seas were crossed in the usual understanding of imperialism, the genocide of Native Americans long preceded 1898.  So too did the “manifest destiny” that impelled war with Mexico and the seizure of its land and the expansion west to the Pacific. This period of empire building depended heavily on the “other great crime against humanity” that was the slave trade, wherein it is estimated that 10 million Africans died, in addition to the sick brutality of slavery itself.  “No matter how brutal the methods, Americans were instruments of divine purposes,” writes Griffin.  And, he correctly adds, it is not even true that America’s overseas imperialistic ventures only started in 1898, for in the 1850s Commodore Perry forced “the haughty Japanese” to open their ports to American commerce through gunboat diplomacy.

    Then in 1898 the pace of overseas imperial expansion picked up dramatically with what has been called “The Spanish-American War” that resulted in the seizure of Cuba and the Philippines and the annexing of Hawaii.  Griffin says these wars could more accurately be termed “the wars to take Spanish colonies.”  His analysis of the brutality and arrogance of these actions makes the reader realize that My Lai and other more recent atrocities have a long pedigree that is part of an institutional structure, and while Filipinos and Cubans and so many others were being slaughtered, Griffin writes, “Anticipating Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s declaration that ‘we don’t do empire,’ [President] McKinley said that imperialism is ‘foreign to the temper and genius of this free and generous people.’”

    Then as now, perhaps mad laughter is the only response to such unadulterated bullshit, as Griffin quotes Mark Twain saying that it would be easy creating a flag for the Philippines:

    We can have just our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and cross-bones.

    That would have also worked for Columbia, Panama, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, and other countries subjugated under the ideology of the Monroe Doctrine; wherever freedom  and national independence raised its ugly head, the United States was quick to intervene with its powerful anti-revolutionary military and its financial bullying.  In the Far East the “Open Door” policy was used to loot China, Japan, and other countries.

    But all this was just the beginning.  Griffin shows how Woodrow Wilson, the quintessentially devious and treacherous liberal Democrat, who claimed he wanted to keep America out of WW I, did  just the opposite to make sure the U.S. would come to dominate the foreign markets his capitalist masters demanded.  Thus Griffin explores how Wilson conspired with Winston Churchill to use the sinking of the Lusitania as a casus belli and how the Treaty of Versailles’s harsh treatment of Germany set the stage for WW II.

    He tells us how in the intervening years between the world wars the demonization of Russia and the new Soviet Union was started. This deprecation of Russia, which is roaring at full-throttle today, is a theme that recurs throughout The American Trajectory.  Its importance cannot be overemphasized.  Wilson called the Bolshevik government “a government by terror,” and in 1918 “sent thousands of troops into northern and eastern Russia, leaving them there until 1920.”

    That the U. S. invaded Russia is a fact rarely mentioned and even barely known to Americans.  Perhaps awareness of it and the century-long demonizing of the U.S.S.R./Russia would enlighten those who buy the current anti-Russia propaganda called “Russiagate.”

    To match that “divine” act of imperial intervention abroad, Wilson fomented the Red Scare at home, which, as Griffin says, had lasting and incalculable importance because it created the American fear of radical thought and revolution that exists to this very day and serves as a justification for supporting brutal dictators around the world and crackdowns on freedom at home (as is happening today).

    He gives us brief summaries of some dictators the U.S has supported, and reminds us of the saying of that other liberal Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt, who famously said of the brutal Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, that “he may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.”  And thus Somoza would terrorize his own people for 43 years.  The same took place in Cuba, Chile, Iran, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, etc.  The U.S. also supported Mussolini, did nothing to prevent Franco’s fascist toppling of the Spanish Republic, and supported the right-wing government of Chiang-Kai Shek in its efforts to dominate China.

    It is a very dark and ugly history that confirms the demonic nature of American actions around the world.

    Then Griffin explodes the many myths about the so-called “Good War” – WW II.  He explains the lies told about the Japanese “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor; how Roosevelt wished to get the U.S. into the war, both in the Pacific and in Europe; and how much American economic self-interest lay behind it.  He critiques the myth that America selflessly wished to defend freedom loving people in their battles with brutal, fascist regimes. That, he tells us, is but a small part of the story:

    This, however, is not an accurate picture of American policies during the Second World War.  Many people were, to be sure, liberated from terrible tyrannies by the Allied victories. But the fact that these people benefited was an incidental outcome, not a motive of American policies. These policies, as [Andrew] Bacevich discovered, were based on ‘unflagging self-interest.’

    Then there are the conventional and atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Nothing could be more demonic, as Griffin shows.  If these cold-blooded mass massacres of civilians and the lies told to justify them don’t convince a reader that there has long been something radically evil at the heart of American history, nothing will. Griffin shows how Truman and his advisers and top generals, including Dwight Eisenhower and Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman’s Chief of Staff, knew the dropping of the atomic bombs were unnecessary to end the war, but they did so anyway.

    He reminds us of Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s response to the question whether she thought the deaths of more than 500, 000 Iraqi children as a result of Clinton’s crippling economic sanctions were worth it: “But, yes, we think the price is worth it.”  (Notice the “is,” the ongoing nature of these war crimes, as she spoke.)  But this is the woman who also said, “We are the indispensable nation.  We stand tall…”

    Griffin devotes other chapters to the creation of the Cold War, American imperialism during the Cold War, Post-Cold War interventions, the Vietnam War, the drive for global dominance, and false flag operations, among other topics.

    As for false flag operations, he says, “Indeed, the trajectory of the American Empire has relied so heavily on these types of attacks that one could describe it as a false flag empire.”  In the false flag chapter and throughout the book, he discusses many of the false flags the U.S. has engaged in, including Operation Gladio, the U.S./NATO terrorist operation throughout Europe that Swiss historian Daniele Ganser has extensively documented, an operation meant to discredit communists and socialists.  Such operations were directly connected to the OSS, the CIA and its director Allen Dulles, his henchman James Jesus Angleton, and their Nazi accomplices, such as General Reinhard Gehlen.  In one such attack in 1980 at the Bologna, Italy railway station, these U.S. terrorists killed 85 people and wounded 20 others.  As with the bombs dropped by Saudi Arabia today on Yemeni school children, the explosive used was made for the U.S. military.  About these documented U.S. atrocities, Griffin says:

    These revelations show the falsity of an assumption widely held by Americans.  While recognizing that the US military sometimes does terrible things to their enemies, most Americans have assumed that US military leaders would not order the killing of innocent civilians in allied countries for political purposes.  Operation Gladio showed this assumption to be false.

    He is right, but I would add that the leaders behind this were civilian, as much as, or more than military.

    In the case of “Operation Northwoods,” it was the Joint Chiefs of Staff who presented to President Kennedy this false flag proposal that would provide justification for a U.S. invasion of Cuba.  It would have involved the killing of American citizens on American soil, bombings, plane hijacking, etc.  President Kennedy considered such people and such plans insane, and he rejected it as such.  His doing so tells us much, for many other presidents would have approved it.  And again, how many Americans are aware of this depraved proposal that is documented and easily available?  How many even want to contemplate it?  For the need to remain in denial of the facts of history and believe in the essential goodness of America’s rulers is a very hard nut to crack.  Griffin has written a dozen books about 11 September 2001, trying to do exactly that.

    If one is willing to embrace historical facts, however, then this outstanding book will open one’s eyes to the long-standing demonic nature of the actions of America’s rulers. A reader cannot come away from its lucidly presented history unaffected, unless one lives in a self-imposed fantasy world.  The record is clear, and Griffin lays it out in all its graphic horror. Which is not to say that the U.S. has not “done both good and bad things, so it could not sensibly be called purely divine or purely demonic.” Questions of purity are meant to obfuscate basic truths. And the question he asks in his subtitle – Divine or Demonic? – is really a rhetorical question, and when it comes to the “trajectory” of American history, the demonic wins hands down.

    I would be remiss if I didn’t point out one place where Griffin fails the reader. In his long chapter on Vietnam, which is replete with excellent facts and analyses, he makes a crucial mistake, which is unusual for him.  This mistake appears in a four page section on President Kennedy’s policies on Vietnam.  In those pages, Griffin relies on Noam Chomsky’s terrible book – Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture (1993), a book wherein Chomsky shows no regard for evidence or facts – to paint Kennedy as being in accord with his advisers, the CIA, and the military regarding Vietnam.  This is factually false. Griffin should have been more careful and have understood this. The truth is that Kennedy was besieged and surrounded by these demonic people, who were intent on isolating him, disregarding his instructions, and murdering him to achieve their goals in Vietnam.  In the last year of his life, JFK had taken a radical turn toward peace-making, not only in Vietnam, but with the Soviet Union, Cuba, and around the globe. Such a turn was anathema to the war lovers. Thus he had to die. Contrary to Chomsky’s deceptions, motivated by his hatred of Kennedy and perhaps something more sinister (he also backs the Warren Commission, thinks JFK’s assassination was no big deal, and accepts the patently false official version of the attacks of 11 September 2001), Griffin should have emphatically asserted that Kennedy had issued NSAM 263 on October 11, 1963 calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam, and that after he was assassinated a month later, Lyndon Johnson reversed that withdrawal order with NSAM 273.  Chomsky notwithstanding, all the best scholarship and documentary evidence proves this.  And for Griffin, a wonderful scholar, to write that with the change from Kennedy to Johnson that “this change of presidents would bring no basic change in policy” is so shockingly wrong that I imagine Griffin, a man passionate about truth, simply slipped up and got sloppy here.  For nothing could be further from the truth.

    Ironically, Griffin makes a masterful case for his thesis, while forgetting the one pivotal man, President John Kennedy, who sacrificed his life in an effort to change the trajectory of American history from its demonic course.

    It is one mistake in an otherwise very important and excellent book that should be required reading for anyone who doubts the evil nature of this country’s continuing foreign policy.  Those who are already convinced should also read it, for it provides a needed historical resource and impetus to help change the trajectory that is transporting the world toward nuclear oblivion, if continued.

    If – a fantastic wish! – The American Trajectory: Divine or Demonic? were required reading in American schools and colleges, perhaps a new generation would arise to change our devils into angels, the arc of America’s future moral universe toward justice, and away from being the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today, as it has been for so very long.

  • "Terrorist Theft" – Pakistan's Nukes Outpacing Projections In Uncertain Security Landscape

    Pakistan is set to become the world’s 5th largest nuclear weapons state according to an alarming new report which shows the country is set for rapid expansion of its arsenal over the next decade. 

    The report was issued by an independent nuclear arms monitoring group under the Federation of American Scientists called the Nuclear Information Project and demonstrates that US intelligence has consistently understated and failed to accurately assess Pakistan’s future capabilities. 

    While the Defense Intelligence Agency (the DIA) projected in 1999 that Pakistan would possess 60 to 80 nuclear warheads by 2020, the report shows the actual current figure at 140 to 150 warheads.

    Should the current trend continue unabated, the Federation of American Scientists report indicates, the stockpile could increase to between 220 and 250 by the year 2025.

    “We estimate that the country’s stockpile could more realistically grow to 220 to 250 warheads by 2025, if the current trend continues. If that happens, it would make Pakistan the world’s fifth-largest nuclear weapon state,” wrote the authors of the report entitled ‘Pakistani nuclear forces 2018’. 

    Crucially, the report also focuses on the threat that the country’s vast arsenal, which includes tactical nuke development, could fall into the hands of terrorists, given Pakistan’s shifting and hotbed political landscape. It cites past administrations as feeling confident at the domestic security situation, but emphasizes this was misguided.

    The report also references the significant shift in priorities by the Trump administration. The report reads: 

    In stark contrast, the Trump administration assessment in 2018 was: “We are particularly concerned by the development of tactical nuclear weapons that are designed for use in battlefield. We believe that these systems are more susceptible to terrorist theft and increase the likelihood of nuclear exchange in the region.”

    Upon unveiling his South Asia strategy on 21 August 2017, Trump urged Pakistan to stop sheltering terrorist organizations, and noted the need to “prevent nuclear weapons and materials from coming into the hands of terrorists.” US concern over the security of Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons precedes the Trump administration.

    Despite security concerns and the presence of Islamist and Taliban factions along Pakistan’s porous tribal Afghan border region, nuclear expansion has continued at unrelenting rapid pace. 

    “With several delivery systems in development, four plutonium production reactors, and its uranium enrichment facilities expanding, however, Pakistan has a stockpile that will likely increase further over the next 10 years,” says the report further. 

    Pakistan could be poised to overstep the UK and approach China in the coming years

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    And perhaps more worrisome is that nuclear warheads may be going mobile: “Analysis of a large number of commercial satellite images of Pakistani army garrisons and air force bases shows what appear to be mobile launchers and underground facilities that might be related to nuclear forces,” the report reads. 

    But perhaps most alarming is the suggestion among some analysts that Pakistan could begin actually approaching China and France in the coming decade, which the report’s authors downplay: “Speculation that Pakistan may become the world’s third-largest nuclear weapon state – with a stockpile of some 350 warheads a decade from now – are, we believe, exaggerated, not least because that would require a buildup two to three times faster than the growth rate over the past two decades.” 

    Concerning the arms race with India, the report notes, “The efforts seek to create a full-spectrum deterrent that is designed not only to respond to nuclear attacks, but also to counter an Indian conventional incursion onto Pakistani territory.” This has Washington officials worried as “This development has created considerable concern in other countries, including the United States, which fears that it lowers the threshold for nuclear use in a military conflict with India.” 

    During the opening week of September the Pentagon announced that it “made a final decision” to cancel $300 million in aid to the country after the White House slammed Islamabad for turning a blind eye to terrorism — this after another $550 had been stripped by Congress earlier in the year, bringing the total withheld from Pakistan to $800 million. 

    President Trump had issued prior threats to do just this, as his first tweet of 2018 had charged the longtime US ally with paying back American foreign aid with “nothing but lies & deceit”. He also vowed, “They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!”

  • Beware The American Snake Oil Salesman

    Authored by Wayne Madsen via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The election engineering merchants of George Soros and other “one-size-fits-all” democracy templates may have been vanquished in Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Myanmar, but they are, by no means, down and out. International non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have simply borrowed a page from international consultancies and gone quasi-private, racking up lucrative contracts as political advisers to pro-capitalist candidates around the world.

    With the US Foreign Service largely neutered under President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, there is virtually no one left at various US embassies in far-flung diplomatic posts to warn host governments about the modern version of American “snake oil salesmen” pitching their election assistance wares to unsuspecting candidates for office.

    Take Vanguard Africa, a Washington, DC-based election campaign consultancy that seeks public contributions under the aegis of the Democratic Party’s fundraising organization, ActBlue. During a time when there are complaints in the United States of foreign interference in American elections, why is an outfit like Vanguard America involved in elections in The Gambia and Niger? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

    If someone donates to ActBlue to elect more Democrats to the US Congress, state legislatures, and mayors’ offices, why is ActBlue, working with Vanguard Africa, involved in helping to elect in January 2017, Adama Barrow as president of The Gambia in West Africa? Vanguard Africa’s US leadership includes Joe Trippi, former Vermont Democratic Governor Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign chairman, and former Democratic US Representative Al Wynn of Maryland.

    Vanguard Africa unabashedly admits on its website that it mixes election engineering with lobbying in Washington: “Access to Influential Leaders – Opening lines of communication and building trusted, long-term relationships with key pro-democracy groups, civic leaders, elected officials and policymakers – in Washington, DC and internationally.” While such a service helps line the pockets of Washington lobbyists and increases the profiles of certain African leaders, such as Barrow in The Gambia, it does little to alleviate the extreme poverty of Africans in The Gambia or anywhere else on the continent.

    It is not merely the connections of outfits like Vanguard Africa to the Central Intelligence Agency-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) that should ring alarm bells, but also its connection to the Washington lobbying organization Sanitas International, whose partner, Christopher Harvin, is a co-founder of Vanguard Africa. Sanitas has a contract with Tzvika Brot, of Delaware-incorporated BSI Public Affairs, Brot ran the 2016 get-out-the-vote campaign targeting US voters in Israel on behalf of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. Washington deal-making does not get any “swampier” than this. And Mr. Trump, who rants and raves about “draining the swamp,” is one of its chief scaly denizens.

    Perhaps it is time for an international convention, either through the auspices of the United Nations or regional supranational organizations, like the African Union, European Union, and others, to prohibit all foreign government or corporate interference in elections in other countries. If narcotics and human trafficking, as well as weapons smuggling, can be banned internationally, why not foreign election interference?

    Such a regime would stop Vanguard Africa from providing advice to clients like Daher Ahmed Farah, the president of the of the Movement for Democratic Renewal and Development opposition in the militarily-strategic country of Djibouti on the Red Sea, or Ibrahim Yacouba, a 2021 presidential candidate in Niger and Biram Dah Abeid, a failed 2014 presidential candidate in Mauritania. Questions have been raised about how Abeid became one of the richest men in Mauritania after receiving huge “human rights” grants from foreign NGOs. Apparently, promoting “democracy” on behalf of foreign masters can be a very lucrative business.

    Vanguard receives funding from Tony O. Elumelu, one of Nigeria’s richest men and chairman of Heirs Holdings, the United Bank for Africa, Transcorp, as well as the founder of the Africacapitalism Institute. While Barack Obama may have supported the “entrepreneurship” notions of “Africacapitalism,” the quasi-libertarian gobbledygook of a “rising tide lifts all boats” espoused as part of such policies represents a slap in the face of the pan-African socialism of the founders of modern independent Africa. These include Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, Julius Nyerere, Kenneth Kaunda, and Patrice Lumumba, and later, Muammar Qaddafi and Thomas Sankara.

    The Guardian newspaper spelled out the problems associated with the “do-gooder capitalism” of those like Elumelu in a July 12, 2013 piece. The article quotes University of British Columbia law professor Joel Bakan as asserting that schemes like that of Elumelu parrot the rhetoric often used as a “smokescreen for big business to push towards deregulation.” Bakan believes that such “shared value” business models distort the public’s relationship with mega-businesses. In Africa and Latin America, where state ownership of key industries and foreign government economic assistance programs helped advance national economies from Third World to Second and First World status, the arrival of snake oil salesmen selling “beneficial capitalism” led to crippling austerity imposed by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

    Another snake oil merchant, Avenue Strategies Global – co-founded by Trump 2016 campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and Barry Bennett, manager of current Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson’s presidential run – is also selling political advice abroad. The firm, which is situated on a corner across from the White House, recently signed a lucrative contract with former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko. It is obvious that Avenue Strategies is helping Tymosheno position herself for a future presidential run in Ukraine. And it is quite convenient that the firm, which Lewandowski has departed, is close, both geographically and politically, to the offices of Trump administration key officials, including National Security Adviser John Bolton.

    Lewandowski is associated with another political advice consultancy, Turnberry Solutions, LLC of Washington, DC. Perhaps not coincidentally, Trump Turnberry is the name of Trump’s Scottish golf resort. Yet another Lewandowski-linked firm, Washington East West Political Strategies LLC, which dissolved in 2017, had been advising political candidates in Albania and Kosovo, as well as others in the Middle East, Canada, and Central America. Lewandowski’s links with the Amsterdam Group, another Washington lobbying firm, puts him in the same orbit as former YUKOS oil head, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a client of Amsterdam Group and someone who has been working from the United States, Europe, and Israel to oust Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government.

    Of more concern is Lewandowski’s links to the Boston, Massachusetts-based social media analytics firm, Crimson Hexagon, which stands accused of manipulating Facebook data to affect election outcomes. The threat posed by the intersection of political advisory firms, “big data” manipulators, and NGOs cannot be underestimated.

    Big Brother is now a reality and he does not want your vote, he wants to cast your vote. One of the most sinister buildings on Constitution Avenue in Washington, DC is the inaptly-named US Institute of Peace. Its election manipulation activities, conducted in concert with consultancies, data analytics firms, and NGOs, often result in wars and civil strife.

    As the weeping over the death of Senator John McCain subsides, it should be remembered that his pride and joy, the election-meddling International Republican Institute, and his former campaign manager, Rick Davis, had longstanding organizational ties to Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager. Manafort now sits in a jail cell in Alexandria, Virginia, convicted on eight counts of fraud, and awaiting trial in Washington, DC on additional criminal counts. The Trump administration wasted no time in immersing itself deep into this political swamp and help market American political snake oil to unsuspecting countries around the world.

  • Visualizing Argentina's Bank Run In 1 Crazy Chart

    In case you were wondering why Argentina hit the ‘full panic’ button late last week with interventions and promises of “painful” austerity to solve its currency collapse crisis, look no further than this chart…

    As Bloomberg notes, Argentines pulled about $490 million dollars from personal savings accounts in the final two days of August, when the peso reached a record of 41.6 per U.S. dollar.

    This is the biggest drop in 15 months as Argentina’s Reserves have tumbled back to pre-IMF bailout levels…

    It is evidently very clear that the collapse of the Argentine peso is making the country’s citizens nervous… and the bank run has begun.

  • Middle-Class Melancholia: "But Really, What Are We Supposed To Do?"

    Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    The middle class in America is being systematically eviscerated right in front of our eyes. 

    I don’t normally do this, but today I want to share with you an email that was recently sent to me by a reader.  I asked for permission to share her story with all of you, because I think that it will be encouraging for a lot of people out there to understand that they aren’t alone. 

    In this supposedly “booming” economy, millions upon millions of American families are barely making it from month to month even though they are working as hard as they possibly can.  But because the mainstream media has been endlessly touting “good economic news” for the last several years, many of those that are struggling end up believing that something must be wrong with them since they aren’t participating in all of the “prosperity”.  But of course the truth is that almost all of the economic rewards have been going to the very top of the economic pyramid.  Meanwhile, the middle class continues to shrink and more families fall into poverty with each passing month.

    As you read the email that I am about to share with you, there are several things that I want you to notice.

    #1 These people are not lazy.  The husband has a good job for the area in which they live, and the wife is working very hard to bring in some online income as she takes care of the kids.  So neither of them would be considered to be “unemployed”.

    #2 They are also very frugal.  They have cut expenses as far as they can, and they are still not able to make ends meet.

    #3 They are being crushed by medical bills.  Our healthcare system is a completely and total nightmare, and there are no solutions in sight.  Thanks to the Democrats, soaring health insurance premiums are absolutely crushing middle class families.  And the Republicans have had almost two years to try to fix things, and they have completely failed to get anything done.  Shame on all of them.

    #4 Almost everyone that they know is on government assistance, and so far they have resisted the urge to follow suit.  Right now, more than 100 million Americans receive assistance from the government every month, and we are rapidly being transformed into a full-blown socialist nation.

    I could say so much more, but let me get right to the email.  This story really touched my heart, and I know that it will touch your heart as well…

    I and my husband have been reading your blog for five or six years now. So many of your articles sound just like us, and I just wanted to share our situation and perspective as conservative Christians who were actually taught Biblical handling of money. Hopefully it will help you with your writing!

    Unlike most millennials, we came into marriage with no debt and a decent savings. We have always lived on a strict budget that usually doesn’t include clothing or eating out; most of the time it doesn’t even include saving! We have never used credit cards. I am very frugal, shopping by what’s on sale, buying in bulk, cooking from scratch, and often doing without. We eat beans more than anything else. We own one vehicle, and half the time have to borrow a car from family because ours breaks down and we don’t have the money to fix it.

    We work hard. My husband works for the county more than full time, and makes quite a bit more than most jobs in our area (minimum wage is 8.25 here), but a third of his check goes straight to taxes. I worked outside the home before we had children, and now have a blog and an online business that make a few hundred a month on average. We also work hard growing a large garden and keeping a few animals for food.

    Unfortunately we just can’t make ends meet. We’ve used up all of our savings and haven’t been able to replace it. Family members are giving us $500-$1000 every month. We’ve both been in the hospital a few times for injury and illness, and each time costs thousands of dollars. We spent our tax return this year on medical bills, and still owe thousands to the local hospital.

    We see what is going on in this country, and around the world, and we want to be prepared, but instead of getting ahead we just get more and more behind. We’ve already sold everything that was worth anything.

    After taxes, the biggest expense that is killing us is insurance. All the types of insurance that are mandatory or just seem like a necessity now – health insurance, car insurance, insurance for our mobile home and rental property (required by our landlord), life insurance that is necessary with my husband’s job.

    Medical bills are next on the list – who can afford to go to a doctor nowadays, even with insurance? We do everything possible to avoid doctor visits, even having our last child at home without a midwife even though I am considered high risk. Sometimes emergencies happen though, and going to the doctor just isn’t avoidable.

    Pretty much all of our friends and co-workers are getting government help every month. Honestly we’d be a lot better off if we did to, but we don’t want to. It’s not the government’s job to take care of everybody.

    But really, what are we supposed to do? Is there anything we can do to fix the mess our economy is in? Is there anything people like us can do to get out of this situation, or is it just a hopeless downward spiral that’s going to get worse and worse till we are living under a bridge?

    I wrote her back and tried to encourage her.  No matter how bad things seem to be in life, there is always a way to turn things around if you just keep on fighting.

    And things could turn around for America too, but we would have to be willing to fundamentally change our ways, and at this moment there are no indications that this will happen any time soon.

    I get accused of being all about “doom and gloom”, but in my latest book I set forth a detailed prescription for what we need to do to turn things around.  And I ran for Congress on a platform of positive solutions, but that message didn’t resonate enough with the voters.

    Inexplicably, most Americans seem to like the status quo even though the system is literally coming apart at the seams all around us.

    What we have been doing as a nation does not work, it is not sustainable, and it has become exceedingly clear that a day of reckoning is rapidly approaching.  At this point it is so obvious that even the mainstream media is starting to warn of imminent economic disaster.

    For years, many of us have been warning what would happen if we did not change our ways, and we have been trying to offer alternative solutions, but most Americans continue to embrace the current system and believe that it will be able to survive despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

    In the end, it is probably going to take a complete and utter collapse of the current system before most people will wake up, and that is something that nobody will enjoy.

  • DARPA Designs ‘Glide Breaker’ Interceptor To Hit Enemy Hypersonic Missiles 

    As Russia and China jump ahead of the United States with superior hypersonic weapons, one of the Pentagon’s top research and development arms is playing defense with a new, secret project to guard the nation against Mach 5 missile attacks.

    The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) Glide Breakers program will research “component technologies” needed for one or more defense systems but will focus heavily on a kinetic-force weapon to intercept high-speed enemy missiles, said The Drive.

    Last week, DARPA presented the stylish concept art of the Glide Break for the first time at its D60 Symposium, a three-day conference honoring the organization’s 60th anniversary.

    The Drive said the defense agency had previously hosted a meeting with government officials to break down the project and its requirements to interested parties back in July.

    “The objective of the Glide Breaker program is to further the capability of the United States to defend against supersonic and the entire class of hypersonic threats,” DARPA said in an announcement for the July 2018 “Proposers Day.” “Of particular interest are component technologies that radically reduce risk for development and integration of an operational, hard-kill system.”

    If successfully developed then fielded, the hypersonic missile interceptor would serve as a deterrent against Russia and China. The Drive notes it is unclear if the interceptor is even realistic — saying that striking down a hypersonic missile out of orbit is like trying to “hit one bullet with another bullet.”

    The revelation of DARPA’s new missile interceptor program should be viewed as a clear message to Russia and China. Last week, Missile Defense Agency commander Lieutenant General Samuel Greaves warned that China had recently launched “several dozen successful hypersonic missile tests that Washington cannot ignore.”

    “The Chinese have now done several dozen successful hypersonic (missile) tests… we just cannot (ignore),” Greaves briefed a group of government officials held by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance.

    If DARPA successfully transfers the interceptor technology to the US Air Force in the next several years and implements it on the modern battlefield. Then, it would likely be the primary defense system that challenges China’s waverider hypersonic weapon.

    To make up for lost time, the Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin with approximately $1.5 billion in contracts this summer to develop a hypersonic missile for the Air Force.

    While many believe American Hegemony is here to stay, there is a strong possibility that it could be somewhat displaced in the coming years as China and Russia now lead the hypersonic race. DARPA’s Glide Breaker program should be viewed as a defensive ploy by Washington, as US Admiral Harry Harris, former head of the US Pacific Command and now the ambassador to South Korea, recently said “China’s hypersonic weapons development outpaces ours… we’re falling behind.”

  • Hurricane Florence Could Cause Major Damage Hundreds Of Miles Inland

    Authored by Daisy Luther

    When I moved to southwestern Virginia, I really didn’t expect to be dealing with hurricanes. But, as I’ve just learned, a system like Hurricane Florence could affect places that are as much as 350+ miles from the shore.

    So, if you are one of the 112 million and then some of Americans in the area classified as the “East Coast” – particularly the southern to mid-Atlantic part – you need to get prepared.

    When and where will Hurricane Florence make landfall?

    Hurricane Florence is picking up power and could make landfall as a Category 5 as soon as Thursday. If you aren’t familiar with hurricanes, a Category 5 hurricane has sustained winds of 156 mph or stronger.  It is the highest classification for hurricanes.

    At this point, it looks like the coast between Charleston, SC, and Norfolk, VA will bear the brunt of the storm, with Wilmington, NC taking a direct hit from the eye. Here’s a map from ABC News:

    (photo credit: ABC News)

    Now, a very important thing to keep in mind is that hurricanes are unpredictable until they get closer to the shore. At that point, we can know with much more certainty that the storm is headed our way. Unfortunately, at that point, it’s really too late to get prepared. Supplies will be picked over at the stores and roads will be jammed with people fleeing the hurricane.

    It’s much better to prepare as far in advance as possible for a hurricane. And if this one turns back out to see, don’t think your preparations have been wasted. Trust me, another one will come and you will be glad you have the supplies that you do.

    How far away from the coast can hurricanes affect you?

    The National Hurricane Center warns that the pictures on maps are only predictions and that the effects can go far beyond these cones.

    NHC tropical cyclone forecast tracks can be in error. This forecast uncertainty is conveyed by the track forecast “cone”, the solid white and stippled white areas in the graphic. The solid white area depicts the track forecast uncertainty for days 1-3 of the forecast, while the stippled area depicts the uncertainty on days 4-5. Historical data indicate that the entire 5-day path of the center of the tropical cyclone will remain within the cone about 60-70% of the time. To form the cone, a set of imaginary circles are placed along the forecast track at the 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, and 120 h positions, where the size of each circle is set so that it encloses 67% of the previous five years official forecast errors. The cone is then formed by smoothly connecting the area swept out by the set of circles.

    It is also important to realize that a tropical cyclone is not a point. Their effects can span many hundreds of miles from the center. The area experiencing hurricane force (one-minute average wind speeds of at least 74 mph) and tropical storm force (one-minute average wind speeds of 39-73 mph) winds can extend well beyond the white areas shown enclosing the most likely track area of the center. (source)

    I would imagine if you are anywhere near the cone, you need to be making preparations. Here’s the NHC’s map.

    Here’s an explanation of the graphic:

    This graphic shows an approximate representation of coastal areas under a hurricane warning (red), hurricane watch (pink), tropical storm warning (blue) and tropical storm watch (yellow). The orange circle indicates the current position of the center of the tropical cyclone. The black line, when selected, and dots show the National Hurricane Center (NHC) forecast track of the center at the times indicated. The dot indicating the forecast center location will be black if the cyclone is forecast to be tropical and will be white with a black outline if the cyclone is forecast to be extratropical. If only an L is displayed, then the system is forecast to be a remnant low. The letter inside the dot indicates the NHC’s forecast intensity for that time:

    D: Tropical Depression – wind speed less than 39 MPH
    S: Tropical Storm – wind speed between 39 MPH and 73 MPH
    H: Hurricane – wind speed between 74 MPH and 110 MPH
    M: Major Hurricane – wind speed greater than 110 MPH

    Their prediction has it reaching us Friday instead of Thursday. Personally, I plan to have everything in place by Wednesday. You just never know when it comes to Mother Nature.

    How should you prepare for Hurricane Florence?

    How you should prepare for Hurricane Florence depends where you live.

    If you live on the coast and discover that Florence is indeed a Category 5, your best option is to evacuate. A Category 5 is nothing to mess around with. In fact, evacuations may well be mandatory.

    If you are going to leave, do so before everyone else is panicking to get out of the way of the hurricane. If you are going to evacuate, by making plans early, you can still reserve a hotel much further inland while some are still available. You can make plans to find one that is pet-friendly or find a kennel that will take your furbabies. If you wait until the last minute, you could end up in some unpleasant shelter.

    If you live further inland (or if Florence is much weaker than predicted) the preparations are different. Most folks will hunker down and wait it out. Here are the things you can expect:

    • High winds
    • Torrential rain
    • Flooding (some places are predicting more than 20 inches of rainfall in a day)
    • Disruptions of electricity
    • Disruptions of municipal water

    So to prepare for these things you need to take the following steps:

    • Go out to your yard and secure anything that could become a projectile: lawn furniture, large toys, fallen branches, flower pots, etc.
    • If there are trees with dead or weak limbs overhanging your house, have the branches removed.
    • If you live in a low-lying area or near a body of water, make an evacuation plan in case of flooding.
    • Remove things from your basement or lower floors of your home to protect them from possible flood waters. It may be enough to merely put the items up on wooden pallets you scavenged from the trash of a local business.
    • Prepare for a power outage that could last for 2 weeks. (go here for details).
    • Be sure to have food on hand that doesn’t require cooking.
    • Have plenty of water for humans or pets (again, enough for 2 weeks).
    • Have back up power all charged up for cell phones.
    • Pick up some ice so you can store some of your groceries in coolers and keep fridges and freezers cold for longer.
    • If you live in an area that is likely to flood, be prepared to be stranded at home until the waters recede.
    • Make sure to pick up prescription medication and other supplies for special needs.

    Obviously, this is a quick list of preparations. For something a little bit more detailed, download this free checklist with the things you need to do to get ready for the hurricane.

    If you want to go more in-depth, pick up a copy of my book, The Prepper’s Hurricane Survival Guide.

    Hurricane Florence isn’t the only one to worry about

    Unfortunately, there are quite a few hurricanes brewing in the oceans off American coasts. Isaac is close on the heels of Florence and has reached tropical storm status. Isaac may turn into a hurricane and at this time, seems likely to be aimed further south than Florence.

    Tropical Storm Isaac formed in the Atlantic Ocean on Saturday, the National Hurricane Center said. It’s one of three storms churning in the Atlantic Ocean, with Tropical Storm Florence heading toward the U.S. East Coast and Tropical Storm Helene heading toward some of the Cabo Verde islands.

    As of a 11 p.m. ET, Isaac was located 1,580 miles east of the Windward Islands, which include St. Lucia, Dominica, Martinquie and Grenada. A westward motion with an increase in forward speed is expected during the next few days, the National Hurricane Center said.

    Isaac had maximum sustained winds of 50 mph on Saturday.

    Should Isaac stay on this course, Florida and the Gulf could take the hit. Again – Isaac is too far out for accurate predictions – the storm could easily turn out to sea before it ever makes landfall.

    Hawaii was recently hit with an unusual event for the island state – Hurricane Lane. And now, another hurricane is headed toward Hawaii. This one is Hurricane Olivia, which is expected to threaten the islands as soon as next Tuesday.

    Now a Category 1 storm, Olivia was about 825 miles east-northeast of Hilo, Hawaii as of 11 p.m. local time Saturday (5 a.m. Sunday ET), the Central Pacific Hurricane Center said.

    The storm may be near the Hawaiian Islands late Tuesday, the center said, warning that tropical storm or hurricane watches could need to be issued Sunday.

    “Little change in strength is forecast during the next couple of days, and Olivia is expected to remain a hurricane through Monday evening. Some gradual weakening is possible on Tuesday, but Olivia will likely remain a threat to the Hawaiian Islands next week,” the hurricane center said

    “While it is too soon to determine the location and magnitude of the worst impacts, all interests in Hawaii should continue to monitor the progress of Olivia, and use this time to prepare for the increasing likelihood of direct impacts from this system early next week,” the center warned. (source)

    I hope you’ll heed these warnings and start getting prepped today for the potential of some incredibly bad weather this week.

  • China's Inflation Comes In Hot; Here's Why It Won't Last

    With China launching an aggressive fiscal and monetary stimulus over the past 2 months to keep its economy humming in response to Trump’s trade wars, coupled with the sharp depreciation in the Chinese Yuan ever since Trump launched his first round of tariffs on Chinese imports, whisper expectations ahead of today’s CPI and PPI data out of China were of an upside surprise to consensus expectations even as some analysts were concerned that China’s trade war-driven slowdown would hit its inflation data.

    Well, this time the “whispers’ won, with both August CPI and PPI coming in stronger than expected, as consumer prices rose 2.3%, higher than the 2.1% consensus (at the top end of the forecast range of 1.6% to 2.3%) above last month’s 2.1% and the highest since February; PPI also came in stronger, printing at 4.1% above the 4.0% expected, if well below July’s 4.6%.

    The modestly stronger (than expected) CPI will bolster the case for PBOC support of the Yuan, as continued currency weakness would only lead to further gains in inflation (just ask Erdogan). That said, the offshore Yuan was largely unchanged on the news, as despite the small uptick inflation remains muted, and will not be a major concern for the central bank.

    As for PPI, despite today’s beat expect further weakness, because as go China’s commodities, and especially coal, so goes PPI, and in light of the ongoing commodity market weakness (once again courtesy of Trump’s trade wars) there is no reason to expect wholesale Chinese inflation to rebound any time soon:

    Finally, while inflation this month may have come in hotter than expected, the far bigger risk is one of deflation, largely as a result of the ongoing collapse in China’s credit impulse, which leads the industrial metals commodity index with a 15 month lead, suggesting that commodity prices are set for a sharp drop in the coming year.

    And speaking of China’s credit impulse, recall the dire forecast laid out by Goldman yesterday, which expects a sharp – and deflationary – collapse in Chinese consumption as a result of what the bank expects to be the worst credit impulse print this decade as soon as next quarter.

    In other words, enjoy the “stronger than expected” inflation prints out of China. They won’t last.

     

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Sep 09

Today’s News 9th September 2018

  • Criminalizing Childhood: School Safety Measures Aren't Making Students Any Safer

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “Every day in communities across the United States, children and adolescents spend the majority of their waking hours in schools that have increasingly come to resemble places of detention more than places of learning. From metal detectors to drug tests, from increased policing to all-seeing electronic surveillance, the public schools of the twenty-first century reflect a society that has become fixated on crime, security and violence.”—Investigative journalist Annette Fuentes

    It used to be that if you talked back to a teacher, or played a prank on a classmate, or just failed to do your homework, you might find yourself in detention or doing an extra writing assignment after school. 

    Of course, that was before school shootings became a part of our national lexicon.

    Nowadays, as a result of the government’s profit-driven campaign to keep the nation “safe” from drugs, weapons and terrorism, students are not only punished for minor transgressions such as playing cops and robbers on the playground, bringing LEGOs to school, or having a food fight, but they are being punished with suspension, expulsion, and even arrest.

    Welcome to Compliance 101: the police state’s primer in how to churn out compliant citizens and transform the nation’s school’s into quasi-prisons through the use of surveillance cameras, metal detectors, police patrols, zero tolerance policies, lock downs, drug sniffing dogs, strip searches and active shooter drills.

    If you were wondering, these police state tactics have not made the schools any safer.

    Rather, they’ve turned the schools into authoritarian microcosms of the police state, containing almost every aspect of the militarized, intolerant, senseless, overcriminalized, legalistic, surveillance-riddled, totalitarian landscape that plagues those of us on the “outside.”

    If your child is fortunate enough to survive his encounter with the public schools, you should count yourself fortunate.

    Most students are not so lucky.

    From the moment a child enters one of the nation’s 98,000 public schools to the moment he or she graduates, they will be exposed to a steady diet of draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech, school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students, standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking, politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them, and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.

    By the time the average young person in America finishes their public school education, nearly one out of every three of them will have been arrested.

    More than 3 million students are suspended or expelled from schools every year, often for minor misbehavior, such as “disruptive behavior” or “insubordination.”

    Black students are three times more likely than white students to face suspension and expulsion.

    Zero tolerance policies that were intended to make schools safer by discouraging the use of actual drugs and weapons by students have turned students into suspects to be treated as criminals by school officials and law enforcement alike, while criminalizing childish behavior.

    For instance, 9-year-old Patrick Timoney was sent to the principal’s office and threatened with suspension after school officials discovered that one of his LEGOs was holding a 2-inch toy gun. 

    David Morales, an 8-year-old Rhode Island student, ran afoul of his school’s zero tolerance policies after he wore a hat to school decorated with an American flag and tiny plastic Army figures in honor of American troops. School officials declared the hat out of bounds because the toy soldiers were carrying miniature guns.

    A 7-year-old New Jersey boy, described by school officials as “a nice kid” and “a good student,” was reported to the police and charged with possessing an imitation firearm after he brought a toy Nerf-style gun to school. The gun shoots soft ping pong-type balls.

    Things have gotten so bad that it doesn’t even take a toy gun to raise the ire of school officials.

    A high school sophomore was suspended for violating the school’s no-cell-phone policy after he took a call from his father, a master sergeant in the U.S. Army who was serving in Iraq at the time. 

    A 12-year-old New York student was hauled out of school in handcuffs for doodling on her desk with an erasable marker.

    In Houston, an 8th grader was suspended for wearing rosary beads to school in memory of her grandmother (the school has a zero tolerance policy against the rosary, which the school insists can be interpreted as a sign of gang involvement). 

    Six-year-old Cub Scout Zachary Christie was sentenced to 45 days in reform school after bringing a camping utensil to school that can serve as a fork, knife or spoon.

    Even imaginary weapons (hand-drawn pictures of guns, pencils twirled in a “threatening” manner, imaginary bows and arrows, even fingers positioned like guns) can also land a student in detention.

    Equally outrageous was the case in New Jersey where several kindergartners were suspended from school for three days for playing a make-believe game of “cops and robbers” during recess and using their fingers as guns.

    With the distinctions between student offenses erased, and all offenses expellable, we now find ourselves in the midst of what Time magazine described as a “national crackdown on Alka-Seltzer.” Students have actually been suspended from school for possession of the fizzy tablets in violation of zero tolerance drug policies.

    Students have also been penalized for such inane “crimes” as bringing nail clippers to school, using Listerine or Scope, and carrying fold-out combs that resemble switchblades.

    A 13-year-old boy in Manassas, Virginia, who accepted a Certs breath mint from a classmate, was actually suspended and required to attend drug-awareness classes, while a 12-year-old boy who said he brought powdered sugar to school for a science project was charged with a felony for possessing a look-alike drug.

    Acts of kindness, concern, basic manners or just engaging in childish behavior can also result in suspensions.

    One 13-year-old was given detention for exposing the school to “liability” by sharing his lunch with a hungry friend. A third grader was suspended for shaving her head in sympathy for a friend who had lost her hair to chemotherapy. And then there was the high school senior who was suspended for saying “bless you” after a fellow classmate sneezed.

    In South Carolina, where it’s against the law to disturb a school, more than a thousand students a year—some as young as 7 years old—“face criminal charges for not following directions, loitering, cursing, or the vague allegation of acting ‘obnoxiously.’ If charged as adults, they can be held in jail for up to 90 days.”

    Another 12-year-old was handcuffed and jailed after he stomped in a puddle, splashing classmates.

    Things get even worse when you add police to the mix.

    Thanks to a combination of media hype, political pandering and financial incentives, the use of armed police officers (a.k.a. school resource officers) to patrol school hallways has risen dramatically in the years since the Columbine school shooting (nearly 20,000 by 2003).

    What this means, notes Mother Jones, is greater police “involvement in routine discipline mattersthat principals and parents used to address without involvement from law enforcement officers.”

    Funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, these school resource officers (SROs) have become de facto wardens in the elementary, middle and high schools, doling out their own brand of justice to the so-called “criminals” in their midst with the help of tasers, pepperspray, batons and brute force.

    As a result, students are not only being ticketed, fined and sent to court for behavior perceived as defiant, disruptive or disorderly such as spraying perfume and writing on a desk, but they are also finding themselves subjected to police tactics such as handcuffs, leg shackles, tasers and excessive force for “acting up.”

    In the absence of school-appropriate guidelines, police are more and more “stepping in to deal with minor rulebreaking: sagging pants, disrespectful comments, brief physical skirmishes. What previously might have resulted in a detention or a visit to the principal’s office was replaced with excruciating pain and temporary blindness, often followed by a trip to the courthouse.”

    The horror stories are legion.

    One SRO is accused of punching a 13-year-old student in the face for cutting in the cafeteria line. That same cop put another student in a chokehold a week later, allegedly knocking the student unconscious and causing a brain injury. 

    In Pennsylvania, a student was tased after ignoring an order to put his cell phone away.

    On any given day when school is in session, kids who “act up” in class are pinned facedown on the floor, locked in dark closets, tied up with straps, bungee cords and duct tape, handcuffed, leg shackled, tasered or otherwise restrained, immobilized or placed in solitary confinement in order to bring them under “control.”

    Roughly 1500 kids are tied up or locked down every day by school officials in the United States.

    At least 500 students are locked up in some form of solitary confinement every day, whether it be a padded room, a closet or a duffel bag. In many cases, parents are rarely notified when such methods are used.

    In almost every case, these undeniably harsh methods are used to punish kids for simply failing to follow directions or throwing tantrums.

    Very rarely do the kids pose any credible danger to themselves or others.

    For example, a 4-year-old Virginia preschooler was handcuffed, leg shackled and transported to the sheriff’s office after reportedly throwing blocks and climbing on top of the furniture. School officials claim the restraints were necessary to protect the adults from injury.

    A 6-year-old kindergarten student in a Georgia public school was handcuffed, transported to the police station, and charged with simple battery of a schoolteacher and criminal damage to property for throwing a temper tantrum at school.

    Unbelievably, these tactics are all legal, at least when employed by school officials or school resource officers in the nation’s public schools.

    According to a ProPublica investigative report, such harsh punishments are part of a widespread phenomenon plaguing school districts across the country.

    Indeed, as investigative reporter Heather Vogell points out, this is a local story everywhere.

    It’s happening in my town.

    It’s happening in your town.

    It’s happening in every school district in America.

    This is the end product of all those so-called school “safety” policies, which run the gamut from zero tolerance policies that punish all infractions harshly to surveillance cameras, metal detectors, random searches, drug-sniffing dogs, school-wide lockdowns, active-shooter drills and militarized police officers.

    Mind you, this is all part of the government’s plan to “harden” the schools.

    What exactly does hardening the schools entail?

    More strident zero tolerance policies, greater numbers of school cops, and all the trappings of a prison complex (unsurmountable fences, entrapment areas, no windows or trees, etc.).

    Schools acting like prisons.

    School officials acting like wardens.

    Students treated like inmates and punished like hardened criminals.

    Even in the face of parental outrage, lawsuits, legislative reforms, investigative reports and endless cases showing that these tactics are not working and “should never be used for punishment or discipline,” full-grown adults—police officers and teachers alike—insist that the reason they continue to handcuff, lock up and restrain little kids is because they fear for their safety and the safety of others.

    “Fear for one’s safety” has become such a hackneyed and threadbare excuse for behavior that is inexcusable.

    Dig a little deeper and you’ll find that explanation covers a multitude of sins, whether it’s poorly trained police officers who shoot first and ask questions later, or school officials who are ill-equipped to deal with children who act like children, meaning they don’t always listen, they sometimes throw tantrums, and they have a hard time sitting still.

    Unfortunately, advocates for such harsh police tactics and weaponry like to trot out the line that school safety should be our first priority lest we find ourselves with another Sandy Hook. What they will not tell you is that such shootings are rare. As one congressional report found, the schools are, generally speaking, safe places for children.

    In their zeal to crack down on guns and lock down the schools, these cheerleaders for police state tactics in the schools might also fail to mention the lucrative, multi-million dollar deals being cut with military contractors such as Taser International to equip these school cops with tasers, tanks, rifles and $100,000 shooting detection systems.

    Indeed, the transformation of hometown police departments into extensions of the military has been mirrored in the public schools, where school police have been gifted with high-powered M16 rifles, MRAP armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and other military gear. One Texas school district even boasts its own 12-member SWAT team.

    According to one law review article on the school-to-prison pipeline, “Many school districts have formed their own police departments, some so large they rival the forces of major United States cities in size. For example, the safety division in New York City’s public schools is so large that if it were a local police department, it would be the fifth-largest police force in the country.”

    The ramifications are far-reaching.

    The term “school-to-prison pipeline” refers to a phenomenon in which children who are suspended or expelled from school have a greater likelihood of ending up in jail.

    As if it weren’t bad enough that the nation’s schools have come to resemble prisons, the government is also contracting with private prisons to lock up our young people for behavior that once would have merited a stern lecture. Nearly 40 percent of those young people who are arrested will serve time in a private prison, where the emphasis is on making profits for large megacorporations above all else.

    This profit-driven system of incarceration has also given rise to a growth in juvenile prisons and financial incentives for jailing young people.

    Indeed, young people have become easy targets for the private prison industry, which profits from criminalizing childish behavior and jailing young people. For instance, two Pennsylvania judges made headlines when it was revealed that they had been conspiring with two businessmen in a $2.6 million “kids for cash” scandal that resulted in more than 2500 children being found guilty and jailed in for-profit private prisons.

    So what’s the answer, not only for the here-and-now—the children growing up in these quasi-prisons—but for the future of this country?

    Peter Gray, a professor of psychology at Boston College, believes that school is a prison that is damaging our kids, and it’s hard to disagree, especially with the numbers of police officers being assigned to schools on the rise.

    Clearly, the pathology that characterizes the American police state has passed down to the schools. Now in addition to the government and its agents viewing the citizenry as suspects to be probed, poked, pinched, tasered, searched, seized, stripped and generally manhandled, all with the general blessing of the court, our children in the public schools are also fair game.

    Instead of raising up a generation of freedom fighters, however, we seem to be busy churning out newly minted citizens of the American police state who are being taught the hard way what it means to comply, fear and march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

    After all, how do you convince a child who has been routinely handcuffed, shackled, tied down, locked up, and immobilized by government officials—all before he reaches the age of adulthood—that he has any rights at all, let alone the right to challenge wrongdoing, resist oppression and defend himself against injustice?

    Most of all, how do you persuade a fellow American that the government works for him when for most of his young life, he has been incarcerated in an institution that teaches young people to be obedient and compliant citizens who don’t talk back, don’t question and don’t challenge authority?

    What can be done?

    Without a doubt, change is needed, but that will mean taking on the teachers’ unions, the school unions, the educators’ associations, and the police unions, not to mention the politicians dependent on their votes and all of the corporations that profit mightily from an industrial school complex.

    As we’ve seen with other issues, any significant reforms will have to start locally and trickle upwards.

    As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, with every school police raid and overzealous punishment that is carried out in the name of school safety, the lesson being imparted is that Americans—especially young people—have no rights at all against the state or the police.

    If we do not rein in the police state’s influence in the schools, the future to which we are sending our children will be characterized by a brutal, totalitarian regime.

  • Hong Kong Dethrones NYC As Mecca For The Uber-Wealthy

    In what will almost certainly be remembered as an important milestone in Asia’s march to global domination, a recent study revealed that the population of ultra-wealthy individuals in Hong Kong has for the first time surpassed that of New York City. According to Wealth-X, Hong Kong now has the largest population of individuals worth at least $30 million thanks to a 31% increase over the last year that has pushed its total to about 10,000. By comparison, New York has 9,000. Tokyo took third place, while Paris beat out London (largely thanks to the Brexit-related concerns). 

    Richest

    At a time when the richest 1% of the population own half the world’s wealth (according to the Credit Suisse annual global wealth report), the number of ultra-wealthy individuals worldwide climbed 13% last year to 256,000 who own an aggregate $31 trillion. Asia’s share of this total climbed from 18% a decade ago to roughly a quarter today. Analysts from Wealth-X project that the number of ultra-wealthy will rise by 8.3% compounded in the coming years.

    “Asia-Pacific is forecast to close the ultra-wealth gap with other regions over the next five years, but is expected to remain behind Europe, the Middle East and Africa in absolute terms,” the report’s authors wrote. The number of ultra-wealthy in Asia-Pacific is expected to rise at a compound rate of 8.3 percent a year, they said.

    In a development that will no doubt thrill the neo-liberal social-justice warriors who constantly gripe about the lack of female representation among corporate CEOs, women accounted for about 35,000 of the ultra-rich last year – a record-high share of nearly 14%.

    Wealth

    Unsurprisingly, China and Hong Kong propelled most of Asia’s gains, according to the survey. However, no city in mainland China cracked the top ten, even as China ranked third overall in the list of nations with the most ultra-wealthy residents. Wealth-X attributed this to the fact that China’s wealthy are dispersed across the country, exhibited by the fact that China was home to 26 of the 30 fastest-growing cities for the ultra-rich.

    Just as China’s rise has benefited its neighbors (something that has made them beholden to the vicissitudes of Chinese growth and trade, as Goldman explained earlier), the ultra-wealthy in Hong Kong owe their success to the debt-fueled economic boom happening on the mainland.

    “The dynamism of wealth creation across China’s vast landscape is nevertheless staggering,” the authors wrote.

    Just as a rising tide lifts all boats, relatively placid markets in 2017 caused the ranks of the ultra-wealthy expand in every region. Still-low oil prices left the Middle East in last place, with 4.4% growth. Interestingly, the richest people still held most of their wealth in liquid assets like cash.

    Still, the ultra-rich held more of their wealth — 35 percent — in liquid assets such as cash than anything else, the study found. Private holdings accounted for about 32 percent, while public holdings were 26 percent. Alternative investments such as real estate, art and yachts made up 6.6 percent of total assets.

    But with the S&P 500 continuing its rapid divergence from the MSCI, we imagine these gains won’t be so evenly distributed in 2018.

  • With Battle For Idlib Imminent, Russia Releases Video Of Massive "One Of A Kind" Military Drills In Syria

    With the US military announcing that it is preparing for “options” in Syria ahead of what appears to be an imminent battle for Syria’s last rebel stronghold of Idlib – which may or may not include another false flag chemical attack  to justify the US presence – and which could involve such proxy foreign powers as Russia, the US, Turkey and Iran, today Russia announced that it has staged large-scale military exercises in the Mediterranean Sea near Syria, involving both its Navy and Air Force.

    Footage released by Russia’s Defense Ministry showed marine special forces equipped with the latest Russian gear landing on the shores of the Syrian Latakia province. As part of the staged invasion, the marines used helicopters, fast attack craft and armored vehicles while landing from major amphibious ships under cover of dozens of Russian combat aircraft.

    The purposefully dramatic display was part of a week-long exercise, which is said to be the “first of its kind” in this part of the Mediterranean. Apart from the naval infantry training, in which the marines also practiced protecting Russian Navy ships from sabotage activities, the war games also involved maritime live fire drills.

    Held between September 1 and September 8, the drills also involved establishing a foothold on the territory controlled by a “simulated” enemy. In total, 26 vessels from all Russian fleets, including two submarines, as well as 34 aircraft took part in the war games.

    In the full-blown combat simulation, more than two dozen battleships, including the ‘Marshal Ustinov’ cruiser and three of Russia’s newest frigates, launched anti-ship missiles and fired high-caliber guns. The drills also saw Russian strategic Tu-160 Blackjack bombers and long-range Tu-142 Bear submarine hunters train simulated missile launches.

    Spoiling the suspense, on Saturday a Kremlin spokesman explained that the drills were partly linked to the situation in Syria’s Idlib province. Idlib is “a hotbed of terrorism and nothing good may come from it, unless action is taken,” Dmitry Peskov said in late August ahead of the drills, adding that some “additional safety measures” are “justified.”

    The drill comes amid heightened tensions in the region (read “Everything you need to know about the looming battle for Idlib“) as Moscow warns that the US is deploying additional military assets towards Syria for a potential missile attack against Syrian government forces. As previously reported, the missile destroyer USS Ross was deployed to the Mediterranean, carrying 28 Tomahawk cruise missiles; at roughly the same time the USS The Sullivans was deployed to the Persian Gulf and a B-1B Lancer strategic bomber was relocated to an air base in Qatar.

    The Russian ministry said the preparations are “the latest evidence of the US intention” to strike after what it says will be a false flag chemical attack in Syria.

    The Pentagon also announced that it has already compiled a list of preliminary targets in Syria, which the US military are planning to hit in case of a “chemical weapons attack.” And, It has also “routinely” briefed the White House on “military options” in case of such incident.

    The Russian Defense Ministry has repeatedly warned that the militants in Idlib have been preparing a false flag attack using chemical weapons to justify the US strike against the forces loyal to the Syrian government. On Saturday, the ministry’s spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov, said that these preparations entered their “final stage.”

    Local sources have speculated that a “chemical attack” could take place as soon as the next few hours, after which events will accelerate rapidly, as both US and Russian military forces are likely to engage in what has the potential to be a conflict that quickly spirals out of control.

  • The Most Important Asset Class In The World (Is Not What You Think)

    Authored by David Robertson via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

    Here we are, ten years after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, and one would be hard pressed to find evidence of meaningful lessons learned.

    “As long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance,” – Chuck Prince, Citigroup

    Chuck’s utterance now sounds more like a quaint remembrance than a stark reminder. Ben Bernanke’s proclamation also sounds more like an “oopsie” than a dangerous misjudgment by a top official.

    “We believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector on the broader housing market will be limited and we do not expect significant spillovers …” 

    One of the most pernicious aspects of the financial crisis for many investors was that it seemed to come out of nowhere. US housing prices had never declined in a big way and subprime was too small to show up on the radar. Nonetheless, the stage was set by rapid growth in credit and high levels of debt. Today, eerily similar underlying conditions exist in the Chinese residential real estate market. Indeed, a lot of investors might be surprised to hear it called the most important asset class in the world.

    China certainly qualifies as important based on rapid credit growth and high levels of debt. The IMF’s Sally Chen and Joong Shik Kang concluded [here],

    “China’s credit boom is one of the largest and longest in history. Historical precedents of ‘safe’ credit booms of such magnitude and speed are few and far from comforting.”

    The July 27, 2018 edition of Grants Interest Rate Observer assesses,

    “Following a decade of credit-fueled stimulus, China’s banking system is the most bloated in the world.”

    Jim Chanos, the well-known short seller, adds his own take on RealvisionTV [here], “So comparing Japan [in the late 1980s] to China, I would say Japan was a piker compared to where China is today. China has taken that model and put it on steroids.”

    One of the lessons that was laid bare from the financial crisis of 2008 (and from Japan in the 1980s) was the degree to which easily available credit can inflate asset prices. This is especially true of real estate since it is so often financed (at least partially) with debt. The cheaper and easier credit is to attain, the easier it is to buy homes (or any real estate), and the higher prices go.

    These excesses provide the foundation for one of the bigger (short) positions of Jim Chanos. He describes:

    “China is building 20 million apartment flats a year. It needs about 6 to 8 to cover both urban migration and depreciation of existing stock. So 60% of that 25% is simply being built for speculative purposes, for investment purposes. And that’s 15% of China’s GDP of $12 trillion. Put another way, it’s about $2 trillion. That $2 trillion is 3% of global GDP.”

    And so I can’t stress enough of just how important that number is and that activity is to global growth, to commodity demand, and a variety of different things. It [Chinese residential real estate] is the single most important asset class in the world.”

    Chanos is not the only one who sees building for “speculative purposes” as an impending problem. Leland Miller, CEO of China Beige Book, describes in another RealvisionTV interview [here],

    “The heart of the Chinese model is malinvestment. It’s about building up non-performing loans and figuring out what to do with them.”

    The WSJ’s Walter Russell Mead captured the same phenomenon [here],

    “Chinese leaders know that their country suffers from massive over-investment in construction and manufacturing, [and] that its real-estate market is a bubble that makes the Dutch tulip frenzy look restrained. Chinese debt is the foundation of the system.”

    Increasingly too, household debt is becoming a problem. As the Financial Times reports [here], apparently China’s young consumers have:

    “…rejected the thrifty habits of their elders and become used to spending with borrowed money. Outstanding consumer loans — used to buy cars, holidays, household renovations and other household goods — grew nearly 40 per cent last year to Rmb6.8tn, according to the Chinese investment bank CICC. Consumer loans pushed household borrowing to Rmb33tn by the end of 2017, equivalent of 40 per cent of gross domestic product. The ratio has more than doubled since 2011.”

    Again, there are striking parallels to the financial crisis in the US. As Atif Mian and Amir Sufi report in their book, House of Debt, “When it comes to the Great Recession, one important fact jumps out: The United States witnessed a dramatic rise in household debt between 2000 and 2007—the total amount doubled in these seven years to $14 trillion, and the household debt-to-income ratio skyrocketed from 1.4 to 2.1.”

    The inevitable consequence of unsustainable increases in household debt is that eventually those households will have to cut spending. When they do, “the bottom line is that very serious adjustments in the economy are required … Wages need to fall, and workers need to switch into new industries. Frictions in this reallocation process translate the spending decline into large job losses.”

    In addition, just as the composition of consumers of debt affects the ultimate adjustment process, so too does the composition of its providers. For example, debt provided outside of the conventional banking system, such as from shadow banks, is not subject to the same reporting or reserve requirements.

    Once again, the landscape of Chinese debt is problematic. Russell Napier states,

    “The surge in non-bank lending in China has clearly played a key role in the rise of the country’s debt to GDP ratio and also its asset prices.”

    Zerohedge adds [here] that the Chinese central government has become “alarmed at its [shadow banking’s] vast scale, and potential for corruption.”

    Further, nebulous practices are not confined to the “shadows” in China. The FT reports [here],

    “These [small] banks are quite vague and blurry when it comes to investment receivables … There’s so much massaging of the balance sheet, and they won’t tell you about their internal manoeuvrings.”

    As it happens, “Problems at small banks matter because their role in China’s financial system is growing.” While China surpassed the eurozone last year to become the world’s largest banking system, “small and mid-sized banks have more than doubled their share of total Chinese banking assets to 43 per cent in the past decade.”

    Nor is the lack of transparency confined to the financial system; it also extends to the entire economy. Millerdescribes,

    “We’re constantly asked about how good Chinese data are. Is it all bad? It’s all bad, but it’s bad and different variations.” 

    Chanos shared his opinion as well:

    “As much as the macro stuff has intrigued me … what’s so interesting about China is the lower down you get, the more micro you get, the worse it looks, in that the companies don’t seem to be profitable, the accounting is a joke.”

    Miller makes clear what the challenge is:

    “[China] is the second largest economy in the world. This is probably the most mysterious big economy in the world. And people have been so willing to work on it based on guestimates.”

    Normally, investors prefer certainty and discount uncertainty. The pervasive lack of discipline and due diligence echoes that of the structured debt products of the financial crisis.

    Just as in the financial crisis, all of these excesses and shortcomings are likely to have consequences. Many of them will sound familiar [here]:

    “[A] crisis of some kind is likely. The salient characteristics of a system liable to a crisis are high leverage, maturity mismatches, credit risk and opacity. China’s financial system has all these features.”

    That said, the “flavor” of China’s crisis will depend on uniquely Chinese characteristics. Miller identifies an important one:

    “I think the problem is that people didn’t understand that this is not a commercial financial system. That’s one of the major takeaways we stress all the time. This [China’s] is not a commercial financial system. What that means is when the Chinese are threatened, they can squash capital from one side of the economy to the other.”

    In other words, China has substantial capability to manage liquidity and contagion risks.

    As a result, according to Miller,

    “We don’t spend a lot of time worrying about an acute crisis. If China falls and China does have the hard landing that a lot of people predicted, it’s not going to look like it did in the United States or in Europe. You have a state system, a state-led system in which almost all the counter-parties are either state banks or state companies. They’re not going to have the same freeze-up of credit that you did in some of these other Western economies.”

    That said, there are still likely to be severe consequences. Miller reports,

    “China has gotten themselves into a real difficult situation, because you have an enormous economy awash in credit that is leading to lesser and less productivity based on that capital. And that is why, rather than some sort of implosion, which could happen, or any type of miraculous continued prosperity indefinitely — we think that China’s economy is, for the most part, headed towards stasis.” More specifically he says, “So I think that we’re heading towards a Chinese economy which is going to slow down quite dramatically when we’re talking about 10, 15 years time.”

    Indeed, it appears that process has started. As noted [here],

    “Housing sales in China will peak this year and then begin a long-term decline, an inflection point that will drag on growth in the construction-heavy economy and hit global commodity demand, say economists.”

    Throughout the process, Miller expects China to pursue a policy agenda designed to get the country “on a more sustainable track.” In particular, “that means cracking down on some of these bad debt problems, cracking down on shadow lending, becoming more transparent, injecting risk and failure into the system, and trying to build a stronger economy from that.” He is careful to note, however, “But it’s not easy.”

    Neither will it be easy for investors to judge the puts and takes of various policy measures in a dynamic and opaque system. Henny Sender at the FT warns international investors [here]

    “To take heed as Beijing continues a war against non-bank lenders and fintech companies that is tightening liquidity and spooking investors in mainland China.”

    The FT also notes [here],

    “New rules for recognising bad loans in China are set to obliterate regulatory capital at several banks” which will disproportionately affect small and mid-sized banks. Further, as reported [here], “the paring back of a state subsidy programme that provided Rmb2tn ($300bn) in cash support to homebuyers since 2014 is adding to structural factors weighing on the market.”

    The good news is that investors can take several lessons from China and its residential real estate market. The first is that, like the US subprime market was, the Chinese real estate market is understated and under-appreciated. Perhaps it is because the numbers don’t seem that big. Perhaps it is because so few people have much clarity at all on what the numbers really are. Or perhaps it is just that people are making enough money that they don’t really care to look too hard. Regardless, just like with subprime in the US a decade ago, there are real problems.

    Second, those problems will have consequences; investors should expect spillovers. As excesses in the country are unwound, the slowdown in Chinese economic growth will be felt around the world. China has driven global growth for at least a couple of decades. Further, residential real estate, with its strong economic multiplier and high degree of speculation, has been the rocket fuel for that growth. Reversal of those trends will feel like a substantial headwind. Further, lest US investors feel smug at the prospect of Chinese troubles, David Rosenberg warns [here],

    “There is not a snowball’s chance in hell [the Chinese weakness] will not flow through to the US stock market.”

    Where does all of this leave Chanos?

    “Interestingly, we’re less short China now than we have been in eight years in our global portfolio. Because the rest of the world’s catching up. Although China’s been on a tear recently, Chinese stocks over the eight years are basically flat. And I’ve noticed that some of the other stocks have sort have tripled.”

    Fundamentals are important, but so are prices paid.

    A major complication of figuring out China will be determining the degree to which it’s domestic policy agenda influences actions on tariffs and trade and currency. Almost Daily Grants reported the findings of Anne Stevenson-Yang, co-founder of J Capital Research, on July 27, 2018:

    “China’s credit-saturated economy … is the primary force behind the recent gyrations in FX. The reality is that China’s currency is most intimately connected, as with any currency, to the domestic economy – debt, asset prices, real estate prices, and efficiency gains and losses rather than just trade.”

    In other words, don’t get distracted by the smaller stuff.

    Despite all of these challenges, investors are not without tools to monitor the situation, however. Russell Napier reports [here],

    “In general the copper price provides a good lead indicator to the market’s assumptions in relation to global growth. When it [the copper price] weighs the negative impact from an RMB devaluation and the positive impact from a Chinese reflation … the current indications are more negative for global growth than positive.”

    The FT goes even further [here]:

    “The metal [copper] is giving western investors a clear signal to sell risk assets or at least reduce their portfolio weighting.”

    Perhaps the biggest lesson of all is that increasingly we live in a world of debt-fueled growth that shapes the investment proposition of financial assets. That means business cycles are increasingly overwhelmed by credit cycles. It means wider swings in financial assets — from euphoric highs to catastrophic lows. When the debt spigot turns off, it means the only “safe” assets are cash and precious metals. When the sparks fly, it’s hard to tell where they might land. And it means that whichever market has the highest debt and the fastest credit growth will be the “most important asset class in the world”.

    Right now, that is Chinese residential real estate.

  • Trump's "Obsessive" Hunt For The NYT OP-Ed Writer Narrowed Down To "A Few Individuals"

    The noose around the neck of the anonymous author of the infamous NYT op-ed is growing tighter…or at least that’s what the Trump administration wants us to think.

    After all the furor over Rand Paul’s suggestion that everybody in the West Wing with a security clearance should be made to take a lie-detector test, the White House may not need to go to the trouble, if recent stories in CNN and the New York Times are to be believed (which…we’ll get to that later). According to these stories, the hunt to expose the anonymous author saboteur behind the NYT op-ed detailing the internal “resistance” to President Trump is closing in on a suspect. In just two days, the administration has narrowed down the list of suspects from a list of 18 names to just “a few individuals.”

    By his own admission, Trump is still “obsessed” with smoking out the author of the op-ed and has mostly ignored pleas from Chief of Staff John Kelly and others to abandon it (Kelly allegedly believes that any more headlines about the op-ed will do little good and only remind the public of its contents). According to CNN, senior administration figures including Kellyanne Conway believe the author handles duties pertaining to national security.

    So far, more than 25 senior administration officials, including Vice President Mike Pence (who was one of the earliest suspects) , have publicly denied being the author. Still, suspicions persist that either Pence, or a member of his staff, was the source. During comments to reporters aboard Air Force One on Thursday, and later during a rally in Montana, Trump has made it clear that he’s determined to uncover the source and considers the issue a matter of national security (or possibly an act of treason).

    WH

    For what it’s worth, CNN has said it doesn’t know the identity of the report’s author.

    CNN is not aware of the identity of the individuals White House aides have zeroed in on. In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said Trump believes the individual is someone from the national security sector of the government.

    The op-ed published Wednesday afternoon, just a day after excerpts from veteran journalist Bob Woodward’s new book, “Fear: Trump in the White House,” were published. The book passages published in The Washington Post and by CNN showed a White House consumed by chaos and disarray, including stories of aides insulting Trump behind his back and going so far as to steal documents off his desk in order to keep him from signing them.

    The anonymous writer of the op-ed said the resistance inside Trump’s administration is not the same as the resistance from the political left. The author wrote that the resistance inside the government wants “the administration to succeed … But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”

    “That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.”

    While these reports could be genuine, it’s interesting that Conway and others had initially suggested that the author’s “senior” status might’ve been an exaggeration, and that the author may instead be a relatively high-ranking staffer from inside one of the federal agencies. If that were the case, the author could be one of potentially hundreds of individuals, Conway had said. This begs the question: Are these leaks merely a preamble for the administration setting up a patsy, perhaps Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who will be made to take the fall for the op-ed as an excuse to clean house during one of the most sensitive periods of the Trump presidency?

    Whatever the reason, we imagine the White House will produce the “culprit” in short order.

  • Global Trade Hit By Rare Decline As "Supply Chains Seize Up"

    With the Trump administration about to slap tariffs of up to 25% on an additional $200 billion in Chinese goods, new data suggests that the global slowdown has already begun. Confirming our observations from two weeks ago, in which we showed that the latest freight data indicated global trade volumes are slowing…

    …on Friday Bloomberg highlighted that the world trade monitor compiled by the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis showed the rolling three-month trade volumes are not only in decline but have entered into negative territory, an ominous harbinger of economic trouble.

    As Bloomberg notes, “the drop is particularly striking given that commodities, one of the largest and most volatile subsets of globally traded goods, have been doing quite well – the CPB’s indexes of fuels and non-fuel commodities both reached the highest levels since 2014 in May.”

    Instead, confirming the ominous recent developments in Brazil, where a clustering of supply-chain linked problems has resulted in a near paralysis in the country’s shipping industry, Bloomberg notes that “the weakness is coming not from materials but from manufactured goods, as global supply chains seize up.“

    With the CPB index printing negative throughout the second quarter of the year, that echoes the numerous reports of a slowdown in the US. Manufactures “reported higher prices and supply disruptions that they attributed to the new trade policies,” according to the Federal Reserve’s July Beige Book, in addition to “higher input prices and shrinking margins.”

    Next Wednesday, another Beige Book is due, and it is likely to show more evidence of slowing trade as a result of escalating trade wars.

    While the stimulative effect of debt-fueled tax cuts and favorable fiscal policy have created a “Goldilocks economy” in the US, resulting in near record freight volumes in US ports, that temporary sugar high is most likely coming to an end, as a substantial portion of the increased volumes were related to businesses pulling forward consumption from future quarters to beat the tariffs, according to the National Retail Federation, an industry group.

    Another shipping market index that tends to be an economic bellwether is the Baltic Dry Index (BDI), a composite of the Capesize, Panamax and Supramax Timecharter Averages rates. The index surged mid-summer thanks to companies getting ahead of tariffs, but following a late-July peak, the index has been steadily declining.

    The fact that previous trade slumps have often coincided with a slowdown in domestic economic activity does not bode well for either the Trump administration and or republicans, with just two months left until the midterm elections.

  • There Goes The Credit Impulse: Why Chinese Consumption Is On The Verge Of Collapse

    Recently we discussed how in addition to the widely manipulated Chinese GDP data, new concerns had emerged about official data involving Chinese industrial profits, because while China’s National Bureau of Statistics has traditionally reported positive year-on-year growth rates in percentage terms, growth in absolute yuan terms has been negative. This deviation, which barely happened in the past, has reinforced scepticism over the quality of Chinese “data” and fueled fresh suspicion that the NBS generates data outcomes that match the policy goals of the Chinese government leadership instead of reflecting the true state of the economy.

    More recently, similar worries have been noted over China’s consumption data, which have been sending what Goldman politely calls “mixed signals lately”, and which a more cynical take would dub “massaged”, if not outright fabricated. Which, with China’s economy increasingly turning into a consumption-driven model like that of the US, is a problem if economists, analysts and investors are unable to get an accurate grasp on consumption trends in the world’s second largest economy.

    The problem in a nutshell: NBS retail sales slowed in Q2 and also in July, while NBS household consumption expenditure and GDP final consumption contribution (quarterly data) rebounded relatively strongly in Q2. Other widely observed consumption data include 100 major retailers’ sales, with the data painting a bearish picture in recent months and showing negative year-over-year growth in July.

    This, as Goldman notes in a Saturday report, has led many investors to ask: where does the divergence come from and how has consumption been growing in reality?

    Goldman then spills a lot of digital ink to offer various politically correct explanations for why the government’s stronger data may be accurate, although even the bank is not fully able to justify the variation between government data, and private reported data from 100 major retailers, whose sales growth has been a lot weaker than the official NBS goods retail sales report.

    Specifically, the bank notes that when plotted against listed department store revenues, the 100 major retailers’ sales move relatively closely with listed companies’ data. In fact, as shown in the chart below, the retail sales reported by China’s 100 major retailers has been flat at best over the past 4 years, and most recently, has sunk into contraction.

    One possible explanation for this stark divergence between the “too pessimistic” private vs optimistic public retail sales data is that the the former does not capture the consumers’ shift to online stores for purchases.

    Online sales showed much faster goods consumption growth – NBS online goods retail sales data and package delivery data (our proxy for online goods sales) both suggest online goods sales have probably been growing at close to 30% yoy so far this year, in contrast to the negative year-over-year growth recorded in the offline goods sales channel.

    Assuming the truth is somewhere in the middle, something which Goldman has attempted to do with its own proprietary Chinese goods consumption tracker, still shows a sharp decline in annual sales growth on a Y/Y basis, hardly encouraging for an economy that hopes to becomes less reliant on fixed asset investment and transition into a consumption driven model.

    Which brings us to the core of the report: what is behind the slowdown in China’s goods consumption – this key driver of Chinese GDP – and what is the outlook going forward.

    As Goldman explains, there are multiple reasons behind the softer goods consumption trend – unfavorable wealth effects from the property and equity market, income-related drags such as fewer subsidies from shanty town redevelopment plans, but the biggest driver is the slower growth of consumer credit, and higher debt service burdens due to larger mortgages and greater consumer credit.

    Of these, the bank estimates that the key catalyst explaining the slowdown in Q2 consumption is the fading credit impulse and higher debt service costs, and that these could further shave goods consumption growth later this year. As for the culprit, the most likely suspect is Beijing’s recent crackdown on Chinese P2P lending: recall that one month ago we reported that as part of China’s crackdown on peer-2-peer online lending which had grown at a blistering pace heading into 2018 only to suffer a waterfall of defaults, social unrest had broken out in some parts of the nation as China scrambled to avoid the bursting of yet another credit bubble.

    So where does that leave us? Well, as Goldman writes, the trend of softer goods consumption may continue as loans via P2P platforms are now more than 10% of consumer credit (this includes all loans via P2P in consumer credit, while P2P loans could also be invested in corporate bonds and property markets), and recent P2P defaults have prompted large-scale redemptions by investors (P2P loans outstanding amount shrank from 1.3 trillion RMB in June to around 900bn RMB in August, based on WIND data) as investors perceive higher risks and regulations tightened.

    This has resulted in a sharp consumer deleveraging, and loss of purchasing power, as ordinary Chinese found one relatively easy debt channel shuttered.

    Factoring in this slowdown and assuming other categories of consumer credit continue to grow at the speed seen in 1H 2018, overall net credit flows (as a share of disposable income) would slow even more in 2H 2018.

    How much more?

    When combing with the lagged effects from the recent slower consumer credit growth, Goldman estimates that the fading credit impulse and associated debt service costs will shave goods consumption growth by a whopping 3% in 2H 2018, resulting some time in late 2018 and early 2019 in the most negative print since the financial crisis. This, as shown in the chart below, would lead to the fastest slowdown in Chinese consumption this decade.

    Needless to say, such a sharp contraction in consumption would lead to broad, adverse spillover effects affecting everything from China’s GDP (which would be severely impacted), to China’s reflationary impulse which has been so critical for the past decade, and which would go into reverse, sparking another global deflationary shockwave and sharply lower interest rates.

    What is most concerning is the timing: all of this is set to take place just as Trump’s $1.5 trillion fiscal stimulus reaches its one year anniversary (i.e. the base effect fades), and what until now has been a sugar high for the economy on a Y/Y growth basis, will result in contraction absent another round of fiscal stimulus. It would also impact global asset prices and markets, many of which are already suffering from sharp, “rolling bear market” selloffs as a result of emerging market turmoil which has so far spared the US. 

    In short, and as always: keep an eye on China’s collapsing credit impulse for hints on what happens next going into 2019, a year in which many economists and pundits believe the US recession will finally make a repeat appearance.

  • Pat Buchanan Exposes Regime Change – American Style

    Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

    The campaign to overturn the 2016 election and bring down President Trump shifted into high gear this week.

    Inspiration came Saturday morning from the altar of the National Cathedral where our establishment came to pay homage to John McCain.

    Gathered there were all the presidents from 1993 to 2017, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney, Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Henry Kissinger, the leaders of both houses of Congress, and too many generals and admirals to list.

    Striding into the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his legacy:

    “So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. … It’s a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear.”

    Speakers praised McCain’s willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new determination: From here on out, confrontation!

    Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed to halt the hearings.

    Taking credit for orchestrating the disruption, Sen. Dick Durbin boasted, “What we’ve heard is the noise of democracy.”

    But if mob action to shut down a Senate hearing is the noise of democracy, this may explain why many countries are taking a new look at the authoritarian rulers who can at least deliver a semblance of order.

    Wednesday came leaks in The Washington Post from Bob Woodward’s new book, attributing to Chief of Staff John Kelly and Gen. James Mattis crude remarks on the president’s intelligence, character and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a “crazytown” led by a fifth- or sixth-grader.

    Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.

    Thursday came an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous “senior official” claiming to be a member of the “resistance … working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his (Trump’s) agenda.”

    A pedestrian piece of prose containing nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily in the media, the op-ed caused a sensation, but only because Times editors decided to give the disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray his or her president.

    The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.

    While the Woodward book may debut at the top of The New York Times best-seller list, and “Anonymous,” once ferreted out and fired, will have his or her 15 minutes of fame, what this portends is not good.

    For what is afoot here is something America specializes in — regime change. Only the regime our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is afoot is the overthrow of America’s democratically elected head of state.

    The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by a special prosecutor’s office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press plays its traditional supporting role.

    Presidents are wounded, disabled or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.

    No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in. But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a hate-filled city that ran a sword through Nixon for offenses it had covered up or brushed under the rug in the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson years.

    So, where are we headed?

    If November’s elections produce, as many predict, a Democratic House, there will be more investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government may be able to manage.

    There is the Mueller investigation into “Russiagate” that began before Trump was inaugurated. There is the investigation of his business and private life before he became president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump Foundation by New York State.

    There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report the leaks from all of these investigations.

    Then, if media coverage can drive Trump’s polls low enough, will come the impeachment investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.

    If Trump has the stamina to hold on, and the Senate remains Republican, he may survive, even as Democrats divide between a rising militant socialist left and the Democrats’ septuagenarian caucus led by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi.

    2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d’etat can the Republic sustain before a new generation says enough of all this?

  • NYT Answers 9 Questions About Anonymous Op-Ed After Trump Demands DOJ Investigation

    After publishing a highly controversial anonymous Op-Ed Wednesday purportedly written by a senior White House official who claims to be part of an internal “resistance” that is actively undermining the President, the New York Times has taken heat from all sides. 

    The author has been generally deemed a coward – with the right knocking him or her for their pre-midterm “hit-job,” while many on the left have suggested that the author should have published the piece under their real name in order to attach more credibility to a series of anonymous complaints about the President that the New York Times just doesn’t have the journalistic credibility to pull off anymore.

    Indeed, the piece appears to have backfired – while President Trump has demanded that the Justice Department launch an investigation into the article for the sake of national security. 

    Speaking at a Thursday night campaign rally in Billings, Montana, Trump said: 

    for the sake of our national security, the New York Times should publish his name at once. I think their reporters should go and investigate who it is. That would actually be a good scoop. 

    That would be a good scoop. Unelected deep state operatives who defy the voters to push their own secret agendas are truly a threat to democracy itself. And I was so heartened when I looked

    And as The Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald points out: “The irony in the op-ed from the NYT’s anonymous WH coward is glaring and massive: s/he accuses Trump of being “anti-democratic” while boasting of membership in an unelected cabal that covertly imposes their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency” 

    Perhaps to try and win some points in the court of public opinion (and other possible courtrooms down the road), The Times has published answers to questions from nine readers out of 23,000 who submitted questions about the essay. 

    Via the New York Times

    Why did you publish this piece?

    Why publish this? What purpose does it serve, other than to enrage its target and assuage the guilt of a collaborator? We have a mad king and a shadow government. This is a coup, not a heroic attempt to save democracy.

    — Henry Matthews, New York

    Henry:

    In our view, this Op-Ed offered a significant first-person perspective we haven’t presented to our readers before: that of a conservative explaining why they felt that even if working for the Trump administration meant compromising some principles, it ultimately served the country if they could achieve some of the president’s policy objectives while helping resist some of his worst impulses.

    We’ve certainly read excellent news stories that quoted anonymous officials making similar points and criticizing the president’s temperament and chaotic style. What distinguished this essay from those news articles was that it conveyed this point of view in a fleshed-out, personal way, and we felt strongly that the public should have a chance to evaluate it for themselves.

    The only way that could happen was for us to publish the essay without a byline. That was an extraordinary step for us, but the piece touched off what we believe to be an important national debate about whether the writer, and similarly situated Trump administration officials, are making the right choice (many of our readers clearly think they are not).

    — Jim Dao

    ***

    How did you find this writer?

    Did The New York Times seek out the author of this piece, or did the author seek out The New York Times?

    — Norma Buchanan, Billings, Mont.

    Norma:

    The writer was introduced to us by an intermediary whom we know and trust.

    — Jim Dao

    ***

    How do you vet a piece like this?

    How are you certain of the author’s identity?

    — Martin Trott, Jackson Hole, Wyo.

    Through direct communication with the author, some background checking and the testimony of the trusted intermediary.

    — Jim Dao

    ***

    What does ‘senior administration official’ really mean?

    Who qualifies as a “senior administration official” for The New York Times? How many individuals are there in the administration who fit the bill?

    — Daniel Burns, Hyattsville, Md.

    Daniel:

    I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay. The term we chose, senior administration official, is used in Washington by both journalists and government officials to describe positions in the upper echelon of an administration, such as the one held by this writer.

    — Jim Dao

    ***

    Would you ever reveal your source?

    Under what conditions would The New York Times be forced to disclose the source of the Op-Ed?

    — Stephanie Genkin, Brooklyn, N.Y.

    Stephanie:

    It is difficult to imagine a situation where The Times could be forced to disclose the author’s identity. The First Amendment clearly protects the author’s right to publish an essay criticizing the president, and absolutely nothing in the Op-Ed involves criminal behavior. We intend to do everything in our power to protect the identity of the writer and have great confidence that the government cannot legally force us to reveal it.

    — Jim Dao

    ***

    Were the writer’s motives considered?

    Were the motives of the author considered when deciding whether to publish the Op-Ed?

    — Samantha Combs, Pensacola, Fla.

    Samantha:

    Our first step in evaluating any submission is to look at the background of the writer and the quality and significance of the piece itself. But we do also take into consideration a writer’s motives as part of the vetting process.

    It can of course be difficult to discern what those motives are, and in this case a combination of motives were undoubtedly in play, including the writer’s desire to defend the integrity of the president’s internal critics.

    But we concluded that the author’s principal motivation was to describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it. The resulting essay, we believe, is an important piece of opinion journalism.

    — Jim Dao

    ***

    Why now?

    Why did you publish it now? At a time when the country should be focused on the Kavanaugh hearings, the outcome of which will affect us for the next 30 years or more, you totally distracted everyone with a guessing game. This administration is placing our democracy in enough danger. Do you really need to play along?

    — Paul Birkeland, Seattle

    Paul:

    The simple answer is that we published when we did because the piece was ready to go and we saw no reason to wait. It certainly was not our intention to start a guessing game or draw the nation’s attention away from the Kavanaugh hearings.

    The Op-Ed section considers the Supreme Court nomination to be of the utmost importance and, for that reason, has published numerous Op-Eds and columns about Judge Kavanaugh since he was nominated (including several just this week).

    It was always our expectation that even if the Op-Ed created a splash, that the Kavanaugh hearings would remain a focus of media attention. And indeed, though the Op-Ed was the big news on Wednesday and Thursday, the hearings remained front-page news in The Times throughout the week. I should also point out that the actual vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination could be more than a week away, leaving plenty of time for additional coverage.

    — Jim Dao

    ***

    Has this happened before?

    You said publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay is a “rare step.” So does it mean that it was not unprecedented? Then what were other times when you made a call to run anonymous Op-Eds? What were your rationales back then?

    — Dien Luong, Vietnam

    Dien:

    It has happened before. Earlier this year, we published an anonymous essay by an asylum seeker whose name we withheld because she was concerned about gang violence against her family in El Salvador. In 2016, we published this Op-Ed by a Syrian refugee in Greece, using her first name only because her family in Syria faced threats. We also published in 2016 an account of the Syrian civil war by a writer in Raqqa using a pen name to protect him from being targeted by the Islamic State.

    — Jim Dao

    Did you consider the effect this piece might have?

    To what extent did The Times consider the effect that publication of the piece would have in bolstering conspiracy theories about the “deep state” or QAnon, etc.?

    — James Apps, Berlin

    James:

    We did not take that into consideration. It is difficult to ever know what reportage might feed into a conspiracy theory. But the essay included a passage that indicates the author suspected the piece might be viewed as part of a “deep state” theory: “This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.”

    — Jim Dao

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Sep 08

Today’s News 8th September 2018

  • How Cory Booker's Failed "Spartacus" Moment Made Brett Kavanaugh Look Like A Star

    During Thursday’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker held the proceedings hostage with a dramatic display over the release a 12-page email conversation between Kavanaugh and several other people with the subject “racial profiling.” 

    The email in question was part of a massive Monday night document dump from a Bush administration lawyer, hours before Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings began. 

    The Democratic Senator huffed and puffed and blew hot air all over the chamber – claiming “this is the closest I’ll get to an “I am Spartacus’ moment” – adding “I am right now before your process is finished, I am going to release the email about racial profiling and I understand the penalty comes with potential ousting from the Senate.”

    Booker’s bloviating frustrated other Senators – as Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked him: “How many times you going to tell us that?” 

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

    Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) admonished Booker as well, telling Booker – a 2020 Democratic hopeful: “Running for president is no excuse for violating the rules of the Senate,” adding “This is no different from the senator deciding to release classified information. … That is irresponsible and outrageous.”

    This was Booker’s moment, where he would reveal Judge Kavanaugh as a conservative racist… except Booker apparently didn’t read, or understand the email.

    After Booker released the emails, pundits and politicians alike rushed to digest the 12-page “bombshell” – only to discover that booker chose an incredibly stupid hill to die on.

    In the 2002 email discussing airline security after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, Kavanaugh wrote that he “generally favored” race-neutral security measures, adding that his colleagues would need to “grapple” with “the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is developed and implemented” in order to prevent another terrorist attack. 

    Kavanaugh wrote that the “interim question” is of “critical importance to the security of the airlines and American people in the next 6 months or so, especially given Al Qaeda’s track record of timing between terrorist incidents.”

    As the Washington Examiner noted Thursday, the emails were a “total dud,” as they “don’t show Kavanaugh cheerleading racist tactics. Quite the opposite, actually.”

    As Booker considers his 2020 run for President, he might consider having competent attorneys review and translate any complicated emails with dog-whistle titles before he cuts off his nose to spite his face.

  • Mattis To Spicer: "I’ve Killed People For A Living. Call Me Again, I’m Going To F**king Send You To Afghanistan"

    We previously chronicled a number of the more explosive of Washington Post editor Bob Woodward’s strategically “leaked” excerpts from his upcoming book about the Trump administration earlier this week. 

    In response to the allegations, Trump unleashed a string of tweets Tuesday and Wednesday slamming the allegations as false and libelous. Woodward’s book – titled “Fear” – includes a number of wild and seemingly tailor-made to fit the headlines type anecdotes. 

    But amidst some of the more bombshell claims currently driving national media attention are some hidden and “minor” nuggets which nevertheless reveal hilarious interactions between current and former administration officials and staffers. 

    A notable one that stands out is now subject of this hilarious viral tweet: Mattis to Spicer: “I’ve killed people for a living. If you call me again, I’m going to fucking send you to Afghanistan”.

    The passage was revealed by White House Associated Press journalist Zeke Miller, who got an early glimpse of the book. 

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

    The passage details a particular moment in which Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis unleashed on former White House press secretary Sean Spicer after the latter badgered the general to appear on more television shows. 

    Mattis is said to have an aversion to TV appearances, and has only made a single appearance on a network show since Trump took the oval.

    That one appearance, in a May 2017 Face the Nation segment resulted in prior Mattis one-liners such as when he told the host John Dickerson that nothing kept him awake at night, but that “I keep other people awake at night.”

    Perhaps Mattis did manage to scare a somewhat pesky Spicer who apparently kept urging him to go on Sunday morning talk shows. Mattis said “no” a number of times prior to the moment his patience wore thin. 

    “Sean,” Mattis said, according to the excerpt of the book, Fear, “I’ve killed people for a living. If you call me again, I’m going to fucking send you to Afghanistan. Are we clear?”

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

    Meanwhile Mattis has adamantly denied some of the more scandalous alleged incidents detailed in the book: “The idea I ever called the president an idiot is not true,” said Kelly, who stated further that Woodward’s book is “another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump and distract from the administration’s many successes.”

    While it could be that much of the book will be subject of thorough debunking, especially when the public gets their hands on copies, the Mattis “I’m going to fucking send you to Afghanistan” is definitely a keeper. 

  • Chick-Fil-A Employee Fired After Savagely Beating Belligerent Customer

    A brawl broke out at a Chick-Fil-A in Northwest Washington, DC when an angry customer attacked an employee who proceeded to savagely beat him down in front of a crowd of horrified customers.

    The customer – who was caught on camera throwing the first punch – was arrested and charged with simple assault. The Chick-Fil-A employee wasn’t charged with a crime, but was fired by Chick-Fil-A. The incident unfolded at a restaurant in on Wisconsin Avenue in the Tenleytown neighborhood, according to Fox.

    According to the police report, the 55-year-old customer was shouting at customers and causing a scene at the restaurant before he went behind the counter and threw a punch at a 27-year-old employee who had asked him to leave. The video shows the employee repeatedly punching the customer before the fight was broken up by other employees. The customer was then taken to a hospital and treated for minor injuries.

    In a statement, Chick-Fil-A apologized for the incident, adding that it urges employees to treat all customers with “dignity and respect.” The company added that it has launched an investigation of the situation.

    “There is a viral video circulating of an altercation that took place Sept. 4 between a restaurant team member and an individual in a franchised restaurant outside of Washington, DC. This video is incredibly disturbing to watch, and we do not condone violence or the team member’s response to the situation in any way. Our franchise restaurant Operators and their team members strive to create a safe and welcoming environment and to treat all guests with dignity and respect. This situation does not live up to our brand’s commitment to hospitality, and for that, we are very sorry.”

    “According to the franchise Operator, the team member involved in the altercation is no longer working in the restaurant. We are continuing to investigate this situation, including what happened before the video was taken and how it escalated so quickly.”

    Watch the video below:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • Trump Organization Executives Face Federal Campaign-Finance Probe

    Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are probing whether anyone within the Trump organization violated campaign-finance laws in connection with the Michael Cohen case, according to Bloomberg, citing a person familiar with the matter. 

    The Federal prosecutors are operating on a “parallel track” to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Mueller has been referring various aspects of his investigation to appropriate counterparts within the Department of Justice. 

    Among other crimes, Cohen admitted to violating campaign finance laws. He acknowledged that he paid off a woman who claimed to have had an affair with the president, saying he did it at the direction of the candidate himself and that Trump’s company then repaid him. Notably, the president said the next day that Cohen’s acts weren’t a crime. Whether others in Trump’s orbit were complicit — steering money to benefit his campaign without making proper disclosures or by exceeding federal limits — is not yet clear. No one else has been charged. –Bloomberg

    Trump’s organization consists of several private companies heavily invested in real estate – run by the President’s sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. since he took office. 

    Central to the investigation is thought to be longtime CFO Allen Weisselberg, who was granted “limited” immunity by US prosecutors, and who has already provided “narrow cooperation” with federal authorities regarding Cohen’s activities and hush agreements, according to Bloomberg’s source. 

    During Cohen’s indictment, prosecutors claimed that two Trump company executives – one of whom is thought to be Weisselberg – approved improper payments in violation of campaign-finance laws. 

    According to the Wall Street Journal, Weisselberg coordinated the Trump Organization’s reimbursement of Cohen’s $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels (real name Stephanie Clifford). Weisselberg didn’t know what the payment was for, according to the Journal, citing “a person familiar with the CFO’s thinking,” when he agreed in January 2017 to pay Cohen $35,000 per month “pursuant to retainer agreement.” 

    That month, according to charging documents filed Tuesday, Mr. Cohen gave executives at the Trump Organization a copy of the bank statement from his bank account for Essential Consultants LLC, the company he used to pay Ms. Clifford the previous fall. The statement reflected Mr. Cohen’s $130,000 payment to Ms. Clifford, as well as an additional $50,000 that Mr. Cohen added in handwriting was for “tech services.”

    Executives at the Trump Organization “ ‘grossed up’ for tax purposes” Mr. Cohen’s requested reimbursement, doubling it to $360,000, and added a $60,000 bonus, the document said. The next month, one executive at the company asked another executive to pay Mr. Cohen’s monthly retainer “from the trust” and to “post to legal expenses.” –WSJ

    Weisselberg was called to testify earlier this year before a federal grand jury, according to the Journal‘s previous reporting. 

    Weisselberg has already been interviewed by the New York Attorney General’s office as part of the state’s investigation of alleged improprieties at Trump’s charitable foundation. The attorney general filed a civil suit against Trump and three of his children in June claiming that they treated the charity like a “piggy bank” and that at least $2.8 million in charitable funds was directed to the 2016 campaign. The Foundation has denied the allegations and said the suit was politically motivated. –Bloomberg

    Cohen faces five years in prison for five counts of tax evasion and one count of bank fraud unrelated to Trump or the 2016 campaign. He also faces two counts of campaign finance violations involving payments to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. 

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

  • The World's Ultra-Wealthy Population, In One Chart

    Reaching the status of “millionaire” used to be a big deal.

    But, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, with rising inflation, a higher cost of living in cities, and changing perceptions around wealth, the six zero milestone doesn’t mean as much anymore.

    Heck, there are over 16 million millionaires globally, and 4.3 million in the United States alone. Therefore, to really get a sense of the makeup of the world’s ultra-wealthy population, we need a more exclusive and finely-tuned indicator.

    THE $50 MILLION BENCHMARK

    Today’s infographic comes to us from the Knight Frank Wealth Report 2018, which you should absolutely check out if global wealth is a topic of interest to you.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    The visualization breaks down the world’s 129,730 people that have fortunes of US$50 million and above. It’s a much narrower measure, representing just the upper echelon (top 1%) of the world’s millionaire population.

    The graphic sorts these ultra-wealthy people by country and region, but also breaks down the change in population between 2016 (Q4) and 2017 (Q4).

    THE ULTRA-WEALTHY BY REGION

    Here’s the $50 million and above population sorted by region:

    North America still reigns supreme, but Asia is fast catching up and has already surpassed Europe in this measure of wealth. It’s worth noting that in the one-year span between 2016 (Q4) and 2017 (Q4), the ultra-wealthy population for Asia grew a solid 15%.

    It’s also surprising to see that Latin America and Russia & CIS are experiencing such high rates of growth in their >$50 million populations, as well.

    TOP 10 ULTRA-WEALTHY COUNTRIES

    By absolute population, here are the top 10 countries for the ultra-wealthy, based on the above data:

    The U.S. holds about 30% of the world’s ultra-wealthy population, while China adds up to nearly 11% when including both Mainland China and Hong Kong in the calculations.

    Switzerland (8.4 million people) punches above its weight class, hitting the #9 spot globally, while Canada takes the #5 spot despite having fewer people (36 million) than the majority of the countries on the list.

  • UNC Prof Charged With Assault At Confederate Statue Toppling

    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill police charged a professor with simple assault during the toppling of a Confederate statue on campus, the school told Campus Reform on Wednesday.

    Dwayne Dixon, a University of North Carolina anthropology professor and leader of the armed Antifa group Redneck Revolt

    According to the arrest report obtained by Campus Reform, Dr. Dwayne Dixon, Teaching Assistant Professor at UNC’s Asian Studies Department, received a criminal summons for simple assault and warning of trespass on August 30 after the “Silent Sam” Confederate statue toppling on August 20. Dixon is due in court on Sept. 27.

    Patrick Howley, editor-in-chief at conservative BigLeaguePolitics.com alleged in a tweet that the professor assaulted him, directing readers to a video showcasing the alleged attack. The video was uploaded to YouTube by Big League Politics Reporter Peter D’Abrosca.

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

    According to the UNC Police incident report, which Campus Reform also obtained, Dixon struck Howley in the face and head.

    The Durham County Sheriff’s Office had arrested Dixon on Aug. 18, two days before the UNC rally, charging the professor with going armed to the terror of the people and carrying a weapon at a public gathering, both misdemeanors, reported The Herald Sun. Dixon was carrying a semi-automatic rifle with at least three 30-round magazines, according to the police. The professor was released on $5,000 bail.

    UNC police charged 18 individuals in connection with the “Silent Sam” protests on Monday, Aug. 20, Saturday, Aug. 25, and Thursday, Aug. 30, UNC spokesman Randy B. Young told Campus Reform. The school termed Dixon’s involvement a “personnel matter” and did not respond to additional inquiries regarding whether Dixon has tenure, whether he still teaches, or is on paid leave.

    The police charged five protesters with resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer, four protesters with simple assault, and three individuals with misdemeanor defacing of a public monument and misdemeanor riot, among other charges.

  • Iran, Russia, Turkey Leaders Urge "Negotiated Political Process" On Idlib As Putin And Erdogan Clash

    Amidst extreme tensions ratcheting up over the past days as Russian and Syrian forces have initiated their final assault on al-Qaeda held Idlib, the presidents of Iran, Russia, and Turkey are meeting in what’s broadly described as a “high stakes summit” in Tehran on Friday. 

    Pressure is high after Thursday evening statements by a top State Department envoy on Syria, who told reporters, “There is lots of evidence that chemical weapons are being prepared.” The envoy, Jim Jeffrey, doubled down on prior promises that “Assad would be guilty” for any future chemical attack in Syria. 

    But it seems what appears to be a coordinated White House effort at calculated pressure to deter the Syria-Russia operation in Idlib is having an effect. An early statement from the summit carried in Iran state media says Iran, Russia, and Turkey have agreed that the Syria conflict can only end through “negotiated political process” and not through military means. 

    Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reportedly pushed for a cease-fire plan at the summit, warning that the massive Idlib battle would be “a bloodbath” and will be a serious national security threat to his country, and further warned of a “humanitarian catastrophe” unfolding.

    Friday’s summit in Tehran, via AFP

    However Russian President Vladimir Putin underscored Syrian sovereignty and Assad’s “right” to regian control over territory currently held by terrorists. This, in line with President Assad’s prior promises to “regain every inch” of Syrian national territory before the war. 

    “Idlib isn’t just important for Syria’s future, it is of importance for our national security and for the future of the region,” Erdogan said during formal statements at the Friday summit. “Any attack on Idlib would result in a catastrophe. Any fight against terrorists requires methods based on time and patience,” he added, saying “we don’t want Idlib to turn into a bloodbath.” He concluded “We must find a reasonable way out for Idlib.”

    Putin responded, “We should think together over all aspects of this complicated issue,” while asserting, “We should solve this issue together and (we should) all realize that the legitimate Syrian government has the right and eventually should be able to regain control of all of its territory.”

    Putin hinted at being open to a ceasefire, nothing “a cease-fire would be good” but suggested that it ultimately wouldn’t hold. He also warned that according to Russian intelligence insurgents in Idlib are planning “provocations,” possibly including chemical weapons. 

    Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani demanded an immediate withdrawal of US troops, telling his Russian and Turkish counterparts, “we have to force the United States to leave,” but didn’t detail exactly how this would be done. 

    “The fires of war and bloodshed in Syria are reaching their end,” Rouhani said, and reaffirmed alongside Putin that terrorism must “be uprooted in Syria, particularly in Idlib.”

  • R.I.P. Chinese Exceptionalism?

    Authored by Arvind Subramanian and Josh Felman via Project Syndicate,

    After decades of strong and steady growth, China has developed a reputation for economic resiliency, even as it piles up ever more domestic debt. But the prospect of declining exports, alongside a weakening currency, could derail its debt-defying trajectory.

    From Argentina to Turkey and from South Africa to Indonesia, emerging markets are once again being roiled by financial turbulence. But let us not lose sight of the biggest and potentially most problematic of them all: China.

    Over the past few decades, China’s growth has appeared to violate certain fundamental laws of economics. For example, Stein’s Law holds that if something cannot go on forever, it will stop. Yet China’s debt keeps on rising.

    Indeed, according to the International Monetary Fund, Chinese corporate, government, and household debt has increased by about $23 trillion in the last decade alone, and its debt-to-GDP ratio has risen by around 100 percentage points, to more than 250%. That is orders of magnitude above the level at which financial crises normally occur.

    To be sure, some of China’s debt has been used to expand its industrial base and infrastructure. But much of it has also gone toward sustaining money-losing public enterprises and endless investments in superfluous public facilities and housing.

    China’s domestic imbalances point to another economic law that it has managed to break. For any normal country, the build-up of extensive surplus capacity would lead to sharp declines in investment and GDP growth. And that, in turn, would produce financial distress, followed by a crisis if the warning signs were ignored. But China has had a different experience. Its GDP growth has slowed, but investment remains robust, and there is no strain on its banking system.

    A common explanation for China’s apparent invulnerability is that it has large pools of domestic savings and enormous foreign-exchange reserves (over $3 trillion), which can be spent down to head off financial panics. And because the government’s balance sheet is still strong enough to bail out unviable financial firms, it can address any emerging sources of stress in that crucial sector.

    Another common explanation for China’s resilience is political. Highly centralized decision-making allows for swift, concerted action, such as official clampdowns on foreign-exchange outflows. And in such a uniquely controlled – and controllable – society, the normal social stresses that arise from economic disruptions are eminently manageable.

    Plausible as these arguments are, it is time to revisit them. China’s economic exceptionalism is now being threatened by a perfect storm of existing stresses – namely, the domestic debt build-up – and new complications, including US trade barriers, the geopolitical pushback against China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and tightening monetary conditions, particularly in the United States.

    After the 2008 financial crisis, China shifted its economic model away from exports and toward internal sources of growth. But such a rebalancing requires ever more debt and investment, thus creating greater risks of collapse. As a result, the government has had to tread carefully, providing only moderate dollops of stimulus to the economy as needed. There is no how-to manual for managing this balancing act. Policy interventions that seem moderate in the moment could turn out to have been excessive. At some point, Stein’s Law will assert itself.

    First among the emerging threats to Chinese growth is US trade policy. So far, only about $50 billion worth of Chinese exports have been affected by the Trump administration’s tariffs. But in July, Trump announced a new round of tariffs targeting an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, representing about 15% of total exports to the US. Reflecting its growing vulnerability, China’s reactions to Trump’s continued threats have been notably accommodative.

    A second threat to external demand comes from the exhaustion of China’s mercantilist policies. In the 1990s and 2000s, China developed an exceptionally large export industry in part by allowing its currency to become undervalued. More recently, however, it has perpetuated this approach through other means, namely the BRI, with which it finances other countries’ purchases of Chinese goods and services. Call this Chinese Mercantilism 2.0.

    The problem is that Mercantilism 2.0 is now under attack, both politically and economically. Politically, recipients of Chinese loans – from Sri Lanka to Malaysia to Myanmar – have been expressing objections to the BRI and its odor of neo-imperialism. Economically, the onerous terms of BRI financing have resulted in alarming debt build-ups in at least eight countries, according to the Center for Global Development.

    Malaysia, for example, has already had to cancel $22 billion worth of Chinese-backed projects. Sri Lanka has had to turn to the IMF for help, owing to the impact of excessive Chinese imports on its external accounts. And Pakistan may soon be forced to do the same. As more countries become wary of the BRI, they will borrow and import less from China.

    Meanwhile, the steady rise in US interest rates is creating a third shock. As US rates exceed Chinese rates, capital will flow out of China, as it has from other emerging markets this year. China’s leaders will thus be faced with the classic emerging-market dilemma. If they allow the renminbi to weaken, they could aggravate capital flight in the short term and invite accusations of currency manipulation from the US. But if they want to prop up the currency, they may have to spend down another trillion dollars in reserves, as happened in 2015.

    Alternatively, the government could reimpose draconian capital controls. But that would stifle external demand, undermine economic management more broadly, and discredit the country’s claim to global economic leadership (including internationalization of the renminbi).

    Amid this perfect storm of economic challenges, there are also growing questions about whether Chinese President Xi Jinping has as strong a grip on events as he would like everyone to think.

    Xi would do well to remember not just Stein’s Law, but also Rüdiger Dornbusch’s Law, which holdsthat, “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”

    Sooner or later, Chinese exceptionalism will give way to the laws of economics.

    The world should prepare itself. The consequences could be severe – and unlike anything experienced in recent history.

  • Trade War Could Affect 11 Million US Blue-Collar Workers

    President Trump’s trade war with China is expected to last much longer than initially thought — extending into the second half of 2019, experts state. The Main reason: neither Washington nor Beijing want to appear politically weak at home, and both are prepared to absorb economic pain; furthermore, Trump is convinced he is winning the trade war and will keep pushing until he is forced to reverse by the stock market.

    According to an Axios report, President Trump’s trade war could affect companies employing some 11 million blue-collar workers, as the threat of an imminent trade escalation could strike by the end of the week.

    The chart below depicts companies affected by Trump’s dangerous trade policies are mostly concentrated in rural, deeply red, deindustrialized regions of the country, with political consequences for the Trump administration in 2018 and beyond. Axios said the map tracks the geographical impact of both current and threatened retaliation. The darker a region, the higher the concentration of affected industries there.

    Tit-for-tat has become the norm for China, as both countries dig in for a deepening trade war that is already causing many experts to warn about a global slowdown. To date, Beijing has imposed a 25 percent tariffs on $50 billion of American products. It has also threatened to respond to the newest round of US tariffs with a proposed tax on $60 billion of US goods, by strategically targeting Trump’s base in rural America just in time for the US midterm elections.

    As for the 11-million blue-collar workers, employment in rural, deindustrialized regions in the US can be exceptionally vulnerable to shifts in the global economy, said Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “In a small county, a single meat packing establishment can provide hundreds of jobs and make up a large share of that county’s total employment.”

    The question then is whether the pain threshold of those 11 million workers affected will be triggered and, more importantly, how they will vote in November.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Sep 07

Today’s News 7th September 2018

  • China Sought To Intercept British Warship, Claiming Expanded Territorial Waters

    In but the latest incident among a growing list that point to China’s expanding claims on the South China Sea, a British naval ship carrying Royal Marines had a confrontation with Chinese military vessels as it reportedly traveled through international waters.

    The incident took place near the Chinese-controlled Paracel Islands in South China Sea, and while the UK claims its ship stayed only in recognized international waters, China’s foreign ministry is disputing that claim, calling the British navy’s actions a “provocation”. 

    HMS Albion, via UK Defence Journal 

    Reuters reports of the disputed incident: 

    The HMS Albion, a 22,000 ton amphibious warship carrying a contingent of Royal Marines, exercised its “freedom of navigation” rights as it passed near the Paracel Islands, two sources, who were familiar with the matter but who asked not to be identified, told Reuters.

    The vessel was traveling to Ho Chi Minh City, where it safely docked after the encounter which according to a Reuters source involved China deploying “a frigate and two helicopters to challenge the British vessel, but both sides remained calm during the encounter.”

    The Paracel Islands are hotly disputed territory, and though occupied entirely by China are also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan, the British vessel may have entered to within twelve nautical miles of the Paracels, which is the internationally recognized territorial boundary demarcating where sovereign waters extend.

    Britain may have been testing China’s resolve regarding its recent claims to the Paracels. 

    Two major flashpoint areas in the South China Sea: the Paracel and Sratly islands. 

    The incident took place on August 31, but has only now been revealed. China’s Foreign Ministry describes it as an act of aggression with no forewarning or permission to enter what it claims is its territorial waters. China’s foreign ministry described in a statement:

    The relevant actions by the British ship violated Chinese law and relevant international law, and infringed on China’s sovereignty. China strongly opposes this and has lodged stern representations with the British side to express strong dissatisfaction.

    “China strongly urges the British side to immediately stop such provocative actions, to avoid harming the broader picture of bilateral relations and regional peace and stability,” the statement continued. “China will continue to take all necessary measures to defend its sovereignty and security.”

    A spokesman for the Royal Navy negated the claim, and responded with: “HMS Albion exercised her rights for freedom of navigation in full compliance with international law and norms.”

    Current Britain-China relations have been described as “delicate” of late given London’s seeking a post-Brexit free trade deal from Beijing, which has suggested what’s being hailed as a potential future “golden era” in ties. 

    In previous years multiple reports have documented an extensive Chinese military build-up in the Parcel Islands, including the deployment of Russian-made surface-to-air missiles, which China’s Defense Ministry long ago confirmed, saying it’s lawful for China “to deploy defense facilities within its territory, and the facilities have existed for years.”

    The area is coveted for its potential oil and gas resources, and China’s heavy deployment and defense of the region has increased tensions among territorial claimants. 

    This latest incident follows a string of similar encounters throughout the summer involving various international vessels and aircraft, including a last August incident where a US Navy plane flying 16,500 feet over the South China Sea was unexpectedly contacted by the Chinese and warned to “Leave immediately and keep out to avoid any misunderstanding”.

    Beijing has laid down an extensive claim in what the rest of the world considers open international waters. China’s so called “nine-dash line” encircles as much as 90 percent of the contested waters in the South China Sea, and runs up to 2,000 kilometers from the Chinese mainland and within a few hundred kilometers of Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines — all within this vaguely defined zone Beijing claims as within its “historical maritime rights”.

    The UN estimates that one-third of global shipping passes through the expansive area claimed by China — and crucially there’s thought to exist significant untapped oil and natural gas reserves in region. 

    Despite many Chinese warnings threatening the US, UK, and Australian vessels of late, which also involves aggressive encounters with the Philipines’ armed forcies, Washington and London have made it clear that they will maintain and increase an active presence in the region.

  • It's Africa's Choice: AFRICOM Or 'The New Silk Roads'

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    When China calls, all Africa answers. And Beijing’s non-politicization of investments and non-interference in internal affairs is paying off big time…

    The dogs of war – cold, hot, trade, tariffs – bark while the Chinese caravan plies the New Silk Roads. Call it a leitmotif of the young 21st century.

    At the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in Beijing, President Xi Jinping has just announced a hefty US$60 billion package to complement another US$60 billion pledged at the 2015 summit.

    That breaks down to $15 billion in grants and interest-free loans; $20 billion in credit lines; a $10 billion fund for development financing; $5 billion to finance imports from Africa; and waving the debt of the poorest African nations diplomatically linked to China.

    When China calls, all Africa answers.

    First, we had ministers from 53 African nations plus the African Union (AU) Commission approving the Beijing Declaration and the FOCAC Action Plan (2019-21).

    Then, after the $60 billion announcement, we had Beijing signing memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with nine African nations – including South Africa and Egypt – related to the New Silk Roads/Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Additionally, other 20 African nations are discussing further cooperation agreements.

    Debt trap or integration?

    That does not exactly paint the picture of the BRI as a vicious debt trap enabling China to take over Africa’s top strategic assets. On the contrary, the BRI is seen as integrating with Africa’s own Agenda 2063, a “strategic framework for the socio-economic transformation of the continent over the next 50 years” tackling unemployment, inequality and poverty.

    Apart from letting the numbers speak for themselves, Xi deftly counter-punched the current, massive BRI demonization campaign:

    “Only the people of China and Africa have the right to comment on whether China-Africa cooperation is doing well … No one should deny the significant achievement of China-Africa cooperation based on their assumptions and speculation.”

    And once again Xi felt the need to stress the factor that does seduce, Africa-wide – Chinese non-politicization of investments, and Chinese non-interference in the internal affairs of African nations.

    This comes right after Xi’s speech celebrating the five years of BRI, on Aug. 27, when he stressed Beijing’s organizing foreign policy concept for the foreseeable future has nothing to do with a “China club.”

    What that reveals, in fact, is a Deng Xiaoping-style “crossing the river while feeling the stones” fine-tuning, bent on correcting mistakes in what is still the BRI’s planning stages, and including the approval of a mechanism of dispute resolution for myriad projects.

    African leaders seem to be on board. For South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, the FOCAC “refutes the view that a new colonialism is taking hold in Africa, as our detractors would have us believe.” AU chairman Paul Kagame, also the president of Rwanda, emphasized a stronger Africa was an opportunity for investment, “rather than a problem or a threat.”

    A ‘non-enduring contingency location’?

    According to the China Chamber of International Commerce, over 3,300 Chinese companies have invested Africa-wide in telecommunications, transportation, power generation, industrial parks, water supply, rental business for construction machinery, retail, schools, hotels and hospitals.

    China is, in fact, upgrading its investments in Africa beyond infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture and energy and mineral imports. China is Africa’s top trading partner since 2009; trade expanded 14% in 2017, reaching $170 billion.

    In November, Shanghai will host the first China International Import Expo – jointly managed by the Ministry of Commerce and the Shanghai municipal government, a convenient stage for African nations to promote their proverbial “market potential.”

    Xi depicted as a new and ruthless Mao? China mired in abysmal corruption? China’s massive internal debt about to explode like a volcano from hell? None of this seems to stick Africa-wide. What does impress is that in three decades, a one-party system managed to multiply China’s GDP per capita by a factor of 17. From a Global South point of view, the lesson is “they must be doing something right.”

    The ultra-sensitive military front

    In parallel, there’s no evidence Africa will cease to be a key BRI node for investment; a market with an expanding middle class receptive to Chinese imports; and most of all, strategic reasons.

    And then there’s the ultra-sensitive military front.

    China’s first overseas military base was inaugurated on Aug. 1, 2017 – on the exact 90th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The official Beijing spin is that Djibouti is a base for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, and to fight pirates based on the Yemeni and Somali coastlines.

    But it goes way beyond that. Djibouti is a geostrategic dream; on the northwest Indian Ocean and at the southern path to the Red Sea, en route to the Suez Canal and with access to the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Gulf and most of all the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. This prime economic connectivity translates into transit control of 20% of all global exports and 10% of total annual oil exports.

    Not accidentally, Djibouti’s top capital source is China. Chinese companies fund nearly 40% of Djibouti’s top investment projects. That includes the $490 million Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, whose strategic importance far exceeds elephants, zebras and antelopes“roaming freely alongside a railway.”

    Djibouti’s aim, as expressed by President Ismail Omar Guelleh – who visited Xi in Beijing last November – is to position itself as the number one connectivity/transshipment node for all of Africa.

    Now compare it with the Pentagon’s AFRICOM agenda – as in an array of Special Ops deploying nearly 100 secret missions across 20 African nations at any given time.

    As Nick Turse extensively documented in his must-read book Tomorrow’s Battlefield, there are at least 50 US military bases Africa-wide – ranging from what AFRICOM designates as “forward operating sites” to fuzzy “cooperative security locations” or “non-enduring contingency locations.” Not to mention 36 AFRICOM bases in 24 African nations that have not previously made it to official reports.

    What this spells out, once again, is further evidence of the ever-replicating Empire of Bases. And that brings us to Africa’s stark “contingency location” choice. In the ultra-high-stakes development game, who’re you gonna call? FOCAC and the New Silk Roads, or Ghostbusters AFRICOM?

  • In Eastern Europe And Russia, Reminders Of Communist Horrors Are Everywhere

    Submitted by William Anderson of Mises Institute

    As our commuter train stopped at the Riga suburb of Tornakalns, we saw a small railroad boxcar standing by itself on the side. To the passenger from the train, it was a small memorial; to a Latvian nearly 80 years ago, it was at worst a death sentence and at best, transportation to exile in a Siberian labor camp.

    Our train was taking us from an afternoon at Jurmala, the resort located by the Gulf of Riga, a place where leading Communist Party members from the old U.S.S.R. went to spend vacations, but today, just another place to enjoy the warm sunshine of the Latvian summer. The horrors of the Soviet invasion of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania in 1940 are long behind, surfacing only in the image of the boxcar and the Museum of the Occupation, now located in the former U.S. embassy in downtown Riga.

    (The USA built a new embassy near the Riga International Airport, a beige, boxy construction that contrasts with the lovely embassies on the famed Embassy Row in Riga, featuring some of the world’s most prominent Art Nouveau facades. When the new embassy was being constructed, locals thought it was a new prison, which, given the USA’s penchant for imprisoning people, probably was not far off the mark.)

    The three Baltic nations finally broke away from the U.S.S.R. in 1990 and 1991, but the Museum of the Occupation provides reminders of how the ancestors of people walking freely about the towns and cities of these countries suffered, and suffered greatly at the hands of those promoting the socialist ideology that even today won’t die. How thousands were summarily executed at the hands of the NKVD, the Soviet secret police. How thousands more were herded into those tiny boxcars and shipped to the hinterlands of Siberia, many to die brutal deaths in labor camps. All because they were people who worked in government or taught in schools and universities of the Baltic nations, or who owned businesses, or who were just inconvenient to Soviet authorities. All on the ultimate order of Josef Stalin, the Soviet dictator called “Uncle Joe” by American journalists and by presidents Franklin Roosevelt and, later, Harry Truman.

    American publications like the New York Times were so in love with the ideals of the Bolshevik Revolution (and still are, given the NYT’s series last year lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Europe satellites) that they could not be bothered to tell the truth about what the communists did in the Baltics, just as they denied that Stalin had created a famine that killed more Ukranians than Jews that were killed in the Holocaust . Even now, as one looks at photos of the Baltic people being shot, arrested, buried in mass graves, and forced into labor camps, one is reminded that the Soviet Union did not provide a new way of living, as socialist apologists and American journalists have claimed, but rather just another way of dying – and dying violently.

    But that was then. Today, the Baltic nations are wealthier and freer than they were in the days of Soviet occupation. For that matter, Russia also is freer and wealthier than it was when the Hammer and Sickle flew over the Kremlin. After spending time in Riga and Tallinn, Estonia, along with Helsinki, Finland (we were there the day of the Trump-Putin summit), we drove into Russia.

    Our first stop was at the border, which passed without incident and certainly was not the ordeal we would face a week later when re-entering the United States. Soon after entering Russia, we came to Vyborg, which once belonged to Finland before being seized by the U.S.S.R. in the brief 1939-40 war between Finland and the Soviet Union.

    Although Russia has moved on from its days of communism, it is clear that Vyborg has been slower with the transition. The city reminded me of what I saw in East Germany in 1982, with its drab and hulking Soviet-era high-rise apartment buildings and general shabbiness. The famous castle that dominates the edge of town is in scaffolding and one wonders how long that has been the situation. At least the coffee we had at the small coffee shop near the castle was very good, something I doubt would have been the case in the days of Commieland.

    So, we drove onto St. Petersburg mostly on a two-lane road cut through the boreal forest of the northern latitudes. It was here that I witnessed something that amazed all of us – how vehicle drivers cooperated to turn two lanes into de facto four lanes of traffic.

    As faster drivers moved to pass slower vehicles, the slower vehicles would move onto the asphalt shoulder and even as our bus moved over the center line, the oncoming traffic would shift to the right, too. It all was spontaneously coordinated and everyone on the road was in on the scheme.

    Entering St. Petersburg was an experience in itself. With five million people spread over a number of islands, we saw new high-rises standing alongside the old Soviet-era apartment buildings. No one, however, comes to St. Petersburg to see the relics of the U.S.S.R. Instead, they come to see the czarist palaces and the stunning 18thand 19th century architecture that dominates the city. It may be the birthplace of the Bolshevik Revolution, but people come to pay homage to the way of life the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy and to Czar Nicholas II and his family, infamously and brutally murdered on Lenin’s orders in 1918.

    A century later, the bones of the last royal family of Russia lie safely in St. Peter and Paul Cathedral. Despite more than 70 years of communist rule, and despite all of the blood spilled to keep the likes of Lenin, Stalin, and the others in power, and despite the massive propaganda that ordinary people in the U.S.S.R. had to endure, St. Petersburg is the city of the czars, not the Bolsheviks.

    Parts of St. Petersburg are run down – as nearly the entire city was during the days of communism – but other parts of it absolutely are amazing to see. Likewise, I enjoyed interacting with the locals and especially the young people that made up most of the workforce of our hotel, from running the desks to cleaning our rooms. The legendary dour Soviet worker was replaced by a competent employee who patiently answered our questions and took care of whatever we needed.

    For all of the talk in the USA that Russia is a dictatorship under the iron thumb of Vladimir Putin, Russia did not seem like a dictatorship. Our Russian tour guide often would take a swipe at Putin (including likening his face to a painting of dogs at the Hermitage) and life itself there seemed to have the kind of normalcy that could not have been possible when people were compelled to inform on one another.

    The St. Petersburg we visited was not the Leningrad that Logan Robinson described in his humorous 1982 book An American in Leningrad , which described life as a post-graduate student living among Russian students and developing friendships with local writers, artists, and musicians, people who often harassed, persecuted, and arrested by local authorities. That city was an armed camp full of soldiers and had been relegated to being a backwater by Joseph Stalin and his successors who made Moscow the Soviet “showplace,” leaving the city founded by Peter the Great to succumb to the northerly elements.

    The citizens of the Baltic countries were not the only ones suffering under communism. No other city in the U.S.S.R. underwent the horror of a 900-day siege by German armies during World War II. Disease and starvation were rampant, but Leningrad held out. In “rewarding” the city for its courage and fortitude, Stalin reinstituted the infamous Purges shortly after the war ended, killing party members, writers, intellectuals, artists, and anyone else Stalin might have deemed even an imaginary threat. On top of that, the first Five-Year Plan after the war had Leningrad being the last city to be rebuilt.

    Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and have ruthless armies fight each other over their territories. Nor can we imagine having governments carry out massive executions of people whose only “crime” was not being what the government leadership wanted them to be. We cannot imagine the starvation, the disease, and watching family and friends be shipped off to places like Siberia where they surely would die terrible deaths.

    Yet, as I sat in the Old Town section of Riga eating and drinking and listening to live music, I strained to imagine the place as a battle zone with death and destruction all around where now I sat. I imagined the stores that now are full of goods and restaurants with food and drink being empty or stocked with subpar merchandise in the aftermath of the war as the Soviets imposed their primitive communist system and oppressed the people in the name of “liberating” them for many decades until they finally left in the early 1990s.

    No, I cannot see people in our cities having experienced anything like what the people of the Baltics and St. Petersburg had to tolerate for decades. And, yet, there are people in high places in the USA, those at the New York Times and elsewhere in the media and in academe that believe that communism had brought in a superior civilization – if only those blinded by capitalism had the courage and foresight to see what these “intellectuals” were imagining they saw.

    I recently saw a photograph of American Antifa protesters holding up a communist flag with the hammer-and-sickle and images of Mao, Lenin, and Marx. Perhaps they and the editors of the New York Times want to see the USA embrace a system that others that have lived under it now reject, and reject vehemently. Given that Antifa increasingly is providing shock troops for the causes espoused by prominent members of the Democratic Party like Bernie Sanders, the new drive for communism might not be as fringe as one might hope, and if a century of bloodshed, murder, vast prison systems, and starvation won’t convince the advocates of communism among American millennials, then perhaps nothing will.

    Perhaps the ultimate irony will be that Americans of the future might have to travel to the former U.S.S.R. in order to see free people and see a relatively free economy. One hopes not, but the daily onslaught of socialism into our body politic says this no longer is an impossible scenario.

    Bill Anderson is a professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland.

  • Johnstone: Are We Being Played?

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    If any evidence existed to be found that Donald Trump had illegally colluded with the Russian government to rig the 2016 presidential election, that evidence would have been picked up by the sprawling surveillance networks of the US and its allies and leaked to the Washington Post before Obama left office.

    Russiagate is like a mirage. From a distance it looks like a solid, tangible thing, but when you actually move in to examine it critically you find nothing but gaping plot holes, insinuation, innuendo, conflicting narratives, bizarre mental contortions to avoid acknowledging contradictory information, a few arrests for corruption and process crimes, and a lot of hot air. The whole thing has been held together by nothing but the confident-sounding assertions of pundits and politicians and sheer, mindless repetition. And, as we approach the two year mark since this president’s election, we have not seen one iota of movement toward removing him from office. The whole thing’s a lie, and the smart movers and shakers behind it are aware that it is a lie.

    And yet they keep beating on it. Day after day after day after day it’s been Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. Instead of attacking this president for his many, many real problems in a way that will do actual damage, they attack this fake blow-up doll standing next to him in a way that never goes anywhere and never will, like a pro wrestler theatrically stomping on the canvass next to his downed foe.

    What’s up with that?

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

    As you doubtless already know by now, the New York Times has made the wildly controversial decision to publish an anonymous op-ed reportedly authored by “a senior official in the Trump administration.” The op-ed’s author claims to be part of a secret coalition of patriots who dislike Trump and are “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” These “worst inclinations” according to the author include trying to make peace with Moscow and Pyongyang, being rude to longtime US allies, saying mean things about the media, being “anti-trade”, and being “erratic”. The possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment is briefly mentioned but dismissed. The final paragraphs are spent gushing about John McCain for no apparent reason.

    I strongly encourage you to read the piece in its entirety, because for all the talk and drama it’s generating, it doesn’t actually make any sense. While you are reading it, I encourage you to keep the following question in mind: what could anyone possibly gain by authoring this and giving it to the New York Times?

    Seriously, what could be gained? The op-ed says essentially nothing, other than to tell readers to relax and trust in anonymous administration insiders who are working against the bad guys on behalf of the people (which is interestingly the exact same message of the right-wing 8chan conspiracy phenomenon QAnon, just with the white hats and black hats reversed). Why would any senior official risk everything to publish something so utterly pointless? Why risk getting fired (or risk losing all political currency in the party if NYTAnon is Mike Pence, as has been theorized) just to communicate something to the public that doesn’t change or accomplish anything? Why publicly announce your undercover conspiracy to undermine the president in a major news outlet at all?

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

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

    What are the results of this viral op-ed everyone’s talking about? So far it’s a bunch of Democratic partisans making a lot of excited whooping noises, and Trump loyalists feeling completely vindicated in the belief that all of their conspiracy theories have been proven correct. Many rank-and-file Trump haters are feeling a little more relaxed and complacent knowing that there are a bunch of McCain-loving “adults in the room” taking care of everything, and many rank-and-file Trump supporters are more convinced than ever that Donald Trump is a brave populist hero leading a covert 4-D chess insurgency against the Deep State. In other words, everyone’s been herded into their respective partisan stables and trusting the narratives that they are being fed there.

    And, well, I just think that’s odd.

    Did you know that Donald Trump is in the WWE Hall of Fame? He was inducted in 2013, and he’s been enthusiastically involved in pro wrestling for many years, both as a fan and as a performer. He’s made more of a study on how to draw a crowd in to the theatrics of a choreographed fight scene than anyone this side of the McMahon family (a member of whom happens to be part of the Trump administration currently).

    You don’t have to get into any deep conspiratorial rabbit hole to consider the possibility that all this drama and conflict is staged from top to bottom. Commentators on all sides routinely crack jokes about how the mainstream media pretends to attack Trump but secretly loves him because he brings them amazing ratings. Anyone with their eyes even part way open already knows that America’s two mainstream parties feign intense hatred for one another while working together to pace their respective bases into accepting more and more neoliberal exploitation at home and more and more neoconservative bloodshed abroad. They spit and snarl and shake their fists at each other, then cuddle up and share candy when it’s time for a public gathering. Why should this administration be any different?

    I believe that a senior Trump administration official probably did write that anonymous op-ed. I do not believe that they were moved to write it out of compassion for the poor Americans who are feeling emotionally stressed about the president. I believe it was written and published for the same reason many other things are written and published in mainstream media: because we are all being played.

    The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political terms. The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice while advancing the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more importantly it’s a mechanism of narrative control. If you can separate the masses into two groups based on extremely broad ideological characteristics, you can then funnel streamlined “us vs them” narratives into each of the two stables, with the white hats and black hats reversed in each case. Now you’ve got Republicans cheering for the president and Democrats cheering for the CIA, for the FBI, and now for a platoon of covert John McCains alleged to be operating on the inside of Trump’s own administration. Everyone’s cheering for one aspect of the US power establishment or another.

    Whom does this dynamic serve? Not you.

    If you belonged to a ruling class, obviously your goal would be to ensure your subjects’ continued support for you. In a corporatist oligarchy, the rulers are secret and the subjects don’t know they’re ruled, and power is held in place with manipulation and with money. As such a ruler your goal would be to find a way to manipulate the masses into supporting your agendas, and, since people are different, you’d need to use different narratives to manipulate them. You’d have to divide them, tell them different stories, turn them against each other, play them off one another, suck them in to the tales you are spinning with the theater of enmity and heroism.

    As a result of the New York Times op-ed, if this administration engages in yet another of its many, many establishment capitulations (let’s say by attacking the Syrian government again), Trump’s supporters won’t see it as his fault; it will be blamed on the deep state insiders in his administration who have been working to thwart his agendas of peace and harmony. Meanwhile those who see Trump as a heel won’t experience any cognitive dissonance if any of the establishment agendas they support are carried out, because they can give the credit to the secret hero squad in the White House.

    Would a billionaire WWE Hall of Famer and United States President understand the theater of staged conflict for the advancement of plutocratic interests, and willingly participate in it? I’m going to say probably.

    *  *  *

    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 articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, or buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

  • America Is The Most Attractive Country For The World's Workers

    Given that politicians on the left continue to out-outrage one another by proclaiming that “America was never great,” it may be worth asking the rest of the world why they see the United States as the best place to work in the world?

    However, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, around the world, the desire to move between countries for work reasons is becoming less desirable.

    The Boston Consulting Group conducted a major survey of 366,000 people across 197 countries about labor trends and work preferences.  57 percent of those polled said they would move abroad for work, a decline on 2014’s 64 percent when the question was last asked.

    The developing world had the highest desire for a relocation abroad with 90 percent of India’s repondents and 70 percent of people in Brazil saying they would be willing to move to another country for the right job.

    In 2014, the U.S. was named the most popular work destination worldwide and it remains in top-position this year. 34 percent of the survey’s respondents said they would be willing to move to the U.S. for work reasons.

    Infographic: The Most Attractive Countries For The World's Workers | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    In Europe, the UK was the most popular destination for foreign workers in 2014 but due to Brexit, it has now slipped down the ranking to fifth place overall. The UK has been replaced by Germany which comes second in the ranking with 26 percent of foreign workers considering it their most attractive potential destination.

    Given its meteoric economic rise, China is conspicuous by its absence from the list and the only Asian entry is Japan in tenth place.

  • Nikki Haley: "US Will Not Remain A Passive Observer As Nicaragua Becomes Another Venezuela Or Syria"

    The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley warned the UN Security Council on Wednesday that Nicaragua is heading down the path that led to conflict in Syria and an economic collapse in Venezuela.

    “With each passing day, Nicaragua travels further down a familiar path,” Haley told a meeting of the UN Security Council on the deteriorating environment in the Central American country. “It is a path that Syria has taken. It is a path that Venezuela has taken.”

    The warning took place during the first Security Council meeting called by Ambassador Haley, the current council president, to address what the UN says Nicaragua’s government has participated in violent acts of repression toward students and opposition groups that have led to over 300 deaths since mid-April.

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

    Haley said the Security Council could not remain a “passive observer” as Nicaragua descended into chaos “because we know where this path leads.”

    She said Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega and Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro “are cut from the same corrupt cloth … And they are both dictators who live in fear of their own people.”

    “The Syrian exodus has produced millions of refugees, sowing instability throughout the Middle East and Europe,” Haley said. “The Venezuelan exodus has become the largest displacement of people in the history of Latin America. A Nicaraguan exodus would overwhelm its neighbors and create a surge of migrants and asylum-seekers in Central America.”

    Costa Rican Ambassador Rodrigo Carazo told the council that his government received 400 asylum applications from Nicaraguan citizens in the first quarter, that was before the crisis started. Last month, Ambassador Carazo said that number inflated to over 4,000. Year to date, the Costa Rican government has received nearly 13,000 asylum applications from Nicaraguans, he added.

    “The deepening of the political, social and economic crisis, the repression, and the failure to respect fundamental freedoms and human rights shown by the authorities has the potential of an unbridled worsening of the crisis,” Carazo warned. “And this can have a direct impact on the stability and the future of development in Central America.”

    According to Voice of America (VOA), human rights groups have reported abuses by law enforcement and military groups, including temporary detentions, torture, sexual violence, harassment, and intimidation. Nicaraguan civil society leader Felix Maradiaga told council members, “Nicaragua has become a huge prison which seems to be without any controls…every day, we see a climate of terror and indiscriminate persecution.”

    Maradiaga warned the political crisis was at risk of developing into a collapse. “Today, there is a time bomb in Nicaragua,” he said. “Crimes against humanity are creating an atmosphere conducive to internal conflict that can only grow in size.”

    A special report published last week by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights documented the four months of social unrest in the country.

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

    The human rights office called on the government to stop the arrest of protesters and disarm the masked groups that have been responsible for many killings. Then, late last week, the government expelled the human rights group from the country.

    The Organization of American States (OAS) has also condemned the violence and urged protestors and government to particpate in a peaceful dialogue. The OAS has called for 2021 elections to be brought foward as soon as possible to usher in a new government.

    “When tensions like this are so high, and violence takes place in such a way in a society that leaves more than 300 people dead, you need to give the power back to the people to decide,” OAS Chief of Staff Gonzalo Koncke told reporters.

    Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Denis Moncada spoke at the Security Council Wednesday, explaining to officials his country is “a model” in the fight against terrorism, organized crime and drug trafficking in the region, and has a booming economy.

    Moncada criticized the US for its past interventions in Nicaragua in the 1980s and urged Washington to “cease any type of aggression or intervention,” which leaves us with thought that the Trump administration could soon be nation-building in Central America.

    Meanwhile, the official Twitter feed of the Russian Mission to the UN “urges Washington to abandon the colonial-style attempts to influence the situation in Nicaragua such as the NICAAct, visa and other restrictions against Nicaraguan officials, and the abolition of the “temporary protection status” for migrants from this country.”

    It seems that Central America is about to become a hot… again.

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

  • Trump Does 180 Shift On Syria: Regime Change Back On The Table

    Will the war in Syria never end? Will the international proxy war and stand-off between Russia, the United States, Iran, and Israel simply continue to drift on, fueling Syria’s fires for yet more years to come?  It appears so according to an exclusive Washington Post report which says that President Trump has expressed a desire for complete 180 policy shift on Syria. 

    Only months ago the president expressed a desire “to get out” and pull the over 2,000 publicly acknowledged American military personnel from the country; but now, the new report finds, Trump has approved “an indefinite military and diplomatic effort in Syria”.

    The radical departure from Trump’s prior outspokenness against militarily pursuing Syrian regime change, both on the campaign trail and during his first year in the White House, reportedly involves “a new strategy for an indefinitely extended military, diplomatic and economic effort there, according to senior State Department officials”.

    This even though one of the Pentagon’s main justifications for being on Syrian soil in the first place — the destruction of ISIS — has already essentially happened as the terror group now holds no significant territory and has been driven completely underground. 

    But most worrisome about the Post report is that sources said to be close to White House policy planning on Syria suggest that Trump has made a commitment to pursuing regime change as a final goal.

    Crucially, the report describes that “the administration has redefined its goals to include the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces from Syria, and establishment of a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community.”

    Of course, there’s the glaringly obvious issue of the fact that the most powerful top competing “alternatives” to the current government in Damascus include groups like Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which currently holds Idlib and is under direct allegiance to al-Qaeda chief Ayman al Zawahiri (as recently confirmed in the US State Department’s own words).

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

    The shift stems from the White House’s re-prioritizing the long held US desire for the complete removal of Iranian forces from Syria. There’s reportedly increased frustration that Russia is not actually interested in seeing Iran withdraw, despite prior pledges as part of US-Russia largely back channel diplomacy on Syria. 

    However, the Post report quotes a top Pompeo-appointed official, James Jeffrey, who is currently “representative for Syria engagement” at the State Department, to say that U.S. policy is not that “Assad must go” but that immense pressure will be brought to bear, and in terms of future US troop exit, “we are not in a hurry”.

    “The new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year,” Jeffrey said while noting the mission would largely shirt ensuring Iranian departure. He also indicated to that Trump is likely “on board” on signing off on “a more active approach” should there be direct confrontation with either Iran or Russia. 

    It goes without saying that such a significant policy shift makes the possibilities of just such a confrontation — or perhaps “provocation” — over Idlib all the more dangerous considering it now appears Trump may now be looking for an excuse to act, which would provide the usual convenient distraction from problems at home. 

  • Everybody Gets A 'AAA': Why S&P Is Adopting "Custom Credit Ratings" For Chinese Debt

    S&P is reportedly working on developing a custom credit rating scale for China, but some investors are worried that it could do more harm than good. Unlike S&P’s custom ratings scale for emerging markets like Argentina, Israel and Taiwan, the coming Chinese rating scale will not include the recalibrated “mapping specifications” that indicate how the ratings relate to the rest of S&P’s global ratings.

    Instead, the ratings will reportedly stand alone, meaning that when an A+ is issued in China, it is to be thought of as an A+ rating issued anywhere else globally.

    China

    S&P is reportedly working on setting up an independent business in China where it will compete not only with the local ratings firms, but also Moody’s and Fitch, who are also applying for licenses to open up shop in China. And since American companies typically lack the guanxi necessary to thrive in the Chinese market, S&P is aiming to tailor its bond rating system to all types of issuers, including governments and corporations, in a way that will “fit the local situation” (and presumably placate the Communist Party).

    “We believe that considering the size, dimensions and extent of diversification of China’s domestic capital market, there needs to be a set of special rating standards and rating methodology that fit the local situation,” S&P said in a document translated by the Wall Street Journal. 

    Unsurprisingly, debt investors aren’t buying it.

    That’s because ratings in China won’t necessarily correspond to global ratings, and it appears there will be no widely available way to convert these ratings to global rating grades.

    Prashant Singh, an emerging-markets debt manager at Neuberger Berman told the WSJ: “If the ratings show little credit differentiation and do not reflect true credit risks, then investors will not give much credence to them.”

    As WSJ points out, only two American non-financial corporations have the AAA, S&P’s highest rating: Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson. Meanwhile, the US government gets only a double A+ rating from S&P. That a US ratings firm would hand out AAA ratings to barely solvent Chinese industrial firms is a bitter irony, indeed.

    “It is almost like being in a classroom where everyone is getting a (top grade), but in reality, not everyone is that good,” a sovereign analyst with BNY Mellon Investment Management told the WSJ.

    If S&P follows in the footsteps of local Chinese rating agencies, they could wind up posting AAA ratings for companies that are clearly distressed, like HNA Group Co., which reportedly has a triple-A rating from Shanghai Brilliance Credit Rating & Investors Service Co despite the fact that the company is selling assets to meet its debt obligations and that it paid nearly 9% to borrow money last year over a term of one year.

    China

    Everybody knows that in this business, money talks and bullshit walks. Ergo, there’s only one way that S&P will be able to persuade bond issuers to pay for their ratings – and that’s to tell the Chinese firms what they want to hear to stay “competitive” with the domestic ratings agencies. The economic environment in China, where some asset managers and many institutions are restricted from buying lower rated bonds, naturally tends to help inflate the entire ratings industry.

    Out of the 300 Chinese companies that have issued debt outside the mainland, S&P hasn’t offered any of them a higher than A+ rating – that’s five notches below AAA. China’s sovereign rating is also a A+. But perhaps once S&P opens its domestic subsidiary, it will have reason to reevaluate.

    But without mapping specifications like those that S&P has implemented in other emerging markets, there is no way for foreign investors to interpret credit ratings in the world’s most opaque major economy.

    Just like they did during the run-up to the financial crisis in the US, S&P appears to be hurting, not helping, the situation in China.

  • Australia's Big Banks Raise Mortgage Rates, Sparking Housing Market Fears

    For decades, the housing market in Australia – which has not seen a recession in 27 years – appeared immune to any external or internal shocks, as prices kept rising gingerly year after year. That all changed in the past year, when according to Core Logic, home prices across Australia’s 5 top cities peaked in October of 2017 and have since declined by 3.5% on average.

    That decline is now set to accelerate because overnight, two of Australia’s biggest banks, Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, announced within minutes of each other that they are raising mortgage rates citing higher funding costs, cutting chances of an official rate hike and risking a political backlash.

    The rate increases followed one week after Australia’s second largest bank, Westpac, became the first of the so-called “Big Four” to raise rates. That prompted fierce criticism from Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The former Treasurer demanded the bank explain itself and suggested unhappy borrowers should shop around.

    “They have to justify, in this environment when people are really feeling it, why they believe they need to clip that ticket a little harder when people in Australia and their customers I think are doing it tough,” he told reporters.

    Fourth-ranked National Australia Bank Ltd is the only one of the majors not to deliver an out-of-cycle rate rise.

    CommBank will increase all variable home loan rates by 15 basis points from October 4, while ANZ will hit all borrowers with a 16 basis point increase from September 27. The change means a customer with a $400,000 loan from CommBank will pay an extra $37 a month, or $447 a year. An ANZ customer with the same loan will pay an extra $40 a month, or $476 a year.

    “We have made this decision after careful consideration,” CommBank group executive retail banking services Angus Sullivan said in a statement.

    “We are very conscious of the impact that increasing interest rates will have on our customers, however it is important that we price our home loan products in a way that reflects underlying costs.”

    The move comes two days after the Reserve Bank again left the official cash rate on hold at its record low of 1.5%, extending the country’s longest ever period without an official rate move to more than two years. Despite the low-rate environment locally, banks have faced rising costs in overseas wholesale markets, forcing many of the smaller lenders to gradually raise rates over the past 12 months.

    The hikes also reverse moves from just a month ago when some banks cut rates as a downturn in the country’s red-hot housing market heightened competition to write new loans. More notably, the rate increases come even as the Reserve Bank of Australia has held its official cash rate at a record low of 1.50% since 2016 while signaling a steady path for some time.

    News of the rate increases pressured the Australian dollar, which dropped near a two year low on concern that higher mortgage rates at three of the big-four banks will sap consumer spending. Short-end bonds gained on similar concern, while the local ASX/S&P index added to morning losses, down 1.1% by the close, as investors digested the prospect that rising rates would hurt home prices further, stifling spending.

    According to Michael McCarthy, Chief strategist at CMC Markets and Stockbroking, the news was both goods in that “It’s a small negative for housing prices but part of a much larger trend towards the normalisation of interest rates”… and bad “that of course is likely to continue to keep pressure on housing prices.”

    The four banks combined control about 80% of the country’s deposit and home loan market, Reuters reported. The banks have come under intense scrutiny, wiping tens of billions of dollars from their market capitalisations, from a public inquiry which has aired continuous allegations of misconduct within the sector.

    As a result, with the central bank seemingly unable to make up its mind and raise rates, the banks decided to take matters into their own hands, and according to a UBS note, “today’s announcements demonstrate the oligopolistic nature of the Australian banks and their ability to pass on additional funding costs and more to their customers.”

    “Given the additional focus from both sides of politics (on the banking sector) there is a risk the government or opposition may look to raise the bank levy,” UBS added.

    A spokeswoman for NAB, the only lender not to lift rates on Thursday, said in an email the bank continually assessed interest rates and tried to “achieve the right balance for our customers and our shareholders, and to ensure we remain competitive”.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Sep 06

Today’s News 6th September 2018

  • US Drone War In Africa Set To Expand In Coming Months

    The US Air Force is nearing completion of a secret $100 million drone base in northern Niger that will target militant groups operating in the area. Foreign Policy says weaponized drones could be ready for action in the coming months, marking a significant escalation in the war against terrorists in Africa.

    The base is located in the northern city of Agadez, in the Sahara Desert. General Atomics MQ-9 Reapers, an unmanned aerial vehicle, will patrol the skies targeting militants and smugglers that traverse between Niger and Libya, Algeria, Mali, and Chad.

    Until recently, the drones were based in Niger’s capital and were used solely for surveillance purposes. But that is all changing.

    Preliminary reports suggest approximately 650 US military members will be deployed to the new airfield once it is operational.

    The Air Force said an undetermined number of military drones, including MQ-9s, will also be transferred to the base.

    Nigerien Defense Minister Kalla Mountari confirmed that his government requested the Air Force’s presence to aid in the battle against armed terrorist groups.

    Aerial view of the American drone base in Agadez, Niger, on June 4, 2017 (Source/ Google Earth)

    Airmen from the 724th Expeditionary Air Base Squadron take down tents at Air Base 201 in Agadez, Niger, to move to a new location Sept 2017 (Source/ US Air Force)

    US military support via Niger surged last November after an attack killed five Nigerien and four American special operations personnel near the village of Tongo Tongo.

    “The Tongo Tongo ambush spotlighted a policy issue that draws little public attention in the United States—the ongoing war in Africa’s Sahel region against militant groups emboldened by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,” said Foreign Policy.

    The incident brought some scrutiny to the Agadez drone base, offering new insight into the upcoming military operations in Africa.

    “I suspect it is part of this concern around the terrorist organizations in the Sahel region that give no sign of being defeated anytime soon,” said Joshua Meservey, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, who spoke with Foreign Policy about armed terrorist groups such as the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and Boko Haram.

    “They have carried out a number of attacks that have been high profile and very concerning,” he said, adding that much of the violence is centered in Niger’s volatile southwest region.

    Niger, one of Africa’s most impoverished countries, has out of control violence due to economic woes, an illicit drug and weapons trade, human trafficking, and dangerous borders with volatile nations, notably Libya and Mali.

    However, the Americans are not the only foreigners based in the country. The French have also given military assistance to the country, deploying troops across the country to fight Islamist militants.

    The Pentagon has said US troops have no direct combat missions in Niger. But the deaths of four US soldiers in Tongo Tongo have raised serious questions about official military statements.

    Gen. Thomas D. Waldhauser, the head of US Africa Command, said soldiers were playing a backup role for Nigerien forces on a mission against jihadis and did not intend to get involved in direct combat.

    “The direct cause of the enemy attack in Tongo Tongo is that the enemy achieved tactical surprise there, and our forces were outnumbered approximately 3 to 1,” said Maj. Gen. Roger L. Cloutier Jr., who was then Africom’s chief of staff and now commands U.S. Army Africa.

    “There was some processes at all levels of the chain of command that need to be improved.”

    Agadez will be the second US drone base in Africa. Drones are currently stationed in Djibouti are used for airstrikes in Yemen and Somalia.

    Meservey said the deployment of armed drones in Agadez would “give a little bit more teeth to the ongoing operations.”

    The Agadez drone base coincides with calls within the Pentagon to decrease troops in the region. After the Tongo Tongo ambush, Waldhauser proposed winding down operations of special operation missions on the continent.

    “That has caused the Pentagon to rethink … the special operators’ posture in that region,” Meservey said.

    “Drones have a smaller footprint, they are easier to run and deploy, and they don’t [attract as much] attention.”

    Maj. Karl Wiest, a spokesman for Africom, told Foreign Policy that the Pentagon is pivoting away from counterterrorism operations in hybrid wars and toward tackling traditional threats posed by Russia and China.

    Alice Hunt Friend, a senior fellow in the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the critical question would be whether reaper drones make the region safe.

    “I think the government-to-government relationship with Niger for the moment will hold steady, but from a community relations perspective and from a public relations perspective … African communities are extremely sensitive to U.S. presence,” Friend said. “Drones could certainly upset that latent anxiety.”

    While the Pentagon is constructing a new drone base in Niger, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with his Nigerien counterpart Mahamadou Issoufou on Friday, to discuss the building of new medical care, infrastructure, energy, and transportation projects. Xi said China firmly supports the efforts of maintaining national security and stability in the African country.

    So maybe, the Pentagon is neglecting to tell the American people why their tax dollars are hard at work in the most impoverished country in Africa, as it seems it could be all about deterring China.

  • Luongo: The Great Realignment Is Coming To Europe

    Authored by Tom Luongo,

    A League Of Leagues Of Their Own In Europe

    “There’s no crying in baseball!”
    — A League of Their Own

    The Great Realignment is coming to Europe next year.  All the writing is on the wall.

    This summer saw German Chancellor Angela Merkel survive a leadership challenge by her coalition partner Horst Seehofer over her immigration policy.

    She needs political wins to maintain her hold on power.  Standing firm against President Trump on the Nordstream 2 pipeline and having a cordial summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin is a good start.

    Because most of Europe is tired of 1) Germany setting policy for the entire EU and 2) anti-Russian sanctions killing their trade.

    But week-long protests in the Saxony town of Chemnitz over the stabbing of a local man are dogging her.  Germany’s polling numbers continue ebbing away from Merkel. 

    The more she is weakened the more emboldened her opposition becomes.

    Cue Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini and Hungarian President Viktor Orban. They met to openly strategize over ending open migration into the EU.  On the surface Italy and Hungary seem at odds on this issue.

    Italy wants its borders closed and its migrants distributed throughout Europe. 

    Hungary steadfastly refuses to take even one migrant.

    This dichotomy is what the European media and politicians think will keep these two rising titans in conflict.

    But, as Mike Shedlock pointed out recently at Townhall.com, these two men have bigger goals which they are in total agreement on — securing their borders to preserve their cultural and national identities.

    That’s why Salvini is calling for “A League of Leagues” across Europe.  He will succeed.

    This is the guy who successfully rebranded the secessionist Northern League into the MIGA party – Make Italy Great Again. 

    Then he and Five Star Movement leader Luigi Di Maio navigated the Italian Swamp to form a government experts said couldn’t work, while simultaneously neutering establishment stalking horse Silvio Berlusconi.

    Thanks to Salvini’s strategic genius Italian politics will never be the same again.  His League now polls around 30%, which bodes well for it in next year’s European Parliamentary Elections. 

    Because now his sights are MEGA – Make Europe Great Again.

    The quisling European media pounce breathlessly whenever there is a perceived difference of opinion between Salvini and Di Maio, portraying the coalition as weak and tenuous. 

    Talks between Orban and Salvini were reported alongside Di Maio’s call for migrant burden sharing across the EU.  This is to sow discord where there is none. 

    The two are in lock-step in confronting Brussels over its IMF-backed austerity program.  They rightly see it as destroying Italy’s economy and its culture.  The program is no different than the one imposed on Greece and is destroying Argentina again, whose currency imploded last week.

    They hope this wave of populism sweeping Europe is just a tantrum that eventually will end in tears.

    But, there’s no crying in power politics.  

    Neither Salvini nor Orban are weak men given to fits of doubt.  And their forming an alliance here is bigger than grandstanding on immigration policy.

    With Merkel weak they will isolate French President Emmanuel Macron, make him their nemesis and remake the European Parliament after next year’s elections.

    Because the real goal is to take control of the European Commission Presidency, ousting the odious Jean-Claude Juncker.

    A “League of Leagues” would unite sovereigntist parties across Europe under one party in the European Parliament.  The European People’s Party rules alongside the Social Democrats in a German-style grand coalition that stands for nothing except more centralized control by EU technocrats.

    Like Juncker.

    Salvini and Orban want other the Visigrad countries as well as Austria to form the basis for this coalition.

    Is it enough?  The 800 lb. Gorilla in this room is Alternative for Germany (AfD).  The official opposition party in the Bundestag, AfD will pick up seats in the European Parliament where they currently have just one.

    They are the wild card in this gambit by Salvini and Orban.

    As I’ve discussed in the past, AfD is in the process of “Crossing the Chasm” from minor party to major one.  The latest polls, now nearly a month old, have AfD polling between 16 and 18% nationally.

    If AfD has a League-like surge from the mid-teens to 30% support, Merkel’s government will fall.

    AfD will enter the EU parliament with a tailwind to see Salvini and Orban’s wish fulfilled.
    This is why the protests in Chemnitz are important.  It’s why AfD’s rise in CSU-dominated Bavaria is so important. 

    Public frustration with immigrant violence could shift the German electorate between now and May’s elections that far as more and more Germans embrace local community pride.

    Then there’s the Trump Factor.

    The harder Donald Trump pushes EU leadership to actually lead at home the more they are exposed as weak fools.  Despite Juncker, Merkel and Macron talking a good game, European companies are abandoning their business with Iran over Trump pulling the U.S. out of the JCPOA.

    The more they try to scuttle Brexit and reveal themselves as anti-democratic globalists, the worse the blowback on them is getting. 

    The new Spanish government willing to discuss greater Catalonian autonomy versus jailing everyone they can and cracking the skulls of old women on the streets of Barcelona.

    Images like that are the face of Merkel’s EU.  So are the people in Chemnitz, dressed in black, wearing placards with the pictures of victims of migrant violence on them in silent vigil.

    This isn’t a tantrum.  This is real emotion.  Real consequence.

    Their tears are real and they are not for sale.

    The markets always bet that those in power will remain in power.   The euro refuses to handicap these shifts in the political winds. No one in power wants it to fall too far too fast, or like Merkel, at all.

    Because a strong euro to her is the main mechanism for keeping her opposition weak, blaming profligacy and sloth of Italians when it is the mis-pricing of Italian labor via the same over-valued euro that is the reason why Italy cannot grow. out of its debts.

    By forming an alliance to reform the EU from within, Salvini and Orban counter that argument while taking the politically-viable path given the strong popular support the EU still has with many voters. 

    It gives Salvini the cudgel to bludgeon the EU over its intransigence on budget matters.  It allows him to say, “See, I don’t want to leave the euro, but Brussels won’t negotiate for a better Italy.” 

    And given this guy’s track record so far, I wouldn’t bet against him making his case to angry European voters this winter.

    And then it’ll be the globalists who will be crying.

    *  *  *

    To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 160 Patrons on Patreon and see if I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad. 

  • Visualizing The Other Gender-Gap That No One Is Talking About

    A major global study published in The Lancet has found the there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. The research compared levels of alcohol use and its impact on health across 195 countries from 1990 to 2016. In many countries, moderate drinking has been associated with health benefits for years and in places like France, a daily glass of red wine has been viewed as good for the heart.

    The new research claims that the harmful impact of alcohol far outweighs any benefits with even an occasional drink proving harmful. As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, the authors of the report say that governments should recommend people abstain from alcohol consumption entirely. In 2016, 2.8 million deaths were attributed to alcohol and it was the leading risk factor for premature mortality and disability among people in the 15-49 age bracket. 

    All of which suggests, given the historical ‘we know what is best for you’ attitude of The West’s increasingly ‘nanny state’ that prohibition is just around the corner.

    The following infographic focuses on the top-10 countries for alcohol attributable deaths, as listed in the report.

    Infographic: The Gender Gap In Alcohol-Attributable Deaths | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Specifically, it highlights the massive gender gap in mortality.

    In The United States, alcohol caused 71,00 male deaths and 19,000 female deaths in 2016, but that 3.74x gender bias is dwarved by China’s 11-times-higher male alcohol-attributable deaths than women’s.

    This is likely one area where activist women will not be pushing for government support to bring equality with men…or does this just prove that men are bigger idiots than women?

  • Leaked Report Exposes Britain Questioning Cost/Benefit Of Saudi Relationship

    Authored by James Dorsey via Mid East Soccer blog,

    Signs of opposition to policies of Saudi King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and potentially increased domestic polarization have in the past week spilled on to the streets of London while a just released report questioned the economic and political benefits of Britain’s relationship with the kingdom.

    The London incidents, involving a brother of King Salman as well as an assault on a Saudi critic, suggest a long suspected greater degree of domestic questioning of Saudi Arabia’s 3.5-year-old ill-fated war in Yemen than has been publicly evident until now.

    The Salmans have sought to crush dissent with mass arrests of activists, religious scholars, businessmen and members of the ruling Al Saud family; a power and asset grab last November under the mum of an anti-corruption campaign that targeted some of Saudi elite’s most prominent figures; and legal measures criminalizing criticism.

    Although focused on British-Saudi economic and political relations, the report by King’s College London and the Oxford Research Group calls into question not only British but also by implication long-standing Western willingness to turn a blind eye to the kingdom’s violations of human rights and its conduct of the Yemen war that has produced one of the worst humanitarian crises in post-World War Two history.

    The London incidents coupled with increasing European questioning of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, including this week’s cancellation by Spain of the sale of 400 laser-guided precision bombs, suggests that Saudi Arabia is finding it more difficult to keep domestic dissent and international criticism under wraps. Spain follows in the footsteps of Germany, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium who have suspended some military sales.

    The Spanish cancellation came on the heels of last month’s Saudi-Canadian spat sparked by a call on Saudi Arabia by Canada’s ambassador to the kingdom, Dennis Horak, to release detained women activists, including Samar Badawi, the sister-in-law of a recently naturalized Canadian citizen, Ensaf Haidar.

    Ms. Haidar is married to Ms. Badawi’s brother, Raif Badawi, who was arrested in 2012 and sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for promoting freedom of expression and women’s rights.

    It also came in the wake of the withdrawal of Malaysian troops from the 41-nation, Saudi-sponsored Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC) and the closure in Malaysia of the Saudi-backed King Salman Centre for International Peace (KSCIP).

    In a rare public distancing from the Salmans, Saudi Prince Ahmed bin Abdelaziz – one of the few still living sons of the founder of Saudi Arabia and a younger brother of King Salman, asked anti-Saudi protesters on a London street chanting “down, down Al Saud” and “Al Saud criminal family”: “What does the al-Saud family have to do with your chants? We have nothing to do with what is happening (in Yemen). Certain officials are responsible.”

    Asked by protesters who he held responsible, Prince Ahmed, who served as deputy interior minister for 37 years and briefly as interior minister under King Salman’s predecessor, King Abdullah, said “the king and his heir apparent,” a reference to King Salman and Prince Mohammed.

    The state-run Saudi News Agency subsequently quoted Prince Ahmed as seeking to roll back his comments captured on video by saying that he said that “the King and the Crown Prince are responsible for the state and its decisions. This is true for the security and stability of the country and the people.”

    Meanwhile, video on social media showed Ghanem al-Dosari, who hosts a satirical show on YouTube critical of Saudi Arabia, being accosted by supporters of King Salman and Prince Mohammed.

    In a bid to stymie criticism, Saudi prosecutors this week reportedly sought the death penalty against prominent cleric Salman Al-Odah who was detained a year ago. 

    “The Saudi attorney general accused my father @salman_alodah of 37 charges and asked for his execution,” his son Abdullah said in a tweet. He said some of the charges were related to comments Mr. Al-Odah had posted on Twitter and membership in organizations associated with Qatar and Qatari-Egyptian Islamic scholar Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who is close to the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Al-Odah has 14 million Twitter followers.

    Prosecutors last month demanded the death sentence for five human rights activists, including Israa al-Ghomgham, a Shiite activist arrested with her husband in 2015. Ms. Al-Ghomgham is thought to be the first female Saudi campaigner to face execution.

    Applying a cost-benefit analysis, The Kings College/Oxford Research Group report concluded that, contrary to the projections of the government of Prime Minister Theresa May and popular perception, Britain enjoyed limited economic benefit from its relationship with Saudi Arabia while suffering considerable reputational damage.

    The report noted that Britain’s US$ 8 billion in exports to Saudi Arabia accounted for a mere one percent of total exports in 2016. The British Treasury reaped US$ 38.5 million in revenues from arms sales or a paltry 0.004 percent of the Treasury’s total income in 2016. Overall, Britain’s defense industry produced in 2010/11 only one percent of the country’s total output and created a meagre 0.6 percent of all jobs.

    The analysis stroked with the conclusion of a 2016 study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) that “arms exports cannot be said to represent an important part of the UK economy, and even less so of the labour market, despite the prominence of the ‘jobs argument’ amongst politicians and industry figures seeking to promote and defend arms exports.”

    The King’s College/Oxford Research report took issue with assertions by successive British governments that trade and weapons sales as well as support for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s reform programme enabled Britain to influence Saudi policy and introduce democratic and human rights values.

    “There is little evidence, based on publicly available information, that the UK exerts either influence or leverage over Saudi Arabia. In fact, there is greater evidence that Saudi Arabia exerts influence over the UK. There is a contradiction between the UK presenting itself as a progressive, liberal country and defender of the international rules-based order, while at the same time providing diplomatic cover for a regime, which, based on our analysis, is undermining that rules-based order,” the report said.

    It warned that “the UK appears to be incurring reputational costs as a result of its relationship with Saudi Arabia, while the economic benefits to the UK are questionable.”

    The report’s call on the British government to critically analyse its foreign policy and limit and be more selective and transparent in in its engagement with Saudi Arabia could constitute an approach that would appeal to other European governments.

    It could also attract support from some members of the US Congress, despite US President Donald J. Trump’s backing of Saudi policies, with public criticism of the kingdom mounting in Europe and the United States as well as growing unease among some officials and politicians.

    Saudi Arabia “is a case study in what happens when a country’s supposed economic interests come into conflict with its stated norms and values and its international obligations. The situation cannot carry on indefinitely,” said Armida van Rij, one of the report’s authors.

  • Japan To Test Mini "Cosmic Elevator" In World First

    A Japanese team of researchers at Shizuoka University will experiment this month in low-Earth orbit to eventually develop a “cosmic elevator” connecting Earth and the space station by cable.

    The International Space Station (ISS) will launch two miniature satellites later this month, tied together by a 10-meter long steel cable, as it is the first step towards what could eventually become a large space elevator in the decades to come.

    According to a report in Japan’s Mainichi Shimbun news service, two ultra-small cubic satellites, which were developed by Shizuoka University Faculty of Engineering, will be released from the ISS after September 11, joined together via a 10-meter-long steel cable.

    Once released from the ISS, the satellites will deploy the cable and a motorized container simulating an elevator car. A series of tests will be conducted with the container moving up and down on the wire, as sensors on the satellites will record the movements of the object in a weightlessness environment.

    Mainichi Shimbun notes that an experiment to extend a cable in space has been carried out before, the upcoming test will be the first to move a container on a wire in low-Earth orbit. If all goes well, it will provide proof of concept, as it will serve as a step forward toward realizing cosmic elevators.

    “In theory, a space elevator is highly plausible. Space travel may become something popular in the future,” said Yoji Ishikawa, 63, who leads the research team.

    Major contractor Obayashi Corp., which is participating in the experiment as a technical adviser, is examining a space elevator of its own. The company has conceptualized a space elevator pod — each measuring 18 meters long and 7.2 meters in diameter will have a load capacity of roughly 30 people. The Earth-based platform would be set up at sea and connect with a space station some 36,000 kilometers in altitude will be used to move the elevator up and down using an electric motor pulley.

    Should a space elevator be realized, the Obayahi elevator system could be built by the year 2050 and have an estimated cost of roughly $9 billion.

    So far, Obayashi’s technology is many decades away as the material for special cable is still in the development phase. In 2015, Elon Musk tweets that space elevators cannot exist until carbon nanotube or graphene structures are built longer than a footbridge…

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

    Professor Yoshio Aoki of Nihon University College of Science and Technology, who supervises Obayashi Corp.’s space elevator project, said, “It is essential for industries, educational institutions and the government to join hands together for technological development.”

    We are sure the Bank of Japan would be a prime candidate to fund space elevators…

  • Beijing's Bid For Global Power In The Age Of Trump

    Authored by Alfred McCoy via TomDispatch.com,

    As the second year of Donald Trump’s presidency and sixth of Xi Jinping’s draws to a close, the world seems to be witnessing one of those epochal clashes that can change the contours of global power. Just as conflicts between American President Woodrow Wilson and British Prime Minister Lloyd George produced a failed peace after World War I, competition between Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and American President Harry Truman sparked the Cold War, and the rivalry between Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and President John F. Kennedy brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, so the empowered presidents of the United States and China are now pursuing bold, intensely personal visions of new global orders that could potentially reshape the trajectory of the twenty-first century — or bring it all down.

    The countries, like their leaders, are a study in contrasts.

    China is an ascending superpower, riding a wave of rapid economic expansion with a burgeoning industrial and technological infrastructure, a growing share of world trade, and surging self-confidence.

    The United States is a declining hegemon, with a crumbling infrastructure, a failing educational system, a shrinking slice of the global economy, and a deeply polarized, divided citizenry.

    After a lifetime as the ultimate political insider, Xi Jinping became China’s president in 2013, bringing with him a bold internationalist vision for the economic integration of Asia, Africa, and Europe through monumental investment in infrastructure that could ultimately expand and extend the current global economy. After a short political apprenticeship as a conspiracy advocate, Donald Trump took office in 2017 as an ardent America First nationalist determined to disrupt or even dismantle an American-built-and-dominated international order he disdained for supposedly constraining his country’s strength.

    Although they started this century on generally amicable terms, China and the U.S. have, in recent years, moved toward military competition and open economic conflict. When China was admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, Washington was confident that Beijing would play by the established rules and become a compliant member of an American-led international community. There was almost no awareness of what might happen when a fifth of humanity joined the world system as an economic equal for the first time in five centuries.

    By the time Xi Jinping became China’s seventh president, a decade of rapid economic growth averaging 11% annually and currency reserves surging toward an unprecedented $4 trillion had created the economic potential for a rapid, radical shift in the global balance of power. After just a few months in office, Xi began tapping those vast reserves to launch a bold geopolitical gambit, a genuine challenge to U.S. dominion over Eurasia and the world beyond. Aglow in its status as the world’s sole superpower after “winning” the Cold War, Washington had difficulty at first even grasping such newly developing global realities and was slow to react.

    China’s bid couldn’t have been more fortuitous in its timing. After nearly 70 years as the globe’s hegemon, Washington’s dominance over the world economy had begun to wither and its once-superior work force to lose its competitive edge. By 2016, in fact, the dislocations brought on by the economic globalization that had gone with American dominion sparked a revolt of the dispossessed in democracies worldwide and in the American heartland, bringing the self-proclaimed “populist” Donald Trump to power. Determined to check his country’s decline, he has adopted an aggressive and divisive foreign policy that has roiled long-established alliances in both Asia and Europe and is undoubtedly giving that decline new impetus.

    Within months of Trump’s entry into the Oval Office, the world was already witnessing a sharp rivalry between Xi’s advocacy of a new form of global collaboration and Trump’s version of economic nationalism. In the process, humanity seems to be entering a rare historical moment when national leadership and global circumstances have coincided to create an opening for a major shift in the nature of the world order.

    Trump’s Disruptive Foreign Policy

    Despite their constant criticism of Donald Trump’s leadership, few among Washington’s corps of foreign policy experts have grasped his full impact on the historic foundations of American global power. The world order that Washington built after World War II rested upon what I’ve called a “delicate duality”: an American imperium of raw military and economic power married to a community of sovereign nations, equal under the rule of law and governed through international institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization.

    On the realpolitik side of that duality, Washington constructed a four-tier apparatus – military, diplomatic, economic, and clandestine – to advance a global dominion of unprecedented wealth and power. This apparatus rested on hundreds of military bases in Europe and Asia that made the U.S. the first power in history to dominate (if not control) the Eurasian continent.

    Even after the Cold War ended, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that Washington would remain the world’s preeminent power only as long as it maintained its geopolitical dominion over Eurasia. In the decade before Trump’s election, there were, however, already signs that America’s hegemony was on a downward trajectory as its share of global economic power fell from 50% in 1950 to just 15% in 2017. Many financial forecasts now project that China will surpass the U.S. as the world’s number one economy by 2030, if not before.

    In this era of decline, there has emerged from President Trump’s torrent of tweets and off-the-cuff remarks a surprisingly coherent and grim vision of America’s place in the present world order. Instead of reigning confidently over international organizations, multilateral alliances, and a globalized economy, Trump evidently sees America standing alone and beleaguered in an increasingly troubled world — exploited by self-aggrandizing allies, battered by unequal trade terms, threatened by tides of undocumented immigrants, and betrayed by self-serving elites too timid or compromised to defend the nation’s interests.

    Instead of multilateral trade pacts like NAFTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or even the WTO, Trump favors bilateral deals rewritten to the (supposed) advantage of the United States. In place of the usual democratic allies like Canada and Germany, he is trying to weave a web of personal ties to avowedly nationalist and autocratic leaders of a sort he clearly admires: Vladimir Putin in Russia, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Narendra Modi in India, Adel Fatah el-Sisi in Egypt, and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.

    Instead of old alliances like NATO, Trump favors loose coalitions of like-minded countries. As he sees it, a resurgent America will carry the world along, while crushing terrorists and dealing in uniquely personal ways with rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

    His version of a foreign policy has found its fullest statement in his administration’s December 2017 National Security Strategy. As he took office, the nation, it claimed, faced “an extraordinarily dangerous world, filled with a wide range of threats.” But in less than a year of his leadership, it insisted, “We have renewed our friendships in the Middle East… to help drive out terrorists and extremists… America’s allies are now contributing more to our common defense, strengthening even our strongest alliances.” Humankind will benefit from the president’s “beautiful vision” that “puts America First” and promotes “a balance of power that favors the United States.” The whole world will, in short, be “lifted by America’s renewal.”

    Despite such grandiose claims, each of President Trump’s overseas trips has been a mission of destruction in terms of American global power. Each, seemingly by design, disrupted and possibly damaged alliances that have been the foundation for Washington’s global power since the 1950s. During the president’s first foreign trip in May 2017, he promptly voiced withering complaints about the supposed refusal of Washington’s European allies to pay their “fair share” of NATO’s military costs, leaving the U.S. stuck with the bill and, in a fashion unknown to American presidents, refused even to endorse the alliance’s core principle of collective defense. It was a position so extreme in terms of the global politics of the previous half-century that he was later forced to formally back down. (By then, however, he had registered his contempt for those allies in an unforgettable fashion.)  

    During a second, no-less-divisive NATO visit in July, he charged that Germany was “a captive of Russia” and pressed the allies to immediately double their share of defense spending to a staggering 4% of gross domestic product (a level even Washington, with its monumental Pentagon budget, hasn’t reached) — a demand they all ignored. Just days later, he again questioned the very idea of a common defense, remarking that if “tiny” NATO ally Montenegro decided to “get aggressive,” then “congratulations, you’re in World War III.”

    Moving on to England, he promptly kneecapped close ally Theresa May, telling a British tabloid that the prime minister had bungled her country’s Brexit withdrawal from the European Union and “killed off any chance of a vital U.S. trade deal.” He then went on to Helsinki for a summit with Vladimir Putin, where he visibly abased himself before NATO’s nominal nemesis, completely enough that there were even brief, angry protests from leaders of his own party.

    During Trump’s major Asia tour in November 2017, he addressed the Asian-Pacific Economic Council (APEC) in Vietnam, offering an extended “tirade” against multilateral trade agreements, particularly the WTO. To counter intolerable “trade abuses,” such as “product dumping, subsidized goods, currency manipulation, and predatory industrial policies,” he swore that he would always “put America first” and not let it “be taken advantage of anymore.” Having denounced a litany of trade violations that he termed nothing less than “economic aggression” against America, he invited everyone there to share his “Indo-Pacific dream” of the world as a “beautiful constellation” of “strong, sovereign, and independent nations,” each working like the United States to build “wealth and freedom.”

    Responding to such a display of narrow economic nationalism from the globe’s leading power, Xi Jinping had a perfect opportunity to play the world statesman and he took it, calling upon APEC to support an economic order that is “more open, inclusive, and balanced.” He spoke of China’s future economic plans as an historic bid for “interconnected development to achieve common prosperity… on the Asian, European, and African continents.”

    As China has lifted 60 million of its own people out of poverty in just a few years and was committed to its complete eradication by 2020, so he urged a more equitable world order “to bring the benefits of development to countries across the globe.” For its part, China, he assured his listeners, was ready to make “$2 trillion of outbound investment” — much of it for the development of Eurasia and Africa (in ways, of course, that would link that vast region more closely to China). In other words, he sounded like a twenty-first century Chinese version of a twentieth-century American president, while Donald Trump acted more like Argentina’s former presidente Juan Perón, minus the medals. As if to put another nail in the coffin of American global dominion, the remaining 11 Trans-Pacific trade pact partners, led by Japan and Canada, announced major progress in finalizing that agreement — without the United States.

    In addition to undermining NATO, America’s Pacific alliances, long its historic fulcrum for the defense of North America and the dominance of Asia, are eroding, too. Even after 10 personal meetings and frequent phone calls between Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Donald Trump during his first 18 months in office, the president’s America First trade policy has placeda “major strain” on Washington’s most crucial alliance in the region. First, he ignored Abe’s pleas and cancelled the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact and then, as if his message hadn’t been strong enough, he promptly imposed heavy tariffs on Japanese steel imports. Similarly, he’s denounced the Canadian prime minister as “dishonest” and mimicked Indian Prime Minister Modi’s accent, even as he made chummy with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and then claimed, inaccurately, that his country was “no longer a nuclear threat.”

    It all adds up to a formula for further decline at a faster pace.

    Beijing’s Grand Strategy

    While Washington’s influence in Asia recedes, Beijing’s grows ever stronger. As China’s currency reserves climbed rapidly from $200 billion in 2001 to a peak of $4 trillion in 2014, President Xi launched a new initiative of historic import. In September 2013, speaking in Kazakhstan, the heart of Asia’s ancient Silk Road caravan route, he proclaimed a “one belt, one road initiative” aimed at economically integrating the enormous Eurasian land mass around Beijing’s leadership. Through “unimpeded trade” and infrastructure investment, he suggested, it would be possible to connect “the Pacific and the Baltic Sea” in a proposed “economic belt along the Silk Road,” a region “inhabited by close to 3 billion people.” It could become, he predicted, “the biggest market in the world with unparalleled potential.”

    Within a year, Beijing had established a Chinese-dominated Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank with 56 member nations and an impressive $100 billion in capital, while launching its own $40 billion Silk Road Fund for private equity projects. When China convened what it called a “belt and road summit” of 28 world leaders in Beijing in May 2017, Xi could, with good reason, hail his initiative as the “project of the century.”

    Although the U.S. media has often described the individual projects involved in his “one belt, one road” project as wasteful, sybaritic, exploitative, or even neo-colonial, its sheer scale and scope merits closer consideration. Beijing is expected to put a mind-boggling $1.3 trillion into the initiative by 2027, the largest investment in human history, more than 10 times the famed American Marshall Plan, the only comparable program, which spent a more modest $110 billion (when adjusted for inflation) to rebuild a ravaged Europe after World War II.

    Beijing’s low-cost infrastructure loans for 70 countries from the Baltic to the Pacific are already funding construction of the Mediterranean’s busiest port at Piraeus, Greece, a major nuclear power plant in England, a $6 billion railroad through rugged Laos, and a $46 billion transport corridor across Pakistan. If successful, such infrastructure investments could help knit two dynamic continents, Europe and Asia — home to a full 70% percent of the world’s population and its resources — into a unified market without peer on the planet.

    Underlying this flurry of flying dirt and flowing concrete, the Chinese leadership seems to have a design for transcending the vast distances that have historically separated Asia from Europe. As a start, Beijing is building a comprehensive network of trans-continental gas and oil pipelines to import fuels from Siberia and Central Asia for its own population centers. When the system is complete, there will be an integrated inland energy grid (including Russia’s extensive network of pipelines) that will extend 6,000 miles across Eurasia, from the North Atlantic to the South China Sea. Next, Beijing is working to link Europe’s extensive rail network with its own expanded high-speed rail system via transcontinental lines through Central Asia, supplemented by spur lines running due south to Singapore and southwest through Pakistan.

    Finally, to facilitate sea transport around the sprawling continent’s southern rim, China has already bought into or is in the process of building more than 30 major port facilities, stretching from the Straits of Malacca across the Indian Ocean, around Africa, and along Europe’s extended coastline. In January, to take advantage of Arctic waters opened by global warming, Beijing began planning for a “Polar Silk Road,” a scheme that fits well with ambitious Russian and Scandinavian projects to establish a shorter shipping route around the continent’s northern coast to Europe.

    Though Eurasia is its prime focus, China is also pursuing economic expansion in Africa and Latin America to create what might be dubbed the strategy of the four continents. To tie Africa into its projected Eurasian network, Beijing already had doubled its annual trade there by 2015 to $222 billion, three times that of the United States, thanks to a massive infusion of capital expected to reach a trillion dollars by 2025. Much of it is financing the sort of commodities extraction that has already made the continent China’s second largest source of crude oil. Similarly, Beijing has invested heavily in Latin America, acquiring, for instance, control over 90% of Ecuador’s oil reserves. As a result, its commerce with that continent doubled in a decade, reaching $244 billion in 2017, topping U.S. trade with what once was known as its own “backyard.”

    A Conflict with Consequences

    This contest between Xi’s globalism and Trump’s nationalism has not been safely confined to an innocuous marketplace of ideas. Over the past four years, the two powers have engaged in an escalating military rivalry and a cutthroat commercial competition. Apart from a shadowy struggle for dominance in space and cyberspace, there has also been a visible, potentially volatile naval arms race to control the sea lanes surrounding Asia, specifically in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. In a 2015 white paper, Beijing stated that “it is necessary for China to develop a modern maritime military force structure commensurate with its national security.” Backed by lethal land-based missiles, jet fighters, and a global satellite system, China has built just such a modernized fleet of 320 ships, including nuclear submarines and its first aircraft carriers.

    Within two years, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson reported that China’s “growing and modernized fleet” was “shrinking” the traditional American advantage in the Pacific, and warned that “we must shake off any vestiges of comfort or complacency.” Under Trump’s latest $700-billion-plus defense budget, Washington has responded to this challenge with a crash program to build 46 new ships, which will raise its total to 326 by 2023. As China builds new naval bases bristling with armaments in the Arabian and South China seas, the U.S. Navy has begun conducting assertive “freedom-of-navigation” patrols near many of those same installations, heightening the potential for conflict.

    It is in the commercial realm of trade and tariffs, however, where competition has segued into overt conflict. Acting on his belief that “trade wars are good and easy to win,” President Trump slapped heavy tariffs, targeted above all at China, on steel imports in March and, just a few weeks later, punished that country’s intellectual property theft by promising tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports. When those tariffs finally hit in July, China immediately retaliated against what it called “typical trade bullying” with similar tariffs on U.S. goods. The Financial Times warned that this “tit-for-tat” can escalate into a “full bore trade war… that will be very bad for the global economy.” As Trump threatened to tax $500 billion more in Chinese imports and issuedconfusing, even contradictory demands that made it unlikely Beijing could ever comply, observers became concerned that a long-lasting trade war could destabilize what the New York Times called the “mountain of debt” that sustains much of China’s economy. In Washington, the usually taciturn Federal Reserve chairman issued an uncommon warning that “trade tensions… could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global economy.”

    China as Global Hegemon?

    Although a withering of Washington’s global reach, abetted and possibly accelerated by the Trump presidency, is already underway, the shape of any future world order is still anything but clear. At present, China is the sole state with the obvious requisites for becoming the planet’s new hegemon. Its phenomenal economic rise, coupled with its expanding military and growing technological prowess, provide that country with the obvious fundamentals for superpower status.

    Yet neither China nor any other state seems to have the full imperial complement of attributes to replace the United States as the dominant world leader. Apart from its rising economic and military clout, China, like its sometime ally Russia, has a self-referential culture, non-democratic political structures, and a developing legal system that could deny it some of the key instruments for global leadership.

    In addition to the fundamentals of military and economic power, “every successful empire,” observes Cambridge University historian Joya Chatterji, “had to elaborate a universalist and inclusive discourse” to win support from the world’s subordinate states and their leaders. Successful imperial transitions driven by the hard power of guns and money also require the soft-power salve of cultural suasion for sustained and successful global dominion. Spain espoused Catholicism and Hispanism, the Ottomans Islam, the Soviets communism, France a cultural francophonie, and Britain an Anglophone culture. Indeed, during its century of global dominion from 1850 to 1940, Britain was the exemplar par excellence of such soft power, evincing an enticing cultural ethos of fair play and free markets that it propagated through the Anglican church, the English language and its literature, and the virtual invention of modern athletics (cricket, soccer, tennis, rugby, and rowing). Similarly, at the dawn of its global dominion, the United States courted allies worldwide through soft-power programs promoting democracy and development. These were made all the more palatable by the appeal of such things as Hollywood films, civic organizations like Rotary International, and popular sports like basketball and baseball.

    China has nothing comparable. Its writing system has some 7,000 characters, not 26 letters. Its communist ideology and popular culture are remarkably, even avowedly, particularistic. And you don’t have to look far for another Asian power that attempted Pacific dominion without the salve of soft power. During Japan’s occupation of Southeast Asia in World War II, its troops went from being hailed as liberators to facing open revolt across the region after they failed to propagate their similarly particularistic culture.

    As command-economy states for much of the past century, neither China nor Russia developed an independent judiciary or the autonomous rules-based order that undergirds the modern international system. From the foundation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in 1899 through the formation of the International Court of Justice under the U.N.’s 1945 charter, the world’s nations have aspired to the resolution of conflicts via arbitration or litigation rather than armed conflict. More broadly, the modern globalized economy is held together by a web of conventions, treaties, patents, and contracts grounded in law.

    From its founding in 1949, the People’s Republic of China gave primacy to the party and state, slowing the growth of an autonomous legal system and the rule of law. A test of its attitude toward this system of global governance came in 2016 when the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled unanimously that China’s claims to sovereignty in the South China Sea “are contrary to the Convention [on the Law of the Sea] and without lawful effect.” Beijing’s Foreign Ministry simply dismissed the adverse decision as “invalid” and without “binding force.” President Xi insisted China’s “territorial sovereignty and maritime rights” were unchanged, while the state Xinhua news agency called the ruling “naturally null and void.” Although China might be well placed to supplant Washington’s economic and military power, its capacity to assume leadership via that other aspect of the delicate duality of global power, a network of international organizations grounded in the rule of law, is still open to question.

    If Donald Trump’s vision of world disorder is a sign of the American future and if Beijing’s projected $2 trillion in infrastructure investments, history’s largest by far, succeed in unifying the commerce and transport of Asia, Africa, and Europe, then perhaps the currents of financial power and global leadership will indeed transcend all barriers and flow inexorably toward Beijing, as if by natural law. But if that bold initiative ultimately fails, then for the first time in five centuries the world may face an imperial transition without a clear successor as global hegemon. Moreover, it will do so on a planet where the “new normal” of climate change — the heating of the atmosphere and the oceans, the intensification of flood, drought, and fire, the rising seas that will devastate coastal cities, and the cascading damage to a densely populated world — could mean that the very idea of a global hegemon is fast becoming a thing of the past.

  • Man Pleads Guilty To Stealing $2 Million Of Crypto In Sensational Kidnapping

    The grey-market appeal of cryptocurrencies, and the finality of every transaction encoded on a blockchain, has made them a choice target for hackers. This is something that those who lost money during the collapse of Mt. Gox know all too well. Earlier this year, cybersecurity company Carbon Black determined that roughly $1.1 billion worth of the digital currency had been stolen during the first half of 2018 alone. And while most of these were taken via digital finesse, some criminals have decided to go about stealing their bitcoin the old fashioned way.

    Meza

    Louis Meza (courtesy of the New York Daily News)

    A New Jersey man named Louis Meza pled guilty to kidnapping an acquaintance and stealing a hard drive containing nearly $2 million in ethereum. The heist, which was orchestrated and carried out by Meza and several associates, was carried out late last year.  After the sentencing, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office said that while it has prosecuted 25 cases involving the theft of crypto over the past year, Meza’s case stood out.

    Here’s the WSJ:

    A New Jersey man admitted in court Wednesday to kidnapping a friend and then stealing more than a million dollars in cryptocurrency from him, an unusual crime that is among the first major cryptocurrency cases brought by Manhattan prosecutors.

    Louis Meza, of Passaic, N.J., pleaded guilty to second-degree kidnapping and first-degree grand larceny in state Supreme Court in Manhattan. Under the plea agreement, he agreed to a 10-year prison term, although his sentence will ultimately be determined by the judge.

    As of a few years ago, the Manhattan district attorney’s office rarely investigated cases involving cryptocurrency. This year, it has had more than 25 investigations. Still, Mr. Meza’s case was unusual because he stole the currency not by hacking but through an elaborate, although old-fashioned, robbery.

    “Louis Meza orchestrated a 21st-century stickup,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said in a statement. “Then 21st-century investigators brought him swiftly to justice, securing a landmark conviction in an undeveloped area of the law.”

    In an amusing twist, Meza met the victim – an old friend – at the Ruby Tuesday in Times Square. After enjoying a few drinks, Meza offered the victim a ride home in what he said was an Uber. However, once the two got in, one of Meza’s co-conspirators who was driving the vehicle pulled out a gun and threatened the victim. The three men then drove to the victim’s apartment, where they retrieved a hard drive containing more than one million in ether.

    One evening in November, Mr. Meza and a longtime friend met for drinks at the Ruby Tuesday in Times Square. Afterward, when the friend said he would head home on the subway, prosecutors said, Mr. Meza steered him into a minivan that he claimed was an Uber.

    Prosecutors said Mr. Meza met up with his co-conspirators in the Bronx, where they handed him the keys. Then, they said, Mr. Meza used the keys to let himself into his friend’s apartment and steal a small drive holding the cryptocurrency.

    Meza acknowledged committing the crime in open court.

    “You stole property valued over one million dollars?” Justice Melissa Jackson asked Mr. Meza on Wednesday.

    Mr. Meza, wearing handcuffs and khaki jail scrubs, nodded.

    “You, in the county of New York, on or about Nov. 4, abducted another person?” the judge asked.

    Mr. Meza nodded again.

    According to his lawyer, Meza is a “businessman” who has never before been in trouble with the law.

    Moshe Horn, an attorney for Mr. Meza, said outside the courtroom that his client had been a businessman his whole life. “He had never been in trouble until now,” Mr. Horn said.

    For what it’s worth, three other co-conspirators have been charged in the heist, but Meza refused to snitch on them. In addition to the prison time, Meza was forced to surrender nearly $1 million in cryptocurrency.

    In June, three other men were indicted for participating in the robbery scheme. Those cases are pending. In his plea agreement, Mr. Meza didn’t agree to cooperate against them, according to his lawyer, Mr. Horn.

    Under his agreement with prosecutors, Mr. Meza agreed to forfeit about 84 bitcoin – now worth roughly $589,000 – and 269,000 SALT lending tokens, a loan product backed by cryptocurrency.

    Even as the price of a bitcoin has continued to unravel, we imagine we’ll be seeing more heists like these. After all, it’s much easier to jack a hard drive than an ATM.

  • How People Become Easily Controlled By Tyrants

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    The question often arises in liberty movement circles as to how we get to the point of full blown tyranny within a society.  There are numerous factors that determine this outcome, but through all the various totalitarian systems in history there are common denominators – elements that must be there for tyrants to prevail.  When we can identify these common elements in an objective manner, we make it far more difficult for despotic structures to stand.

    This is a very complex issue, but I’ll break it down as best as I’m able…

    The Psychology Of The Tyrant

    To come to terms with how tyrants control society, we must first examine how the mind of a tyrant operates, because these people do not in most cases think the way average human beings think.  It is one of the few cases in which I would encourage people to “otherize” another group. Tyrants are psychologically abnormal to such an extreme that is is difficult to classify them as human.

    I believe the key to understanding the motivations of tyrants and where these people come from rests on our understanding of narcissistic sociopathy.  I wrote about this extensively in my article ‘Global Elitists Are Not Human,’ so I will only give a summary here.

    Narcissistic and sociopathic traits, like many psychological traits, are inborn.  They are present in about 5% to 10% of any society at any given time.  In the vast majority of cases, these traits remain “latent” and do not affect a person’s actions or relationships to a great extent.  In a minority of cases, however, narcissism and sociopathy become the defining factors of a person’s psyche.  This occurs in less that 1% of a population.

    To be clear, not all narcissists are sociopaths and not all sociopaths are narcissists.  There are people who are low level narcissists who excel in society and retain a conscience.  There are low level sociopaths in society that serve important functions in careers that empathetic people would find difficult, such as certain jobs in the military, or in the medical field.  What I am referring to here are HIGH LEVEL narcissistic sociopaths – the kind of people that become murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and yes, tyrants.

    A sociopathic narcissist is motivated by personal desire only.  They are incapable of empathy for others and see people as a kind of food and fuel source rather than fellow travelers in life.  They consider their lack of conscience as an evolutionary advantage; a tool that helps them to survive and thrive by trampling, stealing, manipulating and killing if necessary without guilt or regret.

    You would think these creatures would be easy to pick out in a crowd, but it is not always so simple.  They have the ability to mimic behaviors of those around them in order to appear more human.  Sometimes this does give them away because they can’t help but parrot or steal behaviors and mannerisms from people they meet to the point of obviousness.  For those inexperienced with narcissistic sociopaths, though, the tactic works for a time, because what people think they see is someone just like them; a reflection.  Imagine it as a survival mechanism, like a chameleon.

    For some tyrants, the ability makes them endearing to the public for a time.  They can be many things to many groups, and their ability to lie convincingly is exceptional.  They climb the ladder of success quickly, and build systems that allow them to prosper.  They do have doubts and weaknesses, though.

    They are in most cases cowardly.  They prefer to get what they want through subversion and trickery, and they run from direct confrontation.  They prefer to use other people (useful idiots) as weapons or shields rather than risk facing off with their ideological opponents.  As parasites, they focus on the weak minded or the fragile.

    They desperately want admiration from the very people they victimize.  Therefore, they are constantly forced to play roles in order to appear normal.  They do not like this.  They feel that it is below their station in life to pander, and they are convinced that they should be worshiped as they are, not worshiped for the fraudulent image they have constructed.  They want to “come out of the closet,” in a sense, as a narcissistic sociopath, but if they do under a stable social climate they will be shunned or burned at the stake.  They sometimes band together for protection, and are willing to work with each other as long as there is mutual benefit.

    Thus, these “people” seek to create chaos, and then to reorder society to act more like they act, or think more like they think.  When the masses have been convinced to abandon conscience, then the monsters can come out into the light of day without fear.

    Here is how they achieve this goal, and how average people help them do it…

    False Assumptions

    Almost all bad situations start with false assumptions based on bias rather than facts or evidence.  The most dangerous assumption when it comes to tyranny is to say “we are in the right, therefore we are not supporting tyranny.”  The question that needs to be asked, though, is are they really “right” according to the facts?  If the answer is “no,” then they are probably fueling a tyrannical system.

    First and foremost, many human beings want to be “right” more than they want to be correct.  That is to say, they are happy to “win” arguments and conflicts regardless of whether or not the truth is on their side.  This bias is the root of many catastrophes in history.

    This is not to say that they don’t have a conscience.  Most people in fact do have a conscience that tells them their assumptions are wrong, but they can still commit acts of stupidity and atrocity.  This is where tyrannical manipulators tend to help them along.

    Tyrants find great joy in creating all kinds of logical fallacies, mental gymnastics and morally relative sales pitches in order to convince a group of people that their wrong assumptions are right.  The truth becomes foggy and evidence becomes unnecessary.  In this state of mind, when individuals melt together into a mob, assumptions become cult dictates and “winning” becomes paramount.  False assumptions and biases can be used to turn normal upstanding people into monsters, all because they refused to accept that their ideological position was flawed; all because they were afraid to feel embarrassed or admit they had been conned.

    False Sides

    The taking of sides in political discourse is natural and normal.  Even when people are entirely honest about the facts on hand and agree on basic principles of human decency and freedom, they will STILL disagree on what solutions should be used to deal with the problems in front of them.  This creates a spectrum within society that is ever present; it cannot be helped or avoided.  Tyrants understand the basis of this spectrum and try to use it to their advantage to manipulate people away from thoughtful discourse and towards mindless conflict.

    Tyrants exploit the masses more easily when people assume that corrupt political and social leaders are working for “their side” against the “other side.”  Often these leaders can be bought or threatened into subservience.  Tyrants then use them to drive the spectrum to the furthest opposites, until both sides adopt an attitude of zealotry.

    This happens not only in politics, but in geopolitics, as entire nations are driven to war with each other by puppet presidents and governments over engineered conflicts that only ever benefit the cabal of tyrants behind the curtain.

    Zealotry And False Narratives

    I view zealotry as a kind of psychological disease that is actually communicable – it spreads like a virus through a culture until everyone is infected.  Zealotry happens when a person embraces an ideology to the point that it overrides their personality and their soul, and they are no longer able to think clearly as an individual.  This includes considering the possibility that they are on the wrong side of history and morality.

    Zealotry on a mass scale depends on a number of dominoes set in succession.  The threat of civil breakdown and economic suffering helps.  Ideological opponents must be painted as an imminent and vile threat to the very fabric of society.  In some cases they are a real and created threat (controlled opposition); in other cases they are a paper tiger meant to drive another group to support tyrannical measures.

    Tyrants build false narratives.  This is what they do best.  They encourage people to unknowingly become villains, or they accuse innocent groups of villainy in order to sow division.  They need all sides to see everyone else either as an ally or an enemy.  There is no in-between.  If a person does not conform to the views of the zealot, then he must be immediately treated as a threat.  This causes an endless echo chamber which destroys all dissent or disagreement, no matter how rational.

    Zealots operate primarily on fear, making them easy prey for tyrants.  And as some nerd somewhere once said, “Fear is the mind killer; fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.”

    Apathy And False Hope

    More than anything else, tyrants desire an apathetic population.  Apathy breeds complacency and inaction, and it also encourages delusional thinking.  Apathetic people tend towards the philosophy of pacifism as a means to vindicate their own behavior, but this is merely a mask designed to hide their fear.  They might fear suffering, they might fear loss, they might fear failure, but they certainly have fear, and it stops them from standing in the way of developments that they know are evil in nature and that require an aggressive response.

    Apathy can also be bred into a society through the use of false hopes.  Tyrants conjure scenarios in which the public is made to believe positive “change” is about to take place, usually through politics.  But, there will be no change for the better beyond the cosmetic.  Things only get worse.  In this process of conditioning, tyrants raise up the hopes of the masses, and then dash them to the ground over and over, until the public gives up.

    The problem is not that things cannot change for the better, but that the public keeps playing by the rules of a game fabricated by the very people that are causing their misery.  Stepping outside the constraints of that game requires us to take matters into our own hands rather than waiting around for others to make changes for us.  It requires risk.  If the farce of tyranny is to ever end, all awake and aware people will have to take many risks.

    I have heard it argued that tyranny is a natural and inevitable product of human society.  That tyrants cannot be avoided, that they will always exist and any attempt to remove them will result in them only being replaced with other tyrants.  This is the pinnacle of the pathetic mindset.  It is the dark void of nihilism.

    One could also argue that there is no point to washing ourselves because we are just going to get dirty again tomorrow.  But these people would eventually die of disease.  If tyranny is a human constant, then rebellion must also be a human constant, otherwise, humanity dies or is turned into something unrecognizable.

    *  *  *

    If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

  • Israel's Military Censor Removed News Report Detailing IDF Support To Anti-Assad Fighters

    The Jerusalem Post has confirmed it was told to remove a story on Israel providing weapons and supplies to anti-Assad factions fighting in Syria by the Israeli army’s military censor. 

    In a written statement to RT News, the Jerusalem Post said, “We were told by the army’s military censor to remove that part of the story.” 

    It’s been long known that Israel has assisted armed groups seeking to topple the Syrian government, especially those operating in Syria’s south and along the Golan Heights region throughout the past years of the war.

    But the report, ‘IDF confirms: Israel provided light-weapons to Syrian rebels,’ is the first time the IDF publicly acknowledged the program, which involved the transfer of significant amounts of cash, weapons and ammunition to militants operating near the border with Israel. The bombshell report was removed from the Jerusalem Post’s website a mere hours after publication, but can still be accessed using Google cache.

    The now censored article explicitly negates prior claims by the IDF that it had not intervened in the war in Syria, and further confirmed that prior charges made by President Assad that the Syrian Army had routinely recovered weapons and supplies with Hebrew inscriptions from insurgent positions were in reality accurate even though widely dismissed at the time in international media. 

    The cached piece begins by highlighting that “Bashar Assad claimed that Israel had been providing arms to terror groups and its forces had regularly seized arms and munitions with inscriptions in Hebrew.” 

    And it goes on to confirm that this was indeed the case, saying the IDF “on Monday confirmed that as part of Operation Good Neighbor Israel had been regularly supplying Syrian rebels near its border with light weapons and ammunition in order to defend themselves from attacks and a substantial amount of cash to buy additional arms.”

    The Jerusalem Post’s statement to RT confirming the take down noted it was “for security reasons evidently.” 

    A prior widely circulated photograph showing IDF soldiers at a border checkpoint speaking to al-Qaeda linked (Nusra) insurgents.

    The report further detailed that “Israel had been arming at least seven different rebel groups in Syria’s Golan Heights, including the Fursan al-Joulan rebel group which had around 400 fighters and had been given an estimated $5,000 per month by Israel.” The IDF had called its long-running assistance to the groups, many of which have had an established history of cooperation with al-Qaeda, “the right decision”. 

    Meanwhile, in a separate Jerusalem Post story published at the start of this week, the IDF admitted that Israel has carried out over 200 strikes on targets inside Syria during the past year and a half. The report claimed these were primarily missions against Iranian targets and assets in the country. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest