Today’s News 7th July 2018

  • This Is What Modern War Propaganda Looks Like

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    I’ve been noticing videos going viral the last few days, some with millions of views, about Muslim women bravely fighting to free themselves from oppression in the Middle East. The videos, curiously, are being shared enthusiastically by many Republicans and pro-Israel hawks, who aren’t traditionally the sort of crowd you see rallying to support the civil rights of Muslims. What’s up with that?

    Well, you may want to sit down for this shocker, but it turns out that they happen to be women from a nation that the US war machine is currently escalating operations against. They are Iranian.

    Whenever you see the sudden emergence of an attractive media campaign that is sympathetic to the plight of civilians in a resource-rich nation unaligned with the western empire, you are seeing propaganda. When that nation is surrounded by other nations with similar human rights transgressions and yet those transgressions are ignored by that same media campaign, you are most certainly seeing propaganda. When that nation just so happens to already be the target of starvation sanctions and escalated covert CIA ops, you can bet the farm that you are seeing propaganda.

    Back in December a memo was leaked from inside the Trump administration showing how then-Secretary of State, DC neophyte Rex Tillerson, was coached on how the US empire uses human rights as a pretense on which to attack and undermine noncompliant governments. Politico reports:

    The May 17 memo reads like a crash course for a businessman-turned-diplomat, and its conclusion offers a starkly realist vision: that the U.S. should use human rights as a club against its adversaries, like Iran, China and North Korea, while giving a pass to repressive allies like the Philippines, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

    “Allies should be treated differently — and better — than adversaries. Otherwise, we end up with more adversaries, and fewer allies,” argued the memo, written by Tillerson’s influential policy aide, Brian Hook.

    The propaganda machine doesn’t operate any differently from the State Department, since they serve the same establishment. US ally Saudi Arabia is celebrated by the mass media for “liberal reform” in allowing women to drive despite hard evidence that those “reforms” are barely surface-level cosmetics to present a pretty face to the western world, but Iranian women, who have been able to drive for years, are painted as uniquely oppressed. Iran is condemned by establishment war whores for the flaws in its democratic process, while Saudi Arabia, an actual monarchy, goes completely unscrutinized.

    This is because the US-centralized power establishment, which has never at any point in its history cared about human rights, plans on effecting regime change in Iran by any means necessary. Should those means necessitate a potentially controversial degree of direct military engagement, the empire needs to make sure it retains control of the narrative.

    This is what war propaganda looks like in the era of social media. It will never look ugly. It will never directly show you its real intentions. If it did, it wouldn’t work. It can’t just come right out and say “Hey we need to do horrible, evil things to the people in this country on the other side of the world in your name using your resources, please play along without making a fuss.” It will necessarily look fresh and fun and rebellious. It will look appealing. It will look sexy.

    And it’s working. I am currently getting tagged in these videos multiple times a day by Trump supporters who are eager to show me proof that I’m on the wrong side of the Iran issue; the psyop is so well-lubricated with a combination of sleek presentation and confirmation bias that it slides right past their skepticism and becomes accepted as fact, even the one with the Now This pussyhat propaganda logo in the corner.

    Be less trusting of these monsters, please. The people of Afghanistan haven’t benefitted from the interminable military quagmire that has cost tens of thousands of their lives. The invaders of Iraq were never “greeted as liberators” by an oppressed population. The humanitarian intervention in Libya left a humanitarian catastrophe in its wake far more horrific than anything it claimed to be trying to prevent. Saving the children of Syria with western interventionism has left half a million Syrians dead.

    If the Iranians do in fact wish to change their government, it should happen without crippling sanctions, collaboration with extremist terror cults, or the rapey tentacles of the CIA manipulating the situation. There has never been a US-led regime change in the Middle East that wasn’t disastrous. People should be screaming at the US and its allies to cease these interventions, not applauding propaganda that is clearly being manufactured by that same empire.

    *  *  *

    Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website, so you’ll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalor buying my bookWoke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

  • A Record Number Of 85-Year-Old Americans Are Still Working

    As we saw with Friday’s jobs report, the booming US economy has continued to draw in workers from “the sidelines” – ie people who weren’t actively looking for work and were considered to be “out” of the workforce – as the participation rate has ticked higher in recent months (though it remains well below its pre-crisis levels). Still, economists have been largely unable to explain how wages have remained stagnant in a supposedly “tight” labor market. But a recent story in the Washington Post might hold a few clues…

    Participation

    According to Census data analyzed by WaPo, the number of Americans aged 85 and older who are still working has risen to record highs in recent years.

    Meanwhile, the number of workers between the ages of 18 and 30 who are out of the workforce hasn’t been this high since the 1970s, before large numbers of women entered the workforce.

    WaPo

    At last count, there were 255,000 Americans aged 85 and older who had been working or looking for work in the past 12 months. That’s approximately 4.4% of Americans that age – up from 2.6% in 2006. Indeed, it appears Ruth Bader Ginsburg (85) and Warren Buffett (87) are not alone.

    Overall, 255,000 Americans, 85-years-old and over, were working over the past 12 months. That’s 4.4 percent of Americans that age, up from 2.6 percent in 2006, before the recession. It’s the highest number on record.

    They’re doing all sorts of jobs – crossing guards, farmers and ranchers, even truckers, as my colleague Heather Long revealed in a front-page story last week. Indeed, there are between 1,000 and 3,000 U.S. truckers age 85 or older, based on 2016 Census Bureau figures. Their ranks have roughly doubled since the Great Recession.

    America’s aging workforce has defined the post-Great Recession labor market. Baby boomers and their parents are working longer as life expectancies grow, retirement plans shrink, education levels rise and work becomes less physically demanding. Labor Department figures show that at every year of age above 55, U.S. residents are working or looking for work at the highest rates on record.

    The oldest workers in the workforce, many of whom have been forced out of retirement for financial reasons, have clustered in 26 of the 455 occupations tracked by the Census Bureau data.

    WaPo

    As one might expect, these are industries like sales or management, which don’t require physically demanding labor. Farmers and ranchers has perhaps the largest percentage of elderly workers compared with younger ones, according to WaPo.

    Crossing guards are relatively likely to be age 85 or above. The same goes for musicians, anyone who works in a funeral home, and product demonstrators like those you might find at a warehouse club store.

    But that chart only tells half the story. Few people of any age get the opportunity to work as crossing guards, funeral directors or musicians. So, while they may be elder-friendly jobs, they’re not the top jobs for older people.

    By sheer numbers, the top job among the 85-plus-year-olds is farmers and ranchers. It’s also the one in which the distribution of older workers is most different from the distribution of the rest of the population. That category, which is distinct from farm laborers, houses 3.5 percent of the oldest workers – but just 0.5 percent of the rest of the population.

    Generational shifts drive much of the split. When today’s oldest workers were entering the labor force, farmers and ranchers had far more options than computer scientists did, and that’s shaped their professional choices today, seven decades down the line.

    Perhaps the bizarre phenomenon that older workers are entering the workforce at levels never seen before, while a growing number of young people have been sidelined from the workforce for whatever reason (be it because of drugs, illness or simply because they don’t want to work), has something to do with the fact that wages are stagnant. According to WaPo, at every age above 55, US residents are working or looking for work at the highest rates on record. Workers who are coming out of retirement, or just trying to hang on in the face of ageism in the workforce, aren’t exactly in the best position to negotiate for higher wages.

  • Brandon Smith: The Meaning Of Good And Evil In Perilous Times

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    Perhaps the most destructive idea ever planted in the minds of the general public is the notion that nothing in this world is permanent – that all things can and must be constantly changed to suit our whims. The concept of impermanence fuels what I call “blank slate propaganda.”

    The usefulness of the blank slate as a weapon for social control should be explained before we examine the nature of good and evil, because these days it infects everything.

    The push for never ending social “evolution” has been called many things over the decades. In the early 1900s in Europe it was called “futurism;” an art and philosophical movement that helped spawn the rise of communism and fascism in politics. The argument that all old ideas and longstanding traditions should be abandoned to make way for new ideas, new technologies, news systems etc., assumes that the supposedly new ways of doing things are superior to the old ways of doing things. Things are rarely this simple, and in most cases the new methods so proudly championed by movements for social change are usually recycled and repackaged old ideas that are notorious for failure.

    The blank slate theory is designed to confuse people with self-doubt and to misrepresent the constructs of nature as constructs of society. It most effectively disrupts people’s relationship to their own moral compass by suggesting that moral compass should be completely ignored as artificial. The argument by blank slate proponents is that all boundaries are created by society instead of by inborn conscience, and that these boundaries often hold us back from achieving our goals, bettering ourselves as a species and generally getting what we want out of life.

    But the things we want are not always the things we need, and this is something that movement’s for social change often refuse to grasp. If we are all blank slates and if morality and the human soul are myths, why not do whatever the hell we want, whenever we want and live life as if it is one big Roman orgy of feasting, self-medicating and overall addiction to sensation?

    The problem with the blank slate concept is that while it purports that all restrictions in the human psyche are taught to us rather than being inborn and that they can be abandoned any time we want, we still can’t seem to avoid the consequences of breaking those restrictions.  People lose their sanity, societies crumble and nations fall to ruin over time the more we cast aside our principles in the name of social evolution or short term gain. It is unavoidable.

    The only people who seem to benefit from the spread of the blank slate are the people already in political and economic power. For if they can convince the masses to ignore their conscience, they can then convince us to accept almost any other conditions.

    To act in a manner consistent with inherent conscience, or to ignore conscience and act destructively, is a choice. It is the core pillar of free will. The choice to act destructively does not erase the reality of inherent conscience; in fact, people often have to be fooled into believing that a destructive and immoral action is a “good thing” before they are convinced to carry it out. Inherent conscience must be bypassed through trickery.

    The problem with choosing to stick by one’s principles is that it is easy during times of relative stability, but increasingly difficult during times of struggle. In perilous days, the temptation to use destructive tactics to maintain an expectation of comfort or to merely survive can be high. It is no coincidence that power elites, the same people that tend to promote blank slate propaganda, also tend to deliberately engineer social crisis and chaos. But perhaps this needs a deeper explanation. We must define something most of us already understand intuitively. We must define “evil.”

    Like inherent conscience and moral boundaries, blank slate theorists and social change advocates attempt to muddy the waters of what constitutes evil. Some will say there is no such thing — that evil is whatever we deem it to be in any given era depending on our biases.  Others will claim that tradition, permanence and anything in society that remains static is evil. The only “good” for them is constant change.

    But evil is not as illusory and changing as these people suggest. In fact, most men and women recoil automatically from certain specific behaviors regardless of how they were raised, what environment they come from, what culture they were born into or what era they lived.  The people who don’t recoil at these behaviors are the people we have to watch out for because they are missing something integral to the heart and mind that makes the rest of us human.

    In psychological terms, the characteristics of high level narcissists and sociopaths match most closely with our historic concept of evil.  And, in my view, most great evils done in history are in fact done by people with multiple narcissistic traits.  As far as global elitists are concerned, they represent a rather insidious threat, because they are narcissistic sociopaths that have organized into a predatory gang, so all the traits consistent with the behavior of your average serial killer are now magnified a thousandfold by their access to unlimited resources.

    How do we identify these people? Well, this is a difficult prospect at times because narcissistic sociopaths commonly hide in plain sight.  Some people live with them for years before realizing exactly what they are. They also like to insert themselves into nonprofit organizations that claim to do good for the community as a cover for their more insidious motives.

    Some traits and behaviors that are common are a lack of normal emotional response to traumatic events or joyous events, or they will mimic the responses of others to blend in but they come off as “forced” or “fake.” They have no concept of empathy; it does not exist for them.

    They seek out centers of power and are drawn to positions of authority. They always seem to be demanding the efforts of others while rarely offering their own help. They make terrible leaders, always attempting to lead from a place of safety while letting their conscripts take the risks. Leading by example is a foreign concept to them.

    They will lie repetitively about their accomplishments and their accolades. They will misrepresent their professional achievements in order to gain people’s trust. Ask them to prove through actions that they can do all the things they claim they can do, and they will try to avoid the test or respond indignantly and angrily.

    They will gaslight their ideological enemies or people they are trying to control. They will accuse others of being “narcissists” or “sociopaths” or fascists or any moniker that will push the buttons of their target. Whatever evils they are guilty of, they will try to flip and lay at the feet of their enemies.

    They always seem to have “minions” to do their dirty work for them and attack those that oppose them. People that have dealt with narcissistic sociopaths in their personal lives sometimes refer to these minions as “flying monkeys,” referencing the flying monkeys enslaved by the Wicked Witch in the Wizard of Oz. Flying monkeys are essentially useful idiots that the narcissist employs through fraud and sometimes through pay. Whenever the narcissist is under threat of being exposed, they unleash their flying monkeys onto the streets or onto the internet to undermine truth tellers.

    They do not believe in moral or personal boundaries which is why they are always trying convince people that such boundaries are a myth.  They will cross moral lines, always testing the fences for weaknesses; trying to wear others down until they give up and stop fighting back.

    They desperately want to come out of the shadows and into the light of day. They want to be adored as the monsters they are, rather than the fake philanthropists they portray themselves as. In order to do this, every narcissistic sociopath makes it their duty to erase the idea of conscience, whether they are part of the globalist cabal or just another ghoul down the street. Their natural inclination is to corrupt whatever they touch, and if they cannot corrupt a thing, they will attempt to destroy that thing.

    Most of all, narcissistic sociopaths want everyone around them to believe that we are just like them. That “deep down” all of us are unprincipled and morally bankrupt and all it takes is a crisis or calamity, just a little chaos to bring out the devil in everyone.

    But if this were really the case, then humanity would have died out long ago through endless self-destruction; something keeps bringing us back from the brink in our personal lives and in society as a whole. Conscience keeps defeating evil by refusing to grant evil people the utopia of blank slate chaos they want so badly. And this is what give me confidence that no matter how terrible our days might become there is something on our side that goes beyond the physical world.

    Every crisis is a test, a test of each person and a test of our culture. Can we act with reason and courage and principle even in the worst of times, or will we be lured to make our struggle easier through malicious means? Will we do right by those around us, or will we happily trample over them in the name of “survival?”

    In the end, the worst men bring the best men to the surface. This is the only “good” they will ever do.

    *  *  *

    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.

  • Syria: "Rebels Played Russian Roulette, And Lost"

    Middle East analysts are appropriately noting, “Rebels played Russian roulette, and lost” after Syrian Army ground forces accompanied by overwhelming Russian airstrikes in Syria’s contested southwest region have collapsed anti-government lines with rapid speed. 

    Early Friday a major strategic victory was announced as government forces took the Nassib border crossing after recapturing a string of over 8 border outposts in Daraa province.

    The Nassib crossing is among Syria’s most important and busiest international border crossings, and sits along the Damascus-Amman international highway. Prior to the war it was a main artery for Syrian exports to GCC countries. 

    Opposition leaders have confirmed the crossing will now be controlled by Syrian government and Jordanian authorities for the first time after the FSA flag long flew over the outpost since anti-Assad militants captured it in 2015. 

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

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

    The ongoing major offensive to take back Daraa and Al-Quneitra provinces from long entrenched FSA, al-Qaeda, and ISIS groups began last month, and though predicted by many to be a long and grinding affair that held the potential for external state military intervention, the unexpectedly rapid advance of pro-government forces has stunned observers. 

    Al Masdar reports that three quarters of the region that witnessed the start of armed conflict in 2011 is now back under the control of Damascus:

    As a result of these advances, the Syrian Army finds themselves in control of approximately 72 percent of southwest Syria. The remaining 28 percent is under the control of the Free Syrian Army, Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham and Jaysh Khaled bin Walid (ISIS affiliate).

    Meanwhile Reuters reports that hundreds of troops in a large military convoy with Russian and Syrian flags have been seen heading to the newly liberated Nassib border crossing as anti-government fighters are laying down their weapons in droves.

    According to Reuters:

    Syrian rebels reached a deal with Russian officers on a phased handover of their weapons and the deployment of Russian military police near the Jordanian border, a rebel spokesman said.

    Ibrahim Jabawi said the agreement was reached during ongoing talks in a town in southern Syria that also includes a cessation of hostilities by both sides.

    The past week especially has witnessed mass handovers as well as abandonment of weaponry on the part of anti-government insurgents, resulting in some interesting photographs. 

    Since the Syrian Army offensive in the southwest, many thousands of weapons have been recovered, including advanced anti-tank and shoulder fired rockets — a significant bulk of them originally supplied via the US, UK, Saudi Arabia, and other western allies:

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

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

    Anti-tank “TOW” missiles supplied as part of a CIA program have been recovered recently:

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

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

    And in some cases Israeli supplied items have been recovered in Syria’s southwest, near the contested Golan border:

    https://twitter.com/theLemniscat/status/1011873978158407680

    Even this far into the Syrian conflict and after many other such weapons seizures throughout the country, analysts and journalists have commented that the sheer numbers of advanced weapons — in most cases obviously externally supplied — are “staggering”.

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

    Meanwhile, all of this begs the question: where will all the surviving jihadists currently fleeing the Syrian battlefield go? (assuming Syria-Russia will hit the last major expansive jihadist bastion of Idlib next).

    Days ago Middle East based journalist Elijah Magnier translated a command issued and circulated by senior al-Qaeda operatives in northern Syria.

    The al-Qaeda terror leaders urged followers to take action outside Syria now that the government and Russia are emerging victorious: “put your explosive belt on, take your family to a safe place, don’t think of coming to Idlib for there only humiliation & rely on guerrilla/ insurgency.”

    Communiqué by AQ in Syria (Hurras al-Deen) to foreign fighters & Syrian fighting among Mujahedeen: “put your explosive belt on, take your family to a safe place, don’t think of coming to Idlib for there only humiliation & rely on guerrilla/ insurgency”

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

    As we’ve never been shy to point out over the years, the West and its gulf allies armed al-Qaeda to the teeth in Syria — something so well documented that international arms monitoring groups can pinpoint weapons serial numbers down to identifying particular European transit points through which weapons flowed as part of CIA covert shipments. 

    Surely, just as many or more quantities of weapons as have already been recovered will remain in the hands of jihadists seeking to exit Syria… but where will they go? 

    Very unfortunately, we have an idea of where they might end up… as we predicted years ago in the following: They Sow the Cyclone – We Reap the Blowback

  • First-Of-Its-Kind University Study Proves Without A Doubt That Your Phone Is Spying On You

    Authored by Matt Agorist via ActivistPost.com,

    For years, conspiracy theories about smart phones listening to users without their permission to show them advertisements have abounded.

    While some researchers have shown this could happen, a first of its kind study just found something far more insidious. Academics at Northeastern University have just proven that your phone is recording your screen – as in taking video – and uploading it to third parties.

    For the last year, Elleen Pan, Jingjing Ren, Martina Lindorfer, Christo Wilson, and David Choffnes ran an experiment involving more than 17,000 of the most popular Android apps using ten different phones. Their findings were alarming, to say the least.

    As Gizmodo points out, during the study, the researchers started to see that screenshots and video recordings of what people were doing in apps were being sent to third-party domains. For example, when one of the phones used an app from GoPuff, a delivery start-up for people who have sudden cravings for junk food, the interaction with the app was recorded and sent to a domain affiliated with Appsee, a mobile analytics company. The video included a screen where you could enter personal information – in this case, their zip code.

    GoPuff did not disclose in its terms of use that its app was recording users screens and uploading this data to a third party. What’s more, when they were contacted by the researchers GoPuff merely added a disclosure to their policy acknowledging that “ApSee” might receive users PII.

    The fact that these apps can record your screen without you knowing and use this data is chilling. It illustrates how easy it would be for a malicious actor to be able to look at your private messages, personal information, passwords, photos, and videos. None of this is stopped by your phone’s security either as it is a function built into the apps and you don’t have an option to disallow it.

    According to Gizmodo, the researchers will be presenting their work at the Privacy Enhancing Technology Symposium Conference in Barcelona next month. (While in Spain, they might want to check out the country’s most popular soccer app, which has given itself permission to access users’ smartphone mics to listen for illegal broadcasts of games in bars.)

    As for the theory that your phone is listening through your mic, the researchers could not debunk it. Due to the nature of the study — using automated programs to interact with apps — the spying apps may have not been triggered the same way they would if a human was using them.

    Although they didn’t find evidence your phone was listening to you, this does not mean it doesn’t still happen.

    “We didn’t see any evidence that people’s conversations are being recorded secretly,” said David Choffnes, one of the authors of the paper. “What people don’t seem to understand is that there’s a lot of other tracking in daily life that doesn’t involve your phone’s camera or microphone that give a third party just as comprehensive a view of you.”

    The authors of the study, titled Panoptispy: Characterizing Audio and Video Exfiltration from Android Applications, concluded:

    Our study reveals several alarming privacy risks in the Android app ecosystem, including apps that over-provision their media permissions and apps that share image and video data with other parties in unexpected ways, without user knowledge or consent. We also identify a previously unreported privacy risk that arises from third party libraries that record and upload screenshots and videos of the screen without informing the user. This can occur without needing any permissions from the user.

    In the age of technology, privacy and security are the only things that separate us from a total surveillance grid. Unfortunately, as this study illustrates, we have very little of both.

  • Spacecraft With Revolutionary Heat Shield Will "Touch The Sun"

    NASA has unveiled a “cutting-edge heat shield” that will make it possible for a space probe to “touch the sun” — or at least get a spacecraft to within 4 million miles of it, which scientists are hailing as nothing short of a “revolutionary” development in space technology. 

    The announcement was made via the official site NASA.gov as the launch of the Parker Solar Probe is readied for its August 4 liftoff date: “The launch of Parker Solar Probe, the mission that will get closer to the Sun than any human-made object has ever gone, is quickly approaching, and on June 27, 2018, Parker Solar Probe’s heat shield — called the Thermal Protection System, or TPS — was installed on the spacecraft.”

    Image source: NASA

    The heat shield, measuring eight feet in diameter, will reach nearly 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit while keeping the probe’s instruments at about 85 degrees, allowing the probe to “collect unprecedented data” on the giant ball of fire and earth’s most vital source of energy, previously impossible to access without a protective shield, and will allow “the spacecraft’s orbit will carry it to within 4 million miles of the Sun’s fiercely hot surface,” according to NASA

    For comparison, the closest that planet Mercury ever gets to the sun during its orbit is approximately 29 million miles, allowing surface temperatures to reach 800 degrees Fahrenheit (430 °C). And Earth’s average distance to the sun is 93 million miles. At the core of the sun, temperatures can reach more than 27 million degrees Fahrenheit (15 million °C), scientists have estimated. 

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

    The TPS shield will enable the probe to reach more than seven times closer than any spacecraft has come before, to within the sun’s outer atmosphere known as the corona, as a NASA statement explains, “Parker Solar Probe will employ a combination of in situ measurements and imaging to revolutionise our understanding of the corona and expand our knowledge of the origin and evolution of the solar wind.”

    And further NASA has defined the mission as to “trace how energy and heat move through the solar corona and to explore what accelerates the solar wind as well as solar energetic particles.”

    Via Mail Online

    The description of the heat shield is as follows:

    The heat shield is made of two panels of superheated carbon-carbon composite sandwiching a lightweight 4.5-inch-thick carbon foam core. The Sun-facing side of the heat shield is also sprayed with a specially formulated white coating to reflect as much of the Sun’s energy away from the spacecraft as possible.

    The Parker Solar Probe itself is about the size of a car but is light-weight, along with its protective shield:

    The heat shield itself weighs only about 160 pounds — here on Earth, the foam core is 97 percent air. Because Parker Solar Probe travels so fast — 430,000 miles per hour at its closest approach to the Sun, fast enough to travel from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C., in about one second — the shield and spacecraft have to be light to achieve the needed orbit.

    The agency has previously said the probe will “touch the sun” when it arrives at the star’s outer atmosphere, revealing more than ever before about its mysterious “inner workings,” according to researchers. 

  • Myth: Gold Makes Boom-Bust Cycles Worse

    Authored by Frank Shostak via The Mises Institute,

    According to some commentators on the gold standard, an increase in the supply of gold generates similar distortions as money out of “thin air” does.

    Let us start with a barter economy.

    John the miner produces ten ounces of gold. The reason why he mines gold is because he believes there is a market for it. Gold contributes to the well-being of individuals.

    He exchanges his ten ounces of gold for various goods such as potatoes and tomatoes.

    Now people have discovered that gold apart from being useful in making jewelry is also useful for some other applications.

    They now assign a much greater exchange value to gold than before. As a result, John the miner could exchange his ten ounces of gold for more potatoes and tomatoes.

    Should we condemn this as bad news because John is now diverting more resources to himself? This however, is just what is happening all the time in the market.

    As time goes by people assign greater importance to some goods and diminish the importance of some other goods. Some goods now then considered as more important than other goods in supporting people’s life and well-being.

    Now people have discovered that gold is useful for another use, such as the medium of the exchange. Consequently, they lift further the price of gold in terms of tomatoes and potatoes. Gold is now predominantly demanded as a medium of exchange — the demand for the other uses of gold, such as for ornaments is now much lower than before.

    Let us see what is going to happen if John were to increase the production of gold. The benefit that gold now supplies people is by providing the services of the medium of the exchange. In this sense, it is a part of the pool of real wealth and promotes people’s life and well-being.

    One of the attributes for selecting gold as the medium of exchange is that it is relatively scarce. This means that a producer of a good who has exchanged this good for gold expects the purchasing power of his effort to be preserved over time by holding gold.

    If for some reason there is a large increase in the production of gold and this trend were to persist, the exchange value of the gold would be subject to a persistent decline versus other goods, all other things being equal. Within such conditions, people are likely to abandon gold as the medium of the exchange and look for another commodity to fulfill this role.

    As the supply of gold starts to increase its role as the medium of exchange diminishes while the demand for it for some other usages is likely to be retained or increase.

    Therefore, in this sense the increase in the production of gold is not a waste and adds to the pool of real wealth. When John the miner exchanges gold for goods, he is engaged in an exchange of something for something.

    He is exchanging wealth for wealth.

    Contrast all this with the printing of gold receipts, i.e., receipts that are not backed 100% by gold.

    This is an act of fraud, which is what inflation is all about, it sets a platform for consumption without contributing to the pool of real wealth. Empty certificates set in motion an exchange of nothing for something, which in turn leads to boom-bust cycles.

    The printing of unbacked gold certificates divert real savings from wealth generating activities to the holders of unbacked certificates. This leads to the so-called economic boom.

    The diversion of real savings is done by means of unbacked certificates, i.e., unbacked money.

    Once the printing of unbacked money slows down or stops all together this stops the flow of real savings to various activities that emerged on the back of unbacked money.

    As a result, these activities fall apart – an economic bust emerges. (Note that these activities do not produce real wealth, they only consume. Obviously then without the unbacked money, which diverts real savings to them, they are in trouble. These activities did not produce any wealth hence without money given to them they cannot secure the goods they want.)

    In the case of the increase in the supply of gold, no fraud is committed here. The supplier of gold – the gold mine – has increased the production of a useful commodity. Therefore, in this sense we do not have here an exchange of nothing for something. Consequently, we also do not have an emergence of bubble activities. Again, the wealth producer, because of the fact that he has produced something useful, can exchange it for other goods. He does not require empty money to divert real wealth to him.

    Note that a major factor for the emergence of a boom is the injections into the economy of money out of “thin air.” The disappearance of money out of “thin air” is the major cause of an economic bust. The injection of money out of “thin air” generates bubble activities while the disappearance of money out of “thin air” destroys these bubble activities.

    On the gold standard, this cannot take place. On a pure gold standard without a central bank, money is gold. Consequently, on the gold standard money cannot disappear since gold cannot disappear.

    We can thus conclude that the gold standard, if not abused, is not conducive to boom-bust cycles.

  • Raytheon Is Developing A 100kW Tactical Laser For The US Army

    Raytheon is developing a mobile 100 kW laser weapon system under the U.S. Army’s $10 million High Energy Laser Tactical Vehicle Demonstration (HEL TVD) program contract. With the Pentagon flush with cash from the Trump administration, laser weapon systems have been a significant focus regarding research and development before the next round of global hybrid conflicts.

    In a recent news release, Raytheon said the 100 kW laser would be mounted on a Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV).

    “The beauty of this system is that it’s self-contained,” said Roy Azevedo, vice president of Intelligence, Reconnaissance and Surveillance Systems at Raytheon’s Space and Airborne Systems business unit.

    As Azevedo adds, “multi-spectral targeting sensors, fiber-combined lasers, power and thermal sub-systems are incorporated in a single package. This system is being designed to knock out rockets, artillery or mortar fire, or small drones.”

    HEL TVD is part of the Army’s Indirect Fire Protection Capability, Increment 2 — Intercept (IFPC Inc 2-I), which is a rugged, mobile, pre-prototype laser system that meets the size, weight and performance requirements of the Army.

    The laser system mounted on the FMTV can eliminate aerial threats, including artillery, cruise missiles, drones, mortars, and rockets.

    To date, the program tested lasers at various strengths, from 2kW to 50 kW. Last year, Lockheed Martin announced it completed the development of a single-beam 60 kW laser for the program. The next phase, which could be as early as 2019, could test a massive 100kW multi-beam fiber-laser design, considered to be just enough directed energy to take down most aerial threats.

    Ahead of the coming “hybrid wars“, the Army recognizes that lasers could provide a significant advantage over its adversaries. Laser weapons have “unlimited” ammunition, as long as a power plant can continue to deliver energy. With an average cost per kill of $30, laser weapons are significantly cheaper than traditional kinetic weapons, such as mortars and rockets that can range from several hundred to thousands of dollars per round.

    The Army will test and evaluate the mounted laser system on an FMTV in the first half of 2019. If successful, a three-year system development, and demonstration contract estimated at $130 million, to build and integrate a weapon system, could be next. The Army hopes by the Fiscal year 2022, the HEL TVD will have enough data through field training exercises that it could enter service shortly thereafter.

    The HEL TVD could see its first mission in the mid-2020s, as the most likely place for deployment could be the U.S. and allied force’s fixed and semi-fixed bases.

    Over the year, the Army and U.S. defense contractors have been busy mounting lasers on all sorts of war machines.

    In March, Raytheon decided to mount a 5 kW laser on a militarized all-terrain Polaris light-vehicle. The company’s press release describes the vehicle as an “agile, mobile, and effective” war machine to protect troops from weaponized unmanned drone threats.

    The push for lasers could be explained by the Army’s rush to plug the gap in short-range defenses.

    Richard P. DeFatta, director, Future Warfare Center, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command spilled the beans in February on air and missile defense and told an audience that Army conducted field training exercises with the first-ever Mobile High Energy Laser (MEHEL) mounted on the M1126 Stryker armored personnel carrier. The Stryker-mounted MEHEL is designed for short-range aerial threats, such as weaponized drones.

    MEHEL is a 5kW laser system mounted on a Stryker-armored fighting vehicle chassis and serves as the primary vehicle for research and development. The Army acknowledges that high-energy lasers are a “low-cost, effective complement to kinetic energy to address rocket, artillery, and mortar, or RAM, threats; unmanned aircraft systems and cruise missiles,” said Army Recognition.

    However, it is not just Washington and its military-industrial-complex mounting laser systems on exciting things. China announced earlier this week that its ZKZM-500 laser assault rifle could “burn through clothes in a split second… If the fabric is flammable, the whole person will be set on fire.

    So as Washington mounts lasers on dune buggies, tanks, and trucks, China is also testing and deploying laser weapon systems of its own, as both countries gear up for the next round of hybrid conflcit  that could emerge some time in the mid-2020s or sooner. All this is, of course, happening in the context of the greatest Thucydides Trap in modern history: one in which China’s army and military spending is expected to surpass that of the US, some time in the late 2030, on its way to becoming the world’s dominant military (and perhaps economic) superpower

  • Jim Rickards Warns "Volatility Is On The Way Back"

    Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

    When geopolitical events create crises in the world, volatility usually follows in world markets. The results of this volatility is important to note and I will discuss this below.

    In January 2018, two significant market events occurred nearly simultaneously. Major U.S. stock market indexes peaked and volatility indexes extended one of their longest streaks of low volatility in history.

    Investors were happy, complacency ruled the day and all was right with the world.

    Then markets were turned upside down in a matter of days. Major stock market indexes fell over 11%, a technical correction, from Feb. 2–8, 2018, just five trading days.

    The CBOE Volatility Index, commonly known as the “VIX,” surged from 14.51 to 49.21 in an even shorter period from Feb. 2–6. The last time the VIX has been at those levels was late August 2015 in the aftermath of the Chinese shock devaluation of the yuan when U.S. stocks also fell 11% in two weeks.

    Investors were suddenly frightened and there was nowhere to hide from the storm.

    Analysts blamed a monthly employment report released by the Labor Department on Feb. 2 for the debacle. The report showed that wage gains were accelerating. This led investors to increase the odds that the Federal Reserve would raise rates in March and June (they did) to fend off inflation that might arise from the wage gains.

    The rising interest rates were said to be bad for stocks because of rising corporate interest expense and because fixed-income instruments compete with stocks for investor dollars.

    Wall Street loves a good story, and the “rising wages” story seemed to fit the facts and explain that downturn. Yet the story was mostly nonsense. Wages did rise somewhat, but the move was not extreme and should not have been unexpected.

    The Fed was already on track to raise interest rates several times in 2018 with or without that particular wage increase. Subsequent wage increases in the February, March, April and May employment reports have been moderate.

    The employment report story was popular at the time, but it had very little explanatory power as to why stocks suddenly tanked and volatility surged.

    The fact is that stocks and volatility had both reached extreme levels and were already primed for sudden reversals. The specific catalyst almost doesn’t matter. What matters is the array of traders, all leaning over one side of the boat, suddenly running to the other side of the boat before the vessel capsizes.

    The technical name for this kind of spontaneous crowd behavior is hypersynchronicity, but it’s just as helpful to think of it as a herd of wildebeest that suddenly stampede as one at the first scent of an approaching lion. The last one to run is mostly likely to be eaten alive.

    Markets are once again primed for this kind of spontaneous crowd reaction.

    Except now there are far more catalysts than a random wage report.

    The U.S. has ended its nuclear deal with Iran and has implemented extreme sanctions designed to sink the Iranian economy and force regime change through a popular uprising. Iran has threatened to resume its nuclear weapons development program in response. Both Israel and the U.S. have warned that any resumption of Iran’s nuclear weapons program could lead to a military attack.

    Three faces of volatility, from left to right: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the spiritual and de facto political leader of Iran; Nicolás Maduro, the president of Venezuela; and Kim Jong Un, the supreme leader of North Korea. Iran and North Korea may soon be at war with the U.S. depending on the outcome of negotiations. Venezuela is approaching the status of a failed state and may necessitate U.S. military intervention.

    Venezuela, led by the corrupt dictator Nicolás Maduro, has already collapsed economically and is now approaching the level of a failed state. Inflation exceeds 14,000% and the people have no food. Social unrest, civil war or a revolution are all possible outcomes.

    If infrastructure and political dysfunction reach the point that oil exports cannot continue, the U.S. may have to intervene militarily on both humanitarian and economic grounds.

    North Korea and the U.S. have pursued on-again, off-again negotiations aimed at denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. While there have been encouraging signs, the most likely outcome continues to be that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is playing for time and dealing in bad faith.

    The U.S. may yet have to resort to military force there to negate an existential threat.

    This litany of flash points goes on to include Iranian-backed attacks on Saudi Arabia and Israel, a civil war in Syria, confrontation in the South China Sea and Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine.

    These traditional geopolitical fault lines are in addition to cyber threats, critical infrastructure collapses and natural disasters from Kilauea to the Congo.

    Investors have a tendency to dismiss these threats, either because they have persisted for a long time in many instances without catastrophic results, or because of a belief that somehow the crises will resolve themselves or be brought in for a soft landing by policymakers and politicians.

    These beliefs are good examples of well-known cognitive biases such as anchoring, confirmation bias and selective perception. Analysis tells us that there is little basis for complacency. Yet the VIX is back near all-time lows as shown in Chart 1 below.

    Chart 1

    Even if the probability of any one event blowing up is low, when you have a long list of volatile events, the probability of at least one blowing up approaches 100%.

    With this litany of crises in mind, each ready to erupt into market turmoil, what are my predictive analytic models telling us about the prospects for an increase in measures of market volatility in the months ahead?

    Right now they’re telling us that investor complacency is overdone and market volatility is set to return with a vengeance.

    Changes in VIX and other measures of market volatility do not occur in a smooth, linear way. The dynamic is much more likely to involve extreme spikes rather than gradual increases. This tendency toward extreme spikes is the result of dynamic short-covering that feeds on itself in a recursive manner — or what is commonly known as a feedback loop.

    Shorting volatility indexes has been a very popular income-producing strategy for years. It’s been like selling flood protection in the desert; seems like easy money. The problem is that every now and then a flash flood does hit the desert.

    The future often diverges sharply from the recent past. Markets gap up or down, giving investors no opportunity to trade at intermediate prices. Extreme events occur with much greater frequency than standard models such as value-at-risk expect.

    When the threat emerges, traders who are short volatility have to buy the index in options or futures form to hedge their short positions. This buying drives the price up higher and causes more traders to hit pre-programmed stop loss limits. This generates even more buying and so on.

    Now the buying and short covering feeds on itself and the feedback loop dynamic drives the index to extreme levels before the panic buying is satisfied.

    This is what happens when the flash flood hits the desert. The storm clouds are gathering now, and the rain is coming.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 6th July 2018

  • US And UK Authorities Now DNA-Testing Migrant Children

    Both the UK and US are now using DNA testing on migrant children who have entered the country illegally, according to CNN and the Independent.

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said Thursday that the agency would be using DNA testing as a “faster” and more reliable method of reuniting separated migrant children with their parents, reports CNN

    “The safety and security is paramount and that it is not uncommon for children to be trafficked or smuggled by those claiming to be parents. To our knowledge this is a cheek swab and is being done to expedite parental verification and ensuring reunification with verified parents due to child welfare concerns,” a federal official told the network – who would not say how long the DNA sampling has been taking place, whether the testing requires consent, or whether the samples are being stored in a database.

    The expedited identification method has been employed in order to comply with a court order instructing the Trump administration to reunite separated children under 4 with their families by July 10, while children aged 5-17 must be reunited by July 26. The DNA testing will also ensure that children are not being handed over to someone falsely claiming to be a parent or relative, such as a human trafficker

    HHS secretary Alex Azar told reporters on Thursday that slightly fewer than 3,000 children have been separated from their parents – around 1,000 more than earlier reports by the agency of 2,047. 

    “We have to confirm that these are in fact their parents and we have to confirm they’re appropriate people to be having custody of these children,” Azar said in an appearance on Fox News Thursday. “We’re doing DNA testing on everybody who claims to be a parent of one of our children to confirm that.”

    Azar also expressed frustration at the court-ordered deadline, arguing that it was extreme and artficial – and that HHS won’t be able to be as thorough as possible in determining family relationships in just days and weeks. 

    “That deadline was not informed by the process needed to vet parents, including confirming parentage as well as determining the suitability of placement with that parent,” Azar said. 

    “We will comply even if those deadlines prevent us from conducting our standard, or even a truncated, vetting process.”

    Two weeks ago, Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke with members of Congress about using DNA testing, said Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council.

    “Sessions is talking to congressional members and is hoping for a legislative fix,” Perkins said, adding that the DOJ would like to see “just, fair and enforceable” immigration policies. To that end, “They are looking at how to use DNA tests in the field to verify they are parents and not traffickers,” according to Perkins.

    Sessions told Perkins “We know for a fact that a lot of adults taking children along are not related to them. [They] could be smugglers. They could be human traffickers. It’s a very unhealthy dangerous thing and it needs to end. We need to return to a good lawful system,” Sessions told Perkins on his broadcast.

    UK authorities, meanwhile, has admitted that officials “wrongly forced immigrants to take DNA tests in order to settle their UK status,” after previously saying that the identification method was “entirely voluntary,” according to the Independent

    The accusation against the Home Office comes a month after Caroline Nokes, the immigration minister, said in answer to a parliamentary question that any DNA was submitted on an “entirely voluntary basis”.

    In one case, a letter was sent by the Home Office to an applicant’s solicitor stating that it was “imperative” they submit DNA evidence to confirm the paternity of their client’s child. This was despite the fact that the child already had a British passport.

    The letter, seen by The Independent, stated: “In order to progress your client’s case it is imperative that your client submits the DNA evidence requested to confirm the paternity of your client’s child”Independent

    “In the absence of such evidence the secretary of state for the home department is unable to provide you with a specific timeframe to conclude this claim.”

    The asylum seeker’s attorney, Enny Choudhury, from the Joint Coincil for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) excoriated Noakes over her comments. 

    “The Home Office already accepted my client’s child was British when it issued him a passport. Asking for DNA tests on top of that is an unlawful frustration of her application, delaying a decision by over two years, and all too typical of Home Office practices,” said Choudhury. 

    In another example, a family of Vietnamese origin in Dover said that last year the Home Office demanded their children undergo a DNA test even though the UK consulate in Hanoi accepted that their father was a UK citizen when he registered their births in 2004, according to the Financial Times.

    Meanwhile back in the USA…

    DNA testing at the border has already sparked concerns from immigration advocacy groups. 

    Jennifer K. Falcon, communications director for RAICES, a nonprofit in Texas that offers free and low-cost legal services to immigrants and refugees, called the move deplorable because collecting such sensitive data would allow the government to conduct surveillance on the children “for the rest of their lives.” –CNN.

    Join the club…

  • Craig Murray: No Need For NATO

    Authored by Craig Murray via CraigMurray.co.uk,

    A NATO summit approaches that brings Donald Trump to Europe and then on to these [British] shores, and brings the usual clamour for more of the taxpayers’ money to be given to arms manufacturers.

    Yet NATO is a demonstrably useless institution.

    It’s largest ever active military deployment, for 12 years in Afghanistan, resulted in military defeat throughout 80% of the country, the installation of a pocket regime whose scrip does not run further than you can throw the scrip, and a vast outflow of heroin to finance the criminal underworld throughout NATO countries.

    Look at this chart closely, and marvel at the fact that the NATO occupation began in early 2002.

    In invading Afghanistan and boosting the heroin warlords, NATO countries destabilised themselves.

    NATO’s second biggest military operation ever was the attack on Libya, where NATO carried out an incredible 14,200 bombing sorties using high explosive munitions and devastated Libya’s infrastructure and entire cities. Here is Sirte after NATO “liberation”.

    The direct result of the devastation of Libya and destruction of its government infrastructure has been the massive untrammelled exodus of migrants, especially from West Africa, through Libya and across the Mediterranean on boats. This has not only led to the appalling exploitation and tragic death of many migrants, it has fundamentally weakened the governments and indeed governing public ethos of European NATO member states and led to a right wing populist surge throughout much of the EU.

    In short, in destroying Libya, NATO members destabilised themselves.

    The direct result of NATO’s destruction of Libya.

    Now NATO is focusing once more on the original “threat” it was supposed to combat, a Russian invasion of Western Europe.

    Russia has absolutely no intention of invading Western Europe. The very notion is ludicrous. It does not require NATO to deter a threat that does not exist.

    Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia alone have a combined GNP as big as Russia. On a purchasing power parity basis, if you add in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania those Eastern states still match Russia economically. On a PPP basis, the combined GDP of all NATO states is 12 times that of Russia.

    Russia does have disproportionate military power for its size – but not that much. Russia’s defence spending is one sixth that of NATO defence spending, though it is slightly more efficient because, despite corruption, less of Russia’s defence spending goes into the pockets of arms company shareholders, lobbyists, politicians and other fatcats than happens in the West. But that cannot outweigh Russia’s massive economic disadvantage. Nothing can. Russia is very well placed to defend itself, but in no position to attack major powers.

    Russia’s foreign policy successes – in Crimea, Syria and Georgia – have been based not on massive military strength – the NATO powers far outweigh Russia there – but simply on much better statecraft. And NATO, for all the trillions western taxpayers spend on it, has been unable to do anything about it, despite the fact that Russian actions in Crimea and Georgia have been illegal in international law.

    In fact if anybody has not worked out by now that our famed nuclear arsenal is a chocolate teapot, then they have not been paying attention. In none of the recent foreign policy crises – including the North Korean nuclearisation issue – nobody, anywhere, ever has mentioned Trident missiles as part of the solution. They are utterly worthless.

    The threat of a Russian attack on NATO itself is non-existent. The EU is not officially a military alliance but the idea that any part of EU territory could be subject to invasion without the rest of the EU reacting is a political impossibility. It is very plain that Vladimir Putin’s policy is to reincorporate into Russia those bordering pockets of ethnic Russians in former Soviet states. But this has been approached piecemeal and avoiding major confrontation. There is no practical threat to the Baltic states whose security is already de facto guaranteed by EU membership.

    So NATO’s role of defence against Russia is otiose, and its wider military adventures have been a total disaster.

    Finally, a thought about China. I cannot think of a parallel to China these last two decades, where any country in history has obtained so much economic pre-eminence in the World and shown so very little interest in military expansion. The invasion of Tibet occurred before China’s economic flowering, and the South China Sea dispute is hardly the invasion of Iraq. I do not claim any expertise in Chinese culture or thought, but they appear to realise that dominance can be achieved by more subtle means than the sword. It is going to be a fascinating few decades as China rapidly overtakes the USA in the superpower stakes.

  • Who The US & China Have Trade Disputes With

    According to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), trade disputes are common and they can arise when a government believes that another government has violated an agreement or commitment made in the WTO.

    As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, the WTO has endeavored to end such disputes and out of 500 brought since 1995, 350 rulings have been issued.

    As of April 2018, China was involved in 55 cases, both as complainant and as respondent:

    Infographic: Who China Has Trade Disputes With | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    It has the most of them with the United States where 55 were brought against it while it was the complainant in 10 cases. It had the second-highest number of disputes with the EU (13) while it had 4 with Mexico, all of which were brought against it.

    As of April of this year, the WTO says that the United States was involved in 253 cases, both as complainant and as respondent:

    Infographic: Who The U.S. Has Trade Disputes With  | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    52 of the trade disputes with the European Union – it brought 33 of those while 19 were brought against it. There were 32 disputes in total involving trade with China while with Canada, there were 26, most of which were brought by the U.S

  • Shots Fired – US Futures Spike As US-China Trade War Officially Begins

    While Chinese markets are still closed for lunch, the announcement of US tariffs on China being officially unleashed – followed swiftly by China commenting that “it’s forced to retaliate” – has, of course, been met with a sudden wave of panic-buying in US equity futures…

    Shots Fired

    0001ET *U.S. TARIFFS ON CHINA TAKE EFFECT AS TRUMP TRADE WAR ESCALATES

    0004ET *CHINA SAYS IT HAS TO FIGHT BACK

    0006ET *CHINA SAYS IT’S FORCED TO RETALIATE ON U.S. TARIFFS

    And Dow Futures spike 100 points…

    What a farce – if this holds then Trump will be more than pleased to follow through with more hundreds of billions in tariffs – and new record highs for The Dow?

    After early weakness, onshore- and offshore-Yuan are now spiking too…

  • Escobar: Eagle-Meets-Bear & The Syria Tug-Of-War

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    Trump and Putin are likely to discuss the tricky situation in southern Syria when they meet; while the US president says he wants US forces back home, the CIA, Pentagon and Israel may be happier to see them stay so the war-torn state remains unstable…

    Syrian government tanks and soldiers take positions in the town of Western Ghariyah, about 15km east of the southern embattled city of Daraa. Photo: AFP/ SANA handout released on June 30, 2018.

    Ahead of the Eagle-meets-Bear Trump-Putin summit on July 16 in Helsinki, Syria-centered spin has gone into overdrive. Unknown sources have leaked what is billed as President Trump’s alleged Syria deal discussed with Jordan’s King Abdullah.

    Trump would “allow” Damascus, supported by Russian air power, to regain its territory along the borders of Jordan, Israel and Iraq. In return, President Putin and Bashar al-Assad would agree to establish an extended demilitarized zone (DMZ) along these same borders, off-limits to any Iranian forces.

    That would set the scene for Trump’s already announced desire to extract US forces out of Syria before October and the US mid-term elections. The president would be able to declare the proverbial “Mission Accomplished” in defeating Daesh or Islamic State.

    The CIA and the Pentagon are not exactly enthusiastic with Trump’s alleged Syria gambit, to say the least. For assorted neocons and powerful factions of the industrial-military-surveillance complex, “Assad must go” Syria simply cannot be traded off.

    And yet there’s nothing to trade. Syria cannot be “offered” to Russia because Russia is already the major player in deciding what happens in Syria, not only militarily but via the ongoing Astana format alongside Iran and Turkey. No wonder the alleged Trump “deal” was duly dismissed by the Kremlin. 

    What will be negotiated in the Trump-Putin summit, as Asia Times has learned, is something completely different. This negotiation, incidentally, will happen after the NATO summit in Brussels and before the next Astana format meeting in Sochi on July 30, as confirmed by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Vershinin.

    The heart of the matter remains Syria’s territorial integrity and the legitimacy of the government in Damascus. Russia, Iran and, after countless circumvolutions, even Turkey are for it. The NATO-Gulf Cooperation Council alliance is ferociously against it – especially after having, over the past few years, funded and weaponized those notorious “moderate rebels,” the overwhelming majority of which are nothing but takfiri jihadis.

    Back to Daraa

    And so, as a gloomy serpent biting its own tail, the tragic war in Syria is back to where it first started, seven and a half years ago, to a dusty, dirt-poor, religiously intolerant, back of beyond Daraa. Just across the border with Jordan, it is splendidly convenient crossroads for weapons smuggling destined to the takfiri hordes.

    As it stands, the main narrative in Western media is that “regime forces” have unleashed air strikes and barrel bombs over “rebel-held” sections of southern Syria. 

    Mohammad Hawari, the UNHCR spokesman in Amman, may be correct when he says: “We’re facing a real humanitarian crisis in southern Syria.” What he does not say is that quite a few “opposition bodies” – code for takfiri jihadis – have rejected Damascus-proposed deals to be back under government control, thus inflating the humanitarian crisis.

    Analyst Elijah Magnier has correctly identified the state of things in the battlefield, and some key sticking points have already been agreed on by Moscow and Washington.

    The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is proceeding flat out in an offensive to reopen the nation’s borders. What has not been negotiated is what happens to a tricky patch partially bordering Jordan and partially in Quneitra province, near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

    Damascus wants to reopen full trade connectivity between Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, a route that goes all the way to the Gulf via Masna, between Lebanon and Syria, and Naseeb between Syria and Jordan, that is essential to business for all concerned.   

    Once again, the holy of the holies concerns al-Qaeda. Actually, Jabhat al-Nusra, as in al-Qaeda in Syria, is now rebranded as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and their allied collection of 54 takfiri militias, trained and weaponized in a base in Jordan, for years, by the CIA and British Special Forces.

    It’s no secret in Syria, and Lebanon, how this rebranded al-Qaeda has been intertwined with the militia mishmash that is known as the Southern Front. Their intel HQ is a US-led war-room based in Amman called the Military Operations Center (MOC), as Asia Times confirmed over two years ago. The MOC, staffed by US, UK, France, Jordan, Israel and a few GCC operatives, is responsible for funding, weaponizing, salaries and intelligence for the takfiri galaxy.

    The above map, even without getting into detail, at least shows how the rebranded al-Qaeda in Syria is firmly embedded in areas under control by “US-backed rebels.”

    Major border trouble

    The current Damascus offensive in Daraa will be compounded with an inevitable, further offensive towards the US base at Al Tanf, on the Syria-Iraq border.

    Al Tanf is absolutely key to the whole plot, because that’s where US advisers have been for all practical purposes rebranding takfiris into something called Maghawhir al Thawra (Commandos of the Revolution). These takfiri commandos are backed by US air power and have been attacking the SAA outside a “deconfliction zone” that the US has – unilaterally – set up within a 50-kilometer radius of Al Tanf.

    The Pentagon narrative is that the US must remain in Syria to fight Daesh. That does not add up considering the Commandos of the Revolution takfiri rebranding coupled with the fact it was the SAA, Iranian advisers, Hezbollah and Russia air power who did the heavy lifting against all takfiri outfits, including Daesh.    

    A few Hezbollah advisers are involved in the Daraa offensive. There are no Iranian advisers. Hezbollah special forces are present in areas near the Lebanese border. But the most important point is that after the jihadi outfits are destroyed, they won’t need to remain in Quneitra or near the occupied Golan Heights.

    Across the chessboard, what’s really significant, as Magnier notes, is how “the presence of Takfiri Wahhabi jihadists on the Israeli-Syrian borders represents – in Tel Aviv’s view – a security factor to the Israeli Army. And Israel would rather not see the Syrian state recovering and eliminating all terrorists and jihadists.”

    The Israeli military is, in fact, claiming that it “accepts” the SAA operations in Daraa and Quneitra. It’s as if Israel agrees to allow Syria to be operating inside … Syria.

    Analyst Sharmine Narwani, recently returned from Daraa, is adamant “the US, Israel and their allies cannot win this southern fight. They can only prolong the insecurity for a while before the SAA decides to launch a military campaign against the 54-plus-militias-Nusra occupying the south of Syria.”

    So there’s got to be a deal. And this is what Putin and Trump may be able to negotiate in Helsinki.

    No Takfiri left behind

    The key problem remains how to make Trump understand what’s at stake in terms of US forces leaving Al-Tanf. The Pentagon and the CIA absolutely love the idea of having the Maghawhir takfiris constantly attacking the SAA on the only available crossing between Syria and Iraq on al-Qaim-Albu-Kamal.

    The reality, though, will soon set in. Russia is sending extra Special Forces. The SAA is already preparing for the offensive. And the Iraqi People Mobilization Units (PMUs) will also join, everything coordinated by an operations command in Baghdad.

    All that is evidence the US does not “have” southern Syria. What the US does have is roughly 2,000 Special Forces embedded with the Kurdish YPG in the landlocked northeast and eastern Syria near the Turkish and Iraqi borders. Absolutely no one wants them there, except the YPG.

    It’s no secret the usual War Party suspects want Syria balkanized and unable to concentrate on economic recovery, with help from Russia, China and Iran, to become a key node in Eurasia integration.

    As for Putin’s priorities, they are crystal clear: Syria’s territorial integrity, the stability of the government in Damascus and The Gates of Hell for all takfiri jihadis, whatever their denomination, so there won’t be any further blowback in the Caucasus.

    It’s up to Trump, or the CIA, or the Pentagon if they insist on considering “No Takfiri Left Behind” a sound geopolitical strategy.

  • NASA To Test 'Quiet' Supersonic Booms Over Texas 

    The era of commercial supersonic flight could be just around the corner (again).

    This November, residents will get to hear “quiet” sonic booms as military jets race above the skies of Galveston, Texas, said NASA.

    NASA research pilot Jim “Clue” Less stands next to an F/A-18 that he is flying to help test low-boom flight research. (Source: Maria Werries/NASA)
     

    Part of the Low-Boom Flight Demonstration program (LBFD), the space agency recently awarded Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works a $247.5-million contract to design, build and flight test a low-boom X-plane that could produce a quiet supersonic aircraft in the next three to five years.

    The experimental aircraft dubbed X-59 “QueSST,” is scheduled to take to the skies in 2021 with a top velocity of 1.5 times the speed of sound, or about 990 miles per hour at an altitude of 55,000 feet. The jet will only have room for a pilot, as it tests design principles that soften the sonic boom.

    Artist drawing of the X-59 “QueSST” (Source: NASA)

    “It is super exciting to be back designing and flying X-planes at this scale,” said Jaiwon Shin, NASA’s associate administrator for aeronautics. “Our long tradition of solving the technical barriers of supersonic flight to benefit everyone continues.”

    The news comes about four months after President Trump signed the federal budget deal, which funds the Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator (LBFD) program. In the budget proposal, the Trump administration noted that the X-plane “would open a new market for U.S. companies to build faster commercial airliners, creating jobs and cutting cross-country flight times in half.”

    While the X-59 is more of a concept than reality, NASA will use McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornets over Galveston to imitate the sonic profile of the X-plane while residents and sound recording sensors document the sonic booms overhead — if there are any.

    During the tests this fall, F/A-18 Hornets will perform dives at supersonic speeds, making powerful sonic booms over the Gulf of Mexico and quieter booms over the coastal city. Simultaneously, a network of “audio sensors strategically placed around the city” will provide scientists with a decibel reading of how loud the sonic booms were, said NASA. About 500 local volunteers will be dispersed around the region to document their experience. The combination of audio sensors and the “human factor” will give scientists a better understanding if the LBFD program can produce “quiet” sonic booms.

    According to NASA, the Gulf Coast city was selected because of its location near the Gulf of Mexico, allowing the F/A-18s to keep its louder sonic booms (near the dive point) out to sea, while sending muffled sonic thumps [X-59 supersonic profile] towards the city.

    “We’ll never know exactly what everyone heard. We won’t have a noise monitor on their shoulder inside their home,” Alexandra Loubeau, NASA’s team lead for sonic boom community response research at Langley, Virginia, said in a statement. “But we’d like to at least have an estimate of the range of noise levels that they actually heard.”

    The technology behind the X-59’s noise-reducing ability is its uniquely shaped structure, designed so that supersonic shockwaves do not build up into strong sonic booms.

    “With the X-59 you’re still going to have multiple shockwaves because of the wings on the aircraft that create lift and the volume of the plane. But the airplane’s shape is carefully tailored such that those shockwaves do not combine,” said Ed Haering, a NASA aerospace engineer at Armstrong.

    “Instead of getting a loud boom-boom, you’re going to get at least two quiet thump-thump sounds, if you even hear them at all,” he said.

    “This is why the F/A-18 is so important to us as a tool. While construction continues on the X-59, we can use that diving maneuver to generate quiet sonic thumps over a specific area,” Haering added.

    The X-59 is expected for delivery by the second half of 2021. Once the prototype is built and its “quiet” sonic booms confirmed, NASA stated it would conduct test flights across the United States.

    Sonic booms have been a problem for aeronautical engineers for decades. In 1973, the U.S. banned commercial supersonic flights over the mainland for concern that sonic booms posed an extreme public nuisance. This was a significant challenge for the Anglo-French Concorde project to expand, which ultimately led to its retirement in 2003.

    While commercial supersonic airliners have been around for decades, commercial flights were halted following the Year 2000 crash of Air France Flight 4590. However, the Trump administration is making a move to reintroduce these planes by the mid-2020 period. That is, assuming “quiet” sonic booms can be confirmed via NASA.

    Meanwhile, the real test is about a decade later, because it is around early 2030 or mid-2030s when hypersonic airliners are expected to be introduced to the public domain. When that happens, and assuming commercial flight is cost-effective, it would spark the next “travel” revolution around the world.

  • The Babies Are Growing Up… And They're Gettting Cranky

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    When a baby is born, its parents teach it how to eat solid foods and walk and talk, which generally works out fine. Then they start teaching the baby all the lies their parents taught them, and things start to get messy.

    When the baby is old enough, they send it to school, where it spends twelve years being taught lies about how the world works so that one day it will be able to watch CNN and say “Yes, this makes perfect sense” instead of “This is ridiculous” or “Why does this whole entire thing seem completely fake?” or “I want to punch Chris Cuomo in the throat.”

    The baby is taught history, which is the study of the ancient, leftover propaganda from whichever civilization happened to win the wars in a given place at a given time.

    The baby is taught geography, so that later on when its country begins bombing another country, the baby’s country won’t be embarrassed if its citizens cannot find that country on a globe.

    The baby is taught obedience, and the importance of performing meaningless tasks in a timely manner. This prepares the baby for the half century of pointless gear-turning it will be expected to undertake after graduation.

    The baby is taught that it lives in a free country, with a legitimate electoral system which facilitates meaningful elections of actual representatives in a real government. It is never taught that those elections, representatives and government are all owned and operated by the very rich, who use them to ensure policies which make them even richer while keeping everyone else as poor as possible so that they won’t have to share political power. It is never taught that highly secretive intelligence and defense agencies form alliances with those rich people to advance murderous and exploitative agendas for profit and power. It is never taught that the things it sees on television are mostly lies.

    The baby is smoothly, seamlessly funneled from uterus to full-time employment through this system, often with a little religion mixed in to really drive home the importance of obedience and meekness and the nobility of poverty. From there the various screens in the baby’s life take over its continuing education, tightening the bolts of the propaganda cage and making sure that baby keeps turning those gears without asking too many questions. This continuing education continues until the baby dies in a mass shooting or nuclear holocaust, or of cancer from trying to numb the pain of living with cigarettes, or of liver failure from trying to numb the pain of living with alcohol, or of suicide because it just couldn’t take it anymore, or from its body and brain simply falling apart after a long, pointless, immensely unsatisfying life.

    So now you’ve got all these babies wandering around, just as confused and clueless as the day they were born, thinking thoughts they were told to think and believing beliefs they were told to believe. Some are better at feigning confidence than others, but one baby’s guess about what’s going on is really as good as the next baby’s. The only thing any of them have ever known is the stories that they have been told.

    So those stories get treated as something very important. All they’ve been taught to believe from womb to present moment tells them that it’s very important to keep turning those gears and walking in the same direction as all the other babies, so if all of a sudden one baby steps out of line and starts saying things like “Uhh, guys? We’re marching off a cliff of ecocide and omnicide. Maybe we should turn around?” or “It’s all a lie! We’re being exploited and deceived by an Orwellian oligarchy!”, that baby will usually sound crazy to all the other babies.

    “Shut up you crazy conspiracy theorist baby,” they might say.

    “We all agree on our story about what’s going on. Our parents told us the same story, our teachers told us the same story, the news man on TV told us the same story, and the politicians told us the same story. We can’t all be wrong!”

    But of course they can, and they are.

    All it takes is a dominant power structure wielding sufficient control of the stories that all the babies are told.

    Imagine, though, if one of the other babies stepped forward and said,

    You know what? Maybe that baby is right. None of the stories we’re told have ever added up.

    How come voting never seems to make much difference no matter who we elect and our lives stay shitty even though we always vote for the politician who promises to make them better?

    How come the news man on TV is always telling us about a New Official Bad Guy we need to go bomb, and how come it always happens the same way each time?

    And how come they can always afford all those big fancy bombs while we’re getting poorer and poorer?”

    Then the story of total agreement would be disrupted. If another baby steps forward and does the same thing the story loses even more weight. If those babies get better at communicating with other babies, say with the invention of the internet, more and more babies start questioning the official stories they’ve been told since birth, and before long there’s no more herd mentality keeping all the babies moving in the same direction.

    But those gears still need turning if the rich are going to remain rich and powerful. So they come up with even more stories to restore authority to their old stories about what’s going on. Stories about Russian propaganda, stories about fake news, stories about “useful idiots”, a term applied to babies who believe different stories from the ones they were taught by their parents and teachers and the news man. They do this because they know if they no longer have widespread consensus giving the illusion of credibility to their stories, they’re going to have to start relying on facts and evidence. And that won’t go well for them at all.

    And now the babies are growing restless. The babies are growing cranky. The old lullabies aren’t keeping them asleep anymore.

    The babies are waking up. The babies are growing up. Soon the babies won’t be babies anymore. Soon the babies will be able to tell their own stories. True stories.

    What will happen to those gears then? What will happen to the machines they power? The answer to that question is why the rich have been fighting so hard for so long to sing the old lullabies, and keep the babies asleep.

    *  *  *

    Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my website, so you’ll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat onPatreon or Paypalor buying my book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

  • Japanese Wages Unexpectedly Soar At Fastest Pace In 24 Years As Spending Crashes

    In his summary of today’s (disappointing) ADP report, Mark Zandi said that “Business’ number one problem is finding qualified workers. At the current pace of job growth, if sustained, this problem is set to get much worse. These labor shortages will only intensify across all industries and company sizes.” As it turns out, this is just one more way in which the US is gradually becoming like Japan.

    In his latest note, SocGen’s Albert Edwards cites a recent story in the Nikkei which reveals just how much worse America’s labor shortage problem could get as US demographics start to approximate those of Japan:

    “A record-high 98.0% of newly minted university graduates in Japan have landed jobs at the beginning of this fiscal year in April. The employment rate of job-seeking graduates rose 0.4 percentage point from a year earlier, up for the seventh consecutive year, in an annual survey conducted since 1997 by the labour and education ministries. The employment rate among new high school graduates who sought jobs as of the end of March gained 0.1 percentage point to 98.1%, up for the eighth straight year.”

    Now that’s what full employment looks like, and as Edwards further notes, “all this is happening without the help of large tax cuts and repatriated foreign earnings. Japan is enjoying what ostensibly appears to be a healthy, balanced recovery – albeit with the very large caveat that it is dependent on the most ludicrous QE ever seen in a modern economy.”

    But why if Japanese labor shortages are so extensive, and with a near record low unemployment rate, does Japan’s wage inflation remain so muted. Well, it actually isn’t: as Edwards also points out, “extreme labor shortages have seen a jump in wage inflation and household incomes are now growing some 3% yoy, dragging consumer spending growth kicking and screaming in its wake.”

    Then, on Friday morning Japan reported an absolutely barnburner of a number, confirming that wage inflation in Japan is indeed suddenly rampaging: nominal cash wages soared by 2.1% y/y in May, up from 0.6% in April and more than double the median estimate of 0.9%, matching the fastest increase since 1994. Basic wage growth accelerated to +1.5% yoy (April: +0.9%), and special wages rose 14.6%, lifting the overall wage reading by +0.6 points

    As a result, real wage growth increased sharply to +1.3% yoy, from -0.2% in April, after adjusting for a 0.8% yoy rise in May in the CPI excluding imputed rent.

    As a Bloomberg commentator said, “all that’s needed now is for Japanese households to start spending and the elusive inflation rise toward 2.0% may actually begin.”

    Alas, that’s isn’t happening because in a separate report, Japanese household spending tumbled -3.9%, more than double the -1.5% decline expected, and the biggest drop since August 2016.

    As Bloomberg’s Garfield Reynolds writes, “Japanese household thrift looks to be so ingrained as to dash any hopes that consumer demand will be able to spur economic growth and inflation.”

    Or, perhaps, none of this is real, and Japan is merely the latest nation to “Chinafy” its data reporting: as Goldman Sachs writes in a note on today’s report, based on the old sample groups, wage growth actually stagnated in May:

    As we have noted previously, roughly half of the sample group for the monthly labor statistics was replaced in January 2018, but the official statistics directly compare average wages for old and new sample groups on a yoy basis, possibly creating data distortion.

    The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) discloses wage growth data for old sample groups (companies still included in the survey) for reference purposes. According to these data, basic wages rose sharply to +0.7% yoy in May, from +0.1% in April. However, this merely represents a return to the trend from October 2017 through March 2018 (basic wages briefly declined sharply in April). Nominal cash wages in May came in at +0.2% yoy on an old sample basis, a slight decline from April (+0.4%).

    So which is it: is Japan simply statistically skewing the sample to fabricate and goal seek data it wants, “confirming” Abenomics is working when it isn’t, meanwhile Japan’s population refuses to spend (money which it may not have beyond some computer’s statistical model), or is the alternative more likely: that nothing at all has changed and that after 6 years of Abenomics, all Japan has to show for the biggest monetary experiment in history is a higher stock market, and a central bank which now owns 42% of the country’s bonds, and amount roughly equivalent to Japan’s GDP…

    … and will soon run out of bonds to buy…

  • Trump: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, & Hooverism Revisited?

    Authored by Dan Kurz via DKAnalytics.com,

    The good:

    “Red state” Americans, yours truly included, are grateful that President Trump is calling out the fake news for what it is: fake — and out to get any powerbrokers that threaten its pervasive media dominance.  Clearly, a media with a revolving-door to bureaucrats has facilitated unprecedented industry consolidation since President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  The increasingly incestuous, oligopolistic relationship between big government and big business has resulted in a crony press that rivals the Pravda (“truth”) press in the former USSR.  Thus, instead of news and a check on increasingly abusive government power as the Framers intended, the misnamed “Main Stream Media” (MSM) has been generating propaganda supportive of an increasingly fascist regime, i.e., the US government.

    Billionaire real estate and successful entertainment tycoon Donald Trump refused to become part of today’s MSM quid pro quo.  He didn’t have to, nor did he want to.  Instead, he took his “America First” (including bringing jobs back home) message to “flyover country” via the Internet/his Twitter account and as supplemented by his frequent, rousing, and well-attended speeches.  Critically, he was also backed by the one largely anti-leftist entity in the MSM, ratings dominating Fox News, which has long resonated with “red state” Americans.  Thus, the battle lines were drawn.  An all-out MSM backlash against this nonconformist ensued, and “news” morphed even more completely into statist, anti-Trumppropaganda, a.k,a., fake news.  It wasn’t only fabricated stories, one-sided allegations or quotes taken out of context, but utter and complete suppression by the vast majority of the MSM of lawless behaviorby those positioned at the top echelons of federal power during the prior administration as well as unconstitutional behavior being carried forward into the current administration and into the 115th US Congress.

    The Trump administration, however compromised, appears to be making a largely clandestine effort(via sealed indictments) to smoke out the “deep state” (the unelected bureaucracy and its hangers-on both inside and outside the government) lawlessness it has been a victim of.  Any success here, no matter how unlikely given the de facto “broad daylight conspiracy” — criminal decision makers keeping quiet buttressed by their staffs wanting to maintain the huge bureaucracy’s unconstitutional power, their outsized compensation and their privileged benefits status quo — would be monumental.  Such an achievement could spark a rule of law revival, arresting our B.R. trajectory. Meanwhile, a strategic return to greater constitutional fidelity is getting a sorely needed lift by Trump’s fine judge/justice selections!

    The bad:

    Trump’s integrity.  Is it there, when it counts, beyond his stellar judge selections and beyond the fact that he isn’t an “unindicted felon,” i.e., Hillary Clinton This isn’t an idle concern, for integrity begets and nourishes credibility, which is critical to a president’s “bully pulpit” efficacy in “troubled times.” 

    Some worrisome signs include:

    Instead of being honest about the long, tough road ahead to bring America back to manufacturing strength (reindustrialization takes time!), Trump has preferred exerting unconstitutional pressure on select manufacturers to highlight US job preservation thanks to his intervention, even as a closer look at such “agreements” disclosed heightened taxpayer expense and producers’ expanded outsourcing options. How does one spell demagoguery?

    The ugly:

    A potential Trump trade war is a huge risk to both the US and the global economy, but the US is especially vulnerable.  This is due to America’s largely self-inflicted manufacturing enfeeblement, its huge net dependency on foreign goods (just go to WalMart’s non-grocery aisles) and foreign financing, and its dependency on continued widespread overseas acceptance of dollar-based trade, … despite America’s $7.9trn net debtor status vis-à-vis the rest of the world, over $21trn in US debt, and the US’s decade-long $1trn plus average yearly expansion in federal debt

    Some reflections:

    • Is Trump going the Hoover route (dangerous “interventionism” and an escalating trade war)? Hoover was a leading industrialist before he became president.  Are we about to revisit this dark chapter in history?

    • A nation that has an $800bn plus annual deficit in goods trade and has lost a vital portion of its manufacturing base can ill afford to start a trade war, from consumers’ or producers’ perspectives. It needs component parts that are often made only overseas nowadays (think the “787” or US-assembled cars) to produce high-value added finished products for domestic consumption and for exports, much less give it the ability to restore a domestic supplier base and address destructive corporate governance and compensation (more below).

    • Tariffs are taxes on Americans that the feds collect – we thought Trump was about shrinking government?

    • Protectionism (tariffs) is the worst form of cronyism: domestic steel and aluminum shareholders and their “Wilbur Ross cronies” will do fine, but domestic manufacturers of Maytag washers, Ford trucks, Harley Davidson motorcycles, GE locomotives, CAT dozers, Carrier chillers, etc. (and their workforces) will be negatively impacted or worse (bankruptcy). This is thanks to the resulting uncompetitive materials costs and/or retail prices that are out of consumers’ reach both domestically and in export markets, where outfits such as Harley will face a one-two punch of higher domestic steel and aluminum prices and tit-for-tat import tariffs for US made bikes.

    • Trump should solely be talking up lowering tariffs globally — e.g., seeking Mexico’s zero tariffs to 44 nations.

    • As is widely known, our top brass corporate compensation structure (CEO compensation was some 20x the average worker in 1965 and 271x in 2016), including $7m CEO signing bonuses and relatively rapid vesting of untold millions of underpriced options, coupled with litigation and regulatory insanity have come together to yield a “slash & burn” business model. In today’s world, the C-Suite a) no longer has parallel strategic organic growth interests (p. 5) with the American workers, taxpayers, and communities, b) is incentivized to cut/gut domestic cap ex instead of investing, and c) is motivated to outsource and fire domestically instead of hiring and training American workers.  Today’s senior management is rewarded for slashing costs while buying back stock with both cash flow and by issuing trillions in new debt to give EPS a “financial engineering lift.”  The C-Suite focus: drive up the stock price ASAP instead of focusing on building globally competitive products, which is an unending effort.  As such, “corporate anorexia“ has become the destructive norm.  Coupled with lacking trade schools, a failing educational system, and perpetually large government deficits, these are the true flies in the ointment!

    Unfortunately, such truths don’t make for great soundbites, but they remain truths.  Plus, other high-wage workforces (with generally better paid workers than in the US) operating in generally strong currency nations — e.g., SwitzerlandGermany, and, for a long time, Japan — have generated sustained and substantial trade surpluses of recent vintage that sometimes extended for decades, and typically included surpluses with China.

    Commensurately, those that blame high US wages or a strong buck as “America’s chief culprits” are just not getting the big picture right, much less how to best address it: with “brick-by-brick” home-grown solutions (for largely home-made problems) instead of with misleading, silly, and patronizing claims of having (virtually) instantly “made America great again!”  Moreover, reputational integrity does matter when a president is attempting to make constructive deals for his country.  Yes, Virginia, both policy and integrity (character) matter.

    Allocation conclusion:

    If, against all odds, the rule of law is restored in the US and the lawless actors infesting the governing class/controlling the instrumentalities of power are brought to justice, the profound and breath-takingly stunning “gravity of it all” would rapidly turn greed into fear in terms of so-called “traditional asset” valuations.  In other words, sales would drive risk premiums much higher and net present values much lower, pricking today’s “bubble valuations.”

    In the meantime, the US government’s reckless, deficitary fiscal policy would be even more exposed in a GDP-pummeling trade war — we are already way overdue for a recession amidst a historically weak, productivity-waning, debt-encumbered, artificial recovery.  Huge US commitments, political calculations, and a fiat currency — “The US can pay any debt …it just can’t guarantee purchasing power” — could result in unprecedented amounts of dollar printing.  It appears to be more a question of “when” rather than “if.”  This suggests that the buck will be sacrificed in a tactical attempt to protect money center bank balance sheets (and the Fed itself) from “valuation meltdowns” and to meet “nominal dollar commitments” of a strategic nature.  Monetization of debt would become permanent and be expanded upon.  How does one spell doubling-down on currency debasement?  Against this backdrop, it is hard to imagine a secularly more bullish case for undervalued precious metals — and a more opportune time to reduce exposure to massively overvalued bonds and stocks.  (And please recall, markets are “reversion beyond the mean machines!”)

    Finally, it is fitting indeed, on Independence Day, that we celebrate America’s historical blueprints — The Declaration of Independence, which led to the first-ever strict enumeration of governmental powers and codification of individual liberty and inalienable rights, otherwise known as the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.  How appropriate that Americans, and proponents of codified freedom around the globe, still have the unique opportunity to fortify their financial fortunes with the very “constitutional money” that could prove pivotal in the challenging times ahead in terms of supporting their families and in terms of helping to rebuild a return to free market capitalism and constitutionalism.  An increasing number of originalist/constitutional judges should be of strategic help.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 5th July 2018

  • Maduro "Promotes" 16,900 Venezuelan Soldiers As Reward For "Loyalty"

    Venezuelan President Murderous Dictator Nicolas Maduro has managed to hang on to power in large part because he’s kept Venezuela’s military firmly in the pro-Socialist camp. So, as the country’s political and economic crisis worsens, Maduro is doing his best to keep the military on his side. Case in point: He just promoted 16,900 soldiers, calling it a reward for their “loyalty,” the BBC reports.

    The promotions come as opposition politicians, who were notoriously shut out of Venezeula’s elections this spring, have called on the military to side “with the people” against their socialist oppressors. The promotions also come just a week and a half after the UN Human Rights body released a report accusing the country’s security forces of hundreds of unnecessary and arbitrary killings, alleging that there has been “a pattern of disproportionate and unnecessary use of force by security forces.”

    Maduro

    Yet the country’s defense ministry congratulated the soldiers and thanked them for their service.

    Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino said those promoted had been “loyal to the constitutionally elected president,” and he also praised them “for respecting human rights.”

    […]

    Speaking at a ceremony in the capital, Caracas, Gen Padrino said those members of the armed forces who had been promoted had played a key role in securing “the institutional stability in the country and the safeguarding of Venezuelan democracy and peace”.

    A little over a month ago, President Maduro demanded that members of the armed forces sign a document declaring their loyalty.

    Meanwhile, dozens of high-ranking officers have been imprisoned over allegations they helped further a Western US-backed plot to undermine the Maduro regime. Just two weeks ago, the government sent soldiers to 100 food markets to make sure that mandatory price controls for food were being enforced. Violators were accused of furthering the alleged Western-backed plot that has served as the centerpiece of Maduro’s propaganda.

    And in case you were wondering where Maduro is getting the funds to prevent a military coup (like the one that reportedly nearly took place earlier this year), Venezuela just revealed that China has agreed to lend the country another $5 billion to increase in oil output.

    This is hardly unusual. According to Foreign Policy, between 2007 and 2014, China lent Venezuela $63 billion after finding an ideological ally in former President Hugo Chavez, who launched the socialist “Bolivarian revolution” that continues to this day. To put this in context, that amount equals more than half of China’s lending to Latin America. According to Business Insider, China remains Venezuela’s largest lender, with $23 billion in outstanding debt.

    However, to guarantee repayment, Beijing has typically insisted on being repaid in oil. That has become an increasingly burdensome request following the 2014 collapse in oil prices (though that might soon change as prices move back toward the $100 a barrel mark). Still, despite the troubles in Venezuela, the country remains an important component of President Xi Jinping’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, which seeks to spread China’s economic influence around the world. Russia has also made its share of loans to the country. Which raises the question of whether China and Russia can save the Maduro regime from a mass uprising that threatens to unseat the president – particularly as crude production continues to fall, meaning that Venezuela is missing out on many of the benefits of the recovery in crude prices.

    Oil

  • Moldova's "Deep State" Is Exploiting The UN To Undermine Peace In Transnistria

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

    The UN General Assembly recently demanded the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers from Transnistria.

    The non-legally binding decree was passed with a simple majority and intended to send a political message to both Russia and Moldovan President Dodon.

    The first-mentioned has had its troops deployed in the contested region for more than two decades per an international agreement with the official host state of Moldova, with this occurring in the chaos of the post-Soviet collapse and intended to prevent a resumption of the separatist conflict.

    As for the second one, President Dodon is embroiled in a ‘deep state’ civil war in which the Atlanticist elements of his permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies are trying to sabotage his pro-Eurasian “balancing” act with Russia in order to streamline the country’s admission to the EU and NATO, both of which would imply a militant “solution” to the Transnistrian issue first.

    The UN General Assembly Resolution was therefore accurately interpreted by the Russian Foreign Ministry as “propaganda for certain political forces in Moldova”, with First Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Dmitry Polyansky lamenting that:

    “The outcome of the voting is regretful for us… (because) excessive politicization of the problem occurred at the very moment when we see certain progress in talks between Chisinau and Tiraspol.”

    That’s indeed the case, as President Dodon’s Atlanticist “deep state” enemies want to rekindle this frozen conflict to the extent that it provokes the renewal of low-intensity hostilities that could then be misleadingly framed as so-called “Russian aggression” in order to continue piling pressure on the country’s interests in Moldova.

    Analyzed from this perspective, the West is “reverse-engineering” the scenario needed for making this as “convincing” to the international public as possible, hence the need to construct the perception of UN approval for its anti-Russian demands that – if ever implemented – would surely lead to an outbreak of hostilities against the breakaway region much worse than what happened during Saakashvili’s 2008 attack against South Ossetia.

    It’s precisely for this reason why Russia won’t ever unilaterally abandon its partners in Transnistria like the Resolution demands that it do and why Moscow interprets this as a political signal more than anything else.

    All told, the increasingly renewed attention being given by the West to the Transnistrian conflict portends its possible thawing, all with the intent of opening up another Hybrid War battlefront for “containing” Russia.

  • Paul Craig Roberts: "July 4th Is Matrix-Reinforcement Day"

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    July 4, 2018, is the 242 anniversary of the date chosen to stand as the date the 13 British colonies declared independence. According to historians, the actual date independence was declared was July 2, 1776, with the vote of the Second Continental Congress. Other historians have concluded that the Declaration of Independence was not actually signed until August 2.

    For many living in the colonies the event was not the glorious one that is presented in history books. There was much opposition to the separation, and the “loyalists” were killed, confiscated, and forced to flee to Canada. Some historians explain the event not as a great and noble enterprise of freedom and self-government, but as the manipulations of ambitious men who saw opportunity for profit and power.

    For most Americans today the Fourth of July is a time for fireworks, picnics, and a patriotic speech extolling those who “fought for our freedom” and for those who defended it in wars ever since. These are feel good speeches, but most of them make very little sense. Many of our wars have been wars of empire, seizing lands from the Spanish, Mexicans, and indigenous tribes. The US had no national interest in WW 1 and and very little in WW 2. There was no prospect of Germany and Japan invading the US. Once Hitler made the mistake of invading the Soviet Union, the European part of World War 2 was settled by the Red Army. The Japanese had no chance of standing up to Mao and Stalin. American participation was not very important to either outcome.

    No Fourth of July orator will say this, and it is unlikely any will make reference to the seven or eight countries that Washington has destroyed in whole or part during the 21st century or to the US overthrow of the various reform governments that have been elected in Latin America. The Fourth of July is a performance to reinforce The Matrix in which Americans live.

    When the Fourth of July comes around, I re-read the words of US Marine General Smedley Butler.

    General Butler is the most highly decorated US officer in history. By the end of his career, he had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of only three men to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.

    Butler served in all officer ranks that existed in the US Marines of his time, from Second Lieutenant to Major General.

    He said that “during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”

    Butler says he was a long time escaping from The Matrix and that he wishes “more of today’s military personnel would realize that they are being used by the owning elite as a publicly subsidized capitalist goon squad.”

    Butler wrote:

    “WAR is a racket. It always has been.

    “It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    “A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

    A few profit — and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can’t end it by disarmament conferences. You can’t eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can’t wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

    “The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nation’s manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation — it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.”

    In November, 1935, Butler wrote in Common Sense magazine:

    “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period…

    I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914.

    I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.

    I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.

    I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912.

    I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916.

    I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903.

    In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

    Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

    The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned Americans 57 years ago, adroitly uses the Fourth of July to portray America’s conflicts in a positive light in order to protect its power and profit institutionalized in the US government.

    In stark contrast, by the end of his career General Butler saw it differently.

    Washington has never fought for “freedom and democracy,” only for power and profit. Butler said that “there are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”

    Today the anti-gun lobby and militarized police have made it very difficult to fight for the defense of our homes, and the War on Terror has destroyed the Bill of Rights. If there could be a second American revolution, maybe we could try again.

  • Japan Limits Overtime To 99 Hours A Month To Curb "Death By Overwork"

    Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s struggle to combat incidences of Karoshi – a Japanese term for “death by overwork” – reached an key milestone on Friday, when Japan’s parliament approved a bill that limits overtime work to less than 100 hours a month per worker, and less than 720 hours per year, while setting penalties for companies that violate the new labor rules, according to the Wall Street Journal.

    Before the law, there was no limit to the number of hours companies could ask their employees to work, as long as labor unions didn’t make a fuss.

    Japan

    Recently released government data revealed that Japan’s jobless rate touched 2.2% in May, the lowest level in 26 years. And as Japan’s working-age population dwindles, job openings have outpaced the number of workers available to fill them: As a reference, two months ago, there were 160 job offers available for every 100 workers seeking a job.

    The law should also improve working conditions for “nonregular” workers – what we would call “temps” in the US – who lack the job security of their salaried peers.

    “Work-style reforms are the best means to improve labor productivity,” Mr. Abe said in Parliament June 4. “We will correct long working hours and improve people’s balance between work and life.”

    The new law also seeks to improve the lot of Japan’s growing pool of “nonregular” workers in temporary or part-time jobs who don’t have the job security of full-time regular employees. It says employers must pay equally for the same work, regardless of workers’ status. In a 2016 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Abe said he wanted to “eliminate the word ‘nonregular’ from the lexicon.”

    The suicide of a 24-year-old female employee of Japanese advertising firm Dentsu helped inspire the law, as the government and the young woman’s family condemned Japan’s culture of long working hours.

    In addition to the curbing suicides, Abe hopes that limiting workers’ hours will help reverse or at least arrest the country’s declining productivity (although it wasn’t exactly clear how). Declining productivity has been the scourge of the developed world, including the US, where the issue has mystified the Federal Reserve and economists, who fail to explain the lack of a rebound in US economic output.

    That said, Japan isn’t the only Asian country where work-life balance is hopelessly out out of whack. In South Korea, a law that lowered the country’s maximum workweek to 52 hours, down from 68, also took effect this week. Altogether, workers in South Korea will be allowed to work the standard 40 hours, with an additional 12 hours of overtime thrown in.

    South Korea

    One Seoul resident interviewed by the Straits Times said she was “delighted” by the news. A small business owner, she said she left her large office to start her own company because the owners chose to keep the office perpetually understaffed, guaranteeing that workers would need to stay late to finish their work.

    Under the law, which slashed the maximum weekly work hours to 52 from 68, workers in South Korea will be allowed to work 40 hours and an additional 12 hours of overtime.

    Those who make their employees work more than 52 hours weekly now face up to two years in prison or a fine of up to 20 million won (S$24,484).

    “I’m delighted by the news,” said Shin Na-eun, 29, a Seoul resident who runs her own business after quitting her job at a large-size firm two years ago.

    “There were many reasons why I quit my job, which was seen as stable by many. One of the reasons was definitely the heavy workload.”

    Shin said in her experience, no one really forced her to stay late in the office. Rather, it was her workload that made it impossible for her to leave work on time. She said the office was understaffed, and that she had to bring her work home on many occasions.

    “I’m not naive enough to believe that this law will change everything overnight, but I feel like we are certainly going in the right direction,” she said.

    Before the new law, studies showed that the average South Korean worked 40 hours a week, combined with an additional 16 hours of overtime. However, not all South Korean workers are so enthusiastic. Indeed, many fear that companies will continue to pressure workers to put in long hours at the office – but because of the law, workers won’t receive any compensation for this overtime since reporting it would be illegal.

    Yet others are angry about the overtime they stand to lose, arguing that they preferred the status quo.

    “What if you prefer money or work over life?” one anonymous office worker told the Straits Times. “I think those who want to work more and thereby make more money should have the right to do so.”

  • Meet Hadrian, The Brick Laying Robot That Will Make Construction Workers Obsolete

    Across the US, cities are independently passing measures to implement a $15 minimum wage – or mandating higher wages with an eye toward one day achieving that goal. But low-wage workers who are celebrating their fatter paychecks should enjoy the feeling while it lasts…because the more expensive workers become, the faster employers will work to replace those human workers with robots who can do the same job for a fraction of the cost.

    Already, the first burger restaurant run entirely by a robot has opened in San Francisco. But progress in robotics hasn’t been confined to the food service industry. Last year, we introduced SAM (Semi-Automated Mason), a bricklaying robot that can do the work of 6 unionized masons every single day, without a break, benefits or a paycheck. And as it turns out, SAM already has some competition. Enter Fastbrick Robotics’ Hadrian X, a brick-laying robot that will soon be capable of constructing whole homes by itself. According to the company’s website, Hadrian is capable of constructing the walls of a home in a single day.

    To be sure, the Hadrian is still being tested. FBR anticipates that the bricklaying robot will have constructed its first home, completely from scratch, by the end of 2018. But Hadrian’s home-building prowess is already on display in a video released by the company.

    Unlike human workers, Hadrian can be mounted to a truck, crane or boat to make transportation easier. It also relies on stabilization technology that allows it to work through wind and other environmental factors that might stymie human workers. But perhaps most impressively, Hadrian can take a design from an engineer’s CAD software and build it – all without the help of human workers. 

    Hadrian

    Indeed, Hadrian could start building homes quickly and cheaply in the very near future, replacing whole teams of human workers, since it’s designed to work alone. And unfortunately for the bricklayers that Hadrian could displace, there are no shoppers looking for assistance on a construction site, or other “customer-facing” construction site roles to which they can seamlessly transition.

  • US Vows To Keep Gulf Waterway Open After Iran Threatens Blockade

    As Americans are busy with July 4th celebrations, the temperature is heating up in the Persian Gulf a day after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani suggested Iran could stop all regional gulf oil exports in retaliation for the US seeking to collapse the nuclear deal, and in response to aggressive new US sanctions. 

    Image source: Vestnik Kavkaza

    “The Americans have claimed they want to completely stop Iran’s oil exports. They don’t understand the meaning of this statement, because it has no meaning for Iranian oil not to be exported, while the region’s oil is exported,” the state-run website, president.ir, quoted Rouhani as saying. “The Americans say they want to reduce Iranian oil exports to zero… It shows they have not thought about its consequences,” Rouhani said. 

    After the provocative Iranian statements, widely understood as a threat to impose military blockade on the world’s most crucial oil choke point, spokesman for the US military’s Central Command, Captain Bill Urban, told the Associated Press on Wednesday that US sailors and its regional allies “stand ready to ensure the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce wherever international law allows”.

    Washington has issued an ultimatum to countries dealing with Iran: halt all imports of Iranian oil from Nov. 4 or face punitive US economic measures with no exemptions. Rouhani called these threats “crime and aggression” and an act of “self-harm” as the unwavering stance is “against U.S. national interests and the interests of other countries.” He said this while in Vienna attempting to rally European governments to stand against Trump’s policies targeting Tehran. 

    Previous threats by Iranian officials to possibly take the drastic action of blocking the the Strait of Hormuz — though once easily shrugged off as empty talk — are now coming to a head as the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has thrown its full weight behind Rouhani’s words, to which the Pentagon responded, issuing its firm response promising to keep the waterway open through military action if need be.

    Though Rouhani’s initial words could be somewhat open to interpretation, IRGC commander Major-General Qassem Soleimani followed up on Wednesday in a published letter addressed to the Iranian president: “Your comments, carried by the media, that if the Islamic Republic’s oil isn’t exported there would be no guarantees for the whole region’s oil to be exported, is a very valuable comment,” Soleimani wrote, “I kiss your (Rouhani’s) hand for expressing such wise and timely comments, and I am at your service to implement any policy that serves the Islamic Republic,” he said. 

    As Quds force leader (the special forces IRGC unit engaged in of foreign operations), Soleimani is precisely the one who would oversee such an operation as blocking Gulf exports. The Straight of Hormuz at its narrowest is about 31 miles wide and approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil passes through it, annd the IRGC has in the past threatened the passageway by conducting war games, such as during a period of heightened tensions with the West over the straight in 2011 and 2012. 

    via AFP

    To put things in perspective considering potential disruption, the last major crisis of global economic consequence took place nearly three decades ago

    The largest oil market disruption ever occurred in August 1990, when Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait took 4.3 million barrels per day of oil off the market—about 6.5 percent of world supply. That stoppage caused world oil prices to double (from about $20 to $40 per barrel). But a blockade of Hormuz would cut off nearly four times as much oil as the Kuwait crisis did, disrupting a share of the oil market three times greater.

    Meanwhile, Iran OPEC governor, Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, weighed in with dire warnings in statements carried by Iran’s oil ministry news agency SHANA.

    “Trump’s demand that Iranian oil should not be bought, and (his) pressures on European firms at a time when Nigeria and Libya are in crisis, when Venezuela’s oil exports have fallen due to U.S. sanctions, when Saudi’s domestic consumption has increased in summer, is nothing but self harm,” Ardebili said. 

    “It will increase the prices of oil in the global markets,” he said, and echoing Rouhani’s theme of US “self-harm” he added, “At the end it is the American consumer who will pay the price for Mr. Trump’s policy.”

    So far the EU is standing by Iran as a major longtime oil importer, but some European officials have acknowledged US sanctions will create an unpredictable environment, potentially making guarantees to Tehran impossible to fulfill. 

    Iran has reportedly taken measures to gear up for survival amidst the coming economic war, according to Bloomberg, offering to barter oil for goods. “We have informed our oil customers that we will only buy their commodities if they buy our crude,” stated the spokesman for Parliament’s energy commission.

    This reportedly the result of OPEC’s third-largest producer being unable to bring dollars or euros in exchange for crude because of “banking problems,” which, according to the spokesman, means Iran is open to alternative means of payment, including medical equipment and agricultural products.

    Concerning this week’s heightened rhetoric over the Straight of Hormuz, should the IRGC attempt to block it, such a drastic retaliatory measure would most certainly spark war in the Persian Gulf. 

  • Europe Turns Down Chinese Offer For Grand Alliance Against The US

    Publicizing its growing exasperation in dealing with president Donald Trump who refuses to halt the tit-for-tat retaliation in the growing trade war with China – which is set to officially begin on Friday when the US slaps $34 billion in Chinese exports with 25% tariffs – but has a habit of doubling down the threatened US reaction to every Chinese trade counteroffer (after all the US imports far more Chinese goods than vice versa)…

    … China has proposed a novel idea: to form an alliance with the EU – the world’s largest trading block – against the US, while promising to open up more of China’s economy to European corporations.

    The idea was reportedly floated in meetings in Brussels, Berlin and Beijing, between senior Chinese officials, including Vice Premier Liu He and the Chinese government’s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, according to Reuters. Willing to use either a carrot or a stick to achieve its goals, in these meetings China has been putting pressure on the European Union to issue a strong joint statement against President Donald Trump’s trade policies at a summit later this month.

    However, perhaps because China’s veneer of the leader of the free trade world is so laughably shallow – China was and remains a pure mercantilist power, whose grand total of protectionist policies put both the US and Europe to shame – the European Union has outright rejected any idea of allying with Beijing against Washington ahead of a Sino-European summit in Beijing on July 16-17.

    Instead, in the tradition of every grand, if ultimately worthless meeting of the G-X nations, the summit is expected to produce a “modest communique”, which affirms the commitment of both sides to the multilateral trading system and promises to set up a working group on modernizing the WTO. Incidentally, the past two summits, in 2016 and 2017, ended without a statement due to disagreements over the South China Sea and trade.

    Then there is China’s “free-trade” reputation: a recent Rhodium Group report showed that Chinese restrictions on foreign investment are higher in every single sector save real estate, compared to the European Union, while many of the big Chinese takeovers in the bloc would not have been possible for EU companies in China. And while China has promised to open up, EU officials expect any moves to be more symbolic than substantive.

    Almost as if behind the facade of smiles and agreement, Europe has absolutely no belief that Beijing will ever follow through with its promises.

    In other words, not even when faced with the specter of a full-blown trade war, is Europe willing to terminally alienate the world’s biggest buying power: the US consumer, in exchange for some vague promises for “open trade” from Beijing.

    That doesn’t mean that China won’t try however.

    Vice Premier Liu He has said privately that China is ready to set out for the first time what sectors it can open to European investment at the annual summit, expected to be attended by President Xi Jinping, China’s Premier Li Keqiang and top EU officials.

    Meanwhile, as the US-China trade war has drifted into the front pages of domestic propaganda, Chinese state media has been promoting the message that the European Union is on China’s side, putting the bloc in a delicate position according to Reuters.

    In a commentary on Wednesday, China’s official Xinhua news agency said China and Europe “should resist trade protectionism hand in hand”.

    “China and European countries are natural partners,” it said. “They firmly believe that free trade is a powerful engine for global economic growth.”

    Or maybe Europe’s position is not all that delicate, because when push comes to shove, Europe is nowhere near ready to abandon its trans-Atlantic trade routes:

    “China wants the European Union to stand with Beijing against Washington, to take sides,” one European diplomat told Reuters. “We won’t do it and we have told them that.”

    But why does Europe – which has so staunchly publicized its disagreement with Trump’s policies – refuse to align with China? Simple: behind closed doors it admits that Trump’s complaints about Beijing are, drumroll, spot on.

    Despite Trump’s tariffs on European metals exports and threats to hit the EU’s automobile industry, Brussels shares Washington’s concern about China’s closed markets and what Western governments say is Beijing’s manipulation of trade to dominate global markets.

    “We agree with almost all the complaints the U.S. has against China, it’s just we don’t agree with how the United States is handling it,” another diplomat told Reuters.

    And while Europe’s position is understandable, if hypocritical – after all if it believes that Trump’s approach to dealing with an ascendant China is the right one, why not just say it – the attention will shift to China, and the admission that Beijing is terrified about the consequences of a full blown trade war.

    As Reuters notes, China’s stance is striking given Washington’s deep economic and security ties with European nations. It shows the depth of Chinese concern about a trade war with Washington, as Trump is set to impose tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Chinese imports on July 6.

    It also underscores China’s new boldness in trying to seize leadership amid divisions between the United States and its European, Canadian and Japanese allies over issues including free trade, climate change and foreign policy.

    “Trump has split the West, and China is seeking to capitalize on that. It was never comfortable with the West being one bloc,” said a European official involved in EU-China diplomacy.

    Wait, that’s the exact same thing the media claims about Putin is doing, although usually in the context of some grand “Kremlin mastermind” when the establishment does not get the desired outcome. The irony is that whereas Putin is merely sitting back and enjoying the show, it is China that is actively engaging in secretive negotiations trying to shift the global balance of power.

    “China now feels it can try to split off the European Union in so many areas, on trade, on human rights,” the official said.

    So, when “they” say Putin, they really mean Xi? Confusing…

    * * *

    Never one to act without a long-term strategic plan, Beijing’s approach to cozy up with Europe may have an entirely different motive than isolating Trump: China’s offer at the upcoming summit to open up reflects Beijing’s concern that it is set to face tighter EU controls. Just like in the US, the European Union is seeking to pass legislation to allow greater scrutiny of foreign investments.

    Said otherwise, China is suddenly scrambling because it realizes that unless it locks up Europe, it may well be Trump who succeeds in convincing Brussels to sign a bilateral deal with the US, at the expense of cracking down even more on China, a move which would send China’s annual GDP growth well below 6% as Beijing loses full access to its biggest trading partner.

    Summarizing Europe’s position, a third diplomat told Reuters quite simply that “we don’t know if this offer to open up is genuine yet,” adding that “it’s unlikely to mark a systemic change.”

    To be sure, European envoys say they already sensed a greater urgency from China in 2017 to find like-minded countries willing to stand up against Trump’s “America First” policies. And yet, according to the Reuters report, Europe is not one of those “like-minded countries.”

    Almost as if everything that is publicly taking place on the international stage is nothing but a spectacle, one in which everyone’s true motivations are 180 degrees the opposite of what is stated.

  • Trump Reportedly Asked Aides About Invading Venezuela

    Apparently, President Trump’s offhanded remarks about sending tanks to Venezuela were more than just a scare tactic. Trump reportedly asked a group of senior administration officials why the US couldn’t simply invade Venezuela during a meeting in the Oval Office, according to the New York Post. The meeting was called to discuss sanctions against members of the Venezuelan regime.

    Trump

    ​Trump’s suggestion shocked members of his administration who were in the room, including former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former national security adviser HR McMaster. Months later, Trump was told by his aides not to mention his invasion suggestion during private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. But he did it anyway, surprising members of his staff. Trump also raised the idea with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos.

    McMaster was reportedly among the advisors who explained to the president that a strike against Venezuela could jeopardize US support with other Latin American governments that have also condemned Maduro’s treatment of his political opposition. Still, Trump persisted, bringing up the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.

    Maduro
    President Nicolas Maduro

    The day after the meeting, Trump publicly raised the possibility of a “military option” for ending the unrest in Venezuela.

    “We are all over the world and we have troops all over the world in places that are very, very far away,” the president said. “Venezuela is not very far away and the people are suffering, and they are dying. We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option if necessary.”

    Within days, Maduro organized a rally that filled the street’s of Caracas with government loyalists, who condemned “Emperor Trump’s” aggressive rhetoric.

    Since Trump’s inauguration, the US, Canada and Europe have levied sanctions on dozens of senior government officials, including Maduro, over allegations of corruption, drug trafficking and human rights abuses.

  • Whitehead: The Danger Is Real – We Need a New Declaration Of Independence For Modern Times

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”—Thomas Paine, December 1776

    Imagine living in a country where armed soldiers crash through doors to arrest and imprison citizens merely for criticizing government officials.

    Imagine that in this very same country, you’re watched all the time, and if you look even a little bit suspicious, the police stop and frisk you or pull you over to search you on the off chance you’re doing something illegal. 

    Keep in mind that if you have a firearm of any kind while in this country, it may get you arrested and, in some circumstances, shot by police.

    If you’re thinking this sounds like America today, you wouldn’t be far wrong.

    However, the scenario described above took place more than 200 years ago, when American colonists suffered under Great Britain’s version of an early police state. It was only when the colonists finally got fed up with being silenced, censored, searched, frisked, threatened, and arrested that they finally revolted against the tyrant’s fetters.

    No document better states their grievances than the Declaration of Independence.

    A document seething with outrage over a government which had betrayed its citizens, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, by 56 men who laid everything on the line, pledged it all—“our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free.

    Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives. 

    Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated. Even after they had won their independence from Great Britain, these new Americans worked to ensure that the rights they had risked their lives to secure would remain secure for future generations. The result: our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

    Imagine the shock and outrage these 56 men would feel were they to discover that 242 years later, the government they had risked their lives to create has been transformed into a militaristic police state in which exercising one’s freedoms is often viewed as a flagrant act of defiance.

    Indeed, had the Declaration of Independence been written today, it would have rendered its signers terrorists, resulting in them being placed on a government watch list, targeted for surveillance of their activities and correspondence, and potentially arrested, held indefinitely, stripped of their rights and labeled enemy combatants.

    The danger is real.

    We could certainly use some of that revolutionary outrage today.

    Certainly, we would do well to reclaim the revolutionary spirit of our ancestors and remember what drove them to such drastic measures in the first place.

    Then again, perhaps what we need is a new Declaration of Independence.

    Re-read the Declaration of Independence for yourself and ask yourself if the abuses suffered by early Americans at the hands of the British police state don’t bear a startling resemblance to the abuses “we the people” are suffering at the hands of the American police state.

    If you find the purple prose used by the Founders hard to decipher, here’s my translation of what the Declaration of Independence would look and sound like if it were written in the modern vernacular:

    There comes a time when a populace must stand united and say “enough is enough” to the government’s abuses, even if it means getting rid of the political parties in power.

    Believing that “we the people” have a natural and divine right to direct our own lives, here are truths about the power of the people and how we arrived at the decision to sever our ties to the government:

    All men and women are created equal.

    All people possess certain innate rights that no government or agency or individual can take away from them. Among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    The government’s job is to protect the people’s innate rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The government’s power comes from the will of the people.

    Whenever any government abuses its power, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and replace it with a new government that will respect and protect the rights of the people.

    It is not wise to get rid of a government for minor transgressions. In fact, as history has shown, people resist change and are inclined to suffer all manner of abuses to which they have become accustomed. 

    However, when the people have been subjected to repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the purpose of establishing a tyrannical government, people have a right and duty to do away with that tyrannical Government and to replace it with a new government that will protect and preserve their innate rights for their future wellbeing.

    This is exactly the state of affairs we are under suffering under right now, which is why it is necessary that we change this imperial system of government.

    The history of the present Imperial Government is a history of repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the intention of establishing absolute Tyranny over the country. 

    To prove this, consider the following:

    The government has, through its own negligence and arrogance, refused to adopt urgent and necessary laws for the good of the people.

    The government has threatened to hold up critical laws unless the people agree to relinquish their right to be fully represented in the Legislature.

    In order to expand its power and bring about compliance with its dictates, the government has made it nearly impossible for the people to make their views and needs heard by their representatives.

    The government has repeatedly suppressed protests arising in response to its actions.

    The government has obstructed justice by refusing to appoint new judges and has demanded that the Court comply with the government’s dictates.

    The government has allowed its agents to harass the people and steal from them.

    The government has directed militarized government agents—a.k.a., a standing army—to police domestic affairs in peacetime.

    The government has turned the country into a militarized police state.

    The government has conspired to undermine the rule of law and the constitution in order to expand its own powers.

    The government has allowed its militarized police to invade our homes.

    The government has failed to hold its agents accountable for wrongdoing and murder.

    The government has jeopardized our international trade agreements.

    The government has taxed us without our permission.

    The government has denied us due process and the right to a fair trial.

    The government has engaged in extraordinary rendition.

    The government has continued to expand its military empire and occupy foreign nations.

    The government has eroded fundamental legal protections and destabilized the structure of government.

    The government has declared its federal powers superior to those of the states.

    The government has ceased to protect the people and instead waged war against the people.

    The government has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of the people.

    The government has employed private contractors and mercenaries to carry out acts of death, desolation and tyranny, totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

    The government has pitted its citizens against each other.

    The government has stirred up civil unrest and laid the groundwork for martial law.

    Repeatedly, we have asked the government to cease its abuses. Each time, the government has responded with more abuse.

    An Imperial Ruler who acts like a tyrant is not fit to govern a free people.

    We have repeatedly sounded the alarm to our fellow citizens about the government’s abuses. We have warned them about the government’s power grabs. We have appealed to their sense of justice. We have reminded them of our common bonds.

    They have rejected our plea for justice and brotherhood. They are equally at fault for the injustices being carried out by the government.

    Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, we the people of the united States of America declare ourselves free from the chains of an abusive government. Relying on God’s protection, we pledge to stand by this Declaration of Independence with our lives, our fortunes and our honor.

    That was 242 years ago.

    In the years since early Americans first declared and eventually won their independence from Great Britain, we—the descendants of those revolutionary patriots—have somehow managed to work ourselves right back under the tyrant’s thumb.

    Only this time, the tyrant is one of our own making: the U.S. government.

    The abuses meted out by an imperial government and endured by the American people have not ended. They have merely evolved.

    “We the people” are still being robbed blind by a government of thieves.

    We are still being taken advantage of by a government of scoundrels, idiots and cowards.

    We are still being locked up by a government of greedy jailers.

    We are still being spied on by a government of Peeping Toms.

    We are still being ravaged by a government of ruffians, rapists and killers.

    We are still being forced to surrender our freedoms—and those of our children—to a government of extortionists, money launderers and professional pirates.

    And we are still being held at gunpoint by a government of soldiers: a standing army.

    Given the fact that we are a relatively young nation, it hasn’t taken very long for an authoritarian regime to creep into power.

    Unfortunately, the bipartisan coup that laid siege to our nation did not happen overnight.

    It snuck in under our radar, hiding behind the guise of national security, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on immigration, political correctness, hate crimes and a host of other official-sounding programs aimed at expanding the government’s power at the expense of individual freedoms.

    The building blocks for the bleak future we’re just now getting a foretaste of – police shootings of unarmed citizens, profit-driven prisons, weapons of compliance, a wall-to-wall surveillance state, pre-crime programs, a suspect society, school-to-prison pipelines, militarized police, overcriminalization, SWAT team raids, endless wars, etc. – were put in place by government officials we trusted to look out for our best interests and by American citizens who failed to heed James Madison’s warning to “take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.”

    In so doing, we compromised our principles, negotiated away our rights, and allowed the rule of law to be rendered irrelevant.

    There is no knowing how long it will take to undo the damage wrought by government corruption, corporate greed, militarization, and a nation of apathetic, gullible sheep.

    The problems we are facing will not be fixed overnight: that is the grim reality with which we must contend.

    Frankly, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American Peoplewe may see no relief from the police state in my lifetime or for several generations to come. That does not mean we should give up or give in or tune out.

    Remember, there is always a price to be paid for remaining silent in the face of injustice.

    That price is tyranny.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 4th July 2018

  • Meyssan: What Donald Trump Is Preparing

    Authored by Thierry Meyssan via Voltairenet.org,

    After having observed Donald Trump’s historical references (the constitutional compromise of 1789, the examples of Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon) and the way in which his partisans perceive his politics, Thierry Meyssan here analyses his anti-imperialist actions. The US President is not interested in taking a step back, but on the contrary, abandoning the interests of the transnational ruling class in order to develop the US national economy.

    The problem

    In 1916, during the First World War, Lenin analysed the reasons which led to the confrontation between the empires of his time. He wrote – Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In this book, he clarified his analysis – « Imperialism is capitalism which has arrived at a stage of its development where domination by monopolies and financial capital has been confirmed, where the export of capital has acquired major importance, where the sharing of the world between international trusts has begun, and where the sharing of all the territories of the globe between the greatest capitalist countries has been achieved ».

    The facts confirmed his logic of the concentration of capitalism that he described. In the space of one century, it substituted a new empire for the precedents – « America » (not to be confused with the American continent). By dint of fusions and acquisitions, a few multinational companies gave birth to a global ruling class which gathers every year to congratulate itself, as we watch, in Davos, Switzerland. These people do not serve the interests of the US population, and in fact are not necessarily United States citizens themselves, but use the means of the US Federal State to maximise their profits.

    Donald Trump was elected as President of the United States on his promise to return to the earlier state of Capitalism, that of the « American dream, » by free market competition. We can of course claim a priori, as did Lenin, that such a reversal is impossible, but nonetheless, the new President has committed to this direction.

    The heart of the imperial Capitalist system is expressed by the doctrine of the Pentagon, formulated by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski – the world is now split in two.

    On one side, the developed, stable states…

    and on the other, those states which are not yet integrated into the imperial globalist system and are therefore doomed to instability. The US armed forces are tasked with destroying the state and social structures of the non-integrated regions. Since 2001, they have been patiently destroying the « Greater Middle East », and are now preparing to do the same in the « Caribbean Basin .»

    We are obliged to note that the way in which the Pentagon looks at the world is based on the same concepts used by anti-imperialist thinkers like Immanuel Wallerstein, Giovanni Arrighi or Samir Amin.

    The attempted solution

    Donald Trump’s objective thus consists both of reinvesting the transnational capital in the US economy, and turning the Pentagon and the CIA away from their current imperialist functions with National Defense.

    In order to do so, he has to withdraw from international commercial treaties and dissolve the inter-governmental structures which consolidate the old order.

    French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe speaking to US President Donald Trump during the second day of the G7 meeting in Charlevoix, Canada, June 2018.

    Undoing the international commercial treaties

    From the very first days of his mandate, President Trump removed his country from the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, which had not yet been signed. This commercial treaty had been conceived strategically as a means of isolating China.

    Since he was unable to cancel the signature of his country on those treaties which were already in force, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), he began to unravel them by imposing various customs duties which were contrary to the spirit, but not the letter, of the agreement.

    Re-framing or dissolving the inter-governmental structures

    As we have often written here, the United Nations Organisation is no longer a forum for peace, but an instrument of US imperialism within which a few states continue to resist. This was already the case during the Soviet policy of the empty chair (Korean War) and, since July 2012, it is once again true.President Trump has directly attacked the two main imperialist tools within the UNO – the peace-keeping operations (which have taken the place of the observation missions which were originally planned by the Charter), and the Human Rights Council (whose sole function is to justify the humanitarian wars waged by NATO). He has deprived the former of their budget, and withdrawn his country from the latter. However, he has just lost the election for Director of the International Organisation for Migration, leaving the road open, for the moment, for the world traffic in human beings. Of course, he has absolutely no wish to destroy the UNO, but only to refocus its activities and bring it back to its original function.

    He has just torpedoed the G7. This meeting, initially intended as a moment for the exchange of points of view, had become, as from 1994, a tool for imperial domination. In 2014, it transformed itself into an instrument for anti-Russian activity – thus conforming to what had become the new strategy of the Anglo-Saxon nations, aimed at « cutting our losses », in other words, avoiding a World War by limiting the empire to the borders of Russia and thereby isolating it. President Trump took great care during the meeting in Charleroix to show his confused allies that he was no longer their overlord, and that they would have to make it on their own.

    Finally, after having tried to use France to dynamite the European Union, he turned to Italy, where he sent Steve Bannon to create an anti-system government with the help of US banks. Rome has already concluded an alliance with five other capitals against Brussels.

    Reinvesting in productive economy

    Via diverse fiscal and customs measures, rarely voted by Congress and usually adopted by decree, President Trump encouraged the major companies of his country to repatriate their factories back to the USA. There immediately followed an economic recovery, which is about the only thing for which the Press will recognise him.

    However, we are a long way from noting a financial decline. World finance is probably continuing to prosper outside of the USA, or in other words, continuing to suck up the wealth of the rest of the world.

    Reorienting the Pentagon and the CIA

    This is obviously the most difficult operation. During his election, President Trump could count on the the votes from his troops, but not those of the superior officers and generals

    Donald Trump entered into politics on 11 September 2001. He immediately contested the official version of the events. Thereafter, he expressed his astonishment about the contradictions of the mainstream story – while Presidents Bush Jr. and Obama declared that they wanted to eliminate the jihadist movements, we observed on the contrary a drastic multiplication and globalisation of jihadism during their mandates which went as far as the creation of an independent state in Iraq and Syria.

    This is why, as soon as he took office, President Trump surrounded himself with officers who enjoyed a recognised authority in the army. It was, for him, the only option, both to guard against a military coup d’etat and to ensure that he would be obeyed in the reforms that he wanted to implement. Then he gave carte blanche to all the military for everything concerning tactics on the ground. Finally, he never lost an opportunity to confirm his support for the armed forces and the Intelligence services.

    After having confiscated their permanent chair at the National Security Council from the president of the chiefs of staff and the director of the CIA, he gave the order to cease support for the jihadists. Progressively, we saw Al-Qaeda and Daesh lose ground. This policy continues today with the withdrawal of US support for the jihadists in Southern Syria. From now on, they no longer form private armies, but only scattered groups which are used for occasional terrorist actions.

    NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (R) and US President Donald Trump take a seat during a working dinner meeting at the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) headquarters in Brussels on May 25, 2017 during a NATO summit.

    Similarly, he first of all pretended to give up dissolving NATO if it would agree to add an anti-terrorist function to its anti-Russian function. He is now beginning to show NATO that it does not enjoy eternal privileges, as we we saw with his refusal to deliver a special visa for an ex-General Secretary. Above all, he has begun to diminish its anti-Russian function. So he is now negotiating with Moscow the cancellation of Alliance manoeuvres in Eastern Europe. Besides this, he is now taking administrative actions which attest to the refusal of the allies to contribute to collective defence as far as they are able. In this way, he is preparing to dismantle NATO as soon as he sees fit.

    This moment will only come when the destructuration of international relations occurs simultaneously at maturity in Asia (North Korea), the Greater Middle East (Palestine and Iran) and in Europe (UE).

    Keep in mind 

    • President Trump is absolutely not the « unpredictable » character so often described. Quite the contrary, he acts in a clearly thoughtful and logical manner.

    • Donald Trump is preparing a reorganisation of international relations. This change will operate through a complete and sudden upheaval directed against the interests of the transnational ruling class.

  • Graduating "With Honors" Becomes Meaningless As Colleges Hand Them Out Like Candy

    Over half of students who graduated from Harvard and Johns Hopkins universities this year did so with cum laude, magna cum laude or summa cum laude honors or their equivalents, reports the Wall Street Journal

    Just under that many students earned the once-meaningful designations at the University of Southern California, Lehigh, and Princeton. At Middlebury College, anyone with a GPA of at least 3.4 can add Latin honors to their brand new résumé, which was over half of students as of this spring. 

    I’d say that it’s time to reconsider our eligibility criteria,” said Middlebury Interim Provost Jeff Cason.

    According to a Wall Street Journal review of graduating seniors who earned designations at schools in the top 50 institutions ranked by the WSJ, honors designations “have become close to the norm at many top

    The share increased to 44% from 32% in the past decade at USC, which requires a GPA of at least 3.5 for the lowest honor, cum laude, and to 44% from 39% at Lehigh, where students need at least a 3.4. –WSJ

    A 4.0 does signal something significant, that that student is good,” said Stuart Rojstaczer, a former professor at Duke University who studies grade inflation. “A 3.7, however, doesn’t. That’s just a run-of-the-mill student at any of these schools.”

    What’s to blame? Academic researchers say grade inflation, not smarter students, according to the Journal. A University of Georgia researcher found that 47% of high-school students graduated with an A average in 2016, vs. 39% in 1998. Those students have been maintaining good grades in college. 

    At Wellesley College, 41% of this year’s graduating class completed their degrees with Latin honors, which means a GPA of at least 3.6 at the Massachusetts school. That share has risen in the past two years, after being roughly one-third for much of the past decade. A spokeswoman said the school hasn’t pinpointed the cause of the increase. –WSJ

    Nearly 59% of spring graudates from Johns Hopkins did so with “general honors,” by achieving a GPA of at least 3.5. Ten years ago, that was around 46%. 

    One Johns Hopkins graduate, Rushabh Doshi, learned that he’d made his way onto a list of honor students – only to notice that the list was four pages long

    Mr. Doshi, who majored in public health and is heading to Oxford University to study medical anthropology in the fall, said he was proud of his academic accomplishment. But, he said, “It’s not something that holds too much weight.” –WSJ

    Most top tier schools cap the percentage of the graduating class that can receive honors – however that number varies widely; from 25% at Columbia University to 60% at Harvard. After Harvard’s number hit 91% in 2001, they revised their selection process. 

    Northwestern University bumped its percentage of eligible seniors from 16% to 25% in 2010 – citing concerns over students losing out on graduate-school admissions because they were competing with peers from colleges with more lax honors requirements. 

    And now they’re meaningless…

    The dean of Stanford University’s Knight-Hennesey Scholars graduate program, Derrick Bolton, says that application readers “may glance” at honors designations, but don’t give them much weight. Bolton says that the program – which received 3,601 applications for just 50 spots – “looks for more candidates who challenge themselves academically,” even if that means they earned a dreaded “B” along the way. 

    “The Latin honors are sending you a signal, but there’s noise,” said Bolton. 

    Moving the whole bar upward creates a problem where people learn they can do very little and get a grade-point average that looks very respectable,” said Richard Arum, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Education.  –WSJ

    And at Georgetown University, honors are now distributed by relative performance of all the students, rather than a fixed 3.5 GPA. Now, roughly 25% of graduates is handed one of the three Latin honors as opposed to over half the students receiving designations. 

    Georgetown made the change “in order to ensure that Latin honors represent a mark of distinction.”

  • Amazon's Fusion With The State Shows Neoliberalism's Drift To Neo-Fascism

    Authored by Elliott Gabriel via MintPressNews.com,

    In Part 1 of our investigative series on Surveillance Capitalism, MPN spoke to author Yasha Levine and Monthly Review editor John Bellamy Foster about the rise of the Amazon.com empire and its fusion with the U.S. state apparatus.

    In our next installments, we will continue exploring the rise of Surveillance Capitalism and the implications of Amazon-fueled spying technology, both in the workplace and in U.S. city streets.

    “Capitalism is a system that seeks to transgress all boundaries in its production and sale of commodities, commodifying everything in existence, which today, in the age of monopoly-finance capital and surveillance capitalism, means intruding into every aspect of existence,” John Bellamy Foster told MPN.

    This year may go down in history as a turning-point when the world finally woke up to the dark side of the ubiquitous presence of popular Silicon Valley companies in our daily lives. One can only hope so, at least.

    From Amazon to Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft and PayPal – among others – revelations poured out confirming the ongoing abuse of user data by monopolistic corporations, as well as their growing role as vendors of surveillance technology to the U.S. police state, military, and migrant detention agencies.

    In March, the lid was blown off of the violation of user data on Facebook, with Cambridge Analytica mining user information for the purpose of providing millions of detailed “psychological profiles” to the Trump campaign, among others. Scarcely two weeks later, the Google campus was in an uproar over the development of its “Project Maven,” which was building an AI-fueled platform to vastly upgrade the automatic targeting abilities of the U.S. military’s global drone fleet. Faced with public outrage and internal dissent, the company pulled out of bidding to renew its Pentagon contract, which ends next year.

    Now, employees and shareholders of Amazon.com – the world’s largest online marketer and cloud-computing provider – are demanding that chief executive Jeff Bezos halt the sale of its facial recognition or Amazon Web Services (AWS) Rekognition service to law enforcement agencies across the U.S., including to the Department of Homeland Security – Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS-ICE).

    “As ethically concerned Amazonians, we demand a choice in what we build, and a say in how it is used,” the letter said. “We learn from history, and we understand how IBM’s systems were employed in the 1940s to help Hitler.

    “IBM did not take responsibility then, and by the time their role was understood, it was too late,” it continued, referring to collusion with the operation of Nazi extermination camps during the Second World War. “We will not let that happen again. The time to act is now.”

    Unveiled in November 2016 as a part of the AWS cloud suite, Rekognition analyzes images and video footage to recognize objects while providing analytics to users. It also lets clients “identify people of interest against a collection of millions of faces in near real-time, enabling use cases such as timely and accurate crime prevention,” according to promotional material. Law enforcement agencies like the Washington County Sheriff’s Department pay as little as $6 to $12 a month for access to the platform, giving deputies the ability to scan its mugshot database against real-time footage.

    Amazon employees cited a report from the ACLU that notes that AWS Rekognition “raises profound civil liberties and civil rights concerns” owing to its “capacity for abuse.” Its uses could include monitoring protest activity, as well as the possibility that ICE could employ the technology to continuously track immigrants and advance its “zero tolerance” policy of detaining migrant families and children at the U.S.-Mexico border.

    In the letter distributed on email list “we-won’t-build-it,”  Amazon employees lay out their opposition to their employer’s collusion with the police and the DHS-ICE migrant-capture and mass-incarceration regime:

    We don’t have to wait to find out how these technologies will be used. We already know that in the midst of historic militarization of police, renewed targeting of Black activists, and the growth of a federal deportation force currently engaged in human rights abuses — this will be another powerful tool for the surveillance state, and ultimately serve to harm the most marginalized.”

    The furor surrounding AWS Rekognition is hardly a revelation to journalist Yasha Levine. Instead, as is the case with Google and other flagship firms’ work for Washington, it’s just another chapter in Silicon Valley’s long-time integration into the repressive state apparatus.

    “This isn’t so much a big step to some ‘Surveillance Apocalypse,’ it’s just an indication of where we’ve been for a long time,” Levine told MintPress News.

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

    Yet the Amazon workers’ outrage was likely provoked by recent headlines highlighting the Trump administration’s separation of Central American migrant families at the concentration camps along the Southern border – along with the key role Amazon plays for ICE’s data “ecosystem,” crucial to the operation of ICE’s immigrant enforcement, mass incarceration, and removal regime.

    In their letter, Amazon’s employees decried the role the company plays in the platform Palantir provides for ICE:

    We also know that Palantir runs on AWS. And we know that ICE relies on Palantir to power its detention and deportation programs. Along with much of the world we watched in horror recently as U.S. authorities tore children away from their parents. Since April 19, 2018 the Department of Homeland Security has sent nearly 2,000 children to mass detention centers…

    In the face of this immoral U.S. policy, and the U.S.’s increasingly inhumane treatment of refugees and immigrants beyond this specific policy, we are deeply concerned that Amazon is implicated, providing infrastructure and services that enable ICE and DHS.“

    In 2014, ICE gave Palantir a $41 million contract for the Investigative Case Management (ICM) system, which expanded its capacity for data-sharing between the bureau and other agency databases including those of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, among others. The contract allowed ICE to significantly boost its ability to capture and incarcerate unauthorized migrants based on the disparate data Palantir collated and hosted on Amazon Web Services’ servers.

    Watch | Palantir 101

    “What Amazon has simply done is allow everyone to lease that [Rekognition] capability the way that you would lease its web space, or have a pay-as-you-go plan with Amazon,” Levine commented.

    In his new book, Surveillance Valley: The Hidden History of the Internet, Levine details the romance enjoyed between Big Data and the U.S. repressive state. In the introduction to his book, he notes :

    From Amazon to eBay to Facebook — most of the Internet companies we use every day have also grown into powerful corporations that track and profile their users while pursuing partnerships and business relationships with major U.S. military and intelligence agencies. Some parts of these companies are so thoroughly intertwined with America’s security services that it is hard to tell where they end and the U.S. government begins.”

    Having conquered retail and the internet, Amazon looks to the state and says “Forward”

    President Barack Obama shakes hands with workers after speaking at the Amazon fulfillment center in Chattanooga, Tenn., July 30, 2013. Susan Walsh | AP

    Conceived by founder Jeff Bezos as an “everything store” selling products from books to DVDs and music, Amazon has long been a scourge to the traditional brick-and-mortar marketplace, spending the late 1990s and the 2000s sweeping big and small booksellers alike into the ash-heap of retail history.

    Amazon has now become the de facto store for everything in America –  it’s shocking to think about how much we buy from it and how much money we give away to it,” Levine said, adding that the company’s power as a business “is kind of depressing.”

    The company has also become the world’s premier internet hosting firm through its Amazon Web Services cloud computing platform. From 2006 on, AWS played a similar role to Amazon.com’s retail platform in regard to small-fry-displacing traditional corporate data centers and information technology (IT) professionals, providing a previously unimaginable level of centralization in terms of data storage and IT functionality at a low cost. For some time even Dropbox found shelter under the AWS cloud.

    Watch | Amazon.com and Jeff Bezos In 1999

    The company’s success as the world’s biggest retailer and cloud computing service was closely related to Amazon’s surveillance efforts directed not only toward consumers, but against its huge and heavily-exploited employee workforce. As Levine detailed in his book:

    [Amazon] recorded people’s shopping habits, their movie preferences, the books they were interested in, how fast they read books on their Kindles, and the highlights and margin notes they made. It also monitored its warehouse workers, tracking their movements and timing their performance.

    Amazon requires incredible processing power to run such a massive data business, a need that spawned a lucrative side business of renting out space on its massive servers to other companies.”

    In the 2012 U.S. presidential election, AWS software provided nearly all aspects of then-incumbent President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign software and big-data analysis, ranging from web management to mailing-list management, data modeling, volunteer dispatching, voter-information database maintenance and “massive transaction processing” for donations.

    Watch | Obama for America on AWS

    By early 2013, a secretive deal awarded Amazon a 10-year, $600-million contract to provide cloud services to the Central Intelligence Agency and the 17 agencies comprising the intelligence community.

    Langley’s contract with such a commercially-oriented company as Amazon, rather than rival bidder IBM, sent shockwaves through the tech industry, but the company boasted that it reflected the “superior technology platform” it could provide to the CIA along with its ability to deliver “the confidence and security assurance needed for mission-critical systems.”

    Amazon’s platform will soon be the venue for a major intelligence project by the CIA dubbed “Mesa Verde,” which will see the agency’s AWS-built C2S cloud software deployed in multiple experiments meant to parse thousands of terabytes of data, including public web data, using natural language processing tools, sentiment analysis, and data visualization.

    According to a Bloomberg Government report in May, AWS is the only private cloud platform granted clearance to store agency information marked “Secret.”

    Amazon’s CIA partnership: Surveillance Capitalism in action

    Rev. Paul Benz, center, and Shankar Narayan, legislative director of the ACLU of Washington, right, stand with others as they wait to deliver petitions at Amazon headquarters, June 18, 2018, in Seattle. Representatives of community-based organizations urged Amazon at a news conference to stop selling its face surveillance system, Rekognition, to the government. They later delivered the petitions to Amazon. Elaine Thompson | AP

    Amazon’s partnership with Langley is just another case of surveillance capitalism in action, according to sociology professor and author John Bellamy Foster, the editor of the venerable independent socialist journal Monthly Review.

    Speaking to MintPress News, Foster explained:

    Amazon now seems to be landing one contract after another with the military and intelligence sectors in the United States…

    [The CIA cloud] is built on the premises of a private corporation, a kind of ‘walled castle’ for intelligence [spy] agency communication separate from the rest of the Internet, but principally operated by a for-profit corporation. Amazon also has a $1 billion contract with the Security and Exchange Commission, works with NASA, the Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies.”

    In a 2014 essay for Monthly Review, Foster and Robert W. McChesney introduced the term surveillance capitalism in reference to the process of finance capital monetizing data extracted through surveillance operations performed in collusion with the state apparatus. The two trace the political-economic roots of the the data-driven Information Age from the early stages of the military-industrial complex to the 1950s fusion of consumer capitalism – corporations, ad agencies, and media – with the permanent warfare state, eventually leading to the birth of satellite technology, the internet, and the domination of a handful of monopolist tech firms during the present era of neoliberal globalization.

    From the tech sector’s role in police-state operations to the expansion of “Smart” technology like Amazon’s Alexa into our homes, the use of drones and AI for keeping tabs on the entire population, and the manipulation of Facebook user data by the Trump campaign’s partnership with Cambridge Analytica, Foster is unequivocal in his judgment of surveillance capitalism’s metastasizing growth and its omniscient role in our daily lives:

    The implications for the future are staggering.”

    Not everyone shares Foster’s pessimistic perspective. To former CIA cybersecurity researcher John Pirc, the agency contract with Amazon represented the removal of a “clouded judgment”-based stigma over cloud computing security. Speaking to The Atlantic, Pirc commented:

    You hear so many people on the fence about cloud, and then to see the CIA gobble it up and do something so highly disruptive, it’s kind of cool.”

    Holy Disruption and the “Gale Force of Creative Destruction”

    Creation, epiphany, genesis, prophecy, rapture, sacrifice, wrath; such sacred words pepper the Old and New Testaments and still carry divine significance for the faithful. Beloved by clergy and revered by the flock, such consecrated terms hardly apply to Apple’s bitten-fruit logo or Alexa’s profanely secular robotic voice.

    But in today’s cult of high technology and the internet — where entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg have been elevated to the level of prophets or pharaohs, and start-ups are evangelized at TED Talks as the panacea to problems ranging from physical fitness to refugee crises — a new ecclesiastical lexicon is used. Central to this pseudo-religion of Big Data is the phrase disruption, an oft-invoked term signifying the replacement of old markets and business models by new technological innovations.

    As Silicon Valley pioneer, computer scientist, and critic Jaron Lanier noted in his 2013 book Who Owns the Future?:

    The terminology of ‘disruption’ has been granted an almost sacred status in tech business circles

    To disrupt is the most celebrated achievement. In Silicon Valley, one is always hearing that this or that industry is ripe for disruption. We kid ourselves, pretending that disruption requires creativity. It doesn’t. It’s always the same story.”

    For Lanier – a fervent defender of capitalism —  the D-word is misused to convey the liberating potential of new technology, when in fact the reign of big tech firms has led to a shrunken market dominated by “a small number of spying operations in omniscient positions.” Thus the digital landscape has become the fiefdom of monopoly firms who exercise an iron grip on competitors and Big Data’s primary commodities – internet users and their data.

    To Foster, this process is little more than neoliberalism – the prevailing capitalist ideology dictating the unimpeded control over all aspects of public life by finance capital and the market. Foster notes that neoliberal orthodoxy is rooted in the concept of creative destruction, the concept from which the “disruption” buzzword is derived.

    Creative destruction was introduced in 1942 by Austrian-American economist Joseph Schumpeter to describe a process of constant change under capitalism, whereby emerging entrepreneurs act as “innovation powerhouses” through a “perennial gale of creative destruction” that disorganizes and displaces competition, reshapes global markets, and paves the way to an emergence of new monopolies such as, for example, Silicon Valley’s leading firms.

    Watch | Greenspan on Schumpeter’s “Creative Destruction”

    “One of the key components of neoliberal ideology has been the opening up of the system to the unrestricted growth of monopolistic corporations and monopoly power,” Foster said to MintPress News, adding:

    The neoliberal age has thus seen one of the greatest periods of growth of monopoly power, particularly in the cyber or digital realm, in all of history. If you take Google, Amazon, and Facebook, none of them even existed 25 years ago, and Facebook didn’t exist 15 years ago. Amazon had a 51 percent increase in market capitalization between 2016 and 2017 alone. These are giant monopolistic enterprises.”

    Continuing, Foster explained:

    In general, capitalism is a system that seeks to transgress all boundaries in its production and sale of commodities, commodifying everything in existence — which today, in the age of monopoly-finance capital and surveillance capitalism, means intruding into every aspect of existence as a means of manipulating not only the physical world, but also the minds and lives of everyone within it. It is this that constitutes the heart of surveillance capitalism.

    But this same system of monopoly-finance capital has as its counterpart a growing centralization of power and wealth, increasing monopoly control, expanding militarism and imperialism, and an expansion of police power. It is what the political theorist Sheldon Wolin called ‘inverted totalitarianism,’ the growth of totalizing control of the population, and the destruction of human freedom under the mask of an ideology of individualism.”

    As Amazon now approaches its 25-year anniversary, Foster notes, it’s become “a vast cultural (or anti-cultural) commodity empire” – and its ownership of The Washington Post has made clear the monopoly firm’s fusion with the state apparatus of U.S. imperialism.

    Amazon clutches the “Newspaper of Record,” or “Democracy Dies in Darkness”

    The front page of the Washington Post is displayed outside the Newseum in Washington, , 2013, a day after it was announced that Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for $250 million. Evan Vucci | AP

    Since Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post in 2013 for $250 million, the leading newspaper of the U.S. capital has stood at the ramparts of Fortress Amazon. Beyond any elite squadron of lobbyists or contracts with the Homeland Security or National Security State, the newspaper’s influential role shaping public and policymaker opinion gives Jeff Bezos and his fellow Amazon executives unparalleled access to the halls of imperial power.

    “Of course it’s a problem when a powerful, monopolistic business like this with a very controlling owner is in the media business as well,” Yasha Levine commented, adding:

    Let’s be honest, Amazon is a major CIA contractor now, and now this major contractor owns one of the most important newspapers in the country – which also happens to report on the CIA and national security issues.”

    Since President Donald Trump came to power last January, “Amazon Washington Post” has been the target of the former reality-TV star’s ire as a top example of “fake news media.” While many of Trump’s attacks on the Post have been his standard Twitter outbursts against legitimate journalistic scrutiny, the newspaper once celebrated for publishing the groundbreaking 1971 Pentagon Papers is now both a bully pulpit for the president’s detractors in the Beltway liberal “resistance” and a mouthpiece of an aggressively neoliberal wing of the U.S. establishment.

    “The Washington Post was always a liberal-capitalist paper, an arbiter of capitalist ideology and a defender of U.S. empire, [but] it has now become, as part of the Bezos empire, something worse,” Foster observed.

    Scarcely a day passes without the Post publishing a torrent of stories seeking to expose “Russian interference” favoring Trump through social media or “fake news.” Citing the “experts” in “nonpartisan” media criticism group PropOrNot, the Post has smeared MintPress News and publications like Black Agenda Report, CounterPunchand Truthout as propaganda platforms tied to the Kremlin without citing so much as a shred of evidence. Through its de facto blacklist, the group has also attempted to tie disparate independent media organizations to hard-right and white-supremacist outlets like Alex Jones’ Infowars and neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer.

    Watch | WaPo refuses to add disclosure about $600M CIA contract

    The Washington Post has generally waged what amounts to an ideological war on basic progressive causes, Foster explained:

    It recently ran an article describing the ‘far left’ as those who believed in single-payer health insurance or protecting national parks, as if even these traditional left-liberal causes were now far outside the range of acceptable political discourse — a stance clearly designed to ratchet the political discourse further to the right. Bezos and Amazon are simply symbols of this social retrogression, as is the current autocrat in the White House.

    To Levine, the trend – like the ownership of muckraking news website The Intercept by billionaire Silicon Valley entrepreneur and eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar — goes beyond the Post alone. Levine commented:

    It’s a larger issue of Silicon Valley coming into its own, and businesses built on top of the internet dominating business; and if you dominate business, you dominate society and news media coverage – that’s just the way things work.

    Foster agrees, and minces no words depicting the danger Amazon’s growing power in U.S. society represents:

    Democracy can be judged in various ways, but no definition of democracy – no matter how specious – is consistent with a society in which such vast class and monopoly power exist, and where the infrastructure of genuine democracy (education, communications, science, culture, public discourse, means of public protest) is demolished.

    For this and other reasons, U.S. society and much of the capitalist world is shifting from neo-liberalism to something better described as neo-fascism.”

    In our next installments, we will continue exploring the rise of Surveillance Capitalism and the implications of Amazon-fueled spying technology, both in the workplace and in U.S. city streets.

  • Conservatives Mock "Resistance" With "Second Civil War Letters" After Portland Antifa Goes Down Hard

    Last weekend’s violence in Portland between Antifa and Trump supporters produced a viral video of a “resistance” member being knocked out cold. 

    The man, wearing a black and yellow Fred Perry polo shirt, which has become the now-famous uniform of the Proud Boys, forced his attacker to the ground with one punch. After being knocked out, the Antifa supporter had to be carried away by a group of his fellow protesters.

    Big League Politics reached out to Gavin McInnes, who founded the Proud Boys, whose only comment was F#&k around and find out, stating that Antifa “found out.”Big League Politics

    The skirmish in Portland has many talking about the prospect of a second Civil War in the United States. As we reported last week, a shocking 31% of voters say it’s likely that the United States will experience a second civil war over the next five years, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

    As such, conservatives have taken to twitter to mock the violent left with a new hashtag which has quickly gone viral: #SecondCivilWarLetters – which envisions the “soy-boys” on the left writing letters during a second Civil War. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That said, it’s all fun and games until it’s not… 

    Given the spate of violence directed towards Trump supporters which began during the 2016 election which has most recently manifested itself in the form of stalking, public shaming and threatening Trump officials, it’s easy to see how nearly 1/3 of voters think civil war is on the horizon. There are also scores of leftist hate groups roaming around looking for a fight, as well documented by Far Left Watch.

    Remember these charming incidents? (there are hundreds)

    Cheesecake Factory Employees Attack Black Man For Wearing MAGA Hat

    Capitol Police Arrested Male Dem Operative For Assaulting Female Trump Admin Official

    Trump supporter ‘brutally attacked’ in D.C. restaurant

    NY: Danish tourist mugged at knifepoint over MAGA hat

    Black Trump Supporter Spit On For Being a Black Man Wearing ‘MAGA’ Hat

    MN: Conservative Students Say They Have Been ‘Violently Threatened’ at St. Olaf College

    Chicago teens kidnap and torture a Trump supporter while they live stream from Facebook

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

  • US Vs China – Is It 'Art Of The Deal' Or Economic Warfare?

    Authored by Christopher Wood via Grizzle.com,

    While monetary tightening remains the main risk for global stock markets, the threat of a trade war continues to dominate the headlines…

    THE DONALD’S DEALMAKING

    The question raised by Donald Trump’s trade agenda with China remains, in essence, extremely simple. It is whether The Donald is engaged in a typical ‘Art of the Deal’ negotiation, where he can suddenly turn on a dime and declare a ‘win’, or whether he is really seriously trying to stop Chinaupgrading its economy by targeting ‘Made in China 2025’.

    Such a stance would amount to an act of economic warfare. On this point, it should be understood that some of those in Washington pushing this policy view of China as some kind of strategic rival for global leadership. For such people this is about far more than just tariffs.

    The markets had been assuming that the American president would not take this too far. But, as discussed here before, concerns have grown as it has increasingly looked like Trump is supporting Robert Lighthizer’s (US Trade Representative) and Peter Navarro’s (White House Economic Adviser) agenda.

    HOW LIKELY IS ECONOMIC WARFARE?

    On July 6, first the US and then Chinese 25% tariffs on US$34 billion worth of goods are due to go into effect. If bilateral negotiations do not resume before that date, then the chances of the US and China entering a so-called trade war grow significantly.

    If the above is the state of play, market action has now become critical. The more that the US stock market freaks out about these policies in terms of declining share prices, the more likely becomes The Donald to perform a U-turn. This is because Trump is a market-focused guy even if it is also the case that much of his electoral base are not invested in stocks because they do not have the requisite savings.

    There has already been more than a hint of this market dynamic at work last week when the S&P500 recovered some of its losses ‘intraday’ on Monday after Navarro was presumably ordered to issue a less combative statement. His comments came after news reports over the weekend that the US could block companies with at least 25% Chinese ownership from buying companies involved in so-called “industrially significant technology”.

    S&P500

    Source: Bloomberg

    Similarly, on Wednesday last week, the S&P500 reversed a pre-market opening decline when Trump made some more conciliatory comments on the nature of the coming investment restrictions. Trump said he will now use a strengthened existing agency and national security review process to scrutinize Chinese acquisitions of American technologies. He said: “Congress has made significant progress toward passing legislation that will modernize our tools for protecting the nation’s critical technologies from harmful foreign acquisitions”.

    Meanwhile, if the American president does remain committed to the combative agenda as regards China, Congressional review could prove more destructive of the bilateral relationship over the longer term than tariff hikes. It is also the case that Congress involvement will be via the so-called Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) whose authority will be enhanced, as Trump referred to above, by new legislation in Congress called the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA).

    The Congressional involvement will probably make the process harder to unwind once the restrictions are imposed. It is certainly the case that Congress has its own share of enthusiastic China bashers, as is clear from those in Congress who have been seeking to reverse Trump’s decision to overturn the ban on ZTE buying American goods. The US Senate voted last week by 85-10 to reinstate the ZTE sales ban.

    US IMPORTS FROM CHINA AND CHINA IMPORTS FROM THE US

    Source: US Census Bureau, China General Administration of Customs

    Now it is true, technically, that the pending investment restrictions will not just be aimed at China. The Treasury Secretary has stated that the restrictions will apply “to all countries that are trying to steal our technology”. But the political reality is that all this activity in Washington has a China focus. So, the danger is that once these sorts of actions are announced, they will turn out to have a life of their own.

    EVENTS IN NORTH KOREA ARE PLEASING TO CHINA

    Meanwhile, amidst all this focus on deteriorating Sino-US relations, there is one potential positive that should not be completely ignored.

    That is that events are unfolding in the Korean peninsula in a manner which should please China and a lot of this, intentionally or not, seems to be due to the American president.

    China would certainly welcome a North Korean economy that is pursuing a more China-style reform-oriented course in terms of the management of its economy, though the first priority may not be Trump-style beachfront condos.

    Second, Beijing will also want to maintain North Korea as an independent state, and Trump does not appear to be pushing for unification.

    Third, China will welcome Trump’s proposal, made at the Singapore summit on June 12, to end American “war games” on the Korean peninsula.

    The hope from the above must be that there has been some constructive ‘behind the scenes’ dialogue between Washington and Beijing on North Korea which would infer that the relationship is not as antagonistic as current headlines on the trade issue would suggest.

  • Step Aside Millennials: Here Comes Generation Z

    “Sorry Millennials, your time in the limelight is over.”

    That’s the conclusion of a new report from Barclays analyst Hiral Patel, who writes that it’s time for the Millennials to make way for the new kids on the block – Generation Z – a generational cohort born between 1995 and 2009, and already larger in size than the Millennials (1980-1994).

    According to Barclays, the current fixation with Millennials makes them the most studied generation, which in turn has caused the use of this term to simplify to a label for anyone that may be young today; however the irony here is that Millennials are not necessarily young anymore and we run the risk of overlooking the next cohort – Generation Z – who are now coming of age.

    Citing survey-based research from a range of sources, Barclays suggests that there are fundamental differences separating Generation Z from the Millennials (Figure 1), material enough for marketplaces to take note today.

    And yet, even as Generation Z enter their prime, many companies have yet to prepare for their arrival.

    We fear they are either still trying to adapt their business models to the Millennials or hoping simply to re-use whatever strategies they’ve developed for Millennials on Generation Z. We argue that adopting such a homogenous approach will deliver unsuccessful results as it fails to identify the two generational cohorts as different.

    The reason for the Barclays report is to asset that this “coming of age” is worth capitalising on now, with Generation Z in the US already having $200bn in direct buying power and $1tn in indirect spending power as they command significantly more influence on household purchases than prior generations.

    Furthermore, by 2020, Generation Z are expected to be the largest group of consumers worldwide, making up 40% of the market in the US, Europe and BRIC countries and 10% in the rest of the world (Booz Co).

    While the full report is too long to summarize, Barclays begins by introducing Generation Z – the generational cohort born after the Millennials – and explains why they are not just ‘mini-Millennials’.

    For those new to the discussion on generational behaviour, we believe there is value to be had from analysing who is driving technological disruption in addition to what. We begin by defining which generational cohorts exist today (Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, Generation Z, Generation Alpha), and which factors shape their behavioural preferences.

    Barclays draws on portrayals and perceptions of Generation Z from a range of sources, and attempts to gauge the potential impact of this generational ‘shift’ on key Gen Z consumer-facing industries such as Financial Services, Retail, Internet and Media (Figure 2).

    The bank then analyzes the impact Generation Z will likely have on existing and potential new business models, before assessing which companies are likely to succeed.

    We conclude that investors with exposure to these consumer industries stand to benefit from understanding Generation Z and how their behavioural traits are redefining consumption patterns in the post-digital realm.

    Below we excerpts from some of the key sections in the Barclays report:

    Millennial fixation fatigue

    In popular culture, Millennials are the generation used comparatively whenever anyone talks about behavioural differences between generations, with ‘You’re such a Millennial’ being a common phrase. It is more often than not used in a derogatory manner, with common misconceptions painting all Millennials as lazy, avocado-loving, narcissistic and self-entitled (Time). To help illustrate, if you were to Google the phrasal template ‘Millennials are’, the search engine’s auto-complete highlights some perceptions of this cohort – Figure 3. This fixation hasn’t evolved with the passage of time, given that many Millennials are not necessarily young any more. We argue that the golden age of the Millennials is over and view their successors – Generation Z – as the new kids on the block.

    Defining Generation Z – anyone born between 1995-2009

    We define Generation Z as anyone born during 1995-2009 (age 9-23) and thus the demographic cohort following the Millennials (age 24-38) – Figure 4. At c. 2bn individuals, Generation Z is the most populous cohort of all time. Generation Z represent 25% of the global population (vs. 24% Millennials), and have a particular weighting in areas such as the United States, India, China, South East Asia and Africa. Generation Z are also known as post-millennials, centennials and the iGeneration, with the ‘i’ in the latter emphasising the level of technological immersion across Apple products (iPhone – 2007, iPad – 2010).

    It’s important to note that generational boundaries are largely arbitrary. Though our definition uses the year you were born as a way to identify your generational label with ease, we also concede that people don’t necessarily belong to an ‘age bucket’. The analysis in this report is premised on the idea that members of a generation share an age location in history, which suggests that people encounter key historical events and social trends while occupying the same phase of life. Put differently, those in a particular cohort are not born inherently different to other cohorts, but their personalities, motivation and outlook are influenced to some extent by their shifting surroundings.

    How old are Generation Z today?

    Generation Z (1995-2009) are currently 9-23 years of age. According to the UN’s population data (2015), the majority of Generation Z are still children; however the eldest are now either graduating from college or entering the workforce. Note that the data in Figure 5 is from 2015, which is why the age range of the Generation Z cohort is c. 3/4 years lower than it is today.

    Globally spread

    Most of the Generation Z population live in developing and under-developed countries, while in many mature markets the population is older. For example, in 2015 as much as 29% of India’s population could be classified as Gen Z, while in the UK this demographic group accounted for only 17% of the total populace. Interestingly, while in absolute terms Generation Z are located mostly in either India, China or Africa, once we take into consideration market readiness (the maturity of the overall consumer market), the emphasis moves to countries such as the US – Figure 6.

    What makes Generation Z different?

    There are different ways to define a generational cohort; however, no matter how you do it, the attitudes, passions, strengths and weaknesses of each generation are moulded by the world around them. We believe there are three broad trends that shape a generational cohort: i) parenting & household dynamics, ii) world economy & international affairs and iii) technological advances – Figure 7. We summarise below how this is relevant to our discussion on Generation Z.

    1) Parenting & Household Dynamics

    At the root of the discrepancy between the two current generations of youth (Generation Z and the Millennials) are differences in parenting & household dynamics, or more specifically the differing generations that raised them.

    Coining the phrase ‘helicopter parents’, Strauss and Howe have argued that Millennials are in part a by-product of overprotective, indulgent parents (lpsos Mori: Millennial — Myths & Realities). Millennials were raised by encouraging Baby Boomer parents during a time of economic prosperity and opportunity. This created a new set of middle-to-upper class parents that were desperate to maintain their family’s escalated social standing (Quartz —How Baby boomers ruined parenting forever), using extra-curricular activities and hectic student schedules as a way to demonstrate their status as the parental elite.

    On the other hand, Generation Z, it is argued, were raised by the more discerning Generation X, as they grew up in a recession, making them more conservative by nature. Generation Z witnessed first-hand the struggles their older siblings faced and resolved to do things differently. They are characterised as pragmatic when it comes to financial decision-making and have already shown the propensity to move back to traditional views of success (money, career, education) (Millennial Marketing).

    2) World economy & international affair.

    Though Millennials were raised during a time of economic prosperity, they were old enough to understand the relevance of 9/11 in 2001. Generation Z were either too young or were yet to be born, and thus relate more to the global financial crisis in 2008. This was followed by a wave of global terrorism, which has led to Generation Z growing up during a time of increased existential threat (perceived, if not actual) compared with the Millennials (Guardian).

    Furthermore, the internet and social media have significantly impacted the way global news is disseminated. Generation Z appear to be more affected by world events than the previous generation thanks to a 24-hour news cycle that relentlessly pushes out information. For example, we now see widespread awareness of single-topic issues such as global warming, cancer research, the Trump presidency and the European migrant crisis. This makes Generation Z by default more aware of international affairs at a younger age, which, it is argued, is creating a more conscientious generation. We summarise in Figure 8 a timeline of international affairs that we think are relevant and identifiable by members of the Generation Z cohort.

    3) Technological Advancements

    While Millennials were digital pioneers witnessing the introduction of broadband internet, smartphones and social media, Generation Z are digital natives, not knowing a world any different to the hyperconnected one in which we live today. For example, a Millennial would remember the pain of experiencing a floppy disk error or having to experience the social pressure of maintaining an ‘online’ MSN messenger status using dial-up internet. However, Generation Z can’t remember a time without technology at their fingertips. One of the biggest worries for this generation is whether or not they have enough battery life.

     

    Generation Z are not ‘mini-Millennials’

    Now that we have examined the factors that shape a generation, we will now illustrate how this relates to our primary discussion of Generation Z and how they are different from Millennials. According to Millennial Marketing, Generation Z are the ‘pivotal generation’. That is, while they demonstrate similarities with Millennials in the areas of technology and digital, research suggests we are seeing the pendulum swing back towards a culture that is more centred on personal success than the experiential currency cultivated by Millennials, which will greatly impact the way they interact with society.

    We summarise our survey-based conclusions from a range of sources in Figure 9. We show the differences between the Millennials and Gen Z in five key areas – technology, financial habits, values, lifestyle and attitude to work & education. Please see Appendix 1 (Gen Z values and preferences) for a full discussion of the evidence behind these conclusions.

  • Chiraq? It Has Been 1221 Days Since Chicago Had A Shooting/Homicide-Free Day

    Did ‘the purge’ already begin?

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

    When will Trump ‘send in The Feds’ to fix Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s failures?

    It was just over a year ago that Trump opined…

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

    In a statement released by the police department last June following President Trump’s tweet, police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said,

    “If you have a magic bullet to stop the violence anywhere, not just in Chicago but in America, then please, share it with us…”

    “More than just a new strategy or tactic, we are foundationally changing the way we fight crime in Chicago. This new strike force will significantly help our police officers stem the flow of illegal guns and create a culture of accountability for the small subset of individuals and gangs who disproportionately drive violence in our city.”

    The numbers have only got worse since then.

    Courtesy of HeyJackass.com, here are Chicago’s deadliest ‘hoods…

    See all the stunning details of Chicago’s ongoing collapse at HeyJackass.com

  • Watch: Greenpeace Crashes 'Superman Drone' Into Nuclear Power Plant To Expose Facility's Dangers

    Authored by Jessica Corbett via Common Dreams,

    “Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No… it’s a drone dressed up as Superman, exposing how vulnerable French nuclear power plants are.”

    Greenpeace France on Tuesday crashed a drone dressed as Superman into the Bugey nuclear energy plant, located about 20 miles east of Lyon, to expose how vulnerable that facility is to a terrorist attack and highlight the broader dangers of this type of power generation.

    The activists told AFP that the drone struck “a storage pool for spent nuclear fuel next to a reactor, one of the most radioactive areas at the site.”

    “This is a highly symbolic action: it shows that spent fuel pools are very accessible, this time from the air, and therefore extremely vulnerable to attack,” Yannick Rousselet, head of Greenpeace France’s anti-nuclear campaign, said in a statement.

    Watch:

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

    Greenpeace France spokesman Cyril Cornier told Le Parisien, in French, that the action itself did not pose any danger to the plant, its workers, or the public, but insisted that by crashing the flying device into the plant’s “most fragile point,” they had proven beyond any doubt that the security of the facility “is absolutely not assured.”

    Responding to the action, the French electricity group EDF said that police had intercepted one of two drones piloted by Greenpeace and announced plans to file a formal complaint with authorities. EDF also claimed, “The fuel building is key for security, designed in particular to withstand natural or accidental damage.”

    Greenpeace EU, on Twitter, called EDF’s response “worrying.”

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

    France derives about 75 percent of its electricity from 19 state-controlled plants, according to the World Nuclear Association. Activists worldwide have repeatedly sought to draw attention to the dangers of this type of power generation—but particularly in France, where it is so prevalent.

    Last October, Greenpeace France activists entered another of EDF’s nuclear plants and set off fireworks. At the time, the group emphasized on Twitter, “These installations are vulnerable.” AFP reports that in February, “eight activists were sentenced to jail terms or fines” for participating in the firework action.

  • US And Israel Form "Working Group" To Overthrow Iran Government

    When economic protests quickly turned into widespread anti-regime protests engulfing some 75 mostly provincial cities and towns across Iran in late December and into January, we took note of the State Department’s brazen pro-revolutionary rhetoric calling for “elements inside of Iran” to lead a “transition of government”  in spokesperson Heather Nauert’s own words (echoing prior statements by then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson).

    We posed the question then, and raised it again with renewed unrest in Tehran and the southern city of Khorrmashahr over this past week: are we witnessing regime change agents hijacking economic protests?

    Indeed a high level joint US-Israeli “working group” has been meeting for months with just this goal in mind as Axios confirms in a bombshell new report: “Israel and the United States formed a joint working group a few months ago that is focused on internal efforts to encourage protests within Iran and pressure the country’s government.”

    Image of Iranian paramilitary dissident group (MEK) leader Maryam Rajavi, via NCR-Iran.

    Israeli journalist Barak Ravid reports for Axios that, “Two Israeli officials told me the team was formed as a part of the U.S.-Israeli framework document on countering Iran,” noting the team has met “several times during the last few months” and it has oversight by none other than John “Bomb Iran” Bolton and his Israeli counterpart Meir Ben-Shabbat.

    With the 2015 Obama-brokered JCPOA now in tatters after the US pullout, and with the Assad government emerging victorious after a seven year proxy war largely aimed by Western allies at rolling back Iranian influence in the Levant, it appears the White House stands ready to bring the Syria model of covert destabilization to Syria. 

    Ravid continues:

    The Israeli officials told me that both the domestic situation in Iran and the work of the joint team were discussed during a meeting between national security adviser John Bolton and his Israeli counterpart Meir Ben-Shabbat at the White House several weeks ago. Both Bolton and Ben-Shabbat think that raising internal pressure on the Iranian regime might have a positive influence on Iranian regional behavior.

    “Internal pressure” is precisely code for the type of CIA-Mossad sponsored destabilization campaigns which marked much of the history of 20th century coups in the third world, and which marked the 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in the coup d’etat that brought US and UK puppet Shah to power

    As we reported in May just a few days after the former NYC mayor and Trump’s personal attorney  unexpectedly let it slip that “we got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is committed to regime change [in Iran]”, the Washington Free Beacon had obtained a three-page white paper that was circulated among National Security Council officials with drafted plans to spark regime change in Iran, following the US exit from the Obama-era nuclear deal and the re-imposition of tough sanctions aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. 

    The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change.

    And it appears that the latest Axios report on the US-Israel working group is but an early manifestation of what was outlined in the white paper, and news of Bolton’s direct oversight of the working group comes the same week Rudy Giuliani again told an Iranian opposition conference “see you in Tehran next year” and “the end is near” in reference to recent internal protests in the country. 

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

    Though we have little doubt that such covert ops actually began years ago in Iran, likely into the Bush administration, Axios reports that US and Israeli state-sponsored propaganda is in full swing

    In the last few weeks, both Israel and the U.S. started using social media to convey anti-regime messages to the Iranian people. And Netanyahu has recently posted four different videos on Youtube, Facebook and Twitter — translated to Farsi — in which he speaks to the Iranian people and encourages them to protest against the regime.

    Axios further identifies recent tweets by Secretary of State Pompeo as possible direct result of the working group’s strategy:

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote a series of tweets supporting the protesters in Iran, criticizing mass arrests of protesters by the Iranian regime and highlighting the regime’s growing funding of the Revolutionary Guards Corps as controversy build over Iran’s domestic spending.

    Of course, such examples constitute but the tip of the iceberg, especially when one looks at the activities and funding for the controversial Iranian opposition group in exile, Mujahideen e Khalq (MEK) considered by Iran and many other countries as a terror organization (and not long ago by the US State Deptartment, though delisted as a terror group under Obama ), but now given close support by US Congresspersons and Trump admin officials alike. 

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

    Essentially a paramilitary cult, the MEK, is suspected of conducting assassinations of high level Iranian figures, especially nuclear scientists and engineers for years, likely at the bidding of foreign intelligence services.

    For example, Mossad’s role in such assassinations was confirmed as far back as 2012. And crucially, a who’s who of top US officials have long been cozy with the group, foremost among them John Bolton

    But as veteran intelligence professionals recently explained at Consortium News, the MEK’s history of terrorism is quite clear. Among more than a dozen examples over the last four decades these four are illustrative:

    • During the 1970s, the MEK killed U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
    • In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including Iran’s President, Premier, and Chief Justice.
    • In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries, demonstrating the group’s ability to mount large-scale operations overseas.
    • In April 1999, the MEK targeted key military officers and assassinated the deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff.

    The newly revealed US-Israeli “working group” for ramping up “internal pressure” inside Iran is probably ready to unleash the MEK, or perhaps already has. Likely we will so more unrest to come. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 3rd July 2018

  • Mapping Where The Most Refugees Live

    With populist movements currently resurgent across Europe, refugees remain the single most discussed topic in the Union’s political discourse.

    However,  as Statista’s Patrick Wagner notes, countries with the most prominent xenophobic political movements do not tend to host the largest share of asylum seekers.

    Infographic: Where The Most Refugees Live | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Our chart shows that even though Germany tops the ranking when it comes to the total number of people seeking refuge in the respective country, it does not come first when looking at the share of refugees in comparison to a country’s total inhabitants.

    In Italy – ranked fourth when it comes to GDP in the EU – only 0.5 percent of all inhabitants are seeking refuge.

    Even though Data suggests that in Latvia, almost 12 percent of the population may count as refugees, almost all of them are stateless persons who did not flee from conflict.

  • Is Turkey Playing A Double Game With NATO?

    Authored by Debalina Ghoshal via The Gatestone Institute,

    In January, 2018 Turkey reportedly awarded an 18-month contract for a study on the development and production of a long-range air- and missile-defense system to France and Italy, showing — ostensibly — Turkey’s ongoing commitment to NATO. The study, contracted between the EUROSAM consortium and Turkey’s Aselsan and Roketsan companies, was agreed upon in Paris, on the sidelines of a meeting between French President Emmanuel Macron and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

    The contract for the study came on the heels of a deal between Ankara and Moscow, according to which Turkey would purchase the S-400 missile defense system — one of the most sophisticated on the global market — from Russia.

    The question is: Why would Turkey first order a Russian defense system and then turn around and make a cooperation agreement with Europe for the same purpose?

    The answer is likely that Ankara is trying to pretend that it is still loyal to NATO, at a time when its strategic inclinations seem to indicate otherwise.

    As Turkey is a member of NATO, its decision to opt for the S-400, a non-NATO missile-defense system, has been the subject of speculation and controversy. NATO has adopted the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), according to which the United States plans to deploy its missile-defense systems in various parts of Europe, to protect its forces and those of other NATO members from Iranian missile attacks. Turkey’s move appears to run counter to the EPAA.

    It is also not the first time that Turkey has turned to a non-NATO country for its missile-defense needs. In 2013 — even as the U.S., Germany and The Netherlands sent Patriot missiles to Turkey to protect it from Syrian Scud missiles — Ankara, seeking to procure its own missile-defense system, chose China’s FD-2000. This was of great concern to NATO, which feared that such a deal would make it easier for China to study NATO’s system and develop ballistic missiles that could evade it. Turkey canceled the deal with China in 2015, partly due to U.S. pressure and partly over pricing issues. But then Ankara turned to Russia. To justify its preference of Russia’s S-400s over U.S. Patriot missiles, Turkey said that the U.S. did not allow room for a joint production of the missile-defense system, while the deal with Russia enables co-production of the system.

    Pictured: A Russian S-400 missile battery. (Image source: Vitaly Kuzmin/Wikimedia Commons)

     

    After the failed coup against Erdogan in July 2016 — when two Turkish military jets reportedly attempted to down the plane transporting him home from vacation — the government became suspicious of its air force and fired several F-16 pilots. This move severely limited Turkey’s air-defense capability; hence, the S-400 deal with Russia. However, according to Turkish Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hami Aksoy, “The system we are buying from Russia cannot be integrated into NATO systems.” In other words, as Turkey needs a missile-defense system that can be integrated with the NATO’s — and as NATO will not allow integration of the Russian S-400, for the same reason that it opposed Ankara’s deal over China’s FD-2000 — Ankara turned to Europe.

    Beyond that, a deal with EUROSAM would allow Turkey to make the sovereign decision of whether it wishes to integrate the missile-defense system with that of NATO, and would also allow for a joint production of the system — something that Ankara considers imperative.

    Furthermore, and perhaps of equal, if not greater, importance, by signing the EUROSAM deal, Turkey is probably trying to persuade NATO that the decision to purchase Russian S-400s was merely a technological and budgetary one, not an indication that Turkey is opposed to NATO weapon systems. This may be its way of preventing its deal with Russia from becoming an obstacle in its path to procuring American F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), which the U.S. is refusing to provide it, due to its purchase of the S-400s. This goes back to America’s apprehension that if Turkey uses the S-400s along with the F-35s, Russia could gain access to information about the aircraft’s sensitive technology.

    If Turkey is playing a double game with NATO, let us hope that the United States does not fall prey to it.

  • This Is What A Massive X9 Class Solar Flare Looks Like

    Scientists from Caltech Astronomy examined the great solar flare of 1990 that occurred in active region NOAA 6063. The eruption and subsequent shockwave were so massive that scientist decided to write a report on their findings titled “Tangential Field Changes in the Great Flare of 1990 May 24.”

    The region on the sun gave rise to a dangerous X9.3 flare, which was visible in white light. The flare was observed by several observatories, including the Big Bear Solar Observatory at Caltech.

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

    Solar flares are enormous explosions on the sun that unleash streams of energy, light, and high-speed particles into space. The most dangerous solar flare is known as “X-class flares” based on a classification system that divides solar flares according to their strength.

    If Earth faced, the solar flares and associated coronal mass ejection (CME) can create geomagnetic storms that can disable satellites, communications systems, and even ground-based technologies and power grids.

    massive solar storm in April 2017 allegedly interfered with power grids in San Fransisco, New York, and Los Angeles. On both coasts, critical infrastructure such as communication networks and mass transportation were severely impaired.

    This was the period when mainstream media blamed the Russians for cyber hacking America.

    Meanwhile, in a report from NOAA titled “Geomagnetic Storms and the US Power Grid,” the paper mentions how US power grids are highly interconnected and susceptible to damage from solar flares.

    The report shows how the sun produces Geomagnetically Induced Current (GIC) [solar flares] and launches it to the Earth.

    When GICs penetrate the Earth’s geomagnetic field, they usually enter transformers in the power grid.

    What happens next? Well, GICs blowup transformers and force a terrifying grid-down event.

    Even the White House has been preparing for a catastrophic solar storm through a recent 2016 Executive Order titled “Coordinating Efforts to Prepare the Nation for Space Weather Events.”

    The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta warns about solar storms and its physiological impact on markets.

    So, what does this all mean? Like the great solar flare of 1990, scientist and governmental agencies have been fascinated by the sun and its occasional expulsion of energy. Not all solar flares are Earth-facing, but it is only a matter of time before the next big one cripples modern society. Then what?

  • Nassim Taleb Slams "These Virtue-Signaling Open-Borders Imbeciles" In 3 Short Tweets

    As liberals across America continue to attempt to one-up one another with the volume of virtue they can signal, specifically on the question of ‘open borders’ – especially since ‘jenny from the bronx’ victory over the weekend, none other than Nassim Nicholas Taleb unleashed a trite 3-tweet summary of how farcical this argument is…

    What intellectuals don’t get about MIGRATION is the ethical notion of SYMMETRY:

    1) OPEN BORDERS work if and only if the number of pple who want to go from EU/US to Africa/LatinAmer equals Africans/Latin Amer who want to move to EU/US

    2) Controlled immigration is based on the symmetry that someone brings in at least as much as he/she gets out. And the ethics of the immigrant is to defend the system as payback, not mess it up.

    Uncontrolled immigration has all the attributes of invasions.

    3) As a Christian Lebanese, saw the nightmare of uncontrolled immigration of Palestinians which caused the the civil war & as a part-time resident of N. Lebanon, I am seeing the effect of Syrian migration on the place.

    So I despise these virtue-signaling open-borders imbeciles.

    Silver Rule in #SkinInTheGame

    * * *

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

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

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

  • The Dictatorship Over America: How It Functions

    Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Democrats have won the national vote in six of the last seven presidential elections, which, with the retirement of Anthony Kennedy, will have resulted in the appointment of eight of the Supreme Court’s nine justices. And yet four of those justices will have been appointed by presidents who took office despite having fewer votes than their opponent. Republicans will have increasingly solid control of the court’s majority, with the chance to replace the sometimes-wavering Kennedy with a never-wavering conservative movement stalwart.

    Over the last generation, the Republican Party has moved rapidly rightward, while the center of public opinion has not. It is almost impossible to find a substantive basis in public opinion for Republican government. On health care, taxes, immigration, guns, the GOP has left America behind in its race to the far right. But the Supreme Court underscores its ability to counteract the undertow of its deepening, unpopular extremism by marshaling countermajoritiarian power.

    This is the way that the neocon (Hillary Clinton wing) Democrat Jonathan Chait, writing at the Democratic Party propaganda-organ New York magazine, got something profoundly correct, for a change. That quotation opened Chait’s June 27th commentary, which was titled “The Republican Court and the Era of Minority Rule”.

    Neoconservatives (otherwise called “America’s imperialists” but they’re basically no different from imperialists in other countries) now run both of America’s political Parties – not only the Republican Party – regardless of what voters might happen to think of the neoconservative philosophy.

    This disparity between the non-ideological public and the virtually 100% neoconservative rulers, is due to the fact that voters have no real power in America (something that Chait noted in that excerpt, but only within a partisan Democratic-Party-versus-Republican-Party context, not any broader or more encompassing context, that questions the political and economic system itself — at a deeper level than merely “Democratic” versus “Republican”). By contrast against that powerless public, America’s aristocrats possess all of the power, and they’re imperialists (“neocons”) because they want their private international corporate empires to dominate over the entire world. But this insightful (though too narrowly focused) opening from Chait shows that even neoconservatives (such as he) aren’t always wrong about everything.

    In fact, this opening, from a Democratic Party neoconservative, about America’s increasing conservative (Republican) dictatorship, was entirely truthful within its partisan narrow scope, and therefore (to that extent) more like an exemplification of the proverbial “infinite monkey theorem” — that “a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.” 

    However, Chait’s ‘Shakespearean’ string ended precisely there, when he immediately followed up that opening statement of his, by saying, “The story really begins in December 2000,” and he proceeded to blame everything on Bush-v.-Gore, and on the way that the Republican operatives raped the American nation on 9 December 2000. This problem of America’s being a dictatorship, however, actually goes far deeper — and farther back — than that Republican Party victory (as will be shown here).

    The only comprehensive and scientific study which has ever been done of whether the US is a democracy or instead a dictatorship, was published in 2014, and it found that, “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.”

    Consequently, for example, our opinions of “Saddam’s WMD” were simply being manipulated by the controlling owners of US-based international corporations, just as those same super-rich individuals (most of whom are Americans) have controlled whom the nine people will be who rule from the Supreme Court, on what the US Constitution means, and doesn’t mean (and this judicial panel, of course, also decided Bush-v.-Gore).

    So: the US Constitution has become increasingly twisted (by such jurists) to ‘mean’ things (such as aristocratic dictatorship) that were loathed by America’s Founders, who actually went to war against Britain’s aristocracy — this Constitution has become increasingly twisted to ‘mean’ things such as creating and expanding an international empire, and as allowing US taxpayers to be forced to subsidize the political speech of some religions and not of other religions, nor of opponents of all religions. (Especially the Republican Party benefits enormously from empowering evangelical pastors to preach Republican propaganda to their congregations.)

    According to that scientific study, the United States, during the period that was studied, which extended from 1981 through to 2002, which was virtually the entire twenty years PRIOR to Bush-.v.-Gore — and this is quoting now directly from the study itself: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

    So: how does this — the aristocracy’s dictatorial grip on America’s Government — function? Not only the 2000 US Presidential ‘election’ was stolen from the American electorate, but so too are almost all US national elections stolen, especially the crucial ones, such as the political primary elections to Congress and the Presidency, for candidates to become the selected nominees of each of the two political Parties and thus to become offered to the public as the final contestants who might actually win those offices in the US national Government. Just as Bernie Sanders was the most-preferred of all candidates in 2016 to become the US President but the nomination was stolen from him by the Democratic National Committee for Hillary Clinton, it’s the same in most ‘elections’ to American national offices. And this dictatorship by the super-rich didn’t start with Bush.-v.-Gore, such as Chait alleges.

    Right now, the US aristocracy, who control all of the large US corporations — including all of the major news-media — are pushing very hard to impose a kind of lock-down against the few media that they don’t control: against the media whose only presence is online, because these small media lack the funding to have either a print-and-paper presence, or else network broadcast and telecast facilities or a cable network.

    The way that the ‘news’-giants propagandize this lockdown against unwanted truths, is by calling those small media sites (the half-dozen or so which do publish the elsewhere prohibited truths) ‘fake news’ media, and by alleging that only the print-broadcast-cable ‘news’ media (the very same ‘news’media which had deceived the public in 2002 to fear “Saddam’s WMD” and which had ‘justified’ in 2011 Obama’s destruction of Libya, and his subsequent invasion of Syria) ought to be trusted by the American people. Obviously, that’s crazy, but America’s aristocrats want the public to believe this way.

    On June 27th, Gallup reported:

    Gallup and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation conducted a web-based experiment to assess the effectiveness of a news source rating tool designed to help online news consumers discriminate between real news and misinformation. The tool identifies news organizations as reliable (using a green cue) or unreliable (using a red cue) based on evaluations of their work, funding and other factors by experienced journalists.

    The Gallup news-report closed: “Gallup and Knight Foundation acknowledge support for this research provided by the Ford Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Open Society Foundations. All of them are neoconservative organizations, which represent the interests of America’s billionaires — not of the public anywhere.

    The technical report of this experiment concluded that mainstream news-media can increase the public’s prejudice against non-mainstream news-media, by having their own hired “experienced journalists” label those small competing news-media as providers of ‘misinformation’ instead of ‘news’

    This survey experiment evaluated the effect of a specific source rating tool — cues about news organization trustworthiness based on evaluations from experienced journalists. The findings suggest that using this approach may help combat online misinformation and restore confidence in obtaining quality news.

    Of course, this finding is very good news for America’s billionaires, because further suppressing what the aristocrats are calling ‘misinformation’ (such as this) will enable them to increase their dictatorship, even more.

    As time goes by, the means of deceiving the public, become even cagier than they were before. The way that the dictatorship in America functions is by deceiving the public; and perhaps this Gallup-Knight-Ford-Gates-Soros study has helped them to develop a more effective “tool” to do that.

    Maybe the next big invasion will be of Iran. American-and-allied media seem to be focusing increasingly on this particular target. Perhaps “experienced journalists” are being promoted right now, for that very purpose. With Donald Trump in power, Iran is systematically becoming the main next target. It was his top target even before he became elected; and one can even say that he was selected by the US aristocracy, and by Israel’s aristocracy, and by the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and by the leader of UAE’s royal families, mainly for this reason, to be installed to run the US regime. But, of course, they would also have done very well if Hillary Clinton had been ‘elected’.

    That’s the way things are: politics in America, especially at the national level, is now merely a puppet-show. And, apparently, many if not most of the people who are pulling the strings in it don’t so much as live here — they are foreigners, though of the types that Trump (as now is obvious), relies upon, instead of persecutes (such as ‘wetbacks’).

    The American people are merely the audience. We didn’t even buy this puppet-show. Those billionaires did. (The American ones also buy the puppet-theater which presents Russia as being the foreign power that controls the US Government and that ‘endangers democracy’ everywhere. During the communist era, that story-line was believable by even intelligent people, but after 24 February 1990, it no longer is.)

    NOTE: The way that the present writer tries to facilitate readers’ checking-out the trustworthiness of the allegations in my own news-reports, isn’t based on sites but on individual news-reports, by means of providing links to the source whenever a given allegation is one that a significant percentage of readers might think to be false. I am selective of each and every individual article or video that I cite as being evidence; I never select sources on the basis of the news-medium that published them, because I sometimes find falsehoods published on even the best media, and sometimes find thoroughly accurate articles or videos to be published on even the worst media. Selecting on the basis of media, is for fools. Every news-consumer should know what the prejudices of any given ‘news’medium are — its main propagandistic orientations. But to evaluate any given allegation on that basis, is foolish. It is ad-hominem, not ad-rem, regarding the given allegation.

  • "Mass Exodus": Seattle Cops Quitting In Droves Over City Politics

    Seattle cops are leaving in droves because they’re “fed up” with Seattle’s policies, according to the Seattle Police Officer’s Guild

    In a Sunday appearance on Fox & Friends, Guild VP Rich O’Neill said that a “number of issues” are causing Seattle officers to pack up and leave town – opting for jobs elsewhere. At least 41 officers have left the Seattle PD this year. While retired, at least 20 officers left Seattle for other cities and county law enforcement agencies.

    O’Neill told Q13 FOX that local officials “are allowing certain crimes to go on without accountability.”

    “Worker bees on the street, they don’t feel appreciated. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life,” another source within the Seattle PD told Q13 Fox.

    Also at issue is a lack of pay raises throughout the department in over four years – despite Seattle’s economy “booming,” while officers are complaining that more money is being invested in social programs. 

    Officers complain they’ve been working without a contract for more than three years. The negotiations are ongoing with meetings taking place, but there’s still distance between what the city wants and what officers find acceptable. And due to the confidentiality of the process, the public doesn’t know how far apart the sides are. We do know one sticking point is pay and the process is complex and multifaceted.

    Repeatedly, officers have complained to me about unsatisfactory pay, which they don’t believe has kept up with the cost of living. Indeed, some officers are leaving because they can’t afford to live in the very city they police. –Mynorthwest.com

    “The number of officers on the street [is] pretty much the same as the 1970s, which is just alarming,” said O’Neill. 

    The city’s liberal stance on the homeless population and drug use is another issue for Seattle cops.

    [T]here are many homeless citizen “encampments” and tents and “open-air drug markets” on the streets.

    “It’s just like lawlessness,” he said. “As our officers encounter them they don’t want shelter, they don’t want help.

    “They want to live there where they can have their guns and their drugs and their needles and just not be bothered.” –Fox

    It also doesn’t help that two city council members have been highly critical of law enforcement – with one calling two police officers murderers.

    Officers are growing tired of the constant barrage of negativity from councilmembers like Kshama Sawant, Mike O’Brien, and Lorena Gonzalez. In exit interviews with the SPD, some officers noted Seattle politics played a role.

    Sawant’s name came up in nearly every conversation I’ve had for this story — none of it positive. No stranger to controversy, Sawant is currently the subject of a defamation lawsuit after claiming two officers committed a “brutal murder” when they shot and killed convicted felon Che Taylor. Taylor was reaching for a gun when he was shot and the officers were cleared by an internal review board. –Mynorthwest.com

    “[Officers] came to help people and we help people all the time, but we don’t talk about that,” argued Stuckey. “If you make a mistake, we’ll put your name in the paper, pull every mistake you ever made, and beat you down so you can’t work anywhere else, take away your livelihood, if we don’t like your mistake. Tell me another profession that treats people like that?”

    “Not only do they not support the police, but they villainize us,” one officer explained to journalist Jason Rantz. “Sawant, in no way shape or form, should she make a comment on something she doesn’t understand.”

    “I live here. This is where I call home,” said Officer’s Guild president Kevin Stuckey. “I just recently visited some other cities; Minneapolis. Madison, WI. These are beautiful cities. Ours used to be beautiful, too. Seattle isn’t beautiful anymore and I see no one making it beautiful again. If I was ten to fifteen years younger, I’d look to move somewhere else, too, if I’m being honest. I hope that we’ll be able to fix this situation…

  • Holocaust Survivor: "Grow Up, You Can't Compare" – America Does Not Run 'Concentration Camps'

    Authored by Benny Johnson via The Daily Caller,

    High-profile members of America’s media and political circles have used amplified, irresponsible rhetoric to describe President Trump’s immigration detainment policies. Terminology from Nazi Germany is now regularly used to describe American immigration policy in the public arena. Many have likened illegal alien detainment facilities on the Southern border to “concentration camps,” referred to Trump as a “Nazi” or “Hitler” and call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents the “Gestapo.”

    Democratic Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal likened America’s zero tolerance immigration policy to the “cattle cars of Nazi Germany.” Many pundits and politicians have echoed the sentiment.

    David Tuck was born in Poland in 1929. He was enslaved by the Nazis and survived multiple concentration camps. In the wake of pundits and politicians comparing illegal immigrant detainment facilities in modern day America to Nazi concentration camps, Tuck felt compelled to speak out.

    Today, Tuck has a message for those comparing American illegal immigrant detainment facilities to the Holocaust.

    “They know nothing of the Holocaust,” Tuck says. “Grow up. You can’t compare. Every time I hear it, it’s sickening.”

    “Wake up,” he said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller. “This is not the Holocaust.”

    WATCH:

    As the Daily Caller previously reported:

    When he was 10 years old, the Nazis invaded his country. They marched through his neighborhood, identifying Jews. David had a golden Star of David sewn to his clothes and was moved to a ghetto.

    In 1941, David was deported to Posen, a Nazi labor camp in Poland, to work as a slave. In 1943, David was once again deported, this time to Auschwitz, where he was forced to build anti-aircraft guns. In 1945, David was deported a third time to the Mauthausen labor camp. He nearly died on the trip from the horrible cold.

    David was deported once more to the Nazi military labor camp, Güsen II, where he was required to build German aircrafts. When the Americans liberated his camp, David weighed 78 pounds.

    Tuck immigrated to America after being liberated.

  • India Defies Washington, Will Acquire Russian S-400 Missile Shield

    Washington’s so-called allies continue to gravitate towards the Russian sphere of influence, and specifically the Russian S-400 Triumph advanced anti-aircraft weapon system.

    First it was Turkey, which openly defied Trump’s threats that the US would sanction Ankara if it completes the purchase of the anti-aircraft missiles, saying the acquisition of the missile defense system is “a done deal and Turkey will not turn back from its decision.”

    Now India is also moving towards acquiring five or more S-400 from Russia despite the threat of US retaliation. The Defense Acquisitions Council (DAC), chaired by minister Nirmala Sitharaman, last week approved the “minor deviations” in the $5.7 billion deal to purchase S-400s for final government approval, to the finance ministry and the Prime Minister’s office sources told the Times of India.

    The DAC discussed the S-400 deal just one day after Washington on Wednesday canceled a “two-plus-two” discussion involving foreign minister Sushma Swaraj and defense minister Sitharaman and Washington officials Mike Pompeo and Jim Mattis, which was scheduled for July 6.

    The Times of India noted that in October 2015, India had planned to procure the S-400s – which can detect, track and destroy supersonic bombers, drones, fifth-generation fighters, spy planes, and supersonic missiles at a range of up to 400km and altitude of 30km – in what many Indian officials have praised as a game-changing military acquisition.

    The world’s leading Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems are Patriot Advanced Capability-3, THAAD, S-400 Triumph and S-500. India has big ambitions for regional dominance and has been attempting to develop a domestic BMD system over the last several decades.

    And while Washington officials briefed India on the use of Patriot system, it seems that the country is more interesting in purchasing Russian made BMDs instead.  The New York Times reported in April that the Indian/Russian deal serves as a blow to the United States’ ”struggling Patriot missile defense system.”

    “India wasn’t very impressed with the Patriot compared with the S-400, which wins hands-down in capability, in its availability, service availability. It’s a more efficient system,” it cited Rahul Bedi of Jane’s Information Group as saying.

    Petr Topychkanov, a senior researcher at the Carnegie Moscow Centre’s Non-Proliferation Programme, says “despite heavy investments in developing anti-ballistic missile systems, India may not be able to fully defend itself in a conflict from strikes by Pakistani missiles.”

    India and Russia have worked on a plan to beat the financial sanctions called CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act) that attempts to prevent countries from purchasing Russian weapons.

    “The acquisition of this technology will limit, I am afraid, the degree with which the United States will feel comfortable in bringing additional technology into whatever country we are talking about,” US armed services committee chairman Mac Thornberry said back in May, noting that there is also concern that “any country that acquires the system [S-400] will complicate the ability of interoperability” with US forces.

    It seems as the plan for the Indian government is to fully integrate the S-400 system with the Indian Air Force’s air defense network called IACCS (integrated air command and control system), which could provide an umbrella of air defense support and serve as a deterrent against Pakistan. To complicate matters, China has also acquired S-400 batteries and Saudi Arabia has also been reported to consider a purchase. Meanwhile, Washington’s influence even among US allies in the East is waning fast.

  • Retired Green Beret: The US Border Battle Is Just The Beginning

    Authored by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) via SHTFplan.com,

    For several months, now, there has been a steadily growing focus on the U.S.’s implementation of increased border patrols, the creation of a permanent fence or divider on the border, and the question of illegal aliens. The president has taken a firm and unyielding stance. On June 25, AP was quoted as reporting “President Donald Trump on Sunday compared people entering the U.S. from Mexico to invaders and said they should be back without appearing before a judge.”

    The president was quoted as saying, “We cannot allow all of these people to invade our country. Our immigration policy, laughed at all over the world, is very unfair to all of those people who have gone through the system legally and are waiting [in] line for years! Immigration must be based on merit – we need people who will help to Make America Great Again!

    Absolutely right: they are illegal aliens, and as they are crossing the border illegally without citizenship, they are foreign, non-citizens – aliens, by definition.

    The stance of the ACLU, the Democratic Party, and other communist organizations are just such: communist platforms that are evident within Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” Van Jones’ “Top Down, Bottom Up,” principle, and the pseudo-heartfelt “welcome” to the illegals from lifelong party operatives such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer. In the manner of the “open dams” in Europe, allowing the floodgates to open up with Muslims and destroy the European nations from within, the Democrats, communist-sympathizing domestic corporations (globalist and communist are interchangeable), and the “entitlement nation” of citizen-sheeple are pushing hard to make that happen here.

    From a technical standpoint, not only are they illegal aliens, but also they are invaders, just as the president stated, and that by their own admission. In the words of the Mexicans who are proponents of “La Reconquista,” the entire southwest and half of California “belongs” to the Mexicans. The exact percentage is unknown: polls of this nature are not taken, and if they were, the results would be discounted or labeled as “racist” in the manner of “The Bell Curve,” released in the mid 1990’s with amazing statistical analyses.

    The majority of these “Reconquistadores” truly believe that with a combination of illegal incursions, the drug cartels, and eventually the support of the Mexican government, that the territory ceded to the U.S. in and surrounding the war with Mexico will be reclaimed and renamed Aztlan. Tens of millions have already crossed, and the majority of these illegal aliens brought that philosophy with them: thus, they are illegal aliens, and this is an invasion.

    Complicit with that invasion are the politicians in the United States and the moneyed interests, lobbyists, and corporations who set up and pay the politicians’ “second retirement fund,” as in the “Clinton Foundation,” the most massive presidential money-laundering operation carried out by a former president, his family, and his network. The corporations have paid these politicians to look the other way and make it easier for illegal aliens to work in this country under the table. President Reagan had a big hand in triggering this “amnesty” mind-set with his policies that did not enforce border security or crackdowns on corporations employing illegal aliens outside of the tax-format of society.

    President Trump is doing the right thing. He is setting the wheels in motion for a no-tolerance policy for illegal entry into the United States. He is fulfilling his job as the Commander-in-Chief by dealing with the border and protecting the interests of U.S. citizens as provided within the Constitution.

    Time Magazine’s June 25 edition has an article entitled “A parent’s nightmare at the U.S. border.” The article is a perfect characterization of the Left’s demonization of any…any…upholding of U.S. laws relating to border control. The article uses “A young Honduran woman named Miriam” and her “18 month-old son” that she carried in her arms and walked across the border with, on grounds of “asking for asylum.”

    The author’s name is Haley Sweetland Edwards (go figure), and it painted a picture of the struggling, valiant young mother and her infant son against the evils of the U.S. government who wouldn’t just let her walk across. Asylum? Viktor Belenko was granted asylum back in ’74 when he flew a MiG, the “Foxbat” to Japan and defected from the USSR. That’s a case for asylum. Haley Sweetland Edwards, you just walk across the Mexican border asking for “asylum,” and see what they do to you there, or in any other country for that matter.

    The mindset is this: you give your money, open your homes, and you let them into the borders…but just don’t give them my things: that is the liberal mindset in a nutshell. Liberals are always generous with things that don’t belong to them, generous with anything that doesn’t come directly out of their pockets or bank accounts.

    The irony: it does, because indirectly these illegal aliens are responsible for making their taxes rise, making their wait time in an emergency room double, and is adding to the cost of goods and services in the U.S. across the board. The illegals take jobs out of the hands of American citizens and devalue your own money, liberals, by allowing an outflow of cash that increases the balance of payments for the U.S. and undermines the economy. The president is looking out for the interests of the United States and her citizens, bottom line.  July 2 of Time Magazine’s cover has a picture of the president looking down at a crying Latino child, with the caption, “Welcome to America.”

    Let’s take an investigative look at this and find out who the staff at Time is and how many of them have an interest either politically or economically or both – of allowing illegal aliens to cross the border with no restrictions. The American media is one of the vilest, most evil, most despicable institutions that has ever existed on the planet. The crimes that have been committed with their blessings make them nothing less than complicit in their commissions.

    And regarding that Time issue? They don’t have a page that lists the editor-in-chief, the editorial staff, and the photographers: the anonymity to protect operatives of the communist party, card-carrying or otherwise. “Pravda” or “Izvestya” is a better title for those fawning communist-syndicated AP parrots.

    Omitted are the details of the gang-bangers and narcotrafficantes, and the challenges the Border Patrol faced within the administration that was supposed to support it. Omitted are the crimes committed…murders of U.S. citizens…after these illegal aliens have been let out of detention. Fast and Furious and a dead border patrol agent was under Obama’s watch, and these detention camps that are just now coming to the forefront of the media’s camera lenses? They all sprung up during Obama’s tenure, not under the current administration.

    In Europe, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and now Italy are taking a stand and stemming the inflow of illegal aliens into their countries. The United States has the chance to do the same. The globalists cannot win unless they completely collapse nations from within and destroy and devalue the borders, language, religion, economy, and culture. They’re using mass migrations (illegal aliens) to accomplish this. In order for the president to succeed, he needs the support of the Congress and American people to stem the tide of illegal aliens into the United States.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 2nd July 2018

  • Russian Military Signs Contract For First Batch Of Fifth-Generation Jet Fighters

    The Russian military approved the first state procurement contract for a dozen fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft, said Deputy Defense Minister of Russia Alexei Krivoruchko on Saturday.

    Krivoruchko told reporters that a batch of the Sukhoi Su-57, a stealth, single-seat, twin-engine multirole fifth-generation stealth fighter will be delivered to the Russian military in the near term.

    Speaking highly of the work by the Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer on the production of the fifth-generation fighter jet, Krivoruchko added that engineers are concluding the last round of tests on the aircraft’s second-stage engines.

    The aircraft will be manufactured at Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Plant, based in Komsomolsk-on-Amur in the Russian Far East, which is the largest aircraft-manufacturing company in the country.

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

    The Su-57 is a Russian multi-role fighter of the fifth generation, developed by Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer. The jet fighter is designed to fly at supersonic speeds, have super maneuverability, stealth technology, and advanced sensors to challenge the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) fifth-generation aircraft.

    The first flight of the Su-57 occurred in early 2010 in the Komsomolsk-on-Amur region.

    Yury Slyusar, director of the United Aircraft Corporation, informed RIA Novosti that the first batch of SU-57s should be delivered to the Russian military in 2019.

    Earlier this year, we uncovered unverified photos and video footage circulating Twitter, showing two new Russian Su-57 stealth fighters landing at Khemimim air base, near Latakia, in northwestern Syria.

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

    Footage analysis verifies that the video was indeed taken in Syria as the jets made a landing at Russia’s master air base located south of Latakia:

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

    Russia has deployed a wide variety of high-tech weapons to the proxy war in Syria to showcase and test their performance. Most military strategists believe that deployment of the Su-57 to Syria was to directly challenge America’s fifth-generation fighter aircraft (Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II) and let the world know: Russia has fifth-generation fighter aircraft for a fraction of the cost.

    Russia is now open for business, and for those in the market for a cheaper stealth fighter, the promo clip of the Su-57 is below:

  • Turkey And India Have Leverage In Trump's Iran Sanction War

    Authored by Tom Luongo,

    Both India and Turkey have said they will defy President Trump’s call for them to stop buying Iranian oil once the U.S. reapplies sanctions in November.  That isn’t really news.

    Both of them defied the Obama administration in 2012, albeit in different way. Turkey changed its banking rules to monetize gold and used its gold reserves as a means to launder Iranian oil payments for third parties through its banking system.

    India bypassed cutting off Iran from the U.S. dollar by beginning a goods-for-oil swap program.

    Today, however, the geopolitical background is far different.  Today, Iran can and does list its oil for sale in Shanghai’s futures market payable in Chinese Yuan.  Turkey can recycle its Yuan it receives from its large trade deficit with China to up its purchases of Iranian oil if need be.

    But, more importantly, both India and Turkey have geopolitical freedoms they didn’t have in 2012.  I have covered the Turkey angle on this at length.  India, on the other hand, I haven’t.

    Iran has become Turkey’s biggest oil importer.

    Turkey, a NATO ally, is dependent on imports for almost all of its energy needs. In the first four months of this year, Turkey bought 3.077 million tons of crude oil from Iran, almost 55 percent of its total crude supplies, according to data from Turkey’s Energy Market Regulatory Agency (EPDK).

    President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan last year said Turkey was looking to raise the volume of its annual trade with Iran to $30 billion from $10 billion.

    And it doesn’t look like this will change with Trump’s sanctions.

    With President Erdogan winning re-election he now goes into the NATO Summit with Trump on July 11-12th with a lot of leverage.  Erdogan has openly courted Russia on energy supplies.

    It just began construction on its first nuclear power plant being built by Russia which is due to begin generating power by 2023.  But, in the near term, Turkey is in bed with Gazprom on the Turkish Stream pipeline, which is ready to begin the land-based portion.

    The permits have not been issued however.  Turkey has been dragging its feet on this.  And with good reason, Erdogan knows Turkish Stream is a bargaining chip for him with Trump at the NATO summit.

    Turkey’s NATO status is becoming problematic and it’s why I don’t really expect Trump to take the U.S. out of the treaty organization just yet.  He wants to lessen our involvement and may very well announce a major funding cut at the Summit, but if his regime change strategy for Iran (and Germany) is to succeed he can’t completely alienate Erdogan just yet.

    India’s Silk Road Goes Through Iran

    The biggest tell that the U.S. is having to resort to begging to keep its geostrategic allies in line came from the most unlikely source though, U.N. Ambassador and neoconservative Buffoon herself, Nikki Haley.

    While urging India to curb its Iranian oil purchases, Haley said the United States supported India’s project to help Iran build a major port complex in Chabahar, which is being developed as part of a new transportation corridor for landlocked Afghanistan.

    Calling the port project “vital,” Haley said, “We know the port has to happen and the U.S. is going to work with India to do that.”

    Haley acknowledged that the port project will also benefit Iran even as Washington tries to cut Tehran off from international markets.

    “We realize we’re threading a needle when we do that,” she said.

    This is blatant pandering on Haley’s part to keep India from jumping ship towards the Russia/China/Iran alliance.  The port development project at Chabahar has been delayed for months because of Trump’s threatening to scuttle the JCPOA and make it difficult for Indian companies to do business with Iran.

    It’s a major infrastructure project meant to position India, technically, outside of China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) project which has poured more than $50 billion into India’s biggest rival, Pakistan under the rubric of CPEC — The China Pakistan Economic Corridor.

    So, this admission by Haley that the port and railroad upgrades in Iran have to go forward to appease India is telling as to who really has the leverage here.

    Ultimately, India will be allowed to bypass the dollar for its oil trade with Iran, if the U.S. wants to remain a serious influencer of policy.  It is already a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and Iran now has a free-trade pact with the Eurasian Economic Union, which India is exploring becoming affiliated with.

    As much as India may not like the OBOR project from the perspective of national price, its leadership recognizes it will ultimately benefit India tremendously.

    So will Turkey.  Trump will talk a big game about sanctioning China but doing so would crash the global economy.  So, it’s all noise.

    China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) is taking over for France’s Total on the important South Pars B gas field.  While India and Iran continue to haggle over the South Azadegan oilfield development plan.

    A lot of these deals between India and Iran have the stink of U.S. meddling in them, trying to keep them in limbo while furious haggling goes on behind the scenes.  There’s a reason why Haley went to India.

    And then there’s another reason why a major “2+2” meeting between the U.S. and India between Secretaries of Defense and State, James Mattis and Mike Pompeo and their Indian counterparts was just unilaterally postponed by the U.S.

    The upcoming summit with Putin in Helsinki.  This will not sit well with India as this is the latest in a series of delays because of uncertainty at the State Department under Trump.

    In the end, expect India and Turkey to mostly get their way in the coming months on energy and defense policy.  They both understand that Trump is simply trying to manage the retreat of the U.S. empire from Eurasia as best as he can and both are more than willing to play it against the Russia/China/Iran axis to get the best deals they can for themselves.

    *  *  *

    To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 120 Patrons on Patreon and see if I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad. 

  • Chris Hedges: The Coming Collapse

    Authored by Chris Hedges via TruthDig.com,

    The Trump administration did not rise, prima facie, like Venus on a half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of our failed democracy. The longer we perpetuate the fiction that we live in a functioning democracy, that Trump and the political mutations around him are somehow an aberrant deviation that can be vanquished in the next election, the more we will hurtle toward tyranny. The problem is not Trump. It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we don’t count. We will wrest back political control by dismantling the corporate state, and this means massive and sustained civil disobedience, like that demonstrated by teachers around the country this year. If we do not stand up we will enter a new dark age.

    The Democratic Party, which helped build our system of inverted totalitarianism, is once again held up by many on the left as the savior. Yet the party steadfastly refuses to address the social inequality that led to the election of Trump and the insurgency by Bernie Sanders. It is deaf, dumb and blind to the very real economic suffering that plagues over half the country. It will not fight to pay workers a living wage. It will not defy the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to provide Medicare for all. It will not curb the voracious appetite of the military that is disemboweling the country and promoting the prosecution of futile and costly foreign wars. It will not restore our lost civil liberties, including the right to privacy, freedom from government surveillance, and due process. It will not get corporate and dark money out of politics. It will not demilitarize our police and reform a prison system that has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. It plays to the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our peculiar species of anti-politics.

    This is a doomed tactic, but one that is understandable. The leadership of the party, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, are creations of corporate America. In an open and democratic political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate money, these people would not hold political power. They know this. They would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of privilege. And that, I fear, is what will happen. The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way a bulwark against despotism defies the last three decades of its political activity. It is the guarantor of despotism.

    Trump has tapped into the hatred that huge segments of the American public have for a political and economic system that has betrayed them. He may be inept, degenerate, dishonest and a narcissist, but he adeptly ridicules the system they despise. His cruel and demeaning taunts directed at government agencies, laws and the established elites resonate with people for whom these agencies, laws and elites have become hostile forces. And for many who see no shift in the political landscape to alleviate their suffering, Trump’s cruelty and invective are at least cathartic.

    Trump, like all despots, has no ethical core. He chooses his allies and appointees based on their personal loyalty and fawning obsequiousness to him. He will sell anyone out. He is corrupt, amassing money for himself—he made $40 million from his Washington, D.C., hotel alone last year—and his corporate allies. He is dismantling government institutions that once provided some regulation and oversight. He is an enemy of the open society. This makes him dangerous. His turbocharged assault on the last vestiges of democratic institutions and norms means there will soon be nothing, even in name, to protect us from corporate totalitarianism.

    But the warnings from the architects of our failed democracy against creeping fascism, Madeleine Albright among them, are risible. They show how disconnected the elites have become from the zeitgeist. None of these elites have credibility. They built the edifice of lies, deceit and corporate pillage that made Trump possible. And the more Trump demeans these elites, and the more they cry out like Cassandras, the more he salvages his disastrous presidency and enables the kleptocrats pillaging the country as it swiftly disintegrates.

    The press is one of the principal pillars of Trump’s despotism. It chatters endlessly like 18th-century courtiers at the court of Versailles about the foibles of the monarch while the peasants lack bread. It drones on and on and on about empty topics such as Russian meddling and a payoff to a porn actress that have nothing to do with the daily hell that, for many, defines life in America. It refuses to critique or investigate the abuses by corporate power, which has destroyed our democracy and economy and orchestrated the largest transfer of wealth upward in American history. The corporate press is a decayed relic that, in exchange for money and access, committed cultural suicide. And when Trump attacks it over “fake news,” he expresses, once again, the deep hatred of all those the press ignores. The press worships the idol of Mammon as slavishly as Trump does. It loves the reality-show presidency. The press, especially the cable news shows, keeps the lights on and the cameras rolling so viewers will be glued to a 21st-century version of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.” It is good for ratings. It is good for profits. But it accelerates the decline.

    All this will soon be compounded by financial collapse. Wall Street banks have been handed $16 trillion in bailouts and other subsidies by the Federal Reserve and Congress at nearly zero percent interest since the 2008 financial collapse. They have used this money, as well as the money saved through the huge tax cuts imposed last year, to buy back their own stock, raising the compensation and bonuses of their managers and thrusting the society deeper into untenable debt peonage. Sheldon Adelson’s casino operations alone got a $670 million tax break under the 2017 legislation. The ratio of CEO to worker pay now averages 339 to 1, with the highest gap approaching 5,000 to 1. This circular use of money to make and hoard money is what Karl Marx called “fictitious capital.” The steady increase in public debt, corporate debt, credit card debt and student loan debt will ultimately lead, as Nomi Prins writes, to “a tipping point—when money coming in to furnish that debt, or available to borrow, simply won’t cover the interest payments. Then debt bubbles will pop, beginning with higher yielding bonds.”

    An economy reliant on debt for its growth causes our interest rate to jump to 28 percent when we are late on a credit card payment. It is why our wages are stagnant or have declined in real terms—if we earned a sustainable income we would not have to borrow money to survive. It is why a university education, houses, medical bills and utilities cost so much. The system is designed so we can never free ourselves from debt.

    However, the next financial crash, as Prins points out in her book “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” won’t be like the last one. This is because, as she says, “there is no Plan B.” Interest rates can’t go any lower. There has been no growth in the real economy. The next time, there will be no way out. Once the economy crashes and the rage across the country explodes into a firestorm, the political freaks will appear, ones that will make Trump look sagacious and benign.

    And so, to quote Vladimir Lenin, what must be done?

    We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations, local currencies, alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town. The elites in a time of distress will retreat to their gated compounds and leave us to fend for ourselves. Basic services, from garbage collection to public transportation, food distribution and health care, will collapse. Massive unemployment and underemployment, triggering social unrest, will be dealt with not through government job creation but the brutality of militarized police and a complete suspension of civil liberties. Critics of the system, already pushed to the margins, will be silenced and attacked as enemies of the state. The last vestiges of labor unions will be targeted for abolition, a process that will soon be accelerated given the expected ruling in a case before the Supreme Court that will cripple the ability of public-sector unions to represent workers. The dollar will stop being the world’s reserve currency, causing a steep devaluation. Banks will close. Global warming will extract heavier and heavier costs, especially on the coastal populations, farming and the infrastructure, costs that the depleted state will be unable to address. The corporate press, like the ruling elites, will go from burlesque to absurdism, its rhetoric so patently fictitious it will, as in all totalitarian states, be unmoored from reality. The media outlets will all sound as fatuous as Trump. And, to quote W.H. Auden, “the little children will die in the streets.”

    As a foreign correspondent I covered collapsed societies, including the former Yugoslavia. It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion.

    All the harbingers of collapse are visible: crumbling infrastructure; chronic underemployment and unemployment; the indiscriminate use of lethal force by police; political paralysis and stagnation; an economy built on the scaffolding of debt; nihilistic mass shootings in schools, universities, workplaces, malls, concert venues and movie theaters; opioid overdoses that kill some 64,000 people a year; an epidemic of suicides; unsustainable military expansion; gambling as a desperate tool of economic development and government revenue; the capture of power by a tiny, corrupt clique; censorship; the physical diminishing of public institutions ranging from schools and libraries to courts and medical facilities; the incessant bombardment by electronic hallucinations to divert us from the depressing sight that has become America and keep us trapped in illusions.

    We suffer the usual pathologies of impending death. I would be happy to be wrong. But I have seen this before. I know the warning signs. All I can say is get ready.

    *  *  *

    Truthdig is running a reader-funded project to document the Poor People’s Campaign. Please help us by making a donation.

  • US May Deploy Marines To Taiwan Embassy, Risking China Fury

    Looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck… but when does an embassy “American Institute” finally gain official status as an embassy? Some say that the moment the Marine security detail shows up — a specially trained unit attached to every American embassy throughout the world — it’s pretty much a done deal. 

    File image via VOA News

    CNN has reported a new bombshell in US-China-Taiwan relations which is already sending shock waves throughout the region as it seems to negate the official US stance of the “One China Policy” — but which landed with a whimper in Western media over the weekend.

    CNN reports:

    The State Department has requested that US Marines be sent to Taiwan to help safeguard America’s de facto embassy there, two US officials tell CNN, prompting China to urge the US to “exercise caution.”

    One US official said that while the request for a Marine security guard was received several weeks ago, it has not yet been formally approved and coordination about its deployment is ongoing between the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service and the Marines.

    Considering that unnamed officials leaked news of the impending Marine guard deployment to the “de facto embassy” in Taiwan, it appears well on its way to happening, which would constitute the first time in almost 40 years that US Marines will stand guard over a diplomatic post in Taiwan. 

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

    As to the uncertain question of whether or not the US has actually pulled the trigger, CNN continues:

    A spokesperson for the State Department would not say whether the request had been made, telling CNN, “We do not discuss specific security matters concerning the protection of our facility or personnel.”

    The initial Chinese response has been predictably firm but restrained as news of the request for Marines came a mere days after Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis concluded his first – supposedly conciliatory – trip to Beijing and as tensions loom over Trump’s threatening to impose an additional round of tariffs on Beijing.

    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang responded as follows when asked about the potential Marine embassy security deployment at a news conference on Friday: “That the US strictly abides by its ‘one China’ pledge and refrains from having any official exchanges or military contact with Taiwan are the political preconditions for China-US relations,” he said. “The US is clear about the Chinese position and knows it should exercise caution on this issue to avoid affecting overall bilateral ties.”

    Since 1979 the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) has been considered Washington’s “officially unofficial” embassy in Taipei, Taiwan (established as part of the Taiwan Relations Act), and is staffed by State Department personnel who provide services in a quasi-embassy capacity. It was that year that the US initiated its One China Policy — de-recognizing the Republic of China (also known as Taiwan or the ROC) while formally recognizing the People’s Republic of China (the PRC) instead. 

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

    The AIT “undertakes a wide range of activities representing US interests, including commercial services, agricultural sales, consular services, and cultural exchanges,” according to the US State Department.

    During their meeting last week, President Xi Jinping reportedly told Mattis that China will not give up “any inch of territory” in the Pacific Ocean, though not naming Taiwan specifically. Mattis told reporters afterward that the talks had been “very, very” good and had previously praised the developing “military-to-military relationship” between the two countries. 

    However, CNN cites two anonymous senior defense officials who said said that Chinese officials raised the issue of Taiwan “multiple times” and “expressed their concerns” during their meetings with Mattis over recent developments like the Taiwan Travel Act, passed in March, which encourages more frequent diplomatic exchanges and visits between US and Taiwanese officials. 

    According to CNN, Mattis responded by saying he would not give any “direction to military components to do anything differently” regarding Taiwan. The defense officials told CNN, “It wasn’t an area that we wanted deep discussion on because we expect it to be an irritant.”

    No doubt the onslaught of recent developments centering on the American Institute is immensely worrying for the Chinese, as earlier this month the US launched the official opening of the Institute’s new state of the art facility, which cost $255 million to build, and the naming of a new “director” of the AIT’s Tapei office — career American diplomat William Brent Christensen — essentially filling the role of de facto US ambassador to Taiwan. 

    China’s Foreign Ministry had lodged a formal protest with the US upon the opening ceremony for the new building, which had State Department representatives in official attendance, though no cabinet-level officials, as the Trump administration quietly sought to assure China that the opening would be low-key.

    Meanwhile, President Trump while speaking to Fox Business on Sunday refused to back down on prior threats to further ratchet up tariffs on Chinese goods: “The tariffs are – well, in fact, It could go up to $500 [billion], frankly, if we don’t make a deal, and they want to make a deal,” Trump said during an interview. “I will tell you, China wants to make a deal, and so do I, but it’s got to be a fair deal for this country.”

    A brief reminder on the latest state of developing tit-for-tat trade war:

    Already, the White House has imposed a 25% tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods containing ‘industrially significant technologies” in an escalating, tit-for-tat conflict between the world’s two largest economies.

    In response, China slapped tariffs worth $34 billion on 545 American goods. In mid-June, Trump warned that if Beijing went through with the tariffs, he would impose tariffs on an additional $200 billion worth of goods.

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

    Maybe, but for now trade wars remain mostly bluster. If and when they escalate to their full potential, as shown below, watch out below. That may happen as soon as July 6, when tariffs of 25% on some $34BN in Chinese products will go into effect.

    In a remark now driving world headlines, Trump added, “The European Union is possibly as bad as China just smaller, OK,” Trump said. And concluded, “It’s terrible what they did to us.”

    Trump tweeted in March that trade wars are “good, and easy to win” — yet when combined with potentially explosive geopolitical issues such as what may appear in Chinese eyes a practical abandonment of the One China Policy (a status quo already subject to differing interpretations), the trade war is already proving not in the least bit “easy” with “winning” looking increasingly like a relative and elastic term.

  • Germany's Interior Minister Seehofer To Resign After Clash With Merkel Over Migrants

    Update 2: No statement from Merkel tonight (contrary to earlier reports) however Seehofer did speak to reporters and said that he offered to quit as German interior minister, and that he wants to avoid Merkel government collapse.

    He also added that he will stay in politics if Angela Merkel’s CDU backs down in the two parties’ deadlock over migration, DPA reports.

    * * *

    Update: After several hours of negotiations, it appears that Chancellor Merkel and CSU leader Horst Seehofer have been unable to reach an agreement, and according to N-TV, Seehofer told the CSU board meeting the he offered to resign as Germany’s interior minister and as CSU party chairman amid the clash over Germany’s migration policy, sparing Merkel the need to fire him and potentially preserving the political alliance.

    Seehofer and his party spent hours finding a response to a hard-fought agreement to reduce migration into the European Union and so-called “secondary migration” between member states hammered out by Merkel at a leaders’ summit last week.  Now “he wants to step down as party chairman and interior minister” as he enjoys “no support”, the sources said.

    However, this is where things get complicated because dpa adds that CSU caucus chief Alexander Dobrindt opposes the resignation and will not accept it, putting Germany at a political impasse and potentially in a political crisis in which the CDU and CSU alliance may now break. According to N-tv the meeting of the CSU governing body is now suspended.

    If Seehofer does resign, it is unclear whether the CSU would seek to remain in coalition with Merkel’s CDU and offer a replacement interior minister. Alternatively, it could break up the two parties’ decades-long alliance, effectively depriving Merkel of her majority in parliament and pitching Germany into uncharted political waters.

    According to Spiegel editor Melanie Amann, Seehofer sees few options for the CSU: Either to stand firm on the immigration dispute and risk undermining the ruling coalition, or to back down and damage the party’s credibility, reports Spiegel editor Melanie Amann. The third option, offering to leave his post, was possibly in an attempt to boost party members’ support of his strategy.

    Earlier, Bavarian state premier Markus Soeder, a leader of the hard-line faction, told the closed-door meeting that the CSU doesn’t want to bring down Merkel’s government but will stand up for what is right, dpa reported.

    What happens next is up to the CSU, which faces a stark choice: if it does not want to lose in the Bavarian-election this coming October, it needs to confront Merkel on the migrant crisis, or risk losing even more votes to the AdF as described below.

    Meanwhile, according to a CDU statement, Angela Merkel will pursue the migrant pacts reached with its EU partners. As Bloomberg adds, Merkel faced down an allied party that’s demanding she tighten Germany’s defenses against migration, escalating a political crisis could leave her without a parliamentary majority.

    The news has sent the EUR surging, perhaps on the assumption that a political crisis in Germany has been averted with Seehofer’s resignation, instead of his termination, although if the CSU refuses Seehofer’s resignation, leading to a political impasse, it is unclear just how the German ruling coalition will continue at this point.

    In other words, the key question now is whether CSU is still in a coalition with the CDU. Judging by the EUR reaction, the answer appears to be yes, for now, although as Bloomberg’s Mark Cranfield notes, “EUR/USD’s rebound on last week’s EU migrant deal looks like being short lived if Interior Minister Horst Seehofer’s resignation is accepted. This would weaken Angela Merkel’s grip on power as the ruling coalition — which was already shaky — threatens to split apart.”

    The pair looked vulnerable even after Friday produced its best gain in June because it failed to recapture the 1.17 handle. That suggests the broad 1.15-1.17 band prevails for the near term. Short-dated volatility also avoided spiking higher.

    As European traders wake up to the Seehofer announcement, they are likely to push the euro toward the lower end of that recent range.

    Translation for the US traders: don’t be surprised if the EUR is below 1.16 when you wake up on Monday following a deterioration in Germany’s political crisis. 

    * * *

    EARLIER:

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel is fighting for her political future on Sunday desperate to placate conservative rebels in her ruling coalition over immigration with a last-minute European deal, even as central EU states called the deal into doubt. If she is unsuccessful in convincing her political ally, CSU leader Horst Seehofer, that the deal will stick and limit immigration into Germany, she faces a political crisis that could end her parliamentary majority and, potentially, her career.

    With CSU’s two week ultimatum to reach an agreement on pushing back immigrants into Germany to their nations of origin set to expire tonight, Merkel’s centre-right CDU party and its conservative Bavarian CSU allies are holding separate meetings to weigh the results of last week’s EU summit, which agreed on collective measures by the bloc’s 28 members to reduce immigration, AFP reports.

    Merkel hopes the deals with European migrant discontents – mostly Italy which threatened to veto last week’s summit until the last minute – and German neighbors will deter Interior Minister and CSU leader Seehofer from defying her by turning away at the border asylum seekers already registered in other EU nations. Such a unilateral move would force her to fire him, prompting a CSU walkout that would cost her her majority in parliament.

    According to a document sent to coalition partners, Merkel sought to assuage the hardliners with deals with 16 other countries to return already-registered migrants if they reached Germany. The EU and bilateral deals were “only possible because the chancellor enjoys respect and authority throughout Europe,” Germany’s EU Commissioner and CDU politician Guenther Oettinger said in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung weekly. “That is very valuable for Germany, no-one should destroy it.

    The German leader, who recently won a historic, third mandate, has warned that the issue of migration could decide the very future of the EU itself.

    But a potential dealbreaker emerged when several central European nations including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia denied they had agreed to accept returned migrants.

    Over the weekend, signs of reconciliation emerged after Merkel and CSU head Horst Seehofer met at the chancellery in Berlin late Saturday to discuss how to avoid a government crisis, according to Bild, and while Merkel’s CDU party published a position paper saying “we want to further reduce the number of refugees arriving in Germany”, it also caused new conflict with its statement that 14 EU countries had made a “political commitment” to take back refugees who originally arrived on their soil but moved on to Germany. As a result, Germany’s ARD reported that the government leaders in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland denied having made any commitment at the summit.

    This has prompted fears that a tentative deal could fall apart in the last minute: “Given the different statements from some EU member countries, one can doubt whether all of the decisions at the EU Council will become reality,” head of the CSU parliamentary group Alexander Dobrindt told Bild am Sonntag newspaper.

    As a reminder, in a marathon overnight session on Friday, EU leaders agreed to consider setting up “disembarkation platforms” outside the EU, most likely in North Africa, in a bid to discourage migrants and refugees boarding EU-bound smuggler boats. Member countries could also create processing centres to determine whether the new arrivals are returned home as economic migrants or admitted as refugees in willing states.

    At the national level, Merkel also proposes that migrants arriving in Germany who first registered in another EU country should be placed in special “admissions centres” under restrictive conditions, according to a document she sent to the CSU and coalition partners the Social Democratic Party (SPD).

    “There will be a residency obligation reinforced with sanctions,” the document states.

    On Friday, a happy Merkel told reporters that the hard won EU and bilateral deals were “more than equivalent in their effect” to Seehofer’s demands.

    And, indeed, the initial signs were positive, with the CSU’s Bavarian state premier Markus Soeder saying on Saturday that “what has been achieved in Brussels is more than we originally thought.

    But as German dpa news agency adds on Sunday, Seehofer himself was hardly as enthusiastic and said he was not happy with the results of EU summit which he said is not as effective as turning away unilaterally at Germany’s borders people who have registered already in another EU country. Seehofer also rejected so-called “anchor centres” within Germany.

    Meanwhile, the opposition from the 4 core Central European nations prompted Alexander Dobrindt, the CSU caucus leader in the national parliament in Berlin, to warn that it raises doubts about whether the EU deal on migration will be fully implemented.

    The stakes of today’s discussions are momentous not only for Merkel, but also for the CSU, which fears losing its absolute majority in Bavaria’s state parliament. As AFP eloquently notes, “the “Free State” with its beer-and-lederhosen Alpine traditions, powerful industries and impenetrable dialect has a more conservative bent than other German regions.

    The big danger for the CSU is that if it is seen as caving too far, it may lose even more support to Germany’s the anti-refugee, anti-Islam phenomenon, the AfD, which succeeded in entering Federal parliament for the first time after the last German elections, at the expense of establishment parties. Opinion polls point to the AfD making a similarly spectacular entrance to Bavaria’s parliament in October.

    The big problem for Seehofer is that weeks of “Merkel-bashing” have failed to help the CSU, as a Forsa poll last week showed around 68% of Bavarians backed Merkel’s quest for a Europe-wide answer to migration rather than Germany going it alone.

    How the CSU resolves this dilemma will impact the fate of Merkel, and could have dramatic consequences for the future of Europe.

    * * *

    Finally, putting it all together is the following twitter thread from Lars Pelleniat laying out the various possible outcomes:

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

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

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

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

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

  • Surprise! US Taxpayers, Not Illinoisans, Will Cover Most Of The Public Funding For Obama-Land Fiasco In Chicago

    Authored by Mark Glennon via WirePoints.com,

    Only now has it become apparent that federal taxpayers, not Illinoisans, will be funding most of the public support for the controversial Obama Center to be built on Chicago’s Southside.

    Wirepoints has learned from administrative officials and legislators that at least $139 million — 80% of the public funding for the center — almost certainly will be reimbursed by the federal government. The project was already under attack for a number of other reasons, including a First Amendment “compelled speech” claim that it would force taxpayers to fund private, political advocacy.

    The center was initially pitched as a privately funded presidential library. Many Illinois taxpayers therefore were angered to learn that at least $174 million was included in the state’s 1,246-page budget presented in May to rank and file General Assembly members only hours before their vote. Nor will the center be a presidential library.

    However, it turns out that federal taxpayers will be the ones compelled to make the subsidy. The Illinois appropriation is for roadway and transit reconfigurations needed to accommodate the center, and 80% of such spending is generally reimbursable by the federal government. Wirepoints has confirmed with state officials that federal reimbursement of at least $139 million is highly likely.

    Stoking the controversy is the stated mission of the center, which is partly political. The Original Request for Proposals said the center would “enhance the pursuit of [President Obama’s] initiatives beyond 2017.” Former President Obama has further commented to the same effect. As the Chicago Tribune put it, “As he’s long maintained, 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.”

    The center is already subject to a federal lawsuit with a First Amendment claim based on taxpayer support for a private, political purpose. A lawsuit of that type is difficult to win, but it may be bolstered by the recent Janus decision by the United States Supreme Court. Janus was based on the prohibition of compelled speech, and that same doctrine underpins the First Amendment claim about the center.

    Here are the details and background:

    Contrary to its clear, initial description as a presidential library, it won’t be one. The center will be owned and run by the Obama Foundation, not the National Archives and Records Administration, as are presidential libraries. Obama’s records, artifacts and papers will not be there.

    Initial claims that it would be funded entirely with private money also evaporated. “Construction and maintenance will be funded by private donations, and no taxpayer money will go to the foundation,” the foundation’s spokeswoman said. The interpretation was that assured 100 percent private funding.

    Obama Center rendering, to be built on part of Jackson Park

    WTTW, a public television station in Chicago, askedthe obvious question when the idea of state funding first floated:

    “How could could a public financing proposal fly in a state that is bleeding red ink, especially when the Obamas have promised 100 percent private funding?”

    That’s easy to answer in Illinois. Chicago politicians asked for it and they get what they want. “Another fast one by Chicago pols,” as one Illinois paper put it.

    “To give credit where credit is due, when Chicago/Illinois politicians come together on a scheme to fleece the public and demonstrate that they are a law unto themselves, they think big.”

    The federal lawsuit was filed by Protect our Parks, a not-for-profit. It alleges that the transfer of land from Chicago’s Jackson Park to the Obama Foundation, at no cost, violated state law a number of ways. It was a “bait and switch,” the legal complaint says. The land was transferred under the pretense of being a privately funded presidential library but in fact will be used for a private purpose.

    The First Amendment claim in the lawsuit is particularly interesting. The suit was filed prior to Illinois’ appropriation of money for the center. The claim is based, instead, on authorization for a special property tax levy for the center. Using any source of taxpayer money for a private political purpose may violate the First Amendment because it is compelled speech.

    But now, with the state appropriation completed and federal reimbursement uncovered, much more money is at issue and it’s a matter for all Americans.

    And just last week the United States Supreme Court delivered the Janus opinion, which was particularly firm on the prohibition of compelled speech. From the majority opinion:

    Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning, and for this reason, one of our land­ mark free speech cases said that a law commanding “in­ voluntary affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require “even more immediate and urgent grounds” than a law demanding silence.

    “Compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers raises similar First Amendment con­cerns,” added the court. That’s what’s alleged in the lawsuit against the Obama Foundation — forcing taxpayers to subsidize the a center to be used to preach Obama’s politics.

    Jackson Park today

    It’s conceivable federal reimbursement will not materialize. Illinois could elect to pay towards the center though a bond offering, in which case, we are told by state officials, reimbursement is not available. The state could also essentially elect to use its access to federal reimbursement for other projects. Again, however, those possibilities are not anticipated, according to our sources, and federal reimbursement is fully expected.

    Indeed, when a few Republican lawmakers objected to inclusion of funding for the center in the budget, they were told by party leadership not to be concerned because of the federal reimbursement. Illinois Rep. Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton), told me this:

    “During the budget discussion, when objections were raised about spending $172 million on infrastructure improvements for the Obama project, we were assured by Republican leadership not to worry since 80 percent of the cost would be picked up by the federal government.”

    Some may argue that spending for roadway and transit reconfiguration isn’t really part of the project. That’s specious. The spending is necessitated entirely by the project. It’s part and parcel of the center.

    The precise amount of taxpayer money to go towards the Obama Center is subject to some interpretation and dispute, though it’s at least $174 million. A specific appropriation for $180 million is in Section 105 on page 664 of the new Illinois budget, though we are told the current cost estimate is just $174. Another $12 million is appropriated in Section 100 on that page for a transit station, though there’s some opinion that the station is separate from the center. Together with other transit station money, the Washington Examiner pegged the grand total Illinois appropriation at $224 million. Accordingly, the 80% reimbursed by federal taxpayers may be significantly higher than $139 million.

    That difference in the numbers matters little.

    Nor does it matter whether the First Amendment claim is truly viable in court.

    What matters is that funding by any taxpayers for the center is wrong and that the public has been duped. A privately funded presidential library morphed into a monument to hubris and the arrogance of power: Obamaland.

  • Fact Check: Did Obama Detain 90,000 Children At The Border?

    President Trump’s 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale recently tweeted that “Over 90,000 kids were detained under Obama. And no one cared.” 

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

    What followed was a barrage of angry tweets and an attempt by AP prove the claim false by conflating two narratives; the first being that Trump is putting separated migrant children in prison-like conditions – which the left quickly abandoned after it was revealed that viral photographs depicting the caged migrant children actually happened under Obama.

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

    That claim then morphed into outrage over the Trump administration separating 20% of minors who enter the country from their parents – around 2,000 kids, while ignoring the fact that the Obama administration was also separating children from their parents, while widespread abuse of detained migrants under previous administrations was reported by the ACLU and the University of Arizona.  

    One woman interviewed was detained for nearly a month in CADC while she was six months pregnant. She was shackled during transport to and from the facility. At the facility, she was denied monitoring or treatment for an ovarian cyst that posed a risk to herself and the fetus, and received no response to her requests for prenatal vitamins or extra padding for her bed.68 (Her case is described more fully in the box below.) Another woman interviewed was separated from her breastfeeding baby daughter, who was less than two months old, while she was detained in Eloy for two weeks. –University of Arizona

    and

    Among those findings are that women did not receive adequate medical or mental health care,were often mixed together with women serving criminal sentences, and were often transferred from faraway states. In most cases, researchers found that women were separated from at least one child.ACLUAZ.org

    Also overlooked is the fact that 80% of children entering the United States are separated from their parents when they’re shoved across the border with a human trafficker, and that migrants can seek asylum in the United States through one of the several U.S. consulates in Mexico.

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

    The previously silent left became suddenly outraged after President Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy of enforcing existing immigration law resulted in approximately 2,000 minors being separated from their parents. To end this, Trump signed Executive Order #13841 on June 25, ordering that detained families not be separated unless the parents pose a danger to the child, while the Trump administration pledged to reunite separated families.  

    The “Fact Check” 

    Two days after Parscale’s tweet, AP published the article “NOT REAL NEWS: Obama didn’t separate 90,000 migrant families,” conflating the “separated families” narrative with the “children in cages” narrative – while pointing to a “conservative website” (which they don’t link to) as the source of the claim. 

    “The claim, published on a conservative website, was repeated on social media throughout the week as President Donald Trump faced criticism over his administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy” –AP

    What website? Who said that? Parscale said detained, not separated.

    The false claim appears to stem from a January 2016 Senate subcommittee report that investigated how the Department of Health and Human Services, under the Obama administration, placed thousands of unaccompanied children illegally entering the country. 

    The subcommittee report found that from October 2013 through 2015 the federal agency placed nearly 90,000 children with a sponsor, after they were detained at the border without a legal guardian. The majority of those sponsors, the report found, were a parent or legal guardian living in the country. –AP

    Note how AP simply says that the 90,000 children were placed with a sponsor… Unfortunately, they’re missing a giant link in the chain; the detention centers the kids are placed in first.

    Taking a look at the Senate subcommittee report AP references (page 8), since the thrust of the left’s outrage over Trump’s “Zero Tolerance” policy was originally poor migrant children being forced into cages… 

    First, we have the 90,000 under Obama figure – but there’s a footnoteThen the report notes that the majority of unaccompanied children over that two-year period were placed with a parent or a legal guardian. 

    Since the beginning of FY2014, HHS has placed almost 90,000 UACs [Unaccompanied Alien Child] with sponsors in the United States.(31) According to HHS, it places the majority of those UACs with the child’s parent or legal guardian.(32)

    Now let’s look at that footnote (31) attached to the 90,000 figure – which directs us to an Office of Refugee Resettlement publication entitled: Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by State.

    Navigating over to that document on page 2, we find section “A” which outlines “Cases in which a determination of UAC (Unaccompanied Alien Child) status has already been made.”

    It’s got a footnote too… 

    Asylum Offices will see evidence of these prior UAC determinations in A-files or in systems on the form I-213, Record of Deportable Alien; the Form 93 (the CBP UAC screening form0; the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) Initial Placement Form1.

    And what do we find under the ORR footnote “1”?

    After apprehending an individual and determining that he or she is a UAC, CBP or ICE transfers him or her to a facility run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

    In other words – all of the unaccompanied minors detained under the Obama administration were locked up in the exact same facilities the Trump administration is using. 

    Stats on the minors:

    Digging some more, we find a February, 2016 report from the Government Accountability Office entitled :Unaccompanied Children – HHS Can Take Further Actions To Monitor Their Care.

    In fiscal year 2014, nearly 57,500 children traveling without their parents or guardians (referred to as unaccompanied children) were apprehended by federal immigration officers and transferred to the care of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Most of these children were from Central America.

    So tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors were taken in by the Obama administration each year and placed in government facilities

    Average Stay

    In 2011, the average stay of an unaccompanied minor in an Obama-admin facility was 72 days, which dropped to 34 days in 2015. 

    How about today? In 2016, the average stay was 41 days, while the Department of Health and Human Services “Unaccompanied Alien Children Program” fact sheet from June 15 states: “Currently, the average length of stay for UAC in the program is approximately 57 days.” So in 2011, precious children remained in Obama’s “concentration camps” as the left now calls them an average of 15 days longer than today. 

    Where are most UACs released?

    In 2014, most unaccompanied minors were released in Los Angeles, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties. Counties which took in fewer than 50 UACs are not noted on the map. 

    In fiscal year 2014, ORR released a total of 53,518 children to sponsors, and these children were released in every state except one.37 The largest number of children were placed in Texas, New York, California, Florida, and the Washington, D.C. area, respectively, with Harris County, TX receiving 4,028 children in fiscal year 2014, more children than any other single county (see fig. 5).38 Often children were placed in counties with large Latino populations.

    So to be clear – hundreds of thousands of migrant children whose parents sent them into the United States alone or with a human trafficker remained in Obama administration facilities for up to months at a time, before eventual release or repatriation

    In fact, if one adds up just the unaccompanied minors taken into custody between 2008 – 2016 (here and here), nearly 300,000 children were placed in federal housing under Obama. 

    And as Brad Parscale points out, no one cared.

    Finally, to clarify what ‘we, the people’ are supposed to believe:

  • How The Iran Sanctions Drama Intersects With OPEC-Plus

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    Major states buying oil from Iran are unlikely to heed the US call to drop imports; key allies want a waiver to avoid sanctions; OPEC, meanwhile, will have trouble boosting output in the short-term; the puzzle is not solved, but there are dark clouds…

    History may have registered stranger geoeconomic bedfellows. But in the current OPEC-plus world, the rules of the game are now de facto controlled by OPEC powerhouse Saudi Arabia in concert with non-OPEC Russia.

    Russia may even join OPEC as an associate member. There’s a key clause in the bilateral Riyadh-Moscow agreement stipulating that joint interventions to raise or lower oil production now are the new norm.

    Some major OPEC members are not exactly pleased. At the recent meeting in Vienna, three member states – Iran, Iraq and Venezuela – tried, but did not manage to veto the drive for increased production. Venezuela’s production is actually declining. Iran, facing a tacit US declaration of economic war, is hard-pressed to increase production. And Iraq’s will need time to boost output.

    Goldman Sachs insists: “The oil market remains in deficit… requiring higher core OPEC and Russia production to avoid a stock-out by year-end.” Goldman Sachs expects production by OPEC and Russia to rise by 1.3 million barrels a day by the end of 2019. Persian Gulf traders have told Asia Times that’s unrealistic: “Goldman Sachs does not have the figures to assert the capability of Russia and Saudi Arabia to produce so much oil. At most, that would be a million barrels a day. And it is doubtful Russia will seek to damage Iran even if they had the capacity.”

    In theory, Russia and Iran, both under US sanctions, coordinate their energy policy. Both are interested in countering the US shale industry. Top energy analysts consider that only with oil at $100 a barrel will fracking become highly profitable. And oil and gas generated via fracked in the US is a short-term thing; it will largely be exhausted in 15 years. Moreover, the real story may be that shale oil is, in the end, nothing but a Ponzi scheme.

    Those were the days when the Obama administration ordered Riyadh to unleash a de facto oil-price war to hurt both Russia and Iran. Yet the game drastically changes when Venezuela loses a million barrels a day in production and Iran, under upcoming sanctions, may lose another million.

    As Asia Times has reported, OPEC (plus Russia) can at best increase their production by 1 million barrels a day. And that would take time because, as Persian Gulf traders said: “800,000 barrels a day of their cutback is due to depletion that cannot be restored.”

    Oil producers don’t want high prices

    Most oil-producing nations don’t want high oil prices. When that happens, demand goes down, and the dreaded competition – in the form of electric vehicles – gets a major boost.

    That explains in part why Riyadh prevailed in the price-capping war in Vienna. Saudi Arabia is the only producer with some spare capacity; the real numbers are a source of endless debate in energy circles. US-sanctioned Iran, for its part, is in acute need of extra energy income and had to be against it.

    The bottom line is that despite the agreement in Vienna, the price of oil, in the short-term, is bound to go up. Analyses by BNP Paribas, among others, are adamant that supply problems with Venezuela and Libya, plus the proverbial “uncertainty” about the sanctions on Iran, lead to “oil fundamentals still…favorable for oil prices to rise over the next six months despite the OPEC+ decision.”

    Iran’s Petroleum Minister Bijan Zanganeh has done his best to downplay how much oil will really be back on the market. In tandem with Persian Gulf traders, he certainly knows that can’t be more than 1 million barrels a day, and that such an output boost will take time.

    Considering that in realpolitik terms Riyadh simply is not allowed any “decision” in oil policy without clearing it first with the US, what remains to be seen is how Washington will react to the new, long-term Riyadh-Moscow entente cordiale. As far as oil geopolitics goes, this is in fact the major game-changer.

    Business as usual

    The Big Unknown is how the US economic war on Iran’s oil exports will play out.

    Iran’s Zanganeh has been quite realistic; he does not expect buyers to get any sanctions waivers from Washington. Total and Royal Dutch Shell have already stopped buying.

    Iran’s top oil customers are, in order: China, India, South Korea and Turkey.

    India will buy Iranian oil with rupees. China also will be totally impervious to the Trump administration’s command. Sinopec, for instance, badly needs Iranian oil for new refineries in assorted Chinese provinces, and won’t stop buying.

    Turkey’s Economy Minister Nihat Zeybekci has been blunt: “The decisions taken by the United States on this issue are not binding for us.” He added that: “We recognize no other [country’s] interests other than our own.” Iran is Turkey’s number-one oil supplier, accounting for almost 50% of total imports.

    And Iraq won’t abandon strategic energy cooperation with Iran. Supply chains rule; Baghdad sends oil from Kirkuk to a refinery in Kermanshah in Iran, and gets refined Iranian oil for southern Iraq.

    Russia won’t back down from its intention to invest $50 billion in Iran’s energy infrastructure.

    Japan and South Korea are lobbying heavily to get waivers. According to South Korea’s Energy Ministry: “We are in the same position as Japan. We are in talks with the United States and will keep negotiating to get an exemption”.

    In a less Hobbesian world, the EU-3 (France, UK and Germany), plus China and Russia – which all negotiated the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA, along with Japan and South Korea, would be telling the US the Trump administration’s unilateral economic war against Iran is, in fact, a violation of a UN-endorsed treaty, totally disregarding nations that have pledged to protect the JCPOA. In the real world though, that’s not going to happen.

    It’s all about energy

    Once again, the action to watch will be at the Shanghai Energy Stock Exchange. Petro-yuan contracts started trading in late March. By May, they were already covering 12% of the global market. The price of a barrel of oil, in yuan, has oscillated between Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI).

    China is going no holds barred, betting simultaneously on Saudi Arabia and Iran. China Investment Corp. may well buy 5% of Aramco, at roughly $100 billion. In parallel, China started paying for Iranian oil in yuan in 2012. If the Europeans buckle up, as top Iranian analysts expect, the volume of energy business with China may soon reach $40 billion a year.

    Iran is firmly linked to the petro-yuan. Iran now may rely on a fleet of supertankers, properly insured, to export its own oil. The Iranian calculation is that Washington’s economic war will spur higher oil prices. So, even if Iran’s exports are bound to suffer, energy income may not be affected.

    Shaded by all these dramatic eruptions, we find some startling data. Iran – and Russia – may sit on an astonishing $45 trillion worth in oil and gas reserves. US fracking is largely a myth. Saudi Arabia may have at best 20 years of oil supply left. It’s all about energy – all the time.

    The usual suspects will hardly sit back and relax while endlessly demonized Russia, just like Norway, builds a solid middle class through oil revenue and massive current account surpluses. Alarm bells are about to sound, to the tune of “Putin has taken over OPEC”. In fact, it was Putin who convinced Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) they should fight the US shale offensive together.

    The OPEC-plus-Iran puzzle is far from solved. Only one thing is certain; the future spells out brutal, covert resource wars.

  • Anti-establishment Leftist Lopez Obrador Wins Mexican Presidency In A Landslide

    As expected, Mexico has just elected its first leftist president in decades, with Andrés Manuel López Obrador (or AMLO) winning in a landslide and a near majority outright, or 49% of the vote early exit polls showed; right-left coalition leader Ricardo Anaya, in distant second place with 27% and the incumbent PRI party’s Jose Antonio Meade, with 18%.

    And, as Bloomberg headlines flash red, Obrador is now de facto president as his main rivals have conceded:

    • MEXICO’S LOPEZ OBRADOR SET TO WIN AS MAIN RIVALS CONCEDE

    And, adding to the concerns that AMLO may start rolling back energy privatization programs and issue more debt, is that his Morena party just won a majority in the Lower House:

    • MEXICO’S OBRADOR POISED TO GET MAJORITY IN LOWER HOUSE: POLL

    The victory of AMLO, who suffered defeats in the last two presidential votes, will hardly come as a surprise, as has led by double digit numbers throughout this campaign. His popularity stems from his antiestablishment platform (sound familiar?) which has been riding a public revolt against entrenched corruption, rampant violence and an economy that’s failed to deliver higher living standards for the common man and especially the poor, which comprise about half of Mexico’s 125 million population. He also campaigned with promises for economic reform that has been underlined by a desire to freeze prices of gasoline in Mexico for 3 years, as well as a reduction of external investment in the energy sector.

    AMLO has also promised to ramp up social programs and, like so many of his antiestablishment peers, has vowed to fund them without deficit-spending by eliminating graft, a claim which as Bloomberg laconically adds, “has been greeted skeptically by economists.” He’s also promised not to nationalize companies or quit Nafta. Investors are worried however that he may cancel oil contracts signed as part of outgoing President Enrique Pena Nieto’s energy reforms.

    * * *

    The victory of a leftist in Mexico is a stark reversal for the Latin American nation which unlike most of its peers has not had a socialist leader in decades.

    As Bloomberg notes, Lopez Obrador has promised to govern as a pragmatist. Still, his procession toward victory has alarmed many investors and business leaders, who worry that he’ll roll back privatization of the energy industry and push the country into debt by spending more on social programs.

    Those concerns will be amplified if Lopez Obrador’s Morena party wins majorities in both houses of Congress, which earlier surveys had suggested is likely.

    With the election outcome widely expected, there was little reaction in markets aside from the USDMXN which has enjoyed a relief rally, although as in the case of the Turkish Lira, many expect this will be short-lived as many anticipate Mexico’s problems are set to worsen under the new administration.

    What is more notable is that like so many other nations, Mexicans have also opted for change and turned their back on the establishment and the only two parties to have run the country in almost a century. There are plenty of reasons they might want to kick out the governing class.

    “We need a complete transformation in Mexico,” said Sergio Oceransky, 45, as he voted at a polling station in central Mexico City. “We’re experiencing a tremendous political crisis that’s no longer sustainable.”

    On the campaign trail, many voters say physical security was their top concern. A decade-long war on drug cartels has pushed the murder rate to record levels.

    His predecessor, Pena Nieto, also started off on the right foot, opening Mexico’s energy industry to private investors and winning a reputation as an economic reformer early on. However, a surge in violence, and a string of graft scandals that dragged in the president and his family, Pena Nieto is ending his six-year term with some the lowest approval ratings in the history of the presidency. He will remain in office until December when Mexico’s 5 month gap between elections and inauguration lapses.

    And since both Obrador and Trump won on an antiestablishment platform, we look forward to them getting along just great.

    * * *

    As discussed previously, here are the main campaign issues that dominated the presidential campaign (via Reuters):

     

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 1st July 2018

  • Canadian Restaurant Destroyed On Yelp After MAGA Hat Incident

    Trump-hating Canadians flooded the Yelp page of a restaurant with one-star reviews after a manager was fired for ejecting a man wearing a “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hat, reports The Hill.

    Canada’s NBC News reported that former manager Darren Hodge, who had worked at the Teahouse in Vancouver’s Stanley Park for 18 months, told the customer that he would not be served unless he removed his MAGA hat.

    “As a person with a strong moral backbone, I had to take a stand against this guest’s choice of headwear while in my former place of work. Absolutely no regrets,” the former employee told CBC News.

    The restaurant owners, meanwhile, say that the manager was fired because their actions “did not align with their policy of hospitality and inclusiveness.”

    “[He] was aware what he was doing was probably contrary to our values and our philosophy as a company,” said the restaurant’s general manager. 

    Angry Canadians were having none of it. A few of the one-star reviews: 

    • “Fired a manager for taking a stand against bigotry and white supremacy. Unbelievable!”

    • wearing a MAGA hat these days is the same thing as wearing a black swazstika arm band.”

    • I have enjoyed the Teahouse in the past. Recently the Teahouse fired a manager for refusing to serve an American tourist who was wearing a Make America Great Again. I support that manager 100%. He was right in refusing to serve someone wearing an offensive hat that has become symbol of racism and is very offensive to Canadians.

    Oddly, Yelp hasn’t removed the politicized reviews as they often do in similar situations.

    The “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation the Treehouse finds itself in follows an incident at a Virginia restaurant last week in which the owner of the Red Hen kicked out White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. 

    In that instance, Trump supporters flooded the Red Hen website with one-star reviews – which Yelp, in a statement, told the Red Hen it was actively working to remove.

    We wonder if the Treehouse will receive the same support? 

  • Is One Man About To Collapse German Politics As We Know It?

    Authored by Jorg Luyken via The Local,

    On Sunday the Christian Social Union (CSU) are set to meet to vote on whether to back Horst Seehofer in his plan to turn asylum seekers back at the German border. If Seehofer follows through, the move will have incalculable consequences for German politics.

    What is the problem?

    Germany’s conservative parties are a little like two crime families who work together as long as one stays off the other’s turf. This has worked out pretty well over several decades as the CSU have sat in power in Munich, while the CDU dominated politics on the federal level.

    There were unwritten rules to their collaboration though. Whereas the mafia (at least in the films) drew a line at bringing drugs into the country, the unspoken code of German conservative politics was: no immigrants (or at least, not too many).

    When Angela Merkel decided not to close the borders as thousands of refugees crossed the border in 2015 she broke this rule. Ever since then the ageing boss of the CSU, Horst Seehofer, has been seething. Throw into the mix a hot-headed upstart who is challenging Seehofer’s grip on power in the CSU and you not only have the ingredients for a ropy Hollywood movie, but also for real-life German politics.

    Now Interior Minister, Seehofer has loudly declared that Germany has been too soft in applying EU law on asylum seekers. He was set to publish an “asylum masterplan” a little over two weeks ago, which would have given him the power to stop migrants coming into the country.

    But Merkel bluntly rejected the proposal.

    Ever since then conservative politics in Germany has been in a state of meltdown. Seehofer claims he can’t understand why Merkel rejects what he describes as a technicality, while Seehofer has been accused of putting Bavaria’s interests above those of Germany and Europe.

    And with state elections coming up in Bavaria in the autumn, there is every reason to believe that Seehofer and the young upstart Marcus Söder aren’t thinking about much else other than what goes on inside their own territory. 

    The upshot of the controversy was that Seehofer gave Merkel two weeks to find a deal on migrants with other EU countries, otherwise he would shut the border whether she liked it or not.

    If he goes ahead, decades of peace between the conservative clans will come to an end. Seehofer will force Merkel to fire him and their Bundestag alliance will be over. A pitched battle for power will commence in the build up to Bavaria’s autumn elections. Things could get very messy.

    Time is up

    Seehofer’s deadline is up this Monday. On Sunday, the most important members of the CSU will come together in Munich to discuss what steps they’ll take next.

    In the meantime, Merkel has been wringing every last inch of guile out of her political neckerchief in an attempt to get European deals signed that stave off the threat of a rebellion from down south.

    The first success was announced early on Friday morning when she managed to secure a surprise agreement between the 28 EU member states on migration.

    The states agreed to set up closed migrant centres, which would be hosted on a voluntary basis. People rejected for asylum would “be returned” from these centres, while genuine refugees would be taken in by states on a voluntary basis.

    But the agreement was thin on the ground on details on the crunch issue for Seehofer, so-called “secondary migration”, a phrase which refers to migrants moving around within the EU. The agreement only contains the vague statement that “member states should call on all necessary internal lawful and administrative processes in order to prevent such movements, and should collaborate closely on this issue.”

    Then later in the day Merkel could announce bilateral deals with Spain and Greece, committing them to taking migrants who German border police detain at the border. The big one, Italy, remained elusive, though. Most asylum seekers who reach Europe come through Italy – and Merkel has been unable to get Rome to commit to a bilateral deal.

    So will Seehofer pull the trigger?

    One fundamental reason why the CSU have been so agitated is that another organization has been aggressively muscling in on their patch. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) have managed to be more populist, more anti-immigrant and more reactionary than the Bavarians – and in doing so have stolen a whole heap of business from Seehofer and his gang.

    Polling shows that the AfD are on course to win 14 percent of the vote in Bayern, a result which will drag the all-mighty CSU down to their worst score since the 1950s. The days of absolute power will be over.

    So the temptation is clearly there: pull the trigger and show the Bavarian beer halls that you don’t take orders from Berlin.

    If only it were that simple, though. Were Seehofer to close the border to migrants, thus pulling down the government and ending the alliance with the CDU, Merkel’s party would swiftly move onto his patch.

    And polling shows that many Bavarians are secretly crying out for freedom from the yoke of one-party rule.

    A poll released on Friday by Forsa showed that 54 percent of Bavarians who voted CSU at the last election would swap to the CDU if they had the choice. That poll suggested that the CDU would win 33 percent of the vote in a Bavarian state election.

    Meanwhile well over a third of Bavarians told Forsa that the CSU are the single biggest problem in their state, above the number who said refugees are Bavaria’s biggest headache.

    Meanwhile a powerful alliance of business leaders has closed rank behind the Chancellor.

    The country’s four most influential industry associations on Friday released a common statement which denounced Seehofer in no uncertain terms.

    “What we need now is a stable and resolute government that works together with its European partners constructively and calmly,” the statement read. “The German economy is convinced that acting only out of national interest will do more harm than good.”

    So will Seehofer close the border and risk an all out battle for power in Bavaria? Only he knows that – and on Friday he was staying silent. A spokesperson said that he was refusing to comment on the EU migration summit. He would wait instead to speak to Merkel in person.

  • In San Francisco, Families Making $117,000 Qualify For Low-Income Housing

    Shortly after officials revealed that San Francisco had become the first US city to mandate a $15 minimum wage in accordance with a law passed in 2014 – and just in the nick of time, too. Because home prices in San Francisco have risen so rapidly that Business Insider reported Saturday that applicants for affordable hoping qualify for affordable housing in the city must earn less than 117,400  a year qualify for low-income housing in San Francisco and a few neighboring counties, according to a new report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. To help put this in context, that number is just shy of the city’s median income of $118,400.

    SF

    Here’s more from BI:

    To qualify for low-income housing in San Francisco County or the nearby San Mateo and Marin counties, a four-person household can make as much as $117,400 a year. The same goes for a one-person household raking in $82,200 a year.

    That’s the conclusion of a new report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which just released the 2018 thresholds for affordable housing across the US…the San Francisco metro area’s threshold is just below the area’s median family income of $118,400.

    Housing costs in San Francisco have been increasing at a ludicrous rate: According to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home price index, which covers not just the city and county, but also includes four other Bay Area counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, and San Mateo, prices in the region increased by a YOY 10% as of April. However, others argue that the increase in home prices has been even more extreme For example, Paragon Real Estate Group reported in April that prices in San Francisco had skyrocketed by an astounding 24% YOY, more than double the Case-Shiller estimate. This staggering jump has left the median home price in the city at an astonishing $1.6 million.

    Of course, the new figures from the city’s Department of Housing are hardly surprising: As BI reports, over the past several years, the Bay Area has been grappling with an affordable-housing crisis that has been exacerbated by the tech boom and a concomittant shortage of housing stock. Several Bay Area tech giants (like Alphabet, for example) situated their headquarters in areas without much nearby housing.

    And as we pointed out back in April, this is what a housing boom looks like…

    Boom

    …which in turn pushed the median home sales price above $1.6 million…

    SF

    …which is well above the national average.

    Boom

    Even the city’s “poor” neighborhoods have seen a huge boost in prices on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. In the table below, the median house prices range from $960,000 in Bayview, one of the more troubled neighborhoods, to over $5 million in Pacific Heights, one of the city’s wealthiest neighborhoods.

    Pacific

    Unfortunately for the city’s beleaguered residents, SF’s “robust” affordable housing lottery isn’t nearly enough to serve anywhere close to the numbers who could use the help. With this in mind, some Bay Area cities are considering alternatives, like a sizable “head tax” on employers. In Cupertino and Mountain View, the city councils have proposed a $150-a-year per-employee “head tax” that would replenish a fund dedicated to building more affordable housing.

    SF is also considering a head tax. And while tech companies (like Amazon in Seattle) have threatened to move or abandon planned expansions over similar measures, at this rate, the city’s residents would also benefit from this outcome: Because pushing out the tech talent that have been probably the largest contributors to the housing-price boom, the city might slowly but surely send prices lower… along with tax revenues and all local economic growth.

  • Paul Craig Roberts: Two Views Of The Putin-Trump Summit

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The meeting that the Deep State strived to make impossible with fabricated “Russiagate” assertions and an orchestrated “investigation” by Mueller has now been set in place by no less than Deep State neocon operative John Bolton. Patrick Lang explains how this came about.

     

     

    Many see benefits from the Putin/Trump meeting.

    Putin himself sees benefits in the meeting as does Trump. Putin sees hope of improving relations between the two governments. Of course, the “strained relations” are entirely due to Washington, which has demonized both Russia and Putin with false accusations and hostile acts such as illegal sanctions. It was miscalculation for Washington to expect Russia to give up its Black Sea naval base to Washington’s coup in Ukraine.

    What can an agreement be based on? Bolton’s position has been opposed to making any agreement with Russia or cooperating with Russia in any way. From the neoconservative standpoint, Russia is in the way of US world hegemony. As the neoconservative foreign policy doctrine states, it is a principle US goal to prevent the rise of any country that could serve as a check on American unilateralism. Russia is a challenge to the American World Order because Russia stands in the way of the American unipolar world.

    A successful summit will require Trump to reject this neoconservative doctrine. If Trump can pull this off with Bolton sitting by him, Trump’s critics will look very silly.

    Do Bolton and the Deep State have a way of baking failure into the summit that will ensure the continuation of Russia’s enemy status, thereby sustaining the enormous budget and power of the US military/security complex? Is Trump a superman who can overcome this powerful vested interest about which President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1961? How much stronger is this complex more than half a century later after being nourished by decades of Cold War and War on Terror?

    Assad and no doubt Iran are convinced that negotiations with Washington are a waste of time. Assad has concluded that:

    …the problem with US presidents is that they are hostage to lobbyists. They can tell you what you want to hear, but they do the opposite. That’s the problem, and it’s getting worse and worse. Trump is a stark example. That’s why when talking to the Americans, discussing something with them does not settle anything. There will not be any results. It’s a simple waste of time.”

    Assad’s view has the evidence on its side.

    One of Trump’s first actions was to unilaterally pull out of the multi-nation Iran nuclear agreement. There is no evidence that supports the hopeful Russian view.

    It would be an interesting exercise to list all the agreements Washington has made over the course of US history and to calculate the percentage that Washington kept. If Putin doesn’t want to be taken for a ride, he should contemplate the words of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce summing up his negotiations with Washington: “I have heard talk and talk, but nothing is done. I am tired of talk that comes to nothing. It makes my heart sick when I remember all the good words and broken promises.”

  • Israeli Dual Citizen Convicted Of Making Hundreds Of Hoax Bomb Threats Against Jewish Centers

    An court in Israel has convicted a 19-year-old American-Israeli man of making hundreds of threats to bomb or otherwise attack Jewish schools and community centers. 

    Michael Ron David Kadar of Southern Israel attempted to conceal his identity to make threatening phone calls and electronic threats to the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia – forcing evacuations, emergency airplane landings and prompting concern over a surge in anti-Semitism. 

    Kadar was also found guilty of extortion, money laundering and assaulting a police officer. He was arrested in the Israeli town of Ashkelon in March 2017 following a joint investigation by the Israeli and US authorities, including the FBI.

    He was accused of making more than 2,000 bomb threats to Jewish institutions, airlines, airports, police stations, hospitals and sporting events. –BBC

    “As a result of these threats, planes were forced to land in different airports, schools were evacuated and emergency forces were alerted,” said Israeli state prosecutor Yoni Hadad.

    “He essentially created panic, terrorised many people and disrupted their lives.”

    While the calls reportedly began in 2015, Kadar was only tried for calls he made beginning in 2016 when he turned 18. 

    Several Jewish schools in the UK were targeted in February 2017 – as well as the Jewish Museum in London, which was evacuated due to bomb threats attributed to Kadar. He also made threats towards British Airways flights between New York and London. 

    Kadar’s parents have called him a “helpless person” after arguing that a brain tumor which caused autism is to blame, along with other mental problems, and that their son is not competent to stand trial. 

    The fact that they determined that he was fit to stand trial was a lie and a conspiracy against a helpless person. We have been raising this child for 18 years,” his father said in a Thursday hearing. “He is incapable of telling good from bad. His discretion is horrible. There is a conspiracy here.”

    Judge Zvi Gurfinkel had none of it, rejecting the claim and stating “The defendant changed his version according to his needs. He is well aware of the consequences of his actions. He understands what it means and keeps changing his version according to the convenient defence line.”

    Kadar was accused of making active shooter and bomb threats to several Florida Jewish community centers, as well as the Israeli embassy and Anti-Defamation League in Washington DC. Additionally, he stands accused of cyber-stalking and conveying false information to Georgia police. 

  • Outsourcing Morality

    Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog,

    All the benefits of virtue without the costs…

    Remember when you had to do something virtuous to signal your virtue? Some of the virtuous way back when did virtuous acts and didn’t even tell anyone else about them. If you go into older museums and other civic monuments and look at donors’ names on plaques, you’ll find anonymous donors. They didn’t get a wing named after them, there were no press releases, they just gave to a good cause and that was its own reward. If they were alive today, they wouldn’t have Twitter feeds. Private virtue and public anonymity—incomprehensible!

    At least plutocrats who plaster their names where they donate are donating their own money. Perhaps the most odious form of virtue signaling demands everyone’s taxes fund a chosen cause, then claims the same moral stature as the plutocrats. Strictly speaking this can’t be virtue signaling. There’s no virtue, only coercion and theft. The merit, if any, of the cause never justifies the immoral means used to fund it.

    Gresham’s law of virtue: phony virtue drives out the real thing. It’s partly mathematical – what the government steals cannot be donated – but it goes much deeper.

    There’s an intergenerational understanding rooted in biology: parents take care of children when they’re young; children take of parents when they’re old. Rearing children and caring for aging parents impose inconvenient burdens, but for most of history people had little choice, the only alternative was neglect and abandonment. Enter the state. In most Western countries responsibility for both child rearing and elder care has in whole or in part shifted to it.

    Any respectable list of progressive “demands” includes access to day care, either funded or provided by the government. In truly advanced welfare states, day care is already an “entitlement,” like unemployment support or medical care. It’s a comforting sophistry that turning children over to third party caregivers in their formative years doesn’t attenuate the bond between parents and children. Two or three hours a day—always labelled quality time—is not ten or twelve hours a day. Day care personnel attending a group of children cannot devote the time and attention to one child as that child’s stay-at-home parent could.

    The flip side of taking care of the young is taking care of the old. Social Security and Medicare are pay-as-you-go transfer schemes masquerading as funded pensions and medical plans. They have, judging by so many aging baby boomers’ lack of assets, nominally relieved individuals of the responsibility to provide for their own golden years. It’s fair to assume that such provision also attenuates for many boomers’ children any obligation they may feel regarding their parents’ support. In fact, the obligation often seems to run the other way, children demanding their boomer parents support them well into adulthood.

    People outsource responsibility. but they want to feel virtuous. One way to do so is become an advocate. You may be dropping your own children off at day care, but you can advocate for children’s causes; children at the border is currently fashionable. You personally don’t have to do anything or spend a penny, just advocate that the government do something. You’ll acquire—among the circles you care about—the moral sheen that in days gone by required that you actually do something and spend your own pennies.

    That moral sheen is worth less than nothing. Government Programs That Made the Problem Worse is a multi-volume set, each volume over a thousand pages. That’s not a problem for their promoters, what counts is their self-credited good intentions. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then hell fire itself is stoked by self-credited good intentions. The cynics—right about politics more often than anyone else—suggest good intentions often cloak a ruthless drive for votes, payola, and power.

    Political funerals are revolting spectacles, the guilty living paying tribute to the guilty dead. It’s a toss-up which is more revolting. The “Humanitarian” epitaph for those who spent other people’s money “helping” the downtrodden of various stripes. Or the “Patriot” epitaph for those who blessed waging war on people and countries that pose no threat to the US. Surely the gates of hell open wide for hybrid Humanitarian Patriots. The Lyndon Johnsons, Bills and Hillarys, and John McCains of the world are alway loathsome creatures who unsurprisingly treat real life humans like shit.

    Taken to its logical extreme, a government so big and powerful that it’s responsible for everything leaves everyone else responsible for nothing.

    If you aren’t responsible for anything, you can’t be virtuous or evil… or human. You can, however, signal your faux virtue: the government actions you advocate; the politicians and media figures you admire; the bumper stickers or lapel pins you sport.

    Government has subsumed individual choice, responsibility, and thought at a historical juncture that will require individuals to make choices, take responsibility, and think as they’ve never thought before. Based as they are on coercion and their unsustainable ability to extract resources from their subject populations through force and fraud, governments are dominoes, and they’ve already begun to fall. Only ideologically induced analytical myopia accounts for the failure to recognize the fall of the most statist institution ever erected—the government of the USSR—as the beginning of the end of current statist arrangements, including welfare statism (it’s giving humanity too much credit to believe such arrangements will ever be wholly eradicated).

    The energy required to maintain statist control is rising exponentially as information technology and weaponry become ever-cheaper and more widely diffused. Governments have plunged into an abyss of debt and welfare state promises. Soon they’ll lack the resources to keep either themselves or their recipients alive. Those that “contribute” recognize governments as their enemy, and most acknowledge no duty to the recipients. They’re on strike in myriad ways and economic growth rates continue their inexorable descent. Soon those rates will be less than zero. They may already be there, a reality obscured by rising debt and phony government statistics and accounting.

    The world was caught by surprise when the USSR fell. It will be caught by surprise when the welfare states go, but in neither case is the surprise justified. Stupid is as stupid does: actions have consequences. The writing is on the wall.

    The consequences will be especially severe for those who have outsourced their morality, brains, and very souls to politics and the state. If separated babies or kneeling football players can trigger “vitriolic outrage,” then there is no single phrase that describes the anger, frustration, desperation, hate, violence, lunacy, and outright insanity that will reign when politics and states fail. The resulting entropic atomization will force the atomized to fall back on precisely what many don’t have: their own physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual resources.

    Within a society, no matter how insane, there are pockets of rationality, true virtue, and wisdom. The wise see what’s coming and have prepared accordingly, to the best of their abilities. The rest will navigate the chaos to the best of their abilities, not an optimistic prospect.

  • Maxine Waters Lashes Out: "If You Shoot Me, You Better Shoot Straight"

    Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA) is blaming a series of death threats on comments made by President Trump over Twitter, following her call last weekend for the public to form into mobs and physically confront members of the Trump administration.

    “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” said Waters.

    Addressing a crowd in Los Angeles on Saturday, Waters, 79, packaged the entirety of her detractors into the same category as would-be KKK assassins in the same breath, and then insinuated that if they don’t successfully take her out she would become “like a wounded animal.” 

    “I know that there are those who are talking about censuring me, talking about kicking me out of Congress, talking about shooting me, talking about hanging me,” Waters told the crowd in Los Angeles.

    “All I have to say is this, if you shoot me you better shoot straight, there’s nothing like a wounded animal.”

    In response to Waters call to action last weekend, President Trump tweeted on Monday that “Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an extraordinarily low IQ person, has become, together with Nancy Pelosi, the Face of the Democrat Party. She has just called for harm to supporters, of which there are many, of the Make America Great Again movement. Be careful what you wish for Max!

    In response, Waters appeared on MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hayes where she read a list of incidents in which Trump has mentioned violence.

    “He calls for more violence than anybody else,” Waters said, referencing an incident in which Trump said he’d like to punch a gloating protester “in the face,” as well as Trump’s off the cuff remark that he would defend his supporters if they harm a protester being ejected from the event. 

    “Try not to hurt him but if you do, I’ll defend you in court. Don’t worry about it,” Trump said.

    “If that’s not creating violence and supporting violence, what is?” Waters proclaimed. “I’ve said nothing like that.”

    Then on Wednesday, Trump suggested that Waters and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) were the “unhinged FACE of the Democrat Party.” 

    And on Thursday, Waters told CNN that she had been forced to cancel a pair of public events in Alabama and Texas after receiving “threatening messages” and “hostile mail” at her office, including “one very serious death threat” from an individual in Texas.

    “There was one very serious death threat made against me on Monday from an individual in Texas which is why my planned speaking engagements in Texas and Alabama were cancelled (sic) this weekend,” she continued. “This is just one in several very serious threats the United States Capitol Police are investigating in which individuals threatened to shoot, lynch, or cause me serious bodily harm.”

    As the President has continued to lie and falsely claim that I encouraged people to assault his supporters, while also offering a veiled threat that I should ‘be careful’, even more individuals are leaving (threatening) messages and sending hostile mail to my office,” Waters said in the statement, reports CNN.

    We urge Waters make each of the death threats she’s received public in the hopes that a crowdsourced effort by a concerned citizenry might be able to assist law enforcement in their efforts, and maybe save Maxine’s life.

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

  • These Are The Cheapest "Market Shock" Hedges Right Now

    With the “smart” money (as defined by Don Hays) exiting the stock market in droves, yield curves collapsing (now with extra help from a “Twisting” ECB), extreme speculative positioning in bonds, and a dramatically diverging economic reality from market market narratives, the possibility of a crash – Fed triggered or not – is rising. Do ‘they’ know something the “dumb money” does not?

    And with everyone still the same side of the rates boat…

    … while Bank of America is warning that the current market feels ominously similar to that right before the 1998 Asia Crisis and LTCM blow up…

    … the question is – what’s the cheapest way to hedge against a crash scenario?

    Bank of America’s Jason Galazidis has some answers for traders looking for some protection. The screen below shows that the hedges, ranked by the average, which are most underpricing historical drawdowns are Gold calls, EUR 10y receivers and TLT (US 20y+ Treasury) calls:

    EUR 10y receivers and TLT calls screen as the best value hedges after Gold calls. Interestingly, USD 10y receivers screen materially richer owing to increased demand on heightened US trade tensions.

    HSCEI puts are the second best screening equity hedge after RDXUSD (Russia) puts despite the HSCEI being the worst performing equity index in our screen (YTD peak vs. current levels).

    EU Credit payers have richened remarkably over the last few months, particularly in IG, following the extreme widening in EU-periphery bond spreads in May. Our credit derivatives strategists note that the richening of downside tails in credit (payer skew) reached 8y extremes driven by heavy hedging demand.

    As a reference, the table below shows the largest drops (or gains in the case of GLD, gold, Euro and US 10Y and TLT as designated with **) within 3 month in each asset class between ‘06 and ‘17, ranked in the same order as the assets in the chart above. The table shows that gold not only has a high vol delta but is consistently one of the best performing assets during crisis times.

    And so – once again – the precious metal regains ‘most-favored-nation’ status as the world’s emerging markets collapse and economic reality washes ashore on the banks of the river-of-excess-debt.

    Since the middle of January, gold’s implied vol has been notably, systemically lower than stocks:

    And US equity vol has “normalized”, catching back up to Europe over the past month:

    Cross asset risk is once more in benign territory relative to history as vols and credit spreads are all in their 1st quartile, although recently cross asset risk rose across the board led by credit spreads, while commodity volatility has emerged as a notable exception after declining MoM – largely thanks to the recent surge in the price of oil – and is now the 2nd least elevated risk metric vs. its own history.

    Meanwhile, another indicator that further vol breakouts are coming is the 12M cross-asset-class correlation, which has continued its climb since the Feb-18 equity-led sell-off, and is now at 5y highs.

    Historically there have been 3 distinct cross asset correlation regimes since 1995. Interestingly, we see a broadly upward trend since Oct-03, well before the Lehman bankruptcy in Sep-08. This is related to the liquidity driven crush in asset risk-premia that helped drive investment leverage higher.  Long-term correlation established a new regime since 3Q13, similar to the ’03 to ‘08 correlation environment.

    Which brings us to the punchline chart: these are the two-month-forward historical stress peaks observed during turbulent market shocks in 2008, 2009 and 2011, and compared to current levels. This is BofA’s way of hinting where vol is most underpriced assuming, of course, that a crash should occur in 2 months:

    The chart illustrates why it is useful to consider the relative pricing of options across asset classes to hedge against tail events: option markets often underestimate the severity of market shocks, and to different degrees. In 2008, currency, equity and sovereign risk vols were the most optimistic ahead of the Lehman crisis and the most surprised after (rose to the highest levels).

  • As Manafort Battles FBI, Mueller Gives Flynn Another Unexpected Reprieve

    Recent developments in separate cases against former Trump officials Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn have left many scratching their heads.

    On Friday, Politico reported that the Associated Press may have tipped off the FBI to a storage locker that the bureau then raided, according to an FBI agent who gave an unexpected testimony at a federal court hearing in Alexandria, Virginia.

    A meeting last year where Associated Press reporters discussed with federal officials the news outlet’s investigation of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s finances may have led the FBI to a storage locker the bureau raided, an FBI agent testified Friday.Politico

    Congressional investigators have inquired into the April 2017 meeting between AP and officials from both the DOJ Criminal Division and the FBI. 

    Manafort’s attorneys have sought to suppress the materials obtained through the searches as part of a broader attempt to discredit the Mueller investigation.

    In response to an earlier question about how the FBI became aware that Manafort had a secret storage locker used for all of his business-related files, FBI agent Jeff Pfeiffer said “Either through my investigative efforts or through a meeting that occurred with reporters of The Associated Press.” 

    Present at the meeting with the Associated Press was Mueller investigator Andrew Weissmann – who is also a top prosecutor in the Criminal Division’s Fraud section.

    It was Weissman’s presence in the meeting with Associated Press reporters that first generated interest from congressional Republicans. In a January letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes indicated he was interested in obtaining “records related to the details of an April 2017 meeting between DOJ Attorney Andrew Weissmann … and the media.” The disclosure of the meeting in Nunes’ letter led to speculation among Trump allies that Weissmann had aided the reporters’ stories. –Politico

    AP’s director of media relations, Lauren Easton, confirmed that AP journalists met with DOJ officials “in an effort to get information on stories they were reporting, as reporters do,” and claimed that the journalists asked the DOJ about the storage locker but never identified its location.

    Following the FBI’s meeting with AP, Manafort assistant Alex Trusko eventually helped federal officials obtain access to the locker and consented to its search. While Manafort’s attorneys have argued that Trusko lacked the authority to grant access, he was listed as the “occupant” on the locker’s lease, and he had a key to it. 

    Flynn gets another reprieve

    Meanwhile, special counsel Mueller has asked for yet another delay in the sentencing of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to court documents filed on Friday – the third such request

    Mueller’s team asked for two more months before scheduling his sentencing – with a request to file another status report by August 24. 

    “Due to the status of the Special Counsel’s investigation, the parties do not believe that this matter is ready to be scheduled for a sentencing hearing at this time,” reads a joint status report filed on Friday in a D.C. federal court. 

    Flynn worked on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election and was briefly Trump’s national security adviser before being fired for misleading Mike Pence about his contacts with Russian officials. While an incoming national security director communicating with Russia would be absolutely expected – Flynn’s statements to White House officials and the FBI led to his firing and subsequent prosecution by the special counsel. 

    McCabe didn’t think they had a case

    In May, an unredacted House Intel Committee report revealed that former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told Congressional investigators that the FBI had virtually no case against former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, and “The two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn’t think he was lying[.]” 

    “[N]ot [a] great beginning of a false statement case.” McCabe told the Committee. 

    The same House Intel report revealed that James Comey contradicted himself in a Fox News interview when he denied telling lawmakers those agents thought Flynn was telling the truth, when in fact he did. Meanwhile, there has been an unconfirmed rumor that McCabe instructed agents to alter their “302” forms from the Flynn interview, effectively changing their written accounts. 

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has been zeroing in on the Flynn interview – demanding the 302 forms, as well as a sit-down with Special Agent Joe Pientka – who Grassley revealed as the second FBI agent in the Flynn interview aside from Peter Strzok

    Grassley demanded a transcribed interview with Pientka – who would be able to testify as to whether or not McCabe had him alter his 302 formwhich would send things nuclear.

    Thus far, the DOJ has told Grassley to pound sand

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 30th June 2018

  • The United States Withdraws From The World

    Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The United States has decided to no longer participate in the United Nations 47-member Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The number one reason cited by U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley was that the council is unfairly critically focused on Israel.

    The United States had already left the U.N.’s cultural organization UNESCO last October, the last straw reportedly being when the organization named the city of Hebron on the West Bank a Palestinian World Heritage site, which Israel declared to be unacceptable. At that time, the number one reason cited by Haley for the withdrawal was that the organization was too critical of Israel.

    Haley has also made a number of other comments relating to the United Nations and Israel. Immediately upon taking office she complained that “nowhere has the U.N.’s failure been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel” and vowed that the “days of Israel bashing are over.” In February 2017, she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a congressional hearing she was asked about the decision: “Is it this administration’s position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?” Haley responded yes, that the administration is “supporting Israel” by blocking every Palestinian.

    There is clearly a disinclination on the part of the Trump Administration to support multinational bodies, evident in the rejection of climate, trade and non-proliferation agreements. Complete withdrawal from the United Nations is not unthinkable in the current climate, though the Democrats and some moderate Republicans would no doubt strongly resist such a move.

    In my opinion, the United Nations is a dystopian mess but it is better to have it than not as it provides a forum where nations that otherwise cannot meet are able to do so and discuss transnational issues. And it should be conceded that the U.N.’s inability to actually function is largely both structural and bureaucratic due to the veto power given to the Security Council’s five permanent members, a function that Nikki Haley has repeatedly used to stop resolutions that might be offensive to the United States or Israel.

    Beyond that, Haley’s constant citation of concern for Israel gives strength to the suggestion that there is something unnatural about its bilateral “special” relationship with the United States. In the Middle East in particular, Israel would seem to be driving U.S. policy, particularly vis-à-vis Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Israel is intent on continuing political chaos in Syria lest there be a threat to its continued occupation of the Golan Heights and has warned about possible preemptive action in Lebanon to punish Hezbollah. It also wants the United States to deal decisively with Iran. By all accounts, those agendas are proceeding very well as Washington has been regularly threatening Iran and last week vowed to take military action if Damascus seeks to recover territory in the Syrian southwest that until recently was held by terrorists.

    It is difficult to discern what the joint United States-Israeli strategy might be towards the United Nations and other international bodies. Neither has recognized the authority of the International Criminal Court in The Hague for fear that its own senior officials might be arrested and tried for war crimes. To be sure, both countries are protected against any serious challenges in the U.N. itself by the American veto power over the Security Council, which alone has the authority to mandate sanctions or peacekeeping operations.

    But the U.S. withdrawal from U.N. agencies is, if anything, a sign of weakness rather than strength. If Washington were indeed confident in its own brand of international leadership it would welcome the opportunity to sit on panels and help shape the views of other countries with which it has a politically neutral or adversarial relationships.

    That it does not choose to do so suggests that there is an understanding that what Washington is selling no one is buying.

    The complete isolation of the United States at the United Nations and also elsewhere, to include G-7, was exhibited recently during June 1st votes at the U.N. Security Council. A resolution sponsored by Kuwait seeking an inquiry into the Israeli killing of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza and a motion by Haley seeking to blame Hamas for the deaths both were voted on. Haley’s was the only vote against the former and the only vote in favor of the latter. She predictably commented afterwards that “Further proof was not needed, but it is now completely clear that the U.N. is hopelessly biased against Israel.”

  • Has ET Gone Home? UFO Sightings Slump

    If you’re wondering whether that strange light you saw zipping across the night sky was a UFO, you’re not alone. According to the National UFO Reporting Center, more than 1,300 UFO sightings have been reported so far this year.

    However, that number represents a decline in recent seen in recent years.

    While the organization only recorded 307 sightings back in 1990, they reached a peak of 8,619 in 2014, before falling slightly to 5,516 in 2016.

    Infographic: Has E.T. Gone Home? | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    But the decline in sightings doesn’t mean interest in UFOs by both the public and the military has fallen off.

    One recently leaked military report revealed fascinating new details about a 2004 incident involving what appears to be a UFO. The incident is better known as “the Tic Tac incident” due to the Tic Tac-like shape of the purported UFO.

    The Department of Defense released three separate videos taken of the AAVs (anomalous aerial vehicles) from the incident after a secret Pentagon program intended to find signs of alien life was revealed by the New York Times to have been defunct since 2012. However, the paper’s sources said the program continues to exist in some form, despite being stripped of its explicit funding.

    And why not? The American military – and the air force in particular – has been investigating incidences of UFOS for decades. In 1947, the Air Fore started investigating more than 12,000 claimed UFO sightings before the project ended in 1969. While the program concluded that most of the sightings involved conventional aircraft of spy planes, more than 700 incidences remained explained.

    Perhaps we’ll learn more after President Trump launches his ‘Space Force’.

  • How To Survive The Civil Unrest That's Coming To America

    Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

    The rhetoric in the United States is heating up and we’re sounding anything but… well… united. It seems to most media pundits like we are too far down the path to Civil War 2.0 to turn back now. Activists are laying siege to government offices. Threats toward people who disagree are growing in ferocity. It’s ugly and getting uglier. It’s a powder keg that is about to erupt. (Here are some thoughts on what a full-fledged Civil War might look like.)

    It is only a matter of time before civil unrest begins to escalate and spread throughout the country. Many people are wondering, how do you keep your family safe during widespread unrest? It’s not about being fearful. It’s about being prepared.

    My thoughts on this manipulated division are fodder for another article. (You can find it here.) This article is apolitical (to the best of my ability, anyway) and focuses strictly on what you need to know to survive should the unrest come to your neighborhood.

    You need to understand how riots unfold.

    First things first, you need to understand how this kind of unrest unfolds so that you can see the warning signs earlier. Never underestimate the power, rage, and motivation of a mob.

    Here’s the pattern:

    • An outrage occurs.

    • Good people react and protest the outrage.

    • Those perpetrating the outrage try to quell the protest because they don’t think that the outrage was actually outrageous.  (And whether it was or not can fluctuate – in some cases, force is necessitated, but in more and more cases, it is flagrantly gratuitous.)

    • Others react to the quelling and join the protest.

    • A mob mentality erupts. Thugs say, “Hey, it’s a free for all. I’m gonna get some Doritos and while I’m at it, beat the crap out of some folks for fun.”

    • All hell breaks loose.

    • The military gets called in.

    • The city burns, and neighborhoods get destroyed, and no one in the area is safe.

    • Cops act preemptively, out of fear, and for a time, there is no rule of law.

    • If you happen to be stuck there, know this: you’re completely on your own.

    Tess Pennington wrote about societal breakdowns in more detail – read her excellent article for more information on these predictable scenarios.

    Some people are just waiting for the opportunity to behave in this fashion. They’d love to act like that every single day, but they don’t want to spend the rest of their lives in jail. But when a verdict gets rolled out, when a storm takes out the power, when a disaster strikes, they delight in the chance to rob, pillage, loot, and burn.  Who can forget the day before Superstorm Sandy hit the East Coast, when thugs were coordinating looting rampages via Twitter?

    I remember learning about “sublimation” in a high school psychology class.

    Sublimation is a defense mechanism that allows us to act out unacceptable impulses by converting these behaviors into a more acceptable form. For example, a person experiencing extreme anger might take up kickboxing as a means of venting frustration. Freud believed that sublimation was a sign of maturity that allows people to function normally in socially acceptable ways. (source)

    If you believe Freud’s theory, then it’s easy to see that many people look for an excuse to revert to their true natures.  In a situation where “everyone” is doing something, they are able to cast off the normal control of their impulses without much fear of reprisal. The number of looters and thugs far outstrips the number of arrests going on in Baltimore, so there’s a very good chance that someone swept up in that mentality can go burn somebody else’s home or business and completely get away with it.

    Make a flexible plan.

    With situations of civil unrest, it isn’t as clear-cut as disasters like a looming storm or a chemical spill.  It depends on where you live. In a small town, far away from riots and protests, your lockdown area could be much greater than your own home. It could encompass your immediate community, too, and life might go on as it always has for you, aside from the need to stay just a little closer to home than before.

    However, if you live in a city or suburb, it may become essential to make a decision quickly. Do you lock your doors and stay home? Or do you get out of Dodge?  It is a question only you can answer. One thing that is very important is this: if you need to go, do NOT miss your window of opportunity to do so safely. If the entire city feels the same way, you’ll most likely be stuck in traffic and trapped in your car. Protesters have shut down the highways more than once in recent years, and you’ll be far safer behind the brick and mortar of your home than you will be in your car.

    By the way, there’s always someone who chimes in with a snide remark about how cowardly it is to lockdown with your family in order to stay safe. Blah, blah, blah. If you want to go get involved in a battle to make a political point, that’s certainly your prerogative. However, my priority is the safety of my family, and as such, I hope to avoid engaging altogether.

    The first thing you need to do is get home.

    If your area is beginning to devolve, the first thing you’re going to want to do is to get everyone in the family home. (Or if your home is in the thick of things, to a safer secondary location.)

    In a perfect world, we’d all be home, watching the chaos erupt on TV from the safety of our living rooms.  However, reality says that some of us will be at work, at school, or in the car when unrest occurs.  You need to develop a “get-home” plan for all of the members of your family, based on the most likely places that they will be.

    • Devise an efficient route for picking up the kids from school.  Be sure that anyone who might be picking up the children already has permission to do so in the school office.

    • Discuss the plan with older kids – there have been rumors that children could be moved by the schools to a secondary location in the event of a crisis.  Some families have formulated plans for their older kids to leave the school grounds in such an instance and take a designated route home or to another meeting place.

    • Keep a get-home bag in the trunk of your car in case you have to set out on foot.

    • Stash some supplies in the bottom of your child’s backpack – water, a snack, any tools that might be useful, and a map.  Be sure your children understand the importance of OPSEC.

    • Find multiple routes home – map out alternative backroad ways to get home as well as directions if you must go home on foot.

    • Find hiding places along the way.  If you work or go to school a substantial distance from your home, figure out some places to lay low now, before a crisis situation.  Sometimes staying out of sight is the best way to stay safe.

    • Avoid groups of people.  It seems that the mob mentality strikes when large groups of people get together.  Often folks who would never ordinarily riot in the streets get swept up by the mass of people who are doing so.

    • Keep in mind that in many civil disorder situations the authorities are to be avoided every bit as diligently as the angry mobs of looters. Who can forget the scenes of innocent people being pepper sprayed by uniformed thugs in body armor just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

    • Know when to abandon the plan to get home. Sometimes, you just can’t get there. Going through a war zone is not worth it. Find a different place to shelter. Pay attention to your instincts.

    The reality is, family members are likely to be at work or school when things start to break down. You need to have a plan laid out in advance to get everyone together and you need to be flexible enough to know when to go on to Plan B.

    Be ready for lockdown.

    Once you make your way home or to your bug-out location… STAY THERE.

    By staying home, you are minimizing your risk of being caught in the midst of an angry mob or of sitting in stalled traffic while looters run amok.  In most scenarios, you will be far safer at home than you will be in any type of shelter or refugee situation. (Obviously, if there is some type of chemical or natural threat in your immediate neighborhood, like a toxic leak, a flood, or a forest fire, the whole situation changes – you must use common sense before hunkering down.)

    This is when your preparedness supplies will really pay off. If you are ready for minor medical emergencies and illnesses, a grid down scenario, and a no-comm situation, you will be able to stay safely at home with your family and ride out the crisis in moderate comfort.

    Here’s a quick checklist:

    • Check your pantry and fill any gaps in your food preps.

    • Order emergency food buckets

    • Get your water preps in order

    • Get cash in small denominations out of the bank.

    • Make sure you have enough garbage bags, pet supplies, and toiletries.

    • Pick up a copy of a comprehensive preparedness guide like The Prepper’s Blueprint

    • Check your supply of candles, matches, and lighters. (This article has more information)

    • Flashlight and spare batteries and/or dynamo wind up flashlights.

    • Make sure all electronics are fully charged and keep them charged during the lead-up to an event

    • Make sure any cell phone battery packs are fully charged.

    • Fill up your gas tank up to the max.

    • If your vehicle isn’t in a garage park it trunk end in as close to a wall as you can. This makes it harder to get to the tank to either steal the fuel or set fire to it.

    • Check your home security – walk around looking at your property as if you were a burglar and take appropriate action to improve security if required.

    • Have something on hand for the kids to do in case of school closures.

    • Make sure you have a fully stocked first aid kit and enough OTC medications to last the family for at least a month.

    • Check and clean your firearms and be prepared to defend your family if trouble comes to you

    • Pick up some extra ammo

    • Plan to keep pets indoors

    • Make sure you have enough of needed prescription medications to last a few weeks

    Staying home is the number one way to keep yourself safer from during a civil unrest situation. If you find yourself in an area under siege, the odds will be further on your side for every interaction in which you avoid taking part. Every single time you leave the house, you increase your chances of an unpleasant encounter.  Nothing will be accomplished by going out during a chaotic situation.

    Try to stay under the radar.

    Your best defense is avoiding the fight altogether. You want to stay under the radar and not draw attention to yourself.  The extent to which you strive to do this should be based on the severity of the unrest in your area. Some of the following recommendations are not necessary in an everyday grid-down scenario, but could save your life in a more extreme civil unrest scenario.

    • Keep all the doors and windows locked.  Secure sliding doors with a metal bar.  Consider installing decorative gridwork over a door with a large window so that it becomes difficult for someone to smash the glass and reach in to unlock the door.

    • Put dark plastic over the windows. (Heavy duty garbage bags work well.)  If it’s safe to do so, go outside and check to see if any light escapes from the windows. If your home is the only one on the block that is well-lit, it is a beacon to others.

    • Keep pets indoors. Sometimes criminals use an animal in distress to get a homeowner to open the door for them. Sometimes people are just mean and hurt animals for “fun”.  Either way, it’s safer for your furry friends to be inside with you.

    • Don’t answer the door.  Many home invasions start with an innocent-seeming knock at the door to gain access to your house.

    • Keep cooking smells to a minimum.  The goal here is not to draw attention. The meat on your grill will draw people like moths to a flame.

    • Keep the family together.  It’s really best to hang out in one room. Make it a movie night, go into a darkened room at the back of the house, and stay together. This way, if someone does try to breach your door, you know where everyone is who is supposed to be there. As well, you don’t risk one of the kids unknowingly causing a vulnerability with a brightly lit room or an open window.

    • Remember, first responders may be tied up.  If the disorder is widespread, don’t depend on a call to 911 to save you. You must be prepared to save yourself.  Also keep in mind, as mentioned earlier in the article – the cops are not always your friends in these situations.

    Be prepared for defensive action.

    If, despite your best efforts, your property draws the attention of people with ill intent, you must be ready to defend your family. Sometimes despite our best intentions, the fight comes to us.  (Have you seen the movie The Purge?)

    Many preppers stockpile weapons and ammunition for just such an event.  I know that I certainly do. Firearms are an equalizer. A small woman can defend herself from multiple large intruders with a firearm if she’s had some training and knows how to use it properly. But put a kitchen knife in her hand against those same intruders, and her odds decrease exponentially.

    When the door of your home is breached, you can be pretty sure the people coming in are not there to make friendly conversation or borrow a cup of sugar.  Make a plan to greet them with a deterring amount of force.

    • Don’t rely on 911. If the disorder is widespread, don’t depend on a call to 911 to save you – you must be prepared to save yourself.  First responders may be tied up, and in some cases, the cops are not always your friends.  In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, some officers joined in the crime sprees, and others stomped all over the 2nd Amendment and confiscated people’s legal firearms at a time when they needed them the most.

    • Be armed and keep your firearm on your person.  When the door of your home is breached, you can be pretty sure the people coming in are not there to make friendly conversation over a nice cup of tea.  Make a plan to greet them with a deterring amount of force. Be sure to keep your firearm on your person during this type of situation, because there won’t be time to go get it from your gun safe. Don’t even go to the kitchen to get a snack without it. Home invasions go down in seconds, and you have to be constantly ready.

    • Know how to use your firearm. Whatever your choice of weapon, practice, practice, practice. A weapon you don’t know how to use is more dangerous than having no weapon at all. Here’s some advice from someone who knows a lot more about weapons than I do.

    • Make sure your children are familiar with the rules of gun safety. Of course, it should go without saying that you will have pre-emptively taught your children the rules of gun safety so that no horrifying accidents occur. In fact, it’s my fervent hope that any child old enough to do so has been taught to safely and effectively use a firearm themselves. Knowledge is safety.

    • Be ready for the potential of fire.  Fire is a cowardly attack that doesn’t require any interaction on the part of the arsonist. It flushes out the family inside, leaving you vulnerable to physical assaults. Have fire extinguishers mounted throughout your home. You can buy them in 6 packs from Amazon. Be sure to test them frequently and maintain them properly. (Allstate has a page about fire extinguisher maintenance.) Have fire escape ladders that can be attached to a windowsill in all upper story rooms.  Drill with them so that your kids know how to use them if necessary.

    • Have a safe room established for children or other vulnerable family members. If the worst happens and your home is breached, you need to have a room into which family members can escape. This room needs to have a heavy exterior door instead of a regular hollow core interior door. There should be communications devices in the room so that the person can call for help, as well as a reliable weapon to be used in the unlikely event that the safe room is breached. The family members should be instructed not to come out of that room FOR ANY REASON until you give them the all clear or help has arrived. You can learn more about building a safe room HERE.  Focus the tips for creating a safe room in an apartment to put it together more quickly.

    Again, even if your plan is to bug in, you must be ready to change that plan in the blink of an eye. Plan an escape route.  If the odds are against you, if your house catches on fire, if thugs are kicking in your front door… devise a way to get your family to safety.  Your property is not worth your life. Be wise enough to accept that the situation has changed and move rapidly to Plan B.

    You have to remember that civilization is just a veneer.

    So many times, when interviewed after a disaster, people talk about being “shocked” at the behavior of others.  Their level of cognitive dissonance has lulled them into thinking that we’re safe and that we live in a civilized country.  They are unwilling to accept that civilization is only a glossy veneer, even when the evidence of that is right in front of them, aiming a gun at their faces, lighting their homes on fire, or raping their daughters.

    They refuse to arm themselves and prepare for an uncivilized future.

    Accept it now, and you’ll be a lot better off when the SHTF.

    Look at what happened during the Ferguson riots. Look at the behavior of the stampeding masses on any given Black Friday shopping extravaganza. Look at the horrifying rhetoric espoused by people angry about the politics of our country.

    Then tell me again how “civilized” our country is.

  • California Passes "Strongest" Data-Privacy Bill Yet, Could Become "Law Of The Land"

    While Democrats like Senator Mark Warner hemmed and hawed late last year about passing legislation that would make it easier for consumers to sue companies like Facebook and Google, California (which benefits from the fact that it’s essentially a one-party state controlled by Democrats) has gone ahead and passed what NBC News described as “the nation’s strongest data privacy law”.

    Californias
    California Gov. Jerry Brown

    The will require tech firms to disclose what data they collect from their users, and with whom they share that data. That means that companies like Facebook will need to start carefully tracking user data shared with third-party developers, after the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Facebook’s internal probe into potential data misuse has been stymied by the company’s inability to track where much of the data went.

    According to the law, tech companies must safeguard users’ data or risk a hefty fine (the bill also allows for the creation of a “Consumer Privacy Fund” that will help fund enforcement of the law). And while tech firms wouldn’t face penalties for violations in other states, it’s expected that California’s law will effectively be enforced for all US users, as changes – like the “opt-out” feature – will probably be rolled out nationwide.

    The law, passed by the state legislature on Tuesday and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, requires companies to disclose the types of data they collect about consumers and with whom they share that information. Companies will be forced to let consumers opt-out of having their data sold. The law will also prohibit companies from charging a consumer or treating them differently because they opted out of having their data sold.

    While NBC says the “spirit of the law” is similar to Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation, which took effect last month, the law doesn’t go quite as far. In response to that law, US tech firms adjusted their privacy policies and allowed users more control over what data they collect.

    But the law falls short of a ballot measure entitled Mactaggart’s Californians for Consumer Privacy bill – proposed by Alastair Mactaggart, a wealthy real estate developer – which would’ve given consumers more power, including the ability to sue companies that have mishandled their data privacy. However, Mactaggart threatened to pull the measure if the consumer privacy act passed, which it did.

    James Steyer, the founder and CEO of nonprofit tech watchdog Common Sense, said the bill’s passage is a “huge victory”, though he admitted it isn’t perfect. Personally, Steyer says he’d like to see legislation requiring an “opt-in” for users to approve sharing of their data. Still, “California’s law will become the law of the land,” Steyer said. “Waiting for Congress and this current executive breach to be functional is like a joke.” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg memorably argued during testimony before Congress in April that consumers often prefer to share their data, because it helps social media firms target their ads so that they reflect the users’ interests. With this in mind, perhaps it’s not so surprising that Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg told employees Thursday morning that the company supported the law.

  • Irrational Beliefs Are Ruling Markets

    Authored by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

    To understand the consequences of the credit cycle, we must dismiss pure opinion, and examine the evidence rationally. This article assesses the fate of the dollar on the next credit crisis, a subject of increasing topicality. It concludes that the late stage of the credit cycle has important similarities with 1927, when the Fed eased monetary policy, following evidence of a mild recession.

    Contemporary financial markets are inherently emotional, mainly because they are awash with government-issued currencies. Investors and speculators would never be as careless with sound money as they are with infinitely-elastic fiat. Instead, they are ready to gamble with it, partly because they know that standing still guarantees a loss of purchasing power and partly because rising asset prices, which is actually the reflection of a falling currency, makes selling currency for assets an appealing proposition. Furthermore, credit for speculation is freely available through futures and options.

    Financial markets are also irrational due to modern economics, the explanation for it all, having become a belief system. If all central banks pursue economic beliefs, as an investor you will probably do so as well, otherwise you are out of step in a world that follows trends. That works until it doesn’t. Central bankers pursue policies which are a mishmash of neo-Keynesianism and monetarism, the balance between the two setting the fashion of the day, with an overriding assumption that unregulated markets are the source of all our economic and systemic troubles. But there is one element of monetary policy that does not change, and that is a conviction that everything can be cured by monetary inflation.

    Is this condemnation of monetary policy over the top? Well, only last week Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, was authorised by the UK Treasury to issue a further £1.2bn of capital, which according to press reports will allow the Bank of England to create further loans totalling more than £750bn. Nice work if you can get it: create some sterling by a few strokes on a keyboard and gear up on it by issuing a further 625 times as much, only backed by the myth that the central bank’s capital is real. What is the purpose? To banish all risk emanating from the private sector, of course.

    You can only justify monetary policies of this sort by supposing they are the right thing to do. But it tells us something important: deflation, however you define it, is not the problem.

    Deflation is ill-defined

    Commentators and analysts appear to be in general agreement that deflation is the greatest risk facing us today, and every time a statistic falls short of market expectations, the walking shadow of deflation flits across the financial stage. We are all becoming nervously aware of the accumulation of debt, and the risk that consumers and businesses are teetering on the edge of another credit crisis.

    In 1933, the economist Irving Fisher described how when loans start to go bad, banks liquidate collateral, thereby driving down asset prices and leading to widespread bankruptcies. According to Fisher, a cycle of debt liquidation and falling asset prices interact in a vicious self-feeding collapse, suppressing demand, resulting in falling commodity prices and unsold goods. Nearly everyone is terrified of this risk, forgetting it is something that can only happen with sound money, because sound money retains its purchasing power. In the 1930s, the dollar was exchangeable for gold, until Roosevelt made gold ownership illegal for US citizens and devalued the dollar. Today the monetary landscape is vastly different: gold has been banished from the fiat money system and today’s government-issued unbacked currencies are as unsound as they get.

    Therefore, deflation is an inappropriate way of describing any economic condition when central banks are prepared to pump unlimited fiat currency into their economies at the first sign of trouble. Wrongly, deflation has become the catch-all description for nearly all forms of economic failure. Instead, we should understand that economic failure, short of wars and plagues, is always associated with monetary inflation, and the undermining of a currency’s purchasing power.

    Consider the economic effects of an inflationary monetary policy, such as that of the Argentinian central bank. The government presides over an economy where price inflation is officially running at 26%, but prices are estimated to be actually rising at three times that, based on estimates of purchasing power parity.

    Argentina’s economy is growing at 2% in 2018, according to a recent report from the OECD. But realistically, the Argentine economy is contracting severely when you take into account the true loss of the currency’s purchasing power, in which GDP numbers are measured. So, from the OECD we have a neo-Keynesian commentary claiming marginal economic growth, when the reality can also be described in today’s loose economic parlance as intensely deflationary, because real GDP growth adjusted for inflation is strongly negative.

    It is not deflation. Argentina is suffering from severe price inflation, the consequence of monetary policy. The inflationary situation in the US and elsewhere is no different, just less intense. Like the Argentines, the US through official statistics underreports inflation, in this case at only 2.8%, and even that is ignored by the Fed. A more realistic rate of price increases, according to Shadowstats.com, currently exceeds 10%. This leaves the real Fed Funds Rate adjusted for an approximation of actual price inflation at minus eight per cent, which by any sensible definition is not deflationary.

    Despite the monetary reality, the financial community, with an eye only on the overhang of debt, persists in thinking that deflation, not inflation, is the greater risk. This conclusion can only be the result of imprecise economic definitions, which allow the monetary establishment to fool itself along with us all into accepting their inflationary monetary policies are valid.

    Cross-border flows

    Deflationists seem to believe, in accordance with Irving Fisher’s debt-deflation theory, that debt in a credit crisis will be liquidated, creating demand for currency. This simplistic approach ignores the fact that during an inflation, which perforce leads to far higher nominal interest rates, debt liquidation is an ever-present factor as well. Fisher’s description of how businesses and banks fail in an economic downturn is selective and has been used to justify monetary intervention to prevent borrowers and banks from paying for their mistakes. It changes the private sector from the survival of the fittest to survival of the influential, robbing savers for the benefit of the profligate.

    There is no economic justification for this one-sided view of debt-deflation, but we have to live with it. We can be sure that in the event of a general credit crisis the Fed will issue enough currency to stabilise the domestic economy. That is official policy and the reason the Fed was created and exists. The difficulties for foreign dollar-denominated obligations are a separate and secondary consideration. However, we can assume that the major central banks will extend inflationary swap agreements between themselves to allow them to support their individual financial systems, wherever foreign currency exposure is a risk factor. But that still leaves us with imbalances that are likely to disrupt exchange rates.

    There is a general assumption that the liquidation of cross-border positions will lead to net demand for the dollar, driving it up against other currencies. According to this logic, the superiority of the dollar as the reserve currency will ensure that sales of foreign currency arising from a credit crisis will result in the purchase of dollars.

    After all, these dollar bulls tell us, this is corroborated by the Triffin dilemma. According to Professor Triffin, dollars required for international trade liquidity are supplied by US trade deficits. And if the US goes into recession, the economic contraction will restrict the supply of dollars, forcing the exchange rate higher. We need to unpick this flaky argument to challenge its validity.

    Professor Triffin forecast the end of the Bretton Woods system in his book, Gold and the Dollar Crisis: The Future of Convertibility, published in 1960. In it, he argued that the flood of dollars that went abroad following the Second World War (Marshall plan, Korea, etc.) would lead to the dollar being driven off the gold standard. This actually happened in a series of events, starting with difficulties in the London gold market in the late 1960s, exacerbated by further overseas spending on the Vietnam War, and culminated with the suspension of the Bretton Woods agreement by President Nixon in 1971.

    Triffin argued in his book that the dollar could only stay on the gold standard by running trade surpluses to reverse the tide and absorb loose dollars, which would otherwise be exchanged for gold. This, to an interventionist, was impractical, and exposed the dilemma: an international reserve currency required the issuer to run domestic deficits to provide the liquidity needed for it to act as a reserve currency. Yet, such a policy contained within it the seeds of its own destruction.

    The relationship between trade deficits and reserve currency liquidity led Triffin to advocate a paper gold alternative to the dollar as the reserve currency, which could be expanded or contracted to offset deflationary or inflationary tendencies. This was essentially Keynes’s position in recommending the creation of the bancor, rather than using the dollar as the reserve currency in the Bretton Woods system.

    The relevance today is found in the fact, as Triffin pointed out, that destructive domestic economic and monetary policies to support international liquidity would eventually undermine the reserve currency itself. This is conveniently forgotten by those who claim Triffin’s dilemma ensures demand for the dollar will continue, and that the US can always run trade deficits without undermining the dollar.

    The dollar is oversupplied

    In order to assess the effect of a credit crisis on the dollar, we must therefore gauge how extended the dollar appears to be in terms of its international circulation. The most recent numbers from the US Treasury TIC data is for the position in June last year for foreign ownership of US securities, and for end of year 2016 for US ownership of foreign securities. Putting to one side these timing differences, since 2006, dollar-denominated investments owned by foreigners totalled $8.52 trillion more than US ownership of non-dollar foreign investments, up 275% since 2008. This is illustrated in the following chart.

    We cannot say for sure this represents something close to Triffin’s tipping point, where the quantity of dollars in foreign hands will undermine the currency. But according to the World Bank, global GDP has only increased by about 20% since 2008, suggesting that there are, indeed, far too many dollars in foreign hands relative to economic activity, compared with ten years ago.

    This being the case, the dollar could be set to fall on the foreign exchanges during a credit crisis, when investment liquidation pressures increase, and currency hedges are initiated. Importantly, it could also be the desired outcome for the Fed, which is firmly wedded to the idea that falling prices at the retail level must be avoided at all costs, and a lower currency could be used with zero, or even negative interest rates to help support domestic prices. In these circumstances, gold, and perhaps even cryptocurrencies, will be seen by investors as safe-havens from inflationary monetary policies, whose primary purpose will be to contain debt liquidation and protect the commercial banks.

    However, this is not the whole picture with respect to exchange rates.

    It is the nature of fiat currencies that their individual values are inherently uncertain, each one reflecting purely subjective values in the foreign exchanges. There can be little doubt that the current equilibrium between, say, the Argentinian peso and the US dollar would be disturbed in a global credit crisis by undermining the peso. We cannot be so certain of the exchange rates between, say, the euro and the dollar. Nor can we be so certain how official Chinese policy towards dollar investments may change, or indeed the position of other sovereign wealth funds. All we can say is the foreign world outside America is overexposed to dollars, just as it was in the late 1960s, when the remedy was to sell them for gold.

    Stock markets are only indirectly linked to the economy

    Another crude belief is that what happens in financial markets anticipates the economic outlook, when in fact the economic outlook is only one of several factors that feed into asset values. In a pure sound-money environment, there is no systemic risk, only individual investment risks. There are no trade deficits, because there is no expansion of unbacked money to finance them. Changes in the purchasing power of money, when it is gold, do exist, tending to increase over time. However, price variations are generally self-correcting, regulated by gold arbitrage between different economic communities. Unsound money, that is to say unbacked fiat currencies, features systemic risks, price manipulation, statistical untruths and every other form of monetary dishonesty imaginable. The idea that a pure link exists between asset values today and the economic outlook is therefore nonsense.

    With that caveat in mind, we shall proceed to fathom where we might be in the current credit cycle. Our framework for understanding it is that the final pre-crisis stage always leads to an unexpected increase in price inflation, before the non-financial economy begins to finally overheat. When that happens, interest rates rise even more to trigger the credit crisis.

    A key link is money-flows out of financials into non-financial activities. The banks reduce their bond exposures in favour of loans for production and working capital. The money going out of financials undermines financial asset values and enhances productive asset values. However, over recent credit cycles, this clear-cut relationship has become increasingly blurred. The destruction of savings and their replacement by consumer debt has fundamentally altered the characteristics of the credit cycle’s late stages, in addition creating a legacy of an accumulation of unproductive debt in the corporate sector. And not least of the changes in a theoretical credit cycle are the distorting interventions of government as described in the first paragraph of this sub-section.

    Therefore, determining where we are in the credit cycle is consequently becoming an increasingly subjective exercise. Stock markets appear to have now peaked and could be entering a new bear phase. Increasingly, investors are concerned that the very modest rises in interest rates seen so far are slowing the US economy too much, which according to Jerome Powell, the Fed’s Chairman, is actually growing with increased industrial investment. His position, which accords with our own credit cycle theory, was declared as recently as the press conference following the last FOMC meeting.

    However, investors have become very sensitive to the high levels of consumer, business and government debt, which cannot easily bear the burden of higher interest rates. Furthermore, the negative consequences of President Trump’s trade tariff policies are becoming apparent. Some US manufacturers are now talking of cutting back on US investment and diverting it abroad, to escape tariff penalties on US manufactured goods and remain competitive in overseas markets. Jerome Powell has similarly rowed back slightly on his bullish view by admitting to the potential slowdown in business investment from trade tariffs.

    Trade tariffs are increasingly becoming an issue for markets, but they are an uncertain political, rather than an economic issue for now. The only hard statistics are of money supply, and these suggest a slow-down is actually happening. Commentators point out that growth in US M2 is easing, growing only 4.3% in the year to 11 June. Furthermore, American business loan growth is also slowing, having picked up recently. However, over successive credit cycles, production of goods relative to services has declined, perhaps reducing the importance of this indicator, because services generally require less capital investment. Furthermore, with up to $2.6 trillion of accumulated overseas profits being repatriated following President Trump’s tax concession, we have no idea how much of it is being invested in US-based production, because it is not reflected in bank loan statistics.

    With bond prices also rallying, it is hard to avoid the conclusion the economy may be in for a late-cycle stall. The betting on two further rate rises this year has receded in favour of one, or perhaps none at all. There is a precedent for this, and that was in 1927, when there was an unexpected mild recession in the US. At that time, the Fed decided there was no overvaluation of stock markets (which was its primary indicator at the time) and shifted towards easing. Consequently, the Dow rose further into record territory before the 1929 crash.

    Today, the uncertainties over President Trump’s tariff policies are likely to be causing a slowdown in business investment, as Jerome Powell recently noted. Furthermore, the dollar’s recent rally will be judged to be mildly deflationary. This outcome is likely to provide some relief to the Fed, at least temporarily, given concerns over the cost of higher interest rates to overindebted borrowers. Anything to suggest a softening in the economy, and therefore that further interest rate increases may be deferred, should be welcomed by policymakers. However, with price inflation already picking up, pressure to raise interest rates will only be temporarily deferred.

    Therefore, there could still be another, last-gasp, late 1920s-style run up in equities before the crash happens. The key indicator, perhaps, is the rally in US Treasury bond prices, which so long as it remains intact, should defray debt-deflation worries.

    The initial destruction of wealth after equity markets peak could then coincide with and exacerbate the credit crisis. But those that think it will be a deflationary event have not been paying attention to the evolution of monetary policy since the days of Paul Volker, who was the last Fed chairman with the guts to jack up interest rates to bring price inflation under control. Nor do they understand that deflation doesn’t actually exist, and they are misled by official statistics and imprecise economic definitions.

  • "Girl From The Bronx" Ocasio-Cortez Called Out In Fact Check; Actually Grew Up In Wealthy Enclave

    The Democratic Party’s rising socialist icon – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has been on an intense media junket since her upset primary victory over establishment Democrat Joe Crowley this week – doing her darnedest to project her “girl from the Bronx” working-class image.

    “Well, you know, the president is from Queens, and with all due respect — half of my district is from Queens — I don’t think he knows how to deal with a girl from the Bronx,” Ocasio-Cortez told Stephen Colbert during an appearance on The Late Show

    The socialist phenom also told the Washington Post “I wasn’t born to a wealthy or powerful family — mother from Puerto Rico, dad from the South Bronx. I was born in a place where your Zip code determines your destiny.”

    Except Ocasio-Cortez isn’t quite the blue-collar champion she’s branding herself as. Breitbart‘s Josh Caplan is out with a “fact check” on the Democratic Socialist’s background – only to find she grew up in one of the richest counties in the United States

    Around the age of five, Alexandria’s architect father Sergio Ocasio moved the family from the “planned community” of Parkchester in the Bronx to a home in Yorktown Heights, a wealthy suburb in Westchester County. The New York Times describes her childhood home as “a modest two-bedroom house on a quiet street.” In a 1999 profile of the area, when Ocasio-Cortez would have been ten years old, the Times lauded Yorktown Heights’ “diversity of housing in a scenic setting” – complete with two golf courses.

    The paper quoted Linda Cooper, the town supervisor, describing Yorktown as ”a folksy area where people can come, kick off their shoes, wander around, sit in a cafe, listen to a concert in the park, or go to the theater.

    Westchester County – which the Washington Post, in a glowing profile on Ocasio-Cortez, describes as only “middle class” – ranks #8 in the nation for the counties with the “highest average incomes among the wealthiest one percent of residents.” According to the Economic Policy Institute, the county’s average annual income of the top one percent is a staggering $4,326,049.

    Yorktown Heights, specifically, offers a sharp contrast from Bronx living. According to USA.com, the town’s population is 81 percent white, and median household income is $96,413nearly double the average for both New York state and the nation, according to data from 2010-2014.

    Not exactly Jenny from the block

    We wonder how long it will take Ocasio-Cortez to ride the “Democratic Socialist” wave until she’s firing off tweets from her third home and making $1 million, two years in a row, like Bernie Sanders.

    Speaking of 1 million, that’s how many Venezuelan Bolivar it costs to buy a Cafe con Leche in Argentina now… (about .29c)

    Then again, “Democratic Socialism” is apparently totally not that kind of socialism. 

  • Moon Fuel: A New Multi-Trillion Dollar Treasure

    Authored by Mining.com  via OilPrice.com,

    India’s space program wants to go where no nation has gone before – to the south side of the moon.

    And once it gets there, it will study the potential for mining a source of waste-free nuclear energy that could be worth trillions of dollars.

    The nation’s equivalent of NASA will launch a rover in October to explore virgin territory on the lunar surface and analyze crust samples for signs of water and helium-3. That isotope is limited on Earth yet so abundant on the moon that it theoretically could meet global energy demands for 250 years if harnessed.

    “The countries which have the capacity to bring that source from the moon to Earth will dictate the process,’’ said K. Sivan, chairman of the Indian Space Research Organisation. “I don’t want to be just a part of them, I want to lead them.’’

    The mission would solidify India’s place among the fleet of explorers racing to the moon, Mars and beyond for scientific, commercial or military gains. The governments of the U.S., China, India, Japan and Russia are competing with startups and billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson to launch satellites, robotic landers, astronauts and tourists into the cosmos.

    The rover landing is one step in an envisioned series for ISRO that includes putting a space station in orbit and, potentially, an Indian crew on the moon. The government has yet to set a timeframe.

    The mission would solidify India’s place among the fleet of explorers racing to the moon, Mars and beyond for scientific, commercial or military gains.

    “We are ready and waiting,’’ said Sivan, an aeronautics engineer who joined ISRO in 1982. “We’ve equipped ourselves to take on this particular program.’’

    China is the only country to put a lander and rover on the moon this century with its Chang’e 3 mission in 2013. The nation plans to return later this year by sending a probe to the unexplored far side.

    In the U.S., President Donald Trump signed a directive calling for astronauts to return to the moon, and NASA’s proposed $19 billion budget this fiscal year calls for launching a lunar orbiter by the early 2020s.

    ISRO’s estimated budget is less than a 10th of that – about $1.7 billion – but accomplishing feats on the cheap has been a hallmark of the agency since the 1960s. The upcoming mission will cost about $125 million – or less than a quarter of Snap Inc. co-founder Evan Spiegel’s compensation last year, the highest for an executive of a publicly traded company, according to the Bloomberg Pay Index.

    This won’t be India’s first moon mission. The Chandrayaan-1 craft, launched in October 2008, completed more than 3,400 orbits and ejected a probe that discovered molecules of water in the surface for the first time.

    The upcoming launch of Chandrayaan-2 includes an orbiter, lander and a rectangular rover. The six-wheeled vehicle, powered by solar energy, will collect information for at least 14 days and cover an area with a 400-meter radius.

    The rover will send images to the lander, and the lander will transmit those back to ISRO for analysis.

    A primary objective, though, is to search for deposits of helium-3. Solar winds have bombarded the moon with immense quantities of helium-3 because it’s not protected by a magnetic field like Earth is.

    The presence of helium-3 was confirmed in moon samples returned by the Apollo missions, and Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt, a geologist who walked on the moon in December 1972, is an avid proponent of mining helium-3.

    There are an estimated 1 million metric tons of helium-3 embedded in the moon — enough to meet the world’s current energy demands for at least two, and possibly as many as five, centuries.

    “It is thought that this isotope could provide safer nuclear energy in a fusion reactor, since it is not radioactive and would not produce dangerous waste products,’’ the European Space Agency said.

    There are an estimated 1 million metric tons of helium-3 embedded in the moon, though only about a quarter of that realistically could be brought to Earth, said Gerald Kulcinski, director of the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a former member of the NASA Advisory Council.

    That’s still enough to meet the world’s current energy demands for at least two, and possibly as many as five, centuries, Kulcinski said. He estimated helium-3’s value at about $5 billion a ton, meaning 250,000 tons would be worth in the trillions of dollars.

    To be sure, there are numerous obstacles to overcome before the material can be used – including the logistics of collection and delivery back to Earth and building fusion power plants to convert the material into energy. Those costs would be stratospheric.

    “If that can be cracked, India should be a part of that effort,’’ said Lydia Powell, who runs the Centre for Resources Management at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation think tank. “If the cost makes sense, it will become a game-changer, no doubt about it.’’

    Plus, it won’t be easy to mine the moon. Only the U.S. and Luxembourg have passed legislation allowing commercial entities to hold onto what they have mined from space, said David Todd, head of space content at Northampton, England-based Seradata Ltd. There isn’t any international treaty on the issue.

    “Eventually, it will be like fishing in the sea in international waters,’’ Todd said. “While a nation-state cannot hold international waters, the fish become the property of its fishermen once fished.’’

    India’s government is reacting to the influx of commercial firms in space by drafting legislation to regulate satellite launches, company registrations and liability, said GV Anand Bhushan, a Chennai-based partner at the Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. law firm. It doesn’t cover moon mining.

    Yet the nation’s only spaceman isn’t fully on board with turning the moon into a place of business.

    Rakesh Sharma, who spent almost eight days aboard a Russian spacecraft in 1984, said nations and private enterprises instead should work together to develop human colonies elsewhere as Earth runs out of resources and faces potential catastrophes such as asteroid strikes.

    “You can’t go to the moon and draw boundaries,’’ Sharma said. “I want India to show that we’re capable of utilizing space technology for the good of people.’’

  • America's Cheese Stockpile Just Hit A Record High

    The Washington Post reports American warehouses have amassed their most massive stockpile of cheese in more than 100 years since government regulators began tracking dairy products, the result of oversupplied domestic markets and waning consumer demand.

    Commercial and government cheese storage facilities now have a whopping 1.39 billion-pound surplus, counted by the Agriculture Department in May and published in a report on June 22. It is a 6 percent y/y and a 16 percent jump since the government launched ‘quantitative cheesing’ to buy excess supply in 2016.

    Cheese analysts say record stockpiling is attributed to a decline in consumer demand for milk. When dairy cattle produce too much milk, processors generally convert the milk into cheese, butter, or powder, which is the easiest method for long-term storage.

    Record amounts of cheese, however, comes with a significant drawback: If it is being stored, it is not sold, that leads to margin compression of farmers who make their living from the dairy industry.

    h/t johnlund.com

    The Post notes that Trump’s trade war has prompted fears that stockpiles will build further if trade tensions with China and Mexico slice into cheese exports.

    “Milk production continues to trend up, and that milk has to find a home,” said Lucas Fuess, director of market intelligence at HighGround Dairy, a consulting firm.

    “The issue this year is that, with so much supply, it’s going to be tough for a lot of farmers to be profitable.”

    Regarding seasonality, cheese surpluses tend to occur in the summer months. Dairy cattle are at their most productive stage in spring when the days are longer, and the feed is of much higher quality. Better genetics of the cows have also produced more milk. Simultaneously, demand for cheese declines among Americans in the summer months and usually picks back up during the school year.

    “I anticipate that we’ll continue to set these records,” said John Newton, director of market intelligence at the American Farm Bureau Federation.

    “We’re producing more milk. It’s inevitable. That milk needs to get turned into something storable.”

    “But the sheer amount of cheese in storage may be causing problems. Cheese prices have fallen in recent weeks,” Fuess said. Since 2014, cash-settled cheese futures have declined by more than -30 percent. Judging by the descending channel, if the upper rail of the structure is rejected, well, the next liquidity gap in the auction could form.

    “That fall is problematic,” said Mark Stephenson, director of dairy policy analysis at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, “because the price of cheese is a major factor in the equation that USDA uses to set the price that dairy farmers receive for their milk.”

    When Stephenson chatted with The Post, the current price was $15.36 per 100 pounds. From 2017 highs, price prints -7 percent discount and well below the break-even for many farmers. “When inventories get too large, that pushes the prices down,” he said. “And yes, that trickles down to dairy farmers.”

    Michael Dykes, president of the International Dairy Foods Association, told The Post, he is sure Americans will eat through the stockpiles. That is because of stock-to-use ratios, a measure of the amount of cheese taken out of storage, have remained elevated when inventories are high, and prices are depressed.

    Dykes warned The Post that mounting trade tensions could grow inventories to crisis levels. Last year, the United States produced 12 billion pounds of cheese and exported more than 341,000 metric tons to countries such as Mexico and China. The fear is if those countries turn to Europe or other countries besides the United States, the stockpile could reach crisis levels. Already, the Department of Agriculture has been prepping cheesemakers for the worst case scenario of much higher inventories.

    “One milking day a week goes to the export market,” Dykes said. “There’s a lot of uncertainty now. I don’t think we really know what will happen yet.”

    So, when does the next round of ‘quantitative cheesing’ come?

  • Global Stocks Lost Over $10 Trillion In H1, Just Wait For The Second Half

    The Second Half can’t be any worse that the first, right?

     

    H1 2018 was ugly for most…

    WORST

    • Bitcoin Worst Start To A Year Ever

    • German Banks At Lowest Since 1988

    • Onshore Yuan Worst Quarter Since 1994

    • Argentine Peso Worst Start To A Year Since 2002

    • US Financial Conditions Tightened The Most To Start A Year Since 2002

    • Global Systemically Important Banks Worst Start To A Year Since 2008

    • Global Stocks Worst Start To A Year Since 2010

    • China Stocks Worst Start To A Year Since 2010

    • German Stocks Worst Start (In USD Terms) Since 2010

    • Global Economic Data Disappointments Worst Since 2012

    • Emerging Markets, Gold, Silver Worst Start To A Year Since 2013

    • High Yield Bonds Worst Start To A Year Since 2013

    • Offshore Yuan Worst Month Since Aug 2015

    • Global Bonds Worst Start To A Year Since 2015

    • Treasury Yield Curve Down Record 16 Of Last 18 Quarters

    BEST

    • US Tech Stocks Best Start To A Year Relative To Financials Since 2009

    • Dollar Index Best Quarter Since Q4 2016

    • WTI Crude Best Month Since April 2016

    Bloodbath

    As the ‘global synchronous recovery’ narrative collapsed with Global Macro Surprise Index collapsing to six year lows at the fastest pace since 2012 (which led The Fed from Operation Twist to QE3…)

    And as the economy slowed, US financial conditions tightened dramatically…

    *  *  *

    STOCKS

    World Stocks are red to end H1 2018 – they just suffered their worst first-half of a year since 2010…

     

    World Stocks have lost almost $10 trillion since their peak in January…

     

    China’s Shanghai Composite suffered its worst start to a year since 2010…

     

    Europe was mixed in H1 with DAX the biggest loser as trade wars hit the big export economy (and Italy suffering on political crisis)…

     

    With German banks back to 30-year lows…

     

    In US equity-land, the bounce in the S&P in the last 24 hours (off unchanged for the year) has saved the major US equity market index from its worst start to a year since 2010.

    US equity market volatility has been very different in 2018 so far…

    Trannies had an ugly month but the rebound of the last 24 hours rescued the rest of the majors into the green for the month… However, The dow (blue below) struggled all afternoon and ended June with swoon…

     

    Trannies were worst on the week but all major US equity indices closed red… The Dow managed to make it back to unch briefly midweek before the selling resumed…

     

    24,425.84 was the magic number for The Dow to end June green (and 24,330 is the 200DMA) but it failed miserably and closed below the 200DMA for the 4th day in a row

     

    Bank stocks were unable to hold their post-CCAR gains…(selling off after Europe closed)

     

    Tech outperformed financials by the most to start the year since 2009…

     

    Global banks were a bloodbath in H1…

     

    *  *  *

    BONDS

    Global Bonds suffered their worst quarter since Q4 2016 (and worst start to a year since 2015)…back into an interesting zone of support/resistance

     

    US treasury yields are all higher on the year (though the massive flattening between 2Y and 30Y is very evident)…

     

    30Y Yield are actually lower in Q2…

    And In June, 10Y and 30Y yields are lower…collapsing at the long-end since The Fed hiked rates…

     

    One glance at the above and it is clear that the yield curve is collapsing…

     

    In fact Q2 makes the 6th straight quarterly flattening in a row (and 16th quarter in the last 18 that the 2s30s curve has flattened)

     

    High yield bonds suffered their worst start to a year since 2013, dramatically underperforming stocks…

    But it was investment grade credit that really collapsed…

     

    CURRENCIES

    The Dollar Index soared in Q2 – up 5%, its best quarter since Q4 2016 (and breaking a 5 quarter losing streak)…

     

    And the biggest driver of the dollar’s spike – a collapsing Yuan… (June was the worst month for offshore Yuan since the Aug 2015 devaluation and Q2 was the worst quarter for the onshore Yuan since 1994)

     

    Emerging Markets were a bloodbath…

     

    With the Argentine Peso (apart from the black market bolivar) the worst in the world…

    Cryptos were a bloodbath In Q2 (and in June)…Ripple is 2018’s biggest loser for now – down 79% YTD…

     

    An odd week though this week with Bitcoin notably outperforming the rest of the crypto space (maybe finding support around the $6000 level)…

     

    Bitcoin worst month since March (down 4 of 6 this year) and down for 2nd quarter in a row

     

    This is Bitcoin’s worst start to a year ever…

    And HODLers are hoping this is not an echo of Nasdaq 2000…

     

    COMMODITIES

    June was the best month for WTI Crude since April 2016 (up 8 of the last 10 months)…

    And is up 4 quarters in a row to the highest since Nov 2014

    The last two weeks have seen WTI explode higher – the best two weeks since August 2016 – as Copper and PMs have drifted lower…

     

    This is the worst start to a year for gold and silver since 2013 (notice how every time silver gets its head above water in 2018, someone hits it).

     

    *  *  *

    And finally, the SMART money has reaccelerated its exit of this market in the last month…

    And as the SMART money exits, Millennial men are storming in…

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

     

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 29th June 2018

  • Visualizing The Economic Impact Of Violence

    When you regularly buy goods or services, it helps fuel the economy at both the local and national level.

    But, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins asks, what if you live in a place like Syria, that is torn apart by a seven-year long civil war?

    Aside from the obvious humanitarian costs, these dire circumstances would ultimately change your spending behavior, how businesses operate, and how capital gets utilized. The fact is that conflicts, homicides, terrorism, and other types of violence can hinder productivity and wealth creation, and this ultimately has an impact on families around the world.

    CALCULATING AN ECONOMIC IMPACT

    In today’s chart, we use data from the Global Peace Index 2018 report, which tries to put a figure on the expenditures and economic effects related to “containing, preventing and dealing with the consequences of violence”.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    According to the report, the economic impact of violence to the global economy was $14.76 trillion in 2017 in constant purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. This is roughly 12.4% of world gross domestic product (GDP), or $1,988 per person.

    While those figures themselves are quite staggering, how it all breaks down is even more interesting.

    VIOLENCE BY TYPE

    Violence comes in many forms, so how does factor into the economic impact?

    The Institute for Economics and Peace, the non-profit think tank that has authored the report for the last 12 years, breaks down economic impacts as follows:

    The vast majority of impact comes from military and security spending, which are both aimed at the prevention or containment of violence. Meanwhile, homicide and conflict – two more direct violent actions – are the next two biggest factors.

    Here’s how this breaks down by region:

    Dollars are going to military and security spending in North America, Asia-Pacific, and Europe. Meanwhile, it’s actual violence like homicides, conflict, and terrorism that cause economic havoc in South America, Central America, and Africa.

    THE COUNTRIES MOST AFFECTED

    Which countries are impacted the most by violence, as a percentage of their GDP?

    Here are the top 10, as per the report:

    Syria, which has been in its civil war for seven years now, is the country most affected by the economic impact of violence. Meanwhile, war-torn Afghanistan is not far behind.

    Interestingly, the cost of violence in Latin American countries is comparable to regions that have been at war for years. El Salvador ranks a surprising fourth place, due to its issues with gang activity and a sky-high homicide rate, and Colombia makes the list as well.

  • The European Intervention Initiative: A New Military Force Established In Europe

    Authored by Alex Gorka via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The predictions have come true about the emergence of a new defense group that will change the European security environment.

    On June 25, the defense chiefs from nine EU countries signed off on the creation of a new force called the European Intervention Initiative (EII), which is spearheaded by French President Emmanuel Macron. The new organization will have a common budget and a doctrine establishing its guidelines for acting and joint planning for contingencies in which NATO may not get involved. The group includes the UK, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Estonia, Spain, and Portugal. Italy may join soon. The initiative is not tied to the EU’s Common European Defense, which includes the PESCO agreement as well as NATO. Great Britain has always opposed the idea of creating a European defense alliance, fearing it would undermine transatlantic unity. Now it has done an about-face, as the rifts within the US grow deeper.

    The new force is to be much more efficient than anything else the EU has to offer, with a streamlined decision-making process that will permit a quick reaction time. Its relatively small number of members will give it more flexibility in comparison with the EU or NATO. For instance, the EU’s four multinational military battle groups that were created as far back as 2007 have never been deployed.

    Its main mission is to offer a rapid response to crises that could threaten European security. The operations are to be conducted independently from US control. The UK will remain a member of this European defense entity even after it leaves the EU next year. Denmark, which retains a special opt-out status and has not joined PESCO, is a signatory to the EII. This is a step on the path to creating a real European armed force to unite non-EU participants with those who keep their distance from the European deterrent headed by Brussels. If the process gains traction, Norway, a NATO member that is outside the EU, plus Sweden and Finland, which are EU members outside of NATO, may consider joining the EII as well. Sweden and Finland are already members of the UK Joint Expeditionary Force.

    Will it undermine NATO? To a certain extent it will. Any defense group outside the alliance that acts independently weakens it. At the same time, this gives NATO an opportunity to focus on the European theater of operations without being distracted by other hot spots. Any coin has two sides. Afghanistan is an example of NATO solidarity but is also an example of how a crisis that takes place outside of the alliance’s primary area of responsibility has weakened NATO’s standing in Europe.

    Europeans have participated in the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, conflicts in which they have no interest, in order to please the US. The real threat to Europe comes from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The planned creation of migrant reception centers in Africa may require military involvement. Washington views Europe’s migrant crisis as a far-flung problem that does not directly impact its own national security interests. NATO forces Europeans to focus more on the so-called Russian threat that no one takes seriously, despite the fact that defending its own borders is a pressing issue.

    Europe can never be truly independent without the capability to mount a robust defense on its own. For instance, the EU needs a joint border force to prevent illegal immigration, which is plainly a real threat. The interests of the new group and Russia are not in conflict. Far from it. If the Russian-backed Syrian government finally wins, the flood of refugees to Europe will significantly diminish. Some migrants may return home. Russia has an important role to play in Libya, another source of refugees. Those interests coincide, while conversely, the US is more interested in countering Iran, which will exacerbate tensions, prompting more people to move to Europe seeking refuge from war. If an international operation in Libya is approved by the UN Security Council, the EII and Russia may act together, unified by a common interest.

    With the EU still unable to bring its plans to fruition, the project led by President Macron stands a very good chance of creating a European group that would become an independent global player. NATO and the EU are being torn apart by internal conflicts while the EII is not. That group will be able to stand up to real threats, not imaginary ones.

    Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, as NATO and the EU defense initiatives are failing to meet the interests of European security, forcing those nations to seek other alternatives, such as the EII. The threat of the Russian bogeyman has failed to paper over those differences. The quest continues. Whatever is in store for the newborn alliance, this is very bad for NATO, as this news is coming just a couple of weeks before the summit that may break up the alliance and consign the much-vaunted concept of “Western unity” to its grave. 

  • Military Seizes Control Of Water Supplies As Venezuelan Infrastructure Collapses

    If there’s one group that has benefited from Venezuela’s economic collapse, it’s the country’s military, which has been handed control over much of the country’s remaining industry as the collapse has intensified. Venezuela’s army, about 160,000 strong, controls the mineral-rich Arco Minero del Orinoco, and some of its top officers are also serving as executives of Venezuela’s state-run oil company.

    VZ

    And as the collapse of social services has caused water supplies to dwindle, the military has recently hijacked what spigots remain, transforming access to water into a luxury that most Venezuelans can’t afford. Many of the pipes and reservoirs have fallen into disarray – or seen their supplies drastically diminished – the military is stepping in to take charge of the “equitable distribution” of what little remains. As part of the government’s socialist policy program, the cost of water is supposed to be subsidized – at least in theory. But with the state-owned water utility, known as Hidrocapital, has effectively abdicated its responsibilities, the military is increasingly stepping in, commandeering trucks and vans used by private individuals who have tried to step in and service parts of the capital, according to a Bloomberg report.

    Venezuela’s military has come to oversee the desperate and lucrative water trade as reservoirs empty, broken pipes flood neighborhoods and overwhelmed personnel walk out. Seven major access points in the capital of 5.5 million people are now run by soldiers or police, who also took total control of all public and private water trucks. Unofficially, soldiers direct where drivers deliver — and make them give away the goods at favored addresses.

    Rigoberto Sanchez, who runs a water tanker that ferries water from the El Paraiso water-filling station in Caracas to an array of customers in the city, says his No. 1 business hazard is being intercepted by the military.

    Those who want more must pay. Private tankers like Sanchez had been filling up and reselling water for many times its worth. Then, military personnel were deployed to the capital’s water points in May in an emergency supply plan.

    The El Paraiso station is blocks from El Guaire, a filthy river carrying sewer water that the late President Hugo Chavez pledged to clean enough for a swim back in 2005. Even before the sun heats the muddy waters, the scent is putrid. It is untreated. Unpotable and drinking water must come from elsewhere.

    Depending on driving distance from the water point, Sanchez charges about 18 million bolivars to fill an average residential building’s tank. For bigger jobs he can charge up to 50 million. While that’s just $17 at black-market exchange rates, compares that to a month’s minimum wage of about $1.

    Recently, Sanchez has a new expense: Military officers have begun commandeering trucks, according to a dozen water providers in Caracas. Drivers are forced to go wherever officers tell them without the expectation of pay. Sometimes they’re led to government buildings, others to military residences or private homes. In other cases, soldiers simply block access to springs and wells. At a filling station near a large park in Eastern Caracas, a lock had been placed on the water lever.

    […]

    “They hijack our trucks, just like that,” said Sanchez, leaning on a rusty railing. “Once that happens, you’re in their hands, you have to drive the truck wherever they want you to.”

    President Nicolas Maduro last month appointed Evelyn Vasquez, a Hidrocapital official, as the head of a new water ministry. But Norberto Bausson, who ran the utility back in the 1990s, said that “institutional incompetence” is risking a “disaster” should Venezuela have a exceptionally dry year. Already, the utility sometimes cuts service int he capital for as long as two days at a stretch.

    Three

    People in Caracas, who on average only have access to water for 30 minutes every morning and night, frequently rush home from work and social gatherings to shower or collect water, racing against the clock before supplies are once again shut off. And while the situation in Caracas is dire, circumstances are even worse for poor Venezuelans living in the more remote provinces. To wit, a report from charity Caritas recently revealed that only 27% of poor Venezuelans have continuous access to safe drinking water. 65% have access for three days a week or less, while in the state of Miranda, not a single poor family has access for more than three days a week.

    VZ

    These shortages have made gathering the day’s supply of water a tedious part of the morning routine for many families.

    When water makes a rare appearance at Odalys Duque’s two-bedroom home, it’s usually at dawn and wakes her with a rattle at the bottom of a plastic drum. She then has to rush to align buckets, bins and pots in hopes of gathering every drop for her husband and two small children.

    In mid June they’d had none for three weeks. Instead, they survived on what was left in a roof tank and what her husband could carry in paint buckets strapped on his shoulders from a well at the bottom of the sprawling hillside slum of Petare.

    “It’s an ugly situation that keeps getting uglier,” said Duque, 32. “The little one cries when I pour the bucket of cold water on him, but at least we still get something. My family that lives higher up the mountain hasn’t had water in months.”

    […]

    The situation governs much of Duque’s life. For drinking water, she waits for particles to settle at the bottom of plastic buckets and then pours the surface water into a pot where she boils it at least half an hour. For laundry, she’ll wash several loads of clothes and linens in the same dirty water.

    Elderly people and children from neighborhoods even higher up the mountain knock on her door asking for water. “I always give them something, even if it’s just a glass,” she said.

    The lack of access to clean water, as horrifying as it sounds in Latin America’s socialist paradise, is perhaps even more galling because of the $500 million in loans the country has received over the past decade from the Latin American Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank to upgrade its water-treatment infrastructure. Unfortunately for the people of Venezuela, none of it appears to have helped.

    While water shortages threaten the population with malnutrition and other diseases as people are forced to drink unclean or non-potable water just to survive, Bloomberg recently pointed out another shocking development: The cost of a single cup of coffee in Caracas has eclipsed one million bolivars (equal to about 29 US cents) That’s about one-third of the average monthly wage in the country, which has slipped to roughly $1 thanks to the government’s frantic money printing.

    Coffee

  • Brandon Smith: "Trade War Provides Perfect Cover For The Elitist Engineered Global Reset"

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    Over the past several months, I have been examining the underlying or hidden motivations behind the currently expanding global trade war, including the impressive level of cognitive dissonance surrounding the issue.

    The political left doesn’t seem to have an intelligent grasp of economic issues in the slightest.  I’m not seeing any critical discussion from leftist media outlets or pundits on fiscal uncertainties, and the only reaction that is common from them is that they hope that the trade war results in the financial downfall of the US so that Trump can be voted out in 2020.  They may very well get their wish, but they seem to imagine themselves celebrating at the end of the disaster, and I predict they’ll be so concerned with their own financial survival that they won’t have time to celebrate…

    The initial reaction in conservative circles to the trade war was unfortunately overconfident denial, with many refusing to call the situation a “trade war” at all and some predicting an end to the conflict before it began. Obviously those assumptions are proving incorrect.

    Now that acceptance of the trade war as a reality is setting in, the Trump bandwagon is doubling down and embracing blind enthusiasm for what they assume will be a victorious outcome, no matter how long it takes. Though the team-geopolitics mentality is enticing in some ways, I don’t find much in the facts and evidence department to support the notion of America winning a global trade war. As I outlined in my article America’s Debt Dependence Makes It An Easy Economic Target, as long as the U.S. retains historic levels of debt on a government, corporate and consumer level, and as long as we remain addicted to foreign investment in that debt, trade war opponents have all the ammunition they need.

    The argument I now see regurgitated over and over is that this trade war has actually been “going on for decades”, and only now do we “have a president with the guts to do something about it.” I’m not sure where this nonsense meme was started, but it’s everywhere.

    The U.S. has NOT been engaged in a trade war “for decades,” not with China or any other nation. It has been involved in a subversive trade arrangement which benefits the elitists on both sides of the world while the common people suffer. Only in the past year have we seen a “trade war” develop, but even now, it is a staged war that will once again empower international banks and global elites.

    It is hard to argue the longstanding trade war meme when considering the facts. While China has indeed enjoyed a trade surplus with the U.S. for many years, this was strictly maintained in exchange for Chinese investment in U.S. Treasury debt and the U.S. dollar. In fact, it’s absurd to claim that the U.S. has been “disadvantaged” in global trade when it is the dollar that is used to facilitate nearly ALL international trade as the world reserve currency. Dollar denominated assets have been the go-to safe haven investment for decades for this exact reason.

    Back in 2008 during the initial stock market collapse, mainstream media economists and some alternative economists alike argued incessantly that emerging market investors and foreign central banks would “never” pull back from American markets because “King Dollar” was the premier safety net during fiscal crisis. Clearly, the U.S. has enjoyed a special advantage in global trade; namely the dollar, and it is this advantage alone that has fueled the American economy for years.

    The argument that foreign markets have swallowed up American manufacturing is also a bit of a misdirection. As I have mentioned time and time again, U.S. corporations are the true culprits behind the bloodletting in American manufacturing jobs as they relocated all industry into cheaper labor markets. Trump could have stipulated that these same corporations would be required to bring some or most of this manufacturing back into the U.S. before they enjoy tax cut incentives. He didn’t. Instead, he gave them a massive tax cut for nothing, and the majority of the capital gained through that tax cut has already been spent – not on more American jobs or innovation, but on corporate stock buybacks to keep equities propped up just a little bit longer.

    Tariffs on U.S. goods implemented by other countries are almost always tied to the U.S. dollar’s world reserve advantage. The outsourcing of manufacturing jobs as well as tech jobs has always been tied to the U.S. corporate desire for cheap labor. No, we have not been in a trade war for decades, quite the opposite.

    So what has changed? Why are the old arrangements being abandoned? Is Trump really upsetting the old world order and battling the globalists, or, is he simply helping them to stage the foundation of their “new world order”?

    I would suggest that readers look into the International Monetary Fund’s concept of the “global economic reset” for more insight into why this is happening. I would also suggest that people pay close attention to the “predictions” of George Soros back in 2009 on the future of the U.S. economy.

    The plan for this global reset seems to revolve around the diminishing of the U.S. as a major economic power. This does not necessarily mean the U.S. will be replaced directly. Instead, as Soros suggests, nations like China will fill the void as “smaller economic engines”. This is often referred to as “harmonization,” but what it really means is that the standard of living for ALL but a highly select minority will be deliberately reduced to a common denominator, and what is more common today than poverty?

    For many nations, a lower standard of living is the norm.  For Americans, harmonization means we have a long way to fall yet.  For the reset to take hold effectively in the US, globalists will have to misdirect various groups within the population in different ways in order to avoid revolt.

    The Trump fandom is being enticed with notions of a return to a golden era with The Don on his white steed leading the charge.  However, NO president has the power to reverse the economic damage already done in the US; the only solution is a long process of rebuilding the economy from the ground up after the ashes settle.  Any honest president not under the control of the banking cabal would have to be forthright about this fact.  Even under the best possible conditions of reformation, a depression and currency crisis is assured.  You cannot fight against math, and the math of US debt versus US inflation spells stagflationary instability for many years, far beyond the one or possibly two terms of Donald Trump.  When this reality finally hits the Trump Administration devout square in the face, they will be enraged, and the first scapegoat that will be held up to them will be foreign governments like China.

    For the liberty movement subset not necessarily enamored with Donald Trump, the lie of the “multipolar world” has been concocted. In essence, we are being told that the death of the dollar will mean the death of globalist centralization, so we should cheer for such an outcome. In truth, there is no “multipolar world.” The IMF and the Bank for International Settlements continue to hold sway over the central banks of the world, in the East as much as the West.

    With Russia and China’s calls for the IMF to become the defacto overseer of global monetary trade policy, and even calling for a new global currency system under the control of the IMF, I hardly see any indication that we are moving away from centralization if the U.S. currency falters.  In fact, we will see even more centralization if the globalists get their way.

    The key to the reset is undoubtedly the end of the dollar as the world reserve currency.  Without this status, the U.S. loses all economic trade advantage as well as the advantage of perpetual debt monetization. As the dollar’s influence is reduced globally inflation becomes a more pronounced threat at home. The trade war makes the shift away from the dollar possible for international banking elites while they avoid blame for the suffering it will cause the public.

    “De-dollarization” is already gaining steam as Russia and China make deals to decouple from the currency while increasing financial cooperation using their own. What trade war cheerleaders don’t understand is that a trade war with China is not a trade war with China alone. As the No. 1 exporter/importer in the world, if China decides to dump the dollar as world reserve its trading partners may very well do the same in order to secure their own import/export relationships.

    As a domino effect ensues, I believe it will be the IMF that steps in as a “mediator” to provide the framework for a new system, probably under the Special Drawing Rights basket, and probably leading to a global cryptocurrency system, which the IMF has been praising recently as the next stage of evolution for money and monetary policy.

    I have mentioned consistently over the past half year that a trend has developed in terms of the Trump administration’s behavior in the trade war. Specifically, whenever the Federal Reserve raises interest rates or expands cuts to its balance sheet, Trump conveniently expands his rhetoric on tariffs.

    When the Fed increases balance sheet cuts, stocks take a hit of 1,000 points or more like clockwork. And, like clockwork, the mainstream media blames the drop in stocks on the trade war and Trump rather than the Fed. I think that this trend will accelerate into the end of 2018, and that stocks will hit critical downward velocity if the Fed does not reverse course.  In my view, the Fed has no intention of reversing course because they prefer to see a major market crisis at this time.

    But more than simply providing cover for the Fed’s controlled demolition of equities, the trade war may also provide cover for the controlled demolition of the dollar as multiple foreign creditors and trading partners turn America’s greatest strength into its greatest weakness.

    The dollar itself is nothing more than an imagined symbol; it is a tool for international bankers. And, like any tool, it can be replaced. The trade war provides the perfect historical narrative for the end of the dollar. The story told to future generations will be that the U.S., emboldened by Trump’s rhetoric and nationalism, fueled by the dangerous ideas of “conservative populists”, bumbled into self-destruction and harmed the rest of the world in the process. The IMF and other globalist institutions will step in, stating that no single country should ever be allowed to wield the power of the world’s reserve currency again. They will then offer their pre-planned solution to the very problem they originally created.

    Whether or not this plan for the global reset works will rely on the awareness of conservatives specifically. Getting caught up in the fervor of trade war rhetoric will cripple our ability to prepare and to fight back against the true culprits behind U.S. decline. Our fury will be wrongly directed at foreign economies instead of the banking elites, where it belongs.

    *  *  *

    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.

  • Milo Banned From Paypal After Shooting, Says He Made "Private" Joke About Murdering Journalists

    Conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos on Thursday defended himself against accusations that “private” comments he made to journalists were responsible for the Annapolis newsroom shooting earlier in the day which left five dead and several others injured.

    Yiannapolous was asked by the Observer and Daily Beast to comment on two unrelated articles published Tuesday, Yiannopoulos – who is known as a provocateur – texted the Observer’s Davis Richardson “I can’t wait for the vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight,” while emailing the Beast’s Will Sommer the same response.

    When asked to elaborate, Milo told the Observer that his statement was his “standard response to a request for comment,” which he also sent to the Daily Beast‘s Will Sommer, who published it as well.

    In the aftermath of Thursday’s newsroom shooting roughly 48 hours later, people began pointing fingers at Yiannopoulos – suggesting that his comments to the journalists inspired the shooting.

    Additionally, both PayPal and Venmo payment platforms reportedly banned Milo in response.

    In response, Milo took to Facebook to defend himself hours after the incident – saying that he was trolling the journalists in private responses. “Basically as a way of saying, ‘F—k off,’ he said. 

    “You’re about to see a raft of news stories claiming that I am responsible for inspiring the deaths of journalists,” Yiannopoulos wrote. “The truth, as always, is the opposite of what the media tells you.”

    “I sent a troll about ‘vigilante death squads’ as a *private* response to a few hostile journalists who were asking me for comment, basically as a way of saying, ‘F—k off.’ They then published it,” he continued. “Amazed they were pretending to take my joke as a ‘threat,’ I reposted these stories on Instagram to mock them – and to make it clear that I wasn’t being serious.”

    Some have suggested that the decision by The Beast and Observer to publish Milo’s “standard response to a request for comment” may have been irresponsible.

    As we reported earlier, a 39-year-old Maryland man is the prime suspect in Thursday’s shooting incident at the Capital Gazette. 

    He was identified using facial recognition technology, and local authorities are executing a search warrant on his home, NBC News reported, citing multiple senior law enforcement officials. And in a report that echoed the last assault on an American journalist – where a disgruntled former employee murdered one of his former colleagues on camera at a CBS affiliate in Virginia – CNN said the shooter had “previous interactions” with the newspaper.

  • Is The Media Deliberately Trying To Spawn Civil War 2.0?

    Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

    Everyone is talking about a looming civil war on American soil, but they’re all blaming the “other” side. The media is deliberately trying to stir things up with breathless headlines about how awful the “other” side is. And it’s working so well it could lead us right to Civil War 2.0.

    The fact is, both the Left and the Right are to blame, threatening those who don’t have the same worldview. What it’s essential for us to keep in mind is that these are the opinions of the extremes of both sides. We in America have had conservative and liberal points of view along with everything in between for decades without the constant, looming threat of violence.

    Here are some examples.

    For example, Wendy Wolfe Herd, CEO of the dating app Bumble and a member of Forbes Magazine’s 30 Under 30, was the victim of a cyber attack launched by a “neo-Nazi organization” that posted Herd’s personal details online, as well as the contact information of her staff.

    The cyber attack occurred a couple of weeks after the Charlottesville rally last August, in which a man was with charged with a federal hate crime after driving into the crowd of counter-protesters. Herd released a statement saying that her company was “joining forces to ban all forms of hate from Bumble including racism, hate speech, and bigotry.” She believes this is why she and her employees were targeted. Herd now travels with bodyguards.

    At the same time, the Far Left is also stirring the pot and threatening dissenters with violence. Some guy named Hamilton Nolan recently posted an article on the “progressive” website Splinter that seemed to have referenced the politically-motivated bombings that took place during Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford’s administrations in response to the Vietnam War.  While some of his points about the warmongers in Congress are legitimate, he goes way, wayyyy off into the ether in his calls to action. Here are some excerpts from his essay, entitled “This Is Just the Beginning.”

    This is all going to get more extreme. And it should. We are living in extreme times. The harm that is being done to all of us by the people in the American government is extreme.

    … I do not believe that Trump administration officials should be able to live their lives in peace and affluence while they inflict serious harms on large portions of the American population. Not being able to go to restaurants and attend parties and be celebrated is just the minimum baseline here. These people, who are pushing America merrily down the road to fascism and white nationalism, are delusional if they do not think that the backlash is going to get much worse.

    …Read a fucking history book. Read a recent history book. The U.S. had thousands of domestic bombings per year in the early 1970s. This is what happens when citizens decide en masse that their political system is corrupt, racist, and unresponsive. The people out of power have only just begun to flex their dissatisfaction. The day will come, sooner that you all think, when Trump administration officials will look back fondly on the time when all they had to worry about was getting hollered at at a Mexican restaurant. When you aggressively fuck with people’s lives, you should not be surprised when they decide to fuck with yours. (source)

    Who even is this guy and why does he have such a platform? Literally, nobody I know has ever heard of him before this essay that is getting so much press, although apparently, he used to work for Gawker. He even got to post a follow-up essay with some of the familiar hatred from people who were outraged by his first essay. (And while I wholeheartedly disagree with Nolan, I can completely relate to the hate mail – the internet breeds some craziness and people think nothing of threatening your life and the lives of your loved ones.)

    There was also an NYU professor who was proclaimed a “hero” by AntiFa for doxxing employees of ICE. I don’t like ICE anymore than these folks but posting their personal information and addresses online is nothing but a call for violence.

    And after the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia asked Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to leave, some guy from West Virginia vandalized the place, allegedly throwing animal poop at the establishment.

    Politicians are getting in on the hate-mongering too.

    Politicians are getting media attention from the hullabaloo as well.

    Most notably, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who I swear is only famous for her sh*t-disturbing ways, has said that anyone who disagrees with her should be treated horribly, particularly those who work for the current administration.

    If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” (source)

    Threats against Republican politicians have skyrocketed, leading to speculation that this is the impetusbehind quite a number of sudden early retirements.

    I’m not really a fan of Democrat OR Republican politics, but the pattern here seems to lean toward the threatening behavior coming from the Left side of the aisle. If anyone has some credible links about Republican members of Congress recently making calls for incivility against the Democrats, please post them in the comments and I’ll update the article.

    And big surprise, the media is pushing this narrative.

    It’s essential to note that the threats and anger have been going on for quite some time now. But it seems like there is a whole lot more of it because it’s the topic du jour in the mainstream of late. Just like Selco warned us in his recent article, the media has an agenda and they are playing us like a violin. If there is a Civil War, you can be sure that those in the MSM are every bit as responsible for stirring up the hatred and division as the people who hacked Herd’s website and the dude who wrote the essay I cited.

    Look how neatly they are making us hate and fear one another.

    I guess my question is, are you going to let yourself be manipulated?

    • Are the other parents of kids on your son’s baseball team actually the enemy because they voted for someone different, or are they just the folks who select the really good, name-brand popsicles when it’s their turn to bring the treats?

    • Is your next door neighbor who had the campaign sign for the candidate you detested in her front yard during the last presidential race actually the antiChrist or is she just the one with the best tomatoes on the block?

    • What about the guy at the dog park with the two sweet-natured Golden Retrievers? Did you think he was pretty cool before you saw the unfortunate bumper sticker on his SUV?

    If we are directly threatened, we absolutely must defend ourselves. It’s our natural human right to do so. But politics? Bumper stickers? Don’t be a snowflake. You don’t have to engage in the hate.

    We need to look at the individual people and we need to ignore the media that tells us they’re the enemy. Maybe they want to drum up a war, but we can be the majority who stops it. We can refuse to participate and take the bait.

  • Euro Spikes After EU Leaders Agree "Vaguely Worded" Deal On Migrants

    Just hours after Day 1 of the EU Summit ended in acrimony with Italian threats of veto and a cancelled press conference, AP reports that European Union leaders got a breakthrough deal on how to deal with migration after all-night talks to overcome Italian demands for more help.

    Emmanuel Macron, French President:

    “Just a word to say that after nine hours of talks and work, a deal has been reached and it is good news for France.

    It is the fruit of combined work and it’s European cooperation that won as opposed to a non-deal or a national decision that would have been neither efficient nor lasting.”

    The immediate reaction was a kneejerk higher in EURUSD…

    Details are very sparse but European Council President Donald Tusk tweeted that the leaders have “agreed conclusions including migration”

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

    EU diplomats said that the leaders finally found agreement on a vaguely worded concept centering on reception centers to deal with migrants and asylum seekers in EU nations which would volunteer to have them.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel had been under intense pressure to find a breakthrough to stave off a government crisis at home, and said after the deal was announced that “the EU will face migration presssure for along time” and confirmed that the EU Council “has agreed a coherent approach on immigration.”

    Quite frankly we are shocked and cannot wait to hear what Austria and Italy and Hungary got in return for acquiescence… or whether this ‘deal’ is really no deal at all.

  • Massive Data Leak Could Affect 300 Million Americans

    A new data leak could affect almost every single American, perhaps more than Equifax’s massive 2017 data breach of nearly 150 million individuals.

    Earlier this month, the renowned security researcher Vinny Troia announced that he discovered an unsecured database containing around 340 million individual records. According to Troia, the database included profiles of a few hundred million Americans belonging to Exactis, a Florida-based marketing and data-aggregation firm.

    Troia told Wired that the catch contains about two terabytes of data that includes personal information of almost every American adult, along with millions of businesses.

    While the database does not include credit-card numbers or Social Security information, it does include phone numbers, home addresses, email addresses and personal characteristics for every name, such as interests and personal habits, plus the number, age, and gender of the person’s children. Other types of information found: religion, whether a person smokes, kind of pet. Even though the millions of individual profiles did not include financial information, it was more than enough data to help scammers steal identities.

    “It seems like this is a database with pretty much every US citizen in it,” said Troia, who is the founder of his own New York-based cyber security company, Night Lion Security.

    Troia searched the database for about 40 or 50 names and “everybody he searched for came up. I searched for celebrities; I searched for people I know.”

    WIRED then asked him to search for ten people, which he only found six of them. “I don’t know where the data is coming from, but it’s one of the most comprehensive collections I’ve ever seen,” he stated.

    Troia explained to Wired that he was able to access the database on the internet, and he warned that plenty of other people could have as well. Once the unsecured database was discovered, he contacted Exactis and the FBI about the vulnerability, and since, the database has disappeared from the public domain.

    If Troia’s numbers are remotely accurate, this leak could be one of the most significant data security breaches in several years, surpassing last year’s Equifax breach and the Facebook debacle with Cambridge Analytica.

    On the ‘About Us’ section on Exactis’ website, the company said it managed 3.5 billion consumer, business, and digital records including “demographic, geographic, firmographic, lifestyle, interests, CPG, automotive, and behavioral data.”

    “When I looked myself up, I found the name of my mortgage lender, the value class of my home and whether or not I had certain kind of credit card,” Troia added.

    Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center, told Wired that corporations are routinely data mining Americans, which the leak could be used to impersonate others.

    “If you have a profile on someone, that person should be able to see their profile and limit its use,” Rotenberg said.

    “It’s one thing to subscribe to a magazine. It’s another for a single company to have such a detailed profile of your entire life.”

    Exactis refused to speak with Wired or any other media outlets, and it is still unclear whether hackers made off with the terabytes of raw data of almost every single American.

  • "WWSD?"

    Submitted by Nick Colas via DataTrekResearch.com,

    “You’re making this harder than it has to be.” 

    In my time at SAC, I rarely heard Steve Cohen give his traders advice about their portfolios, but that’s exactly what he told one PM who was having a particularly hard day. It was easy enough to see what had gone wrong. Too much capital in all the wrong places, not enough intraday hedging. All textbook stuff, even if this particular (very experienced) trader couldn’t see it through his stress.

    Over the years I have come to appreciate the real meaning of Steve’s advice. He wasn’t saying that outperforming the market is easy. Rather, his message was to structure your process so you don’t make it even harder. His on-staff psychologist, Ari Kiev, drilled that into us every week during mandatory sessions to discuss our trading. Keep things simple. Routinize your entire process, from data collection to risk management. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    I always return to Steve’s dictum on volatile days like today because it helps cut through the noise and frame authentic market narratives.

    Three examples, all based on “Not making things harder than they have to be”:

    #1. Be very careful about extrapolating moves that happen at the end of a quarter. Today’s outsized sector losers were Technology and Financials, the performance bookends of the last 3 months.

    • Financials are so bad (-3.1% three month returns) than even long suffering Consumer Staples (-1.4% over the same period) look good in comparison.
    • Tech (+7.0% three month returns) is fully half the S&P’s 3.6% return for the last 90 days.

    The underperformance of small caps today (Russell -1.6%, S&P -0.86%) fits the same pattern. This asset class is +8.7%/+9.5% (Russell/S&P Small Caps) over the last 90 days, more than double the return of US large caps.

    One last point about today’s wonky action: the open was fine. We’ve run enough analysis over the years to believe the old maxim that “Retail opens the market and institutions close it” still applies. Today’s selloff wasn’t driven by an adverse event (retail is the lightning rod for those). Rather, it felt like institutions reweighting winners and losers.

    #2. Price leads fundamentals, not the other way around. The painful case study here: Financials and the shape of the yield curve. Ask any good bank analyst and they will caution that the difference between short term and long term rates is only one factor in the sector’s fundamentals. Credit quality, loan growth, and regulatory issues matter too.

    But the ever-flattening Treasury yield curve (32 bp today, a new +10 year low) is hurting Financials for a macro – not micro – reason: it signals the real possibility of a recession in the next 12-24 months. That, along with some quarter end pressure, pushed the S&P Regional Bank Index lower by 1.9%. Even large cap Financials were “better” than that in today’s session, down 1.2%.

    #3. Sell when you can, not when you have to. We’ve been picking up on an “Everything old is new again” market narrative in recent weeks that bears a mention, especially because we have not raised it with you before.

    The issue is market liquidity, and May’s Italian bond market rout put it back on traders’ radar screens. Elections there spooked sovereign debt investors, but since the ECB wasn’t in the market at the time real “natural” bids were few and far between. Two-year yields went from 27 basis points to 2.4% in 3 days. That simply should never happen.

    The growing fear now: US equity market structure has changed dramatically in the last decade and remains untested in stress situations that last more than a few days. It has certainly not lived through a recession, for example. Layer on what the Treasury yield curve is saying on that point, and we understand why equity market structure concerns are bubbling up to the surface in earnest for the first time since the “Flash Boys” book came out.

    The bottom line from all this: simple thoughts don’t always drive stock prices, but respecting their power is basic intellectual risk management.Today’s market action means little, but against the backdrop of rising recession fears it illuminates an important macro worry. That skittishness then becomes fertile ground for other concerns, like the proverbial butterfly of Italian bond markets causing a hurricane in US equities. Yes, we still believe US equities will produce 5-8% returns this year. But we respect the simplest arguments against that optimism.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 28th June 2018

  • Watch: Missile Accident On German Navy Frigate Causes Massive Explosion

    According to Joseph Dempsey, a defense analyst for the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), footage has emerged of a severe missile accident involving the frigate SACHSEN (F219) of the German Navy.

    The accident occurred on June 21 off the Norwegian coast. A Standard Missile-2 was launched unsuccessfully during a naval war drill when it experienced a cataphoric failure — exploding on the vessel’s deck.

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

    Dempsey noted that there were no injuries to the crew. However, the missile launcher, decking, and the bridge were severely damaged by intense fire and heat. According to the report by the German Navy, there was nothing during the pre-launch check that would indicate the missile would lead to a catastrophic failure.

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

    “Fortunately only two crew sustained minor injuries, this could have been a lot worse,” noted Dempsey.

    The Sachsen-class frigate (F219), also called Sachsen, is Germany’s latest class of highly advanced air-defense frigates. The vessel was built at the Blohm and Voss shipyard in Hamburg, which was commissioned in November 2004.

    According to Defence Blog, the frigate is equipped with Raytheon-built SM-2 Block IIIA surface-to-air missiles. It is an all-weather, supersonic, ship-launched, medium to long-range rocket providing defense for an entire fleet area.

    The Geniusstrand website has photographed several images allegedly showing the frigate SACHSEN (F219) returning to its home port in Vilhelmshafen harbor, in Northwestern Germany.

    Watch Full Video: German Navy Frigate SACHSEN SM2 Missile Accident

  • European Terrorism: The 'Batman Syndrome'

    Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,

    The European Union lost €180 billion (USD $210 billion) in GDP due to terrorism between 2004 and 2016. The United Kingdom (€43.7 billion) and France (€43 billion) suffered the highest losses, followed by Spain (€40.8 billion) and Germany (€19.2 billion), according to a Rand Corporation study.

    “Beyond those who have been directly physically affected by terrorist attacks, the extensive coverage of terrorist attacks through multiple media and social media channels has substantially increased the amount of people and companies that could be psychologically affected. This subsequently affects their economic behaviour”.

    New statistics have also come from the Britain’s anti-terrorism office. 441 peoplehave been arrested in the UK for terrorism in the last year alone, and 4,182 since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The threat of terrorism is exhausting Europe.

    According to the Spanish “black book” of terrorism, 658 Europeans have been murdered in terror attacks on European soil, while 1,029 Europeans have been killed by them abroad. Half of the French army has been deployed within the French Republic to protect the civilian targets, such as schools, monuments, and religious sites.

    Europe’s armies are exhausted from patrolling the streets, to the point that NATO planners now fear that, over time, European armies “may get better at guarding railway stations and airports than fighting wars”. An officer who recently returned from Afghanistan for guard duty in Belgium said: “We are standing around like flowers pots, just waiting to be smashed”. Germany also sent troops into the streets for the first time since the Second World War.

    A soldier stands guard in front of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, France. (Photo by Franck Prevel/Getty Images)

    One has to ask: Is Europe really serious about its war on terror? The French magazine Causeur just called it “the Batman Syndrome“:

    “How can we respect a society that is too cowardly to fight those who threaten its citizens, and that demonstrates its weakness by systematically seeking appeasement at the price of the most unreasonable accommodations? It is the ‘Batman syndrome’: the hero refuses to kill, he systematically saves his enemy who escapes and kills new victims until the hero catches up with him, and so on.

    France is now close to freeing at least 50 terrorists from prison. The UK is also due to free 80 Islamic fundamentalists from prison. According to a new French report, nearly 10% of the 512 prisoners incarcerated for terrorism are likely to be released by the end of 2018. Their release may well pose a major threat. Khamzat Azimov, a terrorist who stabbed a man to death and injured four other people with a knife in central Paris, was known to counter-terrorism forces. Belgium released from prison a terrorist who had gone on a “bloody rampage” in the city of Liege two days before he killed two policewomen and a passerby.

    Unless it gets serious about arresting not only the terrorists but also their deadly ideology, Europe will not see the end of the jihadist siege. A few days after the attacks in Liege, France thwarted another jihadist plot “with either explosives or ricin, this very powerful poison”. After that, there was another terror attempt to strike the French gay community.

    “France is the priority target of the terrorism unleashed in Europe by conquering Islam” wrote Ivan Rioufol in Le Figaro.

    “Since 2015, 247 people have been killed in France in attacks by Islamists. The ‘knife intifada’ is no longer reserved just for Israel. In Magnanville, a couple of policemen, Jean-Baptiste Salvaing and Jessica Schneider, were stabbed in front of their three-year-old child. Father Jacques Hamel was slaughtered in his church. In Marseille, Laura and Maurane had their throats slashed. These crimes will continue so long as the Republic leaves the enemy in peace”.

    The level of threat in France remains alarmingly high. “9,157 people were subjected to at least one surveillance measure by the intelligence services in 2017 in the name of the prevention of terrorism”, an official French report recently revealed. In 2017, 20 major terror attacks in France were foiled.

    Regarding the West’s current “war on terror,” American historian Victor Davis Hanson wrote:

    “The result is the present age of serial Punic conflict, perhaps intolerable to the psyche, but in amoral terms tolerable as long as casualties are kept to a minimum and defeat is redefined as acceptable strategic wisdom. In the past, such periods of enervating war have gone on for a century and more. Ultimately, they too end — and with consequences.”

    In the end, there might be still a region called “Europe”, but it may no longer enfold European culture.

  • These Cities Have Minted The Most Real-Estate Millionaires

    Since 2001, cities across the US have endured a property boom that has minted hundreds of millionaires who simply bought a home in a hot emerging neighborhood at the right time, then sat on it. To be sure, most people view their homes as a place to live – not as an investment. But in cities like San Francisco and New York City – where turn-of-the-century gentrification booms sent property values soaring – dozens of homeowners became millionaires thanks solely to the appreciation on their property, according to Property Shark.

    Property Shark’s analysis showcases the top 25 cities for homeowners to become millionaires just by buying a home sometime before 2001 for less than $1 million, and then selling it after 2001 for $1 million or more.

    The city in first place is – unsurprisingly – San Francisco, which minted 381 million real-estate millionaires, more than Manhattan’s 335 million despite being half Manhattan’s size.

    Key Takeaways:

    • After 2001, 381 people became millionaires just by selling their homes in San Francisco
    • Although home to twice the population of SF, Manhattan came in second, adding 335 millionaires
    • It’s almost a tie between L.A. (280) and Brooklyn (281), with Brooklyn squeezing in an extra millionaire
    • Silicon Valley cities in our list added a total of 332 millionaires
    • 4 small cities on the outskirts of Washington, D.C., added 461 millionaires since ’01

    Millionaires

    All told, seven of the top 25 “millionaire” cities were situated in Silicon Valley, with San Jose, Redwood City and San Mateo ranking high on the list, which is available in full below:

    List

  • EU Globalists And Chinese Communists Team Up To Protect New World Order

    This article was written by Christian Gomez and originally published at The New American

    On Monday, European Union leaders announced that officials from the EU and China were coming together to strengthen and protect their international trade relations from Trump’s “America First” agenda.

    Jyrki Katainen (shown, left), the vice-president of the EU’s ruling and unelected European Commission, said during an interview aired on CNBC Monday morning, “I feel really we are making progress…. Both China and the EU believes in multilateralism and a rules-based world order.”

    Katainen’s “rules-based world order” is a soft-sounding label given by globalists to the new world order.

    Katainen is no stranger to the globalist community of insiders, as he is one of them. In addition to serving as vice president of the EU Commission, Katainen previously served as the Minister of Finance and former Prime Minister of Finland. He also attended the 2007 and 2009 Bilderberg Meetings.

    Katainen is also a member of Finland’s National Coalition Party, which shares the same international affiliation as the Republican Party of the United States — the International Democratic Union. A stalwart advocate of sovereignty-killing “free trade” agreements and strengthening regional and global governance regimes such as the EU and the United Nations, Katainen’s politics are akin to those of Republicans such as Henry Kissinger, John Kasich, Richard Nixon, and the Bush family.

    And like many establishment and internationalist Republicans here in the United States, Finland and the EU’s Katainen also love investments from Communist China.

    “I was very satisfied for the way the host Vice Premier Liu He organized the meeting. The main outcome, of putting everything in a nutshell, is that we decided in a couple weeks’ time, EU and China will exchange market access offers on investment agreement,” Katainen told CNBC, adding that it was “the first big step forward.”

    In addition to being the vice premier of China, Liu He (shown, right) is also a member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China, which oversees the CPC.

    Like the Chinese Communists, Katainen advocates for a multilateral world order in which both the EU and Communist China are leaders, making the rules and overseeing their world order.

    For decades, The John Birch Society — the parent organization of this publication — has warned that the goal of elite globalist insiders was to converge the freedom-loving, market-based republics of the Western world with the captive, totalitarian communist-bloc nations.

    While ostensibly opposed to one another during the Cold War — with the United States leading the free world and the then-Soviet Union ruling the enslaved communist world behind the Iron Curtain — leaders in the highest echelons of both societies (from politics, business, media, labor, Wall Street, and tax-exempt foundations) shared the common goal of “converging,” or merging, both societies under a single unified global economy and international regime often referred to by its architects as the “New World Order.”

    A great resource to learn more about the history behind how Wall Street “capitalists” financed the Bolshevik Revolution and built up the Soviet economy, which helped spearhead the rise of communism around the world, including in mainland China, is the appropriately titled book Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The Remarkable True Story of the American Capitalists Who Financed the Russian Communists by Anthony C. Sutton.

    During his interview, Katainen went on to say how the EU “concentrated on [a] multilateral trading system for obvious reasons and we agreed to start reforming the WTO,” Katainen said.

    In the year 2000, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly voted 83 to 15 for Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with Communist China, paving the way for its formal entry in the World Trade Organization by the end of the following year.

    Now the EU is warming up to that same Marxist-Leninist China as part of the current globalist strategy to protect their globalist trade order from President Trump’s “America First” agenda. And the key to America’s greatness and exceptionalism is its national sovereignty, specifically heeding George Washington’s timeless advice to “steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.”

    *  *  *

    Alt-Market’s Brandon Smith had an interesting and all too relevant take on this:

    Isn’t it interesting that the trade war seems to be drawing the world (except the US) together into the exact NWO framework the banking elites have been planning for decades? 

    How long before foreign creditors dump the dollar completely in retaliation while helping the globalists introduce their one world currency system? 

    And all while Trump and the US get the blame for any negative consequences that result. 

    If you don’t see the trade war for what it is (kabuki theater by the globalists), then you will be truly lost…

  • "This Is What It Feels Like To Be Offset": China To Achieve "First Strike" Capabilities Using AI, US Officials Warn

    In comments made at a recent defense technology forum hosted by the hawkish Center for a New American Security, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as a former deputy secretary of defense warned that the United States will lose its military technological superiority to China in two years if it doesn’t immediately move deeper into fields such as artificial intelligence (A.I.), robotics, hypersonics, and big data.

    Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work painted a dire picture while calling for the US to put its $700 billion defense budget into “areas that really matter” in order to keep up with China, which he said is quickly becoming the world’s leader in A.I., robotics, and machine learning — all of which the Chinese will harness toward “first strike” capabilities against US military networks. 

    “As I watch the ongoing military technical competition in the Western Pacific, in between our two great power rivals – especially China – I find myself saying: This is what it feels like to be offset,” Work said. “And I got to tell you – it doesn’t feel very good.

    Work said the West should be alarmed as Chinese President Xi Jinping has as his stated military goal that his armed forces should be able to invade Taiwan by 2020, with the next major goal of becoming the uncontested world leader in artificial intelligence by 2030.

    “We should be prepared to be surprised” in any future conflict with China as it’s drastically modernized its forces in a short time while investing heavily in next-generation military technology, Work explained, especially as China “wants to be a first mover” in A.I. and weaponized robotics, and “that will be how they will get ahead of the United States.”

    “They have a goal to try to be a world leader in AI by 2030,” Work said of Chinese ambitions, and explained further while hypothetically speaking from Beijing’s perspective: “Now they say AI will allow us to bound over the Americans. Artificial Intelligence is going to lead to a new military technical revolution… we want to be the aggressive first mover [in A.I.] and leave the United States in the dust.”

    “The whole theory of Chinese victory is what they call system destruction warfare – they say look I’m not really worried about sinking 30 ships or shooting down 500 airplanes. If I can break apart the US battle network, then I will win” he said.

    And this is why, according to Work, A.I. has become their chief priority: “They think about taking down our network everyday – that is their theory of victory, and I just don’t think we take that threat seriously enough.” 

    Last March, China announced that it is boosting defense spending for 2018 for “war preparedness” – as Reuters reported at the time

    China unveiled its largest rise in defense spending in three years, setting a target of 8.1 percent growth over last year.

    The 2018 defense budget will be 1.11 trillion yuan ($175 billion), according to a report issued at the opening of China’s annual meeting of parliament.

    The defense spending figure is closely watched around the world for clues to China’s strategic intentions as it develops new military capabilities, including stealth fighters, aircraft carriers and anti-satellite missiles.

    However, China’s investment in A.I. is still catching up when compared to previous years’ American spending on A.I. research:

    Figures compiled in 2017. Source: via South China Morning Post

    According to Work a significant chunk of Chinese defense spending will continue to focus on how to “duel” American battle networks with the aim to “cripple an enemy’s operational systems [and the] internal links” that could launch a concerted, concentrated attack or response.

    Perhaps most interestingly, Work advised his audience to watch an HBO-Vice documentary series which investigates China’s use of facial recognition technology and A.I. for ‘social credit scoring’ and population control, as an example how advanced Chinese systems are becoming. 

    Speaking alongside Work, Air Force General Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that the Chinese “haven’t mass deployed hypersonics or long-range [tactical] ballistic missiles” yet, but in terms of current technological capability they are able “to deploy those capabilities at a large scale.” 

    Selva said the Chinese have long employed a strategy of “learning, buying and stealing” from American and foreign companies, which saves on research costs in order to divert the money elsewhere. The desired end-goal “is outright technological superiority” across the board, said Selva.

    Both national security officials acknowledged that Russia is also heavily investing in non-conventional technologies aimed at disrupting US networks. “This race is one we have to win,” Work said of US competition with both China and Russia.

    However, for most average citizens in either America or China, news that there is in fact a “race” on to build SkyNet probably doesn’t sound like such a good idea, no matter fears that the other side might be gaining an edge. 

  • Lynn: "There Will Be A Financial Crash… And Trump Will Be Blamed"

    Authored by Doug “Uncola” Lynn via TheTollOnline.com,

    In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.

    – Benjamin Franklin

    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    – John Adams

    I’m of the opinion that many today are throwing the “baby out with the bathwater” when they claim the conservative versus liberal (right vs. left) construct is phony, or bogus.

    Conservatives have lost political ground because they have accepted the moral premises of the Political Left. However, liberals use deception to hide their real motives while, simultaneously, blackmailing conservatives by means of conservative values.

    How typical was the mainstream media’s “poor immigrant children” narrative that played the emotional heartstrings of dummies everywhere, like violins.

    In the immigration debate, as in the gun control polemic, liberals don’t actually care for the children; at least not in the ways they profess.  They instead callously use the “children” as a means to consolidate their political power.

    This explains why liberals never rejoiced for the offspring of lawless invaders when Trump signed the executive order to keep illegal immigrant families together. Instead, they claimed Trump “caved” before the [manufactured] “humanitarian and political crisis”. It’s also why children still attend schools in gun-free zones, while anti-gun protester David Hogg is protected by armed guards; because he’s more important than the other children now.

    The Political Left consistently weaponizes the morality of conservatives against said conservatives; and whenever those on the right of the political spectrum accept the moral premises of the deceptive left, the progressive agenda moves “forward”.

    Nevertheless, the value systems of conservatives and liberals are separate. This is why words like “freedom” and “rights” hold different meanings for each group.

    In the example of the former, freedom and rights manifest as an outgrowth of natural law as defined in the whispers of John Locke. In the latter, these are processed according to the [Machiavellian] totalitarian’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s Will to Power.

    The commonality of globalists, neocons, corrupt government officials, and tyrannical collectivists is demonstrated when they profess the moral superiority of their ideological positions and, simultaneously, abrogate timeless moral principles for their own benefit while telling us it’s for ours.

    This is the heart of the matter.  It is why decent Americans voted for Trump, flaws and all.  He was elected in protest.

    I had a friend text me the following rant that he saw on Facebook:

    I still haven’t figured out why Hillary lost. Was it the Russian uranium deal? Was it Wikileaks? Was it Podesta? Was it her sexual predator husband? Was it her staff’s husband’s immoral pictures? Was it her subpoena violation? Was it the corrupt foundation? Was it the congressional lies? Was it the Benghazi scandal? Was it the pay for play? Was it the Travel Gate scandal? Was it the Haiti scandal? Was it the Whitewater scandal? Was it the Cattle Gate scandal? Was it the $15 million for Chelsea’s apartment bought with foundation money? Was it Comey’s investigation? Was it her husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation? Was it stealing debate questions? Was it forensically deleting 33,000 emails? Was it the secret server in her house? Was it the Seth Rich murder? Was it calling half of the USA population deplorable? Was it the underhanded treatment of Bernie Sanders? Was it the Vince Foster murder? Was it the Jennifer Flowers assault? Was it the $800,000 Paula Jones settlement? Was it the lie about taking on sniper fire in Bosnia? Was it her husband’s impeachment for lying under oath? Was it the 6 billion $ she “lost” when in charge of the state department? Was it the 10 million she took for the pardon of Marc Rich? Or was it because she was the worst presidential candidate our country has ever had to choose from?

    Gee, I just can’t quite put my finger on it, but it seems to be right in front of me.

    Here was my reply:

    That’s a great rant.  But the reason we are likely doomed is this: After all that, she still won the popular vote.

    We live in a land populated by the People of Walmart sustained by a steady diet of fake news, processed foods, electronic fairy tales, and antidepressants.

    The trends (i. e. transitional revelations) are pointing towards war and global depopulation; exactly what the Technocratic Elite desire and right on schedule. Any attempt to divert from those outcomes would be akin to a flea trying to steer a dog like a horse.

    – The D.C. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America shared a video on Facebook of activists booing and yelling at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at Mexican restaurant and calling on her to “abolish” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    –  A year after the congressional baseball shooting that almost took the life of Rep. Steve Scalise and former Hill staffer Matt Mika, members of Congress expressed concerns for their safety as threats against them have skyrocketed.

     – A plan to split California into three separate states earned a spot on the November ballot there.

     – Because she works for President Trump, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and 7 of her family members were kicked out of a Virginia restaurant.

    –  Screaming “God is on our side”, California Congresswoman, Maxine Waters, implored her supporters to harass Trump administration officials in public spaces.

     – Because “there are simply not enough police in D.C. or Virginia or Maryland to protect all Trump officials at their homes and when they go out to restaurants”, the president of the “influential” Crime Prevention Research Center urged officials in the Trump administration to arm themselves.

    The mainstream media has engaged in an effort to turn Trump supporters into “Public Enemy # 1”; and now, even the politicians are warning of the forthcoming civil war.

    Have you ever cautioned someone over inevitable consequences only to have them blaze ahead anyway? Then when you were proven right, your anger at their stupidity was righteous, was it not?  Especially if any of the consequences affected you.

    The Political Left today has extreme anger at those in America who voted for Donald Trump.  It is because they believe Trump to be the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler who is currently in the process of destroying the Obama-nation.

    Now imagine, if you will, how their anger will be magnified when Trump’s trade wars and tax cuts are blamed for the Next Great Depression.

    Today, the Congressional Budget Office announced that growing U.S. budget deficits have pushed public debt to 78% of the nation’s gross domestic product.  This, even as investors grow increasingly anxious over rising interest rates and bank stocks surpass their record “longest losing streak ever”.

    Of course, the doubling of the national debt under Obama, or the Federal Reserve’s six (6) rate hikes since Trump’s election, will not be blamed.

    Make no mistake:  There WILL be a financial crash and Trump WILL be blamed.  You can take that to the bank (pun intended).  It’s only a matter of time.

    After the crash, the support for Trump from the political right will fade like the light of day after sunset; while the vitriol of the left will rise and crash over the land like blue tsunamis under the full moon after an ocean quake.

    All they have is hatred for Trump and his supporters now.  It will only grow worse.  And they are everywhere.

    When The Office of the First Lady contacted the Secret Service after the actor Peter Fonda called for President Trump’s son, Barron, to be kidnapped and caged with pedophiles, I was reminded of a 1980’s movie, starring Tom Hanks, called “The Burbs”.  The satirically comedic story told of a group of neighbors in the suburbs awakening to the actuality of satanic murderers living next door.

    In “The Burbs” a clip was shown of the 1975 film, “Racing With the Devil” which, ironically, starred Peter Fonda as a vacationer who came across a secret society of Luciferian’s deeply entrenched over what appeared to be the entire state of Texas.  My friends and I were underage when we snuck in through the back door of the movie theater to watch that film.  Needless to say, it was a long walk home that night in the dark.

    Indeed.  The enemy is everywhere; and there can be no escape.

    Therefore, the more I contemplate the concepts of morality and the future, the more I reconsider the old philosophical constructs.

    Could the approaching “civil war” actually be spiritual in nature?  Like a holy war?

    The ancient prophet Jeremiah, by way of King James, phrased it thusly:

    Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk therein’.

    – Jeremiah 6:16

    There is no longer a dividing wall between hope and realismliberty and chaos.

    It is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Prepare and, for those so inclined, pray.

    Who said life was fair? And who was it again that promised you that rose garden?

  • Inequality Crisis: UN Warns 40 Million In Poverty, US Most 'Unequal' Developed Nation

    A new report by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights in the United States finds about 40 million live in poverty, 18.5 million in extreme poverty, and 5.3 million live in Third World conditions.

    The 20-page report by Philip Alston, U.N. Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty, warned the U.S. has one of the highest rates of income inequality among Western nations.

    He criticized the Trump administration for the $1.5 trillion in debt-fueled tax cuts in December 2017 overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and worsened inequality among the middle class and poor.

    Alston could be right because companies are expected to spend $2.5 trillion this year for financialization purposes, including stock buybacks, dividends, and M&A deals, according to UBS, which does not entirely benefit the real economy.

    Alston called the U.S. the most unequal society in the developed world. He said U.S. policies had benefited the rich by hollowing out the middle class.

    The Stanford Center on Inequality and Poverty ranks the U.S. 18th out of 21 wealthy countries regarding labor markets, poverty rates, safety nets, wealth inequality and economic mobility.

    For more than four-decades, economic policies in the U.S. have  neglected the middle class. However, the report said policies enacted during the Trump administration seem “deliberately designed to remove basic protections from the poorest, punish those who are not in employment and make even basic health care into a privilege to be earned rather than a right of citizenship.”

    According to the report, the visit of the Special Rapporteur coincided with the dramatic shift of the nation’s policies under the current adminstration. Some of the important shifts include:

    • Provide unprecedentedly high tax breaks and financial windfalls to the very wealthy and the largest corporations;

    • Pay for these partly by reducing welfare benefits for the poor;

    • Undertake a radical programme of financial, environmental, health and safety deregulation that eliminates protections mainly benefiting the middle classes and the poor;

    • Seek to add over 20 million poor and middle-class persons to the ranks of those without health insurance;

    • Restrict eligibility for many welfare benefits while increasing the obstacles required to be overcome by those eligible;

    • Dramatically increase spending on defence, while rejecting requested improvements in key veterans’ benefits;

    • Do not provide adequate additional funding to address an opioid crisis that is decimating parts of the country; and

    • Make no effort to tackle the structural racism that keeps a large percentage of non-Whites in poverty and near poverty.

    Alston further referenced the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) 2017 report emphasizing the economy “is delivering better living standards for only the few”, and that “household incomes are stagnating for a large share of the population, job opportunities are deteriorating, prospects for upward mobility are waning, and economic gains are increasingly accruing to those that are already wealthy.”

    As shown below, the wealth of the top .01 percent of the population has exploded since 1980, thanks to the financialization of corporate America. Meanwhile, the bottom 90 percent or the middle class and the poor, have been systematically hollowed out.

    Alston said debt-fueled tax reform “will worsen this situation and ensure that the United States remains the most unequal society in the developed world.”

    This situation does not look good for the bottom 90 percent of Americans, but for society as a whole, with high poverty levels “creating disparities in the education system, hampering human capital formation and eating into future productivity,” said Alston.

    There are also global consequences. The debt-fueled tax cuts will reduce the revenues needed by Governments to ensure basic social protection and meet their human rights obligations.

    The U.S. withdrew last week from the U.N. Human Rights Council, describing it as a “cesspool of political bias.” It marked the first time that any country has exited the council since its inception in 2006.

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

    U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley called the council a “hypocritical and self-serving” group. She also criticized the U.N. report and said the council should focus on impoverished countries like Burundi and the Congo Republic.

    Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. called upon the Trump administration to provide Congress with a plan to tackle the wealth inequality crisis stated in the U.N. report.

    “It is patently ridiculous for the United Nations to examine poverty in America,” Haley said in a letter to Sanders last Thursday.

    However, Haley in her response to Sanders slammed the report as “misleading and politically motivated.”

    “The report categorically misstated the progress the United States has made in addressing poverty and purposely used misleading facts and figures in its biased reporting,” Haley wrote.

    “There is no question that poverty in America remains a serious concern, but it does no one any good to inaccurately describe its prevalence or its causes.”

    Sanders responded to Haley, saying he believes “it is totally appropriate” for the U.N. to publish a report on poverty in America.

    “I hope you will agree that in a nation in which the top three people own more wealth than the bottom half, we can and must do much better than that,” Sanders wrote in his reply.

    At the same time, the U.S. economic expansion has become the nation’s second-longest on record, as the Central Bank-fueled bubble enters the late stage of the credit cycle. While equity markets have faded from all-time highs, President Trump is peddling propaganda on Twitter calling “this is the great economy in the history of America and the best time ever to look for a job”!

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

    When you start hearing government advertising that sunny days are here, well, you should run.

  • Michael Pento: When The Yield Curve Inverts Soon, The Next Recession Will Start

    Authored by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

    Collectively, the world’s major central banks have pumped $1.1 trillion into the markets over the past year.

    The result of all this money printing is now well known: massively inflated real estate, stock and bond asset price bubbles, as well as extraordinary wealth and income gaps across society.

    Some day all of this insanity will end. But how? Will it unwind in an orderly and polite way, as the world’s central planners hope? Or will be disorderly, resulting in painful portfolio losses and mass layoffs?

    Michael Pento, fund manager and author of The Coming Bond Bubble Collapse returns to the podcast this week to offer his prediction that events will most likely take the latter route. In fact, he sees the developing inversion of the yield curve as a dependable precursor to the US economy entering recession as soon as this Fall:

    The Fed is now raising rates. They raised rates from 0% up to 2%. They’re supposed to do it again in September/October. And again in December. That will be four hikes this year. 

    They are also selling assets, aka ‘draining their balance sheet’. I say ‘selling’ because that’s exactly what they have to do. Let’s say the Fed is holding a 10-year note that’s due: if they want to destroy that money, they say “OK, Treasury, give me the principal”. The Treasury doesn’t have any money so it has to go the public and raise money. Well, the Treasury will have to do that to the tune of $50 billion per month come October. Right now it’s $30, it has to go in July to $40 billion a month then it goes to $50 billion. That’s $600 billion a year added to the public supply of Treasurys they have to actually finance at a market rate. That’s on top of the $1.2 trillion debt we’re going to have in fiscal 2019.

    So the Fed is tightening. But here’s the problem: the spread between long-term rates and short-term rates is about as narrow as it can be without being inverted.

    Right now, as we record this interview the spread between the 2 and 10-year Treasury note is just 34 basis points. That means when the Fed tightens rates in September, which they’ve pretty much promised to do, assuming the 2 and 10-year note stays at that same spread above the Fed funds rate, we’re going to have a yield curve that is almost completely flat. And will be inverted when they go again in December.

    Why is that so important? Well, when the yield curve inverts it almost always brings about a recession. In fact, I can say pretty distinctly that in modern times, in this fiat currency regime, given the conditions today, it will definitely cause a recession. The reason is because the fuel for asset bubbles is monetary creation, a boosting booming money supply which we don’t have any more. And the reason why the money supply gets shut off when the yield curve inverts is because banks’ loans are earning less than their liabilities, which are deposits. So when your assets are earning less than your liabilities, you don’t make any more loans. You don’t want any more assets. That’s a great way to make your bank insolvent.

    So what happens is that the money supply gets completely shut off. You’re not going to make a loan against a deposit — you don’t even want these deposits anymore. By the way, when there’s a recession and there’s a withdrawal of asset prices, a contraction in those prices usually results in a run on the bank as well. So asset prices get stumped because there’s a run on the bank and these deposits get withdrawn. That is what usually causes causes a recession. And that’s exactly where we are going to be come the fall, and even closer towards the end of this year.

    Click the play button below to listen to Chris’ interview with Michael Pento (35m:59s).

  • Inside The Foiled Coup Attempt That Nearly Toppled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro

    Foreign observers of the worsening economic crisis in Venezuela will likely remember one year ago when a police officer stole a helicopter and single-handedly staged a “coup” by “attacking” a Venezuelan government building. While that coup attempt was quickly exposed as a headline-grabbing hoax (and the perpetrator was later “accidentally” killed in a raid), in a lengthy feature published Wednesday, Bloomberg revealed details about a genuine plot involving senior Venezuelan army officials who had been hoping to dislodge deeply unpopular President Nicolas Maduro.

    Maduro has presided over an unprecedented collapse in Venezuela that has stoked massive hyperinflation and deadly shortages of food, medicine and other vital supplies. Despite his massive unpopularity, the coup – which was foiled when its leaders were rounded up by the military, jailed and tortured – was perhaps the most credible attempt to topple Maduro since he ascended to the presidency in 2013 following the death of his political mentor, former Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. 

    Maduro
    Nicolas Maduro

    The plot, code-named “Operation Constitution”, was intended to remove Maduro before his “reelection” vote in May (a vote that was boycotted by the country’s political opposition). But before they could move ahead, the alleged conspirators were reportedly rounded up and imprisoned by Venezuelan military and intelligence forces.

    The plot, code-named Operation Constitution, involved scores of captains, colonels, and generals from all four branches of Venezuela’s armed forces. The goal was straightforward and seismic—to capture President Nicolás Maduro and put him on trial. The plotters, wearing blue armbands marked OC, were supposed to storm the presidential palace and main military base and stop the May 20 presidential election. Some of the planning took place in Bogotá, but Colombian and U.S. officials, who allegedly knew about the plot and winked from the sidelines, declined to provide active support.

    Then something went wrong. In mid-May, several dozen servicemen, including one woman, as well as a couple of civilians, were secretly arrested—some have been accused of treason—and imprisoned by a military court. Many say they’ve been tortured. The plotters believe they were betrayed, possibly by a double agent. This reconstruction of the conspiracy is based on interviews with one plot coordinator who escaped arrest, two who attended planning sessions, and lawyers and relatives of the accused. All spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing for their safety. Bloomberg also viewed a military court report laying out the government’s version of events; it corroborated many of the plotters’ accounts.

    While ordinary Venezuelans have come to despise him, Maduro remains broadly popular with the Venezuelan military and other institutions of Venezuela’s constitutionally socialist government – which is likely why he was able to foil the coup attempt. However, cracks in this alliance are beginning to form. As Bloomberg points out, some in the military have arrived at the conclusion that Maduro’s ouster is the country’s only hope for a near-term return to normalcy. Exhibiting a sensitivity to growing discontent in the military, Maduro bragged during a military parade over the weekend that “it’s time to close ranks and dig in against treason! We need a united military loyal to the glorious country of Venezuela and its legitimate commander-in-chief!”

    A report released by a Venezuelan military tribunal included some details about the May coup attempt. But Bloomberg pointed out that the report also included some fictitious details, like allegations that the Colombian and US governments had provided financial backing for a separate plot known as “Operation Armageddon.”

    The U.S. has “no intent to destabilize or overthrow the Venezuelan government,” says a State Department spokesperson, but wants “a return to a stable, prosperous, and democratic Venezuela.” Speaking in Texas in February, as coup preparations were coming to a head, then U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson noted that militaries in Latin America frequently step in during crises. “If the kitchen gets a little too hot for [Maduro], I am sure that he’s got some friends over in Cuba that could give him a nice hacienda on the beach,” he said. Both Colombia and Venezuela declined to comment.

    Maria Corina Machado, a Venezuelan prosecutor and one of Maduro’s most persistent domestic opponents, was swept up in the crackdown on the coup plotters, despite claiming that evidence of her involvement in the plot was “a fiction”.

    “I have no connection to these plots. They want to silence my voice, because I have labeled them a narco-dictatorship. I want to be clear: I want Nicolás Maduro out of power immediately. But I want him out alive so he can face the justice that his regime has denied to Venezuelans.”

    Initially, the coup was first planned for April 2017 with the hope of preventing Maduro from expanding his power over Venezuela’s legislature. But the plot was postponed after an unrelated and smaller military uprising. Planning for the plot continued in 2018, with meetings held in homes in upscale neighborhoods in Caracas (and at one point, one conspirator snuck across the Colombian border wearing a fake mustache and using a fake ID – though it’s immediately clear why). The largest batch of arrests took place right around the time of Maduro’s (widely criticized) reelection vote in May.

    Maduro has hung on despite months of deadly street protests last summer. Hundreds of thousands of middle-class Venezuelans – who were once citizens of one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America – have fled the country (including engineers for Venezuela’s state-owned oil industry, which helped hasten the collapse in oil production). With the prospect of a coup hanging over his head, Maduro has continued with purges of the Venezuelan officers’ corp. Meanwhile, successive rounds of US sanctions have cut the country off from the global financial system. But despite all of this, Rocío San Miguel, president of watchdog group Control Ciudadano, said the idea that Maduro is hanging on by a thread is a red herring.

    “Maduro has developed a state policy of persecution and monitoring within the armed forces. He’s paranoid. The government is creating a firewall.”

    As a leader, Maduro has become adept at maintaining control through fear, intimidation, and a close alliance with the country’s armed forces.

    And unless President Trump follows through with his idle threat to send in the tanks, don’t expect Maduro to relinquish his grip on power any time soon…. Even as the country’s 12-month inflation rate has soared to more than 8,900%.

    VZ

Digest powered by RSS Digest