Aug 16

Today’s News 16th August 2018

  • "I'm Not A Racist, But I'm A Nationalist": Why Sweden Faces A Historic Election Upset

    “Trains and hospitals don’t work, but immigration continues,” Roger Mathson, a retired vegetable oil factory worker in Sweden, told Bloomberg on the same day as the violent, coordinated rampage by masked gangs of youths across five Swedish cities.

    We noted earlier that Swedish politicians were quick to react with anti-immigrant party ‘Sweden Democrats’ seeing a surge in the polls ahead of the September 9th election.

    “I’m not a racist, but I’m a nationalist,” Mathson said. “I don’t like seeing the town square full of Niqab-clad ladies and people fighting with each other.”

    Is Sweden set to have its own political earthquake in September, where general elections could end a century of Social Democratic dominance and bring to power a little known (on the world stage), but the now hugely popular nationalist party often dubbed far-right and right-wing populist, called Sweden Democrats? 

    Sweden, a historically largely homogeneous population of 10 million, took in an astounding 600,000 refugees over the past five years, and after Swedes across various cities looked out their windows Tuesday to see cars exploding, smoke filling the skies, and possibly armed masked men hurling explosives around busy parking lots, it appears they’ve had enough.

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

    Over the past years of their rise as a political force in Swedish politics, the country’s media have routinely labelled the Sweden Democrats as “racists” and “Nazis” due to their seemingly single issue focus of anti-immigration and strong Euroscepticism.

    A poll at the start of this week indicated the Sweden Democrats slid back to third place after topping three previous polls as the September election nears; however, Tuesday’s national crisis and what could legitimately be dubbed a serious domestic terror threat is likely to boost their popularity. 

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

    Bloomberg’s profile of their leader, Jimmie Akesson, echoes the tone of establishment Swedish media in the way they commonly cast the movement, beginning as follows:

    Viking rock music and whole pigs roasting on spits drew thousands of Swedes to a festival hosted by nationalists poised to deliver their country’s biggest political upheaval in a century.

    The Sweden Democrats have been led since 2005 by a clean-cut and bespectacled man, Jimmie Akesson. He’s gentrified a party that traces its roots back to the country’s neo-Nazi, white supremacist fringe. Some polls now show the group may become the biggest in Sweden’s parliament after general elections on Sept. 9. Such an outcome would end 100 years of Social Democratic dominance.

    The group’s popularity began surging after the 2015 immigration crisis began, which first hit Europe’s southern Mediterranean shores and quickly moved northward as shocking wave after wave of migrants came.

    Jimmie Akesson (right). Image source: Getty via Daily Express

    Akesson emphasizes something akin to a “Sweden-first” platform which European media often compares to Trump’s “America First”; and the party has long been accused of preaching forced assimilation into Swedish culture to be become a citizen. 

    Bloomberg’s report surveys opinions at a large political rally held in Akkeson’s hometown of Solvesborg, and some of the statements are sure to be increasingly common sentiment after this week’s coordinated multi-city attack:

    At his party’s festival, Akesson revved up the crowd by slamming the establishment’s failures, calling the last two governments the worst in Swedish history. T-shirts calling for a Swexit, or an exit from the EU, were exchanged as bands played nationalist tunes.

    Ted Lorentsson, a retiree from the island of Tjorn, said he’s an enthusiastic backer of the Sweden Democrats. “I think they want to improve elderly care, health care, child care,” he said. “Bring back the old Sweden.” But he also acknowledges his view has led to disagreement within his family as his daughter recoils at what she feels is the “Hitler”-like rhetoric.

    No doubt, the media and Eurocrats in Brussels will take simple, innocent statements from elderly retirees like “bring back the old Sweden” as nothing short of declaration of a race war, but such views will only solidify after this week.

    Another Sweden Democrat supporter, a 60-year old woman who works at a distillery, told Bloomberg, “I think you need to start seeing the whole picture in Sweden and save the original Swedish population,” she said. “I’m not racist, because I’m a realist.”

    Sweden’s two biggest parties, the Social Democrats and Moderates, are now feeling the pressure as Swedes increasingly worry about key issues preached by Akesson like immigration, law and order, and health care – seen as under threat by a mass influx of immigrants that the system can’t handle. 

    Bloomberg explains further:

    But even young voters are turning their backs on the establishment. One potential SD supporter is law student Oscar Persson. Though he hasn’t yet decided how he’ll vote, he says it’s time for the mainstream parties to stop treating the Sweden Democrats like a pariah. “This game they are playing now, where the other parties don’t want to talk to them but still want their support, is something I don’t really understand,” he said.

    Akesson has managed to entice voters from both sides of the political spectrum with a message of more welfare, lower taxes and savings based on immigration cuts.

    With many Swedes now saying immigration has “gone too far” and as this week’s events have once again thrust the issue before both a national and global audience, the next round of polling will mostly like put Sweden’s conservative-right movements on top. 

  • A Virgin, A Pastor and Two Soldiers

    Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    On August 15, Greeks celebrate the “Dormition (or the Assumption) of the Virgin Mary (in Greek: Koimisis tis Theotokou). The holiday commemorates the “falling asleep” or death of the Theotokos (Mary, translated as “God-bearer”). August 15, one of the most important holidays in the Orthodox calendar, is celebrated across the country, and is a date when many Greeks leave the towns and cities where they live and work to return to their home villages.”

    Stole that bit from the local Kathimerini paper. And I would add: while most Athenians leave for the islands, so do about 2 billion tourists. Thought I’d bring up the national holiday because in Turkey, they celebrate the same. The orthodox church is still going strong in both countries. Even if Turkey is leaning increasingly towards Islam. And even then: the House of the Virgin Mary shrine in Turkey, which the Apostle John is supposed to have built for her, on a mountain overlooking the Aegean, the place where Mary is said to have spent her last years, sees both Christian and Muslim pilgrims.

    All this can’t be seen apart from some recent developments between the two countries. Turkey had been holding two Greek servicemen in jail after they crossed a border in bad weather early March. And then yesterday evening, this happened according to Kathimerini:

    Greek Soldiers Released From Turkish Jail Pending Trial

    Two Greek servicemen who had been detained in Turkey since early March for accidentally crossing the border in bad weather have been released from jail pending trial, Anadolu agency reported on Tuesday evening. According to Anadolu, a court examined the request for their release and ruled there are no reasons to keep them behind bars. The ruling does not mention any measures restricting their movement which means the soldiers can return to Greece.

    Lieutenant Angelos Mitretodis and Sergeant Dimitris Kouklatzis had been held in a high security prison in Edirne for 167 days. It is not clear what charges they are facing. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said in a tweet the release of the servicemen “is an act of justice which will contribute in boosting friendship, good neighborly relations and stability in the region.” “I would like to congratulate and thank our two officers and their families for their courage, patience and confidence in our efforts, which were ultimately vindicated,” he added.

    On Monday, Greece’s top military announced it was suspending some confidence-building activities with Turkey for the remainder of the year, as a response to the prolonged detention. The measures under suspension extend to the the exchange of military academy graduates as well as sporting and cultural activities, which have already been scaled down over the detention of the two soldiers, who were arrested after accidentally crossing a borderline between the two countries.

    And mere hours later there was this:

    Two Greek Soldiers Released From Turkish Jail Return Home

    Two Greek soldiers freed after months in a Turkish prison returned to Greece by government jet early Wednesday after their unexpected release by a provincial court. Defense Minister Panos Kammenos said he phoned his Turkish counterpart to express his satisfaction with the soldiers’ release and invite him to visit Greece. “This is a great day for our motherland, the day of Our Lady, the day of Tinos in 1940,” Kammenos told reporters, referring to the Feast of the Dormation, which falls on August 15 and to the Italian torpedoing on a Greek warship on this day in 1940. “I hope that their release … will herald a new day in Greek-Turkish relations. We can live together peacefully, for the benefit of both our peoples.”

    The soldiers [..] were met by Kammenos, the army chief of staff and an honor guard after their arrival at 3 a.m. at the airport in the northern city of Thessaloniki. “All I want to say is thank you,” Mitretodis told reporters. The men were arrested on March 1 for illegally entering Turkey after crossing the heavily militarized land border. Greece strongly protested their long detention in the western town of Edirne, arguing that they had strayed across during a patrol of a trail of suspected illegal immigration amid poor visibility due to bad weather.

    [..] The men’s arrest had considerably strained Greek-Turkish relations. Kammenos had claimed that they were being held “hostage” by Turkey, which is trying to secure the extradition of eight Turkish servicemen who fled to Greece after the 2016 failed military coup in Turkey. Ankara accuses its servicemen of involvement in the coup, but Greek courts have refused to extradite them, arguing they would not get a fair trial in Turkey and their lives would be in danger there.

    Athens got a phone call from Ankara, probably to Kammenos, not Tsipras, that said: you come get them. Whether that call was before or after the court decision we’ll probably never know. A bit of a shame, because it could tell us a lot of where the decisions are made in Turkey. Then again, we do have an idea. A mere provincial court that could make decisions that go completely against what Erdogan desires? What are the odds? But stick around.

    Here’s what’s interesting about this: the two soldiers, who had been in detention for almost half a year, were released by a provincial court, and got back home on a joint Turkish/Greek national holiday. What’s not to like?

    But then this: a few hours after they arrive home on PM Tsipras’ own government jet at 3pm, another Turkish court decides that an appeal for American pastor Brunson to be released, is denied. Brunson is the guy Trump wants freed. John Bolton has said there’ll be no more talks until that is done. But if one court takes a decision that at least on the face of it goes against supreme ruler Erdogan’s demands, and another decides differently, Erdogan can claim the pastor’s fate is out of his hands: it’s the court system that decides.

    That victory over Trump, concerning not freeing the pastor, is apparently worth more to him than the defeat of not exchanging the soldiers for the 8 Turkish servicemen who have gotten asylum in Greece. Something Erdogan is allegedly very angry about, because he accuses them of being party to the 2016 ‘coup’. He’s trying to play chess with Trump. We can discuss how good of an idea that is. Here’s AFP:

    Turkey Court Rejects New Appeal To Free Detained US Pastor

    A Turkish court on Wednesday rejected a new appeal to free US pastor Andrew Brunson, whose detention has sparked a major row between Turkey and the United States, local media reported. The court in the western city of Izmir ruled that Brunson, who faces 35 years in jail over terror and espionage charges, will remain under house arrest, the state television TRT reported. Brunson’s jail term had been converted to house detention for health reasons.

    His detention has soured relations with Washington, with US President Donald Trump doubling aluminium and steel tariffs for Turkey in punitive actions against Ankara’s refusal to release Brunson. The crisis has sent the Turkish currency into free fall since Friday. “The president has a great deal of frustration (about) the pastor not being released,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Tuesday. The statement came after US embassy charge d’affaires Jeffrey Hovenier visited Brunson in Izmir.

    Brunson’s lawyer Cem Halavurt told AFP that a higher court would also discuss his appeal for Brunson’s release. Turkey’s ambassador to Washington Serdar Kilic on Monday held private talks with US National Security Advisor John Bolton in a meeting to discuss the pastor’s status.

    And then Reuters has this just now:

    Erdogan Spokesman Says Problems With US Will Be Resolved

    Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan’s spokesman said on Wednesday he expected problems with the United States, which helped drive the lira to record lows, to be resolved but Washington must stop trying to influence Turkey’s judiciary. Ibrahim Kalin also told a news conference that Turkey would exercise its rights if the U.S. does not deliver F-35 jets to Ankara. The lira, which has rallied after hitting a record low of 7.24 to the dollar, would continue to recover, he said.

    A masterstroke? Did Erdogan just succeed in making everyone, including Trump, believe the Turkish judiciary system is impartial, and he’s not the one keeping Brunson from leaving the country?

    Sure looks like he tried. “Sorry, Mr. Trump, it’s out of my hands… A judge let the Greek soldiers go, and I didn’t want that either..”

    Problem is, everyone knows Erdogan fired half the judiciary system and 90% or so of the press, accusing them of being part of the same coup plot as Gülen and the pastor Brunson. It’s almost amusing. Almost, because innocent people’s lives are being played out on some primitive chess board and sacrificed against dreams of ever more power. Only a pawn in their game.

    The lira is recovering a little this week. Got to wonder how long that will last, and what it’s cost Turkey. To be continued…

  • Visualizing Italy's Plunging Investment In Infrastructure

    After a motorway bridge collapsed in Genoa on Tuesday killing 35 people, Italy is still in shock and mourning. While rescuers searched the rubble and twisted steel for survivors, investigators were already examining possible reasons for such a catastrophic collapse. The country’s transport minister called on senior managers at the company managing the bridge to resign while a criminal inquiry into the disaster has also been announced.

    As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, The Morandi bridge was built in 1967 and measures 1.2km long. Generally, bridges like that are designed to stand for at least 100 years with periodic maintenance work required. Work was being carried out at the time of the disaster, though it isn’t yet clear if that had any role in what happened. There have also been suggestions that a design flaw could have been responsible, particularly due to erroneous calculations about how concrete ages.

    Concern has also been raised about the increasing volume of traffic on the A10 motorway and whether that caused faster than expected degradation of the structure. What is certainly indisputable, however, is that Italy’s investment in its road network has declined alarmingly. 

    Infographic: Italy Has Notably Cut Investment In Infrastructure | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    OECD data published by the BBC shows that while Germany, France and the UK have all poured money into their roads in recent years, Italian investment fell from €13.66 billion in 2007 to just €3.39 billion in 2010.

    The figure only climbed to just over €5 billion by 2015, far behind Germany (€11.69 billion), France (€10.01 billion) and the UK (€9.07 billion).

  • US Sanctions Foster Emergence of Multipolar World

    Authored by Arkady Savitsky via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Russia, Iran, China, and now Turkey are in the same boat, as all have become the target of US sanctions. But none of those nations has bowed under the pressure.

    Russia had foreseen the developments in advance and took timely measures to protect itself.

    The Turkish national currency, the lira, is plummeting now that Washington has introduced sanctions as well as tariffs on steel and aluminum, in an attempt to compel Ankara to turn over a detained American pastor. Turkish President Erdogan said it was time for Turkey to seek “new friends,” and Turkey is planning to issue yuan-denominated bonds to diversify its foreign borrowing instruments. On Aug. 11, President Erdogan said Turkey was ready to begin using local currencies in its trade with Russia, China, Iran, Ukraine, and the EU nations of the eurozone.

    The recent BRICS summit reaffirmed Ankara’s commitment to the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) that is geared toward de-dollarizing its member states’ economies, and the agreement to quickly launch a Local Currency Bond Fund gives that policy teeth. Turkey has also expressed its desire to join BRICS.

    Ankara is gradually moving toward membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). It has been accepted as a dialog partner of that organization. Last year Turkey became a dialog partner with ASEAN. On Aug. 1, the first ASEAN-Turkey Trilateral Ministerial Meeting was held in Singapore, bringing together Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, ASEAN Secretary General Dato Lim Jock Hoi, and Singaporean Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, who is serving as the 2018 ASEAN term chairman. The event took place under the auspices of the 51st ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting that attracted foreign ministers and top diplomats from 30 countries.

    Ankara is mulling over a free-trade area (FTA) agreement with the Eurasian Union. This cooperation between Ankara and the EAEU has a promising future.

    Meanwhile, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) has provided a $3.6-billion loan package for the Turkish energy and transportation sector. Turkey and China have recently announced an expansion of their military ties. As one can see, Turkey is inexorably pivoting from the West to the East.

    Russia has a special role to play in this process. The US Congress has prohibited the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey because of the risk associated with Ankara’s purchase of the S-400 air-defense system. In response, Turkey is contemplating a purchase of Russian warplanes. Ankara prefers Russian weapons over the ones offered by NATO states. As President Erdogan put it, “Before it is too late, Washington must give up the misguided notion that our relationship can be asymmetrical and come to terms with the fact that Turkey has alternatives.”

    On Aug. 10, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan discussed the prospects for boosting economic cooperation. Both nations are parties to the ambitious Turkish Stream natural-gas pipeline project. Ideas for ways to join forces in response to the US offensive were also on the agenda during the visit of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Turkey, Aug. 13-14, although Syria was in the spotlight of the talks. One mustn’t forget that Russia was the first country to be visited by the Turkish president after the failed 2016 coup.

    As a result of some tough times resulting from US sanctions, Iran is redoubling its efforts at building foreign relationships. Under US pressure, European companies are leaving Iran, with China gradually filling the void. Now that US and European airspace companies are moving their business ventures out of Iran, this presents a good opportunity for Russian aircraft, such as the MS-21 or IL-96-400M. The Russian automaker GAZ Group is ready to supply Iran with commercial vehicles and light trucks powered by 5th generation engines.

    Tehran is an observer state in the SCO, and it is to become an essential hub for the Chinese Belt Road Initiative (BRI). On June 25, a freight train arrived in the Iranian city of Bandar-e Anzali, a port on the Caspian Sea, having passed through the China-Kazakhstan-Iran transportation corridor and entering the Anzali Free Zone that connects China to both the Kazakh port of Aktau and to Iran, thus creating a new trade link to the outside world. This gives a boost to the BRI. On Aug. 12, the five littoral states (the Caspian Five) signed the Caspian Sea Convention — the fruit of 22 years of difficult negotiations. This opens up new opportunities for Iran and other countries of the region as well as the BRI. The idea to form a new economic forum was floated at the Caspian Five summit.

    China and Russia back the idea of Iran’s full-fledged SCO membership. In May Tehran signed an interim FTA agreement with the EAEU. Greater EAEU-BRI integration under the stewardship of the SCO is also on the horizon.

    According to the Daily Express, Iran could band together with Russia and China in an anti-US alliance. Iran may also get an observer status in the CSTO. Iran-Turkey trade has recently revived, and that bilateral relationship includes burgeoning military cooperation.

    Nothing can be viewed in just black and white, and every coin has two sides. The US sanctions do negatively affect the economies and finances of the targeted countries, but in the long run, they will also push the nations hit by them to move closer to each other, thus encouraging the emergence of the multipolar world the US is trying so hard to resist.

  • Australian MP Under Fire After Suggesting ‘Final Solution’ To Muslim Immigration

    An Australian MP is already under fire just after giving his maiden speech in parliament on Tuesday where he used the words “final solution” in reference to Muslim immigration. 

    Senator Fraser Anning of the right-wing Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) raised a firestorm of controversy with the speech that attempted to give voice to Australia’s rising anti-immigration sentiment, telling lawmakers that Muslim Australians do not integrate well while bringing the threat of terrorism and further that they “do not work and live on welfare”. 

    Multiple fellow MPs as well as national television pundits have focused on what could be Anning’s either unintended poor word choice or, as his accusers suggest, an purposeful attempt to evoke holocaust imagery. 

    Egyptian-born Anne Aly (above) is the first Muslim woman to be a member of the Australian House of Representatives. She reacted to MP Anning’s speech by tearfully saying she was tired of having to fight bigots and racists. (screengrab)

    After claiming Muslim communities foster “sympathizing with Islamic State,” the key offending line came in Anning’s speech with the following: 

    The final solution to the immigration problem is, of course, a popular vote. We don’t need a plebiscite to cut immigration numbers; we just need a government that is willing to institute a sustainable population policy.

    The speech was immediately condemned as anti-semitic and Islamophobic, with One Nation party MP Pauline Hanson, slamming it as reminiscent of Nazi propaganda, among other lawmakers.

    Hanson said, “The speech was written by a Richard Howard, straight from [Joseph] Goebbels’ handbook from Nazi Germany.” 

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

    Later in the day Tuesday, WA Labor MP Anne Aly got emotional during her response to Anning’s immigration comments, telling parliament, “I’m tired of fighting. I’m tired of having to stand up against hate, against vilification, time and time again,” while wiping tears from her eyes. 

    Aly, herself Egyptian-born and the first Muslim woman to be a member of the Australian House of Representatives, has in the past been targeted by Anning’s political speeches.

    During his Tuesday maiden speech Sen. Anning specifically called for a complete ban on Muslim immigration, and outlined a plan for Australians to hold a popular vote on which nationalities and immigrant demographics should be allowed into the country. 

    MP Aly charged Senator Anning with deliberately using “neo-Nazi, white supremacist terminology,” to advance racial segregationist policies and explained, “That was a deliberate use of a heinous, heinous word that brings back so many painful memories and sets a precedent for the future of our country that we need to stand up and stop it.”

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

    Australian media praised Aly’s speech, saying a united parliament stood behind her, while generally casting Anning’s speech as a throwback to the ‘White Australia policy’ — a set of historical laws that effectively barred people of non-European descent from settling in the country — which ended through a bi-partisan law passed in the early 1970s.

    Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull also reacted, stating on Twitter, “Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world built on a foundation of mutual respect. We reject and condemn racism in any form.” 

    Other government officials issued formal statements before parliament. Senator Hanson told lawmakers on Wednesday: “I am appalled by Fraser Anning’s speech. We are a multiracial society and I’ve always advocated you do not have to be white to be Australian.” 

    Anning for his part, denied that his phrasing was a reference to the Holocaust and refused to apology even amidst an avalanche of criticism. “I don’t regret anything. I am not going to apologize or regret anything that I say,” he said. His office denied that “final solution” had any deeper sinister meaning, saying the senator could as easily have said “last” or “ultimate”.

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

    Katter’s Australian Party’s leadership has stood behind Anning: “Absolutely, 1000 per cent I support everything he said,” party boss Bob Katter told reporters in a contentious press conference on Wednesday.

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

    The issue is sure to grow even more explosive both nationally and internationally after party leader Katter’s press conference, where he in a fiery and confident tone further said of Anning’s “magnificent speech, solid gold” speech that “90 per cent of Australia have been waiting for someone to say it and believe it.”

    According to official government statistics, Muslims represent a small minority in Australia at just 2.6% of the population. 

  • Pepe Escobar: Economic War On Iran Is War On Eurasian Integration

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    US sanctions on Iran should be interpreted as a piece in a much larger chessboard…

    Life carries on in Tehran despite the threat of US sanctions. 

    Hysteria reigned supreme after the first round of US sanctions were reinstated against Iran over the past week. War scenarios abound, and yet the key aspect of the economic war unleashed by the Trump administration has been overlooked: Iran is a major piece in a much larger chessboard.

    The US sanctions offensive, launched after Washington’s unilateral pullout from the Iran nuclear deal, should be interpreted as an advance gambit in the New Great Game at whose center lies China’s New Silk Road – arguably the most important infrastructure project of the 21st century — and overall Eurasia integration.

    The Trump administration’s maneuvers are a testament to how China’s New Silk Road, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), threaten the US establishment.

    Eurasian integration on the rise

    Eurasian integration is on display in Astana, where Russia, Iran and Turkey are deciding the fate of Syria, in coordination with Damascus.

    Iran’s strategic depth in post-war Syria simply won’t vanish. The challenge of Syrian reconstruction will be met largely by Bashar al-Assad’s allies: China, Russia and Iran.

    Echoing the Ancient Silk Road, Syria will be configured as an important BRI node, key to Eurasia integration.

    In parallel, the Russia-China strategic partnership – from the intersection between the BRI and the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) to the expansion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the solidifying of BRICS Plus — has immense economic stakes in the stability of Iran.

    The complex interconnection of Iran with both Russia (via the EAEU and the International North-South Transportation Corridor) and China (via BRI and oil/gas supplies) is even tighter than in the case of Syria in the past seven years of civil war.

    Iran is absolutely essential for Russia-China for the partnership to allow any “surgical strike” — as floated in Syria — or worse, hot war initiated by Washington.

    A case could be made that with his recent overture to President Putin, President Trump is trying to negotiate some sort of freeze in the current configuration — a remixed Sykes-Picot for the 21st century.

    But that assumes Trump’s decision-making is not being dictated or co-opted by the US neocon cabal that pressed for the 2003 war in Iraq.

    North Korea two?

    If the situation turns volcanic when the US oil sanctions on Iran kick in by early November, an actual remix of the recent North Korea scenario would be in the cards. Washington simultaneously sent three carrier battle groups to terrify North Korea. That failed – and Trump ended up having to chat with Kim Jong-un.

    Despite the US record around the world — endless threats of a Venezuela invasion with the only tangible result an amateurish, failed drone attack; 17 years of endless war in Afghanistan, with the Taliban still as immovable as the Hindu Kush peaks;  the “4+1” – Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, plus Hezbollah – winning the vicious proxy war in Syria — US neocons scream and shout about striking Iran.

    As with North Korea, Russia and China will send unmistakable signs that Iran is in their closely coordinated Eurasian sphere of influence, and any attack on Iran will be considered an attack on the whole Eurasian sphere.

    Stranger things have happened, but it’s hard to see any rational actors in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh wishing to have Beijing and Moscow — simultaneously — as lethal enemies.

    All across Southwest Asia, there are no doubts the official Trump administration – and in fact, the whole Beltway – policy on Iran is regime change. So from now on, short of hot war, the new rules of the game spell out stepped-up cyber-warfare.

    From Washington’s point of view, in terms of return on investment that’s a relative bargain; cyber-warfare keeps the Russia-China partnership away from direct involvement while in theory digging deeper into the economic collapse of Iran, heavily advertised as imminent by Trump administration officials.

    The Chinese Foreign Ministry could not be more explicit on the US effort to reimpose global sanctions on Iran. “China’s commercial cooperation with Iran is open and transparent, reasonable, fair and lawful, not violating any United Nations Security Council resolutions,” it said.

    That echoes the Russian Foreign Ministry on the US sanctions: “This is a graphic example of Washington’s continued violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and trampling upon the norms of international law.”

    President Trump for his part has also been explicit: any nation that violates the sanctions against Iran will not do business with the US.

    Good luck with having support from Turkey or Qatar – completely dependent on Iran for food, use of civilian airspace and sharing gas exploration in South Pars. Not to mention Russia-China assuring Tehran’s back on all fronts.

    How not to do business with China?

    The die is cast. China not only will continue but also will increase its purchase of Iranian oil and gas.

    The Chinese auto industry – currently with 10% of the Iranian market – will simply take over as the French leave. Chinese companies are already responsible for 50% of auto parts imported into Iran.

    Russia for its part has pledged to invest as much as $50 billion in Iranian oil and natural gas. Moscow is very much aware of the Trump administration’s next possible step; imposing sanctions on Russian companies investing in Iran.

    Washington simply can’t “not do business” with China. The entire US defense industry is dependent on China for rare earth materials. Since the 1980s, US multinationals set up their export supply chains in China with direct encouragement of the US government.

    The EU for its part has enforced a Blocking Statute – never used before, although in existence for already two decades — to protect European companies, even coming to the point of imposing fines on businesses that pull out of Iran because of plain fear.

    In theory, that shows some balls. And yet, as EU diplomats in Brussels told Asia Times, there’s a major conditional: US satrapies/vassals abound across the EU, so quite a few EU-based companies, as in the case of Total and Renault, in the end, will simply roll over.

    Meanwhile, what Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said about US unilateralism – the world “is sick and tired”
    of it – keeps echoing all across the Global South.

    The Mother of All Financial Hurricanes

    Those clamoring for war with Iran cannot possibly understand that the nightmare scenario of a Strait of Hormuz/Persian Gulf energy transit closure – the choke point for 22 million barrels of oil a day – would represent, ultimately, the death of the petrodollar.

    The Strait of Hormuz can be configured as the Achilles heel of the entire West/US economic power; a closure would detonate the mother of all hurricanes in the quadrillion-dollar derivatives market.

    Unless China does not buy Iranian energy, US sanctions — as a geo-economic tool — are essentially meaningless.

    Certainly not, of course, for the “Iranian people” so dear to the Beltway, as more day-to-day financial grief is already setting in, side by side with a sense of national cohesiveness in the face, once again, of an external threat.

    China and Russia have already pledged to continue to implement the JCPOA, alongside the EU-3; after all, this is an UN-endorsed multilateral treaty.

    Beijing has already informed Washington in no uncertain terms that it will continue to do business with Iran. So the ball is now in Washington’s court. It will be up to the Trump administration to decide whether to sanction China for its unwillingness to stop trading with Iran.

    It’s not exactly a wise move to threaten China – especially with Beijing on an irresistible historical ascendancy. Nehru threatened China and lost a big chunk of Arunachal Pradesh to Chairman Mao. Brezhnev threatened China and faced the wrath of the PLA on the banks of the Ussuri River.

    China is able to cut the US off in a minute from its rare earth exports, creating a US national security catastrophe. Now that’s when a trade war will enter real incandescent territory.

  • Tompkins: Nationwide Anti-Trump Editorial Blitz Just More Proof Journalists Don't Listen

    At the start of the week when we covered The Boston Globe’s ‘call to action’ for the nation’s newspapers to collude to fight back against what they called Trump’s “dirty war against the free press” the number of publications involved was at around 100, as the Globe’s deputy editorial page editor, said at the time, “we have more than 100 publications signed up, and I expect that number to grow in the coming days.”

    That figure has indeed grown, more than tripling as of Wednesday to 350, according to statements from Boston Globe staff leading the project, and will potentially be even greater by Thursday morning, when the coordinated editorials are set to run nationwide. 

    Image via Reuters

    The Globe explains the initiative’s purpose as: 

    The Globe initiative comes amid the president’s repeated verbal attacks on journalists, calling mainstream press organizations “fake news” and “the enemy of the American people.” Tensions came to a boil in early August when CNN reporter Jim Acosta walked out of a press briefing after White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders refused to refute Trump’s “enemy of the people” comments.

    Meanwhile, Al Tompkins at The Poynter Institute – a five decade award-winning journalist and producer – has some interesting analysis considering he is a commentator who is opposed to Trump and wishes the president would knock it off with the fake news is the “enemy of the people” nonsense.

    Despite saying this right off the top, Tompkins then proceeds to shred the initiative as completely futile while simultaneously a bit hypocritical given an elite press that’s perpetually walled itself off from ever having to admit its wrong (for the easiest and most obvious example in most people’s recent memory let’s simply start with the Iraq war). 

    Al Tompkins via TV News Storytellers

    He brings a surprising admission for which he’s likely already received the ire of his many journalism students and fellow professionals, saying, “I really do not believe that President Trump believes the press is the enemy of the people. I believe he is softening the target the way battleships blast away before a boots-on-the-ground invasion.”

    Tompkins acknowledges the reality that:

    We will protest again that we are really good for democracy, that we are vital to the nation… and the people who agree with the president won’t give a damn what 200-plus newspaper editorials or a thousand editorials have to say.

    Tompkins brings a common-sense perspective, likely echoing what most average Americans might be thinking right now, ultimately concluding of the breathless headlines now promising 350 “pro-journalism editorials” that it’ll be little more than the usual self-congratulatory and meaningless noise that many Americans have come to expect from the mainstream press.

    He rains on their parade and predicts:

    So the editorials Thursday will create a lot of chatter. Trump backers will call journalists whiners and journalists will counter-attack. Twitter and cable news will have a ball with it all.

    And Friday morning we will be right where we were this morning. 

    And crucially Tompkins, himself a prominent longtime educator of journalists across the nation, says that journalists as a collective profession have gotten so much disastrously wrong yet remain intransigent, and the American people understand this well.

    He says:

    Lots of journalists were surprised after the 2016 election. We vowed to listen to the public more, to find out why we were so surprised to hear that the public didn’t love journalists and a growing number didn’t believe us.

    If that point didn’t win the relatively establishment commentator Tompkins any more friends among the liberal outrage-fueled mainstream, the following is the money shot:

    Before you publish your editorials extolling the virtues of journalism, ask yourself: How are you doing with that listening tour? How have you changed because of what you learned? How willing are you to be changed by discourse?

    Whatever you write in your editorials, are you willing to listen, too?

    Shockingly common-sense and truthful words coming from the heart of establishment journalism… We find ourselves surprised to say on these points, we couldn’t agree more.

  • Economic Contagion? Central Banks Are The Real Culprit

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    The mainstream news has been awash lately in talk over the danger of economic “contagion,” primarily due to lack of dollar liquidity in emerging markets. This lack of liquidity is being pegged as a trigger for instability in stocks, bonds and forex markets around the world, and this time around it is the nation of Turkey that is being called a potential trigger for a fiscal domino effect spreading through multiple countries.

    We have heard talk of “contagion” before. Not long ago, Italy’s political shift toward a supposedly populist government led to fears of debt contagion within the European Union; this is still a valid concern, just not for the reasons the mainstream financial media usually presents.

    The issue of contagion must be examined through a different set of parameters besides those shoved in our faces by the financial media.

    In their world, everything is a matter of unpredictable cause and effect; everything is random and coincidental. Everything is chaos waiting to happen, and when crisis does strike, all can be blamed on a set of unrelated but interconnected scapegoats.

    They will claim it was the “populists,” conservatives, conservative philosophy or the notion of national sovereignty. Or they will blame it on even more abstract concepts of “human greed” and “individual selfishness.”

    These excuses for unstable systems and disasters stem from a propaganda ploy developed by DARPA called “Linchpin Theory.” It is the widely promoted idea that human systems collapse “naturally” when they become “too complex,” and all it takes to start this collapse in motion is a single well placed “linchpin” pulled at the right moment. In other words, DARPA wants you to believe that there is no such thing as organized conspiracy and that all disasters are caused by chance.

    I wrote extensively about this subject in my article “The Linchpin Lie: How Global Collapse Will Be Sold To The Masses,” published in 2013.

    Of course, the linchpin idea and the notion that over-complexity is to blame for all the world’s ills helps globalists greatly. For if human systems need to be streamlined or “simplified”, what better way to do this than to get rid of sovereign nation states, governments and economies and centralize everything down into a one world economy, a one world government, a new world order?

    What linchpin theory ignores is the careful strategic planning required to position all the geopolitical dominoes in a perfect chain so that they can be knocked over by that one person, country or event.

    Human systems actually tend to lean toward redundancy when we are left to build these systems ourselves – meaning, humans prefer to decentralize to a point. We do not like having ALL decisions bottlenecked through a single dictatorship. We do not like having all our resources controlled by a single source. We do not like having all trade and commerce and communication dominated by monopolies. We do not like our safety determined by a single watchman. We often end up rebelling against centralization because it is actually centralization that breeds weakness in systems, not complexity, which gives us checks and balances.

    The protection of complexity is created through decentralization.

    When we look at the true causes of numerous economic and political crises around the world, we usually find globalists and their agent institutions right at the center. Foremost of these institutions are central banks.

    In my article “All The Old World Systems Are being Deliberately Torn Down,” published in November of last year, I warned of several trends which would likely lead to economic instability. One of these trends was the possible breakup of NATO starting with Turkey. Turkey’s leadership under Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been increasingly erratic and violent, most notably after the highly suspicious and likely fake military coup attempt in 2016. The coup gave Erdogan a perfect rationale for his consolidation of power, all while his political opponents could be systematically rounded up and imprisoned.

    The “thwarted coup” narrative has been popular lately. First in Turkey and then in Saudi Arabia under Mohammad Bin Salman — two nations that are quickly plunging into even more aggressive dictatorship and that are vital to the United States strategically and economically. Over the past two years, both countries have become more distant as allies. Saudi Arabia has consistently discussed moving away from its arrangements to continue holding U.S. treasury debt and using the dollar as the petro-currency. Turkey has consistently discussed breaking from NATO and ending its arrangement to allow U.S. military assets to stage within its borders.

    Another narrative that has been popular lately has been the idea that the global trade war will be the cause of all our economic displacement for years to come. The trade war is a perfect distraction, providing the chaos fuel necessary to allow central banks to pull the plug on economic support and then blame the resulting crisis on various random “linchpins.” This is exactly what they have been doing.

    In terms of stock markets, I think it has now been clearly established that the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet cuts and interest rate hikes are the main cause (if not the only cause) of stock rallies and declines. Almost every major decline in equities takes place within 7-10 days after the Fed dumps assets from its balance sheet. One can study the Fed’s progressive cuts over the year on their own website and compare them to the moves in the Dow or S&P.

    In July, for example, I told my readers to expect a recovery in stocks due to the Fed freezing balance sheet cuts during that month. The Fed held the balance sheet steady for most of July, only cutting a mere $12 billion at the end of the month.  As a result stocks rallied.  In August, the Fed has already cut over $20 billion and will probably cut more in the next two weeks, which would indicate an aggressive fall in stocks this month into September. The Fed controls when and how stock markets crash… at least for now.

    This correlation and obvious causation are rarely if ever mentioned in the mainstream. Instead, we get talk of “contagion” caused by Turkey and the trade war.

    The Fed’s balance sheet cuts do not only cause havoc in stock markets. Emerging market economies have grown increasingly dependent on the flow of cheap dollars and financial assets precipitated by the Fed’s stimulus measures over the past decade. If you were wondering where most of that bailout money and quantitative easing money were going over the years and you did not study the audit of TARP, then you might be surprised to find out that trillions in no interest overnight loans were going to foreign banks and corporations rather than U.S. banks. This included emerging market nations.

    Countries like China, India, Brazil and even Turkey all used easy cash flow from central banks like the Fed to prop up their bond markets, and manipulate their currencies as well as their equities. India, for example, openly complained about the Fed’s move to raise interest rates and cut the balance sheet, warning that it would cause instability in global markets dependent on dollar circulation.

    The Fed’s unwind of QE is hitting emerging markets first and mostly in terms of currency values.  The stronger dollar (relative to forex trading) is causing extensive havoc in forex trading and other sectors as investors pull funds from emerging markets due to a less favorable exchange rate.  But this does not necessarily mean that US based assets will benefit.

    The U.S. economy is next on the chopping block as corporate debt now sits near historic highs. The only other safety net for U.S. stocks the past few years has been corporate stock buybacks, which corporations have been funding with no-interest loans from the Fed and other banks. As the Fed continues to raise interest rates, corporate debt costs will skyrocket and these stock buybacks will shrivel. After this happens, each new cut of the Fed’s balance sheet will result in an even more dramatic fall in the Dow.

    Ultimately, emerging markets are going to look for alternatives to the dollar as the world reserve if they don’t get a supply of the fiscal stimulus drug they have become so addicted to. This is already happening in China and Russia as they dump U.S. Treasurys and de-dollarize in favor of other assets like gold.

    So, we have international markets suffering from liquidity withdrawals due to the Federal Reserve, we have U.S. stock markets under threat of reversal due to Fed interest rate hikes and balance sheet dumps, and we have the dollar’s world reserve currency status under threat as multiple nations seek out alternatives after feeling jilted by the Fed taking away the punch bowl.  Multiple tentacles are wrapped around the global economy and all of them attached to the same source.

    It would appear that the only “contagion” is that of central banks; most of all the Federal Reserve. Yet, all we hear about in the mainstream is talk on the trade war and linchpins like Turkey.

    The public is being regaled with lies, conditioned to accept false explanations about the true cause of a crisis that is about to occur; a crisis which central bankers are deliberately engineering so that they can later promote the philosophy of “simplification” and one-world centralization as a cure-all.

    *  *  *

    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 NY Gov Cuomo's "Total Meltdown" After "America Was Never That Great" Comment

    Update: President Trump has been made aware of Cuomo’s “total meltdown”…

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

    *  *  *

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    In an enormous political gaffe, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo told an audience “America was never that great.”

    Kiss the 2020 Democratic presidential campaign of NY governor Andrew Cuomo goodbye.

    His comment America ‘Was Never That Great’ drew laughs and gasps from the crowd today.

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

    Cuomo, a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, was speaking at a bill-signing event in New York City, when he turned his attention to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” mantra.

    “We not going to Make America Great Again. It was never that great,” Cuomo said, prompting some in the audience to laugh and others to gasp.

    “We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged,” he said.

    “We will reach greatness when discrimination and stereotyping against women, 51 percent of the population, is gone, and every woman’s full potential is realized and unleashed.”

    Following the blowback, Cuomo’s office defended his original remarks and criticized Trump’s slogan.

    Politically Stupid

    Cuomo could have said he made an error, misspoke, or something similar. It may have blown over. Instead, like Hillary with Iraq, he could not admit a mistake.

    I firmly believe that Hillary, not Obama would have been the Presidential nominee in 2008 if she had only admitted she made a mistake on Iraq.

    Flash forward to today: How anyone can be so politically stupid is a mystery.

    On second thought, we are talking about Democratic politicians.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Aug 15

Today’s News 15th August 2018

  • Mapping The World's Most (And Least) Livable Cities

    If you want to move to the world’s most liveable city, pack your bags and book a flight to Vienna.

    The Economist assessed 140 major cities worldwide on stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure, declaring the Austrian capital the most liveable city for the first time. Australia’s second most populous city, Melbourne, scored 98.4 out of 100. Osaka, Japan, came third with Calgary and Sydney rounding off the top five.

    Infographic: The World's Most Liveable Cities | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    In total, three Canadian and three Australian cities made the top-10 list.

    Interestingly, U.S. cities are notably absent from the top of The Economist’s ranking with Copenhagen the only other European city this year besides Vienna.

    However, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, even though people living in Damascus are daring to hope that their country’s long and bloody civil war might be drawing to a close, the Syrian capital is at the opposite end of the ranking. It scored just 30.7 out of 100 where 100 is ideal.

    Infographic: The World's Least Liveable Cities | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Dhaka, Bangladesh and Lagos, Nigeria, rounded off the bottom three with scores of 38.0 and 38.5 respectively.

    While most of the bottom-10 are scattered across Africa and the Middle East, Karachi in Pakistan and Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea were among the bottom-ranked cities.

  • It's Official: "Britain's Democracy Now At Risk"

    Authored by Jessica Garland via TruePublica.org.uk,

    Electoral Reform Society: It’s not just campaigners saying it any more: democracy is officially at risk, according to parliament’s own digital, culture, media and sport committee.

    Britain’s main campaign rules were drawn up in the late 1990s, before social media and online campaigning really existed. This has left the door wide open to disinformation, dodgy donations and foreign interference in elections.

    There is a real need to close the loopholes when it comes to the online Wild West.

    Yet in this year’s elections, it was legitimate voters who were asked to identify themselves, not those funnelling millions into political campaigns through trusts, or those spreading fake news.

    The government trialled mandatory voter ID in five council areas in May. In these five pilot areas alone about 350 people were turned away from polling stations for not having their papers with them – and they didn’t return.

    In other words, they were denied their vote.

    Yet last year, out of more than 45 million votes cast across the country, there were just 28 allegations of personation (pretending to be someone else at the polling station), the type of fraud voter ID is meant to tackle.

    Despite the loss of 350 votes, the pilots were branded a success by the government.

    Yet the 28 allegations of fraud (and just one conviction) are considered such a dire threat that the government is willing to risk disenfranchising many more legitimate voters to try to address it.

    The numbers simply don’t add up.

    Indeed, the fact-checking website FullFact noted that in the Gosport pilot, 0.4 per cent of voters did not vote because of ID issues. That’s a greater percentage than the winning margin in at least 14 constituencies in the last election. Putting up barriers to democratic engagement can have a big impact. In fact, it can swing an election.

    In the run-up to the pilots, the Electoral Reform Society and other campaigners warned that the policy risked disenfranchising the most marginalised groups in society.

    The Windrush scandal highlights exactly the sort of problems that introducing stricter forms of identity could cause: millions of people lack the required documentation. It’s one of the reasons why organisations such as the Runnymede Trust are concerned about these plans.

    The Electoral Commission has now published a report on the ID trials, which concludes that “there is not yet enough evidence to fully address concerns” on this front.

    The small number of pilots, and a lack of diversity, meant that sample sizes were too small to conclude anything about how the scheme would affect various demographic groups. Nor can the pilots tell us about the likely impact of voter ID in a general election, where the strain on polling staff would be far greater and a much broader cross-section of electors turns out to vote.

    The Electoral Reform Society, alongside 22 organisations, campaigners and academics, has now called on the constitution minister to halt moves to impose this policy. The signatories span a huge cross-section of society, including representatives of groups that could be disproportionately impacted by voter ID, from Age UK to Liberty and from the British Youth Council to the Salvation Army and the LGBT Foundation.

    Voters know what our democratic priorities should be: ensuring that elections are free from the influence of big donors. Having a secure electoral register. Providing balanced media coverage. Transparency online.

    We may be little wiser as a result of the government’s voter ID trials. Yet we do know where the real dangers lie in our politics.

  • Even China Has A Higher Proportion Of Women Politicians Than America

    As primary elections in the United States closed last Tuesday and the results trickled in on Wednesday, a clear pattern emerged from the ballot box: women winning. As Statista’s Sarah Feldman notes, the pink wave saw female candidates clean up many primary wins, putting them on track to enter positions of power in various levels of government.

    While Wednesday’s results were historic for the United States, many countries are light-years ahead of the US when it comes to women holding seats in the legislature.

    Infographic: Where Do Women Hold Political Office? | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Rwanda, where most legislators are women, has three times as many women in government as the United states.

    Over the past two decades, women have entered government at increasing rates, with this uptick partially fueled by legislative or voluntary gender quotas for political parties and parliaments.

    America, however, still has relatively fewer women politicians than communist China but – luckily for the land of the free – has a greater proportion than Russia.

    So many waves – red, blue, pink, or red ink…

  • The End Of The US Unipolar Moment Is Irreversible

    Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The past weeks have shown how part of the American establishment is weighing the pros and cons of the Trump administration’s strategies around the world. I have a strong feeling that in the coming weeks we will see the destabilizing effects of American politics, especially towards its closest allies.

    A disastrous flip of events appears to be on its way, in case Trump were to lose the November midterm elections (the House and Senate elections). If this were to happen, the Trump administration would probably exploit the Russia gate conspiracy claiming that Moscow had now acted in favour of Democrats. Trump could argue that Moscow was disappointed by the lack of progress in softening US sanctions against Russia; indeed, by Trump’s measures against Russia (expulsions, sanctions, property seizures) and its allies (China, Iran and Syria).

    Trump would not hesitate to claim Russian interference in the midterms to aid the Democrats, citing intelligence reports. He would say that Russia aims to create chaos in the US by placing roadblocks in the way of attempts to “Make America Great Again” and handing the House and Senate to the Democrats. He would use the electoral defeat to blame his accusers of getting aid from Russia. In doing so, he would be accelerating the implosion of his administration in an all-out war with the establishment. The mainstream media would dismiss Trump’s accusations against the Democrats of collusion with Russia as a conspiracy theory of an unravelling presidency. All this, summed up, would lead to the Democrats having majority in both houses, easily proceeding to the impeachment of Trump.

    *  *  *

    Italy is piggybacking on the US, operating side by side with Washington to expand its role in North Africa, especially in Libya. However, Rome will have to offer something in return to please Trump. Evidence points to the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) as the quid pro quo, the US encouraging Italy to complete it in order to put pressure on Germany’s North Stream II project and undermine Russian gas deliveries to the EU. I have the impression that the only card available for Italy to play (and which interests Trump) is an endorsement of Washington’s positions on Iran, given that Italy already shares in common with Washington differences with Paris and Berlin on many issues. In this sense, Conte’s words about US intelligence info on the JCPOA paves the way for further decisions:

    “”I didn’t take a specific stand. I said we are willing to evaluate the necessity to take more rigorous stances if the (nuclear) accord is shown to be ineffective. We are waiting to have elements of intelligence, Italy would like to evaluate it with its EU partners”

    As evidence of Washington’s failed strategy towards Iran, India continues to buy crude oil from Iran, increasing the amount in the last month by 52%. China is also increasing its importation from Iran. Meanwhile, Iran is working with other countries to circumvent the US dollar in order to sustain their mutual trade within a new framework of agreements. Washington is especially disappointment with New Delhi, with American officials continuing to reiterate that India’s intentions align with Washington’s. Since November, with the imposition of counter-sanctions on countries that continue to work with Iran, Washington’s bluff will become evident to everybody, much to the disappointment of the Trump administration.

    In the meantime, relations between Canada and Saudi Arabia have almost completely broken down on account of human rights. Ambassadors have been expelled and there is a continuing war of words, with trade between the two countries being brought to a stop. This is the latest example of the divisions manifesting themselves within the Western elites, with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Trump administration being in opposition to the likes of France, Germany and Canada.

    What is also clear is that the issue of energy is central to Washington’s strategy. Between criticism of the German Nord Stream II and invitations to Italy to finish the Trans Adriatic Pipeline, it is clear that both the Trump administration and the policy makers of the deep state are strongly concerned about what actions allies and enemies could take to overcome the pressure brought to bear by Washington on the issues of energy, Iran, and sanctions. This shows that the US is very fearful of de-dollarization, especially coming from its allies.

    Bypassing sanctions with currencies other than US dollar, or creating creative finance structures that bypass the SWIFT payment system, are the only means of maintaining relations between countries in spite of Washington’s sanctions. The US strategy is limited in the short term and certainly harmful in the long term for US Dollar financial hegemony.

    That Washington’s allies are even entertaining such possibilities places US financial hegemony at great risk in the long run. This worries the American deep state a great deal, even without Trump, who in any case will not be in charge past 2024 (should he be re-elected in 2020).

    One of the points of greatest tension is precisely this strategic difference between the Trump administration and the policy makers in the deep state (AKA Langley and Foggy Bottom). While the former can increase the pressure on allies (through NATO, the JCPOA, TTIP and TPP) to obtain immediate solutions and benefits, the latter must above all consider the effects in the medium and long term, which are often harmful for US interests. The imposition of sanctions on Iran, and the obligation of European allies to comply with this directive, is a prime example.

    Another of Washington’s strategies revolves around the price of oil. The United States would have no problem seeing the price of crude oil skyrocket. Secretly, many in the administration hope that Iran will take the first false step by closing the Strait of Hormuz (Teheran will not make this move as things stand now); some even hope that the crisis between Canada and Saudi Arabia will have some impact on the cost of crude oil.

    Even trade war and tariffs should be seen as part of Trump’s short-term strategy to demonstrate to his base that something is being done against countries that he thinks are taking advantage of the United States. In reality, Trump knows, or should know, that there is no way of stopping China’s growth, a result of globalization that has been the engine of free-market capitalism, making the western elite richer than ever before. Trump deceives his base with trade wars and tariffs, but in the long run the costs will be borne by American consumers, many of whom are Trump’s voters.

    Trump thinks in the very short term, constantly aiming to present himself before his electors with a list of ticked boxes ( Peter Lavelle of Crosstalk gets trademark of this definition), confirming that he is fulfilling his electoral promises. In this way he hopes to win the midterms in November. To succeed in this endeavor, the economy must pick up to a gallop (for now this is happening thanks to a series of tax cuts and the continuous pumping of easy money from the Fed) and he must put pressure on his allies as well as aggressively confront Iran, Russia and China through sanctions, cutting energy supplies and forcing Tehran to negotiate once again the nuclear agreement.

    What many analysts struggle with when trying to analyse Donald Trump is that there is no overarching strategy uniting his actions into a coherent policy. Trump acts extemporaneously, often with a very short strategic outlook and for internal political motivations.

    Nevertheless, if there is something that worries the deep state, it is the long-term impact of tariffs, trade war, sanctions and impositions on allies; or, to put it most simply, de-dollarization. If there is anything that scares the Trump administration, it is remaining entangled in a destabilizing war with Iran that would lead to the early end of the Trump presidency and destroying its legacy, as Bush’s legacy was destroyed by Iraq.

    In all this uncoordinated and inconsistent behaviour, there is the hope of a major rise in the price of oil that would help slow down China’s growth and transform the US shale-gas industry into an ultra-profitable business, further boosting the US economy and allowing Trump to present further evidence to his base of his ability to improve their lives.

    The United States is in the terminal phase of its unipolar moment and is struggling to come to terms with the downsizing of its role in the world. Its ruling elite cannot accept the prospect of sharing power, preferring to oppose by all means possible the transition to a world order involving more powers. If this situation is already complex for any superpower enough to manage, a president has been elected who has little regard for compromise and mediation.

    Ultimately, in addition to an obvious problem in defining Washington’s role in the world over the next few years, the United States finds itself with a president who is in almost open warfare with an important part of the US establishment. The deep state is still living on the hope of impeaching Trump to halt the loss of US influence, deluding themselves that things can return to how they were at the height of the unipolar moment in the 1990s.

  • Lockheed Martin Awarded Second Contract Worth $480mn For Hypersonic Missile Weapons

    The U.S. Air Force has awarded a second contract not to exceed $480 million to Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control to develop a hypersonic weapon prototype that would travel five times faster than the speed of sound to overcome Russian and Chinese missile defense systems.

    The contract will cover the critical design review, test, and production readiness support for the Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), according to a US Air Force statement.

    “We are going to go fast and leverage the best technology available to get hypersonic capability to the warfighter as soon as possible,” said Secretary of the Air Force Heather A. Wilson.

    The AARW program now consists of two hypersonic weapon prototyping efforts administered by the Air Force to expedite hypersonic research and development. Lockheed was awarded the first $929 million contract back on April 18, which was for the design and manufacture of the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW), a new air-launched weapon system.

    Officials from the Defense Department, Missile Defense Agency, Air Force, Navy, and Army signed a memorandum June 28 to work jointly on the development of “hypersonic boost-glide” technology, the release said.

    “The Joint Team requires the right mix of agile capabilities to compete, deter and win across the spectrum of competition and conflict,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein. “We must push the boundaries of technology and own the high ground in this era of great power competition and beyond.”

    “The ARRW effort is ‘pushing the art-of-the-possible’ by leveraging the technical base established by the Air Force/[Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] partnership,” the release said. “The HCSW effort is using mature technologies that have not been integrated for an air-launched delivery system.”

    The Air Force said the second contract remains as an undefinitized contract to allow Lockheed to begin work immediately. The final price and negotiated terms will be agreed upon later this year, it said.

    The second contract indicates that Pentagon officials understand American exceptionalism is dying, while rivals Russia and China have created far superior hypersonic national programs.

    “We have lost our technical advantage in hypersonics; we haven’t lost the hypersonics fight,” Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Air Force Gen. Paul Selva told reporters in January. “China has made it a national program, so China’s willing to spend tens to up to hundreds of billions to solve the problem of hypersonic flight, hypersonic target designation, and then ultimately engagement.”

    In March, the United States Strategic Commander told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the U.S. is vulnerable to future attack via hypersonic missiles and is quickly falling behind the technological curve for hypersonics.

    “We [U.S.] don’t have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon [hypersonic missiles] against us,” warned Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of U.S. Strategic Command.

    Hyten further said, “both Russia and China are aggressively pursuing hypersonic capabilities. We have watched them test those capabilities.”

    “I think we have stability with Russia on the nuclear side,” he added. “We have an advantage with China on the nuclear side. But they are gaining ground quickly, especially when you look at space and cyber.”

    Earlier this year, we reported that Russia test-fired a high-precision Kinzhal (Dagger) hypersonic missile from a MiG-31 supersonic interceptor jet in the South Military District in Russia’s southwest.

    “The launch went according to plan, the hypersonic missile hit its target,” the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation declared.

    The defense ministry released exclusive video showing the hypersonic missile air launch from the underbelly of the MiG-31.

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

    In late 2017, China conducted several tests of a hypersonic glide vehicle that could be used to defeat U.S. missile defense systems.

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

    Earlier this month, China claimed to have successfully tested a new hypersonic missile that would be capable of penetrating any missile defense system in the world. The Starry Sky-2, which is an experimental design known as “waverider,” rides the shock waves generated during flight. The missile could one day carry conventional and or nuclear warheads undetected through US missile defense shields.

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

    The arms race in hypersonic weapons has ushered in the next Cold War between the US, Russia, and China. It is a repeating war cycle of madness where billions of dollars are being diverted to the military-industrial-complex. So, it is no surprise that Lockheed Martin has been awarded nearly $1.5 billion in the span of a few months to develop and field hypersonic missiles for the Air Force.

    Hypersonics will not make the world safer, but more dangerous with global superpowers having the capabilities of hurling projectiles at March five or higher. The 53.7 Year War Cycle is telling us something, perhaps, war is nearing.

  • Ultra-Wealthy Having Their Brains Frozen So They Can "Come Back To Life" 100s Of Years From Now

    Authored by Michael Snyder via The American Dream blog,

    If you could live forever, would you do it? Throughout history, money has allowed the elite to buy just about anything they want – except an escape from death. Many super-rich individuals are deeply haunted by the knowledge that they have spent their lives working incredibly hard to accumulate vast amounts of wealth but they only have a very limited amount of time in which to enjoy it. As a result, many of them are absolutely obsessed with finding a way to cheat death.

    The quest for eternal life is very much alive today – especially in tech hotbeds such as Silicon Valley. As technology continues to increase at an exponential rate, many among the elite are absolutely convinced that eternal life will be possible someday, and they are determined to stick around long enough to be a part of that revolution.

    One way that some ultra-wealthy people are attempting to extend their lifespans into the future is through the emerging science of cryogenics. Some are having their entire bodies frozen, and others are having just their brains frozen, but it is very expensive…

    The super-rich are having their brains frozen for £80,000 ($100,000) in the hope of being re-born in as little as 200 years time.

    Cryogenics, which involves deep freezing the body to -196°C (-321°F), is increasingly being seen as a way to beat death.

    There are several companies that currently perform this kind of “service” around the world right now. In total, several hundred people have already been frozen, and a few thousand more have signed up and are waiting to die.

    And even though nobody has ever been successfully “brought back”, there is a very fervent belief that someday in the future it will be possible to return to the land of the living and “experience a whole new life”…

    One businessman believes he will wake up in the future and ‘experience a whole new life’ after having his head placed on the body of another human being.

    The British-born man, who wanted to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the topic, says he ‘can’t think of anything more exciting’.

    One of the largest cryogenics companies is “the Alcor Life Extension Foundation” in Scottsdale, Arizona. It is already storing 149 dead bodies, and it has more than 1,000 “paying members” overall.

    Once death is near, technicians from Alcor need to be close at hand in order to start the freezing process…

    Only when death has been legally declared can technicians start packing the body in ice while attaching a “heart-lung resuscitator” to get the blood circulating.

    They then administer 16 different medications meant to protect the cells from crystallising.

    Currently there are 149 dead “patients” at Alcor’s facility, including US baseball legend Ted Williams and the youngest person to ever be cryopreserved, Matheryn Naovaratpong, aged two, from Thailand.

    Of course this technology will never be available to everyone because it is extremely expensive.

    So could we someday have a small minority of “super-wealthy immortals” ruling over all the rest of us?

    Probably not, but that isn’t going to stop the elite from continuing to pursue eternal life.

    Cryogenics is one method that is being pursued, but it is not the only one. Transhumanists such as Ray Kurzweil are absolutely convinced that “the Singularity” will soon enable people to live indefinitely, while Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov wants to rip our brains out and put them into robots…

    Inventor and futurist Ray “The-Singularity-is-Near”Kurzweil, now the director of engineering at Google, and Russian billionaire news magnate Dmitry Itskov want to bring our minds from the analog into the digital.

    Kurzweil believes in a future where tiny nanobots will swim through our bloodstreams, repairing and augmenting us on a molecular level until our dependence on them makes us more machine than man. Itskov has a less nuanced approach: He wants to rip our brains out of our bodies and put them into robotic avatars—and he wants the ability to do it by 2025.

    To you and I all of this talk may seem like it is coming from “Crazytown”, but these wealthy elitists actually believe this stuff.

    And in places such as Silicon Valley, enormous amounts of money is being poured into the quest for eternal life…

    Larry Ellison, the eccentric co-founder of software conglomerate Oracle, donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to life-extension therapies every year. “I don’t understand how someone can be here, then not be here,” he says. We’re not sure if Peter Thiel, co-founder of Paypal and unofficial technology advisor to US president Donald Trump, really transfused blood from younger men into his own in a search for eternal youth, but he’s definitely made an enemy of getting older. “I’ve always had this really strong sense that death was a terrible, terrible thing,” he told the Washington Post, reflecting on the millions of dollars he has donated to anti-aging research.

    Without a doubt, there are ways to extend our lifespans. Eating well and getting regular exercise are a couple of them. But very few people ever make it much past 100, and the maximum age that anyone ever gets to is about 120.

    We are only here for a limited amount of time, and this is something that the greatest thinkers throughout human history have always wrestled with. And despite all of our advanced technology, we still have not figured out a way to cheat death, although the mavens in Silicon Valley will inevitably give it their best shot. Many of them will put their faith in cryogenics, transhumanism or putting their brains into robots, but in the end they will discover that their faith has been badly misplaced.

  • Hedge Funds Piled Into Facebook Just Before The Crash: Full Q2 13-F Summary

    It wasn’t just David Einhorn who picked just the wrong time to dump most of his Apple stock: in the second quarter, some of the most iconic hedge funds like Duquesne’s Stanley Druckenmiller, Moore Capital Coatue Management and Jana Partners either bought or added to stakes in Facebook in the second quarter… just days before the company’s biggest crash in history.

    Other weres luckier, and the rich(est) got richer, as Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway boosted its stake in Apple from 239.6 million shares to 252 million shares, and added to Teva and Goldman Sachs, while trimming holdings in Wells Fargo, American Airlines, and United Continental.

    Also observed during Q2: hedge fund managers made big Q2 bets that the U.S. economy would continue to expand despite increasing concerns about a broadening trade war. Third Point added new positions in payment companies PayPal Holdings and Visa, both of which are up more than 19% year to date. Greenlight Capital, run by billionaire investor David Einhorn, added new positions in low-to-middle income retailers including Dollar Tree, Dollar General , Gap Inc and TJX Companies (or maybe he just hired a new and convincing retail analyst).

    At the same time, Reuters notes that some other large hedge fund managers cut their positions in FAANG stocks – Third Point sold all of its stake in Alphabet and divested 1 million shares of Facebook, reducing its position in the company by 25 percent. At the same time, it increased its stake in Microsoft by nearly 310 percent, buying 1.7 million shares. Omega Advisors, meanwhile, sold all of its position in Netflix.

    As noted earlier, a number of prominent HF managers sharply cut their stake in Apple only weeks before it became the first publicly traded U.S. company to be worth more than $1 trillion. Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital slashed its stake by 77%, while Philippe Laffont’s Coatue Management got rid of 95%. Advisory firm Diamond Hill Capital Management cut its stake by 27%. Other big holders, including Sanders Capital and Adage Capital Partners, trimmed only small amounts in the second quarter. On the other side of the trades were Warren Buffett and a variety of central banks and sovereign wealth funds.

    Some other observations from the latest set of 13Fs:

    • Hedge funds hummed their way into holding Spotify stock in Q2, as the company was acquired by Tiger Global, Coatue Management, Maverick Capital, Moore Capital and Soros Fund Management
    • Davidson Kempner, Soroban either exited or sold down stakes in NXP Semiconductors in the quarter before the company’s deal with Qualcomm was terminated last month, while Third Point and Highfields Capital Management added a new stake.
    • Soros Fund Management cuts bank holdings including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup
    • Jana Partners added shares of broad-based exchange-traded funds that track the S&P 500 and the Russell 2000 indexes and took new positions in Wells Fargo & Co and food delivery company GrubHub.
    • Greenlight Capital trimmed its stake in Apple along with Coatue Management before shares jumped 13 percent since the end of June.
    • Eminence Capital exited its position in Papa John’s before shares dove following news that John Schnatter, the firm’s founder and then-chairman, used a racial slur, leading him to resign.
    • Activist Corvex, fresh off Tuesday’s news that its target Energen is being purchased by Diamondback Energy, reported a new stake in MGM.

    Courtesy of Bloomberg, below is a summary of the biggest buys and sells from the latest round of 13F filings as of June 30.

    ADAGE CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: NVT, PEG, VST, MAS, D, F, OGE, FCX, TRU, BV
    • Top exits: NKTR, RTN, CQH, VVC, ETR, AGR, NDSN, PX, AEP, WCN
    • Boosted stakes in SHPG, AET, MRK, AMZN, LMT, WFC, SRPT, HON, MMM
    • Cut stakes in CC, DE, WRK, EMR, ITW, CI, PNC, BAC, DLTR, FTV

    ANCORA ADVISORS

    • Top new buys: AVGO, MIK, CLBK, HSIC, TRNC
    • Top exits: PRF, AFSI, ALLE, SKYW, RCII
    • Boosted stakes in LBRDK, PAH, MATW, HILI, GHL
    • Cut stakes in GLIBA, ARCH, HDV, GLW, IWM

    APPALOOSA MANAGEMENT

    • Top new buys: KEY, SYMC, CFG, VST, EDU, NXPI
    • Top exits: QQQ, AMAT, SMH, ALL, NVDA, HCA, BTU, URI
    • Boosted stakes in MU, WDC, LNG, WFC, PAH, PCG, KNX, KMT, SUM
    • Cut stakes in BABA, NRG, BAC, MGM, ALLY, AGN, XPO, GOOG, AMLP

    BALYASNY ASSET MANAGEMENT

    • Top new buys: T, BBY, WMT, ERJ, LNC
    • Top exits: BURL, AIG, VIPS, URI, HTZ
    • Boosted stakes in WFC, STI, DLTR, EVRG, DWDP
    • Cut stakes in DIS, AA, NTRS, V, DRI

    BAUPOST GROUP

    • Top new buys: TRCO, SBGI, TBIO, SHPG
    • Top exits: PBF, IMOS, FWP, OREXQ
    • Boosted stakes in FOXA, FOX, PCG, ABC, AGN, TMQ, VSAT, MCK
    • Cut stakes in LN

    BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

    • Top exits: VRSK
    • Boosted stakes in AAPL, USB, TEVA, BK, DAL, GM, GS, LUV, AXTA
    • Cut stakes in AAL, PSX, CHTR, UAL, WFC

    BLUE HARBOUR GROUP

    • Top new buys: GWR
    • Top exits: FTNT, JACK, RDC, MDRX
    • Boosted stakes in WCC, IWM, FCE/A, AXTA, SPY, OTEX, COMM
    • Cut stakes in XLNX, MD, ON, ISBC

    BRIDGEWATER ASSOCIATES

    • Top new buys: CMI, AMAT, BABA, BMY, WMT, JNJ, LMT, AKAM, PHM, INTC
    • Top exits: PG, GE, DVA, RIG, PEP, CPB, AMGN, FCX, DRI, MAS
    • Boosted stakes in TD, RY, IEMG, TOL, CVX, MCD, SU, TEL, BNS, CAT
    • Cut stakes in VWO, EEM, SPY, NFX, FB, SWN, CLF, BBBY, ABC, BIIB

    CITADEL ADVISORS

    • Top new buys: KDP, EQH, EVRG, BNS, BJ SBUX
    • Top exits: AMD, USG, BABA
    • Boosted stakes in C, AMAT, AMZN, V, KEY, DVN, MU
    • Cut stakes in AVGO, ADI, LRCX, UTX, CSCO, ABT

    CLINTON GROUP INC

    • Top new buys: EL, CAT, LMT, MCK, VZ, CCE, FITB, LOPE, AGNC, ABX
    • Top exits: MON, DRI, MA, LLY, JNPR, BCO, PEP, TWTR, HDS, CDNS
    • Boosted stakes in PGR, HRB, COLM, WLK, DNB, ITW, CMD, ROK, MO, SNPS
    • Cut stakes in FB, D, GOOGL, ABBV, AVY, REG, WCG, AMGN, EA, HSY

    COATUE MANAGEMENT

    • Top new buys: SPOT, INTC, NOW, AAXN, HTZ, HUYA
    • Top exits: SNAP, RHT, WDC, CGNX, LRCX
    • Boosted stakes in FB, MSFT, ADBE, ATVI, PYPL, TAL
    • Cuts stakes in MU, AAPL, AVGO, BABA, FWONK

    CORVEX MANAGEMENT

    • Top new buys: MGM, VNO, MDB, MHK, CHTR, LCA, FOXA, CTL
    • Top exits: BABA, EVHC, KDP, IQ
    • Boosted stakes in TMUS, NXPI, JBLU, BAC, MSFT
    • Cut stakes in EGN, CRM, GOOGL, MDCO, FG, NOW, ICE, FB

    DUQUESNE FAMILY OFFICE

    • Top new buys: FB, GILD, OIH, MPC, SPLK, ADSK, DVN, ATVI, XLE, HD
    • Top exits: INTC, NKTR, MU, JD, QCOM, YNDX, VIPS, STL
    • Boosted stakes in MSFT, BABA, WDAY, CTRP, PAGS
    • Cut stakes in GOOGL, STMP, AMZN

    ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT

    • Top new buys: DVN, VMW, FOX, SRE
    • Top exits: EGN, TER, NOMD, VICI
    • Boosted stakes in HES, DISH, EQT, MFGP, QQQ, ATHN, WIN, NXPI
    • Cut stakes in CDK, ISBC, WIT, IMPV

    EMINENCE CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: BERY, SYMC, QSR, HLT, HAIN, MHK, BECN, CPLG, CTRP, EQIX
    • Top exits: PZZA, NEWR, JACK
    • Boosted stakes in ELLI, TTWO, VMC, LEN, CF, EFX, EA, GOOG
    • Cut stakes in WEN, ICE, MSFT, CBRE, ADSK, PYPL, IQV, FB, CYBR

    ENGAGED CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: UEIC, CASY, GRPN
    • Top exits: FNSR, MX, IWM
    • Boosted stakes in APOG, STKL, BHE, BW, NCR, PETX
    • Cut stakes in CCRN

    FAIRHOLME CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: C
    • Top exits: SRG
    • Boosted stakes in T, VSTO, OAK
    • Cut stakes in JOE, SHLD, VST

    GLENVIEW CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: NVT, MSFT, FBHS, HOLX
    • Top exits: TMUS, CAH, RLGY, CMCSA, V, HUM, FB
    • Boosted stakes in ESRX, FDC, CHTR, AET, ENDP, AGN, ARMK, MTOR, MCK, CNDT
    • Cut stakes in HCA, LH, ANTM, CAR, IQV, UHS, NWL, CVS, WBA, APTV

    GOLDEN GATE CAPITAL

    • New buy: GWR
    • Exits: KLXI
    • Boosted stakes in ARCC, HXL, ADS, WCC, ALB
    • Cut stakes in NGVT, TNET

    GREENLIGHT CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: GPS, DG, TJX, AZO, DLTR, BBY
    • Top exits: CEIX, DDS, TPR, BLMN, FIVE, ANF, PYPL, URBN, SFM, ODP
    • Boosted stakes in IAC, BHF
    • Cut stakes in MU, AER, AAPL, MYL, VOYA, PRGO, CNDT, ADNT, CNX, DSW

    HIGHFIELDS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

    • Top new buys: NXPI, CVS, FB, LEN, PBR/A, SNE, ESRX, ACWI, MHK
    • Top exits: EXPE, HDS, DLTR, IVZ, ENB, HAL, X, PE, MDLZ, TGT
    • Boosted stakes in CHTR, AET, GOOGL, DIS, GOOG, EQT, RJF, MIK
    • Cut stakes in HCA, FOXA, FDX, CMCSA, PXD, HLT, VER, H, VOD, CCE

    ICAHN ASSOCIATES

    • Top new buys: EGN, VMW, AFSI, CI
    • Boosted stakes in IEP, NWL
    • Cut stakes in HLF, LNG

    JANA PARTNERS

    • Top new buys: FB, BABA, MSFT, WFC, DXC, GOOGL, RPM, GRUB, ATUS
    • Top exits: BLMN, NOC, KDP, WRK, CI, DISCK, IQ, ILG, ILPT, DBX
    • Boosted stakes in PF, SPY, EA, CAG, A, AAPL
    • Cut stakes in TIF, LRCX, HDS, ADSK, BSX, GM, ZBH, FDC, JACK, ANTM

    LAKEWOOD CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: ESRX, ASND, FB
    • Top exits: CJ, ABG,
    • Boosted stakes in C, BIDY, WRK, CMCSA
    • Cut stakes in CIT, ADNT, RLGY

    LAND & BUILDINGS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT

    • New buy: DHI
    • Top exits: RLJ, MAR, RESI, VTI, HST
    • Boosted stakes in CLI, BKD, LEN, INVH, PLD
    • Cut stakes in LSI, MAC, QTS

    LONE PINE CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: CP, NVDA, MHK
    • Top exits: AVGO, TSM, BLK, TMUS, EXAS
    • Boosted stakes in WYNN, TDG, MSFT, BABA, NOW, MELI, GOOG, IQV, BKNG, PAGS
    • Cut stakes in FB, PYPL, STZ, ADBE, AMZN, FLT, EA, TRU, CSX, UNH

    MARCATO CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: IMAX, CPLG
    • Boosted stakes in TEX, THRM
    • Cut stakes in IAC, ITRI, DXC, BLDR, AIR, TPHS, VRTS

    MAVERICK CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: DIS, AAOI, GPK, SPOT, ALNY, PRSP, COMM, CASY, GPS, TGT
    • Top exits: TAP, SNAP, MGM, PM, LVS, CAR, WING, DPZ, ETSY, EAT
    • Boosted stakes in DLTR, MA, CNC, TMUS, MHK, CIEN, BUD, MSFT, KORS, SCHW
    • Cut stakes in V, UHS, EVHC, DWDP, AMRX, ADBE, WTW, VFC, TIF, TPR

    MARSHALL WACE

    • Top new buys: TMUS, AXGN, TSM, BRX, IDXX, GPS, CMG, ACGL, JEC, MTN
    • Top exits: SCI, NTRS, CME, NKE, MU, SRCL, JPM, IBN, FLT, AXP
    • Boosted stakes in TFX, ATVI, BBY, DGX, SPGI, MCD, BURL, ROST, ZTS, VRTX
    • Cut stakes in BABA, BAC, DISCK, AVGO, UNH, SAGE, GS, AJG, GILD

    MOORE CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: NXPI, GOOGL, WFC, MA, SPOT, TGT, FDC, AMP, KMX
    • Top exits: MS, AAPL, GS, LMT, NOC, RTN, GD, COF, BPOP, PLNT
    • Boosted stakes in GCP, FB, EQT, PX, FBP, MOMO, NVDA, CME, GM, TMUS
    • Cut stakes in BABA, BAC, MSFT, AVGO, CCI, ISBC, V, TWTR, EA, VOYA

    OMEGA ADVISORS

    • Top new buys: NRG, IQV, LEN, MPC, CVS, KKR, MGY, WRD, CDAY, IMMU
    • Top exits: BMY, WFC, NAVI, NFLX, NYCB, GWPH, GLPI, D, BKI, NINE
    • Boosted stakes in SBGI, ASH, HUM, TRN, C, FTSI, MU, TMO, PE, FRAC
    • Cut stakes in SHPG, ANDV, MXL, PVH, DXC, DISH, AER, VVV, PFSI, ALLY

    PAULSON & CO

    • Top new buys: MITL, AKRX, CMCSA, ATUS, FOXA, LHO
    • Top exits: MDR
    • Boosted stakes in DISCK, NXPI, FOX, AET, XL, TMUS
    • Cut stakes in GOLD, IAG, COL, AEM, GG, SHPG

    PERSHING SQUARE

    • Top new buys: LOW
    • Boosted stakes in UTX, MDLZ
    • Cut stakes in ADP, QSR

    POINT72 ASSET MANAGEMENT

    • Top new buys: MPC, FOXA, TEVA, SGEN, WMGI, PNC, SGMS, AZO, LOXO, HUM
    • Top exits: ANDV, NFLX, HON, LOW, MCD, AIG, NVDA, BYD, ETN, CAH
    • Boosted stakes in GOOGL, HLT, BMY, PE, BIDU, SYK, DVN, CMCSA, DXC
    • Cut stakes in WYNN, AVGO, STZ, OXY, ATVI, FB, BKNG, DWDP, BABA, LRCX

    POINTSTATE CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: MPC, FB, CVX, TEVA, PXD, NXPI, STM, USFD, NOW, APC
    • Top exits: BAC, CFG, AVGO, DE, RF, FCAU, MYL, GS, NOC, GILD
    • Boosted stakes in TRGP, AET, FE, NFLX, SHPG, MSFT, BABA, ADBE, VRTX, JD
    • Cut stakes in CRM, LRCX, LNG, LOW, DWDP, LOMA, BMA, LLL, LYB, X

    RENAISSANCE TECHNOLOGIES

    • Top new buys: AAPL, FB, MSFT, MS, AXP, ITW, CME, WY, FL, AMG
    • Top exits: BKNG, VZ, MON, PG, WFC, SLB, TWX, KO, CVS, BDX
    • Boosted stakes in VMW, ABMD, JNJ, WMT, VRTX, HLF, ABEV, WWE, GS, CTXS
    • Cut stakes in HD, AMZN, BMY, LLY, PEP, UNH, NXPI, PM, CL, GILD

    SANDELL ASSET MANAGEMENT

    • Top new buys: KLXI, PAY, ANDV, GPT, EVHC, ILG, EDR, PF, COTV
    • Top exits: STB, BABA, AKRX, BKS
    • Boosted stakes in COL, NXPI, AVA, ORBK, XL, FB, AMZN, AAPL, MSFT, GOOG
    • Cut stakes in OCLR, MGI, KS

    SENATOR INVESTMENT

    • Top new buys: MRK, FOXA, HD, BKI, LNG
    • Top exits: AVGO, ARNC, LOW, BUD, CMCSA
    • Boosted stakes in CZR, ICE, APTV, FDC, BA
    • Cut stakes in DWDP, DHI, JAZZ, FG, XPO

    SOROBAN CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: GOOGL, UTX, GRA, MHK
    • Top exits: BUD, CMCSA, LBRDK, FB, CHTR
    • Boosted stakes in SAP, NSC, AXTA
    • Cuts stake in NXPI, UNP, MGM, AVGO, FWONK, GOOG

    SOROS FUND MANAGEMENT

    • Top new buys: SPOT, P, COUP, FB, DVN, EXR, HUBS, HLT
    • Top exits: KW, LRCX, AMLP, ZAYO, BAX, TMO, LH, TGT, CI, KRE
    • Boosted stakes in NXPI, XL, I, LPLA, NOW, CRM, TTWO, LULU, CVE, ETFC

    STARBOARD VALUE

    • Top new buys: WEB, RPM, SCOR
    • Top exits: EVHC, BCO
    • Boosted stakes in BMS, IWN, PRGO
    • Cut stakes in NWL, MAC, CARS, BAX, DEPO

    TEMASEK HOLDINGS

    • Top new buys: ASLN
    • Top exits: KRE, JPM, BAC, WFC, MS, GS, SENS, RDUS
    • Boosted stakes in CTL, HDB, PYPL, V, GPN, MA, PTLA, DWDP, WP, AVGO
    • Cut stakes in VIRT, AMRS, NETS, AMZN, BABA

    TIGER GLOBAL

    • Top new buys: UXIN, COUP, ADBE, GDS, HUYA, PVTL, DOCU, NEW, CDAY
    • Top exits: EHIC, SINA, ARCC, UAL
    • Boosted stakes in TWTR, FB, NOW, MELI, RUN, BABA, SE, APO, CRM, ADSK
    • Cut stakes in RDFN, JD, TDG, MSFT

    THIRD POINT

    • Top new buys: NXPI, PYPL, V, CPB, DE, FPAC, EGN, PVH, CWH
    • Top exits: GOOGL, ICE, MHK, PAGS, ANTM, GGAL, GRBK, PAM, BKI, SUPV
    • Boosted stakes in MSFT, ADBE, EA, MPC, UTX, DWDP, CRM, SHY, DOV
    • Cut stakes in BLK, WP, STZ, FB, LEN, WYNN, SPGI, SHW, VMC

    TRIAN

    • Top new buys: NVT
    • Boosted stakes in BK, GE, MDLZ
    • Cut stakes in PNR, WEN, SYY
    • Activist investor Trian takes new stake in undisclosed company

    TUDOR INVESTMENT

    • Top new buys: AVHI, HD, CHFN, SHPG, VZ, FFKT, LHO, FBNK, NKE, ANDV
    • Top exits: SPB, SBUX, DLTR, DECK, DXC, MSI, PEP, AIG, SPGI, IR
    • Boosted stakes in PF, FOXA, TGT, TJX, BIDU, COL, AAPL, AET, JPM, CMCSA
    • Cut stakes in SPY, NXPI, AMZN, C, WBA, MU, PAGS, BKNG, PDCO

    VALUEACT

    • Top new buys: UFI, LIND, STRA, AES, EVA
    • Boosted stakes in C, SLM, ADS, BHC, STX, AFI, MS
    • Cut stakes in FOX

    VIKING GLOBAL

    • Top new buys: GE, DWDP, MIDD, TMUS, ILMN, HBI, OLN, PTEN, CNC
    • Top exits: WFC, ADS, TDG, WDC, VOYA, XEC, CVS, MOMO, NTES, CLR
    • Boosted stakes in UTX, DIS, TMO, PE, AMZN, HIG, BMRN, MSFT, LNC, ANTM
    • Cut stakes in XRAY, GOOGL, TD, FB, CP, NFLX, EFX, V, BUD, ADSK

    YORK CAPITAL

    • Top new buys: NVT, CNC, USG, PRSP, T, ATUS
    • Top exits: GRA, SHPG, EVHC, WHR
    • Boosted stakes in NXPI, XL, FMC, ESRX
    • Cut stakes in TRCO, AABA, AVGO

    Source: Bloomberg

  • Visualizing What You Have To Make Each Year To Reach The Top 1% In Each State

    In 2015, the top 1% of Americans made 26.3 times as much income as the bottom 99 percent – an increase from 2013, when they earned 25.3 times as much, according to a recent study released by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank.

    The study found that from 2009 to 2015, the incomes of the top 1 percent grew faster than the incomes of the bottom 99% in 43 states and the District of Columbia.

    While we’ve covered this study before, we thought it’d be helpful to visualize what it takes to enter the top 1% income bracket in each state. The below infographic map presents the minimum annual income required to be in the top one percent.

    * * *

    A few key quick takeaways 

    The top five highest one percent income states are on the East Coast. They are…

    • Connecticut ($701K)
    • DC ($598K)
    • New Jersey ($589K)
    • Massachusetts ($583K)
    • New York ($550K)

    Here’s what it looks like at the lower end of the top one percent income states…

    • Mississippi ($254K) 
    • Arkansas ($255K) 
    • New Mexico ($255K) 
    • West Virginia ($258K) 
    • Kentucky (275K)
    • Alabama ($298K) 
    • Maine ($304)
    • Hawaii ($311K) 
    • Idaho ($315K) 

    And a surprise: why is North Dakota not too far below a state like California, or only in a single category under New York?

    • California ($515K) 
    • New York ($550K)
    • North Dakota ($445K) …well, though it doesn’t have Manhattan – one of the largest financial centers in the world – North Dakota did have a recent oil boom up through 2014. In 2015 its top one percent income level was at an incredible $502K. But since 2015 due to a global decline in oil prices the number dropped to $445K.

    Places with no state income taxes…

    • Texas ($441K)
    • Nevada ($341K)
    • Alaska ($400K)
    • Florida ($418)
    • Wyoming ($406K)
    • Washington (451K)
    • South Dakota (407K)

    To be in the top 1 percent nationally in 2015, a family needed an income of $421,926.

    * * *

    So it turns out, you have to be rich, but not that rich…

  • Ryan Zinke Shifts Wildfire Debate From 'Global Warming' To Anti-Logging 'Environmental Terrorists'

    Authored by Michael Bastasch via The Daily Caller,

    • Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lambasted “environmental terrorists groups that have not allowed public access, that refuse to allow harvest of timber.”

    • Environmentalists use litigation to keep federal agencies from thinning forests, clearing debris or allowing logging.

    • Activists want to blame global warming for wildfires, but experts say the relationship between climate and fires is complicated.

    Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke spent the last week targeting environmental groups that have for years opposed activities, like logging and thinning, to reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfires on federal lands.

    The former Montana congressman blamed “litigation from radical environmentalists who would rather see forests and communities burn than see a logger in the woods,” in a USA Today op-ed published Wednesday.

    Zinke also called out “extreme environmentalists” in an interview with KCRA that aired Sunday. The day before that, Zinke lambasted “environmental terrorists groups that have not allowed public access, that refuse to allow harvest of timber” in an interview with Breitbart Radio.

    Deadly wildfires have consumed over 1 million acres in West Coast states, damaging structures and forcing thousands to flee their homes. The recent death of a firefighter battling the nearly 350,000-acre Mendocino Complex Fire brings the death toll to six for this season.

    So what’s the point of attacking environmentalists? Zinke is taking the conversation away from global warming and bringing it back to land management, including the litigation and environmental laws that keep officials from actively managing the forests.

    Instead, activists focus on global warming, arguing human-caused warming has expanded wildfire season due to longer hotter, drier conditions in the western states. At the same time, these groups often oppose efforts to clear forests of debris and dead wood that fuel fires when hot, dry weather sets in every year.

    “I’ve heard the climate change argument back and forth,” Zinke told the Sacramento-based KCRA. “This has nothing to do with climate change. This has to do with active forest management.”

    Wildfire experts tend to see land management and urban growth as prime drivers of wildfires.

    Many experts also see global warming as a factor in the rise of fires, but admit the relationship is more complicated than the media lets on.

    “The story can’t be a simply that warming is increasing the numbers of wildfires in California because the number of fires is declining. And area burned has not been increasing either,” University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass wrote in a recent blog post.

    In fact, the recent National Climate Assessment special report gave “low to medium confidence for a detectable human climate change contribution in the western United States based on existing studies.”

    Most wildfires are caused by humans, mostly unintentionally. Sparks from vehicles or equipment, power lines, arson and cigarettes are some of the ways humans cause massive blazes. Lightning is the cause of wildfires humans don’t spark.

    In California, for example, humans caused 95 percent of all wildfires, with power lines and utility equipment becoming a growing problem. Research also shows that wildfire season has primarily grown from population growth in fire-prone areas, increasing the chances of a fire-causing spark.

    Environmentalists have obviously not taken kindly to Zinke’s remarks, but are particularly incensed by his dismissal of global warming as a driver of catastrophic wildfires.

    Randi Spivak, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the administration is missing the main issue by being dismissive of climate change’s effect on the fires.

    “Climate change creates drought, high wind conditions, low humidity. Fire creates its own weather,” Randi Spivak, the public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The Hill.

    “You can thin all you want till the cows come home but fire will overtake that,” Spivak said, adding “what is misleading is people like Zinke and other people who refuse to talk about climate change and how we need to tackle that.”

    “Name calling and finger pointing won’t change the truth that climate change is exacerbating wildfires,” echoed the Sierra Club’s Athan Manuel. “The long-term safety of our communities relies on reducing carbon pollution.”

    Zinke actually did say fire season had gotten longer and temperatures had warmed, but added that “doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility to remove the dead and dying timber and manage our forests so you don’t have these catastrophic burns.”

    But Zinke is correct that environmental litigation has kept federal agencies, including the Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service, from thinning, clearing debris and conducting prescribed burns to keep forest growth in check.

    A 2014 study published in the Journal of Forestry found “[v]egetative management, or logging projects continued to be the dominant type of management activity involved in Forest Service land management litigation, representing nearly three times more cases than any other type of management activity.”

    The Forest Service was found more likely to lose cases “where plaintiffs advocated for less resource use,” particularly in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where the agency won less than half its cases.

    In fact, the 9th Circuit on Monday overturned a Forest Service plan for part of Idaho’s Payette National Forest. The judge sided with environmental groups and ruled “renders the Project inconsistent with the desired vegetative conditions set forth in the Payette Forest Plan” from 2003.

    The service’s plan that got overturned included getting “fire conditions toward historical range of variability to reduce wildland fire risk, improve wildlife habitat” through “mechanical thinning, harvest and prescribed burning.”

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Aug 14

Today’s News 14th August 2018

  • Kim Dotcom Warns Of Economic Collapse – Says "Buy Gold And Bitcoin"

    Kim Dotcom (Kim Schmitz), a controversial internet pirate and cryptocurrency advocate, recently urged all 736k followers to immediately buy gold and Bitcoin because President Trump is sleepwalking into a tremendous fiscal collision.

    “1 TRILLION DOLLARS in additional US Govt debt PER YEAR!” warned Dotcom.

    “US spending is funded by lenders who will never get paid. US Empire will collapse followed by a worldwide economic collapse. http://usdebtclock.org,” he added.

    “Shift your USD into Gold & Bitcoin asap before USD becomes toilet paper.”

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

    Dotcom began the warnings last week, which he said: “Trump was handed an Empire on life support,” and that “Top economists around the world agree that US debt is unsustainable. There is no sugar coating this. US Empire is broke. Prepare for collapse.”

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

    On Sunday, Dotcom cited Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov in a recent interview who said the US Dollar is becoming an unreliable tool for payments in international trade. The minister did not rule out the possibility of using national currencies instead of the US Dollar in the oil trade.

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

    About an hour later on Sunday morning, Dotcom tweeted again at his followers telling them about a simple hedging strategy (buy gold and bitcoin) against a potential economic crisis, which he believes could make the greenback worthless and result into a very “big crash” for markets.

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

    While he did not reveal the reason(s) behind the economic collapse, his tweets are perhaps not out of line, given the fact that the federal government ran a monthly budget deficit of $77 billion in July, up 79 percent from prior year. For the first ten months of 2018, the shortfall totals $684 billion, according to the Treasury Department. That is about an increase of 21 percent compared to the same period in 2017.

    The exploding deficit has been primarily driven by Trump’s tax cuts, record military spending, and numerous other spending bills. Trump told the American people that tax cuts would lead to stronger economic growth, boost wages, deliver more tax revenue and reduce the deficit.

    While some of Trump’s statements could be true, real wage growth is being wiped out by inflation, and new evidence suggests that companies spent a majority of tax cuts on stock buybacks.

    The deficit is projected to hit $793 billion at the end of the year and approach $1 trillion in 2019. According to the latest Monthly Treasury Statement, interest payments to service the debt have hit a new high and are forecasted to become the fastest rising yearly expenditure.

    And lastly, we leave you with an excerpt from a recent note via Charles Gave of why the next economic crisis could already be here: 

    “So, if I take the US monetary base, and add to it the reserves deposited by foreign central banks at the Fed, I get my figure for the World Monetary Base. From this aggregate, I can get a rough idea of the pace of base money creation around the world, either through direct intervention by the Fed in the US banking system, or indirectly through US dollar accumulation by foreign central banks. When the WMB is growing, I can be relatively confident about the future nominal growth of the global economy. And when it’s contracting, it makes very good sense to worry about a recession.”

    As the chart above shows, the Monetary Base is now contracting. So based, on Gave’s four decades of experience in financial markets, it seems to him the world could be entering its “seventh international dollar liquidity crisis since 1973.” We took Gave’s research just one step further — and highlighted that the next crisis could have already started with Turkey’s Lira collapse.

  • UN Gives Unconditional 'Green Light' For Shifting "The Rescued" To Europe

    Via GEFIRA,

    The global establishment goes out of its way to increase the number of immigrants in Europe. If the governments of particular states such as Hungary, Poland or now Italy oppose these activities, they are internationally marginalized. And if an action goes counter to the plans of international organizations, they are trying to come up with new legal interpretations that will be binding on the parties concerned. All of which is only possible because the EU member countries have relinquished their sovereignty and transferred it to international institutions.

    The Italian authorities, which are increasingly strongly opposed to the pressure from the UN and non-governmental organizations, are effectively counteracting the stream of African immigrants. Thus Italy ceases to be the main migratory route to Europe, which is not accepted by the NGOs or international institutions. Still, events from the end of July related to the Italian ship Asseo Ventotto, as described below, make migration from Europe legal and even desirable.

    In recent years it was Italy that has accepted most of the refugees. The new government has decided to take more decisive steps to stop this process. The first measure was the gradual closure of ports to non-governmental organizations transporting “refugees”. The second is to send undocumented immigrants back to Africa.

    The resolve of the Italian authorities have triggered attacks by non-governmental organizations that have hailed the government’s representatives as fascists, simply because they want to pursue the will of voters and restrict immigration. 3)both the UN and the EU question the legality of Rome’s actions. The Italian-Libyan cooperation is also under international pressure because it aims to redirect the refugees heading for Italy to Libya. The European Court of Human Rights has submitted the procedures for the prevention of migration in the Mediterranean to scrutiny.

    The event from last month provides a precedent. On 30th of July, the Asso Ventotto, a ship owned by Augusta Offshore, the Italian oil and gas production company, picked up, only 6.4 km from Libyan territorial waters, a dinghy with more than a hundred immigrants, which was required by the maritime law. Acting on the advice of the Libyan Coast Guard, the Asso Ventotto crew transported the rescued to the nearest port, i.e. to Tripoli. It was like throwing down the gauntlet to non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International, Sea-Watch or activists of Proactiva Open Arms, which suggested that the safest place for survivors would be Europe.

    UN diplomats couldn’t agree more. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, stated on Twitter that the transfer of survivors to countries where human rights might be violated may constitute a violation of international standards. Thus, according to Grandi, immigrants which were picked up near Libyan territorial waters should be transported to countries where they will find a safe haven, to Italy, Greece or Spain, rather than to Libya, which is recognized by both the UN and the EU as a country dangerous for the survivors.

    The government in Rome, however, indicates that Italy is not responsible for the fate of fleeing Africans who are not in Italian territorial waters. Such an attitude, however, does not appeal to world diplomats. Considering the fact that the UN and the EU single-handedly define a list of dangerous states, the above situation opens the ground for a new interpretation of international law. In the light of it, the UN agenda may give the green light to non-governmental organizations to pick up “refugees” from international waters and transport them to Europe as well as impose an obligation on all ships, including private ones, to transport immigrants not to the nearest but to the safest ports, never mind the cost of the shipment or the interrupted works. Closing ports to ships carrying immigrants will also be banned.

    The Gefira Foundation has already proven that international institutions are seeking to manage the migration flow and they maintain that this movement of people is “unavoidable, desirable and necessary”. We expect the Italian government to continue to oppose the recommendations of global organizations, which will probably entail its isolation on the European political stage. The steps taken by the authorities in Rome will cause African smugglers to move from Libya to Morocco. The short distance from the Black Continent and the moral support from the UN and the EU will turn Spain into an ideal destination instead of Italy. Thus, the Iberian Peninsula will become the largest window for immigrants who want to get to Europe.

  • China Steps Up Live-Fire Naval Exercises On "Enemy" Targets

    China has been stepping up its maritime combat readiness, according to analysts responding to official reports that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had staged at least three naval drills over the past week. 

    On Monday, the Southern Theatre Command acknowledged over social media that a frigate fleet had recently performed drills – including simulated anti-submarine attacks and live-fire exercises, aimed at putting PLA forces through increasingly complex and realistic training scenarios. 

    The command, which is one of five such units established by President Xi Jinping to represent China’s five strategic locations, did not disclose the locations of the exercises, but its area of responsibility encompasses the disputed South China Sea.

    The images published online appeared to show at least five frigates and two helicopters taking part in the drills. –SCMP

    Xinhua news reported on Saturday that over 10 warships from three theatre commands participated in a large-scale missile and air defense exercise in the East China Sea. Anti-air attack missiles were fired from two corvettes – the Meizhou and the Tongren, to intercept simulated “enemy” targets, while serving under the command of guided missile frigate Jingzhou – which observed and gathered data. 

    The third drill took place in the Yellow Sea between Friday and Monday, according to China’s Maritime Safety Administration – which did not release any more data than the location. 

    Some observers have speculated that the exercise may have included China’s first domestically produced aircraft carrier – the Type 001A, due to the drill’s proximity to Quingdao – the ship’s home port in the eastern China province of Shandong. 

    The exercises come amid a growing trade war between Washington and Beijing – as well as China’s turbulent relations with Taiwan. On Sunday, Taiwan President Stai Ing-wen embarked on a nine-day trip to Belize and Paraguay – two of just 18 nations which still maintain diplomatic ties with the island nation. 

    Military experts said that the PLA drills were intended as a show of strength to both the United States and pro-independence forces in Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a breakaway province. –SCMP

    “The anti-air and anti-missile exercises in the East China Sea are intended to ensure a safe environment for China’s aircraft carriers, which means an aircraft combat group is preparing to go further out to sea,” said military observer Song Zhongping, who added “It sends a very clear signal to Taiwan’s independence forces and deters any intervention into Taiwan affairs by the US or Japan.”

    Meanwhile, military commenter Li Jie said that in the event off armed conflict between Beijing and Taipei, the East China Sea would be a primary battleground. Jie said that Beijing would not sit idly if it thought it was being provoked in the region. 

    “Although Sino-Japanese relations have warmed recently, China is still very suspicious of Japan’s military development and needs to prepare,” he said.

    Japan’s defence ministry is reported to have requested US$160 million to pay for new long-range missiles in response to the growing military threat in East Asia. –SCMP

    Beijing military expert Zhou Chenming added that the three drills were designed to test China’s naval capabilities following a sweeping program of military restructuring and modernization. 

    “Through the drills that replicate war scenarios, military authorities can better understand whether the navy needs more equipment, and also test the compatibility of its old and new weapons,” he said, adding “Most importantly, it can see whether the [navy’s] combat capability has been strengthened or not.”

  • Washington's Rebuff Of Russia's Cooperation Request In Syria Shows Its Cynicism

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

    The head of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff Valery Gerasimov asked his closest American counterpart Joseph Dunford to assist his country in jointly stabilizing Syria.

    Gen. Joe Dunford (left) and Gen. Valery Gerasimov (right), Helsinki, Finland, June 8, 2018

    Reuters reported that the proposal to cooperate on the repatriation of refugees and reconstruction projects in the Arab Republic was met with an “icy reception” by US decision makers, though this could have been expected considering that Washington had previously said that any assistance that it might provide to the government-controlled areas of Syria would be tied to the implementation of UNSC 2254’s constitutional reform and new elections.

    Furthermore, President Assad declared in late June that his government wouldn’t accept reconstruction funds from the same countries that contributed to destroying his own, though if the leaked details of Gerasimov’s message to Dunford are to be believed, then Russia’s assessment is that Damascus “lacks the equipment, fuel, other material, and funding needed to rebuild the country in order to accept refugee returns”, hence the reason for reaching out to the US.

    While there were high hopes that Presidents Putin and Trump might have reached an understanding on Syria during last month’s Helsinki Summit, it appears as though expectations might be dashed after this latest setback.

    The US veritably has an interest in focusing its reconstruction efforts and post-war development projects on the Kurdish-controlled proxy state in the northeastern agriculturally and energy-rich corner of the country that it’s already deployed roughly two thousand troops to, so there’s a certain logic to rebuffing the latest Russian offer. Even though the Kurds and Damascus have reportedly entered into talks with one another, this is unlikely to lead to the dissolution of the US’ protectorate and will probably find a way to “formalize” it through mutually acceptable “compromises” that figure into the ongoing constitutional reform process.

    Although the leaking of Gerasimov’s proposal to Dunford was probably done by Trump’s “deep state” enemies in a desperate attempt to undermine what they may have feared was the President’s “secret deal” with Putin, it inadvertently harms the US’ soft power standing because it confirms that America doesn’t really care about the welfare of the Syrian people or the return of refugees from the region and beyond in spite of its repeated statements to the contrary over the years.

    Making humanitarian and developmental assistance conditional on political factors is Machiavellian to the core but unsurprising to those who have a solid understanding of the cynicism behind American strategic planning. It’s also proof that the US is indirectly weaponizing refugees and developmental assistance in order to advance its objectives, something that its supporters have always denied but which is now undebatable.

  • Russell Napier: "Turkey Will Be The Largest EM Default Of All Time"

    Submitted by Russell Napier of ERIC

    Regular readers of the Fortnightly will know that The Solid Ground has long forecast a major debt default in Turkey. More specifically, the forecast remains that the country will impose capital controls enforcing a near total loss of US$500bn of credit assets held by the global financial system. That is a large financial hole in a still highly leveraged system. That scale of loss will surpass the scale of loss suffered by the creditors of Bear Stearns and while Lehman’s did have liabilities of US$619bn, it has paid more than US$100bn to its unsecured creditors alone since its bankruptcy.

    It is the nature of EM lending that there is little in the way of liquid assets to realize; they are predominantly denominated in a currency different from the liability, and also title has to be pursued through the local legal system. Turkey will almost certainly be the largest EM default of all time, should it resort to capital controls as your analyst expects, but it could also be the largest bankruptcy of all time given the difficulty of its creditors in recovering any assets. So the events of last Friday represent only the end of the beginning for Turkey. The true nature of the scale of its default and the global impacts of that default are very much still to come.

    Strong form capital controls produce a de facto debt moratorium, and very rapidly investors realize just how little their credit assets are worth. A de jure debt moratorium at the outbreak of The Great War in 1914 bankrupted almost the entire European banking system – it was saved by mass government intervention. While the imposition of capital controls in recent years has hit selected investors hard, in Iceland, Cyprus, Greece and key emerging markets, there has been nothing of this size and it is to be fully borne by financial institutions who believe they hold not just valuable credit assets but actually liquid credit assets! The loss of hundreds of billions of assets recently considered liquid by global financial institutions, through the de facto debt moratorium of capital controls, will be a huge shock to the global financial system. This is a different type of default and its nature, as well as its magnitude, will blindside financial institutions.

    Be in no doubt that President Erdogan has more than something of the Chavez about him. Surely we have learned, through bitter experience, that relying on discounted cash flow calculations in Excel spreadsheets is a meaningless form of analysis when a Chavez stalks the land. It really is time to put aside the spreadsheet and start thinking. To those still clinging to the security blanket of the spreadsheet, I say yet again that there is more in heaven and earth than is thought of in such binary sophistry.

    History is full of those whose ability to pay is well measured, even to more than one decimal place, but who chose not to repay their obligations. To steal once again from Hamlet, ‘one may smile, and smile, and be a villain’, and you can’t capture that in a spreadsheet. Shakespeare understood and dramatized more about human behaviour than perhaps anyone who has ever lived and it is likely he did so without even realising that the decimal point existed. (John Napier had only recently introduced it to the British Isles).

    For many years your analyst has discussed the ability of Turkey and other emerging markets to service their debt obligations. In almost all cases I have simply agreed to differ with emerging market debt teams on this issue of the ability to pay. The scale of the foreign currency debt burdens and the history of default at such high levels indicates likely defaults while the spreadsheet for each individual issuer, apparently, indicates that risks of default are minimal.

    I see the wood and EM debt investors see the trees and time will tell which type of arboreal scrutiny is the correct approach on establishing the ability to pay. Then, after that full and frank exchange of views, I have sought to raise the issue of the willingness to pay. Few, if any, have been prepared to engage in such a discussion. In a world of discount rates and cash-flows, the ability to pay and the willingness to pay are the same thing and they are enshrined in the spreadsheet. These numbers gain a sanctity that flows naturally for those with a business school education. Yet history is littered with numerous examples of those who could pay but have chosen not to pay, and a historian who points out these facts commits apostasy in the eyes of the keepers of the spreadsheets.

    Historically many have chosen not to pay because the socio-economic pain of paying has been considered too great. For a country with large foreign currency debt, in particular, a mass sale of local assets to foreigners or a crushing recession delivering a major current account surplus are the only ways to repay excessive levels of such debt. These two options are rarely compatible with re-election for politicians and are seen by the populace as sacrificing local livelihoods for the benefit of foreign financial predators. There is a blind and not touching faith from analysts educated in a stable political regime with a long history of a strong rule of law to believe that the ability to pay and the willingness to pay are the same thing. This monoculture amongst professional investors is about to cost their clients dear.

    Throughout history default is often chosen as the least bad option, and indeed just such an option is recommended by Paul Krugman in the New York Times this Saturday. It’s not just a Noble Prize winning economist who is recommending the capital control/default option as the IMF followed a similar path in their Greek bailout programme. The Solid Ground has regularly drawn attention to a paper put before the board of the IMF in early 2016 recommending a return to ‘capital flow management’ as a legitimate policy tool for governments.

    One wonders why investors expect President Erdogan, a man who has referred to them as like the loan sharks who enslaved the Ottoman Empire, to choose to repay the foreigner and accept the crushing socio-political cost on the local population of doing so? Even if Turkish institutions have the ability to pay, something your analyst has long doubted, the President will forbid them from doing so. This is a large default and it will prove to be almost a total default.

    It matters and, of course, it may be politically expedient for others to follow the advice of Paul Krugman and the IMF and choose not to repay their debt obligations to foreigners. This is the new normal. In a world where ten years of extreme monetary policy has failed to inflate away debts, it will become increasingly common to repudiate those debts. Those under the most pressure will be those with the highest levels of foreign currency debt where inflation can play no role in reducing increasingly crushing debt burdens – almost exclusively emerging markets.

    For the past few years professional investors have fretted about the implications of something widely referred to as ‘populism’. This, it seems, is a developed world phenomenon. While others see populism, all your analyst sees are sovereign peoples trying to bring power back to their elected representatives. This is a movement to strip power from multi-national organisations (the EU, WTO), multi-national corporations, independent central banks and any other body that has stripped sovereignty from elected representatives over the past three decades. That is an exercise in democracy that may well be bad for returns on, and of, capital but it is a constitutional swing within the rule of law.

    It is difficult to define this shift back towards a more representative democracy as populism, whatever you many think of the repercussions for your portfolio. I realise that many readers will disagree, but in the developed world the barbarians are really not at the gate. Things are entirely different in emerging markets.

    True populism is when political representatives, elected or otherwise, subvert the rule of law. Investors, focused as they are on the sanctity of the spreadsheet, often forget that the sacred numbers have no meaning if there is a breakdown in the rule of law and thus your right to collect your coupons, dividends and ultimately your principal. So while the fretting about so-called ‘ populism’ in the developed world continues, investors choose to ignore the retreat of the rule of law and the rise of the rule of man across the emerging markets – Turkey, Romania, Hungary, Poland, China, the Philippines, Mexico – to name just a few of the countries where the laws that protect the cash flows in those spreadsheets are likely waning as rule by man waxes.

    The move by Turkey to repudiate de facto its debt obligations will reveal the truth about populism: it is red in tooth and claw in emerging markets because it is there that title to assets and their cash flows have limited constitutional protection. That is the existential risk to capital from true populism while, in the developed world, a much longer less dramatic tussle is fought by democratically elected institutions to reassert their power of influence and control. That will also have profound impacts upon returns for investors (see Capital Management in An Age of Repression, 3Q 2016) but those impacts are entirely different from the populism in emerging markets that will see the rule of law subverted by the strong men. Utilising the authority of the IMF and Paul Krugman to default on their debt obligations is one of the easiest ways in which the strong men defend their own positions, seemingly protect their peoples and show their independence from foreign influence.

    No developed country is likely to produce a Hugo Chavez, but investors in selected EMs will de dealing with Hugo’s ghost for many years to come. Events in Turkey in the days and weeks ahead will finally expose the nature of emerging market risks in jurisdictions where there is no strong protection from a constitution to protect either citizens or capital. A major and rapid re-evaluation of EM risk is now on the cards with negative impacts for EM exchange rates and asset prices and ultimately, through a higher cost of capital, global growth.

    As subscribers are aware, there are numerous much wider implications from the Turkish default. One of the most important is the pressure on the USD/RMB exchange rate that the Fortnightly has focused on for most of this summer. China has lowered its interest rates and permitted its exchange rate to decline in a way that any central banker would do; that is any central banker without an exchange rate target. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is probably a duck, and the declining RMB, as a result of a decline in RMB interest rates, looks and quacks more like the duck of independent monetary policy every day.

    This managed exchange rate has been at the very core of global monetary policy for over two decades. It has produced an excessive growth in RMB and a matching excessive purchase of US treasuries by the PBOC. The impact has thus been to boost Chinese nominal GDP growth and also boost US and global growth by depressing the level of the global risk-free rate – the yield on US treasuries. Boosting growth and reducing discount rates is the double nirvana that produces higher equity prices. In the 3Q Quarterly Report, The Solid Ground will focus on the huge ramifications from the end of that relationship being probably the most important breakdown in the structure of the global monetary system.

    In the meantime, events in Turkey will send the USD ever higher, as EMs seek to repay their foreign currency debt and scramble to buy the USD to do so. In a very strong USD world the weakness of the RMB will be revealed as not just a temporary, perhaps cyclical, phenomenon but as the structural change that augurs a new global monetary system. As suggested in the last Fortnightly, investors should watch commodity prices in general and copper prices in particular to assess whether the net impact from the untethering of the RMB from the USD is reflationary or deflationary.

    Clearly in a world of growing EM default/repudiation and lower EM growth, China will have to pull the monetary levers even more dramatically if it is to reflate the world. China’s move looks increasingly like it has come too late to take the world smoothly to the much higher inflation that is necessary to reduce the world’s excessive debt burdens. For a time at least, repudiation and not inflation will dominate the outlook for investors, particularly those in emerging markets.

    For the past few years your analyst has focused on the structural changes to the global monetary system and warned that a focus on cyclical forces alone is an increasingly dangerous sport. As events in Turkey play out at a time of still incredibly low, developed-world interest rates, it is time to ask again how wise it is to pursue the returns of a normal cycle as the foundations of the global monetary system are shifting under your feet.

    For the first year of publication of The Solid Ground Fortnightly the prelude to each missive was a quote from the Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan. Finally your author bowed to public pressure and dropped the Dylan deluge, but the time has come again to plunder the great man’s work. Sometimes it’s not a cycle, it’s something more than that; as it was, at least socially, when Bob Dylan explained the consequences of ignoring structural shifts in January 1964:

    Come gather ’round people
    Wherever you roam
    And admit that the waters
    Around you have grown,
    And accept it that soon
    You’ll be drenched to the bone.
    If your time to you
    Is worth savin’,
    Then you better start swimmin’
    Or you’ll sink like a stone
    For the times they are a-changin’.

    The Times They Are A-Changin’ (Bob Dylan)

     

  • Google Is Constantly Tracking, Even If You Turn Off Device 'Location History'

    Perhaps it should come as no surprise that Google is actually tracking you even when you switch your device settings to Location History “off”. 

    As journalist Mark Ames comments in response to a new Associated Press story exposing Google’s ability to track people at all times even when they explicitly tell Google not to via iPhone and Android settings, “The Pentagon invented the internet to be the perfect global surveillance/counterinsurgency machine. Surveillance is baked into the internet’s DNA.”

    In but the latest in a continuing saga of big tech tracking and surveillance stories which should serve to convince us all we are living in the beginning phases of a Minority Report style tracking and pansophical “pre-crime” system, it’s now confirmed that the world’s most powerful tech company and search tool will always find a way to keep your location data.

    The Associated Press sought the help of Princeton researchers to prove that while Google is clear and upfront about giving App users the ability to turn off or “pause” Location History on their devices, there are other hidden means through which it retains the data.

    According to the AP report:

    Google says that will prevent the company from remembering where you’ve been. Google’s support page on the subject states: “You can turn off Location History at any time. With Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored.”

    That isn’t true. Even with Location History paused, some Google apps automatically store time-stamped location data without asking.

    For example, Google stores a snapshot of where you are when you merely open its Maps app. Automatic daily weather updates on Android phones pinpoint roughly where you are. And some searches that have nothing to do with location, like “chocolate chip cookies,” or “kids science kits,” pinpoint your precise latitude and longitude — accurate to the square foot — and save it to your Google account.

    The issue directly affects around two billion people using Google’s Android operating software and iPhone users relying on Google maps or a simple search.

    Among the computer science researchers at Princeton conducting the tests is Jonathan Mayer, who told the AP, “If you’re going to allow users to turn off something called ‘Location History,’ then all the places where you maintain location history should be turned off,” and added, “That seems like a pretty straightforward position to have.”

    Google, for its part, is defending the software and privacy tracking settings, saying the company has been perfectly clear and has not violated privacy ethics. 

    “There are a number of different ways that Google may use location to improve people’s experience, including: Location History, Web and App Activity, and through device-level Location Services,” a Google statement to the AP reads. “We provide clear descriptions of these tools, and robust controls so people can turn them on or off, and delete their histories at any time.”

    According to the AP, there is a way to prevent Google from storing the various location marker and metadata collection possibilities, but it’s somewhat hidden and painstaking.

    Google’s own description on how to do this as a result of the AP inquiry is as follows:

    To stop Google from saving these location markers, the company says, users can turn off another setting, one that does not specifically reference location information. Called “Web and App Activity” and enabled by default, that setting stores a variety of information from Google apps and websites to your Google account.

    When paused, it will prevent activity on any device from being saved to your account. But leaving “Web & App Activity” on and turning “Location History” off only prevents Google from adding your movements to the “timeline,” its visualization of your daily travels. It does not stop Google’s collection of other location markers.

    You can delete these location markers by hand, but it’s a painstaking process since you have to select them individually, unless you want to delete all of your stored activity.

    Of course, the more constant location data obviously means more advertising profits and further revenue possibilities for Google and its clients, so we fully expect future hidden tracking loopholes to possibly come to light. 

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

    Beginning in 2014, Google has utilized user location histories to allow advertisers to track the effectiveness of online ads at driving foot traffic. With the continued possibility of real-time tracking to generate billions of dollars, it should come as no surprise that Google would seek to make it as difficult (or perhaps impossible?) as it can for users to ensure they aren’t tracked.

    As for the government, we can only imagine the creative surveillance “fun” Washington’s 16+ intelligence agencies are having with such a powerful tool right now. 

  • Robot Powered By Raspberry Pi Finds Waldo In 4.5 Seconds

    When the history books are written after the robot uprising, should we survive, a sad chapter will be devoted to the day humans were bested at yet another simple feat by one of our silicon overlords; finding Waldo.

    According to The Verge, creative agency Redpepper has created There’s Waldo – robotic metal arm made by Ufactory with a Vision Camera Kit and a floppy prosthetic hand attached to it, all powered by a tiny Raspberry Pi computer.

    The camera takes a photo of the page, which then uses OpenCV to find the possible Waldo faces in the photo. The faces are then sent to be analyzed by Google’s AutoML Vision service, which has been trained on photos of Waldo. If the robot determines a match with 95 percent confidence or higher, it’ll point to all the Waldos it can find on the page. –The Verge

    Google’s Cloud AutoML, available since January, allows users to train their own AI tools without prior coding knowledge using a drag-and-drop tool for image recognition purposes. The tool can be trained for a variety of cases, such as categorizing photos. 

    Redpepper creative technologist Matt Reed told The Verge via email: “I got all of the Waldo training images from Google Image Search; 62 distinct Waldo heads and 45 Waldo heads plus body. I thought that wouldn’t be enough data to build a strong model but it gives surprisingly good predictions on Waldos that weren’t in the original training set.”

    Reed was inspired by Amazon Rekognition’s ability to recognize celebrities, and wanted to experiment on a similar system which supported cartoons. He had no prior experience with AutoML, and it took him about a week to code the robot in Python. –The Verge

     What will robots take the fun out of next? 

  • Technocrats Rule: Democracy Is 'OK' As Long As The People Rubberstamp Our Leadership

    Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

    Technocrats rule the world, East and West alike.

    We are in a very peculiar ideological and political place in which Democracy (oh sainted Democracy) is a very good thing, unless the voters reject the technocrat class’s leadership. Then the velvet gloves come off. From the perspective of the elites and their technocrat apparatchiks, elections have only one purpose: to rubberstamp their leadership.

    As a general rule, this is easily managed by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising and bribes to the cartels and insider fiefdoms who pony up most of the cash.

    This is why incumbents win the vast majority of elections. Once in power, they issue the bribes and payoffs needed to guarantee funding next election cycle.

    The occasional incumbent who is voted out of office made one of two mistakes:

    1. He/she showed a very troubling bit of independence from the technocrat status quo, so a more orthodox candidate is selected to eliminate him/her.

    2. The incumbent forgot to put on a charade of “listening to my constituency” etc.

    If restive voters can’t be bamboozled into passively supporting the technocrat status quo with the usual propaganda, divide and conquer is the preferred strategy. Only voting for the technocrat class (of any party, it doesn’t really matter) will save us from the evil Other: Deplorables, socialists, commies, fascists, etc.

    In extreme cases where the masses confound the status quo by voting against the technocrat class (i.e. against globalization, financialization, Empire), then the elites/technocrats will punish them with austerity or a managed recession.The technocrat’s core ideology boils down to this:

    1. The masses are dangerously incapable of making wise decisions about anything, so we have to persuade them to do our bidding. Any dissent will be punished, marginalized, censored or shut down under some pretext of “protecting the public” or violation of some open-ended statute.

    2. To insure this happy outcome, we must use all the powers of propaganda, up to and including rigged statistics, bogus “facts” (official fake news can’t be fake news, etc.), divide and conquer, fear-mongering, misdirection and so on.

    3. We must relentlessly centralize all power, wealth and authority so the masses have no escape or independence left to threaten us. We must control everything, for their own good of course.

    4. Globalization must be presented not as a gargantuan fraud that has stripmined the planet and its inhabitants, but as the sole wellspring of endless, permanent prosperity.

    5. If the masses refuse to rubberstamp our leadership, they will be punished and told the source of their punishment is their rejection of globalization, financialization and Empire.

    Technocrats rule the world, East and West alike. My two favorite charts of the outcome of technocrats running things to suit their elite masters are:

    The state-cartel-crony-capitalist version: the top .1% skim the vast majority of the gains in income and wealth. Globalization, financialization and Empire sure do rack up impressive gains. Too bad they’re concentrated in the top 1.%.

    The state-crony-socialist version: the currency is destroyed, impoverishing everyone but the top .1% who transferred their wealth to Miami, London and Zurich long ago. Hmm, do you discern a pattern here in the elite-technocrat regime?

    Ideology is just a cover you slip over the machine to mask what’s really going on.

    *  *  *

    My new book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

  • "Cashout": FBI Warns Of Imminent Global ATM Hack

    The FBI is warning of an “imminent” global cyberattack on ATM machines that could result in millions of dollars withdrawn from bank accounts far and wide, in a similar “cash-out” attack to one in 2009 which hit ATMs worldwide to the tune of $9 million. 

    “The FBI has obtained unspecified reporting indicating cyber criminals are planning to conduct a global Automated Teller Machine (ATM) cash-out scheme in the coming days, likely associated with an unknown card issuer breach and commonly referred to as an ‘unlimited operation’,” according to an FBI alert to banks that was obtained by noted cybersecurity expert Brian Krebs. 

    Krebs describes it as a “highly choreographed, global fraud scheme known as an “ATM cash-out,” in which crooks hack a bank or payment card processor and use cloned cards at cash machines around the world to fraudulently withdraw millions of dollars in just a few hours.” 

    “Historic compromises have included small-to-medium size financial institutions, likely due to less robust implementation of cyber security controls, budgets, or third-party vendor vulnerabilities. The FBI expects the ubiquity of this activity to continue or possibly increase in the near future,” the FBI statement reads. 

    In other words, financial institutions which haven’t upgraded to the latest and greatest in security measures are vulnerable to attack. And since banks will likely reimburse anyone affected by the breach, the FBI’s warning should particularly interest small-to-mid sized banks using outdated technology. 

    In July, two similar “unlimited operation” attacks resulted in losses of $2.4 million from the National Bank of Blacksburg according to Krebs, who broke the story. 

    In both cases, the attackers managed to phish someone working at the Blacksburg, Virginia-based small bank. From there, the intruders compromised systems the bank used to manage credits and debits to customer accounts.

    The 2016 unlimited operation against National Bank began Saturday, May 28, 2016 and continued through the following Monday. That particular Monday was Memorial Day, a federal holiday in the United States, meaning bank branches were closed for more than two days after the heist began. All told, the attackers managed to siphon almost $570,000 in the 2016 attack.

    The Blacksburg bank hackers struck again on Saturday, January 7, and by Monday Jan 9 had succeeded in withdrawing almost $2 million in another unlimited ATM cashout operation. –Krebs On Security

    Meanwhile, the FBI is advising banks on best security practices, such as two-factor authentication using physical or digital tokens, as well as beefed up password requirements. 

    The FBI issued a similar alert in 2009, after a “wave of thieves fanned out across the globe nearly simultaneously. With cloned or stolen debit cards in hand—and the PINs to go with them—they hit more than 2,100 money machines in at least 280 cities on three continents, in such countries as the U.S., Canada, Italy, Hong Kong, Japan, Estonia, Russia, and the Ukraine.”

    When it was all over—incredibly within 12 hours—the thieves walked off with a total of more than $9 million in cash. And that figure would’ve been more had the targeted ATMs not been drained of all their money.

    The alleged masterminds of this slick scheme—prosecutors charged earlier this month following an extensive FBI investigation assisted by other federal agencies and our partners around the globe—were three 20-something Eastern Europeans and an unnamed person called simply “Hacker 3.” –FBI (via archive.is)

    We’re sure the establishment’s cashless society will fix all these annoying vulnerabilities. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Aug 13

Today’s News 13th August 2018

  • Britain's Biggest Home Improvement Chain May Dump Monsanto's "Roundup" After Cancer Lawsuit

    One of the UK’s largest home improvement chains, Homebase, is considering dropping Monsanto’s Roundup line of weedkiller products amid growing concern over their use, after a California jury awarded dying former school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson $289 million in damages in a lawsuit alleging Roundup caused his advanced stage cancer. 

    The manufacturer of the weedkiller, Monsanto, has insisted that British consumers are safe to continue using Roundup products, which are widely sold at DIY stores and used by British farmers. But a spokesperson for Homebase said it would be reviewing its product range after the ruling in California.

    A spokesperson for B&Q said it had already been undertaking a broader review of all garden products in an attempt to manage the range responsibly. –The Guardian

    Johnson, a 46-year-old father of two sued the agrochemical giant, claiming his non-Hodgkins lymphoma was triggered by Roundup and Ranger Pro, a similar glyphosate herbicide that he applied up to 30 times per year. 

    In finding for the Johnson, who has months to live, the jury found that Monsanto had “acted with malice or oppression,” and should have known the weedkiller was a danger. 

    In 2007, California added Roundup to a list of cancer-causing herbicides, requiring Monsanto to add a warning label to their packaging. 

    Monsanto says it will appeal the verdict. 

    “Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews — and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world — support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement.

    Monsanto is a subsidiary of Germany’s Bayer AG, which closed on its $66 billion purchase of the agrochemical company in June. 

    On Tuesday, Johnson’s attorney Brent Wisner urged jurors to hold Monsanto liable and slap them with a verdict that would “actually change the world” – after arguing that Monsanto knew about glyphosate’s risks of cancer, but decided to ignore and bury the information. 

    The German pharmaceutical group Bayer, which owns Monsanto, said: “Bayer is confident, based on the strength of the science, the conclusions of regulators around the world and decades of experience, that glyphosate is safe for use and does not cause cancer when used according to the label.”

    The scientific world, however, has raised doubts about glyphosate. A ruling in 2015 by the World Health Organization’s international agency for research on cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. –The Guardian

    “This is a landmark case, which highlights not only the problems caused by glyphosate, but also the whole system of pesticide use. We need to urgently change our systems of weed control to stop relying on herbicides,” said Emma Hockridge, head of policy at the UK’s soil association, who described the Monsanto ruling as a “dramatic blow” to the pesticide industry. 

    The UK’s National Farmers’ Union, on the other hand, doesn’t believe the use of the pesticide should be reviewed following the CA court’s decision. 

    “We’re in the same place as when they ruled it was safe to use. We don’t think the opinion of a Californian jury should change that,” said The NFU’s deputy president, Guy Smith – an active livestock and arable farmer. 

    “Its most common use in UK farming is to kill weeds in the autumn before seeds are planted. On my land right now, I’m spraying it today. Without glyphosate, I would have to plough and cultivate the land. That would use extra diesel, which is bad for the soil and the environment.”

  • Is The Swedish Government Funding Anti-Semitism?

    Authored by Nima Gholam Ali Pour via The Gatestone Institute,

    As major Swedish cities such as Malmö have become known as places where Jews are threatened, anti-Semitism in Sweden has attracted international attention. Does Sweden, however, really deserve this bad reputation or is there some misunderstanding?

    In December 2017, when US President Donald J. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, demonstrations broke out in Malmö. Protesters, often people with an Arab background, shouted, “We want our freedom back and we’re going to shoot the Jews”, and a chapel at the Jewish cemetery was attacked with firebombs. In Gothenburg, the city’s synagogue was also attacked with firebombs.

    The synagogue in Gothenburg, Sweden was firebombed on December 9, 2017. (Image source: Lintoncat/Wikimedia Commons)

    The local newspaper in Malmö, Kvällsposten, described how the Jewish congregation in Malmö — not Israelis; Swedish Jews — tries to protect itself:

    “At the synagogue in Malmö, the Jewish congregation has set up poles to prevent attacks with vehicles. In addition, the building is protected by a high fence around the building. The area has been guarded for a long time by the police. As soon as the congregation holds a service, the premises are guarded by the police.”

    One could fairly say that the Jews in Malmö are under siege. Reports also note that Jews in Malmö cannot wear any Jewish symbols in public without the risk of being attacked.

    Only the most brazen and explicit anti-Semitic acts are reported by the Swedish media. Many organizations that spread implicit anti-Semitism receive no attention from either the Swedish media or the so-called “anti-racist” movements. The group Youth Against Settlements (YAS), for example, which has its base in Hebron, visits high schools and holds lectures in Sweden, and is conducting a campaign against the Jewish residents of Hebron. One student described what was said when YAS visited the Glokala Folkhögskolan school in Malmö on February 28, 2018:

    “They talked about there being checkpoints everywhere in the country [Israel] and that Arabs are constantly being stopped and beaten down, killed. They also said that the Palestinians lived in concentration camps, kind of like the Second World War. And that Israel sees and hears everything. Like they had cameras everywhere and observed everything. I mean there was a lot of bullshit that they said. Towards the end, everybody was forced to take pictures with their flag. I had to pretend to go to the bathroom to avoid it. Really sick!”

    Another student said about the YAS visit:

    “The most controversial thing that was mentioned was that Jews control the United States and the media.”

    These interviews with the students were conducted by a Swedish blogger, Tobias Petersson, who published them on his blog. That public high schools received visits from an organization that demonizes Israel and makes false and outrageous anti-Semitic statements should, at the very least, have been investigated by the media. But the Swedish media ignored the defamation and neither verified nor repudiated the information.

    Instead, the two individuals who represented YAS and were touring in Sweden, Zleikha Al Muhtaseb and Anas Amro, were described as “peace activists”. On their Facebook pages, however, knife attacks, martyrdom and intifada are celebrated. YAS also supported the recent riots at the border between Israel and Gaza, despite these riots having led to more Palestinians being killed, worsening the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and having been organized by Hamas, an anti-Semitic terrorist organization that outspokenly seeks to destroy Israel.

    YAS was invited to hold lectures for public institutions in Sweden; and the foreign minister of Sweden, Margot Wallström, met with YAS when she visited Ramallah in December 2016. As such, YAS became an organization legitimized by the Swedish government. When organizations such as YAS visit Sweden and are received unquestioningly, with open arms, by high schools and other public institutions, this kind of welcome legitimizes the type of anti-Semitism that is presented, no matter how false, as a supposedly reliable view of Israel.

    Another organization that clearly has anti-Semitic tendencies and is supported by public institutions in Sweden is Group 194. Its name, which derives from United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, adopted on December 11, 1948, during the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli War that followed the founding of Israel. Resolution 194 says, among other things:

    “…the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible…”

    The resolution is used by many Palestinians to try to prove international recognition of a “right to return” to what is today the heartland of Israel, to erase Israel, as maps of “Palestine” openly display, and ostensibly to reclaim homes that 70 years later are likely no longer there.

    Group 194, a pro-Palestinian political organization, has close ties with the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), a terrorist group that has murdered at least 36 Israeli civilians, and which supports the Assad regime in Syria. That is why it seemed strange when the Labor and Social Services Board of the Municipality of Malmö, on October 27, 2017 granted 132,000 kronor (roughly $15,000) to Group 194 and two other organizations, so they could patrol the suburb of Rosengård at night, supposedly in order to make the area safe. For full disclosure, the author, as a member of this municipal board, and a few of his fellow party colleagues voted against this proposal; the majority of the board, however, supported it. Today, it is a fact that pro-Palestinian organizations are funded by the municipality of Malmö.

    Group 194 supports violent extremism. On their Facebook page one can see pictures of minors holding Kalashnikov rifles. There also have been anti-Semitic images on Group 194’s Facebook page, such as a defamatory cartoon portraying a Jew drinking blood and eating a child.

    Why does the municipality of Malmö support such an organization with taxpayers’ money? The reason is that Malmö and Sweden have serious problems in dealing with imported, Middle Eastern anti-Semitism. When Swedish politicians — because of ignorance or tolerance for intolerant behavior — accept anti-Semitism in an important Swedish city as Malmö, that is an unacceptable problem. It is also unacceptable when a majority of local politicians in Sweden’s third-largest city support taxpayer money going to a pro-Palestinian organization that has made anti-Semitic statements and promoted violence. It reveals that too many Swedish politicians apparently cannot even recognize what anti-Semitism looks like and when and how to take a stand against it. What are Swedish Jews to think?

    Group 194 was also given an award by the municipality of Malmö at a gala it organized, and has received contributions from various municipalities in Sweden for several years, including Sundsvall and Landskrona, where the municipality has a close cooperation with Group 194. When Landskrona had its official summer party, one of its organizers was Group 194.

    Ship To Gaza is an organization that usually gets a lot of media publicity. When one of its activists, Ferry Saarposhan, stated that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians “is worse than the Holocaust,” the Swedish media stayed silent. The video clip of his statement is posted on the official Facebook page of Ship to Gaza-Sweden, a page that has more than 35,000 “likes”. But no one has yet responded to his slander.

    Different factors end up reinforcing each other, as this author has already noted. They create an echo chamber that then leads to a situation where Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism becomes accepted by Swedish authorities. These factors include:

    • Large-scale immigration from countries where anti-Semitism is normalized.

    • A strong pro-Palestinian engagement among Swedish politicians that has resulted in a totally inaccurate and surreal debate about the Israel-Palestine conflict, in which Israel is unjustly demonized.

    • A desire among political parties in Sweden to win the votes of immigrants.

    • A Swedish multiculturalism that is so uncritical of foreign cultures that it cannot differentiate between culture and racism.

    • A fear of sounding critical of immigration.

    • Important Swedish institutions, such as the Church of Sweden, legitimizing anti-Semitism by endorsing the counter-factual Kairos Palestine document.

    Today this process has gone so far that many in Sweden seem to have totally internalized this imported, Middle Eastern anti-Semitism and made it an integral part of their ideology.

    Today in Sweden, supporting organizations that demonize Israel and spread anti-Semitism is considered completely normal. It is not even the subject of discussion — unless an extreme statement is uttered. Oldoz Javidi, a parliamentary candidate for the feminist party, Feminist Initiative, for instance, said that all Israeli Jews should move to the United States so “the Palestinians can live in peace and rebuild the country that once was theirs”. Only after the Times of Israel and other non-Swedish media outlets wrote articles about this incident did some Swedish mainstream media outlets start writing about the incident and describe the candidate’s statements as anti-Semitic. The criticism from Swedish media outlets forced Javidi to withdraw her candidacy.

    When it comes to confronting imported Middle Eastern anti-Semitism, there seems to be simply a fear of conflict, and especially of being called “racist” or “anti-immigrant.” These fears seem to lead at best to a wish to try to paper over problems by holding “dialogues” to find “compromises.”

    In August 2017, Bassem Nasr, a representative for the Green Party in Malmö’s municipal council, wrote an op-ed that criticized anti-Semitism within pro-Palestinian organizations. Strangely enough, Nasr was embraced by the Swedish establishment, which often brands anyone who criticizes Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism as racists.

    Nasr, however, has a history that the media failed to mention. In 2006, he invitedthe anti-Semitic terrorist organization Hamas to Malmö. The visit never took place, only because one of the Hamas representatives was denied a visa to enter Europe. Nasr, however, never explained why he invited Hamas representatives in the first place; he never even apologized.

    In 2008, Bassem Nasr wrote — incorrectly — in an op-ed:

    “The fact is that there is no Israeli prime minister throughout history that has had so little blood on his hands as the Iranian president.”

    At the time Nasr made this statement, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who denied that the Holocaust ever happened, was president of Iran. The fact that Iran is an Islamist dictatorship and second only to China for most executions in the world — and even executes minors — makes Nasr’s statement even more bizarre.

    What seemed to have suited the Swedish establishment was that Nasr had no suggestions on how to counter anti-Semitism in Malmö and Sweden, except that it was “the task of the teachers”. That Nasr had once invited Hamas to Malmö and been active in pro-Palestinian organizations for several years evidently created the feeling of comfortable, non-confrontational “dialogue” that many policy-makers in Sweden seem to imagine can fight anti-Semitism.

    One source of Middle Eastern anti-Semitism is the messages that come from Sweden’s mosques. In April 2017, a mosque in the Swedish city of Borås invited a speaker who had been convicted in Germany for calling for the murder of Jews. In July 2017, an imam at a mosque in the Swedish city of Helsingborg said that Jews were the descendants of apes and pigs.

    When the government, after several scandals related to extremism in Muslim religious communities, wanted to investigate the criteria for financial support from the state, Ulf Bjereld, who has a history of defending Islamists in different contexts, was appointed to head the investigation. Bjereld is also chairman of the Religious Social Democrats of Sweden. This organization has been criticizedseveral times for excusing and legitimizing anti-Semitism, and is part of the Social Democratic Party — Sweden’s governing party.

    Appointing someone such as Bjereld for this investigation shows that the Sweden’s national and local governments are not ready to confront Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism, but would much rather have a nice, quiet “dialogue” about it.

    In Sweden, imported Middle Eastern anti-Semitism is funded by taxpayer money, so when scandals occur, they are often addressed by the same people who have participated in spreading its message.

    No effective actions are currently being taken against the spread of anti-Semitism in Sweden.

    In December 2017, this author submitted a motion to the Malmö municipal council to map and analyze anti-Semitism in the city. It is a measure that would give the politicians a clear picture of why anti-Semitism has increased there, so that corrective measures could be taken. But this proposal is unpopular, because such an analysis of anti-Semitism in Malmö would force the authorities to realize that Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism is a huge problem.

    Just as European anti-Semitism was defeated by rejecting and condemning the ideology after World War II and isolating its proponents, so must Sweden’s “new” anti-Semitism be defeated by isolating its advocates and marginalizing all organizations spreading its ideas. This means that all direct and indirect government funding of these organizations has to end. As long as this does not happen, Jews in Sweden will continue living in fear and insecurity.

  • Turkish State Media Exposes The American Empire & Its Media

    Amid growing diplomatic tensions between the U.S. and Turkey, Turkish TV station ‘A Haber’ on Saturday presented a detailed segment on ‘The American Empire and its Media’, based on an infographic tweeted out earlier this year by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and showing the surprisingly close interrelations between U.S. mainstream media and key foreign policy institutions.

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

    This anti-American propaganda (if that is what one calls a foreign nation daring to expose the truth about America), comes in the wake of various speeches and after Erdogan wrote a Friday New York Times op-ed cataloging  his grievances and threatening to walk away from the decades-old alliance. “Failure to reverse this trend of unilateralism and disrespect will require us to start looking for new friends and allies,” he wrote. Meanwhile, while announcing the new sanctions aimed at Turkey, Trump tweeted his “analysis” of the situation: “Our relations with Turkey are not good at this time!”

    The escalating war of words continued all weekend, when speaking at a rally in the Black Sea town of Unye, Erdogan said that “it is wrong to dare bring Turkey to its knees through threats over a pastor,” and blasted “shame on you, shame on you. You are exchanging your strategic partner in NATO for a priest.” At the same time, Ibrahim Kalin, Erdogan’s spokesman, said that the U.S. is “facing the risk of completely losing Turkey.”

    And if anyone was hoping that Erdogan’s temper would have cooled one day later with just hours left before FX markets reopen, they were sorely disappointed on Sunday when in his latest public address in the town of Trabzon, Erdogan doubled down on his belligerent rhetoric against the US once again, via Bloomberg:

    • ERDOGAN: WE SEE THE GAME YOU’RE PLAYING; WE DARE YOU
    • ERDOGAN: THEY’RE TRYING W/ MONEY WHAT THEY COULDN’T DO IN COUP

    Here one assumes that by “they” Erdogan was referring to the US, even though the Turkish’s president official line all along was that the culprit behind the “failed coup” was the exiled cleric Fethulah Gullen who has been accused by Erodgan of being behind the country’s imaginary “shadow state” for years, and which gave Erdogan a green light to crackdown on any potential opponents, leading to an unprecedented purge of people in public positions, with tens of thousands of government workers either ending up in prison or unemployed.

    Erdogan then continued by calling for all Turks to convert their foreign currency holdings, i.e. mostly dollars, to liras, and warning that “economic attacks will only increase Turkey’s unity.”

    Among the other notable highlights, Erdogan said that “we will say bye-bye to those who are ready to give up their strategic partnership for their relations with terror organizations” and that Turkey can “respond to those who started a trade war against the entire world and included our country in it by gravitating towards new co-operations, new alliances” i.e. China and Russia (which earlier today said it was considering dropping the US dollar altogether in oil trade), and warned that “it is foolish to think that Turkey can be thrown off by FX” although with inflation set to explode as the currency collapses, the local population may have a different view of this. 

    Finally, anyone wondering which way the Lira will open later today, Erdogan did his best to make the ongoing collapse accelerate, stating that “we know very well that those who say we should make an agreement with the IMF are saying we should give up on political independence“, thus eliminating the possibility of an IMF bailout which together with capital controls were the only two options Turkey had left to arrest the lira’s plunge.

    As for higher interest rates, a critical requirement to at least slow down the country’s economic descent, Erdogan had some words as well:

    “They are trying to do with money what they couldn’t with provocations and the coup. This is clearly called an economic war”

    “Interest rates are tools of exploitation that make the rich richer and the poor poorer. As long as I’m alive, we will not fall into the interest-rate trap”

    And the punchline:

    • ERDOGAN SAYS READY TO RESPOND W NEW FINANCIAL TOOLS VS DOLLAR

    It was not clear what those tools would be, but they certainly would not be welcome by the market.

    *  *  *

    Here is the original detail that Erdogan is now increasingly highlighting as he uses Trump as the scapegoat for his economy’s collapse.

    Via Swiss Propaganda Research,

    Largely unbeknownst to the general public, executives and top journalists of almost all major US news outlets have long been members of the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). 

    Established in 1921 as a private, bipartisan organization to “awaken America to its worldwide responsibilities”, the CFR and its close to 5000 elite members have for decades shaped U.S. foreign policy and public discourse about it. As a well-known Council member once explained, the goal has indeed been to establish a global Empire, albeit a “benevolent” one.

    Based on official membership rosters, the following illustration for the first time depicts the extensive media network of the CFR and its two main international affiliate organizations: the Bilderberg Group(covering mainly the U.S. and Europe) and the Trilateral Commission (covering North America, Europe and East Asia), both established by Council leaders to foster elite cooperation at the international level.

    In a column entitled “Ruling Class Journalists”, former Washington Post senior editor and ombudsman Richard Harwood once described the Council and its members approvingly as “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States”.

    Harwood continued:

    “The membership of these journalists in the Council, however they may think of themselves, is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their ascension into the American ruling class. They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy for the United States; they help make it. 

    They are part of that establishment whether they like it or not, sharing most of its values and world views.”

    However, media personalities constitute only about five percent of the overall CFR network. As the following illustration shows, key members of the private Council on Foreign Relations have included:

    • several U.S. Presidents and Vice Presidents of both parties;

    • almost all Secretaries of State, Defense, and the Treasury;

    • many high-ranking commanders of the U.S. military and NATO;

    • almost all National Security Advisors, CIA Directors, Ambassadors to the U.N., Chairs of the Federal Reserve, Presidents of the World Bank, and Directors of the National Economic Council;

    • some of the most influential Members of Congress (notably in foreign & security policy matters);

    • many top jounalists, media executives, and entertainment industry directors;

    • many prominent academics, especially in key fields such as Economics, International Relations, Political Science, History, and Journalism;

    • many top executives of Wall Street, policy think tanks, universities, and NGOs;

    • as well as the key members of both the 9/11 Commission and the Warren Commission (JFK)

    Eminent economist and Kennedy supporter, John K. Galbraith, confirmed the Council’s influence: “Those of us who had worked for the Kennedy election were tolerated in the government for that reason and had a say, but foreign policy was still with the Council on Foreign Relations people.”

    And no less than John J. McCloy, the longtime chairman of the Council and advisor to nine U.S. presidents, told the New York Times about his time in Washington: “Whenever we needed a man we thumbed through the roll of the Council members and put through a call to New York.”

    German news magazine Der Spiegel once described the CFR as the “most influential private institution of the United States and the Western world“ and a “politburo of capitalism”. Both the Roman-inspired logo of the Council (top right in the illustration above) as well as its slogan (ubique – omnipresent) appear to emphasize that ambition.

    In his famous article about “The American Establishment”, political columnist Richard H. Rovere noted:

    “The directors of the CFR make up a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation.

    [I]t rarely fails to get one of its members, or at least one of its allies, into the White House. In fact, it generally is able to see to it that both nominees are men acceptable to it.”

    Until recently, this assessment had indeed been justified. Thus, in 1993 former CFR director George H.W. Bush was followed by CFR member Bill Clinton, who in turn was followed by CFR “family member” George W. Bush. In 2008, CFR member John McCain lost against CFR candidate of choice, Barack Obama, who received the names of his entire Cabinet already one month prior to his election by CFR Senior Fellow (and Citigroup banker) Michael Froman. Froman later negotiated the TTP and TTIP free trade agreements, before returning to the CFR as a Distinguished Fellow.

    It was not until the 2016 election that the Council couldn’t, apparently, prevail. At any rate, not yet.

  • The Real Reason Why Trump Cancelled The Iran Deal

    Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The following is entirely from open online sources that I have been finding to be trustworthy on these matters in the past. These sources will be linked-to here; none of this information is secret, even though some details in my resulting analysis of it will be entirely new.

    It explains how and why the bottom-line difference between Donald Trump and Barack Obama, regarding US national security policies, turns out to be their different respective estimations of the biggest danger threatening the maintenance of the US dollar as the world’s leading or reserve currency. This has been the overriding foreign-policy concern for both Presidents.

    Obama placed as being the top threat to the dollar, a breakaway of the EU (America’s largest market both for exports and for imports) from alliance with the United States. He was internationally a Europhile. Trump, however, places as being the top threat to the dollar, a breakaway of Saudi Arabia and of the other Gulf Arab oil monarchies from the U.S. Trump is internationally a Sunni-phile: specifically a protector of fundamentalist Sunni monarchs — but especially of the Sauds themselves — and they hate Shia and especially the main Shia nation, Iran.

    Here’s how that change, to Saudi Arabia as being America’s main ally, has happened — actually it’s a culmination of decades. Trump is merely the latest part of that process of change. Here is from the US State Department’s official historian, regarding this history:

    By the 1960s, a surplus of US dollars caused by foreign aid, military spending, and foreign investment threatened this system [the FDR-established 1944 Bretton Woods gold-based US dollar as the world’s reserve currency], as the United States did not have enough gold to cover the volume of dollars in worldwide circulation at the rate of $35 per ounce; as a result, the dollar was overvalued. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson adopted a series of measures to support the dollar and sustain Bretton Woods: foreign investment disincentives; restrictions on foreign lending; efforts to stem the official outflow of dollars; international monetary reform; and cooperation with other countries. Nothing worked. Meanwhile, traders in foreign exchange markets, believing that the dollar’s overvaluation would one day compel the US government to devalue it, proved increasingly inclined to sell dollars. This resulted in periodic runs on the dollar.

    It was just such a run on the dollar, along with mounting evidence that the overvalued dollar was undermining the nation’s foreign trading position, which prompted President Richard M. Nixon to act, on August 13, 1971 [to end the convertibility of dollars to gold].

    When Nixon ended the gold-basis of the dollar and then in 1974 secretly switched to the current oil-basis, this transformation of the dollar’s backing, from gold to oil, was intended to enable the debt-financing (as opposed to the tax-financing, which is less acceptable to voters) of whatever military expenditure would be necessary in order to satisfy the profit-needs of Lockheed Corporation and of the other US manufacturers whose only markets are the US Government and its allied governments, as well as of US extractive industries such as oil and mining firms, which rely heavily upon access to foreign natural resources, as well as of Wall Street and its need for selling debt and keeping interest-rates down (and stock-prices — and therefore aristocrats’ wealth — high and rtising). This 1974 secret agreement between Nixon and King Saud lasts to the present day, and has worked well for both aristocracies. It met the needs of the very same “military-industrial complex” (the big US Government contractors) that the prior Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, had warned might take control of US foreign policies. As Bloomberg’s Andrea Wong on 30 May 2016 explained the Nixon system that replaced the FDR system, “The basic framework was strikingly simple. The US would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending.”

    This new system didn’t only supply a constant flow of Saudi tax-money to the US Government; it supplied a constant flow of new sales-orders and profits to the military firms that were increasingly coming to control the US Government — for the benefit of both aristocracies: the Sauds, and America’s billionaires.

    That was near the end of the FDR-produced 37-year period of US democratic leadership of the world, the era that had started at Bretton Woods in 1944. It came crashing to an end not in 1974 (which was step two after the 1971 step one had ended the 1944 system) but on the day when Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981. The shockingly sudden ascent, from that moment on, of US federal Government debt (to be paid-off by future generations instead of by current taxpayers) is shown, right here, in a graph of “US Federal Debt as Percent of GDP, 1940-2015”, where you can see that the debt had peaked above 90% of GDP late in WW II between 1944-1948, and then plunged during Bretton Woods, but in 1981 it started ascending yet again, until reaching that WW II peak for a second time, as it has been ever since 2010, when Obama bailed-out the mega-banks and their mega-clients, but didn’t bail out the American public, whose finances had been destroyed by those banksters’ frauds, which Obama refused to prosecute; and, so, economic inequality in America got even more extreme after the 2008 George W. Bush crash, instead of less extreme afterward (as had always happened in the past). 

    Above 90% debt/GDP during and immediately following WW II was sound policy, but America’s going again above 90% since 2010 has reflected simply an aristocratic heist of America, for only the aristocracy’s benefit — all of the benefits going only to the super-rich. 

    Another, and more-current US graph shows that, as of the first quarter of 2018, this percentage (debt/GDP) is, yet again, back now to its previous all-time record high of 105-120%%, which had been reached only in 1945-1947 (when it was justified by the war). 

    Currently, companies such as Lockheed Martin are thriving as they had done during WW II, but the sheer corruption in America’s military spending is this time the reason, no World War (yet); so, this time, America is spending like in an all-out-war situation, even before the Congress has issued any declaration of war at all. Everybody except the American public knows that the intense corruptness of the US military is the reason for this restoration of astronomical ‘defense’ spending, even during peace-time. A major poll even showed that ‘defense’ spending was the only spending by the federal Government which Americans in 2017 wanted increased; they wanted all other federal spending to be reduced (though there was actually vastly more corruption in military spending than in any other type — the public have simply been hoodwinked).

    But can the US Government’s extreme misallocation of wealth, from the public to the insiders, continue without turning this country into a much bigger version of today’s Greece? More and more people around the world are worrying about that. Of course, Greece didn’t have the world’s reserve currency, but what would happen to the net worths of America’s billionaires if billionaires worldwide were to lose faith in the dollar? Consequently, there’s intensified Presidential worrying about how much longer foreign investors will continue to trust the oil-based dollar. 

    America’s political class now have two competing ideas to deal with this danger, Obama’s versus Trump’s, both being about how to preserve the dollar in a way that best serves the needs of ‘defense’ contractors, extractive firms, and Wall Street. Obama chose Europe (America’s largest market) as America’s chief ally (he was Euro-centric against Russia); Trump chose the owner of Saudi Arabia (he’s Saudi-Israeli centric against Iran) — that’s the world’s largest weapons-purchaser, as well as the world’s largest producer of oil (as well as the largest lobbies).

    The Saudi King owns Saudi Arabia, including the world’s largest and most valuable oil company, Aramco, whose oil is the “sweetest” — the least expensive to extract and refine — and is also the most abundant, in all of the world, and so he can sell petroleum at a profit even when his competitors cannot. Oil-prices that are so low as to cause economic losses for other oil companies, can still be generating profits — albeit lowered ones — for King Saud; and this is the reason why his decisions determine how much the global oil-spigot will be turned on, and how low the global oil-price will be, at any given time. He controls the value of the US dollar. He controls it far more directly, and far more effectively, than the EU can. It would be like, under the old FDR-era Bretton Woods system, controlling the exchange-rates of the dollar, by raising or lowering the amount of gold produced. But this is liquid gold, and King Saud determines its price.

    Furthermore, King Saud also leads the Gulf Cooperation Council of all other Arab oil monarchs, such as those who own UAE — all of them are likewise US allies and major weapons-buyers. 

    In an extraordinarily fine recent article by Pepe Escobar at Asia Times, “Oil and gas geopolitics: no shelter from the storm”, he quotes from his not-for-attribution interviews with “EU diplomats,” and reports:

    After the Trump administration’s unilateral pull-out from the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), European Union diplomats in Brussels, off the record, and still in shock, admit that they blundered by not “configuring the eurozone as distinct and separate to the dollar hegemony”. Now they may be made to pay the price of their impotence via their “outlawed” trade with Iran. …

    As admitted, never on the record, by experts in Brussels; the EU has got to reevaluate its strategic alliance with an essentially energy independent US, as “we are risking all our energy resources over their Halford Mackinder geopolitical analysis that they must break up [the alliance between] Russia and China.”

    That’s a direct reference to the late Mackinder epigone Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski, who died dreaming of turning China against Russia.

    In Brussels, there’s increased recognition that US pressure on Iran, Russia and China is out of geopolitical fear the entire Eurasian land mass, organized as a super-trading bloc via the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), [and] the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), is slipping away from Washington’s influence.

    This analysis gets closer to how the three key nodes of 21st century Eurasia integration – Russia, China and Iran – have identified the key issue; both the euro and the yuan must bypass the petrodollar, the ideal means, as the Chinese stress, to “end the oscillation between strong and weak dollar cycles, which has been so profitable for US financial institutions, but lethal to emerging markets.” …

    It’s also no secret among Persian Gulf traders that in the – hopefully unlikely – event of a US-Saudi-Israeli war in Southwest Asia against Iran, a real scenario war-gamed by the Pentagon would be “the destruction of oil wells in the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council]. The Strait of Hormuz does not have to be blocked, as destroying the oil wells would be far more effective.”

    And what the potential loss of over 20% of the world’s oil supply would mean is terrifying; the implosion, with unforeseen consequences, of the quadrillion derivatives pyramid, and consequentially [consequently] of the entire Western financial casino superstructure.

    In other words: it’s not the ‘threat’ that perhaps, some day, Iran will have nuclear warheads, that is actually driving Trump’s concern here (despite what Israel’s concerns are about that matter), but instead, it is his concerns about Iran’s missiles, which constitute the delivery-system for any Iranian warheads: that their flight-range be short enough so that the Sauds will be outside their range. (The main way Iran intends to respond to an invasion backed by the US, is to attack Saudi Arabia — Iran’s leaders know that the US Government is more dependent upon the Sauds than upon Israel — so, Iran’s top targets would be Saudi capital Riyadh, and also the Ghawar oil field, which holds over half of Saudi oil. If US bases have been used in the invasion, then all US bases in the Middle East are also be within the range of Iran’s missiles and therefore would also probably be targeted.) 

    Obama’s deal with Iran had focused solely upon preventing Iran from developing nuclear warheads — which Obama perhaps thought (mistakenly) would dampen Israel’s (and its billionaire US financial backers’) ardor for the US to conquer Iran. Israel had publicly said that their concern was Iran’s possibility to become a nuclear power like Israel became; those possible future warheads were supposed to be the issue; but, apparently, that wasn’t actually the issue which really drove Israel. Obama seems to have thought that it was, but it wasn’t, actually. Israel, like the Sauds, want Iran conquered. Simple. The nuclear matter was more an excuse than an explanation.

    With Trump now in the White House, overwhelmingly by money from the Israel lobbies (proxies also for the Sauds) — and with no equivalently organized Jewish opposition to the pro-Israel lobbies (and so in the United States, for a person to be anti-Israel is viewed as being anti-Semitic, which is not at all true, but Israel’s lies say it’s true and many Americans unfortunately believe it) — Trump has not only the Sauds and their allies requiring him to be against Iran and its allies, but he has also got this pressure coming from Israel: both the Big-Oil and the Jewish lobbies drive him. Unlike Obama, who wasn’t as indebted to the Jewish lobbies, Trump needs to walk the plank for both the Sauds and Israel.

    In other words: Trump aims to keep the dollar as the reserve currency by suppressing not only China but also the two main competitors of King Saud: Iran and Russia. That’s why America’s main ‘enemies’ now are those three countries and their respective allies.

    Obama was likewise targeting them, but in a different priority-order, with Russia being the main one (thus Obama’s takeover of Ukraine in February 2014 turning it against Russia, next door); and that difference was due to Obama’s desire to be favorably viewed by the residents in America’s biggest export and import market, the EU, and so his bringing another member (Ukraine) into the EU (which still hasn’t yet been culminated).

    Trump is instead building on his alliance with King Saud and the other GCC monarchs, a group who can more directly cooperate to control the value of the US dollar than the EU can. Furthermore, both conservative (including Orthodox) Jews in the United States, and also white evangelical Protestants in the US, are strongly supportive of Israel, which likewise sides with the Arab oil monarchs against Iran and its allies. Trump needs these people’s votes. 

    Trump also sides with the Sauds against Canada. That’s a matter which the theorists who assert that Israel controls the US, instead of that the Sauds (allied with America’s and Israel’s billionaires) control the US, ignore; they ignore whatever doesn’t fit their theory. Of course, a lot doesn’t fit their theory (which equates “Jews” with “Israelis” and alleges that “they” control the world), but people whose prejudices are that deep-seated, can’t be reached by any facts which contradict their self-defining prejudice. Since it defines themselves, it’s a part of them, and they can never deny it, because to do so would be to deny who and what they are, and they refuse to change that. The Sauds control the dollar; Israel does not, but Israel does the lobbying, and both the Sauds and Israel want Iran destroyed. Trump gets this pressure not only from the billionaires but from his voters. 

    And, of course, Democratic Party billionaires push the narrative that Russia controls America. It used to be the Republican Joseph R. McCarthy’s accusation, that the “commies” had “infiltrated”, especially at the State Department. So: Trump kicked out Russia’s diplomats, to satisfy those neocons — the neoconservatives of all Parties and persuasions, both conservative and liberal.

    To satisfy the Sauds, despite the EU, Trump has dumped the Iran deal. And he did it also to satisfy Israel, the main US lobbyists for the Sauds. (Americans are far more sympathetic to Jews than to Arabs; the Sauds are aware of this; Israel handles their front-office.) For Trump, the Sauds are higher priority than Europe; even Israel (who are an expense instead of a moneybag for the US Government) are higher priority than Europe. Both the Sauds and Israel together are vastly higher. And the Sauds alone are higher priority for Trump than are even Canada and Europe combined. Under Trump, anything will be done in order to keep the Sauds and their proxy-lobbyists (Israel) ‘on America’s side’.

    Consequently, Trump’s political base is mainly against Iran and for Israel, but Obama’s was mainly against Russia and for the EU. Obama’s Democratic Party still are controlled by the same billionaires as before; and, so, Democrats continue demonizing Russia, and are trying to make as impossible as they can, any rapprochement with Russia — and, therefore, they smear Trump for anything he might try to do along those lines.

    Both Obama and Trump have been aiming to extend America’s aristocracy’s dominance around the world, but they employ different strategies toward that politically bipartisan American-aristocratic objective: the US Government’s global control, for the benefit of the US aristocracy, at everyone else’s expense. Obama and Trump were placed into the White House by different groups of US billionaires, and each nominee serves his/her respective sponsors, no public anywhere — not even their voters’ welfare.

    An analogous example is that, whereas Fox News, Forbes, National Review, The Weekly Standard, American Spectator, Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, Breitbart News, InfoWars, Reuters, and AP, are propagandists for the Republican Party; NPR, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, Mother Jones, The Atlantic, The New Republic, New Yorker, New York Magazine, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, and Salon, are propagandists for the Democratic Party; but, they all draw their chief sponsors from the same small list of donors who are America’s billionaires, since these few people control the top advertisers, investors, and charities, and thus control nearly all of the nation’s propaganda. The same people who control the Government control the public; but, America isn’t a one-Party dictatorship. America is, instead, a multi-Party dictatorship. And this is how it functions.

    Trump cancelled the Iran deal because a different group of billionaires are now in control of the White House, and of the rest of the US Government. Trump’s group demonize especially Iran; Obama’s group demonize especially Russia. That’s it, short. That’s America’s aristocratic tug-of-war; but both sides of it are for invasion, and for war. Thus, we’re in the condition of ‘permanent war for permanent peace’ — to satisfy the military contractors and the billionaires who control them. Any US President who would resist that, would invite assassination; but, perhaps in Trump’s case, impeachment, or other removal-from-office, would be likelier. In any case, the sponsors need to be satisfied — or else — and Trump knows this.

    Trump is doing what he thinks he has to be doing, for his own safety. He’s just a figurehead for a different faction of the US aristocracy, than Obama was. He’s doing what he thinks he needs to be doing, for his survival. Political leadership is an extremely dangerous business. Trump is playing a slightly different game of it than Obama did, because he represents a different faction than Obama did. These two factions of the US aristocracy are also now battling each other for political control over Europe.

  • Vacation: Americans Get A Raw Deal

    Madrid is a peculiar place in August. Aside from the stifling heat, the traffic isn’t too hectic, restaurants are either closed or distinctly emptier while tourist hotspots are unusually quieter. That sense of tranquility is due to the locals leaving the the Spanish capital in order to find refuge from the scorching temperatures in the countryside and along the coast.

    Additionally, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, Spanish workers have no problems leaving their jobs for weeks on end given that they have a statutory minimum of 22 paid vacation days, according to the OECD.

    They get 14 public holidays on top of that, meaning they get a grand total of 36 paid days leave annually. Many workers get even days depending on their company and position.

    Infographic: Vacation: Americans Get A Raw Deal | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The situation in France is similar with motorways clogged with traffic every August as people flee the cities to start their summer holidays. French workers also get a minimum of 36 paid days off every year, of which 11 are public holidays and 25 are the statutory minimum.

    Elsewhere the vacation allowance falls in Asia’s major economies with South Korean workers getting a minimum of 15 days and people in Japan getting a mere 10.

    That’s still far better than workers in the United States.

    While people in France and Spain spend weeks chilling at the beach, most Americans are more than likely still stuck at their desks.

    The U.S. remains the only advanced economy that doesn’t guarantee paid vacation. Even though some companies are generous and provide their employees with up to 15 days of paid leave annually, almost one in four private sector workers does not receive any paid vacation, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

  • Saudi Arabia Starts To Weaponize Its Wealth

    Authored by Lionel Laurent, op-ed via Bloomberg.com,

    Here’s a subject that Elon Musk might think twice before tweeting about.

    Resource-rich Saudi Arabia, which in recent months amassed a $2 billion stake in the Twitter-mad billionaire’s electric-car company Tesla Inc., has declared economic war on Canada. The cause was a tweet by Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, whose call for the release of social activists arrested by the Gulf monarchy earned a stunningly disproportionate response this week.

    Loonie Tunes

    The absolute impact of Saudi’s spat is small, but fear of an escalation hit the Canadian dollar

    Source: Bloomberg

    Intraday times are displayed in ET.

    Riyadh has halted new investments in Ottawa, expelled Canada’s ambassador, stopped the state airline flying there, suspended a student exchange program, pulled medical patients from Canadian hospitals, and started selling off Canadian assets (according to the Financial Times.) It’s out to punish the Canadians “no matter the cost,” a source close to the situation told the FT.

    Musk should have reason to care. He’s half-Canadian, and studied in Canada. Had he built his cash-guzzling automaker north of the International Boundary, the Saudis would doubtless take a different view on that backing for Tesla – and the possibility of helping him take the company private again.

    Indeed, it’s this apparent Saudi willingness to “weaponize” its overseas investments that should give western governments and business leaders pause for thought everywhere – and might explain in part why Canada’s allies have been slow to offer backing to Freeland and her prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

    We’ve seen this style of economic warfare before – in the 1970s, Arab states wielded the “oil weapon” –  but this latest attack comes after a dramatic increase in Riyadh’s foreign investments.

    Black Gold

    Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund is spending abroad, but at what cost?

    Source: Bloomberg

    Note: Vision Fund investment is stated five-year goal

    The Public Investment Fund, Saudi Arabia’s wealth fund, owns stakes in Uber Technologies Inc., German transport firm Hapag-Lloyd AG, Richard Branson’s Virgin Group, an infrastructure partnership with Blackstone Group and the biggest-ever technology investment vehicle with SoftBank Group Corp. Turning Saudi’s state investment arm into a $2 trillion powerhouse is core to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s strategy of diversifying the economy away from oil.

    Few have seen fit to turn down this money. Yet we’ve already witnessed the collateral business damage the Saudis can inflict if another country displeases them. In September, a Riyadh-led economic blockade of Qatar forced that country’s wealth fund to sell shares in far-flung companies like Tiffany & Co. and Credit Suisse Group AG to prop up its domestic economy. 

    The latest geopolitical spat is small in terms of absolute economic impact. Canada-Saudi trade is tiny, and Saudi doesn’t own many assets in the country. But it shouldn’t be dismissed lightly.

    Canada’s western allies want to encourage “MBS” because they believe he offers the best chance of bringing the kingdom into the rich-country mainstream. Yet there’s a risk in handing too much economic leverage to a government that’s clearly ready to use it to halt even the most anodyne criticism of its human rights situation. As Donald Trump’s trade rhetoric shows, we’re moving into an era where these bi-lateral fights are becoming the norm. 

    Those Saudi billions may come in handy – just ask Musk. But there are serious conditions attached. 

  • Crisis Levels: California's Housing Affordability Plummets To 10-Year Low

    California’s housing affordability crisis is progressively getting worse. It has now plummeted to its lowest level in 10-years, and less than one in five households can afford to purchase a median-priced single-family home in the Bay Area, according to new data released by the California Association of Realtors (CAR).

    CAR released its second-quarter Housing Affordability Index report (HAI), based on the percentage of all households that can afford to purchase a median-priced, single-family home in the state. CAR also reports affordability indices for regions and counties within the state. The index is regarded as the most fundamental benchmark of housing well-being for home buyers.

    The percentage of homebuyers who could afford to buy a median-priced, existing single-family home in the state declined from 31 percent in the first quarter to 26 in the second quarter; in the previous year, the index was at 29 percent, according to CAR’s HAI.

    The second quarter marked the 21st consecutive quarter that CAR’s HAI printed below 40 percent; the index topped at 56 percent in the first quarter of 2012.

    The report showed that prospective homebuyers would need to have minimum annual income of $126,500 to prequalify for the purchase of a $596,730 statewide median-priced, existing single-family home in the second quarter. Assuming a 20 percent down payment and an effective composite interest rate of 4.70 percent, the monthly payments of a 30-year fixed-rate loan would be around $3,160.

    The California counties that recorded 10-year lows in housing affordability were Alameda, Merced, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma.

    Here are the areas where housing affordability is at crisis levels: Santa Cruz (12 percent), San Francisco, San Mateo, and Mono (all at 14 percent), and Alameda and Santa Clara (both at 16 percent).

    According to CAR’s index, the most affordable counties in California during the second quarter were Lassen (64 percent), Kern (53 percent), Madera (52 percent), Tehama (51 percent) and Kings (50 percent).

    Housing Affordability Peaked At 1Q 2012 

    Housing Affordability — Traditional Index 

    Affordability Peak vs. Current 

    Minimum Annual Income Required During Affordability Peak vs. Current 

    Monthly PITI During Affordability Peak vs. Current 

    In a separate, but relevant report from CAR, data shows California’s real estate market could have already peaked.

    California Home Sales Declined for the 1 st Time in 4 Months

    Sales Lost Momentum as Mortgage RatesContinued to Climb

    California is one of the largest housing markets in the nation, as it has been a forward leading indicator for the rest of the country. Amid a housing shortage, which has blossomed into a housing affordability crisis, sales this summer have started to tumble, even as more inventory comes online. The supply of homes for sale increased annually in June for the first time in three years, according to the National Association of Realtors, which has depressed sales for the third straight month.

    And now it seems, California’s real estate market could be in the beginning stages of a correction to fair value, after nearly a decade of speculation forced much of the median-priced single-family homes out of reach of the middle class – contributing to the housing affordability index at a 10-year low.

  • South African Rand Flash-Crashes 10% As Turkey Contagion Spreads

    Amid increased anxiety over Ramaphosa’s white farmer land confiscation and reports of a $4.2 billion bailout of state-owned enterprises, the Emerging Market rout in Turkey has sparked a collapse in the Rand in early Asia trading.

    The Rand crashed 10% against the dollar almost instantaneously as Asian FX markets opened…

    Looks like Ramaphosa top-ticked it…

    As Simon Black warned back in March, when Ramaphosa to push for the constitutional change required to confiscate white farmers’ lands, this would guarantee a banking crisis for the country. Here’s why – a lot of this land that the government wants to confiscate probably has quite a bit of bank debt.

    Imagine – you just bought a farm for, say, 50 million rand (that’s about USD $3 million). And in order to do so, you took out a hefty loan from a South African bank.

    Now the government comes along and steals your property.

    Are you seriously going to keep paying the loan?

    Of course not.

    This means that the banks are going to be stuck with massive defaults and bad debts, leading to a wave of bank failures.

    So in their crusade to bring Social Justice to South Africa, the government is effectively engineering a banking crisis in their country.

    This is criminally stupid behavior that puts South Africa on the same path that Zimbabwe followed in the late 1990s.

    And now, as Bloomberg reports, South Africa is planning a 59 billion-rand ($4.2 billion) bailout for state-owned companies including the post office, arms manufacturer Denel SOC Ltd. and South African Airways, the Johannesburg-based Sunday Times reported, citing unidentified government officials.

    The contagion from Turkey’s collapse is not helping as broad-based EM liquidations are dragging everything lower…

    As the Emerging Market FX rout continues…

     

    And offshore Yuan is sliding…

    We look forward to the Brazilian Real opening…

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

  • Chicago's Obamaland "Scam" Reaches Mainstream Media

    Authored by WirePoints’ Mark Glennon, op-ed via The Wall Street Journal,

    The Obama Center Can Afford More Than $1 Rent

    It’s a political ‘institute,’ not a presidential library. So taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for anything…

    When Barack Obama announced he would forgo a presidential library, the news was trumpeted as a win for good government. Instead, Mr. Obama would open an official center on Chicago’s South Side, funded entirely with private money. One author at Politico, who called presidential libraries a “scam,” wrote that Mr. Obama “will rip off the band-aid, removing government from what it has no business paying for.”

    Now comes news that Illinois taxpayers will put up at least $174 million for roadway and transit reconfigurations needed to accommodate the Obama Center. If you don’t live in Illinois, you may be smirking – but you’ll be footing the bill, too. Eighty percent of such spending is generally reimbursed by the federal government, and Illinois officials confirmed to me that they expect to receive $139 million from Washington if they request it.

    All that taxpayer money – and for what? Originally, Chicagoans imagined they’d be getting a true presidential library, akin to those they might have visited for Ronald Reagan in California or John F. Kennedy in Boston. But unlike those libraries, the Obama Center won’t be run by the National Archives and Records Administration. It won’t even house Mr. Obama’s records, artifacts and papers, which will be digitized and available online. Instead the center will be owned and operated by the Obama Foundation.

    This wasn’t always the plan. In a 2014 request for proposal, the Obama Foundation said that the planned presidential library “will include an Institute that will enhance the pursuit of the President’s initiatives beyond 2017.” This institute now seems to have taken over the project. As the Chicago Tribune reported in February: “Obama said he envisions his center as a place where young people from around the world can meet each other, get training and prepare to become the next generation of leaders.” No doubt, his definition of “leaders” will be political.

    Which raises the question of why the state and city are giving the Obama Center official support. Back when it was still being sold as an official presidential library, the city of Chicago took steps to allow the project to be built in Jackson Park. Under a deal approved by the City Council in May, the Obama Foundation will lease 19.3 acres in perpetuity for $1. A nonprofit group called Protect our Parks has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that this violates state law. The suit calls the Obama Center a “bait and switch,” since the “public purpose” of a presidential library no longer exists.

    Then there’s the road and transit money. Last fall WTTW, a Chicago public television station, was reporting skeptically on “preliminary plans” for Illinois to cough up $100 million to “assist” the Obama Center: “How could a public financing proposal fly in a state that is bleeding red ink, especially when the Obamas have promised 100 percent private funding?”

    In response, a spokeswoman for the Obama Foundation insisted to WTTW that “construction and maintenance will be funded by private donations, and no taxpayer money will go to the foundation.” That may be true in the narrow sense, but the state’s appropriation for roadway and transit fixes is serious cash. Imagine the cries of corporate welfare if Chicago lured a big company to town with direct infrastructure spending of $174 million.

    So why no fuss about ponying up to help the Obama Center? There are two answers:

    The first is that Illinois’s machine politicians dropped the appropriation this summer into a 1,246-page budget bill, which was then presented to rank-and-file legislators only hours before the vote.

    The second is that after a few Republicans objected to spending state money for the Obama Center, they were told not to fret: Federal reimbursements were on the way. “We were assured by Republican leadership not to worry,” state Rep. Jeanne Ives told me, “since 80% of the cost would be picked up by the federal government.”

    If he tried, President Obama could probably raise more than enough private money to forgo sweetheart deals. Does anybody really think the Obama Foundation can’t afford more than $1 rent? Yet Chicago’s loyal Democrats are only too happy to give him the land free, then pour tax money into the road reconfigurations the project requires. “The state’s $174 million investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel said, “is money well spent.” Mr. Emanuel was President Obama’s first chief of staff.

    So if you wind up visiting Chicago some years from now, and you spot a tall stone tower teeming with future leaders of the Democratic Party, give yourself a pat on the back. No matter where in America you’re from, your tax money will have helped to make the Obama Center possible.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Aug 12

Today’s News 12th August 2018

  • Censorship Purge Signals Imminent False Flag Violence Before Mid-Term Elections… Bigger Than 9/11?

    Authored by Mike Adams via NaturalNews.com,

    For the last two months, I’ve been warning about the rising risk of a major false flag attack taking place before the mid-term elections.

    The aggressive, unprecedented PURGE of Alex Jones / InfoWars underscores the desperation of the totalitarian deep state that’s about to make a move to eliminate President Trump and / or steal the elections.

    Anyone who believes that the sudden de-platforming of Alex Jones across over a dozen online services and platforms isn’t coordinated collusion is delusional. The coordinated de-platforming effort is clearly directed by the deep state to eliminate a prominent, dissenting voice in preparation for unleashing a history-shaping false flag attack that’s likely going to be bigger than 9/11.

    The radical Left is escalating its violence across America, and the tech giants are dramatically escalating their censorship actions to silence all independent voices that might question any “official” narrative.

    It all points to something big about to come down – something so big that only the official narrative can be allowed to be heard or spoken.

    We are living under an Orwellian totalitarian regime beyond any horrific imagination. Google, Apple, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other tech giants are engaged in the most criminal, malicious racketeering and tyranny imaginable. This is not sheer coincidence. They’ve all been ordered to censor the independent media in preparation for what’s coming next.

    As I explain in this video, the most likely false flag assault to be staged by the Left might be a “mass shooting” at CNN or another media giant, all staged with impressive theatrics to augment the real violence with a false narrative. Watch my entire warning, below:

    REAL.video/5820541704001

    Read more articles about false flag events at FalseFlag.news.

    Also check out the shhnookered channel at REAL.video which now has multiple video channels covering mass shooting events in U.S. history.

  • Mapping The 22 Cities With The Most Million-Dollar Homes In America

    Throughout most of America, owning a $1 million home gives you definite bragging rights – it means you may have six bedrooms, 5,000 square feet, an infinity pool, and at least a few acres of property.

    But, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, along the coasts – and particularly in California – the two comma club has lost most of its novelty. That’s because in some places, like San Jose, CA, the majority (53.8%) of homes are already soaring past the $1 million mark, despite most of them looking nothing more than ordinary.

    $1 MILLION HOMES BY CITY

    Today’s chart uses data from a study by LendingTree, which ranks the largest 50 U.S. cities by the percentage of million dollar homes in each metro area. The data from the study was pulled out of a database of 155 million property prices throughout the country.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    Here are the 22 U.S. cities that have at least 1% of their housing stock exceeding the $1 million value mark:

    The data looks pretty telling, with four of the top five cities being located in California. In each of those cities, more than 10% of all homes have surpassed the $1 million mark.

    In the Bay Area specifically, prices are amplified even further: San Francisco (40.0%) and San Jose (53.8%) have by far more $1 million homes than other major cities in the country. It’s also worth noting that in San Jose, the median price of all homes is a whopping $1,069,000.

    You can just imagine what houses might cost in some of the Silicon Valley towns like Mountain View or Palo Alto, or just over the Golden Gate Bridge in Marin County.

    THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST

    While the above chart shows the 22 U.S. cities with the most $1 million homes, LendingTree also listed the major cities in the country with the fewest.

    Buffalo, located in upstate New York, takes this title, with only 0.10% of homes passing the mark and an overall median home price of just $141,000. So, to buy the average home in San Jose, you’d need to sell off about eight average houses in Buffalo.

    The other cities with the smallest concentrations of million dollar homes are also located in the Great Lakes and Midwest regions: Pittsburgh (0.17%), Hartford (0.18%), Cleveland (0.19%), and Indianapolis (0.27%).

  • Lenin Updated: "Turn The Globalist War Into A Race War"

    Authored by  James Georges Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    It’s déjà vu all over again.

    First US President Donald Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki and appears to make some progress towards his stated goal of putting ties between Washington and Moscow on a positive course. Immediately, all hell breaks loose. Trump is a called a traitor. The “sanctions bill from hell” is introduced in the Senate. Trump is forced on the defensive.

    Next Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky visits Moscow, where he meets with Putin and gives him a letter from Trump proposing moderate steps towards rapprochement. Paul also talks with Russian Senators and invites them to come to Washington to continue the dialogue. Immediately, all hell breaks loose. Paul is called a traitor. The State Department “finds” the Russians guilty of the using illegal chemical weapons (CW) in the United Kingdom and imposes sanctions. Trump is forced even more on the defensive.

    In each instance the actions of the Washington establishment, both in Congress and in even in departments and agencies allegedly part of the Executive Branch of government headed by Trump, moved quickly to nip in the bud even the most tentative efforts by Trump to keep his campaign pledge. With regard to the new CW sanctions it is unclear whether Trump had anything to do with them at all; most likely they either were imposed without his participation or he acceded to them because he felt he had no other option.

    It is debatable how much of the US government Trump actually controls. The baseless CW finding by the State Department (with heavy pressure from Congress) is the work of Trump’s globalist enemies in the bureaucracy and in Congress (all of the Democrats, and almost all of the Republicans), with the complicity of his own appointees, to undermine his overtures to Moscow and further erode his Executive authority. Besides blocking every possible path to détente with Russia, this is another step to setting Trump up for removal from office.

    Regarding the timing of a second set of sanctions set to kick in November, it’s hard to see how that will be avoided. Russia will not submit to inspections, which the US is arrogantly demanding of Russia, as if she were some pipsqueak country like Libya. Given that the OPCW certified in 2017 that the Russians had completed destruction of 100% of their CW stockpile (cf., the US still has almost 10% of our stocks, which are not expected to be completely gone until 2023), the demand is the equivalent of proving that you have stopped beating your wife (to the satisfaction of someone who admittedly continues to beat his own wife).

    In the absence of capitulating to the US demand, which Russia will not do, legally Trump can waive the sanctions. But that option is no doubt part of the political trap being laid for him, presenting him a Hobson’s choice.

    On the one hand, he can waive the sanctions, further hyping the charges of treason against him (and, if the waiver is before the elections, giving the Democrats another red flag to wave), as well as inviting new legislation passed by a margin “Putin’s puppet” cannot veto;

    or he can let them go into effect.

    If, as seems likely, the harsher measures are applied it is hard to overstate the danger created. These are the kind of things that countries do just one step from totally breaking relations in advance of war: cutting off access to American banks, barring Aeroflot from the US (in context, the least of our concerns, though symbolic), effectively blocking all exports and imports, and downgrading or suspending diplomatic ties. With respect to the last – a direct assault on Trump’s presidential authority to send and receive ambassadors under Article II of the Constitution (oddly, no one in Congress seems to care that presidents routinely usurp their authority to make war) – this likely would mean withdrawing the US ambassador from Moscow and expelling the Russian ambassador in Washington, while maintaining relations if at all at the chargé d’affaires level.

    In word, this is insanity. What’s perhaps worse is that this political warfare is being conducted with total disregard for the truth, much less an honest attempt to find it. It’s worse than a presumption of guilt; it’s a positive, unambiguous verdict of culpability under circumstances where the accusers in Washington and London (I would guess but cannot prove) know perfectly well that the CW finger pointing is false.

    It has been clear from the beginning of Trump’s meteoric rise on the American political scene that he and his American First agenda were perceived by the beneficiaries of the globalist, neoliberal order as a mortal danger to the system which has enriched them. Maintaining and intensifying hostility toward Russia, even at the risk of a catastrophic, uncontainable conflict, lies at the center of their efforts. This political war to save globalism at all hazards is intensifying.

    It would be a mistake, however, to understand hostility to Russia as just a cold calculation of pecuniary and social advantage by a corrupt mandarin class. It is all that of course, but it is also deeply ideological, reflecting the agenda of the entrenched pseudo-elites to dismantle the traditional national identities and Christian moral values of the West – and impose their godless agenda on the East as well.

    But there is something else too, something that touches the emotional heart of both Russophobia in a global context and anti-Trumpism domestically. That is the accusation of racism.

    Unsurprisingly one of the first to give voice to this concept was Hillary Clinton, who in her August 2016 “tinfoil hat speech” sought to portray Trump as a creature of the “Alt-Right” because, among other things, he once complimented Infowars’ Alex Jones: “Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down.” But in Hillary’s estimation, who is “the grand godfather” of the worldwide Alt-Right? You guessed it: “Russian President Vladimir Putin.” A month later she doubled down in her infamous “basket of deplorables” speech, branding Trump’s tens of millions of supporters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it.” (In an evident oversight, she omitted mention of Putin.)

    Give the warmongering old girl credit for her doggedness. Hillary has stuck to this theme even as she sinks into irrelevance (while still reportedly harboring ambitions of a 2020 presidential run!), in June 2018 calling Putin the leader of the worldwide “authoritarian, white-supremacist, and xenophobic movement” who is “emboldening right-wing nationalists, separatists, racists, and even neo-Nazis.”

    Hillary is not alone. As summed up by Jodi Jacobson of Rewire.News (“Putin, Trump, and Kavanaugh: A Triad of White Supremacy and Oligarchy”):

    ‘Putin is a dictator. His interests are in amassing wealth and power at any cost, both in Russia and globally. … He is an ethnic nationalist, a white supremacist, and an Islamophobe. He aligns himself with radical right-wing religious and political groups to marginalize and attack the rights of women, LGBTQ communities, and religious and ethnic groups outside his power base.’ 

    But perhaps the most revealing description comes from putative comedian Bill Maher on a recent episode of his HBO program, explaining that “Race Explains Shift From Party Of Reagan To Party Of Putin” and excoriating not just Putin but Russians as such for their genetic characteristics:

    ‘UPDATE, with video The “dirty little secret” that explains how the Party of Reagan morphed into the Party of Putin is a four-letter word, Bill Maher said tonight: Race.

    ‘“Russia,” Maher said during his New Rules segment on HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher, “is one of the last places on earth to say, ‘F**k diversity. We’re here. We’re white. Get used to it.’”

    ‘Attempting to explain how 87% of Republicans (according to a recent poll) are fine with Russia’s president Vladimir Putin visiting the White House, Maher chalked it up to racism, and even quoted a tweet from his old pal Ann Coulter.

    ‘“Last year Ann Coulter tweeted that ‘In 20 years, Russia will be the only country that is recognizably European.’ As far back as 2013 Matt Drudge called Putin the leader of the free world. David Duke called Russia the key to white survival.

    ‘“Today’s Republicans, what’s left of them, do not like the melting pot,” he said. “And Russia? That pot don’t melt.”

    ‘Making jokes about White Russians (“Let’s see, I want to get drunk but I also want a glass of milk”) and Russian basketball players (“the team that played against the Globetrotters”), Maher compared racial diversity (or lack thereof) in Russia to that of Western Europe.

    ‘Ending the bit with a bite, Maher concluded, “A Barack Obama does not become the president of Russia. Wingnuts used to accuse Obama of being a foreign agent who took over America, but when a foreign power actually did take over America and it was the proudly white one, their response was ‘come right on in.’

    ‘“To the members of the Grand Old Party, Russia meddling in our elections isn’t a breach of national security, it’s just white people helping white people. Or what Republicans call governing.”’

    Maher gives away more than he suspects. Very little in the foregoing says anything about racism, either Russian or American, but it does say a great deal about Maher’s own disdain for Russia because it is “recognizably European,” also known as (if you’ll pardon the expression) white.

    One suspects he doesn’t castigate, say, Koreans or Japanese for the fact that their countries are “recognizably Asian” and are going to stay that way.

    Shifting to the US, it is increasingly obvious that what poses as antiracism and opposition to “hate” is little more than hostility to the identity and values of the core American ethnos: English-speaking Christians of European descent, including completely or partially assimilated descendants of immigrants. (In other countries this would be understood in specifically national terms – Russian, French, German, English, etc. – but for historical reasons too complex to summarize here, the core American demographic is generally seen in terms of race, not ethnicity. This stems in part from the absurd but widespread claim that the US not an ethnic state, only a civic one.) More and more this hostility is expressed as hatred of “whiteness” itself, in a manner that would be totally unacceptable applied to any other ethnic, racial, or religious group.

    The current Exhibit A of such hatred is the controversy over a newly appointed member of the New York Times editorial board, Korean-born Sarah Jeong, whose expressions of anti-white bias were parodied by African-American conservative Candace Owens, only substituting “Jewish” and “black” for Jeong’s “white.” Unsurprisingly, Owens was suspended from Twitter while Jeong – who also trashes men and the police – is the beneficiary of full-throated support from the assembled forces of diversity, tolerance, and overall wonderfulness.

    Jeong is just one example of a phenomenon that has become fashionable among the haters. “White thoughts” are a disease, as is whiteness itself. Among the items various college professors have denounced as tainted by white racism are math, farmers’ markets, interracial friendship, solar eclipses, the Bible (of course), environmental pollution, college football, the song “Jingle Bells,” the nuclear family, punctuality, and (it goes without saying) supporting Trump. The existence of entire US states like New Hampshire and Vermont that are just “too white” is an affront to diversity, a problem demanding a solution. For the über-PCHuffPost.com, whiteness constitutes an entire issue category for the grievances of other racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual “communities,” including helpful advice to liberal white feminists to just “shut the f**k up!” The inevitability of the United States’ becoming a majority-minority country is stated as a fact as inevitable as sunrise and sunset, but it’s “unabashed white nationalism” for even mainstream conservatives who are light-years away from the Alt-Right to point out that Americans never voted for or were asked their opinion about such a future. Conversely, “white-bashing” by self-loathers is a demonstration of the “nobility that flows from racial self-flagellation.”

    Connecting Putin and Russia with racism feeds into cockamamie phantasmagoria of Crimethink concepts that increasingly are considered outside the protection of what was once quaintly known as free speech: hate speech, fake news, conspiracy theories, white nationalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, “cisgenderism,” and many more. (Astonishingly, this recent video from ADL’s Orwellian-named “Center for Technology and Society,” which claims to identify “online hate” with 78 to 85 percent accuracy through the use of artificial intelligence, is real, not a parody.) Just to be accused of subjectively and politically defined hate is now sufficient to trigger a coordinated muzzling of the offender’s online presence by the lords of the Internet, getting them fired from their jobs, and even subjecting them to physical attack from violent enforcers like Antifa. Ostensibly these actions are undertaken by private entities, conveniently hiding the government hand encouraging tech companies to police content to counter “Russian meddling” and other thought crimes.

    The current coupling of a globalist agenda with demonization of our country’s majority demographic has a disquieting precedent.

    In August 1915 the committed internationalist Vladimir Lenin issued his infamous call to “turn the imperialist war into a civil war.” In that, if in nothing else, his program was a smashing success, resulting in the deaths of up to ten million people through savage warfare, “Red Terror” repression, disease, and famine. As he summed it up, “I spit on Russia! That’s only one stage we have to pass through on our way to world revolution!” No sacrifice of other peoples’ lives was too high a price to be paid to implement Lenin’s version of globalism.

    As Anatoly Karlin notes (“The Real Lenin: Traitor, Parasite, Failure”) the horrendous destruction inflicted by the Bolsheviks was motivated in part by Lenin’s conscious hatred – perhaps not very different from Maher’s today – of Russians as the majority ethno-religious group, who had to be crushed to liberate the certified oppressed minorities.

    That hatred gives “an inkling of the real reason why Western intellectuals like Lenin a lot more than Stalin,” writes Karlin. Indeed, in light of the Russian experience there is a chillingly familiar ring to today’s legitimatization of racial detestation of the American majority.

  • "A Devastating Scenario": Brazil Breaks Own Record For Number Of Murders, Ahead Of Election

    The total number of people killed in a single year in Brazil has hit a record, the economically collapsed, South American country saw 63,880 homicides in 2017, according to a Brazilian think-tank, which indicated much of the violent crime is concentrated in the impoverished northeastern states.

    New data from the Brazilian Forum of Public Security (BFPS), an independent organization that tracks national crime statistics, said the shocking number of homicides are up 3 percent on the previous year.

    BFPS showed that the State of Rio Grande do Norte in northeastern Brazil recorded the highest homicides, with about 68 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. The Acne state in the north came in second with 63 deaths per 100,000 people, followed by the state of Ceara in the northeast with 59.1 murders per 100,000 inhabitants.

    On the other hand, the wealthier state of Sao Paulo had the lowest murder rate — 10.7 homicides per 100,000 people.

    “It is a devastating scenario,” said Renato Sérgio de Lima, director of the independent forum, who told The Guardian that homicide figures had been increased by antiquated laws, police procedures and the rapid growth in organized crime. Most victims were young, impoverished black men from city areas, he said.

    “The numbers show we have a serious problem with lethal violence,” he added.

    The terrifying statistics are expected to play a significant role into October’s presidential election, in which violent crime will be a crucial topic for many voters.

    A controversial far-right politician, Jair Bolsonaro, formally declared that he was running for president last month. Bolsonaro leads some polls on a platform that includes “loosening gun controls and giving police more license to kill,” said The Guardian.

    His surge in popularity has forced opponents, including centrist former governor Geraldo Alckmin, to partner with law enforcement conservatives to strengthen their crime-fighting credentials.

    Earlier this year, Brazil’s President Michel Temer enacted an emergency decree authorizing the country’s military to take over policing duties in Rio de Janeiro. The emergency measure, the first of its kind since the mid-1980s, came in response to out of control organized crime in the region.

    * * *

    To make matters worse, the emerging market rout on Friday, with the Turkish Lira crashing more than 18 percent on the session to a record low, could result in more economic, political, and or social destabilization in Brazil heading into the Fall.

    “These factors had been viewed as isolated and local, but they started triggering a wider contagion this morning,” a Rio de Janeiro-based fund manager said. Currencies in Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia, and Argentina had all declined at least 1 percent at one point on Friday, which could lead to financial stress, thus social instability.

    One veteran EM trader in Brazil exclaimed to us on Friday “this is a fucking bloodbath,” adding that “liquidity has disappeared” and as spooked retail investors pile out of ETFs (that their advisers said were no-brainers), the pressure in real markets is explosive. Emerging Market FX is indeed a bloodbath…

    Equities markets in Latin America including Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina were also off over 1 percent. Brazil’s Bovespa index hit a liquidity gap of -2.1 percent after several companies reported disappointing earnings on Thursday, along with a -3 percent slide on Friday thanks to EM contagion via Turkey.

    Why should you care? The answer is below.

  • Free-Speech Monopoly – The Game Is Rigged

    Via Ben Garrison’s GrrrGraphics.com,

    In early America many cities had ‘town squares’ in which citizens could stand on soapboxes and shout out various messages. Our First Amendment protects such speech.

    The Internet is today’s town square. The soapboxes are social media.

    The Deep State and the left are intertwined with Silicon Valley. The CIA helped Google and Facebook get started. Why? To make it easier to spy on people. Over time, millions gravitated toward Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Conservative and Libertarian voices became very strong and that alarmed the Deep State. So they began demonetizing conservatives. Then they shadow-banned them. Now they are deleting them outright.

    For many years, Alex Jones reached millions with his journalism and rants. His tirades helped wake people up. He yelled at us about the Deep State, including the corrupt security agencies, the Bohemian Grove, the CFR, the Bilderbergs, fluoride in our water, the lies about 9-11, and yes, even Sandy Hook. The latter had many anomalies that should be questioned. Alex brought all of this up and more before anyone else had a inkling about what was really going on with such matters. He was routinely dismissed as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ by the establishment. However, much of what he has been saying over the years is now acknowledged as self-evident. The legacy media, the Deep State, and Silicon Valley could not stomach the fact that he was informing and influencing minds and elections. They all got together and confiscated his soapbox. Their lame excuse? They claimed he was a purveyor of ‘hate speech.’

    Having previously endured years of hate speech aimed toward me, I know what it is and what it isn’t. To me, it’s libel, defamation and death threats. Alex Jones has never engaged in hate speech. Questioning climate change is not hate speech. Jones is not a racist, a bigot or any of the other ‘phobic’ names the left enjoy pinning on ideological opponents. ‘Hate speech’ sounds alarming and terrible, but it’s also vague. Who gets to decide what it is?

    The Supreme Court ruled it was legal speech, but apparently the Silicon Valley and Deep State commissars want to overrule that decision. They own their social media game and they’ve rigged it in their favor. They have all the money in the world, so they can afford to lose revenue from the millions of conservatives and libertarians they’re forcing out of the game. They can’t win the argument, so they’re resorting to censorship.

    Censorship is what China does, and companies like Facebook and Apple are eager to please the communist oligarchs. The Deep State wants what President Xi enjoys – a rigged Internet that does not allow dissent or criticism of the political elite. Right now, even Winnie the Pooh is being banned in China. Why? Because Xi opponents in China were using the cartoon bear as a ‘meme’ to criticize their leader. Remember, conservatives greatly out-memed the left during the last presidential election. Hillary is no doubt very angry that we have the ability to meme and ridicule her pomposity. She once said herself that the Internet needs an ‘editor.’ She would welcome a Chinese-style, well-censored Internet that she and her ilk would control.

    The leftist media have dominated American minds for decades. The lies they told were readily accepted as facts. That kind of mind control is no longer working for them, thanks to the Internet. We know their ‘Russia collusion’ narrative is bunk. We’re not going along, so now they want to force us to go along and if we don’t, we get banned as ‘haters.’

    It will get worse. PayPal is already banning users who are being smeared as ‘haters.’ The left will make that tactic seem fashionable, so it’s a matter of time before banks get in on the act. Maybe even the Bezos-owned Amazon?

    What can we do? Many think conservatives should develop their own social media. That is no easy task and we will receive no generous funding from the Deep State to do it. What we should NOT do is ask government to ‘regulate’ social media. That would only add bureaucracy and regulations on free speech and if the left regains political control, they will use it to their advantage. Just like they used the IRS to harass conservatives.

    The only thing we can do now is keep our cool and let the leftist oligarchs play their game and reveal themselves for who they are – tyrants who want control over our minds via their game of monopoly.

  • Iran Sanctions Fallout: China Takes Over French Share In Giant Iran Gas Project

    When it comes to the Middle East, China has not been shy about its recent ambitions to expand its geopolitical influence in the Gulf region: Just last week we reported that the Chinese Ambassador to Syria, Qi Qianjin, shocked Middle East pundits and observers by indicating the Chinese military may fill the void left in the wake of the collapse of ISIS – and most regional armies – and directly assist the Syrian Army in an upcoming major offensive on jihadist-held Idlib province.

    The “[Chinese] military is willing to participate in some way alongside the Syrian army that is fighting the terrorists in Idlib and in any other part of Syria,” the ambassador said in an interview with the pro-government daily newspaper Al-Watan, subsequently translated by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

    And having staked a military claim in Syria, China was next set to expand its national interest in that other key regional nation which has been the source of so much consternation to its neighbors and world powers in recent months and which has emerged as a key source of crude oil exports to Beijing: Iran.

    It did so today when China’s state-owned energy giant, CNPC – the world’s third largest oil and gas company by revenue behind Saudi Aramco and the National Iranian Oil Company – finally took over the share in Iran’s multi-billion dollar South Pars gas project held by France’s Total, Iran’s official news agency Shana reported on Saturday.

    To many the move had been expected, with only the details set to be ironed out. Recall that back in May we wrote that CNPC – the world’s third largest oil and gas company by revenue behind Saudi Aramco and the National Iranian Oil Company – was set to take over a leading role held by Total in a huge gas project in Iran should the French energy giant decide to quit amid US sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

     

    That finally happened when the Chinese energy giant took advantage of Trump’s sanctions to step in the void left by the French major. As a reminder, Total signed a contract in 2017 to develop Phase II of South Pars field with an initial investment of $1 billion, marking the first major Western energy investment in the country after sanctions were lifted in 2016. South Pars has the world’s biggest natural gas reserves ever found in one place.

    And after hen the French company said it would pull out unless it secured a U.S. sanctions waiver  – which it was unable to do – in June, the deputy head of the National Iranian Oil Company, Gholamreza Manouchehri, said that CNPC would take over if Total were to walk away.

    “China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) has replaced Total of France with an 80.1 percent stake in the phase 11 of the South Pars (gas field),” IRNA quoted Mohammad Mostafavi, director of investment of Iran’s state oil firm NIOC, as saying, although there was no immediate confirmation of the IRNA report by CNPC.

    Following the transaction, CNPC – which earlier held a 30% stake in the project – will now hold an 80.1% stake in the prokject, having taken over Total’s 50.1% share. The remainder is held by Iran’s Petropars.

    Total has not yet said what it would do with its stake following the pull out, and it has until Nov. 4 to wind down its Iran operations. Total had spent €40 million on the project by May when it said it would have to withdraw from Iran if it couldn’t secure sanctions waivers from the U.S. Treasury.

    So is China willing to risk Trump’s wrath and suffer economic sanctions for taking over where Total left off? It certainly looks like it: back in May we wrote that CNPC will use its banking unit, Bank of Kunlun, as a funding and clearing vehicle if it takes over operation of South Pars. The bank was used to settle tens of billions of dollars worth of oil imports during the UN sanctions against Tehran between 2012 and 2015, and is thus well-equipped to skirt US sanctions.

    Sure enough, the US Treasury sanctioned Kunlun in 2012 for conducting business with Iran, however since most of the bank’s settlements during that time were in euros and Chinese renminbi, there was little it could do in terms of credible punishment.

    If CNPC goes ahead, it would also likely have to develop crucial equipment, such as large-powered compressors needed for developing gas deposits on this scale, on its own. And since leading manufacturers like U.S. firm GE and Germany’s Siemens could be barred from supplying to Iran under US sanctions, it means even more Chinese companies will find willing demand for their services in Iran.

  • Governments Have Destroyed Housing Affordability In Many Places…But Some Refuges Remain

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    From crime rates to life expectancy to income levels, statistics at the national level are next to useless when it comes to measuring the daily lives of ordinary people in the United States. This is because the United States – which is a huge and geographically diverse country – is simply too large to be summed up in a single number. This sort of generalizing is inappropriate for pretty much any place that’s larger than a single metro area, but it’s especially bad when applied to a place like the United States. Even the larger European countries are much smaller, more compact, and less diverse than than US.

    The importance of looking at things on a more local level is perhaps most important when looking at issues of homes and home prices. After all, even people who have never studied housing know that housing tends to be highly dependent on local issues, such as climate, local amenities, and access to employment. Many people already know that a four bedroom house in a nice Cleveland suburb is dirt cheap compared to a house of the same size in, say, San Diego, California.

    So, it shouldn’t be terribly surprising to find that in many parts of the United States, buying a home continues to be quite affordable by historical standards. This fact has started to attract some attention in recent years. In her column titled “Opting Out of Coastal Madness to Live a Low-Overhead Life,” Anne Trubek discusses how its possible to live comfortably on $40,000. But here’s the rub. To do this, one has to live in an un-sexy midwestern city –  albeit in a neighborhood with tree-lined streets and solid, four-bedroom houses.

    Statistical data seems to bear this out as well. In June, the Brookings Institution released a new study showing that housing affordability varies greatly from coastal cities to the American interior. And by coastal, they mean “ocean coast.” Living near the coastline of the Great Lakes, apparently brings with it even more affordability:

    Source: Brookings

    The basic premise of the research is to analyze affordability based on the fact that “U.S. median house prices have been roughly 2.5 to 4 times median income.”Comparing current home prices to incomes in each area, the report concludes:

    Metropolitan areas with low price-income ratios are located in very different parts of the country from high-priced metropolitan areas (Figure 5). The lowest ratio metros are mostly located in the Midwest, especially clustered around the Great Lakes, and scattered across Texas. The metros with the highest ratios are primarily along the Pacific and Northeast Atlantic coasts. South Florida, Colorado, and several smaller metros along the Southeast coast also rank among the most expensive areas. Across the U.S., most states have more metro areas with price-income ratios in the normal range (2.4-4.3) than metros with outlying values.

    Comparing against incomes, of course, is important. It’s surely easy to find places where home prices are at rock-bottom levels — in places with depressed economies.

    In this case, however, we’ll be looking at incomes in relation to housing prices, and it is not at all a given that places with good job markets must also have unaffordable housing.

    Texas, for example, has for years had a substantial amount of employment growth. Yet according to the Brookings report, the state has numerous metro areas with “low” and “very low” price-income ratios on housing.

    The focus here is on middle-income families, and on for-purchase housing. Low-income households and renters face a different set of challenges, but even middle-income households may daily be told through the media that housing in the United States is quickly becoming unaffordable. Except those articles and news clips tend to focus on housing in places like Seattle, or along the California coast. And there’s no arguing with the assertion that places like that are “unaffordable” for many middle-income people.

    And as the Brooking article notes, and as I’ve noted, the lack of affordability in places like California can often be blamed on state and local government measures designed to limit the construction and diversification of housing. Zoning laws and other regulatory barriers to new housing production have decimated housing affordability of housing in many coastal cities. Cities like San Francisco and Seattle have essentially become playgrounds for the wealthy in which existing homeowners fight tooth and nail any attempt to allow sizable amounts of new housing construction. They do this, they tell us, to preserve “the character of the neighborhood.” But what they’re really doing is using government regulations to drive up the prices on their own real estate, while driving lower-income people further and further out into the periphery. Oh sure, these Progressive guardians of the local “quality of life” might allow a handful of subsidized housing units to be built. After all, somebody has to make your cappuccino or do your dry cleaning. But the overall effect is to ensure few people can afford to move in.

    This issue, however, is far less prominent in the un-stylish cities of the interior where city officials still welcome new construction and new housing — and where there’s a greater abundance of less-expensive land.

    Still Affordable by International Standards

    I started out by noting it’s a bad idea to ignore the enormous regional differences in the United States when considering aggregate data. And that’s true.

    It is interesting to note, however, that even when we include the price of California and New England coastal housing in our analysis, housing in the United States is still less expensive than in most other wealthy countries.

    According to the OECD, housing expenditure in the United States is 18 percent of gross adjusted disposable income. That’s the third-lowest in the OECD. Moreover, housing costs in the US by this metric are only 75 percent the size of what they are in Denmark and the United Kingdom. US costs are 78 percent the size of housing costs in Italy.

    Americans also tend to get more living space for what they pay.

    For example, the OECD notes that in the United States, there are on average 2.4 rooms per person. Only Canadians have more rooms per person. In Switzerland, Spain, Denmark, and Japan, however, there are only 1.9 rooms per person. That’s one-fifth less than the average in the US.

    And the number of rooms aren’t the only metric by which US homes are bigger. According to the BBC, floor space in newly built homes in the United Kingdom is less than half of what it is in the United States:

    Federal Policy Favors Those Who can Get Into Expensive Markets

    As the Brookings report notes, however, federal policy puts homeowners in more affordable markets at a disadvantage by favoring rapidly appreciating real-estate in pricier markets:

    In low-priced areas, even families that have paid down their mortgages find it difficult to build wealth. That makes it harder for them to supplement retirement savings or borrow against home equity for their kids’ education. Federal tax policies that strongly favor owner-occupied homes over other asset types are not well suited to support middle-class wealth building in lower-price locations.

    Another new study, recently profiled at Bloomberg, shows how post-2008 banking regulations favor building wealth through high-priced real estate over other options, such as building a family business.

    So, for middle income people in a city where home prices are not appreciating very much, owners will be at a disadvantage — thanks to federal tax and regulatory policies — more than someone who sacrifices other important household expenses in order to live in a pricey market.

    When it comes to simply putting a roof over one’s head, however, there are still many markets in the US where it’s possible to buy a house at a price that’s manageable for middle-income households. It’s true that these places are not the glittering stylish cities often featured in movies and sitcoms.

    Those places tend to be controlled by wealthy Progressive elites who don’t want anyone new moving in.

  • 20 Shot Overnight In Chicago: "I’m Scared To Walk To The Corner Store"

    Chicago gun violence erupted to start this weekend, leaving two people dead and at least 18 others severely wounded, including a woman killed in a brutal domestic dispute. It follows last weekend’s record for violent crime, when 12 people were killed and 74 shot.

    Some have linked the increased aggression among residents to relentless scorching hot temperatures this summer, and Chicago has been ground zero for inner city aggression in 2018. According to NBC Chicago, the most recent incident occurred Saturday morning in the Lawndale neighborhood on the West Side. A 25-year-old man was wounded in a shooting at about 1:55 a.m. in the 4000 block of West Grenshaw.

    Law enforcement officials said he was standing outside when two people began firing shots that struck the man. First responders rushed him to St. Anthony’s Hospital with gunshot wounds to the buttocks and the groin, with the hospital now listing him in fair condition.

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

    About 4:45 p.m. Friday, a 29-year-old woman involved in a domestic dispute with someone in the 2500 block of East 79th Street was killed, Chicago police said. The woman, who had a pending court order against the shooter, suffered a fatal gunshot to her back, police said.

    Genice Hines, the mother of the 15-year-old, told the Chicago Tribune it felt like any other Friday night, until late evening when she left work and received a terrifying call. Her son and nephew, two close friends, had been shot. The boys were both standing at the 1300 block of South Independence Boulevard in the West Side’s Lawndale neighborhood when they heard gunfire. Reports indicated the children were about a block from the gas station at Roosevelt Road and Independence.

    The 15-year-old was shot in the head, and the 17-year-old was shot in the abdomen. First responders took them both to Mount Sinai Hospital where they were both listed in good condition.

    “Chicago is a scary place to be,” Hines warned. “Even I’m scared to walk to the corner store.”

    The boys were among 20 people shot in the past 48 hours. NBC Chicago provides the list of shootings:

    • about midnight, a man was wounded after he was shot somewhere on his body in the Austin neighborhood on the West Side;
    • a 17-year-old girl was struck in the left shoulder and lower back while she was standing in the kitchen of a home about 2:10 a.m. in the South Side Chatham neighborhood;
    • about 9:15 a.m., two men and a 12-year-old girl were wounded in a drive-by shooting Friday morning in the Gresham neighborhood on the South Side. The three victims conditions were stabilized at area hospitals;
    • about 11:45 a.m., A 25-year-old man was shot in the left calf in a shooting Friday morning in the Gresham neighborhood on the South Side. The mans condition was stabilized at Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn;
    • about 3:20 p.m., a 28-year-old man was sitting on a porch in the 5100 block of South Prairie Avenue when a dark-colored car pulled up and someone inside opened fire, police said. The man was struck in his leg and foot, and was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center, where his condition stabilized;
    • about 5 p.m., a 17-year-old boy was wounded in the abdomen in the 2300 block of North Major. He was taken to Illinois Masonic Medical Center, where he was stabilized;
    • shortly after 5 p.m., a 41-year-old was inside an abandoned building in the 11900 block of South Michigan when he got into a fight with someone he knew, police said. The person he was fighting with pulled out a gun and shot him in the right leg. He was taken to Roseland Community Hospital, where his condition was stabilized;
    • about 6:15 p.m., a 37-year-old man was shot in his leg in the 6400 block of South Martin Luther King Drive. He taken by paramedics to Saint Bernard Hospital, where his condition stabilized;
    • about 7:10 p.m., a 20-year-old bicyclist was seriously wounded after another bicyclist shot him in the West Side Austin neighborhood. He was biking in the 5200 block of West Washington Boulevard when a male following him on a bike opened fire, police said;
    • about 8:50 p.m., Two teenage boys were wounded in a shooting Friday night in the Lawndale neighborhood on the Southwest Side. The boys, ages 15 and 17, were standing on a sidewalk in the 1300 block of South Independence Boulevard when he heard gunshots, police said. The older boy was struck in the abdomen, and the 15-year-old suffered a graze wound to his head. They both took themselves to Mount Sinai Hospital, where they were listed in good condition; and
    • about 10:20 p.m., Two men were wounded in a shooting Friday night in the West Pullman neighborhood on the Far South Side. A 29-year-old was shot in his leg and was taken to Christ Medical Center, where his condition stabilized, police said. A 33-year-old was struck in his foot and was taken to Roseland Community Hospital, where his condition also stabilized.

    Some more disturbing statistics about America’s inner city warzone:

    So far this year, 318 people have been killed in Chicago. The silver lining: that is 110 fewer than 2017.

    Homicides tend to peak in the summer months, on the weekend and during later hours.

    The majority of Chicago homicides are the result of gun violence.

    Though homicides are recorded throughout the city, they are most concentrated in the South and West sides.

    The majority of the victims of homicide in Chicago are young, black men.

    Previously Trump had proposed “sending in the Feds” to stabilize the death toll in the “gun free” city.

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

    So far, this remains merely a suggestion.

  • Will Myanmar Become A Conduit For Iranian Crude Into China?

    Authored by Eric Yep via Platts’ “The Barrel” blog,

    On June 1, sometime between the US withdrawal from the JCPOA in early May, and its demand in late June that Asian buyers fully halt Iranian oil purchases, PetroChina snuck in a shipment of Iranian crude through Myanmar to its Yunnan Petrochemical refinery in southern China.

    On any other route, this would have been just another Iranian oil shipment. But using the Myanmar-China oil and gas pipeline brings new complications.

    That’s because the pipeline has a new avatar – it is now a part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, along with other large infrastructure projects that were not originally a part of BRI, but were included later to boost the profile of the program.

    Sending Iranian crude through an oil pipeline with the “Belt and Road” label removes any doubts of whether BRI’s projects have political motives or not.

    For critics of BRI, it adds fodder to the narrative that the infrastructure plan is a tool for China to undercut the influence of the US. BRI already has a serious public relations problem and is viewed with suspicion, sometimes for good reason.

    Earlier this week, the renewal of US secondary sanctions on Iran faced strong opposition from the remaining JCPOA signatories. China has made it clear it will continue to import Iranian barrels, and using a BRI project to do so will give the US ammunition to criticize BRI openly, potentially leaving the host country open to US reprisals.

    BRI has not been particularly polarizing so far, and its participants have included US allies. Oil and gas pipelines are magnets for controversy, however. From the Sumed pipeline in the Middle East to Nordstream 2 in Europe, there hasn’t been an international oil or gas pipeline that was devoid of geopolitics. Myanmar will be no different.

    THE BURMESE CONNECTION

    The Panama-flagged Dore delivered its cargo of Iranian crudes at Maday Island on June 1, the only vessel to have shipped oil from Iran to Myanmar since the 13 million mt/year (260,000 b/d) Yunnan Petrochemical refinery in southern China started operations in August last year.

    Dore’s cargo of 948,000 barrels of crude oil included 474,000 barrels of Iranian South Pars condensate. The refinery said it also processed 56,000 mt of Iranian Heavy crude received via the 1,420 km pipeline, Platts reported previously.

    This was the first batch of Iranian Heavy crude processed by a PetroChina refinery, and is unlikely to be the last. Iranian grades contain a relatively higher amount of metallic and chloride contaminants that corrodes refinery units, due to which some of PetroChina’s biggest refineries like Dalian Petrochemical and Guangxi Petrochemical, were unable to crack the crude.

    Yunnan Petrochemical has a 1.2 million mt/year delayed coking unit that enables it to process Iranian crude, and it has already tested the first cargo successfully. Other major Chinese refineries under Sinopec have used Iranian crudes and found them attractive because of a high naphtha yield, which is needed for petrochemical products.

    All of this paves the way for the China-Myanmar pipeline to become a conduit for Iranian crude, even if it is for just one refinery, which if fully utilized will account for nearly a third of China’s intake of Iranian crude. China’s imports of Iranian crude were around 638,000 b/d in the first half this year.

    The Myanmar-China pipeline runs from Maday Island, near the town of Kyaukpyu in Rakhine state, and connects with China’s domestic pipeline to Kunming city in Yunnan province. It is fed by a deepwater VLCC terminal and tank storage farm, and was negotiated with the former military government of Myanmar. State-owned Chinese media now call it a “pioneer project” of BRI.

    The final question is around the implications for Myanmar, and the legal complications for players in the Iran crude supply chain, like pipeline operators, shipowners, ports or banks involved.

    Legal experts advise caution.

    “In respect of persons involved in transporting or storing petroleum from Iran, there is a risk that they could be subject to US sanctions,” Clyde & Co Partner Avryl Lattin said.

    Sanctions or other punitive measures of the Trump administration are often considered on a case-by-case basis, such as special waivers given to India to import Russian military equipment because of its position as a budding strategic partner of Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy, Collin Koh, Research Fellow at the Maritime Security Programme of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, Singapore, said.

    “It depends a lot on how the target country weighs in significance within the US strategic calculus. Myanmar is certainly not one country that the US can afford to alienate now,” Koh said.

    There are signs that Myanmar wants to turn towards China due to the Rakhine issue, but at the same time Naypyidaw is more amenable to Western concerns and interests than ever before, He said. Due to this, even India and Australia are careful in their treatment of Myanmar.

    So the US may not want to exacerbate the situation by imposing punitive actions on Myanmar just because Iranian oil was piped through its territory to southern China, Koh added.

    “The concerns are long-term geopolitics,” he said. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Aug 11

Today’s News 11th August 2018

  • Seattle Airport Employee Hijacks Plane, Does Barrel Roll, Then Crashes With Fighter Jets In Hot Pursuit

    A 29-year-old mechanic at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport reportedly hijacked a Horizon Air Q400 with no passengers on board, performed aerobatic maneuvers, and then crashed into the ground a short while later with at least one, possibly two F-15 fighter jets in hot pursuit, according to an unconfirmed report by Fox News. 

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

     

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

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

    The sheriff’s office declared that “this is not a terrorist incident,” adding that the pilot was a mechanic from an unknown airline who crashed either from doing stunts or because of a lack of flying abilities. 

    A plume of smoke was reported near Ketron Island, Washington, after authorities received reports that a plane was stolen from Seattle Airport Friday night, according to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).

    Petty Officer Ali Flockerzi said one of the USCG’s 45-foot rescue boats was headed to the scene.

    The island is between Tacoma and Olympia, she said. –NBC News

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

    The airport’s tower identified the suspect as “Rich,” and flights from SeaTac were reportedly halted according to passenger posts on social media. 

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

    The pilot can be heard communicating with air traffic control, as recorded by Twitter user Jimmy Thomson (@jwsthomson).

    “I’ve got a lot of people that care about me,” said the man. “It’s going to disappoint them to hear that I did this. I would like to apologize to each and every one of them. Just a broken guy, got a few screws loose I guess. Never really knew it, until now.” 

    In another segment, an air traffic control operator tells another individual “Right now he’s just flying around, and he just needs some help controlling the aircraft,” to which the man interjected “Nah, I mean, I don’t need that much help; I’ve played some video games before.”  (Full audio here)

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

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

    The man then says “Ah, minimum wage. We’ll just chalk it up to that. Maybe that will grease the gears a little bit with the higher-ups.” 

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

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

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

  • Monsanto Slammed With $289 Million Verdict In Historic 'RoundUp' Cancer Lawsuit

    A San Francisco Jury awarded $289 million in damages to a former school groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, who said Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller gave him terminal cancer. The award consists of $40 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages. 

    Johnson’s trial was fast-tracked due to the severe state of his non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system he says was triggered by Roundup and Ranger Pro, a similar glyphosate herbicide that he applied up to 30 times per year. His doctors didn’t think he’d live to live to see the verdict. 

    Johnson testified that he had been involved in two accidents during his work in which he was doused with the product, the first of which happened in 2012. Two years later, the 46-year-old father of two was diagnosed with lymphoma – which has covered as much as 80% of his body in lesions. 

    Monsanto says it will appeal the verdict. 

    “Today’s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews — and conclusions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and regulatory authorities around the world — support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson’s cancer,” Monsanto Vice President Scott Partridge said in a statement.

    Monsanto is a subsidiary of Germany’s Bayer AG, which closed on its $66 billion purchase of the agrochemical company in June. 

    On Tuesday, Johnson’s attorney Brent Wisner urged jurors to hold Monsanto liable and slap them with a verdict that would “actually change the world” – after arguing that Monsanto knew about glyphosate’s risks of cancer, but decided to ignore and bury the information. 

    According to The Guardian, Johnson is the first person to take Monsanto to trial over allegations that the chemical sold under the Roundup brand is linked to cancer although thousands have made similar legal claims across the United States. This lawsuit focuses on the chemical glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, which Monsanto began marketing as Roundup in 1974.  The company began by presenting it as a “technological breakthrough” that could kill almost every weed without harming humans or the environment. –SHTFplan.com

    In September, 2017 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that glyphosates were not likely carcinogenic to humans, based on a decades-long assessment. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s cancer arm issued an opposite statement – warning that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans.” 

    Johnson’s case isn’t part of the consolidated proceedings in Missouri, Delaware or California state court, where some 2,000 similar cases are pending. It’s also separate from a federal multidistrict litigation waiting to be heard by US District Judge Vance Chabria of San Francisco – who allowed hundreds of Roundup lawsuits to proceed to trial after ruling that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to hear the cases despite calling a plaintiff’s expert opinions “shaky.” 

    Documents released in August of 2017 led to questions over Monsanto’s efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup. 

    As the New York Times noted last year, new internal emails, among other things, reveal ethical objections from former employees to “ghost writing” research studies that were pawned off as ‘independent’ analyses.

    The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.

    A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”

    The newly disclosed emails also reveal internal discussions which cast some doubt over whether internal scientists actually believed in the company’s external messaging that Roundup was, in fact, safe.

    “If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react — with serious concern.”

    And, here’s more:

    The documents also show that a debate outside Monsanto about the relative safety of glyphosate and Roundup, which contains other chemicals, was also taking place within the company.

    In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”

    In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”

    Not surprisingly, Monsanto’s lawyers have argued that the comments above have simply been taken out of context… 

    Monsanto said it was outraged by the documents’ release by a law firm involved in the litigation.

    “There is a standing confidentiality order that they violated,” said Scott Partridge, vice president of global strategy for Monsanto. He said that while “you can’t unring a bell,” Monsanto would seek penalties on the firm.

    “What you’re seeing are some cherry-picked things that can be made to look bad,” Mr. Partridge said. “But the substance and the science are not affected by this.”

    Glyphosphate – Roundup’s main ingredient, was first approved for use in weed killers in 1974, and has grown to become the world’s most popular and widely used herbicide. 

  • Bunker Mentality: Start Preparing for Ecological & Economic Disaster Free Of Corporate Overlords

    Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Let’s face it: reading stories about the ongoing destruction of planet Earth, the life-sustaining blue marble that all of us – aside from maybe Elon Musk – are permanently trapped on, has got to be one of the least-favorite topics of all time. The reasons are understandable, but no longer feasible.

    In the realm of politics, replete with its cast of colorful culprits, the possibility of radical change always hovers just over the horizon, which gives the subject much of its universal appeal. Stories devoted to environmental issues, on the other hand, inundate the reader with a dizzying array of mind-boggling statistics that are not only incredibly depressing, they seem impossible to do anything about.

    For example, take what I consider to be the most depressing story in recent memory – the so-called ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch,’ a swirling garbage dump trapped in a vortex between Hawaii and California, estimated to be twice the size of Texas. How is anyone expected to wrap their brain around that modern monument to our collective stupidity over their morning cup of coffee? Somehow we always expected the oceans, due to their sheer size and vastness, to remain beyond the reach of mankind’s destructive tendencies. Yet the story of the slowly dying oceans and its vibrant sea life – despite some truly fantastic schemes to reverse the trend – proves not just how wrongheaded that belief is, it belies the destructive nature of our hedonistic and materialistic lifestyles.

    This leads to yet another reason so many people shy away from apocalyptic stories of environmental degradation: their own collusion in the ongoing tale of planetary destruction, which is part and parcel of our inquisitive lifestyles. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are all deeply indebted consumers of the corporate cornucopia. The majority of us spend a disproportionate amount of our time earning a living just to feed the monkey of our worldly desires, which our corporate overlords happily provide in superabundance – at excessive interest rates, I might add.

    In fact, when our situation is viewed critically and objectively, human beings now live like astronauts, totally cut off from the natural world, yet, at the same time, connected by a fragile umbilical cord to the corporate world. Such a scenario must give any thinking person tremendous pause, for it highlights our dangerous level of dependency on external economic forces – namely, the corporate world – to sustain us. Here is where the idea of ‘environmental destruction’ should really pique our interest.

    It is not so difficult to conduct a thought experiment that involves the ramifications of a massive economic downturn, or some unexpected natural disaster (on the scale of Hurricane Katrina, for example, multiplied by 10,000) of such magnitude that corporations are no longer able or willing to provide for our most basic daily needs. It may be exceedingly difficult to imagine such a grim scenario, especially since we now take it for granted that grocery stores will always remain open for business and stocked full of goodies, but the majority of us would quickly perish in the event that some unexpected crisis brought the global economy down on our heads. Such a nightmare may be easier to imagine when it is considered that just 10 companies control the entire global food supply, while most people have no means or knowledge of tilling the land for their food supplies.

    Perhaps it is on this point that the topic of ‘environmental destruction’ can become not only sexy, like the exciting world of politics, but vital for mankind’s continued existence. It’s time to stop acting like children and face an ugly truth: our current materialistic lifestyles are not sustainable in the long-term, and probably not in the short term either. Our incredible level ofwastefulness, compounded by Earth’s finite resources, guarantees that the planet’s 7 billion people are living on borrowed time. Exactly what ‘short-term’ means, however, is a question none of us can really answer. It may mean the day after tomorrow or another 500 years. Again, nobody can say. But given the upsurge of interest, for example, in “doomsday prepping” among people of average means (a topic that even the high-brow Financial Times reported on), to the construction of sprawling underground bunkers for the elite, there is a growing consensus among many people that it is time to start taking back some control of our lives.

    Currently, I am living in Russia, where the difference between Russians and Americans when it comes to preparing for the ‘unknown’ could not be greater. While Americans spend untold hours per week mowing their lawns, pulling weeds and trimming the hedges, Russians are toiling at their ‘dachas’ (in Russia, it is common for people to own an apartment in the city and a piece of land in the countryside), growing fruit and vegetables in greenhouses, and collecting mushrooms in the forest (picking mushrooms is a veritable art form, where it can literally mean the difference between life and death to choose the correct variety among dozens of species). Every Russian I have met in the countryside also have their own private source of water from painstakingly dug wells on their land. This is no small consideration when it is remembered that corporations are gradually buying up, in addition to our food supplies, the rights to our water supplies as well.

    The entire notion of ‘prepping’ in Russia is completely nonexistent since the knowledge of working the land, which became absolutely critical during the severe food shortages of the communist years, has been a traditional part of Russian life since the country’s inception. Although Russians, like any other people, would suffer grave hardships in the event of a severe economic downturn, many of them would still be able to feed themselves due to their time-tested ‘survival’ skills. I am not sure the same could be said of their American and European counterparts.

    There is a memorable scene in the 2009 post-apocalyptic US film, The Road, where a father and son, forced to trek across a devastated American landscape following some sort of unspeakable disaster, stumble upon a discarded underground bunker that is loaded with food, allowing them to survive the next leg of their impossible journey.

    It is a film I would highly recommend every person watch to get a sense of what an unexpected turn of environmental and economic events could mean for them and their loved ones.

    Since corporations not only greatly control to what extent the environment will remain viable for our survival, but also the keys to the corporate cornucopia, there is no better time than the present to consider what would happen if or when, to put the matter bluntly, the shit hits the fan.

  • Number Of "McRefugees" Sleeping In Hong Kong McDonald's Jumps 600%

    The number of Hong Kong residents sleeping overnight at McDonald’s has increased 600% over the past five years, driven in part by the city’s sky-high rents and substandard housing amid an unbearably hot summer, a study has found. 

    The survey, organised by Junior Chamber International’s Tai Ping Shan branch and conducted in June by volunteers, found 334 people had slept in a McDonald’s outlet nightly over at least the past three months. Of the 110 branches that operate 24 hours in the city, 84 had seen overnight sleepers.

    This is a six-fold increase from a similar study in 2013, which found only 57 such people, popularly dubbed McRefugees or McSleepers.

    A branch in Tsuen Wan hosted more than 30 sleepers, the highest among all branches, according to the latest study. –SCMP

    The researchers spoke with 53 such “McRefugees” between the ages of 19 and 79 – finding that 57% are employed and 71% have apartments they rent or own – contrary to the belief that only homeless, jobless people are camping out at the restaurants. 

    Topping the list of reasons for camping out, McRefugees point to saving on air conditioning costs, comfort and security, followed by high rents, crappy housing, family conflicts and the ability to develop social relationships. The ability to save on transportation costs and temporary shelter while waiting for low-rent public housing were also included. 

    One of the cases, a 19-year-old referred to in the study as Ah Lung, was a construction worker who ate, played mobile phone games and slept at a McDonald’s branch in Mong Kok. He did not want to go home due to a bad relationship with his parents, while his income enabled him to live away from home.

    “Family is the basic unit in a society,” Tai Ping Shan publication commission chairwoman Jennifer Hung Sin-yu said. “Even one person who has a home but cannot return is too many. This phenomenon is worth our attention.”

    One McRefugee renting a subdivided flat in To Kwa Wan, Hung said, told volunteers that her landlord charged her HK$16 for a unit of electricity, compared to about HK$1.10 charged by the city’s two main power suppliers.

    Hung said the woman’s flat did not have any windows, which made the city’s humid and hot summer even more unbearable without air conditioning.

    “She told us sometimes she couldn’t even feel the flow of the air,” Hung said. –SCMP

    Hong Kong is one of the world’s least affordable property markets, with over 270,000 applicants on the waiting list for puiblic rental housing. The average wait for families or a single elderly applicant is five years and one month. 

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

    While they wait, subdivided shared-housing is the most common option – however these units, often around 100 sqft, are fraught with the risk of fire, poor ventilation and poor hygene.  

    One 60-year-old well-dressed woman who was “without the unique characteristics of street sleepers” and owns her own flat, said that she spends most of her time at McDonald’s eating by herself because she’s lonely since her husband died and wants to socialize. 

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

    Project consultant Lee Ho-ey said the government should allocate more resources to non-governmental organisations to reach out to McRefugees, providing them with counselling and help.

    He said the government should allocate more resources to non-governmental organisations to reach out to McRefugees frequently and regularly, providing them with counselling and help. –SCMP

    We would note that nobody mentioned the smell of McDonald’s food as a reason for camping out…

  • Giving Trump Carte Blanche For War

    Authored by John Kiriakou via ConsortiumNews.com,

    Have you ever heard of Senate Joint Resolution 59 (S.J.Res. 59)? Neither had I. A friend of mine saw a blurb about it on an obscure national security blog and brought it to my attention. At first glance it didn’t seem to be any big deal. It’s inelegantly named the “Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2018.” It was introduced on April 16, 2018 by Senators Bob Corker (R-TN), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), and Tim Kaine (D-VA). Officially, the bill would “Authorize the use of military force against the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and designated associated forces, and provide an updated, transparent, and sustainable statutory basis for counterterrorism operations.”

    It’s hard to oppose a bill that would “keep Americans safe,” as Corker said in the SFRC hearing. But this bill is so bad, such an affront to our freedom, such an attack on our civil liberties, that we should be compelled to oppose it.

    S.J.Res. 59 is bad for a number of reasons.

    First and most importantly, it would provide blanket permission for the president to launch a military attack of literally any size and intensity whenever he wants without specific congressional approval.

    That seems obviously unconstitutional to me, although I’m not a constitutional scholar. Still, the constitution says in Article I, Section 8 that only Congress shall have the authority to declare war, among other things military. It does not allow the president the ability to launch a war.

    Congress alone has the power to declare war. Article 1, Section 8.

    Second, according to Marjorie Cohn, professor emerita at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild, it also would write the president a “blank check to lock up Americans who dissent against U.S. military policy.” That’s right. If you oppose U.S. military policy, the president would have the right to lock you up indefinitely without charge.

    Certainly, our government already does that. But we’re told that this happens to the worst of the worst—those terrorists who happen to be American, but who also have planned large-scale terrorist attacks against the country or its citizens or who have taken up arms against the United States. Think “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla or the a-yet-unnamed Saudi-American currently being held somewhere and being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

    This is different. This would mean everybody would be at risk. It would mean you could be held in a gulag, incommunicado, if the White House doesn’t like your politics.

    The reason this could come to pass is that, third, the bill is (probably unconstitutionally) broad. It says that the president may, “use all necessary and appropriate force” against Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, and their “associated forces” anywhere in the world and without limitation. But it doesn’t define what “associated forces” means, nor does it define a “co-belligerent,” someone acting in support of one of these countries or groups. It allows the White House to do that for us.

    Fourth, unlike almost every other bill in Congress, this one doesn’t have a sunset clause, meaning it never expires. Congress, to remain relevant, almost always includes a sunset clause so that, if a law is working, it can be renewed. If it isn’t, it can expire. And if it’s flawed, it can be fixed. This one would just go forever.

    Several weeks after the bill was introduced, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) wrote a letter to Corker and to SFRC ranking member Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), another S.J.Res. 59 supporter. CCR said that it had “grave doubts” about the appropriateness and the constitutionality of the bill, and that the bill would “hand over broad authority to expand war—that should reside with Congress—to the executive.” CCR continued that passage of the bill would “complete the erosion of congressional war-making authority set in motion by the 2001 AUMF” passed in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

    Representatives Walter Jones (R-NC), the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and Barbara Lee (D-CA) issued a letter to the SFRC saying that, “The Corker-Kaine proposal would further limit congressional oversight of our perpetual wars. Replacing one blank check with another even broader one is a recipe for disaster.” While conceding that some sort of military authorization is probably necessary, Jones and Lee added that any new bill must include a sunset clause; it must repeal the AUMFs of 2001 and 2002, which also had no sunset clauses; it must be mission-specific; and it must be transparent.

    This terrible bill is stuck in the muck of the congressional process right now. As the months tick by, there’s a greater and greater likelihood that it will simply die. But that doesn’t solve the problem. The problem is that Congress is generally made up of lemmings and cheerleaders for the military/industrial/intelligence complex. They do as they’re told, whether it’s by their leadership or whomever happens to be sitting in the White House. That’s bad for the country. It’s bad for the constitution. And it’s bad for future generations.

    There’s an old saying in Washington. “Don’t kick a man when he’s down. But if he’s already down, don’t stop kicking him.” Now is the time to kick this bill until it’s dead.

  • In Shocking UN Accusation, China Said To Hold 1 Million Uighur Muslims In "Massive Internment Camps"

    A breaking report based on findings of a United Nations human rights panel accuses China of holding up to one million ethnic Uighurs in what the report says resembles a “massive internment camp that is shrouded in secrecy”.

    The minority ethno-religious group concentrated in the western Chinese province of Xinjiang has found itself under increased persecution and oversight by Chinese authorities of late as their collective Sunni Islamic identity and separatist political movements have resulted in historic tensions with the Communist government.

    Chinese Muslim women passing a checkpoint in Xinjiang province. Image source: AFP/Getty

    Most notable is the ethnic Uighur-founded and led East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM, also commonly called the Turkestan Islamic Party, or TIP), a Muslim separatist group based Xinjiang known to have conducted dozens of terror attacks in Chinese cities like Shanghai and Yunnan, but also in places like Afghanistan, and as far as Syria, where it’s believed up to 5,000 Uighurs fight alongside al-Qaeda. 

    Beijing has in recent years been accused of practicing collective punishment and broad crackdowns on the Uighur population in Xinjiang, which is numbered in total at 11 million (with some estimates of up to 15 million; China’s total Muslim population is at about 21 million). The minority ethnic group is also found in sizable numbers in neighboring Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan.

    The new UN statements come after a number of recent cases of prominent Uighur Chinese citizens and dissidents being “disappeared”. 

    According to Reuters:

    A U.N. human rights panel said on Friday that it had received many credible reports that 1 million ethnic Uighurs in China are held in what resembles a “massive internment camp that is shrouded in secrecy”.

    Gay McDougall, a member of the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, cited estimates that another 2 million Uighurs and Muslim minorities are forced into so-called “political camps for indoctrination”.

    The UN panel began its work Friday and is expected to go through Monday examining China’s human rights record. As Reuters also notes a Chinese delegation of about 50 officials present at the proceedings made no immediate comment. 

    Historically throughout parts of the 20th century, the strict Islamic strand of Wahhabi thought and practice has made deep inroads among the Uighurs, with a number of recent historical analysis papers documenting an uptick in Saudi money and influence in Xinjiang province in the 1990s — something which flies in the face of China’s official Communist party and ideology.

    Commenting further on the UN meeting, the South China Morning Post highlighted Chinese officials’ silence concerning the growing accusations of mass Uighur internment:

    Chinese delegation leader Yu Jianhua highlighted economic progress and rising living standards, among other things, but did not directly address the report on the Uygurs.

    Monitoring groups say the Uygurs have been targeted in a surveillance and security campaign that has sent thousands into detention and indoctrination centers.

    The initial UN statement issued from Geneva follows on the heels of a Friday New York Times report which details the case of 52-year old Uighur professor Rahile Dawut, who disappeared while traveling to Beijing sometime during or after last December. She hasn’t been heard from since. 

    Professor Dawut’s close friends and family members told the Times they believe she’s been secretly detained as part of the severe crackdown on the Muslim minority group. Dawut herself has become somewhat famous as an ethnographer known for chronicling the Uighur’s unique and varied historical traditions. 

    A fuller UN report and statements are expected next week, and it will be interesting to see both any concrete evidence that’s produced to back the significant charge of one million “disappeared” and interned persons, as well as the Chinese delegation’s response to the accusation. 

  • World Remains Blind To "Ticking Time Bomb" Counting Down To War On Australia's Doorstep

    A “TICKING time bomb” on Australia’s doorstep is counting down to war – and an expert says the world is blind to it.

    Authored by Gavin Fernando viaNews.com.au,

    A MAJOR new war is looming – and this one sits worryingly close to home.

    Asia is at risk of descending into a region-wide crisis with global implications, a leading expert in Asia-Pacific affairs has warned.

    Dr Brendan Taylor, Associate Professor at ANU Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, argues Asia is at a dangerous crossroads in his new book The Four Flashpoints: How Asia Goes to War.

    A lot is happening in the northeast. China is set to overtake the United States as the world’s dominant power over the next decade. Questions remain over Kim Jong-un’s supposed dismantling of his nuclear arsenal. Japan is building up its military power again, and regional battles for ownership of lucrative oceans are intensifying.

    At the same time, Asia is going through a series of individual crises that feed off and escalate one another — a similar pattern that occurred before the outbreak of World War I and II.

    Dr Taylor argues there are four key “flashpoints” — politically unstable areas with the potential to erupt into sudden conflict — and all are situated within the continent.

    “The risk of major war in Asia is much greater today than most individuals assume,” he warns. “All it would take is an accidental clash between the wrong two militarities, at the wrong place or the wrong time, and a highly dangerous escalation could occur. Asia has been lucky so far that it hasn’t.”

    But what are the four “flashpoints” — and how bad is the situation?

    SOUTH CHINA SEA

    A lot has been said about China’s rising superpower status.

    According to the Lowy Institute’s latest Asia Power Index, China is set to surpass the United States as the most powerful country in the Asia-Pacific region by 2030.

    Nowhere is this more clear than in the South China Sea, a marginal sea in the Pacific Ocean bordered by 10 competing countries. Over the past five years, the size and scale of China’s land-reclamation has intensified, with satellite evidence of military build-up and threats uttered to the rest of the world — including Australia.

    The sea continues some of the world’s most important shipping lanes, and is believed to hold trillions of dollars in undiscovered oil and gas reserves.

    The South China Sea has long been considered a potential outbreak spot for a global war.Source:Getty Images

    The prospect of war breaking out over the South China Sea continues to be a major discussion point.

    It’s perhaps surprising, then, that Dr Taylor says the South China Sea is the least likely of the four major flashpoints to erupt into war.

    He notes that, while a lot of countries are involved in the ownership debacle, most of them aren’t interested enough to go to war over it.

    But whether the West can keep the waters free in the face of an increasingly aggressive China is another thing. “Washington will find it increasingly harder to stare down Beijing in the South China Sea; ­geography favours China too strongly.”

    Meanwhile, in the sea to China’s east, a similar — if not more worrying situation — is bubbling.

    EAST CHINA SEA

    You probably haven’t heard of this conflict in nearly as much detail. But the threat of escalating into war is just as real — if not more so — than the South China Sea.

    The East China Sea is a disputed region situated in the middle of China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, believed to hold valuable natural resources.

    At 1.25 million square kilometres, it’s less than half the size of the South China Sea, and receives significantly less media attention. But it’s just as hotly contested — and includes stand-offs between Japan and South Korea, Japan and China, and Taiwan.

    The threat of the East China Sea escalating into war is just as real — if not more so — than the South China Sea.Source:Supplied

    While its location makes it less relevant to Australia than the South China Sea, this body of water has caused controversy for several years, with China’s vessels repeatedly sailing into the disputed waters.

    “The prospect of Japan developing nuclear weapons is no longer unthinkable,” said Dr Taylor.

    Noting a complicated relationship between China and Japan, he warns the East China Sea conflict could spark war between Japan and China over an “accidental military clash or a miscalculation”, as well as “virulent nationalism” between the two countries.

    As Dr Taylor notes, one of the main reasons Japan is increasing its involvement in the South China Sea is out of concern that what China might get away with there will set the terms for what it can do in the East China Sea.

    The resulting conflict could be catastrophic.

    THE KOREAN PENINSULA

    Tensions between North Korea and the wider world made a peak last year with the trade of threats between US President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un.

    Despite a symbolic pledge towards peace at the recent Singapore summit, Dr Taylor says the risk of escalation remains of the Korean peninsula.

    He warns that the faltering of these diplomatic efforts could still lead to a strike from Mr Kim, should he read too much into American rhetoric and US military preparations.

    “Or Kim, feeling invulnerable because of his burgeoning nuclear and missile arsenal, and buoyed by the prospect of a faltering US-South Korea alliance, could launch a surprise conventional strike against Seoul with a view to reunifying Korea by force.”

    There are concerns Kim Jong-un isn’t dismantling his nuclear arsenal as promised in the June Singapore summit with Donald Trump.Source:AP

    Even if Mr Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping were to strike a deal and trade North Korea for Taiwan, he said it’s unlikely Mr Kim would go down without a fight.

    “In a worst-case scenario, he (Kim) even might unleash his nuclear arsenal on the world. Troublingly, declining powers throughout history have shown a tendency to lash out.”

    Just last week, new evidence from satellite photos revealed renewed activity at the North Korean factory that produced the country’s first intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States.

    The satellite images sparked fears Mr Kim was not keeping his word to dismantle his nuclear and ballistic missile program.

    TAIWAN

    Taiwan is only 36,000 square kilometres — but the island is hugely controversial.

    Beijing sees the island as part of China, and is prepared to reunify the two nations by force if necessary, even though the island has its own self-ruling democratic government, and views itself as a sovereign nation.

    While the US has continued to supply Taiwan with military arms for decades — despite officially recognising only China — Dr Taylor describes Taiwan as a “ticking time bomb”.

    “America’s military ability to defend Taiwan is already at its limit,” he writes. “The US advantage will likely be gone in a decade … allowing Beijing to deny America access to this theatre.

    “America’s ability to intervene in the Taiwan Strait is receding, while an attempt to re-engage carries the risk of sparking “a war like no other”.”

    Donald Trump has taken a harder line on Taiwan recently, which Dr Taylor believes is “a reflection of his frustration at Beijing’s unwillingness to deal more decisively with Pyongyang or to de-­escalate in the South China Sea”.

    He notes there are concerns Mr Trump may be willing to trade away US support for Taiwan in exchange for China’s help with resolving the North Korean issue.

    Taiwan has its own democratic government, but China still views it as part of the mainland country.Source:Supplied

    Dr Taylor notes that there “seems a strange complacency” about the prospect of war in Asia, “even as the key players understand how devastating a major war would be”.

    The good news is that finding a solution isn’t impossible — but it won’t be easy. “It will require careful management of Asia’s increas­ingly interconnected flashpoints, which each require subtly different methods of control,” warns Dr Taylor. “More importantly, it will demand of Asia’s leaders a much greater sense of urgency than has so far been shown.

    “Because time is running short. The doomsday clock is ticking, and midnight is almost upon us.”

  • "Leave Immediately" – CNN Records Chinese Warnings Aboard Naval Flight Near Artificial Islands

    In the latest serious incident to further prove that China is militarizing its rapidly expanding set of man made islands in one of the most hotly contested bodies of water in the world, 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,” according to a new CNN report. 

    This was one of six radio communicated warnings to a US Navy P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance plane as it reportedly flew safely in international air space early Friday, likely to monitor the string of artificial islands popping up and catching the world by surprise over the past couple years, specifically the new fortifications built upon Subi Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Johnson Reef and Mischief Reef, in the Spratley Islands.

    This is similar to last week’s Chinese threats against the Armed Forces of the Philippines operating near the islands, who were told, “Leave immediately or you will pay”.

    Spratley Islands, with military runway; image via QRZ Now

    Perhaps most interesting about Friday’s encounter is that it was all recorded by a CNN reporter and camera crew who were aboard the Navy flight.

    CNN reports:

    Aboard a US Navy P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance plane, CNN got a view from 16,500 feet of low-lying coral reefs turned into garrisons with five-story buildings, large radar installations, power plants and runways sturdy enough to carry large military aircraft.

    During the flight the crew received six separate warnings from the Chinese military, telling them they were inside Chinese territory and urging them to leave.

    Observing the artificial island chains up close, both the aircraft crew and CNN were shocked at just how expansive the military infrastructure on the islands are, noting that in the instance of Subi Reef, “the Poseidon’s sensors picked up 86 vessels, including Chinese coast guard ships, moored in a giant lagoon, while on Fiery Cross Reef rows of hangers stood alongside a lengthy runway.”

    The recon flight commander, Lt. Lauren Callen, told CNN, “It was surprising to see airports in the middle of the ocean.”

    In response to the belligerent Chinese radio communications to “leave immediately” the US crew cited that the plane was conducting lawful activities over international territory.  Under international law, a country’s airspace is considered to be 12 nautical miles distant from the coastline of the nation.

    As long suspected, it appears China has used the man-made islands to lay claim to vast swathes of the South China Sea as falling under its definition of what constitutes sovereign Chinese space. 

    CNN relates the radio confrontation in the following:

    Each time the aircraft was challenged by Chinese military, the US Navy crew’s response was the same.

    “I am a sovereign immune United States naval aircraft conducting lawful military activities beyond the national airspace of any coastal state,” the response said.

    “In exercising these rights guaranteed by international law, I am operating with due regard for the rights and duties of all states.”

    CNN has reached out to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment.

    The Chinese government staunchly maintains large areas of the South China Sea have been part of the country’s territory “since ancient times.”

    Listen to the inflight recording to the China’s warning below (starts at :50 mark)

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

    Beijing’s so called “nine-dash line” encircles as much as 90 percent of the contested waters in the South China see 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.

    The CNN report, while noting missiles were recorded as placed on the Spratly island chain during naval exercises last April, details the following observations during Friday’s flyover:

    Flying over Fiery Cross Reef on Friday, a five-story building was visible, as well as a large radar installation, which looked like neatly arranged golf balls on the Navy plane’s infrared camera.

    Though no Chinese missiles were seen on Friday’s flight over the South China Sea, Navy officers said some of the structures seen could potentially be used to house them.

    A previously leaked treasure trove of high quality surveillance images, likely from the the Philippine National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA), proved Beijing’s drive to militarize the heavily disputed artificially-created islands it controls in the South China Sea.

    Though such warnings issued to US military planes and vessels are less common, albeit increasingly frequent, the Philippines’ military have had an uptick in threats issued against them, such as multiple incidents this summer.

    Despite many Chinese warnings threatening the Philipines, Washington has made it clear that it will maintain and increase an active presence in the region.

    “International law allows us to operate here, allows us to fly here, allows us to train here, allows us to sail here, and that’s what we’re doing, and we’re going to continue to do that,” the Pentagon told the AP last February, and said further that, “The United States military has had a lot of experience in the Western Pacific taking down small islands.”

    As China and its militarized islands in the South Sea prepare for a military conflict, we must continue asking the very simple question: What could possibly go wrong?

  • Paul Craig Roberts: "Is There Enough Of America Left To Be Saved?"

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    As many readers of this website have noticed, the United States has lost its character and become a dysfunctional society. In place of a largely homogeneous population once united in veneration of the Constitution, there exists today massive diversity which Identity Politics has used to disunite the population into separate interest groups.

    No clause or article of the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, is safe.

    The George W. Bush and Obama regimes destroyed two of the most important protections of civil liberty—habeas corpus and due process.

    Bush declared indefinite imprisonment on suspicion alone without evidence or trial. Obama declared execution of US citizens on accusation alone without due process. The Justice (sic) Department wrote legal memos justifying torture, thus destroying the constitutional protection against self-incrimination. One of the authors of the memos is now a professor of law at UC Berkeley. The other is now a federal judge, indications that respect for the Constitution and enforcement of US and international laws against torture is fading in law schools and the federal judiciary.

    A third important protection of civil liberty – freedom of speech which is necessary for the discovery of truth and to serve justice – is being destroyed. Apple, Google/Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, university speech codes, legislation against protesting Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians, and the presstitute media that has been turned into a propaganda organ in behalf of vested interests are all actively involved in protecting lies against truth.

    Glenn Greenwald reported that “the single greatest threat to free speech in the West — and in the U.S. — is the coordinated, growing campaign to outlaw and punish those who advocate for, or participate in, activism to end the Israeli occupation” of Palestine.

    The Second Amendment, which was placed in the Constitution as a defense against oppression by government, is under attack by well financed organizations in service to the police state with the intention of disarming the population. Many attentive Americans are convinced that mass shootings are staged or pretended in order to create public support for repealing the Second Amendment. Clearly the amount of effort expended against the Second Amendment is disproportional to the number of shooting deaths as compared to other causes of deaths. Why this one cause of deaths has so many well financed and politically active organizations compared to other causes of deaths is a question that is studiously avoided. We see far more opposition to the Second Amendment than we see against Washington’s destruction in whole or part of seven countries during the past two decades, resulting in the death, maiming, widowing, orphaning and displacement of millions of peoples.

    In an Orwellian twist, freedom of religion is now interpreted as a prohibition against celebrating Christianity, the religious basis of the country, in public arenas.

    Law faculties and the ACLU have deemphasized the original rights specified in the Constitution, emphasizing instead rights for transgendered, homosexuals, illegal aliens, and those seeking and performing abortions—a horrendous crime only a few decades ago.

    Today all it takes to trump the US Constitution is to utter “National Security.”

    As the United States is the Constitution, destroying the Constitution destroys the United States. Yet those destroying the Constitution claim that they are making the country safe by substituting police state measures for civil liberty.

    The newly invented rights and the speech codes are used as weapons against heterosexual white males and to transfer authority from white male professors and managers to university and corporate “diversity offices” acting in behalf of “oppressed minorities” (women, non-white races except apparently Asians, homosexuals, transgendered). In the August 2018 issue of Chronicles, a magazine of American culture, Jack Trotter relates one of his experiences as an assistant professor “at a major Southern university, one of those SEC football titans.” In a lecture he encouraged his students to “avoid excessive use of abstract, Latinate terms in their writing.” He was accused of committing a racist crime of advocating white superiority by expressing a preference for short words with clear meaning that comprise Anglo-Saxon vocabulary. The absurd charge was placed in Trotter’s university file for internal use in the event he gave further indications of white supremacy by uttering the term Anglo-Saxon.

    It gets even more ridiculous than this. A professor I know at a major research university was unaware that “girls” had been made an insensitive word and used it in class. He was called before a diversity dean and told that one more infraction and he would have to attend a class in “diversity training.”

    The same thing happened to a graduate student at an English University who was one Friday afternoon sitting talking with three secretaries who were describing the evening out they had planned. He said: “sounds like a fun girls’ night out.” The expression “girls night out” is an old one widely used by women themselves, but the secretaries took offense at the word “girls,” complained, and the graduate student was subjected to sensitivity training.

    Any member of an “oppressed minority” can make a complaint against a white male on any basis, and it is in the vested interest of the diversity office, whether university or corporate—remember the Google case—to regard the complaint both as true and as an offense.

    A couple of years ago a black female student claimed that as she walked past a fraternity house on the Georgia Tech campus, racial slurs were yelled at her from an open window. The president immediately suspended the fraternity without due process. It was proven that all the windows in the house had been painted shut for many years and that none of them would open. But the penalty against the fraternity stood.

    It would be interesting to know if white males are permitted to file complaints against radical feminists who dismiss all white heterosexual males as rapists and black professors who describe whites as “ice people,” racists, and imperial/colonial exploiters.

    The question is: are white heterosexual males protected by speech codes? I would suspect that if a white male filed a complaint against a man-hating feminist, the diversity office would take the complaint as proof that the white male is a misogynist, and if a white male filed a complaint against a black it would be interpreted as proof of the white male’s racism.

    There have been some cases of Christian students complaining of prejudices that professors display against Christianity, but by and large I don’t think the complaints have had much success.

    Liberals will say that the rights protected in the Constitution are more prevalent, not less. They will point to the success of the civil rights movement in integrating blacks. Overall, however, it is not clear that blacks have any more due process and habeas corpus rights under the War on Terror than they had under Jim Crow. The overall loss of civil liberty cancels the blacks’ gains. Indeed, have blacks actually gained any rights when the police with little accountability can shoot down unarmed blacks on the streets and in their own homes? If gun control is needed, why isn’t it needed for the police?

    Just as protests against Israel’s atrocities against the Palestinians are being criminalized throughout the West, so is free speech that challenges the self-serving agendas of governments and vested interests. The hope that the Internet and social media would expand free speech have been proven wrong by the move against Alex Jones, the Ron Paul Institute, and antiwar.com by Apple, Twitter, and Google/Facebook. Apparently these corporations are convinced that Western peoples are sufficiently in the power of The Matrix that the attack on the First Amendment will cost them no lost business or condemnation by the public.

    That corporations believe that they can attack the First Amendment with no adverse consequences to themselves shows the extent to which the United States has eroded.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Aug 10

Today’s News 10th August 2018

  • Europe's Thinnest Market In 18 Years Sends Ominous Signal

    While US investors are fighting each other off to buy stocks (well FANG stocks), Chinese and European equity markets have suffered in recent months amid growth concerns and trade war fears.

    One might not know it looking at the Euro Stoxx 50 Volatility Index hovering just barely in the double digits…

    But, as Bloomberg’s Benjamin Dow notes, larger prices swings could be coming to European stocks this month as volumes dry up.

    Even by August standards, it’s unusually quiet. The last time Stoxx 600 volumes’ 15-DMA for this particular day was lower was in 2000:

    It could be an ominous sign for those who are betting on a quiet end to the month, amid numerous macro stormclouds like Sino-U.S. trade jabs, U.S. politics (sanctions and mid-term elections), Italy-EU budget battles, and Brexit.

    As Dow warns, an anomalously busy start to the month in terms of macro newsflow combined with low volumes could well set the stage for fireworks.

  • Obama Ignores Genocide In South Africa

    Authored by Ilana Mercer via Unz.com,

    Once upon a time there were two politicians.

    One had the power to give media and political elites goosebumps. Still does.

    The other causes the same dogs to raise their hackles.

    The first is Barack Hussein Obama; the second Vladimir Putin.

    The same gilded elites who choose our villains and victims for us have decided that the Russian is the worst person in the world. BHO, the media consider one of the greatest men in the world.

    Obama leveled Libya and lynched its leader. Our overlords were unconcerned. They knew with certainty that Obama was destroying lives irreparably out of the goodness of his heart.

    Same thing when Obama became the uncrowned king of the killer drone, murdering Pakistani, Afghani, Libyan and Yemeni civilians in their thousands. That, too, his acolytes generally justified, minimized or concealed.

    In June of 2008, Obama marked his election as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.” Media did not mock their leader’s delusions of grandeur.

    All the estrogen-oozing amoebas of mainstream media would do in response to the Obama charm offensive was to turn to one another and check, “Was it good for you? Did he make the earth move and the oceans recede for you, too?”

    Recently, Obama romped on to the Third World stage “bigly.”

    He delivered an address in this writer’s birthplace of Johannesburg, South Africa. The occasion: the centennial commemoration of Nelson Mandela’s birth.

    On that occasion, Obama praised “the liberal international order,” which is founded on inverted morality: Good is bad and bad is good.

    Small wonder, then, that nobody—broadcaster Tucker Carlson excepted—was willing to shame Obama for lauding genial thug Cyril Ramaphosa as an inspiration for “new hope in [his] great country.”

    President hope-and-change Ramaphosa has gone where his four peer predecessors had not dared to go. He led a wildly fruitful effort to tweak the already watered-down property-rights provision in the South-African Constitution. Theft of land owned by whites will now be permitted.

    Other than their modern-day-messiah status, BHO and his hero Mandela share something else. Both were silent about the systematic ethnic cleansing and extermination, in ways that beggar belief, of South-African farmers, in particular, and whites in general.

    Does the barefaced Barack care that white men, women and children are being butchered like animals, their bodies often displayed like trophies by their proud black assassins?

    An example among thousands are Kaalie Botha’s parents: “You can’t kill an animal like they killed my mom and dad. You can’t believe it.”

    The Achilles tendons of Kaalie’s 71-year-old father had been severed by his assailants so he couldn’t flee. He was then hacked in the back until he died, his body dumped in the bush.

    The head of wife Joey had been bashed in by a brick, wielded with such force that the skull “cracked like an egg.”

    A day in the life of farming South Africa.

    Yet, there was Mr. Obama touting the new South Africa as the instantiation of the ideals promoted by Mandela.

    Mind you, Obama might be on to something, in a perverse way. As stated, Mandela was mum about these killings, labeled genocidal by the expert Dr. Gregory H. Stanton.

    As for “Madiba’s” fidelity to the cornerstone of civilization, private-property rights: In September of 1991, “Mr. Mandela threatened South African business with nationalization of mines and financial institutions unless business [came] up with an alternative option for the redistribution of wealth.”

    Had he lived to 100, Mandela would likely be cheering Ramaphosa for authorizing a free-for-all on white-owned private property.

    You know who’s not ignoring or minimizing those ongoing attempts at extermination and immiseration in South Africa? President Putin.

    Russia has purportedly offered to give shelter to 15,000 white South African farmers, so far, recognizing them for the true refugees they are.

    But Mr. Putin must be a racist. At least that’s what the cruel and craven African National Congress (Mandela’s party) dubs any nation daring to succor white South-Africans. The very idea that black Africans would persecute white Africans is racist in itself, say South Africa’s ruling Solons.

    In fact, the ANC regularly intervenes to set aside findings made by Refugee Boards across the West in favor of South Africa’s endangered minority.

    Putin, of course, has a history of such “racism.” Take his “unhealthy” fixation with saving Christians in Syria. Yes, that community is thriving once again because of the Alawite and Russian alliance.

    True to type, “racist” Russia is now looking out for the Afrikaner settlers of South Africa.

    In 2011, when “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” was published, there were approximately 40,000 commercial South-African farmers who remained on the land of their ancestors. Minus about 3000 slaughtered.

    The total number of commercial farmers who feed South Africa is now less than half the number of “refugees” the US takes in each year. To date, “there has been a trickle of South Africans applying for asylum in the United States on the grounds of racial persecution. Almost all have been deported.”

    It should be news to no one that American refugee policies favor the Bantu peoples of Africa over its Boers.

    As Obama would drone, “It’s who we are.”

    Whichever way you slice it, on matters South Africa, Russia is the virtuous one.

  • "War In Front Of Me" – New Chinese Military Video Shows Off Range Of Advanced Weaponry

    A new video produced by China’s military that features the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) showing off a wide range of the country’s latest military technology has gone viral after its publication to social media on August 1st, the day China commemorated ‘Army Day’.

    The just over two-minute video, called “I am a Chinese soldier” is an over the top patriotic tribute emphasizing a combination of personal sacrifice, loyalty, and a sense of esprit de corps in belonging to an elite, modernized military. 

    The National Interest has provided a translation of the popular Chinese language footage, which is described as follows:

    The video is brimful with the grandiosity that is now associated with the military under Xi Jinping: a lot of ammunition is fired, and the very latest in China’s military technology — combat aircraft, a carrier battle group, long-range ballistic missiles, submarines and armored vehicles — is on full, proud, active display.

    The video further appeals to a masculine sense of duty and sacrificial hardship as the there’s a series of scenes in the first half depicting men saying tearful goodbyes to their children and spouses, after which infantry soldiers give fierce battle cries while waving the communist national flag, interspersed with overhead shots of huge intercontinental ballistic missiles a silo and an aircraft carrier battle group. 

    The narration includes the lines: “Peace behind me, war in front of me. Pick up the steel gun, we must let go of the children.”

    The National Interest notes the masculine and patriotic appeal of the video: 

    As some watchers have observed, the world depicted in this video is very much a man’s world — there isn’t a single female soldier; the few women who appear are mothers and spouses, tearfully enduring, no doubt with the full patriotism that is expected of them by the Chinese Communist Party, the absences and heart-rending departures of sons and husbands. At times serene and towards the end bombastic, the accompanying soundtrack could have been written by Hans Zimmer (think his majestic score for Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line ).

    China has increasingly over the past year attempted to promote an image of itself to international foes and rivals as on a path of overtaking the United States and other world powers in the area of defense technology. 

    Screengrab from the Chinese military produced “I am a Chinese soldier”

    Meanwhile America’s top nuclear commander warned this week that both China and Russia’s development of hyperonic weapons constitute a threat that the US deterrent arsenal currently cannot defend against. 

    Air Force Gen. John Hyten warned the two countries are not America’s “friends” and that the new military technology threat should be taken with urgency and seriousness. 

    Screengrab from the Chinese military produced “I am a Chinese soldier” showing off ICBMs

    “You can’t call them [Russia and China] our friends if they’re building weapons that can destroy the United States of America,” Gen. Hyten said.

    Below is an English translation of the new video, “I am a Chinese Soldier” via J. Michael Cole for the The National Interest

    * * *

    The narration (translated from Chinese):

    Who am I?

    I am the one the mother cannot reach at the door.

    I am the wife who is reluctant to hang up the phone.

    I am a stranger who dares not approach in the eyes of my son.

    I am the concern and pride of my loved ones.

    Peace behind me, war in front of me.

    Pick up the steel gun, we must let go of the children.

    Put on the military uniform, we must give up comfort and ease.

    Fighting the battlefield, the character of the man.

    From the military to the country, there is no regret in this life.

    I am a Chinese soldier.

    I am a soldier of the people.

    I am the guardian of a good life.

  • Hitler & Trump: "The Great Man" Theory Debunked

    Authored by Gerold via GeroldBlog.com,

    We’re told that great leaders make history. Like so much of what we are taught, that’s a load of bunk. Yes, great leaders make it into the history books, but they do not make history. You make history. I make history. All we dirt people together make history. Government-run schools don’t teach us this because it makes us easier to control.

    The “Great Man Theory” [Link] tells us that history can be largely explained by the impact of great leaders. This theory was popularized in the 1800’s by the historian and social commentator Thomas Carlyle  [Link] The Great Man Theory downplays the importance of economic and practical explanations. It is an appealing theory because its simplicity offers the path of least resistance. That should ring an alarm.

    Herbert Spencer [Link] forcefully disagreed with the “Great Man Theory.” He believed that great leaders were merely products of their social environment. “Before he can remake his society, his society must make him.” Tolstoy went so far as to call great leaders “history’s slaves.” However, this middle ground still misses the mark.

    At the other extreme is “history from below” [Link] aka ‘the people’s history.’ “History from below” takes the perspective of common people rather than leaders. It emphasizes the daily life of ordinary people that develop opinions and trends” as opposed to great people introducing ideas or initiating events.” Unfortunately, this too is only half the equation, and it is no surprise that it appeals to Leftist and Marxist agendas.

    Having studied politics and history ever since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, I determined that although history is partly the environments and individuals shaping each other reciprocally, it is more than that. It is you and I who make history with every decision we make, every dollar we spend, everything we learn, every vote we cast and every opinion we voice. It’s even what we don’t do. It is mostly organic and cannot easily be explained in a simple, linear fashion the way the aforementioned political philosophers tried.

    Great leaders are merely the right person at the right time and place. However, they do not lead so much as follow from the front. They stick their finger in the air to see which way the wind blows. They may be brutes, bullies or demagogues, but they are sensitive enough to understand the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times and so, they adjust their message accordingly.

    That is one reason Jimmy Carter was a failed President. He was a nice guy, but he did not get an accurate reading of the times. Instead, he acted on the wishful thinking that is characteristic of liberals.

    One of the significant shortcomings of many political philosophers is their ignorance of human nature. That is why Collectivism in all its forms appeals to the downtrodden. “Share and share alike” is a beautiful ideal so long as you get other people’s stuff, but the flip side of the coin is not quite so appealing.

    I heard a radio interview with a self-avowed Communist:

    “So do you believe in ‘share and share alike?”

    “Yes, I do.”

    “And, if you had more than one house, you’d give them away and keep just one for yourself?”

    “Yes. I would.”

    “And, if you had more than one vehicle, you’d give them away and keep just one for yourself?”

    “Yes, I would.”

    “And, if you had more than one shirt …”

    “Whoa, wait a minute! I have more than one shirt.”

    I can’t remember the rest of the interview as I was laughing too hard.

    The Great Man Theory is one extreme, its critics are somewhere in the middle and ‘the history of the people’ is at the other end of the spectrum. Despite this, we are still fascinated by great leaders. That is human nature. Whether we are slaves at heart, or lack self-confidence or some other explanation is endlessly debatable. However, the fact remains that we are fascinated by great leaders and our inability to understand them further disproves the accepted theories.

    Adolph Hitler is the ultimate example of our fascination with a great man. According to Alex Ross’s “The Hitler Vortex,” [Link] tens of thousands of books have been written about Hitler. “Books have been written about Hitler’s youth, his years in Vienna and Munich, his service in the First World War, his assumption of power, his library, his taste in art, his love of film, his relations with women, and his predilections in interior design (‘Hitler at Home’).”

    Tens of thousands of books failed to explain Hitler. Ross, too, does no better when he writes, “What set Hitler apart from most authoritarian figures in history was his conception of himself as an artist-genius who used politics as his métier. It is a mistake to call him a failed artist; for him, politics and war were a continuation of art by other means.”  WTF? Are we to believe Hitler was simply an artist who used the world as his canvas? Equally pointless is the notion that, “Hitler debased the Romantic cult of genius to incarnate himself as a transcendent leader hovering above the fray.”

    Although he was a brilliant orator, Hitler’s failures are too innumerable to list.  [Link] He was certainly a failure as a painter and his General staff considered him an incompetent military strategist (fortunately for the Allies.) However, Hitler was merely the right man at the right time and place to achieve power. As Ross explains, Hitler was, “the result of a large protest movement colliding with complex patterns of elite self-interest, in a culture increasingly prone to aggressive mythmaking and irrationality.”  That sounds all too close to home, doesn’t it?

    Enter Donald Trump; the right man at the right time and place. He’s a brute, a bully, and a demagogue, but he understands the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times and he adjusts his message to appeal to his base.

    I have known many bullies; on the playground and in the boardroom. A bully may achieve short-term gain, but for long-term pain. It is very easy to destroy corporate culture, but extremely difficult, if not impossible, to mend a toxic workplace after the bully was dismissed. Now, extrapolate this to the world under Donald Trump.

    John Feeley is the former U.S. Ambassador to Panama portrayed in The New Yorker magazine article “The Diplomat Who Quit the Trump Administration.” [Link] After his first meeting with Trump, he wrote that Trump “saw every unknown person as a threat and that his first instinct was to annihilate that threat. ‘He’s like a velociraptor. He has to be boss, and if you don’t show him deference he kills you.’” 

    Feeley fears that “the country was embracing an attitude that was profoundly inimical to diplomacy … ‘If we do that … we will become weaker and less prosperous.’” He is correct in that regard. China is building a large, new embassy at the mouth of the Panama Canal visible to every ship “as they enter a waterway that once symbolized the global influence of the United States.”

    Feeley is also correct in warning that the Trump administration’s gutting the diplomatic corps will have negative repercussions. Throughout Latin America, leftist leaders are in retreat, and popular movements reject corrupt governance. Yet, Amerika is losing “the greatest opportunity to recoup the moral high ground that we have had in decades.” Instead, the U.S. is abandoning the region to China. Feeley calls it “a self-inflicted Pearl Harbor.”

    China is replacing U.S. influence in Latin America and Chinese banks “provided more than a hundred and fifty billion dollars in loan commitments to the region … In less than two decades, trade between China and Latin America has increased twenty-seven-fold.”  Although that began long before Trump, “We’re not just walking off the field. We’re taking the ball and throwing a finger at the rest of the world.”

    Feeley says that he felt betrayed by what he regarded as “the traditional core values of the United States.”  Sorry, Feeley, but Amerika lost its core values long before Trump was elected. Trump is not the cause; he is the symptom, the result of the declining Amerikan Empire.

    Hunters know that one of the most dangerous animals is a wounded one. The same is correct about failing empires because they are a danger not only to others but to their own citizens as well. The elites are running out the clock in order to loot as much as they can before it hits the fan.

    We dirt people will continue to suffer from stagnant wage growth while the so-called increase in national wealth goes to a tiny minority. [link]

    Moreover, nobody wins a trade war that raises consumer prices even if Trump eventually triumphs.

    The economy staggers under the weight of phony wars, fake finances, fake GDP, fake CPI, fake employment, fake pensions and fake everything. [Link] The national debt increases $1 trillion every year, consumer debt is at an all-time high [Link] while the tax cuts benefit only the ultra-wealthy. Also, the fake news tells us everything is wonderful. Don’t believe it. “If everything is so awesome, why are Americans drinking themselves to death in record numbers?” [Link]

    It is said that every few generations, money returns to its rightful owners. That is what’s happening now.

    Amerika emerged relatively unscathed from the Second World War whereas many other countries were bombed back into the Stone Age. The Marshal Plan helped rebuild countries that were to become both America’s future customers and its competitors. Amerika’s busy factories transformed from war production to consumer goods, the demand for which was created by “the Father of Spin” Edward Bernays’ marketing propaganda. [Link]

    As well, the U.S. stole the gold that the Nazis had stolen from others, [Link]  and that wealth in addition to robust, productive capacity temporarily propelled the U.S. far ahead of other nations. However, it would not last. Eventually, the undeserved prosperity of the 1950’s and ‘60’s began to run out of steam as other nations rebuilt and competed with the U.S. President Nixon defaulting on the dollar in 1971 by “closing the gold window” signaled the end of Amerika’s good times. The subsequent debt creation now unconstricted by a gold basis helped to cushion the blow for several decades, but wealth was now flowing to Asia along with factory jobs.

    For 5,000 years, China was a world superpower with only a short, two-century hiatus that is now ending as China again emerges as an economic superpower. Such a massive shift in wealth cannot be attributed to either leadership or the people below. It is a painful reversion to the mean. All the finger-pointing and wailing and gnashing of teeth … not even bombastic Trump and his tariffs can stem the tide and make Amerika great again as money continues to flow back to its rightful owners.

    The USA is a declining, bankrupt, warmongering police state and most of its indoctrinated citizens think they live in a free, peaceful country.

    China is a corrupt police state, but most of its citizens know it.

    We have met the enemy, and he is us. The future awaits.

  • Watch Reporters Slam US For Refusing To Condemn Saudi-US Airstrike On Yemen School Bus In Live Briefing

    Just as expected, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert refused to condemn Thursday’s coalition airstrike on a school bus in Yemen, which left as many as 50 people dead and 63 injured — the vast majority of which were children. 

    As we reported previously, Saudi-US/UK coalition jets scored a direct hit on the school bus packed with children as it drove through a crowded market place in Dahyan, in the rebel-held north of Yemen.

    During the State Department’s daily press briefing, Nauert was asked point blank by journalists, starting with the AP’s Matt Lee, whether the US condemns the attack.

    The whole testy exchange on Yemen is worth watching, especially as Matt Lee lays out the case for direct US complicity in the attack on the bus packed with children from the start of his question: “The Saudis obviously are the ones who conducted this, but they do that with weapons supplied by the U.S., with training supplied by the U.S., and with targeting information, targeting data, supplied by the U.S. How can something like this happen?” he said.

    Watch the State Department’s response here:

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

    Unbelievably, Nauert tried to obfuscate the issue by simply saying “I can’t confirm all the details because we are not there on the ground.”

    Not only did Nauert refuse to say the State Department condemned the attack, but wouldn’t so much as agree to simply call for an independent investigation into the incident (she called only for a Saudi-led inquiry).

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

    Nauert drew random incredulous expressions of laughter from the press pool by the end of the segment on Yemen when she was caught struggling to acknowledge the long established fact that the US supplies “a tremendous amount of weaponry and the data for targeting to the Saudis” while simultaneously touting that Washington provides “a tremendous amount of humanitarian assistance.”

    This section of the exchange played out as follows: 

    MS NAUERT: Look, we provide a tremendous amount of humanitarian assistance in Yemen to try to support civilians in Yemen and try to mitigate against the devastation that’s taken place there in that country. I don’t have anything more for you on that.

    QUESTION: But you also supply a tremendous amount of weaponry and the data for targeting to the Saudis.

    MS NAUERT: Well, then – sorry.

    QUESTION: Right? No?

    QUESTION: No.

    QUESTION: Am I wrong? Is that wrong?

    QUESTION: That’s not wrong.

    MS NAUERT: Sorry, these ladies over here are laughing. On that I would refer you to the Department of Defense that is involved with that, but as you know, Saudi Arabia is an important strategic partner in the region to the United States.

    Meanwhile as Al Masdar News reports, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is calling for an independent and prompt investigation into the deadly Saudi-led coalition airstrike that hit the bus carrying children, United Nations deputy spokesman Farhan Haq said in a press release.

    “The Secretary-General condemns the air strike today by the coalition forces in Saada, which hit a busy market area in Majz District, and impacted a bus carrying children from a summer camp,” Haq said on Thursday. “He calls for an independent and prompt investigation into this incident.”

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

    According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), citing local officials, a total of 50 people died in the attack, while another 77 were injured.

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

    Leader of the Yemen’s rebel Supreme Revolutionary Committee Mohammed Houthi on Thursday urged Russia, China and France to hold an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting over the attack of the Saudi-led coalition, local media reported.

    According to the Houthi-run Al Masirah TV, the committee’s leader said that the coalition’s attack confirmed that the coalition rejects peace in the region.

  • Butina Case: Neo-McCarthyism Engulfs America

    Authored by Phillip Giraldi via The Stratgeic Culture Foundation,

    The United States Department of Justice would apparently have you believe that the Kremlin sought to subvert the five-million-member strong National Rifle Association (NRA) by having two Russian citizens take out life memberships in the organization with the intention of corrupting it and turning it into a mouthpiece for President Vladimir Putin.

    Both of the Russians – Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin – have, by the way, long well documented histories as advocates for gun ownership and were founders of Right to Bear Arms, which is not an intelligence front organization of some kind and is rather a genuine lobbying group with an active membership and agenda.

    Contrary to what has been reported in the mainstream media, Russians can own guns but the licensing and registration procedures are long and complicated, which Right to Bear Arms, modeling itself on the NRA, is seeking to change.

    Maria Butina, a graduate student at American University, is now in solitary confinement in a federal prison, having been charged with collusion with Torshin and failure to register as an agent of the Russian Federation. It is unusual to arrest and confine someone who has failed to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, but she has not been granted bail because, as a Russian citizen, she is considered to be a “flight risk,” likely to try to flee the US and return home. It is to be presumed that she is being pressured to identify others involved in her alleged scheme to overthrow American democracy through NRA membership.

    Indeed, in any event, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would consider the NRA to be a legitimate intelligence target. It only flexes its admitted powerful legislative muscles over issues relating to gun ownership, not regarding policy on Russia. In short, Butina and by extension Torshin appear to have done nothing wrong. Both are energetic advocates for their country and guns rights, which they appear to believe in, and Butina’s aggressive networking has broken no law except not registering, which in itself assumes that she is a Russian government agent, something that has not been demonstrated. To put the shoe on the other foot, will every American who now travels to Russia and engages in political conversations with local people be suspected of acting as an agent of the US government? Once you open the door, it swings both ways.

    One might dismiss the entire Affair Butina as little more than a reflection of the anti-Russia hysteria that has been sweeping the United States since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, but that would be unfair to those remaining honest FBI agents who may have investigated Butina and Torshin and come up with what they believed to be a plausible case for an indictment. There were possibly suspicious money transfers as well as email intercepts that might be interpreted as incriminating.

    But two important elements are clearly missing.

    The first is motive. Did the Kremlin seriously believe that it could get anything substantial out of having a gun totin’ attractive young Russian woman as a life member in the NRA? What did the presumed puppet masters in Moscow expect to obtain apart from the sorts of group photos including Butina that one gets while posing with politicians at the annual NRA convention? Sure, the photo might even evolve into a cup of coffee together, but what is the end game?

    Second is the lack of any of the hallmarks of an intelligence operation, which is referred to in the business as tradecraft. Spies meet secretly or at least outside the public eye with prospective agents whereas Maria operated completely in the open and she made no effort to conceal her love for her country and her desire that Washington and Moscow normalize relations. Spies also communicate securely, which means that they use encrypted systems or various cut-outs, i.e. mis-directions, when maintaining contact with those who are running them. Again, Maria did none of that, which is why the FBI has her emails. Also spies work under what is referred to as an “operating directive” in CIA-speak where they have very specific information that they seek to obtain from their contacts. There is no indication that Maria Butina in any way sought classified information or intelligence that would relate either to the security of the United States or to America’s political system. And finally, Maria made no attempt to recruit anyone and turn them into an actual controlled Russian agent, which is what spies eventually seek to do.

    It has come down to this: if you are a Russian and you are caught talking to anyone in any way influential, there is potentially hell to pay because the FBI will be watching you. You are automatically assumed to be part of a conspiracy. Once “evidence” is collected, you will be indicted and sent to prison, mostly to send a message to Moscow.

    It is the ultimate irony that how the old Soviet Union’s judiciary used to function is now becoming standing operating procedure in the United States.

  • The "Tesla Top"

    Submitted by Nick Colas of DataTrek research

    Would a Tesla go-private deal be a sign of a market top, like AOL-Time Warner or the RJR Nabisco LBO? It certainly checks a lot of the boxes, and also highlights several fundamental shortcomings to public equity markets. For investors that latter point is critical, since they end up long “the disrupted” with no/little chance to own “the disruptors”.

    In April 1995, billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian made a surprise bid to buy Chrysler Corporation for $21 billion. The offer came after a private conversation with then Chair/CEO Bob Eaton where Kerkorian had said “You ought to consider going private… I already own 10% of the company. It would be easy!” Eaton simply replied “Interesting idea”, not wanting to alienate a key investor. On the strength of that discussion – and nothing else – Kerkorian made his very high profile move.

    I know that sounds hard to believe, but I heard it from Bob Eaton himself when working on Chrysler’s defense against the bid. Every other senior manager concurred; Kerkorian, the consummate dealmaker, had simply heard what he wanted to hear.

    So when Elon Musk announced yesterday that he had “Funding secured” for a buyout of Tesla, I flashed back to Kerkorian’s ill-fated assumption. Did Musk raise the topic of going private with a few high profile venture capitalists and hear “Interesting idea” in reply? Or perhaps he has a few anchor investors and assumes they will work to find more capital. No matter which (or none of the above), we will hear soon enough.

    The real question from a market perspective is different: “How is a go-private of a $64 billion unprofitable car company even possible or an attractive idea?” A few thoughts on this:

    #1. Every investment cycle has a “high water mark transaction” that signals underlying market trends have reached their apex. For example:

    • RJR Nabisco went private in 1988 in a leveraged buyout led by KKR, using $1.5 billion of investor capital to underpin a $25 billion deal. The transaction ended up working well enough, but it became a hallmark of 1980s greed and excess nonetheless.
    • In 2000, AOL effectively purchased Time Warner with its dot-com bubble inflated stock for $164 billion. The combined company’s stock declined by 90% in the years after the transaction.
    • In May 2007 Goldman Sachs assembled and sold Abacus 2007-AC1, a collateralized debt obligation chock full of risky mortgages. That’s the one where hedge fund manager John Paulson helped pick the paper he wanted to short and these were packaged and sold to other investors, who eventually lost close to $1 billion.

    For better or worse, Tesla’s move to tap venture capital (debt is not an option here) to exit public markets captures every dominant narrative of the current cycle to a “T”. Venture capital fundraising is booming as VC firms struggle to compete with SoftBank’s $100 billion Vision Fund. And while public equity markets still award disruptive Tech giants outsized multiples, they usually cannot match private valuations or the convenience/flexibility of private ownership.

    Bottom line: VCs are so flush with cash that they desperately need companies like Tesla – large, scalable, and levered to mega-trends like autonomous driving and clean energy – as much as Tesla needs them. Musk understands that dynamic better than most.

    #2. Tesla has never been a “Typical” public company, and that highlights some of the structural shortcomings of equity markets. Forget the quirky CEO – the problem here is that disruptive technologies in capital-intensive industries take a long time to generate profits. In the interim, their stocks live and die on investor confidence alone. That makes for a volatile ride, which can hurt employee morale and motivation since they are often shareholders.

    Equity investors face an even larger problem, however: consider that GM and Ford are in the S&P 500 but Tesla is not. And if TSLA is no longer a public company, there will be once less way for investors to hedge technological disruption in this industry. Blow that concept out to public equities as a whole and the issue becomes clear. Stock markets will consistently be long “The disrupted” and short “disruption”.

    Not a comforting thought but that is exactly what is happening as VC-backed companies take longer to come public, and now one high profile example wants to go private again.

    So what should investors make of all this? Two final thoughts:

    #1. While we are not superstitious by nature, we do fear this transaction looks an awful lot like other deals done at the peak of prior cycles. If TSLA really can go private with VC capital (a $57 billion ticket), it may show that venture capital has gotten too large relative to its opportunity set. Or, perhaps, that investor enthusiasm over disruptive companies is simply too high in both public and private markets. Or both. Is all that a sign to sell everything? Obviously not, but it bears watching especially if this deal actually goes through.

    #2. Venture capital investing is hugely risky and success depends heavily on access to the right deal flow, but for long-term investors there seems little choice but to play as best they can regardless of the prior point. For those who don’t check the “high net worth” category, the only choice is to own large public Tech companies that can at least buy assets from venture capitalists and fold them into their operations.

    Put another way, public equity markets are packed with successful and highly profitable old-line companies. That used to be a feature. Now, with tech-based disruption, it is a very serious bug and the work-arounds are difficult and risky.

  • Mueller To Subpoena Roger Stone's Alleged "Backchannel" To WikiLeaks: MSNBC

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller will reportedly subpoena Randy Credico – the man Roger Stone claimed was his backchannel to WikiLeaks, one day after Credico told MSNBC’s Ari Melber that Mueller had previously requested a voluntary interview, which he declined on the advice of his attorney. 

    “They didn’t call me in, they showed up and they asked me to come in and do an in-person voluntary interview,” Credico said, adding “They asked me if I would like to do — we set up a conversation with somebody from the Mueller team and they asked my lawyer if I would like to sit down and do a voluntary interview.”

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

    Melber then reported on Thursday that Mueller intends to subpoena Credico, according to “a direct source with knowledge of the special counsel’s outreach,” and that Mueller would issue the order in the next few days. 

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

    Oddly, Mueller subpoenaed Roger Stone’s driver, accountant and operative, John Kakanis in May. Also subpoeaned was Stone’s social media expert Jason Sullivan to discuss WikiLeaks. Meanwhile the one man in Stone’s orbit with a proven connection to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – Credico – never got the tap on the shoulder from the special counsel. Perhaps that’s because he was “wearing a wire for Mueller,” as Stone allegedly accused Credico of in an email? 

    Stone and Credico’s downward spiral

    In the home stretch of the 2016 US election, Roger Stone bragged to the Northwest Broward Republican Committee on August 10, 2016 that he had “communicated with Julian Assange.” When Stone said this, WikiLeaks had already released the Clinton and DNC emails – which revealed that the Democratic primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders, leading to the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz within 48 hours. 

    In November 2017 however, Stone backpedaled in a Facebook post, claiming that he didn’t speak directly with Assange – and had instead asked then-WBIA Radio host Randy Credico – who interviewed Assange months earlier – to confirm the claim that WikiLeaks dumped the emails during the 2016 election specifically to hurt the Clintons.

    Assange made this abundantly clear in a June, 2016 interview with ITV, in which he said there were “more Clinton leaks to come,” and that a vote for Clinton was a vote for “endless, stupid war.” 

    Credico has denied being a backchannel – telling progressive publication Artvoice in May “I was a confirming source, but I wasn’t a backchannel. I wasn’t coordinating with [Stone].” That said, the Wall Street Journal published details in May of an email exchange between Stone and Credico from September 2016, in which Credico said “I can’t ask them for favors every other day.” 

    In a Sept. 18, 2016, message, Mr. Stone urged an acquaintance who knew Mr. Assange to ask the WikiLeaks founder for emails related to Mrs. Clinton’s alleged role in disrupting a purported Libyan peace deal in 2011 when she was secretary of state, referring to her by her initials.

    “Please ask Assange for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30–particularly on August 20, 2011,” Mr. Stone wrote to Randy Credico, a New York radio personality who had interviewed Mr. Assange several weeks earlier. Mr. Stone, a longtime confidant of Donald Trump, had no formal role in his campaign at the time. –Wall Street Journal

    [We would note that if Trump had in fact colluded with Russia, and Russia hacked Clinton’s emails, it seems odd that Stone would have to reach out to Credico in a private email to obtain some of them.]

    Mr. Credico initially responded to Mr. Stone that what he was requesting would be on WikiLeaks’ website if it existed, according to an email reviewed by the Journal. Mr. Stone, the emails show, replied: “Why do we assume WikiLeaks has released everything they have ???”

    In another email, Mr. Credico then asked Mr. Stone to give him a “little bit of time,” saying he thought Mr. Assange might appear on his radio show the next day. A few hours later, Mr. Credico wrote: “That batch probably coming out in the next drop…I can’t ask them favors every other day .I asked one of his lawyers…they have major legal headaches riggt now..relax.” –Wall Street Journal

    Later in May, Credico told MSNBC’s Melber that Assange told him that he is willing to be interviewed by top ranking House Intelligence Committee Democrat Adam Schiff (CA) to prove there was no collusion in the 2016 US election. “He’s ready to show that there was no collusion … he’s willing to sit with Schiff and be interviewed,” Credico said.

    And while Credico has tried to distance himself from WikiLeaks, Stone told Artvoice that “Credico insisted through the balance of August, and all of September, that Assange would publish what he had in October. He did.” According to Stone, Credico knew. 

    Credico countered – saying “I had no idea of any of the material that was coming out.  [Assange] wouldn’t tell me, I’m a fuckin’, like, drunk, you know.  He doesn’t know me.  I’m a big mouth, loud mouth comic.” 

    “These guys [Mueller’s team] need someone like him to keep their f*cking bullshit story going,” Credico said. ”And then keep the fairytale going that there was collusion and that Assange was colluding with Roger Stone. At the end of the day, there’s no collusion with Russia.”

    “I’m going to bury him”

    In June, Credico told Manhattan weekly newspaper The Villager that he was “sick and tired of Roger Stone lying about him – and more recently, allegedly threatening him.” 

    “I’m going to bury him,” Credico told The Villager in a recent phone interview.

    Credico then told the publication that he had given all of his emails “back to when I was on AOL” to an unnamed “national, award-winning, well-respected magazine with a lot of influence” in order to prove his innocence. He then shared screenshots of what he says are “harassing: e-mails from Stone over a three-month period, but that he had lost “90 percent” of his text messages with the longtime Trump adviser. 

    In the angry and often expletive-filled e-mails, Stone accuses Credico of “wearing a wire for Mueller” — as in, trying to gather information that could be used apparently against Assange. –The Villager

    Stone’s insults only get worse from there, alleges Credico – who told the Villager “He sends out e-mails early in the morning in an altered state.”  

    In other e-mails provided to The Villager, Stone blasts Credico as a “maggot” and “drunk cokehead” — and mockingly tells him to go snort more drugs.

    On April 8, Stone wrote to Credico: “Do another rail!” adding, “[I] Just put $2,000 behind another ad on Facebook targeting progressives.” 

    Credico has been open about his struggles with substance abuse.

    On April 7, Stone wrote Credico: “You are the last person I would have thought would help the Deep State f— Assange — wearing a f—ing wire. Everyone is [sic] says u are wearing a wire for Mueller.”

    “I am so ready,” Stone added in another e-mail to him on April 9. “Let’s get it on c—sucker. Prepare to die.” –The Villager

    Stone says Credico forged the emails. 

    “Sadly, Randy has, as he has with other media outlets, sent you cherry-picked e-mails which in many cases are severely edited,” Stone said in a text message. “Most are out of context or have been doctored. In fact, I have extensive evidence which I will turn over to authorities that demonstrates that he is the one who is threatening me while I have consistently urged him to simply tell the truth,” Stone told The Villager in response. 

    And now, Mueller is reportedly about to subpoena Credico – who, if he was indeed wearing a wire, will probably find the whole thing highly amusing.

  • Rickards: U.S. Must Turn To Russia To Contain China

    Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

    Vladimir Putin stands accused in the media and global public opinion of rigging his recent reelection, imprisoning his political enemies, murdering Russian spies turned double-agent, meddling in Western elections, seizing Crimea, destabilizing Ukraine, supporting a murderous dictator in Syria and exporting arms to terrorist nations like Iran.

    At the same time, the country of Russia is more than Mr. Putin, despite his authoritarian and heavy-handed methods. Russia is the world’s 12th-largest economy, with a GDP in excess of $1.5 trillion, larger than many developed economies such as Australia (No. 13), Spain (No. 14) and the Netherlands (No. 18).

    Its export sector produces a positive balance of trade for Russia, currently running at over $16 billion per month. Russia has not had a trade deficit in over 20 years. Russia is also the world’s largest oil producer, with output of 10.6 million barrels per day, larger than both Saudi Arabia and the United States.

    Russia has the largest landmass of any country in the world and a population of 144 million people, the ninth largest of any country. Russia is also the third-largest gold-producing nation in the world, with total production of 250 tons per year, about 8% of total global output and solidly ahead of the U.S., Canada and South Africa.

    Russia is highly competitive in the export of nuclear power plants, advanced weaponry, space technology, agricultural products and it has an educated workforce.

    Russia’s government debt-to-GDP ratio is 12.6%, which is trivial compared with 253% for Japan, 105% for the United States and 68% for Germany. Russia’s external dollar-denominated debt is also quite low compared with the huge dollar-debt burdens of other emerging-market economies such as Turkey, Indonesia and China.

    Under the steady leadership of central bank head Elvira Nabiullina, the Central Bank of Russia has rebuilt its hard currency reserves after those reserves were severely depleted in 2015 following the collapse in oil prices that began in 2014.

    Total gold reserves rose from 1,275 tons in July 2015 to about 2,000 tons today. Russia’s gold-to-GDP ratio is the highest in the world and more than double those of the U.S. and China.

    In short, Russia is a country to be reckoned with despite the intense dislike for its leader from Western powers. It can be disliked but it cannot be ignored.

    Russia is even more important geopolitically than these favorable metrics suggest. Russia and the U.S. are likely to improve relations and move closer together despite the current animosity over election meddling and the attempted murders of ex-Russian spies.

    The reason for this coming thaw has to do with the dynamics of global geopolitics. There are only three countries in the world that are rightly regarded as primary powers — the U.S., Russia and China. These three are the only superpowers. Some analysts may be surprised to see Russia on the superpower list, but the facts are indisputable.

    More to the point, Russia is a nuclear superpower at least on par with the United States and well ahead of China, France, the U.K. and other nuclear powers.

    All others are secondary powers (U.K., France, Germany, Japan, Israel, etc.) or tertiary powers (Iran, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.). This strategic reality sets up a predictable three-party dynamic.

    In any three-party dynamic, whether it’s a poker game or a struggle for global control, the dynamic is simple. Two of the powers align explicitly or implicitly against the third. The two-aligned powers refrain from using their power against each other in order to conserve it for use against the third power.

    Meanwhile, the third power, the “odd man out,” suffers from having to expend military and economic resources to fend off adventurism by both of its opponents with no help from either.

    China is the greatest geopolitical threat to the U.S. because of its economic and technological advances and its ambition to push the U.S. out of the Western Pacific sphere of influence. Russia may be a threat to some of its neighbors, but it is far less of a threat to U.S. strategic interests.

    Therefore, a logical balance of power in the world would be for the U.S. and Russia to find common ground in the containment of China and to jointly pursue the reduction of Chinese power.

    One of the keys to U.S. foreign policy the last 50 or 60 years has been to make sure that Russia and China never form an alliance. Keeping them separated was key, but China and Russia are forging stronger ties through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – a military and economic treaty – and the BRICS institutions.

    The BRICS analogs to the IMF and the World Bank, critical infrastructure, bilateral trade deals, bilateral currency swaps, arms sales, etc.

    Meanwhile, the U.S. finds itself at odds with both Russia and China over different issues. Who’s on the losing end of that? Obviously, the United States.

    This two-against-one strategic alignment of China and Russia against the U.S. is a strategic blunder by the U.S.

    The United States has largely withdrawn from the Middle East while Russia has stepped in on Syria and elsewhere, China is expanding in the South China Sea, and Russia is expanding on its periphery. They have each other’s back, and the U.S. is the odd man out.

    But the Russian/Chinese relationship can be exploited. China and Russia have a history of conflicting interests, despite the fact that they were both communist during the Cold War.

    The two countries had a number of border skirmishes in the 1960s, and one in 1969 was particularly serious. According to a senior Soviet defector to the United States, “The Politburo was terrified that the Chinese might make a large-scale intrusion into Soviet territory.”

    The Soviets even considered a preemptive nuclear attack on Chinese nuclear facilities. Soviet officials advised Washington of the possibility, but the U.S. response was firm, warning that any nuclear attack would possibly lead to World War III.

    The point being, there are fissures in the Chinese-Russian relationship that the U.S. could exploit.

    For another thing, the U.S. and Russia are the first and second largest energy producers in the world. Saudi Arabia is the third largest energy producer in the world. If you put the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia in a loose alliance, they dominate the energy markets. They can cut you off, they can supply, they can set prices.

    Who needs energy the most? China.

    China has very little oil or natural gas. It does have coal, but if you’ve been to Beijing lately, you know it looks black at noon because the air is so bad and you can’t breathe it. Pulmonary disease is becoming fairly common. They’re literally choking themselves to death. So, Russia, the U.S., and Saudi Arabia acting jointly have China completely at their mercy.

    But the U.S. presently has no relationship with Russia to help back up our position against China. It’s two-against-one, and the U.S. is the odd man out — thanks to U.S. political dysfunction and the media.

    In a three-handed poker game, if you don’t know who the sucker is, you’re the sucker. Trump will try to make China the odd man out. Very few people seem to get this.

    As China’s power expands and as U.S. power is put to the test in Asia, it is likely that the U.S. will correct its recent strategic shortsightedness and find ways to work with Russia. Or at least it should. This will not be done out of wishful thinking about the true nature of Putin or his regime but as a simple matter of geopolitical necessity.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Aug 09

Today’s News 9th August 2018

  • Pfizer Faces Shrinking Sales, Stiff Competition From India As Viagra Patent Expires

    Getting a chemically-induced erection is about to become much cheaper, as pharmaceutical giant Pfizer’s patent on its blockbuster erectile dysfunction (ED) drug, Viagra, expires in April 2020. 

    Approximately one in ten adult males will suffer from ED on a long-term basis, with many more suffering the occasional “letdown.” Moreover, recreational Viagra use – including mixing the drug with others such as ecstasy, has been on the rise. 

    Genuine Viagra costs around $65 per pill in the US, while Pfizer struck a deal with Teva Pharmaceuticals in 2007 for a half-price generic version. That said, it’s about to get much cheaper to get it up. 

    India rises to the occasion

    Looking to cash in on the patent expiration are several companies located in India, reports the Hindustan Times. 

    Seven Indian companies have already secured the required permissions. They are among 15 companies worldwide that have been granted approval by US health watchdog the Food and Drug Administration, to produce sildenafil citrate, the formulation patented as Viagra.

    The Indian companies in the fray to sell the blue pill are Rubicon Research, Hetero Drugs, Macleods Pharma, Dr.Reddy’s, Aurobindo Pharma, Torrent Pharmaceuticals and Ajanta Pharma.

    Could spark massive price crash in the US

    The Indian companies are working on strategies that could bring down the price of Viagra in the US market by almost 99 per cent. –Hindustan Times

    Mumbai-based Macleods Pharmaceuticals, for example, sells a generic version of Viagra for .85c/tablet. Another, Ajanta Pharma, a $1.6 billion publicly-listed firm, sells its own version in India for .47 cents each. 

    Pfizer’s global sales from Viagra alone was $1.685 billion in 2014, according to Transparency Market Research, while the gobal market for ED drugs was valued at $4.35 billion in 2016. 

    “Lower pricing is the only way to gain preference. Hence, a price war is certain,” said Macleods Pharma VP Niteesh Srivastava, who admitted that Indian competition will likely spark fierce competition. “While lesser known or relatively smaller firms will be able to crash prices due to less overhead expenditures, pharma giants will already have a better hold on the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in the US to reach the desired negotiations,” he added. 

    “It is an opportunity for Indian drug makers to cash in on their R&D and pricing strength and get into the US market for Viagra, which has largely been cartel led so far due to patent and policy regulation,” said Sougat Chatterjee, president of TFPL, a global research consulting firm, reports the Times. 

    That said, it may not be a walk in the park, as Indian firms will need to contend with rising FDA license fees to around $160,000 USD for the fiscal year 2018, up from roughly $65,000.

    “With such investments to gain approvals, every player will come on the ground with a surprise strategy to reap long-term results,” Srivastav said.

    Indian firms are also hoping the FDA will follow the United Kingdom’s decision to allow Viagra to be sold over the counter without a prescription. 

    “Many among these seven companies have been waiting to get into the US OTC market considering its sheer volume. Now, they are likely to have the opportunity,” Chatterjee said.

    Next steps

    In anticipation of entry into the US market, Indian manufacturers will begin establishing relationships with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in the United States – which are “primarily responsible for developing and maintaining the formulary, contracting with pharmacies, negotiating discounts and rebates with drug manufacturers, and processing and paying prescription drug claims,” according to the American Pharmacists Association. 

    In 2016, PBMs managed pharmacy benefits for 26.6 crore Americans. “These PBMs operate inside of integrated healthcare systems as part of retail pharmacies, and as part of insurance companies. The success of Indian firms will depend on their relationship and networking with these pharmacy chains,” said Ashok Madan, executive director, Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association, a lobby representing over 1,000 pharma companies in India.

    Most of the companies, however, remained tight-lipped about their plans. While Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories said its spokesperson is traveling, emails sent to Cadila Healthcare, Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Rubicon Research did not elicit a response. –Hindustan Times

    “We had just two US approvals until 2014. In 2016, we had nine new approvals. We are upping our ante to expand the business in the US. Whenever a drug loses a patent, it is a big opportunity. However, we are still working on the strategies,” said an official from Ajanta Pharma on condition of anonymity. 

    Whatever the case and however many hurdles India’s pharmaceutical industry needs to jump through – suffice to say, it’s going to be a lot cheaper to get your boner on in the next few years. 

  • Yazidi Slavery, Child Trafficking, Death Threats To Journalist: Should Turkey Remain In NATO?

    Authored by Uzay Bulut via The Gatestone Institute,

    August 3 marked the fourth anniversary of the ISIS invasion of Sinjar, Iraq and the start of the Yazidi genocide. Since that date in 2014, approximately 3,100 Yazidis either have been executed or died of dehydration and starvation, according to the organization Yazda. At least 6,800 women and children were kidnapped by ISIS terrorists and subjected to sexual and physical abuse, captives were forced to convert to Islam, and young boys were separated from their families and forced to become child soldiers, according to a report entitled “Working Against the Clock: Documenting Mass Graves of Yazidis Killed by the Islamic State.” Moreover, 3,000 Yazidi women and girls are believed to remain in ISIS captivity, but their whereabouts are unknown.

    One Yazidi child recently sold in Ankara, Turkey, and then freed through the mediation efforts of Yazidi and humanitarian-aid organizations, according to a report by Hale Gönültaş, a journalist with the Turkish news website Gazete Duvar. On July 30, three days after Gönültaş’s article appeared, she received a death threat on her mobile phone from a Turkish-speaking man, who told her that he knew her home address, and then shouted, “Jihad will come to this land. Watch your step!”

    This is not the first time that Gönültaş has been threatened for writing about ISIS atrocities. In May 2017, she received similar telephone threats after posting two articles: “200,000 children in ISIS camps,” and “ISIS holds 600 children from Turkey.”

    In addition, a video of Turkish-speaking children receiving military training from ISIS was sent to her email address. In the video, in which one of them is seen cutting off someone’s head with a knife, the children are saying, “We are here for jihad.”

    Gönültaş, whose lawyer has filed a criminal complaint about the threats, told Gatestone:

    “A child has been sold, and this is a crime against humanity; and I do not think the sole perpetrator is ISIS. There is a larger organized network involved in this. My report has further exposed this reality. I have been a journalist for 22 years and have been subjected to similar threats many times. I do not live in fear or worry. I will continue reporting facts.”

    In her article, Gönültaş conducted an interview with Azad Barış, founding president of the Yazidi Cultural Foundation, who said that a Yazidi girl, who was taken captive during the ISIS invasion of Sinjar in 2014, was sold for a fee determined by ISIS through “intermediaries” in Ankara:

    “To restore the child to liberty, the Yazidi community and humanitarian aid organizations — the ‘reliable intermediaries’ who stepped in to save the child — contacted the intermediaries who acted on behalf of ISIS…. The child was then taken out of Turkey quickly with the help of international organizations and reunited with her family. As far as I know, Turkish security forces were not informed of the incident. The priority was the life of the child and to take her to safety swiftly. And the child did get safely reunited with her family.”

    Barış also said that Yazidi women were exposed to mass rapes at the hands of ISIS terrorists who called them “spoils of war” and claimed that it was “religiously permissible” (“jaiz” in Arabic) to rape them:

    “Women were taken from one cell house to another and were exposed to the same sexual and psychological torture in every house. According to witness statements, women were mass raped by ISIS militants three times every day. Dozens of women ended their lives by noosing and strangling themselves with their headscarves.

    “Slave markets have been formed on an internet platform known as the ‘deep web.’ Not only women but also children are sold on auctions on the deep web… When the selling is completed on the internet, the intermediaries of those buying the women and the intermediaries of ISIS meet at a place considered ‘safe’ by both parties. Women and children are delivered to their buyers. Some Yazidi families have liberated their wives, children and relatives through the help of the reliable persons that joined in the auctions on the deep web on their behalf. The price for liberating the women and children ranges between 5,000 and 25,000 euros… Our missing people are still largely held by ISIS. Wherever ISIS is, and wherever they are effective, the women and children are mostly there. But selling women is not heard of very often anymore.”

    Also according to Barış, the second largest Yazidi group held captive by ISIS are boys under the age of nine:

    “[they] receive jihadist education at the hands of ISIS; are brainwashed, and have been made to change their religion. Each of them is raised as a jihadist. But we are not fully informed of the exact number and whereabouts of our kidnapped children.”

    This is not the first time that the sale of Yazidis in Turkey was reported in the media. In 2015, the German public television station ARD produced footagedocumenting the slave trade being conducted by ISIS through a liaison office in the province of Gaziantep in southeast Turkey, near the Syrian border.

    In 2016, the Turkish daily Hürriyet reported that the Gaziantep police had raided the Gaziantep office and found $370,000, many foreign (non-Turkish) passports, and 1,768 pages of Arabic-language receipts that demonstrate the transfer of millions of dollars between Syria and Turkey.

    Six Syrians were indicted in Turkey for their involvement, but all were acquitteddue to a “lack of evidence.” No member of the Gaziantep Bar Association, which had filed the criminal complaint against them, was invited to attend the hearings. According to Mehmet Yalçınkaya, a lawyer and member of the Gaziantep Bar Association:

    “The court, without looking into the documents found by police, made the decision to acquit… We learned of the decision to acquit by coincidence. That the trial ended in only 16 days and 1,768 pages of documents were submitted to the court after the decision to acquit shows that it was not an effective trial.”

    A news report from German broadcaster ARD shows photos of Yazidi slaves distributed by ISIS (left), as well as undercover footage of ISIS operatives in Turkey taking payment for buying the slaves (right).

    Addressing the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on December 9, 2015, Mirza Ismail, founder and chairman of the Yezidi Human Rights Organization-International, said, in part:

    “We Yezidis are desperate for your immediate help and support. During our six-thousand-year history, Yezidis have faced 74 genocides in the Middle East, including the ongoing genocide. Why? Simply because we are not Muslims. We are an ancient and proud people from the heart of Mesopotamia, the birth place of civilization and the birth place of many of the world’s religions. And here we are today, in 2015, on the verge of annihilation. In response to our suffering around the World there is profound, obscene silence. We Yezidis are considered ‘Infidels’ in the eyes of Muslims, and so they are encouraged to kill, rape, enslave, and convert us.”

    …

    “I am pleading with each and every one of you in the name of humanity to lend us your support at this crucial time to save the indigenous and peaceful peoples of the Middle East.”

    Three years after this impassioned plea, Yazidis are still being enslaved and sold by ISIS, with Turkish involvement, while the life of the journalist who exposed the crime is threatened. Reuniting the kidnapped Yazidis with their families and bringing the perpetrators to justice should be a priority of civilized governments worldwide, not only to help stop the persecution and enslavement of Yazidis, but also to defeat jihad.

    The question is whether NATO member Turkey is a part of the solution or part of the problem. Should Turkey, with the path it is on, be allowed even to remain a member of NATO?

  • China Just Tested A Hypersonic Missile The US Can't Defend Against

    China claims to have successfully tested a new hypersonic missile that would be capable of penetrating any missile defense system in the world.

    The Starry Sky-2, which is an experimental design known as “waverider,” rides the shock waves generated during flight. The missile could one day carry conventional and or nuclear warheads undetected through US missile defense shields.

    According to the China Academy of Aerospace Aerodynamics (CAAA), an aerodynamic research institution in Beijing and part of the state-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASTC), conducted the hypersonic missile test in northwestern China last Friday.

    The CAAA released a statement issued on Monday, indicating the Starry Sky-2 was carried into space by a solid-propellant rocket before separating.

    CAAA images of the rocket launching the Starry Sky-2 to the upper atmosphere (Source/WeChat)

    Video: Starry Sky-2 Launch

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

    After separation, it descended to lower altitudes as it autonomously conducted extreme turning manoeuvers, reaching Mach 5.5 for more than 400 seconds, and reached a top speed of Mach 6, or 7,344km/h (4,563mph), the CAAA WeChat statement said.

    The test was deemed a “complete success,” stated CAAA, which posted a series of behind the scenes images of the experiment on social media. “The Starry Sky-2 flight test project was strongly innovative and technically difficult, confronting a number of cutting-edge international technical challenges.”

    However, the CAAA did not mention what the intended purpose of the missile would be used for, other than commenting on how hypersonic technologies could further China’s aerospace industry.

    Although, the missile is still in the development stage and probably a few years out from series production, waveriders could be used to carry conventional and or nuclear warheads capable of penetrating the world’s most advanced anti-missile defense systems.

    Earlier this year, Gen. John Hyten, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the US is extremely vulnerable to future attack via hypersonic missiles.

    “The first, most important message I want to deliver today is that the forces under my command are fully ready to deter our adversaries and respond decisively, should deterrence ever fail. We are ready for all threats. No one should doubt this,” Gen. Hyten said in his opening statement.

    However, in a follow-on conversation with Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, Hyten cautioned:

    “we [US] don’t have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon [hypersonic missiles] against us.”

    Hyten suggested the US is powerless against hypersonic weapon threats and has to rely on nuclear deterrence.

    Hyten added, “so our response would be our deterrent force which would be the triad and the nuclear capabilities that we have to respond to such a threat.”

    In mid-April, Lockheed Martin announced that it had won a $928 million contract to develop a hypersonic missile for the Air Force to counter Chinese and Russian missile defense systems.

    During the recent discussion at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) in Washington, D.C., Gen. Paul Selva, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said China has yet to “mass deploy hypersonics or long-range [tactical] ballistic missiles,” however, “they are able now to deploy those capabilities at a large scale” if they decide to move in that direction, he added.

    Gen. Selva then dropped a bombshell indicating the Pentagon is behind in the demonstration of hypersonic technologies, but he did mention that the Pentagon still holds an advantage when it comes to sensor and sensor-integration technologies.

    “If we just sit back and don’t react we will lose our technological superiority” over China, Selva said.

    Beijing-based military analyst Zhou Chenming told the South China Morning Post that Starry Sky-2 would be used for carrying conventional warheads rather than nuclear ones, adding that such a capability was not in the immediate future.

    “I think there are still three to five years before this technology can be weaponized,” he said. “As well as being fitted to missiles, it may also have other military applications, which are still being explored.”

    The Starry Sky-2 is not China’s first rodeo operating in the hypersonic space — it has been testing hypersonic missiles since 2014, but the latest test is the first to make use of waverider technology.

    Mike Griffin, a former Nasa administrator and now the Pentagon’s defense undersecretary for research and engineering, warned earlier this year that China had built “a pretty mature system” for a hypersonic missile to strike from thousands of miles away.

    To sum up, this is it – the dying American empire is behind the hypersonic technology curve, as it may suggest: The US could lose its military technological superiority to China sometime in the mid/late 2020s, if it does not properly allocate enough investments into hypersonic technologies.

    We then ask the question: What comes next if Washington’s power slips in the Pacific? Well, you guessed it… War.

  • Institutionalizing Intolerance: Bullies Win, Freedom Suffers When We Can't Agree To Disagree

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” ― Benjamin Franklin

    What a mess.

    As America has become ever more polarized, and those polarized factions have become more militant and less inclined to listen to – or even allow for the existence of – other viewpoints, we are fast becoming a nation of people who just can’t get along.

    Here’s the thing: if Americans don’t learn how to get along – at the very least, agreeing to disagree and respecting each other’s right to subscribe to beliefs and opinions that may be offensive, hateful, intolerant or merely different – then we’re going to soon find that we have no rights whatsoever (to speak, assemble, agree, disagree, protest, opt in, opt out, or forge our own paths as individuals).

    In such an environment, when we can’t agree to disagree, the bullies (on both sides) win and freedom suffers.

    Intolerance, once the domain of the politically correct and self-righteous, has been institutionalized, normalized and politicized.

    Even those who dare to defend speech that may be unpopular or hateful as a constitutional right are now accused of “weaponizing the First Amendment.”

    On college campuses across the country, speakers whose views are deemed “offensive” to some of the student body are having their invitations recalled or cancelled, being shouted down by hecklers, or forced to hire costly security details. As The Washington Postconcludes, “College students support free speech—unless it offends them.”

    At Hofstra University, half the students in a freshman class boycotted when the professor assigned them to read Flannery O’Connor’s short story “Artificial Nigger.” As Professor Arthur Dobrin recounts, “The boycotters refused to engage a writer who would use such an offensive word. They hadn’t read the story; they wouldn’t lower themselves to that level. Here is what they missed: The story’s title refers to a lawn jockey, a once common ornament of a black man holding a lantern. The statue symbolizes the suffering of an entire group of people and looking at it bring a moment of insight to a racist old man.”

    It’s not just college students who have lost their taste for diverse viewpoints and free speech.

    In Charlottesville, Va., in the wake of a violent clash between the alt-right and alt-left over whether Confederate statues should remain standing in a community park, City Council meetings were routinely “punctuated with screaming matches, confrontations, calls to order, and even arrests,” making it all but impossible for attendees and councilors alike to speak their minds.

    In Maryland, a 90-year-old World War I Peace Cross memorial that pays tribute to the valor, courage and sacrifice of 49 members of the Prince George community who died in battle is under fire because a group of humanists believes the memorial, which evokes the rows of wooden Latin Crosses that mark the graves of WW I servicemen who fell on battlefields far away, is offensive.

    On Twitter, President Trump has repeatedly called for the NFL to penalize players who take a knee in protest of police brutality during the national anthem, which clearly flies in the face of the First Amendment’s assurance of the right to free speech and protest (especially in light of the president’s decision to insert himself—an agent of the government—into a private workplace dispute).

    On Facebook, Alex Jones, the majordomo of conspiracy theorists who spawned an empire built on alternative news, has been banned for posting content that violates the social media site’s “Community Standards,” which prohibit posts that can be construed as bullying or hateful.

    Jones is not alone in being censured for content that might be construed as false or offensive.

    Facebook also flagged a Canadian museum for posting abstract nude paintings by Pablo Picasso.

    Even the American Civil Liberties Union, once a group known for taking on the most controversial cases, is contemplating stepping back from its full-throated defense of free (at times, hateful) speech.

    “What are the defenders of free speech to do?” asks commentator William Ruger in Time magazine. 

    “The sad fact is that this fundamental freedom is on its heels across America,” concludes Ruger. “Politicians of both parties want to use the power of government to silence their foes. Some in the university community seek to drive it from their campuses. And an entire generation of Americans is being taught that free speech should be curtailed as soon as it makes someone else feel uncomfortable. On the current trajectory, our nation’s dynamic marketplace of ideas will soon be replaced by either disengaged intellectual silos or even a stagnant ideological conformity. Few things would be so disastrous for our nation and the well-being of our citizenry.”

    Disastrous, indeed.

    You see, tolerance cuts both ways.

    This isn’t an easy pill to swallow, I know, but that’s the way free speech works, especially when it comes to tolerating speech that we hate.

    The most controversial issues of our day—gay rights, abortion, race, religion, sexuality, political correctness, police brutality, et al.—have become battlegrounds for those who claim to believe in freedom of speech but only when it favors the views and positions they support.

    “Free speech for me but not for thee” is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard.

    This haphazard approach to the First Amendment has so muddied the waters that even First Amendment scholars are finding it hard to navigate at times.

    It’s really not that hard.

    The First Amendment affirms the right of the people to speak freely, worship freely, peaceably assemble, petition the government for a redress of grievances, and have a free press.

    Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense, hurting someone’s feelings, safeguarding government secrets, protecting government officials, insulating judges from undue influence, discouraging bullying, penalizing hateful ideas and actions, eliminating terrorism, combatting prejudice and intolerance, and the like.

    Unfortunately, in the war being waged between free speech purists who believe that free speech is an inalienable right and those who believe that free speech is a mere privilege to be granted only under certain conditions, the censors are winning.

    We have entered into an egotistical, insulated, narcissistic era in which free speech has become regulated speech: to be celebrated when it reflects the values of the majority and tolerated otherwise, unless it moves so far beyond our political, religious and socio-economic comfort zones as to be rendered dangerous and unacceptable.

    Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors (and championed by those who want to suppress speech with which they might disagree) have conspired to corrode our core freedoms, purportedly for our own good.

    On paper – at least according to the U.S. Constitution – we are technically free to speak.

    In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official – or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube – may allow.

    Emboldened by phrases such as “hate crimes,” “bullying,” “extremism” and “microaggressions,” the nation has been whittling away at free speech, confining it to carefully constructed “free speech zones,” criminalizing it when it skates too close to challenging the status quo, shaming it when it butts up against politically correct ideals, and muzzling it when it appears dangerous.

    Free speech is no longer free.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has long been the referee in the tug-of-war over the nation’s tolerance for free speech and other expressive activities protected by the First Amendment. Yet the Supreme Court’s role as arbiter of justice in these disputes is undergoing a sea change. Except in cases where it has no vested interest, the Court has begun to advocate for the government’s outsized interests, ruling in favor of the government in matters of war, national security, commerce and speech. 

    When asked to choose between the rule of law and government supremacy, the Supreme Court tends to side with the government.

    If we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to voice our opinions in public—no matter how misogynistic, hateful, prejudiced, intolerant, misguided or politically incorrect they might be—then we do not have free speech.

    What we have instead is regulated, controlled speech, and that’s a whole other ballgame.

    Just as surveillance has been shown to “stifle and smother dissent, keeping a populace cowed by fear,” government censorship gives rise to self-censorship, breeds compliance, makes independent thought all but impossible, and ultimately foments a seething discontent that has no outlet but violence.

    The First Amendment is a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world.

    When there is no steam valve – when there is no one to hear what the people have to say – frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation. By bottling up dissent, we have created a pressure cooker of stifled misery and discontent that is now bubbling over and fomenting even more hate, distrust and paranoia among portions of the populace.

    Silencing unpopular viewpoints with which the majority might disagree—whether it’s by shouting them down, censoring them, muzzling them, or criminalizing them—only empowers the controllers of the Deep State.

    Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

    It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.

    We’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. And we’ve allowed ourselves to become so timid in the face of offensive words and ideas that we’ve bought into the idea that we need the government to shield us from that which is ugly or upsetting or mean.

    The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.

    In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive, polarized populace incapable of working through our own problems with each other and reliant on the government to protect us from our fears of each other. 

    So where does that leave us?

    We’ve got to do the hard work of figuring out how to get along again.

    Charlottesville, Va., is a good example of this.

    It’s been a year since my hometown of Charlottesville, Va., became the poster child in a heated war of words—and actions—over racism, “sanitizing history,” extremism (both right and left), political correctness, hate speech, partisan politics, and a growing fear that violent words would end in violent actions.

    Those fears were realized when what should have been an exercise in free speech quickly became a brawl that left one activist dead.

    Yet lawful, peaceful, nonviolent First Amendment activity did not kill Heather Heyer. She was killed by a 20-year-old Neo-Nazi who drove his car into a crowd of pedestrians in Charlottesville, Va.

    Words, no matter how distasteful or disagreeable, did not turn what should have been an exercise in free speech into a brawl. That was accomplished by militant protesters on both sides of the debate who arrived at what should have been a nonviolent protest armed with sticks and guns, bleach bottles, balloons filled with feces and urine and improvised flamethrowers, and by the law enforcement agencies who stood by and allowed it.

    This is what happens when we turn our disagreements, even about critically and morally important issues, into lines in the sand.

    If we can’t agree to disagree—and learn to live with each other in peace and speak with civility in order to change hearts and minds—then we’ve reached an impasse.

    That way lies death, destruction and tyranny.

    Now, there’s a big difference between civility (treating others with consideration and respect) and civil disobedience (refusing to comply with certain laws as a means of peaceful protest), both of which Martin Luther King Jr. employed brilliantly, and I’m a champion of both tactics when used wisely.

    Frankly, I agree with journalist Bret Stephens when he says that we’re failing at the art of disagreement.

    As Stephens explains in a 2017 lecture, which should be required reading for every American:

    “To say the words, ‘I agree’—whether it’s agreeing to join an organization, or submit to a political authority, or subscribe to a religious faith—may be the basis of every community. But to say, I disagree; I refuse; you’re wrong; etiam si omnes—ego non—these are the words that define our individuality, give us our freedom, enjoin our tolerance, enlarge our perspectives, seize our attention, energize our progress, make our democracies real, and give hope and courage to oppressed people everywhere. Galileo and Darwin; Mandela, Havel, and Liu Xiaobo; Rosa Parks and Natan Sharansky — such are the ranks of those who disagree.”

    What does it mean to not merely disagree but rather to disagree well?

    According to Stephens, “to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.”

    Instead of intelligent discourse, we’ve been saddled with identity politics, “a safe space from thought, rather than a safe space for thought.”

    Safe spaces.

    That’s what we’ve been reduced to on college campuses, in government-run forums, and now on public property and on previously open forums such as the internet.

    The problem, as I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, is that the creation of so-called safe spaces—where offensive ideas and speech are prohibited—is just censorship by another name, and censorship breeds resentment, and resentment breeds conflict, and unresolved, festering conflict gives rise to violence.

    Charlottesville is a prime example of this.

    Anticipating the one-year anniversary of the riots in Charlottesville on August 12, the local city government, which bungled its response the first time around, is now attempting to ostensibly create a “safe space” by shutting the city down for the days surrounding the anniversary, all the while ramping up the presence of militarized police, in the hopes that no one else (meaning activists or protesters) will show up and nothing (meaning riots and brawls among activists) will happen.

    What a mess.

  • China's Winnie The Pooh Crackdown Intensifies As Half-Naked Bear Becomes Resistance Icon

    First HBO, and now Disney.

    China’s war with Winnie the Pooh has intensified, as Beijing has reportedly banned the new Disney film “Christopher Robin” as part of their new crackdown on the half-naked bear. Why? Because Pooh has become a resistance icon over Chinese social media due to his resemblance to Chinese President Xi Jinping. 

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

    While the Guardian notes that it’s possible the Pooh film was simply blocked due to China only allowing a certain number of foreign films in its theaters annually, the Huffington Post pointed out that Chinese censors have been relentlessly scrubbing Pooh-related material from the web. 

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

    In June, China blocked HBO’s website after host John Oliver devoted a considerable amount of time criticizing President Xi Jinping and China’s notorious crackdowns on dissent, at a time when Xi is trying to rebrand himself. 

    In addition to calling out China over human rights violations and various forms of propaganda, Oliver pointed out that Xi is very sensitive about Winnie the Pooh comparisons. 

    The Daily News reported at the time that HBO.com has been blocked for 100% of Chinese internet users following the segment – citing internet monitoring website Greatfire.org. 

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

  • Brandon Smith: The Strengths And Weaknesses Of Leftists Vs Conservatives

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    Before I jump into this subject matter, I should probably address a common misconception among people who are new to liberty movement activism. The first time people hear about the concept of the “false left/right paradigm,” they wrongly assume that this means there is “no left or right ideology,” that it is all fabricated to divide the masses. This is a misconception.

    When we speak of the false left/right paradigm in the liberty movement, we are usually referring to the elitists at the top of the political and financial pyramid. These people do NOT have any loyalty to any one political party, nor do they hold to the beliefs of one side or the other. They are happy, though, to exploit leftists or conservatives by targeting their weaknesses.  They do this in order to create a social outcome that elevates the elitist’s own goals, but that is all. Meaning, these people are globalists and have their own agenda separate from the political left or right, but will pretend to stand on one side or the other in order to control the narrative. Hence, the “falseness” of their particular left/right theater.

    The common citizen, however, does indeed tend to legitimately rest his or her ideals on a spectrum from left to right, from progressive to conservative. And lately, the separation between these two sides has been growing ever wider.

    To be clear, it is not playing into the hands of the globalists to point out the differences in the two sides.  The two sides are concrete, they are a natural extension of human though processes, and they would exist even if the globalists did not exist.  The globalists did not create left vs right philosophical differences, this is giving them too much credit.  They only seek to take advantage of divisions in thought that already exist.

    Where things go horribly wrong is when one side or the other is pushed artificially towards zealotry. This is where the globalists create chaos, by influencing the left or the right into subverting their own principles and abandoning diplomacy in the name of destroying the other side.  This is when disagreements become war and the political process becomes a blood feud.  Globalists sometimes attempt to conjure such violent conditions when they want to wipe the slate clean and introduce a new social system. Generally, their goal is even more centralization and control.

    Over the years I have been critical of BOTH sides of the political spectrum, and sometimes even more critical of liberty activists when I see the movement being led astray by disinformation. The reality is that both leftists and conservatives sense severe imbalances in the way our society and our government functions. Where we differ greatly is in how each side places blame for our problems and how they plan to solve those imbalances.

    In order to understand why the left and the right are so close to open war, we have to step outside the political bubble and look at our differences in a more objective way. First, let’s start with an examination of the leftist mindset…

    How Leftists View The World

    The key to understanding leftists resides in their inclination toward collectivism as a means of protection and power. To put it more bluntly, leftists love and embrace the mob mentality.

    This is why the political left seems to organize so much more effectively than conservatives in many cases. While conservatives engage in internal debates with each other over principles and practical solutions, leftists are far more single-minded in their pursuit of social influence. They seem to gravitate to each other like ants around a sugar cube, and in this they can be effective in removing obstacles and gaining political territory. This could be considered a strength, but it can also act as a weakness.

    The leftists ideal is one in which all people are in general agreement — they think all people are tied together in a great social chain, that every individual action has consequences for everyone else in that chain and, therefore, all individual actions no matter how small should be regulated in order to avoid one person adding to a potential disaster for the rest of humanity.  True individualism is seen as “selfish” and disruptive to the survival prospects of the group.

    Thus, the notion of “society” becomes a control mechanism used by leftists. “We are all part of this society, whether we like it or not.” They often say, “People have to accept the rules for the greater good of the greater number.”

    When we look at this objectively, this is clearly a brand of totalitarianism posing as humanitarian rationality. Who decides what is the “greater good?” Well, our inherent conscience does that, but conscience is an individual trait. When mobs get together and engage in mob thinking, conscience tends to go out the window.

    For example, it is impossible to institute such a thing as “social justice;” arbitrarily homogenizing an entire group based on their skin color, sexual orientation, financial status, etc. and then deciding how they should be rewarded (or punished) erases the individual accomplishments and crimes of the people within that group you just arbitrarily created.

    It is true that some behaviors tend to be cultural, and in that case, the most we can do morally is point out those behaviors and applaud or criticize. In the case of globalists, you have an actual example of organized criminality within a definable group of people. This can indeed be judged on a broad scale but still must be punished based on individual actions.

    We can judge an individual for his behavior predicated on evidence, but no one on Earth is devoid of bias, and no one on Earth has the omnipotent wisdom required to dole out punishment or prizes to an entire subculture of people en masse.

    Those leftists with good intentions desire a world without suffering. This is perhaps a noble thing. Unfortunately, that world does not exist and never will. There will always be inequality of outcome because not all people are equal in ability or willpower. I realize that leftists have been brainwashed into thinking that all people are equally capable, if not completely the same in every imaginable way. But, believing this does not make it fact.

    The best we can hope for is the freedom to pursue prosperity as individuals, but in their pursuit of total equality, leftists are encouraging the erasure of individual freedom and opportunity. They believe that what is best for the individual is for him to sacrifice his individualism for the sake of the mob made up of the lowest common denominator. When one understands that the mob is morally relative, that it has no soul or conscience, this suggestion sounds like madness. And frankly, it is madness.

    Needless to say, the collectivist thinking of leftists makes them easy prey for sociopathic global elites.  However, to be fair, conservatives are also targeted for manipulation exactly because they present the most viable threat to the success of globalism as construct.

    How Conservatives View The World

    While the political left is essentially going off the deep end into the errors of zealotry, conservatives are also not immune to ideological blindness. It is no secret that I view the conservative position as far superior to that of the left — I will summarize the strengths of this position as briefly as possible so that we can get to the more important issue of weaknesses.

    The left sees the world as a complex Gordian Knot that must be chopped in half and meticulously untangled until all is made equal. Conservatives see society’s problems as much simpler – Each individual’s problems are his own. Each individual must work hard to elevate himself and to solve his problems without taking from other people in the process. Each person is an island, and while we might ally with each other at times, we are not permanently tied to each other in some kind of endless symbiotic relationship. As the Non-Aggression Principle outlines, you leave me alone, and I’ll leave you alone, and as long as no one is attempting to steal from others, enslave others or murder others I will remain quiet and peaceful.

    The conservative dynamic goes wrong, though, when conservatives abandon their foundational principles for the sake of winning a fight against an imminent threat.

    As leftists worship the mob and government power, conservatives tend to worship heroes, some of them false prophets. Conservatives are always desperately searching for the man on the white horse to lead them to the promise land. They are always looking for another messiah.  And in this they make themselves weak.

    What they should be emulating are their principles and heritage alone. Only principles and truths matter, because they are eternal.  They do not corrupt like people can.  But let the right showman or mascot come along reciting the correct rhetoric in a rousing way, and many conservatives become putty in the hands of the political elites.

    I believe this is owed to the problem of organization that conservatives suffer from. Individualists do not always agree on everything and normally abhor group think. The political right grows frustrated at how easy it is for leftists to congeal into an effective mob, and the tyranny of the majority is horrifying to the average conservative. So, in response conservatives seek out unifying leaders, people that appear to hold the same values and who conservatives can pour all their hopes and dreams for the future into. When this happens, group think can and does spread like a cancer through the political right.

    When conservatives hyper-focus on leadership, they unwittingly centralize and become easily controlled. Globalists can either co-opt the leader or they can destroy the leader and thus the hopes of all the people that were invested in him. They can use the leader as a placebo, making conservatives sit idle waiting around for things to change when they should be taking action themselves.  And, globalists can also tie all the perceived or real blunders of that leader around the necks of his political base; meaning, conservatives can be conned into rallying around a false prophet and then when he falls from grace, all conservative thought falls from grace as well.

    When conservatives bottleneck all their efforts and energy into a single leader, they set themselves up for failure. Organization does not need to be pursued from the top down. It can be built from the ground up in a decentralized way. When conservatives ignore their own principles and start centralizing, some very ugly things can happen. Zealotry is not only a vice of leftists. I remember the insanity of the Iraq War, for example, and in that event I saw self-proclaimed conservatives acting like the very mob they used to despise. This happened because they were frightened by what they perceived as an imminent threat and sought out leadership in all the wrong places instead of thinking critically.

    The two sides of the political spectrum are a fact of life (unless of course the globalists get their way and replace everything with their own brand of moral relativism). One side is often used against the other to illicit a self-destructive response. Understanding where each side is coming from helps us to remain vigilant and to avoid exploitation by the powers that be.

    *  *  *

    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.

  • Mapping The Median Age In Every US County

    The United States is a vast place, and every region is markedly different.

    Usually we look at these differences through lenses like geography, population density, preferences, wealth, and culture – but, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, age is another interesting one to think about, and age is a significant factor in predicting future economic health and growth for almost any society.

    THE AGE FACTOR

    As the French philosopher Auguste Comte wrote, “Demography is destiny”.

    If you know a person’s age, you’re usually able to guess other things about them. For example, younger people are usually more motivated and inclined to launch careers, start families, and seek economic security. Not all young people are this way of course – but in aggregate, this is generally true.

    Today’s map comes to us from Reddit user /r/JFBoyy and it charts median age by every U.S. county, parish, borough, and Census Area.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    COUNTIES BY AGE

    Which states and counties stand out on the map?

    Utah is an interesting place to start – it’s the youngest state with a median age of 29.9, and this is extremely clear when looking at the county level. The state has only one county (Daggett) with a median age range above 35-44 years.

    Florida and Maine are two other states that stand out. Florida is the stereotypical “old” state, and there is some truth to that based on the numbers. It’s the only state that has a county (Sumter) with a median age range over 65 years. Meanwhile, Maine has only five counties that are not “old” counties – and the majority of counties have median ages that fall in the 45-54 range.

    The Midwest and Southeast seem to have a higher distribution of counties with median ages in the “middle ground” 35-44 median age range. Alabama has 67 counties, and all but five of them are in that bracket.

    Meanwhile, the West seems to have an interesting dichotomy in many of its states. Washington State, for example, has many counties with old populations (San Juan, Jefferson, and others) but also counties with younger populations (Whitman, Yakima, Kittitas).

    Idaho is the most potent example of this tendency: all of the old people seem to live in the north of the state, and all of the young people in the south.

    A LOOK TO THE FUTURE

    Here is how median age projects out to 2040, but on a state level.

    Overall the national median age is projected to go from 37.7 to 39 years.

    Interestingly, while aging in the United States is expected to cause some demographic issues in the long run, the country’s challenges pale in comparison to other rapidly-aging countries in the Western world.

     

  • Pakistan's New Leader Is A Democratically Elected Populist-Visionary

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

    Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, which translates to the Pakistan Movement For Justice and is commonly known by its abbreviation as the PTI, came out on top in the latest elections after campaigning on a strong anti-corruption platform, but it was nevertheless a supposedly “controversial” victory because of the opposition’s claims of “military rigging” and the West’s efforts to “delegitimize” the vote.

    To briefly explain, the Supreme Court disqualified former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from office last summer and he has since been arrested for corruption, but instead of lauding this as a positive move in the right direction by an emerging democracy, it was condemned by some domestic political forces and foreign countries as supposedly being a “military-driven conspiracy” to tilt the future elections to Khan’s favor.

    The narrative that his opponents have propagated is that he’s therefore nothing more than a “stooge” of the Pakistani “deep state”.

    That’s not the case, however, because Pakistan’s democracy is continually improving, and the only way for it to achieve anything sustainable of significance is for the highest law of the land to be upheld irrespective of the polarized political feelings surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling last year. Without law and order, no matter how controversial its manifestation may be, no country can ever hope to build democracy, and it’s very telling that so many millions of Pakistanis were attracted to the PTI’s anti-corruption message.

    That in and of itself speaks to the need to proverbially “clean house” by holding elected officials and their business partners to account, which is what the Prime Minister-elect has promised to do. This will in turn improve domestic political administration and encourage the trust that’s needed to attract diaspora investments, which can then contribute to Pakistan pursuing value-added projects that turn the CPEC-transiting country into more than just a “Chinese highway”.

    Internationally, Khan’s view of foreign affairs closely aligns with what many have interpreted the military establishment’s as being, though that shouldn’t be understood as a bad thing or abused as supposed “proof” that the armed forces “rigged” the vote to help him win.

    Pakistan’s new leader seems to understand the value of “multi-aligning” his country’s international partnerships in order to promote the shared goal of multipolarity. This could predictably see him continuing with the fast-moving and full-spectrum Russian-Pakistani rapprochement in parallel with “rebalancing” Pakistan’s traditional relations with the US, all the while never shying away from talking tough to India when needed but nevertheless signaling his intent for pragmatic cooperation. The previous administration was perceived by many as being “too soft” on the US and India, so Khan is merely channeling their frustrations independently of whatever the military’s position towards these two countries may be.

    The bottom line is that Pakistan’s next Prime Minister was democratically elected in a free and fair election. Bringing corrupt politicians to justice and embracing populism aren’t indicative of “military meddling”, but are the sign of our times, with Khan being the latest visionary leader to enter into office by appealing to the people’s desires.

  • Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography

    Among the more interesting revelations to surface as legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh continues a book tour and gives interviews discussing his newly published autobiography, Reporter: A Memoir, is that he never set out to write it at all, but was actually deeply engaged in writing a massive exposé of Dick Cheney — a project he decided couldn’t ultimately be published in the current climate of aggressive persecution of whistleblowers which became especially intense during the Obama years.

    Hersh has pointed out he worries his sources risk exposure while taking on the Cheney book, which ultimately resulted in the famed reporter opting to write an in-depth account of his storied career instead — itself full of previously hidden details connected with major historical events and state secrets. 

    In a recent wide-ranging interview with the UK Independent, Hersh is finally asked to discuss in-depth some of the controversial investigative stories he’s written on Syria, Russia-US intelligence sharing, and the Osama bin Laden death narrative, which have gotten the Pulitzer Prize winner and five-time Polk Award recipient essentially blacklisted from his regular publication, The New Yorker magazine, for which he broke stories of monumental importance for decades.

    Though few would disagree that Hersh “has single-handedly broken more stories of genuine world-historical significance than any reporter alive (or dead, perhaps)” — as The Nation put it — the man who exposed shocking cover-ups like the My Lai Massacre, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and the truth behind the downing of Korean Air Flight 007, has lately been shunned and even attacked by the American mainstream media especially over his controversial coverage of Syria and the bin Laden raid in 2011.

    But merely a few of the many hit pieces written on this front include The Washington Post’s “Sy Hersh, journalism giant: Why some who worshiped him no longer do,” and elsewhere “Whatever happened to Seymour Hersh?” or “Sy Hersh’s Chemical Misfire” in Foreign Policy — the latter which was written, it should be noted, by a UK blogger who conducts chemical weapons “investigations” via YouTube and Google Maps (and this is not an exaggeration). 

    The Post story begins by acknowledging, “But Sy Hersh now has a problem: He thinks 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue lied about the death of Osama bin Laden, and it seems nearly everyone is mad at him for saying so” — before proceeding to take a sledgehammer to Hersh’s findings while painting him as some kind of conspiracy theorist (Hersh published the bin Laden story for the London Review of Books after his usual New Yorker rejected it). 

    Seymour Hersh broke the story of CIA’s illegal domestic operations with a front page story in the New York Times on December 22, 1974.

    However, the mainstream pundits piling on against his reporting of late ignore the clearly establish historical pattern when it comes to Hersh: nearly all of the biggest stories of his career were initially met with incredulity and severe push back from both government officials and even his fellow journalists, and yet he’s managed to emerge proven right and ultimately vindicated time and again. 

    * * *

    Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy Hersh’s new book, Reporter, as well as interviews he’s given since publication…

    1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle East

    (Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007 speech, the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this highly classified memo has been quoted. Hersh’s account appears to corroborate now retired Gen. Clark’s assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime change in “7 countries in 5 years” was being circulated among intelligence officials.)

    From Reporter: A Memoir pg. 306 — A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin “with the assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this… is that the war will start making the U.S. the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones, as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination.” Victory in Iraq would lead to an ultimatum to Damascus, the “defanging” of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America’s enemies must understand that “they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their annihilation.” I and the foreign general agreed that America’s neocons were a menace to civilization.

    * * *

    2) On early regime change plans in Syria

    From Reporter: A Memoir pages 306-307 — Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to permit America’s Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to 9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country’s most sensitive intelligence files on the Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out… Rumsfeld eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told…

    3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11

    From Reporter: A Memoir pages 305-306 — I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States — with ease. It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual leaders of that group — Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle — had not hidden their ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism. I had spent many hours after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia. Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue. 

    Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his primacy in the White House, but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of betraying my sources…

    I came to understand that Cheney’s goal was to run his most important military and intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible. I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney’s constant accumulation of power and authority as vice president, but it was impossible to even begin to verify the information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good idea from whom I was getting the information.

    4) On Russian meddling in the US election

    From the recent Independent interview based on his autobiography — Hersh has vociferously strong opinions on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is “a great deal of animosity towards Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous.” He has been researching the subject but is not ready to go public… yet.

    Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence, it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. “When the intel community wants to say something they say it… High confidence effectively means that they don’t know.”

    5) On the Novichok poisoning 

    From the recent Independent interview — Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version of the Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: “The story of novichok poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British intelligence services about Russian organised crime.” The unfortunate turn of events with the contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government’s position.

    Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing on Obama – “a trimmer … articulate [but] … far from a radical … a middleman”. During his Goldsmiths talk, he remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.

    He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the wake of 9/11. He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his CIA sources fires back: “Sy you still don’t get it after all these years – the FBI catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks.” It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.

    * * *

    6) On the Bush-era ‘Redirection’ policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which in a 2007 New Yorker article Hersh accurately predicted would set off war in Syria

    From the Independent interview: [Hersh] tells me it is “amazing how many times that story has been reprinted”. I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot boundaries for the 21st century.

    He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney “had it in for Iran”, although he denies the idea that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: “They were providing intel, collecting intel … The US did many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran”…

    He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I’m sure though that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory…

    I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq. Hersh ruefully states that: “The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far.”

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

    * * *

    7) On the official 9/11 narrative

    From the Independent interview: We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis potentially involved. 

    Hersh tells me: “I don’t necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. We really don’t have an ending to the story. I’ve known people in the [intelligence] community. We don’t know anything empirical about who did what”. He continues: “The guy was living in a cave. He really didn’t know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later… How’s it going guys?”

    8) On the media and the morality of the powerful

    From a recent The Intercept interview and book review — If Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the Persian Gulf War. America’s indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, “a reminder of the Vietnam War’s MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it’s a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime.” It was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: “I had learned a domestic version of that rule decades earlier” in Chicago.

    “Reporter” demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:

    1. The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
    2. The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
    3. The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.

    * * *

    9) On the time President Lyndon B. Johnson expressed his displeasure to a reporter over a Vietnam piece by defecating on the ground in front of him

    From Reporter: A Memoir pages 201-202 — Tom [Wicker] got into the car and the two of them sped off down a dusty dirt road. No words were spoken. After a moment or two, Johnson once again slammed on the brakes, wheeling to a halt near a stand of trees. Leaving the motor running, he climbed out, walked a few dozen feet toward the trees, stopped, pulled down his pants, and defecated, in full view. The President wiped himself with leaves and grass, pulled up his pants, climbed into the car, turned in around, and sped back to the press gathering. Once there, again the brakes were slammed on, and Tom was motioned out. All of this was done without a word being spoken.

    …”I knew then,” Tom told me, “that the son of a bitch was never going to end the war.”

    10) On Sy’s “most troublesome article” for which his own family received death threats

    From Reporter: A Memoir pages 263-264 — The most troublesome article I did, as someone not on the staff of the newspaper, came in June 1986 and dealt with American signals intelligence showing that General Manuel Antonio Noriega, the dictator who ran Panama, had authorized the assassination of a popular political opponent. At the time, Noriega was actively involved in supplying the Reagan administration with what was said to be intelligence on the spread of communism in Central America. Noriega also permitted American military and intelligence units to operate with impunity, in secret, from bases in Panama, and the Americans, in return, looked the other way while the general dealt openly in drugs and arms. The story was published just as Noriega was giving a speech at Harvard University and created embarrassment for him, and for Harvard, along with a very disturbing telephone threat at home, directed not at me but at my family. 

    * * *

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Aug 08

Today’s News 8th August 2018

  • London Is The World's Airbnb Capital

    10 years ago, in early August 2008, the website Airbedandbreakfast.com went online, marking the birth of Airbnb.

    Back then the three founders, Brian Cheky, Joe Gebbia and Nathan Blecharczyk wanted to help short-term travelers find affordable accommodation and provide renters with an opportunity to make an extra buck by renting out spare rooms or even just the namesake airbed on the floor. However, as Statista’s Felix Richter notes, little did they know that 10 years later their little venture would be one of the hottest private companies in the world, valued at nearly $30 billion.

    Over the years, Airbnb has developed into much more than what it was originally meant to be. These days you can rent millions of houses, apartments and rooms on the platform. For many young travelers is has become the favorite if not the only way to find accommodation when travelling.

    Luckily for Airbnb, its rise coincided with a steep increase in city tourism. In cities such as London, Paris or New York, where hotel rooms are often hard to find and/or expensive, Airbnb has become an affordable and popular way to experience cities in a less touristy way.

    The following chart, based on data from AirDNA, shows which cities are particularly popular on Airbnb.

    Infographic: London Is the World's Airbnb Capital | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    While the platform has been opposed by the hotel industry pretty much from the start, it has also drawn a fair amount of criticism from residents of popular city trip destinations for exacerbating the shortage of affordable housing in many areas. 

    A criticism that doesn’t seem entirely unfair, considering the number of objects listed in some cities.

  • Brexit – Will The EU Collapse Anyway?

    Via TruePublica.org.uk,

    It is impossible for anyone who even occasionally visits the news to ignore just how dramatically the world has changed in the last 10 years. The epicentre of the crumbling world order that we have all known was the global financial crisis. It literally shook the foundations of the Western world and the institutions that upheld it – and today they are now falling down one by one. Will the European Union be one of them as its own existential threats continue to mount?

    Political systems such as democracy are now known to be failing the world over to some degree or another and all of a sudden, many of us have started to wonder about a world without those structures we took so much for granted. Unfortunately, others have embraced this new found fragility more eagerly than others and with frightening consequences.

    It, therefore, should come as little surprise that the past decade has been assessed as a period defined by systemic dysfunction and political change. As we enter the next decade this dysfunction will characterize the momentum of a decade’s worth of disruption and one regional area of change will undoubtedly be the European Union.

    There is no point in researching for material in this article with the assistance of the hatemongering MSM rags typified by the likes of the Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph et al. We have looked at many articles, periodicals and predictions – and there has been for some time a growing belief amongst many in the financial and geopolitical environments that the future prospects of the European Union is at best ‘challenging’ but more likely dismal.

    In March 2017, TruePublica published a prediction of the near future in “New World Disorder” – an article that took the view there were substantial changes to some of the world’s normally stable institutions and political systems. As for the EU, we wrote:

    “With Britain’s recent EU referendum result came the realisation that the rules-based system on the continent had failed. Rising discontent is gathering at an unstoppable pace, much to the alarm of the ruling elite. A federalised state dreamt up by America and handed to Germany with the intention of destroying national identities, borders and sovereign rights are slowly turning into a nightmare as the 28 nation bloc enters what can only be described as a disintegration phase. In the meantime, the EU intends to make it a mistake that the British will regret and fall to their knees.”

    At this precise moment, the EU is united in this approach and Britain is indeed preparing to fall to its knees. However, the truth for the future of the EU is not just about Britain where its own prospects look far worse than even some of the most pessimistic had predicted.

    A document leaked to Germany’s Der Spiegel last year revealed that the German defence ministry set out what it saw as its worst-case scenario for the year 2040. In it, they predicted that:

    “EU enlargement has been largely abandoned, and more states have left the community … the increasingly disorderly, sometimes chaotic and conflict-prone, world has dramatically changed the security environment.”

    Der Spiegel went on to say that: 

    “The journalists to whom the document was leaked have omitted any details of what Germany is planning to do about the EU’s possible collapse and fragmentation.”

    That the document exists at all is a sign of the increased tension in the global system, especially within the EU. What is alarming is that within the report, even this scenario is already regarded as ‘over-optimistic.’ The belief from within the German establishment is clear – that the EU will quite simply not survive.

    Just a month ago, Politico.eu reported that the French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire said that Europe is in “a state of decomposition – it’s falling apart before our eyes” – he said. And typical of the general theme in this article, Le Maire spelt it out: “member countries are closing in on themselves, trying to find national solutions.”  Various meetings have since been held between the French and German finance ministers and the reality is that they (and therefore their governments) do not see eye-to-eye. In fact, Macron’s proposals have been flatly rejected, not just by the German political elite but by the electorate.

    Business Insider reported back in May that Billionaire investor George Soros publicly stated that Europe is in the midst of an “existential crisis” and it is at genuine risk of ceasing to exist as we currently know it.

    Soros effectively argues that some in the bloc have moved so far away from its founding goals that the EU can no longer sustain itself in its current state.

    “There is no longer any point in ignoring the reality that a number of European Union member countries have explicitly rejected the EU’s goal of “ever closer union.”

    And Soros, like so many, predicts the fracturing of Europe, but not necessarily a collapse. “Instead of a multi-speed Europe, the goal should be a ‘multi-track Europe’ that allows member states a wider variety of choices. This would have a far-reaching beneficial effect.” Since his assertions back in May, just three months ago, the EU project has declined further as populism, protectionism and isolationism has become ever more prevalent in more EU member states.

    The London School of Economics recently published an article by European Politics and Policy. Its view is similar in content to many economic forecasts. It concludes that partial exits by individual member states would sap the EU from within. Rather than experiencing a sudden collapse, the EU would instead sink slowly into oblivion.

    “the EU might instead suffer a slow decline driven by ‘partial exits’ from aspects of European integration. The best-case scenario may be one in which the EU continues to limp ahead in the years to come, but with many members rather grudgingly accepting it as the least unattractive option.”

    Geopolitical Futures is an organisation that charts the course of the international geopolitical system and has accurately predicted the crisis in the EU, the economic decline of China and the re-emergence of Russia. Their view is one of continued erosion of the entire EU project.

    Virtually no country will be left untouched by the rising social, political, cultural and economic tensions throughout the (European) Continent. But under this continued instability will lurk a perhaps more troubling development: Germany, concerned with the EU’s disintegration and anxious about the economic calamity it could portend, is going to have to work harder to keep the bloc together.

    GF takes the view that the writing in on the wall for the EU. It is suffering from multiple structural problems the elite have fundamentally failed to recognise or deal with effectively.

    Europe’s problem is no longer primarily its economy – it is a crisis of trust. The European middle and lower classes have lost faith in the elite’s ability to effectively manage the economy and to understand the cultural tensions that have emerged. Large segments of the population will be disaffected by economic inequality, and there will be little the EU can do about it.

    The consequence is the GF forecasts that trust, not just amongst people but amongst EU nations will continue to erode and that friction between them is inevitable.

    “What we can say is that our forecast for Europe is one of continuity: National and regional movements will continue to erode the social, political and economic systems in Europe.” 

    Don’t forget, this prediction is for this year only and has so far been right on the button.

    CapX monitors thousands of news sources, blogs, academic papers and think-tank publications to find the most important facts and trends. Their view is just as grim.

    “The common thread across all these stalled attempts at eurozone reform is a reluctance on the part of national authorities to pursue genuinely European solutions. What this means in practice is that if and when a new crisis comes, there will be no common European response. Individual eurozone countries will be largely left to fend for themselves while EU leaders, as in the last crisis, seek to make decisions largely on the hoof. The question now is for how long eurozone leaders can get away with it? And the answer is not, perhaps, for much longer. A scan of the horizon suggests it is all too possible to identify the triggers for what could quickly become a eurozone and wider EU collapse.”

    That ‘scan’ takes the view that some things are indeed predictable and inevitable and CapX says that the threats highlighted are quite broad but identified currently as; the decline of the Chinese economy, the growing threat of trade wars, current bank indebtedness and sovereign debt. Any one of these structural issues could lead to a major recession. This time, however, the EU would not be able to withstand the economic shock. CapX, a global financial specialist believes the Euro will bring down Europe. And it concludes:

    “Brexit was a mere footnote in a much more fundamental period of European upheaval. British negotiators may strain every sinew to get a deal, only to discover the entity they’ve agreed it with soon no longer exists.”

    Then there are those who physically backed Brexit with their money on the basis that the European Union was not going to survive.

    Jim Mellon stood out among investors in 2016 as a public backer of Britain’s exit from the European Union. And the chairman of the Burnbrae Group forecasted another breakup. Mellon predicts the euro will become a future casualty of a rising anti-establishment tide, causing the currency union to splinter within the next five years.

    “Brexit is going to be a sideshow to the problems of Europe that are becoming more and more evident,” Mellon said. “The euro as it stands at the moment is just a very inappropriate mechanism — I give the euro between one and five years of life.”

    At this point, there are so many more pieces of evidence, heaps of opinion and predictions as to the demise of the EU. The fact is that the EU27 is indeed going through existential challenges.

    This has been brought about through the common themes that cause political change everywhere.

    The failure of neoliberal capitalism in Europe is the same reason why we have Trump in America, Brexit and a quarter of EU member states supporting right-wing populists. Immigration and the terrorism it imports is a serious concern amongst the people of the EU. Corporatism, corruption, economic stagnation, a doomed currency, the threat of a calamitous recession are all serious threats as well. But by far, the biggest threat is the electorate themselves who have proved time and time again that they don’t like the fact that the EU is undemocratic.

    Any single one of these threats is an existential one and the likelihood of one of them happening is very high indeed and Britain could then be well placed to profit from the disorder that brings!

  • "Who Will Dare Tell The Truth About Government?"

    Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic,

    If the US government prosecutes Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, it will mark a point of no return.

    We’ll never know what “average” Germans thought on November 11, 1938, the day after Kristallnacht. Perhaps a few recognized it for what it was: a turning point, an acceleration of Germany’s descent into hell. America’s Crystal Night looms, and if it occurs, only a few will recognize it for what it is.

    The fate of Julian Assange is the fate of one man, but it is also the fate of one of our most important freedoms. There won’t be shattered plate glass from vandalized businesses littering the streets, synagogues smashed, graves unearthed, or people herded onto trains. But his prosecution by the US government would destroy an inestimable value, one enshrined in the First Amendment, for which generations of Americans have fought and died: the right of the people and its press to inform the people and to hold their government to account.

    Aside from armed resistance and revolution, the one defense individuals have against governments is intellectual: the concept of individual rights. There is an argument as to whether those rights come from our Creator (Thomas Jefferson) or from our basic nature as humans and the requirements of our survival (Ayn Rand). Despite starting from different premises, both arguments lead to the same conclusion: individuals have inherent, inalienable, inviolable rights, and the only legitimate function of government is to protect those rights.

    The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were explicit attempts to delineate a set of principles that recognized individual rights and tried to restrain government power. Though real-world implementation has fallen short, often far short, they were towering conceptual achievements.

    In 1933, the year Hitler assumed power, the government began enacting laws that restricted Jews’ rights to earn a living, gain an education, or work in the civil service. In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws stripped German Jews of their citizenship and forbade them from marrying non-Jewish Germans.

    Kristallnacht’s hooliganism was encouraged by the German authorities, and none of the perpetrators bore any legal consequences. More than 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and deported to concentration camps. The government would not protect Jews from the depredations of thugs and the government itself was a thug. Kristallnacht was a point of no return: Jews no longer had any legally enforceable rights. Soon enough no German would.

    In America, there is no one villain or group that one can point to as responsible for the erosion of rights. Begun the day the Constitution was ratified, it’s been a gradual process. We’ve reached the point where only a few of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights still receive any measure of government solicitude.

    Property and contract rights are out the window; the government routinely abridges them. You have no right to your own income, or to conduct your legitimate business or trade free from government regulation and interference. Much of the Bill of Rights is either irrelevant now or has been rendered a dead letter. In terms of individual rights, only the Second Amendment’s much infringed right to bear arms, and the First Amendment—the prohibition against the government establishing a religion, free speech, press, and assembly, and the right to petition the government—are still hanging by a thread.

    Which is why the fate of Julian Assange takes on such significance. While the government has prosecuted those like Chelsea (formerly Brad) Manning who have stolen government secrets and classified information, it has not prosecuted the press individuals and organizations who have published them. That is WikiLeaks’ business model: it receives, vets, and publishes stolen information, often from governments.

    The government has not gone after publishers because it would be a frontal assault on the First Amendment that it would probably lose. Any exception would swallow the general rule of press freedom. Say the Supreme Court recognized an exception: classified information whose publication would constitute an imminent and grave threat to the security of the United States. Who decides what’s an imminent and grave threat? The government would have the power to classify whatever information it pleases under that exception and put those who publish it at risk of prosecution, their only recourse years of costly litigation spent arguing that the information didn’t fit the exception.

    Many Trump admirers resist the notion that their man is interested in the acquisition and use of power, but his and members of his administration’s hostility to individual civil liberties belies that resistance. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is a gung-ho supporter of the civil-liberties-eviscerating-government-power-expanding War on Drugs and civil asset forfeiture.

    In the latter, a government seizes assets it claims were involved with crimes and makes their owners jump through myriad legal hoops—including proving the negative that their assets weren’t involved in a crime—even if the owners themselves were never convicted, or even charged, with a crime. Assets that are not “acquitted”—cars, cash, boats, houses, etc.—are kept and used by the government. President Trump has endorsed civil asset forfeiture, and has extended it outside America’s borders via an executive order (see “By Imperial Decree,” SLL, 1/2/18).

    Trump’s Secretary of State and former director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo has fashioned a legal approach the administration might use, in a case against WikiLeaks and Assange, to slither around the First Amendment. In April, still director of the CIA, he delivered a speech in which several passages demanded, but never received, careful parsing from the mainstream media. They are still obsessing over a February Trump tweet in which he declared the US media an “enemy of the people.” This is considered a threat to the First Amendment, but Pompeo’s speech was mostly ignored.

    Pompeo called WikiLeaks “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.” Most press organizations, and almost all that consistently challenge the state, are non-state. WikiLeaks has published state secrets, undoubtedly considered hostile acts by those states, but how is it an intelligence service? Pompeo is arguing that WikiLeaks cannot be considered part of the press, consequently it’s not protected by the First Amendment.

    As for the “abetted by state actors like Russia,” WikiLeaks has consistently denied it received the DNC emails from Russia, and nobody has proven otherwise. The best technical evidence indicates those DNC emails were directly downloaded to a portable storage device, indicating an inside job, and not remotely hacked, by Russians or anyone else.

    Pompeo argued that “we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.” This is straight from Orwell: you are free to say what you want, as long as you don’t say anything against the government. He claimed that WikiLeaks “pretended that America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice,” and, “they may have believed that, but they are wrong.” Now where would WikiLeaks get such a crazy idea? How about the plain language of the First Amendment?

    Finally, Pompeo threatened: “To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.” Any government “secrets” the press publishes with the full approval of the government probably aren’t going to be terribly revealing. It’s the secrets the government doesn’t want revealed, the ones that are generally “misappropriated,” that reveal the most important secrets, which an informed and free people must know if they are to call their government to account.

    From the excerpts quoted above, and the video of the relevant part of speech below, make up your own mind as to who’s perverting the Constitution.

    Freedom of the press protects the rights of the press, but more importantly protects the right of all of us to be informed, especially about what was once considered “our” government. It amplifies the freedom of speech. Even a small newspaper reaches more people than someone shouting from a street corner.

    If Assange and WikiLeaks are tried and convicted in a US court as “a non-state hostile intelligence service,” the government can slap that label on any person or organization publishing or otherwise disclosing its secrets. The case would probably make its way to the Supreme Court. If the court accepted the Pompeo exception to the First Amendment, freedom of the press and speech would become two more of the Constitution’s dead letters.

    Just the prosecution of Assange and WikiLeaks would have a chilling effect. Not that most of the US’s supine mainstream and social media would be chilled. The mainstream media that have spoken out about Assange and WikiLeaks have come down on the side of the government. The social media companies, de facto arms of the government, are shutting down politically incorrect voices. Neither mainstream or social media have anything to lose from the termination of First Amendment freedoms because they don’t say, or allow anyone else to say, anything the powers that be don’t want heard.

    Trump is a wild card on WikiLeaks and Assange. WikiLeaks’ disclosure of the DNC emails helped his campaign. He praised it back then, but now appears ready to prosecute. Trump administration officials and Trump himself often say one thing while Trump does another. It is not a given that Assange will be either extradited by the British government or prosecuted in the US.

    Few totalitarian regimes take their people’s rights away all at once. It’s done gradually to reduce dissent, until that Kristallnacht moment where it’s impossible to evade the reality: there are no rights left. If the Trump administration prosecutes Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, that sinking feeling in your stomach will be the realization that the last remnant of your rights are gone, that the government and Trump are your enemies.

    If Assange and WikiLeaks are prosecuted, who will dare tell the truth about the government? Trump will have destroyed one of the last vestiges of individual rights—and the freedom that goes with it—that once made America great.

  • Market Stunned After Musk Discloses Intention To LBO Tesla, Lawsuits Threatened

    Update 10: After all that, nobody has any idea what just happened, and a word being increasingly thrown around is lawsuit. As Yahoo’s Rick Newman writes, if the LBO deal described by Musk with “funding secured” is true, it’s a boon for shareholders. But if it’s not true, Tesla is in trouble, and shareholders may feel the pain.

    “If funding is secured, then it’s a factual statement,” says John C. Coffee, director of the Center on Corporate Governance at Columbia Law School. “But if he can’t prove that, he’s in some danger of a big lawsuit because short sellers will be devastated by this.”

    On Aug. 7, Musk tweeted: “Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.” Those nine words sent the stock soaring from $342 to around $370, an 8% jump. Then the Nasdaq exchange temporarily halted trading in the shares, pending clarification of material news by the company.

    About three hours after his momentous tweet, Musk posted a message to employees explaining his rationale for going private. He cited “wild swings” in the stock price and frequent attacks by short sellers as “a major distraction for everyone working at Tesla.” He cited Space X, the  rocket-launching company where Musk is also CEO, as an example of a privately owned company better able to focus on a complex long-term mission. “A final decision has not yet been made,” he said.

    And some further observations:

    If Musk’s aim was to temporarily boost Tesla’s stock in order to force losses on short sellers, it could be considered stock manipulation, which is illegal. “That’s too inviting to a plaintiff’s lawyer not to sue,” says Coffee. “This would be an attractive lawsuit. The people who think he’s manipulating the market would say they’ve suffered an injury, and you could pull all those losses together in a class action.”

    If, on the other hand, Musk can demonstrate that he has actually arranged financing for a private buyout, or made serious efforts to do so, he might be off the hook.

    Musk will now be under pressure to promptly disclose whether a buyout offer is serious and where the money would come from. The company is worth about $62 billion (after the Musk-tweet surge), and there would likely be a premium of 25% or more to entice current holders to sell, and give up future gains. At Musk’s price of $420 per share, the buyout would value the company at  around $71 billion

    In short: if this was indeed Musk’s final “burning” of the shorts, and an LBO is just a figment of his imaginations, it will be the shorts who will have the last laugh.

    And if there is a lawsuit, and one person who will be laughing, it will be the biggest TSLA bear: Jim Chanos, who gave the following statement to CNBC:

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

    * * *

    Update 9: After being halted for over an hour, TSLA stock has reopened at $371 and has risen to $381, up 11.5%. The record stock price is $385 on Sept 18, 2017.

    The bonds, however, which have a 101 Change of Control put, are far less confident about the deal going through:

    * * *

    Update 8: On its blog, Tesla has published the following email that Elon Musk sent to employees today, which appears to be merely another attack on Tesla shorts:

    The following email was sent to Tesla employees today:

    Taking Tesla Private

    Earlier today, I announced that I’m considering taking Tesla private at a price of $420/share. I wanted to let you know my rationale for this, and why I think this is the best path forward.

    First, a final decision has not yet been made, but the reason for doing this is all about creating the environment for Tesla to operate best. As a public company, we are subject to wild swings in our stock price that can be a major distraction for everyone working at Tesla, all of whom are shareholders. Being public also subjects us to the quarterly earnings cycle that puts enormous pressure on Tesla to make decisions that may be right for a given quarter, but not necessarily right for the long-term. Finally, as the most shorted stock in the history of the stock market, being public means that there are large numbers of people who have the incentive to attack the company.

    I fundamentally believe that we are at our best when everyone is focused on executing, when we can remain focused on our long-term mission, and when there are not perverse incentives for people to try to harm what we’re all trying to achieve.

    This is especially true for a company like Tesla that has a long-term, forward-looking mission. SpaceX is a perfect example: it is far more operationally efficient, and that is largely due to the fact that it is privately held. This is not to say that it will make sense for Tesla to be private over the long-term. In the future, once Tesla enters a phase of slower, more predictable growth, it will likely make sense to return to the public markets.

    Here’s what I envision being private would mean for all shareholders, including all of our employees.

    First, I would like to structure this so that all shareholders have a choice. Either they can stay investors in a private Tesla or they can be bought out at $420 per share, which is a 20% premium over the stock price following our Q2 earnings call (which had already increased by 16%). My hope is for all shareholders to remain, but if they prefer to be bought out, then this would enable that to happen at a nice premium.

    Second, my intention is for all Tesla employees to remain shareholders of the company, just as is the case at SpaceX. If we were to go private, employees would still be able to periodically sell their shares and exercise their options. This would enable you to still share in the growing value of the company that you have all worked so hard to build over time.

    Third, the intention is not to merge SpaceX and Tesla. They would continue to have separate ownership and governance structures. However, the structure envisioned for Tesla is similar in many ways to the SpaceX structure: external shareholders and employee shareholders have an opportunity to sell or buy approximately every six months.

    Finally, this has nothing to do with accumulating control for myself. I own about 20% of the company now, and I don’t envision that being substantially different after any deal is completed.

    Basically, I’m trying to accomplish an outcome where Tesla can operate at its best, free from as much distraction and short-term thinking as possible, and where there is as little change for all of our investors, including all of our employees, as possible.

    This proposal to go private would ultimately be finalized through a vote of our shareholders. If the process ends the way I expect it will, a private Tesla would ultimately be an enormous opportunity for all of us. Either way, the future is very bright and we’ll keep fighting to achieve our mission.

    And, once again, zero mention of the “committed” funding, where the money for the LBO will come from, what the capital structure would look like, or any analysis for that matter.

    Musk did decide to tweet again, however, and claim that “Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it’s contingent on a shareholder vote.” It wasn’t clear how shareholders can vote for a deal without knowing who the investors are…

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

    * * *

    Update 7: With Wall Street patiently waiting for something resembling an 8-K which the company is scrambling to put together based on Elon Musk’s tweets now that the stock is halted following the CEO’s unexpected “LBO announcement” on twitter, Musk continues to tweet only in response to questions, and while he has ignored a question where the LBO funding will come from, when asked if investors could “invest once private”, Musk responded “Yes, but liquidity events would be limited to every 6 months or so (like SpaceX).”

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

    And then, in response to question if investors will be allowed to co-invest, Musk said “no forced sales” and added that he hopes “all shareholders remain. Will be way smoother & less disruptive as a private company.”

    And the punchline, which perhaps brought on the LBO tweetstorm to begin with, Musk said that an LBO “Ends negative propaganda from shorts.” Of course, it also eliminates the possibility to force a short squeeze with a spurious narrative about taking a company with a multi-billion cash burn private at a valuation of over $60 billion, which would make it bigger than TXU, and the largest LBO in history.

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

    Meanwhile, speaking on CNBC, a Financial Times journalist made it clear that “bankers close to Tesla have no knowledge of the buyout.” Come to think of it, until just two hours ago, Tesla didn’t either.

    * * *

    Update 6: The LBO by Tweet continues, with Musk now saying that “Shareholders could either to sell at 420 or hold shares & go private.”

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

    In a subsequent, and the latest so far, tweet, Musk also added that he is “super appreciative of Tesla shareholders. Will ensure their prosperity in any scenario.”

    Update 5: Tesla stock was finally halted at 2:08PM, well over an hour after Musk first tweeted:

    • *TRADING HALTED:(TSLA) Halt News Pending

    Update 4: Musk now reveals that he plans to use a “SPV” for the going private transaction:

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

    Update 3: Bloomberg commentator Sebastian Boyd is not buying it for a very simple reason: math (although meth would make it more palatable):

    Some Tesla Math

    Incidentally, Tesla has a free-float of 127.5 million shares. At $420 a share, that would cost you $53.6 billion. The company already has net debt of of $8.8 billion and an adjusted net leverage ratio of 13 times. Were it to be bought in a management-led LBO, a back-of-the envelope calculation would give it a leverage ratio of over 90 times, worse on a trailing 12-month basis. You can’t run a company on math like that.

    Update 2: And just like that, the fluid situation has just gone from bizarre to absolutely surreal, because in his very next tweet, instead of providing additional details on what is a major market moving annouincement Musk said…

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

    Although, in a follow up tweet, Musk appears to confirm the “deal”:

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

    And another alleged confirmation comes from Ross Gerber of Gerber Kawasaki:

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

    The bizarre odyssey continues, with Musk responding “Yes” to to a question that an LBO “saves a lot of headaches”:

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

    For now the stock has no idea what is going on:

    * * *

    Update: Never one to miss an opportunity, Elon Musk has just tweeted – from his verified account – that he is considering taking the carmaker private at a price of $420, and even suggests he has the funding…

    In a subsequent tweet, responding to Fox Business News’ Liz Claman, Musk confirms that he is apparently indeed serious.

    The stock prompt spiked even higher…

    … even though nobody has any idea what is going on: is it legal for Musk to say what he did without halting the stock first? Is he simply baked and inviting countless law suits? Who is providing the massive debt to a company with billions in negative cash flow? At what rate? Can Musk even do this when he is a top shareholders (and stands to reap huge gains) and his announcement creates a massive conflict of interest?  If this is even close to true, TSLA bonds (those without a change of control clause) should be sliding.

    Or maybe this is just another attempt by Musk to create a short squeeze and “crush the shorts.”

    And if he is really about to MBO – CDS buyers will be loving it…

    *  *  *

    EARLIER

    Did we just find the latest greater fool?

    The FT reports that Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund has built a significant stake in Tesla – the latest bold bet by the state fund overseen by powerful crown prince Mohammed bin Salman.

    Saudi’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) built the undisclosed stake of between 3 and 5 per cent of the electric vehicle maker’s shares this year, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.

    Interestingly, The FT reports that PIF initially approached Musk about purchasing newly issued shares but Musk reportedly rebuffed the offer – perhaps anxious of the perception of further dilution and the promises he made of  the need for more capital.

    Note, however, that Tesla gets $0 from this secondary market investment – at a time when the carmaker is losing a record amount of money.

    Tesla shares are jumping on the news…

    And TSLA bonds are up but remain considerable “cheaper” than stocks…

    The Saudi state fund reportedly acquired the position in secondary markets with the help of JPMorgan – which is odd since JPMorgan has an ‘underweight’ on TSLA with a profit target of $195 (a great way to get the stock lower for their wealthy gulf clients).

    And all this coming just weeks after Aramco suddenly decides to raise billions in debt instead of IPOing?

    More recently, the PIF has been in talks with global banks to borrow between $6bn and $8bn, marking the first time that the vehicle entrusted with driving the kingdom’s economic transformation will directly tap banks to fund its mission.

    A skeptic might wonder whether, since Tesla can’t buyback stock directly using debt-issuance (WACC too high), it is using US bond investors as a source of funds and Saudis as the proxy buyer to achieve the same effect.

  • Ahmadinejad Urges End To US Dollar Hegemony: "Current [World] Order Needs To Change"

    As US re-imposes sanctions on Iran, former two-term Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has spoken out against the current US hegemony.

    As RT notes, Ahamdinejad says the dollar is one of the major pillars of US dominance over global finance and trade; calling for change in the current world order.

    The former leader of the Islamic Republic tweeted on Monday, that “The use of the US Dollar as the standard unit of currency in global markets and the world banking system is the key strength of the American Empire. Things need to change, current orders should be reordered.”

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

    Seemingly confirming Ahmadinejad’s warning, President Trump reiterated his warnings against breaking Washington’s sanctions, saying in a tweet that “Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States. I am asking for WORLD PEACE, nothing less!”

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

    But, while it is a little premature, the relative surge in China’s ‘petroyuan’ futures contract overnight could suggest a shift away from the petrodollar to avoid US sanctions on Iranian oil…

    The beginning of the end of the petrodollar?

  • The Bizarre Facebook Path To Corporate Fascism

    Authored by Glen Ford via Black Agenda Report,

    Facebook has assumed additional political police powers, disrupting a planned counter-demonstration against white supremacists, set for August 12th in Washington, on the grounds that it was initiated and inspired by “Russians” as part of a Kremlin campaign to “sow dissention” in the U.S.

    The Facebook intervention is a qualitative escalation of the McCarthyite offensive launched by the Democrat Party and elements of the national security state, and backed by most of the corporate media, initially to blame Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat on “collusion” between Wikileaks, “the Russians” and the Trump campaign to steal and publicize embarrassing Clinton campaign emails.

    After failing to produce one shred of hard evidence to support their conspiracy theory, the anti-Russia hysteria mongers switched gears, focusing on the alleged purchase of about $100,000 in Facebook ads by the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a St. Petersburg-based Russian company, over a multi-year period.

    The problem was, most of the ads had no direct connection to the presidential contest, or were posted after the election was over, and many had no political content, at all. The messages were all over the place, politically, with the alleged Russian operatives posing as Christian activists, pro- and anti-immigration activists, and supporters of the Black Lives Matter Movement. Special prosecutor Robert Mueller was forced to flip the script, indicting 13 Russians for promoting general “discord” and undermining “public confidence in democracy” in the United States – thus creating a political crime that has not previously been codified in the United States.

    In doubling down on an unraveling conspiracy tale, the Mueller probe empowered itself to tar and feather all controversial speech that can be associated with utterances by “Russians,” even if the alleged “Russians” are, in fact, mimicking the normal speech of left- or right-wing Americans — a descent, not into Orwell’s world, but that of Kafka (Beyond the Law) and Heller (Catch-22).

    Facebook this week announced that it had taken down 32 pages and accounts that had engaged in “coordinated and inauthentic behavior” in promoting the August 12 counter-demonstration against the same white supremacists that staged the fatal “Unite the Right” demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia, a year ago. Hundreds of anti-racists had indicated their intention to rally against “Unite the Right 2.0” under the banner of Shut It Down DC, which includes D.C. Antifascist Collective, Black Lives Matter D.C., Hoods4Justice, Resist This, and other local groups.

    Facebook did not contend that these anti-racists’ behavior was “inauthentic,” but that the first ad for the event was purchased by a group calling itself “Resisters” that Facebook believes were behaving much like the Internet Research Agency. “At this point in our investigation, we do not have enough technical evidence to state definitively who is behind it,” said Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy . “But we can say that these accounts engaged in some similar activity and have connected with known I.R.A accounts.”

    Chelsea Manning, whose prison sentence for sending secret documents to Wikileaks was commuted by President Obama, said the counter-protest was “organic and authentic”and that activists had begun organizing several months ago. “Folks from D.C. and Charlottesville have been talking about this since at least February,” Manning told The New York Times.

    “This was a legitimate Facebook event that was being organized by Washington, D.C. locals,” says Dylan Petrohilos, of Resist This. Petrohilos was one of the defendants in the Trump inauguration “riot” prosecutions. He protested Facebook’s disruption of legitimate free speech and assembly. “DC organizers had controlled the messaging on the no UTR fb page and now FB made it harder for grassroots people to organize,” he tweeted. The organizers insist the August 12 counter-demonstration — “No Unite the Right 2 – DC” — is still a go, as is the white supremacist rally.

    Whoever was first to buy a Facebook ad — the suspected Russian “Resisters,” or Workers Against Racism, who told the Daily Beast they decided to host their own anti-“Unite the Right 2.0” event because they thought “Resisters” was an “inexperienced liberal organizer” – there was no doubt whatsoever that the white supremacists would be confronted by much larger numbers of counter-demonstrators, in Washington. Nobody in Russia needed to tell U.S. anti-racists to shut the white supremacists down, or vice versa. The Russians didn’t invent American white supremacy, or the native opposition to it. Even if Mueller, Facebook, the Democratic Party and the howling corporate media mob are to be believed, the “Russians” are simply mimicking U.S. political rhetoric and sloganeeriing – and weakly, at that. The Workers Against Racism thought the “Resisters” weren’t worth partnering with, but that the racist rally must be countered. The Shut It Down DC coalition didn’t need the “Resisters” to crystallize their thinking on white supremacism.

    The Democratic Party and corporate media, speaking for most of the U.S. ruling class — and actually bullying one of its top oligarchs, Mark Zuckerberg — is on its own bizarre and twisted road to fascism. (Donald Trump’s proto-fascism is the old fashioned, all-American type that the white supremacists want to celebrate on August 12.) With former FBI Director Robert Mueller at the head of the pack, they have created a pseudo legal doctrine whereby “Russians” (or U.S. spooks pretending to be Russians) can be indicted for launching a #MeToo campaign of mimicry, echoing the rhetoric and memes indigenous to U.S. political struggles, while the genuine, “authentic” American political voices — the people who are being mimicked — are labeled co-conspirators in a foreign-based “plot,” and their rights to speech and assembly are trashed.

    That’s truly crazy, but devilishly clever, too. If “Russian” mimics (or cloaked spooks) can reproduce the vocabulary and political program of U.S. dissent, then all of us actual U.S. lefties can be dismissed as “dupes of the Russians” or “co-conspirators” in the speech crimes of our mimics — for sounding like ourselves.

  • North Korea Nuke Launch Site Dismantling Progress "Goes Beyond Summit Commitment"

    Amid desperate attempts by the neocons and their media lapdogs to disparage President Trump’s agreements with North Korea’s leader, claiming Kim is violating the terms, 38North has confirmed that not only is progress being made on dismantling its nuclear missile launch facilities, but “activity at the launch pad appears to go beyond that commitment.“

    As we previously noted, these stories of supposed North Korean betrayal by NBC, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal are egregious cases of distorting news by pushing a predetermined policy line. But those news outlets, far from being outliers, are merely reflecting the norms of the entire corporate news system.

    The stories of how North Korea is now violating an imaginary pledge by Kim to Trump in Singapore are even more outrageous, because big media had previously peddled the opposite line: that Kim at the Singapore Summit made no firm commitment to give up his nuclear weapons and that the “agreement” in Singapore was the weakest of any thus far.

    That claim, which blithely ignored the fundamental distinction between a brief summit meeting statement and past formal agreements with North Korea that took months to reach, was a media maneuver of unparalleled brazenness. And big media have since topped that feat of journalistic legerdemain by claiming that North Korea has demonstrated bad faith by failing to halt all nuclear and missile-related activities.

    Which makes today’s news from expert satellite imagery analyst Joseph Bermudez Jr even more notable.

    Commercial satellite imagery from August 3 indicates additional dismantlement activities are ongoing at the Sohae Satellite Launching Station since last observed. At the vertical engine test stand, used for testing and development of engines for ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles, the North Koreans have continued to tear down the steel base structure and appear to be removing fuel and oxidizer tanks from dismantled bunkers.

    At the launch pad, work on the rail-mounted processing/transfer structure used to support rocket launches continues, with two-thirds of the west wall and a third of the north wall having been removed, and its components remain on the adjacent ground. While the launch pad activity seems to be related to dismantlement, as it stands right now, we cannot rule out the possibility that it could be the beginning of a project to modify the structure for other purposes.

    While dismantlement of the vertical engine test stand represents a fulfillment of Chairman Kim’s agreement with President Trump conveyed publicly during the post-Singapore Summit press conference, activity at the launch pad appears to go beyond that commitment. These activities, however, must be viewed cautiously as “first steps” since neither are presently permanent or irreversible. The demolition of the test stand’s concrete foundations, launch pad’s gantry tower, pad foundation and exhaust deflector, etc., would represent more permanent and irreversible actions as there is no known facility with equivalent capabilities elsewhere in the country. The coming months should provide more firm indications whether these are indeed the “first steps” in reducing the North Korean ballistic missile threat.

    Read more here…

    As we concluded previously, a media complex so determined to discredit negotiations with North Korea and so unfettered by political-diplomatic reality seriously threatens the ability of the United States to deliver on any agreement with Pyongyang. That means alternative media must make more aggressive efforts to challenge the corporate press’s coverage... and today’s news seems positive (but we will see what spin it gets).

  • The Crackdown Continues: Twitter Suspends Libertarian Accounts, Including Ron Paul Institute Director

    One day after what appeared to be a coordinated attack by media giants Facebook, Apple, Spotify and Google on Alex Jones, whose various social media accounts were banned or suspended in a matter of hours, the crackdown against alternative media figures continued as several Libertarian figures, including the Ron Paul Institute director, found their Twitter accounts suspended. 

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

    On Monday, Twitter suspended the editorial director of antiwar.com Scott Horton, former State Department employee Peter Van Buren, and Dan McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute.

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

    Horton was reportedly disciplined for the use of “improper language” against journalist Jonathan M. Katz, he said in a brief statement, while McAdams was suspended for retweeting him, he said. Past tweets in both accounts were available to the public at the time of the writing, unlike the account of Van Buren, which was fully suspended.

    According to TargetLiberty, Horton and McAdams fell victim of Twitter’s suspension algorithm after objecting to Katz’s quarrel with Van Buren over an earlier interview.

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

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

    The suspensions come days after Twitter suspended black conservative Candace Owen from Twitter for highlighting the algorithmic hypocrisy of Twitter by replacing the word “white” with “Jewish” in a series of tweets modeled on those by New York Times editor Sarah Jeong.

    just after controversial conservative Alex Jones, and his podcast InfoWars, were kicked out from most social media platforms, prompting conservative to accuse the social networks of collusion in a collective crackdown on non-mainstream voices. The Silicon Valley giants were criticized by the US political establishment for failing to prevent alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Meanwhile, critics now say the pressured media giants are engaging in political censorship, using their market dominance and lack of legislated neutrality requirements to target descent voices ahead of the midterm elections.

    * * *

    In a scathing op-ed on Tuesday, Nigel Farage wrote that “while many on the libertarian right and within the conservative movement have their issues with Alex Jones and InfoWars, this week’s announcement by YouTube, Facebook, Apple, and Spotify represents a concerted effort of proscription and censorship that could just as soon see any of us confined to the dustbin of social media history.“

    These platforms that claim to be “open” and in favor of “free speech” are now routinely targeting — whether by human intervention or not — the views and expressions of conservatives and anti-globalists.

    This is why they no longer even fit the bill of “platforms.” They are publishers in the same way we regard news outlets as publishers. They may use more machine learning and automation, but their systems clearly take editorial positions. We need to hold them to account in the same way we do any other publisher.

    Farage then accused social media giants of being corporatist:

    That they cannot profess to be neutral, open platforms while being illiberal, dictatorial, and hiding behind the visage of a private corporation (which are more often than not in bed with governments around the world at the very highest levels).

    This isn’t capitalism. It’s corporatism.

    He concludes that the real interference in “US democracy” comes not from Russia, but from some of its most powerful corporations which now yield more power in some cases than the government itself: “This isn’t “liberal democracy” as they keep pretending. It’s autocracy.”

    “…for those that don’t take issue with the latest censorship of right-wingers by big social media — unless we take a stand now, who knows where it could end.“

  • No Peace In Strengthening Iran Sanctions

    Authored by Tom Luongo,

    President Trump is out of options.  So are his main vectors of information, the Israeli Firsters in his cabinet and family.  Israel, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have lost the Syrian War and the ramifications of that are immense.

    Because by losing this war the U.S. has been revealed as a paper tiger incapable of imposing its will on a world which is rapidly recoiling from its dominance.

    Syria was the first time someone stood up and said, “No more.”  Putin’s dramatic intervention in Syria was supported by all the same people in Trump’s crosshairs today:  China, Iran and Hezbollah.  Eventually, Turkey realized the U.S. could not be trusted, so they are targeted for economic destruction as well.

    So, today’s impositions of new sanctions on Iran, the same playbook that Trump used against North Korea, is the only logical step on the path to the U.S. leaving the region.

    Yes, you heard me, leaving the region.

    Peak Stupidity

    At a time when the optics are all about the U.S. acting in the most mad way imaginable, the reality is that intense bullying like this only comes from weakness.  Trump has no other cards to play.

    In October of 2015 I wrote in my then Newsletter for Newsmax:

    Syria is the U.S.’ Waterloo. And this failure, along with the Fed’s indecision, creates
    a clear moment of transition from one possible future to another. It marks the beginning of the Age of Russian Diplomacy and puts a period on post-Soviet Union
    turmoil.  

    – Resolute Wealth Letter November 2015 Issue

    Since then I’ve described Putin’s intervention in Syria as the moment the peak of the U.S.’s ability to project power was revealed to the world.

    Trump, this morning, thinks he’s going to make a liar out of me.  The problem is that this move could be seen two years ago when he became the nominee of the Republican Party.

    And, as such, preparations are in place to mitigate the worst of these sanctions.  These sanctions, it cannot be over-stated enough, are the result of the Bill Browder Operationto give government the power to sanction individuals and companies not just countries via the Magnitsky Act and its sequel.

    Putin didn’t have Magnitsky killed, Browder did.  Because Magnitsky was the most likely person, as one of Browder’s accountants, who could out Browder for who he was and what he’d done.

    The purpose of these sanctions is to ratchet up the level of financial control on global business by bypassing governments and go directly to the bottom line of the people who have the most to lose.  To get them to do the bidding of those with power at the expense of those they perceive as having none.

    But, as I pointed out on last night’s live stream, why does anyone think that Iran’s government is going to fall because the rial is in free fall when Venezuelans, who are literally starving to death, haven’t overthrown theirs?

    The Response to Idiocracy

    This morning Iran finally took off the controls on the rial.  This is the right thing to do.  The Iranian people have to stop using the dollar.  It will be the moment of their true liberation from a corrupt system designed to keep them exactly where they are.

    There is no way to fight this directly for Iran.  They will have to de-dollarize and quickly.  Because, if they sue for peace and are admitted back into the world of the dollar they will be its slave.

    Because at any moment, Trump can just do this again whenever his whims suit him.  The price for that will be losing control of their government, businesses and natural resources.

    The same choice Browder et.al. put in front of Boris Yeltsin back in 1999.

    And since Trump is operating under information mostly gleaned from Israeli sources or those with Israeli dual-citizenship (most of Trump’s cabinet), then what do you think his perception of reality is?

    I’ve told you for months Trump has a blind spot about Iran.  It will be his downfall as he loses another round of Big Stick Diplomacy.  Yes, loses.

    Back in April, Trump tried to disrupt the Aluminum market by instituting, over night with zero warning, crippling sanctions on Rusal, the Russian state aluminum company, which supplies 15% of the world’s aluminum.

    The disruption to the markets was so severe the Treasury Department had to pull them back and give everyone six months to get in line.  I’m sure Goldman made a few billion on the trade.

    Now China is creating yuan-futures contracts for industrial metals to mitigate the effects of those sanctions when they go into effect later this year.

    And this morning the Chinese petroyuan futures contract is limit up on the Shanghai exchange.  It will be tomorrow as well.  Iran will get paid for its oil.  China will continue de-valuing the Yuan to protect emerging markets.

    That was the dry-run for today, just like Trump bombing Al-Shairat in 2017 over a ‘beautiful piece of chocolate cake’ was.  That bombing was a message to Iran and North Korea that Trump isn’t Obama.

    Which is nonsense because Obama bombed millions, drone-struck U.S. citizens and put crippling sanctions on whoever his masters told him to.

    As Putin says, “Presidents change, policy does not.”

    The problem for Trump is that none of that worked.  The Koreans pushed the U.S. to the bargaining table.  Kim had a nuke.  The U.S. only negotiates when it’s losing.

    The peace process was led by Korea’s leadership and Trump had to go along for the signing ceremony.

    Good for him.

    Strength Through Peace

    Trump’s tweet this morning is the essence of the authoritarian mindset and the height of hubris.  And hubris is the downfall of every would-be-Emperor.

    The Iran sanctions have officially been cast. These are the most biting sanctions ever imposed, and in November they ratchet up to yet another level. Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States. I am asking for WORLD PEACE, nothing less!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 7, 2018

    Great Donald, why don’t you act like that’s what you truly want?  North Korea was easy, the Koreans made it easy for you.  But, Iran is a different animal.  It’s too close to the powerful people who pull your strings and yank your chain.

    I’ve said before, when you go nuclear there is no going back.  So, now stating to the world that anyone doing business with Iran will be cut off completely from the U.S. will hurt everyone, especially Americans.

    So, Trump is going to bar Americans from buying iPhones because Apple sold a single iPhone today in Tehran?

    That’s what this statement implies.

    So, who blinks here?  China?  The U.S. economy cannot substitute domestic goods for Chinese.

    But, Trump thinks 4% GDP growth, an artifact of changes in tax policy and last year’s weak dollar, will win him the day going into the mid-terms while being tough on Iran, the bogeyman, for his base.

    It won’t.  He’ll win the mid-terms and that’s a good thing.  But, Iran will survive this.  If they were going to cave in they would have done so weeks ago.

    Rouhani would have met with Trump.

    Sanctions like this either work in the first 15 days or they never achieve their goal.  Just ask the Saudis about Qatar, the most recent example.

    Or let’s discuss Cuba, North Korea?

    Sanctions are an act of war.  Trump thinks he’s leading a holy crusade for World Peace via a policy of ‘Peace Through Strength.’  When the sad truth is that it is countries like Iran, North Korea and Russia that have embodied this principle.

    North Korea built a nuclear missile capable of devastation with Iran’s help.  No one is denying this.  But, look what that weapon achieved?  An end to an unnecessarily frozen conflict for nearly 70 years.

    Now it’s Iran’s turn to go through the motions of surviving Trump’s bravado over the same ‘weapon.’

    Putin has elevated Russian Diplomacy and military competence to a level unchallenged in the world today.  It’s the reason Trump is not threatening Iran with invasion.  Putin’s military superiority ensures a cost on the U.S. that is not tolerable to Americans.

    Pride Goeth …

    The bluff here is that Iran has to cave if Trump unites the world behind him; a man who has alienated nearly every other world leader.

    So, the real question is why?  What’s the end-game here?  Trump knows he can’t win this financial war of attrition but he still has to wage it.

    There are no good answers to this question because all of them are equally plausible:

    1. Trump is purposefully pushing countries away to let them exit NATO (Turkey, Germany)
    2. Trump is beholden to Zionist leadership embedded deep in the U.S. government and has little real negotiating room
    3. Trump is delusional and believes he won against North Korea
    4. Trump is working towards the multi-polar world counter-intuitively while being bound down by Deep State/Shadow Government forces he can’t control.

    The only interpretation of Trump’s behavior I dismiss out of hand is the Left’s argument that he’s both incompetent and corrupt.  He knows what he’s doing.  Whether he will achieve his goals is a different story.

    Lastly, never forget that Trump may be all of the things I’ve accused him of today and still wind up with World Peace, in spite of himself.

    Don’t worry, he won’t miss the opportunity to take the credit.  While we all breathe a huge sigh of relief if is does.

    To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 135 Patrons on Patreon and see if I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Aug 07

Today’s News 7th August 2018

  • Migrant Urges Germans, Austrians To Give Refugees "Their Homes and Money"

    A Syrian refugee living in Austria, Aras Bacho, has suggested in an open letter published in the daily newspaper OE24 that ordinary Austrians and Germans should participate in the integration process of migrants. According to him, integration requires “both sides to work,” meaning that Germans and Austrians should take refugees into their homes, as well as to live and go out with them.

    “Austrians have to take refugees into their own homes — this benefits both sides. [Integration] works when refugees live with Austrians. They can talk, or an Austrian can read an official letter to a refugee and then explain it in simpler language. They can go outdoors or to a swimming pool together,” Bacho wrote, adding that the same goes for Germans.

    The man added that communication like that helps refugees to “get smarter” and learn the language. However, in his opinion, communication is not the only thing that Germans and Austrians can help migrants with.

    He notes that taxes paid by citizens to support refugees are not donations, as they are mandatory. Bacho believes that Germans and Austrians should pay voluntary donations to be truly humane. He goes on to cite Jesus from the Bible to underscore his point.

    “All Christians should naturally know that Jesus said ‘give men in need your home and all your money.’ As you can see, not all Christians adhere to this guideline,” he said.

    Bacho explained in his letter that money helped him a lot during his initial period as a migrant, buying not only clothes, but also books to learn German.

    Needless to say, his ideas have found little support on social media, with responses ranging from flatly disagreeing with his views on integration to suggesting that Bacho should go and buy his own home back in Syria.

    “Integration is not a one-way street. Both sides must contribute. To take someone is unilateral action and sends a wrong sign. Anyone who fails to integrate or assimilate within an existing framework does not belong here,” a Twitter user named Henricvs wrote.

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

    “Every European should send such ‘refugees’ back to their own home,” a user under the name of Frodilon wrote.

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

    “As always so demanding, so outrageous, so ungrateful…” a user called snow crash wrote.

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

    There were a few who supported Aras Bacho’s suggestions: “Unfortunately, this isn’t going to work as many Germans are afraid of strangers. But every German should think about how well we’re doing, how refugees have lost everything to live in safety, and help. It doesn’t cost much,” a user called Sisi61 wrote.

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

    Germany, Austria and a number of other European countries faced a significant influx of migrants from the Middle East in 2015, which has led to public discontent and a rise in popularity of right-wing parties Europe-wide. A number of such parties have criticized their governments for their inability to halt the wave of migrants at the borders and for spending tax money to support refugees who do not work, do not pay taxes and sometimes don’t learn the country’s language.

    The wave of uncontrolled migration has also led to public concern over the safety of ordinary citizens, as many of the states that accepted refugees have suffered from rising levels of crime, including rape, committed by some migrants. One of the more recent high-profile cases was the murder of 14-year-old Jewish girl Susanna Feldmann by 20-year-old migrant Ali Bashar from Iraq, who entered Germany in 2015.

    Following a New Year’s Eve celebration in Germany in December 2015, Cologne police received a total of 561 reports of robbery, threats and sexual assaults — largely committed by groups of people from Arabic and North African countries. Almost half of the reports had to do with sexual harassment. Information about the true scale of the problem during the festivities was revealed only after massive public pressure on authorities.

  • UK: Discrimination Against Christian Refugees

    Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,

    The British government appears recently to have decided that it would like to give the impression that it cares about persecuted Christians. Prime Minister Theresa May said in Parliament on July 18:

    “As a Government we stand with persecuted Christians all over the world and will continue to support them. It is hard to comprehend that today we still see people being attacked and murdered because of their Christianity, but we must reaffirm our determination to stand up for the freedom of people of all religions and beliefs and for them to be able to practise their beliefs in peace and security.”

    The British Government even recently appointed its first Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief with Lord Tariq Ahmad of Wimbledon, a former minister, filling the post. According to the government, the role “will promote the UK’s firm stance on religious tolerance abroad, helping to tackle religious discrimination in countries where minority faith groups face persecution”.

    Prime Minister May said she looked “forward to supporting [Lord Ahmad] in this new role as he works with faith groups and governments across the world to raise understanding of religious persecution and what we can do to eliminate it.”

    Perhaps the UK should not be so quick to preach to others, when it does not appear to be doing much at home to help Syrian Christians, who have been among the most persecuted for their faith since the civil war in Syria began seven years ago:

    According to information obtained from the UK Home Office by the Barnabas Fund, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), during the first quarter of 2018, recommended 1,358 Syrian refugees for resettlement in the UK, of which only four refugees were Christians (no Yazidis were recommended). The Home Office agreed to resettle 1,112 of these refugees, all of whom were Muslims, and refused to accept the Christians.

    This decision was made despite the fact that approximately 10% of the pre-2011 population of Syria was Christian – a number that has reportedly fallen to 5%. There were also an estimated 70,000 Yazidis in Syria. Yazidis, with Christians, were among the groups most viciously targeted by ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In 2017, moreover, according to the Barnabas Fund, the UNHCR recommended 7,060 Syrian refugees for resettlement in the UK, of whom only 25 were Christians and seven were Yazidis. The Home Office ended up accepting 4,850 Syrian refugees – of whom only 11 were Christians.

    While the UK appears to favor Muslim refugees over Christian ones, the fault does not lie with the UK alone. Lord David Alton of Liverpool, a life peer in the House of Lords, wrote in a letter to Home Secretary Sajid Javid:

    “There is widespread belief, justified or not, among the religious minorities of Syria that the UNHCR is biased against them. The UK has a legal obligation to ensure it does not turn a blind eye to either direct or indirect perceived discrimination by the UN.

    “It is widely accepted that Christians, who constituted around 10 per cent of Syria’s pre-war population, were specifically targeted by jihadi rebels and continue to be at risk.

    “…As last year’s statistics more than amply demonstrate, this is not a statistical blip. It shows a pattern of discrimination that the Government has a legal duty to take concrete steps to address.”

    There certainly does appear to be “a pattern of discrimination” that has been ongoing since at least 2015. According to the Barnabas Fund, the UNHCR, in 2016, recommended 7,499 refugees to the UK, of whom only 27 were Christians and five were Yazidis. In 2015, out of 2,637 recommended refugees, 43 were Christians and 13 were Yazidis.

    In December 2016, Nina Shea, Director of the Center for Religious Freedom of the Hudson Institute, asked the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees at the time, António Guterres, to explain the disproportionately low number of Syrian Christians resettled abroad by the UN. “Mr. Guterres said that generally Syria’s Christians should not be resettled, because they are part of the ‘DNA of the Middle East,'” writes Shea.

    Guterres’ statement was a blunt admission of the UN’s apparent disregard for Christian lives, not least because only 9 months earlier, in March 2016, US Secretary of State John Kerry had said, “(ISIS) is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control including Yazidis, Christians and Shiite Muslims”. The UN itself stated in September 2005:

    “[A]t the United Nations World Summit, all Member States formally accepted the responsibility of each State to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. that all member states had accepted “the responsibility of each State to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity… world leaders also agreed that when any State fails to meet that responsibility, all States (the “international community”) are responsible for helping to protect people threatened with such crimes.”.

    The apparent discrimination against Christians by the United Kingdom and the UNHCR is all the more disturbing in light of studies that find Christians to be the most persecuted faith in the world. Christians are “the most widely targeted religious community, suffering terrible persecution globally”, according to a 2017 study by the University of Notre Dame’s Center for Ethics and Culture, the Religious Freedom Institute and Georgetown University’s Religious Freedom Research Project. In June, the ninth annual Pew Research Center report on global religious restrictions also found that Christianity was still the world’s most persecuted faith, with Christians being harassed in more countries (144) than any other group.

    In light of these facts, it would certainly appear, as Lord Alton states in his letter, that the UK has indeed been “turning a blind eye” to the plight of Christian (and Yazidi) refugees for several years. Now that May has announced that her government stands with persecuted Christians all over the world, the question remains: What specific initiatives, other than empty words, does the UK government aim to take to rectify the damage that has already been done and to prevent further damage?

    The UN recommended 1,358 Syrian refugees for resettlement in Britain during the first quarter of 2018, of whom only four were Christians. The UK Home Office agreed to resettle 1,112 of these refugees, all of whom were Muslims, and refused to accept the Christians. (Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

  • 'PetroYuan' Futures Surge Limit-Up To Record High As US Sanctions Hit Iran

    China’s ‘petroyuan’ oil futures contract spiked tonight by 5% (their daily limit) to a new record high, coinciding with the re-imposition of US sanctions on Iran.

    The first of two rounds of US sanctions kicked in at 12:01 am (0431 GMT), targeting Iran’s access to US banknotes and key industries, including cars and carpets.

    This is the biggest daily move in China’s oil futures since the contract’s inception in March to a new high of CNY537.2…

    Notably decoupling from Brent and WTI futures, suggesting a sudden burst of contract-specific buying demand in the ‘petroyuan’…

    As Ritesh Jain notes, via Valuewalk.com, the Petroyuan… Tiny, Irrelevant, Nothing. Right? But who would have thought oil will start getting priced in yuan.

    China can just bypass Iran sanctions by pricing oil traded in Chinese currency known as Petroyuan…

  • West Hollywood Passes Resolution To Remove Trump's Star On Walk Of Fame

    The West Hollywood City Council unanimously voted to formally seek the removal of President Trump’s star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, according to  mayor John Duran who tweeted: “West Hollywood City council unanimously passes resolution asking the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to remove the Donald Trump star on Hollywood Walk of Fame.” Duran then compared President Trump to a dark wizard from Harry Potter known as a horcrux. 

    Unfortunately for Duran, the vote was largely symbolic – as it means West Hollywood will ask the Los Angeles City Council and Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to remove the star, which was added in 2007. The Monday night resolution against Trump’s star was “due to his disturbing treatment of women and other actions that do not meet the shared values of the City of West Hollywood, the region, state, and country.” 

    Similar demands to remove the stars of disgraced celebrities Kevin Spacey and Bill Cosby were refused by the Chamber, which said that stars are never removed since the Walk is a historical landmark. 

    “Once a star has been added to the walk, it is considered a part of the historic fabric of the Hollywood Walk of Fame,” said former chamber president Leron Gubler. “Because of this, we have never removed a star from the walk.”

    Former Hollywood Walk of Fame Committee Chair Johnny Grant said prior to his death; “Stars are awarded for professional achievement to the world of entertainment and contributions to the community. A celebrity’s politics, philosophy, irrational behavior, or outrageous remarks have never been cause to remove a Walk of Fame star.”

    Seemingly weekly pick-axings and political skirmishes between Trump supporters and his detractors may test the resolve of officials, however, as the star has been vandalized numerous times and destroyed twice. 

    In full Trump-defiance, West Hollywood gave porn star Stormy Daniels the keys to the city. 

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

  • Krieger: "Stop Complaining And Just Delete Facebook"

    Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    I wrote just one post last week and it centered around the dangers posed to society by U.S. tech giants. I specifically called out Facebook, pointing out how company executives are currently groveling to politicians in order to prevent legislation that might deem it a monopoly and curtail its power.

    I explained how U.S. politicians prefer to use the power and reach of tech giants for their own ends rather than take them down a notch. Politicians aren’t at all concerned about the outsized influence of centralized tech behemoths engineering society using secret algorithms, they just want to be in control of how this power is abused.

    Meanwhile, today’s biggest news is the uniform move by three U.S. tech giants to de-platform Alex Jones and his Infowars website. The main companies involved are Apple, Facebook and Google (via YouTube), as reported in The Guardian:

    All but one of the major content platforms have banned the American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, as the companies raced to act in the wake of Apple’s decision to remove five podcasts by Jones and his Infowars website.

    Facebook unpublished four pages run by Jones for “repeated violations of community standards”, the company said on Monday. YouTube terminated Jones’s account over him repeatedly appearing in videos despite being subject to a 90-day ban from the website, and Spotify removed the entirety of one of Jones’s podcasts for “hate content”…

    Facebook’s and YouTube’s enforcement action against Jones came hours after Apple removed Jones from its podcast directory. The timing of Facebook’s announcement was unusual, with the company confirming the ban at 3am local time.

    Put aside what you think of Alex Jones for a moment. If they can do this to him and not fear the repercussions, they can do it to anybody. This is about power, and these platforms together account for a massive share of content distribution in the U.S. Ultimately, this is just a particularly muscular and in your face example of what’s known as Silicon Valley’s cultural imperialism.

    I know a lot of people think the answer is to get Congress to do something, as if those monumentally corrupt donor puppets have any interest in helping the public.

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

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

    I’d also like to point out that Facebook’s stock was up over 4% today, completely shrugging off any potential backlash from users. Executives assume its users are all addled junkies unwilling to give up convenience and their addiction no matter what the company does. Are they right?

    Speaking of which, on the same day the move against Jones was announced we learn Facebook is in talks with mega banks to get your financial information.

    From The Wall Street Journal:

    Facebook Inc.wants your financial data.

    The social media giant has asked large U.S. banks to share detailed financial information about their customers, including card transactions and checking account balances, as part of an effort to offer new services to users.

    Facebook increasingly wants to be a platform where people buy and sell goods and services, besides connecting with friends. The company over the past year asked JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and U.S. Bancorp to discuss potential offerings it could host for bank customers on Facebook Messenger, said people familiar with the matter.

    Facebook executives don’t actually care about anything besides their profits and power, so the only way you can take any individual action against the company is to delete your account. I haven’t engaged with Facebook since 2012, so permanently deleting it wasn’t a personal sacrifice, but I did it anyway earlier today.

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

    Don’t wait for other people to change things for you, stop whining and take some individual responsibility. If you agree that Facebook’s primarily a nefarious narcissism-factory wasteland masquerading as a platform just delete it… before it deletes you.

    *  *  *

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

  • The Death Of US And UK Neo-Colonialism

    Authored by Martin Sieff via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The colossal project to re-colonialize the world started with United States President Ronald Reagan eagerly backed by United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1981 and over the next 20 years seemed to sweep all before it.

    But we can now see that the creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the 9/11 attacks in 2001 marked the turn of the tide.

     Since then one super-ambitious project of nation destruction and rebuilding after another generated by Washington and eagerly embraced by its main Western European allies has collapsed spectacularly.

    As if living out one of Aesop’s Fables, the hammer of US kinetic power so eagerly embraced at the urging of neo-conservatives and neoliberals alike following the collapse of communism exhausted the Western welders of the weapon instead of their targets.

    The reckless resort to indiscriminate military power in the US-dominated invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the following campaigns to topple the governments of Syria and Libya created unexpected consequences comparable to Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion – Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction.

    Nevertheless, US and Western confidence in the triumph of liberal, free trade and democratic ideals around the world has remained almost totally impervious to the sobering lessons of recalcitrant global realities. The great reawakening of Western imperial and capitalist resolve heralded by Reagan and championed by his loyal spear carriers, Thatcher and her successors as prime ministers of the United Kingdom continued unabated: Until 2016.

    Two epochal events happened that year:

    The British people, to the astonishment most of all of their own leaders, pundits and self-selected Platonic guides and “betters’ voted for Brexit: They opted by a narrow but decisive vote of 48 percent to 52 percent to leave the 28-nation European Union. The disruptions and chaos set in motion by that fateful outcome have still only begun to work their way through the political and economic systems of Europe.

    Second, Donald Trump, even more amazingly was elected president of the United States to the limitless fury of the American “Deep State” which continues unabated in its relentless and frantic efforts to topple him.

    However, the motives of the scores of millions of Americans who voted for Trump were perfectly clear: They were opting for American nationalism instead of American Empire. They were sickened by the clear results of 70 years of post-World War II global imperium that had arrogantly and casually allowed US domestic industry and society to wither on the vine for the supposed Greater Good of Global Leadership.

    A decade and a half of endless, fruitless, ultra-expensive global wars entered into by the feckless and stupid George W. Bush and continued by the complacent and superficial Barack Obama advanced this process of weariness and rejection.

    Two years after the election of Trump and the British people’s vote for Brexit, the great surge of the West that outlasted the Soviet Union is clearly on the ebb: Now the United States is exhausted, the EU is falling apart and NATO is an empty shell – a paper tiger if you will. Why is this happening and can it be reversed?

    Free Trade was never the universal panacea it has been ludicrously claimed to be now for more than 240 years since Adam Smith published his Wealth of Nations. On the contrary, the cold, remorseless facts of economic history clearly show that protective tariffs to safeguard domestic manufactures and advantageous export-driven balance of payment surpluses are the true path to economic growth and sustainable, lasting national power and wealth.

    The idea that democracy – at least in the narrow, highly structured, manipulative and patchy form practiced in the United States is some sort of universal guarantee for happiness, national stability and growth has also been repeatedly confounded.

    Instead, the Western democratic states have fallen into exactly the same intellectual pit that trapped and eventually wrecked the Soviet Union. They have launched a worldwide ideological crusade and poured wealth and resources into it to ignoring the well-being and advancement of their own domestic economies and populations.

    Far from bringing eternal and universal world peace – the alluring Holy Grail of every dangerous idealistic idiot since Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant – these policies only brought failure, frustration and rising military death lists for the countries that pursued them instead.

    This year, new hammer blows are following on the Reagan-Thatcher-spawned era of revived Anglo-American global leadership and domination.

    The British themselves have palpably failed to cave out any secure or even plausible economic prospects for themselves in the world once they leave the EU. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya all remain wrecked societies shattered by the repeated air strikes that Western compassion and reverence for human rights and democracy have visited upon them.

    Now India and Pakistan – two English-speaking democracies and members of the once British-led Commonwealth of Nations, still so dear to Queen Elizabeth II’s aging heart – have opted to bury their existential rivalry and jointly join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – confirming it as the premier and by far the most powerful security alliance on the planet.

    These developments, to echo US President Thomas Jefferson’s telling phrase nearly 200 years ago, are grave warnings. They are firebells in the night. They serve notice to Washington and London that their facilely optimistic “ever onward and upwards” drive to reshape the entire human race in their own image must be abandoned.

    Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom is a remotely united society any more. Both of them need to turn inward to resolve their own problems and abandon the fantastic quest to reassert global dominance that Reagan and Thatcher launched nearly 40 years ago.

    And they had better move fast. Jefferson’s firebell is tolling and the sands of time are running out.

  • Here Are 410 Movies Made Under The Direct Influence And Supervision Of The Pentagon

    A year ago we featured a detailed report by authors Tom Secker and Matthew Alford exposing just how vast the Pentagon and CIA programs for partnering with Hollywood actually are, based on some 4,000 new pages of formerly classified archived documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

    The report noted at the time that “These documents for the first time demonstrate that the US government has worked behind the scenes on over 800 major movies and more than 1,000 TV titles.”

    Reviewing the ever expanding list, the average movie watcher might be in for a shock at what films are actually included — there are the more predictable ones like Black Hawk Down, Zero Dark Thirty, and Lone Survivor; but also entirely unexpected ones that apparently needed the military-industrial complex’s propaganda touch like Earnest Saves Christmas, Karate Kid 2, The Silence of the Lambs, Twister, the Iron Man movies, and more recently Pitch Perfect 3.

    When a Hollywood writer or producer approaches the Pentagon and asks for access to military assets to help make their film, they have to submit their script to the entertainment liaison offices for vetting. Ultimately, the man with the final say is Phil Strub, the Department of Defense’s (DOD) chief Hollywood liaison, who has been at the helm of this formerly semi-secret department going all the way back to 1989.

    If there are characters, action or dialogue that the DOD doesn’t approve of then the film-maker has to make changes to accommodate the military’s demands. If they refuse then the Pentagon packs up its toys and goes home. To obtain full cooperation the producers have to sign contracts, called Production Assistance Agreements, which lock them into using a military-approved version of the script.

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

    Months ago, Strub was again profiled in a report called Elisting an Audience: How Hollywood Peddles Propaganda, which quoted him trying to push back against the growing media exposure over the past year: “We’re not trying to brainwash people! We’re out to present the clearest, truest view,” Strub told The Outline.

    The report rightly noted that while Americans generally pride themselves on living in a free speech anti-censorship society, while simultaneously mocking the propaganda examples in places like Russia or China, the US public is subject to more homegrown state-run propaganda than it thinks:

    Military pageantry in Russia, massive rallies in North Korea, blunt messaging from China. We cluck at shameless self-aggrandizing when we see it overseas. But it doesn’t take much effort to see that American propaganda is everywhere, too. It’s not government-made, and it’s not quite as brazen as its counterpart from abroad. But it’s here, and to ignore that a piece of content is, at its core, propaganda — especially these days, while Trump openly pines for grand army parades — is a mistake. “There’s all kinds of ways to make an ideological point,” Harris added. “Sometimes I do think we’re not attuned enough. We do not look hard enough for propaganda.”

    And what’s more, unlike in authoritarian systems, in the West it is the consumers that are actually willing, if perhaps unwitting, participants in state propaganda. The Outline report continues:

    Certainly, the content has alternative, sincere agendas, too, but it’s the giant, amorphous market of consumers that has called it forth. That’s the difference between our propaganda and everyone else’s. In autocratic regimes, a government-backed entity pushes it onto indifferent or unwilling consumers. In America, we, the consumers, happily demand it.

    Want to see what Hollywood films — some recent and some going back decades — that you’ve seen but were unaware had the US Department of Defense’s official imprimatur?

    * * *

    Below is a merely partial list of films in alphabetical order that had Pentagon involvement either during the script or production phase, according to declassified US government documents. Amazingly the list of 410 movies is but half of the total number (for example, Zero Dark Thirty and some other prominent ones are not on there) and was compiled by the FOIA investigative website Spy Culture. 

     

  • Retired Green Beret Explains How The Coming 'Global State' Is Being Reached

    Authored by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces ) via SHTFplan.com,

    It is important to review concepts I detailed in previous articles in order to present the topic in this one. A Global State will be almost identical to Orwell’s “1984” when it is realized (“metastasized” is a more appropriate term for the cancer of globalism), in these details:

    1. The entire surface of the globe cannot be conquered by a single entity/nation, but spheres of influence can be established that will “offset” one another: “Super-states”

    2. The Super-states will be almost identical to “1984’s” of Oceania (America, England, and the English-speaking nations), Eurasia (Russia and Europe), and Eastasia (the Orient).

    3. The impossibility of global conquest by one nation-grouping is due to the need for a region ruled to be comprised of ethnically “homogenous” peoples with a leader of that genotype. This serves to “congeal” groups of people while isolating them from the other spheres and creating “enemies” needed by the State to maintain a continuous threat, war production, and a population with one accord.

    4. Each nation-group/Super-state will have a totalitarian system in place that parallels the other states and is mutually supportive either through cooperation or through their existences providing “enemies” to maintain a directed, driven population as outlined in #3.

    5. A contested area of the globe with natural resources changing hands constantly (the Middle East, Africa, and the Polar regions), with populations relegated to slavery or servitude by whichever Super-state is in charge at the moment.

    The UN has been a “paper tiger” for many years, but it is such only from a military perspective. In terms of finances, it has been corralling in the world’s financiers (such as the BIS, the Bank of International Settlements), and establishing a world court (in the Hague) slowly but effectively. From a “dogmatic” perspective, the UN is fostering its phony narratives throughout the world: illegal aliens are termed “refugees,” and Al Gore’s nonsense about climate change has been incorporated into “biodiversity projects” such as Agenda 21 and others that not even the “REMF” (look it up) Senator’s son could foresee.

    The UN is globalism, and more: the UN is the vehicle… the convening body of approval, the face, and the administrative apparatus of the coming global state.

    These plans have been in existence for more than a century. From the moment the United States was formed, the efforts have been unrelenting both domestically and internationally to control the banking and return administration of the “province” to England, a European power we fought against twice and subsequently rescued twice from two world wars.

    Oligarchs in all nations have sold their countries out in favor of an “Elysium” style society on earth, a “1984,” where laws are inflicted upon the peoples as their leaders violate every one of them. A global society where the only words for a citizen are conformity, obedience, and productivity: a planetary “Gulag” broken down into several regions for administrative purposes and where each region is mutually self-supportive.

    The concept of the United States as a sovereign nation is a mirage: the reality is a miasma resulting from the stench of decades of controlled dysfunction and destabilization to bring the nation to the brink of collapse while giving the taxpayers the illusion they’re still free and that their votes in the rigged elections still count. All throughout the United States the quality of life – employment, family structure, faith, and true communities of neighborhoods and neighbors that help one another when needed and still mind their own business…these qualities have almost completely vanished.

    The votes are only to provide the color of authenticity and approval of the citizenry as the politicians ply their trades: the business of government to enrich them personally while they pillage the nation’s assets, selling them off to other nations and destroying the country. They care not for their “constituency,” and their only honor is to themselves for self-aggrandizement. Their only loyalties are toward power, wealth, and exemptions from the laws that govern other men.

    Such is the point that we have reached, and where we are. The illusion is maintained: “We’re strong, united, and defending the Homeland.” All of it obfuscates the true actions and objective:

    The United States is being turned into a total surveillance state in preparation for a “collapse,” the complete enslavement of its citizens (Socialism into Communism, complete with gulags), and its dissolution and subsequent “absorption” into the system of global governance.

    The NY Post published an article by Rich Lowry on 7/30/18 entitled “Like it or not, America is now seriously debating socialism.” It details the methanous-reemergence of Bernie Sanders in the forefront and his “Medicare For All” plank, a platform estimated by the Mercatus Center (a conservative firm) to cost around $33 trillion for the first 10 years if it’s emplaced.

    Really? Socialism? Lenin himself said that socialism is the final step before communism: and these morons are going to eat it right out of the hand of Bernie Sanders.

    It is not so far-fetched as you may think: Olympia Snow (R, ME) brought Obamacare to the floor of the Senate, and within a small matter of time it became law…a law that is still bleeding us even after the President knocked the individual mandate out of the picture.

    The stultified masses will “bite” on it hook, line, and sinker as another entitlement, and it has the surest method of funding: taxes. The unstoppable, SWAT team and LEO-enforced taxes raised by the politicians upon their serfs, the public. The media has never ceased their barrages against the President.

    The globalist vehicle to ensure complete accountability of the citizens from a legal perspective is mandatory health care…and one that cripples the country in the exact same plan that Cloward and Piven introduced to President Johnson that took effect: the creation of a welfare state to implode the system.

    A Time Magazine article posted on 6/11/18 by Alex Fitzpatrick has a title that summarizes the fostered complacency and resignation that the Media and globalists are using to mold the people. The title is “Drones are here to stay. Get used to it.” The article mentions there are 1.1 million drones registered by the FAA (don’t you just love that one? More revenue and ad valorem…the “registered drone” business). Of this total amount, 918,000 are listed as “hobbyists,” and 194,000 as “commercial” drones.

    This article does not mention the number of drones used by the Federal government, by law enforcement, and by government agencies.

    The drones have GPS and Wi-Fi capabilities. They have cameras. Ta-dah! The cameras can be linked, and the images captured and used by the government. The happy Hallmark family in the park doesn’t realize their happy Saturday drone flight’s recordings and images can be snatched up by law enforcement and the fusion centers.

    That Petraeus and his “Internet of things” statement is coming to fruition: all of the computers, cell phones, devices in the home, CCTV cameras, data recorders in the cars, trash recycling firms (sifting your trash), satellites, drones…all of it is caging us in. The other countries are leading the pack: China is breaking new ground that will find its way into the U.S.  England (especially London) is a complete surveillance labyrinth.

    They’re collecting biometric data from us in the airports, with the CCTV cameras, and with the cellular telephones. The Android model is taking biometrics of pulse, voice recognition, and transmitting user location with composition (others in the room with you). All for no reason, right? Just to foster loving togetherness and a feeling of belonging to a social group…a remake of “teaching the world to sing,” but this time without Coca-cola.

    Wrong. The cage has to be emplaced, and laws made: laws to try and wrest our remaining freedoms from us. They want the guns, they want to adulterate the vote (allowing illegal aliens to vote) and destroy the fabric of society. They want to destroy the United States, and they’re succeeding, on a daily basis. Edward Snowden was only able to reveal a small fraction of what is happening, and that information is astounding. Think what they’re doing now, and look what they’re doing, right before our eyes.

  • Visualizing How The 50 Largest US Companies Are Connected

    For any corporation, the Board of Directors plays a crucial role in corporate governance.

    Elected by the company’s shareholders, the board is meant to represent shareholder interests – it ultimately hires the CEO, sets strategic objectives, approves annual budgets, and provides accountability to the shareholders regarding the performance of the organization.

    These duties are no cakewalk, and, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, finding capable and experienced board members to help run a multi-billion dollar corporation just isn’t easy.

    CORPORATE OVERLAP

    To locate a qualified candidate, one option is to hire someone that already has experience working on a big corporate board – and because it’s a part-time gig, people can actually be on multiple boards at once.

    Today’s data visualization is from Reddit user /r/qwerty2020 and it shows the overlap between boards of the top 50 largest companies in the United States.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    It reveals that 78% of the multi-billion dollar companies here have at least one board connection with another company on the list.

    THE MOST CONNECTED COMPANIES

    Here are the three most connected companies:

    3M (7 connections)
    The 3M board has 12 members on it, including people like the retired CEOs of Kroger and UPS, and the current CFO of Microsoft.

    As for board members in common, there are seven people on 3M’s board that have a connection to one of the other 50 large companies, including: Boeing, Coca-Cola, AbbVie, Proctor & Gamble, Amgen, Chevron, and IBM.

    Boeing (6 connections)
    Boeing’s board has 13 members, including the CEO and Chairman of Amgen, and Ronald Reagan’s former White House Chief of Staff (Kenneth Duberstein). The former CEO of Allstate and the former CEO of Continental Airlines also serve on the board.

    It has six connections to other big U.S. companies through its board, including: 3M, AbbVie, Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, U.S. Bancorp, and AT&T.

    Amgen (6 connections)
    The large biopharmaceutical company has 13 people on its Board of Directors, including the CEO and Chairman of Phillips 66, the former CEO of Mattel, and a former CFO of Walmart.

    In total, it has six people that also serve on other boards: 3M, United Technologies, Apple, Boeing, Chevron, and McDonald’s.

    Runners up: (5 connections)
    Other highly-connected companies include Walt Disney, Apple, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, IBM, and Procter & Gamble – each has five board members that also serve for other top 50 corporations.

Digest powered by RSS Digest