Oct 08

Today’s News 8th October 2021

  • Ireland Agrees To Minimum Global Corporate Tax Deal Leaving Hungary, Estonia As EU's Last Holdouts
    Ireland Agrees To Minimum Global Corporate Tax Deal Leaving Hungary, Estonia As EU’s Last Holdouts

    While the Democrats kick the can on the debt ceiling as a bitter partisan fight threatens to derail President Biden’s entire domestic agenda, a key piece of his foreign agenda has just fallen into place.

    In a commitment that should clear the way for the OECD to lead a global corporate tax reform initiative that would represent the biggest change to international corporate tax rates in a century, Ireland has agreed to abandon its 12.5% corporate tax rate and sign up for the new 15% minimum global corporate rate being pushed by the Biden Administration.

    Donohoe

    According to the FT, the deal is expected to cost Ireland €2 billion ($2.3 billion) in lost revenues in the coming years.

    Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe told the FT that this change in the baseline tax rate would be the only significant change as part of the agreement – although it is of course “very, very significant”, since having the lowest corporate tax rates in its neighborhood has been a cornerstone of Irish economic policy for decades.

    The new rate will affect 1,556 companies in Ireland that employ some 500,000 people, including US tech giants like Apple, Google and Amazon.

    Ireland is joining 140 countries that have agreed via the OECD to the levy of 15% on multinationals. It reached the deal by persuading the OECD to allow it to keep the 12.5% rate for smaller domestic companies with a turnover of less than €750MM. Donohoe added that he had been unsure the OECD would agree to the carve out – but securing Ireland’s participation was critical to making the new policy work, since the idea is to de-incentivize multinationals from leaving the US.

    Donohoe said the change would likely be permanent, and that the change would be “right for Ireland” (in exchange for agreeing to the minimum rate, the US intends to allow European countries to take a bigger piece of the overall corporate tax pie).

    “I believe that change will be right for Ireland and I believe it is also right for Ireland to be playing a positive role in implementing what I believe will be an important agreement,” he said in an interview, adding the deal provided “certainty and stability.”

    Asked if the new rate would remain forever, he said: “I can’t see in my lifetime this kind of circumstances developing again…15 will mean 15.”

    […]

    “We’re all depending on each other to be able to implement this collectively and comprehensively,” Donohoe said. But he added: “I have enough confidence now that this is going to happen globally for me to believe that it’s appropriate that Ireland go into it now.”

    The agreement with Ireland was secured during a meeting in Paris. Details of the international framework have yet to be completed, including the amount that of the tax offset mentioned above. To entice countries to agree, the deal will impose new taxes on multinationals that must be paid in countries where they operate, but aren’t necessarily based. This is known as the “Pillar One” of the deal.

    The president of the Irish Tax Institute, Karen Frawley, said that rejecting the deal would make Ireland look like a “tax haven”, which would have left it with a “damaged” reputation.

    Per the FT, EU members Estonia and Hungary are among the remaining holdouts. For the deal to have any hope of succeeding, the EU needs to secure unanimous support from its 27 members, and then there are still other low-tax nations (including, for example, Singapore), that must be brought on as well.

    Interestingly, polling shows 59% of Irish residents opposed increasing the corporate tax rate but Mark Redmond, CEO of the American Chamber of Commerce of Ireland “warmly welcomed” Ireland’s decision.

    “The revised agreement ensures essential predictability, stability and certainty for multinational employers,” he said. US FDI in Ireland accounts for about 20% of private sector jobs.

    The Irish government expects the higher minimum rate will actually lead to lower revenue, though the FT didn’t go into detail on this. One reporter pointed out that the “headline rate” isn’t that big of a deal for multinationals, anyway.

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

    It’s widely expected that the new global tax rate won’t take effect until at least 2023.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/08/2021 – 02:45

  • What Governments Got Wrong About The Global Energy Transition
    What Governments Got Wrong About The Global Energy Transition

    By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

    The energy crisis in Europe exposed the complexity of a transition to green energy: it is not happening overnight, and it cannot be done successfully with the old tricks. Energy systems, markets, and grids globally need fundamental changes to legislation, regulation, and oversight in order to accommodate 100-percent zero-emission sources. And even in that case, power systems need flexibility and backups in order to avert similar crises down the road as many parts of the world commit to net-zero emissions by 2050 or 2060.

    The current crisis in the UK is a cautionary tale about how not to rush to green energy, Rochelle Toplensky of The Wall Street Journal notes.

    Net-zero electricity systems need an entirely new set of rules in all areas of the energy systems and power markets, as well as enough flexibility to offset environmental factors such as low wind speeds, which happened in the UK last month.

    The UK has cut its reliance on coal dramatically over the past decade.

    But its power systems are not yet as resilient to a major transition to low-carbon energy sources as to prevent concerns about its power supply, the Journal’s Toplensky argues.

    The current energy crisis in the UK, the rest of Europe, and in major energy importers in Asia is a warning to policymakers that the transition cannot be rushed before new rules are set in place and backup battery storage is built en masse to support soaring new solar and wind capacity.

    Boosting power grid resilience, building battery storage, and widespread use of the much-touted green hydrogen will require trillions of U.S. dollars of investment, government support, and much greater coordination and cooperation among industry and policymakers at the national and international level.

    Everyone knew that the energy transition would not be cheap. The ongoing energy crisis shows that no one can put the cart before the horse in the transition – backups and flexibility are vital for any successful energy system.

    UK Power Crisis Shows Challenges To Green Transition 

    Even the UK, which has pledged to phase out coal-fired power generation by October 2024, had to fire up an old coal plant last month in order to meet its electricity demand. 

    The country which kick-started the Industrial Revolution with coal saw the share of the fuel drop to a record-low in 2020 – coal generated just 1.8 percent of electricity, down from 28.2 percent in 2010, as per government data. Renewable generation, on the other hand, hit a record 43.1 percent in 2020, outpacing annual fossil fuel generation for the first time.

    During many days in recent years, wind power generated the largest share of Britain’s electricity, surpassing natural gas. This is a commendable move toward clean energy but does not change the fact that wind power generation depends on…the speed of the wind. On those unfortunate days when the wind doesn’t blow, as it happened on most days in September, natural gas is used more in power generation, driving up gas and power prices and also increasing coal generation because of the sky-high prices of natural gas.

    Although households face higher energy bills, they are protected to some extent because of the so-called Energy Price Cap in the UK. But it is this price cap – when power providers are unable to pass the full extent of surging costs onto consumers – that has already led to nine UK providers going out of business. Just last week, three suppliers said they were ceasing trade, and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, Ofgem, had to choose new suppliers to take over the failed businesses.

    The UK likely needs new regulations on how its domestic power market operates, which should take into account the net-zero commitment and increased green energy share in electricity generation, analysts say.

    The European Union is also looking at potential changes to the way wholesale electricity markets operate, European Energy Commissioner, Kadri Simson, said this week.

    Demonization Of Fossil Fuels Cuts Backup Options 

    The two oil price crashes in the past five years, as well as the increasingly louder calls for shunning investment in fossil fuels, have led to chronic underinvestment in new supplies of oil, gas, and coal, especially in developed economies aspiring to reach net-zero by 2050.

    These days, however, those developed economies are scrambling for fossil fuel supplies to ensure they will keep the lights on. The surging price of coal and natural gas is leaving many energy-intensive businesses in Europe vulnerable to the price shock because the energy transition hasn’t reached the point where anything other than gas can efficiently power fertilizer or steel production.

    However, investment from the fossil fuel industry has declined in recent years. Moreover, Wall Street investors have been shunning traditional energy because of poor returns, Jeff Currie, global head of commodities research at Goldman Sachs, told Bloomberg in an interview earlier this week. 

    “The new economy is over-invested and the old economy is starved,” he said. “Gas, coal, oil, metals, mining – you pick – the old economy, it is severely underinvested,” Currie noted.

    Major Challenges Ahead To Avoid “A Disorderly Mess”

    Since the world continues to need a lot of fossil fuels despite the green push, supply shortages and price spikes are in the cards in the future, too.

    “[I]t is important to recognise that the transition is, as its derivation suggests, a process of moving from one state to another, and if it is to be successful must involve the managed decline of the existing energy system as well as its transformation towards a future state,” James Henderson and Anupama Sen of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES) wrote in a paper last month. 

    “Policymakers have set countries on this essential road, and technology is the key to accelerating the process, but many complex questions remain to be resolved if the world is to avoid the transition becoming a disorderly mess,” they say.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/08/2021 – 02:00

  • Big Tech Q3 Earnings
    Big Tech Q3 Earnings

    By Nick Colas of DataTrek

    US corporate earnings season is fast approaching, and Big Tech’s announcements will be key to the market’s direction. Wall Street has been cutting numbers for some names (GOOG, AMZN) and not raising estimates for AAPL, MSFT or FB. The good news is that the Street expects every Big Tech company to print Q3 results that are BELOW Q2 actuals. That’s likely too pessimistic; 2019, for example, saw no seasonality between Q2 and Q3. Big Tech may not be Q4 leadership (cyclicals should be), but they should be no impediment to a market rally later in the quarter.

    We have been saying Q3 US corporate earnings season should be a bright spot that counteracts an otherwise troubled equity market narrative, so today we will discuss upcoming Big Tech earnings. Add up the S&P 500 weightings for Apple (6.0 percent), Microsoft (5.8 pct), Google (4.3 pct), Amazon (3.8 pct) and Facebook (2.1 pct) and you have 22 percent of the index. How markets respond to earnings reports from these 5 companies matters just about as much as the combined impact of announcements from the Industrials, Consumer Staples, Energy, Real Estate, Materials and Utilities sectors (a combined 24 pct of the S&P).

    Let’s start with the most important point: Big Tech has not been immune from the recent trend of Wall Street analysts cutting their Q3 earnings estimates that we’ve been talking about every Sunday for the last month. Numbers have come down for Amazon and Google, and have remained only constant for Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook. As the following 30/60-day earnings revision trends show, Amazon has seen its Q3 expectations slashed over the last 2 months, Facebook’s Q3 estimates actually rose, and Q3 estimates for Google, Apple and Microsoft are basically unchanged:

    • Apple: $1.23/share expected, +$0.01 over the last 60 days, flat over the last 30 days
    • Microsoft: $2.07/share expected, +$0.01 over the last 60 days, flat over the last 30 days
    • Google: $23.40/share expected, +$0.07 over the last 60 days, but -$0.08 over the last 30 days
    • Amazon: $8.92/share expected, -$4.02/share over the last 60 days, -$0.09 over the last 30 days
    • Facebook: $3.17/share expected, +$0.22 over the last 60 days, flat over the last 30 days

    Now, the funny thing about all these estimates is that in every single case they are lower than what these companies reported in Q2 2021. That fits the oddity we’ve also been mentioning in our weekly earnings updates: Wall Street analysts are expecting the S&P 500 to print lower aggregate Q3 earnings ($49/share) than actual Q2 results ($53/share).

    That has struck us as excessively pessimistic in a cyclical recovery (even if it has been slowing through Q3), and Big Tech’s Q3 2021 earnings expectations when compared to how quarterly earnings typically trend between Q2 and Q3 supports that view:

    • Apple’s $1.23 Q3 estimate is lower than Q2’s actual $1.30. In 2019, the company reported $0.55/share (split adjusted) in Q2 and $0.76/share in Q3, so seasonality doesn’t seem to be an issue for Apple’s quarterly earnings progression.
    • Microsoft’s $2.07 Q3 estimate is lower than Q2’s actual $2.17/share. As with Apple’s 2019 results, MSFT saw no drop from Q2 ($1.37/share) to Q3 ($1.38) in that year.
    • Google’s $23.40 Q3 estimate is meaningfully lower than Q2’s actual $27.26. In 2019 the company took a charge for a regulatory fine, but its operating earnings were essentially unchanged from Q2 to Q3 ($9.9 billion in each quarter).
    • Amazon’s $8.92 Q3 estimate is well below Q2’s actual of $15.21. That is a 41 percent drop, and perhaps correct given the incremental costs the company faces. But the Q2 to Q3 2019 earnings progression was $5.22 to $4.23, only a 19 percent decline.
    • Facebook’s $3.17 Q3 estimate is also far below Q2’s actual of $3.61. In 2019, Q3 saw earnings increase, to $2.12, from $1.99 in Q2.

    Takeaway (1): you can see why US Big Tech has had a tough slog in the last month (flat/down Q3 earnings expectations), but estimates seem too low just based on what these companies reported for Q2. Seasonality doesn’t explain the expected drop, nor do economic factors. Now, that doesn’t mean Big Tech can be market leaders over the balance of the year; our “Pandemic Peacetime” paradigm points to other, more cyclical, groups playing that role. But nor should they embarrass themselves when they report Q3 results and take the market down with them.

    Takeaway (2): going from the “micro” of 5 companies’ earnings reports to the “macro” of what this says about US large cap stocks, we think markets broadly agree with our point that Q3 earnings reports will surprise meaningfully to the upside. That’s why the S&P 500 is only off 4 percent from its early September highs despite cuts to earnings estimates, a slowing US economy, a de facto announcement of Fed bond purchase tapering and 2022 rate hikes, not to mention DC’s recent debt limit wrangling. That’s good and bad news, because it put all the market’s eggs in one basket. For that reason, we expect market volatility to continue at least until more than half the S&P 500 has reported (i.e., late in the month).

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 22:40

  • Indian Central Bank Accumulating Large Quantities Of Gold Almost Under The Radar
    Indian Central Bank Accumulating Large Quantities Of Gold Almost Under The Radar

    Submitted by Ronan Manly of BullionStar.com

    While large one-off central bank gold purchases get a lot of media attention and the same is true for central banks accumulating gold reserves over a two or three month period, sizeable accumulation of gold by central banks on a month in, month out basis, with the exception of the Chinese and Russian central banks, tends to go almost unnoticed.

    A prime case in point is the gold buying strategy of India’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which almost under the radar, has now become one of the world’s biggest and most consistent central bank gold buyers every year for the last four years.    

    Starting in early 2018 and up to the end of August 2021, over that time the RBI has added a staggering 166 tonnes to it’s strategic gold reserves, and now holds a claimed 724.24 tonnes of gold, making India the 9th largest sovereign gold holder in the world, well ahead of the Netherlands (in 10th place), and within shouting distance of Japan (8th place).   

    Arguably, this stealthy gold accumulation by the Indian official sector is now becoming more apparent since two of the big guns that are normally active in the central bank gold buying market, the central banks of Russia and China, are currently ‘taking a break’.

    Reserve Bank of India (RBI) – India’s central bank

    According to it’s official figures, China (via the People’s Bank of China) last added to it’s monetary gold reserves in September 2019, leaving it with a unchanged official total of 1948 tonnes of gold since then. This is notwithstanding the fact there is widespread skepticism about the real size of China’s sovereign gold reserves. 

    Additionally, the Russian Federation (via the Bank of Russia) officially stopped buying gold in the domestic Russian market at the end of March 2020 and actually made an official announcement about this hiatus at the time. Due to this pause since March 2020, Russia’s official gold reserves have essentially remained unchanged except for some tiny adjustments, and Russia currently claims to hold 2,294.5 tonnes of monetary gold.

    With these two gold buying giants now officially “off the grid”, the gold buying activities of the Indian central now come into sharper focus.

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

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

    The Details    

    According to the Reserve Bank of India’s latest FX Reserves report dated 16 September 2021, the RBI, as of 27 August, held 724.24 tonnes of gold. See report online here and in pdf here. Compared to the same report from 30 July 2021 when the RBI held a total of 711.18 tonnes, this shows that the RBI added 13.06 tonnes to it’s gold reserves during August 2021.

    Indian central bank gold holdings (tonnes), 27 August 2021 and 30 July 2021. Source.

    Prior to August, the RBI had already purchased a combined 34.6 tonnes of gold during five months of 2021 (in February, March, May, June and July). Adding the 13.06 tonnes of gold that the RBI bought in August, this means that so far in 2021, the Indian central bank has bought 47.66 of gold, which on an annualized basis would be 71.5 tonnes, and would be more than the gold buying totals of Hungary (63 tonnes bought in March), and Brazil (62.3 tonnes bought during May, June and July). See “Hungarian central bank boosts its gold reserves by 3000% in less than 3 years” and “Brazil’s Central Bank refuses to answer any questions about its Gold Reserves”.

    RBI – Consistent Gold Buyer since 2018

    This sizeable gold buying by the Indian central bank in 2021 is not a one off, and it continues a trend that began in early 2018. The following statistics come from World Gold Council (EGC) data (which itself is based on IMF data that each central bank submits to the IMF (on a voluntary basis)).

    During 2018, the RBI accumulated a total of 42.3 tonnes of gold, with gold purchases claimed to be made in each of the 10 months from March to December 2018.

    The following year in 2019, the RBI was again a substantial buyer of gold, adding a total of 34.5 tonnes during seven of the twelve months (each month from January to April, and again in each month between October and December).

    During 2020, the RBI bought another 41.7 tonnes of gold, again by pursuing the ‘buy often and consistently’ strategy, adding gold to it’s reserves in each month except for January and September.

    Therefore, over the three years of 2018 – 2020 inclusive, the Reserve Bank of India purchased 118.5 tonnes of gold. Adding the 47.66 tonnes of gold purchased so far in 2021 (up to the end of August), this means that since early 2018, the RBI has bought a whopping 166.16 tonnes of gold.

    You will also see that the 47.66 tonnes bought by the RBI so far in 2021 (up to month 8) is more than the total amount of gold that the RBI bought in each of 2018, 2019 and 2020. So far in August 2021, the RBI has been buying an average of 6 tonnes of gold per month, compared to buying an average of 2.5 tonnes per month in each of 2018 and 2020, and an average of 2.9 tonnes per month in 2019. So not only is RBI’s gold buying consistently happening in most months, the quantities of gold that the RBI is buying each year are accelerating,

    Additionally, given that the RBI purchased gold in each of 10 months of 2018, in each of 7 months of 2019, and in each of 10 months of 2020, and has purchased gold in 6 of the 8 months so far this year, we should therefore expect further gold buying by the Indian central bank in at least one or two (or maybe even all) of the remaining months of 2021.

    Whichever way you look at it, the total amount of gold accumulated by the RBI since early 2018 is sizable and ranks up there among the top central bank gold buying nations.

    Between 2020 and year-to-date 2021, the Indian central bank has purchased a combined 89.4 tonnes of gold, which is just marginally less than the largest central bank gold buyer over that same period, the Bank of Thailand, which bought 90.2 tonnes. See “Thai central bank leads pack, buying 90 tonnes of gold over April and May”. 

    Over the period from the beginning of 2019 up to year-to-date 2021, the Reserve Bank of India has added 123.9 tonnes of gold. This is second only to Russia’s 182 tonnes of gold buying over that same period, and more than Poland’s 100 tonne gold purchase over the same timeframe (see “Poland joins Hungary with Huge Gold Purchase and Repatriation”)

    Over the period from the start of 2018 through to year-to-date 2021, in which the Indian central bank accumulated 166.2 tonnes of gold, this is third only to Russia’s huge gold buying over that period (456.7 tonnes) and not too much less than Turkey’s claimed 209.7 tonnes of gold buying over the same timeframe. For the rationale on Russian and Turkish central bank gold purchases, see “Turkey and Russia Highlight Gold’s Role as a Strategically Important Asset”.

    Where is the RBI Gold Held?

    The 166 tonnes of gold purchased by the Indian central bank since 2018 is also nearly as much as the 200 tonnes of gold that India claimed to have bought from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in October 2009, in what the IMF called an ‘off-market’ transaction. There is little information known about how this sale by the IMF to India was transacted and, like everything in the central bank gold market, the real details remain secret. See “IMF Gold Sales – Where ‘Transparency’ means ‘Secrecy’” for more details on the IMF gold sales.

    So where is the RBI’s 724.24 tonnes of gold held? This is where it gets interesting.

    From the RBI Annual report for 2021 (up to March 30, 2021), we see that of the RBI’s claimed gold holdings, “292.30 metric tonnes is held as backing for notes issued and shown separately as an asset of Issue Department”, while the rest “is treated as an asset of Banking Department”.

    However, the gold held by the Banking Department and the gold held by the Issue Department are both classified as part of the RBI’s foreign exchange reserves, along with foreign currencies, and IMF SDRs.

    Table XII.4 of the 2021 RBI annual report. Source

    Table XII.4 of the 2021 RBI annual report also illustrates these two components of the RBI’s gold holdings, where, from year to year, an unchanged 292.30 tonnes is classified as “Gold held for backing notes issued (held in India)”, while the rest of the gold holdings are classified as “Gold held as asset of Banking Department (held abroad)”, which as of 31 March 2021 amounted to 403.01 tonnes.

    RBI Nagpur gold vault: Strategically located in the very center of India

    The gold which the RBI holds in India is actually held in the vaults of the RBI’s building in Nagpur, in the state of Maharashtra. See below for more on the RBI’s gold vaults in Nagpur.

    Turning to the latest half-yearly RBI “Report on Management of Foreign Exchange Reserves”, dated 12 May 2021, we find in section I.6. “Management of Gold Reserves”, that the RBI gold that is held abroad (outside India), is held at the Bank of England and with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

    “I.6. Management of Gold Reserves

    As at end-March 2021, the Reserve Bank held 695.31 metric tonnes of gold. While 403.01 metric tonnes of gold is held overseas in safe custody with the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), 292.30 tonnes of gold is held domestically.”

    Interestingly, the previous version of this “Report on Management of Foreign Exchange Reserves”, dated 8 December 2020, also mentioned that some of the RBI’s gold was in the from of gold deposits (in other words gold loans to bullion banks), as the wording says:  

    “As at end-September 2020, the Reserve Bank held 668.25 tonnes of gold (including gold deposits of 9.04 tonnes). While 366.91 tonnes of gold is held overseas in safe custody with the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), 292.30 tonnes of gold is held domestically.”

    Of the RBI’s two components of gold, the 292 tonnes attributed to the RBI’s Issue Department has been constant since at least 2002, save for a few tiny additions over the years due to an increase in gold coin holdings.   

    While it’s not clear where the RBI purchased 166 tonnes of gold over 2018-2021, the fact that all of this increase is held abroad and the fact that all of RBI’s gold stored internationally is with the Bank of England and the BIS, then it’s logical to conclude that the RBI’s gold purchases over 2018-2021were at the Bank of England in London, or via gold transactions with the BIS, or both.

    Note that the BIS maintains gold storage accounts in Berne with the Swiss National Bank (SNB), in London at the Bank of England, and in New York with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY). As the BIS states on it’s website under banking services (for central banks):

    “Gold location exchange, safekeeping and settlement: loco London, Berne or New York”

    So any reference to the BIS holding RBI gold either means that the RBI has lent gold out to bullion banks using the gold loan (deposit) services of the BIS, or the RBI has bought gold from the BIS and holds this gold in a sub-account of the BIS in either Berne (SNB), London (Bank of England) or New York (FRBNY).

    Bank of England’s gold vaults, London – Home to the bulk of India’s gold

    If we go back to mid-2009, to before the RBI supposedly purchased 200 tonnes of gold from the IMF, we find in the “Report on Foreign Exchange Reserves” dated 16 July 2009, that:

    “I.7. Management of Gold Reserves

    The Reserve Bank holds about 357 tonnes of gold forming about 3.8 per cent of the total foreign exchange reserves in value terms as on March 31, 2009. Of these, 65 tonnes are being held abroad since 1991 in deposits / safe custody with the Bank of England and the BIS.

    Eagle-eyed readers will see that, of this 357 tonnes, with 65 tonnes stored aboard as of mid 2009, that left 292 tonnes of RBI gold stored in India at that time, i.e. the unchanged 292 tonnes of gold has been stored in India for many years.

    Looking at the RBI’s “Report on Foreign Exchange Reserves” dated 19 January 2010, i.e. after the RBI’s supposed 200 tonnes gold purchase from the IMF, we again see reference to the gold held abroad since 1991:

    I.7. Management of Gold Reserves

    The Reserve Bank held about 357.75 tonnes of gold forming about 3.7 per cent of the total foreign exchange reserves in value terms as at the end of September 2009. Of these, 65.49 tonnes are being held abroad since 1991 in deposits / safe custody with the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements.

    In November 2009, the Reserve Bank concluded the purchase of 200 metric tonnes of gold from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under the IMF’s limited gold sales programme.  The purchase was an official sector transaction and was executed over a two week period during October 19-30, 2009 at market-based prices. As a result of this purchase, the Reserve Bank’s gold holdings have increased from 357.75 tonnes to 557.75 tonnes.

    So before supposedly buying 200 tonnes of IMF gold in 2009, the RBI had held 65.49 tonnes of gold at the Bank of England  and / or with the BIS.

    Which IMF Gold was Sold to India?

    Assuming that the IMF did sell 200 tonnes of gold to the Indian central bank in October 2009, then where was this gold located when ownership was transferred from the IMF to the RBI?

    IMF gold is stored in 4 “gold depositories” across the world. These 4 gold depositories are the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Bank of England in London, the Banque de France in Paris, and the Reserve Bank of India in Nagpur India. For details, see “The IMF’s Gold Depositories – Part 1, The Legal Background” and “The IMF’s Gold Depositories – Part 2, Nagpur and Shanghai, the Indian and Chinese connections“.

    The most logical answer is that the IMF gold transferred to the RBI in 2009 had been held in the Bank of England vaults in London. Why? Firstly, the IMF gold sale to the RBI in October 2009 definitely did not use IMF stored in Nagpur, India. This is because the 200 tonnes purchase in 2009 was immediately classified by the RBI as “held abroad” as soon as it was transacted. Besides, the IMF never had as much as 200 tonnes of gold stored at the Nagpur depository. The most IMF gold that was ever stored in Nagpur was 144.4 tonnes. Additionally, some of the IMF gold held in India is of variable quality and includes confiscated smuggled gold and other non-good delivery gold from domestic mine production.

    Secondly, the IMF gold held in the New York and Paris depositories (i.e. FRB New York and Banque de France) is not / was not in good delivery form. To quote the IMF during the 1970s when it previously conducted gold sales:  

    “…most of the gold of the Fund is not in the form of individually stamped and weighed bars but consists, with the exception of the gold held in depositories in the United Kingdom and India, of melts, comprising 18-22 individual bars, which will first need to be identified, weighed, and selected before they can be delivered.”

    “A melt is an original cast of a number of bars, usually between 18 and 22. The bars of an unbroken melt are stamped with the melt number and fineness but weight-listed as one unit; when a melt is broken, individual bars must be weighed and stamped for identification. It is the practice in New York and Paris to keep melts intact.”

    “As indicated in the staff paper on Gold Sales (EBS/76/46, 2/2/76), most of the Fund’s gold held with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Banque de France is in the form of melts. Before the gold can he offered in gold auctions a part of these holdings has to be transformed into individually weighed and identified bars.

    For details see “The IMF’s Gold Depositories – Part 3, Gold Swaps and the Quality of the IMF Gold”.

    And additionally, as the Banque de France commented to National Geographic in February 2011:

    “Buyers don’t want the beat-up American gold. In a nearby room pallets of it are being packed up and shipped to an undisclosed location, where the bars will be melted down and recast in prettier forms.”

    So with the IMF gold in Nagpur being a hodgepodge of mostly low quality old gold, and with IMF gold in New York and Paris being in the form of bundled up old US Assay Office melts and even some low quality coin bars, then it would be logical for the IMF in October 2009 to sell the RBI some of its good delivery gold which was stored in London (which, until at least the late 1970s, was predominantly held in the form of Rand Refinery 400 oz gold bars).

    Thirdly, prior to October 2009, the only gold which the RBI stored abroad was with the Bank of England and the BIS, and after October 2009 this was still the case, so the 200 tonnes of gold which the IMF acquired in October 2009 had to have come from IMF gold bars that the IMF had stored at the Bank of England, because this is the only remaining IMF gold depository when the other 3 IMF gold depositories are excluded.

    Note that prior to 2009, the RBI had not purchased any gold in the preceding years between 2002 – 2008 (which is the earliest data that is available on the World Gold Council website).

    Conclusion

    So putting this all together, we know that of the 724.24 tonnes that the Indian central bank claims to hold, 292.3 tonnes in held by the RBI in its vaults in Nagpur, India, and the rest, 432 tonnes, is held with the Bank of England and the BIS. Of this 432 tonnes, 65.5 tonnes has been held with the Bank of England / BIS since 1991, 200 tonnes was bought from the IMF in 2009 and is stored at the Bank of England, and the rest, 166 tonnes (purchased over 2018 – 2021) is held with the Bank of England / BIS.

    But similar to all central banks the world over, the Indian central bank never publishes any physical audits of the RBI gold, never publishes weight lists (bar lists) of the gold bars held, never published a breakdown of much RBI gold is held by the Bank of England and how much is held by the BIS, and never publishes any information about gold loans or gold swaps nor how much gold is out on loan with bullion banks.

    The 292.3 tonnes of gold held by the RBI in Nagpur has been held for many years. Some since pre-Independence times, and some accumulated during the 1950s – 1960s. This gold is not high quality / purity. In fact, in July 2014, the RBI was in discussions with bullion banks about conducting gold location and quality swaps whereby the RBI would provide this old / inferior quality gold to the banks, and swap it for access to Good Delivery gold bars in London. See Economic Times article here – “RBI plans to swap old gold in Nagpur vault with purer variety”.

    The Reserve Bank of India building in Nagpur

    Appendix – The Gold Vault in RBI Nagpur

    For those who are interested in central bank gold vaults, and especially vaults which claim to gold IMF gold, I will leave you with an intriguing old report from the RBI website which was published in February 1984 and which is titled “Report of the Committee on Security Arrangements, Vol 1” (pdf RBI CR671). This report gives some insight into the RBI’s gold vault in Nagpur at that time. From pages 107 – 109:  

    “Gold vaults

    5.8 The Bank has in its custody a considerable quantity of gold not only on its own account as Reserve Gold for note issue but also balances held in safe custody on behalf of Government of India and the International Monetary Fund. The bulk of this gold is held in Nagpur. The major portion of the remaining gold is held in Bombay.

    In regard to the custody and operation of the gold vaults, the Committee would recommend the following :-

    (a) Nagpur

    (i) The main door of the gold vault is enclosed in a grilled enclosure in the patrol corridor

    (ii) The actual joint custodians of the gold balances are the Assistant Currency Officer and the Treasurer. In view of the nature of the treasure, viz gold and the fact that not only is it the Reserve Bank of India’s own gold but also gold of the Government of India and the International Monetary Fund which means that it is not merely the tangible value of the gold that is involved but also the intangible, viz. the image of the Reserve Bank as the custodian of the gold of the World body and the Central Government that is involved, it will be more appropriate to elevate the status of the joint custodians.

    On the analogy of the holding of one key by the Treasurer, the head of the cash department, the other key may be held by the other comparable head of the issue department, viz. the Currency Officer (Administration). This will also be in keeping with the controlling key being held by the Manager.

    (b) (ii) In Nagpur, the original keys of the joint custodians are held in safes, under the third lock of the Manager, and the safes themselves are kept in different vaults.

    A lot may have changed in the Nagpur vaults since 1984, although a lot may have remained the same. And with the RBI vault in Nagpur being an IMF gold depository, the IMF would undoubtedly prefer that the world forgets that the Nagpur gold vault even exists. 

    This article was originally published on the BullionStar.com website under the same title “Indian Central Bank accumulating large quantities of Gold almost under the Radar”.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 22:10

  • San Francisco Eases Indoor Mask Requirements As UK Removes 47 Countries From Travel "Red List"
    San Francisco Eases Indoor Mask Requirements As UK Removes 47 Countries From Travel “Red List”

    Here’s something you don’t see every day: headlines about the authorities dialing back COVID-related restrictions, as CNBC’s Carl Quintanilla pointed out in a tweet.

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

    Most notably, San Francisco is easing its indoor mask requirements beginning Oct. 15 – or next week. The decision comes after several high-profile California politicians including Gov. Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed have been caught violating their own COVID guidelines.

    And it’s not just San Francisco, the county, along with seven of its neighbors, will mostly remove local mandates as COVID cases continue to decline and vaccination rates rise (this second requirement may prove to be a bit of a snag), according to the San Francisco Examiner.

    Here’s more:

    The eight Bay Area counties with indoor mask mandates currently in place must reach moderate levels of transmission as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and low hospitalization rates as defined by the local health officer. In counties that haven’t reached 80% of the population vaccinated, the orders may be lifted three weeks after children ages 5-11 are granted access to vaccines.

    San Francisco will partially lift its mask mandate a week from Friday, assuming local COVID cases and hospitalizations remain stable or decline over the next week. At that time, people may stop wearing masks at indoor spaces that require proof of vaccination — including gyms, offices and places that host small gatherings — as long as no children under 12 are present and other ventilation and safety measures are in place.

    The criteria announced Thursday apply to Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sonoma counties, which all reinstated indoor mask mandates in August amid the delta surge. Solano County did not put in place a local mandate.

    […]

    “I’m excited that we’re once again at a place where we can begin easing the mask requirements, which is the direct result of the fact that we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the country, our cases have fallen, and our residents have done their part to keep themselves and those around them safe,” said San Francisco Mayor London Breed in a statement.

    On top of all this, relaxing SF’s mask requirements might help law enforcement end the epidemic of shoplifting afflicting the City by the Bay.

    Moving on from San Francisco to Europe, Germany’s Health Minister Jens Spahn said Thursday that he believes Europe’s biggest economy will be able to forego additional COVID-related restrictions during the fall and winter since the country’s vaccination rate is actually higher than authorities had previously believed.

    According to Reuters, Spahn said that a study by Germany’s RKI had found that the number of people vaccinated against COVID was 5% higher than the government had believed. This, according to Spahn, means the existing rules requiring people to show evidence of showing a negative test or having been vaccinated or recovered on entering an indoor space or event should be enough.

    “As things stand, this vaccination rate means no further restrictions are needed,” he said.

    But it wasn’t all good news. While the UK removed 47 countries from its “red list” of countries where travelers must quarantine after returning, with Transportation Secretary Grant Shapps, UK health authorities also reported more than 40K cases in a single day for the first time in a month, according to Sky News.

    Still, travelers in the UK need a Day 2 test if they’re fully vaccinated, and a pre-departure test if they’re not, even to travel to countries on the green list.

    Whether restrictions are further relaxed will likely depend on which direction case numbers break toward during the coming week.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 21:40

  • In Stunning Rebuke, Poland's Top Court Rules Polish Law Takes Presedence Over The EU
    In Stunning Rebuke, Poland’s Top Court Rules Polish Law Takes Presedence Over The EU

    In a stinging rebuke to Europe’s unelected bureaucrats, and a major escalation in the rule of law crisis between Warsaw and Brussels, Poland’s constitutional court ruled on Thursday that Polish law can take precedence over EU law amid an ongoing dispute between the European bloc and the eastern European member state. The decision by the Constitutional Tribunal came after Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki requested a review of a decision by the EU’s Court of Justice (ECJ) that gave the bloc’s law primacy. Two out of 14 judges on the panel dissented from the majority opinion.

    “The attempt by the European Court of Justice to involve itself with Polish legal mechanisms violates … the rules that give priority to the constitution and rules that respect sovereignty amid the process of European integration,” the ruling said, in an outcome that could have wide-reaching consequences for Europe when the next crisis hits.

    Meanwhile, Brussels considers the Constitutional Tribunal illegitimate due to the political influence imposed upon Poland’s judiciary by the ruling Law and Justice party (PiS).

    As the FT’s Henry Foy notes, it is “Hard to overstate the importance of this ruling.” He goes on to note that “Poland is *the* EU success story of eastern enlargement, and the biggest recipient – by a long long way – of EU taxpayer money since 2004. And now it is saying that it refuses to recognize a fundamental part of the whole project.”

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

    As DW reports, the court had looked specifically at the compatibility of provisions from EU treaties, which are used by the European Commission to justify having a say in the rule of law in member states, with Poland’s constitution.

    A ruling by the ECJ in March said that the EU can force member states to disregard certain provisions in national law, including constitutional law. The ECJ says that Poland’s recently implemented procedure for appointing members of its Supreme Court amounts to a violation of EU law. The ruling from the ECJ could potentially force Poland to repeal parts of the controversial judicial reform.

    Meanwhile, the EU is withholding billions of euros of aid for post-pandemic rebuilding in Poland over concerns that the rule of law is being degraded in the country.

    “The primacy of constitutional law over other sources of law results directly from the Constitution of the Republic of Poland,” PiS government spokesman Piotr Muller wrote on Twitter after the court’s decision. “Today (once again) this has been clearly confirmed by the Constitutional Tribunal.”

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

    However, the EPP group, the center-right bloc in the European Parliament to which PiS belongs, come out strongly against the court’s ruling: “It’s hard to believe the Polish authorities and the PiS Party when they claim that they don’t want to put an end to Poland’s membership of the EU. Their actions go in the opposite direction. Enough is enough,” Jeroen Lenaers, MEP and spokesperson for the group, said. “The Polish Government has lost its credibility. This is an attack on the EU as a whole,” he added.

    Previously, the European Parliament called on Morawiecki to cancel the court case in a resolution passed last month. It stressed the “fundamental nature of primacy of EU law as a cornerstone principle of EU law”, which however now is put in doubt.

    Poland has come under repeated fire from the EU including over issues to do with LGBTQ rights and women’s rights and media freedom, and in general for refusing to do whatever Brussels tells it do.

    As DW notes, the judiciary reforms by the PiS government have been seen as a threat to Poland’s membership within the 27-member bloc as well as to the stability of the EU as a whole.

    That said, the court’s decision on Thursday came as little surprise. The presiding judge, Julia Przylebska, is a government loyalist who was appointed by the ruling party. Similar to the highly partial US Supreme Court justices who are anything but impartial themselves.

    Jack Parrock, DW’s correspondent in Brussels, highlighted the importance the decision could have on Poland’s role in the EU.

    “One of the cornerstones of EU membership is that EU law has primacy over all other laws and that the European Court of Justice is the top court within the European Union and what these judges are saying is that in some aspects they don’t believe that that is the case,” he told DW.

    “This all started because the European Court of Justice essentially ruled that certain aspects of judicial tampering that the government was doing in Poland’s judiciary were not in line with EU law,” Parrock explained.

    “This has been an ongoing saga, and this is a pretty major issue now for the EU. We’ve already seen some pretty strong reactions coming from European parliamentarians and I’m sure we’re going to see some harsh criticism of this ruling coming from the European Commission,” he added.

    Needless to say, the EU was not happy, and promptly escalated the war of words tweeting that “The Commission will not hesitate to make use of its powers under the Treaties to safeguard the uniform application & integrity of Union law.”

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

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 21:10

  • Oh My: Amazon Looks At Leaving Seattle Over City Council Hostility
    Oh My: Amazon Looks At Leaving Seattle Over City Council Hostility

    Authored by Ed Morrissey via HotAir,

    AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    To paraphrase Animal House, Andy Jassy hasn’t dropped the big one — yet — but he put it in play this week. After years of deteriorating relations with their home city of Seattle and its ultra-progressive city council, Amazon’s CEO made it known that the online giant may look for greener pastures. Citing the city’s hostility toward their presence, Jassy suggested that the suburbs are looking better and better for a new home to its 50,000-employee home base (via Instapundit):

    The world’s largest online retailer is by far the biggest private employer in Seattle with more than 50,000 workers. That distinction has proved a headache in recent years, with some residents and government officials blaming the company for exacerbating homelessness and traffic.

    “I’d say the last five years, the city council has become less enamored with business or with Amazon,” Jassy said during an event hosted by technology news site GeekWire. “It’s just been rougher.” …

    The company, which is wrapping up construction of an expanded Seattle headquarters campus, has since shifted its expansion planning toward neighboring cities like Bellevue and Redmond. Bellevue, just east of Seattle, “is where most of our growth will end up being,” Jassy said. He added that he wouldn’t be surprised if Amazon opened other offices in additional cities in the region.

    Bloomberg notes that Amazon may have contributed to the current state of hostilities with the city. Three years ago, they made a $1 million contribution to the local chamber of commerce’s campaign to get more moderates on the city council. That worked out as well as could be expected in the pre-CHAZ era of Seattle; it backfired and left the impression that Amazon wanted to buy its own city council. The winning ultra-progressives came into office with an even bigger axe to grind against the city’s biggest capitalist organization.

    Post-CHAZ and post-riot, one has to wonder whether Seattle voters might regret that choice. Even some of the city’s leadership had reason to regret that final expression of ultra-progressive activism. Remember Jenny Durkan’s abrupt about-face on CHAZ after the activists targeted her home?

    The big question here is whether Amazon regrets its massive investment in its new Seattle HQ enough to abandon it and take the loss. Jassy might just be looking for more leverage with a now-chastened city council, but they’re not that chastened, and the situation hasn’t improved over the last year. Jassy may not completely abandon Seattle, but he can move enough of the business out of the council’s jurisdiction to make their budgeting a lot more complicated in the future. And it’s not just Amazon feeling the Bern, either. Things got so bad for Boeing that they decamped in 2001 for Chicago, as Don Surber reminds readers:

    Seattle’s hostility to business led to Boeing’s departure for Chicago in 2001. The company was founded in Seattle in 1916. It decided last year to shutter its last factory in Seattle. …

    No, to really kill business, you need a government that is hostile and frankly jealous of success. In 22 short years, the garage business became the top retailer in the country. Seattle is doing everything it can to force Amazon out.

    The CEO finally got the hint because when it comes to Democrat policy, there is no such thing as unintended consequences. Seattle wants Amazon out. So be it.

    Seattle’s city council doesn’t really want Amazon out. It wants Amazon to fund The Revolution, and resents the company’s refusal to do so. The council keeps escalating the stakes and assumes — weirdly — that Amazon has more invested in Seattle for its online business model than Boeing did for its manufacturing model. At some point, Jassy will have to call Seattle’s bluff and take the short-term loss on its commercial real estate venture, or the city council will have to back down from its capitalist bête noire. I’d put my bet on the former, and sooner rather than later. Either way, the radical leftists in Seattle are playing out a lose-lose scenario.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 20:40

  • September Payrolls Preview: It Will Be A Beat, The Question Is How Big
    September Payrolls Preview: It Will Be A Beat, The Question Is How Big

    After a strong initial claims report and a solid ADP private payrolls print, all eyes turn to the most important economic data point of the week, and the month, Friday’s nonfarm payrolls report due at 830am ET on Friday, where consensus expects a 500K print- more than double last month’s disappointing 235K print – as well as a drop in the unemployment rate to 5.1% and an increase in average hourly earnings to 4.6%. And unlike last month, when we correctly predicted the big miss in August payrolls, this time we agree that tomorrow’s report will be a beat, the only question is how big.

    Here is a snapshot of what to expect tomorrow:

    • Total Payrolls: 500K, Last 235K
    • Private Payrolls: 450K, Last 243K
    • Unemployment Rate: 5.1%, Last 5.2%
    • Labor force participation rate: 61.8%, Last 61.7%
    • Average Hourly Earnings Y/Y: 4.6%, Last 4.3%
      • Average Hourly Earnings M/M: 0.4%, Last 0.6%
    • Average Weekly Hours: 34.7, Last 34.7

    As Newsquawk writes in its NFP preview, September’s jobs data, the last before the Fed’s November 3rd policy meeting, will be framed in the context of the central bank’s expected taper announcement, where a merely satisfactory report would likely to be enough for the FOMC to greenlight a November announcement to scale-back its USD 120BN/month asset purchases.

    Goldman economists are more bullish than normal, and estimate nonfarm payrolls rose 600k in September, above consensus of +500k, and they note that “labor demand remains very strong, and we believe the nationwide expiration of enhanced unemployment benefits on September 5 boosted effective labor supply and job growth—as it did in July and August in states that ended federal benefits early.” As a result, Goldman is assuming a 200k boost in tomorrow’s numbers and a larger boost in October. The bank also believes the reopening of schools contributed to September job growth, by around 150k. Despite these tailwinds, Big Data employment signals were mixed, and dining activity rebounded only marginally.

    Labor market proxies have been constructive for the month: ADP’s gauge of payrolls surprised to the upside, although analysts continue to note that the direct relationship between the official data and the ADP’s gauge is tenuous, despite the gap being under 100k over the last three reports. The number of initial jobless claims and continuing claims has eased back between the survey periods of the August and September jobs data, although analysts note that more recent releases have shown an uptick in claims potentially clouding the outlook. The ISM business surveys have signaled employment growth in the month, with manufacturing employment rising into growth territory again, but services sector hiring cooled a little in the month, but remains expansionary; survey commentary continues to allude to a tight labour market. The Bureau of Labor Statistics will release the September employment situation report at 13:30BST/08:30EDT on October 8th.

    POLICY: The September jobs report might have reduced relevance on trading conditions given that Fed officials have effectively confirmed that, barring a collapse in the jobs data, it is on course to announce a tapering of its asset purchases at the November 3rd meeting. Accordingly, trading risks may be skewed to the downside, rather than to the upside, where a significant payrolls miss may present obstacles to the Fed announcing its taper. Additionally, it is worth being cognizant of how efforts in Washington to raise the debt ceiling are progressing; as yet, officials have not struck a deal, and are in the process of enacting stop gap legislation to allow funding into December; some analysts suggest that the Fed may be reticent to tighten policy in the face of potential default risks.

    PAYROLLS: The consensus looks for 500k nonfarm payrolls to be added to the US economy in September (prev. 235k), which would be a cooler rate of growth than the three- and six-month average rate, though in line with the 12-month average (3-month average is 750k/month, the six-month average is 653k/month, and the 12-month average is 503k/month – that technically at least suggests an improving rate of payrolls growth in recent months). Aggregating the nonfarm payrolls data since March 2020, around 5.33mln Americans remain out of work relative to pre-pandemic levels.

    MEASURES OF SLACK: The Unemployment Rate is expected at 5.1% (prev. 5.2%); Labour Force Participation previously at 61.7% vs 63.2% pre-pandemic; U6 measure of underemployment was previously at 8.8% vs 7.0% prepandemic; Employment-population ratio was previously 58.5% vs 61.1% pre-pandemic. These measures of slack are likely to provide more insight into how Fed officials are judging labour market progress, with many in recent months noting that they are closely watching the Underemployment Rate, Participation Rate, and the Employment-Population Ratio for a better handle on the level of slack that remains in the economy. Analysts would be encouraged the closer these get to pre-pandemic levels.

    EARNINGS: Average Hourly Earnings expected at +0.4% M/M (prev. +0.6%); Average Hourly Earnings expected at +4. 6% Y/Y (prev. +4.3%); Average Workweek Hours expected at 34.7hrs (prev. 34.7hrs). Aggregating the nonfarm payrolls data since March 2020, around 5.33mln Americans still remain out of work relative to pre-pandemic levels.

    ADP: The ADP National Employment Report showed 568k jobs added to the US economy in September, topping expectations for 428k, and a better pace than the prior 340k (revised down from 374k initially reported). ADP itself said that the labor market recovery continued to make progress despite the marked slowdown in the rate of job additions from the 748k pace seen in Q2. It also noted that Leisure & Hospitality remained one of the biggest beneficiaries to the recovery, though said that hiring was still heavily impacted by the trajectory of the pandemic, especially for small firms. ADP thinks that the current bottlenecks in hiring will likely fade as the pandemic situation continues to improve, and that could set the stage for solid job gains in the months ahead. On the data methodology, analysts continue to note that ADP’s model incorporates much of the prior official payrolls data, other macroeconomic variables, as well as data from its own payrolls platform; “Payrolls were soft in August, thanks to the hit to the services sector from the Delta variant, and that weakness likely constrained ADP data,” Pantheon Macroeconomics said. “The overshoot to consensus, therefore, suggests that the other inputs to ADP’s model were stronger than we expected, but none of the details are published, so we don’t know if the overshoot was model-driven or due to stronger employment data at ADP’s clients.”

    INITIAL JOBLESS CLAIMS: Initial jobless claims data for the week that coincides with the BLS jobs report survey window saw claims at around 351k – little changed from the 349k for the August jobs data survey window – where analysts said seasonal factors played a role in boosting the weekly data, while there may have been some lingering Hurricane Ida effects; the corresponding continuing claims data has fallen to 2.802mln in the September survey period vs 2.908mln in the August survey period. In aggregate, the data continues to point to declining trend, although in recent weeks the level of jobless claims has been picking up again.

    BUSINESS SURVEYS: The Services and Manufacturing ISM reports showed divergent trends in September, with the service sector employment sub-index easing a little to 53.0 from 53.7, signalling growth but at a slower rate, while the manufacturing employment sub-index rose back into expansionary territory, printing 50.2 from 49.0 prior. On the manufacturing sector, ISM said companies were still struggling to meet labour-management plans, but noted some modest signs of progress compared to previous months: “Less than 5% of comments noted improvements regarding employment, compared to none in August,” it said, “an overwhelming majority of panelists indicate their companies are hiring or attempting to hire,” where around 85% of responses were about seeking additional staffing, while nearly half of the respondents expressed difficulty in filling positions, an increase from August. “The increasing frequency of comments on turnover rates and retirements continued a trend that began in August,” ISM said. Meanwhile, in the services sector, employment activity rose for a third straight month; respondents noted that employees were flocking to better-paying jobs and there was a lack of pipeline to replace these staff, while other respondents talked of labor shortages being experienced at all levels.

    ARGUING FOR A BETTER-THAN-EXPECTED REPORT:

    • End of federal enhanced unemployment benefits. The expiration of federal benefits in some states boosted labor supply and job-finding rates over the summer, and all remaining such programs expired on September 5. The July and August indicated a cumulative 6pp boost to job-finding probabilities from June to August for workers losing $300 top-up payments and a 12pp boost for workers losing all benefits. Some of the 6mn workers who lost some or all benefits on September 5 got a job by September 18—in time to be counted in tomorrow’s data. Goldman assumes a +200k boost to job growth from this channel, with a larger increase in subsequent reports (+1.3mn cumulatively by year end).

    • School reopening. The largest 100 school districts are all open for in-person learning, catalyzing the return of many previously furloughed teachers and support staff. While full normalization of employment levels would contribute 600k jobs (mom sa, see left panel of the chart below), some janitors and support staff did not return due to hybrid teaching models, and job openings in the sector are only 200k above the pre-crisis level (see right panel). Relatedly, the BLS’s seasonal factors already embed the usual rehiring of education workers on summer layoff, so if fewer janitors returned to work than in a typical September, this would reduce seasonally adjusted job growth, other things equal. Taken together, assume a roughly 150k boost from the reopening of schools in tomorrow’s report.

    • Job availability. The Conference Board labor differential—the difference between the percent of respondents saying jobs are plentiful and those saying jobs are hardto get – edged down to 42.5 from 44.4, still an elevated level. Additionally, JOLTS job openings increased by 749k in July to a new record high of 10.9mn.
    • ADP. Private sector employment in the ADP report increased by 568k in September, above consensus expectations for a 430k gain, implying strong growth in the underlying ADP sample. Additionally, schools generally do not use ADP payroll software, arguing for a larger gain from school reopening in the official payroll measure.

    ARGUING FOR A WEAKER-THAN-EXPECTED REPORT:

    • Delta variant. Rebounding covid infection rates weighed on services consumption and the labor market in August. And while US case counts began to decline in early September, restaurant seatings on Open Table rebounded only marginally. leisure and hospitality employment rose in September, but probably not at the ~400k monthly pace of June and July.
    • Employer surveys. The employment components of our business surveys were flat to down, whereas we and consensus forecast a pickup in job growth. Goldman’s services survey employment tracker remained unchanged at 54.5 and the manufacturing survey employment tracker declined 0.4pt to 57.8. And while the Goldman Sachs Analyst Index (GSAI) decreased 0.8% to 68.5, the employment component rose1.9% to 71.9.

    NEUTRAL FACTORS:

    • Big Data. High-frequency data on the labor market were mixed between the August and September survey weeks, on net providing little guidance about the underlying pace of job growth. Three of the five measures tracked indicate an at-or-above-consensus gain (Census Small Business Pulse +0.5mn, ADP +0.6mn,Google mobility +2mn), but the Homebase data was an outlier to the downside. At face value, it would indicate a large outright decline in payrolls. The Census Household Pulse (-0.6mn) was also quite weak, though encouragingly, it also indicated a large drop in childcare-related labor supply headwinds as schools reopened.
    • Seasonality. The September seasonal hurdle is relatively low: the BLS adjustment factors generally assume a 600-700k decline in private payrolls (which exclude public schools), compared to around -100k on average in July and August. Continued labor shortages encouraged firms to lay off fewer workers at the end of summer. Partially offsetting this tailwind, the September seasonal factors may have evolved unfavorably due to the crisis—specifically by fitting to last September’s reopening-driven job surge (private payrolls +932k mom sa).
    • Jobless claims. Initial jobless claims fell during the September payroll month, averaging 339k per week vs. 378k in August despite a boost from individuals transitioning or attempting to transition to state programs. Across all employee programs including emergency benefits, continuing claims fell dramatically (-3.3mn)–but again for non-economic reasons (federal enhanced programs expired). Continuing claims in regular state programs decreased 106k from survey week to survey week.
    • Job cuts. Announced layoffs reported by Challenger, Gray & Christmas rebounded 11% month-over-month in September after decreasing by 14% over the prior two months (SA by GS). Nonetheless, layoffs remain near the three-decade low on this measure (in 1993).

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 20:10

  • Senate Advances $480 Billion Debt Ceiling Deal After 11 Republicans Join Democrats To Invoke Cloture
    Senate Advances $480 Billion Debt Ceiling Deal After 11 Republicans Join Democrats To Invoke Cloture

    Update (2105ET): The Senate has officially advanced the short-term debt limit by a simple majority vote of 50-48, after 11 GOP lawmakers joined Democrats in a vote to invoke cloture, achieving the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

    The $480 billion increase will now move to the House, where it could be considered as early as next week. It should be enough to last through at least early December.

    *  *  *

    Update (2000ET):  The debt ceiling can has been kicked to December.

    After Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer set up Thursday night vote on a short-term debt ceiling increase that would leave the battle to be rejoined less than two months from now, in the middle of an already packed congressional agenda, moments ago a procedural cloture vote which needed 60 votes – meaning at least 10 Republicans would need to join McConnell in agreeing to concede – took place and as expected, amid all the high theatrical drama, not 10 but 11 Republicans votes were found to join the Democrats in a 61-38 vote.

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

    The republicans voting Aye were:

    • Barrasso
    • Blunt
    • Capito
    • Collins
    • Cornyn
    • McConnell
    • Murkowski
    • Portman
    • Rounds
    • Shelby
    • Thune

    So with the vote having passed (Incidentally, Mitt Romey voted no), the next vote to follow tonight will be a vote to raise the debt ceiling by $480 billion where is a simple majority vote is needed, which the Democrats will be able to muster on their own, in the process punting the debt ceiling discussion for some time in mid-December, when as noted earlier, the bond market is already bracing for the next round of high drama with mid-December Bills “kinking” relative to the prior week.

    * * *

    Update (1440ET): According to The Hill, several Senate Republicans aren’t exactly thrilled with the debit limit deal brokered by GOP leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) – arguing that the Republicans gave Democrats and easy way out. 

    Several Senate Republican sources said members of their caucus were “surprised and disappointed” when McConnell unveiled the parameters of the deal with Schumer on Wednesday.

    One GOP senator said “you could hear a pin drop” when McConnell shared the details of his plan to allow Democrats to raise the debt ceiling to “a fixed number” without having to undergo the arduous process of amending the 2022 budget resolution and holding multiple time-consuming vote-a-ramas on the Senate floor. -The Hill

    According to Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), some of his GOP colleagues had whiplash after 46 Senate Republicans signed an August letter warning Schumer that they “will not vote to increase the debt ceiling, whether that increase comes through a stand-alone bill, a continuing resolution, or any other vehicle.”

    “I’m not surprised that they are a little surprised and disappointed, because of course 46 Republicans signed a letter saying they wouldn’t vote for an increase,” said Cramer, adding “I think they feel like maybe we could have pushed it a little longer.“

    “The problem is the Republican members feel like we’re blinking and blinking a little earlier than might be necessary,” he continued, adding that the upcoming Columbus Day recess slated to begin this weekend “probably entered into the calculation.”

    “It’s not insignificant because people have plans and all that but plans aside, your plans to go on a CODEL [congressional delegation trip] are not the highest priority, the government is,” Cramer said. “I think some people wanted to go closer [to the deadline] and feel like we blinked too soon.”

    The biggest downside of the deal, in the view of these disappointed Republicans, is that the their conference will divide over a procedural vote on bringing a two-month extension of the debt limit to the floor for an up-or-down vote.

    Republicans have said for months that they would not provide any assistance to Democrats in raising the debt limit, especially since Democrats are working on a $3.5 trillion human infrastructure package that would raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars.

    But now they face the prospect of having to vote on a cloture motion to bypass a filibuster so that Democrats can pass the short-term debt limit increase with a simple-majority vote.

    At least 10 Republicans need to vote for the procedural motion to pave the way for legislation that would raise the debt limit by $480 billion, which is enough to cover the U.S. government’s financial obligations until Jan. 3. -The Hill

    According to the report, it appeared as though McConnell is facing a tough time rounding up enough GOP votes to bypass a filibuster and allow the two-month debt limit increase proceed to the floor – after which Democrats would then pass it on their own.

    Several Republican Senators are still on the fence – which could complicate matters. They include Sens. John Thune of SD and Roy Blunt of MO.

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

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

    That said, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Rick Scott (R-FL) said he expects there will be a 60-vote threshold for advancing the debt deal.

    “There’s going to be a cloture vote,” he said.

    *  *  *

    Update (1312ET): According to the NYT’s Manu Raju, the debt-ceiling deal might be hitting a snag: many GOP senators don’t want to vote for it, meaning McConnell needs to secure at least 10 GOP votes to pass the bill over a GOP filibuster.

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

    * * *

    Update (1300ET): As the Democratic leadership scrambles to get the short-term debt-ceiling deal passed, the Democratic leadership is ramping up its criticisms of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, as one might expect.

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

    Some more details about the new deal: after passing the Senate via a series of likely unanimous votes, the amended bill must also pass the House, which is in recess.

    Speaking Thursday on the Senate floor, McConnell said “the pathway our Democratic colleagues have accepted will spare the American people any near term crisis.” The deal also means “there’ll be no question they’ll have plenty of time” to use the reconciliation process to approve a long-term increase.

    * * *

    Update (1140ET): Fox News’ senior Hill correspondent and seasoned political reporter Chad Pergram shared some new details about the debt-ceiling deal. The updated bill  (which is technically an amendment) doesn’t mention a date and solely authorizes the $480 billion needed for the Treasury to pay debts coming due between now and early December.

    But Pergram’s report also shared some new details suggesting that the margin between the “drop dead” date and actual default might be thinner than previously believed.

    According to Pergram’s sources, the Treasury started using cash from emergency accounts over the summer, and the deal doesn’t include any additional funding to replenish these accounts.

    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 could contribute to the perception that Dec. 3 truly is a “hard” deadline, and that the closer we get to it without a long-term deal, the greater the risk to the market.

    * * *

    Update (1125ET): As we await a Senate vote on the short-term debt ceiling deal, Goldman’s political analyst Alec Philips has just chimed in with a brief note to clients, advising that the $480 billion debt-ceiling increase was larger than he had anticipated, meaning that the real deadline for a more long-term deal (or at the very least another can-kick) is probably “somewhat later than Dec. 3”.

    Media reports indicate that Senate leaders have struck a deal to raise the debt ceiling by $480bn (i.e., to $28.88 trillion). This is intended to carry the Treasury to December 3, at which point an additional debt limit increase or suspension would be required. The amount is higher than we would have anticipated the Treasury would need to get to that date, so there appears to be a good chance that the actual deadline for the next increase will come somewhat later than Dec. 3. That said, it is probably not sufficient to last past the end of the year, so it appears likely that Congress will need to address the issue in December as expected, either as part of the next reconciliation bill, a standalone bill, or part of a spending package for FY22 to extend spending authority past the current expiration, which Congress also set at Dec. 3 when it passed its continuing resolution on Sep. 30.

    Meanwhile, the T-bills market responded to news of the deal by shifting the “kink” in the curve out to December.

    * * *

    Update (1115ET): Cogs are already turning to tee up a vote on the short-term debt deal on Thursday.

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

    Of course, as part of the deal, GOP senators will vote to raise the debt limit, something that McConnell had initially tried to avoid by pushing to force the Democrats to use reconciliation, a process that could have allowed them to bypass a GOP filibuster, but Dems – including President Biden – complained doing so would be unworkable and complex.

    * * *

    Update (1020ET): Following reports earlier this morning about a short-term deal to suspend America’s debt ceiling, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was on the tape just a few minutes ago confirming that a short-term deal has indeed been reached, and that he hopes the Senate will vote on the measure Thursday.

    “I have some good news…we’ve reached agreement to extend the debt ceiling through early December,” Schumer said during opening remarks on the Senate floor.

    US stocks celebrated the headline by sending the S&P 500 and Dow surging past key technical levels, as we pointed out. 

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

    Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman reports that the deal will raise the debt limit by $480 billion – the figure that Treasury says is required – to extend the deadline until Dec. 3, giving the Dems’ a little bit of wiggle room to continue their divisive, bitter factional battle over President Biden’s domestic agenda, which includes an infrastructure bill and an even larger expansion of the social safety net.

    The Dec. 3 deadline lines up with the short-term extension of government spending signed by Biden a week ago.

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

    Minority Leader Mitch McConnell first offered the deal on Wednesday and leaders negotiated the details into Thursday. Defying expectations, the deal – which is really just a short-term can-kick – comes more than a week before the Oct. 18 “drop dead” date quoted by Treasury Sec. Janet Yellen (which is really just a point in a range that could be days or weeks, since the Treasury can’t say exactly when it would run out of money).

    While the market celebrated, White House reporters criticized the deal, with one claiming it’s such a weak can-kick that it’s “not even a band-aid…it’s like, the scrap of Kleenex that you found lying around that you have to use…” The criticism lined up with an analysis by Goldman strategists.

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

    Another reporter noted that the early December deadline could create even more problems for Democrats, since they have other important issues and deadlines coming up in December.

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

    As we reported earlier, Goldman’s top political strategist Alec Phillips published a note to clients advising that McConnell’s short-term offer likely wouldn’t be that attractive to Democrats.

    * * *

    Following negotiations that stretched late into Wednesday evening, Democrats and Republicans have reportedly forged a compromise deal on a short-term increase in the the debt ceiling which will avoid default, but as Bloomberg notes, “threatens to exacerbate year-end clashes over trillions in government spending.”

    In moving forward, Democrats appear to be on the verge of accepting a proposal from GOP leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) which would raise the debt limit by a specific amount – enough to move things into December, when Congress will have to vote again to avoid a default.

    While the details aren’t totally clear, McConnell’s offer was to allow a vote on extending the debt limit at a fixed collar amount – which Goldman’s Alec Phillips expects a number on over the next day or so.

    “We’re making good progress,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in early Thursday morning comments from the Senate floor, adding “we hope to have agreement tomorrow morning,” adding that the Senate would come back into session at 10 a.m. Thursday.

    That said, this is classic can-kicking which will have consequences down the road, as Democrats will likely attempt to move forward with their massive tax and spending package and separate infrastructure bill while at the same time funding the government to avoid yet another potential shutdown after December 3.

    News of a possible debt-ceiling accord stoked the biggest positive turnaround in the equity market in more than seven months, as the S&P 500 Index closed up 0.4% after tumbling earlier. In the bond market, traders bid back up the prices of Treasuries set to mature in the window around a potential default. Investors then moved on to gauge which securities may now be most at risk of a missed or delayed payment under the new congressional timeframe. -Bloomberg

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has warned that the US would likely default after October 18 without congressional action. At present, the current debt limit is $28.4 trillion, while the Treasury reported that it had $343 billion in combined extraordinary measures and cash on hand.

    As an approximation, during the period from Sep. 29 to Dec. 3, 2019, debt subject to limit (this includes marketable and non-marketable debt) increased by $356bn and the cash balance declined by $50bn, suggesting that the Treasury would use around $400bn in borrowing capacity by early December if cash flows are similar this year. Since the Treasury still had more than $300bn in room under the debt limit at the end of September, a debt limit increase to only $28.5-$28.6 trillion might be sufficient to accomplish the intent of the agreement, but the Treasury will be the final word on this and the amount will depend on expected cash flows this year. -Goldman Sachs

    And while a fixed dollar amount (vs. a calendar-based solution) injects a bit of uncertainty as to when exactly the next deadline will hit, the debt deal alleviates concerns which were beginning to reverberate throughout the investment community. Earlier this week, McConnell sidestepped a question over whether any major banks or wall street titans had contacted him over the debt ceiling fight.

    It was thought that the investment community would hammer Washington if lawmakers bumbled into a debt ceiling crisis. 

    Worry started to permeate Washington that rating agencies could downgrade the creditworthiness of the U.S. before Oct. 18 – the deadline when Treasury says the U.S. will run out of cash. –Fox News

    Senate Democrats have considered the debt deal a victory –  with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) exclaiming on Wednesday that “McConnell caved,” adding “And now we’re going to spend our time doing child care, health care, and fighting climate change.”

    From here, the focus will undoubtedly return to negotiations over Biden’s fiscal agenda – and in particular, the stalemate within the Democratic party between Senate moderates Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), who have vowed to sink any reconciliation plan that exceeds $1.5 trillion, and House progressives, who will likewise tank the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure deal unless Manchin and Sinema bend the knee.

    Assuming that drags into December, expect fireworks into the end of the year.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 20:06

  • Energy Crisis May Unleash Winter Blackouts Across US, Insider Warns 
    Energy Crisis May Unleash Winter Blackouts Across US, Insider Warns 

    The energy crisis that is rippling through Asia and Europe could unleash electricity shortages and blackouts in the U.S., according to Bloomberg. 

    Ernie Thrasher, CEO of Xcoal Energy & Resources LLC., told energy research firm IHS Markit that U.S. utilities quickly turn to more coal because of soaring natural gas prices. 

    “We’ve actually had discussions with power utilities who are concerned that they simply will have to implement blackouts this winter,” Thrasher warned.

    He said, “They don’t see where the fuel is coming from to meet demand,” adding that 23% of utilities are switching away from gas this fall/winter to burn more coal. 

    With natgas, coal, and oil prices all soaring is a clear signal the green energy transition will take decades, not years. Walking back fossil fuels for unreliable clean energy has been a disaster in Asia and Europe. These power-hungry continents are scrambling for fossil fuel supplies as stockpiles are well below seasonal trends ahead of cooler weather. 

    A similar story is playing out in the U.S., where increased demand for coal might not be reached by mining companies. We noted Thursday morning that boosting output might be challenging due to years of decommissioning mines to reduce carbon emissions and transition the economy from fossil fuels to green energy. There’s also been a steady decline of miners over the last three and a half decades. 

     “That whole supply chain is stretched beyond its limits,” Thrasher said. “It’s going to be a challenging winter for us here in the United States.”

    Utility company Duke Energy Corp.’s Piedmont Natural Gas unit, covering North and South Carolina customers, warned power bills this winter are set to rise due to high natgas prices and low production. 

    A pure-play coal company that is already benefiting from the demand surge and rising prices is Peabody Energy Corporation. As cooler weather fast approaches, the company may see increased demand for its thermal coal that utility companies use to produce electricity. On a technical basis, a so-called bullish “golden cross” was just triggered. 

    The troubled green energy transition gives the fossil fuel industry new hope, especially “Making Coal Great Again.” 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 19:40

  • Twitch Hack Exposes How Top Streamers Earn Millions Of Dollars On Platform
    Twitch Hack Exposes How Top Streamers Earn Millions Of Dollars On Platform

    The hacker, or hackers, who stole and published reams of invaluable source code, internal security tools and creator payouts from Twitch – the Amazon-owned streaming service that’s popular with gamers and has come to dominate the world of “eSports” (to be sure, there are plenty of Twitch streamers who aren’t focused on video games, but we digress) – allegedly managed to “own” Jeff Bezos by – claiming in a 4chan post that “Jeff Bezos paid $970MM for this, we’re giving it away for free #dobettertwitch” – they also exposed how much money some of the platform’s most popular streamers are raking in.

    The leaked data showed popular streamers raking in payouts from Twitch ranking in six-figure territory, with the top earners pulling in millions of dollars.

    According to one leaked document listing Twitch’s top earners shows gross earnings since 2019 reached $9.6MM for the platform’s top account, “CriticalRole.” This account, which is run by a set of voice actors, according to its Twitch page, generated an average of $370,000 a year, according to the document. The list points to 13 accounts that have made more than $108,000 a year and at least 80 that have collected more than $1MM since 2019.

    Several Twitch streamers confirmed via social-media posts that the leaked payout figures were consistent with what they earned on the platform. The data showed some users reaching payouts in the six figures.

    This isn’t exactly a surprise: data on the highest-earning eSports stars collected by Statista shows that players are raking in more than $100MM in aggregate earnings. While that’s still peanuts compared to professional athletes in the major American sports leagues, earnings have soared over the last decade.

    Infographic: The Keyboard Kings of the World | Statista You will find more infographics at Statista

    On Twitch, streamers can generate income via advertising, sponsorships and tips from viewers. But Twitch cuts bespoke deals with its most popular streamers, part of a strategy to lock them (and their audience) into the platform.

    Scott Hellyer, a streamer who has been part of Twitch’s partner program for six years, said in a direct message on Twitter that information about his payouts was exposed in the breach.

    “I really hope that no major personal info (Full names, emails, address, phone number, banking info) gets out in the rumored next part of the leak,” said Mr. Hellyer, who has about 72,000 followers on his channel, “tehMorag.” “I’ll take the heat if people are surprised about how much I make in the coming days, and try to have an open dialog about it.”

    Amazon bought Twitch back in 2014 for nearly $1 billion in cash. The platform boasts 2.5MM viewers tuned in at any given time, with more than 7MM creators using the platform.

    But now that the source code has been published, cybersecurity experts are warning Twitch users to exercise extreme caution to protect their accounts and any sensitive personal data, since hackers can now comb through the source code in search of vulnerabilities that can be exploited. While the hacker who pulled off the original Twitch hack apparently took measures to avoid releasing any sensitive data that could harm others, others might not be so accommodating.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 19:10

  • Musk Says Tesla Will Move Headquarters To Austin, Texas
    Musk Says Tesla Will Move Headquarters To Austin, Texas

    Tesla is moving its headquarters to Austin, Texas, from Silicon Valley, CEO Elon Musk said Thursday during the company’s annual shareholder meeting in the Austin area, where the company is building a factory. He stressed that Tesla will continue to expand in both California and Nevada, saying “we will continue to expand our activities in California. This is not a matter of Tesla leaving California. Our intention is to increase output from Freemont and giga-Nevada by 50%.”

    As part of the overhaul, Musk unveiled what appears to be Tesla’s new logo: “Don’t Mess With Tesla.”

    Some other highlights from the meeting courtesy of Bloomberg:

    • Elon Musk said that the Shanghai plant is now outproducing the Fremont plant.
    • Musk hopes the chip shortage will abate, saying the year has been a “constant struggle” with the supply chain, but said there is also a shaip shortage, which was logistically challenging.
    • Tesla has no plans to offer a dividend, which is something several retail investors had asked about.
    • Musk repeated his call for a carbon tax

    One investor asked if Tesla would start issuing a dividend. To which Musk responded: “When a company offers dividends, it’s kind of cresting the hill. They’ve run out of things to invest in internally. We’ve not run out of things to invest in by a long shot.”

    Musk also addressed Cybertruck production, saying it will start at the end of next year, with volume production in 2023. “Hopefully we can also produce the Semi and new Roadster in 2023.”

    Ironically, Musk stressed that his goal is to make Tesla cars as affordable as possible but is seeing cost pressure in the supply chain, so they had to increase prices temporarily.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 19:02

  • Biden Doesn't Know That Vaccinated Individuals Can Still Spread Covid
    Biden Doesn’t Know That Vaccinated Individuals Can Still Spread Covid

    The sitting president of the United States, advised by the nation’s top infectious diseases specialists, doesn’t know what is now common knowledge; that vaccinated individuals can still spread Covid-19.

    (Susan Walsh/AP)

    For those keeping track, this is the second major issue Biden had no knowledge of – the first being an international spat with France over a tri-lateral submarine agreement.

    Speaking in Elk Grove Village, Illinois on Thursday, Biden urged more employers to institute strict vaccine requirements – calling them “tough medicine” that will help bring the United States out of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    In addition to failing to recognize naturally-acquired immunity for individuals who have recovered from Covid, Biden made clear that he has no idea vaccinated people can still spread the virus.

    “If you seek care at a healthcare facility, you should have a certainty that the people providing that care are protected from Covid and cannot spread it to you,” Biden said, explaining the rationale behind forcing healthcare workers and other professionals to get vaccinated or lose their job.

    Watch (relevant portion starts at 50 seconds):

    Biden’s latest false statement comes one week after his own CDC director Rochelle Walensky said that vaccines “can’t prevent transmission.”

    “Our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue to work well for Delta with regard to severe illness and death – they prevent it, but what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission,” she told CNN‘s Wolf Blitzer. “So if you’re going home to someone who is not vaccinated…I would suggest you wear a mask in public indoor settings,” she continued.

     Again, this is common knowledge by now:

    • Emerging data suggest that Delta could spread more readily than other coronavirus variants among people vaccinated against COVID-19. (Nature, Aug. 12)
    • Vaccinated People With Breakthrough Infections Can Spread The Delta Variant, CDC Says (NPR, Jul. 30)
    • UC study finds similarities in COVID viral loads between vaccinated, unvaccinated people (KTXL, Oct. 6)
    • CDC study says COVID-19 can spread in vaccinated (AP, Sep. 21)

    Alas, the president of the United States – or whoever wrote that speech – doesn’t follow the science.

    Cover photo: Ashlee Rezin/Sun-Times

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

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 18:50

  • NASA Engineer Earns Crypto By Helping Crowdsource Stock Picks
    NASA Engineer Earns Crypto By Helping Crowdsource Stock Picks

    One NASA engineer is using his smarts not only planning to explore outer space, but also earning cryptocurrency by picking stocks.

    When 32-year-old Hayden Burgoyne isn’t plotting a mission to explore Jupiter’s moons as part of project Europa Clipper, the Los Angeles resident spends his spare time as an amateur quant – poring through market data for Paul Tudor Jones-backed crowdsourcing firm Numerai, according to Bloomberg. 

    Without revealing their models, the contributors pick stocks they think will outperform in the coming month and make bets in online trading tournaments using a digital currency issued by Numerai. The San Francisco-based firm, established in 2015, then invests in the corresponding stocks. 

    Those picks from the likes of Burgoyne, a world away from Wall Street, have powered the market-neutral fund to a 9% gain this year through August. In 2020 it was up 8% when many storied quants faltered.

    “I have no finance background so it puts people like me on an equal footing with somebody with an economics PhD,” he told Bloomberg. 

    Burgoyne uses an “assortment of data” on 5,000 stocks to make his picks. He uses metrics like price history to valuation ratios, sometimes without even knowing what the underlying metrics are.

    Those who perform well get “NMR” tokens, which are now worth about $50 a piece. 

    Numerai founder Richard Craib commented: “By setting up the problem and being in charge of data people look at, we can get exactly the type of signal we want. Although they might not work individually, when you combine them altogether the increase in accuracy and performance is huge.”

    Craib also commented on paying out in crypto: “Even if we gave away 100% of our profits of the fund to our users we will never be able to pay as much. What I like about cryptocurrencies is the idea that actually through the community, the cryptocurrency is valuable for its own reasons.”

    Burgoyne has 630 NMR tokens backing his predictions. 

    Another Numerai trader, Sharon Moran, commented: “As a mother of three with a daughter in private college, there’s the money consideration. But the ability to learn and grow and apply some of what I’ve been learning as far as modeling was the initial motivation.” 

    And people are taking notice: one pension fund that has $45 million in assets with Numerai could increase their allocation to $130 million if the firm hits “certain milestones”. 

    While quant funds and factor-based investing have consistently shown themselves to be unreliable at best, crowdsourcing ideas as a quant model still hasn’t been fully vetted. And something is working for Numerai. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 18:40

  • Labor Strikes Target Big Food As Workers Seize On Industry Turmoil
    Labor Strikes Target Big Food As Workers Seize On Industry Turmoil

    By Chris Casey of Food Dive,

    At food plants around the country this year, workers have been making themselves heard about the state of wages, working hours and conditions.

    Just this week, roughly 1,400 Kellogg workers at ready-to-eat cereal plants in four states — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Tennessee — went on strike after their contract expired. In a statement, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) said its goal is to “obtain a fair contract that provides a living wage and good benefits.”

    Anthony Shelton, BCTGM’s president, said Kellogg workers “have been working long, hard hours, day in and day out, to produce Kellogg ready-to-eat cereals for American families” but that the company has responded by cutting benefits and threatening to send jobs to Mexico if employees don’t accept the company’s proposals.

    “Kellogg is making these demands as they rake in record profits, without regard for the well-being of the hardworking men and women who make the products that have created the company’s massive profits,” Shelton said in a statement. 

    Just a couple weeks earlier, more than a thousand workers returned to their jobs at Mondelēz Nabisco factories in five states after a walkout that lasted nearly six weeks. It also was led by BCTGM. The workers were protesting what they considered unfair changes in overtime rules and shift lengths.

    This came a few months after hundreds of Frito-Lay employees in Topeka, Kansas, were on strike in July for 19 days, demanding better hours and higher pay. That same month, dozens of Teamster truck drivers gathered to strike against Coca-Cola in West Virginia, rejecting a contract that would reportedly have made them pay more for health insurance and give them less commission.

    Some of these strikes, including those at Mondelēz and Frito-Lay plants, have reached their conclusion after the manufacturers came to terms with workers and their unions. And some, like the strike affecting Kellogg plants, are only ratcheting up. The turmoil reflects a unique set of conditions — a labor shortage, growing demand and supply chain disruptions in the midst of a pandemic — that has given labor unions extra leverage, and food manufacturers a greater incentive to meet their demands. 

    CPGs are currently hobbled by a massive labor shortage. There are now 4.9 million more people who are either not working or not looking for work compared to pre-pandemic times, The Washington Post recently reported. At the same time, demand for food has skyrocketed, rising 8.7% in the second quarter of this year alone, as people spend more time at home, the Consumer Brands Association reported. This has left CPG manufacturers scrambling to increase production with fewer workers and a shaky, fragile supply chain — all while dealing with continued uncertainty over the outlook for COVID-19.

    The leverage that workers and labor advocates currently enjoy is a recent change in fortunes. The power of unions, specifically in the food manufacturing sector, had deteriorated during the past four decades as companies avoided meeting worker demands by moving many jobs overseas, according to Bryant Simon, labor scholar and history professor at Temple University.

    But the COVID crisis, Simon believes, has provided a unique opportunity for American factory workers to reassess their pivotal role in the food industry.

    “Workers are like, ‘Look, I’m not going to work on these terms anymore, and you’ve given me a chance to explore some other options,’ ” Simon said.

    Uncertain outcomes

    The Mondelēz strike demonstrates how all of these factors can come into play.

    The dispute began in May when workers were offered a new contract that would increase hourly shifts from eight hours to 12, without additional overtime pay for the first five days of the week. A Mondelēz spokesperson told CBS News at the time that the changes were intended to “promote the right behaviors” among workers. 

    Meanwhile, some Mondelēz employees at its Chicago factory told The New York Times they had worked 16-hour shifts during the pandemic to keep up with the increased demand for the snack giant’s most popular products, such as Oreos.

    Workers were also worried that their jobs would be sent to Mexico, similiar to what happened in 2016, when Mondelēz cut nearly 1,000 jobs at plants in Chicago and Philadelphia. 

    Mondelēz International spokesperson Laurie Guzzinati told Food Dive in August that the contract negotiations were “not about” moving jobs to Mexico and that the company was committed to keeping its U.S workforce. 

    Workers in Portland, Ore., launched the first walkout on Aug. 10, with signs reading “No contract, no snacks,” “Weekends are family time” and “Spit out that Oreo” populating the picket line. As the strikes spread to other states — Illinois, Virginia, Colorado and Georgia — they quickly made national headlines. Actor Danny DeVito and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders came out in support of the workers. 

    The snacks giant told Food Dive that it began negotiating with the union “as soon as the action took place in Portland.” In its last quarterly earnings call on Sept. 9, Mondelēz’s CEO Dirk Van De Put said that after the company requested contract changes to increase capacity at its plants as well as product inventory, it “foresaw that it would not be an easy conversation.” He said Mondelēz was making a new offer to the union, which included increased wages, a higher 401(k) match and more flexible hours. The company was not willing to reinstate its pension plan. 

    The new terms sealed the deal. In a statement after its members voted to approve the new four-year contract, BCTGM said that they “made enormous sacrifices” to reach a deal “that preserves our Union’s high standards for wages, hours and benefits for current and future Nabisco workers.” BCTGM did not respond to multiple requests for comment by Food Dive.

    The Kellogg strikes, meanwhile, may not be coming to a quick, amicable conclusion any time soon.

    BCTGM called for a strike a month after Kellogg announced plans to invest $45 million in restructuring its ready-to-eat cereal supply chain, which includes cutting more than 200 jobs at its Battle Creek factory. The company said it is shifting production to more efficient production lines, even as it struggled with shortages of factory line workers and truck drivers at many of its plants.

    BCTGM representatives said last week that Kellogg did not provide workers with a “comprehensive offer” during contract negotiations like it had stated.

    In a statement to Food Dive, Kellogg spokesperson Kris Bahner said the company is “disappointed by the union’s decision to strike,” and that its proposed new contract provides wage and benefits increases “while helping us meet the challenges of the changing cereal business.” Bahner said the company hopes to reach an agreement with the union soon. 

    Raising the stakes of negotiations even further: Kellogg filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against BCTGM in the U.S. District Court of Nebraska, saying that it “seeks to recover damages for ongoing breaches of a labor agreement.” The cereal giant said the union’s “improper actions” have the intention of inflicting “significant economic harm” to the company before a contract agreement is able to be met.

    What’s next for labor

    Despite this test of wills between labor and food manufacturers, the “ultimate leverage” for workers in 2021 is their ability to create negative publicity for their parent company through strikes to make them appear “union-busting” in hopes of spurring a consumer boycott of their products, said Erik Loomis, a labor expert and University of Rhode Island professor.

    Loomis said this can bring about more immediate benefits to unions compared to legal frameworks, which are often not on the side of workers and could take months or years to result in better contracts.

    The use of social media to spread organization efforts and make the public aware of working conditions makes today’s strikes different to those of the past, according to Simon with Temple University. In the case of Mondelēz, calls for a boycott of Nabisco snacks like Oreos and Wheat Thins gained traction on social media during the strikes, with users uploading photos of shelves stocked with unsold Oreos and Chips Ahoy! cookies at grocery stores.

    However, relying on public support to dictate change has its drawbacks. Simon said wage increases for food manufacturing workers is a larger “ideological hurdle” because many consumers ultimately may not be willing to pay more for food products to support higher wages. This is despite the fact that the annual mean salary of a food factory employee is under $33,000, significantly lower than the roughly $56,000 national average for all jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Food prices have also been rising during the pandemic as manufacturers pass along higher costs for ingredients, manufacturing, packaging and transportation. 

    Loomis expects strikes to continue due to the supply chain crisis, and as workers see more examples of successful organizing taking place.

    Meanwhile, under the Biden administration, the political climate is also friendlier to unions. The PRO Act (Protecting the Right to Organize), which passed Congress in March with five Republicans joining, is supported by The White House. One of its biggest elements — monetary punishments for companies that infringe on workers’ union-based rights — was added as part of the budget reconciliation bill package currently being debated in the Senate.

    “You’re going to see more strikes within the legal sense,” Loomis said. “Even outside of that, workers will take matters into their own hands when they feel it is necessary to do so.”

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 18:15

  • JPMorgan: Institutions Are Rotating Out Of Gold Into Bitcoin As A Better Inflation Hedge
    JPMorgan: Institutions Are Rotating Out Of Gold Into Bitcoin As A Better Inflation Hedge

    For much of the summer, when bitcoin was shedding its April 15 all time high of $63,000 by more than half, Wall Street was bombarded with weekly notes from JPMorgan’s cross-asset strategist Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou who would encourage selling, telling institutional clients that upward momentum had fizzled and that the only logical direction for bitcoin was lower. Those notes ended abruptly in July when Bitcoin reversed sharply and start its latest upward trek, and were instead replaced with warnings that there is too much euphoria in the market and thus the only logical direction for bitcoin was… you can guess the rest.

    Well, maybe not, because on Wednesday bitcoin soared higher, surging above $55,000 and once again sporting a market cap of over $1 trillion, and pushing the total market cap of all crypto markets above $2.3 trillion (still below the market cap of one Apple, Inc.), and suddenly the doom and gloom from JPM’s Panigirtzoglou has done a 180, with the quant writing in his latest Flows and Liquidity report published overnight that “the increase in the share of bitcoin is a healthy development as it is more likely to reflect institutional participation than smaller cryptocurrencies.”

    Blindsided by the surge in bitcoin, the JPM strategist was also wrong about the institutional preference for bitcoin vs ethereum, writing two weeks ago that “JPMorgan: Institutional Investors Are Piling Into Ethereum, Leaving Bitcoin” – starting in early October, the two largest cryptos have decoupled with Bitcoin clearly outperforming its smaller peer.

    Not surprisingly Panigirtzoglou addressed this latest flub, writing in his note that “we had argued before our position proxies based on CME futures had showed strong preference for ethereum vs. bitcoin by institutional investors during most of August and September. But as shown in Figure 16 this preference appears to be have been reversing since the end of September with a sharp rebound in the position proxy for bitcoin. This rebound reflects at least partly short covering as indicated by Figure 17 which depicts bitcoin futures liquidations across all futures exchanges. According to Figure 17 short bitcoin futures position liquidations appear to have picked up over the past week or two.”

    Having completed his damage control homework, Panigirtzoglou then shifted to the main thrust of his note, which was once again trying to explain why bitcoin was surging, where he offered three distinct reasons. While the first two have been extensively discussed here in the past few weeks, and we thus found them of marginal value, it was his third point that may have some insight especially when presented to gold bugs, namely that “institutional investors appear to be returning to bitcoin perhaps seeing it as a better inflation hedge than gold.”

    Here is what JPM believes has triggered the bitcoin recovery:

    1. the recent assurances by US policy makers that there is no intention to follow China’s steps towards banning the usage or mining of cryptocurrencies;
    2. the recent rise of the Lightning Network and 2nd layer payments solutions helped by El Salvador’s bitcoin adoption. According to President Bukele 2.7m Salvadorians had onboarded by early October the Chivo wallet which uses the Lightning Network. We have to admit we are skeptical of this second explanation; and
    3. the reemergence of inflation concerns among investors has renewed interest in the usage of bitcoin as an inflation hedge. Bitcoin’s allure as an inflation hedge has perhaps been strengthened by the failure of gold to respond in recent weeks to heightened concerns over inflation, behaving more as a real rate proxy rather than inflation hedge.

    The last point is notable, especially since we have frequently noted the growing price divergence between actual gold and its digital counterpart, which while not only providing a credible diversification tool to risk assets (compared the return of bitcoin to any other asset class YTD) has also shown a strong correlation with soaring inflation expectations in recent months, unlike gold which is sharply lower for the year.

    In the chart below, JPMorgan shows “tentative signs that the previous shift away from gold into bitcoin seen during most of Q4 2020 and the beginning of 2021 has started re-emerging in recent weeks.”

    If JPM is correct (this time) and if indeed bitcoin is emerging as not only an accepted inflation hedge – certainly better than gold – but as an asset JPM will push to its institutional clients, especially those sporting a balanced, 60/40 portfolio, the potential inflows into bitcoin and cryptos in general would be remarkable if even a small portion of the global 60/40 portfolio is reallocated toward the digital currency, an outcome One River’s CIO Eric Peters has been predicting for a long time.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 17:50

  • $137 Million Racism Verdict Against Tesla May Be Cut In Half On Appeal
    $137 Million Racism Verdict Against Tesla May Be Cut In Half On Appeal

    A $137 million verdict against Tesla for failing to prevent racism against contract employee Owen Diaz may be cut in half if the automaker appeals. 

    Law professor Michael Selmi said the original verdict of punitive damages about 20 times as large as actual damages is “well in excess” of typical punishment, according to Bloomberg.

    Punitive damages are usually calculated at 9 to 1 or 10 to 1, the report notes. 

    This means the $137 million award is “unlikely to survive a challenge,” according to Selmi. 

    This doesn’t mean the jury didn’t send a strong message in the case. One juror told Bloomberg: “They claim to have a zero tolerance policy, but suspended rather than fired, and ignored rather than rectified or retrained their employees on proper prevention.”

    Recall, a jury awarded Diaz $137 million for enduring “racist abuse” while working for the company. 

    Diaz’s attorneys told CNBC that the case was only able to move forward because Diaz didn’t sign one of the company’s mandatory arbitration agreements. 

    One attorney, J. Bernard Alexander, said: “We were able to put the jury in the shoes of our client. When Tesla came to court and tried to say they were zero tolerance and they were fulfilling their duty? The jury was just offended by that because it was actually zero responsibility.”

    Owen Diaz, right. Photo by Bloomberg. 

    Diaz found the work at Tesla through a staffing agency in 2015 and told the jury that coworkers told him to “go back to Africa” and left racist graffiti in the company’s restrooom. They also left a racist drawing in his workspace, he told the court.

    Back in August, Tesla was forced to pay another former employee $1 million for enduring racism while working at the company. The former employee won a ruling that the company failed to stop his supervisors from calling him the “N-word” at the company’s Fremont factory.

    Melvin Berry won the discrimination award after a closed-door proceeding that came on the heels of “years of complaints from Black workers that Tesla turned a blind eye to the commonplace use of racial slurs on the assembly line,” Bloomberg wrote at the time. 

    Similarly, it was also alleged that the company was slow to remove graffiti containing hate symbols.

    Berry was hired by Tesla in 2015 and quit within 18 months. He claimed that when he confronted a supervisor about being called the “N-word” he was forced to work longer hours and “push a heavier cart”.

    Diaz commented on the verdict, stating: “I’m really happy to be able to shine a light on what happened. I want it to be less about me and more about what’s going on at Tesla. It’s like they saw right through the smoke and mirrors. They were courageous in saying ‘enough’ to this billion-dollar company and say, ‘This is not acceptable.”’

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 17:25

  • De Blasio Misused Public Resources For Family's Benefit: Report
    De Blasio Misused Public Resources For Family’s Benefit: Report

    New York Mayor Bill de Blasio misused public resources for his own political and personal benefit – and has not reimbursed the city for security costs related to his presidential campaign, according to the New York Times, citing a city investigation released on Thursday.

    Among other things, de Blasio deployed his security detail to move his activist daughter to Gracie Mansion, while the city spent nearly $320,000 for members of his security detail to travel during his presidential campaign trips in 2019.

    According to the Times:

    The report painted a deeply unflattering portrait of Mr. de Blasio’s reliance on his security detail — behavior that a top investigator said amounted to the mayor having his own personal “concierge service” to shuttle around relatives and staffers.

    It found that the use of a police van and personnel to help move Mr. de Blasio’s daughter was “a misuse of N.Y.P.D. resources for a personal benefit,” and that Howard Redmond, the police inspector in charge of the family’s security detail, had “actively obstructed and sought to thwart this investigation.”

    At a news conference, Margaret Garnett, the commissioner of the investigation department, said that Mr. Redmond had deleted communications and that he had tried to destroy his cellphone after he was told to surrender it. She said that she had referred Mr. Redmond’s conduct to the Manhattan district attorney’s office for a criminal investigation into obstruction of justice.

    De Blaso, who has just three months left in office as he mulls a run for New York governor, has faced multiple investigations into his fundraising practices during his time in office – including a 2017 incident in which prosecutors raised questions but ultimately declined to bring criminal charges.

    The mayor pushed back on Thursday, criticizing the findings as “naïve” and blaming advice he had received about using the detail.

    “I’m honored to be the mayor of this city, but my first responsibility is as a father and a husband,” he said, adding “And so I think of the safety of my family all the time.”

    Just not on his own dime, apparently.

    According to the report, de Blasio’s misuse of his security detail during his failed presidential campaign in 2019 ran the city nearly $320,000 – which includes hotels, meals, rental cars and flights for members of the detail – who accompanied de Blasio on multiple campaign stops.

    “Government resources should be used for government business,” said Betsy Gotbaum, the executive director of Citizens Union, a good-government group, adding “The mayor should reimburse these funds immediately.”

    More:

    The report also cited several occasions where the mayor’s detail was used to pick up his brother from the airport, and to drive him to pick up a Zipcar in Palmyra, N.J. The detail also drove Mr. de Blasio’s brother “to an Alamo rental car location without the mayor present.”

    Asked if Mr. de Blasio was using his security detail as “glorified Uber drivers,” Ms. Garnett said there was a culture of treating the officers like they were City Hall staffers and a “concierge service.”

    The report made recommendations to prevent the misuse of the mayor’s security detail in the future. One was for the Conflicts of Interest Board to publicly release advice for elected officials about the use of city resources in connection with political activities. -NYT

    In addition, de Blasio’s security detail was used to drive his son, Dante, between NYC and Yale University in Connecticut – with one detective recalling that it happened “approximately seven or eight times without the mayor or first lady present.”

    After Dante graduated, he continued to benefit from his father’s taxpayer-funded security detail, as well as rides from the police every weekday morning from Gracie Mansion to his workplace in Brooklyn.

    De Blasio’s office also hit back – citing several examples of threats his children faced, yet failing to explain why that should fall on the shoulders of New York taxpayers.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 17:11

  • Afghan Gun Shop Bonanza: US-Supplied Weapons Including .50 Cals Being Sold To Public
    Afghan Gun Shop Bonanza: US-Supplied Weapons Including .50 Cals Being Sold To Public

    Since the botched US evacuation and withdrawal at the end of August, Afghanistan seems to have become one big gun bizarre where individuals with enough cash can purchase an array of American-supplied weapons and advanced equipment from right off the streets – no questions asked.

    A New York Times report has found not only small arms like pistols and military assault rifles are showing up in gun shops around major cities like Kabul and Kandahar, but two-way radios and even grenades and night vision goggles along with ample ammunition. The American military items were “originally provided to the Afghan security forces under a U.S. training and assistance program that cost American taxpayers more than $83 billion through two decades of war,” the report emphasizes.

    Illustrative image via Al Jazeera

    The NY Times report noted that American M4 carbines are going for about $4,000, and at least $1,200 for Beretta M9 handguns, with other NATO-supplied handguns common among Afghan police forces going for about $350. Many of these had been acquired by local gun dealers as the Taliban was gobbling up territory during the rapid US draw down. Desperate Afghan soldiers who hadn’t been paid would gain far more than a month’s salary by essentially pawning their weapons to local dealers.

    Russian-made rocket-propelled grenade launchers are also popping up in local gun shops, for about $1,100, and Kalashnikov rifles – perhaps already long ubiquitous in the region – going for an average of $900.

    One shop owner in the southern city of Kandahar told the Times: “American-made weapons are in great demand, as they work very well and people know how to use them.” Another dealer said: 

    “We used to work as a mobile team,” he said. “We would meet many government soldiers and officers to buy weapons from them. After that we would take those weapons to the Taliban and sell it to them, or to anyone who would give us a good price.”

    Pistols, hand grenades, and ammunition for sale in Kandahar province. AFP/Getty Images

    Further the Times report details that “A third gun merchant in Kandahar, who asked not to be identified because the Taliban had warned him not to speak to the news media, said dealers had sold weapons as large as anti-aircraft guns to the Taliban this summer.” 

    “Now, he said, he sold American-made M4s and .50-caliber machine guns, as well as weapons manufactured by other nations, including rocket launchers and Kalashnikov assault rifles,” she shop keeper added.

    Interestingly, the Taliban is trying to claim that it has imposed a strict accounting system for US weapons seized after the American troop exit, with a spokesman cited in the report as commenting on whether the weapons were being sold on the streets to the public: “I totally deny this; our fighters cannot be that careless.” He added dubiously: “Even a single person cannot sell a bullet in the market or smuggle it.”

    The Taliban official claimed they “are all listed, verified and are all saved and secure under the Islamic Emirate for the future army.” But the Times investigative team verified that significant amounts of American weapons were being sold openly in shops, and that dealers have continued to receive new merchandise in waves.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 17:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 07

Today’s News 7th October 2021

  • German Parking Garage Unveils Dedicated Spaces For LGBTQ And Migrant Drivers
    German Parking Garage Unveils Dedicated Spaces For LGBTQ And Migrant Drivers

    Today in “our obsession with inclusiveness is once again leading us back to segregating people” news, a car park in Germany is unveiling dedicated parking spaces for LGBTQ and migrant drivers.

    The three “diversity” parking spaces were put up in an underground car park in Hanau city centre, according to the Daily Mail.

    Hanau is considered a city of diversity already, the report noted. Hanau’s population was “already ethnically diverse” before the 2015 migrant crisis. 

    The aim of the spots was to “help people who feel a special need for protection,” according to Thomas Morlock, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the lot.

    Morlock told the Daily Mail the spaces were built to set a “conspicuously colourful symbol for diversity and tolerance”.

    He said they “are not necessarily meant” to be used by a “seperate group of people”.

    And of course, as the Daily Mail puts it, the kicker:

    “It is not immediately clear how the authorities intend to monitor whether people who park in the spaces are in fact part of the LGBTQ community or migrants…”

    Keep up the great work, Herr Morlock. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 02:45

  • France & The Fraying Of NATO
    France & The Fraying Of NATO

    Authored by Gary Leupp via Counterpunch.org,

    Biden has infuriated France by arranging the agreement to provide nuclear-powered submarines to Australia. This replaces a contract to purchase a fleet of diesel-powered subs from France. Australia will have to pay penalties for breach of contract but the French capitalists will lose around 70 billion dollars. The perceived perfidy of both Canberra and Washington has caused Paris to compare Biden to Trump. The UK is third partner in the agreement so expect post-Brexit Franco-British relations to deteriorate further.

    This is all good, in my opinion!

    It’s also a good thing that Biden’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan was poorly orchestrated with the lingering “coalition partners” such as Britain, French and Germany, producing angry criticism. It’s great that the British prime minister proposed to France a “Coalition of the Willing” to continue the fight in Afghanistan following the U.S. withdrawal—and better that it was dead in the water. (Maybe the French better than the Brits remember the Suez Crisis of 1956, the disastrous joint Anglo-French-Israeli effort to reimpose imperialist control over the canal. Not only did it lack U.S. participation; Eisenhower rationally shut it down after warnings from the Egyptians’ Soviet advisors.) It’s good that these three countries heeded the U.S. command to uphold their NATO promise to stand with the U.S. when attacked; that they lost over 600 troops in a fruitless effort; and that in the end the U.S. didn’t see fit to even involve them in the end plans. It’s good to wake up to the fact that the U.S. imperialists could care less about their input or their lives. but only demand their obedience and sacrifice.

    It’s wonderful that Germany, despite obnoxious U.S. opposition, has maintained its involvement in the Nordstream II natural gas pipeline project along with Russia. The last three U.S. administrations have opposed the pipeline, claiming it weakens the NATO alliance and helps Russia (and urging purchase of more expensive U.S. energy sources instead—to enhance mutual security, don’t you see). The Cold War arguments have fallen on deaf ears. The pipeline was completed last month. Good for global free trade and for national sovereignty, and a significant European blow to U.S. hegemony.

    It’s great that Trump in Aug. 2019 raised the ridiculous prospect of purchasing Greenland from Denmark, indifferent to the fact that Greenland is a self-governing entity, within the Kingdom of Denmark. (It is 90% Inuit, and led by political parties pressing for greater independence.) It’s marvelous that when the Danish prime minister gently, with good humor, refused his ignorant, insulting and racist proposal, he exploded in rage and cancelled his state visit including state dinner with the queen. He offended not only the Danish state but popular opinion throughout Europe with his boorishness and colonial arrogance. Excellent.

    Trump personally, needlessly insulted the prime minister of Canada and the chancellor of Germany with the same childish language he’d used against political opponents. He raised questions in Europeans’ and Canadians’ minds about the value of an alliance with such vileness. That was a major historical contribution.

    Good also that, in Libya in 2011, Hillary Clinton working with the French and British leaders secured UN approval for a NATO mission to protect civilians in Libya. And that, when the U.S.-led mission exceeded the UN resolution and waged full-out war to topple the Libyan leader, enraging China and Russia who called out the lie, some NATO nations declined to participate or turned back in disgust. Another U.S. imperialist war based on lies creating disorder and flooding Europe with refugees.

    It was good only in the fact that it exposed once again the utter moral bankruptcy of the U.S.A. so widely now associated with images of Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo. All in the name of NATO.

    *  *  *

    Over the last two decades, with the Soviet Union and “communist threat” receding memories, the U.S. has systematically expanded this anti-Soviet, anti-communist postwar alliance called NATO to surround Russia. Any unprejudiced person looking at a map can understand Russia’s concern. Russia spends about a fifth of what the U.S. and NATO spend on military expenses. Russia is not a military threat to Europe or North America. So—the Russians have been asking since 1999, when Bill Clinton broke his predecessor’s promise to Gorbachev and resumed NATO expansion by adding Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia—why do you keep trying to expend to surround us?

    Meanwhile more and more Europeans are doubting the leadership of the United States. That means doubting the purpose and value of NATO. Formed to confront an imaginary Soviet invasion of “western” Europe, it was never deployed in war during the Cold War. Its first war indeed was the Clintons’ war on Serbia in 1999. This conflict, which severed the Serbian historical heartland from Serbia to create the new (dysfunctional) state of Kosovo, has since been repudiated by participants Spain and Greece who note that the UN resolution authorizing a “humanitarian” mission in Serbia explicitly stated that the Serbian state remain undivided. Meantime (after the bogus “Rambouillet agreement” was signed) the French foreign minister complained that the U.S. was acting like a hyper-pouissance (“hyperpower” as opposed to mere superpower).

    The future of NATO lies with the U.S., Germany, France and the UK. The last three were long members of the EU, which while a rival trading bloc generally coordinated policies with NATO. NATO has overlapped the EU such that virtually all of the countries admitted to the military alliance since 1989 have first joined NATO, then the EU. And within the EU—which is after all, a trading bloc that competes with North America—the UK long served as a kind of U.S. surrogate urging cooperation with Russian trade boycotts, etc. Now the U.K. has split from the EU, unavailable to, say, pressure Germany to avoid deals with the Russians Washington opposes. Good!

    Germany has a number of reasons to want to increase trade with Russia and has now shown the will to stand up to the U.S. Germany and France both challenged George W. Bush’s Iraq war based on lies. We should not forget how Bush (promoted lately as a statesman by the Democrats!) rivaled his successor Trump as a vulgar, lying buffoon. And if Obama seemed a hero in contrast, his magnetism ebbed as Europeans learned that they were all being monitored by the National Security Agency, and that the calls of Angela Merkel and the Pope were bugged. This was the land of freedom and democracy, always boasting about liberating Europe from the Nazis and expecting eternal payoff in the form of bases and political deference.

    It has been 76 years since the fall of Berlin (to the Soviets, as you know, not to the U.S.);

    72 since the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO);

    32 since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the promise by George W. H. Bush to Gorbachev NOT to expand NATO further;

    22 since the resumption of NATO expansion;

    22 since the U.S.-NATO war on Serbia including the aerial bombing of Belgrade;

    20 since NATO went to war at U.S. behest in Afghanistan, resulting in ruin and failure;

    13 years since the U.S. recognized Kosovo as an independent country, and NATO announced the near-term admission of Ukraine and Georgia, resulting in the brief Russo-Georgia War and Russian recognition of the states of South Ossetia and Abkhazia;

    10 years since the grotesque NATO mission to destroy and sew chaos in Libya, producing more terror throughout the Sahel and tribal and ethnic violence in the crumbling country, and producing more waves of refugees;

    7 since the bold, bloody U.S.-backed putsch in Ukraine that placed a pro-NATO party in power, provoking the ongoing rebellion among ethnic Russians in the east and obliging Moscow to re-annex the Crimean Peninsula, inviting unprecedented ongoing U.S. sanctions and U.S. pressure on allies to comply;

    5 since a malignant narcissist moron won the U.S. presidency and soon alienated allies by his pronouncements, insults, evident ignorance, a belligerent approach, raising questions in a billion minds about the mental stability and judgment of the voters of this country;

    1 year since a career warmonger who has long vowed to expand and strengthen NATO, who became the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine after the 2014 coup, his mission being to clean up corruption to prepare Ukraine for NATO membership (and who is the father of Hunter Biden who famously sat on the board of Ukraine’s leading gas company 2014-2017 making millions for no apparent reason or work done) became president.

    1 year since the world saw repeatedly on TV the 9 minute video of an open, public police lynching on the streets of Minneapolis, surely many among the views wondering what right this racist nation has to lecture China or anyone on human rights.

    9 months since the U.S. capitol was stormed by U.S. brown shirts brandishing Confederate flags and fascist symbols and calling for the hanging of Trump’s vice president for treason.

    It is a long record of terrifying Europe with seemingly unstable leaders (Bush no less than Trump); harassing Europe with demands it minimizes trade with Russia and China and obey U.S. rules on Iran, and demanding participation in its imperialist wars far from the North Atlantic to Central Asia and Northern Africa.

    It is also a record of provoking Russia while expanding the anti-Russian juggernaut. It has meant actually using NATO militarily (as in Serbia, Afghanistan, and Libya) to cement the military alliance under U.S. direction, the stationing of 4000 U.S. troops in Poland, and threatening flights in the Baltic. Meanwhile, multiple U.S. agencies work overtime to plot “color revolutions” in the counties bordering Russia: Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine.

    NATO is dangerous and evil. It should be terminated. Opinion polls in Europe suggest a rise in NATO skepticism (good in itself) and opposition (better). It was already split seriously once: in 2002-2003 over the Iraq War. Indeed the manifest criminality of the Iraq War, the obvious willingness of the Americans to use disinformation, and the buffoonic personality of the U.S. president probably shocked Europe as much as the beastly Trump.

    The amusing thing is that Biden and Blinken, Sullivan and Austin, all seem to think none of this happened. They really seem to think that the world respects the United States as the (natural?) leader of something called the Free World —of nations committed to “democracy.” Blinken tells us and Europeans we’re confronting, “autocracy” in the form of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela all threatening us and our values. They seem think they can return to the 1950s, explain their moves as reflections of “American Exceptionalism,” posture as champions of “human rights,” cloak their interventions as “humanitarian missions,” and arm-twist their client-states into joint action. At present NATO is being pushed by Biden to identify (as it did in its last communique) the PRC as a “security threat” to Europe.

    But the reference to China was controversial. And NATO is divided on the matter of China. Some states do not see much of a threat and have every reason to expand ties with China, especially with the advent of the Belt and Road projects. They know that China’s GDP will soon exceed that of the U.S. and that the U.S. is not the economic superpower it was after the war when it established its hegemony over most of Europe. It has lost much of its basic strength but, like the Spanish Empire in the eighteenth century, none of its arrogance and brutality.

    Even after all the exposure. Even after all the shame. Biden flashing his trained smile announces “America is back!” expecting the world—especially “our allies”—to delight in the resumption of normalcy. But Biden should recall the stony silence that met Pence’s announcement at the Munich Security Conference in February 2019 when he conveyed Trump’s greetings. Do not these U.S. leaders not realize that in this century Europe’s GDP has come to match the U.S.’s? And that few people believe that the U.S. “saved” Europe from the Nazis, and then staved off the Soviet Communists, and revived Europe with the Marshall Plan, and continues to this day to protect Europe from the Russia that threatens to march west at any moment?

    Blinken wants to pick up and move on and lead the world forward. Back to normal! Sound, reliable U.S.leadership is back!

    Oh really? the French might ask. Stabbing a NATO ally in the back, sabotaging a signed $66 billion deal with far-off Australia? “Doing,” as the French foreign minister put it, “something Mr. Trump would do”? Not only France but the EU has denounced the U.S.-Australia deal. Some NATO members question how the Atlantic Alliance is served by a business dispute between members that pertains to what the Pentagon calls the “Indo-Pacific” region. And why—when the U.S. is attempting to secure NATO’s participation in a strategy of containing and provoking Beijing—it is not bothering to coordinate with France?

    Is Blinken unaware that France is an imperialist country with vast holdings in the Pacific? Does he know about the French naval facilities at Papeete, Tahiti, or the army, navy and air force bases in New Caledonia? The French conducted their nuclear blasts at Mururora, for god’s sake. As an imperialist country, does not France have the same right as the U.S. to gang up on China with Australia, in France’s corner of the Pacific? And if its close ally the U.S. decides to undermine the deal, should not etiquette have dictated that it at least inform its “oldest ally” about its intentions?

    The French condemnation of the submarines deal has been unprecedentedly sharp, in part, I imagine, due to the implicit disparagement of France as a great power. If the U.S. is urging its allies to join with it in confronting China, why does it not consult with France about an arms deal designed to do that, especially when it supplants one already openly negotiated by a NATO ally? Isn’t it clear that Biden’s appeals for “alliance unity” mean uniting, behind U.S. leadership around preparations for war on China?

    Gradually NATO is fraying. Again, this is a very good thing. I had worried that Biden would quickly work to integrate Ukraine into the alliance, but Merkel seems to have told him no. Europeans don’t want to be dragged into another U.S. war, especially against their great neighbor whom they know much better than Americans and have every reason to befriend.

    France and Germany, who (recall) opposed the U.S. war-based-on-lies on Iraq in 2003, are finally losing patience with the alliance and wondering what membership means other than joining with the U.S. in its quarrels with Russia and China.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 02:00

  • Ivermectin – Truth & Totalitarianism
    Ivermectin – Truth & Totalitarianism

    Authored by Justus R. Hope via TheDesertReview.com,

    Calling out the lie

    “Merck stock surged 10% Friday after it said its investigational pill cuts the risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients…The pill reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%,” Merck and its partner, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, said in a statement Friday.

    “This is a phenomenal result. This is a profound game-changer to have an oral pill that had this kind of effect, this magnitude of effect in patients who are at high risk who are already symptomatic,” former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said Friday on CNBC about results of the interim analysis.

    “Meanwhile, shares of COVID vaccine makers Pfizer and Moderna fell 2.5% and 10%, respectively.”

    This puts Dr. Scott Gottlieb between a rock and a hard place.

    On the one hand, as a member of Pfizer’s Board of Directors, he is paid handsomely to attend a few board meetings per year, yet on the other hand, he must not be too glowing in his praise of the antiviral, which might lead people away from the Pfizer vaccine. Moreover, it could affect sales just as it has already dropped the stock price.

    In 2020, Gottlieb was paid $338,587 by Pfizer. In 2020, he also earned $525,850 as a director of Illumina. Due to his former FDA Chief status, Gottlieb is in high demand as one word of favor from him can send a stock price soaring.

    He has served on multiple other boards, including Tempus Labs, National Resilience, and the Mount Sinai Health System. It must be a daunting task to walk the line by promoting one corporate interest while not offending any of the others.

    But the good news is that soon, Pfizer, too, will be peddling their antiviral drug, which should make up for any drop in their vaccine sales.

    “Pfizer is testing whether its pill—PF-07321332—can prevent infection in people exposed to the virus or benefit patients who have not been hospitalized with COVID-19.”

    Roche and Atea are not far behind with their antiviral pills, and soon all of Big Pharma can get in on the action. They have timed it perfectly.

    While shutting down any competition from repurposed drugs like HCQ or Ivermectin, they deftly rolled out the vaccines first, making sure not to confuse the consumer with antiviral pills that would only be allowed AFTER the majority of the population had been vaccinated. 

    The one glitch is that Merck’s Molnupiravir only surfaced AFTER a prominent scandal involving Merck lying three times.

    Just as Peter would disown Christ three times before the cry of the rooster, Merck would turn their back on their creation with three lies about Ivermectin before they would accept the payoff from the United States government.

    On February 4, 2021, Merck, the corporation behind the monumental Mectizan Program, which rescued the world from River Blindness, told three untruths about Ivermectin.

    Lie #1: No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies;

    FALSE:  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011

    Lie #2: No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease.

    FALSE: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FLCCC-Alliance-Response-to-the-NIH-Guideline-Committee-Recommendation-on-Ivermectin-use-in-COVID19-2021-01-18.pdf

    https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/One-Page-Summary-of-the-Clinical-Trials-Evidence-for-Ivermectin-in-COVID-19.pdf

    Lie #3: A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

    FALSE: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/36858/pdf/

    However, the Monash preclinical study disproved the first statement showing a massive 99.98% reduction in viral load with a single Ivermectin treatment in cell culture.

    The second statement is disproved by the FLCCC’s Public Statement issued January 18, 2021, that reports colossal evidence for Ivermectin’s clinical activity and efficacy against COVID-19 in clinical settings:

    a. Large reductions in mortality rates;

    b. Shorter durations of hospital stay;

    c. Profound reductions in the infectivity rate in both pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis studies;

    d. Faster times to clinical recovery;

    e. Faster times to viral clearance.

    Finally, the third statement concerning “lack of safety data” contradicts the published WHO safety data. In 3.7 billion doses of Ivermectin given over four decades, Ivermectin has proven exceedingly safe.

    Moreover, more than anyone, Merck is in the position to know Ivermectin’s true safety profile as they provided those billions of doses for the Mectizan Donation program.

    However, lying was required, and the payoff came on Wednesday, June 9, 2021, when Merck got a fat reward. They announced the US government had agreed to pay $1.2 billion for 1.7 million doses of their new antiviral, Molnupiravir, BEFORE clinical testing showed either effectiveness or safety. Our hard-earned tax dollars were irresponsibly handed over to Merck by an agency charged with a fiduciary duty to protect our health.

    So in the end, Scott Gottlieb did not endanger Pfizer’s bottom line. Just as Moderna was choreographed to go first in the vaccine rollout, Merck was first with the antiviral, and Pfizer first with the booster. They would take turns as there was more than enough profit to go around. Soon it would be Pfizer’s turn at the antiviral trough, but they had to be patient for now. There was an order and method to this.

    But the craftiest strategy of all was Merck’s: Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.

    This quote has been variously attributed to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister. Regardless of its source, it has proven remarkably effective as a propaganda tactic throughout modern history, and Merck was betting on this to sell the public on Molnupirivar. However, the move backfired. In the case of Ivermectin, they falsely argued that it was ineffective and unsafe while their own drug suffered from both.

    For example, one could argue, “There is a concerning lack of safety data” regarding Molnupirivar. Indeed, it does not have decades of safety data like Ivermectin; it does not even have years. The little safety data pertains to a dearth of Phase II and Phase III clinical trials, which total less than a few thousand patients.

    While Ivermectin’s safety data with over 40 years of treatment in over 3.7 billion doses is truly robust, Molnupiravir’s safety numbers are barely rudimentary. In short, Molnupiravir’s safety data is concerning because of its lack. 

    Of more concern is a recent study showing the alarming potential of Molnupiravir’s metabolite, NHC, to induce mutations. In a peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, the author writes, “The mutagenic effect of NHC has been shown in animal cell cultures, raising concerns on the potential risk of molnupiravir-induced tumorigenesis and the emergence of detrimental mutations in sperm precursor cell generation and embryo development.”

    I don’t know about you, but that would be enough for most of my patients to decide against this drug. With all due respect to Dr. Gottlieb, if the choice were between a drug with a 40-year safety profile of excellence versus a new experimental one that could introduce mutations into germ cells, it would be a no brainer.

    As if this were not enough, another group of researchers at the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center associated with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are also concerned. 

    They write, “The concern would be that mutations in host DNA could contribute to the development of cancer or cause birth defects either in a developing fetus of through incorporation into sperm precursor cells.” 

    This may be the best time to mention that cheap, repurposed drugs, all FDA approved as safe for other conditions, are one of the best ways to address terminal cancers. They have well-defined and often long-term safety profiles, and cocktails of such old drugs hold great promise as adjuncts in cancer prevention and treatment. Moreover, unlike experimental new medicines with little safety testing, repurposed drugs will not give you cancer.

    As for meaningful clinical activity or efficacy in patients with COVID-19, there are also concerns with Molnupiravir. The hospital trials were stopped early. Where is the data for inpatients? Where is the data for patients on ventilators? Where is the evidence for pre-exposure prophylaxis? 

    The limited trials that have been performed only suggest a correlation between Molnupiravir use and a lower rate of hospitalization and fewer deaths based on low numbers of patients. But the evidence is lacking on safety, prevention of disease, and treatment of late disease. This is where the evidence on Ivermectin is overwhelming.

    However, the evidence of effectiveness for Molnupiravir is sketchy at best.

    Moreover, on the use of Molnupiravir in mild and moderate disease, we have one study – only partially completed – showing 7.3% death OR hospitalization in the drug group versus 14.1% of those receiving placebo. The fact that deaths were combined with hospitalizations does not mean that 48% fewer in the treatment group died. It means the sum of deaths and hospitalizations was 48% lower in the treatment group.

    Moreover, the study only involved 775 patients. This is far too few on which to base an approval. Right? Isn’t that what we have been told regarding Ivermectin? After all, we now have over 32 randomized controlled trials of Ivermectin in COVID, reflecting a 58% improvement in the Ivermectin groups compared to placebo. Thus, we have 65 clinical trials in total involving 655 scientists and 47,717 patients. We have been told this is insufficient evidence, so the Merck data on 775 patients cannot possibly be enough if we use the same standard.

    With Ivermectin, we see an average of 86% improvement in 14 prophylaxis studies, a 66% improvement in 29 early treatment trials, a 40% improvement in 22 late treatment trials, a 57% improvement in the 26 mortality trials. This data has been updated to October 1, 2021.

    c19ivermectin.com 

    So, even assuming Molnupiravir effectively reduces death PLUS hospitalization by 48%, we still do not know how reliable this figure will be when looking only at death. Ivermectin’s reduction in death in mild to moderate COVID-19 surpasses this number. 

    Assuming more studies confirm Molnupiravir’s lesser effect at reducing mortality in mild to moderate disease, we are still left with uncomfortable questions about its safety. However, Ivermectin’s excellent long term safety profile is solid, and this alone will lead many to choose Ivermectin OVER Molnupirivar, especially when factoring in the possibilities of mutagenesis and gene toxicity.

    The price of around $700 per course of treatment which involves ten pills, makes it vastly more expensive than Ivermectin, which might be fine if it were considerably more effective. But it isn’t, it is less effective, and it is potentially MUCH more dangerous. The fact the choice is being “forced” does not make it more appealing.

    Perhaps the most distasteful dimension is that the drug was developed through deceit and propaganda under Merck’s scandal with Ivermectin.  

    It is part of an overall mandated program that robs people of their God-given liberty to choose their own medical treatment. 

    The mandates have been fraught with division among leading scientists, including Dr. Robert Malone. Dr. Robert Malone discovered in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection and invented mRNA vaccines while he was at the Salk Institute in 1988. He helped draft “The Physicians Declaration,” which was announced at the Global COVID Summit held in Rome, Italy.

    The Physician’s Declaration is not unlike the US Declaration of Independence, as both documents enumerate a series of injustices that create the need for a Declaration.

    In the case of the US Declaration of Independence, those injustices included taxation without representation, not providing fair hearings or trials – the lack of due process – and “exciting domestic insurrections amongst us.” 

    In the case of the Rome Physician’s Declaration, these injustices include public policymakers who have forced a “one size fits all treatment strategy” to the Pandemic resulting in “needless illness and death.” In addition, physicians have been subject to censorship of ideas, barriers from pharmacies, threats of censure, and loss of license for upholding their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm.

    Censorship of  Senate testimony of Harvard and Yale-educated physicians by YouTube at the behest of government agencies should not be tolerated in a democratic society.

    When the WHO and CDC degenerate into captured agencies that no longer serve the medical interests of the people, something needs to change.

    The United States declared itself free from oppression from England in 1776 with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

    As of today’s date, some 10,000 physicians and health scientists have also signed the modern Physician Declaration and accused the public health agencies of “crimes against humanity.”

    Physicians have declared through this document that they “must be free to practice the art and science of medicine without fear of retribution, censorship, slander, or disciplinary action” and that physicians shall not be restricted from prescribing safe and effective treatments.  A fully informed patient should have the right to choose or decline medical treatment. This absolute right MUST be restored.

    Taking a stand for truth is what is essential now. Over the last 18 months, Americans, indeed citizens of the developed world spanning from the United Kingdom to Australia, have been fed a steady diet of propaganda by  Big Pharma and Big Regulators being aided and abetted by complicit governments, media, and Big Tech.

    These corrupt organizers seem to be driven by a desire for money, power, and control. Most citizens are either willing participants or are those who feel powerless to object. Most physicians who are part of organized medicine dare not speak out for fear of consequences. The NIH influences most of the world’s medical research through the strategic use of its nearly $50 billion annual budget. As a result, it can affect most medical societies, medical journals, most research, and thus it can and does control the way data is analyzed. 

    The top medical journals have even published fraudulent studies to discredit unprofitable repurposed drugs.

    These same medical journals have appointed questionable figures to investigate the origins of COVID-19, those with ties to coverups, and those who are likely to maintain the coverup.

    From the AMA to the FDA to the New England Journal to the Lancet, the NIH controls organized medicine around the globe. But it cannot do so alone, especially abroad, which is why the WHO also figures prominently.

    The WHO budget is about 10% of the NIH at $5.8 billion. 

    The Gates Foundation contributes roughly 10% of the WHO budget. Thus both Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIAID – an arm of the NIH, and Bill Gates, vaccine proponent of the world, play significant roles.

    All those physicians who signed Dr. Malone’s Physician Declaration are genuinely courageous, just as were Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and John Hancock, those men of courage who signed the US Declaration of Independence. 

    And, whether or not most recognize it, we, the citizens of the United States, those of Australia, and the United Kingdom, are living in an increasingly totalitarian world, run by Big Pharma, Big Regulators, and Big Tech where the politicians and governments are secondary.

    This concept is very similar to the “soft totalitarianism” described in the book Live Not by Lies by Rod Dreher. In a thoughtful review, Abe Greenwald notes, “Lies are the lifeblood of totalitarianism; to resist, therefore, is to hold fast to the truth.”

    Our world’s current soft totalitarianism goes unrecognized by most because it is so different in appearance from that of the Soviet Union, yet it is every bit as deadly. In quoting Dreher, totalitarian society is defined by, “An ideology (that) seeks to displace all prior traditions and institutions with the goal of bringing all aspects of society under control of that ideology…A totalitarian state is one that aspires to nothing less than defining and controlling reality.” 

    In this Pandemic, those who do not conform to lockdowns, mask wear, or vaccination protocols are vilified, regardless of the science. As Greenwald observes, our totalitarianism is couched in the guise of “helping and healing others.” We live in a totalitarian “therapeutic culture.” Those who do not conform are branded as “the enemy (of the state).”

    Dreher writes, “It masks its hatred of dissenters from its utopian ideology of helping and healing…In therapeutic culture, which has everywhere triumphed, the great sin is to stand in the way of the freedom of others to find happiness as they wish.”

    As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn often said, the antidote to totalitarianism has always been exposing the truth and then living in truth. It is what is essential now. Just as evil hates the light, lies hate the truth.  

    Dreher correctly observes that living in truth requires courage to stand up for what is right. For example, he offers this quote from a Slovakian dissident:

     “The question is, which is going to win: fear or courage?” he says. “In the beginning, it was mostly a matter of fear. But once you started experiencing freedom—and you felt it, you felt freedom through the things you did— your courage grew. We experienced all this together. We helped one another to gradually build up the courage to do bigger things, like join the Candle Demonstration.” 

    Fear is now falling while courage is rising. The word is slowly getting out through alternative media. Doctors are organizing resistance groups. Whereas six months ago, few patients had heard about Ivermectin, today most know about it, and many take it. 

    There is a reason that so many health care professionals are speaking out against the mandates, and it may have something to do with the fact healthcare is their field. For example, if airline pilots, experts in their field, refused to fly on a specific model of 747 aircraft, would an average person wish to know why, or would they blindly jump on that plane – because the FAA declared it safe? Help get the truth out.

    To patients everywhere, to all those whose voices have been silenced during this Pandemic, I advise the courage to live in the truth, share this message with others, and never yield to fear by remaining silent. Please share this article with your physician(s), share the link below, and ask them to sign the Physician’s Declaration. We are at 10,000 signatures now. When I started a petition on www.change.org this spring, it was taken down by the censors. However, this declaration cannot be taken down.

    Let us reach at least a million signatures. Then, when the signature box is opened for signing by the general public, please sign as well.

    I now invite all physicians and medical scientists to join in truth with Dr. Malone, Dr. Fareed, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Tyson, and Dr. Kory and sign the Rome Physician’s Declaration here. Let us stand for truth, freedom, and Human Rights, which shall always prevail over totalitarianism. Let us honor our sacred Hippocratic Oath.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 10/07/2021 – 00:10

  • US Stealth Jets Become First Fighters To Fly From Japanese Ship Since WWII
    US Stealth Jets Become First Fighters To Fly From Japanese Ship Since WWII

    In yet another move signaling the deepening US-Japan military relationship, two US stealth fighters practiced taking off and landing on Japan’s largest warship, the JS Izumo. The flights happened Sunday, with Japan’s Ministry of Defense releasing photos and video of the event early this week, hyping the major advance in its Maritime Self-Defense Force’s operations.

    Crucially it marked the first time since World War II that fixed-wing aircraft operated from a Japanese warship. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger was earlier quoted as saying, “We’re not going to go on deployment but we’re actually going to fly U.S. Marine Corps F-35s off of a Japanese ship.”

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

    Japan’s military is working on adapting 24,000-ton Izumo class helicopter carriers for fixed-wing operations. The pair of US aircraft – Marine Corps F-35B Lighting II Joint Strike Fighters – conducted successful short takeoff, vertical landings from the mid-sized carrier’s deck.

    The period of joint Japanese and Marine aircraft trials are set to continue aboard the Izumo through October 7. One aviation analysis monitoring site hailed in its headline that “Japan rejoins aircraft carrier club with USMC F-35B landing.”

    Of course, China is sure to take note given also given no less than five total navies currently engaged in warship exercises off Japan, including the US and UK:

    Two U.S. carrier strike groups drilled with the United Kingdom’s Carrier Strike Group 21 (CSG21) and a Japanese big-deck warship over the weekend in a major naval exercise in the waters off the southeast of Okinawa, Japan.

    The exercise involved six different navies – the U.S Navy, the U.K. Royal Navy, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal New Zealand Navy – making up a total of 17 surface ships, which included four aircraft carriers.

    JS Izumo file image

    The drills come after a tense weekend over contested skies near Taiwan, which saw China PLA jet incursions set multiple records in terms of number of aircraft breaching the self-ruled island’s defense identification zone – including 56 jets on Monday alone. 

    The Drive, meanwhile, further details Japan’s near-term carrier ambitions and cooperation with the US Marines as follows:

    After the concept of fixed-wing operations is proven aboard the Izumo, that warship will then undergo more extensive revisions to better support F-35Bs during routine operations over sustained periods. So far, the vessel has received a heat-resistant flight deck to cope with the F-35B’s scorching exhaust, as well as changes to the lighting and deck markings.

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

    Amid the major joint exercises off Japan, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said to reporters on Monday, “We urge Beijing to cease its military, diplomatic, and economic pressure and coercion against Taiwan,” and added that the US will “continue to assist Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defense capability.”  

    Notably, Japan has lately become more vocally and firmly in Washington’s corner of late on the Taiwan issue – also as Japan is engaged in its own small contested island dispute with China off its south – so Beijing is sure to see the latest warship and carrier exercises as aimed in its direction.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 23:50

  • Colorado Hospital Set To Deny Kidney Transplant For Unvaxxed Woman
    Colorado Hospital Set To Deny Kidney Transplant For Unvaxxed Woman

    Now that vaccines are widely available and 56% of the US population is vaccinated (significantly missing President Biden’s Jul. 4 target of 70%), a little less than half of the country is unvaxxed and subjected to shocking and dehumanizing discrimination, making life very stressful. 

    Across the country, the hot-button subject entering the fall is COVID vaccination passes for restaurants and football stadiums in certain cities, counties, and or even states. This has made life painful for the unvaxxed (as planned by the administration) who can’t go to their favorite eatery or cheer on their favorite sports team.

    However, the latest discrimination story of an unvaxxed person is terrifying.

    A Colorado woman with stage 5 kidney failure is scrambling to find a new hospital because she and her donor are unvaxxed, and the hospital system has given them 30 days to get vaccinated or be taken off the transplant list. 

    UCHealth, a healthcare system headquartered in Aurora, Colorado, adopted new transplant rules requiring patients to be fully vaccinated. 

    “Here I am, willing to be a direct donor to her. It does not affect any other patient on the transplant list,” Jaimee Fougner, Leilani Lutali’s kidney donor, told Colorado-based news station CBS4. 

    (credit: Leilani Lutali and Jaimee Fougner)

    “How can I sit here and allow them to murder my friend when I’ve got a perfect kidney and can save her life?” Fougner said. 

    Lutali received a letter from UCHealth last week explaining she and Fougner had until the end of October to begin the vaccine process, or they would be removed from the transplant list. 

    “I said I’ll sign a medical waiver. I have to sign a waiver anyway for the transplant itself, releasing them from anything that could possibly go wrong,” said Lutali. “It’s surgery, it’s invasive. I sign a waiver for my life. I’m not sure why I can’t sign a waiver for the COVID shot.”

    In August, UCHealth told Lutali that being vaxxed wouldn’t be a requirement for the surgery. “At the end of August, they confirmed that there was no COVID shot needed at that time,” she said. “Fast forward to Sept. 28. That’s when I found out. Jamie learned they have this policy around the COVID shot for both for the donor and the recipient.”

    Lutali received this letter from the hospital:

    Both met at bible study almost a year ago, and for either religious reasons or too many uncertainties, they refuse to take the vaccine. 

    “It’s your choice on what treatment you have. In Leilani’s case, the choice has been taken from her. Her life has now been held hostage because of this mandate,” Fougner added.

    They’re still searching for a hospital in Colorado that will do the transplant for unvaxxed people. This is the latest in the shocking discrimination against unvaxxed people. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 23:30

  • WHO Approves First Malaria Vaccine After 30 Years Of Development
    WHO Approves First Malaria Vaccine After 30 Years Of Development

    More than three decades after scientists at GlaxoSmithKline started developing it, a malaria vaccine was finally approved Wednesday by the WHO. The vaccine could help save the lives of 400,000 people who still succumb to malaria every year (more than 50% are children under 5), most in sub-Saharan Africa. The vaccine is formulated for inoculating young children as well as adults.

    Per WSJ, the WHO’s endorsement is a critical step for enabling production and the rollout of the jab, which unfortunately could take years to come into wide use across the continent of Africa.

    The malaria jab will be administered in four doses. It has already been used to inoculate more than 800K children in Ghana, Kenya and Malawi as part of a long-running pilot program.

    In a press release announcing its approval, the WHO said the jab offers “a glimmer of hope” for the Continent’s most vulnerable children and others.

    “Today’s recommendation offers a glimmer of hope for the continent which shoulders the heaviest burden of the disease and we expect many more African children to be protected from malaria and grow into healthy adults,” said WHO Regional Director for Africa Matshidiso Moeti in the release.

    Notably, the vaccine – called TS,S or Mosquirix – is the first jab to ever be deployed against a parasitic disease. The jab was designed to work against Plasmodium falciparum, the most common malaria parasite in Africa, and the deadliest.

    “This is a historic moment. The long-awaited malaria vaccine for children is a breakthrough for science, child health and malaria control,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in the press release.

    But before anybody gets too excited, WSJ points out that the vaccine was only shown to reduce severe malaria cases by 30%. Because of this, and the difficulty of distribution, it could take years to see how effective the vaccine is in the real world.

    While it typically doesn’t overwhelm hospitals, malaria has been steadily killing people by the hundreds of thousands for years.

    Yet its development and approval wasn’t considered an emergency?

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 23:10

  • NYT Gives Russia-Gate CPR, WSJ Pronounces It Dead
    NYT Gives Russia-Gate CPR, WSJ Pronounces It Dead

    Authored by Ray McGovern via AntiWar.com,

    Those who may still think it was Russia that “interfered” with the 2016 election owe it to themselves to read the Sussmann indictment/charging document.

    Spoiler:

    It was the very top officials of the Clinton campaign aided by a lawyer crooked as a hound’s hind leg that interfered in 2016.

    The tricks tried by Sussmann and associates might make even GOP “strategists” like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove blush.

    One must recall that back in 2016 the Clinton campaign folks and their well-heeled coterie of attorneys were sure Mrs. Clinton would win. As the Sussmann charging document shows, there was some expectation of high-level posting in the “incoming” Clinton administration and – alas – absolutely no thought of indictment. This goes a long way to explain the brazenness of it all.

    As discredited former FBI Director James Comey put it in his apologia-sans-apology book, A Higher Loyalty, 

    “I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president …”

     Needless to say, a Clinton presidency would confer automatic immunity on key campaign miscreants and lawyers like Sussmann. Worse still for them, it appears likely that others of their breed may also find themselves criminally referred to the Department of Justice.

    High Stakes

    Were the stakes not so high, one might find it amusing how hard the Times tries to stanch the stench of that long-dead red herring about Donald Trump colluding with the Russians and blaming his victory on – inter alia – Russian “hacking”. But the stakes remain high, and too many people are still suffering from Mad-Maddow/Trump Derangement Syndrome, with the attendant dangers of adding to the current high tension with nuclear-armed Russia.

    In Friday’s article, Times authors Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman bend over backwards in an attempt to “make the worse case the better.”

    Socrates was accused (falsely) of precisely that, but there is no sign yet that anyone at the Times is about to take the hemlock.

    In contrast, The NY Times pettifoggery is absent from today’s Wall Street Journal authoritative piece by the Journal’s Editorial Board, titled “Durham Cracks the Russia Case.”

    Referring to the Sussmann indictment, the Journal editors write:

    “This is no ho-hum case of deception. The special counsel’s 27-page indictment is full of new, and damning, details that underscore how the Russian collusion tale was concocted and peddled by the Clinton campaign. …

    “Sussmann is accused of making false statements to then-FBI general counsel James Baker in a Sept. 19, 2016 meeting when he presented documents purporting to show secret internet communications between the Trump Organization and Russia-based Alfa Bank.

    “The indictment adds new details about the sweeping nature of the Clinton campaign’s effort to falsely tag Donald Trump as in bed with the Russians. The document alleges this extended far beyond the opportunity-research firm Fusion GPS and the fake “dossier” produced by Christopher Steele – though both played a role in the broader effort.”

    “Campaign Lawyer-1” mentioned in the indictment has been identified as former Perkins Coie lawyer/Clinton campaign general counsel, Marc Elias. The indictment makes clear that Elias brought up to date Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, communications director Jennifer Palmieri and foreign policy adviser (now Biden’s national security adviser) Jake Sullivan a few days before Sussmann is said to have lied to the FBI. The latest news is that more indictments may be in the offing.

    This week came additional information suggesting that Durham has still more up his sleeve. A new set of subpoenas is reported to have been served on Perkins Coie after Sussmann was charged.

    So it seems possible – just possible – that special counsel John Durham may be allowed to proceed to full-scale prosecution – this time. His record, however, counsels caution. He had the goods on CIA torturers, for example, and sneaked meekly off when he was told to stop. And so it goes.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 22:50

  • Hollywood Stagehands Vote Overwhelmingly For Authorization To Strike
    Hollywood Stagehands Vote Overwhelmingly For Authorization To Strike

    Members of Hollywood’s International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees have authorized its union to strike over the weekend.

    The decision comes after “months of failed negotiations” between the union and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, CNBC reported this week.

    Matthew Loeb, president of IATSE, said in a statement Monday: “The members have spoken loud and clear. This vote is about the quality of life as well as the health and safety of those who work in the film and television industry. Our people have basic human needs like time for meal breaks, adequate sleep, and a weekend. For those at the bottom of the pay scale, they deserve nothing less than a living wage.″

    This means a strike is now on the table if talks break down further. It marks the first time the IATSE has authorized a strike, with over 90% of eligible ballots cast and about 98% of voters authorizing the strike. 

    “We deeply value our IATSE crew members and are committed to working with them to avoid shutting down the industry at such a pivotal time, particularly since the industry is still recovering from the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic,” the AMPTP responded.

    Recall, we wrote days ago about how negotiations were breaking down. 

    The union has a membership of about 60,000, most of whom are based in Los Angeles. They are threatening to walk off the job, should the union’s leadership – which is countrywide – decide. This means that a strike would affect studios across the U.S., not just in Los Angeles. 

    In total, 1 million jobs “directly tied to film and TV production” could be affected.

    Alongside of a historic labor shortage coming back from the pandemic, production has been on the rise as the studio arms of companies like Netflix and Amazon look to build out their content. Both Netflix and Walt Disney have told shareholders that the lack of new content has been a headwind for streaming sign-ups. 

    The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers says it “put forth a deal-closing, comprehensive proposal that meaningfully addresses the IATSE’s key bargaining issues.” 

    But the union isn’t amused. It wrote to its members: “As you may be aware, negotiations with the major producers have reached a standstill. They refused to reply to our last proposal.”

    The union is pushing for rest and meal breaks, as well as higher pay for its lowest earners, some of whom only make $15 per hour. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 22:30

  • The Deep Politics Of Vaccine Mandates
    The Deep Politics Of Vaccine Mandates

    Authored by Charles Lipson via RealClearPolitics.com,

    The debate over President Biden’s vaccine mandates has focused, understandably, on the tradeoff between individual rights to make medical choices and the potential harm the unvaccinated pose to others.

    That tradeoff is unavoidable.

    It is simply wrong for Biden to say, “It’s not about freedom.” It is.

    It is equally wrong for some Republican governors to say it is all about freedom.

    It’s also about the external effects of each person’s choice. To pretend that tradeoff doesn’t exist is demagoguery. But then, so is most American politics these days.

    What’s missing or underappreciated in this debate?

    The most important thing is that the Biden administration’s “mandate approach” is standard-issue progressivism. The pushback is equally standard. The mandates exemplify a dispute that has been at the heart of American politics for over a century, ever since Woodrow Wilson formulated it as a professor and then president. That agenda emphasizes deference to

    • Experts, not elected politicians,

    • Rational bureaucratic procedures,

    • Centralized power in the nation’s capital, not in the federal states, and

    • A modern, “living constitution,” which replaces the “old” Constitution of 1787 and severs the restraints it imposed on government power.

    Implemented over several decades, this progressive agenda has gradually become a fait accompli, without ever formally amending the Constitution. The bureaucracies began their massive growth after World War II and especially after Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society initiatives of the mid-1960s (continued, with equal vigor, by Richard Nixon).

    The judicial shackles were broken earlier, when Franklin Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court in 1937. Although FDR never followed through, his threat did the trick. The justices yielded to his pressure and began rubber-stamping New Deal programs that, until then, they had rejected as unconstitutional. Gradually, the older judges retired and Roosevelt picked friendly replacements. These judicial issues have reemerged now that progressives no longer dominate the Supreme Court. They are again threatening to pack the court and demanding that today’s justices stick with precedents set by their progressive predecessors (“stare decisis”).

    The pushback against vaccine mandates is partly a debate about these progressive issues concerning the president’s authority and constitutional strictures.

    Mandate opponents say the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to impose these requirements, at least beyond its own workforce. They add that, if the president does wish to impose new rules, he and his executive agencies must go through the normal regulatory process. That process is slow — indeed, too slow to cope with an emergency.

    Biden himself seemed to recognize these constitutional limitations before deciding to ignore them — the second time he’s done so in his brief presidency. That’s a very troubling development, even if the courts overrule his decisions.

    The first time was his fiat decision to extend the moratorium on rent payments, which had been imposed during the worst days of the pandemic. Biden explicitly stated his unconstitutional rationale: It would take the courts time to rule against him and, until then, he could implement the policy. Of course, he also had a political rationale: to placate his party’s far left, which had mobilized over this issue.

    Biden’s extension on the rent moratorium had a second, troubling dimension. It was promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control as a “public health issue.” That was a transparently false rationale in summer 2021 and dealt with housing issues far beyond the CDC’s expertise. The unintended consequence of the moratorium extension, beyond bankrupting small landlords, is to undermine the basic rationale for all progressive rulemaking: that the rules are being made by experts who know much more about their specialized area than do ordinary citizens or their elected representatives. What, pray tell, do experts on infectious disease know about the complexities of the U.S. housing market? Zero.

    Progressive politics depends on public acceptance that experts really know what’s best and that their decisions will produce good outcomes. But trust in experts has collapsed alongside trust in all American institutions over the past half-century. The turning point was the disastrous war in Vietnam, advocated by LBJ’s Harvard advisers and the Whiz Kids in Robert McNamara’s Pentagon. Their failure was captured in the title of David Halberstam’s 1973 bestseller, “The Best and the Brightest.” The calamitous Afghan withdrawal underscored Halberstam’s sarcastic point.

    So did the failure of so many Great Society programs, begun with such hope and fanfare. The most painful experience was “urban renewal,” especially the massive program of building high-rise towers for welfare recipients. Before those towers were torn down, they had destroyed two or three generations of families. Part of the tragedy was that, like so many federal programs, the towers were built everywhere at once. If they had been tried out in a few cities, the problems would have been obvious, the failures remedied or the program abandoned. But Washington almost never does that. Congress funds and the bureaucracies implement mammoth, nationwide programs with no opportunity for feedback or mid-course corrections.

    As public mistrust of institutions grew, a few institutions initially escaped the scorn. The military, for instance, was highly regarded until recently. It will take a heavy blow from the Afghan failure and the new, high-priority program of ideological training for troops. Government health officials were also highly regarded, at least until the botched rollout of Obamacare and the scandals at Veterans’ Affairs hospitals. Still, the public trusted the CDC and Dr. Anthony Fauci at the beginning of the pandemic. They trust them far less today, thanks to false and misleading statements, secrecy about funding the Wuhan virology lab, the absence of clear guidance on many issues, and blunt regulations that ignore important variations, such as natural immunity.

    The effect of this growing mistrust was painfully apparent in President Biden’s mandate announcement. He didn’t rely on persuasion or trust in federal experts. He hectored, demonized, shamed, politicized, and threatened. That has become his routine, along with his refusal to answer the public’s pressing questions.

    Biden’s political problem is that he faces real resistance from voters if he can’t solve the COVID problem, both because it is so serious and because he ran on being able to handle it better than Trump. Since Biden’s speech last week spent a lot of time attacking Republican governors, it was also an exercise in preemptive blame-shifting, in case the mandates fail.

    His approach makes political sense, but it has at least two problems beyond the constitutional questions. One is that it politicizes vaccinations, which could have unintended consequences. Among the most obvious, it shifts the issue away from doctors and public health professionals and into the contentious political arena. Another is that it raises questions about the administration’s hypocrisy. Why do all federal employees, including those with natural immunity, need to get vaccinations but not the illegal immigrants arriving from Central America? That’s clearly a political decision, not a medical one, and it undermines the legitimacy of Biden’s whole approach, which stresses public health and medical experts.

    The president’s speech had another major feature: It relied on vitriolic “wedge politics.” But Biden was elected partly because he promised to end the vitriol and divisiveness of the Trump years. He hasn’t done that. The poster child for his tendentious governing strategy is the second, $3.5 trillion “human infrastructure” bill. Not only does it have no Republican support, it has met serious resistance from centrist Democrats. On his signature spending bills, like his vaccine mandates, Biden is pursuing a unilateral, aggressively partisan approach.

    There’s no question the delta variant poses serious health risks and that, in general, vaccinations help both the individuals who get the jab and everyone around them. But there are serious questions about whether sticks or carrots are the best way to increase vaccination rates; how to convince people to get the vaccine now that trust in public-health experts has eroded; whether politicizing the issue is self-defeating; and what authority Washington has to impose mandates beyond its own workforce.

    The questions about the federal government’s authority — its effectiveness, its constitutionality, and its potential overreach — are among the most important in American politics. They have been for a century, and they won’t be resolved anytime soon.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 22:10

  • White House Discloses Number Of Nukes In US Stockpile For 1st Time In Years
    White House Discloses Number Of Nukes In US Stockpile For 1st Time In Years

    For the first time in years, and in a stark reversal from the Trump presidency – who had ordered a blackout of the data during his administration – the Biden White House has made public the number of nuclear weapons in the US stockpile.

    Citing the importance of “increasing transparency” the State Department said in a Tuesday official report that it is “releasing newly declassified information on the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile to update the information previously released in September 2017.” The report indicated 3,750 nuclear warheads currently in America’s stockpile, and among these 2,000 waiting to be dismantled.

    Biden and Trump had been clearly divided on the issue during the 2020 presidential campaign, with Biden at the time vowing that “administration will work to maintain a strong, credible deterrent while reducing our reliance and excessive expenditure on nuclear weapons.” Trump for his part had greatly ratcheted up spending on the Defense and Energy departments to sustain and modernize the nuclear arsenal, having last requested $44.5 billion for fiscal year 2021.

    According to the newly released official count by the State Dept:

    As of September 2020, the U.S. stockpile of nuclear warheads consisted of 3,750 warheads. This number represents an approximate 88 percent reduction in the stockpile from its maximum (31,255) at the end of fiscal year 1967, and an approximate 83 percent reduction from its level (22,217) when the Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. The below figure shows the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile from 1945 through September 30, 2020.

    The bulk of this dismantling of non-strategic nuclear weapons occurred since 1991 – which correspond to the collapse of the Soviet Union – with the stockpile of nuclear weapons declining over 90% since the end of the Cold War.

    Via US State Department

    This involved the US dismantling 11,683 nuclear warheads from 1994 to 2020, and an additional 711 nuclear warheads since September 30, 2017, according to the numbers.

    The official report gave as rationale for making the numbers public, including to US ‘enemies’ and rivals like Russia and China, the following: “Increasing the transparency of states’ nuclear stockpiles is important to nonproliferation and disarmament efforts, including commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and efforts to address all types of nuclear weapons, including deployed and non-deployed, and strategic and non-strategic,” the State Department said.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 21:50

  • Biden Tells Japan's New PM That US Will Defend Senkaku Islands From China
    Biden Tells Japan’s New PM That US Will Defend Senkaku Islands From China

    Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com, 

    President Biden told Japan’s new Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in a phone call on Monday that the US would defend the Senkaku Islands in the event of a Chinese attack.

    The Senkakus, known as the Diayous in China, are a group of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. They are currently controlled by Japan and are also claimed by China and Taiwan.

    Via Tokyo Review

    In a statement on the call, Japan’s Foreign Ministry said that Biden had “reaffirmed the US’s unwavering commitment to the defense of Japan including the application of Article V of the Japan-US Security Treaty to the Senkaku Islands.”

    Article V is the section of the US-Japan Security Treaty that outlines the mutual defense agreement between the two countries. Kishida told reporters on Tuesday that President Biden had given “strong remarks on the US commitment to defend Japan, including Article V.”

    The Senkaku Islands have turned into a potential flashpoint for a conflict between the US and China since the Obama administration when the US first affirmed it would come to Japan’s defense if the islands were attacked.

    The Biden administration first made the pledge that it would defend the Senkakus to Japan back in January when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin first spoke with his Japanese counterpart.

    Kishida said that he and Biden agreed to work together on “challenges facing neighboring regions such as China and North Korea.” The Japanese leader said he wants to strengthen military ties with the US as well as other “democracies” in Asia and Europe.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 21:30

  • "Osama Bin Laden Is Probably More Popular" – NY Dems Scoff As De Blasio Reportedly Explores Run For Governor
    “Osama Bin Laden Is Probably More Popular” – NY Dems Scoff As De Blasio Reportedly Explores Run For Governor

    Whether Democrats or Republicans, there’s one political question that most Americans can agree on: Mayor Bill de Blasio is leaving NYC in much worse shape than he found it eight years ago.

    Yet, despite facing near-universal criticism, and polling at under 1% nationally during his presidential campaign (which became the butt of endless jokes), political reporters in New York State are sounding the alarm Wednesday morning that the mayor best known for surging crime rates and economic inequality (and eating his pizza with a fork and knife) is exploring a run for governor of the Empire State.

    Earlier this morning, the NYT‘s Katie Glueck reported on Twitter that she had spoken with at least three people close to the mayor who say he’s been holding talks about a potential gubernatorial run, while sounding out some former aides about their potential interest in joining his campaign.

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

    Shortly after breaking the news, Glueck shared some amusing comments about de Blasio’s prospects, shared by fellow Dems who clearly weren’t concerned about protecting their identities. “Osama bin Laden is probably more popular in Suffolk County than Bill de Blasio,” said said Rich Schaffer, the chairman of the county’s Democratic committee, who has already endorsed sitting governor Kathy Hochul (the state’s first female governor) in her bid for a full term.

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

    As the NYT reminds us, there was one memorable moment during the race for the Democratic Primary for mayor where the candidates were asked during a debate whether they would accept de Blasio’s endorsement. Only Andrew Yang raised his hand (though there was some speculation that de Blasio was ‘secretly backing’ Eric Adams, the primary’s winner, who will very likely be elected to succeed de Blasio at Gracie Mansion).

    He’s also already facing significant competition, and not just from Hochul: New York AG Letitia James, who burnished her rep by leading the investigation into former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s sexual transgressions, is believed to be running. So is Jumaane Williams, a progressive Brooklyn Democrat and the city’s current public advocate (a job that once belonged to de Blasio), who is popular with NYC’s professional-class progressives. Should James win the governorship, she would be the first black woman elected governor in any state in the country.

    What does de Blasio have to say about that? Per the NYT:

    Asked whether New York should have another white male governor – Ms. Hochul is the first woman to lead the state; Ms. James and Mr. Williams are Black, and Ms. James could be the first Black woman to govern any state in the country – Mr. de Blasio appeared to brush aside the question last week.

    “We need people of all backgrounds to be involved in government,” he said.

    We’re starting to suspect that even de Blasio doesn’t support a de Blasio candidacy. But as another NY political reporter pointed out, de Blasio doesn’t need to win the governorship to benefit from his campaign. The game is a popular one in the US: run to build up a war chest, then use that war chest not to campaign, but to influence other politicians (because that money can then be given away).

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

    But we thought Democrats were supposed to be the ‘principled’ ones?

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 21:10

  • Dry Bulk Shipping Rates Hit $80,000 Per Day As Buyers Scramble For Coal
    Dry Bulk Shipping Rates Hit $80,000 Per Day As Buyers Scramble For Coal

    By Greg Miller of FreightWaves,

    Yet another sign of stress for energy supplies and global supply chains: Spot rates for large dry cargo ships just topped $80,000 per day for the first time since 2009, and freight derivatives for the fourth quarter — a period when rates for these vessels normally pull back — just spiked.

    Not long ago, it was a different story. On Sept. 20, headlines were dominated by Chinese property developer Evergrande and its impending collapse; fallout to construction and steel demand would assumedly hit future Chinese buying of commodities carried on dry cargo vessels.

    Dry bulk stocks plunged. While spot rates for Capesizes (bulkers with capacity of around 180,000 deadweight tons) held firm at $53,800 per day, forward freight agreement (FFA) derivatives did not. Amid what one broker called “mayhem,” the Q4 FFA contract sank to $36,750 per day, with the December contract all the way down to $29,500. The FFA market signaled: Party over.

    Two weeks later, it has a new message: Party not over. Festivities shall continue until year-end.

    As of Tuesday, spot Capesize rates were up to $80,877 per day, based on the Baltic Exchange 5TC index. That’s 50% higher than two weeks ago when sentiment briefly dimmed.

    Fears on Chinese property development still loom large, but now there’s an even bigger spotlight on Chinese factory blackouts due to electricity rationing and dwindling coal supplies in both China and India.

    More coal to keep the power on in the winter should equal higher bulker rates.

    And as with container shipping, rampant port congestion is slashing effective ship supply, adding more support to rates. Braemar ACM Shipbroking estimates that 5.7% of the entire global dry bulk fleet is now waiting offshore of China.

    FFAs have shot up even faster than physical rates, accelerating their rise on Tuesday. “There are few superlatives appropriate for the price moves,” wrote brokerage Clarksons regarding Tuesday’s FFA trading, citing “monstrous gains.”

    The Q4 Capesize FFA closed at $61,500 per day, up 67% from levels on Sept. 20, with October contracts up 78%, November 59% and December 63% over the same two-week stretch.

    Dry bulk shipping stocks rallied. The Breakwave Dry Bulk Shipping ETF, an exchange-traded fund that buys FFAs, rose 9% Tuesday and hit its highest level since its debut in 2018.

    Shares of Navios Holdings jumped 16%. Shares of Diana Shipping rose 9% and Eagle Bulk 7%. Golden Ocean, Safe Bulkers and Star Bulk gained 6%, and Genco Shipping 5%.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 20:50

  • China Manipulating Google, Bing Search Results To Advance Covid-19 Conspiracy Theories
    China Manipulating Google, Bing Search Results To Advance Covid-19 Conspiracy Theories

    China has been taking advantage of a ‘data void’ in order to flood social media platforms with Chinese-backed conspiracy theories regarding the origins of Covid-19, which in turn affects algorithmic results from popular search engines such as Google and Bing, according to the Washington Post, citing a Tuesday report by the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD).

    The Chinese posts have almost exclusively focused on a theory that Covid-19 was created in a lab at Fort Detrick, home to the US Army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) – which will ring a bell for anyone who read The Hot Zone, and was then purposefully spread throughout Wuhan, China during the October 2019 Military World Games.

    Illustration via China’s state-run Global Times

    By saturating social media platforms with this theory, it now crops up when people search for other things via popular search engines.

    What’s particularly noteworthy about the campaign, researchers said, is that the officials have tapped into a highly effective means for spreading misinformation and disinformation: filling the Internet with misleading content on issues where there’s a dearth of reliable information. The result is that when users search for these more obscure topics — when they type “Fort Detrick” into Google or Bing — they are more likely to see Chinese-backed conspiracy theories.

    …

    According to the report, news search results for Fort Detrick across Google, YouTube and Bing were “dominated” by state-run Chinese media such as CGTN and the Global Times at various times since May. Researchers called the outlets “central to Beijing’s information operations.” -WaPo

    “It gives an advantage to those who are trying to promote this conspiracy because they continue to publish on it over and over and over and over, so that when someone who’s not familiar with the term just Googles it … you tend to get the conspiracy theorist’s point of view,” said Bret Schafer, a media and digital disinformation fellow at ASD who co-authored the report.

    China’s disinformation campaign conceals their own involvement

    We know from government contracts, FOIA records, and leaked emails that the US government was conducting risky gain-of-function research on US soil until former President Obama banned it in 2014 over ethical questions raised by the scientific community. The ‘research’ included manipulating bat Covid to be more transmissible to humans. Instead, the research was shifted overseas to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and laundered through New York nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance – whose CEO Peter Daszak secured lucrative contracts to study and manipulate bat coronaviruses in Wuhan China four months before Obama’s ban.

    The first $666,442 installment of EcoHealth’s $3.7 million NIH grant was paid in June 2014, with similar annual payments through May 2019 under the “Understanding The Risk Of Bat Coronavirus Emergence” project.

    Then, in 2017, a subagency of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci – resumed funding a controversial grant to genetically modify bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China without the approval of a government oversight body.

    Notably, the WIV “had openly participated in gain-of-function research in partnership with U.S. universities and institutions” for years under the leadership of Dr. Shi ‘Batwoman’ Zhengli, according to the Washington Post‘s Josh Rogin.

    In 2017 the “Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (P3CO) Framework was formed within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),” which was tasked with evaluating the risks involved with enhancing dangerous pathogens, as well as whether proper safeguards are in place, before a grant into ‘gain-of-function’ or similarly risky research can be issued. Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) – the subagency which funded EcoHealth – didn’t think the grant needed review, and resumed their relationship with Daszak without flagging it for the P3CO committee, an NIH spokesperson told the Daily Caller.

    We also know (thanks to a FOIA lawsuit by The Intercept) that Daszak wanted to release ‘Chimeric Covid Spike Proteins‘ Into Bat Populations Using ‘Skin-Penetrating Nanoparticles,’ only to be denied by DARPA on the grounds that it was too risky.

    The bid was submitted by Daszak, who was hoping to use genetic engineering to cobble “human-specific cleavage sites” onto bat Covid ‘which would make it easier for the virus to enter human cells’ – a method which would coincidentally answer a longstanding question among the scientific community as to how SARS-CoV-2 evolved to become so infectious to humans.

    Daszak’s proposal also included plans to commingle high-risk natural coronaviruses strains with more infectious, yet less deadly versions. His ‘bat team’ of researchers included Dr. Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as well as US researchers from the University of North Carolina and the US Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center.

    “This is a roadmap to the high-risk research that could have led to the current pandemic,” said Gary Ruskin, executive director of U.S. Right To Know, a group that has been investigating the origins of Covid-19 (via The Intercept).

    And so – China’s Fort Detrick propaganda completely ignores the international collaboration between the US NIH and Wuhan scientists.

    Further reading:

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 20:30

  • Would Americans Benefit From A Government Default?
    Would Americans Benefit From A Government Default?

    Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    The Biden administration’s rhetoric on the debt ceiling has become nothing short of apocalyptic.

    The Treasury Department has announced that a failure to increase the debt ceiling “would have catastrophic economic consequences” and would, as NBC news claims, constitute a “doomsday scenario” that would “spark a financial crisis and plunge the economy into recession.”

    Apparently, the memo went out to the debt peddlers that they are not to hold back when sowing maximum fear over the thought that the US might government might pause its incessant debt accumulation even for a few days. 

    The reality, however, is quite something else.  While a failure to raise the debt ceiling would no doubt cause short-term disruptions, the fact is the medium- and long-term effects would prove beneficial by reining in the regime’s chokehold on the American economy and financial system. 

    This is explained in a recent column by Peter St. Onge in which he examines just how much of a problem default really is:

    In 2021 the US government plans to spend $6.8 trillion. Of which about half is borrowed — $3 trillion. So if they can’t raise the ceiling, they’d have to cut that $3 trillion.

    Mainstream media, naturally, claims this is the end of the world. CBS estimates it would cost 6 million jobs and $15 trillion in lost wealth—comparable to the 2008 crisis, which was also caused by the federal government. CNN, more colorfully, claims cascading job losses and “a near-freeze in credit markets.” They conclude, falsely, that “No one would be spared.”

    Considering the source, we can guess these predictions are overblown. So what would happen?

    Well, $3 trillion is a lot of money—roughly 15% of America’s GDP. But we have to remember where that $3 trillion came from. The government, after all, doesn’t actually create anything, every dollar it spends came out of somebody else’s pocket. Whose pocket? Part of the $3 trillion was bid away from private borrowers like businesses, and the rest was siphoned from peoples’ savings by the Federal Reserve creating new money.

    This means that, yes, GDP would decline sharply. But wealth would actually grow, perhaps substantially. The businesses would be able to buy things they need, while the savers keep their money that was doing useful things like paying their retirement.

    So GDP drops, wealth soars.

    Now, there will be near-term pain, simply because the GDP drop comes before the private borrowing ramps up, while those retirement savings are no longer being siphoned to pay for parties at strip clubs or, say, another trillion for farting cows.

    So, yes, it will be a sharp drop in GDP. But so long as government stays out of the way, choosing the prudent 1920 response of doing nothing, the recovery will be very rapid. Why would they do nothing? After all, governments don’t like staying out of the way these days. Because a government that suddenly loses half it’s budget is going to find a lot of things not worth doing. Given a choice between defunding government workers’ pensions or defunding economy-crushing Green New Deals, governments will choose their own.

    So that’s short-term: pain, but less than it seems. And that’s where the magic begins. Because ending deficits fundamentally reduces governments’ long-term ability to prey on the people’s wealth.

    This is because debt and money printers are much less obvious than taxes, which are painful and make more enemies. So a default becomes a “back door” to move government back towards its traditional “parasite” role rather than the “predator” role it’s taken on since Nixon unleashed the money printers. Especially since Covid-19, when lockdowns were bought with fresh money and deficits. I wrote about this predatory evolution a few months ago, but the bottom line is government default is a tremendous investment in our future prosperity.

    Ultimately, when a media pundit or Janet Yellen predicts the end of the world if debt doesn’t continue to skyrocket ever upward, they are simply calling for a continuation of the status quo.

    And what does the status quo mean? It means a world in which the US government continues to spent trillions of dollars it doesn’t have, made possible through monetizing massive amounts of debt and forcing taxpayers to devote ever more of their own wealth and income to paying off an ever-more-huge chunk of interest. 

    It also means more government spending, which—regardless of whether it’s funded by debt or by taxes—causes malinvestment and, through the redistribution of wealth, rewards the politically powerful at the expense of everyone else. In other words, its keeps Pentagon generals and Big Pharma executives living in luxury while the taxpayers are lectured about the need to “pay America’s bills.” 

    Rather, as Mark Thornton noted in  2011, the right thing to do is lower the debt ceiling. Thornton explains the many benefits, ranging from effective deregulation to freeing up capital for the private sector: 

    If Congress passed legislation that systematically reduced the debt ceiling over time, the economy could be rebuilt on a solid foundation. Entrepreneurs in the productive sectors would realize that an ever-increasing proportion of resources (land, labor, and capital) would be at their disposal, while companies that capitalized on the federal budget would have an ever-declining share of such resources.

    Congress would have to cut the pay and benefits of its employees (FDR cut them by 25 percent in the depths of the Great Depression) as well as the number of such employees. Real wage rates would decline, allowing entrepreneurs to hire more employees to produce consumer-valued goods.

    Congress would have to cut back on its far-flung regulatory operations, which are in fact one of the biggest drags on the economy due to the burden and uncertainty that Obama and Congress have created in terms of healthcare, financial-market, and environmental regulations. A recent study by the Phoenix Center found that even a small reduction of 5 percent, or $2.8 billion, in the federal regulatory budget would result in about $75 billion in increased private-sector GDP each year and the addition of 1.2 million jobs annually. Eliminating the job of even a single regulator grows the American economy by $6.2 million and creates nearly 100 private-sector jobs annually.

    Under a reduced debt ceiling, the federal government would also have to sell off some of its resources. It has tens of thousands of buildings that are no longer in use and tens of thousands of buildings that are significantly underused—about 75,000 buildings in total. It also controls over 400 million acres of land, or over 20 percent of all land outside of Alaska, which is almost wholly owned by the government. There is also the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and many other assets that could be sold off to cover short-term budget shortfalls.

    Of course, reducing the debt ceiling would force the government to stop borrowing so much money from credit markets. This would leave significantly more credit available for the private sector. The shortage of capital is one of the most often cited reasons for the failure of the economy to recover.

    Lowering the debt ceiling would force federal-government budget cutting on a large scale, and this would free up resources (labor, land, and capital) and force a cutback in the federal government’s regulatory apparatus. This would put Americans back to work producing consumer-valued goods.

    Unfortunately, the public has been fed a steady diet of rhetoric in which any reduction in government spending will bring economic Armageddon. But it’s all based on economic myths, and Thornton concludes:

    Passing an increase in the debt ceiling merely perpetuates the myth that there is any ceiling or control or limit on the government’s ability to waste resources in the short run and its willingness to pass the burden of this squander onto future generations.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 20:10

  • Top Secret CIA Cable Admits "Dozens" Of Agents Abroad Are Being Captured, Killed
    Top Secret CIA Cable Admits “Dozens” Of Agents Abroad Are Being Captured, Killed

    It was revealed this week in a bombshell New York Times report that the CIA has raised the alarm with all its overseas stations and officers that an unusually high number of US informants are being captured and executed abroad. There are “dozens” of such instances, according to an agency memo.

    The report is an incredibly rare instance of the media getting hold of a fresh, very recent highly classified memo that’s also sure to be embarrassing for the agency. “The message, in an unusual top-secret cable, said that the CIA’s counterintelligence mission center had looked at dozens of cases in the last several years involving foreign informants who had been killed, arrested or most likely compromised,” the NYT writes. 

    “Although brief, the cable laid out the specific number of agents executed by rival intelligence agencies — a closely held detail that counterintelligence officials typically do not share in such cables.”

    Image: AFP/Getty 

    The cable warned its officers across the globe against put “mission over security” – which it strongly suggested was a key cause that’s leading to poor tradecraft, putting agents at risk. “Agents” in this context means foreign and local assets recruited by the CIA to spy in their home countries, a dangerous endeavor which puts all the risk on the foreign person (and their family) who feeds sensitive information to their CIA handler. 

    The cable also cited the growing capabilities and awareness on the part of foreign and rival agencies of US intelligence’s methods. According to the NY Times synopsis of what’s in the top secret memo:

    The cable highlighted the struggle the spy agency is having as it works to recruit spies around the world in difficult operating environments. In recent years, adversarial intelligence services in countries such as Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan have been hunting down the CIA’s sources and in some cases turning them into double agents.

    Especially the growing biometric technology deployed by China is seen as a serious problem for maintaining local assets’ cover.

    The report continues by spelling out, “The large number of compromised informants in recent years also demonstrated the growing prowess of other countries in employing innovations like biometric scans, facial recognition, artificial intelligence and hacking tools to track the movements of CIA officers in order to discover their sources.”

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

    Though this wasn’t addressed in the cable, there’s also the possibility of leaks and the question of double-agents gaining compromising material, further exposing other assets. 

    The NY Times report further quotes former CIA operatives who described a somewhat flawed internal system and bureaucracy that’s set up to reward ambition but not recognize when officers prudently exercise restraint. Promotions are often handed out to operatives who recruit the most agents abroad. 

    One former CIA operative, Douglas London, told The Times, “No one at the end of the day is being held responsible when things go south with an agent.” But of course in general it remains that few if anyone are ever held accountable for failures when it comes to Washington’s massive national security state bureaucracy. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 19:50

  • DOJ Announces Launch Of National Crypto Enforcement Team As FDIC Mulls Insuring Stablecoins
    DOJ Announces Launch Of National Crypto Enforcement Team As FDIC Mulls Insuring Stablecoins

    One of the catalysts behind crypto’s impressive surge in the past week emerged last Friday, when the WSJ reported that the Biden admin was seeking to regulate stablecoin issuers as banks and was “considering ways to impose bank-like regulation on the cryptocurrency companies that issue stablecoins, including prodding the firms to register as banks.” Coming at the same time as both Jerome Powell and Gary Gensler said they did not seek to bank crypto, the news was confirmation that the regulatory apparatus was seeking to integrate the crypto space within the confines of the state – especially since taxes on cryptos are expected to generate tens of billions in government revenues to the Democrats “deficit neutral” multi-trillion spending plan. In short, this was very good news for digital tokens as it eliminated the worst possible outcome: a China-style terminal crackdown on the sector.

    Today, we got more good news when Cointelegraph reported that an official from the Office of the Attorney General said the United States government is going to take a more active role in enforcement action against actors using cryptocurrencies for money laundering and other cybercrimes. In effect, the DOJ is already policing cryptos as if they were securities, providing an implicit security to investors even though the formal regulatory treatment of cryptos remains nebulous.

    Speaking at the Aspen Institute Cyber Summit on Wednesday, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said the Justice Department had launched the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team, who aim is to target platforms “that help criminals launder or hide their criminal proceeds.” Monaco cited her office’s work against Darknet-based Bitcoin (BTC) mixing service Helix in August but said the U.S. government should be doing more.

    “We want to strengthen our capacity to dismantle the financial ecosystem that enables these criminal actors to flourish and — quite frankly — to profit from what they’re doing,” said Monaco. “We’re going to do that by drawing on our cyber experts and cyber prosecutors and money-laundering experts.”

    Monaco, who has often been a central figure in the U.S. government’s response to major ransomware and cyberattacks involving cryptocurrency payments, added that “cryptocurrency exchanges want to be the banks of the future. We need to make sure that folks can have confidence when they’re using these systems, and we need to make sure we’re poised to root out abuse that can take hold on them.” She should know: she was part of a task force that “found and recaptured” millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin paid to the allegedly Russia-based DarkSide hackers following an attack on the Colonial Pipeline system in May.

    What Monaco didn’t say is that by accelerating enforcement actions, the DOJ was in effect providing confidence to millions of retail investors that someone was looking after their interest in a market which the government had for years depicted as the “wild wild west.” Needless to say, such as intervention will only increase retail participation.

    Meanwhile, in a clear indication that the government is already planning how to capitalize, and not penalize, the incipient stablecoin industry, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, or FDIC, a key U.S. banking regulator, is reportedly studying whether certain stablecoins might be eligible for its coverage, Coindesk reported citing five people familiar with the agency’s thinking said.

    The agency is trying to analyze what so-called pass-through FDIC insurance might look like for the reserves that stablecoin issuers hold at banks, the sources said. Such coverage would insure holders of the tokens against losses up to $250,000 if the bank holding the collateral were to fail.

    The FDIC is also looking at what regular, direct deposit insurance might look like for banks that want to issue stablecoins, people familiar with the discussions said.

    “This is all part of a process by which they are trying to bring stablecoins into the banking system in a responsible manner,” one insider said. “It depends on what’s backing the stablecoins. If it’s backed by reserves at the Fed[eral Reserve] for cash then I think you just make the argument that it’s a deposit. If it’s backed by Treasurys, I think you’ll have a hard time treating it as a deposit.”

    That all may be, but once again it misses the forest for the trees, namely that the government is taking increasingly permissive steps to give new investors some implicit comfort that the government is watching out for their interests and, in the case of stablecoins, that they may even be insured from total losses should the stablecoin issuer collapse.

    That said, it wasn’t exactly clear how an FDIC backstop would work for stablecoins: if the FDIC went ahead and provided deposit insurance for stablecoins, it would apply only if a bank that was banking a stablecoin issuer or that was issuing a stablecoin itself went into receivership. Even in this scenario, it’s rare that FDIC insurance would enter into the picture because the agency generally takes a failed bank’s assets and deposits and sells them to a healthy bank.

    “The FDIC is probably looking at whether stablecoins can count as deposits or whether someone’s ownership of a stablecoin is a deposit at the stablecoin issuer,” said Todd Phillips, a former FDIC lawyer who is now the director of financial regulation and corporate governance at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank.

    The coverage could present challenges for issuers. Typically, these companies identify customers when they deposit cash for stablecoins or redeem the tokens for cash. But since stablecoins run on open, public blockchain networks (usually Ethereum), theoretically anyone with a crypto wallet that hasn’t been blacklisted can receive stablecoins from and send them to other wallets.

    “One thing to remember is that each person has insurance of only up to $250,000,” said Phillips. “So, the stablecoin issuer would need to keep track of who is the current holder of their stablecoin, and how many they own.” Whatever the FDIC insures has to not compromise the rest of the agency’s mission, he said.

    How the agency proceeds could potentially help protect consumers, Phillips added.

    “The FDIC basically has one overriding mission which is to ensure the safety of the Deposit Insurance Fund, the DIF,” Phillips said. “If the FDIC were to insure a stablecoin, that insurance would come out of the DIF and the FDIC will want to be very sure that they are on legal footing and that whatever they do doesn’t risk the DIF.”

    “The FDIC has strict rules as to which institutions may call themselves FDIC-insured or use the FDIC logo for advertising,” he said. “Just as how the FDIC’s logo on a bank’s website allows savers to be confident that the bank is a safe, insurance of particular stablecoins and permission to use the FDIC logo would provide clarity about which stablecoins, up to the insurance limit, will not lose value.”

    It’s likely that the agency will ask for public comment from the industry before any actual policy change is taken, Phillips said.

    “I also imagine there are conversations going on between the four FDIC directors, since you need a majority of them to approve a new regulation,” he said.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 19:31

  • Inventory At US Car Dealers Falls To New Record Low
    Inventory At US Car Dealers Falls To New Record Low

    As discussed yesterday, US light vehicle sales for September came at a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 12.2MM per Wards and 12.3MM per Motor Intelligence, a number below consensus expectations of 12.5MM. A US SAAR in the low 12MM range is down about 25% yoy from about 16.3MM in September 2020 and down in the mid single digits sequentially from the August SAAR of about 13.1MM. The biggest reason for the decline is the continued record low inventory levels.

    Some more details:

    In September, car sales were down about 33% yoy, SUV sales were down about 20% yoy, and pickup truck sales were down about 30% yoy. Pickups and SUVs as a percent of total units were 19% and 55%, respectively (vs. 20% and 51% in September 2020). Per Motor Intelligence, Ford sales were down about 18% yoy and GM sales were down about 53% yoy in September. Ford’s market share in September increased yoy to 15% from 14%, and GM’s market share declined yoy to 11% from 17%. We believe that GM faced particularly acute challenges in 3Q21 (after doing relatively better in 2Q).

    Contrary to ICEs, September EV sales were up about 26% yoy, and hybrid sales were up about 32% yoy, per Motor Intelligence. Notably, Tesla does not report monthly sales. That said, Tesla reported strong 3Q21 global deliveries that were +73% yoy, implying that its EV sales in September in the US were likely strong.

    Incentive spending per vehicle was down over 40% yoy, and down about 3% sequentially in September. Not surprisingly, in a market that has never been tighter, September’s industry incentive spending per vehicle was down over 40% yoy and down about 3% sequentially to about $2.4K per vehicle (per Motor Intelligence). Industry pricing should remain strong as component shortages continue to weigh on production in the short term, and dealer inventory remains low.

    Inventory

    Finally, the punchline: according to Goldman, inventory at US dealers declined sequentially to ~900k from just below 1.0 mn in August 2021, and down from 2.6 mn in September 2020. Industry DOI came in at 22 days compared to 23 days in August 2021 and 48 days in September 2020. Pickup truck DOI was 35 days (vs. 32 in August 2021 and 48 in September 2020), SUV DOI was 20 days (vs. 21 in August 2021 and 47 in September 2020), and car DOI was 16 days (vs. 18 in August 2021 and 51 in September 2020).

    Inventories at dealers continued to fall from already historically low levels, and it will take time for inventory at dealers to return to normalized levels given the strong demand for vehicles coupled with ongoing supply chain challenges (particularly with semiconductor chip shortages, but also due to shipping constraints).

    Implications

    Similar to prior months, historically low inventory levels at dealerships continue to weigh on industry sales, and since nothing is likely to change in the short-term, finished vehicle inventory supply/demand will remain tight over the near to intermediate term and weigh on industry sales, driven primarily by supply chain issues (such as semiconductor shortages) coupled with strong sell-through (demand indicators are generally strong, albeit moderating slightly). As a result, most strategists expect new vehicle pricing to remain at a high level in 2021 and decline only modestly over the course of 2022.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 19:10

  • As US Stocks Stumble, SecState Blinken Suddenly Urges China To "Act Responsibly" On Evergrande
    As US Stocks Stumble, SecState Blinken Suddenly Urges China To “Act Responsibly” On Evergrande

    Since the crisis in China’s housing market begin to explode as Evergrande’s massive ponzi pile-up started to plunge – which followed China’s tech crackdown that smashed Chinese tech firms lower, and China’ education system crackdown which pummeled China’s education stocks – the ‘expected’ contagion has apparently been modest at worst and Washington’s politerati have been quiet on the issues “over there.”

    However, the last couple of weeks have seen the teflon market in the US start to shake a little…

    Which may help to explain why Secretary of State Antony Blinken has suddenly decided to chime in, demanding China “act responsibly” in how it addresses (translation: bails out) the potential impact of an Evergrande default crisis.

    “China has to make sovereign economic decisions for itself, but we also know that what China does economically is going to have profound ramifications, profound effects, on literally the entire world because all of our economies are so intertwined,” Blinken said Wednesday in an interview in Paris with Bloomberg Television.

    “So certainly when it comes to something that could have a major impact on the Chinese economy we look to China to act responsibly and to deal effectively with any challenges,” he added.

    In other words – “fix it!” – before this things blows up all the good work we have done by puking trillions of free money into markets. Ironically, this demand is coming as US political chaos escalates.

    We look forward to Beijing demanding that Washington “act responsibly” in dealing with USA’s sovereign risk…

    Source: Bloomberg

    The message: “Don’t throw stones in glass houses (or shower there).”

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 18:50

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 06

Today’s News 6th October 2021

  • Swiss Police Raid Credit Suisse Offices As Greensill Investigation Heats Up
    Swiss Police Raid Credit Suisse Offices As Greensill Investigation Heats Up

    Unsurprisingly given the large number of municipalities in Germany, Switzerland and elsewhere that invested in Greensill, either via Credit Suisse and its ‘trade finance’ funds, or by placing deposits with Greensill’s Bavaria-based bank. In the end, plenty of small towns were swindled by Greensill’s downfall – it wasn’t all wealthy individuals and sovereign wealth funds.

    And so, as the months have passed since Greensill filed for administration, prosecutors around the world have been ramping up investigations into the firm with a focus on fraud or wrongdoing perpetrated by its leaders, or its enablers (including banks like Credit Suisse that helped package and sell Greensill’s assets in their “trade finance” funds.

    Well, with the noose presumably closing around Greensill, the FT reports that Swiss police have raided the offices of Credit Suisse and seized documents relating to the collapse of Credit Suisse’s $10 billion in Greensill funds.

    The raid was ordered by Zürich’s cantonal public prosecutor. Credit Suisse acknowledged the raid to the FT, but the bank insisted CS wasn’t the target of the probe, and was merely cooperating with the probe into Greensill.

    However, the notion that CS might bear some criminal liability here isn’t all that far-fetched. It has already been established that Credit Suisse sold the trade-finance funds – packed with assets that were essentially a collection of invoices – to top clients by touting their high ratings and supposedly low risk structure.

    Long before Greensill’s collapse, it was revealed by the FT that the CS trade finance funds might be functioning, in reality, as a way to secretly (and perhaps illegally)  prop up SoftBank Vision Fund portfolio companies.

    Even the FT acknowledges that charges against Credit Suisse would be a problem for CS, especially on top of all the class-action lawsuits that have been filed.

    A number of class-action lawsuits have already been filed by angry investors. Criminal charges by Swiss authorities would be a significant fillip for their legal efforts, in which questions have been raised over the tight relationship between Credit Suisse and Greensill, and the amount of due diligence the bank did.

    Whatever prosecutors find in this trove of documents, we’re certainly waiting with baited breath to see what prosecutors in this case do next.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 02:45

  • Europe's Energy Crisis Presents A Real Danger
    Europe’s Energy Crisis Presents A Real Danger

    Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

    This week the wholesale price of electricity has exceeded the psychological barrier of 200 euros per megawatt hour in most countries of the European Union. Although the daily price currently only affects 15% of the energy sold, since the rest is locked for almost twelve months since last winter at much lower prices, it is a sign of future risk. Thousands of contracts are going to have to be revised with huge price increases in the next three months when the locked contracts expire.

    The price of liquefied natural gas (LNG) has soared to $34/mmbtu delivered in December and January. In comparable energy terms it would be about $197 per barrel of oil equivalent, according to Morgan Stanley. Meanwhile, the price of natural gas (NBP) has risen more than 200% in 2021.

    The price of CO2 emission rights has increased more than 1,000% since 2017, and more than 200% in 2021.

    This concept, which is a hidden tax for which the governments of the European Union are going to collect more than 21 billion euros in 2021, adds to the inflationary spike.

    These extraordinary tax revenues should be used to mitigate the price increases in consumer bills and avoid an energy crisis in Europe that will sink the recovery.

    Two key factors explain the rise in energy prices and in both there is a responsibility of governments:

    1. The forced closure of the economy is a key factor to understand the damage generated in the supply chains, and

    2. the prohibition of investment in gas resources and abandoning nuclear in Germany has led to a more volatile and expensive energy mix in peak demand periods.

    This, coupled with a political decision to impose a volatile and intermittent energy mix has left Europe much more dependent and exposed to gas price fluctuations.

    Renewable energies work 20% of the time and when they do not work, the only guarantee of supply is to use natural gas, which tends to happen as Asia demand rises and when its price has skyrocketed.

    Of course, demand is a very important factor, but we cannot forget that, in natural gas, as in coal, there is no supply problem. There is, in fact, excess capacity.

    Under normal circumstances, the price of natural gas and CO2 would have moderated once the base effect dissipated -in June-, but we forget the disastrous impact of monetary and government interventionism.

    The rise in CO2 emission rights is directly the fault of the tax voracity of European governments, which have massively limited the supply of these rights so that the price rises. Additionally, the increase of many goods and services is directly due to the massive money supply growth in 2020, well above the demand for money, generating inflation by political decree.

    I do not understand how the fiscal voracity of some governments blinds them to two important risks:

    1. an energy crisis that leaves businesses and families suffocated by a price increase caused by political decisions, and

    2. a massive reaction of the population against environmental policies when they see prices skyrocket due to planning errors (more volatile and intermittent energy mix and dependent on gas) and legislation (charging citizens with the full cost of environmental policies and making those who pollute pay, and those who do not, pay even more ).

    The most cautious estimates warn that the energy crisis can leave up to 25% of companies (small and medium enterprises, SMEs) in Europe in bankruptcy – since for them energy is 33% of their costs – and erode up to 1.5% of growth of the eurozone, which is already poor anyhow.

    Europe needs a balanced and non-ideological energy mix and a competitive energy transition where it is essential to have nuclear and natural gas as back-up where technology and competition drive competitiveness.

    Additionally, the Eurozone cannot create extractive mechanisms that destroy the purchasing power of citizens’ wages and savings and then blame others for inflation.

    What Europe needs is more competition, technology and innovation and less interventionism. This energy crisis is not going to be the fault of the market, but of the ideological stubbornness of politicians who ignore economic calculations.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 02:00

  • Whitehead: The Police State's Reign Of Terror Continues… With Help From The Supreme Court
    Whitehead: The Police State’s Reign Of Terror Continues… With Help From The Supreme Court

    Authored by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead via The Rurtherford Institute,

    “Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges.”

    – George Carlin

    You think you’ve got rights? Think again.

    All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.

    This is the grim reality of life in the American police state.

    In fact, in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs, our so-called rights have been reduced to mere technicalities, privileges that can be granted and taken away, all with the general blessing of the courts.

    This is what one would call a slow death by a thousand cuts, only it’s the Constitution being inexorably bled to death by the very institution (the judicial branch of government) that is supposed to be protecting it (and us) from government abuse.

    Court pundits, fixated on a handful of politically charged cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term dealing with abortion, gun rights and COVID-19 mandates, have failed to recognize that the Supreme Court—and the courts in general—sold us out long ago.

    With each passing day, it becomes increasingly clear that Americans can no longer rely on the courts to “take the government off the backs of the people,” in the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. When presented with an opportunity to loosen the government’s noose that keeps getting cinched tighter and tighter around the necks of the American people, what does our current Supreme Court usually do?

    It ducks. Prevaricates. Remains silent. Speaks to the narrowest possible concern.

    More often than not, it gives the government and its corporate sponsors the benefit of the doubt, seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government interests than with upholding the rights of the people enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

    Rarely do the concerns of the populace prevail.

    Every so often, the justices toss a bone to those who fear they have abdicated their allegiance to the Constitution. Too often, however, the Supreme Court tends to march in lockstep with the police state.

    As a result, the police and other government agents have been generally empowered to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance.

    In recent years, for example, the Court has ruled that police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits; police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips; Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of “security”; citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it; police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside; police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime; police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike; police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense”; police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home; and it’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name.

    Moreover, it was a unanimous Supreme Court which determined that police officers may use drug-sniffing dogs to conduct warrantless searches of cars during routine traffic stops. That same Court gave police the green light to taser defenseless motorists, strip search non-violent suspects arrested for minor incidents, and break down people’s front doors without evidence that they have done anything wrong.

    The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases have delivered devastating blows to the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

    By remaining silent, the Court has affirmed that: legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police; the military can arrest and detain American citizens; students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school; police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law; trouble understanding police orders constitutes resistance that justifies the use of excessive force; and the areas immediately adjacent to one’s apartment can be subjected to warrantless police surveillance and arrests.

    Make no mistake about it: when such instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution, one can only conclude that the system is rigged.

    By refusing to accept any of the eight or so qualified immunity cases before it last year that strove to hold police accountable for official misconduct, the Supreme Court delivered a chilling reminder that in the American police state, “we the people” are at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to ‘serve and protect.”

    This is how qualified immunity keeps the police state in power.

    Lawyers tend to offer a lot of complicated, convoluted explanations for the doctrine of qualified immunity, which was intended to insulate government officials from frivolous lawsuits, but the real purpose of qualified immunity is to rig the system, ensuring that abusive agents of the government almost always win and the victims of government abuse almost always lose.

    How else do you explain a doctrine that requires victims of police violence to prove that their abusers knew their behavior was illegal because it had been deemed so in a nearly identical case at some prior time?

    It’s a setup for failure.

    A review of critical court rulings over the past several decades, including rulings affirming qualified immunity protections for government agents by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order, protecting the ruling class, and insulating government agents from charges of wrongdoing than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

    Indeed, as Reuters reports, qualified immunity “has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.”

    Worse, as Reuters concluded, “the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police.”

    For those in need of a reminder of all the ways in which the Supreme Court has made us sitting ducks at the mercy of the American police state, let me offer the following.

    As a result of court rulings in recent years, police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless searches. Police can claim qualified immunity for warrantless arrests based on mere suspicion. Police can claim qualified immunity for using excessive force against protesters. Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back. Police can claim qualified immunity for shooting a mentally impaired person. Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.  Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a reclined car seat or driving too carefully. Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime.  Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” Not only are police largely protected by qualified immunity, but police dogs are also off the hook for wrongdoing.

    Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. Police can use knock-and-talk tactics as a means of sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous. Police can recklessly open fire on anyone that might be “armed.” Police can destroy a home during a SWAT raid, even if the owner gives their consent to enter and search it. Police can suffocate someone, deliberately or inadvertently, in the process of subduing them.

    To sum it up, we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out with impunity against individuals posing little or no real threat.

    So where does that leave us?

    For those deluded enough to believe that they’re living the American dream—where the government represents the people, where the people are equal in the eyes of the law, where the courts are arbiters of justice, where the police are keepers of the peace, and where the law is applied equally as a means of protecting the rights of the people—it’s time to wake up.

    We no longer have a representative government, a rule of law, or justice.

    Liberty has fallen to legalism. Freedom has fallen to fascism.

    Justice has become jaded, jaundiced and just plain unjust.

    And for too many, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the American dream of freedom and justice for all has turned into a living nightmare.

    Given the turbulence of our age, with its government overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, profit-driven prisons, corporate corruption, COVID mandates, and community-wide lockdowns, the need for a guardian of the people’s rights has never been greater.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 10/06/2021 – 00:05

  • Which Countries Have The Most Nuclear Weapons?
    Which Countries Have The Most Nuclear Weapons?

    In theory, nuclear weapon stockpiles are closely held national secrets. The leading countries have rough estimates that aren’t regularly updated, newly nuclear countries keep their capabilities vague and unclear, and Israel has never officially confirmed a nuclear weapons program.

    But, as Visual Capitalist’s Omri Wallach details below, thanks to limited disclosures, records, and leaks, we can visualize the full extent (Editor’s note: Exact numbers of nuclear warheads possessed by countries are closely guarded state secrets, with the FAS estimate being the closest, most-used, and most-trusted international approximation available) of the world’s nuclear arsenal. This graphic uses estimated nuclear warhead inventories from the Federation of American Scientists as of August 2021.

    Based on these estimates, there are just nine countries with nuclear weapons in the world

    Nuclear Weapons, by Country

    The nuclear arms race has always centered around the U.S. and Russia.

    After the end of World War II and well into the Cold War, the world’s two superpowers raced to build more nuclear weapons (and more capable nuclear weapons) than the other.

    Even while international organizations lobbied for the end of nuclear proliferation, the world’s nuclear weapon stockpile grew to a peak of 70,300 total warheads in 1986.

    As arms agreements and non-proliferation treaties started to gain greater momentum, the U.S. and Russia cut back on stockpiles while new countries with nuclear weapons started to pop up.

    Despite reducing their stockpiles significantly since the end of the Cold War, Russia and the U.S. still own around 90% of all nuclear warheads in the world.

    Far behind them are China and France, which started testing nuclear weapons in 1964 and 1960 respectively. The UK has the fifth-most nuclear weapons today, though it was the third country in the world to develop them after the U.S. and Russia in 1952.

    The countries with fewer than 200 nuclear weapons are regional rivals India and Pakistan, which first tested nuclear weapons in the 1970s, and North Korea, which began to operate uranium fabrication plants and conduct explosive tests in the 1980s.

    Israel is also estimated to have fewer than 200 nuclear weapons, and reports have its weapons program dating back to the 1960s. However, the country has never confirmed or announced its nuclear capabilities.

    Countries With Nuclear Weapons, by Warhead Status

    Though the world has 13,132 nuclear weapons, that doesn’t mean they’re all ready to fire.

    Weapons (or “warheads”) are delivered by missile, and countries don’t keep all of their nuclear warheads primed for use. The estimation of nuclear stockpiles also clarifies whether warheads are considered deployed, reserved, or retired:

    • Deployed warheads are deployed on intercontinental missiles, at heavy bomber bases, and on bases with operational short-range delivery systems.
    • Reserve warheads are in storage and not deployed on launchers.
    • Retired warheads are still intact but in queue for dismantlement.

    Only four countries have officially deployed warheads, while the majority of the world’s nuclear stockpile is in reserve. This is partially due to estimates ranging from relatively transparent in the case of the U.S. to opaque and uncertain for countries like China and North Korea.

    But some countries are expected to further bolster their stockpiles. The UK government announced it would increase its stockpile to no more than 260 warheads, and U.S. intelligence expects China, India, and Pakistan to increase their stockpiles.

    Though the world’s nuclear stockpile will likely continue dwindling on account of U.S. and Russia retirements, the 2021 landscape of countries with nuclear weapons shows that proliferation is still underway.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 23:45

  • China's Belt And Road Faces Growing Opposition From Participating Countries As Debts Mount
    China’s Belt And Road Faces Growing Opposition From Participating Countries As Debts Mount

    Authored by Daniel Holl via The Epoch Times,

    China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is facing growing opposition from participating countries as their debts associated with Chinese projects mount, according to a recent study.

    Launched in 2013 by Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the BRI might be losing its impetus due to a debt-based backlash, according to a study from AidData, a research lab at William & Mary’s Global Research Institute.

    The study analyzed 13,427 projects backed by China in more than 165 countries over 18 years. The projects’ total value amounts to $843 billion.

    AidData found that 35 percent of BRI’s projects dealt with implementation problems, “such as corruption scandals, labor violations, environmental hazards, and public protests.”

    Brad Parks, one of the study’s authors, said “a growing number of policymakers in low- and middle-income countries are mothballing high profile BRI projects because of overpricing, corruption and debt sustainability concerns.”

    Global Expansion

    The BRI—which serves as a tool for the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) global expansion—finances enormous loans to developing nations for building infrastructure.

    The ostentatious projects have been described as being a part of so-called debt-trap diplomacy since the often unpayable loans will force the nations to repay China with goods or land.

    Chinese state-owned banks provide the countries with loans they can barely afford. The loans are then used to pay Chinese companies in order to build infrastructure, including the development of roads, ports, power plants, mines, telecommunications, or banking institutions.

    When the nations are unable to pay, they must grant China assets like long-term exploitation rights for natural resources, or leases of infrastructure built using the loans.

    A Chinese worker carrying materials for a project that is part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Laos, on Feb. 8, 2020 (Aidan Jones/AFP via Getty Images)

    According to AidData’s report, 42 low- and middle-income countries have public debt exposure to China that exceeds 10 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP).

    “China has used debt rather than aid to establish a dominant position in the international development finance market,” the report said.

    The report said that researchers estimated that a government of an average low-to-middle-income country participating in the BRI are underreporting its actual and potential repayment obligations to China by an amount that is equivalent to 5.8 percent of its GDP.

    “Collectively, these underreported debts are worth approximately $385 billion,” the report said.

    When agreeing to join BRI, countries expect the new infrastructure will boost their GDPs enough to not only to repay the debt, but also profit in the future. However, most nations do not become prosperous from the projects, according to Antonio Graceffo, an economics professor.

    Graceffo has argued that the poorest nations are overburdened with BRI debt, citing a Central Banking report that stated 23 percent of countries involved in the initiative said BRI debt is building external debt up to unsustainable levels.

    For instance, in December 2017 Sri Lanka leased the major Hambantota Port to Beijing for 99 years, due to its inability to pay BRI owed loans of $1.4 billion. This gave the CCP a key base in the Indian Ocean.

    A general view of the port facility at Hambantota in Sri Lanka, on Feb. 10, 2015. (Lakruwan Wanniarachchi/AFP/Getty Images)

    In an article published by the Gatestone Institute, Lawrence A. Franklin stated that BRI’s economic benefits—mainly in third-world countries—are questionable, and “a few of these bilateral packages appear contrived to imprison already impoverished states into realms of permanent economic vassalage to China.”

    Franklin further said that Beijing’s goals with BRI are not only economic but also strategic and political. Its “projects seem not designed so much to win new friends as to win new dependents, especially in areas either neglected by the West or in the Western sphere of influence.”

    AidData’s study also evaluated that since 2013, there were many suspensions and cancellations in BRI participant countries. Malaysia canceled $11.58 billion in projects, Kazakhstan nearly $1.5 billion, and Bolivia over $1 billion. It further states in some countries “there’s clear evidence of ‘buyer’s remorse’.”

    The report also mentions that China’s annual international development finance commitments are double that of the United States’ and other major countries.

    Meanwhile, in June, the United States announced a new G7 initiative Build Back Better World (B3W), whose objective is to supply developing countries with financial support to build infrastructure.

    “B3W is going to increase choice in the infrastructure financing market, which could lead to some high-profile BRI defections,” Parks said.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 23:25

  • Coffee Is America's Favorite Drink
    Coffee Is America’s Favorite Drink

    October 1 was International Coffee Day, created in 2015 to promote and celebrate the beverage.

    Katharina Buchholz points out that The Statista Global Consumer Survey shows that Americans are in fact quite fond of the drink. In the survey, coffee was named by more U.S. adults as a regularly consumed beverage than bottled water.

    Infographic: Coffee Is America's Favorite Drink | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    59 percent of respondents said they regularly drank coffee, followed by 58 percent who consumed bottled water.

    Almost as many people – 53 percent – said they regularly grabbed a soft drink. Alcoholic drinks – among those 21 years and older – proved less popular.

    Beer still beat wine at 31 percent vs. 28 percent popularity.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 23:05

  • The Cost And Irritation Of Abandoning Common Sense In Dealing With COVID
    The Cost And Irritation Of Abandoning Common Sense In Dealing With COVID

    Authored by Roger Kimball, op-ed via The Epoch Times,

    So, St. Anthony Fauci has come down from his mountain top with a new list of “thou-shall-nots” and the news that it is “too early” to say whether he will allow families and friends to congregate for Christmas.

    It is not too early for the body politic to engage in one gigantic spasm of retroperistalsis and expel that tyrannical medical pest from the community.

    After all, Dr. Fauci is the chap who tells anyone who will listen that, when it comes to vaccine mandates, “There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society.”

    Ah, yes, “greater good of society”—as defined, it goes without saying, by A. Fauci.

    It is long past time for this fomenter of hysteria to go. He has being terrorizing the American populace for decades.

    Give him a padded cell, a mirror, and a TV camera and he will be happy.

    Back in the 1980s, Fauci was a superspreader of the myth that an important vector for the transmission of HIV was heterosexual intercourse.

    For the last couple of years, he has been terrifying the public with tales from the crypt about the virus he helped develop with American taxpayer money for “gain of function” research in a Chinese virology lab in Wuhan.

    The fact that this Bela Lugosi of the medical establishment is also a publicity addict who can’t pass a television camera without primping and dispensing contradictory but depressing dicta makes him a public nuisance.

    You see his baneful influence everywhere.

    In our former newspaper of record, for example, The New York Times. 

    On Oct. 1, the Times ran one of its long emetic specials on COVID, the Delta Diaries.

    Deploying their signature mixture of nauseating human interest pabulum and tendentious statistics, they paid homage to the CCP virus for giving them something to write about now that Donald Trump is, for the time being, off the menu.

    According to the Times, the fact that the deaths of 700,000 people in the United States have been attributed to the virus means that it is now officially more deadly than the Spanish ’flu epidemic of 1918, which killed about 675,000 people in the United States.

    Remember the old saw about “lies, damned lies, and statistics”?

    The Times specializes in that wheeze.

    The CCP Virus can be serious, no doubt about it. But it represents a significant threat to a tiny part of the population, mostly the elderly, especially those with certain co-morbidities like diabetes and obesity.

    The Spanish ’flu, by contrast, cut a wide swathe through the young and healthy.

    The so-called Delta variant seems to be more infectious but less virulent than the original.

    It has affected some younger people, much to the delight of the Times and other members of Fauci fan club.

    But the Times story is just the Gray-Lady version of a domestic-strife story like those in the sensationalistic rags you see in the supermarket checkout line. “Betts and Andy on the Rocks: What Really Happened on Their Honeymoon.”

    Now on to those numbers.

    One critical distinction you won’t find mentioned in the Times cri-de-coeur is the difference between dying from the CCP virus and dying with it. Millions upon millions are infected.

    It is, after all, a very contagious virus.

    But not only is it the case that many who are infected experience mild or no symptoms, it is also the case that many who are infected with the virus and happen to die in fact die from other things.

    Remember the chap who was in fatal motorcycle accident, spread like jam across the highway, but had his death listed as due to COVID because the goo “tested positive”?

    Another set of numbers you rarely see in the reporting about COVID fatalities is the age of the people who died.

    The average life expectancy for males in the United States is around 78.

    If Mr. Smith, who suffers from diabetes and high-blood pressure, comes down with COVID and dies at 87, is his death due to COVID?

    You see why I like to say that the great thing about COVID is that it abolished death from old age.

    It also essentially abolished death from influenza.

    Generally there are anywhere from 20,000 to 40,000 deaths from the ’flu in this country per annum.

    Last year there were some 700. Amazing.

    The CCP virus is a seasonal respiratory virus. The key to public health regarding it is the achievement of herd immunity.

    Masks, lockdowns, and “social distancing” impede achievement of herd immunity.

    The Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff and Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya got it exactly right when they wrote last spring that “The idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody does. COVID vaccines are essential for older, high-risk people and their caretakers and advisable for many others. But those who’ve been infected are already immune.”

    At last, the clear voice of common sense—which is also, by the way, the voice of that “science” we’re supposed to be following.

    Messrs. Kulldorff and Bhattacharya go on to offer these wise observations:

    • “Vaccine passports are unjust and discriminatory.”

    • “Most of those endorsing the idea belong to the laptop class—privileged professionals who worked safely and comfortably at home during the epidemic.”

    • “Millions of Americans did essential jobs at their usual workplaces and became immune the hard way. Now they would be forced to risk adverse reactions from a vaccine they don’t need.”

    • “Passports would entice young, low-risk professionals, in the West and the developing world, to get the vaccine before older, higher-risk but less affluent members of society. Many unnecessary deaths would result.”

    • “The widespread use of vaccines against polio, measles, mumps, rubella, rabies and other pathogens has saved millions of lives. Vaccines are one of the most important inventions in human history—the reason that before last year many in the West had forgotten that infectious disease could pose a population wide threat.”

    • “Those pushing for coercive COVID vaccination threaten all this progress by undermining public trust in vaccines. In this sense, they are more dangerous than the small group of so-called anti-vaxxers have ever been.”

    What a pity that the media did not elevate experts like Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya to the sacrosanct position it saved for Anthony Fauci.

    We all would have been saved a great deal of irritation not to mention economic ruin and political despotism.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 22:45

  • Visualizing The Rise Of Cryptocurrency Transactions
    Visualizing The Rise Of Cryptocurrency Transactions

    After Bitcoin and cryptocurrency’s wild bull run in late 2020 and early 2021, many holders are now using cryptocurrencies for their intended purpose: payments.

    In fact, as Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte notes, every day, approximately $12 billion are transferred across the Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin blockchains, with millions of people using cryptocurrency for payments daily.

    This graphic sponsored by CoinPayments looks at the rising transactions of the Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin networks.

    Cryptocurrency Transactions are Rising in Value and Number

    While prices are often the focus when crypto is in the spotlight, transaction counts show how much a network is being used as a medium of exchange. In just over five years, daily transactions across the Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin networks increased sixfold, from just 250,000 to more than 1.5 million transactions a day.

    In mid-2017, Ethereum overtook Bitcoin in daily transactions as ETH was necessary to participate in ICOs (initial coin offerings), which fueled much of the speculation in the 2017 price run. With Ethereum still hosting thousands of ERC-20 and ERC-721 tokens on its blockchain today, its transaction counts have grown to be much higher compared to Bitcoin and Litecoin’s.

    Along with crypto’s rising transaction numbers, the average USD value per transaction has increased by a minimum of 4x over the past five years.

    Crypto Spenders are Searching for Merchants

    As transaction counts and values rise, merchants play a vital part in pushing forward the adoption of digital currencies for payments.

    Many cryptocurrency users consider merchant adoption as a key barometer of success for crypto adoption. While companies like AT&T, Namecheap, and Overstock already accept crypto payments, there are still many businesses around the world which don’t offer cryptocurrency as a method of payment.

    In a survey of over 8,000 U.S. consumers, 66.7% of crypto owners and 54.2% of non-owners said that not enough merchants accept cryptocurrency. Along with this, 47% of crypto owners said they seek out merchants that accept crypto for purchases, indicating clear demand for more crypto-accepting businesses.

    How Can Merchants Make the Most of the Crypto Boom?

    As the world embraces crypto, merchants need the in-store and online tools to be part of this next wave of commerce. Accepting crypto opens merchants up to an untapped audience of new consumers, eager to spend their crypto.

    CoinPayments makes it easy to start accepting crypto payments at online checkout and with POS systems, with features like auto-coin conversion and over 2,000 coins supported.

    Find out more about how the crypto market is growing, adapting to consumer needs, and the opportunity it presents to merchants around the world.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 22:25

  • Buchanan: Biden Becomes A Bernie Sanders Democrat?
    Buchanan: Biden Becomes A Bernie Sanders Democrat?

    Authored by Pat Buchanan,

    “We’ve got the president of the United States on our side,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

    “Got 96% of the members of the Democratic caucus in the House on our side. We got all but two senators at this point in the Democratic caucus on our side. We’re going to win this thing.”

    The socialist senator from Vermont may be overly optimistic about how the party deadlock on Capitol Hill unfolds. But about the balance of forces inside the party, and the direction where it is headed, Sanders is probably not wrong.

    Progressive Democrats won the week.

    President Joe Biden confirmed it by casting his lot with the liberal-left on the sequencing of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill and $3.5 trillion social safety net bill pending in Congress.

    When Biden went to the Hill Friday, it was thought he was coming to rescue and liberate the Senate-passed infrastructure bill being held hostage by progressives until they got their way on the larger bill.

    Progressives had threatened to sink the roads-and-bridges bill in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House, unless they received solid assurances that both houses would simultaneously take up and approve the $3.5 trillion bill.

    When Biden reached the Hill, however, he threw in with the hostage-takers. He asked for a delay in House passage of his own infrastructure bill, until the demands of the progressives were addressed and met.

    Pelosi agreed and has put off any House vote on the infrastructure bill until the end of October.

    Biden had ditched the Biden Democrats and cast his lot with Sanders & Co. Let’s hold off voting on my own infrastructure bill, until we can also deliver what the progressives demand of us, he was saying.

    The real impediment blocking progress, Biden said, was two senators, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who are blocking the resolution of the issue, which is that all Democrats should agree to enact both bills.

    By capitulating to the progressives’ demand — which translates to, “Both bills or no bill!” — Biden revealed where he thinks the power in the party resides, where the future is, and what he wants as his legacy.

    This is not the first time Biden has moved left to accommodate a rising consensus. As vice president, though a self-proclaimed devout Catholic, Biden stepped out in front of Barack Obama to endorse same-sex marriage.

    During the 2020 campaign, Biden abandoned a lifetime belief about abortion and pledged to remove the Hyde Amendment — a restriction on federal funding of abortions — from federal law.

    Cradle Catholic Joe has become our most pro-abortion president.

    But while the moderate-versus-progressive faceoff could still end in a rout for the left, the probability is that the infrastructure bill becomes law and the social safety net bill ends up between Manchin’s $1.5 trillion ceiling and its current $3.5 trillion price tag.

    One way to solve the sticker-price problem is through subterfuge — reduce the duration from, say, 10 years to five, in the expectation that no future GOP administration would terminate an entitlement program upon which millions of Americans had come to depend for half a decade.

    As Milton Friedman reminded us, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”

    Nevertheless, this is truly the “transformative” legislation that The New York Times depicted as providing “a cradle-to-grave reweaving of a social safety net.”

    This Build Back Better bill would provide family and medical leave for illness and the birth of a child, affordable child care during infancy, two years of universal pre-kindergarten, child credits and federal income tax credits, and two years in a community college.

    If passed in its present form, government will have an ever-present role in the life of a child, almost from conception until his or her early 20s.

    This would also include established programs of welfare, Medicaid, aid to education, subsidized housing, rent supplements, school breakfasts and lunches, and food stamps.

    If this bill does not die in the fall, what will America look like a few years hence?

    Government will have expanded in both size and the numbers of employees, and in relation to a shrinking private sector. A panoply of new programs will expand eternally with the cost growing inexorably. The dependency of U.S. citizens on their government will grow.

    And this doesn’t even touch upon another aspect.

    The IRS is to be expanded, and corporate taxes, estate taxes and capital gains taxes are to rise. Government will also step in to force a shift away from coal and oil and gas, with which the country is hugely endowed, to wager America’s future on solar and wind.

    Hopefully, Manchin and Sinema will employ the leverage they have to prevent the worst of the damage this historically high level of spending — with inflation already rising above 5% — will do.

    But as to whether the Democrats are a Bernie party or a Biden party, Joe settled that Friday with his capitulation.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 22:05

  • Poland Central Bank To Buy 100 Tons Of Gold In 2022
    Poland Central Bank To Buy 100 Tons Of Gold In 2022

    In a time when institutions are increasingly shifting away from fiat currency and looking toward cryptos, it is worth recalling that at least when it comes to central banks, there is no digital gold. There is just gold.

    To be sure, in a time of unprecedented economic and social turmoil, central bankers’ appetite for gold continues to grow, providing a bright spot for the traditional haven as investor interest ebbs. According to the World Gold Council, global reserves expanded 333.2 tons in the first half of 2021, 39% higher than the five-year average for the period. Strong purchases by Thailand, Hungary and Brazil stood out, with WGC analyst Louise Street predicting that If central banks continue to buy at the levels seen recently, it will provide a supportive element for the market.

    Alas, the past year has not been kind to gold and after rising above $2000 during the hyper-print phase of the covid pandemic, gold has steadily declined to the mid $1700s as a global surge in inflation has forced central banks to restart monetary tightening.

    However, for at least one central bank gold’s continued decline is welcome news, because according to Poland’s Gazeta Wroclawska, Governor Adam Glapinski – the head of the country’s central bank, the National Bank of Poland – plans to increase gold reserves by 100 tons next year to strengthen country’s financial stability.

    In the interview, Glapinski said his plan may take effect when he will be re- elected as Governor as his current term ends in mid-2022. However, in the same interview, the governor also said he plans to introduce 1,000 zloty banknote, an indication that the gold may be coming only to offset even more money printing down the line.

    No matter his intentions, however, Glapinski has been good for Poland’s gold reserves: during his term, the amount of gold in reserves has more than doubled to 229 metric tons.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 21:45

  • Hidden Bankruptcy: The Reality Behind Uncle Sam's Inflated Bar Tab
    Hidden Bankruptcy: The Reality Behind Uncle Sam’s Inflated Bar Tab

    Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via GoldSwitzerland.com,

    Below, we look at The hidden bankruptcy of the US in the wake of even more inflationary forces confirmed by cost-of-living-adjustments, Uncle Sam’s interest expenses, objectively unloved Treasuries and a roaring as well as convenient COVID narrative.

    Math vs. Double-Speak

    Given the fact that just about everything coming out of the mouths of debt-cornered policy makers requires a lie-detector and “double-speak” translator, we’ve been arguing since the moment the Fed began peddling the “transitory inflation” meme/myth to think differently.

    In short: It’s our view that inflation is a snowball growing, not melting.

    Toward this end, we’ve written and spoken at length as often as we can as to the many converging forces pointing toward rising inflation—from increased governmental guarantees (controls) over commercial bank loans, commodity super cycles to just plain economic realism, as inflation (and hence currency debasement) is the only tool left (beyond bankruptcy, taxation and “growth”) to service otherwise unsustainable debt levels: A hidden bankruptcy.

    But let us not stop there, as other inflationary storm clouds are on the horizon yet ignored (not surprisingly) by an increasingly clueless financial media.

    Another Glaringly-Ignored Inflation Indicator—COLA 2.2022

    In particular, we are thinking about the U.S. Cost of Living Adjustment (“COLA”) for 2022 which could easily reach 6%, the highest of its kind since 1982.

    It would seem that the U.S. Social Security Administration, unlike Powell, is aware of inflation, and therefore preparing (i.e., “adjusting”) for the same.

    As the price for entitlement obligations rises, so too will the level of money printing to pay for the same, a veritable vicious circle for rising inflation.

    Then there’s simple math.

    We’ve talked about the Realpolitik of negative real rates as the final and desperate way for debt-soaked sovereigns to service their debt.

    The signs of this are literally everywhere.

    If we take, for example, a 1.4% Treasury Yield and subtract a potential 6% COLA increase for Social Security, we get -4.6% real rates, which will be a boon for alternative stores of value like gold and silver or “currencies” like BTC (as well as farmland and high-end real estate, which is continuing to enjoy a debt-jubilee of negative 3% real (i.e., “free” mortgages).

    The necessary evil of negative real rates also speaks to the ongoing taper debate…

    Giving Clarity to the Taper Debate

    As tweets by twits pour across the electronic universe, it’s often important to notice what is not being “tweeted,” such as the interest expense on Uncle Sam’s national bar tab.

    As the financial world hangs on the edge of its seat to see if the Fed will taper its QE (i.e., money printing) program and send bonds (and stocks) to the floor and rates toward the sky, they’ve ignored some basic math and a key chart.

    Specifically, we are referring to the chart below representing the true interest expense on the debt bar-tab of a now fully debt-intoxicated Uncle Sam:

    With central-bank “accommodated” asset bubbles (from stocks to real estate to art) now at historically unprecedented levels, tax receipts flowing into the U.S. coffers from the ever-growing millionaire-to-billionaire class have been rising.

    This may seem good for that punch-drunk Uncle Sam, but what no one is talking about is that despite even those “capital gain” receipts, the interest expense (i.e., “bar tab”) in D.C. is now an astronomical 111% of those same tax receipts.

    In other words, U.S. tax income doesn’t come close to even paying interest (let alone that archaic concept known as “principal”) on growing U.S. debt obligations.

    Can anyone say, “Uh-oh?”

    Given the stark but ignored reality of unpayable U.S. debt, the implications going forward are fairly clear.

    First, the Fed will not be able to “taper,” as less QE will mean an even higher interest rate, and thus higher interest expense on debt it still can’t pay at today’s artificially low rates.

    Stated otherwise, a “taper” would only add helicopters of gasoline to a debt fire that is already burning the Divided States of America.

    Given the dangers of such a taper, it likely won’t happen because it can’t happen, and this means more money printing and hence more negative real rates creating a hidden bankruptcy ahead, a weaker USD and rising precious metal prices, among others.

    But What If the Fed Tapers?

    Alternatively, should the Fed somehow turn hawkish and taper its QE support in the face of a debt forest fire, Treasuries will sell off dramatically, rates will rise, markets will tank, and the USD will surge—not good for Gold, BTC or just about anything else.

    Does it Matter?

    But as we’ve also tried to make crystal clear, there is no way the Fed will taper QE liquidity before it sets up a back-channel for even more liquidity from the Standing Repo Facility, Reverse Repo Facility and FIMA swap lines, which are all just “QE” by other names.

    In simple speak, therefore, the “taper debate” is no debate, as the Fed has many liquidity tricks up its greasy sleeves.

    In addition to liquidity tricks, the Fed has some ugly bonds to buy.

    Embarrassing Treasuries

    As we’ve said so many times, the biggest issue today is unsustainable and embarrassing debt levels requiring inflation (hidden bankruptcy), compliments of policy makers rather than a viral pandemic narrative out of all proportion to its confused scientific truths.

    COVID has been an all-too timely and convenient pretext for blaming global debt ($300T) or U.S. public debt ($28.5T) on a flu rather than a sordid history of grotesque mismanagement from politico’s and bankers that was in play long before the first headlines out of Wuhan.

    Furthermore, COVID monetary and fiscal policy measures effectively became a (hidden) pretext for a second market bailout greater in scope (yet better in optics) than the post-Lehman bailout of those otherwise Too Big to Fail banks.

    In short, the façade (and branding) of a humanitarian crisis allowed a market-saving liquidity rescue (Bailout 2.0) to an otherwise Dead-on-Arrival bond market in late 2019.

    In case this sounds too controversial to consider, please follow the Treasury market rather than our bemused nouns and adjectives, not to mention our total lack of scientific/medical credentials.

    Bad IOUs

    Just like friends don’t accept IOUs from drug addicts, global investors heading into 2020 stopped buying Uncle Sam’s Treasuries.

    In simple-speak, Uncle Sam just seemed too debt-drunk to trust.

    As a result, his Treasury bonds, once seen as “safe havens,” were finally seen as “bad jokes”—akin to the paper coming out of equally discredited zip codes like Greece, Italy or Spain.

    For this reason, foreigners in a nervous 2020 (unlike a broken 2009) had not only stopped buying U.S. Treasuries, they were selling them.

    Yep.

    Months ago, smart voices from the Street, including Stan Druckenmiller, were warning about the implications of such a shift in financial consciousness/trust.

    Druckenmiller’s Astonishment

    Specifically, Druckenmiller spoke of something he’d never seen in over 40 years as a market veteran.

    That is, as stocks were tanking in the spring of 2020, he also saw the bond market lose 18 points in one day.

    This correlated fall in stocks and bonds was not, as everyone “tweeted,” a reaction to the fiscal profligacy of the CARES Act, but more sadly a very new trend by foreigners to get rid of increasingly discredited U.S. IOUs.

    Folks, this is a critical shift.

    For over two decades (including during the Great Financial Crisis of 2009), U.S. Treasuries (and the USD) were once seen as “safe” landing places for foreign money rather than a risky bet.

    Now, instead of seeing an annual average $500B inflow into U.S. bonds, we are seeing annual outflows of $500B…

    When you tack on a $700B current account deficit in D.C. to a net loss of $1 trillion in Treasury support, whose left to “fill the gap” and buy those unwanted IOU’s?

    You guessed it: The Fed.

    And how will they come up the money to cover these purchases?

    You guessed it again: They’ll mouse-click that “money” out of thin air to create a stealthy, hidden bankruptcy.

    Needless to say, such realism (i.e., objective math) puts a lot of pressure on the U.S. Dollar as the Fed is forced to create even more money at a record pace to buy otherwise unwanted Treasuries.

    But what kept the USD from falling in favor by end of 2020, if no one was buying our bonds but the Fed?

    Well, the short answer is that all that foreign money (from sovereign wealth funds and foreign central banks) once ear-marked for our once-credible U.S. Treasury bonds went instead into those massive U.S. digital transformation companies who benefited most from a locked-down new mad world, namely GOOG, ZOOM and MSFT etc.

    And how did Druckenmiller describe this shift?

    Simple. He called it a “raging new mania.”

    From Mania to Desperate

    Foreign money once reserved for “safe haven” bonds was (and is) pouring into an already over-sized equity bubble.

    By July, the USD had peaked, but after a peak comes, well…a fall for the Greenback—all very good for commodities, real estate, growth tech stocks and, of course, precious metals.

    Back to the “What If” of a Naked Taper

    But (and this is a very big “but”), what if the Fed were insane enough to taper QE without any back-door liquidity from foreign swap lines and the repo programs?

    Again, ugly Treasuries would get even uglier, tank in price, sending rates and the USD higher and gold lower, along with a sharp sell-off in risk assets—i.e., corporate stocks and bonds.

    But again, we don’t think this will happen, because as desperate as central bankers are, they are equally predictable.

    Predictable Behavior?

    That is, they know that such a naked taper (i.e., a taper without a back door repo or swap-induced liquidity) would cause rates to spike, and hence Uncle Sam’s bar-tab to default.

    As the Fed’s Vice Chair intimated last year, US Treasuries (Uncle Sam’s bar tab) are simply too big to fail.

    This means we can expect more liquidity (QE or repo/swap) and hence more, not less inflation.

    The Fed is stuck in a self-inflicted dilemma–between letting inflation rip (to partially service America’s bar tab and “declaring” a hidden bankruptcy) or watching markets sink to the bottom of time.

    For now, which choice do you think these banking, pro-market cabal thinkers will make?

    The Realpolitik of COVID

    Meanwhile, and regardless of one’s views on the vaccine mandates, case fatality rates vs. infection rates, or mask wearing vs. mask annoyance, no one needs our amateur medical advice.

    But looking at COVID as a policy tool rather than as controversial health issue, it’s also fairly clear that the powers that be will be milking this fear-porn-to-policy trick for all its worth for as long as its worth.

    Why?

    Again, COVID is a wonderful narrative to justify more debt and more instant liquidity (i.e., fiat monetary expansion) and hence more inflation to inflate away the debt of debt-drunk nations already fatally in debt pre-COVID.

    Rightly or wrongly, there are already scientists out of the UK (namely Oxford vaccine creator Sarah Gilbert) with more IQ-power and credibility than Fauci or Fergusson (admittedly not a high bar), who are already signaling that COVID will resemble little more than a common cold by next year.

    This, if true (and no one really knows anyway), would be good for the world—but would the policy makers like this?

    A post-COVID normal would be a boon to commerce and economic activity, and hence a boon to the velocity of money, which would kick inflation into ultra-high-gear.

    High inflation will mean higher rates, which scare debt-soaked politicians and central bankers, unless inflation rises higher than those rates and negative real yields become the norm, which, again, we think is the realistic (i.e., only option) for these financial magicians running our governments, lives and central banks.

    In such a scenario, gold will smile upon the inflation to come.

    In short, and however we look at it, inflation is the new norm, and negative real rates are no less so, regardless of how the taper or COVID debate plays out.

    As the future unfolds, gold, whose price is waiting for confirmation of such inflation, will only grow stronger as the “transitory” meme gets weaker by the day.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 21:25

  • Watch: DEA Agent, Gunman Killed In Gun Battle On Arizona Amtrak Train
    Watch: DEA Agent, Gunman Killed In Gun Battle On Arizona Amtrak Train

    A shocking video has surfaced on YouTube of Monday’s gun battle inside an Amtrak train stopped at an Arizona station between federal agents and a gunman. 

    A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent was shot dead by a man who opened fire inside the second level of the double-decker coach. Agents conducted a routine sweep for drugs and guns on the train bound for New Orleans when the incident unfolded yesterday morning. 

    Tucson Police Chief Chris Magnus told reporters that a police officer on the platform who heard the gunfire was also shot. Besides the dead DEA agent, he said the gunman barricaded himself inside a train bathroom and was pronounced dead at the scene. There was no mention if the suspect took his own life or was killed by gunfire from either federal agents, police, or SWAT personnel. 

    YouTube channel “Virtual Railfan” captured the crazy shootout on video. They said:

    “Occasionally, we catch surprising events in front of our cameras, including wildlife, weather, accidents, weddings, silliness… and some much, much more serious. This was one of those. Our hearts and prayers go out to those affected by the shooting, and we continue to assist local, federal and railroad law enforcement to not only investigate, but to help prevent such tragedies in the future. For details as they emerge, please seek out a trusted news source.” 

    Here’s the video: 

    What remains a mystery is the motive behind the suspect’s action and if police found anything of interest after the shootout. There are more questions than answers. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 21:05

  • "A Politically-Motivated Abuse Of Power" – GOP Rep. Rages At AG Garland's 'Weaponization' Of The DoJ Against Dissenting Parents
    “A Politically-Motivated Abuse Of Power” – GOP Rep. Rages At AG Garland’s ‘Weaponization’ Of The DoJ Against Dissenting Parents

    Update (1700ET): Republican Congressman for Colorado’s 4th District, Ken Buck, has penned an excellent reply for Garland’s overreach, taking apart the AG’s “weaponization” of the DoJ point by point…

    “Your memorandum is a politically-motivated abuse of power and displays a lack of reasoned, sound judgment… confronting parents to oppose the views of the Biden administration and its socialist agenda…”

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

    *  *  *

    One day after a North Carolina school board adopted a policy that would discipline or dismiss teachers if they incorporate critical race theory (CRT) into their teaching of the history of the United States, The Epoch Times’ Ivan Pentchoukov reports that Attorney General Merrick Garland on Oct. 4 announced a concentrated effort to target any threats of violence, intimidation, and harassment by parents toward school personnel.

    The announcement also comes days after a national association of school boards asked the Biden administration to take “extraordinary measures” to prevent alleged threats against school staff that the association said was coming from parents who oppose mask mandates and the teaching of critical race theory.

    Garland directed the FBI and U.S. attorneys in the next 30 days to convene meetings with federal, state, and local leaders within 30 days to “facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff,” according to a letter (pdf) the attorney general sent on Monday to all U.S. attorneys, the FBI director, the director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, and the assistant attorney general of the DOJ’s criminal division.

    According to the DOJ, further efforts will be rolled out in the coming days, including a task force that will determine how to use federal resources to prosecute offending parents as well as how to advise state entities on prosecutions in cases where no federal law is broken. The Justice Department will also provide training to school staff on how to report threats from parents and preserve evidence to aid in investigation and prosecution.

    “In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools,” Garland wrote.

    “While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.”

    School boards across the nation have increasingly become an arena for heated debate over culture, politics, and health. Parents groups have ramped up pressure on boards over the teaching of critical race theory and the imposition of mask mandates. The debate is split sharply along political lines, with Democrats largely in favor of critical race theory and mask mandates, and Republicans opposing both.

    The amount and severity of the threats against officials are not known, but Garland’s letter suggests the phenomenon is widespread.

    Full AG Garland Statement (with our thoughts):

    MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

    FROM:       THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

    SUBJECT:    PARTNERSHIP AMONG FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, TRIBAL, AND TERRITORIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ADDRESS THREATS AGAINST SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, BOARD MEMBERS, TEACHERS, AND STAFF

    In recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nation’s public schools. While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.

    [ZH: But intimidating parents who dare to have the view that the nation’s founding fathers and the founding documents are not in fact systemically racist and does not want their children taught that is the case is ok?]

    Threats against public servants are not only illegal, they run counter to our nation’s core values. Those who dedicate their time and energy to ensuring that our children receive a proper education in a safe environment deserve to he able to do their work without fear for their safety.

    [ZH: “Dedication” to a “proper education” is admirable; indoctrination in Marxism is not]

    The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate. In the coming days, the Department will announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.

    [ZH: What exactly is the crime?]

    Coordination and partnership with local law enforcement is critical to implementing these measures for the benefit of our nation’s nearly 14,000 public school districts. To this end, I am  directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum. These meetings will facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.

    [ZH: We wonder how many local law enforcement officials, while busily watching for vaccine passport offenders, and mask-mandate refusers, will acquiesce to enforcing these new laws to protect the very people who are preaching that America’s systemic racism starts with the men (and women) in blue?]

    The Department is steadfast in its commitment to protect all people in the United States from violence, threats of violence, and other forms of intimidation and harassment.

    [ZH: Presumably intimidation and emotional harassment of young white boys and girls for their ‘whiteness’, privilege, and systemic racism is beyond that ‘protection’?]

    As Chris Rufo (@RealChrisRufo) tweeted: “The Biden administration is rapidly repurposing federal law enforcement to target political opposition.”

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

    Rufo goes on to note that:

    “Neither the Attorney General’s memo nor the full Justice Department press release cites any significant, credible threat. This is a blatant suppression tactic, designed to dissuade citizens from participating in the democratic process at school boards.“

    Parents have led the charge against controversial issues such as Critical Race Theory (CRT), masking mandates and vaccine requirements.

    CRT holds that America is fundamentally racist, yet it teaches people to view every social interaction and person in terms of race. Its adherents pursue “antiracism” through the end of merit, objective truth and the adoption of race-based policies.

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

    In Loudoun County, Virginia, two parents were arrested in June for trespassing while protesting CRT and a transgender policy at the school district because they refused to leave the rowdy meeting that was declared an unlawful assembly.

    In July, a man was arrested at a school board meeting and charged with a felony because a gun reportedly fell out of his pocket, the Indianapolis Star reported. 

    In Utah, 11 anti-mask protestors were arrested on misdemeanor charges for allegedly disrupting a school board meeting in May, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. The protestors entered the school board meeting and shouted obscenities, which resulted in an early end to the meeting.

    Senator Tom Cotton  (@SenTomCotton) tweeted his thoughts:

    “Parents are speaking out against Critical Race Theory in schools. Now the Biden administration is cracking down on dissent.”

    Just this week, Ron Paul explained why it is so important for parents to control the education of their children:

    During last week’s Virginia gubernatorial debate, Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe promised that as governor he would prevent parents from removing sexually explicit books from school libraries, because he doesn’t think “parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

    McAuliffe’s disdain for parents who think they should have some say in their children’s education is shared by most “progressives,” as well as some who call themselves conservatives. They think parents should obediently pay the taxes to fund the government schools and never question any aspect of the government school program.

    School officials’ refusal to obey the wishes of parents extends to the anti-science mask mandates. Mask mandates are not only useless in protecting children from a virus they are at low risk of becoming sick from or transmitting, the mandated mask-wearing actually makes children sick! Yet school administrators refuse to follow the science if that means listening to parents instead of the so-called experts.

    Replacing parental control with government control of education (and other aspects of child raising) has been a goal of authoritarians since Plato. After all, it is much easier to ensure obedience if someone has been raised to think of the government as the source of all wisdom and truth, as well as the provider of all of life’s necessities.

    In contrast to an authoritarian society, a free society recognizes that parents have both the responsibility and the right to provide their children with a quality education that reflects the parents’ values. Teachers who use their positions to indoctrinate children in beliefs that contradict the views of the parents are the ones overstepping their bounds.

    Restoring parental control of education should be a priority for all who believe in liberty. If government can override the wishes of parents in the name of “education” or “protecting children’s health” then what area of our lives is safe from government intrusion?

    Fortunately, growing dissatisfaction with government schools is leading many parents to try to change school policies.

    “It is shameful that activists are weaponizing the US Department of Justice against parents,” Nicole Neily, president of Parents Defending Education told the Daily Caller News Foundation in response to the memorandum.

    “This is a coordinated attempt to intimidate dissenting voices in the debates surrounding America’s underperforming K-12 education – and it will not succeed. We will not be silenced.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 20:48

  • We Have One Market Concerned About Valuations, And Another Where Price Discovery Is Broken
    We Have One Market Concerned About Valuations, And Another Where Price Discovery Is Broken

    By Ven Ram, Bloomberg markets commentator and analyst

    The first lesson that aspiring medical doctors are taught is simple: first, do no harm. Central banks may want to embrace the same principle.

    U.S. stocks have been wobbly of late, with both the S&P 500 Index and the Nasdaq Composite tumbling more than one standard deviation a handful of times in the past month. For reasons, consider a host of factors, including spiraling oil prices that are bound to ripple through the economy and push up prices of services and goods, the Fed’s looming taper, concerns about China and lofty valuations that have left investors second-guessing whether current elevated levels are viable.

    That is as it should be: markets are nothing but a series of dots plotted every day on the basis of information available then but only connected as a coherent sketch over time. That inherently means markets are volatile, but, oh, do they work beautifully over time as they adjust higher and lower to every new input in the economy.

    Juxtapose that against bond markets that have completely lost the plot. Here we are, on the cusp of taper and a possible series of rate hikes down the line, and while Treasury 10-year yields have inched higher somewhat of late, volatility in rates is nowhere what you would expect and seem completely divorced from concerns that are dogging stocks. Blame it, at least to a great extent, on the Fed’s unbridled balance-sheet expansion, with the monetary authority buying bonds at a breakneck pace of more than $1 million a minute.

    So we have one part of the market concerned about current valuations and correcting itself. Yet, we have another corner where price discovery is broken, and the principal difference as things stand between those two spaces is the overwhelming presence of a buyer at first retort masquerading as the lender of last resort.

    Markets function best when they are allowed to get on with their assigned task by themselves.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 20:45

  • GM's Autonomous Cruise Division May Hit $50 Billion In Revenue "Over The Next Couple Years"
    GM’s Autonomous Cruise Division May Hit $50 Billion In Revenue “Over The Next Couple Years”

    GM’s Cruise autonomy division, who is actually working on robotaxis (unlike another company who claimed to be doing so Tesla ) is now telling its investors its ride-hailing business could eventually reach $50 billion in revenue over the next couple of years.

    The company also plans on charging riders as soon as next year, Cruise Chief Executive Officer Dan Ammann is expected to say this week, according to Bloomberg. Ammann will also note that the company could expand in 2023 if California regulators allow it to. 

    GM is presenting its ride hailing business to investors on October 6 and October 7. The company will explain how ride hailing, mixed with EVs and connected technologies, could soon start increasing the automaker’s top line.

    Cruise has spent billions trying to get their technology to a jumping off point, so bringing in billions in revenue (or any revenue at all) would be a notable positive for the division. It has taken more time establishing approvals for robotic driving, which has, to this point, delayed revenue. 

    GM has a majority stake in Cruise. The company said it’ll try and use a modified version of the Chevy Bolt to begin charging for rides, pending California Public Utility Commission approvals. The company will also have its Origin autonomous shuttle in production by 2023, alongside of its Hummer EV and electric Silverado. 

    All eyes will be on Ammann this week, who will show how revenue for Cruise could eventually get to $50 billion. His presentation “will include updates on the automaker’s electric vehicle plans, its SuperCruise driver-assistance feature and how the company will use its Ultify software platform to generate more revenue from app-based services in cars,” Bloomberg reported this week. 

    Chris James, founder of Engine No. 1, an activist investor, said this week: “GM’s goal to go 100% electric by 2035 signals one of the largest transformations in the history of the auto industry and creates an opportunity to re-center the battery supply chain in America. The company’s early lead on battery technology, along with Mary Barra and the board’s leadership, creates tremendous advantages.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 20:25

  • Taliban Raids ISIS Hideout After Kabul Mosque Bombing As US Mulls 'Cooperation'
    Taliban Raids ISIS Hideout After Kabul Mosque Bombing As US Mulls ‘Cooperation’

    Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

    Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said Monday that the Taliban raided a hideout for the Afghan ISIS affiliate, known as ISIS-K. He hailed a “decisive and successful attack,” he said. 

    Mujahid said the Taliban killed every ISIS fighter they found at the hideout in the northern Kabul neighborhood of Khair Khana, although he did not give a specific number. A source told Afghanistan’s TOLO News that 10 members of a family affiliated with ISIS-K were killed in the operation.

    Image source: Sky News

    The raid came after a Sunday bombing at a mosque in Kabul that killed five civilians. According to The Associated Press, nobody intially took responsibility for the Mosque attack, but ISIS-K was quickly suspected since it has been active. 

    But later as The Hill reported:

    ISIS-K, ISIS’s affiliate in Afghanistan, claimed responsibility for Sunday’s bombing, during which no Taliban fighters were killed, the group told The Washington Post. 

    The Taliban have been busy fighting ISIS-K since the US completed its withdrawal. Last week, the Taliban raided an ISIS-K hideout in the Parwan province, which is north of Kabul.

    ISIS-K has taken credit for several attacks against the Taliban in Jalalabad, the capital of Nangarhar province, where the terrorist group is mainly based.

    The US has hinted at further intervention in Afghanistan under the guise of fighting ISIS-K. While the Taliban has accepted help from the US in the past against ISIS-K, since the withdrawal, the Taliban said they don’t need any foreign help to fight the terrorist group.

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

    There have been no known US airstrikes in Afghanistan since the August 29th Kabul drone strike that slaughtered 10 civilians, but the Taliban have accused the US of flying drones into Afghan airspace since then.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 20:05

  • Who's Running The Show? Kerry Tells French TV Biden 'Literally Not Aware' Of International Spat
    Who’s Running The Show? Kerry Tells French TV Biden ‘Literally Not Aware’ Of International Spat

    President Joe Biden was ‘literally not aware’ of the spat between the United States and France which was ignited by the Biden administration’s tri-lateral agreement with the UK and Australia over the exchange of submarine technology, according to Climate Envoy John Kerry.

    The spat was so bad that French President Emmanuel Macron briefly recalled his ambassador to the US.

    “[Biden] asked me. He said, ‘What’s the situation?’ And I explained- he had not been aware of that. He literally had not been aware of what had transpired,” Kerry said in an interview broadcast on French television. “And I don’t want to go into the details of it, but suffice it to say, that the president, my president is very committed to strengthening the relationship and making sure that this is a small event of the past and moving on to the much more important future.”

    As Fox News notes, Kerry’s embarrassing admission caught the attention of Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN), who tweeted: “This could explain disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal & Biden Admin selling out Eastern European allies in NATO & Ukraine while waiving sanctions on Nord Stream 2 pipeline.“

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

    More:

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

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

    Who’s running the show?

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 19:45

  • Greenwald: Democrats, Media Do Not Want To Weaken Facebook, Just Commandeer Its Power To Censor
    Greenwald: Democrats, Media Do Not Want To Weaken Facebook, Just Commandeer Its Power To Censor

    Authored by Glenn Greenwald via Substack,

    “Whistleblower” Frances Haugen is a vital media and political asset because she advances their quest for greater control over online political discourse…

    Much is revealed by who is bestowed hero status by the corporate media. This week’s anointed avatar of stunning courage is Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager being widely hailed as a “whistleblower” for providing internal corporate documents to the Wall Street Journal relating to the various harms which Facebook and its other platforms (Instagram and WhatsApp) are allegedly causing.

    The social media giant hurts America and the world, this narrative maintains, by permitting misinformation to spread (presumably more so than cable outlets and mainstream newspapers do virtually every week); fostering body image neurosis in young girls through Instagram (presumably more so than fashion magazines, Hollywood and the music industry do with their glorification of young and perfectly-sculpted bodies); promoting polarizing political content in order to keep the citizenry enraged, balkanized and resentful and therefore more eager to stay engaged (presumably in contrast to corporate media outlets, which would never do such a thing); and, worst of all, by failing to sufficiently censor political content that contradicts liberal orthodoxies and diverges from decreed liberal Truth. On Tuesday, Haugen’s star turn took her to Washington, where she spent the day testifying before the Senate about Facebook’s dangerous refusal to censor even more content and ban even more users than they already do.

    There is no doubt, at least to me, that Facebook and Google are both grave menaces. Through consolidation, mergers and purchases of any potential competitors, their power far exceeds what is compatible with a healthy democracy. A bipartisan consensus has emerged on the House Antitrust Committee that these two corporate giants — along with Amazon and Apple — are all classic monopolies in violation of long-standing but rarely enforced antitrust laws. Their control over multiple huge platforms that they purchased enables them to punish and even destroy competitors, as we saw when Apple, Google and Amazon united to remove Parler from the internet forty-eight hours after leading Democrats demanded that action, right as Parler became the most-downloaded app in the country, or as Google suppresses Rumble videos in its dominant search feature as punishment for competing with Google’s YouTube platform. Facebook and Twitter both suppressed reporting on the authentic documents about Joe Biden’s business activities reported by The New York Post just weeks before the 2020 election. These social media giants also united to effectively remove the sitting elected President of the United States from the internet, prompting grave warnings from leaders across the democratic world about how anti-democratic their consolidated censorship power has become.

    But none of the swooning over this new Facebook heroine nor any of the other media assaults on Facebook have anything remotely to do with a concern over those genuine dangers. Congress has taken no steps to curb the influence of these Silicon Valley giants because Facebook and Google drown the establishment wings of both parties with enormous amounts of cash and pay well-connected lobbyists who are friends and former colleagues of key lawmakers to use their D.C. influence to block reform. With the exception of a few stalwarts, neither party’s ruling wing really has any objection to this monopolistic power as long as it is exercised to advance their own interests.

    And that is Facebook’s only real political problem: not that they are too powerful but that they are not using that power to censor enough content from the internet that offends the sensibilities and beliefs of Democratic Party leaders and their liberal followers, who now control the White House, the entire executive branch and both houses of Congress. Haugen herself, now guided by long-time Obama operative Bill Burton, has made explicitly clear that her grievance with her former employer is its refusal to censor more of what she regards as “hate, violence and misinformation.” In a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday night, Haugen summarized her complaint about CEO Mark Zuckerberg this way: he “has allowed choices to be made where the side effects of those choices are that hateful and polarizing content gets more distribution and more reach.” Haugen, gushed The New York Times’ censorship-desperate tech unit as she testified on Tuesday, is “calling for regulation of the technology and business model that amplifies hate and she’s not shy about comparing Facebook to tobacco.”

    Agitating for more online censorship has been a leading priority for the Democratic Party ever since they blamed social media platforms (along with WikiLeaks, Russia, Jill Stein, James Comey, The New York Times, and Bernie Bros) for the 2016 defeat of the rightful heir to the White House throne, Hillary Clinton. And this craving for censorship has been elevated into an even more urgent priority for their corporate media allies, due to the same belief that Facebook helped elect Trump but also because free speech on social media prevents them from maintaining a stranglehold on the flow of information by allowing ordinary, uncredentialed serfs to challenge, question and dispute their decrees or build a large audience that they cannot control. Destroying alternatives to their failing platforms is thus a means of self-preservation: realizing that they cannot convince audiences to trust their work or pay attention to it, they seek instead to create captive audiences by destroying or at least controlling any competitors to their pieties.

    As I have been reporting for more than a year, Democrats do not make any secret of their intent to co-opt Silicon Valley power to police political discourse and silence their enemies. Congressional Democrats have summoned the CEO’s of Google, Facebook and Twitter four times in the last year to demand they censor more political speech. At the last Congressional inquisition in March, one Democrat after the next explicitly threatened the companies with legal and regulatory reprisals if they did not immediately start censoring more.

    A Pew survey from August shows that Democrats now overwhelmingly support internet censorship not only by tech giants but also by the government which their party now controls. In the name of “restricting misinformation,” more than 3/4 of Democrats want tech companies “to restrict false info online, even if it limits freedom of information,” and just under 2/3 of Democrats want the U.S. Government to control that flow of information over the internet:

    The prevailing pro-censorship mindset of the Democratic Party is reflected not only by that definitive polling data but also by the increasingly brash and explicit statements of their leaders. At the end of 2020, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), newly elected after young leftist activists worked tirelessly on his behalf to fend off a primary challenge from the more centrist Rep. Joseph Kennedy III (D-MA), told Facebook’s Zuckerberg exactly what the Democratic Party wanted. In sum, they demand more censorship:

    This, and this alone, is the sole reason why there is so much adoration being constructed around the cult of this new disgruntled Facebook employee. What she provides, above all else, is a telegenic and seemingly informed “insider” face to tell Americans that Facebook is destroying their country and their world by allowing too much content to go uncensored, by permitting too many conversations among ordinary people that are, in the immortal worlds of the NYT‘s tech reporter Taylor Lorenz, “unfettered.”

    When Facebook, Google, Twitter and other Silicon Valley social media companies were created, they did not set out to become the nation’s discourse police. Indeed, they affirmatively wanted not to do that. Their desire to avoid that role was due in part to the prevailing libertarian ideology of a free internet in that sub-culture. But it was also due to self-interest: the last thing social media companies wanted to be doing is looking for ways to remove and block people from using their product and, worse, inserting themselves into the middle of inflammatory political controversies. Corporations seek to avoid angering potential customers and users over political stances, not courting that anger.

    This censorship role was not one they so much sought as one that was foisted on them. It was not really until the 2016 election, when Democrats were obsessed with blaming social media giants (and pretty much everyone else except themselves) for their humiliating defeat, that pressure began escalating on these executives to start deleting content liberals deemed dangerous or false and banning their adversaries from using the platforms at all. As it always does, the censorship began by targeting widely disliked figures — Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones and others deemed “dangerous” — so that few complained (and those who did could be vilified as sympathizers of the early offenders). Once entrenched, the censorship net then predictably and rapidly spread inward (as it invariably does) to encompass all sorts of anti-establishment dissidents on the right, the left, and everything in between. And no matter how much it widens, the complaints that it is not enough intensify. For those with the mentality of a censor, there can never be enough repression of dissent. And this plot to escalate censorship pressures found the perfect vessel in this stunningly brave and noble Facebook heretic who emerged this week from the shadows into the glaring spotlight. She became a cudgel that Washington politicians and their media allies could use to beat Facebook into submission to their censorship demands.

    In this dynamic we find what the tech and culture writer Curtis Yarvin calls “power leak.” This is a crucial concept for understanding how power is exercised in American oligarchy, and Yarvin’s brilliant essay illuminates this reality as well as it can be described. Hyperbolically arguing that “Mark Zuckerberg has no power at all,” Yarvin points out that it may appear that the billionaire Facebook CEO is powerful because he can decide what will and will not be heard on the largest information distribution platform in the world. But in reality, Zuckerberg is no more powerful than the low-paid content moderators whom Facebook employs to hit the “delete” or “ban” button, since it is neither the Facebook moderators nor Zuckerberg himself who is truly making these decisions. They are just censoring as they are told, in obedience to rules handed down from on high. It is the corporate press and powerful Washington elites who are coercing Facebook and Google to censor in accordance with their wishes and ideology upon pain of punishment in the form of shame, stigma and even official legal and regulatory retaliation. Yarvin puts it this way:

    However, if Zuck is subject to some kind of oligarchic power, he is in exactly the same position as his own moderators. He exercises power, but it is not his power, because it is not his will. The power does not flow from him; it flows through him. This is why we can say honestly and seriously that he has no power. It is not his, but someone else’s. . . .

    Zuck doesn’t want to do any of this. Nor do his users particularly want it. Rather, he is doing it because he is under pressure from the press. Duh. He cannot even admit that he is under duress—or his Vietcong guards might just snap, and shoot him like the Western running-dog capitalist he is….

    And what grants the press this terrifying power? The pure and beautiful power of the logos? What distinguishes a well-written poast, like this one, from an equally well-written Times op-ed? Nothing at all but prestige. In normal times, every sane CEO will comply unhesitatingly with the slightest whim of the legitimate press, just as they will comply unhesitatingly with a court order. That’s just how it is. To not call this power government is—just playing with words.

    As I have written before, this problem — whereby the government coerces private actors to censor for them — is not one that Yarvin was the first to recognize. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, since at least 1963, that the First Amendment’s “free speech” clause is violated when state officials issue enough threats and other forms of pressure that essentially leave the private actor with no real choice but to censor in accordance with the demands of state officials. Whether we are legally at the point where that constitutional line has been crossed by the increasingly blunt bullying tactics of Democratic lawmakers and executive branch officials is a question likely to be resolved in the courts. But whatever else is true, this pressure is very real and stark and reveals that the real goal of Democrats is not to weaken Facebook but to capture its vast power for their own nefarious ends.

    There is another issue raised by this week’s events that requires ample caution as well. The canonized Facebook whistleblower and her journalist supporters are claiming that what Facebook fears most is repeal or reform of Section 230, the legislative provision that provides immunity to social media companies for defamatory or other harmful material published by their users. That section means that if a Facebook user or YouTube host publishes legally actionable content, the social media companies themselves cannot be held liable. There may be ways to reform Section 230 that can reduce the incentive to impose censorship, such as denying that valuable protection to any platform that censors, instead making it available only to those who truly allow an unmoderated platform to thrive. But such a proposal has little support in Washington. What is far more likely is that Section 230 will be “modified” to impose greater content moderation obligations on all social media companies.

    Far from threatening Facebook and Google, such a legal change could be the greatest gift one can give them, which is why their executives are often seen calling on Congress to regulate the social media industry. Any legal scheme that requires every post and comment to be moderated would demand enormous resources — gigantic teams of paid experts and consultants to assess “misinformation” and “hate speech” and veritable armies of employees to carry out their decrees. Only the established giants such as Facebook and Google would be able to comply with such a regimen, while other competitors — including large but still-smaller ones such as Twitter — would drown in those requirements. And still-smaller challengers to the hegemony of Facebook and Google, such as Substack and Rumble, could never survive. In other words, any attempt by Congress to impose greater content moderation obligations — which is exactly what they are threatening — would destroy whatever possibility remains for competitors to arise and would, in particular, destroy any platforms seeking to protect free discourse. That would be the consequence by design, which is why one should be very wary of any attempt to pretend that Facebook and Google fear such legislative adjustments.

    There are real dangers posed by allowing companies such as Facebook and Google to amass the power they have now consolidated. But very little of the activism and anger from the media and Washington toward these companies is designed to fracture or limit that power. It is designed, instead, to transfer that power to other authorities who can then wield it for their own interests. The only thing more alarming than Facebook and Google controlling and policing our political discourse is allowing elites from one of the political parties in Washington and their corporate media outlets to assume the role of overseer, as they are absolutely committed to doing. Far from being some noble whistleblower, Frances Haugen is just their latest tool to exploit for their scheme to use the power of social media giants to control political discourse in accordance with their own views and interests.

    Correction, Oct. 5, 2021, 5:59 pm ET: This article was edited to reflect that just under 2/3 of Democrats favor U.S. Government censorship of the internet in the name of fighting misinformation, not just over.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 19:25

  • FBI Counterterrorism Official Admits Agency Doesn't Track Antifa Violence
    FBI Counterterrorism Official Admits Agency Doesn’t Track Antifa Violence

    Last week, the FBI’s Assistant Director of Counterterrorism, Timothy Langan, admitted that the Bureau doesn’t track ‘Antifa’ violence – as they don’t consider the leftist group to be an ‘organization.’

    Via TownHall:

    In a congressional hearing last week titled “Confronting Violent White Supremacy (Part VI): Examining the Biden Administration’s Counterterrorism Strategy,” FBI Assistant Director of Counterterrorism Timothy Langan said that the Bureau doesn’t consider Antifa to be an “organization,” and as such does not have specific information on the group’s activities. 

    In response to a question about how much violence or domestic terrorism Antifa committed in recent years from Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), Langan had nothing to offer. 

    “Under the anti-government category or subcategory of domestic terrorism — would that include groups like Antifa or Black Lives Matter, folks who commit violence or acts of domestic terrorism?” Mace asked.

    “Well, we don’t identify groups but individuals’ actions,” Langan responded. “So if individuals are committing actions that would be in furtherance of anti-government or anarchist ideals then they would fall into that category.”

    Watch:

    Yet, in 2020 – under President Trump, FBI Director Chirstopher Wray told Congress: “We have seen Antifa adherence coalescing and working together in what I would describe as small groups and nodes,” adding that the bureau was conducting multiple investigations “into some anarchist violent extremists, some of whom operate through these nodes.”

    In September 2020, Wray said ‘Antifa is a real thing.’

    “Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement, or an ideology may be one way of thinking of it … And we have quite a number — and I’ve said this quite consistently since my first time appearing before this committee — we have any number of properly predicated investigations into what we would describe as violent anarchist extremists and some of those individuals self-identify with Antifa.”

    What’s more, in 2017 the FBI and DHS classified Antifa activities as “domestic terrorist violence.”

    Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO. –Politico

    Yet, Langan made clear that the FBI isn’t taking Antifa seriously.

    “The director has previously described them as a ‘movement’ and there have been individuals that have associated or identified with Antifa that have conducted violent acts that we would categorize as anarchist,” he said, after Mace asked if he would classify Antifa as an anarchist group.

    Mace pushed back, asking “How many acts of violence or domestic terrorism has Antifa committed over the last two years?” To which Langan replied: “Since we don’t categorize Antifa, nor do we calculate or collate information regarding Antifa, that movement, we don’t have that.”

    Last August, then Attorney General William Barr said that Antifa is a “revolutionary group” bent on establishing communism or socialism in the US.

    “They are a revolutionary group that is interested in some form of socialism, communism. They’re essentially Bolsheviks. Their tactics are fascistic,” Barr told Fox News.

    Related:

    Antifa Plots Acid Attack At DC Free Speech Rally

     “We Know Where You Sleep At Night”: Antifa Mob Whose Founder Loves Assassination Targets Tucker Carlson At Home

    Watch: “Street Anarchy” As Antifa Attacks Portland Drivers That Don’t Obey

    Bay Area TV Anchor: “I Experienced Hate First Hand Today In Berkeley” From Antifa

    “Let’s Kill Some Cops”: Antifa Infiltrated By Undercover Trump Supporter, Recorded Plotting Attacks

    “Still Think This Is An Idea?” – San Francisco Free-Speech Marchers, Police Violently Attacked By Antifa

    Conservative Journalist Jack Posobiec Assaulted By DC Antifa

    The FBI, however, apparently agrees with Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY)…

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

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 19:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 05

Today’s News 5th October 2021

  • Northwestern Europe Sees Mild Weather, Offers Temporary Relief From Energy Crisis
    Northwestern Europe Sees Mild Weather, Offers Temporary Relief From Energy Crisis

    Temperatures in northwest Europe are forecasted to be above average through the middle of next week, according to a new report from Maxar’s WeatherDesk. This is excellent news for the region that has been battered by below-average temperatures and soaring natural gas and power bill costs. 

    Above-average temperatures are forecasted for northwest Europe through next Wednesday. Then, in the second half of the month, temperatures will dip below trend and increase heating demand.

    Below average heating degree days for northwest Europe will be seen through Oct. 12 and then is expected to jump above trend by late next week, which signals cooler weather will take more energy to heat a building structure. 

    This week’s above-average temperatures may act as temporary relief for customers who’ve already had their wallets pummeled by European gas prices (Dutch TTF and UK NBP) hitting new highs amid lower stockpiles ahead of the winter season. 

    For the last several months, European gas prices have been soaring to new highs on a weekly basis. Reports indicated last week that a sudden drop in Russian natgas deliveries via the Yamal-Europe pipeline that runs across Belarus and Poland to Mallnow, Germany, was the spark that lifted prices even higher. 

    Warmer temperatures will be welcomed for this week into early next but gas prices could continue higher as cold weather is just ahead. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 02:45

  • US & British Surveillance Planes Circle Russia's Kaliningrad
    US & British Surveillance Planes Circle Russia’s Kaliningrad

    Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

    Spying activity is often driving tensions between NATO and Russia. This is the case in the Baltic right now, where US and British surveillance planes are very visibly active around the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

    The surveillance is being conducted by RC-135W, planes that conduct electronic surveillance, surveying the electromagnetic spectrum in the area to gather intelligence.

    Kaliningrad was historically Ostpreußen, a part of Germany, and before that Prussia. The Soviet Union took the land in 1946 after WW2. The exclave loomed large around the start of WW2, as the lack of a land connection between Ostpreußen and the rest of Germany was the source of a lot of tension with Poland. Germans were expelled by the Soviets, and Soviet citizens were moved in in the late 1940s.

    During the Cold War, Kaliningrad was physically connected to the rest of the Soviet Union through the Baltic States, but with them now independent and in NATO, the exclave is unconnected, and often a target of NATO exercises.

    From a strategic perspective Kaliningrad is used to monitor NATO operations, and Russia often threatens to deploy arms, including nuclear weapons, in Kaliningrad to counter US deployments in central Europe.

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

    Very active surveillance, like the kind the US and Britain are conducting, would be considered a provocation if Russia was doing it, and probably will be considered provocation by Russia since it’s being done to them.

    NATO is almost always needling Russia in the region, building up ever-growing numbers of troops in the Baltic states and conducting growing military exercises, centered around engagements against Russia in general and Kaliningrad in particular.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 10/05/2021 – 02:00

  • "Covert, Corrupt, & Coercive": Report Details Beijing's Bid To Establish New Global Media Order
    “Covert, Corrupt, & Coercive”: Report Details Beijing’s Bid To Establish New Global Media Order

    Authored by Eva Fu via The Epoch Times,

    The Chinese regime has been deploying “covert, corrupt and coercive” means to weaponize Chinese-language and Western media in a campaign to impose its vision of current affairs on the rest of the world, a recent French military think tank report finds.

    Beijing’s efforts to export its narratives have lasted for decades. The first Chinese Communist Party-controlled English language newspaper, China Daily, started in 1981. But such attempts had been clumsy and yielded slow results, according to Reporters Without Borders.

    The year 2008 marked a turning point. The Olympic Games in Beijing, an event the regime had hoped to leverage to showcase its economic success, gave rise to protests in nearly a dozen cities around the world that disrupted torch relays.

    The humiliation Beijing suffered from the resulting negative coverage had stung the authorities. To better control the regime’s global image, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) soon came up with a “10-year plan,” noted the report by the Institute for Strategic Studies of Military Schools (IRSEM), a think tank funded by the Ministry of the Armed Forces.

    A police officer communicates over his radio standing beside an anti-Chinese banner during a demonstration by pro-Tibet activists and supporters near venue of the Indonesia’s leg of 2008 Beijing Olympic torch relay in Jakarta on April 22, 2008. (Jewel Samad/AFP via Getty Images)

    The 650-page study, which drew on public information, research reports, and independent interviews, examined how Beijing has been exploiting the openness of the West to amplify its propaganda narratives, forming one component of the regime’s sprawling influence operations globally.

    The values of tolerance that characterize Western democracies have afforded Beijing “considerable freedom of movement,” allowing it to multiply its foreign offices, recruit foreign journalists to adapt its messages to different audiences, infiltrate local press with gifts and other material benefits, while dispensing billions of advertising dollars on Western media to further expand its reach, the report said.

    In China, rather than a watchdog meant to keep the government in check, the press under Beijing has become a tool to serve the Party, the report said. Such vision was made plain in a 2016 speech by Chinese leader Xi Jinping, during which he told around 180 state media representatives to align their ideology with that of the top officials, “speak for the Party’s will … and protect the Party’s authority,” according to a Xinhua readout.

    To some Xinhua reporters, Xi’s coming to power had marked the beginning of a new era, in which the Chinese media “no longer need to be ashamed of being communist media,” a Xinhua reporter told one of the report authors in 2018.

    Buying Influence

    Chinese state media are active on all social media networks, with a sizable influence on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram—all of which are blocked in China.

    Chinese state media set up English- and regional-language pages on Facebook in 2013. Eight years on, they have topped world’s media in term of following, with four major outlets—CGTN, China Daily, Xinhua, and People’s Daily—having between 86 million to 116 million followers each at the time of the French report’s publication, or about 2.5 to 3 times larger than that of CNN’s.

    The logo of CGTN is displayed on a computer monitor in London, England, on Feb. 4, 2021. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

    These “spectacular scores” have been the outcome of a deliberate effort to artificially inflate subscriber numbers, the authors said, pointing to the “exceptional growth rate” and the “extremely low interaction rate” these accounts receive.

    According to the report, around eight major Chinese state media in English have an average growth rate of 37.8 percent from the period Jan. 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020, or about 5,000 times higher than that of U.S. mainstream media, but their level of engagement is 68 times lower.

    Tender documents dated 2018 and 2019 reveal that state run outlets have been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to acquire followers on Twitter and Facebook in what appeared to be a campaign to establish themselves as authoritative news voices.

    “When … you see tens of millions of people following, then you feel like this is pretty credible,” Sarah Cook, a China analyst at human rights watchdog Freedom House, told The Epoch Times at the time. She described it as a “new frontier,” that is, “an avenue for accessing the grassroots in society and public in other countries.”

    Facebook and Twitter logos are seen on a shop window in Malaga, Spain, on June 4, 2018. (Jon Nazca/Reuters)

    The proportion of fake accounts among their Twitter followers is hard to ignore: For an average Twitter user, from 5 to 30 percent of the accounts that follow them are bots or spam; but the fake account ratio for the four aforementioned media ranges from 34.3 percent to 38.4 percent. For their French versions, the numbers shoot up to as high as 62.8 percent, the researchers found.

    CCP-controlled China Daily at the same time is pouring millions of dollars to distribute their content through some of the most influential publications around the world. Between November 2016 and April 2020, China Daily paid nearly 19 million to U.S. newspapers to insert their free supplement called China Watch.

    The collaboration has a three-fold benefit, the authors said. Not only does it help the Chinese media reach its target audience, it makes them appear more credible, and gives them financial leverage over their partner media.

    British newspaper The Telegraph, which until April last year had been receiving roughly £750,000 (roughly $1 million) per year to distribute China Watch, also carried at least 20 signed articles by the Chinese ambassador to the U.K. between 2016 and 2018—twice the number published by the Daily Mail, The Guardian, and Financial Times combined, according to a 2019 study published on Royal United Services Institute, a British defense and security think tank.

    A New Global Media Order

    The U.S. State Department has designated a total of 15 Chinese state-run outlets’ entities based in the country as foreign missions because they are “substantially owned or effectively controlled” by a foreign government, a department spokesperson told The Epoch Times in September.

    A newspaper consumer reads a copy of China’s Africa edition of its daily newspaper in front of a news stand in the Kenyan capital on Dec. 14, 2012. (Tony Karumba/AFP via Getty Images)

    In the case of state-run news agency Xinhua, its local journalists have the “sole mission of translating dispatches previously penned by Chinese staff,” the French report said. A French journalist for Xinhua told a report author in 2018 that their Xinhua dispatches consist of 80 percent translations from English and 20 percent from Chinese. The translations and occasional original article would all be proofread by a Chinese journalist fluent in French and attuned to “Party’s expectations as well as the ‘preferred stories,’” according to the Xinhua reporter.

    Former staff members from pro-Beijing Hong Kong newspaper Sing Tao have recounted similar stories to The Epoch Times after the publication registered its five U.S. entities as foreign agents under orders from the Justice Department in August.

    David, a former senior editor for Sing Tao’s New York office, said that he was briefed on “two principles” on his first day: no reporting of news on Falun Gong, a spiritual group persecuted by Beijing, nor Taiwan independence. Another, who worked for the outlet’s San Francisco office years ago, said she was told not to use the word CCP—the acronym for the Chinese Communist Party—nor “Republic of China,” the official name for the self-ruling island of Taiwan that the regime claims as its own. Instead, she was to use the words “China” and “Taiwan Province of the People’s Republic of China” respectively, she told The Epoch Times.

    Acquiring foreign media, training journalists, donating gifts and equipment, applying diplomatic pressure, using visa blackmail, leveling threats through phone calls are among some other tactics deployed by Beijing to reshape the media landscape overseas to bend to its will, according to the report.

    In South Africa, journalist Azad Essa saw his weekly column canceled from Independent Media, the country’s second-largest media group, hours after the publication of his Sept. 2018 story condemning the persecution of Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang region. The media group is 20 percent owned by two Chinese entities backed or controlled by Beijing.

    Damaged computers and construction debris on the floor of The Epoch Times Hong Kong edition’s printing press in Hong Kong, China, on April 12, 2021. (Adrian Yu/The Epoch Times)

    The Hong Kong edition of The Epoch Times has been subject to a string of vandalism since its establishment, in what critics said bears the hallmarks of the regime’s intimidation tactics to silence independent reporting.

    Due to fears of reprisal, Chinese-language media groups in Australia have chosen to actively self-censor, according to a September study by Sydney-based Lowy Institute.

    “Politically sensitive topics or criticisms against the Chinese government would put our staff members or their families at risk. We don’t want them or their families to get detained in China,” one media proprietor told the think tank.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 23:40

  • Russia Launches Hypersonic Cruise Missile From A Nuclear Submarine In Historic First
    Russia Launches Hypersonic Cruise Missile From A Nuclear Submarine In Historic First

    In what appears to be a world-first, Russia on Monday successfully launched a hypersonic cruise missile from a submarine. Russia’s defense ministry subsequently published video of the nighttime launch from the far northern Barents Sea, saying the test was successful and that the missile hit its target.

    “The test firing of the Tsirkon missile from a nuclear submarine was deemed successful,” the ministry stated. And Reuters detailed that “Low-quality video footage released by the ministry showed the missile shooting upwards from a submarine, its glare lighting up the night sky and illuminating the water’s surface.”

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

    The experimental weapon, which Putin has previously declared “unrivaled” to any missile system in the world, was launched from the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine. He’s also called them “invincible” as they are believed so fast as to be nearly impossible to shoot down.

    Putin has also touted that Russia’s hypersonic arsenal is capable of evading the US mainland’s network of defensive missiles, especially in a series of remarks going back to 2018 when Russia began publicizing its hypersonics program.

    A follow-up video issued by the Russian MoD on Monday appeared to show a second test, this time with the submarine submerged underwater at the moment the missile was fired…

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

    In July of this year the Russian Navy had first successfully fired the Zircon from a warship in the White Sea. 

    Russian officials have described the Zircon missile as capable of traveling upwards of Mach 9, or about 6,900 mph and a distance of 1,000 kilometers (621 miles). Putin described the recent launches as a “great event not just in the life of our armed forces but for all of Russia.”

    * * *

    Here is the July test of the Zircon launched from a warship, which had also been a first for Russia:

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 23:20

  • Will The China Cold War Unstick America's Glue?
    Will The China Cold War Unstick America’s Glue?

    Authored by Alastair Crooke via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Can an America that off-shored much of its manufacturing capacity to China, for short-term profit, afford the de-coupling?

    Washington isn’t quite sure what to do after the chaotic end to America’s ‘forever’ war. Some in Washington bitterly regret exiting from Afghanistan at all, and advocate for an immediate return; some just want to move on – to the China ‘Cold War’, that is. The cries from the initial Establishment ‘melt down’ and its articulation of pain over the Kabul withdrawal débacle, however, indicates the extent to which the almost obsessive focus on ‘Hobbling China’ nevertheless seems like an humiliating retreat to U.S. hawks, habituated to more global, and unlimited interventions.

    It is a retreat. ‘Rome’ is relegating its ‘distant provinces’ to their own devices, and even its abutting loyalist inner circle is being downgraded to ‘benign’ indifference. It is a drawing-in towards the ‘hub’, a ‘circling of wagons’ – the better to muster energies for a lunge out at China.

    There are the acquiescent regions that Americans occupied after WW II (the psychologically-seared Japan and Germany), and then there is the American world empire, which exists chimerically wherever U.S. commercial and cultural power reaches, and more practically in its patchwork of client states and military installations. This third empire is regarded by many Americans as its most remarkable achievement – a triumph of the ‘City of Light’.

    The post 9/11 era’s final ‘Mad Hatter’s Tea Party’ dénouement scene at Kabul Airport did however, clearly convey a strong end-of-the-Roman Empire feel. Yes, failure in Afghanistan may have taken place far from Rome itself, yet something more profound today hangs in the air: a Change of Era.

    And defeats on distant frontiers, can entail profound consequences – closer to the imperial core – as a sense of accelerating imperial decline bleeds into domestic arguments, widening already yawning ideological rifts.

    An embedded national consensus can change very slowly, and then, under the right pressure, all at once. And in many subtle and sometimes chaotic ways, that trigger for change came from Trump. No dove or systematiser, he nonetheless made realism and anti-interventionism, quasi-respectable again.

    Elbridge Colby, who was in Trump’s Pentagon helping devise its national defence strategy, has a new book, The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict, making the case for a foreign policy that leaves the post-9/11 era clearly and decisively behind. The outer circle of the ‘periphery’ reduces to over-horizon, necro-tech management, and the ‘near provinces of empire’, such as Europe are dismissed as ‘sideshows’ to the main event – China. To focus on Iran or North Korea, he says, is simply misguided.

    It is “a realist’s book, laser-focused on China’s bid for mastery in Asia as the 21st century’s most important threat”, Ross Douthat writes in the NY Times. “All other challenges are secondary: Only China threatens American interests in a profound way, through a consolidation of economic power in Asia that imperils our prosperity and a military defeat that could shatter our alliance system. Therefore, American policy should be organized to deny Beijing regional hegemony and deter any military adventurism — first and foremost, through a stronger commitment to defending the island of Taiwan”.

    The Strategy of Denial presents a particularly unsentimental version of a rapidly consolidating Washington consensus. Biden’s speech justifying withdrawal from Afghanistan, in terms of an end to nation-building and focus on counter-terrorism – albeit more softly spoken – said the same as Colby.

    The contradictions implicit within the 9/11 era’s War on Terror, and coercive westification, may have become only too plain today with 20th anniversary hindsight, but other contradictions within the ‘Hobble China’ pivot are potentially just as fatal to its success – as were the flawed assumptions underlying the 9/11 era zeitgeist.

    Its’ most basic contradiction is that far from providing the balm around which Americans can gather and unify, the China pivot is likely only to loosen the glue binding a heterogeneous ‘nation’ increasingly turning in upon itself.

    Firstly, the ‘new consensus’ has it that the best way for America to weaken China is to make it ‘the world versus China’ – confronting it with a broad, transnational coalition, based on the value-struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Yes, but this repeats the error underlying the 9/11 policy – namely by assuming that the rest of the world still admires and aspires to emulate American liberal democracy. Look what occurred in Afghanistan. The world has changed – deference to western values per se has evaporated.

    There once was a time when ‘pro-Europeans’ too, were confident that the world would almost inevitably be remade in the image of the West, as it endlessly expanded its rules, and exported its model. Since then, even the Europeans have lost confidence in a world vision, and have become psychotically more defensive (imagining looming ‘threats’ from everywhere and everything). And as the European model has hollowed out, becoming less credible, so too, Europe has and leant into raw mercantilism. The logic of the European situation is clear. It needs China, more than China needs Europe.

    It would be a huge ‘stretch’ therefore, for Washington to imagine that ‘the world’ might side with its democratic values against China’s ‘authoritarianism’. Just to remind, U.S. democracy was tarnished in the eyes of the world in light of the 2020 Election. And some 70–80 million Americans share that view too. We saw it nightly on our screens.

    Secondly, it assumes that America’s ‘corporate’, capitalist economic system is a tremendous asset in the Cold War against China. Well, it isn’t. China has its economic problems, certainly; but unlike most western states, it is trying to move away from raw neo-liberalism and endless liquidity – as the hammer set to every ‘nail’. China is deliberately turning away from this model’s distortions, sky-high housing and living-costs, huge inequalities, and collateral social damage. It would be an error to underestimate ‘the pull’ of this alt-vision (even for Europeans). China is, itself, a civilisational pole.

    Then thirdly, there is the basic contradiction in having a laser-like single focus on ‘Hobble China’, which is brought about only at the expense of feeding Americans’ sense of accelerating imperial decline, bleeding into domestic tensions.

    This is Pat Buchanan’s argument in a piece entitled, Who and What Is Tearing the U.S. Apart? He answers:

    “After 9/11, Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. President Barack Obama attacked Libya and plunged us into the Syrian and Yemeni civil wars. Thus, over 20 years, we have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and driven hundreds of thousands more from their homes and their countries. Are Americans really as oblivious? … Many of these peoples want us out of their countries for the same reason that 18th and 19th-century Americans wanted the French, British and Spanish out of our country and out of our hemisphere”.

    “Unlike previous generations, our 21st-century divisions are far broader — not just economic and political, but social, moral, cultural and racial. Abortion, same-sex marriage and transgender rights divide us. Socialism and capitalism divide us. Affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, urban crime, gun violence and critical race theory divide us. Allegations of white privilege and white supremacy, and demands that equality of opportunity give way to equity of rewards, divide us. In the COVID-19 pandemic, the wearing of masks and vaccine mandates divide us”.

    “The debate over American national identity is cursed seven times over”, Darel Paul, Professor of Political Science at Williams College, writes:

    “Does the United States even constitute a ‘nation’? In the sense of common descent (the root of “nation” is the Latin nasci, to be born) – clearly not. Widespread fear of such an ethnic sense of American identity drives considerable hostility to the very idea of nationalism. Most American elites prefer words like ‘patriotism’ … The problem with this conception of patriotism is that it is a weak glue. The recent history of the United States offers ample evidence. Rather than objects of agreement – liberty, equality, individual rights, and self-government are instead [today] the objects of discord.

    “Here we come to the real glue of America: From the founding of the country in the fires of war, the United States has been an expansionary republican empire ever incorporating new lands, new peoples, new goods, new resources, new ideas. This “empire of liberty,” as Thomas Jefferson called it, knew no limits … Continuous military, commercial, and cultural expansion since Jamestown and Plymouth cultivated the restlessness, vigour, optimism, self-confidence, and love of glory for which Americans have long been known. The glue of America has thus ever been what Niccolò Machiavelli called virtù in service of “a commonwealth for expansion.” Such a republic is always in tumult, yet a tumult that, if well-ordered, finds glory …

    “Forward motion thus becomes the lifeblood of such a polity. Without it, the purpose of the civic bonds of unity inevitably come into question. An America that is not a glorious republican empire in motion is not America, full stop. This part of the American mythos Lincoln left unsaid at Gettysburg.

    “Since the 1960s, the glory of the American empire of liberty has tarnished. Since the mid-2010s it has fallen under sustained internal attack. The failures of national purpose in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are amplified by the failure of globalization to generate common wealth for the commonwealth. If Americans are not united for expansionary republican greatness, what then are all these fissiparous races, creeds, and cultures bound together for? While belief that self-government may perish from the earth without American unity may have been plausible in 1863 or 1941, it is a hard sell in 2021”.

    Does this struggle against China make sense? Can America, whose economic and financial system today is highly precarious, afford to bludgeon China into adverse economic straits also? Can an America that off-shored much of its manufacturing capacity to China, for short-term profit, afford the de-coupling? Do American corporate leaders truly share the view that the (inevitable) consolidation of economic power in Asia imperils American prosperity, and that its consolidation would shatter their imperial outreach, dollar-based order? Possibly they do. They do fear it.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 23:00

  • Iran Demands US Unfreeze $10BN In Assets To Return To Nuclear Negotiating Table
    Iran Demands US Unfreeze $10BN In Assets To Return To Nuclear Negotiating Table

    In what looks to be yet another serious obstacle in the way of the prospect of jump starting Iran nuclear negotiations with world powers in Vienna, which have been stalled since June, and prior to Ebrahim Raisi taking office, Iran is asking the Biden administration to immediately unfreeze some $10 in Iranian assets.

    Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian called it a necessary “sign of good will” to show that the American side is “serious” about returning to the Vienna process. 

    Getty Images

    “The Americans tried to contact us through different channels (at the U.N. General Assembly) in New York, and I told the mediators if America’s intentions are serious then a serious indication was needed … by releasing at least $10 billion of blocked money,” the Iranian foreign minister said in a weekend interview. 

    Billions in its foreign-held assets have been effectively blocked for a couple years since Trump-era sanctions targeting the Islamic Republic’s international assets took effect. Amir-Abdollahian argued in his comments that at least “once” the US has to show its ready to consider “the interests of the Iranian nation.”

    “They are not willing to free $10 billion belonging to the Iranian nation so that we can say that the Americans once in the past several decades considered the interests of the Iranian nation,” he explained.

    Earlier last month the FM had vowed that Iran is ready to return to the negotiating table “very soon” but said the recently installed Raisi government is still “reviewing” the negotiation files. 

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

    So far the US State Department has kept mum on the Iran FM’s weekend plea to unfreeze assets. It’s not likely to happen given Biden is already facing pressure from Republicans and would be accused of “caving” to the mullahs in Tehran if he were to unfreeze the requested billions.

    It’s also unlikely that Washington would allow the Iranians to set what appear as belated pre-conditions for deeper talks, giving possible leverage to move the goal posts further. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 22:40

  • To Save America, Durham Must Reveal The Whole Russiagate Story And Punish The Guilty
    To Save America, Durham Must Reveal The Whole Russiagate Story And Punish The Guilty

    Authored by Roger Simon, op-ed via The Epoch Times,

    A bit more information has emerged from the John Durham investigation into Russiagate (or “Spygate,”as it is known hereabouts).

    This is due to what is likely a leak from one or more of the targets to their loyal propagandists at CNN. (In the article, the reporters do their best to downgrade the scandal they fanned for years as no more than a trivial “dirty trick” that all campaigns do. There’s a well-known word for that adapted into the English language.)

    The import of these leaks is usually to soften the impact on the target(s), but it also gives us another indication Durham is still active.

    In this instance, more subpoenas have been issued, including some to Perkins Coie. That’s the Democratic National Committee’s and Hillary Clinton’s law firm that only a few weeks ago defenestrated—for reasons unspecified, but we can guess— one of Hillary’s principal lawyers, Mark Elias.

    The other Clinton campaign lawyer, Michael Sussman, has already been charged with lying to the FBI on the matter of alleged Trump links to the Russian Alpha Bank, ties that turned out to be non-existent.

    This time, however, we learned that “Tech Executive-1” in the Sussman indictment is Rodney Joffe, a rather distinguished cybersecurity expert, but not in this case because he was apparently involved with the same attempted deception.

    Mr. Joffe was evidently no fan of Donald Trump. How far he took his enmity we shall see as this plays out.

    Or we won’t. Therein lies the problem. Many are worried that Durham will only take the investigation so far and then peter out.

    A real Russiagate investigation has myriad possible targets with very famous names, some of the most famous, in fact. Yet negativism about the results is everywhere in conservative circles with some justification.

    When then AG William Barr gave Durham his brief, he was quoted in The Hill (March 2020) as follows:

    “Attorney General William Barr said Monday that he does not expect a criminal investigation of former President Obama or former Vice President Joe Biden to result from the probe undertaken by U.S. Attorney John Durham.

    “Based on the information I have today, I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man,” Barr told reporters at the Justice Department. ‘Our concern over potential criminality is focused on others.’”

    Sounds pretty weak, doesn’t it, with some people, too big to be investigated, surrounded by a cordon sanitaire.

    Yet rumor has it already that Jake Sullivan is under suspicion in the Alpha Bank matter, at the least. That’s remarkably close to Biden as Sullivan is his National Security Advisor, one of the most powerful positions in the country (cf. Henry Kissinger), as we have seen, to our national misfortune, during the Afghanistan debacle.

    How justified is that suspicion of Sullivan? Paul Sperry wrote in Real Clear Investigations:

    “The indictment states that Sussmann, as well as the cyber experts recruited for the operation, ‘coordinated with representatives and agents of the Clinton campaign with regard to the data and written materials that Sussmann gave to the FBI and the media.’ One of those campaign agents was Sullivan, according to emails Durham obtained.”

    Biden himself was said to have recommended the ancient and hardly-used Logan Act—how he would even have known about it is worth finding out, but anyway…—in an attempt to punish Gen. Michael Flynn during an oft-discussed, but never fully revealed, Oval Office meeting at the tail end (Jan. 5, 2017) of the Obama administration.

    That meeting itself, emailed about by Susan Rice weeks after it took place seemingly to provide Obama presidential deniability, is even more worthy of exploration—or is it off limits as per William Barr? We don’t know.

    Yes, there is plenty of reason to be skeptical. The Sullivan matter has barely been discussed in the mainstream media, even though the possible miscreant is the National Security Advisor.

    Is everything being sent down the memory hole? Who exactly is to blame in all this? We don’t know that either, though we have guesses about that too.

    But it is imperative we must ultimately know. Durham must carry his investigation through to the end, because Russiagate quite clearly marked the beginning of the end of our democratic republic as we knew it.

    All the malfeasances that have occurred since from the endless COVID lockdowns to Afghanistan to the open border to the violence in our streets and the relentless propaganda and bizarre arrests surrounding Jan. 6, not to mention the 2020 election itself, point back to it, relate to it, in one way or another.

    None of these events would have happened the way they did without it. Some would not have happened at all.

    Russiagate was a crime whose extent and import dwarfed Watergate and made that supposed scandal, subject of a Hollywood movie though it is, barely as important, by comparison, as shoplifting at a 7-11.

    Yet Nixon and the others paid, badly. Hardly anyone has been punished here so far beyond what has amounted to slaps on the wrists.

    So what do we do? Do we sit back passively, maybe adding a few snipes here and there, and let Durham do his job, hoping for the best?

    I say no. We all have a role to play. Durham is a man like the rest of us. Consciously or unconsciously, if he knows we’re watching, he’s going to behave in a different manner than if he thinks we’re lulled to sleep.

    Be as active as possible in talking and lobbying about this. You don’t have to be a so-called “elite” to do this or be an anchorman on ABC. You just have to be a concerned citizen, an honest man or woman. Keep talking about it to friend and foe. Show up with a sign at an inconvenient (for them) place. Put it on the internet, text to everyone you know or can think of. Discuss it on Signal and Telegraph. Never let Russiagate be forgotten. Put it out there in the zeitgeist and keep it there.

    The mainstream/legacy media isn’t going to do it. They will obfuscate as much as possible. We have to do it. It’s up to us. If we don’t, we have no grounds for complaint when it goes down the memory hole—and with it our country.

    Two things are of paramount importance to us going forward if we want to save our republic, this full explication of what happened during the Trump-Russia affair, including everyone responsible being properly punished, so we are sure as we can be it will never happen again, and genuine integrity for our broken elections.

    Work on that too. Many already are. The two go hand in hand.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 22:20

  • Fed Prepares To Launch "Review" Of Central Bank Digital Currency That Could Render Cash, Privacy Obsolete
    Fed Prepares To Launch “Review” Of Central Bank Digital Currency That Could Render Cash, Privacy Obsolete

    For years now, and in response to similar projects at central banks in Europe and – more importantly – China with the PBOC, the Fed has been hemming and hawing about whether to take the possibility of creating a “FedCoin” more seriously.

    Senior officials have been pretty tetchy about carefully weighing the “pros and cons” of a system that  would, in theory, enable the Fed to deposit money directly into the ‘digital wallets’ of regular Americans, a power that could ultimately render the entire private banking system obsolete.

    And so, as we wait for the Fed to take the next tenuous steps toward developing a CBDC, WSJ has offered yet another leak confirming that the Fed is finally ready to release its official ‘report’ on CBDCs, which will serve as the start of a long-promised “review” of the pros and cons of CBDCs that’s supposed to allow for public feedback. The report could drop “as early as this week”.

    Some more compassionate proponents of a FedCoin argue it could create a kind of “parallel” system where the Fed would be able to directly and easily dispense FedCoins to the public (the ideal of “helicopter money”, finally achieved), without relying on banks or the IRS as intermediaries, which could make delivering this type of aid faster and cheaper. It could also offer a more “efficient” avenue for distributing welfare or financial aid (that is, unless the Fed chose to distribute FedCoin through financial intermediaries instead of sending them directly from the Fed to the American people.

    It could also be the greatest weapon in the war to make cash obsolete.

    But within the Fed, the drive to create a “FedCoin” is primarily rooted in the fear that not having a central bank digital currency could potentially threaten the dollar’s dominance in the global financial system. In that respect, it’s like any other technological arms race.

    Here’s more on that from Fed Governor Lael Brainard: “It’s just very hard for me to imagine that the US, given the status of the dollar as a dominant currency in international payments, wouldn’t come to the table in that circumstance with a similar kind of an offering,” she said.

    Chairman Powell has done his best to push for caution, arguing that it’s more important to “get it right” than be “first to market”. Put another way: who cares if the PBOC roles out the “e-RMB” first? The dollar’s role in the global financial system is much greater, which means the US is obligated to proceed with more trepidation.

    Powell and others have said repeatedly that the Fed’s research so far has been early and exploratory. Powell has also pointed to the fact that many Americans still use and prefer cash. Most importantly, Powell has addressed concerns that a CBDC would effectively allow the Fed to monitor the finances of every American.

    “It’s our obligation to do the work both on technology and on public policy to form a basis for making an informed decision,” he said last month.

    Others on the Fed, including Randy Quarles, the Fed’s financial regulation guy, has slammed CBDCs as a fad, noting that the US dollar is already “highly digitized”. A report from the Philly Fed recently warned that a CBDC could also destabilize the financial system if everybody were to pull their digital dollars from markets, mutual funds and banks.

    But enough of what senior Fed officials are saying: pretty soon, it will be the “public’s” turn, as the Fed has promised to solicit public comment during its review.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 22:00

  • Economic Theory & Long-Wave Cycles
    Economic Theory & Long-Wave Cycles

    Authored by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

    Investors and others are confused by the early stages of accelerating price inflation. One misleading belief is in cycles of industrial production, such as Kondratieff’s waves. The Kondratieff cycle began to emerge in financial commentaries during the inflationary 1970s, along with other wacky theories. We should reject them as an explanation for rising prices today.

    This article explains why the only cycle that matters is of bank credit, from which all other cyclical observations should be made. But that is not enough, because on their own cycles of bank credit do not destroy currencies – that is the consequence of central bank policies and the expansion of base money.

    The relationship between base money and changes in a currency’s purchasing power is not mechanical. It merely sets the scene.

    What matters is widespread public perceptions of how much spending liquidity is personally needed. It is by altering the ratio of currency-to-hand to anticipated needs that purchasing power is radically altered, and in the earliest stages of a hyperinflation of prices it leads to imbalances between supply and demand, resulting in the panic buying for essentials becoming evident today.

    Panics over energy and other necessities are only the start of it. Unless it is checked by halting the expansion of currency and credit, current dislocations will slide rapidly into a wider flight from currency into real goods – a crack-up boom.

    Introduction

    For eighteen months, the world has seen a boom in commodity prices, which has inevitably led to speculation about a new Kondratieff, or K-wave. Google it, and we see it described as a long cycle of economic activity in capitalist economies lasting 40—60 years. It marks periods of evolution and correction driven by technological innovation.

    Today’s adherents to the theory describe it in terms of the seasons. Spring is recovery, leading into a boom. Summer is an increase in wealth and affluence and a deceleration of growth. Autumn is stagnating economic conditions. And winter is a debilitating depression. But these descriptions did not feature in Kondratieff’s work. Van Duijan construed it differently around life cycles: introduction, growth, maturity, and decline.

    We must discard the word growth, substituting for it progress. Growth as measured by GDP is no more than an increase in the amount of currency and bank credit in circulation and therefore meaningless. Most people who refer to growth believe they are describing progress, or a general improvement in quality of life. Instead, they are sanctioning inflationism.

    There is little doubt that economic progress is uneven, but that is down to innovation. Kondratieff’s followers argue that innovation is a cyclical phenomenon, otherwise as a cyclical theory it cannot hold water. An economic historian would argue that the root of innovation is the application of technological discoveries which by their nature must be random, as opposed to cyclical, events.

    Furthermore, a decision must be made about how to measure the K-wave. Is it of fluctuations in the price level and of what, or of output volumes? Bear in mind that GDP and GNP were not invented until the 1930s, and all prior GDP figures are guesswork. Is it driven by Walt Rostow’s contention that the K-wave is pushed by variations in the relative scarcity of food and raw materials? Or is it a monetary phenomenon, which appeared to cease after the Second World War, when currency expansion was not hampered by a gold standard?

    It was an argument consistent with that put forward by Edward Bernstein, who was a key adviser to the US delegation at Bretton Woods, when he concluded that the war need not be followed by the deep post-war depression which based on historical precedent was widely expected at the time. Kondratieff’s wave theories were buried by the lack of a post-war slump, until price inflation began to increase in the 1970s and Kondratieff became fashionable again.

    Kondratieff maintained that his wave theory is a global capitalist phenomenon, applicable to and detected in major economies, such as those of Britain, America, and Germany. But there is no statistical evidence of a long wave in Britain’s industrial production in the first half of the nineteenth century, when Britannia ruled the economic waves. And while there were financial crises from time to time, the downward phase to complete Kondratieff’s cycle never materialised.

    Today, with K-waves being fundamental to so much analysis of cyclical factors and their extrapolation, the lack of evidence and rigour in Kondratieff theory should be concerning to those who believe in it. That there are variations in the pace of human progress is unarguable, and that there is a discernible cycle of them beyond mundane seasonal influences cannot be denied. But that is a cycle of credit, a factor which was at least partially understood by Bernstein, when he correctly surmised that the way to bury a post-war depression was by expanding the quantity of money.

    Bank credit cycles and inflation

    When the inflation of money supply is mostly that of bank credit, it is cyclical in nature. Its consequences for the purchasing power of the currency conforms with the cycle, but with a time lag. Furthermore, the effect is weaker in a population which tends to save than with one which tends to spend more of its income on immediate consumption. No further comment is required on this effect, other than to state that over the whole cycle of bank credit prices are likely to be relatively stable. This was the situation in Britain, which dominated the global economy for most of the period between the introduction of the gold sovereign following the 1816 Coinage Act until the First World War.

    Figure 1 confirms that despite fluctuating levels of bank credit, from 1822—1914 the general level of prices was broadly unchanged. The price effect of the expansion of coin-backed currency between the two dates and the increase in population offset the reduction of costs in production through a combination of improvements in production methods, technological developments, and increased volumes. What cannot be reflected in the graph is the remarkable progress made in improving the standards of living for everyone over the nineteenth century.

    The gold standard was abandoned at the start of the First World War, and the general level of prices more than doubled. Having seen prices rise during the war, in December 1919 the Cunliffe Committee recommended a return to the gold standard and the supply of currency was restricted from 1920 with this objective in mind. A gold bullion standard instead of a coin standard was introduced in 1925, tying sterling at the pre-war rate of $4.8665, which remained in place until 1931.[iv] From thereon, the purchasing power of the currency began its long decline as central bank money supply expanded.

    There is no long-term cyclicality in these changes. Following the abandonment of the gold standard, and in line with other currencies which abandoned gold convertibility in the 1930s sterling simply sank. The key to this devaluation is not fluctuations in bank credit, but the expansion of base currency. And there is no evidence of a Kondratieff, or any other long-term cycle of production. It can only be a monetary effect.

    The role of money in long waves

    It is worth bearing in mind that the so-called evidence discovered by Kondratieff was in the mind of a Marxist convinced that capitalism would fail. The downturn of a capitalist winter, or decline in growth — whatever definition is used, was baked in the anti-capitalist cake. The Marxists and other socialists were and still are all too ready to claim supposed failings of capitalism, evidenced in their eyes by periodic recessions, slumps, and depressions.

    Kondratieff’s economic bias may or may not have coloured his analysis — only by digging deeply into his own soul could he have answered that. But in the absence of firm evidence supporting his wave theory we should discard it. After all, there is a rich history of the religious zeal with which spurious theories in the fields of economics and money arise. The consequences of sunspot cycles and the supposed importance of anniversary dates are typical of this ouija board theme.

    Non-monetary cycle themes such as that devised by Kondratieff have socialism at their core. It is assumed that capitalists, bourgeois businessmen seeking through the division of labour to manufacture and supply consumer goods for profit, in their greed are reckless about commercial risks from overinvestment. This is nonsense. Fools are quickly discovered in free markets, and they are also quickly dismissed. Successful entrepreneurs and businessmen are very much aware of risk and do not embark on projects in the expectation they will be unprofitable, and it is therefore untrue to suggest that the capitalist system fails for this reason.

    To the contrary, markets that are truly free have been entirely responsible for the rapid improvement in the human condition, while it is government intervention that leads to periodic crises by interfering in the relationships between producers and consumers and setting in motion a cycle of interest rate suppression and currency expansion.

    Markets which are truly free deliver economic progress by anticipating consumer demands and deploying capital efficiently to meet them. It is no accident that economies with minimal government intervention deliver far higher standards of living than those micro-managed by governments. Hong Kong under hands-off British administration, with no natural resources and enduring floods of impoverished refugees from Mainland China stood in sharp contrast with China under Mao. Post-war East and West Germany, populated by the same ethnic people, the former communist and the latter capitalist, provides further unarguable proof that capitalism succeeds where socialism fails.

    Marxist socialism kills cycles by the most brutal method. It cannot entertain the economic calculations necessary to link production with anticipated demand. There is no mechanism for the redistribution of capital for its more efficient use. Consumption is never satisfied, and consumers must wait interminably for inferior products to be supplied. Any pretence at a cycle is simply suppressed out of existence.

    Almost all long-wave literature assumes that prices change due to supply and demand for commodities and goods alone, and never from variations in the quantity of money and credit. But even under a gold standard, the quantities of money and credit varied all the time. In Britain, and therefore in the rest of the financially developed world which adopted its banking practices, gold was merely partial backing for currency and bank deposits, which since the days of London’s goldsmiths also lubricated the creation of debt outside the banking system. While originally gold was used as coin money, since 1914 when Britain went off the gold coin standard even this role in transactions ceased.

    Having explained the random nature of free market capitalism, the difference from capitalistic banking must be explained. It owes its origin to London’s goldsmiths, who took in deposits to use for their own benefit, paying six per cent out of the profits they made by dealing in money. This evolved into fractional reserve banking which became the banking model for the British Empire and the rest of the world.

    As well as renewing the Bank of England’s charter, the Bank Charter Act of 1844 further legitimised fractional reserve banking by giving in to the Banking School’s argument that the amount of credit in circulation is adequately controlled by the ordinary processes of competitive banking.

    If banks acted independently from one another competing for customers and business, we might reasonably conclude that there would be from time-to-time random bank failures without cyclicality, as the Banking School argued. In capitalistic commerce, it is this process of creative destruction that ensures consumers are best served and an economy progresses to their advantage. But with banks, it is different. Each bank creates deposits which are interchanged between other banks, and imbalances are centrally cleared. Therefore, every bank has financial relations with its competitors and is exposed to its competitors’ counterparty risks, which if acted upon creates losses for themselves and other banks, risking in extremis a system-wide crisis. Banking is therefore a cartel whose members acting in their own interests tend to act in unison. In the nineteenth century his led to systemic crises, the most infamous of which were the Overend Gurney and Baring failures. It was to address this systemic risk that central banking took upon itself the role of lender of last resort, so that in future these failures would be contained.

    But this mitigation of risk merely strengthened the banking cartel even further, leading to the possibility of a complete banking and currency failure. And since bankers have limited liability and personally risk little more than their salary in the knowledge that a central bank will always backstop them, reckless balance sheet expansion is richly rewarded — until it fails. Fred “the shred” Goodwin, who grew a staid Royal Bank of Scotland to become the largest bank in Europe before it collapsed into government ownership was a recent example of the genre.

    It is these differences between banking and other commercial activities that drive a cycle of bank credit expansion and contraction while non-financial business activities cannot originate cycles. The state-sponsored structure of the banking system attempts to control it. Governments through their central banks also trigger a boom in business activity by suppressing interest rates as the principal means of encouraging the growth of currency and credit. The distortions created by these interventions and their continuence inevitably lead to a terminating crisis. As Ludwig von Mises put it:

    “The wavelike movement affecting the economic system, the recurrence of periods of boom which are followed by periods of depression, is the unavoidable outcome of the attempts, repeated again and again, to lower the gross market rate of interest by means of credit expansion. There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”

    A long period of credit expansion with relatively minor hiccups ending in such a crisis could easily be confused with a Kondratieff 40—60-year cycle. But the error is to mistake its origins. Kondratieff tried to persuade us that the boom and bust was a feature of capitalist business failings when it is a currency and credit problem. The irony is that Stalin refused to admit even to an expansionary phase in capitalism, condemning Kondratieff to the gulags, and then a firing squad in 1938. He lived as a Marxist-Leninist and was executed by the system he venerated.

    Having identified the source of cycles as being a combination of state action and fluctuations in currency and credit in a state-sponsored banking system and not capitalistic production for profit, we can admit that there are further cyclical consequences. Whether they exist or not is usually a matter of conjecture. Purely financial cycles, such as Elliott Wave Theory, will also owe their motive forces to cycles of credit and not business activity.

    The effect on commodity and consumer prices

    Kondratieff wave followers claim that commodity bull and bear markets are the consequence of a K-wave spring and summer followed by autumn, when it tops out, and winter when it collapses before rising into the next K-wave cycle. But we have demonstrated that the K-wave is not supported by the evidence. Instead, changes in the general level of commodity prices are a function of changes in the quantity of money. And as we have seen, there is a base component and a cyclical component of bank credit.

    We must now refocus our attention from the long-run UK statistics shown in Figure 1 to the contemporary situation for the US dollar, in which commodities have been priced almost exclusively since the early 1970s. The chart from the St Louis Fed below is of an index of industrial materials from 1992.

    We can see why the Kondratieff myth might be perpetuated, with industrial material prices more than halving between 2011 and 2016. But these swings came substantially from the dollar side of prices, whose trade-weighted index rose strongly between these dates. Between 2016—2018 the dollar weakened, before strengthening into 2020. Clearly, it was the purchasing power of the dollar driving speculative as well as commercial flows in international commodity markets.

    In March 2020, the Fed reduced its fund rate to the zero bound and announced QE (money-printing) of an unprecedented $120bn every month. Figure 2 below shows the consequences for the general level of commodity prices.

    Since late-March, the components of this ETF have almost doubled in price, and after a period of consolidation appear to be increasing again. K-wave followers might conclude that it is evidence of a new Kondratieff spring or summer, with the global economy set for a new spurt of economic “growth”. But this ignores the expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet reflected in base money, which is the next FRED chart.

    The monetary base has approximately doubled since the Fed’s March 2020 stimulus, additional to the post-Lehman crisis expansion. The last expansion undermined the purchasing power of the dollar to a similar extent in terms of the commodity prices shown in Figure 2.

    Evidential consequences of price inflation

    Sudden increases in the money quantity have disruptive effects on markets for goods and services and the behaviour of individuals. As well as undermining a currency’s purchasing power, supplies of essential goods become disordered by unexpected shifts in demand. Throughout history there has been evidence of these inflationary consequences, often exacerbated by statist attempts to impose price controls. The Roman emperor Diocletian with his edict on maximum prices caused starvation for citizens, who were forced to leave Rome to forage for food in the surrounding countryside. The edict made the provision of food uneconomic, leading to extreme scarcity. During the reign of Henry I in England there was a monetary crisis in 1124 from the debasement of silver coins, which combined with a poor harvest drove up the prices of staples, causing widespread famine. The French revolution has been attributed to the insensitivity of royalty and the aristocracy to the masses; but it occurred at the time of the assignat inflation, which led to aggravated discontent among the lower orders and the storming of the Bastille. And today, we have widespread disruption of essential supplies, ranging from energy to carbonated foodstuffs. The lesson from history is it has only just started.

    Why today’s logistics and energy disruptions have only just started

    The problems arise because individuals’ knowledge of the relationship between money and goods comes from the immediate past. They use that knowledge to decide what to buy for future consumption, and if they are in business, for production. In the latter case, they might change inventory policies from today’s just-in-time practices to ensure an adequate stock of components is available, driving up demand for them and creating shortages of vital factors of production.

    Consumers faced with shortages will alter the balance between their money liquidity and goods for which they may not have an immediate need but expect to consume at a future date. Bank account balances and credit available on credit cards will be drawn down, for example, to fill their car tanks with fuel, even though no journey is planned. And as we see in the UK today, it rapidly leads to fuel shortages and rationing at the petrol pumps.

    While the authorities try to calm things down, either by denying there is a supply problem or by imposing price controls, consumers are likely to see these moves as propaganda and justification for reducing money liquidity even further by purchasing yet more goods. The flight out of currency liquidity has a disproportionate effect on prices, particularly for essentials. They will simply drive prices higher until no further price rises are expected. Or put more accurately, the value of the currency continues to fall.

    It is worth illustrating the problem for its true context. If on the one hand everyone decides they would rather have as much cash in hand money as possible rather than goods, prices will collapse. It is, as a matter of fact, a situation which cannot occur. If alternatively, everyone decides to dispose of all their liquidity by buying everything just to get rid of the currency, then the purchasing power of the currency sinks to zero. Unlike the former case, this can and does happen, when it becomes widely recognised that the currency might become worthless. In other words, a state-issued unbacked currency then collapses.

    Almost no one, so far, attributes today’s logistical and economic dislocations to monetary inflation, yet as pointed out above, empirical evidence points to a clear connection. Governments and central banks also seem unaware. But they appear to sense that there is an undefinable risk of consumer panic, making fuel and other shortages even worse. So far, the blame lies with logistic failures, which seem to be getting worse.

    Comments from leading central bankers, currently meeting in Portugal and organised by the ECB, confirm the official position of playing popular tunes while the ship goes down. The heads of the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Japan are quoted in the Daily Telegraph as agreeing that staff shortages, shipping chaos and surging fuel costs are likely to cause further disruption as winter draws near. Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, warned “…that the UK’s GDP will not recover to pre-pandemic levels until early next year”. But besides the Bank keeping a close watch on inflation, he commented that monetary policy can’t solve supply side shocks. Jay Powell admitted that at the margin apparently bottleneck and supply chain problems are getting marginally worse. But all the central bankers agreed that price pressures will be temporary.

    We can see from these comments a desire not to rock the boat and cause further panic among consumers. More worrying is the insistence that inflation remains a temporary problem. Unless there is a move to stop the monetary printing presses, they must believe it. It is confirmation that there is no intention to change monetary policy. But these problems are not restricted to the West.

    This week we learn that even China, which has followed a policy of restricting monetary growth, faces an energy crisis with coal at power plants critically low, and coal prices up fourfold. Energy is being rationed with production of everything from food and animal feedstuffs to steel and aluminium plants supplying other factories, which in turn face power outages.

    China is the world’s manufacturing hub. The United States relies on China’s exports. There were some seventy container ships at anchor or at drift areas off San Pedro earlier this week, but after dropping slightly the numbers are expected to rise again. And in China, there are delays at ports of more than three days in Busan, Shanghai, Ningbo and Yantian. Ship charter rates have rocketed from $10,000 a day to as much as $200,000.[ix] There can be no doubt as the northern hemisphere enters its winter that the consuming nations in America and Europe will see yet more product shortages, more price rises, and continuing logistics disruption.

    Central banks will become increasingly desperate to discourage consumers’ from hoarding items by claiming that shortages and price increases are transitory. What they fail to realise is that the consequences of currency debasement have led to consumption goods being wrongly priced, fuelling the shortages. These shortages can only be addressed by yet higher prices, even in the absence of further monetary debasement — until no further price increases are expected by consumers.

    But with massive and increasing government deficits to finance, central banks have no mandate to restrict the expansion of currency. An acceleration of monetary debasement as each unit of it buys less is therefore inevitable because consumers and businesses alike will begin to understand there is no limit to prices increasing.

    Left to its logical conclusion, the purchasing power of a currency falls exponentially until it has no value left. The speed at which it happens depends on the time taken for acting humans to realise what is happening. Unless it is stopped, an economy experiences what in the 1920s was described as a flight into real goods, or a crack-up boom.

    Economists today seem unable to comprehend the instability caused by monetary inflation. They adopt their models to ignore it. As von Mises put it, “The mathematical economists are at a loss to comprehend the causal relation between the increase in the quantity of money and what they call ‘velocity of circulation’”. The confusion in the minds of central bank economists renders it unlikely that they will take the actions necessary to stop their currencies sliding towards worthlessness sooner rather than later.

    Central to resolving the problem is maintaining confidence that the currency will retain its purchasing power. But with the advent of cryptocurrencies, there is a growing proportion of the public who understand in advance of inflationary consequences that fiat currencies are being debauched at an accelerating rate. This represents a major change from the past, when, as Keynes put it supposedly quoting Lenin,

    “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction and does it in a manner which not one man in one million is able to diagnose”.

    The fact that millions now do understand the currency is being debauched is likely to make it more difficult for the state to maintain confidence in the currency in these troubled times.

    We should know that what is happening to commodity prices is not some long-term Kondratieff wave, or any other wave with origins in production beyond purely seasonal factors. We can say unequivocally that the cause is in changing quantities of currency and bank credit. We can also see that there are yet further effects driving prices higher from the expansion of currency so far. We can expect currency expansion to continue, so prices of commodities and consumer goods will continue to rise. Or put in a way in which it is likely to become more widely understood as the current hiatus continues, the purchasing power of the currencies in which prices are measured will continue to fall.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 21:40

  • Manchin Breaks With Biden, Party Leaders: Says Dems Should Use Reconciliation To Raise Debt Limit
    Manchin Breaks With Biden, Party Leaders: Says Dems Should Use Reconciliation To Raise Debt Limit

    Update (2130ET): Hours after Schumer and McConnell exchanged blame for who will bring about the end of the world as we know it by not raising the debt ceiling, outspoken moderate Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) went against party leadership and suggested that Democrats should use the reconciliation process to raise the debt limit as Republicans double down on their commitment to vote against any increase to government spending.

    As The Epoch Times’ Joseph Lord reports, Manchin broke with party leaders, emphasizing the importance of raising the debt ceiling by any means necessary. The West Virginia Democrat told reporters:

    “We shouldn’t rule out anything [including reconciliation]. We just can’t let the debt ceiling lapse, we just can’t.”

    Manchin, who has long promised that he supports the filibuster and will vote to defend it, was asked by reporters whether he would consider getting rid of the rule to allow Democrats to push through a debt ceiling increase.

    “The filibuster has nothing to do with the debt ceiling,” Manchin snapped back.

    “We have other tools that we can use,” he explained, ruling, “If we have to use them, we should use them.”

    And in a rather shocking turn of events, shortly after Manchin’s brief statement to reporters emphasizing the importance of raising the debt ceiling by any means necessary, party leaders have also shown signs they may be rallying behind this view despite their long opposition to using reconciliation.

    In a Monday letter to Senate Democrats, Schumer wrote:

     “Let me be clear about the task ahead of us: we must get a bill to the President’s desk dealing with the debt limit by the end of the week. Period.”

    Despite his previous opposition to using reconciliation, Schumer here indicates that leadership may be open to the option.

    Sen. Dick Durbin said of using reconciliation to raise the debt ceiling:

    “I’m not going to say anything’s impossible.”

    We can only presume that Chuck and Nancy finally read what Nancy said 3 years ago and faced reality as the ‘majority’.

    The market won’t wait too much longer…

    *  *  *

    Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has urged President Joe Biden to work with Congressional Democrats to raise the debt ceiling on their own and avoid an October 18th (or so) default.

    In a Monday letter, McConnell said he’s concerned “our nation is sleepwalking toward significant and avoidable danger because of confusion and inaction from the Speaker of the House and the Senate Democratic Leader concerning basic governing duties.”

    McConnell then reminds Biden that Republicans have spent nearly three months stating that Democrats will need to raise the debt limit by themselves – via a budgetary process known as reconciliation, as “your party has chosen to pursue staggering, “transformational” spending through unprecedented use of the party-line reconciliation process.”

    “Republicans’ position is simple. We have no list of demands. For two and a half months, we have simply warned that since your party wishes to govern alone, it must handle the debt limit alone as well.”

    Stating the obvious, McConnell points out that “Senate Democrats do not need Republican cooperation in any shape or form to o their job,” adding “Democrats do not need our consent to set a vote at 51 [via reconciliation] instead of 60.”

    At the end of the letter, McConnell ‘respectfully’ asks Biden to “engage directly with Congressional Democrats on this matter.”

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

    President Biden on Monday ignored McConnell’s plea – saying in Monday remarks that he can’t guarantee that the US won’t breach the debt ceiling, and that it’s ‘up to McConnell’ at this point.

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

    Biden pleaded with McConnell and the GOP leadership to give it a rest and just pass the bill, doing everything in his power to try and tag the GOP with responsibility for the holdup.

    “If you don’t want to help save the country, get out of the way,” Biden said.

    But the message that markets heard, loud and clear, was Biden confirming that, as of Monday, there’s no guarantee that the debt ceiling will be raised in time to prevent a breach or even a default.

    Hammering again on the GOP’s alleged obstructionism, Biden insisted that they  “need to stop playing Russian roulette with the American economy” and hold a vote on the Senate bill as quickly as possible this week. He also warned that these debt-ceiling standoffs hurt ordinary Americans.

    “Let the Democrats vote to raise the debt ceiling this week…the House has already done it…it’s sitting in the Senate, waiting [for them] to pass it. Let us vote and end the mess, we have got to get this done,” Biden said.

    “We can do it this week, just get out of the way and let us pass it”.

    In the Q&A, Biden was asked about the McConnell letter, which he said he saw just before walking out to speak. He said he plans to meet with McConnell on the matter: “I plan on talking to Mitch about it, he and I have been down this road before…and I hope we can have some honest conversation about what he’s proposing.”

    When asked by one reporter if Biden would agree to reconciliation if talks with McConnell go south, he stood firm and insisted that he couldn’t commit to using it, even if it were the only option.

    Put another way: the game of political chicken between Dems and the GOP continues.

    Democrats have been unwilling to pursue reconciliation to raise the debt ceiling – a staggering position to take three years after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) chided Republicans for refusing to use reconciliation to avoid a government shutdown.

    Yet now that the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats are taking reconciliation off the table. 

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

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 21:34

  • Veritas Records Pfizer Scientists: "Your Antibodies Probably Better Than Vax" After Infection
    Veritas Records Pfizer Scientists: “Your Antibodies Probably Better Than Vax” After Infection

    Three Pfizer scientists were recorded on undercover video by Project Veritas in the latest installment of their “Covid-19 Vaccine Exposed” series.

    In a 10-minute video released Monday night, all three scientists agreed separately conveyed that natural antibodies produced following a Covid-19 infection are superior to the vaccine.

    “When somebody is naturally immune — like they got COVID — they probably have more antibodies against the virus…When you actually get the virus, you’re going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus…So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the [COVID] vaccination,” said scientist Nick Karl. “The city [of New York] needs like vax cards and everything. It’s just about making it so inconvenient for unvaccinated people to the point where they’re just like, ‘F*ck it. I’ll get it.’ You know?” he added.

    Watch:

    Of note, an Israeli preprint study reported by Science Magazine in late August found that natural immunity after recovering from Covid-19 offers a much better shield against the delta variant than vaccines.

    A second Pfizer employee, Senior Associate Scientist Chris Croce echoed Karl – saying that those who have naturally acquired immunity are “probably more” protected vs. the vaccine.

    Veritas Journalist: “So, I am well-protected [with antibodies]?”

    Chris Croce, Pfizer Senior Associate Scientist: “Yeah.”

    Veritas Journalist: “Like as much as the vaccine?”

    Croce: “Probably more.”

    Veritas Journalist: “How so? Like, how much more?”

    Croce: “You’re protected most likely for longer since there was a natural response.”

    Croce then advises the undercover Veritas journalist to “wait” to get the vaccine until her natural immunity wanes because she’s already had Covid-19.

    A third Pfizer scientist, Rahul Khandke, said that Pfizer pressures employees to conceal negative information from the public.

    “We’re bred and taught to be like, ‘vaccine is safer than actually getting COVID.’ Honestly, we had to do so many seminars on this. You have no idea. Like, we have to sit there for hours and hours and listen to like — be like, ‘you cannot talk about this in public,” said Khandke, who also agreed on the antibodies.

    “If you have [COVID] antibodies built up, you should be able to prove that you have those built up,” he said.

    Croce, meanwhile, acknowledged that Pfizer is conducting tests to determine whether their vaccine causes myocarditis in younger individuals.

    “So, yeah, we’re doing, we just sent, like, 3,000 patients’ samples to get tested for like, elevated troponin levels (to detect heart attack) to see if it’s vaccine based – or so…”

    What will happen to these truth-tellers who decided to be extremely candid with a Project Veritas journalist?

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 21:16

  • Detained Marine Who Criticized Afghan Chaos May Get Secret Pretrial Hearing
    Detained Marine Who Criticized Afghan Chaos May Get Secret Pretrial Hearing

    Authored by Ken Silva via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    The pretrial confinement initial review hearing for Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller—the U.S. Marine Corps officer jailed for criticizing senior military officials over the U.S. evacuation from Afghanistan—could be held in secret, The Epoch Times has learned.

    The pretrial confinement initial review hearing for Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller—the U.S. Marine jailed for criticizing senior military officials—could be held in secret, The Epoch Times has learned. (screenshot from Scheller’s Sept. 16 video/The Epoch Times)

    Members of Congress and Scheller’s family are seeking to attend the hearing, but the military’s position is that such matters should be held behind closed doors, according to a source familiar with the situation. The person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid backlash from the military, provided The Epoch Times with documentation supporting these claims.

    The public affairs office for Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina—where Scheller is confined at the regional brig—didn’t respond to media inquiries by press time. USMC spokesperson Samuel Stephenson also didn’t respond to requests for comment by press time, nor did government counsel Troy Campbell.

    Scheller’s attorney, Brian Ferguson, declined to speak publicly about the case.

    When Scheller was initially jailed, a Marine Corps spokesman said he would be “afforded all due process.”

    The hearing, set for Oct. 5, will decide only whether Scheller is to remain in confinement. Either way, military officials must still decide whether to bring charges against him.

    Scheller captured headlines in late August for criticizing senior military leadership on the handling of the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. His initial video was posted on the same day that 13 U.S. troops and more than 100 Afghans were killed in an attack outside of the international airport in Kabul, Afghanistan.

    He published another video on Sept. 16, saying that he was calling for “accountability of my senior leaders” over “obvious mistakes that were made.” In that video, Scheller also said he was “submitting charges” against Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander Gen. Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie for his role in the disastrous withdrawal.

    Scheller was reportedly thrown in the brig on Sept. 27, sparking outrage from some lawmakers and members of the public.

    In a Sept. 29 letter to Marine Corps Gen. David Berger and Gen. David Bligh, 35 members of Congress called for Scheller’s release.

    “In fact, this confinement appears to be simply for messaging, retribution, and convenience in flagrant violation of R.C.M. [Rule for Court Martial]: ‘a person should not be confined as a mere matter of convenience,’” says the letter, whose signers include Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.).

    “Furthermore, R.C.M. 305(h)(2)(B) also states that LTC Scheller should be accommodated in the ‘less serious forms of restraint.’ For the above reasons, we urge you to use your considerable authority to correct this misapplication of law and immediately remove LTC Scheller from his confinement.”

    In a separate letter, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) questioned Berger about why Scheller is being detained.

    “Requirements for pretrial confinement are very specific. Restraint is not every case and should be no more rigorous than required to ensure the person’s trial or to prevent foreseeable serious criminal misconduct,” Wicker said. “Please provide the rationale, including any associated administrative or judicial records, used by Lt. Col. Scheller’s chain of command to justify and document the decision to place him in pretrial confinement.

    “Regardless of the accusations, he deserves the same rights as any other service member.”

    According to online publication Task and Purpose, the pretrial confinement hearing was initially scheduled for Sept. 30, but was delayed until Oct. 5 so that the defense and prosecution could “seek a joint resolution of the matter.” Scheller has agreed to stay in the brig in the meantime as a show of solidarity with fellow Marines in far worse conditions around the world, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    During a Sept. 29 hearing on the Afghanistan withdrawal—the same hearing at which McKenzie provided false information about the Aug. 29 drone attack that killed Afghan citizens—Gaetz lamented the fact that senior military officials are still in positions of power while Scheller sits in the brig.

    “When people in the military like Lt. Col. Scheller stand up and demand accountability, when they say you all screwed up, when they point out General Milley’s statement that Afghanistan’s not going to be defeated by the Taliban—well, he ends up in a brig, and you all end up in front of us,” Gaetz said.

    “And your [Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s] former employer Raytheon ends up with a lot of money, and we have poured cash and blood and credibility into a Ghani government that was a mirage.”

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 21:00

  • Homeownership Is The Least Affordable Since 2008 With Shelter Inflation About To Explode
    Homeownership Is The Least Affordable Since 2008 With Shelter Inflation About To Explode

    Yesterday we asked a rhetorical question: how can (record high) home prices be rising so fast that housing is both unaffordable and booming at the same time? While a rational answer has yet to emerge, today the WSJ picks up on the former and writes that the record growth in home prices has made owning a home less affordable than at any point since the financial crisis.

    Citing data from the Atlanta Fed, the Journal writes that the median American household would need just under a third, or 32.1% of its income, to cover mortgage payments on a median-priced home. Even though mortgage rates are at all time lows, that’s the most since November 2008, when the same outlays would eat up 34.2% of income. One can only imagine what will happen when prices continue to rise or when mortgage rates spike.

    The advent of the latest housing bubble means that supercharged home prices in markets across the country, which in August rose by a record 20% across the top 20 MSA, are canceling the impact of modestly higher incomes and historically low interest rates, two factors that typically make owning a home more affordable. Higher prices require buyers to take out larger loans, essentially signing them up to make larger mortgage payments each month for years.

    The Atlanta Fed calculates affordability using a three-month average of median home prices from CoreLogic and median household incomes based on census data. In July, the latest month in the Atlanta Fed’s calculations, median home prices were $342,350, up 23% from the year before. Median incomes were $67,031, up a tiny 3%, less than the current rate of inflation.

    Citing economists, the WSJ said that declining affordability will have the biggest impact on buyers shopping for their first homes, who will have to sign up for larger monthly payments, buy less desirable homes or step back from the market altogether. It’s also why Democrats recently proposed a subsidized 20-year mortgage for first-gen homebuyers, a gimmick that will only lead to even more taxpayer-funded market imbalances and an even greater bubble.

    “It’s a lot more difficult for people to get their foot in the door of the housing market,” said Ralph McLaughlin, chief economist at Haus, a home-finance startup. “The question is whether it is an insurmountable hurdle or is it just that these households have to spend more of their monthly income on the mortgage.”

    The current situation is unique: in 2008 the dynamics were different, even if the effect — complete disarray in the housing market — was the same. Home prices were falling, and many Americans owed more on their homes than the homes were worth. Furthermore, widespread job losses weighed on household income for years.

    Christopher Ferreris and his wife, Danielle Ferreris, have been hoping to purchase a home in the Tampa, Fla., area for close to two years. They can afford about $1,600 in monthly payments, but every house they have seen requires monthly payments about 25% bigger than that. As a result, they are stuck renting, where the double whammy of soaring rent prices is also hammering their disposable income.

    “It’s almost like we’ve gotten into a holding pattern because of how difficult it is,” Mr. Ferreris said.

    The typical value of a home in Tampa was $331,000 in August, up from $265,000 at the same time last year, according to Zillow.

    The Ferreris are doing everything they can think of to save money, and Christopher started a side business last year buying and selling sports cards. He now counts on it for about $500 each month.

    Of course, during the early months of the pandemic, homes became more affordable while interest rates fell. However, following trillions in fiscal and monetary stimulus, the dynamic reversed rapidly as many families, after sitting on the sidelines for a few months, raced to buy homes, eager for more space or to move out of crowded cities. The fierce competition sent home prices soaring. Affordability began to decline.

    According to the Atlanta Fed, at the start of 2021, Americans needed about 29% of their income to cover a mortgage. That has since risen to about 32% by July. The Atlanta Fed includes principal, interest, taxes, insurance and related costs in mortgage payments.

    “Any affordability that mortgage rates lended has pretty much been erased at this point,” said Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at real-estate brokerage Redfin.

    Home buyers have noticed. About 63% of consumers surveyed in August believed it was a bad time to buy a house, according to Fannie Mae. That was up from 35% at the same time last year.

    The punchline: while the Fed pretends none of this is happening, Goldman’s shelter inflation tracker just surged to the highest level on record, rising 4.6% Y/Y, a print which suggests that PCE Shelter Index, which lags by about 6 months, is about to go through the roof.

    How and whether the Fed responds to a surge in housing inflation it will no longer be able to ignore remains to be seen.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 20:40

  • Biden's Red Queen Justice: How He Shatters Both The Investigation & Reputations Of Border Agents
    Biden’s Red Queen Justice: How He Shatters Both The Investigation & Reputations Of Border Agents

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    Below is my column in the Hill on the controversy over U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents allegedly whipping undocumented immigrants on the southern border.

    The false accounts given by members of Congress and the media were alarming and likely defamatory. However, it was the comments of President Joe Biden that were the most damaging to both the investigation and the reputation of these agents.

    He seemed to finally find his “dog-faced lying pony soldiers” in the mounted border unit. Ironically, he is the most legally protected person in making defamatory comments.

    Here is the column:

    “Those people will pay.” With that promise, President Biden vowed to punish Customs and Border Protection agents accused of whipping undocumented immigrants on the southern border. Despite the announcement of an investigation into the allegation just the day before, Biden did not stop for the pretense of process in declaring the agents guilty.

    This “sentence first — verdict afterwards” approach may amuse the Red Queen of Alice in Wonderland, but it should be anathema to an American president. Not only did Biden shatter his own administration’s investigation but he joined other leading Democratic figures in defaming the agents.

    Biden told the American people that these easily identifiable officers would be punished after they allegedly “strapped” the Haitian migrants. Other Democratic politicians like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) declared that the whipping was “worse than what we witnessed in slavery” and described “the cowboys who were running down Haitians and using their reins to whip them.”  Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) called it simply “white supremacist behavior.” Many in the media went into high gear, too, denouncing what one outlet described as the “Whipping (of) Haitian Asylum Seekers.”

    However, Biden’s behavior was the worst, due to his position as head of the Executive Branch: “It was horrible what — to see, as you saw — to see people treated like they did: horses nearly running them over and people being strapped. It’s outrageous. I promise you, those people will pay.”

    By announcing that the agents were guilty and needed to be punished, Biden destroyed the credibility of the Department of Homeland Security’s ongoing investigation. It is akin to what is called “command influence” in the military, when comments or actions of a superior officer influence an investigation or prosecution. Investigators and department officials could well be worried about their own careers if they do not find a basis to punish one or more of the border agents. The failure to do so would be an embarrassment to the president and risk the wrath of powerful figures in Washington. Conversely, any action taken against these agents can now be challenged due to Biden’s preemptive declaration.

    The biggest problem is that the whipping story was entirely untrue.

    Indeed, it was obviously untrue from the start. We were all watching the same video, and the officer was clearly using his strap to control his skittish horse. Even the photographer expressed astonishment at the coverage and said he did not see a single person strapped or whipped by agents.

    The profile of this scandal is familiar. The media repeatedly has worked people into a frenzy over stories that eventually were proven false, but with little later coverage when the truth contradicted earlier accounts. One such example is the Lafayette Park incident in 2020, in which the media declared that then-Attorney General Bill Barr cleared the area with tear gas to enable a photo op for President Trump. From the outset, there was ample evidence undermining that claim, but it was uniformly ignored. Later, the Justice Department’s inspector general disproved the claim — but few reporters or commentators corrected the earlier false claims.

    Biden and other figures ran with this false claim because it was popular — and they did not have to bear the costs. They simply declared the border agents to be modern-day Bull Connors, whipping helpless migrants.

    Legally, however, this has all of the makings of a defamation case.

    The most important element is that all of the whipping stories were based on the same videotape; there were no added sources for most of these accounts. Even if these officers were treated as “public officials” under the more difficult standard of New York Times v. Sullivan, they could still make a compelling argument that the comments were made with the “actual knowledge” of the falsity or “reckless disregard of the truth.” Moreover, these claims would be recognized in many states as per se defamation. While some can legitimately argue that the use of the horses was still abusive or dangerous, horses are routinely used for crowd control and these border agents were ordered to the river for that purpose.

    Congressional members like Waters and Pressley can often rely on the protections of the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). However, their remarks in this case were made outside of protected congressional areas.

    Those in the media might limit their legal liability with corrections posted or published within a few days of the initial reports — but they can still be sued. It could be argued that some apparently did not care if the border agents did or did not whip migrants because “it was a fact too good to check.” Moreover, the use of the still photos was uniformly misleading and could be used as the basis for “false light” charges, in which pictures are used to present a false or misleading image.

    The greatest irony, however, is that the person most at fault here — President Biden — may be the most protected from lawsuit, despite defaming federal employees. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held that a president “is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.” The court recognized that “a President must concern himself with matters likely to ‘arouse the most intense feelings’” and thus would be subject to endless lawsuits. Later, in Clinton v. Jones, the court denied such immunity in private matters involving “unofficial conduct.”

    Biden can argue that these were statements issued in his official capacity. Of course, that makes it worse, since he is not supposed to proclaim the guilt of those who are being investigated or who remain unadjudicated.

    The danger is that defamation actions often chill speech on issues of public importance. The Supreme Court has struggled to find a balance in such cases in order to limit defamation actions to guarantee free, robust public debates. It is important for people to be able to allege abuses by law enforcement. Conversely, responsible presidents and members of Congress are expected to reaffirm the need for investigations and due process.

    What is notable here is that the truth could have been confirmed easily before any political or media figures portrayed the border agents as white supremacists in a race-fueled whipping frenzy.

    In the end, we might all agree with President Biden that “it was horrible what you see, what you saw — to see people treated like they did.” But that should include federal agents who were sentenced to officials’ public condemnation before any verdicts were reached.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 20:20

  • Panic-Buying Over? US Gun Demand Tumbles Near 2 Year Lows, FBI Data Suggests
    Panic-Buying Over? US Gun Demand Tumbles Near 2 Year Lows, FBI Data Suggests

    September background checks for firearms conducted by the FBI were at the lowest in 22 months, suggesting the year and a half of panic buying guns has lost momentum. 

    FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) data shows background checks slumped 9.2% in September from a year ago. Unadjusted checks dropped to 2.63 million when compared with last September. 

    Gun sales aren’t tracked by NICS data. Background checks only serve as a proxy for sales by the firearms industry. 

    For more color on the firearms industry and how panic-buying guns, sparked by the virus pandemic and social unrest of 2020, along with President Biden’s gun control push in 2021, has likely peaked is Baltimore-based gunshop and gun policy advocacy group The Machine Gun Nest, who said: 

    “Considering that has been a solid year and a half of panic buying, it had to end sometime. If you walk into your local gun shop, you’ll see the shelves are much more stocked than they were this time last year. The fact that we’ve been able to keep 9mm on our shelves for longer than a day has been a clear indicator for us that the panic buying has died down.

    “We are continuing to see strong sales numbers, and even though the panic buy is dying down, it seems that more and more people are exercising their 2nd amendment rights and participating in shooting sports.” 

    So if panic buying guns has run its course – this means inflated prices should undergo a mean reversion of some sort. As for ammo, we suspect prices will remain elevated as there are millions of new gun owners in the last two years. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 20:00

  • North Carolina County To Discipline, Fire Teachers Who Say America And Founders Are Racist
    North Carolina County To Discipline, Fire Teachers Who Say America And Founders Are Racist

    Authored by GQ Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    A North Carolina school board has adopted a policy that would discipline or dismiss teachers if they incorporate critical race theory (CRT) into their teaching of the history of the United States.

    Children hold up signs during a rally against critical race theory being taught in schools at the Loudoun County Government center in Leesburg, Va., on June 12, 2021. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

    The Johnston County school board on Oct. 1 unanimously approved an amended code of ethics policy after the county’s Republican-run board of commissioners said it would withhold $7.9 million in school funding until the policy was passed, The News & Observer of Raleigh reported.

    While CRT wasn’t specifically mentioned in the changes, the new policy did target key ideas aligning with the quasi-Marxist ideology, including claims that U.S. laws and institutions are built upon racial oppression, and that racism is so deeply embedded in the nation that racist views are considered normal throughout all aspects of society.

    “Racism causes damage to individuals and the community. When racism is present, it creates a lack of trust and respect,” the document reads. “No student or staff member shall be subjected to the notion that racism is a permanent component of American life.”

    When it comes to U.S. history, the policy states that “all people deserve full credit and recognition for their struggles and accomplishments throughout United States history,” and that the nation’s founding documents “shall not be undermined.” It banned any Johnston County Schools employee from “making any attempt to discredit the efforts made by all people using foundational documents for reform.”

    “No fictional accounts or narratives shall be used to invalidate actual objective historical events. All people who contributed to American Society will be recognized and presented as reformists, innovators, and heroes to our culture,” it added. “Failure to comply with this policy will result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.”

    The vote was welcomed by Citizen Advocates for Accountable Government, an advocacy group founded by two Johnston residents. They said the policy would “prohibit the implementing of divisive principles of Critical Race Theory in the classroom.”

    “The approach used stands as an example of how diverse voices can work together for the betterment of the Students in our Public Schools,” Dale Lands, the group’s founder, said in a statement to The Observer.

    The idea that American society is inherently racist has been popularized by proponents of CRT, notably Nikole Hannah-Jones, the leading author of The New York Times’ highly controversial “1619 Project,” an essay collection arguing that the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery; and Ibram X. Kendi, a professor at Boston University who advocates for active discrimination against white people, whom he deems privileged, as a remedy for historical racism.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 19:40

  • NYC's Abandoned Outdoor Restaurant Sheds Being Used As Garbage Dumps Or Homeless Shelters
    NYC’s Abandoned Outdoor Restaurant Sheds Being Used As Garbage Dumps Or Homeless Shelters

    The benefits of a draconian set of Covid lockdowns are continuing in New York City – if you’re homeless or looking for a place to dump garbage, that is.

    That’s because homeless people are now using outdoor dining sheds, erected during lockdowns for restaurants to move their businesses outdoors, for housing. 

    Heading into the winter months, outdoor dining areas are being used as “hovels for the homeless, giant garbage dumps, and traffic-blocking storage sheds,” according to a new report by the NY Post.

    The report says that many of the structures have shuttered as businesses refocus on indoor dining. The Post pointed out abandoned structures outside of restaurants like Boise, Le Sou and the former GMT Tavern. 

    Michelin-starred Jua uses its outdoor shed for cardboard boxes, the report says, despite the fact that restaurants are not allowed to use the areas as storage, per the Department of Transportation. 

    One July complaint to the Department of Buildings said: “These sheds are an eyesore — people are now depositing garbage in them. Why are they up months after restaurants have shut down?” 

    Another referred to the sheds as a “breeding ground” for rats, stating: “It’s not economically feasible for the landlords or (former) tenants to take them down, and the city doesn’t have the political will to get it done.” 

    Leif Arntzen says he sees homeless people sleeping in the sheds “all the time” and told the Post: “I think they pick it because they’ve got this sort of AstroTurf on the pavement that they can just kind of lay down on.”

    And while those on the ground are getting fed up with the structures, politicians have been lacking in action.  Assemblywoman Deborah Glick complained about one such structure this week:

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

    According to the DOT, there are about 12,000 outdoor sheds, with 1,202 of those located directly on roadway. It has only instructed the sanitation department to remove 21 of these structures citywide. 

    A City Council survey of 418 restaurants downtown found that 93% were not complying with “at least one” DOT guideline, the Post reported.

    136 complaints about abandoned setups had been placed between May 6 and September 23 of this year. 

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 19:20

  • World's Largest Commodity Traders Face Massive Margin Calls As Global NatGas Arb Explodes
    World’s Largest Commodity Traders Face Massive Margin Calls As Global NatGas Arb Explodes

    Just one week ago, we highlighted the first victim of the latest “rogue wave” in global natural gas markets.

    As Miami-based Statar Capital gave up its “hefty gains” from earlier in the year, tumbling into the red amid the NatGas market turbulence, we warned that it would not be the last fund to admit major losses through this period of chaos.

    It appears we were right, and three years after James Cordier – head trader at OptionsSellers.com – became infamous after a “catastrophic loss event” thanks to a “rogue wave” in NatGas options markets, Reuters reports on what could be the next escalation in energy markets,

    Seven sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters that the world’s top commodity trading houses are being told by brokers and exchanges to deposit hundreds of millions of dollars in extra funds to cover their exposure to soaring gas prices.

    Glencore, Gunvor, Trafigura and Vitol are among the commodity merchants facing massive margin calls on their positions in natural gas markets across Europe and US.

    According to reports, it appears the trading shops have all been hammered by a spread (or arbitrage trade) gone wrong.

    For years, the prices of European (red) and US natural gas (green) have traded within a well-defined range. When the spread between the two reaches one extreme or the other, you buy one and sell the other – easy, right?

    Source: Bloomberg

    So as European NatGas prices surged in Q2, it reached a notable extreme relative to US NatGas, prompting traders to instigate the strategy of selling European Gas and Buying US Gas in the hopes the spread compresses.

    The strategy backfired last month when European gas prices soared due to a variety of factors including low inventories, high demand for gas in Asia, low Russian and LNG supply to Europe, and outages.

    Source: Bloomberg

    As the chart above makes clear, this is not just a modest break of the strategy, it’s a multiple-sigma collapse of what was – for 12 years – a relatively low risk, slow reversion strategy.

    Officials are of course playing down this report:

    “While there have been margin calls associated with the European natural gas price rally, Gunvor maintains a healthy liquidity position and instruments to manage any further volatility,” a company spokesperson said.

    Glencore, Trafigura and Vitol declined to comment.

    The situation is particularly difficult for small-to-mid-sized trading firms, the sources said, who described the margin calls as on a scale not seen before.

    One wonders if these shops have been buying options protection to try and manage this position’s massive wrong way bet. NatGas implied vols have never been higher…

    Source: Bloomberg

    “Nothing to see here, move along” is the message but we wonder just how bad this could be as Reuters reports that two of the sources said trading houses and other players had together accumulated $30 billion worth of short positions in the TTF market, with European utilities taking the opposite long side of the play.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 19:06

  • What's The Driving Force In China?
    What’s The Driving Force In China?

    Authored by Bill Blain via MorningPorridge.com,

    “Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me..”

    Understanding what is going on in China means understanding the politics – which should be very familiar to students of 1970’s and 80’s US films.

    I was up in London yesterday and spent some time with colleagues and visiting clients. Some fascinating conversations – and lots of them revolved around WTF is happening in China. The situation looks increasingly unclear. The Evergrande bailout/rescue is confusing and unclear. Now the Energy companies have been told to secure power at any price. It’s possible to smell wobble in the air – something is happening, but we are not sure what it is.

    China has been the big story in markets this year. We are all trying to fathom what successive government crackdown means. The purge of Jack Ma and other entrepreneurs, the regulatory assault against big tech and a host of other “reforms” have wrong footed markets. Now it’s clear the Government is struggling with energy security. Maybe the Middle Kingdom is in more trouble that we perceive?

    Or, do we just need to think about China in a different way? To understand China today, you need a sense of its history. Imperial China ran from 221 BC till 1912. Empire, courts, bureaucracy and plots. I wonder how much has really changed?

    Since the foundation of Communist China the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been highly factionalised – broadly divided into the Chinese Commmunist Youth League (CCYL) faction of “populists” and the Shanghai Gang of “elitists”.

    There isn’t a simple way to characterise each side due to the links of patronage than characterise who-knows-who in China, but broadly the elitists tended to comprise the princelings (from families of party veterans and officials) and many of the richer entrepreneurial figures. The populists typically worked their way up the system. For many decades there was a form of “collective” balance between the factions at the top of the party with a rotation between the two as the tides of power balanced each other out.

    Now there is a new faction in charge.

    President Xi Jinping rose through the ranks of the princelings in the Shanghai gang, but has now consolidated own power around himself in the Xi Gang. His Gang now controls all the significant leadership posts in the CCP – eroding the power and significance of the Shanghai and CCYL gangs. He is de-facto Emperor.

    If all the above reads a bit like a Mario Puzo “Godfather” Novel… spot on. Xi is now enforcing his power over the other families by removing their leaders in time-honoured style. To read it all in detail – let me suggest this primer: The Rise of the Xi Gang

    Evergrande is an example of how it hits the economy and investment decisions: Evergrande’s founder Hui Ka Yan is a princeling from the Shanghai gang. He owes his connections and support as a client of former vice-President Zeng Qinghong, who in turn was the right-hand man of President Jiang Zemin. Xi came up through the Shanghai gang, but has now founded his own family/gang, thus the Zemin faction is his enemy.

    Now that Hui Ka Yan is neutralised and broken, then the Government/Xi Clan can move on to protecting its clients across other property companies. You are with or against him. Simples.. Eh?

    Much of the current unrest in China is about which side of the Jiang Zemim / Xi Jinping divide players stand on. At the moment, Emperor Xi is winning. When placing new bets on China one would be well advised to check who the patron is.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 19:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 04

Today’s News 4th October 2021

  • Silicon Metal's 300% Price Surge Throws Another Wrench In Global Supply Chains
    Silicon Metal’s 300% Price Surge Throws Another Wrench In Global Supply Chains

    Leading producers of silicon metal in China have been forced by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to reduce production by 90% below August levels from September through December amid a nationwide power crunch. Production declines may spark tighter supplies in the metal, threatening everything from computer chips to solar panels to medical implants to concrete to glass to automobile parts, furthermore throwing another wrench in chaotic global supply chains.

    Bloomberg data shows silicon metal prices have jumped more than 350% since the beginning of July. This comes as power supply disruptions have become more intense over the last couple of months as CCP curbs power to energy-intensive industries because lower than the expected output at power plants has strained the country’s grid. 

    The ripple effects are alarming for chemical manufacturers who convert silicon metal into silicone-based products. “If you have silicon supply constraints, then you’ve got a problem,” Keith Wildie, head of trading at aluminum alloy-maker Romco Metals, told Bloomberg. “There is still some supply out there, but it’s trading at a clearing price that is obviously very high.”

    This week, more than half of China’s provinces experienced their worst power-supply disruptions in more than a decade. There’s a confluence of factors for CCP’s clampdown on energy-intensive industries, such as carbon emission targets set by the central government, thermal coal supply constraints, and lower than expected output by power plants.

    The Yunnan province in southwestern China is the second-largest producer, accounting for more than 20% of the country’s output, has experienced power curbs in recent months. Sichuan is third at 13% is also facing power disruptions. The top producer, Xinjiang, has yet to face significant power issues. 

    Along with higher prices for aluminum, copper, and crude, the silicon shortage is feeding into a squeeze that may continue to worsen the great computer chip shortage. 

    The damaging effects of China shuttering factories because of power constraints are raising bets that rising inflation and slumping growth have already sparked global stagflation forces.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 02:45

  • Electricity Bills In Italy Rise By Almost 30 Percent From Friday
    Electricity Bills In Italy Rise By Almost 30 Percent From Friday

    By TheLocal Italy,

    Household electricity bills will rise by 29.8% for the typical family and gas bills will go up by 14.4%, Italy’s energy regulatory authority Arera confirmed in a press release last week. The new national tariffs came into effect on Friday, the start of the fourth quarter of 2021. The increase comes amid surging energy costs across Europe, and beyond.

    The price rise passed on to Italian consumers could’ve reached 45 percent, Arera said, if the government had not stepped in to cap the new rise in rates.

    The Italian government last week announced measures costing three billion euros aimed at limiting a steeper rise in energy prices for consumers.

    As well as keeping the cost to most families below 30 percent and 15 percent, the government measures will keep additional costs at zero for those least well-off, including households with an income under 8,265 euros, families with at least 4 dependent children with an income of less than 20,000 euros, those who receive a state pension or unemployment benefit, and people who are seriously ill, Sky TG24 reports.

    The measures also cut the ‘general charge’ from gas bills for all throughout the last quarter of 2021, and on electricity for families and some small businesses.

    Last quarter, the retail cost of electricity rose by 9.9% and gas by 15.3% from July 1st. The government also stepped in that time to cap costs, with 1.2 billion euros in state aid.

    Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi said last week that many of the reasons for the energy price increases were temporary but called for long-term action, including at a European level, to address the problem, including through diversifying supplies.

    Italy is highly dependent on imports and consumes a large amount of gas. Some 40% of its primary energy consumption is gas, compared with about 15 percent in France, according to official statistics for both countries.

    Europe is facing soaring power prices as its economy recovers from the coronavirus pandemic, while natural gas reserves are at a worrying low level as winter approaches.

    Italian consumers are now paying some of the highest electricity prices in Europe, with the average cost already at 145.03 euros per mw/h (megawatt hour) according to newspaper Corriere della Sera.

    This means the cost is higher than in Portugal and in Spain, where electricity costs have soared to 141.71 euros per mw/h, reaching an all-time high on September 9th after significant price rises across much of Europe over the past 12 months.

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 02:00

  • How Democray Ends
    How Democray Ends

    Authored by Vinay Prasad via Substack,

    COVID19 policy shows a (potential) path to the end of America…

    The pandemic events of 2020-2021 outline a potential pathway for a future democratically elected President of the United States to systematically end democracy. 

    The course of events leading to this outcome need not be a repeat of the direct assault on the Capitol, but a distortion of risk of illness as a justification for military force and suspension of democratic norms.

    Sometime over the next quarter century, it is inevitable that America, and all nations, will experience a cold and flu season above average.  In a typical season approximately 40,000 Americans may die, but it is possible an above average season may see 80,000 or more deaths. 

    Inevitably some location(s) in the country will experience a surge in cases. Television news will show overworked hospital workers, and report that Intensive Care Unit beds have nearly run out– of course, ICU’s often operate near capacity, so this finding alone may not be that noteworthy, but in our attention economy, it may be sensationalized. Some afflicted individuals will be young children– typical for the flu, and these anecdotes will surely be emotionally salient.  A video of a young boy or girl on life support machines may be used to show how dire things are. These events will then serve as an opportunity for a strong federal response.

    A future US president may declare that the crisis in the region from influenza is unprecedented. Too many children are dying, and hospitals are near capacity. Citing the lessons of COVID19—that if anything we acted too late—the President may call upon the governor to issue a shelter in place warning.  A week later, citing a continued rise in case, and “non-compliance” of the local people, the President could order the national guard or army troops in to secure the region. Notably, military force was applied in Australia during COVID19.

    During the COVID19 pandemic, some of the most ardent calls for strong restrictions came from members of the political left.  If a future president is on the political right; this would serve as a natural opportunity to remind the public that strong tactics were precisely what the other side demanded more of during COVID19.  Life and safety, particularly that of children, is of paramount importance, and strong lockdowns must ensue. In many regions across the world, one political party preferred stronger countermeasures to COVID19, in all those nations, the opposing party that has the advantage for misusing force in the future.

    Eventually, inevitably, disagreements with the policies will arise. Social media may see small explosions of dialog critical of prolonged lockdown or skeptical of hospital volumes.  A future leader can seize this opportunity for a forced takeover of media or social media companies. Misinformation that compromises a national attempt at safety must be shut down. The future leader can remind the public that during COVID19 many were critical that we did not do enough to ban dangerous and misleading speech, and now we are doing just that.

    As rules against movement are in place, with communication and media disrupted, a leader can state–without evidence– that cases are still climbing.  Anecdotes, even true ones, can be provided to show the public that some people are not doing well.  Accordingly, further tracking of movement may be justified. A leader can ask or mandate citizens to carry apps on their phone tracking their location. Random spot checks (such as those faced by parolees) may be applied. Non-compliance can be treated with ankle monitors or imprisonment.  Deeper restrictions on movement and assembly may follow, preventing protests and counter-movements.

    As elections approach, a future leader may announce that safety is a key concern and exigent circumstances call for exigent responses. As such, elections will be suspended, pending a safer time.  While the Constitution of the United States does not permit the election date to be moved, it does permit states to decide electors as they see fit.  A future leader may coerce states into deferring elections, and hand pick electors instead.  And with that, the end of democracy will have begun. 

    When democratically elected systems transform into totalitarian regimes, the transition is subtle, stepwise, and involves a combination of pre-planned as well as serendipitous events.  Indeed, this was the case with Germany in the years 1929-1939, where Hitler was given a chance at governing, the president subsequently died, a key general resigned after a scandal and the pathway to the Fuhrer was inevitable.

    The key factors that currently exist and may pave the way to totalitarianism are the following:

    1.     Strong force, including military force, has been used in other western, democratic nations to combat a respiratory virus

    2.     The public has accepted severe restrictions on movement and commerce in the face of respiratory pandemic, with many calls for greater restrictions to be applied

    3.     The media is able to present vignettes or anecdotes about overwhelmed hospitals or the untimely death of a young person, without acknowledging the denominator or comparing the risk to other risks we accept.

    4.     The rise of social media corporations means that public dialog increasingly occurs in spaces that can be regulated.

    5.     American increasingly comfortable with regulating and censoring information

    6.     The idea of safety as a virtue above all other dominates the culture

    7.     The party that favored stronger application of force during the COVID19 pandemic is vulnerable to misuse of force for a respiratory virus from the counterparty in the future

    These core trends provide the basis and preconditions for a potential usurping of democratic norms.  Increasing political polarization and tribalism would fuel that effort, as would worsening income inequality and reductions in upward mobility, which have worsened in recent decades, but may be exacerbated by the pandemic.  Ultimately however, the proximate proffered explanation would be safety.

    The key lesson of the coronavirus pandemic is not that the fall of democracy is inevitable, but rather that our policy preferences, and polarization, have set the stage for a series of events where it is possible democracy falls.  As Madeleine Albright. says, “While democracy in the long run is the most stable form of government, in the short run, it is among the most fragile.”  We must be careful not to create a roadmap to this future with our policy choices today, perhaps we already have.

    A video discussion..

    Tyler Durden
    Mon, 10/04/2021 – 00:00

  • Air Force's Secretive X-37B Spaceplane Orbits Earth For 500th Day
    Air Force’s Secretive X-37B Spaceplane Orbits Earth For 500th Day

    The U.S. Air Force’s secretive X-37B, also known as the Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV-6), is a robotic spacecraft circling Earth for more than 500 days, according to Space.com.

    X-37B’s real mission in low Earth Orbit (LEO) is classified. But a 2017 Air Force press release detailed the plane as a “host platform for experimental payloads.” 

    However, a few unclassified experiments have been named in the latest mission. The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) examines if it can transform solar power into radiofrequency microwave energy. The experiment is called Photovoltaic Radio-frequency Antenna Module (PRAM). Another experiment is being conducted by the U.S. Air Force Academy and sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory to test a FalconSat-8, a small satellite, in orbit. That’s as much as we know, and for the other experiments, well, they remain classified. 

    Here are the most recent space missions of the plane via Space.com: 

    OTV-1: launched on April 22, 2010 and landed on December 3, 2010, spending over 224 days on orbit.

    OTV-2: launched on March 5, 2011 and landed on June 16, 2012, spending over 468 days on orbit.

    OTV-3: launched on December 11, 2012 and landed on October 17, 2014, spending over 674 days on-orbit.

    OTV-4: launched on May 20, 2015 and landed on May 7, 2015, spending nearly 718 days on-orbit.

    OTV-5: launched on September 7, 2017 and landed on October 27, 2019, spending nearly 780 days on-orbit.

    OTV-1, OTV-2, and OTV-3 missions landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, while the OTV-4 and OTV-5 missions landed at Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

    The X-37B program is managed by the U.S. Space Force unit called Delta 9, established and activated July 2020. There has been no disclosure of how long the space plane will remain in orbit. 

    In 2019, amateur space enthusiasts captured the X-37B orbiting Earth on camera.

    As for the exact mission, we’ll never know what the space plane is doing in low Earth orbit. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 23:30

  • Evergrande Stock Suspended Amid Default Concerns; Sending Futures, Cryptos Sliding
    Evergrande Stock Suspended Amid Default Concerns; Sending Futures, Cryptos Sliding

    Two weeks after markets freaked out about Evergrande, only to completely forget that China’s property sector is about to be gripped by a major crisis, futures got dinged on Sunday night and Hong Kong stocks slumped the most in two weeks after shares in Evergrande and its property management unit were suspended from trading Monday in Hong Kong, as traders eyed a fresh debt test for the developer.

    No reason was given for the halts Monday, with shares of another unit, China Evergrande New Energy Vehicle still trading in Hong Kong.  

    After Evergrande failed to make interest payments on two offshore bonds, uncertainty over Evergrande’s debt returned amid concerns if the company would also default on a dollar note maturing Oct. 3 issued at an initial amount of $260 million by an entity called Jumbo Fortune Enterprises and which is guaranteed by Evergrande. As the maturity is a Sunday, the effective due date is Monday. The issuer is a joint venture whose owners include Hengda Real Estate, Evergrande’s main onshore unit.

    What is notable about the Jumbo Fortune note is that unlike the previous two non-payments which have a 30 day “cure” period, the Sunday maturity has no grace period and non-payment of bond principal would constitute a default, although as Bloomberg notes five business days would be allowed if failure to pay is down to administrative and technical error. Details of the guarantees weren’t broadly known as the note prospectus isn’t publicly available and the deal wasn’t listed on exchanges. Adding to the potential leeway is that Monday is a holiday in China.

    The news of the suspension sent S&P futures in the red after earlier gains, with Japan’s Topix also reversing an early gain…

    … and sent Hong Kong’s Hang Seng falling as much as 2.7%, the most in two weeks, as shares of pharmaceutical and tech companies slide. Following the Merck news, Wuxi Biologics slumped as much as 8.1%, the most since Aug. 20, while CSPC Pharmaceutical tumbles as much as 7.1% In tech land, the Hang Seng Tech Index extended its fall to 2.6%; Ping An Healthcare and Alibaba Health drag it lower, declining at least 6% each

    The Evergrande suspension also hammered cryptos although why anyone, beyond a handful of confused algos, would sell here when China can no longer ban bitcoin and its peers having already banned it about 17 times.

    Yet as nervous algos were once again googling Evergrande, it appears that China was already taking active steps at ringfencing the coming default, with Caillan reporting that Hopson Development – which is also halted in HK this morning – was set to acquire a 51% stake in Evergrande Property Services for more than HK$40b, a template for what future piecemeal (forced) bailouts of the insolvent property developer will look like.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 23:13

  • Why "Science Denial"?
    Why “Science Denial”?

    Authored by Sheldon Richman via The Libertarian Institute,

    In a new book two professors of psychology, Gale Sinatra and Barbara Hofer, seek to explain why what they call “science denial” is rampant today and how dangerous it is. They also give their account in a strange conversation with Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic magazine, from whom we might have expected a tad more “skepticism” or at least some devil’s advocacy.

    The views of all three are in some ways vague and even confused, but the condescension toward the unenlightened rubes who disagree with them on certain scientific controversies–primarily climate- and COVID-19-related–couldn’t have been more clear.

    Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Image

    While Sinatra and Hofer smear a large and diverse group of people as “science deniers,” they undercut their own claim when they admit that no one actually rejects science per se. So their sensational but misleading title and broad statements are designed not to inform but rather to sell books to their progressive-minded audience. The rubes they are talking about, the authors admit, go to doctors, take prescribed medicines, fly on airplanes, etc. That hardly sounds like general science denial.

    So what’s the problem? What the authors have in mind is doubt about or rejection of particular scientific claims. They are willing to apply the label “cafeteria deniers.” But why not call them “cafeteria skeptics”? Or would that hit Shermer too close to home?

    My purpose is not to defend or criticize any particular scientific claim in dispute. Some are backed by strong evidence, while others have little or no evidence behind them. Laymen ought to exercise care in (tentatively) deciding who among the contending scientists are likely to be right. Here I only want to raise a big reason for doubt that the authors and Shermer ignore.

    But first, to demonstrate authors’ and Shermer’s sloppiness (which may be too charitable an interpretation of what they’re doing), please note that early on they embrace the allegedly near-unanimous (97 percent) consensus among climate scientists on ominous manmade global warming. Their point is that anyone who would take a position contrary to such an overwhelming consensus would have to be a jerk.

    In fact, that so-called consensus was cobbled together by examining just the abstracts of a selection of climate scientists’ journal articles over a certain period. Only a third of those papers expressed an explicit or implicit view on whether manmade global warming was happening. Of those, 97 percent agreed on–well, something. But what? What they all apparently agreed on was that an unspecified amount of warming has occurred and that human activity has had an unspecified degree of responsibility.

    Notice that no magnitudes and no net assessment of harms and benefits are implied in that sentence whatsoever. By that low bar, most if not all climate scientists and laymen in the realist-optimist camp are part of the consensus! That a good deal of the force out of the consensus proclamation, wouldn’t you say?

    Yet this “consensus” is decisive for climate alarmists Sinatra, Hofer, and Shermer. (If you think humility is a virtue in scientists, don’t look for it in these writers.) Shermer says what impressed him is that all those in the 97 percent “converged” on that view (again, what view?) “independently,” while the others, he says, converged on no particular theory about the climate. Has he looked into the facts? Or does he go along with whatever is called a consensus by the news media? Is this is how he decides on matters outside his specialty? They’re growing a strange crop of skeptics these days.

    Here is the problem: when the authors and Shermer call someone a “climate change (or just a climate) denier,” they are making a slickly illegitimate move; for what’s being denied is not climate change or warming between 1850 and 1998, but a looming climate catastrophe, natural or manmade. Catastrophe denial does not equal climate-change denial. No one–no one!–thinks that climate does not change. Well, actually one group does seem to think this: the alarmists who imply or say outright that except for human activity, climate would not change (or not change very much). But that of course is absurd. The concept change is baked into the concept climate. The only sense in which the climate is not changing today is that it never stops changing.

    Sinatra, Hofer, and Shermer spent an hour and a half talking about “science denial,” with no disagreement among them. In all the time none of them mentioned the word politicization, that is, the perverse incentives from government meddling in scientific research. They discussed lots of possible reasons for “denial”–like confirmation bias and other well-known cognitive biases–but it seems never to have occurred to any of them that some people are more inclined to distrust particular scientific claims these days than previously because they have observed that purportedly objective claims (and not just about scientific matters) are used to advance political causes. Sinatra, Hofer, and Shermer have no trouble believing that so-called deniers have hidden political and cultural agendas, but they show no sign of suspecting that those who make the claims, along with the politicians who translate them into coercive government policy, may also have political and cultural agendas–and often not so hidden.

    This seems like a serious shortcoming. While Sinatra and Hofer acknowledge that scientists are human beings and subject to the same imperfections as everyone else–envy, greed, ambition, a desire for peer approval, etc.–they assure us that these faults are rooted out by an internal checks-and-balance system. Because of these, no threat to science can arise from within, but only from outside, that is, from “deniers.”

    That, however, isn’t how it works out. Checks and balances on paper often bear little relationship to checks and balances in practice. (This is true of constitutions too.) For example, the peer-review process for academic publication and promotion has become incestuous “pal review.” Paradigms are protected against challenges and patched up through ad hoc salvage operations when a paradigm’s shortcomings are exposed.

    Moreover, politicians are naturally inclined toward research that identifies “crises” that allegedly only government can address. As H. L. Mencken pointed out, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

    In need of government grants to secure promotion and tenure at their universities, many scientists are inclined to give the politicians what they want. Those are the ones who will get the money, at any rate. An orthodoxy arises, and independent thinkers, no matter how qualified, are marginalized and smeared as, say, “science deniers.” (The obvious association with the properly stigmatized term Holocaust deniers is no coincidence.) It’s happened repeatedly before. It’s happening now. (Again, I don’t mean that every scientific claim that is criticized is necessarily wrong.)

    Politicians demand research that goes in one direction, and some scientists are happy to supply it. The politicians then use the research to justify expanded power (the Green New Deal and economic shutdown in a pandemic), which stimulates further research in that direction. I’m not saying that every participant is a cynic, but it is fun to be near the action. To borrow a trope from the analysis of the military-industrial complex, it’s a self-licking ice-cream cone. And all of this is further amplified by the 24/7 news media, which will always prefer reports of looming disasters to good news, and of course the social networks, which are the lookout for “misinformation.”

    If you want to see how politicization can create doubters, here’s one case apart from scientific controversies: Russiagate. For years the American people were assured by most of the “objective” mainstream media, fed by “public-spirited” leaks and retired government spies working as dispassionate commentators, that the allegedly nonpolitical intelligence apparatus had solid evidence that Vladimir Putin had rigged the 2016 election to put his puppet Donald Trump in the White House. None of that was true, as shown by the massive FBI investigation led by a sainted special counsel. Don’t you think that a good portion of the American people realize that this establishment campaign was intended to drive Trump from office or at least cripple his presidency, effectively reversing the election? (One need not be a Trump fan–I’m certainly not–to see this.) Germane to my point, if that kind of gross abuse can occur in one matter, why can’t it be occurring in other matters?

    A key part of the politicization of science is government finance of research, which Sinatra and Hofer predictably want more of. As I noted recently, in his 1961 farewell speech President Dwight Eisenhower warned about the emerging government-science complex, which he said was just as dangerous as the military-industrial complex.

    If climate alarmists regard private support for research as tainted by self-interest, the rest of us are entitled to regard government support as similarly tainted. Sinatra, Hofer, and Shermer really should grow up and embrace what Public Choice political economist James Buchanan called “politics without romance.”

    Maybe if politics had not tainted institutional science, fewer people would distrust so many of its claims. Politics is the craft of winning and maintaining power by assembling self-serving coalitions in order to impose costs on everyone else. Some people have justifiably come to assume that many government-financed scientific claims are formulated for that purpose.

    If I’m right, then the use of science to advance an interventionist political agenda has sown very distrust the authors and Shermer abhor. Laymen should certainly be discriminating when they judge scientific claims, and real consensuses should be taken into account. But that does not exonerate the scientists who have actively fed policymakers’ efforts to control our lives.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 23:00

  • Watch: First-Ever Drone Boat Sails Into Eye Of Cat 4 Hurricane
    Watch: First-Ever Drone Boat Sails Into Eye Of Cat 4 Hurricane

    Saildrone Inc. and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) deployed a sailing drone boat into the heart of a Category 4 hurricane last week. The 23-foot-long uncrewed vessel captured stunning video of “where no research vessel has ever ventured” before, the eye of a major storm.

    The video of the un-crewed surface vehicle called the Saildrone Explorer SD 1045 battled Hurricane Sam’s 50-foot waves and winds of over 120 mph to collect scientific data about the storm and gave researchers a new view of one of earth’s most destructive forces. 

    “Saildrone is going where no research vessel has ever ventured, sailing right into the eye of the hurricane, gathering data that will transform our understanding of these powerful storms,” said Richard Jenkins, Saildrone founder and CEO. “After conquering the Arctic and the Southern Ocean, hurricanes were the last frontier for Saildrone survivability. We are proud to have engineered a vehicle capable of operating in the most extreme weather conditions on earth.”

    SD 1045 is one of five drone ships collecting information on tropical cyclones throughout the Atlantic during the busy 2021 hurricane season. Saildrone has allowed NOAA researchers to “improve forecast models and predict rapid intensification of hurricanes,” said Greg Foltz, an NOAA scientist.

    Foltz said, “new data from saildrones and other uncrewed systems that NOAA is using will help us better predict the forces that drive hurricanes and be able to warn communities earlier.”

    “This is an amazing victory for meteorology and will increase our knowledge of hurricanes,” said AccuWeather Director of Forecast Operations Dan DePodwin, who wasn’t involved with the operation. 

    Watch SD 1045’s onboard camera from inside Hurricane Sam. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 22:30

  • College Students Beg For Ammo As Millennials And Gen Z Embrace Guns
    College Students Beg For Ammo As Millennials And Gen Z Embrace Guns

    Submitted by The Machine Gun Nest (TMGN).,

    Not too long ago, we wrote a response to something that prominent gun activist David Hogg said on Twitter. He believes that all gun owners are old fogey dinosaurs and will somehow “die out one day.” When they do, all the young people will usher in the utopia where nothing bad happens, and there will be no more evil guns. 

    Well, according to an article recently published by The Daily Gamecock, an editorially independent student news organization of the University of South Carolina, involves college students complaining about the ammo shortage. It seems like just another piece of evidence that Hogg’s idea, and honestly, the left’s idea in general that young Americans are increasingly against guns, is flat out wrong.  

    As the article mentions, not much attention is paid to college students regarding anything firearms-related, even though they’re increasingly becoming a large demographic of gun-buying Americans. 

    In fact, the idea that younger Americans are against guns is a silly one; younger Americans were raised on the “scary” violent video games, tv, and movies from the 2000s that politicians and corporate media outlets were hysterical about back then. Those same entertainment properties are pop-culture staples today. 

    Maybe even more importantly, young people have access to the internet. They have access to the opinions of independent commentators and can get both sides of the story being told to them. They don’t just get the news on current events from the corporate media and accept it as being the truth. Ironically though, some of the biggest gun control supporters are baby boomers, who largely still do get their news and information from corporate media outlets. 

    We also have the pandemic and social unrest of 2020 to thank for a major awakening in many American citizens on gun ownership. Nine million people became gun owners between 2020 & that number continues to rise through 2021. A considerable percentage of that 9 million people are women, minorities, and younger people. 

    Women, for example, make up almost half of new gun owners. In our own experience here at Maryland-based The Machine Gun Nest, it has become very common to see women come in by themselves to get range time in and practice with their handguns. A lot of these women are younger, college-aged people as well!

    It’s unlikely that gun ownership will simply “die out.” But it seems that people are starting to wake up to the idea that the anti-gun lobby is controlled by a few extremely wealthy individuals who spend big money on people like David Hogg to become mouthpieces for their ideology.  

    As the trend flips and younger Americans embrace the Second Amendment, Hogg’s campaign against guns could be fading into darkness. 

     

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 22:00

  • DHL Joins Rivals FedEx And UPS In Raising Shipping Rates Amid Inflationary Woes
    DHL Joins Rivals FedEx And UPS In Raising Shipping Rates Amid Inflationary Woes

    DHL Express joins rivals FedEx Corp. and United Parcel Service Inc. in raising freight rates for customers, which begs the question: Is inflation structural in nature rather than “transitory”? 

    Effective Jan. 1, DHL will increase freight rates by 5.9%, or about the exact rate FedEx announced last week. 

    “You have general inflation; We’ve got to cover for that,” Mike Parra, CEO of DHL Express Americas, told WSJ. He said other costs for increasing capacity, such as planes, trucks, and facilities, are becoming more expensive. 

    DHL Express announced the increase on Friday and said it would apply to U.S. account holders shipping to or from the 220 countries and territories. It was only last week when FedEx and UPS stated they would increase freight rates. Both companies called today’s environment “challenging” as costs rose. 

    This ultimately means that retailers will have to increase prices as the cost of shipping is only going higher. The cost pressures will force retailers to absorb added costs or pass them along to consumers. 

    Cathy Roberson, head of research and consulting firm Logistics Trends & Insights LLC, said rising shipping costs could be a nightmare for companies that may have to rethink their logistical fees for customers: 

    “Retailers may need to rethink the whole ‘free shipping’ offering that they provide to their customers,” Roberson said. “It’s going to end up having to be trickled down to the customer, because the shippers—such as retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers and so on—they can’t keep absorbing higher costs. They’ve got to pass them on in some form or another.”

    Meanwhile, at the annual Morgan Stanley Laguna conference, some of the largest U.S. corporations warned last week that inflation is “unprecedented” and becoming “structural.” 

    There’s even talk from BofA’s Michael Hartnett that this winter could be filled with higher inflation, hawkish central banks, weaker growth, i.e., stagflation.

    One would suspect that it’s only a matter of time before Amazon raises its monthly Prime membership as soaring logistical costs show no signs of abating anytime soon. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 21:30

  • Man Asks California Reparations Task Force For "40 Acres & A Tesla"
    Man Asks California Reparations Task Force For “40 Acres & A Tesla”

    Authored by Brad Jones via The Epoch Times,

    California’s Reparations Task Force recently heard ideas ranging from “40 acres and a Tesla” to cash settlements to compensate the descendants of chattel slavery in America.

    The Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans listened to hours of professional and personal testimony from witnesses and public comments at a two-day hearing Sept. 23 and 24.

    The meeting focused on the evils of chattel slavery during the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and its effect on the descendants of black Americans who were enslaved. Although the tone of the meeting was mostly somber and emotional, the “40 acres and a Tesla” comment drew smirks from a few individuals on the nine-member task force, including Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) who broke into laughter.

    A man who said his name was Kash Gaines made the remark on Sept. 23 during public comments.

    Aside from direct cash payments to descendants of slavery, Gaines suggested “40 acres and a Tesla” would be more in step with modern times than the “40 acres and a mule,” as the phrase is popularly known.

    Since the task force often mentioned that California is “one of the richest states in America and comparable economically to some countries,” Gaines said, “it’s a shining beacon for setting a high ceiling for what reparations could look like.”

    “So just keeping that in mind—I hope that that’s well understood—what are y’all’s thoughts on trying to connect our reparative justice to so-called influencers of our time and specifically Silicon Valley … and in a way, even the black church, and that’s by having a 40 acres and a Tesla claim, essentially an update to the mule, where Elon Musk would have to argue why he wouldn’t fulfill a claim for 38 million cars for black Americans?” he asked the task force.

    Gaines, also poked fun at California Gov Newsom’s executive order to phase out gasoline-powered cars by 2035.

    “It is my understanding Gavin Newsom is trying to move California off of being on gasoline cars anyway,” he quipped.

    “So just something to keep in mind that we are very, very interested in not just the direct cash payments as reparations, but in our land, and trying to connect it to something sexy for the next generation. And again, this connects to the black church, as was mentioned earlier, because it was the black church who gave that solution to General Sherman of 40 acres. It’s just I’m not with a mule no more, I’m with Tesla or something that’s an update.”

    The phrase “40 acres and a mule” is commonly used to exemplify broken promises made to the descendants of slaves, and it has surfaced often during task force hearings.

    The saying stems from the words of Union Army Gen. William T. Sherman, who—with the support of President Abraham Lincoln—promised 400,000 acres of confiscated Confederate land in the Carolinas to freed slaves near the end of the American Civil War.

    Sherman and Union leaders met with black church ministers in Savannah, Ga., where the former slaves were asked what they wanted. The slaves told the famous general they wanted their own land. Sherman, in his Special Field Order 15, stated that land along the Southeast coast was to be set aside for 4,000 black families that had been enslaved so that “each family shall have a plot of not more than forty acres of tillable ground.”

    He then assigned Brig. Gen. Rufus Saxton to the job of dividing up the land into 40-acre plots.

    Though the words “and a mule” were never mentioned in Sherman’s order, it is said some of the freed slave families were given Army mules, and by Jan. 16, 1865, the promise of 40 acres became popularly known as “40 acres and a mule.”

    As it turned out, Sherman’s order was short-lived. Not long after Lincoln, a Republican, was assassinated on April 15, 1865, his successor, President Andrew Johnson, reversed the order and returned the 400,000 acres to its previous Confederate owners. Johnson was a southern Democrat who ran as Lincoln’s running mate on the National Union ticket in 1864.

    The Reparations Task Force has two years to draft an apology to the descendants of slaves and recommend ways the state might compensate them. It was established on Sept. 30 last year when Newsom signed Assembly Bill 3121, authored by then-Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, into law. She now serves as Secretary of State in Newsom’s administration.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 21:05

  • 90,000 Educators Beg Biden: We Need FBI Protection From "Mobs" Of Parents Irate Over Mask Mandates
    90,000 Educators Beg Biden: We Need FBI Protection From “Mobs” Of Parents Irate Over Mask Mandates

    How bad has the “it’s for your health” vaccine and mask mandates debate gotten? 

    The National School Boards Association, which represents more than 90,000 school officials, “begged” President Biden on Wednesday for FBI and Secret Service agents to help protect against “mobs” of angry parents protesting the mandates, according to the Daily Mail.

    The NSBA wrote a letter asking the government to stand up against “mobs of angry parents”, labeling them “domestic terrorism” and “extremist hate organizations”. 

    NSBA President Viola Garcia and Interim Executive Director and CEO Chip Slaven signed the letter, which specifically asked President Biden to use his executive power to help guard school officials by mobilizing the FBI.

    The letter reads: “The National School Boards Association (NSBA) respectfully asks for federal law enforcement and other assistance to deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation”.

    The letter says there have been “threats or actual acts of violence” by “angry mobs”. 

    “As these threats and acts of violence have become more prevalent, NSBA respectfully asks that a joint collaboration among federal law enforcement agencies, state and local law enforcement, and with public school officials be undertaken to focus on these threats,” it reads. 

    It continues: “With such acute threats and actions that are disruptive to our students’ well-being, we urge the federal government’s intervention against individuals or hate groups who are targeting our schools and educators.”

    “As the threats grow and news of is being reported, this is a critical time for a proactive approach to deal with this difficult issue.”

    “There also must be safeguards in place to protect public schools and dedicated education leaders as they do their jobs,” the letter says, before calling outraged parents showing up at school board meetings across the county “right-winged radicals.”

    The outrage has been carrying over to school board meetings, like one that recently took place in Nevada’s Clark County. The board was forced to leave the room three times within the first two hours of the meeting. 

    ‘We will not have comments from the audience,’ Board President Linda Cavazos said after one attendee had to be removed by police.

    The letter concludes: “As the threats grow and news of extremist hate organizations showing up at school board meetings is being reported, this is a critical time for a proactive approach to deal with this difficult issue.”

    We have to ask: instead of mobilizing the FBI and the Secret Service to try and protect 90,000 teachers using taxpayer dollars, has the idea of just ending the mask mandates and vaccine mandates ever crossed their mind?

     

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 20:40

  • These Are The Four Main Risks In The Upcoming Q3 Earnings Season
    These Are The Four Main Risks In The Upcoming Q3 Earnings Season

    One of the major challenges facing the bull case, in addition to numerous previously discussed factors such as the Fed’s imminent tightening (save us the semantics, and just read Morgan Stanley on “Tapering is Tightening“), rapidly shrinking margins, rising interest rates and stagflation fears, China’s real estate slowdown, the global energy crisis, snarled supply chains, a potential US debt default, and the first failure of dip buying to push the S&P back to its rising trendline, is that after several quarters of record corporate earnings, equity valuations are increasingly coming under scrutiny and, as Goldman’s David Kostin writes in his latest Weekly Kickstart note, “investor focus will increasingly assess whether earnings growth can continue to lead the market higher.”

    3Q earnings season kicks off when the largest Banks report during the week of Oct. 11th, 47% of S&P 500 market capitalization will report during the week of October 25th and 86% will report by November 6th.

    Consensus expects S&P 500 EPS growth of +27% year/year in 3Q, a sharp deceleration from the 2Q growth rate of +88%, even if EPS growth for the median stock is forecast to slow more modestly, from +38% to +12%. Bottom-up estimates imply a roughly equal contribution to EPS growth from sales and margin expansion. Excluding Financials and Utilities, S&P 500 sales are expected to rise 15% yr/yr and net profit margins are forecast to equal 11.6% (+146 bp yr/yr). However, this would bring 3Q margins below the realized level of net profit margins from 1H 2021 (12.2%). All 11 sectors are expected to report positive EPS growth in 3Q, led by Energy (from negative to positive EPS), Materials (+90%) and Industrials (+71%).

    And while a generally optimistic Goldman, which recently upped its S&P price target to 4,700 believes there is upside to consensus estimates (as a reminder, the share of companies beating EPS by more than a standard deviation averaged 71%, a record high, and the average EPS beat equaled 21%, well above the long-term average of 6%), the bank does warn that the frequency and magnitude of EPS  beats will moderate from 1H 2021 – as economic and earnings growth are decelerating and base comparables have become more challenging – and warns that there are four key risks to watch: (1) Supply chains, (2) oil, (3) labor costs, and (4) China growth.

    We delve deeper into these four earnings season themes below, but first we note that arguably the biggest challenge for stocks – especially high growth, ultra-high duration tech names, namely the rapid recent rise in rates which have led to a contraction in tech name valuations (the FAAMG sector is about 7% below its all time high). As Goldman recently warned (again) S&P 500 returns “have typically been below-average when rates rise by 1 standard deviation in a month and negative when rates rise by 2 standard deviations. The recent move in nominal rates was a 1.5 standard deviation event on a monthly basis, but reached the 2 standard deviation threshold on a 10-day basis.“

    So going back to Goldman’s key risk factors we start with…

    1. Supply chains.The ISM Suppliers Deliveries Index averaged 74 during the past six months (>50 indicates slower deliveries), the highest level since 1974. Of the 26 S&P 500 firms that reported results since the start of September, 18 mentioned supply chains on their earnings calls, primarily within Consumer and Industrial sectors. The average consensus revision to 4Q 2021 EPS for these firms has equaled -4%.

    Goldman economists estimate that strong goods demand accounts for two-thirds of global manufacturing delays. Ironically, Goldman then writes that the strong demand backdrop and expectations that disruptions will ease is likely one reason that 2022 EPS estimates for these firms have been roughly unchanged. This is completely wrong as even the CEO of Mersk said that global demand has to ease so that supply can catch up and supply-chains can normalize; absent this we will remain in an indefinite state of stagflation. Where Goldman does get it right is that the largest firms have highlighted mechanisms including price hikes, cost controls, leveraging scale,and switching suppliers to mitigate the impact of supply chain disruptions, which however means sharply higher prices for a much longer length of time than the “transitory” argument suggests. As such, Goldman warns that “a key risk is that supply chain normalization takes longer than expected and that unmet demand today is not fully recouped in later quarters. Services industries such as Financials and Software have less EPS risk than goods-producing industries such as Industrials.”

    2.Oil. Brent oil prices have risen by 51% YTD and Goldman’s commodities team recently hiked its year-end forecast to $90/bbl, above their previous forecast of $80. However, contrary to expectations that these will be rapidly passed on to consumers leading to sharp gains for energy companies, Kostin says that “based on our top-down earnings model, oil prices have a roughly neutral impact on aggregate S&P 500 EPS” and calculates that every 10% increase in Brent prices boosts S&P500 EPS by just 0.3%. Furthermore, while higher oil prices are a tailwind to Energy EPS they are also a headwind to most non-Energy sectors that rely on oil as an input or are sensitive to consumer spending (higher gas prices act as yet another tax on the US consumer). Also, it is worth noting that the boost from Energy to index EPS is likely smaller today, as it represents just 4% of S&P 500 2021E EPS.

    3. Labor costs. Ongoing commentary from corporations shows an acute focus on rising wages and the lack of labor supply. Goldman’s adjusted Wage Tracker sits at the highest level since 2007.

    Here, however, Kostin is again quick to defuse fears that labor costs will hit margins, calculating the these represent only 13% of the median S&P 500 stock’s revenues, and historical correlations show that the large-cap index is relatively insulated from wage pressures.

    Furthermore, as noted last month, Goldman’s analysis suggests a 100 bp acceleration in wage growth would reduce S&P 500 EPSby just 0.7%, all else equal.

    Small-caps and the Industrials and Consumer sectors are most vulnerable to rising wages due to their high labor costs and low profit margins.

    4. China growth. Goldman’s China Economics team recently lowered their Q3 growth forecasts to 0% (QoQ) amid sharp cuts to production in a range of high energy intensity industries and the property market slowdown.

    And while the indirect impact on supply chains is likely a greater EPS risk than the direct effect from reduced end demand in China, Kostin says that in aggregate, the S&P 500 generates just 2% of its sales explicitly from Greater China. Indeed, the S&P 500 derives 72% of its sales in the US and US GDP growth is the most important driver of EPS, however some very high growth sectors such as semis (43% of sales in China), tech Hardware(11%), and stocks with the highest sales to China are more exposed.

    The good news – according to the traditionally cheerful Goldman – is that downside risk from these four factors appears relatively contained in aggregate today, but certain stocks face more risks than others. Indeed, several early reporters beat on 3Q EPS but offered weak guidance (MKC, MU, NKE). Consistent with recent quarters, and as we predicted recently, guidance will be a clearer differentiator of stock price reactions than 3Q results during the season. As Kostin – correctly – cautions, earnings revisions typically carry a particularly strong signal for stock returns in the current backdrop of decelerating economic growth, underscoring the importance of identifying the “winners” and “losers” around these key macro risks. Readers should monitor management commentary to assess the implications of these macro factors on the S&P 500 earnings outlook.

    Finally, in addition to these four themes, Biden’s corporate tax hikes remain a broad-based, imminent risk to the 2022 EPS outlook. As Goldman warned previously, a change in the corporate tax code would have a direct impact on nearly all S&P 500 companies. The bank’s baseline assumption for a 25% statutory corporate tax rate and an increase in the foreign income tax rate would represent a 5% hit to 2022 S&P 500 EPS. However, thanks to growing bickering between progressive and centrist Democrats, uncertainty about whether tax reform will actually become law is high, as the House delayed a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Prediction market odds of an increase in the corporate tax currently stand at 66%.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 20:15

  • Elon Musk's Ex, Grimes, Spotted Walking Through Downtown LA Reading Karl Marx
    Elon Musk’s Ex, Grimes, Spotted Walking Through Downtown LA Reading Karl Marx

    In case you were wondering whether or not Elon Musk’s ex, Grimes, was holding up well after their split (we know you weren’t wondering, but humor us), she appears to be doing just fine.

    That is, if walking around Los Angeles dressed like some type of Star Wars extra while flipping through the pages of Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” is “doing just fine”.

    Grimes was spotted gallivanting in downtown LA, flipping through the book, in what the NY Post calls her “first public appearance since the split”.

    She appeared to be “enthralled” by the book, or at least giving off the appearance that she was. We can’t imagine Grimes would leave the house dressed as she was an expect not to be noticed or photographed.

    The Post reported she was “blithely flipping” through the book. Perhaps she was wondering where the pictures were.

    Grimes has previously said that artificial intelligence was the “fastest way to communism” and Elon Musk has described himself in the past as a “socialist”.

    We are still waiting for either of the two to give away their fortunes for the better of the cause. It hasn’t happened just yet, and we won’t hold our breath.

    We noted about a week ago that the couple had split. The two are reportedly “semi-separated” and “still love each other” while remaining “on great terms”.

    Musk confirmed that the two would continue to co-parent their one year old son, X Æ A-Xii Musk.

    Musk told the NY Post: “We are semi-separated but still love each other, see each other frequently and are on great terms.”

    He continued: “It’s mostly that my work at SpaceX and Tesla requires me to be primarily in Texas or traveling overseas and her work is primarily in LA. She’s staying with me now and Baby X is in the adjacent room.”

    While people in LA may think the book is a status symbol, those with real world experience in Marxism didn’t seem too amused.

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

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 19:50

  • $2.2 Million Raised For Marine In Military Detainment After Criticizing Afghan Chaos
    $2.2 Million Raised For Marine In Military Detainment After Criticizing Afghan Chaos

    Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

    Some $2 million has been raised for a Marine who was put in the brig for speaking out against the U.S. military’s leadership amid the chaotic Afghanistan evacuation.

    More than $2.2 million was raised for Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller after more than 29,000 donors contributed. Scheller is awaiting a hearing over viral videos in which he called for accountability from top leaders in the military and the Department of Defense.

    He was placed in confinement at the Regional Brig for Marine Corps Installations East at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, officials said. About a week ago, the Marine Corps confirmed his detainment, although it’s not clear when his Article 32 hearing will take place.

    “The time, date, and location of the proceedings have not been determined,” Marine Corps Training and Education Command spokesman Capt. Sam Stephenson told Task & Purpose.

    “Lt. Col. Scheller will be afforded all due process.”

    In August, Scheller gained viral fame after posting a video on social media alleging that top military brass were not taking responsibility for how the military withdrawal from Afghanistan was handled, including the ISIS terrorist attack that left 13 service members dead in Kabul.

    “The reason people are so upset on social media right now is not because the Marine on the battlefield let someone down,” Scheller said in a video posted several weeks ago.

    “People are upset because their senior leaders let them down. And none of them are raising their hands and accepting accountability or saying, ‘We messed up.’”

    After releasing several videos, Scheller was reportedly told by his superiors to stop posting on social media entirely. He appeared to ignore that alleged directive by writing about the gag order in his most recent social media post.

    In one post, he announced that he was relieved from his position as the battalion commander for the Advanced Infantry Training Battalion at School of Infantry East at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In another post, Scheller suggested in a post that he could be be taken to the brig.

    “What happens when all you do is speak truth and no one wants to hear it. But they can probably stop listening because… I’m crazy… right?” Scheller wrote in another post.

    “Col Emmel please have the [military police] waiting for me at 0800 on Monday. I’m ready for jail.”

    Scheller’s father, Stu Scheller, told the same publication that he believes the military is treating his son unfairly, also confirming that he was taken to lockup pending a hearing.

    “All our son did is ask the questions that everybody was asking themselves, but they were too scared to speak out loud,” he told Task & Purpose.

    “He was asking for accountability. In fact, I think he even asked for an apology that we made mistakes, but they couldn’t do that, which is mind-blowing.”

    The elder Scheller said that his son was merely asking for accountability from top military leaders over the withdrawal.

    The Epoch Times has contacted the Department of Defense for comment.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 19:25

  • First Responders Aren't Prepared For Lithium Fires When Teslas Crash And Uncontrollably Burn
    First Responders Aren’t Prepared For Lithium Fires When Teslas Crash And Uncontrollably Burn

    With 40% of new cars predicted to be electric by 2030, Baltimore County’s volunteer firefighter’s association hopes Tesla can figure out how to stop making portable fireballs.

    Investment bank UBS predicts by 2025, 20% of all new cars sold globally will be electric. Then by 2030, new sales will jump to 40%, and by 2040, every new car sold globally will be electric. The electric car adoption curve appears parabolic, and emergency responders need improved methods to safely and quickly extinguish electric vehicle fires as they’re likely to become more frequent. 

    Take, for example, a Tesla crash in Towson, Maryland, on Thursday evening. The vehicle immediately caught fire after it smashed into a median. The driver was unharmed, but the fire raged out of control after multiple fire stations didn’t have the proper resources to extinguish the flames. 

    “The fire escalated to fully involved within about five minutes, officials said. Firefighters initially used portable extinguishers, but a foam unit from the fire department’s hazmat unit was deployed, along with copious amounts of water, to cool the fire as it intensified due to damaged battery-powered cells that contain lithium, which ignites when exposed to oxygen,” local news WBAL said. 

    Traditional fire extinguishers, such as foam and water, are ineffective at immediately extinguishing lithium-metal fires. A class-D dry powder extinguisher is certified for use in lithium fires, though there was no mention if firefighters that night had that or a lithium fire blanket to isolate the fire. Instead, a large-capacity water tanker, hazmat unit, and a foam unit were called in and eventually extinguished the blaze two hours later. 

    Commenting on the fire, one Twitter user said: “What is going to happen if the majority of cars are electric. Every accident/car fire can’t require this level of Emergency Service assets.” 

    Sounding frustrated, the Baltimore County Volunteer Firefighters Association responded to the user and said: “Let’s hope @elonmusk can work with the fire service and together we can develop a better response.” 

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

    Earlier this summer, 20 tons of water were used to extinguish a Tesla fire in Taiwan. For some context, it only takes 3 tons of water to put out a gasoline car fire. A Texas fire chief told The Independent that a Tesla fire needed 40 times more water to control the blaze in a separate incident.

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has encouraged electric car companies to educate and help emergency responders on techniques and new tools to put out lithium-ion battery fires. But in the Baltimore fire, the three firehouses appeared not to be well versed in controlling a lithium fire. 

    Meanwhile, where’s all that lithium going to come from, and how will environmentally conscious world leaders dispose of it?

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 19:00

  • Morgan Stanley: Tapering Is Tightening… And Dip Buying Is Starting To Fail
    Morgan Stanley: Tapering Is Tightening… And Dip Buying Is Starting To Fail

    By Michael Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s chief US equity strategist

    Our US equity strategy process has several key components. Most importantly, we focus on the fundamentals of growth and valuation to determine whether the overall market is attractive and which sectors and styles look the best. The rate of change in growth is more important than the absolute level, and we use a market-based equity risk premium framework that works well as long as you apply the right regime when using it. In that regard, we’re avid students of market cycles and believe that historical analogies can be helpful. For example, the mid-cycle transition narrative that has worked so well since March came directly from our study of historical economic and market cycles.

    The final component we spend a lot of time studying is price, i.e., technical analysis. Markets aren’t always efficient, but we believe that they are often very good leading indicators for fundamentals – the ultimate driver of value. This is especially true if one focuses on sector and style leadership and relative strength of individual securities. In short, we find these internals to be much more useful than simply looking at the major averages.

    This year, we think that the process has lived up to its promise as the price action has lined up nicely with the fundamental backdrop. More specifically, cyclicals dominated growth stocks in the first quarter during the most accelerative phase of the early-cycle recovery. Large-cap quality leadership since March is signalling what we believe is about to happen – decelerating growth and tightening financial conditions. The question for many investors now is whether the price action has already discounted these fundamental outcomes. The short answer, in our view, is no.

    Equity markets sold off sharply two Mondays ago on concerns about an Evergrande bankruptcy. While our house view is that it won’t lead to major financial spillover, it will weigh on China’s growth. This means that the growth deceleration we (and the markets) were already expecting will likely be worse and is probably not fully priced in. The other reason why equity markets were soft a few weeks ago had to do with concerns about the Fed articulating its plans to taper asset purchases. The Fed did not disappoint, as it essentially told us to expect the taper to begin this year. The surprise was the speed with which it expects to be done tapering – by mid-2022. This is about a quarter sooner than the market had been anticipating and increases the probability of a rate hike in 2H22, a clearly hawkish shift.

    After the Fed meeting on Wednesday, real 10-year yields were up 12bp in two days and are now up 31bp in just eight weeks. In addition, the US dollar was stronger. Both weighed heavily on equity markets. In other words, tapering is tightening for stocks even if it isn’t for the economy – the more important consideration for the Fed. In short, higher real rates should mean lower equity prices. Secondarily, they may also mean value over growth even as the overall equity market goes lower. This makes for a doubly difficult investment environment given how most investors are positioned. Finally, the most powerful offset to a material correction in the S&P 500 this year has been the extremely resilient buy-the-dip mentality among retail investors, a strategy that is now being challenged. After the Evergrande dip and rally, stocks have probed lower and taken out the prior lows, making this the first time that buying the dip hasn’t worked, simultaneously violating important technical support.

    For the past month, our strategy has been to favor a barbell of defensive quality sectors like healthcare and staples, together with financials. The defensive stocks should hold up better as earnings revisions start to come under pressure from decelerating growth and higher costs, while financials can benefit from the higher interest rate environment. On the other side of the ledger are consumer discretionary stocks, which remain especially vulnerable to a payback in demand from last year’s over-consumption. Within that bucket we favor services over goods, where we think there remains some pent-up demand. The risk to earnings may also be higher than average for some tech stocks levered to the work-from-home dynamic that is now fading. Within the sector, we are most concerned about semiconductors and neutral overall.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 18:35

  • Hollywood Stageworkers Consider First Strike In History In Threat To "Cripple" Content Studios
    Hollywood Stageworkers Consider First Strike In History In Threat To “Cripple” Content Studios

    The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, one of Hollywood’s most prominent unions, is eyeing a strike.

    In what could be a massive blow to movie and TV studios, many of whom are still trying to deal with fallout from the pandemic, the union’s leaders have hit an impasse while seeking shorter working hours as part of a new contract, Bloomberg reported Thursday.

    The request has been in response to longer hours that have become the norm since Covid shut down a large portion of the industry.

    The union has a membership of about 60,000, most of whom are based in Los Angeles. They are threatening to walk off the job, should the union’s leadership – which is countrywide – decide. This means that a strike would affect studios across the U.S., not just in Los Angeles. 

    In total, 1 million jobs “directly tied to film and TV production” could be affected.

    (Photo/Bloomberg)

    Alongside of a historic labor shortage coming back from the pandemic, production has been on the rise as the studio arms of companies like Netflix and Amazon look to build out their content. Both Netflix and Walt Disney have told shareholders that the lack of new content has been a headwind for streaming sign-ups. 

    The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers says it “put forth a deal-closing, comprehensive proposal that meaningfully addresses the IATSE’s key bargaining issues.” 

    But the union isn’t amused. It wrote to its members: “As you may be aware, negotiations with the major producers have reached a standstill. They refused to reply to our last proposal.”

    The union is pushing for rest and meal breaks, as well as higher pay for its lowest earners, some of whom only make $15 per hour. 

    The IATSE has never gone on strike in its history, though both parties likely remember a writers strike from 13 years ago that lasted 100 days. 

    An IATSE strike could “cripple” the production industry, Bloomberg wrote. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 18:10

  • The Next "Lehman Moment" – Will China Try To Create A Dangerous Diversion?
    The Next “Lehman Moment” – Will China Try To Create A Dangerous Diversion?

    Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com,

    The happy talk out of Wall Street would have you believe that the Evergrande financial collapse in China is under control and that responsible parties have taken steps to avoid a “Lehman moment” in Chinese capital markets.

    Almost everything about that narrative is factually wrong. It’s Wall Street happy talk at its finest, assuring investors that things are under control while the smart money runs for the hills. Something closer to the truth was reported the same day in The Wall Street Journal. Here’s their summary:

    Chinese authorities are asking local governments to prepare for the potential downfall of China Evergrande Group, according to officials familiar with the discussions, signaling a reluctance to bail out the debt-saddled property developer while bracing for any economic and social fallout from the company’s travails…

    Local governments have been ordered to assemble groups of accountants and legal experts to examine the finances around Evergrande’s operations in their respective regions, talk to local state-owned and private property developers to prepare to take over local real estate projects and set up law enforcement teams to monitor public anger… a euphemism for protests, according to the people.

    China’s Bogus Plan

    This actual crisis management plan is the worst possible playbook. Why?

    Any response to a financial crisis has to be centralized so that decisions about how to deploy limited resources can be made rapidly. Some lenders must be saved, some should be allowed to fail. Equity holders should be wiped out. Foreign investors in dollar-denominated debt of Evergrande will be left to fend for themselves and possibly seek relief in their home countries.

    The point is these types of decisions cannot be made by “local governments” as proposed by the Chinese. The government plan is not a serious effort to truncate a financial crisis. It seems designed more to suppress social unrest and perhaps arrest “troublemakers.”

    Western analysts don’t understand this dynamic because they view events through the lens of Wall Street and Washington norms.

    But the Communist Party of China does not care if Chinese oligarchs or investors in BlackRock ETFs lose money. That suits them fine. They’re communists.

    The Good News and the Bad News

    The good news is that the China myth has now been revealed to be a fraud. The globalist dream for China has crashed and burned. Good riddance.

    Chinese regulators believe they have the resources to bail out or restructure Evergrande with some haircuts for creditors.

    They probably do, but that misses the point.

    Evergrande investors are now staging protests at banks after learning that their loans to Evergrande will not pay out for two years. Of course, Evergrande will be bankrupt long before that, and the investors will get nothing in the end.

    This is another fiasco in the making because those investors will dump that unwanted real estate, which will collapse the property market in turn. Essentially, Chinese regulators are so desperate that they are trying to pay off creditors in kind with deeds to real estate that no one wants.

    The Chinese are only looking at what’s inside the four walls of Evergrande and ignoring the fact that their entire property and financial system is on the verge of a world-historic crack-up.

    But here’s the real problem: The damage will not be confined to Evergrande. It will spread quickly to counterparties of Evergrande, including other developers and banks.

    This unprecedented combination of a financial crisis and Communist indifference could result in full-blown contagion that could emerge as a crisis in the U.S. and Europe within a few months.

    I’ve predicted this all along, but in reality, it wasn’t that hard to predict. The Chinese economy is basically a debt-driven Ponzi scheme.

    Up to half of China’s investment is a complete waste. It does produce jobs and utilize inputs like cement, steel, copper and glass. But the finished product, whether a city, train station or sports arena, is often a white elephant that will remain unused. The Chinese landscape is littered with “ghost cities” that have resulted from China’s wasted investment and flawed development model.

    And as I’ve explained before, that has serious implications for China’s leadership…

    The “Mandate of Heaven” in Jeopardy

    China’s economy is not just about providing jobs, goods and services. It is about regime survival for a Chinese Communist Party that faces an existential crisis if it fails to deliver.

    It is an illegitimate regime that will remain in power only so long as it provides jobs and a rising living standard for the Chinese people. The overriding imperative of the Chinese leadership is to avoid societal unrest.

    If China’s job machine seizes, as parts of it did during the coronavirus outbreak, Beijing fears that popular unrest could emerge on a scale potentially much greater than the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. This is an existential threat to Communist power.

    President Xi Jinping could quickly lose what the Chinese call “the Mandate of Heaven.”

    That’s a term that describes the intangible goodwill and popular support needed by emperors to rule China for the past 3,000 years. If the Mandate of Heaven is lost, a ruler can fall quickly.

    Even before the present crisis, China has had serious structural economic problems that are finally catching up with it.

    China is so heavily indebted that it is now at the point where more debt does not produce growth. Adding additional debt today slows the economy and calls into question China’s ability to service its existing debt.

    Essentially, China is on the horns of a dilemma with no good way out. China has driven growth for the past eight years with excessive credit, wasted infrastructure investment and Ponzi schemes.

    The Chinese leadership knows this, but they had to keep the growth machine in high gear to create jobs for millions of migrants coming from the countryside to the city and to maintain jobs for the millions more already in the cities.

    Will China Try to Create a Dangerous Diversion?

    The two ways to get rid of debt are deflation (which results in write-offs, bankruptcies and unemployment) and inflation (which results in theft of purchasing power, similar to a tax increase).

    Both alternatives are unacceptable to the Communists because they lack the political legitimacy to endure either unemployment or inflation. Either policy would cause social unrest and unleash revolutionary potential.

    The question is will China move aggressively against Taiwan, for example, to distract the people and attempt to unite them?

    China does not want war at this time. But diverting the people’s attention away from domestic problems toward a foreign foe is an old trick leaders use to unite the people in times of uncertainty.

    If China’s leadership decides that the risk of losing legitimacy at home outweighs the risk of conflict that would likely involve the United States, the likelihood of war rises dramatically.

    I’m not making a specific prediction, but wars have started over less. This is a very dangerous time.

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 17:45

  • Restaurant Recovery Fried As "Business Conditions Worse Now Than Three Months Ago"
    Restaurant Recovery Fried As “Business Conditions Worse Now Than Three Months Ago”

    The National Restaurant Association (NRA) penned a letter to Speaker Pelosi, Leaders Chuck Schumer, Kevin McCarthy, and Mitch McConnell about the restaurant industry’s dire situation heading into the fall season. 

    NRA said the “struggling restaurant industry is of grave concern to us.” The association included a new survey of the industry’s economic conditions and concluded the “state a recovery from the pandemic will be prolonged well into 2022.” They warned: “the majority of full-service and limited-service operators say business conditions are worse now than three months ago.” 

    The findings below are on the heels of soaring food inflation, labor shortages, and logistical nightmares that have made some restaurant items nearly impossible to obtain. 

    • 78% of operators say their restaurant experienced a decline in customer demand for indoor, on-premises dining in recent weeks because of the delta variant spike. 

    • 63% of operators said their sales volume in August, historically one of the busiest months for restaurants, was lower than it was in August 2019. 

    • Costs are up – 91% of operators are paying more for food; 84% have higher labor costs; 63% are paying higher occupancy costs, but profitability is down – 85% of operators reported smaller margins than before the pandemic.

    • Although the industry has added back many of the jobs lost during the pandemic, 78% of operators say their restaurant doesn’t have enough employees to support current customer demand.

    • 95% of restaurant operators say their restaurant experienced supply delays or shortages of key food or beverage items during the past three months.

    The new findings paint a grim economic backdrop for President Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan and suggest the stagflation is begging to bite. After all, more and more economists are warning about the increasing risk of 1970s-style stagflation, the latest to warn was Stephen Roach. 

    A separate study by small business networking site Alignable, conducted between Aug. 28 and Sept. 27, found that most restaurants (51%) were unable to cover their September rent. 

    Both studies suggest the return to normalcy for restaurants is puttering out as deterioration in finances due to surging costs, labor shortages, and a decline in traffic may indicate another round of restaurant busts are ahead. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sun, 10/03/2021 – 17:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 03

Today’s News 3rd October 2021

  • In A Civil War The Authoritarian Left Would Be Easily Beaten – But It Won't End There
    In A Civil War The Authoritarian Left Would Be Easily Beaten – But It Won’t End There

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

    There are a lot of assumptions and misconceptions when it comes to the notion of a second civil war within the US.

    What I see most often is the argument that the political left has “already won” the war without firing a shot and that a rebellion would be crushed under the heel of a newly a-wokened military industrial complex and a leftist controlled federal government.

    The problem is, this argument is extremely naive and ignores the bigger picture.

    I think there are a couple of reasons why certain people press the leftist supremacy theory:

    First, they greatly fear the idea of a kinetic war breaking out and find the idea of combat repellent. So, they act as if a shooting war cannot ever be won. They hide their fear behind a veil of “rationalism” and thin hopes of a completely passive resistance. They figure that if they can’t fight and win, then no one else can fight and win.

    Second, the motives of some of these people are more nefarious than fearful. One of the primary functions of 4th Generation (psychological) warfare is to convince a target population that “resistance is futile.” If you can make them believe that winning is impossible then they may not fight at all, and thus the prophecy is self fulfilling.

    Luckily this method of propaganda does not seem to be working on a large number of Americans. That said, there are many layers to the scenario of civil war. While the extreme cultism of leftists is relegated to a small percentage of the population, they are supported by almost every major institution in our nation. The federal government supports and protects them. Some state and local governments support and protect them. The mainstream media avidly sings their praises. Most corporations and Big Tech platforms support them and spread social justice doctrine along with them. And, all globalist foundations support, organize and even fund them.

    All the people that the political left used to consider evil are now on their side. This gives their small cult unprecedented social power and a number of political weapons to use when they desire to threaten or harm people who disagree with them. For now, most of this power is actually used to terrify other people on the left.

    There are many moderate democrats that have a distaste for the lunacy of social justice warriors, but they are so afraid of being labeled heretics, racists, fascists, etc. that they keep their mouths shut or support draconian policies because they think they have to in order to defend their political team. Limp-wristed moderates and old school democrats that go along to get along are almost as big a problem as hardcore leftists because they don’t have the guts to stand up to the bullies in their own political circles.

    This is how we end up with around half the country in support of vaccine passport mandates, a totalitarian agenda which would give government complete control over the health decisions of individual Americans, complete control over how businesses operate and who they are allowed to hire, not to mention complete control over the economic participation of the average citizen.

    Vaccine passports are the ULTIMATE POWER in the hands of government to decide the life and death of individuals and their families. And, not surprisingly, the political left and democrats are by far the biggest group backing the government and the globalists on this agenda.

    This places our nation in a difficult position; the political left desperately wants to control the lives of others while conservatives and some moderates just want to be left alone. We are at an impasse.

    We cannot share the same spaces, we cannot share the same government and we may not even be able to share the same land mass.

    Our ideals are mutually exclusive. We believe in freedom and individual responsibility and they simply do not.

    Make no mistake, an outright conflict is coming in the US and the people in alternative media circles that fear it need to come to terms with that fear and accept the inevitability of war. The sooner they do this the sooner they can take action to mitigate the damage to their families and communities. There will come a day very soon when you will have to defend your freedoms and the freedoms of future generations with your life. Embrace the suck and move on.

    In recent articles I have outlined peaceful steps that can be taken by conservative states and counties to combat the establishment’s tyrannical medical mandates as well as Critical Race Theory propaganda and other trespasses against free thinking people. These steps include offering sanctuary to people and businesses that are under attack by the federal government for non-compliance, as well as the steps states need to take to pursue soft secession (Read my article ‘How States And Communities Can Fight Back Against Biden’s Covid Tyranny’).

    Breaking away from the political left and starting fresh is socially and economically possible. It’s not as far fetched as some people believe. But then again, authoritarians usually can’t stand the idea of letting people just walk away and separate. They have a desperate need to micromanage and dominate EVERYONE. I hold out very little hope that leftists or globalists will allow us to live in peace; they will try to force their ideology on us at the barrel of a gun.

    When it comes down to average leftists, their movement is a paper tiger, a mirage. In the event of civil war the political left in the US would be easily annihilated. There are some that argue otherwise, and these are the standard claims they usually make:

    A Woke Military? Let’s Not Get Ahead Of Ourselves…

    The primary paranoia over confrontation with leftists is the new woke propaganda being spread by the Department of Defense in the form of military recruitment ads. Firstly, as I outlined in detail in my article ‘There Will Never Be A Woke US Military – Here Are The Reasons Why’, polling of military personnel shows around 30% identify as Republican and 40% identify as Independent, with the majority of the independents being Libertarians and Constitutionalists. In other words 70% of the US military leans conservative in their principles.

    The military brass going woke is meaningless if the majority of soldiers are not going to follow them into battle to oppress their own people. We are seeing this already in terms of the current serving that are refusing to take the experimental covid vaccines. Polling in the summer suggested that at least 50% of soldiers would refuse to take the mRNA vax. The DoD claims that at least 70% of soldiers are now vaccinated but this is unconfirmed and probably an exaggeration designed to manufacture a false consensus. We will soon know the real stats because the Biden Administration is threatening “dishonorable discharges” for soldiers that refuse to comply.

    The assertion here is that with freedom minded people leaving the services in droves, this opens the door to a fully woke military of the far left. This presupposes that woke leftists actually want to join the military or that they are capable of meeting the bare minimum standards. They are not.

    Over 75% of Americans ages 18-24 are ineligible for the US military because of lack of education, obesity, physical problems, psychological problems and criminal history. This negates 24 million people from the 34 million in this age range for recruitment. Since 70% of the military is conservative/libertarian, this means that either more young conservatives are healthy enough to pass the recruitment phase, or, far more conservatives are interested in volunteering; or it could be both factors combined.

    Sure, the DoD could drastically lower their recruitment standards, but then they would have a woke gaggle of weaklings as a fighting force. This only works in our favor.

    In any case, just because 30%-50% of soldiers leave in the face of the vaccine mandates, this does not mean that the void will be filled by leftists. In fact, it is likely that the void will not be filled at all and the military will be left to stagnate as recruitment collapses. The pool of talent is already small and the DoD just shrank their options by at least 30% more.

    To summarize, there will never be a woke US military. The institution would collapse before it ever reached such a “lofty” goal. Biden’s vaccine mandates are in a way highly beneficial for conservatives and freedom advocates, because they are forcing the current serving off the fence. Soldiers will now need to consider what liberties they are willing to violate just to stay in the military, because it’s not going to stop with a couple forced vaccinations, it’s going to escalate. We may see a massive influx of discharged soldiers joining the liberty movement in the near future because of Biden’s totalitarian behaviors.

    But lets say that Biden is hypothetically able to muster a combined force of alphabet agencies and portions of the military into an army of jackboots to suppress the population, what about all the technology and weaponry they would have at their disposal? Well, superior technology didn’t help the military much in the war in Afghanistan, and American civilians have access to far superior training and equipment compared to the Taliban. Conventional armies are notoriously weak against asymmetric warfare tactics. In the end wars are won by people and tactics, not weaponry.

    Conservatives Own The Gun Culture And Firearms Training

    Beyond the military, US gun culture is dominated by civilian conservatives. Leftists are slowly beginning to realize that being anti-gun is sabotaging their own agendas, and many started buying firearms in the past 18 months. But owning guns is not the same thing as knowing how to use them. It would take leftist many years, perhaps decades to catch up to the pure knowledge base that conservatives have when it comes to firearms and tactical training. These things have been passed down through conservative families for generations. And, again, most combat veterans are also conservative.

    This is not to say that there are no leftists out there that are firearms proficient. I’m sure there are a few. But most of the time when leftists get together with guns the results are either painfully embarrassing or dangerous. Just check out THIS VIDEO from Angry Cops on the BLM inspired “Not F$%king Around Coalition” (NFAC) group. Not only do they end up shooting each other, but their representatives don’t even understand the basics of how their own rifles function when they argue that the negligent discharge was the “gun’s fault.”

    And let’s not forget the good old ‘John Brown Gun Club’ and their rocken’ recruitment videos that made us choke on our own tears of laughter a few years ago. The leftists are shockingly inept when it comes to guns and combat skills. They are a minimal threat to conservatives if civil war is the issue.

    You Can’t Win If You’re Not Willing To Die For What You Believe In

    Leftists are adamant about their ideologies and they are keenly interested in demanding OTHER people die for the cause. But, when they are forced to face personal risk to achieve their directives, they will usually run. You can see this in the mob confrontation with Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha; a horde of leftists were perfectly willing to chase him down with the intention of killing him, but when he turned to fight and a few of them got shot (including Joseph Rosenbaum, a convicted pedophile), the mob’s enthusiasm suddenly evaporated.

    Why do they run? Because their religious fervor for Marxism is an act. It’s not real. Deep down, they don’t even believe in what they are doing, and this is what separates freedom fighters from all other armed forces. We accept the possibility of death and fight in the face of overwhelming odds because the goal of freedom is worth it. Most authoritarians and useful idiots, when faced with dying for their ideology, will abandon the cause. They have entered the fight with a built-in disadvantage.

    The Real Fight Will Not Be With Average Marxist Leftists

    Half the states in the US now have some form of anti-mandate laws or executive orders in place. Half the country is vehemently against the vaccine passports. If Biden continues on his current path, a soft secession of red states will begin and the mandates will be ignored. This will leave Biden with a handful of options. He will invariably seek to punish red states using economic pressure and cutting off federal funds, and when that doesn’t work he will have to put boots on the ground and use Orwellian methods to attack dissidents.

    Should civil war erupt (and I’m positive at this point that this is unavoidable), leftists will not last long. The majority of veterans and a large portion of the military are not going to fight against their own people, and they may even step in to assist. A large number of police and sheriff’s are also conservative and are unlikely to intervene. So, the question is, who is willing to die for leftists and their cult? I suspect not many.

    But, the people behind the leftist movement, the globalist foundations that fund them, have a vested interest in eliminating conservative ideals and heritage. Globalist institutions working with the Biden Administration will surely seek to intervene. They will call us “white supremacists” even though many conservatives are black and brown. They will call us evil nationalists, even though there is nothing wrong with a national identity that values freedom. They will say we are “insurrectionists” even though we will be acting in self defense against an authoritarian regime. They will call us terrorists while using terrorist tactics and false flags against us. And, they will claim that we are far too dangerous to be allowed to maintain our own nation or our own states.

    Their main rationale will probably fall to the US nuclear arsenal. They will claim that a nation of terrorists cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, and at the first sign that Biden (or Kamala) is losing control, there will be a call for UN intervention. Count on it. An international force would be organized to try to stop us from existing. This is where the REAL fight would begin.

    The political left is a footnote, and while we should continue to remain vigilant as they push their agenda it is important to remember that there are much bigger fish to fry and we need to plan for the next dozen battles, not just the first. How we conduct ourselves from here on may determine whether or not freedom survives for many decades to come.

    *  *  *

    If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 23:30

  • "What The F**k Is That" – Video Of Secret Stealth Aircraft Goes Viral
    “What The F**k Is That” – Video Of Secret Stealth Aircraft Goes Viral

    A mysterious stealth aircraft was spotted at Lockheed Martin’s Helendale radar-cross section measurement facility in the Mojave Desert, not far from the company’s Skunk Works headquarters at Plant 42 in Palmdale, California.

    Skunk Works has played a significant role in the development of stealth aircraft in the last four decades and could be in the process of developing yet another one. 

    A video, first spotted by Twitter handle “Ruben Hofs,” said he first “stumbled upon a very interesting TikTok video of an unknown shape on a flatbed trailer.” 

    Hofs was able to geolocate the TikTok video to “the Helendale Radar Cross Section Facility,” which tests and evaluates aircraft designs’ radar signatures. 

    The video itself is short and shows the aircraft being transported on a flatbed trailer, while a voice asks: “What the f**k is that?” 

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

    The aircraft does seem to resemble some similarities with the US Air Force’s sixth-generation fighter jet prototype. 

    The Drive’s Joseph Trevithick spoke with Jeff Babione, the head of Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works, about the video that has gone viral on social media. Babione declined to comment on the stealthy, advanced fighter aircraft at the Helendale radar-cross section facility. He also said he wasn’t aware of the video. 

    By now, we’re sure the Chinese have taken all seven seconds of the clip and are trying to replicate the design. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 23:00

  • Disinfo Vs. Democracy
    Disinfo Vs. Democracy

    Authored by Nadine Strossen via TabletMag.com,

    Using accusations of ‘disinformation’ to suppress scientific criticism, steer media coverage, and silence political opponents is not part of the operating system of a free society…

    First Amendment principles permit the government to punish false speech when it directly and immediately causes specific and serious harm. But unlike defamation, fraud, perjury, and other examples of punishable false speech, the term “disinformation” (or “misinformation”) has no specific legal meaning. “Disinformation” is widely used to designate false or misleading speech that cannot constitutionally be punished precisely because its potential harms are indirect and speculative—what the U.S. Supreme Court has called “an undifferentiated fear or apprehension” of negative consequences.

    To be sure, even though the harmful potential of disinformation is more inchoate than that of false speech that is constitutionally punishable, the potential for harm is still real. The many current advocates of restricting disinformation stress that it can cause serious harm, including to individual and public health, and even to democratic self-government itself. Yet expanding government power to punish such expression would also cause harm that is at least as serious—including to the very same values of health and democratic governance.

    The negative impact of censoring disinformation comes from its inherent vagueness and subjectivity. The authorities tasked with censorship invariably enforce this malleable concept in ways that reinforce dominant political and societal interest groups, and disadvantage minority groups and perspectives. This predictable dynamic is illustrated by recent experience in a number of other countries, from Russia to South Africa, and also in the United States before the Supreme Court enforced strict limits on punishing false speech.

    While the relevant legal analysis focuses on government censorship of disinformation, many of the same concerns also apply to censorship implemented by dominant technology firms. Although these private sector entities are usually not constrained by the First Amendment, their enormous power and influence over public discourse means that their restrictions on disinformation have adverse consequences similar to government restrictions. Moreover, in recent months, mounting evidence suggests that the dominant platforms’ content restrictions on disinformation (and other controversial speech) may have been sufficiently induced by or coordinated with government officials that we should seriously consider treating such restrictions as tantamount to government action and hence subject to First Amendment limits.

    Arguments for restricting disinformation consistently focus on the harm that such speech can potentially cause, without analyzing other issues that should be considered before concluding that censorship is justified. First, it is important to underscore the important fact noted above: The harmful potential of disinformation—unlike constitutionally punishable forms of false speech—is indirect and speculative. While the old nursery rhyme is wrong in declaring that “words will never hurt me,” it is equally untrue that “words will always hurt me.” The impact of speech on a single human mind, let alone an entire community or society, results from the complex interplay of multiple factors, and hence cannot be confidently predicted, or even clearly assessed after the fact. For example, what has been the net impact of disinformation about the 2020 election? Surely disinformation spurred some negative outcomes, including motivating participants in the events of Jan. 6. Just as plausibly, though, disinformation about the election spurred some positive outcomes too, including increased efforts to promote healthy skepticism, media literacy, fact-checking, and other measures that would remain necessary even if disinformation were censored. Because we can never completely eliminate the supply of disinformation, the most effective response is to curb the demand for it.

    Even if we made the purely hypothetical assumption that certain disinformation has a significant negative impact on balance, it still would not follow that government should restrict it. Logically, one could justify restrictions only by analyzing three additional questions:

    (1) Does the restriction materially reduce either the prevalence of such speech or its potential adverse impact?

    (2) Does the restriction have any adverse consequences (including unintended ones), such as increasing the prevalence or potential adverse impact of the targeted speech, or suppressing other speech that even censorship advocates agree should be protected?

    (3) Are there other steps we could pursue to reduce the prevalence or potential adverse impact of the targeted speech that would be at least as effective, but would not entail as many adverse consequences?

    This additional line of questioning makes common sense. We might well be willing to give up some free speech rights for the sake of advancing some other important goal—such as, in the case of disinformation, preserving our democratic form of government. But we shouldn’t be willing to forfeit free speech if the sacrifice does not actually have the desired impact, or worse yet, if it actually makes the problem worse—in this case, by undermining democracy. Indeed, government punishment of disinformation is fundamentally antithetical to democracy. As the Supreme Court declared in United States v. Alvarez (2012), which struck down a federal law criminalizing certain false statements, “Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.”

    As current debates illustrate, one person’s cherished truth is another’s despised “fake news.” Speech that critics seek to suppress as disinformation almost never consists of objectively verifiable facts alone, but also involves subjective matters of interpretation and analysis. After all, speakers who intentionally or recklessly utter false statements of fact that directly cause specific harm may constitutionally be punished under existing laws, such as those that ban fraud, defamation, and perjury. In contrast, our legal system scrupulously avoids punishing statements that go beyond straightforward facts and incorporate matters of interpretation or opinion. As the Supreme Court declared in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974): ‘’Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.”

    While some may bristle at the notion that government is prohibited from silencing “false ideas,” surely the alternative is far worse. If government were permitted to determine which ideas should be deemed “false” and hence punishable, any ideas that depart from prevailing orthodoxy—including those critiquing government policy—would be jeopardized. Such a course could not be more inimical to the most fundamental precepts that undergird our democratic republic. As the Supreme Court eloquently declared in its landmark 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion …”

    Until the Supreme Court reined in the concept of defamation in its groundbreaking 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, Southern officials systematically persecuted civil rights leaders and organizations, as well as the national media that covered them, for even slight misstatements of fact. Those officials pursued multiple defamation lawsuits with the specific goal of imposing ruinously large damages judgments in order to stifle both the civil rights activists themselves and the national media that disseminated information about their efforts across the country. Without that national audience, and the resulting political and financial support for the civil rights movement, it likely would have foundered; that was precisely the point of the libel lawsuit strategy. In a nutshell, the pre-Sullivan libel laws, which gave government undue discretion to punish disinformation, were unsurprisingly weaponized against the government’s critics.

    To this day, advocates for racial justice, including supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement, have seen their own speech assailed—and even suppressed on social media—as disinformation. For instance, a May 25, 2021, National Public Radio story quoted Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, as stating: “I feel that Black Lives Matter is one of the greatest sources of disinformation … They have manipulated the good nature of many people.” The story also quoted Gonzales, Rudolph Giuliani, and other BLM critics charging that the movement falsely portrays itself as a racial justice group, whereas its actual goal is “to advance a Marxist agenda.” While the NPR story quoted critics charging BLM with purveying disinformation, it also quoted BLM leaders who returned the very same charge, complaining that the disinformation accusations themselves constituted disinformation.

    The unavoidable problems with censoring disinformation have predictably plagued recent laws, including those touted as restricting pandemic-related disinformation in order to protect public health. As the Economist reported in February 2021, “Censorious governments are abusing ‘fake news’ laws,” invoking the pandemic as “an excuse to gag reporters” and to silence critics of pandemic-era policies. In February 2020, Amnesty International noted that Singapore’s 2019 law against “online falsehoods and manipulation” was “repeatedly used to target critics and political opponents.” The Singaporean government could not deny this, but instead claimed that the law’s consistent enforcement against opposition party members was a “coincidence.” To the contrary, these patterns necessarily result from restrictions on such a vague, broad category of speech, even in democratic regimes.

    That is why the American Civil Liberties Union brought a 2020 lawsuit challenging disinformation laws that the government of Puerto Rico had recently passed for the asserted purpose of protecting public health and safety. One such law makes it a crime to share “false information” about the government’s post-pandemic emergency and curfew orders with the intent to cause “confusion, panic, or public hysteria.” Shortly after the law went into effect, the Puerto Rican government charged a prominent clergyman with allegedly disseminating false information on WhatsApp about a rumored executive order to close all businesses. In fact, only a short time later, the governor did issue such an order.

    Even beyond the speech that disinformation laws directly stifle, these laws also suppress incalculable amounts of important expression, including information about the pandemic that could literally be a matter of life or death. That’s because the laws deter scientists and other experts from providing information to journalists, and journalists are in turn deterred from conveying information to the public, for fear of transgressing—or being charged with transgressing—the laws’ blurry boundaries. The ACLU’s complaint in the Puerto Rico case was filed on behalf of two prominent investigative journalists, who explained that “developing stories on matters of immense public concern are often complex, contentious, and murky,” and thus “inadvertent inaccuracies are inevitable even in the most thoroughly vetted reporting.”

    Throughout the pandemic, we have witnessed constantly evolving and shifting views among expert individuals and agencies, as they steadily gather and analyze additional data. Yesterday’s life-endangering “disinformation” can and has become today’s life-protecting gospel. Recall, to cite only the most obvious example, the CDC’s changing edicts about mask-wearing.

    Inherently subjective disinformation restrictions can easily be wielded for ulterior purposes, including to promote partisan interests. Consider, for instance, recent evidence that the Biden administration has been pressuring social media companies to restrict content that purportedly purveys disinformation about COVID, in light of allegations that the actual concerns may well involve politics at least as much as public health. Republican members of Congress have claimed that platforms have restricted “conservative” posts on issues related to the pandemic in response to pressure from administration officials, even though the posts contained no factual misrepresentations and simply conveyed perspectives with which the administration disagreed. Whether or not these claims are factually correct, it is true that the concept of disinformation is so open-ended that it could be deployed against particular communications for partisan reasons.

    The inevitable manipulability of restrictions on disinformation is well illustrated by YouTube’s recent removal of a video for violating its “medical misinformation policy.” The video, which had been posted by New York Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, was of an August 2021 news conference in which she announced a lawsuit challenging New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s “vaccine passport” as an invasion of privacy and an unreasonable mandate on small businesses. Although Malliotakis supports vaccination, she believes that the mandate constitutes government overreach—a position that the Supreme Court might well end up sharing. After Malliotakis appealed YouTube’s removal, the company said that it was “taking another look” and ultimately reinstated the video, thus underscoring the inherent elasticity of the misinformation concept. Whether or not YouTube actually had a good-faith health reason for its initial removal of the video, the fact remains that the vague policy can easily be invoked as a pretext, masking other motives.

    All the more reason, then, to be suspicious of even sincere attempts by public and private authorities to prevent the harm that disinformation can cause. Recall that Southern officials based their libel lawsuits against activists and journalists during the civil rights movement on the dissemination of inaccurate information. What we learned in that era is that disinformation is unavoidable in any vigorous discussion of fast-breaking public issues, and that making it punishable by law can only inhibit democratic debate. It’s time we relearn that lesson.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 22:30

  • "Take The Money And Run" – Artist Goes Dark After Punking Museum Into Giving Him $84K For Blank Canvas
    “Take The Money And Run” – Artist Goes Dark After Punking Museum Into Giving Him $84K For Blank Canvas

    We love to squawk whenever some ridiculous piece of modern art or pixelated NFT sells for a ridiculous sum that this is just another obvious symptom of the asset bubble blown by the global monetary gusher (either that, or somebody’s trying to launder $60MM and spotted a cost-effective opportunity to do so).

    But this latest example of art-world excess is heavy on the meta-commentary. It’s also extremely Scandinavian.

    Here’s what happened: Danish artist Jens Haaning was given $84K by a museum – the Kunsten Museum of Modern Art in Aalborg, Denmark – and promised to use the money to create a work of art that would be featured as part of an exhibit. After receiving the money – $84K in US dollars – Haaning emailed the exhibit’s curator, saying he had changed his mind about the project, and had changed the title to “Take the Money and Run”. He then delivered the project – but kept the cash, which was supposed to be used as part of the project (the new piece was supposed to be part of a series where the artist used actual euros to depict the average annual income of different European countries).

    “Take the money and Run”

    The Museum says it will wait to see if the artist returns the money by Jan 16 as he is contractually obligated to do. If he doesn’t, the museum’s director told CBS News that “we will of course take the necessary steps to ensure that Jens Haaning complies with his contract.”

    But in the mean time, the museum is trying to spin the incident as a kind of double-win (although there’s no guarantee that they will get the money back).

    Here’s more from CBS News:

    Indeed, the frames meant to be filled with cash were empty.

    “The staff was very surprised when they opened the crates. I was abroad when the crates were opened, but suddenly received a lot of mails,” Andersson said.

    When he finally saw “Take the Money and Run,” Andersson said he actually laughed. “Jens is known for his conceptual and activistic art with a humoristic touch. And he gave us that – but also a bit of a wake up call as everyone know wonders were did the money go,” he said.

    According to Haaning’s press release, “the idea behind was to show how salaries can be used to measure the value of work and to show national differences within the European Union. But by changing the title of the work to “Take the Money and Run” Haaning “questions artists’ rights and their working conditions in order to establish more equitable norms within the art industry.”

    “Everyone would like to have more money and, in our society, work industries are valued differently,” Haaning said in a statement. “The artwork is essentially about the working conditions of artists. It is a statement saying that we also have the responsibility of questioning the structures that we are part of.

    And if these structures are completely unreasonable, we must break with them. It can be your marriage, your work – it can be any type of societal structure”.

    While the artist technically violated the spirit of the deal, he does contractually have until Jan. 16 to deliver on the project – or return the money.

    “…while it wasn’t what they had agreed on in the contract, the museum got new and interesting art. “When it comes to the amount of $84,000, he hasn’t broke any contract yet as the initial contract says we will have the money back on January 16th 2022.”

    Now, as for whether the artist will return the money, we’re curious as to whether maybe there might be a “Part II” to the this exhibit involving the spending of $84K in US dollars.

    They should probably check all the strip clubs near the guy’s house.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 22:00

  • Buchanan: Who Is Killing 10,000 Black Americans Every Year?
    Buchanan: Who Is Killing 10,000 Black Americans Every Year?

    Authored by Pat Buchanan,

    “Unfortunately, Jan. 6 was not an isolated event,” warned FBI Director Christopher Wray last winter:

    “The problem of domestic terrorism has been metastasizing across the country for a long time now, and it’s not going away anytime soon.”

    Since he became director in 2017, said Wray, FBI domestic terrorism investigations had doubled in number to more than 2,000, and FBI investigations of white supremacists had tripled.

    Listening to Wray, one came away with the impression that right-wing terrorism was our foremost internal security issue, that the Jan. 6 riot was a manifestation of that terrorism, and that white supremacists top the list of dangerous enemies inside our own country.

    The vast turnout of police and press for the Sept. 18 protest on the Mall to demand fairness for the Jan. 6 “patriots” suggested that our elites shared Wray’s alarm.

    All seemed disappointed when the brownshirts failed to show up.

    Yet, with this week’s release of FBI statistics on violent crime in America, showing a record 30% surge in homicides in 2020 over 2019, questions arise.

    What caused the number of U.S. victims of murder and manslaughter to explode by almost 5,000 last year to reach a total of 21,500? Why are homicides rising another 10% this year? Why are murders and manslaughters rising so dramatically in the USA?

    For that number of killings, 21,500 in 2021, is three times the number of U.S. soldiers dead in 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    The New York Times and Washington Post both made the FBI figures front-page news. And the Times gave some insight as to who the victims of homicide in this country were and are.

    Here is the relevant passage in the Times story:

    “The (FBI) report … breaks down last year’s homicide victims by race, ethnicity and sex, although not all law enforcement agencies provided such data. Of the people killed in 2020, at least 9,913 were Black, 7,029 were white, 497 were from other races and 315 were of unknown race. There were at least 14,146 men killed and 3,573 women.”

    The startling number here: There were nearly 3,000 more Black victims who wound up dead in America from criminal violence than there were white victims, though Blacks, at 12-13% of the U.S. population, are only one-fifth the size of the white population.

    Translation: Black Americans are being shot, stabbed and beaten to death at a rate six to seven times that of whites. And by the end of this year, well over 10,000 Blacks will have been made the victims of homicide in America.

    That figure breaks down to roughly 200 Black folks dead every single week in this country from gunshot wounds and other criminal violence — a weekly death toll that rivals U.S. losses in Vietnam at the height of the war.

    The question unanswered and unasked in the Times’ and Post’s stories is: Who is doing this? Who is killing all these Black people?

    If, as the slogan proclaims, “Black lives matter,” why is there not greater public alarm at BLM in who is killing so many Black people?

    About the number of dead in the infamous Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921, histories and historians differ. Some say the number of Black victims was no more than 30. Others say it was as high as 300.

    But, again, in one year, the number of Blacks killed in violent crimes in America, 3-in-4 by gunshots, will exceed 10,000.

    Who is doing this? How many of these Black folks are victims of the right-wing extremists and white supremacists that Wray sees as our greatest domestic security threat?

    How many Blacks in 2021 and this year were victims of the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers or 3 Percenters or neo-Nazis or the Klan?

    If rogue white cops are the scourge of Black America, as we have been instructed to believe, how many killings of unarmed Blacks were done by white cops this year and last?

    In 2020, homicides in Washington, D.C., rose for the third straight year, reaching almost 200, the deadliest year in the city since 2004. More than 920 people were shot in 2020, a 64% increase from three years ago. Again, how many of these Washington shootings, averaging three a day, were the lethal work of Washington white supremacists?

    Within the Post and Times there were explanations offered for the 30% surge in homicides. Among them were the proliferation of guns and gun ownership, and the “police legitimacy crisis.”

    In the wake of George Floyd’s death, “Defund the Police!” became the chant of 100 leftist protests.

    Police funds were cut. Elites turned hostile to cops they once hailed as “first responders.” Demoralized, many police ceased to be proactive. Police resignations and retirements came in record numbers.

    When the peace forces in our society were morally disarmed, their natural enemies, the criminal element, seized the opportunity.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 21:30

  • Russia Becomes First Country To Ban Scientology As A "Threat To National Security"
    Russia Becomes First Country To Ban Scientology As A “Threat To National Security”

    Russia’s Justice Ministry is waging a war on Scientology, this week banning the organization from operating on Russian soil. It’s not the first time Moscow has moved legally against the group, however, in an updated list released Friday two key Church of Scientology entities have now been blacklisted as “undesirable” – the most severe designation ever taken by the Russian government.

    Calling the group a “threat to the security of the Russian Federation” a media statement described that that “On October 1, the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises International, L. Ron Hubbard Library as well as the ENEMO were added to the list of organizations whose activity is deemed undesirable in Russia by the Prosecutor General’s Office.”

    Image via The Guardian

    The two entities named are California-based holdings and are said to be vital to Scientology operations in foreign countries. Being added to the “undesirable” list means all local offices are closed down by the state and assets frozen.

    Moscow has long argued it’s a “business masquerading as a religion” – similar to arguments made by detractors in the West, who have also long lobbied Washington to revoke Scientology’s tax exempt status.

    In most countries across the globe, the group is officially considered a religion and thus enjoys tax exempt status, with the major exception of Russia. In the US, where it was born over a half-century ago when American science fiction novelist L. Ron Hubbard wrote its foundational texts (numbering thousands upon thousands of pages), it’s attracted huge controversy.

    The controversy and media spotlight has grown especially over the last decade in the US. After a number of high profile Scientologists, including celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta (though there are rumors the latter has moved away from it), became outspoken public advocates – which included defending some bizarre practices like forcing women to “stay silent” during child birth – but which resulted in backlash as more and more documentaries emerged delving into the strange belief system. 

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

    According to Russia’s RT News, the Kremlin has long eyed Scientology going back to its presence just after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990’s: 

    The decision follows a decades-long campaign to ban Scientology from illegally profiting on Russian territory, with the first major effort to restrict the group dating back to 1996, back in the Boris Yeltsin-era and some twelve years after the organization gained a foothold in what was then the Soviet Union.

    However, it was not until the 2010s when authorities really cracked down on Scientology groups, investigating major branches in Moscow and St. Petersburg, as well as their leaders, on charges of illegal business activities and extremism.

    Scientology is known to employ an army of lawyers, often making it extremely difficult for local, state, or central governments to go after the group – which often wins court cases based on presenting itself as a valid religion.

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

    Other European countries like Belgium and France have recently seen high profile cases thrust Scientology into the media spotlight, with some European officials labeling it a “cult”. However, Russia now stands out as the country with by far the most restrictive laws against the organization.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 21:00

  • India's Ivermectin Blackout: The Secret Revealed
    India’s Ivermectin Blackout: The Secret Revealed

    Authored by Justus R, Hope via TheDesertReview.com,

    On May 7, 2021, during the peak of India’s Delta Surge, The World Health Organization reported, “Uttar Pradesh (is) going the last mile to stop COVID-19.”

    The WHO noted, “Government teams are moving across 97,941 villages in 75 districts over five days in this activity which began May 5 in India’s most populous state with a population of 230 million.” 

    The activity involved an aggressive house-to-house test and treat program with medicine kits.

    The WHO explained, “Each monitoring team has two members who visit homes in villages and remote hamlets to test everyone with symptoms of COVID-19 using Rapid Antigen Test kits. Those who test positive are quickly isolated and given a medicine kit with advice on disease management.“

    The medicines comprising the kit were not identified as part of the Western media blackout at the time. As a result, the contents were as secret as the sauce at McDonald’s.

    The WHO continued, “On the inaugural day, WHO field officers monitored over 2,000 government teams and visited at least 10,000 households.”

    This news story was published on the WHO Official Website in India. The website details the WHO’s work against COVID-19 in India, including a discussion about their “Online course for Rapid Response Teams.”

    Such teams are the very government teams discussed above assigned to conduct the house-to-house test and treat program in Uttar Pradesh. In discussing the role of the Rapid Response Team (RRT), the WHO site reports, 

    “RRTs are a key component of a larger emergency response strategy that is essential for an efficient and effective response…WHO has produced and published this course for RRTs working at the national, sub-national, district, and sub-district levels to strengthen the pandemic response with support from the National Center for Disease Control, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, and the U.S. Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention.”

    The Rapid Response Teams derive support from the United States CDC under the umbrella of the WHO. This fact further validates the Uttar Pradesh test and treat program and solidifies this as a joint effort by the WHO and CDC.

    Perhaps the most telling portion of the WHO article was the last sentence, “WHO will also support the Uttar Pradesh government on the compilation of the final reports.”

    None have yet been published.

    Just five short weeks later, on June 14, 2021, new cases had dropped a staggering 97.1 percent, and the Uttar Pradesh program was hailed as a resounding success.

    According to ZeeNews of India, “The strategy of trace, test & treat yields results.”

    “The Yogi-led state has also been registering a steep decline in the number of Active COVID Cases as the figure has dropped from a high of 310,783 in April to 8,986 now, a remarkable reduction by 97.10 percent.”

    By July 2, 2021, three weeks later, cases were down a full 99 percent.

    On August 6, 2021, India’s Ivermectin media blackout ended with MSM reporting. Western media, including MSN, finally acknowledged what was contained in those Uttar Pradesh medicine kits. Among the medicines were Doxycycline and Ivermectin.

    On August 25, 2021, the Indian media noticed the discrepancy between Uttar Pradesh’s massive success and other states, like Kerala’s, comparative failure. Although Uttar Pradesh was only 5% vaccinated to Kerala’s 20%, Uttar Pradesh had (only) 22 new COVID cases, while Kerala was overwhelmed with 31,445 in one day. So it became apparent that whatever was contained in those treatment kits must have been pretty effective.

    News18 reported, “Let’s look at the contrasting picture. Kerala, with its 3.5 crore population – or 35 million, on August 25 reported 31,445 new cases, a bulk of the total cases reported in the country. Uttar Pradesh, the biggest state with a population of nearly 24 crore – or 240 million – meanwhile reported just 22 cases in the same period. 

    Two days ago, just seven fresh positive cases were reported from Uttar Pradesh. Kerala reported 215 deaths on August 25, while Uttar Pradesh only reported two deaths. In fact, no deaths have been reported from Uttar Pradesh in recent days. There are only 345 active cases in Uttar Pradesh now while Kerala’s figure is at 1.7 lakh – or 170,000.”

    “Kerala has done a much better job in vaccination coverage with 56% of its population being vaccinated with one dose and 20% of the population being fully vaccinated with a total of 2.66 crore – or 26.6 million – doses being administered. 

    Uttar Pradesh had given over 6.5 crore – or 65 million – doses, the maximum in the country, but only 25% of people have got their first dose while less than 5% of people are fully vaccinated. Given the present COVID numbers, Uttar Pradesh seems to be trumping Kerala for the tag of the most successful model against COVID.”

    This author reviewed the reasons behind Kerala’s failed treatment model in two articles, “The Lesson of Kerala” and “Kerala’s Vaccinated Surge.”

    By September 12, 2021, Livemint reported that 34 districts were declared COVID-free or had no active cases. Only 14 new cases were recorded in the entire state of Uttar Pradesh.

    On September 22, 2021, YouTube hosted a video by popular science blogger Dr. John Campbell detailing the Uttar Pradesh success story. He gave a breakdown of the ingredients and dosages of the magical medicine home treatment kit responsible for eradicating COVID in Uttar Pradesh. The same kit was also used in the state of Goa.  

    Dr. John Campbell broke India’s Ivermectin Blackout wide open on YouTube by revealing the formula of the secret sauce, much to the dismay of Big Pharma, the WHO, and the CDC. Readers will want to watch this before it is taken down. See mark 2:22.

    Each home kit contained the following: Paracetamol tablets [tylenol], Vitamin C, Multivitamin, Zinc, Vitamin D3, Ivermectin 12 mg [quantity #10 tablets], Doxycycline 100 mg [quantity #10 tablets]. Other non-medication components included face masks, sanitizer, gloves and alcohol wipes, a digital thermometer, and a pulse oximeter. See mark 2:33.

    Campbell reports that the exciting things in the kit that grabbed his attention were: Zinc, Vitamin D3, Ivermectin, and secondary antibiotic treatment. “Interesting, that’s what the government decided to give.” See mark 3:40

    John Campbell has reviewed repurposed drugs for COVID before. He has interviewed both Dr. Tess Lawrie and Dr. Pierre Kory. Repurposed drugs hold the potential for benefitting many conditions, not the least of which include viruses and cancers.

    Dr. Campbell noted that there had been no recent cases in 59 Uttar Pradesh districts. In addition, out of 191,446 tests completed in the previous 24 hours, only 33 samples were positive for a test positivity rate of only 0.01%. Dr. Campbell called this low number “staggering.” See mark 5:05.

    By September, cases had fallen dramatically. Out of the entire state of 200 million plus inhabitants, only 187 active cases were left compared to the peak in April of 310,783 cases. See mark 5:41.

    Dr. Campbell attributes their success to many factors, including early detection and early treatment with kits costing a mere $ 2.65 per person. See mark 6:20.

    Notice that Dr. Campbell does not mention a single person who had any toxicity from those ten 12 mg pills of Ivermectin – in the entire state of over 200 million. Not one poisoning was reported. No Indian poison control articles or telephone calls were reported. Out of millions of distributed medicine kits, each containing 120 mg of Ivermectin, not one person in Uttar Pradesh was reported to have had a problem with the drug.

    Notice that Dr. Campbell at no time criticizes the medicine kit as “fringe” or ineffective. After all, it would be improper to accuse a WHO-sponsored program such as the Uttar Pradesh test and treat – coordinated by WHO – of being “fringe.”

    Contrary to what little we receive – at great expense – from the government in the United States, these kits are efficient and contain gloves, a thermometer, and an oximeter. The last time I purchased an oximeter some ten years ago, it cost some $200.00. This entire kit – including the oximeter – costs only $2.65.

    And notice that a government can purchase over one thousand home treatment Ivermectin containing kits for the price of one course of Remdesivir. Remdesivir runs $3,100, and it is an impractical drug as it must be given late in the disease during hospitalization. Moreover, it is a drug that does not save lives.

    On the other hand, the Ivermectin kits are highly correlated with eliminating COVID-19 in Uttar Pradesh. Indeed with less than 11% of their population fully vaccinated, the Uttar Pradesh model of test and treat is superior not only to Kerala, with a much higher percent vaccinated. Uttar Pradesh beats the UK, the US, and nearly everywhere else in the world in terms of the lowest active COVID cases.

    Rather than turning a blind eye to Uttar Pradesh, perhaps it is time to analyze its success. It is time for all to realize that far from being dangerous, Ivermectin is safer than hand sanitizer or plain Tylenol, judging from the number of United States poison control calls.

    Now is precisely the moment to point out that Dr. George Fareed, Dr. Peter McCullough, and Dr. Harvey Risch were correct in their U.S. Senate Testimony on November 19, 2020. They advised that early outpatient treatment was essential and would save hundreds of thousands of American lives if adopted. It wasn’t.

    Now is the right moment to notice the onslaught of United States poison control articles attempting to smear Ivermectin, a drug proven safe and effective in the Uttar Pradesh test-and-treat program administered under the auspices of both the WHO and CDC.

    It is appropriate to remind the reader that the WHO and CDC possess direct and recent knowledge of Ivermectin use for COVID-19 in India. Moreover, they know better than anyone the colossal effectiveness and overwhelming safety of Ivermectin used in those millions of Uttar Pradesh test and treat kits.

    Perhaps it is also time to ask why exactly Dr. Tess Lawrie’s peer-reviewed meta-analysis was given an Altimetric score of 26,697, making it number eight out of some 18 million publications. 

    This rank is far better than the top 1%, which would only need a ranking of 180,000 for it to rank in the top 1%. It would only need 18,000 for it to rank in the top .1%. Ranking in the top .001% would mean #180. Therefore, at number eight, it is 8/180 of the top .001% or roughly the top 4.4% of the top .001%. This article ranks in the top 5% of the top .001%!

    In other words, only seven articles in the world out of those 18 million are ranked higher.

    This peer-reviewed paper is one of the most cited of medical references of all time – period. That should alert any reader – immediately – to its historical significance. Dr. Tess Lawrie is a 30-year veteran WHO evidence synthesis expert. Her conclusion is every bit as meaningful as the article’s rank. Here are those words,

    “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using Ivermectin. Using Ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that Ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

    Maybe it is time to ask why Dr. Pierre Kory’s peer-reviewed narrative review of Ivermectin ranks #38 out of the same 18 million publications. 

    He concludes, “Finally, the many examples of Ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality reduction indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.”

    If Dr. Lawrie’s paper is ranked in the top 5% of the top .001% of all such published medical articles of all time, then Dr. Kory’s is not far behind.  His is 38/180 of the top .001% or the top 21% of the top .001% 

    Thus, both articles would rank in the rarified atmosphere of nearly one in a million.

    Therefore, the reader must now ask why two magnificent independent reviews from two different continents, coming to the same conclusion, are both ignored by our world’s medical leaders?

    Uttar Pradesh is one such population that experienced a considerable drop in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality months AFTER Dr. Kory’s article was published on April 22, 2021. Therefore, one must ask that if Ivermectin so predictably and safely eradicates COVID-19, then why is it not being systematically deployed over all the world, as Dr. Kory and Dr. Lawrie suggest?

    Perhaps every reader needs to ask themselves this question – Why is it that BOTH Dr. Lawrie’s and Dr. Kory’s supremely-rated expert review articles, published in the medical literature on PubMed, the National Library of Medicine, are BANNED from Wikipedia?

    Although India’s Ivermectin victory over COVID  may have been lost on bent-on-vaccinating-everyone Big Pharma and Big Regulators, the message seems to have gotten through to the man on the street. If Google Trends is any indicator, interest in Ivermectin is exploding, and for good reason. We are all being systematically deceived by influential organizations in the name of profits.

    A daily onslaught of media propaganda bombards us with messages attempting to steer us away from the safest and most effective treatments.

    Interest in Ivermectin and India is only increasing and has now reached an all-time high.

    India’s conquest of COVID-19 is concealed no longer. The secret is out.

    And perhaps, at long last, that much-anticipated WHO Final Report detailing the most successful Pandemic campaign of any place on earth will be published.

    *  *  *

    Justus R. Hope, M.D. is the author of the book “Ivermectin for the World”, released as a call to action for the use of Ivermectin to end the humanitarian crisis in India with the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 20:30

  • "People Are Moving Back" – NYC Rentals Become Scarce As City Life Returns
    “People Are Moving Back” – NYC Rentals Become Scarce As City Life Returns

    The number of available apartment rentals in New York City has fallen back to pre-pandemic levels as people return to city life for urban work and schooling. 

    According to Bloomberg, citing data from real estate firm StreetEasy, in the week ending Sept. 26, inventory of apartments for rent stood at 15,541, compared with 16,649 at the start of March 2020. This is a considerable decline from the 48,753 rentals available in September 2020. 

    The borough of Manhattan is one of the hottest rental markets in all of the city, said Nancy Wu, an economist at StreetEasy.

     “Manhattan residents were more mobile and had the ability to move. That’s where we saw the biggest drops in rents [during the pandemic], and the biggest gains back up in the city,” Wu said. 

    She said it’s a “sign we’re getting to a recovery in the rentals market, which means people are moving back.”

    Prices have yet to rebound back to pre-COVID levels, and there are still plenty of good deals, allowing renters room to negotiate. 

    The median rent for an apartment in New York has risen since May and hit $2,700 in August. According to Wu, it’s still lower than the median of $2,995 in April 2020. Prices are expected to edge higher. 

    “I do expect this winter to be busier than what we usually see because people will be moving back the city and adding to the pool of demand,” she said.

    Wall Street firms such as Deutch Bank, among others, are returning their employees to offices in the financial district over the next six months, which has boosted demand for rentals. If inventories get low enough, a rental bidding war could be seen.  

    … and while residential real estate is making a comeback, commercial real estate still remains in a great deal of stress. 

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 20:00

  • Russia Joins China In Saying AUKUS Threatens Nuclear Non-Proliferation
    Russia Joins China In Saying AUKUS Threatens Nuclear Non-Proliferation

    Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

    Russia has warned that the new military pact between the US, the UK, and Australia threatens global nuclear non-proliferation. The pact, known as AUKUS, is a military technology-sharing deal that is meant to counter China. Under the agreement, Australia will get access to technology to build nuclear-powered submarines, which would make Canberra the first non-nuclear armed state to have them.

    “It’s a great challenge to the international non-proliferation regime,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, according to the Russian news agency TASS.

    Australian Defence Force/Getty Images

    Ryabkov said Russia is “concerned” about the “partnership that will allow Australia, after 18 months of consultations and several years of attempts, to obtain nuclear-powered submarines in sufficient numbers to become one of the top five countries for this type of armaments.”

    Ryabkov also said Russia is concerned over the UK’s plans to expand its nuclear arsenal that was announced earlier in the year. “We are concerned especially by the statements produced earlier in the year in London on future prospects for expansion of its nuclear capabilities,” he said.

    In March, the British announced that they are increasing their nuclear stockpile for the first time since the Cold War. London will set its cap of nuclear warheads at 260, up from the current limit of 180.

    Last month after the AUKUS pact was first unveiled, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian had condemned the partnership as it “greatly undermines regional peace and stability, aggravates the arms race and hurts the international non-proliferation efforts.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 19:30

  • A Dip In Shipping Rates: The End Of The Nightmare, Or Just The Eye Of The Hurricane
    A Dip In Shipping Rates: The End Of The Nightmare, Or Just The Eye Of The Hurricane

    This year, spot ocean container rates have reached record highs and could be at a crucial inflection point this week. News of 40-foot container rates on the world’s most important shipping lane, that is, China and the U.S., plunged amid a power crunch shutting down factories across multiple Chinese provinces leading speculators to sell their shipping spots, according to Chinese media outlet Caixin Global. 

    Caixin spoke with an executive at a Shanghai freight company Thursday who said 40-foot container rates from China to the U.S. West Coast sank this week, plummeting from $15,000 to just $8,000. For the same container, the spot rate for China to the U.S. East Coast dropped from $20,000 to around $15,000. 

    The decline in international shipping costs is primarily due to at least 20 Chinese provinces and regions making up more than 66% of the country’s GDP have announced some form of power cuts in recent weeks, which has shuttered energy-intensive manufacturing industries and so their need for containerized shipping has diminished. 

    We have noted Foxconn, the world’s biggest iPhone assembler and a key supplier of Apple and Tesla, halted production earlier this week. Another Apple supplier, Unimicron Technologies, suspended operations. There are countless reports of other energy-intensive companies that suspended operations. 

    An analyst at Tianfeng Securities Co. Ltd. said the decline in shipping rates was primarily caused by the imminent off-season and a reduction in manufacturing due to China’s power crunch. The analyst said rates should decline as export growth in China will decrease in the fourth quarter, and seasonally ocean freight slows down. 

    A report by CSC Financial Co. Ltd. outlined rates will stay stubbornly high for the next two weeks as port congestion remains a problem in China and the U.S. But after that, rates may stall on slow growth from China. 

    We so far understand China’s power crunch is having a sizeable impact on economic growth and has resulted in a slump for containerized shipping demand. What comes next is either shipping rates continue a downward spiral or bounce back as China will ultimately restart its manufacturing base near term.  

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 19:00

  • Inspector General Audit Finds "Widespread" Problems With FBI's FISA Applications
    Inspector General Audit Finds “Widespread” Problems With FBI’s FISA Applications

    Authored by Jack Phillips and Ken Silva via The Epoch Times,

    Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a report (pdf) on Sept. 30 on the FBI’s applications to surveil U.S. citizens, finding “widespread” failure that “raises serious questions” and criticizing agents for not fixing flaws spotted in previous audits.

    The inspector general (IG) reviewed about 7,000 applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants—the same used to surveil former Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2016—and found that the agency had failed to follow key rules, the Woods Procedures, in the program. In December 2019 review, Horowitz discovered 17 significant errors and omissions in the FISA surveillance application targeting Page.

    The most recent audit of the agency’s Woods Procedures—rules that the FBI follows to ensure that FISA applications are “scrupulously accurate”—found sweeping “non-compliance” that “raises serious questions about the adequacy and execution of the supervisory review process in place at the time of the applications we reviewed,” Horowitz said, stating that the FBI’s quality-control officials apparently missed these problems.

    His office also identified 183 FISA applications that had a missing or incomplete Woods file, which is a document meant to ensure the accuracy of statements made to the secretive FISA court. The report also found hundreds of other cases where there were instances of noncompliance with the agency’s Woods procedures.

    “A failure to adhere to the Woods Procedures … could easily lead to errors that do impact probable cause—and therefore potentially call into question the legal basis for the government’s use of highly intrusive FISA warrants,” Horowitz wrote.

    Horowitz recommended that the FBI attempt to make “additional efforts to communicate and emphasize to its workforce the importance” of the bureau’s own standards when applying for FISA warrants.

    In a statement released after Horowitz’s report, the FBI told media outlets on Sept. 30 that it appreciated the IG’s “determined focus on the FBI’s FISA process, especially given the significant changes and policy enhancements that we have worked to make in concert with, and in many instances, prior to the issuance of this most recent OIG Audit Report.”

    The federal law enforcement bureau will accept Horowitz’s recommendations detailed in the report and has adopted about half of them already, according to the statement. FBI officials didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The audit report is an extension of a report that was issued by Horowitz in March 2020, when he reviewed 29 FISA applications. According to that report, the inspector general couldn’t review four of the applications because the FBI wasn’t able to locate them. Of the 25 he could review, all of them had flaws—209 errors in total, Horowitz said.

    “Our testing of FISA applications … identified apparent errors or inadequately supported facts in all of the 25 applications we reviewed, and interviews to date with available agents or supervisors in field offices generally have confirmed the issues we identified,” he said in his March report.

    Horowitz lamented in the Sept. 30 audit that the FBI hasn’t taken his earlier report seriously.

    “In response to the findings in our December 2019 FISA report and March 2020 [report], the FBI Director publicly acknowledged the seriousness of the identified problems and announced numerous steps the FBI was undertaking to address them,” he said.

    “However, we believe certain public statements from the FBI and NSD in 2020 failed to recognize the significant risks posed by systemic non-compliance with the Woods Procedures, and during our audit, some FBI field personnel minimized the significance of Woods Procedures non-compliance.”

    The IG report was likely referencing statements FBI Director Christopher Wray made to Congress in February, when he told representatives that they shouldn’t “lose any sleep” over the December 2019 IG report.

    “The vast majority of the FISAs we do, both the initial applications and the renewals, are the kinds of applications that I am quite confident—we don’t know each other, but you wouldn’t lose any sleep over, and we wouldn’t want to grind to a halt,” Wray told Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) at the time.

    Following the release of the latest report, Jordan took to Twitter to blast Wray for downplaying earlier concerns.

    “Feb. 5, 2020: FBI Director Christopher Wray dismisses concerns about the FISA process. Says Americans shouldn’t ‘lose any sleep’ over it.

    Today: IG Horowitz releases damning report about the FBI’s broken FISA process,” Jordan wrote.

    “It was worse than we ever thought.”

    The FBI’s failure to adhere to surveillance rules has led to criminal charges in some instances.

    After Horowitz’s findings were released in 2019, special counsel John Durham later filed charges against former FBI Attorney Kevin Clinesmith for falsifying a document used in a FISA application to surveil Page. He pleaded guilty in August 2020.

    In August, Durham’s office indicted Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who represented the Democratic National Committee, for allegedly lying to the FBI when he spoke to a top bureau official, James Baker, in 2016. On Sept. 17, Sussmann pleaded not guilty to the charge.

    According to the indictment, Sussmann had passed along a claim alleging that there was a secret communications channel between a Russian bank and the Trump Organization. Durham alleged that Sussmann told Baker that he wasn’t representing a specific client, but was actually secretly representing Democrats, Clinton’s campaign, and an unnamed technology company executive.

    How the process is supposed to work and more on Horowitz’s findings, from The Reactionary’s Techno Fog:

    The FISA Court is a secret court where the government is present but the accused is not. As IG Horowitz explains:

    “Unlike the use of other intrusive investigative techniques (such as wiretaps under Title III and traditional criminal search warrants) that are granted in ex parte hearings but can potentially be subject to later court challenge, FISA orders generally have not been subject to scrutiny through subsequent adversarial proceedings.”

    Because this is an ex parte hearing, the DOJ/FBI have heightened duties of candor. According to the FISA Court’s local rules, the government is required to disclose all material facts and correct any misstatements of material facts:

    This latest audit by IG Horowitz focused on the FBI’s compliance with the Woods procedures. This is how the process works:

    Last year, IG Horowitz reviewed 29 random FISA applications. He found “that the FBI was not meeting the expectations of its own protocols.” As he reported in March 2020:

    “We identified numerous instances of non-compliance with the Woods Procedures in the 25 Woods Files that were made available to us to review; and we reported that the FBI was unable to produce the original version of the remaining 4 Woods Files we requested.”

    More concerning are the latest discoveries after an audit of more FISA applications. These include:

    “over 400 instances of non-compliance with the Woods Procedures in connection with those 29 FISA applications”

    “over 7,000 FISA applications authorized between January 2015 and March 2020, there were at least 179 instances in which the Woods File required by FBI policy was missing in whole or in part”

    The more material errors (aside from losing their own files) included:

    To put this into context, in December 2019, after IG Horowitz detailed substantial issues with the Carter Page FISA applications, the FISA Court noted that the misconduct was serious and ordered the FBI to conduct remedial measures to fix the problems of the FBI’s own creation. The FBI promised to take corrective action.

    One can’t help but speculate that the FISA Court won’t do much about these latest issues, aside from ordering the FBI to conduct more training. After all, the then-presiding judge of the FISA Court, Judge Boasberg, refused jail time for FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith after he altered an e-mail and lied about Carter Page’s relationship with the CIA.  

    Knowing the history of the FISA Court excusing government misconduct, we present the same question now that we did after the Clinesmith sentencing: What does it say about the FISA Court’s “heightened duty of candor” if there aren’t heightened punishments for violating that duty?

    And we have one final question – one that has applied to Director Wray for the last few years: how could the FBI Director allow these abuses to continue?

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 18:30

  • Taiwan Bristles, Lashes Out After China's Largest Ever Aerial Show Of Force
    Taiwan Bristles, Lashes Out After China’s Largest Ever Aerial Show Of Force

    Taiwan is expressing outrage after China flew a total 38 military aircraft inside the island’s Air Defense Identification Zone on Friday. In a Saturday statement Taiwan Premier Su Tseng-chang blasted China as having been “wantonly engaged in military aggression” which is “damaging regional peace”.

    The Friday flyovers came in two separate incursions, which happened on China’s ‘National Day’ which marked the establishment of the communist People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949. Initially Taiwan’s defense ministry said 25 total jets breached its air defense identification zone Friday (ADIZ) in the first incident.

    The self-ruled island scramble air patrols and additionally put its anti-air missile defenses on high alert. Later into the evening, 13 more were recorded inside the ADIZ in a separate breach, totaling a record-smashing 38 Chinese aircraft.

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

    Prior to the ROC premier’s Saturday statement, Taiwan Foreign Minister Joseph Wu said in a Friday tweet:

    “Oct. 1 wasn’t a good day. The PLAAF flew 38 warplanes into Taiwan’s ADIZ, making it the largest number of daily sorties on record. Threatening? Of course. It’s strange the PRC doesn’t bother faking excuses anymore.”

    Both Chinese aerial formations were sent through contested airspace near the disputed Patras islands, as The Hill describes based on official statements: 

    Taiwan’s defense ministry said that on Friday night another round of Chinese military aircraft flew toward Taiwan, including 10 J-16 fighter jets, two H-6 bombers and one KJ-500 early warning aircraft. According to Reuters, those planes flew around the Bashi Channel.

    Previously the record number of aircraft to breach the Taiwan ADIZ stood at 25, which had happened on a couple of occasions, with the first last April.

    Taiwan jets scrambled in response to prior PLA incursion, via AFP

    These threatening PLA incursions have only caused Taipei to double down on increased military spending, as well as its willingness to receive weapons from Washington.

    For example Taiwan’s defense ministry said in a statement a week ago that “In the face of severe threats from the enemy, the nation’s military is actively engaged in military building and preparation work, and it is urgent to obtain mature and rapid mass production weapons and equipment in a short period of time.” 

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 18:00

  • "Panic Buying" – A Rush To Hoard
    “Panic Buying” – A Rush To Hoard

    By Ryan Fitzmaurice, senior commodity strategist at Rabobank

    Summary:

    • A confluence of bullish factors propelled oil prices to new multi-year highs this week

    • The Chinese government has reportedly given state-owned energy companies a directive to secure winter energy supplies at all costs in response to recent shortages

    • The last time oil prices were this high was back in early October 2018, right before prices crashed in the fourth quarter of that year, although the setup is much different this time

    Panic buying

    Spot oil prices continued their ascent this week, setting new multi-year highs in the process as a confluence of factors worked to bid up nearby futures. This recent show of strength is largely inline with our expectations and notably, oil prices have shrugged off news of a Chinese SPR release, a stronger US dollar, and a risk-off event with relative ease, continuing higher unabated.

    Moreover, China appears to have made an abrupt and key policy change with respect to their commodity markets approach. To that end, recent reports are indicating that the central government there has given state-owned energy companies a directive to secure winter energy supplies at any and all costs. As many are aware, commodity inflation is soaring and pressuring large importers and particularly China, and at the same time, supply shortages are becoming more and more frequent across the globe. Up until now though, China was more focused on trying to pressure commodity and oil prices lower by releasing strategic reserves and tightening import licenses, however, things have changed. Now the plan is to hoard all available supplies no matter the cost, to support continued economic growth, especially in a cold winter scenario.

    This is a potential game-changer for energy markets and is likely to kick off a panic buying spree such as we saw in toilet paper and other household items in the early days of the pandemic and even more recently in the UK’s ongoing supply chain crisis. Further to that end, the oil markets already have the herd of systematic traders on the bid-side of the market, as well as inflation-driven macro flows, and with plenty of room for those positions to grow. In addition to the speculative interest, the world’s biggest commodity importer is now going on a historic buying spree. As such, this buying is a strong tailwind for oil, as supply certainty trumps price in the near-term.

    This time is different

    The last time oil prices were this high was back in early October 2018, right before prices crashed in the fourth quarter of that year. At the time, we were bearish on oil prices as the speculative “long” oil trade was extremely crowded with money managers holding the largest position on record with net exposure reaching an impressive 1.08 million contracts between the ICE Brent and NYMEX WTI crude oil benchmarks at the peak. Furthermore, the macro backdrop was bearish in 2018 with Chinese equity markets registering ytd losses of more than 20% in October of that year. On the supply-side, OPEC+ had much less pricing power back then as the US shale drillers were still in aggressive growth mode. On top of that, and as many market participants will remember, the US surprised the oil market by issuing temporary oil sanction waivers to Iran in an effort to pressure prices lower. The ploy ultimately sent the market into a free-fall, in large part due to the extreme “long” positioning that had to be unwound in short order.

    Fast forward to today though, and the backdrop couldn’t be more different and the same is true of our bullish outlook this time around. As for fundamentals, OPEC+ has much more pricing power now and is in full control of the supply-side given US production is well off the pre-pandemic highs with much slower growth expected in the coming years as ESG investor pressures and local court rulings stifle production growth from the shale drillers and oil majors. On the demand side, we can now throw price insensitive Chinese buying into the equation as well. On the macro front, an inflationary backdrop has taken a strong hold, resulting in significant money flows into commodity index products in the first half of the year.

    This is a trend we fully expect to continue into 2022 as asset managers and institutional money play catch up and increase commodity allocations albeit on a  lag.

    Finally, on the positioning side of markets, the “long” oil trade remains far from “crowded” by many metrics. In fact, the current net position held at money managers sits well below the highs of 2018 at just 610k contracts, so nearly 500mb off the highs. This is perhaps the most important aspect as speculators have plenty of dry powder at hand to bid the market higher, especially in light of the recent buying directive out of China coupled with tremendous amounts of central bank liquidity flushing through global financial markets. As such, we are viewing this as a rare setup for oil markets where fundamentals and quantitative signals are bullish, the macro backdrop for commodities is as strong as its been in over a decade, and speculators are underinvested.

    Looking Forward

    Looking forward, we see scope for a potential bullish OPEC+ surprise at next week’s supply meeting, as we explained here. Beyond that though, we are viewing the recent directive out of China to secure energy supplies at all costs, as very bullish for oil and commodity markets in the months ahead. Furthermore, this new policy has the potential to trigger panic buying in physical markets, which will likely spill over into financial markets as institutional money chases returns.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 17:30

  • National School Board Association Demands Biden Give Them FBI Protection From "Terrorist" Parents
    National School Board Association Demands Biden Give Them FBI Protection From “Terrorist” Parents

    The tension between parents and American school-board members has worsened since we first reported that members of the boards were quitting en masse over “toxic” parents opposing masks, vaccine mandates and CRT.

    And according to the National School Boards Association, an organization that represents school board members, the risks of violence breaking out involving a parent and a school-board member have intensified to such a degree that the organization is asking the federal government to start providing security to board members and teachers to protect them from “terrorist” parents.

    Terrorists?

    The organization made its demands in a letter to President Biden, signed by NSBA President Viola Garcia and Interim Executive Director and CEO Chip Slaven. They called on Biden to personally use his executive authority to mobilize the FBI and other federal agents to guard school officials, according to the Daily Mail.

    “The National School Boards Association (NSBA) respectfully asks for federal law enforcement and other assistance to deal with the growing number of threats of violence and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation,” the letter to Biden begins.

    The letter also mentions “threats of actual acts of violence”” against school staffers alleging that “angry mobs” have hindered their ability to hold school board meetings, because of reported outbursts from ‘extremist’ parents irate over vaccine and mask mandates being pressured upon their students in order for them to go to school.

    Let’s get this straight: In an era when school shootings are seen as a constant threat, these people want security guards…for the teachers?

    “As these threats and acts of violence have become more prevalent,” the org asserts in the note, “NSBA respectfully asks that a joint collaboration among federal law enforcement agencies, state and local law enforcement, and with public school officials be undertaken to focus on these threats.”

    It adds that the threats are “impacting the delivery of educational services to students and families,” and also cites several examples of disruptions at school board meetings around the country.

    The rest of the letter mostly pleaded with the president to put the proper “safeguards in place” and that this is a “critical time,” before asking for “immediate assistance” in the form of federal agents playing security guard.

    “There also must be safeguards in place to protect public schools and dedicated education leaders as they do their jobs,’ the note asserts, then labeling the outraged parents showing up at school board meetings across the county as right-winged radicals.”

    “As the threats grow and news of extremist hate organizations showing up at school board meetings is being reported, this is a critical time for a proactive approach to deal with this difficult issue,” the statement reads.

    Federal resources could help “investigate, intercept, and prevent the current threats and acts of violence against our public school officials.”

    As if to try and curry favor with the president, the note goes on to praise the Biden Administration and the president’s “leadership to end the proliferation of COVID in our communities and our school districts.”

    The thing is, now that California has ordered mandatory vaccination for its students, and other states are set to follow through, President Biden has the perfect excuse to authorize something like this, if he was so inclined.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 17:00

  • First Responders: From Heroes To Zeroes
    First Responders: From Heroes To Zeroes

    Authored by Grace Curley via SpectatorWorld.com,

    The rule-makers are not as concerned with medicine, science or health as they purport to be…

    At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, first responders were the toast of the town. Most of us appreciated that while we binge-watched Tiger King in our sweatpants and attempted to make sourdough bread from scratch, not everyone was lazily locking down.

    Nurses, doctors and healthcare professionals were on the frontlines of the fight, taking on a virus the world knew little about. This sacrifice did not go unnoticed.

    Americans proudly stuck signs on their front lawns that read ‘thank you first responders!’ McDonald’s gave out free ‘thank you meals’ to those who were helping fight COVID-19. Dr Anthony Fauci wasn’t the only one who made the TIME 100 List last year. The magazine also dubbed healthcare workers 2020’s ‘Guardians of the Year’.

    ‘On the front line against COVID-19, the world’s healthcare workers displayed the best of humanity — selflessness, compassion, stamina, courage — while protecting as much of it as they could,’ the fawning piece read.

    Companies like Google, Dove and Adidas (to name but a few) produced commercials focused on celebrating first responders for their courage and bravery. In a time of division and frustration, the gratitude for productive and resilient members of our society was refreshing and well-deserved.

    Sadly, something has quickly shifted.

    Those who just one year ago were celebrated are now being vilified. The architects of this drastic rebrand? The ruling elite.

    In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul announced Saturday that she would call in the National Guard to replace healthcare workers who did not meet Monday’s vaccination deadline.

    Dr Marty Makary, a professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins, tweeted in response to the story, ‘Swapping out experienced nurses with nat guard who are not familiar with a hospital’s systems, local ways of doing things & emerg protocols has risks. Recognize natural imm, instead of demonizing our heroes who put their lives on the line and got COVID.’

    He is right — Hochul is creating a nightmare for hospitals.

    Bringing new employees into the fold is tricky in any job — let alone in the medical field. Hochul is eliminating a number of skilled, willing workers at hospitals that desperately need them — all in the pursuit of making a point.

    If Joe Biden’s ‘righteous’ drone strike in Afghanistan showed us anything, it is that innocent people often pay a high price for  politically motivated PR stunts.

    The fact that some of the most fervent and outspoken opponents of vaccine mandates are healthcare workers is another interesting aspect of this highly publicized debate.

    No, I am not about to go down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories about how the medical community knows something we don’t! There is something they aren’t telling us!

    There is a much more logical explanation for their hesitancy. A great deal of essential workers came in contact with the virus early on in the pandemic.

    Unlike members of what Karol Markowicz calls the pajama class, healthcare workers didn’t have the luxury of performing their jobs on Zoom call happy hours inside their cozy apartments.

    It makes sense that these workers, who operated for months in the real world, might refuse a vaccine if they already have antibodies due to natural infection. Antibodies which, for the record, appear to offer a higher level of immunity than the COVID shots. So why are they being forced to either take the Fauci ouchie or the pink slip?

    In August during a San Diego County Board of Supervisors meeting, Heather Cauvel, a registered nurse, railed against vaccine mandates.

    ‘It was no problem working in the healthcare system over the last 18 months, without a vaccine, but now, all of a sudden, I’m a threat to public health?’

    Cauvel went on to resign from her position.

    The truth is that the rule-makers are not as concerned with medicine, science or health as they purport to be. This is about submission. Power-hungry pols do not care about protecting people. They are far more interested in controlling people. That’s why all of our freedoms over the last 18 months have been contingent on whether or not we follow the rules.

    The heroes of the pandemic were applauded by the left when they pushed the correct agenda. When the first responders had bruise lines below their eyes from tight goggles, they were useful and welcome additions to the storyline du jour.

    But when those same people pushed back against the diktats and questioned the mandates — they went from first responders to second-class citizens in a New York minute.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 16:30

  • Iran Says "War With Israel Has Already Begun" Amid Fresh Covert Attacks
    Iran Says “War With Israel Has Already Begun” Amid Fresh Covert Attacks

    Amid a recent spate of covert espionage attacks on Iranian infrastructure – some publicly known and more that are possibly unknown – Iran’s foreign ministry has declared that “war with Israel has already begun”.

    A foreign ministry spokesmen told the major Israeli national Hebrew-language daily newspaper Maariv that “Israel has carried out attacks that were intended to destroy our nuclear program for peaceful purposes.” Saeed Khatibzadeh declared “the war with Israel has already begun” – in an ominous message intended as a warning to the Israeli public and leadership. 

    Prior Israeli attacks inside Syria targeting ‘Iranian assets’, via Reuters

    The spokesman added that Israel “has murdered nuclear scientists and harmed the Iranian people. Iran is blamed for terrorism, but there is no good or bad terrorist. The entire crisis in the region is the fault of Israel.”

    Rare or unlikely as it is for a top Iranian official to speak to Israeli publication, it’s the closest Tehran has come in years to direct communication with Israeli entities. It’s a sign that the two countries are truly on the brink of direct conflict. 

    “Israel severely harmed our civilian and research system,” he described. “They speak about the Iranian nuclear threat, but Israel has hundreds of bombs, and it never signed the non-proliferation treaty for nuclear weapons.”

    He’s no doubt referencing the prior Natanz nuclear facility sabotage attack – now widely believed an act of covert espionage by Israel (likely via cyberattack) – as well as the brazen assassination outside of Tehran of top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizade by a “remote controlled gun”. There’s also the near weekly Israeli attacks on Syria, which Tel Aviv says is part of campaign to disrupt Iranian and Hezbollah operations there. 

    In the interview Khatibzadeh also alleged that the United States too is still waging a campaign of “soft terror” through far-reaching sanctions. He said that the Iranian people are even prevented from obtaining crucial life-saving medicines through Washington sanctions. By design the US-led sanctions also pressure and punish any nation wishing to transfer goods into Iran, including European Union countries which have long taken are more sympathetic stance to the Iranians’ plight.

    Just in the past week there’s been more possible attacks on Iranian military sites…

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

    The official also charged that Israel is actively seeking to subvert high level nuclear talks in Vienna, which have been stalled since last June, though US and Israeli officials have blamed the Iranian side for the stall. 

    “The region is tired of wars,” Khatibzadeh added, while arguing Iran is honestly seeking a diplomatic and peaceful breakthrough with Western powers in Vienna. “We must find a new approach to solve the problems according to United Nations decisions. All of the sides must display a political desire to reach agreements.”

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 16:00

  • After Defunding Police, Portland To Give Firefighters Bulletproof Vests Amid Surging Gun Violence
    After Defunding Police, Portland To Give Firefighters Bulletproof Vests Amid Surging Gun Violence

    After slashing the police budget by $15 million last year in response to the ‘defund the police‘ movement, Portland is now giving its firefighters bulletproof vests as violent crime surges in the Democratic stronghold.

    According to Portland Fire & Rescue, the decision was the result of a “changing landscape” which includes more calls involving ‘aggressive patients and bystanders.’

    According to Oregon Live, many details surrounding the vests are still unclear – including when the vests will be worn (on top of the 45 lbs of gear they’re already wearing), how many will be purchased, and when they will become available.

    “We always will do anything and everything to keep firefighters safe because that’s what keeps people in Portland safe,” said Isaac McLennan, vice president of the Portland Fire Fighters’ Association, who added that the decision is fully supported by the firefighters union.

    Firefighters have been more concerned for their safety because of responders being attacked or stabbed in Oregon and other parts of the country, McLennan said.

    McLennan referenced a 2018 fire in Springfield where a man started shooting at firefighters responding to a house fire. Police said authorities believed the man intentionally set the 4 a.m. blaze to ambush emergency responders.

    No one was seriously injured, but the attack left fire truck windshields riddled with bullet holes. -Oregon Live

    McLennan said that the vests would be used in situations where firefighters go in to rescue an injured person while police are securing an area with an active shooter. 

    The decision comes amid a year of surging violence in Portland – as the police logged 837 shootings through August, with the largest increase occurring in the city’s North Precinct – where 383 shootings as of Aug 31 brings the increase over last year to more than 100%.

    Gun violence in particular has become so bad in Portland that DA Mike Schmidt announced that the city will spend $1 million to hire four new prosecutors and two investigators to handle cases.

    As of Sept. 24, 65 people died in homicides in the city – approaching the city’s all-time record of 70 homicides in 1987. The vast majority of victims were killed in shootings.

    “For many of the prosecutors in my office who have been doing this for 20, 30 years, this is a once in a career surge in violent crime,” said Schmidt.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 15:00

  • Klain Coaches Progressives On Playing Chicken With Manchin, Sinema; Biden Handlers Quash Another Q&A
    Klain Coaches Progressives On Playing Chicken With Manchin, Sinema; Biden Handlers Quash Another Q&A

    While Democrats claimed a minor victory last week – passing a Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the federal government from defaulting until December 3, deep divisions between Senate moderates and House progressives have turned into an embarrassing game of chicken for Democratic leadership.

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), head of the 96-member Congressional Progressive Caucus; Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)

    At issue are two massive spending packages; the $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure deal which the Senate has already passed – only to be held up by House progressives – unless the Senate agrees to pass a $3.5 trillion economic blueprint which moderate Democratic Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) refuse to support unless it undergoes major legislative surgery to shed around $2 trillion. Manchin and Sinema’s votes are crucial, as the only way Democrats can hope to pass the economic blueprint is via reconciliation – which requires the two holdouts to achieve a simple majority of 50 votes, with Vice President Kamala Harris as the tiebreaker.

    In an ill-advised attempt to outwit Manchin and Sinema, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain has apparently been coaching house progressives to “hold firm” against the infrastructure vote until the holdout Senators fold.

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

    Klain’s coaching resulted in a win for progressives on Friday, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) canceled a Friday vote on the infrastructure package when negotiations with the 96-member progressive caucus broke down. According to the Wall Street Journal, at least 50 members of her group were willing to withhold their votes from the $1.2 trillion bipartisan legislation.

    “I am so proud of our caucus; I have never seen our caucus so strong,” said Jayapal before the vote was canceled. “And I am a very good vote counter also,” she added. “Maybe not quite as good as Nancy Pelosi sometimes. But I’m excellent.”

    Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ)

    Both Manchin and Sinema, however, appear to be holding strong – with Sinema slamming Pelosi for canceling the vote, calling it “an ineffective stunt to gain leverage over a separate proposal,” adding “Over the course of this year, Democratic leaders have made conflicting promises that could not all be kept — and have, at times, pretended that differences of opinion without our party did not exist…”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsPresident Biden, it seems, has taken a back seat to Klain and other White House officials.

    On Friday, he said it would be irresponsible if Senate Republicans block a vote on suspending the US debt ceiling – which is set to hit around Oct. 18 according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. If this happens, the US could lose its AAA sovereign rating according to Fitch. Of course, Democrats have furiously resisted raising the debt limit via reconciliation – the only explanation being that they want to share blame for recklessly driving up the national debt.

    “Well, I hope Republicans won’t be so irresponsible as to refuse to raise the debt limit and to filibuster the debt limit,” said Biden, adding “That would be totally unconscionable. Never been done before. So I hope that won’t happen.”

    NO QUESTIONS

    For anyone still questioning Biden’s figurehead status, Biden’s handlers prevented yet another Q&A session on Friday – preventing him from taking any questions during a Democratic caucus meeting on Capitol Hill.

    According to Politico‘s Sarah Ferris, Biden offered to take questions, “but his staff jumped in.”

    Who’s really running the show?

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

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 14:30

  • Duterte Announces Retirement From Philippines Politics As Manny Pacquiao Launches Bid For Presidency
    Duterte Announces Retirement From Philippines Politics As Manny Pacquiao Launches Bid For Presidency

    Known for his violent crackdown on drug dealers and other unorthodox policy decisions that won him both admiration and hatred, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte announced Saturday that he would be retiring from politics after dropping his bid for the presidency.

    That Duterte is ending his political career so soon is ironic. Many western political analysts and high-handed scribes once condemned Duterte as a violent authoritarian who would shift the Philippines’ political system closer to that of Russia’s.

    However, that never happened. And now, Duterte, who is constitutionally forbidden from seeking another term as president, has decided not to run as Vice President in 2022, claiming “the public” doesn’t support him potentially subverting the country’s constitution to extend his rule (but we thought he was an authoritarian?)

    Duterte’s decision comes with a twist: his former top aide and now Senator Christopher “Bong” Go, who was believed to be the ruling PDP-Laban Party’s candidate to succeed Duterte as president, has instead filed paperwork to run for the vice presidential spot, now that Duterte has withdrawn his candidacy.

    “Today, I announce my retirement from politics,” he said, appearing at the Commission on Elections center in Manila alongside Go, who also announced his decision to seek the VP spot instead of Duterte. “The overwhelming… sentiment of the Filipinos is that I am not qualified and it would be a violation of the constitution to circumvent the law, the spirit of the constitution,” Duterte said.

    There’s reason to believe that Duterte’s retirement is part of a strategy of stepping aside to allow his daughter, Sara, to seek the presidency either in this cycle, or the next.

    On Saturday, Sara Duterte-Carpio filed her certificate to run again for her current role of mayor of Davao City. However, Sara has been leading recent presidential polls, even as she has maintained her focus on getting re-elected in her home city. According to Bloomberg, back in August, presidential spokesman Harry Roque said Duterte could drop his bid for vice president if Sara were to seek the top job. And Duterte-Carpio has previously said she wouldn’t seek the top job with her father on the VP ticket, so his decision to step down could open the door for his daughter, who has already won her father’s old job as mayor of Davao City.

    But if that is indeed the plan for the Duterte political dynasty, there’s one major obstacle in their way: Boxing legend and Philippine politician Manny Pacquiao, the only boxer to hold titles in 8 different weight divisions, became the first to file paperwork to seek the presidency on Friday.

    Ironically, Pacquiao officially announced on Wednesday that he would be retiring from boxing to focus on his bid for the presidency.

    “I just heard the final bell. Boxing is over,” Pacquiao said. “This is the hardest decision I’ve ever made, but I’m at peace with it. Chase your dreams, work hard, and watch what happens.”

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

    As for whether this is really the end of the road for Duterte, who has been described as the ‘Filipino Trump’ due to his brash style and law-and-order approach, it’s worth noting that this isn’t Duterte’s first “retirement” from politics. Duterte said he would retire back in 2016 before launching his successful bid for the presidency.

    Candidates must register their intention to run in next year’s vote with the Commission on Elections by Oct. 8. However, the final list of presidential contenders won’t be ready until mid-November. This means other rival politicians might emerge as potential contenders during a final attempt to join the race, a strategy that would be similar to that used by Duterte.

    Tyler Durden
    Sat, 10/02/2021 – 14:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 02

Today’s News 2nd October 2021

  • COVID-19 Detention Camps: Are Government Round-Ups Of Resistors In Our Future?
    COVID-19 Detention Camps: Are Government Round-Ups Of Resistors In Our Future?

    Authored by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “No doubt concentration camps were a means, a menace used to keep order.”

     – Albert Speer, Nuremberg Trials

    It’s no longer a question of whether the government will lock up Americans for defying its mandates but when.

    This is what we know: the government has the means, the muscle and the motivation to detain individuals who resist its orders and do not comply with its mandates in a vast array of prisons, detention centers, and FEMA concentration camps paid for with taxpayer dollars.

    It’s just a matter of time.

    It no longer matters what the hot-button issue might be (vaccine mandates, immigration, gun rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, healthcare, criticizing the government, protesting election results, etc.) or which party is wielding its power like a hammer.

    The groundwork has already been laid.

    Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the President and the military can detain and imprison American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a terrorist.

    So it should come as no surprise that merely criticizing the government or objecting to a COVID-19 vaccine could get you labeled as a terrorist.

    After all, it doesn’t take much to be considered a terrorist anymore, especially given that the government likes to use the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

    For instance, the Department of Homeland Security broadly defines extremists as individuals, military veterans and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

    Military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may also be characterized as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats by the government because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

    Indeed, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

    Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

    According to the FBI, you might also be classified as a domestic terrorism threat if you espouse conspiracy theories or dare to subscribe to any views that are contrary to the government’s.

    The government also has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

    This is what happens when you not only put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police but also give those agencies liberal authority to lock individuals up for perceived wrongs.

    It’s a system just begging to be abused by power-hungry bureaucrats desperate to retain their power at all costs.

    It’s happened before.

    As history shows, the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes.

    One need only go back to the 1940s, when the federal government proclaimed that Japanese-Americans, labeled potential dissidents, could be put in concentration (a.k.a. internment) camps based only upon their ethnic origin, to see the lengths the federal government will go to in order to maintain “order” in the homeland.

    The U.S. Supreme Court validated the detention program in Korematsu v. US (1944), concluding that the government’s need to ensure the safety of the country trumped personal liberties.

    Although that Korematsu decision was never formally overturned, Chief Justice Roberts opined in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) that “the forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority.”

    Roberts’ statements provide little assurance of safety in light of the government’s tendency to sidestep the rule of law when it suits its purposes. Pointing out that such blatantly illegal detentions could happen again—with the blessing of the courts—Justice Scalia once warned, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”

    In fact, the creation of detention camps domestically has long been part of the government’s budget and operations, falling under the jurisdiction of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    FEMA’s murky history dates back to the 1970s, when President Carter created it by way of an executive order merging many of the government’s disaster relief agencies into one large agency.

    During the 1980s, however, reports began to surface of secret military-type training exercises carried out by FEMA and the Department of Defense. Code named Rex-84, 34 federal agencies, including the CIA and the Secret Service, were trained on how to deal with domestic civil unrest.

    FEMA’s role in creating top-secret American internment camps is well-documented.

    But be careful who you share this information with: it turns out that voicing concerns about the existence of FEMA detention camps is among the growing list of opinions and activities which may make a federal agent or government official think you’re an extremist (a.k.a. terrorist), or sympathetic to terrorist activities, and thus qualify you for indefinite detention under the NDAA. Also included in that list of “dangerous” viewpoints are advocating states’ rights, believing the state to be unnecessary or undesirable, “conspiracy theorizing,” concern about alleged FEMA camps, opposition to war, organizing for “economic justice,” frustration with “mainstream ideologies,” opposition to abortion, opposition to globalization, and ammunition stockpiling.

    Now if you’re going to have internment camps on American soil, someone has to build them.

    Thus, in 2006, it was announced that Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, had been awarded a $385 million contract to build American detention facilities. Although the government and Halliburton were not forthcoming about where or when these domestic detention centers would be built, they rationalized the need for them in case of “an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs” in the event of other emergencies such as “natural disasters.”

    Of course, these detention camps will have to be used for anyone viewed as a threat to the government, and that includes political dissidents.

    So it’s no coincidence that the U.S. government has, since the 1980s, acquired and maintained, without warrant or court order, a database of names and information on Americans considered to be threats to the nation.

    As Salon reports, this database, reportedly dubbed “Main Core,” is to be used by the Army and FEMA in times of national emergency or under martial law to locate and round up Americans seen as threats to national security. There are at least 8 million Americans in the Main Core database.

    Fast forward to 2009, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.

    Incredibly, both reports use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably.

    That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and other far-flung places, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

    These reports indicate that for the government, so-called extremism is not a partisan matter. Anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—is a target, which brings us back, full circle, to the question of whether the government will exercise the power it claims to possess to detain anyone perceived as a threat, i.e., anyone critical of the government.

    The short answer is: yes.

    The longer answer is more complicated.

    Despite what some may think, the Constitution is no magical incantation against government wrongdoing. Indeed, it’s only as effective as those who abide by it.

    However, without courts willing to uphold the Constitution’s provisions when government officials disregard it and a citizenry knowledgeable enough to be outraged when those provisions are undermined, it provides little to no protection against SWAT team raids, domestic surveillance, police shootings of unarmed citizens, indefinite detentions, and the like.

    Frankly, the courts and the police have meshed in their thinking to such an extent that anything goes when it’s done in the name of national security, crime fighting and terrorism.

    Consequently, America no longer operates under a system of justice characterized by due process, an assumption of innocence, probable cause and clear prohibitions on government overreach and police abuse. Instead, our courts of justice have been transformed into courts of order, advocating for the government’s interests, rather than championing the rights of the citizenry, as enshrined in the Constitution.

    We seem to be coming full circle on many fronts.

    Consider that two decades ago we were debating whether non-citizens—for example, so-called enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay and Muslim-Americans rounded up in the wake of 9/11—were entitled to protections under the Constitution, specifically as they relate to indefinite detention. Americans weren’t overly concerned about the rights of non-citizens then, and now we’re the ones in the unenviable position of being targeted for indefinite detention by our own government.

    Similarly, most Americans weren’t unduly concerned when the U.S. Supreme Court gave Arizona police officers the green light to stop, search and question anyone—ostensibly those fitting a particular racial profile—they suspect might be an illegal immigrant. A decade later, the cops largely have carte blanche authority to stop any individual, citizen and non-citizen alike, they suspect might be doing something illegal (mind you, in this age of overcriminalization, that could be anything from feeding the birds to growing exotic orchids).

    Likewise, you still have a sizeable portion of the population today unconcerned about the government’s practice of spying on Americans, having been brainwashed into believing that if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

    It will only be a matter of time before they learn the hard way that in a police state, it doesn’t matter who you are or how righteous you claim to be, because eventually, you will be lumped in with everyone else and everything you do will be “wrong” and suspect.

    Indeed, it’s happening already, with police relying on surveillance software such as ShadowDragon to watch people’s social media and other website activity, whether or not they suspected of a crime, and potentially use it against them when the need arises.

    It turns out that we are Soylent Green, being cannibalized by a government greedily looking to squeeze every last drop out of us.

    The 1973 film Soylent Green, starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, is set in 2022 in an overpopulated, polluted, starving New York City whose inhabitants depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation for survival.

    Heston plays a policeman investigating a murder who discovers the grisly truth about the primary ingredient in the wafer, Soylent Green, which is the principal source of nourishment for a starved population. “It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people,” declares Heston’s character. “They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food.”

    Oh, how right he was.

    Soylent Green is indeed people or, in our case, Soylent Green is our own personal data, repossessed, repackaged and used by corporations and the government to entrap us in prisons of our own making.

    Without constitutional protections in place to guard against encroachments on our rights when power, technology and militaristic governance converge, it won’t be long before we find ourselves, much like Edward G. Robinson’s character in Soylent Green, looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted, and go where we wanted without those thoughts, words and movements being tracked, processed and stored by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies.

    We’re not quite there yet, but as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, that moment of reckoning is getting closer by the minute.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 23:40

  • Georgia Arrests Ex-President Saakashvili After Return From 8-Year Exile In Ukraine
    Georgia Arrests Ex-President Saakashvili After Return From 8-Year Exile In Ukraine

    The Republic of Georgia’s former President Mikheil Saakashvili made a surprise announcement earlier this week, confirming that he had returned to Georgia after eight years in exile – during which time he mostly lived in Ukraine, and was still politically active, even rising to prominence in Ukrainian politics.

    On Friday the government of Georgia issued the “shock” announcement that authorities have arrested Saakashvili, though perhaps entirely expected given the ex-president’s 2018 conviction in absentia stemming from accusations of abuse of office. “I want to inform the public that the third president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, is arrested. He was transferred to a penitentiary institution,” Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili informed a news conference Friday.

    In the prior conviction he had been handed a six year prison term, and recently had been warned that his return to his home country would result in arrest. Interestingly he said at the time the attempt to arrest him was orchestrated by Putin and pro-Russian actors. 

    Often described as a “flamboyant pro-Western reformer” who ended his second term as president in 2013, he oversaw the disastrous August 2008 Russo-Georgia War, which many observers still blame on his series of blunders and initiating border aggressions while under the illusion that powerful Western allies like the US would back him. During his Ukraine exile, he had actually briefly served as governor of Odessa, before his dual citizenship was revoked, which officials said he wasn’t supposed to have been issued in the first place. 

    But his homecoming appears to have been calculated precisely to stir up mass opposition rallying and anger just ahead of national municipal elections targeting the ruling Georgian Dream Party, which Saakashvili has denounced as a “usurper government”.

    According to AFP, his very arrest is likely to stir things up, potentially leading to clashes in the streets among political rivals:

    In a video posted on social media on Friday evening, Saakashvili said he was in Tbilisi and believed he was about to be detained, calling on supporters of his United National Movement to mobilize for Saturday’s elections.

    “Go to the polls, vote and on (Sunday) we will all together celebrate our victory,” he said. “I am not afraid of anything and you also should not be afraid.”

    In an earlier video message, Saakashvili said he was in the western city of Batumi and had risked his “life and freedom” to return to Georgia from Ukraine.

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

    A local media video capturing the moment of his arrest showed a smiling and defiant ex-president as he was led away to the Rustavi penitentiary institution.

    One regional expert cited in Al Jazeera aptly described that “Now it seems he has put all his cards on the table and he’s hoping that somehow this return will have an impact on Georgian politics – which is very fractious at the moment.”

    Meanwhile Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili has indicated she has no plans to issue Saakashvili a pardon. So short of a mass upset change in Georgian politics, he’s likely to be in prison a while for at least the immediate future. 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 23:20

  • How Autonomous Weapons Could Be More Destabilizing Than Nukes
    How Autonomous Weapons Could Be More Destabilizing Than Nukes

    Authored by James Dawes via TheConversation.com,

    Autonomous weapon systems – commonly known as killer robots – may have killed human beings for the first time ever last year, according to a recent United Nations Security Council report on the Libyan civil war. History could well identify this as the starting point of the next major arms race, one that has the potential to be humanity’s final one.

    Autonomous weapon systems are robots with lethal weapons that can operate independently, selecting and attacking targets without a human weighing in on those decisions. Militaries around the world are investing heavily in autonomous weapons research and development. The U.S. alone budgeted US$18 billion for autonomous weapons between 2016 and 2020.

    Meanwhile, human rights and humanitarian organizations are racing to establish regulations and prohibitions on such weapons development. Without such checks, foreign policy experts warn that disruptive autonomous weapons technologies will dangerously destabilize current nuclear strategies, both because they could radically change perceptions of strategic dominance, increasing the risk of preemptive attacks, and because they could become combined with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons themselves.

    As a specialist in human rights with a focus on the weaponization of artificial intelligence, I find that autonomous weapons make the unsteady balances and fragmented safeguards of the nuclear world – for example, the U.S. president’s minimally constrained authority to launch a strike – more unsteady and more fragmented.

    Lethal errors and black boxes

    I see four primary dangers with autonomous weapons.

    The first is the problem of misidentification. When selecting a target, will autonomous weapons be able to distinguish between hostile soldiers and 12-year-olds playing with toy guns? Between civilians fleeing a conflict site and insurgents making a tactical retreat?

    Killer robots, like the drones in the 2017 short film ‘Slaughterbots,’ have long been a major subgenre of science fiction. (Warning: graphic depictions of violence.)

    The problem here is not that machines will make such errors and humans won’t. It’s that the difference between human error and algorithmic error is like the difference between mailing a letter and tweeting. The scale, scope and speed of killer robot systems – ruled by one targeting algorithm, deployed across an entire continent – could make misidentifications by individual humans like a recent U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan seem like mere rounding errors by comparison.

    Autonomous weapons expert Paul Scharre uses the metaphor of the runaway gun to explain the difference. A runaway gun is a defective machine gun that continues to fire after a trigger is released. The gun continues to fire until ammunition is depleted because, so to speak, the gun does not know it is making an error. Runaway guns are extremely dangerous, but fortunately they have human operators who can break the ammunition link or try to point the weapon in a safe direction. Autonomous weapons, by definition, have no such safeguard.

    Importantly, weaponized AI need not even be defective to produce the runaway gun effect. As multiple studies on algorithmic errors across industries have shown, the very best algorithms – operating as designed – can generate internally correct outcomes that nonetheless spread terrible errors rapidly across populations.

    For example, a neural net designed for use in Pittsburgh hospitals identified asthma as a risk-reducer in pneumonia cases; image recognition software used by Google identified African Americans as gorillas; and a machine-learning tool used by Amazon to rank job candidates systematically assigned negative scores to women.

    The problem is not just that when AI systems err, they err in bulk. It is that when they err, their makers often don’t know why they did and, therefore, how to correct them. The black box problem of AI makes it almost impossible to imagine morally responsible development of autonomous weapons systems.

    The proliferation problems

    The next two dangers are the problems of low-end and high-end proliferation. Let’s start with the low end. The militaries developing autonomous weapons now are proceeding on the assumption that they will be able to contain and control the use of autonomous weapons. But if the history of weapons technology has taught the world anything, it’s this: Weapons spread.

    Market pressures could result in the creation and widespread sale of what can be thought of as the autonomous weapon equivalent of the Kalashnikov assault rifle: killer robots that are cheap, effective and almost impossible to contain as they circulate around the globe. “Kalashnikov” autonomous weapons could get into the hands of people outside of government control, including international and domestic terrorists.

    The Kargu-2, made by a Turkish defense contractor, is a cross between a quadcopter drone and a bomb. It has artificial intelligence for finding and tracking targets, and might have been used autonomously in the Libyan civil war to attack people. Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, CC BY

    High-end proliferation is just as bad, however. Nations could compete to develop increasingly devastating versions of autonomous weapons, including ones capable of mounting chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear arms. The moral dangers of escalating weapon lethality would be amplified by escalating weapon use.

    High-end autonomous weapons are likely to lead to more frequent wars because they will decrease two of the primary forces that have historically prevented and shortened wars: concern for civilians abroad and concern for one’s own soldiers. The weapons are likely to be equipped with expensive ethical governors designed to minimize collateral damage, using what U.N. Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard has called the “myth of a surgical strike” to quell moral protests. Autonomous weapons will also reduce both the need for and risk to one’s own soldiers, dramatically altering the cost-benefit analysis that nations undergo while launching and maintaining wars.

    Asymmetric wars – that is, wars waged on the soil of nations that lack competing technology – are likely to become more common. Think about the global instability caused by Soviet and U.S. military interventions during the Cold War, from the first proxy war to the blowback experienced around the world today. Multiply that by every country currently aiming for high-end autonomous weapons.

    Undermining the laws of war

    Finally, autonomous weapons will undermine humanity’s final stopgap against war crimes and atrocities: the international laws of war. These laws, codified in treaties reaching as far back as the 1864 Geneva Convention, are the international thin blue line separating war with honor from massacre. They are premised on the idea that people can be held accountable for their actions even during wartime, that the right to kill other soldiers during combat does not give the right to murder civilians. A prominent example of someone held to account is Slobodan Milosevic, former president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, who was indicted on charges against humanity and war crimes by the U.N.’s International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

    But how can autonomous weapons be held accountable? Who is to blame for a robot that commits war crimes? Who would be put on trial? The weapon? The soldier? The soldier’s commanders? The corporation that made the weapon? Nongovernmental organizations and experts in international law worry that autonomous weapons will lead to a serious accountability gap.

    To hold a soldier criminally responsible for deploying an autonomous weapon that commits war crimes, prosecutors would need to prove both actus reus and mens rea, Latin terms describing a guilty act and a guilty mind. This would be difficult as a matter of law, and possibly unjust as a matter of morality, given that autonomous weapons are inherently unpredictable. I believe the distance separating the soldier from the independent decisions made by autonomous weapons in rapidly evolving environments is simply too great.

    The legal and moral challenge is not made easier by shifting the blame up the chain of command or back to the site of production. In a world without regulations that mandate meaningful human control of autonomous weapons, there will be war crimes with no war criminals to hold accountable. The structure of the laws of war, along with their deterrent value, will be significantly weakened.

    A new global arms race

    Imagine a world in which militaries, insurgent groups and international and domestic terrorists can deploy theoretically unlimited lethal force at theoretically zero risk at times and places of their choosing, with no resulting legal accountability. It is a world where the sort of unavoidable algorithmic errors that plague even tech giants like Amazon and Google can now lead to the elimination of whole cities.

    In my view, the world should not repeat the catastrophic mistakes of the nuclear arms race. It should not sleepwalk into dystopia.

    *  *  *

    Get the best science, health and technology stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 23:00

  • Housing's On Fire… Literally: Burned-Out Boston Home Selling 'As Is' For $400K
    Housing’s On Fire… Literally: Burned-Out Boston Home Selling ‘As Is’ For $400K

    If you’re looking for more evidence the housing market is in a bubble, look no further than this single-family home in Melrose, a suburb of Boston, Massachusetts. 

    A little more than a month ago, the 1,857 sqft, three-bedroom home built in the 1960s was severely damaged in a fire where much of the inside was charred now for sale for a whopping $399,000. 

    The burned-out house, sitting on a 4,500 sqft lot, or about 1/10th of an acre, is listed on multiple real estate websites. The agent selling the home writes in the description: “attention contractors!” referring to the idea that contractors can buy at a steep discount and flip the house for a potential profit in an environment of low inventory. Here are comparables in the neighborhood: 

    “House is in need of a complete renovation or potential tear down and rebuild. Buyer to do due diligence. House being sold as-is,” the listing states.

    The listing comes as home-priced growth soared to a new record in July as low inventory sparked bidding wars across the country. According to the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller National Home Price Index, a measure of home prices across 20 major cities, rose 19.95% YoY (yet another record high)…the 14th straight month of accelerating price increases. July was the highest annual rate of price growth since the index began in 1987.

    “The last several months have been extraordinary not only in the level of price gains but in the consistency of gains across the country,” said Craig Lazzara, managing director and global head of index investment strategy at S&P Dow Jones Indices.

    There are plenty of examples of homeowners selling burnt-out homes or even uninhabitable shacks for impressive sums of money amid the latest housing craze. 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 22:40

  • Orwell And The Woke
    Orwell And The Woke

    Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

     “Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

    – George Orwell, “Animal Farm”

    What were we to make of multimillionaire Barack Obama’s 60th birthday bash at his Martha’s Vineyard estate, and the throng of the woke wealthy and their masked helot attendants?

    Was socialist Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) suffering for the people when she wore a designer dress to the more than $30,000-a-ticket Met gala? Her entourage needs were certainly well-attended to by masked Morlock servants.

    Did the leftist celebrities at the recent Emmy awards gather to discuss opening Malibu beaches to the homeless when the (unmasked) stars virtue-signaled their wokeness?

    For answers about these hypocritical wokists, always turn first to George Orwell.

    In his brief allegorical novella, “Animal Farm,” an array of animal characters — led by the thinking pigs of the farm — staged a revolution, driving out their human overseers.

    The anti-human animal comrades started out sounding like zealous Russian Bolsheviks (“four legs good, two legs bad”). But soon they ended up conned by a murderous cult of pigs under a Joseph Stalin-like leader. And so, the revolution became what it once had opposed (“four legs good, two legs better”).

    Our own woke, year-zero revolution is now in its second year. Yet last year’s four-legged revolutionaries are already strutting on two legs. They are not just hobnobbing with the “white supremacists” and “capitalists,” but outdoing them in their revolutionary zeal for the rarified privileges of the material good life.

    The Marxist co-founder of BLM, Patrisse Cullors, is now on her fourth woke home. She has moved on from the barricades to the security fences of her Topanga Canyon digs in a mostly all-white, all-rich rural paradise–the rewards for revolutionary service.

    Professor Ibram X. Kendi has evolved from the edgy revolutionary work of flying all over the country, hawking his Orwellian message of “All racism bad! But some racism good!” Now he has mastered the art of zooming the wannabe woke for his $20,000 an hour avant-garde hectoring.

    What of Colin Kaepernick, the mediocre second-string quarterback turned sudden firebrand? He refused to stand for the national anthem and spread his “take a knee” kitsch throughout professional sports.

    Kaepernick became a boutique revolutionary multimillionaire. For $12 million a year, he pitches Nike sneakers, often made in Chinese forced-labor camps.

    Woke NBA star LeBron James, from his $23 million Brentwood mansion, blasts America for its endless unfairness–in service to his totalitarian Chinese paymasters who will ensure his good life with an eventual lifetime $1 billion payout for hawking their goods.

    Our other elite wokists navigating around the revolution are even more cynical. The corporate and Wall Street capitalists feel that a little virtue signaling, showy diversity coordinators, and woke advertising will more or less buy off the latest version of Al-Sharpton-like shake-down artists.

    Then there are the trimmers and enablers. These are the wealthy, rich, and the professional classes. They feel–in abstract–absolutely terrible about inequality, but hardly enough in the concrete to mix with the unwashed.

    For them, wokism is like party membership in the late ethically bankrupt Soviet Union. It is necessary for peace of mind and good income, but otherwise not an obstacle for the continuance of the privileged, comfortable life.

    The more TV news hosts rant about “systemic” this and “supremacy” that, and the more college presidents write stern penance memos to their faculty about “that’s not who we are,” the more they feel not just good about themselves, but relieved of any real obligation to live and socialize with the Other.

    As for the self-declared non-white Other, wokism is also a top-down revolution of celebrities, intellectuals, actors, activists, academics, grifters, lawyers, and the upper-middle class and rich. And they are not calling for a Marshall Plan to bring classical education to the inner city. They themselves have little desire to move in or spread their wealth. They rarely mentor others on their shrewd capitalist expertise that made themselves rich.

    They are far more cynical than that. The regrettable violence of the street, the 120 days of 2020 looting, death and arson, are the levers of the woke professionals. They fight with the various tribes of the same class and mindset over the slices of the same coveted elite pies. But they bring to the scrap the unspoken cudgel that without greater non-white de facto quotas in comic books, TV commercials, Ivy League faculties and students, symphonies, and sit-coms, then “systemic racism” could once again ignite downtown Portland or Seattle or Baltimore.

    Orwell would say of the woke Obamas, Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Bernie Sanders, LeBron James, or Ibram Kendi–and their supposedly unwoke, but similarly rich and privileged enemies — “It was impossible to say which was which.”

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 22:20

  • US Trade Chief To Give Major Speech Monday Belatedly Unveiling Biden's China Trade Strategy
    US Trade Chief To Give Major Speech Monday Belatedly Unveiling Biden’s China Trade Strategy

    While President Biden has kept Trump’s tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese imports in place he’s simultaneously remained generally quiet on anything touching long-term policy, particularly as regards China’s non-market trade and subsidy practices.

    But that’s expected to change, with all eyes on a major speech set for 10 a.m. EDT on Monday by US Trade Representative Katherine Tai, who will finally unveil the Biden admin’s strategy for tackling the complicated deadlocked US-China trade relationship.

    US Trade Representative Katherine Tai

    She’ll present the strategy in remarks to a Washington think tank, the Center for Strategic Studies, with a question-and-answer session scheduled to follow. It comes after her office has been engaged in what she’s dubbed a “top-to-bottom review” of US trade policy with China.

    Tai has recently admitted “very large challenges” in the China trade relationship for which she’s sought from Congress authorization of new trade law tools to help the US check and ultimately counter Chinese state subsidies for high-technology sectors.

    Here’s a preview of Tai’s much anticipated talk on Monday via Reuters:

    Tai’s remarks at 10 a.m. EDT (1400 GMT) on Monday will mark the start of the final three months of the “Phase 1” U.S.-China trade deal struck that Trump struck with Beijing at the start of 2019, easing a tariff war between the world’s two largest economies. It called for China to boost purchases of U.S. farm and manufactured goods, energy and services by $200 billion over the two years to the end of 2021 compared to 2017 levels.

    Biden administration officials say China has not met its Phase 1 trade deal commitments and they intend to hold it to its international trade commitments.

    In an interview published Thursday in Politico she indicated that Biden intends to “build on” existing tariffs to “confront” Beijing.

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

    Amid continuing widespread speculation on the direction the admin will go, here’s a comment from Rabobank…

    The rumor is that 1/3 of the US tariffs on Chinese goods will be removed. 

    That might bring the price of some goods down marginally, but will do nothing to increase supply given China cannot get the goods to market, and energy and shipping prices are going to make them more expensive anyway. 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 22:00

  • "The Great Reset" Is The Road To Socialism Mises Warned Us About
    “The Great Reset” Is The Road To Socialism Mises Warned Us About

    Authored by Tho Bishop via The Mises Institute,

    Through the sheer power of his intellectual output, Ludwig von Mises established himself as one of the most important intellectuals of the twentieth century. His work Human Action remains a foundational text of the Austrian school. His critique outlining the impracticality of socialism was vindicated with the fall of the Soviet Union and remains without a serious intellectual challenge today.

    Just as important, but often overlooked, is his work on the economic system that continues to infect the world today: interventionism.

    Like contemporaries such as James Burnham, Mises discerned that the true threat to free markets in the West was not a true socialist revolution, but rather a “middle of the road” approach that so attracted an intellectually shallow political class.

    In 1950, during one of his most important speeches, Mises identified the most dangerous ideology on the global stage:

    They reject socialism no less than capitalism. They recommend a third system, which, as they say, is as far from capitalism as it is from socialism, which as a third system of society’s economic organization, stands midway between the two other systems, and while retaining the advantages of both, avoids the disadvantages inherent in each. This third system is known as the system of interventionism. In the terminology of American politics it is often referred to as the middle-of-the-road policy.

    This ideology succeeded where communism failed, successfully toppling governments around the world that never had true respect for property rights.

    But as Mises understood, however, this “managerial revolution” could not last as a sustainable form of government. Interventionism may be politically convenient, but ultimately it is grounded in volatile inconsistencies. It must be rejected completely, or it will inevitably lead to more and more power shifting to the state.

    This is precisely what we have seen.

    The twentieth century witnessed governments hostile to communism abroad become increasingly accepting of growing statism within.

    The regulatory state grew. The welfare state grew. The warfare state grew.

    The spending at home and domestically was so great that it forced the American government to break the dollar’s tie with gold, giving the American technocracy new ways to extract the wealth of the people and reward loyal institutions.

    The only remaining checks to the state come from what the public will put up with, and from competition between governments seeking to attract financial and human capital.

    In 2021, would-be central planners in national governments and globalist institutions have identified the opportunity to transcend these remaining limits.

    Under the guise of “public health,” proud “liberal democracies” have imprisoned their own citizens without due process. They have shut down economies and destroyed countless small businesses. They have mandated medical procedures. With the help of regulated corporations, they have silenced political dissidents.

    In response to the economic consequences of these actions, they are seeking to eliminate tax competition among states, harmonize medical mandates, control the prices of select industries, and debank those who resist.

    With this new playbook and global ambitions, institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are seeking to use similar tools in the future, in the name of whatever crisis they deem worthy.

    Climate change. Overpopulation. Domestic extremism. Misinformation. The cause of the day may change, but the playbook remains.

    We will own nothing, we will have no privacy, we will do what we are told, and we will like it—or else.

    As Mises understood, it doesn’t have to be this way.

    “[T]his outcome is not inevitable. The trend can be reversed as was the case with many other trends in history.”

    How? By people like yourself arming each other with the intellectual tools necessary to identify and respond to this creeping authoritarianism. The challenges we face will not be solved with shallow bumper stickers and the façade of democratic elections, but by inspiring new generations of courageous individuals prepared to resist.

    This is the mission of the Mises Institute, to inform and educate individuals around the world in the ideas necessary for rejecting the intellectual sins of the twentieth century and the authoritarian horrors of our existing neoliberal order, and restoring a civilization grounded in a respect for individual liberty, property rights, and peaceful coexistence.

    In the words of Ludwig von Mises,

    Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.

    Join us in this battle with a donation today.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 21:40

  • Military Suicides Jump By Alarming 15% – Pentagon Downplays Pandemic's Impact
    Military Suicides Jump By Alarming 15% – Pentagon Downplays Pandemic’s Impact

    It’s been no secret that two decades of the largely failed ‘war on terror’ started under the Bush administration has led to increased suicides and rates of depression among US military veterans. This trend is likely also to only continue in the wake of the horrific Afghan evacuation debacle and final pullout from August. “What was it all for?” – many veterans have asked, no doubt compounding mental health problems for many who have also returned from multiple deployments in places like Iraq.

    New data released by the defense department Thursday reveals military suicides have increased by a hugely alarming 15% from last year. Army and Marine Corps leadership, including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is calling it “troubling”, the Associated Press reports, prompting top brass to call for “action” and greater intervention. 

    US Air Force photo illustration

    Most deaths among the major branches occurred in the Army and Marine Corps, with 580 suicides from both, a number up from 504 the year before.  Navy suicides actually barely dropped from 81 to 79, the total Air Force suicides saw no change, at 109 deaths.

    AP details of the data that “Of those, the number of suicides by Army National Guard troops jumped by about 35%, from 76 in 2019 to 103 last year, and the active duty Army saw a nearly 20% rise.” And further, “Marine Corps suicides went up by more than 30%, from 47 to 62; while the Marine Corps Reserves went from nine deaths to 10.”

    Defense Secretary Austin reacted to the new figures by saying, “Suicide rates among our service members and military families are still too high, and the trends are not going in the right direction.”

    Often on-job stress is described as a potential contributing factor to troop suicides, but perhaps more often the strains on marriages due to military life, or financial and other personal issues. Naturally the question of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic is being examined, however, some military commanders have downplayed this: 

    Army Maj. Gen. Clement Coward, acting executive director for the Force Resiliency office, said the department did not see a “statistical change in suicide rates” to indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact.

    Via The Associated Press

    He argued that for the pandemic to have been a significant or observable cause in the rise since last year, there’d have to be greater statistical increase per 100,000 service members. 

    But given percentage-wise the military numbers generally track with civilian rates across the states, deaths by suicide in the armed forces may just be a reflection of rates in the American population at large. And like the broader US population data reveals, “By far, the most common method of suicide was a gun, followed by hanging or asphyxiation.”

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 21:20

  • The Streets Of Major US Cities Are Being Flooded With Far More Drugs Than Ever Before
    The Streets Of Major US Cities Are Being Flooded With Far More Drugs Than Ever Before

    Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    An endless tsunami of illegal drugs is turning the streets of our major cities into desolate wastelands, and yet our politicians seem powerless to do anything about it.  In fact, in some of our biggest cities the politicians actually don’t seem interested in doing anything about it.  As I will discuss below, open air drug markets are operating freely right in the heart of New York City at this moment.  Dealers and addicts go about their business without the slightest fear that the police will do anything.  Meanwhile, the national death toll just continues to rise.  An all-time record 93,000 Americans died as a result of a drug overdose last year.  That was an increase of nearly 30 percent from the year before, and authorities are already warning that there will be another huge jump when the final numbers for 2021 come in.

    Federal law enforcement authorities are trying to do what they can, but they know that they are fighting a losing battle.  On Thursday, they announced that they just seized 1.8 million counterfeit pills, but in the big picture that is only a drop in the bucket.

    Right now, federal officials are warning that more fake medications are circulating on our streets than we have ever seen before, and a very large proportion of them contain fentanyl.  According to the DEA, the number of fentanyl-laced counterfeit pills that they have been able to intercept has risen by almost 430 percent since 2019…

    Counterfeit pills are more lethal than ever before. The number of DEA-seized counterfeit pills with fentanyl has jumped nearly 430 percent since 2019. DEA lab testing reveals that 2 out of every 5 pills with fentanyl contain a potentially lethal dose.

    This is one of the biggest reasons why vast hordes of mindless addicts now endlessly roam the streets of our major cities like zombies.

    For these addicts, their primary goal in life is always the next fix, and what most Americans don’t realize is that “most of the counterfeit pills coming into the United States are produced in Mexico and China”…

    “Drug traffickers, both here and abroad, are increasingly using counterfeit pills to package and distribute the poison that illicit fentanyl is,” said Thomas Hodnett, acting special agent in charge of the DEA’s Philadelphia Division. Law enforcement officials say most of the counterfeit pills coming into the United States are produced in Mexico and China.

    You see, the truth is that the drug war never actually ended, and it is being won by the Mexican drug cartels and the Chinese.

    And thanks to social media, counterfeit pills are now easier to distribute than ever before…

    The DEA said the counterfeit pills — made to look like real opioid medications such as oxycodone, Percocet or Adderall — are sold on the street by dealers or online, including through social media platforms.

    “If you have a smartphone and you’re sitting on the sofa at home … your drug dealer is right there in your hands,” DEA spokesperson Anne Edgecomb said in an interview with NPR.

    Of course dealers are constantly having to search for new customers because so many of their existing customers end up dying.

    Fentanyl is extremely potent, and it only takes a couple of milligrams to kill you…

    Mexican drug cartels increasingly are manufacturing the pills with fentanyl, which is at least 30 times more potent than heroin and is fatal in doses of as little as two milligrams.

    “It’s everywhere,” says Robert Bell, head of the DEA’s Chicago field division. “They’re available in street deals, for purchase online, in schools. It’s very scary.”

    This is a major national security crisis, because it is absolutely devastating communities all across the nation.

    But as I stated at the top of the article, many of our politicians don’t even seem interested in finding a solution.

    In New York City, the Garment District has become a horrifying drug-infested cesspool…

    The block bordered by 35th and 36th streets, and Seventh and Eighth Avenues, is “littered with used needles, broken glass crack pipes, trash, urine, and feces” as junkies shoot up and dealers brazenly sell drugs, lamented one neighbor on social media. “I’ve personally seen dozens of deals go down. I’ve seen a person OD and nearly die.”

    During a single walk around the block last week, The Post witnessed three different people injecting needles in their wrists or fingers in the middle of the afternoon. Each addict sat on the sidewalk or in empty storefronts. Dozens of other junkies sat or lay nearly comatose, many of the men shirtless, on the same block.

    But instead of doing something about it, the politicians in New York have apparently told the police “to let junkies roam free”…

    The NYPD appears to have only a token presence. Two cops stood on Eighth Avenue between 35th and 36th, leaning up against a police van while staring into their phones, as illicit activities swirled around them.

    But cops have been “effectively ordered” by city and state leaders to let junkies roam free, said Manny Gomez, a former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent who now heads MG Security Services.

    Of course whenever you have large numbers of addicts concentrated in one location you are going to see a spike in crime, and that is precisely what we are witnessing in the Garment District…

    Crime in the Midtown South Precinct, which includes the Garment District, is up 41 percent this year through Sept. 19 compared to the same period in 2020, according to NYPD crime data.

    The most eye-popping spikes are in the number of robberies – which increased 189 percent from 97 to 280 – and felony assaults – which increased 151 percent from 131 to 329.

    Sadly, New York is far from alone.  For a very long time I have been warning that major cities all over America were being transformed into crime-ridden, drug-infested hellholes, and it is getting worse with each passing year.

    It has been estimated that approximately 23 million Americans are addicted to drugs, but nobody knows the real number.  It isn’t as if there is any sort of a “drug census” that would give us a more accurate count.

    But what we do know is that the problem is bigger than it has ever been in our entire history.

    We have raised entire generations of Americans to believe that their only purpose in life is to serve our soulless, corrupt system.  Of course millions of people do eagerly get on the hamster wheel and try to grab as much money and stuff as they can because they think that they will eventually achieve fulfillment that way.  But millions of others quickly realize that the game is meaningless and they search out other ways to make themselves happy.  A lot of drug addicts didn’t start out as bad people, but their search for happiness ended up taking them down some paths that they never should have gone down.

    If you are searching for meaning in life, our society doesn’t have any answers for you.  Those that run things just want to control and manipulate you as they make themselves even richer and more powerful.

    It is imperative that we all learn to think for ourselves, because many of those that don’t learn to think for themselves end up being stuck in their little game for their entire lives.

    *  *  *

    It is finally here! Michael’s new book entitled “7 Year Apocalypse” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 21:00

  • Pompeo: "No Apologies" For Alleged Plan To Kill Assange
    Pompeo: “No Apologies” For Alleged Plan To Kill Assange

    Former Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo has responded to a recent Yahoo News investigation detailing Trump Administration plans to kidnap or kill Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that he makes “no apologies” for whatever measure his agency planned to take to safeguard “sensitive information” – covered in the latest Ron Paul Liberty Report.

    Pompeo in his first public response and comments on the bombshell Yahoo News investigation said:

    “I make no apologies for the fact that we and the administration were working diligently to make sure we were able to protect this important sensitive information from whether it was cyber actors in Russia, or the Chinese military, or anyone who was trying to take this information away from us.”

    Pompeo had further said Yahoo News’ “sources didn’t know what we were doing” in attempting to disparage the main revelations in the story as inaccurate or false. 

    So far the government’s responses to the report have been a variety of “no comment” – with former top Trump administration officials like Pompeo not giving much information either.

    “Pompeo did not respond to multiple interview queries by Yahoo News, and a detailed request for comment, sent over a two-month period prior to the story’s publication.”

    But his “no apologies” statement was perhaps the closest he’ll come to an admission that many of the details in the Yahoo report are indeed correct. He also called for leakers that provided key revelations in the report (a number of Trump-era intel officials divulged information) to be prosecuted.

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

    Further White House spokesperson Jen Psaki had also been asked about US intelligence attempts to kill or kidnap Julian Assange during the years-long period he was holed up at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London. She simply referred questions to the DOJ and CIA, refusing to provide White House official comment in statements issued Tuesday.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 20:40

  • Liberal Justice Sotomayor Rejects NYC Teachers' Pro-Choice Vaccine Plea
    Liberal Justice Sotomayor Rejects NYC Teachers’ Pro-Choice Vaccine Plea

    Update (2000ET): This is going to take some serious cognitive dissonance – the most pro-choice of Supreme Court Justices just refused to block NYC’s teachers’ vaccine mandate that stands in direct contradiction of the ‘my body, my choice’ doctrine when it comes to medical intervention.

    Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor – who is responsible for emergency matters originating from New York – refused to block a requirement that all of New York City’s public school teachers and employees be vaccinated, specifically denying a challenge by a group of teachers and teaching assistants who sought to halt the city’s vaccine mandate while litigation over the dispute continues in lower courts.

    Among the most liberal of the Justices, Sotomayor rejected the emergency request without providing an explanation.

    She also did not refer the case to the full nine-member court for review.

    Teachers were ordered to be vaccinated by 5 pm today or face being placed on unpaid leave until September 2022.

    This marks the second time the court has refused to take up a vaccine mandate case. The first one was from a group of students who sued Indiana University over its vaccine requirements.

    *  *  *

    As The Epoch Times’ Zachary Stieber detailed earlier, a group of teachers on Thursday filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court, asking justices to block New York City’s school COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

    Lawyers for the plaintiffs, a group of teachers, said in a 99-page petition that the mandate “threatens the education of thousands of children in the largest public-school system in the country and violates the substantive due process and equal protection rights afforded to all public-school employees.”

    The mandate forces teachers and other school workers to get a COVID-19 vaccine to remain employed unless they are approved for a religious or medical exemption.

    A federal judge last week granted a temporary injunction against it but a federal appeals panel on Monday decided to let the mandate take effect. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel did not explain their ruling.

    Thousands of teachers will lose their jobs when the order imposes punishment at 5 p.m. on Oct. 1 even though municipal employees who don’t work for schools can opt-out of a separate mandate by submitting to weekly testing, lawyers for the teachers wrote to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama nominee.

    That amounts to discrimination against public school workers, they argued, appealing for intervention from the nation’s top court.

    “Applicants will suffer irreparable harm if their request for injunctive relief is denied,” they said.

    Emergency requests can be filed to the Supreme Court by lawyers who think lower courts have ruled wrongly and who believe “irreparable harm” will result if a stay is not granted. The requests are sent to a single judge, who has the power to deny them or to agree, which would temporarily block the mandate and move the matter to the full court for consideration.

    Danielle Filson, a spokeswoman for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat who announced the vaccine mandate, said on social media that the teacher plaintiffs “have no valid claims.”

    New York City’s Department of Education “has the authority to implement a mandate that is firmly grounded in science & the expertise of public health officials from across the nation,” she added.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 20:29

  • Most Trump Supporters Agree It's 'Time To Split The Country': Poll
    Most Trump Supporters Agree It’s ‘Time To Split The Country’: Poll

    A new poll from the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia reveals that 52% of Trump voters and 41% of Biden voters ‘at least somewhat agree’ that red and blue states should secede from the union, splitting the country.

    Via Mediaite:

    The idea that the nation’s political divide has become so toxic that we should prepare from some sort of “national divorce” has largely been left to clever thought experiments best left for dinner parties and ironically detached columns. However, we’ve now arrived at a point where more than half of Trump voters “somewhat agree” that the time for secession is nigh.

    From the Center for Politics report:

    Significant numbers of both Trump and Biden voters show a willingness to consider violating democratic tendencies and norms if needed to serve their priorities. Roughly 2 in 10 Trump and Biden voters strongly agree it would be better if a “President could take needed actions without being constrained by Congress or courts,” and roughly 4 in 10 (41%) of Biden and half (52%) of Trump voters at least somewhat agree that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the union.

    *  *  *

    The poll also finds that while roughly 80% of Trump and Biden voters prefer democracy  to a non-democratic form of government, 60% of Trump voters don’t see America as a representative democracy – and instead more of a system run by and rigged for the benefit of the wealthy.

    More from the Center for Politics report:

    — Majorities of Trump and Biden voters express support for several elements of the bipartisan infrastructure and reconciliation bills being debated in Congress, but there are marked differences in their levels of support.

    — Majorities — often large majorities — of both Biden and Trump voters express some form of distrust for voters, elected officials, and media sources they associate with the other side. A strong majority of Trump voters see no real difference between Democrats and socialists, and a majority of Biden voters at least somewhat agree that there is no real difference between Republicans and fascists.

    — Significant numbers of both Trump and Biden voters show a willingness to consider violating democratic tendencies and norms if needed to serve their priorities. Roughly 2 in 10 Trump and Biden voters strongly agree it would be better if a “President could take needed actions without being constrained by Congress or courts,” and roughly 4 in 10 (41%) of Biden and half (52%) of Trump voters at least somewhat agree that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the union.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 20:20

  • 'Human Error' Caused Contaminated Moderna Vaccines In Japan
    ‘Human Error’ Caused Contaminated Moderna Vaccines In Japan

    Moderna’s Japanese distributor, Takeda, said on Friday that “human error” caused metal particles that ‘react to magnets’ to contaminate batches of Covid-19 vaccines doses, leading to the suspension of 1.63 million vials.

    At least two people died within days of receiving jabs from contaminated batches, however it is unclear if the contaminants caused the deaths, as they fit the profile of vaccine-induced myocarditis.

    According to Reuters, Takeda – which imports and distributes the vaccine in Japan, said in a new report that the Spanish factory where the vaccine was manufactured had discovered contaminants in some vials which they say was caused by incorrect assembly due to a ‘visual misjudgement of the required 1mm gap’ between the stopper lids on the affected vials and the machinery which is used to insert them.

    Five total lots were affected by the issue, three of which were shipped to Japan after passing inspection before they were recalled. The last two lots were withheld by the Spanish manufacturer, Rovi, after failing inspection on July 2.

    A total of five, sequential lots of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine manufactured at Rovi between June 27 and July 3 were investigated. The first three were shipped to Japan and later recalled after the discovery of particles, later determined to be stainless steel, inside 39 vials.

    But a fourth lot failed inspection after the discovery of particles on July 2, and a fifth lot was also held back by Rovi. The problems with Lots 4 and 5 were reported to Moderna, Takeda and Japan’s health ministry, but the first three lots were released for use because they “had passed inspection and were not considered to be impacted.” –Reuters

    The report said that the manufacturing process would use a new precision tool to prevent the issue from recurring.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 20:00

  • Despite DHS Panic Over 400K Migrants In October, Agency Issues 'No-Arrest' Guidelines
    Despite DHS Panic Over 400K Migrants In October, Agency Issues ‘No-Arrest’ Guidelines

    Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

    New guidelines promulgated by a top Biden administration official on Thursday advise immigration enforcement agents that being in the country illegally is not by itself enough reason to arrest somebody.

    More than 11 million illegal immigrants are estimated to be in the United States, but Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not have the resources to arrest and seek to remove all of them, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a memorandum laying out the guidelines. He urged agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an office inside DHS, to exercise “discretion” in enforcing immigration rules.

    “The fact an individual is a removable noncitizen therefore should not alone be the basis of an enforcement action against them,” he wrote.

    “We will use our discretion and focus our enforcement resources in a more targeted way. Justice and our country’s well-being require it,” he added.

    Only illegal immigrants who pose a threat to national security, pose a threat to public safety, or pose a threat to border security should be targeted for removal, according to the guidelines.

    Triggers include a noncitizen committing certain crimes or having a serious prior criminal record; being engaged or suspected of terrorism or espionage; or being apprehended while trying to illegally enter the United States at the border.

    Being in the country without a green card or other legitimatization documents means a person can be removed under U.S. law. The new guidelines mean the administration is acknowledging that it won’t enforce the law, critics immediately charged.

    “The person who swore an oath to uphold immigration law *as written by Congress* has declared that immigration law will be upheld according only to his diktats,” NumbersUSA, which advocates for lower immigration levels as a way to “allow present and future generations of Americans to enjoy a stabilizing U.S. population,” wrote in a social media post.

    Level of Illegal Immigration Setting Record

    The guidance comes as the United States under President Joe Biden sees record-setting levels of illegal immigration. Some experts believe a new fiscal year record will likely be set when the numbers for September come in and are almost certain that at the current pace of border crossings—which rose during the hot summer months instead of following the typical trendline—the yearly record will be eclipsed.

    “As many as 400,000 migrants” are heading to the U.S. border, NBC News reports.

    “An unprecedented number…nearly doubling the stunning numbers we’ve seen the last two months, which were a 21-year high.”

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

    Biden upon taking office halted construction of the border wall, stopped the Trump era “Remain in Mexico” program, and curtailed use of emergency pandemic powers to expel illegal immigrants. The policies have served to entice illegal immigration, according to experts, immigrants, and members of Congress from both parties.

    Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) linked the jump in illegal immigration to the increasing lack of in-country enforcement seen in Mayorkas’s memo.

    “The Biden administration has welcomed the flood of illegal aliens crossing our border and is now promising those same illegal aliens that they may stay in the U.S. without repercussions,” he said on Twitter.

    Mayorkas, nominated to his post by Biden and approved by the Senate, sees it differently.

    He said in a statement that the guidelines will “require an assessment of the individual and take into account the totality of the facts and circumstances.”

    “In exercising this discretion, we are guided by the knowledge that there are individuals in our country who have been here for generations and contributed to our country’s well-being, including those who have been on the frontline in the battle against COVID, lead congregations of faith, and teach our children. As we strive to provide them with a path to status, we will not work in conflict by spending resources seeking to remove those who do not pose a threat and, in fact, make our nation stronger,” he added.

    The guidelines are poised to take effect on Nov. 29.

    But they’re likely to face legal challenges. The enforcement priorities they’re replacing, which were issued by ICE’s acting director, Tae Johnson, in February, were blocked in August by a federal judge.

    Johnson attempted to direct agents not to focus on detaining and removing certain illegal immigrants. But U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump nominee, found that the Executive Branch was, through Johnson’s memo, trying to “enforce a law enacted by Congress in a way that is contrary to the plain language of the law.”

    An appeals court panel, though, earlier this month largely overturned the decision.

    A separate challenge over the February memo was filed over the summer by ICE agents and sheriffs. That case has not been decided yet by a federal district court in Texas.

    Other lawsuits have been lodged against other aspects of the administration’s immigration policies, including its widespread release of illegal immigrants into the U.S. interior, including one filed by Florida this week.

    *  *  *

    Interestingly, as the New York Post notes, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the Biden administration could maintain a Trump-era public health authority that would allow for the rapid deportation of migrant families due to the Covid-19 pandemic, known as Title 42.

    US District Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in his Sept. 16 ruling that “in view of the wide availability of testing, vaccines, and other minimization measures, the Court is not convinced that the transmission of COVID-19 during border processing cannot be significantly mitigated.”

    The appeals court’s decision came hours after NBC News reported that Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had asked top Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials whether they were prepared for up to 400,000 people to try to enter the US in October if Sullivan’s order was upheld. -NY Post

    Is Nancy Pelosi going to call this xenophobic?

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 19:40

  • Record-Smashing Total Of 38 PLA Jets Breach Taiwan Airspace On China's National Day
    Record-Smashing Total Of 38 PLA Jets Breach Taiwan Airspace On China’s National Day

    In what’s without doubt the largest group of Chinese aircraft to fly near Taiwan in a long while, the PLA military mounted a huge show of force aimed at the democratic island and its Western backers on China’s National Day – which commemorates the formal proclamation of the establishment of the communist People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949.

    Taiwan’s defense ministry said 25 total jets breached its air defense identification zone Friday (ADIZ), causing the self-ruled island to once again scramble air patrols and track the aircraft with anti-air missile defenses which were put on high alert. Later into the evening, 13 more were recorded breaching the ADIZ in a separate breach, totaling a record-smashing 38 Chinese aircraft.

    PLA fighters, image via Bloomberg

    The first incident included 18 J-16 fighter jets alongside two H-6 bombers, and other aircraft, a military statement indicated.

    Friday’s incursion comes on the heels of another large PLA flight from last week, which saw a total two dozen fighter jets approach Taiwan on two separate occasions. Last April had also seen a PLA incursion of up to 25 warplanes, which up to that point had been the biggest all year.

    That prior incident came simultaneous to Taiwan’s provocative announced intentions to joint the trans-Pacific trade group which China also applied to join (namely the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP). 

    International reports detailing Friday’s incursion cited a map Taiwan’s military released, which indicated the PLA planes near the disputed Pratas Island, with the two bombers coming near the the adjacent atoll.

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

    And later in the evening (local time), another incursion included 13 more PLA aircraft.

    At 38 total Chinese fighters entering Taiwan’s air defense identification zone on Friday, this marks the greatest number of single-day incursions recorded since Taipei started publicly releasing the data…

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

    So far these threatening PLA incursions have only caused Taipei to double down on increased military spending, as well as its willingness to receive weapons from Washington. For example Taiwan’s defense ministry said in a statement a week ago that “In the face of severe threats from the enemy, the nation’s military is actively engaged in military building and preparation work, and it is urgent to obtain mature and rapid mass production weapons and equipment in a short period of time.” 

    Meanwhile the increasingly large incursions – and ramped up frequency (almost daily at this point) – leaves open the possibility of a ‘live fire’ incident that could spark major war.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 19:20

  • Bill Gross Found Guilty Of Contempt, Ordered To Spend Five Days In Jail In Suspended Sentence
    Bill Gross Found Guilty Of Contempt, Ordered To Spend Five Days In Jail In Suspended Sentence

    The good news: the ridiculous Laguna Beach saga involving billionaire Bill Gross and his millionaire neighbor trying may be finally ending.

    The crazier news: Orange County Superior Court Judge Kimberly Knill found Gross and his wife Amy guilty of contempt of court, ruling Friday that they flagrantly violated an order she issued last year prohibiting them from playing music too loudly in their backyard. The judge then ordered Bill Gross to spend five days in jail for flouting her order not to annoy his neighbor with loud music, but since rules don’t apply to the rich, she immediately put the jail sentence on hold, citing the Covid-19 pandemic, and fined the Grosses $1,000 each while ordering Gross and his wife to do two days community service.

    It is what Bloomberg called a “surreal turn of events” for the man once known as the “Bond King,” whose obsessive drive brought him to a pinnacle of the financial world, managing billions of dollars at Pimco (he quit after leaving a handwritten resignation letter in the middle of the night) and whose excessive and at times erratic behavior has now culminated in an incarceration for a dispute that for many could’ve been resolved over a garden fence.

    Gross personal life followed the arc of his career, and in 2017 his 31-year marriage to Sue Gross ended in a bitter, widely publicized divorce that became the subject of tabloid reports after it was revealed that Gross allegedly left dead fish and other vile smelling liquids in the Southern California mansion he shared with his ex-wife Sue. Gross has said he’s been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and believes it helps explain not only his success but also why he could, by his own admission, rub people the wrong way.

    That’s when crazy really got going, and what should have otherwise been a quiet retirement quickly devolved into yet another feeding frenzy for the tabloids. Shortly after purchasing a multilevel home on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean in Laguna Beach in 2018 for $35.8 million…

    … Gross raised the ire of his neighbor, tech entrepreneur and millionaire Mark Towfiq, by putting a protective net over a Dale Chihuly sculpture in his yard.

    The details of the spat are by now the stuff of legends: the fight between the two cliffside neighbors boiled over after Gross installed a large glass art installation near the property line they share with Towfiq and his wife, Carol Nakahara, according to court records. After unsuccessful attempts to privately resolve the dispute with Gross and his staff over several months, Towfiq reported the matter to Laguna Beach.

    The glass art installation at Bill Gross’ home that sparked a feud with his Laguna Beach neighbor. Courtesy of Orange County Superior Court

    After Towfiq complained, Bill and Amy Gross responded by blasting music outside, including repeatedly playing television theme songs such as “Gilligan’s Island.” Towfiq said the Grosses were trying to pressure him to drop the complaint with the city.

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

    At one point, Bill Gross – who was filmed semi-naked by his neighbor – pulled his best Walter Sobchak impression, saying “I’ve been in Vietnam and I’ve faced bullets from the Viet Cong. I’m not saying this incident was anything like that.”

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

    Judge Knill agreed with Towfiq and in December ordered the couple to stop playing music when they weren’t outside and to abide by municipal codes and not disturb their neighbor’s peace. That lasted about six months, Towfiq said.

    Towfiq and his wife testified they were jolted out of bed while watching TV in July by loud music coming from the Grosses’ property. Towfiq took videos to record the music and Nakahara called the police. Although officers urged the Grosses to turn off the music, and expressed sympathy to Towfiq and his wife, no charges were filed. Bill and Amy Gross insisted the music was within the legal limit of 60 decibels and they turned it off shortly after being asked to do so by the police.

    During the trial, Knill toured the two properties and got to hear what the music sounds like from Towfiq’s home at various levels. She was also shown videos from Towfiq’s phone, security camera and one from Amy Gross’s iPhone that showed the former professional tennis player yelling “I am outside,” while in the pool. She said she had to announce she was outside so Towfiq wouldn’t call the police.

    Ultimately, both neighbors claimed they were the victim of the others’ harassment.

    Gross’s lawyer Patricia Glaser then accused Towfiq and Nakahara of weaponizing the judge’s December order, while Amy Gross testified she feared going into her own backyard.

    “I couldn’t have my wedding reception there,” Amy Gross, who married Bill at their home in Indian Wells in April, told the judge. “I couldn’t have my birthday there.”

    Meanwhile, Gross testified his ongoing feud with the neighbor has him feeling like he’s in prison, but vowed he wasn’t going to be forced out of the house.

    But Nakahara said she felt helpless because neither the judge’s December order, or calling police, has changed the Grosses’ behavior.
    “What else are we supposed to do?” she asked the judge.

    In the end, one can only hope that the suspended sentence will finally bring peace to billionaire’s alley in Laguna Beach. Then again, it probably won’t:

    *GROSS SAYS CALIFORNIA JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST HIM, WIFE

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 19:00

  • Declassified Report Definitively Debunks 'Havana Syndrome' Attacks That US Officials Blamed On Russia
    Declassified Report Definitively Debunks ‘Havana Syndrome’ Attacks That US Officials Blamed On Russia

    The mysterious Havana Syndrome “sonic attacks” have been back in the media of late, especially after Vice President Kamala Harris’ August tour of Southeast Asian countries was briefly disrupted over claims of a Havana Syndrome attack on US Embassy personnel in Vietnam. And most recently this week it was revealed that last month a CIA officer was evacuated from Serbia after suffering mysterious symptoms which US officials believe was the result of a “directed energy” attack.

    Since 2017 there’s been an estimated 200 possible Havanda Syndrome incidents. This week The Wall Street Journal called attention to “a steady expansion of attacks on American spies and diplomats posted overseas by unknown assailants using what government officials and scientists suspect is some sort of directed-energy source.” Top US has officials have used the mysterious ailment to cast suspicion and blame on everyone from the Russians, to the Cubans and Iranians – to any nefarious US enemy and foreign spooks bent on unleashing mayhem from the shadows using James Bond style high-tech devises that have never been recovered or revealed.

    Source of “devious attacks”…

    Recall that starting in 2016 into 2017 there were bizarre reports that nearly two dozen American diplomats – and a handful of Canadians – serving at embassies in Havana suffered hard-to-pin-down symptoms from the alleged “sonic attacks”. Personnel reported experiencing everything from vomiting to concussions to chronic headaches to minor brain injuries.

    But from the start anything in the way of actual evidence was lacking – other than the reports of the strange symptoms themselves (something which varied from person to person, and remained highly subjective in terms of description or severity). The whole initial episode focused on the US Embassy in the Cuban capital gave rise to endless theories.

    One prime theory that emerged in 2019 ascribed it to a natural phenomenon due to sounds produced by crickets in Havana. This particular theory wasn’t merely based on the musings of some random US officials, but was advanced by a team of scientists, and was featured in The Guardian in 2019. Other scientists had simultaneously posited the possibility of mass hysteria among staff serving in a high stress environment. 

    This week the whole narrative advanced by Washington officials has further unraveled, given Buzzfeed has obtained a new declassified government paper showing government-commissioned scientists themselves say the original Havana Syndrome incidents were “most likely” caused by insects: 

    Noises linked to mysterious injuries among US diplomats in Cuba were most likely caused by crickets — not microwave weapons — according to a declassified scientific review commissioned by the US State Department and obtained by BuzzFeed News.

    The State Department report was written by the JASON advisory group, an elite scientific board that has reviewed US national security concerns since the Cold War. It was completed in November of 2018, two years after dozens of US diplomats in Cuba and their families reported hearing buzzing noises and then experiencing puzzling neurological injuries, including pain, vertigo, and difficulty concentrating.

    The report was originally classified as “secret” but was made public via journalists’ FOIA request. It directly takes aim at the official narrative of a directed energy weapon or sonic attack, calling these possibilities “highly unlikely”. 

    The now declassified paper spells out: 

    “No plausible single source of energy (neither radio/microwaves nor sonic) can produce both the recorded audio/video signals and the reported medical effects,” the JASON report concluded. “We believe the recorded sounds are mechanical or biological in origin, rather than electronic. The most likely source is the Indies short-tailed cricket.“

    The State Department acknowledged the Buzzfeed exposé in a statement, “We are grateful to the JASON Group for their insight, which while coming to no firm conclusions, has assisted us in our ongoing investigation of these incidents,” it said. 

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

    One biomedical expert cited by Buzzfeed said the formerly classified report “puts to rest” the whole question of alleged sonic attacks – which has been the prime narrative advanced, spanning both Trump and Biden administrations…

    “JASON puts to rest the ‘microwave attack’ theory,” University of Pennsylvania biomedical engineer Kenneth Foster told BuzzFeed News. “While we can’t rule out the idea that somebody might have been trying to harass the US officers, the idea that these were attacks intended to cause injury is supported neither by a smoking gun nor by clearly identified victims.”

    For a past example of the kind of statements advanced in mainstream media accounts of the whole phenomenon, see this quote in a Guardian article from this past summer:

    “It became clear that some of the work [on sonic energy attacks] that was conducted in the former Soviet Union was taken up again by Russia and its satellite proxies.”

    Russia, Russia, Russia!

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

    And more from the same report: “But he said Russia was more advanced in understanding the human impact of microwave weapons – partly because it did not face the same ethical constraints.”

    Perhaps the next US government sponsored conspiracy theory to come out of this will be that Putin unleashed special warfare crickets on the Havana embassy in order to torment American personnel there. 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 18:40

  • Watch: Dr. Fauci Confronted About CDC's Unverified Claims About "Breakthrough" Infections
    Watch: Dr. Fauci Confronted About CDC’s Unverified Claims About “Breakthrough” Infections

    In what was probably one of the most difficult media interviews Dr. Anthony Fauci has faced during his entire tenure as President Biden’s top COVID media personality, CNBC’s Sarah Eisen – who revealed at the very beginning that she had tested positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated (which is why she was calling in from home – laid into the senior White House advisor and NIH chief about the lack of data or disclosures about “breakthrough” infections, and the risks of vaccinated patients spreading the virus to the unvaccinated.

    The interview clarified one point Dr. Fauci had been trying so desperately to conceal: that the incidence of breakthrough infections is much higher than the CDC and the government have claimed, and furthermore, Dr. Fauci even hinted that there might be some new “data” coming offering a more realistic analysis of how effective the vaccines truly are.

    The interview started with a standard question about the major story of the day, Merck’s new early-intervention treatment for COVID, which, despite its universal acclaim, is facing some questions about safety standards from skeptics.

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

    Dr. Fauci said that the FDA would review the data and approve the drug as quickly as it can.

    “When you have an orally administered medical intervention that attacks the virus…and has this kind of data….the trial was designed to be given early during the course of infection, its an early administration drug that’s very important.”

    The good doctor insisted he couldn’t commit to a timeline for approval, then claimed that the treatment.would likely be available to both vaccinated and non-vaxxed alike.

    “As for when it will get approved by the FDA, “the company says it will be imminently be sending the data to the FDA, so you need to give the FDA the time to go over the data…I can’t get ahead of them, I can’t tell you what it will be, but without giving a timeline, know that they are working very hard to get it done.”

    “This is a treatment for infection, so whether you get infected following vaccination or without one…I would assume if you’re infected you’re infected, it doesn’t really matter whether you’re vaccinated or not…but let’s leave that for the regulatory authorities…”

    “In my opinion as a public health professional, it’s always better to not get infected than to get infected and rely on a drug to prevent you from getting advanced disease. No drug by any means is 100% effective. Looking at the study, it’s a quite good result, with 50% protection. A 50% increase remember, there were people on the treatment arm who didn’t have a successful result. The best way to not get infected is to get vaccinated.”

    Finally, Eisen Hit Dr. Fauci with a surprise hard ball: She cited “data” collected within her own family, whereby three vaccinated people got COVID and immediately passed it on to two unvaccinated children.

    Eisen then suggested that the CDC might be “too casual” about breakthough infections, and also questioned “How can the CDC keep saying COVID “breakthrough” infections are rare if they have no data?”

    To this, Dr. Fauci replied that the CDC is scrambling to change this, and even hinted that more data on the true rate of breakthrough infections would likely soon arrive.

    “Three vaccinated people got Covid in my house two unvaccinated children got it…are you too casual about the limitations of the vaccine? It seems to me these breakthroughs are happening and they’re happening regularly. You can get it and transmit it and the government hasn’t been warning about that,” Eisen said.

    “Oh yes we have and let me get you the facts. If you are an unvaccinated person you have 11x the likelihood of hospitalization...if you look at the people who have died from COVID-19, overwhelmingly they have been unvaccinated,” Dr Fauci

    Fauci adds that “over 90%” who have been unvaccinated – but of course that vast majority of deaths occurred before the vaccine rollout even started, making this statement slightly misleading.

    As for determining how many unvaccinated have died since the program began, it’s not exactly clear since this data wasn’t being tracked. Though deaths and hospitalizations have fallen since vaccination rates have risen, but there’s still many questions about whether the young and health actually benefit.

    Fortunately, CNBC released this clip.

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

    As for the CDC tracking breakthrough infections, Eisen also pressed Dr. Fauci about the fact that “the CDC says on its website that infections occur among…unvaccinated…but the CDC doesn’t even track the breakthrough infections so how do we know that they’re only a small portion and that they’re relatively mild?”

    Dr. Fauci had nothing really to say to this except to admit she was of course correct while offering a flimsy excuse about the CDC working on it.

    “Well in the past the CDC has not tracked real or asymptomatic infections, but there are studies being done that would give the kind of data you’re talking about.”

    “And with the booster program we’re rolling out, we hope to see an improved effect. Israeli data have shown that when you give an at risk person a booster shot, they’re chances of being hospitalizations drop.”

    The interview with a question from CNBC host Wilfred Frost about the risks of any future variants, to which Dr. Fauci responded with the typical fear-mongering.

    “I’ll give an answer that’s totally consistent with what I’ve said before, is the likelihood of seeing something worse…is completely in our own control…if we allow the virus to freely circulate, particularly among unvaccinated people, you give the virus a greater possibility of producing a variant that could create some trouble for our vaccines.”

    But overall, the interview makes clear: the media is starting to get curious about the growing reports of breakthrough infections of public officials like Brett Kavanaugh (whose diagnosis was announced today) to family members and friends.

    Whatever it is, the 90%+ rate they insist on seems increasingly like a stretch.

    Clips of the grilling have started to surface on Twitter, but CNBC has yet to release a clip.

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

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 18:20

  • Archegos 2.0? Multi-Billion-Dollar "Mr. China" Fund Suffers Huge Loss After Xi Crackdown
    Archegos 2.0? Multi-Billion-Dollar “Mr. China” Fund Suffers Huge Loss After Xi Crackdown

    Remember Bill Hwang, the otherwise omnipotent guru of stock investing that founded Archegos, who suffered stunning (personal and fund) losses earlier in the year and made headlines in the ‘methods’ he used to amass vast leveraged positions without alerting regulators (or bank risk managers), and raising systemic financial system questions.

    Well Bill had a close friend.

    Meet Tao Li, the 41-year-old New York-based hedge fund manager is less known by the world than his buddy, but as Bloomberg reports, is known by a select group of investors as Mr. China for his expertise in that nation’s stocks. Beijing-born Li has deserved that reputation, as his fund has posted annualized returns of almost 30% for the past decade, according to people close to the firm. But that all went pear-shaped this year.

    Hwang and Li were longtime former colleagues (Li joined Hwang’s Tiger Asia in 2004 to cover Chinese companies, and left Tiger Asia in 2011, opening Teng Yue, which means leap or soar, the same year) and, at least before Archegos’s collapse, chatted periodically about investing ideas, according to people with knowledge of their relationship.

    And, as it turns out, Bloomberg reports that Hwang and Li had both piled into the same Chinese online-education company, GSX Techedu Inc., amassing stakes that market participants estimate amounted to a total of about 40% of the shares.

    When Archegos’s portfolio racked up margin calls in March, banks rushed to liquidate its bets, sending GSX tumbling.

    Then it got worse as Chinese Premier Xi unleashed his “common prosperity” plan, cracking down on online-education companies (among many other industries) in an attempt to quell any social unrest and perhaps bring to heel many of the richest people in China.

    That sent GSX Techedu down to record lows.

    Li’s Teng Yue Partners hedge fund, which manages $10 billion including leverage, took a hit and by the end of August was down about 32% for the year, according to people with knowledge of its performance.

    Many are rightfully wondering how exactly Hwang and Li came to pile so heavily into the same stock and whether the pair should have disclosed the massive stakes they were building. Some are questioning whether the overlapping bets might have somehow run afoul of securities laws.

    “I really, really hope the SEC looks at the trading in GSX,” Carson Block, famous for his bearish bets against Chinese companies, said in an interview with accounting firm Marcum BP, adding “just can’t see that these guys went long GSX on such large size because they believed the fundamentals were so good.”

    The question is – what don’t we know? Has Li unwound the positions (he reportedly used total-return-swaps like Hwang)? Which banks are exposed? Are they exposed in the same way as Credit Suisse etc were exposed to Archegos?

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 18:00

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Oct 01

Today’s News 1st October 2021

  • "This Is Chaos" – UK Trucker Shortage Will Inflate Prices Of Goods Ahead Of Christmas
    “This Is Chaos” – UK Trucker Shortage Will Inflate Prices Of Goods Ahead Of Christmas

    The United Kingdom is short 100,000 qualified truck drivers after tens of thousands of them returned to the European Union during Brexit, and 40,000 heavy goods vehicle (HGV) driver tests were suspended because of the virus pandemic in 2020. The lack of drivers has roiled supply chains, resulting in higher logistical costs that could make the price of food and anything else hauled by trucks more expensive ahead of the holiday season. 

    The “Winter of Discontent” is starting to become a reality for millions across the world’s fifth-largest economy as a deficit of truckers triggered widespread fuel shortages this week. There’s also been a shortage of natural gas from Russia that has pushed UK wholesale natgas prices to record highs has transformed the country’s power industry into a chaotic mess. Soaring prices and shortages are reminiscent of the late 1970s and may worsen in the months ahead.

    The government announced Sunday temporary visas for 5,000 foreign truck drivers to alleviate extremely stressed supply chains, but that may be a hard task to fulfill considering the deficit is so wide. Truckers who spoke with Reuters said their wages are going up because they’re in high demand, and in return, the cost of everything will rise as well. 

    “Wages will have to go up, so prices for everything we deliver, everything you buy on the shelves, will have to go up too,” Craig Holness,51, British trucker with 27 years of experience, told Reuters. 

    Hauler and recruitment companies are struggling to fill the deficit. One online job posting offered 75,000 pounds ($102,500) per annum salary for HGV Class 1 drivers. 

    “With HGV drivers, we’re now paying them 40% more than we were four months ago,” said Jordan Francis, the commercial director of recruitment agency ProDrive. 

    Holness doesn’t believe the trucker shortage will abate anytime soon because the deficit is so large. He said no young person wants to do this job because the conditions are poor. 

    “Who wants to be a lorry driver – you’d be better tapping away on a keyboard wouldn’t you? Kids these days don’t want to know,” said Holness. “I want to get out.”

    Miguel Brunel,41, a truck driver from Bethune in northern France, said, “this is chaos,” while referring to the deficit of drivers in the UK.

    The British Retail Consortium, the retail industry’s lobby group, told the government last week that new HGV drivers need to be found in the next ten days to avoid significant disruption in the run-up to Christmas. 

    “HGV drivers are the glue that hold our supply chains together,” the retail group said. “Without them, we are unable to move goods from farms to warehouses to shops.”

    From turkeys, toys, and trees this upcoming holiday season, millions of Brits could be in for a price shock or at least some kind of disappointment as supplies could be exhausted. 

    This could be problematic for Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey who said this week that he’s laser-focused on the inflationary effects from supply shortages including labor. 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 02:45

  • Vatican To Punish Employees Who Refuse To Comply With COVID-19 Certification
    Vatican To Punish Employees Who Refuse To Comply With COVID-19 Certification

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

    The Vatican is set to punish employees who refuse to comply with COVID-19 certification by not paying them.

    Yes, really.

    Vatican staffers who are unable to prove they’d been jabbed or who refuse to pay for expensive negative COVID tests will be considered “unjustly absent” and paid no salary.

    The new rules will go into force from October 1st onwards.

    As we highlighted last week, the Italian government has also passed a decree applying to both the private and public sector ordering companies to withhold pay from workers who refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

    Those found working without the pass face fines of up to €1,500 euros after it was extended as a condition of entry for museums, stadiums, pubs, restaurants, and schools.

    The unvaccinated were also banned from using long distance public transport, meaning that holidays, travel for work and visiting relatives has become impossible for many.

    A sliver of good news is that Italians continue to hit the streets to protest the measures, with one video showing police officers removing their helmets in solidarity with the demonstrators.

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

    Despite many Christians asserting a religious exemption to the vaccination, the Vatican itself is offering no such workaround.

    Pope Francis has been a vehement supporter of the mass vaccination program, asserting that humanity “has a history of friendship with vaccines.”

    “The Vatican has said that it considers it acceptable for Catholics to use vaccines, even those that use stem cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research,” reports the Mail.

    Wow, so Christian!

    As we highlight in the video below, by promoting vaccines and by proxy vaccine passports, the Pope is literally helping to grease the skids for what many fear could eventually turn into a ‘Mark of the Beast’ system that will demand total compliance in order to buy or sell.

    And that’s far from his only anti-Christian position.

    *  *  *

    Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

    In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 10/01/2021 – 02:00

  • Escobar: The Living Dead Pax Americana
    Escobar: The Living Dead Pax Americana

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

    Perth in Australia will be a forward base for nuclear-powered and nuclear weapon-carrying American subs.

    Pax Americana was always a minor character in a zombie apocalypse flick.

    Pax Americana is actually The Eternal Return of the Living Dead. “Pax” was never in order; War Inc. rules. The end of WWII led directly to the Cold War. The unipolar moment was an arc from the First Gulf War to the bombing of Yugoslavia. 9/11 launched the Global War on Terror (GWOT), renamed Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) by Team Obama. We are now entering Cold War 2.0 against China.

    What former CIA analyst Ray McGovern memorably describes as the MICIMATT (military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academia-think tank complex) never did “Pax”. They do War, in unison, like The Knights Who Say “Ni!” – minus the comic flair.

    Take this Knight for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the heart of the establishment matrix. CFR specializes in Kissingerian Divide and Rule. Now that applies, in spades, to the Russia-China strategic partnership.

    Knights overwhelmingly state the obvious: “Chinese power must be contained”. They sell the current, serial imperial debacle as “grand strategic moves”, in a quirky, lost in translation mixed salad of Gramsci and Lampedusa: a “new order” (engineered by the Empire) is being born via “everything must change so everything may remain the same” – privileging the Empire.

    Other Knights even propose the ludicrous notion that the current POTUS, an actual zombie remote-controlled by a teleprompter, is capable of conceiving a “foreign policy for the middle class” , as if the MICIMATT would ever approve a scheme to “advance prosperity in the free world as a whole”. The “free world” has just been stunned by the “prosperity” offered to Afghanistan during 20 “bombing to democracy” years.

    And then there are British Knights, who at least should have known their Monty Python by heart, carping about illiberalism and the “regimes created by Xi and Putin” , which will “crumble” and be succeeded by “anarchy and new despotisms.” Same old Anglo haughtiness mixed with piercing ignorance. Oh, those Asiatic “tyrannies” threatening the White Man’s civilizational drive.

    We all live in an Aussie submarine

    Now it’s all about AUKUS – actually U SUK A. Until recently, only the P5 – the five permanent UNSC members – possessed nuclear-powered submarines. India joined the club, and later rather than sooner, Australia.

    Every major player knows the next American war will not be about remote Pacific islands. Taiwan, though, is a completely different ball game. U SUK A is mostly about Taiwan.

    U SUK A was finalized at the G7 summit in Carbis Bay last June. That was an Anglo Boys Club affair, discussed exclusively by the Biden-BoJo-Morrison troika – and duly excluding Japan, even as Tokyo all but drew a samurai sword yelling its intent of supporting Taiwan.

    The problem is there have been no leaks of the fine print contained in U SUK A. Only spin. Yet it’s already clear that U SUK A goes way beyond building Aussie nuclear subs. Canberra will also have access to Tomahawks, Hornets and even become part of American hypersonic missile research.

    But then, in a slip, Australian Defense Minister Peter Dutton gave away the game: U SUK A will allow the upgrading of “the infrastructure in Perth, that will be necessary for the operation of these submarines. I expect we will see…lease arrangements or greater joint operations between our navies in the future.”

    Translation: Perth will be a forward base for nuclear-powered and nuclear weapon-carrying American subs.

    Why U SUK A now? Let’s go back to WWII – and the same old cartoonish geopolitics of benign Anglo maritime island powers pitted against the “evil” Eurasian heartland.

    WWII was the solution to simultaneously prevent Germany from dominating the Atlantic and Japan from dominating the Asia-Pacific (by the way, that’s the correct terminology: “Indo-Pacific” is Empire-speak).

    Germany-Japan was all about an alliance that would be predominant across the Eurasian heartland. Now, the Empire of Chaos is being slowly but surely expelled from the Eurasian heartland – this time by the Russia-China strategic partnership.

    Those with technical knowledge across the Beltway – not, not the Knights – are aware the US is not a match for hypersonic Russia. Yet the Americans believe they can make life unbearable for Beijing. The US establishment will allow China to control the Western Pacific over their dead bodies. Enter the instrumentalization of Australia.

    A big question is what will be the new role of the Five Eyes. With U SUK A, the Anglo Club has already stepped beyond mere intel sharing and spying on communications. This is a military pact between Three Eyes.

    Depending on the composition of its new government, Germany could become a Sixth Eye – yet in a subordinate role. With U SUK A, NATO as a whole, fresh from its spectacular Afghan debacle, becomes little else than a semi-relevant vassal. This is all about maritime power.

    U SUK A in effect is a Quad Plus, with India and Japan, the Fifth Columnist Asians, only allowed to play the role of, once again, mere vassals.

    War before 2040

    Not surprisingly, the first, concise technical and strategic assessment of U SUK A is Russian, written by Alexander Timokhin and published in Vzglyad, closely linked to GRU intelligence. Here, provided by John Helmer, is an essential English translation.

    The key points:

    • the extra subs will create a serious, additional threat; “the problem of combating enemy submarine forces will become quite acute for China.”

    • Geographically, “Australia can completely block the connection between China and the Indian Ocean.”

    • Australia will meet the deadlines only if it lays “more submarines a year than the Americans.”

    • It is “possible to quickly make Australia a country with a submarine fleet.” These “gigantic investments and sharp political turns are not carried out just like that. The hegemony of the Anglo-Saxons in the world is seriously shaken.”

    And that brings us to the inevitable conclusion: “It is worth recognizing that the world is on the verge of war.”

    Even before the Vzglyad strategic assessment, I had submitted the ravings of yet another Beltway Knight – widely praised as a sage – to an old school, dissident Deep State intel analyst. His assessment was merciless.

    He wrote me, “the geopolitical logic is that the China-Russia alliance was determined to be against US interests, much as the Mao-Stalin alliance. SEATO and NATO are being replicated. The treaty between England, Australia and the US is part of the Pacific rebalancing, or a new SEATO. NATO is part of the offset against Russia-China in Europe.”

    On what might lie ahead, he noted that “the coup against the US, Australia, England and NATO would be a French-Russian alliance to break up NATO and isolate Germany. Russia has unsuccessfully approached Germany, and now may approach France. The loss of France would effectively end NATO.”

    He sees U SUK A all dressed up with nowhere to go: “As it stands now, China is in command of the Pacific and Australia and Britain mean nothing. Russia can overrun NATO in two weeks, our adversaries’ hypersonic missiles can destroy all NATO airfields within five to ten minutes and the battle for Europe would be over.”

    He’s adamant that “the US cannot project power into the Pacific. Chinese submarine missiles would finish off the US fleet in short order. The Australian submarine issue is really irrelevant; if the CIA had an organization that was worth anything they would know that our adversaries already can spot and destroy our nuclear submarines without the slightest difficulty. The entire US Navy is obsolete and defenseless against Russian missiles.”

    And it gets worse – at least for the cheerleading Knights: “The F-35 is obsolete. The Air Force is largely worthless, as Russian and Chinese missiles can finish off their airfields or aircraft carriers in short order. The woke US Army is more worthless than the French Army with their Maginot Line. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are paid less than 200k a year, and are second or third rate talent. The US is a sinking ship.”

    Assuming that’s really the case, the – nuclear – war against China in the Western Pacific, projected in the Beltway to happen in the second half of the 2030s, would be over even before it started. Taiwan may even be part of China by then – an offshoot of Beijing always proposing economic exchanges to all, while Washington always “proposes” war.

    One thing though will never change: The Knights Who Say “Ni!” singin’ the praise of Pax Americana to the utter indifference of the unruly plebs.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 23:40

  • No Deal: Infrastructure Vote Postponed After Progressives Refuse To Budge
    No Deal: Infrastructure Vote Postponed After Progressives Refuse To Budge

    Update (2330ET): House Democrats called off a Thursday night vote on the $1.2 trillion infrastructure package after the Progressive Caucus was unconvinced by leadership’s proposed ‘bicameral framework’ to move forward on the legislation.

    To review – House progressives have threatened to sink the Senate-passed infrastructure deal unless the moderate Democrats in the Senate agree to pass the $3.5 trillion social spending package. And with moderate Senate Democrats Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) refusing to vote on that legislation unless – according to Manchin – it’s no more than $1.5 trillion, it appears the infrastructure deal is doomed to fail unless major changes are made.

    “I don’t see a deal tonight, I really don’t,” said Manchin, after leaving a meeting with White House officials and Sinema, per the Wall Street Journal. “We just—we need a little bit more time,” he added.

    Democrats were expected to resume their negotiations Friday after pushing off the Thursday vote on the infrastructure bill, the second time they have delayed a scheduled vote on the legislation. The bill faced opposition from liberal Democrats who don’t want to vote for it until the Senate has passed the broader social policy bill in a bid to maintain their leverage in the complex negotiations. The infrastructure bill would fund improvements to roads, bridges, ports and expanded broadband Internet access. -WSJ

    Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) (Photo: michael reynolds/epa/Shutterstock)

    Some aides told the Journal that Manchin may be convinced to accept a $2 trillion proposal, however Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) said on Thursday that most of the Democrats want a far larger package, and still plan to vote against the infrastructure bill until it’s passed by the Senate.

    *  *  *

    Update (2140ET):

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a Thursday night “Dear Colleague” letter that it’s been a “day of progress,” and that “Discussions continue with the House, Senate and White House to reach a bicameral framework agreement to Build Back Better through a reconciliation bill.

    via Punchbowl News‘ Jake Sherman:

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

    According to the LA Times’ Nolan McCaskill, the infrastructure vote may happen on Friday, as a source tells him that House progressives are being presented with a “framework” as we speak.

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

    *  *  *

    Update (1930ET): President Biden has signed the Continuing Resolution, averting a midnight shutdown and funding the government through Dec. 3, according to Bloomberg.

    *  *  *

    Update (1546ET): The House has OK’d the Senate-passed Continuing Resolution (CR) by a 254-175 vote – avoid a government shutdown at midnight, after the Senate passed the stopgap spending bill 65-35.

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

    Next stop, Biden’s desk.

    The bill only passed after Democrats eliminated an earlier attempt to link a suspension of the debt deiling to the bill, which was blocked by GOP senators on Monday.

    It also does not include a proposed $1 billion allocation for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system pushed by GOP lawmakers. That said, the House has already passed a standalone bill to provide that funding, which the Senate may soon take up.

    The move will keep the government funded until Dec. 3, after which they can bring a new Continuing Resolution (CR). It contains $28.6 billion to resettle refugees from the Afghanistan debacle.

    According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), her chamber will take up the bill on Thursday, where it’s expected to receive overwhelming support.

    *  *  *

    Update (1340ET): The US Senate has enough votes to pass a bill which will extend government funding through Dec. 3, averting a shutdown at midnight tonight.

    The bill will next move to the House, which is expected to clear it for President Biden’s signature this afternoon.

    Meanwhile, the rest of the Democrat’s agenda remains in limbo, after Rep. Pramila Jayapal said House progressives were “in the same place” following a meeting with Speaker Pelosi regarding their refusal to vote ‘yes’ on the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill without concurrently passing the $3.5 trillion economic blueprint.

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

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

    *  *  *

    While Congressional Democrats are nowhere near a deal on a $3.5 trillion social spending package, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi planning to move forward with a Thursday vote on the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that’s doomed to fail due to party infighting, Republicans are set to grant them a minor victory.

    On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) predicted that the Senate would pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) to avoid a partial government shutdown – suggesting that enough Republican Senators will support the Democratic measure due for a vote later in the day.

    “The Continuing Resolution contains a number of key items that Republicans call for,” said McConnell. “That includes supplemental funds to resettle Afghan refugees, and hurricane recovery aid for Louisiana.”

    McConnell then said it was “seriously disappointing” that Democrats wouldn’t let them fund Israel’s Iron Dome, adding “It honestly baffles me that defensive aid to our ally, Israel, has become a thorny subject for the political left. But overall, this is encouraging progress.”

    “On government funding, what Republicans laid out all along was a plain, continuing resolution, without the poison pill of a debt limit increase. That’s exactly what we’ll pass today.“

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

    The CR is a stop-gap measure which temporarily provides funding for the government through December 3rd, at which point Congress will need to issue another CR to fund the remainder of the fiscal year.

    As we noted earlier Thursday, the Democrats’ hopes of passing $4.6 trillion in legislation anytime soon appear to be slim.

    Despite moderate Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia refusing on Wednesday to back his party’s $3.5 trillion spending plan  – calling it the “definition of fiscal insanity,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi still plans to hold a vote on the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that House progressives vowed to sink unless the $3.5 trillion plan was passed in tandem.

    “So far, so good for today,” said Pelosi at a press conference following a meeting with her leadership team, adding “We’re on a path to win the vote.”

    According to Assistant Speaker Katherine Clark, even if the bill doesn’t pass today, the impact will be limited.

    “Whether that vote happens today, and I hope it does, this is not over,” she told Bloomberg TV, adding ““If we haven’t reached that point in our negotiations, our commitment is to getting this entire agenda done, and that will happen.”

    Good luck with that.

    In short, looks like the government won’t shut down – but the debt ceiling and the spending packages remain in limbo.

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

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 23:30

  • The US & China's Battle For Global Reputation
    The US & China’s Battle For Global Reputation

    Out of 18 countries surveyed in two separate surveys by Pew Research and the Levada Center, the residents of only two hold more favorable views of China than of the United States.

    In some of the remaining countries, the race is closer than expected as our chart indicates.

    Infographic: The U.S. and China's Battle for Global Reputation | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    However, as Statista’s Florian Zandt notes, the good standing of the People’s Republic in Russia and Singapore can easily be explained.

    China is Russia’s premier trading partner both regarding imports and exports with a trade volume of 104 billion U.S. dollars in 2020 next to Germany with 42 billion U.S. dollars and the Netherlands with 29 billion U.S. dollars.

    Singapore’s population, on the other hand, is made up of roughly three-quarters ethnic Chinese, and official diplomatic relations between the two states have been thriving since the early 1990s. Still, 51 percent of respondents in the sovereign island state held a favorable view of the United States. This could be seen as a nod towards its role as a mediator in the APAC region that managed to bring together former U.S. president Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in 2019.

    On the other end of the spectrum, Japanese residents hold the People’s Republic in contempt, possibly due to the rift widened by the Second Sino-Japanese War starting with the Marco Polo bridge incident in July 1937 or Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in September 1931 depending on the perspective. Only 10 percent of respondents saw China in a favorable light, while 71 percent held the United States in high esteem.

    Even though China has reclaimed its role as the U.S.’ leading trade partner in 2020 after President Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods hampered imports from the People’s Republic, relations between the two superpowers are still fraught.

    In the latest clash for geopolitical dominance, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian called the establishment of the naval Aukus defence pact between Australia, the UK and the U.S. a reinstatement of a “Cold War […] mentality” and an accelerator of the global arms race.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 23:20

  • David Hogg's Anti-Gun Campaign 'Fades Into Darkness' As Millennials Embrace Second Amendment
    David Hogg’s Anti-Gun Campaign ‘Fades Into Darkness’ As Millennials Embrace Second Amendment

    Op-Ed via The Machine Gun Nest (TMGN).

    I don’t have Twitter. If I did have Twitter, I’d only be following Bitcoin and meme stocks. I feel sorry for those constantly exposed to the political opinions of 14-year-old children amplified by their usefulness to “the narrative.”

    The Argentinian Philosopher Carlos Bernardo González Pecotche surmised that the world is in turmoil because people don’t know where their thoughts originate. The opinions of others enter their heads, and those people feel like the thoughts are their own. Not realizing that they’ve been programmed. 

    David Hogg is one of those people on Twitter who I’m glad is slowly fading into irrelevancy. He’s a professional anti-gun activist (with armed bodyguards, of course.) He’s one of the founding members of the March for Our Lives organization, a non-profit almost entirely propped up by donations from the top 1% of the country and billionaires like Michael Bloomberg.

    Recently, Hogg has been on a tweetstorm, and it’s caught headlines in the firearms media world. Here’s what he had to say:

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

    You can practically see the mental pat on the back that he’s giving himself while writing the tweet. But immaturity isn’t necessarily the point here. Although Hogg himself is insufferable, this is also how he makes his living. Saying ridiculous things on the internet as bait for others to react keeps him from fading into irrelevancy.

    I want to take a second to address David Hogg and respond to this tweet. I’m assuming that he thinks that he’s speaking for young people in general, or maybe young liberals. Either way, I believe that he’s first wrong (read: “The Trend Has Flipped: Millennials Are Actually Buying Guns”) to assume he’s in the majority and second, naive to think that people don’t have differing political views from himself—especially young people.

    I’m 28 years old. I grew up with Liberal baby-boomer parents and am a product of the early 2000s. I had school shooter drills in high school, bomb threats, and more. I am staunchly pro-gun. Many more people my age are as well. Interestingly, younger people are increasingly opposed to gun control, with the percentage of people under 30 that support stricter gun laws dropping from 65% to 45% since 2018.

    Gun owners are incredibly diverse. Young and old, people of all cultures, races, and political opinions own firearms. I’m not sure if there’s anything that supersedes cultural and political divides, like the right to own a gun.

    And if the recent surge in gun buying (read: here & here) has shown us anything, when the chips are down, and it’s time to take self-defense seriously- people who were once opposed to guns buy guns. We experienced a ton of that firsthand here at TMGN. Nationwide more than 9 million people became first-time gun owners in 2020 and 2021, which continues to rise.

    Now, you probably already know this but March for Our Lives is not a grassroots organization. Major million-dollar donations almost entirely fund it. Only 0.5% of their entire revenue is from donations totaling less than $5,000. Some real journalists looked at the group’s 990 tax form showing that out of the $18.6M that March for Our Lives collected in donations during 2018, $17.8M came from about 74 people donating between $5000.00 and $3,504,717.00.

    So, David Hogg would like us to believe that there’s some army of young progressive anti-gun voters out there looking to wipe away these evil old boomers (who are some of the most prominent supporters of gun control, ironically). Yet, his entire organization is mainly supported by 78 wealthy donors. (If you dive into the data, 36 donors made donations between $100,000 and $3.5M, so maybe it’s just 36 people who support Hogg). 

    Here’s the thing, since the Heller decision in 2008, gun rights have been rapidly expanding. The landscape isn’t what it was in the 1990s. AR15s are no longer weird, quirky firearms that a few hobbyists own; they’re recognized as modern-day muskets. The right to carry a concealed firearm has been significantly expanded since the 1980s, and every day more and more young people get into the sport of shooting and exercise their 2nd Amendment right. David Hogg should come to try firearms for himself; he might just change his mind.

    The recent gun-buying craze sparked by the pandemic and social unrest has begun to truly express younger Americans and minorities and women’s Second Amendment rights like never before. These new gun owners are also across all political spectrums and suggest Hogg’s movement is fading into the darkness. 

    * * * 

    One thing that David Hogg and liberal media don’t want you to see is the massive surge in Second Amendment sanctuaries at the state, county, and local levels. 

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

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 23:00

  • Northrop, Raytheon's Hypersonic Missile Conducts First Successful Test Flight
    Northrop, Raytheon’s Hypersonic Missile Conducts First Successful Test Flight

    Raytheon Missiles & Defense and Northrop Grumman completed the first test flight of an air-breathing hypersonic weapon last week for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Air Force (USAF), according to a press release from Raytheon. 

    The prototype weapon system is called the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept, or HAWC, which performed an air launch from an aircraft wing. There was no mention of the type of aircraft used in the test, but it’s likely a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. 

    “This brings us one step closer to transitioning HAWC to a program of record that offers the next-generation capability to the U.S. military,” said Andrew Knoedler, HAWC program manager in DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office. 

    “The missile, built by Raytheon Technologies, was released from an aircraft seconds before its Northrop Grumman scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) engine kicked on,” DARPA said. 

    “The DoD (Department of Defense) has identified hypersonic weapons and counter-hypersonic capabilities as the highest technical priorities for our nation’s security,” said Wes Kremer, president of Raytheon’s Missiles & Defense business unit. 

    The test comes after the USAF’s AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW, failed an air-launch test on July 28 and days after USAF Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters he wasn’t satisfied with the service’s hypersonic program. 

    The successful launch of the HAWC is good news for the U.S. who has fallen behind Russia and China in fielding hypersonic weapons. 

    So whenever the next big conflict breaks out, hypersonic weapons and fifth-generation fighter jets will be key at rendering enemy defense systems useless. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 22:40

  • Authorities Threaten Jail Time For Unvaccinated Aussies Who Try To Enter Businesses
    Authorities Threaten Jail Time For Unvaccinated Aussies Who Try To Enter Businesses

    Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

    Authorities in New South Wales are threatening to jail Australians who don’t show a COVID-19 vaccination pass when they enter businesses.

    Yes, really.

    NSW Customer Service Minister Victor Dominello threatened people who he described as “fraudsters” with arrest if they try to enter premises with “fake vaccine passports”

    “If people want to do the wrong thing, if they get found out, as I said, it could be jail time there,” said Dominello.

    According to the report, people who also try to enter without showing anything will also be subject to arrest.

    “Mr Dominello reiterated that those who refuse to show their vaccine status when entering shops, restaurants and other venues should be reported to the police,” reports News.com.au.

    Enforcing such a system may be problematic however, as the Police Commissioner of New South Wales recently asserted that his officers wouldn’t be checking medical papers.

    “The role of police in terms of vaccine passports, we will not be walking through restaurants, cafes and pubs checking if people are double vaccinated,” said Mick Fuller.

    We now face a two tier society where the unvaccinated are not only brazenly discriminated against, but actually thrown in prison if they try to engage in basic commerce or lifestyle activities.

    As we previously highlighted, Australians who police merely suspect may be planning to attend an anti-COVID tyranny protest are being intimidated with home visits.

    *  *  *

    Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

    In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 22:20

  • Erdogan Alarms NATO Allies: 'Putin Agreed To Jointly Produce Jet Engines, Warships & Submarines'
    Erdogan Alarms NATO Allies: ‘Putin Agreed To Jointly Produce Jet Engines, Warships & Submarines’

    There were some unexpected, surprising agreed-upon initiatives to come out of Wednesday’s Sochi summit between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan which will be sure to catch the attention of the West, given Turkey comprises NATO’s second largest army – also given the prior S-400 and F-35 standoff with Washington. 

    As we detailed earlier, it was the two leaders’ first face-to-face summit in a year-and-a-half, also as tensions soar between the two countries on Syria policy. Their meeting in Sochi was lengthy, lasting about three hours. A subsequent statement from the Turkish side indicated Russia agreed to jointly produce jet engines, warships and submarines – a huge development revealed in state-run Anadolu Agency.

    Image: AFP

    While initial Russia press release summaries of the meeting were vague, President Erdogan divulged some of the key details discussed with Putin to Turkish journalists accompanying him. “For example, we discussed steps to build a second and third nuclear reactor,” he said, a reference to the Russian-built Akkuyu nuclear reactor in southern Turkey.

    And then Erdogan said this, crucially at a moment the Lockheed F-35 program is still blocked due to the S-400 issue: “We even comprehensively talked about the steps we can take on [building] jet engines.”

    “Another topic, we can take joint steps in the construction of [war]ships. We will, inshallah, even take joint steps on submarines,” Erdogan described, even bringing up the prospect of space exploration cooperation. 

    “Putin would like to work with Turkey in space. Our teams will study this issue and we will create a roadmap,” he told reporters. “There is even a further offer; by creating one platform on the sea and another on land, we can jointly work on rocket firing tests to space.”

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

    Erdogan further doubled down on prior statements saying US sanctions wouldn’t deter Turkey from acquiring a second round of S-400 anti-air defense systems from Russia. He said in a Sunday CBS News interview that “Nobody can interfere” with issues of Turkey’s sovereign defense. “We are the only ones to make such decisions.”

    When pressed specifically on whether Turkey plans to move forward on the next round of S-400 delivery, Erdogan responded with a blunt, “of course”. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 22:00

  • These Countries Have An Internet Kill-Switch (And They Admit It)
    These Countries Have An Internet Kill-Switch (And They Admit It)

    Authored by Aden Tate via The Organic Prepper blog,

    What do you suppose would happen if the President of the United States deemed it necessary, for “national security,” to flip the Internet Kill Switch? In these digital times, there should be great concern over something like this. However, normalcy bias seems to have a firm hold on a majority of the citizens of the US, and many are clinging to the “it can’t happen here” theory. 

    The United States has yet to employ this particular tool. However, according to data gathered to examine the financial impact of internet shutdowns, since 2019, there have been 237 major internet shutdowns in 45 countries. [source]

    What is an internet kill switch?

    An internet kill switch is a device/software/configuration that allows one to shut down all internet access within a region or country indefinitely. If activated, the kill switch would prevent everyone from checking social media, shopping online, using online messenger services, sending emails, or anything else involving an internet connection.

    In many cases, this may also include any form of phone contact (it varies). 

    Which countries have already used the internet kill switch?

    Hackers have the ability to down the entire internet system, as we have seen with op article and op article. However, governments around the globe have also resorted to shutdowns, claiming it to be necessary for public safety. For example, India (a democratic nation) was the global leader in shutdowns in 2019, with over 150 in 3 years. [source]

    See if you spot the recurring theme among the following shutdowns:

    Cuba

    On July 11, Cuban citizens rallied in the streets to protest food and medicine shortages and electricity outages. Within two days, the Cuban government began restricting internet access. 

    China

    Back in 2009, riots broke out in Xinjiang. The communists responded by shutting down the internet to the region for an entire year. [source]

    Egypt

    Amid protests, Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak cut off nearly all internet access and shut down all cell phone services. The shutdown lasted for five days. [source]

    Iran

    November 16, 2019, Iran authorities flipped the switch, plunging citizens into digital darkness for nearly 11 days. According to an Amnesty International press release, the deliberate shutdown was an attempt to hide the horrendous killings across the country.

    Zimbabwe

    In 2019, President Mnangagwa announced a fuel price increase. Protests against the increase caused Mnangagwa to shut down the internet. Critics called the shutdown “an attempt to hide growing reports of a violent crackdown on protests.” [source]

    South Sudan

    Protests? We can fix that with an internet shutdown. [source]

    Zambia

    Election day, 2021, warranted shutting down many social media platforms and some messaging apps. Although the Zambian government denied the reports Secretary, Amos Malupenga mentioned there would be no hesitation to take appropriate measures. [source]

    Colombia

    Colombia’s government used this innovative means of stopping protests here in May 2021 – an internet shut down. [source]

    The Republic of the Congo

    Another election day shutdown in 2021. This time in The Republic of the Congo. [source]

    Armenia

    Political unrest led to an internet shutdown here. [source] 

    Russia

    I think mentioning the word ‘elections’ regarding Russia is enough to make anybody laugh. Have a pesky election-tracking app you need shut down? A partial internet shutdown can do the trick. [source]

    Myanmar

    Coup underway? Better shut off the internet. [source]

    Ethiopia

    Ethiopia’s government shut down the internet 12 times before blacking out the country for nearly 16 days in 2020. Reports said this was an attempt to muzzle activists demanding justice for the killing of a beloved musician. [source]

    Does the United States have an internet kill switch?

    Technically, yes.

    Under an entirely unconstitutional 1930s law on the books: 47 USC 606: War Powers of President; Chapter 5, Subchapter VI, the President has the authority to wield that mighty weapon.

    The 1930s law reads: 

    (c) Suspension or amendment of rules and regulations applicable to certain emission stations or devices

    Upon proclamation by the President that there exists war or a threat of war, or a state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency, or in order to preserve the neutrality of the United States, the President, if he deems it necessary in the interest of national security or defense, may suspend or amend, for such time as he may see fit, the rules and regulations applicable to any or all stations or devices capable of emitting electromagnetic radiations within the jurisdiction of the United States as prescribed by the Commission, and may cause the closing of any station for radio communication, or any device capable of emitting electromagnetic radiations between 10 kilocycles and 100,000 megacycles, which is suitable for use as a navigational aid beyond five miles, and the removal therefrom of its apparatus and equipment, or he may authorize the use or control of any such station or device and/or its apparatus and equipment, by any department of the Government under such regulations as he may prescribe upon just compensation to the owners.

    Perhaps you think this only applies to radios. It couldn’t possibly apply to your laptop or phone, right?

    Don’t forget your devices use radio waves to receive their internet access. In addition, your devices can access Google Maps, which would qualify your computer as a navigational aid. 

    What’s stopping the US Government from labeling EVERYTHING a national emergency?

    “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” – Thomas Jefferson

    If you consider that America now believes racism is a “public health emergency,” government authorities could very likely deem a public health crisis as “public peril, disaster or other national emergency.” Oh no! The government must shut down the internet! [source]

    Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded — and once they are suspended it is not difficult for anyone who has assumed such emergency powers to see to it that the emergency persists.” – FA Hayek [source]

    This bill also gives armed men the notion they can take your equipment. And should you say no? Well, you can read the penalties section HERE. And also, before deciding you’re going down in a blaze of glory, check out Selco’s prediction of how that will work out for you.

    Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act of 2020

    Last year in 2020, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard introduced the Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act of 2020 to Congress. H.R.8336 would have directly attacked 47 USC 606, making it not pertain to internet usage. While Congress did not refuse the bill, they left it to sit with no further actions. [source] 

    In 2016, we experienced something similar when the Supreme Court denied hearing a petition to release information on the ‘secret’ DHS internet kill switch protocol. [source] Because we need an internet kill switch, of course. THAT is an issue of national security.

    “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt

    Yes, internet kill switches exist – prepare accordingly

    This website published an article about the possibility of a comms blackout and how to prepare for it back in January. Check it out for some useful and viable communications options. Also, don’t forget the importance of ham radio, although you should know that it’s not completely immune to governmental interference.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 21:40

  • US Warns Mexico Of Massive, Ongoing Sewage Spill Into Rio Grande: '150 Million Gallons Since August'
    US Warns Mexico Of Massive, Ongoing Sewage Spill Into Rio Grande: ‘150 Million Gallons Since August’

    A major pipe rupture on the American side of the US-Mexico border is sending millions of gallons per day of raw sewage into the Rio Grande, International Boundary & Water Commission (IBWC) is warning this week. 

    The agency formally notified Mexico authorities late this week, saying in a statement to the monitoring organization Border Report that “The water that is going into the Rio Grande is downstream of the location where Mexico gets the water under the (U.S.-Mexico) treaty. But, yes, sewage flows into the Rio Grande are entering the international reach of the river.” 

    The El Paso-Ciudad Juárez border. Image source: The Architect’s Newspaper

    The IBWC estimated that between 3 million and 6 million gallons per day are flowing into the river which forms the natural boundary along the length of the southern Texas border. Broken pipes located in West El Paso have been leaking since Aug.15 – for a believed total of 150 million gallons of potentially toxic sewage polluting the Rio Grande. 

    Crucially, some major downstream population centers in Mexico could be impacted by toxic water from the spillage. According to a local El Paso CBS affiliate: 

    Sewage flows into rivers and other bodies of water can expose humans who wade or swim in them to dangerous pathogens and cause intestinal infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other health organizations.

    The Rio Grande cuts across El Paso and Juarez, Mexico, a city of 1.5 million people; many migrants who approach the border wall to enter the United States surreptitiously first must cross the river.

    El Paso water authorities have cited a ‘cascade of failures’ that ultimately contributed to the major leakage and spill. City Water President and CEO John E. Balliew said in a statement it’s “corrosion driven” and described what led up the ongoing disaster as “not just one break” but “a series of breaks”. 

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

    “The pipe is so badly corroded that we can’t fix it. When we go to fix it, we cause more damage than exists at present. So, we’re concentrating on replacement,” he added. 

    The city said this week it’s only completed up to 60% of pipe replacement, so millions of gallons of sewage are expected to continue flowing into the Rio Grande. Meanwhile on the US side of the border there’s concern that the polluted water may negatively impact vegetation, wetlands, and irrigation. It’s just one more border disaster among many currently creating tensions for political leaders on each side of the border, also amid the recent Haitian immigrant camp crisis. US Border Patrol is also said to be monitoring the sewage leak situation in coordination with the IBWC.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 21:20

  • Doug Casey Reveals 3 Ways You Can Opt-Out Of The Rising Insanity
    Doug Casey Reveals 3 Ways You Can Opt-Out Of The Rising Insanity

    Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,

    International Man: Ever since the outbreak of the Covid hysteria, government control over everyday life has reached unprecedented levels. Petty bureaucrats now exercise control over who can open their businesses, whether you can go to a restaurant, and even whether children can go to school.

    Where is this all going?

    Doug Casey: There are basically two types of people in the world—people that like to manipulate the physical universe and create things and people who like to manipulate other people and control them. The people who go into government, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans, are the latter. They’re dangerous.

    The problem is that the average citizen in every country around the world has come to think that the government is the most important entity in society. It’s not; it’s a coercive fiction, a parasite that produces nothing. The wrong kinds of people are being given even more control.

    Once people with a certain psychological mindset—that second type of person I just mentioned—take control, things inevitably get worse.

    In Washington, DC, as well as in many state and local governments, we now have genuine Bolsheviks and Jacobins in control. That’s not to say that they’re necessarily believers in those philosophies, but they’re exactly the same psychological types. In other words, they’re exactly the kind of people who once destroyed France and Russia, reincarnated in today’s America.

    Once these types get control of the machinery of the State, they won’t give it up. Power—the ability to coerce and control others—is central to their very beings. They’ll try to cement themselves in place now that they feel they can get away with it.

    They’ll use their power aggressively, installing counterproductive and destructive policies. The worse things get, the more the public will look to the government to save them. It’s a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

    The chances of getting a genuine lunatic as the president are very high. I’m very pessimistic because trends in motion tend to stay in motion—and this trend is accelerating rapidly.

    International Man: As a result of this trend, more parents than ever have opted for homeschooling.

    What’s your take on this?

    Doug Casey: It’s cause for optimism.

    First of all, education is something that you provide for yourself. It’s not something that somebody—certainly not the State—gives you.

    The value—and the original purpose—of public schooling was basically to teach the three Rs: reading, writing, and arithmetic. With those essentials and the ability to use a library or the Internet, which places all of the world’s knowledge at your fingertips—you don’t need anything else beyond that.

    The basics can be picked up in the first six or seven years of grade school—for anybody, even slow learners. Beyond that, school just bores most kids and is actually counterproductive. It not only wastes their time and money but actually makes them dislike learning. Homeschooling allows them to make the world their oyster while teaching individual responsibility.

    Secondly, most schooling today—certainly once you get into high school and absolutely once you get into college—is little more than indoctrination. Schools are places where your kids pick up bad ideas from the educators and bad habits from other young yahoos they’re surrounded by.

    Schools do not teach critical thinking—if indeed they ever did—at least since Plato’s Academy and Aristotle’s Lyceum. Critical thinking is the habit of questioning all assertions and examining everything that we think we know in the light of knowledge, logic, the scientific method, and your own research. That doesn’t exist anymore in schools. In fact, the government and the establishment don’t want schools to turn out critical thinkers and free thinkers. To the contrary, they want obedient, indoctrinated serfs who will do as they’re told and act as cogs in the wheel.

    I think it’s irresponsible on the part of parents not to properly educate their kids. And that doesn’t mean just sending them off eight hours a day where they sit behind a desk and listen to government employees lecture them.

    It costs an average of about $12,000 per pupil per year—we’re talking a nine-month year with long vacations—to babysit and corrupt kids. That’s an outrageous amount. College, often over $50,000, can only be described as a scam.

    Nobody has more of an interest in making education available to kids than their parents do; certainly not members of the teachers union. If the public schools vanished, it would be a good thing. That $12,000 per pupil could stay in society so that people that wanted to educate their kids properly wouldn’t have to pay the toll twice.

    A couple families could easily get together and hire full-time, first-rate tutors to teach their kids one-on-one, as opposed to sending them off to a government factory to be indoctrinated.

    The school system has become very corrupt from what it once was. Schools and universities are grossly overweight with grossly overpaid administrators. Ninety percent of these phony “educators” should be fired. Furthermore, most teachers now are overtly Marxist, and the rest are dim, but sympathetic to Marxist ideas. Schoolhouses at all levels should be intellectually cleaned, then fumigated, if they can’t be abolished.

    I’m glad many people are dissatisfied with schools and some are doing something about it. It’s one of the few good things to come out of the Covid hysteria.

    International Man: What other ways can people opt out and regain more control over their lives?

    Doug Casey: The ideal solution is to become a PT—a permanent traveler or prior taxpayer—but that’s not easy for most people. As I mentioned last week, even if you don’t want to internationalize, the next best thing is to quit your job and become self-employed.

    But beyond that, in order to have control of your life, you need capital, which gives you flexibility and room to run.

    So how do you get that capital?

    If you’re not in a position to quit your job and become self-employed, then take a second job— part-time. The advantage of that is your income will go up and your expenses, in the way of consuming, will go down. Put that money aside.

    The key is to cut your spending to the bone and save. That means don’t buy that new car or trade up to a larger house. Don’t go out and get a new wardrobe.

    Build capital while the economy and the currency are still held together. Capital will allow you to take advantage of opportunities in the future, as opposed to getting deeper in debt like a serf.

    International Man: All the governments around the world are inflating away their currencies and taxing their citizens at ever-increasing levels.

    How can the average person opt out or at least limit the government’s theft of their savings?

    Doug Casey: You want to save, but saving in fiat puts you on a treadmill.

    If you leave your money in US dollars or other currencies, you’re going to lose everything or almost everything. You really have to learn to invest and speculate.

    Unfortunately, investing in the kind of chaotic, government-controlled economy we’re moving into is hard and becoming harder. On the bright side, the distortions the government is creating offer lots of avenues for speculation. I’ve discussed the differences between saving, investing, speculating, and gambling in the past. But unless you study economics and the markets, if you try to speculate, you’ll probably wind up gambling—which is very different.

    The key is to educate yourself on the ins and outs of the markets—including crypto, currency, and commodity markets, not just the stock, bond, and real estate markets.

    Right now, commodity markets are particularly interesting. For example, I’m of the opinion that natural gas, which is traded on the futures market, is currently around $5.00 per Mcf. I believe it could go much higher.

    I’ve personally sold naked puts to capture the premiums, and I’ve bought long-term bull call spreads. If you’re not familiar with these things, then don’t take my advice. But try to become familiar with these things.

    One of the reasons I’m bullish on commodities is that with the Bolsheviks in office in Washington, DC, and actual communists in control of a lot of countries around the world, commodity production of all kinds is being made harder. At the same time, all the money they’re printing is creating artificial demand, and all the regulations they’re passing are artificially restricting supply.

    Commodities are about the only cheap things left; their prices are going a lot higher. You can capitalize on this as a speculator if you know what you’re doing. But be careful because you can easily wipe yourself out.

    Any savings that you have should be in small gold and silver coins, not in fiat currencies. I don’t see gold as a good speculation at $1800. It is, however, ideal for saving. In addition to providing long-term upside, gold and silver coins are far more private than keeping US dollars in a bank account, which the government can monitor.

    Lastly, if you’re going to keep your house and stay in the same place, you might want to save by buying things like cigarettes, whiskey, instant coffee, ammunition, and the like. If times get tough, all of those things are going to be hard to come by. They’ll be in high demand—and they’re an alternative to fiat.

    International Man: Today, what we buy, who we interact with, and what we say are more easily tracked.

    Everyone’s private information is under assault by a private-public partnership of governments and big corporations.

    Where is this all going, and what do you suggest people do about it?

    Doug Casey: As much as possible, keep a low electronic profile.

    Get off Facebook and other social media platforms. I have a Facebook account, but I never use it or access it in any way for anything personal. It’s strictly a business tool—the same for LinkedIn and the rest of them.

    Everybody should realize that social media is the primary way that they track you, learn what you think, and discover who you are. It’s just not good for that information to be in the hands of the bad guys.

    Of course, everybody has a cell phone today; they’re tracking devices. Entirely apart from that, the things are a nuisance, and most people are addicted to them. I have one, but I never use it except when I’m traveling or at a conference.

    I understand the value of apps for navigating and such. It might be good, however, to have two cell phones. The one you use for talking should be a flip phone. The other can be used selectively for whatever apps you need.

    On a personal level, speak up about these things whenever possible. Even though it’s pretty hard to turn back the tidal wave of statism and collectivism that’s washing over society, everyone should do what they can. You might want to start by going to LiveandLetLive.org, run by my friend Marc Victor, for practical thoughts on what you can do. We just taped a videocast that’s pretty good, in my opinion. It will be released shortly.

    I’m afraid the US and most advanced countries in the world are well on their way to combining the worst traits of George Orwell’s 1984 with those of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

    *  *  *

    The months and years ahead will be politically, economically, and socially volatile. What you do to prepare could mean the difference between suffering crippling losses and coming out ahead. That’s precisely why, legendary investor and NY Times best-selling author Doug Casey just released this urgent report on how to survive and thrive. Click here to download the PDF now.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 21:00

  • China Power Crunch Could Force Global Food Prices Even Higher
    China Power Crunch Could Force Global Food Prices Even Higher

    Global food prices climbed back to near-decade highs in early September, reviving concerns about inflationary pressures. A newly emerging risk that many have missed and could catapult food prices even higher this fall/winter is China’s difficult harvest season as power curbs hurt the outlook for production, according to Bloomberg. 

    Autumn harvest has begun for the world’s second-largest economy amid power constraints in at least 20 Chinese provinces and regions, making up more than 66% of the country’s GDP. Some of these regions are industrial hubs that have key manufacturing plants. 

    Among the worst-hit are industrial hubs in China’s northeastern heartland, such as Jilin, Liaoning, and Heilongjiang, where most of the country’s corn and soybeans are grown.

    “The crisis is stoking concern that China will have a tough time handling crops from corn to soy to peanuts and cotton this year after some plants were asked to suspend or cut output to conserve electricity,” Bloomberg said.

    Already, the power crunch has forced soybean processors in northern regions to shutter operations. There’s a big concern the electricity crunch could slash operating rates of corn processors that make products like starch and syrup, Chinese brokerage Huatai Futures warned.

    Futures Daily, a state-backed media, said the power crunch “will affect the supply and prices of agricultural products, which is a matter of importance for the national economy and people’s livelihood.” 

    China has been a top importer of agricultural products over the last year due to domestic shortages, helping to drive global food costs higher. 

    This means that China might have to tap international markets for food supplies as domestic power curbs may reduce production. If China continues to aggressively source from abroad as some top growing areas, such as Brazil and Argentina, have been dealing with extreme weather that damaged crops, this could very well suggest that global food prices may be headed higher. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 20:40

  • Wikipedia Co-Founder Criticizes Site, Says It Has Slid Into "Leftist Propaganda"
    Wikipedia Co-Founder Criticizes Site, Says It Has Slid Into “Leftist Propaganda”

    Authored by Isabel van Brugen via The Epoch Times,

    Wikipedia has in recent years drifted away from neutrality and slid into “leftist propaganda,” according to its co-founder Larry Sanger.

    Sanger, who parted ways with Wikipedia almost two decades ago over the project’s direction, told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” that the online encyclopedia, which turned 20 years old earlier this year, has gradually shifted to follow the narrative of “the news media.”

    “Wikipedia made a real effort at neutrality for, I would say, its first five years or so,” said Sanger.

    “And then … it began a long, slow slide into what I would call leftist propaganda.”

    Wikipedia has around 125,000 active volunteer editors who work on crowdsourced articles, and more than 1,000 “administrators” who can take actions such as blocking accounts or restricting edits on certain pages.

    Sanger told EpochTV that particularly in the past five years, any individual who is “on the right,” or “even contrarian,” often finds themselves with an article on Wikipedia that “grossly misrepresents their achievements, often just leaves out important bits of their work, and misrepresents their motives.”

    Wikipedia “casts them as conspiracy theorists, are far right or whatever, when they and their friends and people who know them well would never describe them in that way,” Sanger said.

    Sanger criticized Wikipedia, suggesting that it has recently moved to “follow the news media.”

    “More recently, they’ve gotten rid of almost all conservative news sources as sources for their articles,” he explained.

    “And so as the news media has shifted, and as the establishment, frankly, has shifted more to the left or to the left, the content of Wikipedia has followed suit.”

    He previously noted that Wikipedia has banned Fox News’s political reporting, the New York Post, and the Daily Mail from being used as sources.

    Sanger said he is now working on creating a new decentralized network, a “superset of all encyclopedias.”

    “We’re going to be putting all of the encyclopedic content and the world in a single network. That’s an extremely compelling vision,” he said.

    He first announced in March that he was working on developing technical standards that could strip power over social media from giant companies and give users more control over the content they produce and see.

    Sanger created Wikipedia with Jimmy Wales in 2001, but left the project the following year and has subsequently criticized the website.

    Wikipedia officials didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 20:20

  • Robinhood Popularity Plunges, JPMorgan Warns Shares Could Drop 20% By Year End
    Robinhood Popularity Plunges, JPMorgan Warns Shares Could Drop 20% By Year End

    Robinhood founder and CEO Vlad Tenev certainly timed his company’s (much-hyped) direct listing almost perfectly.

    As Robinhood shares languish below their post-IPO high of around $56, JPMorgan is out with a new report claiming the company’s shares, which debuted via direct listing back in July, could shed as much as 20% of their value by the end of the year. It’s also the only broker on Wall Street with a “sell” rating on Robinhood’s shares.

    Hopefully JPM’s traders cleared the bank’s entire position (or indeed, went short), because the report had its desired effect, leaving shares of HOOD down more than 2% on the last trading day of the month and quarter.

    Looking more closely at the report, JPM’s “investment thesis” relies on a series of indicators suggesting revenue growth is about to suffer from a an abrupt double-whammy: a startling drop in trading revenue, combined with a sharp slowdown in customer acquisition. And then there’s always the regulatory wrath HOOD has provoked by making PFOF an industry standard practice.

    Indeed, new allegations that Citadel lied about having foreknowledge of Robinhood’s decision to shut off trading in a handful of increasingly popular meme stocks back in January (and that a high-ranking $HOOD executive placed some questionable trades in AMC and other meme stocks ahead of the company’s decision to halt trading), new pressure has emerged against Robinhood. Still, to put it bluntly, it would be a surprise to see Jim Swartwout, President and COO of Robinhood, ever investigated or held accountable for any potential conflicts which he is being accused of online (and against which his firm has chosen to aggressively defend).

    At this point, it would almost be a surprise to see the story linger on the fringes of the news cycle for another day or week before the ember dies out completely.

    But we digress…

    The first part of JPM’s thesis is the risk of a flood of supply given the dilution that looms as more shares are unlocked for sale, leaving the price vulnerable.

    Robinhood’s float started out small at ~59.3MM shares at the IPO, including the greenshoe (some of which was used up to support the share price during the IPO). Keep in mind, Robinhood reserved like 20% of the shares offered in the IPO for its own users.

    • JPM expects the unlocking of 48.9MM shares associated with Tranche Ia of convertible notes and the unlocking of another 48.9MM shares of Tranche Ib once the registration is effective.

    • It also expects a substantial 567.9MM shares will be unlocked as of Dec. 1, when the majority of the selling restrictions expire.

    • These unlocked shares compare to the fully diluted share count of ~924mn including the greenshoe at the IPO price of $38

    That’s a pretty big jump in just a few months, and with the increasingly dim outlook on the market, expect another wave of insider selling.

    Moving on to JPM’s second issue, the significant slowdown in user growth and trading. These are important metrics because HOOD’s business is “much more transaction based” than that of its rivals (put another way: ‘Robinhood makes money by enticing people to trade as much as possible and, now that its users aren’t minting money every week, they’re starting to catch on to the scam’).

    • According to data from Apptopia cited by JPM in its research, the number of new Robinhood app downloads (a proxy for account openings) is down -78% from 2Q21 and daily active users (a proxy for activity levels) have declined -40% from 2Q21, both substantially weaker than peers.

    • We rate Robinhood Underweight with a 12/2022 price target of $35

    JPM said “while the founders have leveraged innovation, guts and ideal market conditions to build a leading US retail broker, we do not see growth as sustainable and we question the ability of the company to generate competitive margins over time given the focus on such small accounts that have limited room to be profitable.”

    There’s also the inevitability of the Fed’s great QE unwind, which could unleash long-suppressed animal spirits that may ultimately turn on stocks once investors accept the fact that the era of “free money” is coming to an end.

    As lawmakers crack down on Robinhood for “game-ifying” the act of trading, it seems many of its more successful clients have moved on to one of Robinhood’s competitors. Indeed, JPM believes “its position [is] inferior to larger existing participants that have been able to leverage peer-to-peer and payments technology to build and leverage a compelling network.”

    The analysts continued: “While Robinhood founders have built a company that brings investing to those that have been underserved, we don’t see a technological competitive advantage, and we see a brand and product offering that risks investors graduating to other more comprehensive financial institutions over time.”

    Before we go, we’d like to remark upon the fact that, since Robinhood decided to go public via direct listing, it cut investment banks like JP Morgan out of the juicy fees that the investment banks see as their just reward for granting access to the markets.

    We’re not saying that JPM being sore about losing the deal inspired the report – just that we doubt we would see such scathing analysis about, say, Didi (where JPM served as one of the lead underwriters).

    But will JPM’s rivals once again follow it to the kill?

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 20:00

  • Manchin Proposed $1.5T Top-Line Number In July
    Manchin Proposed $1.5T Top-Line Number In July

    With frustrated Democrats pressing Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) to produce a dollar figure at which he’d be willing to vote for their gargantuan spending bill, it turns out that many on the hill already knew what his absolute top-line figure was.

    According to Politico, Manchin proposed a $1.5 trillion package to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) this summer in a one-page document that outlined his red lines to President Biden’s jobs and families plan.

    The document, dated July 28, proposes raising the corporate tax rate to 25%, the top tax rate on income to 39.6%, capital gains to 28% and that any that any revenue raised from the bill exceeding $1.5 trillion would go towards deficit reduction.

    In bold text, the document says “Senator Manchin does not guarantee that he will vote for the final reconciliation legislation if it exceeds the conditions outlined in this agreement.“

    While both Manchin and Schumer signed the document, Schumer wrote a note which said he’d “try to dissuade Joe on many of these.”

    “Leader Schumer never agreed to any of the conditions Sen. Manchin laid out; he merely acknowledged where Sen. Manchin was on the subject at the time,” said Schumer’s office. “Sen. Manchin did not rule out voting for a reconciliation bill that exceeded the ideas he outlined, and Leader Schumer made clear that he would work to convince Sen. Manchin to support a final reconciliation bill — as he has doing been for weeks.”

    As Politico notes, it’s unlikely Democrats will come down to Manchin’s figure, and it’s of course unknown if he’ll shift his figure higher (though recent comments suggests that’ll be a ‘no’), the document shows that Manchin does in fact have a top-line number.

    Manchin has met with President Biden several times since producing the document.

    “I wasn’t trying to be a fly in the ointment at all. I’ve never been. I’ve never been a liberal in any way shape or form,” said Manchin in a Thursday press conference after Politico‘s story went to print. “For them to get theirs, I guess elect more liberals. I’m not asking them to change. I’m willing to come from zero to $1.5” trillion.

    Manchin said on Wednesday the top priority of the Senate’s reconciliation bill should be tax reform, and he’s generally on the same page with most Democrats in his proposal — though his corporate tax rate idea is below Biden’s preference and that of House Democrats. Manchin is not alone there: Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said in an interview this week he also prefers a 25 percent corporate rate.

    Additionally, Manchin is calling for means testing on as many new programs as possible, including health care, child care and education, “targeted spending caps on existing programs” and “no additional handouts or transfer programs.” Manchin has repeatedly raised concerns about Biden’s plan potentially creating an “entitlement society.”

    Working on Sinema

    Democratic leaders have also been pressuring Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), another moderate Democrat who refuses to vote for the $3.5 trillion bill.

    “Senator Sinema said publicly more than two months ago, before Senate passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, that she would not support a bill costing $3.5 trillion. In August, she shared detailed concerns and priorities, including dollar figures, directly with Senate Majority Leader Schumer and the White House. Claims that the Senator has not detailed her views to President Biden and Senator Schumer are false,” said Sinema spokesman, John LaBombard. “She continues to engage directly in good-faith discussions with both President Biden and Senator Schumer to find common ground.”

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 19:40

  • Elliott Management Joins "Wolfpack" Of Activist Funds Targeting Toshiba
    Elliott Management Joins “Wolfpack” Of Activist Funds Targeting Toshiba

    Despite the tremendous rise and fall in SoftBank shares over the last 18 months, Elliott Management’s position in the Japanese telecoms-giant-with-a-VC-arm-attached is likely still in the green, partially thanks to Elliott’s strategy of pushing for more buybacks (although all the buybacks in the world likely couldn’t offset more “zeros” from soured investments in early-stage and mid-stage Silicon Valley startups).

    But, for better or worse, Paul Singer and his nearly $50 billion activist hedge fund have decided to apply the same approach (push for endless corporate buybacks) to a less-willing Japanese partner: Toshiba.

    According to the FT, Elliott has joined a “wolfpack” of activist funds who are investing in Toshiba, in an attempt to seize control of the Japanese giant and install management that would be more friendly to Elliott’s strategy for boosting the company’s share price: sell off several subsidiaries to PE buyers, then use the money raised to finance stock buybacks up the wazoo.

    Most Americans probably remember Toshiba for the DVD players, TVs and other consumer electronics it once produced and sold in droves. But in more recent decades, the company has been badly mismanaged. It was forced to sell off its once-prized chips business in 2018 to offset losses generated by a disastrous foray into the nuclear power business. Then, back in June, Osamu Nagayama, the chairman of its board, was ousted in a rare vote by shareholders to oust the chairman of a major Japanese firm in the wake of an accounting fraud scandal. In Japan, taking out board members and management in such a brusque style simply isn’t done.

    Now, the board is at a cross-roads. It’s in the final stages of a strategic review demanded by above-mentioned “wolfpack”. They’re pressuring the company to agree to set of measures that would beef up the stock price (selling assets, funding buybacks). According to the FT, activist and special events funds are “camped out in Toshiba’s shareholder register in the expectation that investors can force the company into a strategy that would significantly raise its share price.”

    Sources told the FT that Elliott’s stake hasn’t yet topped 5% (the threshold at which its ownership stake would need to be publicly disclosed). But in recent days and weeks, Toshiba’s board has engaged in “unprecedented levels” of talks with investors as the “strategic review” continues.

    Ultimately, the goal is a private equity buyout of the entire firm that could value the firm at more than $30 billion. If that doesn’t work, investors are hoping to force a sell-off of Toshiba’s most valuable subsidiaries and will use the proceeds to pump up the stock price the old fashioned way – with a torrent of buybacks.

    At this point, the FT says several of the activist funds have threatened the board and management, claiming that if the “strategic review” doesn’t include pursuing a deal with private equity, they will vote to oust the current CEO. However, interest on the PE side is apparently lukewarm, per the FT, which spoke to two large buyout firms that said they had looked at a possible buyout, and passed. Bloomberg later reported that Toshiba started pursuing a plan to go private back in May.

    Elliott confirmed its in investment in Toshiba to Bloomberg, saying it was “encouraged by the company’s underlying value.”

    “Our investment in Toshiba reflects our strong conviction in the company’s underlying value,” an Elliott spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “We have been encouraged by the constructive nature of our engagement with the company in recent months.”

    So, the big question now: will we see Toshiba be taken private by Apollo, Blackstone or one of their major competitors (we’ve heard Warren Buffett is interested in opportunities in Japan)? Or will it be broken down and sold for parts, allowing the financiers to extract this “value” in the form of profits…well, we don’t need to tell you what happens, you’ve probably seen Wall Street.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 19:20

  • Enlightened Algos: Democrats Demand Increased Corporate Controls To Protect Citizens From Their Own Dangerous Curiosities
    Enlightened Algos: Democrats Demand Increased Corporate Controls To Protect Citizens From Their Own Dangerous Curiosities

    Authored by Jonathan Turley,

    Below is my column in USA Today on the recent call by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) for Amazon to steer readers to “true” books on climate change. It is the latest example of Democrat’s embracing a type of  corporate governance model to carry out tasks barred to the government under the Constitution. Companies are now being asked to protect us from our own dangerous interests and inquiries. An array of enlightened algorithms will now watch over citizens to help them make good choices and read “true” things.

    Here is the column:

    Two centuries ago, rulers sought to convince subjects that they should embrace the notion of “enlightened despotism,” living without rights under the beneficent watch of overlords. Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II summed up the idea with the maxim “everything for the people, nothing by the people.”

    Today, we seem to be living in an age of enlightened corporate despotism, where social media and technology companies watch over what we read and what we discuss to protect us from ourselves.

    That corporate governance model was on display this month when Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called on Amazon CEO Andy Jassy to use algorithms to steer readers away from books that spew “misinformation.”

    Enlightened algorithms are already responsible for large-scale censorship across social media platforms that reach global audiences. They “stand the wall” as sentinels against dangerous ideas.

    Warren argued that people were not listening to the enlightened views of herself and leading experts.

    Instead, they were reading views of vaccine skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books, including “falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines and cures, including those written by the most prominent spreaders of misinformation.”

    Warren blamed Amazon for failing to limit searches or choices:

    “This pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.”

    In her letter, Warren gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views.

    What was most striking about this incident is that Warren was eager for others to see her efforts to promote a form of censorship.

    Once considered unAmerican and authoritarian, censorship has become a rallying cry from the left. Indeed, a new poll shows roughly half of the public supports not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.”

    In one critical hearing, tech CEOs appeared before the Senate to discuss censorship programs. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, but then pledged to censor more people in defense of “electoral integrity.”

    Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, however, was not happy. He was upset not by the promised censorship but that it was not broad enough.

    He noted that it was hard to define the problem of “misleading information,” but the companies had to impose a sweeping system to combat the “harm” of misinformation on climate change as well as other areas. “The pandemic and misinformation about COVID-19, manipulated media also cause harm,” Coons said. “But I’d urge you to reconsider that because helping to disseminate climate denialism, in my view, further facilitates and accelerates one of the greatest existential threats to our world.”

    Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal also warned that he and his colleagues would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” He demanded “the same kind of robust content modification” from the companies – the new Orwellian term for censorship.

    Others have sought even more “robust” action. For years, Democratic leaders, including President Joe Biden, have called for corporate censorship on a variety of subjects.

    Last year, Democratic Reps.  Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney of California wrote a letter to cable carriers like AT&T to ask why they are still allowing people to watch FOX News. (For the record, I appear as a FOX legal analyst). The members stressed that “not all TV news sources are the same” and called the companies to account for their role in allowing such “dissemination.”

    Washington Post columnist and CNN analyst Max Boot also wrote that cable providers should “step in and kick FOX News off.” New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof  insisted that “cable providers should be asked why they distribute channels that peddle lies.”

    CNN’s media expert Brian Stelter has called for censorship as “a harm reduction model.”

    Twitter, Facebook, and other companies have responded enthusiastically in banning those who question the official view of vaccines, climate change, elections or other subjects.

    Calling for companies to protect us from ourselves is the ultimate in enlightened despotism.  It is ironic that Warren has denounced the use of “racist” algorithms in biometric technology like facial recognition. She objects to the error rate in such algorithms but has few such concerns when other algorithms are used to curtail free speech.

    The embrace of corporate censorship reflects a change in attitude of many toward free speech. Once the very defining right of our constitutional system, it is now more often portrayed as an existential threat to that system. Speech is now “harmful” and allowing the expression of unpopular opinions is treated as an act of an accomplice.

    Once free speech is defined as harmful or violent, the algorithms can take it from there. At the urging of our leaders companies like Amazon can censor “everything for the people, nothing by the people.”

    We can then live under the enlightened despotism of governing algorithms that protect us from our dangerous curiosities.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 19:00

  • Taliban Condemns US Drone Flights Over Afghan Airspace, Warns Of "Consequences"
    Taliban Condemns US Drone Flights Over Afghan Airspace, Warns Of “Consequences”

    The Taliban is condemning the United States for violating Afghanistan’s airspace with drones, calling the flights a severe violation of prior US-Taliban peace agreements reached in Doha, warning of “consequences” should they continue. The statements come a week after the Pentagon said it won’t be asking “permission” to strike terrorists operating inside the country. 

    “The US has violated all international rights and laws as well as its commitments made to the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, with the operation of these drones in Afghanistan,” the Taliban announced Wednesday. “We call on all countries, especially United States, to treat Afghanistan in light of international rights, laws and commitments… in order to prevent any negative consequences,” it added. 

    Prior image of US drone over Kabul, via The Economist

    But in terms of imposing any significant “consequences” – the reality remains that the Taliban doesn’t have much in the way of aerial capabilities to take out US drones, other than helicopters and small aircraft it has seized following the rapid American troop exit over the summer, or perhaps very limited surface-to-air capabilities.

    The Biden administration has continually touted its “over the horizon” capabilities, while Pentagon spokesman John Kirby has followed by confirming there is “currently no requirement to clear airspace with the Taliban.” This after questions over the degree to which the US would cooperate with the Taliban in fighting ISIS-K have persisted. 

    According to Al Jazeera, the US is likely to see its ability to fly drones over Afghanistan despite the protests from Kabul justified based on its counterterror mission:

    …the US has argued that such actions are justified under international law when a government is “unable or unwilling” to address a threat from groups operating in its territory.

    So far it looks like regional countries surrounding Afghanistan have been largely unwilling to host US aircraft and spy planes. This means such aircraft have to operate from bases or carriers all the way over in the Gulf region. 

    Interestingly, on Tuesday in Senate testimony which focused on the Afghan pullout debacle, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley maintained that the US had “adhered to every condition” of the US-Taliban withdrawal agreement. However, he didn’t specifically address the question of drone flights and how he interprets such operations. 

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 18:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Sep 30

Today’s News 30th September 2021

  • War In Syria Heating Up Again, Prompting Tense Putin-Erdogan Summit
    War In Syria Heating Up Again, Prompting Tense Putin-Erdogan Summit

    On Wednesday Russia’s Vladimir Putin met with Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan in their first face-to-face summit in a year-and-a-half, also as tensions soar between the two countries on Syria policy. Their meeting in Sochi was lengthy, lasting about three hours, and comes just as Putin left self-isolation after members of his staff were infected with Covid-19.

    In Syria this week Russia’s military has expanded airstrikes near Idlib in support of the Syrian Army which is ramping up efforts to recapture a key highway in the northwest, but which has in turn triggered a Turkish troop build-up to deter pro-Assad forces from making advances in Idlib. 

    According to Al-Monitor a number of defense related issues have further complicated Russia-Turkey relations: “Coming days after Erdogan aired his dissatisfaction with NATO ally the United States, suggested that Turkey would acquire a second set of the Russian made S-400 anti-missile system and asserted that US forces should leave Syria, the stage is set for what may have otherwise been a less cordial reception at the Kremlin,” the report previewed. 

    Via TASS

    Official Russian press releases revealed scant details as far as specific stances taken during the meeting, but underscored the desire for “stability” in the Middle East region. 

    A statement via Russian state media indicated:

    In particular, Putin pointed to the successful cooperation of the two countries on the situation in Syria and Libya. He also focused on the work of the center to control the ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh. According to the Russian leader, this cooperation “is a strong guarantee” of stability in the region.

    The two leaders also talked energy cooperation, following the big announcement that the Russia-Germany natural gas pipeline Nord Stream 2 has reached completion early this month.

    Putin thanked Erdogan for his stance on the construction of TurkStream, owing to which Ankara feels safe amid the difficulties on the European gas market. The Turkish leader, for his part, touched upon the issue of a joint project – the construction of the first Akkuyu nuclear power plant in the country, whose first power unit may be unveiled already next year.

    But most likely Syria was the most contentious issue at the forefront, despite official assurances of “cooperation”. Despite the war long having fallen out of global headlines, indicators suggest it will ramp up again given Assad is looking to finally take back al-Qaeda occupied Idlib. But both the US and Turkey will without doubt condemn any aggression and bring charges of war crimes and threats to intervene militarily (similar to all prior Syrian Army attempts to enter Idlib).

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

    Both Moscow and Damascus have charged Turkey in particular with continuing to aid and abet terrorists in Idlib. Recall that the last time the war grew hot there, a major Russian airstrike killed at least 37 Turkish solders and a number of more Turkish-backed militants. That followed the 2015 downing of a Russian Su-24 jet by a Turkey F-16 fighter along the Turkey-Syria border, which saw relations between Putin and Erdogan plunge to a low point. 

    Syrian state sources have meanwhile confirmed Assad is preparing to advance operations in and around Idlib. Syrian newspaper Al-Watan reported the following days ago: 

    “The Syrian army and Russia have strong cards capable of forcing the [Turkish] regime of Recep Tayyip Erdogan to review the bad [decisions] its has taken to deescalate the situation.”

    Further Watan’s sources described that “the circumstances are now appropriate to impose a comprehensive settlement in Idlib, at least in the area south of the M4 highway. Such a settlement would require the withdrawal of terrorists from it to its northern side and to a depth of six kilometers in preparation for opening it [the road].” 

    This suggests a coming showdown between the Biden administration and Assad, also involving Russia – akin to the intensity of 2018 which resulted in the Trump White House bombing Damascus.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 02:45

  • UK Energy Crisis Shows Danger Of Net-Zero Emissions Policies: Aussie Senator
    UK Energy Crisis Shows Danger Of Net-Zero Emissions Policies: Aussie Senator

    Authored by Daniel Khmelev via The Epoch Times,

    The push for Australia to legislate a net zero emissions target has spurred discord from some government officials who firmly believe the climate policy could harm Australia’s energy security and industry amid the UK’s own unravelling energy crisis.

    Australia has faced criticism for not setting a 2050 net zero target—a goal already undertaken by many of the world’s developed countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom.

    But Nationals Senator Matt Canavan suggested that the UK’s unfolding energy crisis is a direct consequence of its “net zero” emissions plans via a shift to so-called renewables and banning coal power.

    “The UK has been trying to reach net zero. They’ve passed legislation to do that,” Canavan told 2GB radio.

    “They’re not there yet, but they’re on the path. And already down that path, they are seeing a situation where industry is being asked to shut down just to keep the lights on.”

    Over the last 50 years, the UK has weaned itself of coal generation and become more dependent on gas as its primary source of electricity generation – much of which is imported from Europe.

    Further, heavy investment into renewables over the last decade has also boosted wind output, contributing to 24 percent of total generation in 2020.

    The United Kingdom’s coal, gas, nuclear and renewable energy consumption from 1965 to 2019. Source: Our World in Data. (The Epoch Times)

    However, the UK has recently experienced a 400 percent spike in gas prices, and a 250 percent price rise for electricity after a confluence of unforeseen factors throttled the country’s supply—including record low wind levels, a fire at a major France-UK electricity interconnector, nuclear plant outages, and a gas shortfall sweeping Europe.

    This has already led to the collapse of some energy providers while forcing other industries—such as steelmaking and manufacturing—to opt to shut down during peak hours to avoid paying exorbitant energy fees.

    Canavan cautioned against a repeat of the policies that have led to the UK crisis, saying he disagreed with the current “net zero” approach, which does not include nuclear, as the legislation could undermine Australia’s critical infrastructure.

    “We should maintain the energy independence—we are lucky to have and grow our coal and gas production,” Canavan told The Epoch Times.

    Nationals Senator Matthew Canavan at a press conference at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia on Jun. 22, 2021. (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)

    Canavan also said that Australia could not afford to lose its energy independence amid concern of growing hostilities from Beijing.

    “I just don’t think this is the right decision for our country, especially at a time when our leaders and defence officials are very worried about the risk of conflict in our region, potentially being dragged into a risk of conflict with China. This is not the right priority,” Canavan told 2GB radio.

    “The right priority right now, surely, is to get more things [that are made in Australia]. That’s what we’ve got to do.

    “If you do not have a strong industrial economy, you will not defend yourself. If you cannot be energy independent, you will not defend yourself,” he said.

    “And so why would we seek to shut down our coal and gas industries which create an energy independence for us as a nation?”

    Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and leader of the National Party, Barnaby Joyce, has not explicitly spoken against a net zero target, but has said that Australia should also consider the economic impact caused by a shutdown of the nation’s coal industry.

    On the other hand, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said that a lack of a concrete net zero deadline could undermine investments flowing into Australia.

    “Markets are moving as governments, regulators, central banks, and investors are preparing for a lower emissions future,” Frydenberg said in an address to the Australian Industry Group.

    “Increasingly, institutional investors are themselves committing to the net zero goal, like BlackRock, Fidelity and Vanguard, three of the biggest fund managers in the world.”

    Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg speaks in Melbourne, Australia, on June 28, 2021. (Photo by WILLIAM WEST/AFP via Getty Images)

    Frydenberg said Australia’s economy relied heavily on imported capital to stimulate growth across the economy—including foreign investment stock worth $4 trillion (US$2.9 trillion).

    “Australia has a lot at stake,” Frydenberg said. “We cannot run the risk that markets falsely assume we are not transitioning in line with the rest of the world.”

    Environmental groups have also pressed Australia to fast track its emissions reduction efforts to address their concerns around ecological damage and global warming.

    Climate change advocacy organisation, the Climate Council, has urged Australia to commit to a net zero deadline ahead of the 26th United Nations Climate Change conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

    “Australia is refusing to increase its 2030 emissions reduction target, or commit to net zero emissions,” said Climate Council spokesperson and Emeritus Professor at Australian National University, Will Steffen. “The science is clear that the world urgently needs to reduce emissions this decade, but none of Australia’s commitments are a meaningful contribution to this goal.”

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 02:00

  • We Will Not Comply: Red States Should Offer Sanctuary To Businesses, Military, & Medical Personnel
    We Will Not Comply: Red States Should Offer Sanctuary To Businesses, Military, & Medical Personnel

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

    All it takes is one free place to change the dynamic between the public and an authoritarian regime. Just one.

    This week has been an extremely busy news cycle and there is a lot to cover, so along with my normal weekly analysis on one major topic, I am going to start writing shorter synopsis articles on developing news items happening in real time. I think everyone has noticed a marked and aggressive shift in the vaccine passport agenda being railroaded into existence by the Biden Administration and governments around the world. Remember when they all said that they were never going to demand forced vaccinations and that the passports were a “conspiracy theory”? Well guess what? We “conspiracy theorists” were right yet again.

    It used to be that we would predict a particular agenda or event and it would take a couple years to unfold. These days we make predictions and all it takes is a few weeks or a few months for them to happen. This suggests to me that the establishment and the globalists are on a specific timeline and that for whatever reason they MUST get 100% vaccination and the passports in place soon. I believe we have less than a year left before we see them attempt full bore medical tyranny in the US on a scale similar to what is happening right now in Australia, or perhaps worse.

    I continue to suspect that the reason for this sudden dive into totalitarianism is because there is something wrong with the vaccines themselves and if there are tens of millions or hundreds of millions of unvaccinated people left, then these people will act as a control group. That is to say, they will act as proof that the vaccines are not safe if things go awry. The establishment can’t allow that.

    As I have noted in past articles, the average vaccine is tested for 10-15 YEARS before it is released for use on human beings. This is to ensure that there are no damaging health side effects that might not become visible until months or years after the initial jab. A particular danger is the development of autoimmune disorders and infertility associated with mRNA and spike protein technology. These debilitating ailments might not be noticed for a couple of years after a population has been given the experimental vax. It has already been about a year since the covid vaccines were introduced by emergency authorization, so time is running short for the globalists.

    The bottom line is, there has been ZERO long term testing of the covid mRNA vaccines. At least none that has ever been revealed to the public. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that the covid vaccines are safe in the long term, they were developed and released within months of the covid outbreak. Yet, the establishment seems hell bent on forcing 100% of people to take these untested vaccines against their better judgment. It has been almost a century since we last saw government tyranny on this level, but this time it is almost all governments around the world acting in unison to implement mass controls on the public, instead of just a handful of nations.

    The Biden Administration and its corporate partners are now implementing a blitzkrieg against the American citizenry. Biden’s vaccine executive orders are creating a culture of “paper’s please” fascism among larger businesses and Big Box retailers. He has recently announced that part of the mandates will include fines against businesses that refuse to enforce proof of vaccination on their employees. These fines will range from $70,000 to $700,000, which could destroy a medium sized company if they actually had to pay.

    Medical personnel, primarily in leftist blue states, are now being fired from their positions because they have refused to comply with the vax. This is leaving massive gaps in medical response in places like New York. The unelected governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, claims she has the right to give herself dictatorial powers through executive order, and that these powers include deploying National Guard troops to take over medical duties. If you are familiar with the sordid history of VA hospitals, then you know that you do not want around 90% of military doctors operating on you in any capacity.

    Hochul is also raising eyebrows with a recent speech to a church audience in Brooklyn where she claimed that all the “smart people” have taken the vaccines and that the covid jabs are a “gift from God.” Her assertion was that if you defy the vaccine mandates, then you are ignoring God.

    This sounds rather familiar. Authoritarians often have a habit of declaring divine providence to justify their oppressive actions. Even Hitler did this, at least initially, holding state sponsored Passion plays and asserting that the Third Reich was the hand of God, until after they had secured an empire and then Hitler attacked Christianity. These types of people tend to use religion as a tool to get what they want and then they dump it in the gutter when they are finished with it.

    Keep in mind that none of these mandates are actual “laws”. None of them have been voted on by a legislature or the American people. They are color of law violations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be defied at every opportunity.

    And let’s not forget about Biden’s latest actions which seek to punish US troops that refuse the vaccines with dishonorable discharge. I’m not sure if Biden knows that a dishonorable discharge generally requires a trial by court martial in the military, or maybe this is what he actually wants for every single person that will not take the vax. In any case, the goal here is to terrify military members into submission and into accepting illegal orders. And yes, demanding that a soldier act as a lab rat for an experimental vaccine with no long term data to prove its safety is an illegal order.

    It’s hard to say yet what the real stats are, but recent polling suggests that at least 30% of the US military plans to refuse the vaccinations, including many members of special operations units.

    All of this over a virus with a tiny median death rate of 0.26%? Just to force people to take a vaccine that has been proven completely ineffective in countries like Israel where vaccination rates are high? When over 60% of people hospitalized with covid are fully vaccinated, then what is the point of the vaccines? It makes no sense unless the purpose was always tyranny and not public safety. So, where does this leave us?

    There are larger scale solutions to this problem, there are peaceful short term solutions, and there are more violent long term solutions. I will be discussing the violent options in my next article, but for now I think the best path forward is for red states and maybe even red counties is to offer safe haven or “asylum” to people who are under attack from these mandates.

    Red states could, hypothetically, give financial protection to businesses that refuse to comply with federal mandates and refuse to pay the fines. If thousands or tens of thousands of companies simply ignore the passports and the fines, what is Biden going to do about it? Well, he would have to send people form a federal agency, maybe the IRS, to collect by force. If states and communities stand in their way then there is nothing Biden can do to hurt businesses that believe in freedom.

    There is supposedly a shortage of experienced medical staff across the country right now, yet states like New York are firing up to one-third of their hospital workforce. Why not take advantage of their stupidity and offer these trained professionals jobs in red states or red counties? If these people know they have a safe place to go, then this might help give them the courage to continue their resistance.

    Finally, I think it’s a no-brainer that red states should offer help for military personnel that are facing discharge for vax refusal. A fight is coming, make no mistake, and free states need as many trained combat veterans on our side as we can get. Being dishonorably discharged makes future employment difficult in many career fields, and we can help these men and women to live normal lives if they make a stand. States like Kansas are already taking steps to make this happen.

    Conservative states and communities are going to have to step in, take risks and draw a line in the sand right here and now. We can stop this nightmare from gaining any further ground, but we have to act. I and many others are willing to help defend any business or any person that will not comply with the mandates, and state representative can send the same message to Biden by creating safe havens for free people. We need to continue to make it clear that we will not comply.

    *  *  *

    If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

    Tyler Durden
    Thu, 09/30/2021 – 00:00

  • Watch: NYC Garbage Truck Drags Dining Shed 10 Feet With Patrons Inside
    Watch: NYC Garbage Truck Drags Dining Shed 10 Feet With Patrons Inside

    The last 18 months haven’t exactly been a lazy boat ride for the people of NYC. COVID and a wave of hurricanes have taken their toll, and to top it all off, rostitutes and drug dealers re-emerge in to the city’s streets while surging violent crime and on-again, off-again protests have left the NYPD defunded and disillusioned.

    Underlying it all is the growing sense that the Big Apple is no longer “safe” for regular people. And as if a daytime shooting in crowded Times Square wasn’t enough, now diners need to worry about being steamrolled by a preoccupied city worker while trying to enjoy a meal in one of the outdoor dining sheds that have become commonplace across America’s city’s (and particularly New York) since the pandemic began.

    According to Gothamist, a Department of Sanitation truck plowed into an outdoor dining shed, dragging it and the diners inside about ten feet before it finally came to a stop. Shocking footage shared by Gothamist captures the aftermath. Fortunately, the two people inside the shed weren’t badly injured during the incident, according to the NYPD.

    A manager at the Greenwich Village restaurant Bar 6, described the incident as shocking.

    “It was shocking, definitely felt like an earthquake, seeing a structure drag across the street,” said Anna Socolof, a manager at Bar Six. “I was worried for the safety of our customers, and also for the safety of everyone involved.”

    Socolof complained to Gothamist that the bar had previously warned a local newspaper about “just such a possibility”

    But police played down the incident, telling the press that nobody was injured and no summons were issued to the driver.

    “Sanitation Workers have an incredibly difficult job keeping our streets clean,” DSNY spokesperson Joshua Goodman said. “We are relieved that no one was hurt in this incident, and will be conducting a full investigation.”

    As more garbage piles up in the city, and reports of rat infestations soar, the overburdened DSNY might find it increasingly difficult to successfully keep the city’s streets tidy while not pancaking pedestrians.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 23:40

  • Why The Globalists Hate Populism
    Why The Globalists Hate Populism

    Authored by M.Roberts via AmericanThinker.com,

    As a member of the U.S. government’s security apparatus, I have witnessed a level of groupthink that would shock even the most accredited academics associated with the leading internationalist think tanks.  As the professional class of international relations thinkers and their elitist dopamine peddlers in mainstream media continue launching their crusade against the so-called threat of populism, the people are again being actively pushed out of foreign and domestic policy. 

    The boogieman-version of populism that is being thrust upon cable news viewers is not entirely accurate.  This misconstrued definition in the modern American lexicon purports that populism is synonymous with authoritarian strongmen who intend to push nativist policies inherently referred to as racist. 

    But at its core, populism is concerned with the people and attending to the ordinary citizens of a nation, regardless of race and ethnicity, by giving them a voice in their respective societies.  The authoritarian context has been married to the term through a series of foreign demagogues who have utilized the façade of populist policies to gain momentum for their own political gains.  There is no shortage of names on the list of offenders, and there is no real purpose to go through them but to highlight that this concept has been hijacked by the global internationalist class as a window to achieve their own personal gain. Most ironically, the left has decided to label modern conservatism as a breeding ground for populist ideas; and I believe this to be a badge of honor that conservatives must take up with pride.  Clearly, leftist elitists still believe that their globalist-centered policies have created positive change by trying to remake the world in their own image.  Let us take a brief moment to review the fruits of the left’s endeavors.

    From the time of the United States’ unipolar moment in the 1990s until the present, the idea of globalization and U.S. economic and militaristic dominance became synonymous and interchangeable terms.  The elitists hoped to create supply chain diversity and free markets which, in turn, forced societies to live more harmoniously as they were all interconnected.  We can see that the only real positive change had eventually benefitted the corporate class who now had free reign in shaping the rules of the road and playing by their own rules.  The common people were left behind, failing to adapt to the vertical integration of society that came with globalization.  No longer were the Democrats concerned about projecting the idea that they were fighting on behalf of the working class.  No longer were they concerned about First Amendment issues.  In fact, the Democrats, who purported to be the party of anti-trust, had ultimately facilitated the growth of tech oligarchies into unimaginable monopolistic empires that censored First Amendment protected speech as a result of their incessant desires to obtain capital for their re-election campaigns.  Again, the people were left out of these conversations entirely.

    In parallel with a recent public awakening on America’s domestic policy pivots, we are seeing a seismic shift in public sentiment toward internationalist and globalist views of how America should act abroad.  We constantly hear from the think-tank class that domestic policy is foreign policy, and vice versa.  If that were true, then we would see an American foreign policy focused on American citizens’ interests.  We are constantly reminded that it is in America’s interest to be embroiled in Middle East conflicts and powerplays in Eurasia with a declining power that have no social and economic value for the average U.S. citizen.  We know these are empty statements, and even outright lies, as global lenders and the military-industrial complex became the primary benefactors from these entanglements.  So, what can be done? Part of the answer lies in the fact that the public cannot, and will not, be able to stay silent on their political beliefs much longer with the advent of new media outperforming legacy media.  The public is starved for honest journalists, real domestic initiatives that empower and employ the population with growth potential, and a foreign policy that is focused on the citizenry’s interests. 

    A logical solution to enacting positive change is to encourage the next generations to apply for government positions.  The permanent bureaucracy of government is arguably the most influential power structure that dominates our way of life.  The bureaucracy is charged with collecting your taxes, protecting you from crime, providing health benefits, and so on.  Even more, these individuals are not elected by you.  They are hired as you are within your respective lines of work.  They are meant to be accountable to you as public servants.  However, this bloated class of bureaucrats has become the most sclerotic, yet authoritative, entity that serves the outdated goals of the internationalists.  We often elect new leaders who vow for change and then become excited at the prospect of a shift in policy with a new incoming administration.  This age-old tale is retold, in different forms, every four years with no real shift in policies at the levels of government that matter.  We can thank the unelected permanent bureaucracy for this continual inaction, as they are beholden to the ideologies that have gained them their respective power in the halls of their workplaces.  If we are to change the way that government works for the people, we must encourage the future to invest in government service.

    The U.S. government has a funny way of listening to outside advice: it does not.  The bureaucracy is stuck in their assessments of the world within the context of their 1990s sense of idealism.  Analytical frameworks surrounding foreign policy and national security priorities often do not account for the people’s benefit.  If the think-tankers were correct about the synergy of foreign and domestic policy, then we would see a foreign policy that benefitted working-class people of all colors and creeds. 

    • The GOP must break away from their reactionary inklings of clinging singularly onto cultural war issues and pursue a strategy of ensuring the American public that the party supports their best interests, economically and socially. 

    • On the flip side, the Democrats have completely abandoned the notion of even considering the working-class voter in policy implementation, which presents an even greater advantage for GOP strategists to show voters the state’s obvious neglect. 

    What other choice do we have as a people but to make a change from inside the apparatus?  Encouraging young individuals to embark on a life of government service may not be easy, as the pay does not attract the attention that a silicon-valley tech giant might offer.  However, joining this system may yield the most consequential benefit for society: true representation within our government.

    *  *  *

    M. Roberts is a government security official who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 23:20

  • Victims "Stunned" After International Court Drops Probe Into US War Crimes In Afghanistan
    Victims “Stunned” After International Court Drops Probe Into US War Crimes In Afghanistan

    Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor is seeking approval to resume an investigation into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan but will “deprioritize” investigating suspected crimes by the US and its allies.

    Karim Khan, who took over as ICC prosecutor in June, said he would focus on Taliban and ISIS-K, citing recent allegations. ISIS-K took credit for the August 26th suicide attack at the Kabul airport that killed over 100 Afghan civilians and 13 US troops.

    Via Der Spiegel 

    Khan’s reasoning is that the ICC has limited resources, and the Taliban and ISIS-K are responsible for more recent alleged crimes. But the last known US airstrike in Afghanistan took place on August 29th, and it killed 10 civilians, including seven children.

    According to Al Jazeera: 

    A lawyer for alleged victims of US torture in Afghanistan was “stunned” after Khan announced he would “deprioritize” the investigation into American forces, a probe that has long enraged Washington.

    There were other instances in the final weeks of the US war in Afghanistan of civilians being killed by US airstrikes. In early August, US airstrikes in Lashkar Gah killed destroyed a health clinic and a school, killing at least 20 civilians.

    In 2020, the ICC moved forward with an investigation into alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan. The Trump administration reacted by slapping sanctions on ICC officials, which were lifted by the Biden administration in April. The investigation was on hold as the now-defunct US-backed Afghan government was promising to do the investigation on its own.

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

    While the Biden administration has lifted ICC sanctions, it has come out in opposition to the court’s decision to investigate alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the ICC is “unfairly” targeting Israel even though the ICC said it will also investigate claims made against Hamas.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 23:00

  • Did The President Of Robinhood Dump All His AMC Stock Right Before They Restricted Trading?
    Did The President Of Robinhood Dump All His AMC Stock Right Before They Restricted Trading?

    It may seem like ancient history now, but back in January the great WallStreetBets short squeeze was all the rage, having sent heavily shorted meme stocks like GME and AMC to unprecedented heights as millions of retail daytraders used their Robinhood account to pile on and buy in wave after seemingly endless wave in the process crushing reputable hedge funds such as Melvin Capital which needed multi-billion capital infusions to avoid being margin called to death. That wave, however, came to an abrupt end on January 28 when Robinhood took the unprecedented action to “render the financial system inaccessible” to millions of customers and investors, as a recently filed class-action lawsuit claims, when it went into sell-only made as the retail brokerage found itself short on regulatory capital as a result of the unprecedented buying tsunami, and imposed temporary bans on purchases of 13 heavily shorted stocks in the process ending the epic momentum wave and allowing a fresh round of short sellers – which the lawsuit claims included such financial scions such as Citadel – to generate material profits.

    The fact that Citadel also happens to be Robinhood’s biggest customer and pays the retail brokerage hundreds of millions to frontrun retail orders placed on the Robinhood brokerage in the form of Payment for Orderflow, only added to the complexity and reflexivity of the situation.

    We discussed this episode in great detail back in February in “Exposing The Robinhood Scam: Here’s How Much Citadel Paid To Robinhood To Buy Your Orders“ in which we said “Frankly, we’ve had it with the constant stream of lies from Robinhood and neverending bullshit from the company’s CEO, Vlad Tenev.” And while we laid out all the lies we had observed from both Robinhood’s CEO and Citadel, including Citadel’s threats to sue us into oblivion for alleging they frontrun their own customers only for FINRA to accuse Citadel of doing just that (resulting blessed silence from Citadel’s lawyers as far as we are concerned), the best summary of the entire January farce belonged to Michael Burry who on February said in a since deleted tweet that “The #mainstreetrevolution is a myth. Zero commissions and gamified apps were designed to feed flows to the two most influential WS trading houses. A few HFs got hurt, but if retail is moving toward more trading and away from fundamentals, WS owns that game. #Stonks by design.” Jeffrey Gundlach also piled on.

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

    Still, memories fade, and Robinhood’s dismal abdication of its fiduciary responsibilities was mostly forgotten especially after the company – which for a brief moment in late January was insolvent and urgently needed billions in rescue funding – went public and now has a market cap of over $37 billion.

    Yet not everybody forgot and a recent filing in a class action lawsuit filed in April in the Southern District of Florida (case 21-md-02989), revealed that a lot of what Robinhood and Citadel called conspiracy theories, was in fact true, culminating earlier this week when the top trending hashtag on twitter was #KenGriffenLied.

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

    Remarkably, the latest populist uprising against Citadel and Robinhood (incidentally, the same venue where most of those who slam Robinhood on social media also trade), prompted the two financial firm to respond to the renewed criticism of their actions during January’s meme-stock frenzy. As we reported on Monday, Citadel – whose founder Ken Griffin testified about the episode during a February congressional hearing and claimed there was no back and forth between his firm and Robinhood – fired off a series of tweets late Monday denying allegations that it pressured Robinhood to restrict trading. Apparently having gotten under Citadel’s skin, the defensive tweets continued late on Tuesday when the HFT-heavy internalizer first mocked conspiracy theorists saying that “there are those who still refuse to believe an American landed on the moon. Internet conspiracies and Twitter mobs try to ignore the facts, but the fact is that Citadel Securities was the pre-eminent market maker to the retail brokerage community in January 2021” before stating that “Citadel Securities never requested, intimated, agreed or otherwise sought to limit or to restrict the trading of such securities. On January 27th, we executed an astonishing 7.4 billion shares on behalf of retail investors.”

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

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

    At the same time, Robinhood said in an emailed statement Tuesday that the lawsuit paints “a false narrative of collusion” with Citadel Securities.

    Ken Griffin added a statement of his own on Tuesday: “It must frustrate the conspiracy theorists to no end that Vlad and I have never texted, called or met each other. But I must say, kudos to Vlad and his team at Robinhood for their remarkable success story.” Of course Griffin will be delighted by Robinhood’s success in enticing tens of millions of Gen-Z Americans to daytrade: after all frontrunning their orderflow (for which it generously paid Robinhood) is what allowed Citadel Securites to record its best year ever in 2020.

    In fact, when Griffin was congratulating Robinhood, he was really toasting to the success of Citadel Securities – which is perhaps best known for being the biggest buyers of Robinhood stock and option orderflow (which remains a perfectly legal strategy for Wall Street exchanges) with the intent of “price improvement” – in a year that was defined by economic pain and despair for many, but will go down as the most profitable for Wall Street firms in history. It will also allow Ken to add several more massive mansions to his already staggering collection.

    In any case, while we would love to take Ken Griffin on his word that nothing illegal took place, we will leave that to the discovery process. In the latest lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Citadel Securities amassed a substantial short position in GameStop and other stocks that exploded in value, and that the market-maker pressured Robinhood to stop customers from purchasing those shares, which the online brokerage did on Jan. 28.

    In fact, it appears we already know that Griffin lied: according to the complaint filed Sept. 22 in federal court in Miami, senior executives at both Citadel Securities and Robinhood had “numerous communications with each other that indicate that Citadel applied pressure on Robinhood.”

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

    According to the plantiffs who managed to obtain internal chat transcripts, on January 27 the day before the restrictions were implemented, high level employees of Citadel and Robinhood had numerous communications with each other, contrary to what Ken Griffin told Congress. Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that Citadel applied pressure on Robinhood to throttle (and eventually block) purchases in the heavily shorted names.

    The plaintiffs also argue that Citadel Securities stood to gain from stopping the short squeeze by purchasing new shorts positions at the peak of the squeeze and then profiting from the decrease in share prices as the buying momentum fizzled. As the next chat session between an unnamed Robinhood employee and Jim Swartwout, President and COO of Robinhood, indicates, on Jan 27 – after being told that several “very large” firms are having really bad nights, he had just had a conversation with Citadel which was “unbelievable” and revealed a “total mess.”

    Perhaps Swartwout can testify for the record just what this “unbelievable” conversation he had just had with Citadel was all about.

    James Swartwout, Robinhood President and COO

    So on to the infamous January 28 when shortly before Robinhood announced it would implement the dreaded PCO or “position closing only” policy which the plaintiffs allege was designed to artificially suppress the prices of Suspended Stocks – despite indicating that “we are too big for them to actually shut us down” referring to Tenev’s allegation that the NSCC was the one seeking the trading halt – we read from yet another internal chat that at least one Robinhood employee correctly predicted that “we are going to get crucified… for pco’ing.”

    Curiously, someone else had a similar bad feeling about the PCO: Citadel. According to the lawsuit, “former Citadel Securities Senior Vice President, in an internal chat with Citadel Securities Head of Execution Services, on January 28, 2021, at 1:48pm UTC, ““Robinhood moving the following EQUITY positions to CLOSING ONLY: AMC, GME, NOK, BB, NAKD, KOSS, EXPR, BBBY all PCO.” Citadel acknowledged, “this may cause some big moves.” (Emphasis added.) When asked about options at 1:55 p.m. UTC, Citadel stated, “options moving too . . . closing only in all symbols.”

    But while the nuances of who knew in advance, or who demanded, or who profited from the “code red” the PCO, and whether Citadel pressured and stood to profit from said PCO, will eventually be decided upon by the judge, one thing is a flashing red light that Gary Gensler and the SEC should immediately follow up on.

    On page 4 of the MDL amended complaint (docket 21-2989) we read that ahead of the PCO, “Robinhood  knew  at  the  highest  levels  of  the  company  that  its  risk  management  system was strained to the breaking point during the week of January 25th. Robinhood Securities President and COO, James (Jim) Swartwout, who Tenev points to as making the ultimate call to PCO, says in an internal chat on January  26, 2021, “I sold my AMC today. FYI  –  tomorrow morning we are moving GME to 100% – so you are aware.”

    Source

    Now, while the “we are moving GME to 100%” may refer to Robinhood demanding 100% margin on GME stock as of Jan 27 as the firm realized it didn’t have nearly enough client margin to satisfy regulatory requirements, the preceding fragment, “I sold my AMC today” can mean just one thing: Swartwout sold all his AMC stock on January 26, two days before the firm blocked tens of millions of clients from being able to buy it, in the process triggering a price collapse.

    It wasn’t until February 5, or one week later, that Robinhood would remove all restrictions in the trading of the meme stocks.

    Which brings us to the question posed by Dave Portnoy, whose long-running feud with Vlad Tenev is well-known: did “The President of Robinhood sold all his AMC right before they restricted trading.“

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

    We conclude with one tangent: every time Citadel is cornered and asked if they are frontrunning retail orderflow, they immediately change the subject and explain how they are making the market more efficient and saving investors so much money in commissions. Of course, what they don’t explain is how and why they end up making far more than the money they kick back to the brokerage for lost commissions. Here’s the answer:

    This, for lack of a better word, is frontrunning pure and simple. But because frontrunning is illegal if only when peasants do it, and sounds so much more sophisticated and noble when it is framed as “high frequently trading” and “payment for oderflow”, the market will remain broken because the corrupt, bought and paid for SEC will never dare to explain to ordinary Americans what a giant crime scene our markets have become. It’s also why nothing will ever change, and after all these lawsuits are settled, Citadel and Robinhood will be order to pay a few million dollars in settlement fees and life in the corrupt world of capital markets will go on as usual.

     

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 22:40

  • Generals Confess That Pentagon Knew "Within Hours" Drone Strike Killed Afghan Civilians
    Generals Confess That Pentagon Knew “Within Hours” Drone Strike Killed Afghan Civilians

    It took a full week after a New York Times visual investigation for the Pentagon to very belatedly admit its “tragic mistake” in a drone strike which killed 10 civilians, including 7 children. In total this was three weeks after the attack itself. Prior to that, military leaders had held firmly to the narrative that the Aug.29 airstrike stopped an “ISIS-K terrorist” – despite the narrative fast unraveling, yet they continued to talk about “confidence” in the intelligence. 

    A not so little detail emerged in Wednesday’s Senate hearing of top commanders: the narrative has now dramatically shifted to the Pentagon having known “within hours” that innocent civilians had been taken out in the botched attack, which in the end targeted a local humanitarian aid worker. Yet a Pentagon statement on the day of the attack said, “We are assessing the possibilities of civilian casualties, though we have no indications at this time” – which clearly downplayed the possibility civilian deaths and left it in doubt. 

    Getty Images

    The confirmation (and contradiction) of just what US military leaders knew and when they knew it came after Mississippi Republican Rep. Trent Kelley pressed top brass on the issue during Wednesday’s hearing. 

    “Well, so, we knew the strike hit civilians within four or five hours after the strike occurred, and U.S. Central Command released a press release saying that,” CENTCOM Commander Gen. Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie said. “We did not know, though, that the target of the strike was in fact in error, a mistake, until sometime later. It took us a few days to run that down.” Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley agreed it was the “same thing” for him. 

    Recall that Milley had previously hailed the operation as a “righteous strike”. But The Washington Examiner is now pointing out that the latest testimony confirms the Pentagon spin and outright falsehoods: 

    But it is not true that CENTCOM issued a press release confirming the airstrike hit civilians.

    CENTCOM spokesman Capt. Bill Urban released an initial statement on Aug. 29 saying, “U.S. military forces conducted a self-defense unmanned over-the-horizon airstrike today on a vehicle in Kabul, eliminating an imminent ISIS-K threat to Hamad Karzai International airport. We are confident we successfully hit the target.” Urban added, “We are assessing the possibilities of civilian casualties, though we have no indications at this time.”

    And more:

    Later that day, the CENTCOM spokesman released an “UPDATE,” in which he said, “We are aware of reports of civilian casualties following our strike on a vehicle in Kabul today,” claiming that “a large amount of explosive material inside” the car “may have caused additional casualties.” He added, “It is unclear what may have happened, and we are investigating further. We would be deeply saddened by any potential loss of innocent life.” The statement did not confirm civilian injuries or deaths.

    Again, the generals have now testified they knew within hours.

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

    So the Pentagon knew about the confirmed deaths “within hours” but continued to keep casting doubt on civilian deaths and holding the possibility at a distance, likely hoping reports of the deaths would get buried, or would remain ambiguous accusations – as the language of their early press releases suggest (with words like “unclear” and “may have happened” and the “potential” of civilian deaths based on being “aware of reports”). 

    It’s easy to conclude that had The New York Times not conducted its own detailed investigation, which included photos and video from on the ground, the Pentagon and Biden administration never would have been “caught” – and never would have admitted anything. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 22:20

  • The COVID Caste System
    The COVID Caste System

    Authored by Dinesh D’Souza, op-ed via The Epoch Times,

    Caste systems are not merely unjust; they are also ugly to behold. Commenting to me once on India’s caste system, when I was a child, my father said, “People in this country still use the word ‘untouchable,’ which is if you think about it a very unlovely term.”

    While India’s caste system persists despite being outlawed, America traditionally has not had a caste system.

    Until now.

    We can see emerging, right here in America, a sharp divide between progressive elites and ordinary citizens.

    This divide can be seen in multiple areas.

    Progressive elites have high walls protecting their homes, even as they declare that “walls don’t work.”

    They have private security, even as they insist Americans don’t need guns to protect themselves.

    They somehow elude accountability even when they break the same laws that get ordinary citizens into major trouble.

    Nowhere, however, is the new American caste system more evident than with COVID-19.

    Did you see Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) at the Met gala? The publicity focused on her “Tax the Rich” dress, but just as notable was the video, released by Vogue magazine, of AOC in full Cinderella mode, flanked by multiple attendants, straightening out her hair, fixing her dress, holding up the long train, adjusting her heels. They were all masked; she was not.

    This was hardly an isolated case. Shortly before the Met gala, the Obamas held a massive party to celebrate Obama’s 60th birthday. Again, the guests that included political leaders, business moguls, and Hollywood celebrities were all unmasked. The chefs, the servers, the valets, and the other staff were all masked. An upper caste and a lower caste, both playing their roles in Obama’s large tent.

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also just had a birthday, and video showed a small, unventilated room in which Jayapal and her maskless friends all partied together. It was the same story with San Francisco mayor London Breed, who violated her own mask mandate while partying at a club. “I was feeling the spirit,” she explained, “and I wasn’t thinking about a mask.”

    The Emmys, too, featured clip after clip of unmasked actors, producers, and directors walking the press photo line, and only when they crossed over to the other side could you see all the staff and attendants, masked of course, taking them back to their seats. Asked about this double standard, LA County’s  Health Department put out a statement saying that mask “exceptions are made for film, television and music productions,” because “persons appearing on the show are considered performers.” The virus, evidently, has no interest in infecting “performers.”

    To understand what’s going on in its widest significance, consider the true meaning of the famous phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “All men are created equal.” What does this phrase mean? At one level, certainly, it means that we enjoy equality of rights. The Constitution goes on to specify not merely equality of rights but also equal treatment under the law.

    This concept of equality of rights should not, as Abraham Lincoln emphasized, be confused with equality of outcomes. Human beings are obviously unequal in height, in speed, in beauty, in intelligence, even in moral character. An equal start in the race does not mean, obviously, that all individuals or even all groups must hit the finishing tape at the same time.

    Yet at the same time there’s a broader meaning to the equality provision that goes beyond rights. We are not merely equal as human beings, we are “created” equal. This means that we are equally the children of God, and it follows from this that God loves us equally and therefore there’s an equal dignity in persons that derives, ultimately, from the fact that they’re created by a transcendent God.

    How does this equal dignity play out in American life? It simply means that someone—say Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates—might have more money than you or me, but they are not better than you or me. In America, we have maids but not servants, and in many restaurants we call even the waiter “Sir,” as if he were a knight. The political philosopher Irving Kristol once said there’s no restaurant in America to which a CEO could go in the absolute assurance that he would not also find his secretary dining there.

    So the Declaration of Independence affirms a social equality that is the very antithesis of a caste system. Yet precisely what our founding documents reject, the progressive elite, mostly made up of Democrats, is attempting to create for the first time in America a society divided into an elite upper caste and a mass lower caste, with separate rules applying to each group, in accordance with their caste status.

    It’s unlovely. It’s downright ugly. It’s also immoral. And it’s certainly un-American.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 22:00

  • Australia's Corporations Rebel Against Government's Draconian COVID Lockdowns
    Australia’s Corporations Rebel Against Government’s Draconian COVID Lockdowns

    Australia’s corporate sector has finally had enough of the ongoing lockdowns that have left the country’s economy hobbled and its people cut off from the rest of the world for months.

    Increasingly frustrated by a slow vaccine rollout and the ongoing lockdowns, the leaders of many of Australia’s biggest companies, including BHP, Macquarie and Qantas have signed a letter demanding that the government acknowledge it’s time to “learn to live with the virus,” as many other countries have done, since “COVIDZero” has finally been exposed as an impossible dream.

    In the letter – which was reported on by the FT – the signatories allege that Australia is making “big mistakes” in failing to reopen to the world. By making the lockdowns so severe (and so unceasingly long), the Australian government is putting politics before the well-being of the Australian people ahead of the federal elections that must be held by the end of May – when the Senate’s present term is slated to expire.

    The companies that signed the letter “…employ almost one million Australians” and warned that lockdowns were having “long-lasting” effects on the economy. However, this shouldn’t be news to Australia’s political elite: Economists at Australia’s central bank, the RBA, already lowered their growth projections after a stronger-than-expected Q2 GDP print.

    But all the incremental data seen so far suggests that Q3 could be a disaster – well that, coupled with the intensifying economic pressure from Beijing, which is trying to win a geopolitical stare-down contest with the Australian government by blocking a growing number of imports.

    As for Australia’s infamous “drawbridge” border policy, the letter’s signatories insisted that the decision to close Australia’s borders was a colossal mistake. 

    “The borders should have never been closed,” Graham Turner, chief executive of travel company Flight Centre, told the Financial Times. “We’re making some very big mistakes here.”

    “It’s time for corporate Australia to turn its disquiet and rumblings into a roar,” said Greg O’Neill, the chief executive of Melbourne fund manager La Trobe Financial, one of the signatories to the open letter sent by the Business Council of Australia. “It is time for courage and honesty. Not politics.”

    Australian COVID cases have finally plateaued…

    …Yet, the country still has among the lowest vaccination rates in the developed world. Only 41.4% of the population is fully inoculated — well behind the UK (66.7%) and Canada (70.4%) and below the US, where 54.7% are inoculated.

    In the letter, the Business Council of Australia also warned about a quiet “mental health crisis” plaguing the country, a result of the lockdowns and other anti-COVID measures – “some of the impacts of current lockdowns are hidden, and the effects will be long lasting.”

    Corporate behemoths aren’t the only ones struggling with Australia’s COVID rules. Groups representing small businesses have made similar complaints. Alexi Boyd, CEO of the Council of Small Business Organizations, said the refusal to reopen internal and external borders has hampered the country’s economic recovery.

    Anti-lockdown protests have flared in Melbourne in recent weeks, leading to hundreds of arrests and chaos like protesters shutting down a major highway. The government in Victoria tried shutting down construction sites in the area after workers participated in the protests. Unsurprisingly, this only made demonstrators angrier. 

    In recent weeks, the Aussie government has shown some acknowledgement that they might have chosen the wrong course. But with his conservative Liberal Party trailing the Labor opposition in the polls, PM Scott Morrison is under a lot of pressure to stay the course and pray that the latest delta-driven wave finally subsides.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 21:40

  • President Biden's New Plan To Tackle Rising Food Prices
    President Biden’s New Plan To Tackle Rising Food Prices

    Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

    Watch it slip
    Watch it slide
    I bet $10 on the losing horse
    Feel the grip
    Of my bride
    Watch me do it again

    Where’s my dinner?!

    – Short Lip Fuser, Rocket from the Crypt

    Empty Stomachs

    Evergrande’s going down.  And it’s taking the life savings of countless good people down with it.

    But while Evergrande’s going down.  Food prices are going up.  Moreover, they’re going up a lot.

    According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), global food prices were up nearly 33 percent year over year in August.  Vegetable oil, grains, and meat all cost more.  Unfortunately, rising food prices – and empty stomachs – often presage social chaos and revolution.

    If you recall, a decade ago food inflation triggered the Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa.  And food shortages were commonplace in Communist Romania in the 1980s.  That was before the country’s dictator Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown, tried by a kangaroo court, lined up against a wall, and executed by firing squad on Christmas Day in 1989.

    Rare is the revolution ignited by a populace with a full stomach.  Historically, surges against an oppressive regime are sparked by a steep and extended rise in food prices.

    Leading up to the French Revolution, for example, famines were frequent.  In one instance, when Louis XVI’s clueless wife, Marie Antoinette, learned the peasants had no bread, she remarked, “let them eat cake.”

    What followed were the Flour War riots.  Not long after that, Louis XVI’s head rolled off the guillotine chopping block.  Then things really got bad.

    The Reign of Terror, led by the woke Jacobins, reigned over the land.  And the assignat currency, backed by land seized from the Catholic Church, blew up in a destructive episode of hyperinflation.  Before it was over Napoleon had channeled the discontent of a generation into a damaging misadventure to invade all of Europe.

    If only there had been a little more bread to go around.

    “I Don’t Eat Bread”

    When adjusted for inflation and annualized, the cost of food is higher than nearly anytime in the past six decades, according to FAO data.  Alastair Smith, senior teaching fellow in global sustainable development at Warwick University in the United Kingdom, recently noted:

    “Food is more expensive today than it has been for the vast majority of modern recorded history.”

    Governments officials from Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Romania, India, Turkey, Russia, and many more, are working overtime to somehow combat the menace of rising food prices.  Price controls, export taxes, fines, subsidies, trade restrictions…you name it.

    With a little luck, these efforts will support lower prices in the short-term.  But these failed policies always make things worse in the long-term.  When government officials artificially set the price of something below what it costs to produce they guarantee that supply will disappear.

    The Prime Minister of Romania, Florin Citu, is taking a more pragmatic approach.  He’s determined to avoid Ceausescu fate.  Thus, he wants to reduce his country’s dependence on imported processed foods.  He thinks this will reduce costs and narrow the trade deficit.

    We wish him well.  When recently asked about the rising cost of a loaf of bread, he remarked: “I don’t eat bread.”

    Does he eat cake?

    Yet it’s not just developing countries that are feeling the pinch…

    In the United Kingdom, for example, rising natural gas prices are threatening the food supply.  Several fertilizer plants in the UK have had to suspend operations because of soaring natural gas prices.  And now carbon dioxide, a byproduct of fertilizer production, is in short supply.

    Carbon dioxide, if you didn’t know, is used to stun chickens and pigs before slaughter, and for packaging and dry ice to keep meats frozen during delivery.  Without carbon dioxide, the food supply chain breaks.  Already, deliveries of frozen food to customers have been halted.

    Who would have thought that carbon dioxide, something world improvers consider a poisonous greenhouse gas, was so valuable?

    President Biden’s New Plan to Tackle Rising Food Prices

    Here in the USA rising food prices have Whitehouse staffers working overtime too.  Their primary purpose at this point is to assign blame to someone else.

    Government lockdowns and the resulting supply chain breaks and labor shortages are mysteriously overlooked as causes of rising food prices.  The creation of upwards of $4 trillion in printing press money is largely ignored…other than noting that government stimulus kept per capita demand for meat steady.

    No, in the eyes of Whitehouse staffers the government can do no wrong.  Instead, these scholarly elites have come up with a real boogeyman for people to rail against.  In their very own Whitehouse blog – chock-full of bar charts, line graphs, and infographics – their culprit is explicitly identified.

    According to President Biden’s underlings, rising food prices in America are the direct result of “pandemic profiteering” by the four large meat processing companies.  Here’s their rationale:

    “Four large conglomerates overwhelmingly control meat supply chains, driving down earnings for farmers while driving up prices for consumers.  The meatpacking industry buys cattle, hogs, and chickens from farmers and ranchers, processes it, and then sells beef, pork, and poultry on to retailers like grocery stores.  The industry is highly consolidated, and serves as a key choke point in the supply chain.

    “That consolidation gives these middlemen the power to squeeze both consumers and farmers and ranchers.  There’s a long history of these giant meat processors making more and more, while families pay more at the grocery store and farmers and ranchers earn less for their products.  Absent this corporate consolidation, prices would be lower for consumers and fairer for farmers and ranchers.”

    To be clear, we have little inside knowledge of the meat processing industry.  From what we can tell it’s likely just as corrupt and crooked as the banking industry, the auto industry, the oil industry, the retail industry, the healthcare industry, the high-tech industry, the mining industry, the entertainment industry, and every other industry out there.

    Quite frankly, there’s no industry left that hasn’t been spoiled and besmirched by one fraud or another.  But no industry is more crooked than the U.S. government.  And like most policy reports outlining the case for ramping up government intervention, the argument is incomplete.

    Do the authors know why the meat processing industry consolidated in the first place?  Do the authors really know that absent consolidation prices would be lower for consumers?

    In truth, they care little about the answer to these questions.  What they care about is that consolidation in the meat processing industry makes a good story for why food prices are rising.  What’s more, this story provides justification for the government to spend gobs of money that isn’t theirs for the noble purpose of making the world a more comfortable and agreeable place.

    Per the Whitehouse blog:

    “As we restart the world’s largest economy and make great strides in the economic recovery, the Biden-Harris Administration is committed to restarting right for the American people—consumers and producers alike—by transforming the food system.  This is a pivotal moment of opportunity to build back a better food system that is fair, competitive, distributed, and resilient.”

    Hence, President Biden proposes to tackle the meat processing industry head on.  He plans to funnel $1.4 billion in COVID-19 pandemic stimulus money to small meat producers and workers.  He promises to “crack down on illegal price fixing.”  He’s also formed a new White House Competition Council to “make the food system fairer and more equitable.”

    Without question, anyone with half their marbles already knows how this story ends…

    Government intervention discourages production, inflates prices, and, if pushed far enough, leads to empty shelves at the supermarket.  After that, it leads to empty stomachs…and the social chaos that follows.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 21:20

  • Saving For A Home-Downpayment Now Takes Even Longer… Thank The Fed
    Saving For A Home-Downpayment Now Takes Even Longer… Thank The Fed

    America’s working-poor, or put another way – whatever is left of the middle class – continue to get screwed by the Federal Reserve and their easy-money policies that have inflated both home prices and rents to unaffordable levels. 

    For the average person, saving 10% of monthly income towards a 20% down payment on a median-priced US home has jumped one year, from seven before the virus pandemic to now eight, according to Bloomberg, citing new data from Tomo, a real estate startup.

    The Fed buying $40 billion per month in MBS has kept mortgage rates pinned at ultra-low levels; and combined with extremely tight housing inventory, this was the perfect trigger to spark bidding wars that pushed home values across the country to record high levels. 

    Renters who had hopes of living the American dream by owning a home have become shocked by the surge in home prices over the last year…

    Skylar Olsen, the principal economist at Tomo, said the people who save for a down payment “are the people who can. Folks who have a lot of rent burdens tend to save nothing, and there’s always a fairly sizable share of the population who have a pretty substantial rent burden.” 

    Tomo data showed the highest years-to-save on a per metro basis. The highest was Los Angeles at 19.2, San Francisco at 17.9, and San Jose at 18.2. In Seattle and New York, it takes about 12.3 years and 11.9 years, respectively, for the average person to save for a down payment.

    Even then, waiting more than a decade indicates prices will continue to go higher unless the Fed reverses course on easy monetary policy. 

    Recent data from the National Association of Realtors shows first-time buyers’ share of existing- home purchases declined to 29% last month. 

    At some point, people will figure out The Fed is the root cause of the housing mania, and most importantly, why they can no longer afford a home and are stuck in ‘renter nation’ where they can hardly build any savings.

    As Ron Paul recently noted, this is the biggest lie of all – while The Fed was taking extraordinary efforts to ‘stimulate’ the economy, the unelected officials in the Marriner Eccles Building enabled the impoverishment of ordinary Americans, enrichment of the elites, and facilitated unprecedented government debt and deficits.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 21:00

  • A Dose Of Reality About Crime In America
    A Dose Of Reality About Crime In America

    Authored by Andrea Widburg via American Thinker (emphasis ours),

    Whether one agrees with David French or not, he is a bright man.  When he writes about alternative approaches to treating criminals, given the unprecedented rise in crime over the last year, perhaps it’s worth paying attention.  Or perhaps it’s not.  A brilliant Twitter thread exposes facts that French conveniently ignores.  More than that, the thread reveals that soft-headed criminal justice reform is incredibly cruel to the communities most affected by crime.

    After a wordy introduction meant to prove his woke bona fides, French gets to the point: there’s been a 29% increase in crime over the last year.  French skips completely over the “why” of this increase (hint: “defund the police”) because he wants to discuss a more Sunday sermon point, which is that the system has been riven in the past with injustice, and we now have the opportunity to change that.

    French accurately says there is no justice when criminals or police get away with violating the law.  Under-policing is also a form of injustice, he says, although how he manages to say this and then takes eight paragraphs before mentioning the defund the police movement is beyond me.

    That’s just a warm-up, though. The real point French wants to make is that “vengeance is unjust” and that “proportionality is an absolutely indispensable element of justice.”  May I quote my kids from their teenage years here?  “Well, duh.”

    And that’s when French falls into the fallacies every leftist does, which is to point to the fact that lots of people in America are imprisoned for having committed crimes.  And of course, he castigates Three Strikes laws, which are easy targets (although I’m betting a lot of people in Chicago who are preyed upon by people revolving through prison doors would love a little Three Strikes justice, or any justice, for that matter).

    And then it’s all about over-incarceration, and the 2021 Brennan Center for Justice study, and, of course, “the vast racial disparities in both incarceration and sentencing.”

    But you know what?  According to Delano Squires, who, like French’s adopted daughter, is Black, that’s a gross over-simplification that leads to policies that harm people in those neighborhoods most affected by crime.  Let me turn this post over to him and his powerful, fact-based, very polite tweets:

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

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

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

    Continued:

    As is the case in many other areas of American life, the people with the loudest megaphones have NO IDEA what they are talking about. They make arguments based on well-worn talking points, euphemisms, and a desire to look like compassionate, empathetic people. This inability or unwillingness to deal honestly with the data causes the second problem—misplaced sympathies. You hear it even in how the issues are framed—CRIMINAL justice vs. PUBLIC safety. So French and others think America has an “over incarceration” problem.

    But he never says what the appropriate level of incarceration should be. Reformers never do. They note a disparity and assume the main problem is the effect, not the cause. He also notes that prison doesn’t have the rehabilitative effects many citizens desire. But what people who live FAR from belly of the beast fail to realize is that while it is amazing to see a person turn their life around in prison, the main point of removing ppl from society is to PROTECT the law-abiding and innocent from the law-breaking and guilty.

    I highly doubt French would argue that we should rethink prosecuting hate crimes because perpetrators may become even more racist in prison. And I certainly don’t see him writing an article in The Root explaining to black people why such a move would advance the cause of justice.

    Lastly, there is the issue of policy trade-offs. If reformers think that theft under $1000 should not be prosecuted, they should be prepared to speak honestly about the effects that decision will have on the victims—whether CVS or the mom-and-pop store—and the community at large. Same with other offenses, including violent ones. When order declines—often abetted by bad public policy—the slide into chaos is quick and costly. Reformers talk a good game until the first shot pierces their window or until their child is the one who is carjacked at gunpoint.

    *  *  *

    When Dennis Prager played on my local radio station, I remember him saying, quite often, “Being kind to the cruel means being cruel to the kind.”  David French, like so many White liberals, has let his condescending biases and inaccurate facts get in the way of advancing policies that will genuinely help crime-ridden neighborhoods.  His view will simply perpetuate a system in which well-meaning, racist, and uninformed Whites push for policies that are indescribably cruel to the poor people of all colors trapped in neighborhoods affected by those bad policies.

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

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 20:40

  • Biden Admin Denies Entry To Chartered Rescue Flight Carrying American Citizens & Afghans
    Biden Admin Denies Entry To Chartered Rescue Flight Carrying American Citizens & Afghans

    A nonprofit organized by a loose network of veterans and current service members to help evacuate vulnerable Americans and Afghans from Kabul is seeing a chartered flight with more than 100 Americans and green-card holders being denied entry to the US by the Department of Homeland Security, according to a Reuters report.

    Bryan Stern, a founder of non-profit group Project Dynamo, which organized the flight, told Reuters during a call from the plan that they are being held up in Abu Dhabi after arriving from Kabul with 117 people including 59 children. The flight includes a mix of American citizens, green card holders and SIV holders.

    “They will not allow a charter on an international flight into a U.S. port of entry,” Stern said of the Custom’s and Border Patrol, which is part of DHS.

    Stern spoke to journalists from aboard the chartered plane, leased from Kam Air, a private Afghan airline. Stern said the group had been sitting for 14 hours already with no clear resolution in sight.

    Stern’s Project Dynamo is one of several groups working on organizing these types of flights, aimed at getting those who have been approved for entry into the US out of Afghanistan.

    It’s not clear why the Biden Administration would bar entry to the flights. A DHS official hasn’t commented on the situation to the press.

    An official who spoke off the record to Reuters said they weren’t familiar with the situation, but that the US sometimes takes time to review flight manifests before allowing chartered flights into the country. After all, Biden has repeatedly said that repatriating Americans and Afghans in danger is a top American priority.

    According to Stern, 28 Americans, 83 green card holders and six people with SIVs.

    Stern expressed his frustration with both the delay and the radio silence from the Biden Administration.

    “I have a big, beautiful, giant, humongous Boeing 787 that I can see parked in front of us,” he said. “I have crew. I have food.”

    Stern said that he had planned to transfer his passengers to a chartered Ethiopian Airlines flight that would eventually get the to JFK. Customs had cleared the trip, but then suddenly changed the clearance to Dulles International Airport outside Washington, before denying the plane landing rights anywhere in the US.

    Stern said he had received approval from local Afghan Aviation authorities (controlled by the Taliban government) before organizing the chartered flight.

    While there of course might be legitimate reasons for the holdup, going this long without any kind of communication seems like a screwup, or maybe something worse.

    We can’t help but wonder how the Trump Administration would have handled this.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 20:20

  • Kemp: China's Electricity Crisis Caused By Coal Shortage
    Kemp: China’s Electricity Crisis Caused By Coal Shortage

    By John Kemp, Reuters energy reporter and columnist

    China is in the grip of a severe shortage of both coal and electricity as the economy has resumed strong growth after the coronavirus recession but coal mine output has failed to keep up, leaving generators short of fuel.

    Reflecting a booming economy, China’s electricity generation increased by 616 Terawatt-hours (13%) in the first eight months of 2021 compared with the same period last year.

    Consumption growth has been led by the service sector (+22%) and primary industries (+20%), with somewhat slower but still fast increases from manufacturing (+13%) and residential users (+8%).

    Most of the increase has been supplied by thermal generators, principally coal-fired power stations, which increased output by 465 TWh (14%) in the first eight months, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).

    Hydro-electric output has actually fallen slightly this year and is running at the lowest level since 2018, intensifying pressure on thermal generators to make up the shortfall.

    Thermal generation units ran for an average of 2,589 hours in the first seven months of the year, up from 2,321 last year, an increase of 12%, according to the China Electricity Council, which represents power producers.

    Confirming the increase in thermal generation, freight movements on the national rail network were up 11% in the first eight months of the year.

    Coal is the most important commodity hauled by rail, accounting for 50% of the tonnage loaded and 42% of the tonne-kilometres. Rapid growth in rail freight so far this year is consistent with heavy demand for coal from power generators and industrial users.

    But coal mine production has climbed by just 6% compared with 2020, according to monthly reports from the NBS.

    The result has been a severe depletion of coal inventories which has contributed to low stocks at many power plants and upward pressure on coal prices.

    Coal prices have more than doubled to almost $210 per tonne, up from just $90 this time last year, based on the most actively traded contract on the Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange.

    Responding to the shortage, top regulators at the National Energy Administration and the National Development and Reform Commission have emphasised the need to increase domestic coal and gas production to secure energy supplies this winter.

    The largest and most efficient coal mines in the provinces and autonomous regions of Shanxi, Inner Mongolia and Shaanxi have been instructed to boost output urgently to help replenish coal stocks.

    Provincial governments and power generators in northern provinces and on the east coast are also trying to buy additional supplies from Mongolia, Russia and Indonesia, which is pushing up international prices.

    As the crisis has intensified, China’s State Grid, responsible for transmission across most of the country, except for the far south, has pledged to maintain electricity supplies to residential customers and an all out fight to meet basic power needs this winter.

    But the fact so many organizations and senior officials have felt the need to emphasize their determination and plans for ensuring winter fuel supplies is an indication of how serious the coal and electricity situation has become.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 20:00

  • Dems Propose Subsidized 20-Year Mortgages For First-Generation Homebuyers
    Dems Propose Subsidized 20-Year Mortgages For First-Generation Homebuyers

    In a world where the biggest asset bubble in history means home prices are now rising at a never before seen 20% pace, dooming tens of millions of of potential homeowners to a life of renting, Democrats have had another glorious solution how to “fix” the problem of unaffordable housing, which may help in the short run only to lead to an even greater crisis a few years down the line. It is, of course, even more market-warping subsidies.

    As part of the raft of new legislation designed to spur first-time homeownership in America, a remarkable bill has joined the fray: its sponsors propose creating a new subsdizied 20-year-fixed-rate mortgage program through Ginnie Mae, HousingWire reports.

    According to the bill, Ginnie Mae in tandem with the Department of the Treasury would subsidize the interest rate and origination fees associated with these 20-year mortgages, so that the monthly payment would be in line with a new 30-year FHA-insured mortgage. The move – which is an explicit subsidy of one share of the population by another – could, in theory, “allow qualified homebuyers to build equity-and wealth- at twice the rate of a conventional 30-year mortgage.” Instead, what it will do is lead to is an even bigger housing bubble.

    The legislation, dubbed the “Low-income First Time Homebuyer (LIFT) Act,” would create a program through the Department of Housing and Urban Development that would sponsor low fixed-rate 20-year mortgages. The bill is sponsored by Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), and Jon Ossoff (D-GA).

    To qualify, one would have to be a first-time, first-generation homebuyer, with an income equal to or less than 120% of the area median income.

    An example of how the subsidized mortgage would work:

    • Today, a first-time homebuyer of modest means purchasing a property for $210,000 is likely to put down $10,000 and take out a $200,000 mortgage. In today’s market, a lender would offer this borrower a 2.75% 30-year FHA-insured mortgage, for which the borrower would pay an annual 0.85% FHA insurance fee and a 1.75% up-front insurance fee, which would be folded into the mortgage. The borrower would have a monthly payment of $970.
    • Under the LIFT program, the lender would instead offer this homebuyer a 1.50% 20-year FHA insured mortgage, which would include a 4.00% up-front FHA fee that would be folded into the loan and no annual FHA premium. The borrower would have a monthly payment of $1,004.
    • By paying roughly the equivalent monthly payment, a borrower with a LIFT loan would build equity twice as fast.

    • Furthermore, because LIFT rates are tied to the FHA 30-year, even if mortgage rates rise, a LIFT loan would continue to pay down – and build wealth – at about twice the rate of the 30-year mortgage.

    “The number one way that middle class Americans build wealth is through homeownership, an opportunity that due to racism and structural inequality has been denied to too many families of color,” Warner said in a statement. “Today, Black families in this country have an average net worth just one-tenth the size of their white counterparts.”

    In the past couple of months two versions of the $15,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit and Rep. Maxine Waters’ (D-CA) Down Payment Towards Equity Act of 2021 were introduced as alternatives for addressing housing inequity.

    The response from some fair housing advocates to the LIFT Act has been lukewarm so far. Some sources expressed worry that if significant money is allocated to this program, funding for Rep. Maxine Waters’ down payment assistance bill – a favorite among fair housing advocates – might not come.

    Former FHA commissioner, Dave Stevens, said that Warner’s bill has the potential of getting traction in Congress.  This first-time homebuyer bill has a “unique combination of Republicans and Democrats that have aligned on how this thing can work,” Stevens said.

    Additionally, the legislation is “very limited” and specifically geared towards first-generation homebuyers, addressing worries of a bill being too broad, resulting in minority homebuyers getting pushed out of purchasing a home.

    “In Congress right now, and I would guess the White House, they would like to see both Maxine Waters down payment assistance bill and this one make its way to the reconciliation process,” added Stevens. “If you could get a modest amount of dollars for both Chairwoman Waters’ piece of legislation as well as for the LIFT bill, you get some really good dollars targeted for first time homebuyers.”

    Dave Dworkin, CEO of the National Housing Conference, said that down payment assistance is still the number one option for increasing homeownership: “[The LIFT Act and Waters’ down payment assistance] have to go together,” he said. “Our first priority is creating homeowners and our second priority is to accelerate wealth building.”

    Dworkin added that NHC “would like to see at least $20 billion to $50 billion go to down payment assistance.”

    Meanwhile, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, commented that there are upsides to the bill, mainly that it “preserves affordability and supports homeownership” while also allowing homeowners to rapidly accumulate equity.

    “LIFT is among the most effective ways policymakers have to address the nation’s pernicious problem of large and widening economic disparities,” he said. The only troubling language with the LIFT Act, said Stevens, may be the attestation clause.

    “I mean, the real question is how do you prove that you’re a first-generation buyer,” said Stevens. “As long as a borrower attests to the fact that they’re first generation, they technically are able to apply.” As a reminder, the 2007 housing crisis was in large part the result of tens of millions of Americans lying about their income and their net worth on (multiple) mortgage applications. Everyone knows how that ended.

    “That’s the only area where I think there could be some moral hazard,” Stevens concluded as if that wasn’t enough. .

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 19:40

  • Republicans Warn DHS Is Planning To Fire Unvaxx'd Border Patrol Agents
    Republicans Warn DHS Is Planning To Fire Unvaxx’d Border Patrol Agents

    Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

    Republicans have warned that according to an insider at the Department of Homeland Security, the agency’s head Alejandro Mayorkas plans to FIRE border agents who are unvaccinated.

    The whistleblower claims that the DHS will off a significant potion of the border workforce if they do not comply with the vaccine mandate and get the shots before November.

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

    The ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jim Jordan wrote to Mayorkas asking for an explanation.

    “While our border is facing this serious crisis, we have learned that you are threatening to terminate a significant portion of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) workforce,” Jordan wrote.

    Jordan added “On September 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14043 requiring federal employees to fully vaccinate against Covid-19 or face termination of their employment.”

    “It has come to our attention that the men and women of CBP have been given official notice that they must be fully vaccinated by November 2021 or face termination,” Jordan further stated, urging that “It is simply unbelievable that the Biden Administration will allow Covid-positive illegal aliens to surge across the border but will terminate dedicated law-enforcement officers who do not comply with Biden’s mandate.”

    The development comes after Mayorkas declared that the flood of illegal migrants at the border, and the subsequent release of thousands of them into the U.S. is “one of our proudest traditions.”

    Fox News host Chris Wallace asked why the Biden administration hasn’t erected a “wall or a fence” in response to the crisis.

    Mayorkas responded “It is the policy of this administration: we do not agree with the building of the wall.”

    When asked exactly how many migrants have come into the U.S. from the latest wave, Mayorkas said “I think it’s about ten thousand or so, twelve thousand,” adding “It could be even higher. The number that are returned could be even higher. What we do is we follow the law as Congress has passed it.”

    Wallace also noted that almost half of the migrants are never seen again, failing to appear at asylum court hearings.

    “There are more than 11 million people in this country illegally. Clearly, despite your best efforts, millions of people end up in this country and don’t – just disappear,” Wallace noted.

    Watch:

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

    *  *  *

    Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

    In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 19:20

  • Here Is How Immunity To COVID Varies By Country: Goldman
    Here Is How Immunity To COVID Varies By Country: Goldman

    As evidenced by Goldman Sach’s decision to cut its growth outlook for China to zero in the face of the unfurling energy crisis plaguing the world’s second-largest economy with unexpected blackouts, the coronavirus is no longer the single biggest threat to global growth (particularly as Europe faces a potential energy crisis of its own).

    That being said, gauging the global population’s present (and projected) immunity levels is critical to an investment bank’s broader global economic forecasts (along with being the subject of frequent client inquiries, we suspect). And so, after assiduously monitoring the global delta wave (with forecasts that have been mostly accurate with a few exceptions) Goldman’s team is taking on the task of gauging global immunity. It’s a hefty undertaking: after all, plenty of Democrats refuse to even acknowledge natural immunity, even as some studies have shown it might be even more effective against delta than the Pfizer jab.

    Goldman’s forecast relies on a few critical assumptions that are at least partly borne out by “the science”:

    • Vaccine efficacy against hospitalizations remains close to 90% for most vaccines six months after vaccination.

    • This implies elevated effective protection rates against hospitalizations across most major economies, at around 70% in the US, the UK, and the Euro Area, 60% in China and India, 50% in Japan, and 65% on a global GDP-weighted basis, nearly 50pp higher than six months ago.

    • Presently, 80% of the American population now has some immunity through either vaccination or infection.

    • We find an effective protection rate against infections of around 60% in the US, the UK, and the Euro Area, 55% in India, 45% in Japan, 40% in China, and 50% on a global GDP-weighted basis, all below the theoretical herd immunity threshold required to eliminate the highly transmissible Delta variant.

    Goldman points out that recent studies confirm that vaccine protection wanes over time and the rate varies by vaccine. But Goldman calculated an average rate and charted how odds of infection vs. hospitalization and death (which are much, much lower) decline over the first few months after vaccination.

    Exhibit 2 shows Goldman’s latest US immunity estimates. The analysts estimate that 80% of the American population now has some form of immunity through either vaccination or infection. Combined, that leaves us with an effective protection rate against infections of 60%.

    Looking at the emerging world, immunity rates are understandably significantly lower – by roughly 20% on average compared with the US.

    Here’s how that breakdown looks for the developed world.

    According to Goldman, their analysis effectively comes with some good news, and some bad news. The bad news is that, since herd immunity is effectively out of reach for humanity at this point, reviving certain types of economic activity like nightclubs, concerts, and other live events to their pre-pandemic levels will be difficult. The good news is at least humanity’s resistance to COVID is improving, not degrading.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 19:00

  • Are Democrats Repeating The Mistakes Of 2016?
    Are Democrats Repeating The Mistakes Of 2016?

    Authored by Conrad Black via AmGreatness.com,

    Anti-Trump and NeverTrump Republicans won’t help Democrats. America and the world should start preparing for Donald Trump’s return…

    As we get to the midpoint between the last presidential election and next year’s midterms, all political sides are expending extraordinary effort to ignore the 900-pound gorilla in the formerly smoke-filled room of American politics.

    This, of course, is Donald Trump. 

    The Democrats are still outwardly pretending Trump has gone and that his support has evaporated. They also pretend they can hobble him with vexatious litigation and, if necessary, destroy him again by raising the Trump-hate media smear campaign back to ear-splitting levels. 

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), even as she finds the ground shifting beneath her feet over the administration’s incontinent spending ambitions, is seeing her effort to promote the January 6 trespass at the U.S. Capitol as an outrage on the scale of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 overshadowed by the Afghanistan disaster and the cascade of other blunders and improvidences of the Biden Administration.

    Apart from a few veteran and some recently recruited NeverTrumpers joining in the tired pieties about the regrettable January 6 episode, the Democrats appear to be repeating the mistakes of 2016. They hope formerly mainstream Republicans who failed to repel the GOP base from supporting Trump will have better luck this time. 

    It remains true that a large group of Republicans (and no small number of Democrats) basically agree with most or all of Trump’s policies but regard the man as a distasteful carnival operator whose “Trump University” and health care plan (consisting of urinalysis and vitamins for a healthy quarterly fee) are simply not acceptable for a holder of the great office of president of the United States. Many have implied by their ambiguity that they could live with Trump again if his manners improved and his tactics became less bombastic. The acid test being unwisely applied to Trump’s acceptability as a rehabilitated candidate is his humble acceptance of the legitimacy of the election of Joe Biden as president.

    There are two serious problems with this criterion, which even the Wall Street Journal seems to embrace. The first problem with the requirement of a full recognition of the unassailability of Biden’s legitimacy as president is that former President Trump and his scores of millions of supporters don’t accept that that is true. The second problem is that it probably is not true.

    There are more serious concerns about the integrity of the 2020 presidential election than any in the history of the country except the Hayes-Tilden contest of 1876. That controversy was addressed by a bipartisan commission voting on an exact party split, which was accepted by the candidates under three conditions posed by the Democratic candidate, Governor Samuel Tilden, and which were accepted and honored by General Rutherford B. Hayes. 

    No one knows who really won in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Nixon declined President Dwight Eisenhower’s urging that he demand a comprehensive review of the many extremely close states. Nixon has received little credit for taking the position that such a state of uncertainty could be destabilizing to the country at a critical moment in the Cold War.

    A similarly uncertain situation played out in the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. That year, the U.S. Supreme Court shut down the decisive Florida recount and the state officially went to Bush by 537 votes out of 5.8 million cast, but no one will ever know whether he was the real winner or not. In 2020, there were more than 40 million mailed or harvested ballots usually mixed in after the polls closed with normally cast ballots and, therefore, unverifiable. About 45,000 votes in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan would have flipped the election to Trump.

    The former president was foolish to claim that he had actually won a majority of the popular vote, which is nonsense. But no fair observer can begrudge Trump his severe state of irritation at the extremely suspect abnormalities that afflicted the vote in six states that were clearly targeted for unusual alterations of voting and vote-counting procedures ostensibly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

    It is also easy to identify with the ex-president’s profound disappointment that the judicial system declined to judge on their merits any of the 19 lawsuits that specifically challenged the integrity of the voting or vote-counting process, as opposed to taking up an individual or a small number of apparently improperly treated ballots. 

    Moreover, it appears to have been the political decision of the Supreme Court not to put itself in the position of having to try to reel back and possibly overturn a presidential election. In doing so, the justices may have spared themselves a full-on assault to expand the court. They remain fully armed to deal with unconstitutional legislation, which seems to be the core of the radical Democratic program that the administration hopes to jam through on a strained reconciliation bill as the window narrows before they likely lose their paper-thin congressional majorities next autumn. Again, Trump is to blame for warning of the problems of ballot harvesting but having no adequate team on the ground to record and film its operation and to launch legal challenges forcefully starting on the day after the election.    

    All of this leaves the Democrats relying on anti-Trump or at least non-Trump Republicans to impose upon the Republican presidential candidate selection process for 2024 an unacceptable condition.

    Despite the gathering chatter that Trump’s base support is receding and that too many Republican officeholders are afraid of his ability to make or break their performance in the midterm elections next year, the obvious but rigorously unrecognized facts are:

    1) Trump can take the nomination of his party easily if he so wishes, and

    2) the unspeakable shambles of the incumbent administration is making his return to office simpler and more probable every day.

    In the early blush of optimism that the dreadful Trump meteor had passed, the Democratic character assassination squads inside the docile media outlets set upon Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as Trump’s most likely successor . As it dawns on the always losing NeverTrumpers, an angry and unscrupulous minority within a minority, who see the strength of Trump within his party every day, some are trying to build back DeSantis as someone who would enact most of Trump’s policies, enjoy Trump’s goodwill, but who is not Trump. Others, like Representative Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio) are alienated, seeing, as former Arizona Senator Jeff Flake did, that “it’s the president’s party now,” that is, it’s Trump’s party and seems likely to remain so.

    The great effort to stamp out any questioning of the legitimacy of the last presidential election has failed. The attempt to perpetuate the Trump-hate smear and legal harassment campaign is sputtering to an end, even as the John Durham inquiry, advancing at the speed of wet cement on a slight grade, has begun its indictments of those responsible for turning the intelligence services and the FBI into arms of the Democratic National Committee-Clinton campaign dirty tricks division. The fantasy that Trump’s support is eroding or that his comparative silence does him anything except good, will probably be vaporized at the first encounter with the voters. 

    The daily failures of the Biden Administration show no signs of letting up, nor does the damage from unsustainable levels of illegal immigration, intolerable levels of urban violent crime, aggressively rising inflation, the COVID Tower of Babel, and constant pressure from America’s foreign enemies as the Biden regime stumbles from continent to continent. Such an inexorable procession of failures drives masses of voters into the arms of the chief political alternative, with increasing disregard for the fineries of the alternative president’s sense of etiquette.

    Unless the administration has a miraculous infusion of competence and aptitude, or some alternative Republican appears as a messianic deus ex machina, or a relatively silent Donald Trump commits an act of electoral suicide that is a hydrogen bomb escalation on his most egregious faux pas to date, then America and the world should start preparing for Trump’s return. As Bismarck said of Disraeli, “Das ist der Mann.” He is not easily recognizable as the standard-bearer of the Grand Old Party, but in these steadily more distressed circumstances, he is the man.  

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 18:40

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Sep 29

Today’s News 29th September 2021

  • Russia Scrambles Su-27 Jet To Escort US Spy Plane Away From Crimea Border
    Russia Scrambles Su-27 Jet To Escort US Spy Plane Away From Crimea Border

    Russian state media is reporting Tuesday a fresh incident between Russian and US aircraft over the Black Sea. The incident began when Russian radars detected an inbound foreign military plane over international waters in the Black Sea, but which approached Russia’s southern border.

    The “airborne target” was soon identified as a US Air Force RC-135 plane, a type of aircraft known for conducting reconnaissance missions. The Kremlin scrambled a Su-27 fighter to intercept the US spy plane. 

    US Air Force RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft. File image via Defence-blog

    According to TASS, citing the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD), “the Su-27 crew identified the airborne target as a US Air Force RC-135 plane and escorted it over the Black Sea without allowing it to violate the Russian border.”

    The statement said further, “After the foreign military plane turned away from the border of the Russian Federation, the Russian jet fighter safely returned to its home airfield.” It’s similar to an incident last July, also involving the large US recon plane.

    Skies over the Black Sea have been seemingly quieter this year in terms of these types of tense intercept situations, especially compared to the increase in such during 2020 and the last year of the Trump presidency, when aerial encounters over the Black and Baltic Seas, as well off Alaska were more frequent.

    However, there have been more rival military drills in the area. Just last week Russia conducted ‘live fire’ tests of its coastal defense systems on Crimea, firing at mock targets in the Black Sea. At the same time the US conducted joint drills with Ukraine. 

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

    This week the Kremlin warned against any attempt of NATO to expand military infrastructure and bases into Ukraine, spelling out this would be a “red line”. At the same time Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, coming fresh off a summit with President Putin in Sochi, said Russia and agreed to “act” in concert with Belarus should this alarming scenario be observed. 

    “It’s clear we need to react to this…(We) agreed that we need to take some kind of measures in response,” Lukashenko said according to RIA news agency. Thus as rival militaries continue to hold drills in order to send competing ‘messages’ – it’s likely intercept incidents over the Black Sea will only increase and possibly return to 2020 levels.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 02:45

  • The Eclipse Of Europe
    The Eclipse Of Europe

    Authored by Pat Buchanan,

    For centuries up to and including the 20th, Europe seemed the central pivot of world history.

    Then came the Great Civil War of the West, our Thirty Years’ War (1914-1945), where all of the great European powers — Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia — along with almost all of the rest, fought some of history’s greatest battles.

    Result: Europe’s greatest nations were all bloodied. All of Europe’s empires fell. The colonial peoples were all largely liberated and began the great migration to the mother countries. And Europe was split between a U.S.-led West and a Moscow-dominated Soviet bloc.

    Yet, even during that four-decade Cold War, Europe was viewed as the prize in the struggle.

    By the time that Cold War ended in triumph for the Free World, a European Union modeled on the American Union was rising, and almost all of Europe’s newly freed nations began to join the NATO alliance.

    Yet one senses today that Europe’s role in world history is passing, that the American pivot to China and the Indo-Pacific is both historic and permanent, and that as the past belongs to Europe, the future belongs to Asia.

    Asia, after all, is home to the world’s most populous nations, China and India; to six of the world’s nine nuclear powers; and to almost all of its major Muslim nations: Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey and Iran, as well as to the world’s largest economies outside the USA: China and Japan.

    And Europe?

    In 2016, Great Britain voted to withdraw from the EU. This summer, the British joined the Australians and the U.S. in an AUXUS pact that trashed a cherished French deal to build a dozen diesel-powered submarines — and to replace them with British- and U.S.-built nuclear-power subs.

    Paris saw this as a “betrayal,” a “stab in the back” by allies whom Gen. Charles De Gaulle had disparaged as “les Anglo-Saxons.” Yet AUXUS was also an undeniably clear statement as to where the Australians saw their future, and it was not alongside France, but the USA.

    Still, this was the worst U.S. affront of our French ally since President Dwight Eisenhower ordered the British and French out of Suez.

    But, at least then, Ike could say in 1956 that he had not been alerted to the British-French invasion of Egypt and that our NATO partners had acted without his knowledge or consent.

    To protest the treatment of France in the submarine deal, President Emmanuel Macron recalled his ambassador to the U.S., something that had never been done since France recognized the American colonies and came to their aid during our War of Independence.

    Indeed, the submarine agreement forced cancellation of a grand party at the French embassy in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the 240th anniversary of the Battle of the Capes.

    This was the critical British-French naval battle at the mouth of the Chesapeake in 1781, where a French fleet prevailed, enabling it to provide Gen. George Washington’s army cover as it surrounded, shelled and compelled the surrender of Gen. Lord Cornwallis’ army at Yorktown.

    But if the British are out of the EU, and the French are estranged from their NATO allies, Germany yesterday held an election, where, for the first time in its history, the Christian Democratic Union of Konrad Adenauer, Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel was reduced to a fourth of the national vote.

    The new leader of Germany, after months of negotiations, may be the leader of the Social Democrats, in concert with the Greens. But even that government may not be cobbled together by Christmas.

    Neither of the prospective chancellors for the Christian Democratic Union or the Social Democratic Party has the stature of Merkel, who has been both leader of Germany for the last decade and a half but also de facto leader of Europe.

    And consider the present condition of NATO, once celebrated as the most successful alliance in history for having deterred any Soviet invasion of NATO Europe for the entire Cold War.

    In 2001, invoking Article V about an attack on one being an attack on all, NATO joined the Americans in their plunge into Afghanistan to deal with the perpetrators of 9/11.

    This August, 20 years later, all our NATO allies pulled out as the Afghan army crumbled and vanished and the Afghan regime collapsed. Our NATO allies thus shared in the ignominy of the American retreat and defeat.

    Not only is the center of political gravity shifting from Europe to Asia, European unity seems a thing of the past.

    As Britain has left the EU, Scotland is considering secession from England.

    Catalonia is still thinking of secession from Spain.

    Sardinia is considering secession from Italy.

    Poland and Hungary are at odds with the EU over domestic political reforms said to be in conflict with the demands of the bureaucrats in Brussels.

    As for the southern-tier EU and NATO nations, Spain, Italy and Greece, their main concern is less an invasion by Russia than the ongoing invasion from across the Mediterranean from Africa and the Middle East.

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 02:00

  • Academia Is Establishing A Permanent Surveillance Bureaucracy That Will Soon Govern The Rest Of The Country
    Academia Is Establishing A Permanent Surveillance Bureaucracy That Will Soon Govern The Rest Of The Country

    Authored by Michael Tracey via Substack,

    Having now received a tsunami of messages from people across the US (and a few internationally) about the surveillance regimes being permanently installed at their educational institutions — in contravention of earlier assurances that the current academic year would mark a long-awaited “return to normalcy,” thanks to the onset of mass vaccination – there are a few conclusions to draw.

    First: unless and until COVID “cases” are abandoned as a metric by which policy action is presumptively dictated, these institutions are destined to continue flailing from irrational measure to irrational measure for the foreseeable future. Just turn your gaze over to one of America’s most hallowed pedagogical grounds: As of September 17, Columbia University has newly forbidden students from hosting guests, visiting residence halls other than their own, and gathering with more than ten people. The stated rationale for these restrictions? Administrators have extrapolated from the “contact tracing” data they’ve compulsorily seized that a recent increase in viral transmission is attributable to “students socializing unmasked at gatherings in residence halls and at off-campus apartments, bars, and restaurants.” (Socializing at apartments, bars, and restaurants in the middle of Manhattan — gee, I can’t imagine anything more heinous.)

    Just like Connecticut College and so many other institutions I’ve been taking flurries of messages about, Columbia has already mandated vaccination for all students, faculty, and staff, and is approaching 100% compliance. But as has now been made abundantly clear, for many people in positions of bureaucratic authority, universal vaccination was never going to be sufficient for a transition away from the “Permanent Emergency” mode of COVID exegetical theology. The perverse incentives are easy to grasp. These administrators have so much invested in the infrastructure of “case” detection they’ve constructed over the past year and a half — not to mention the wider ideological project of “stopping the spread” at all costs — that it’s impossible to imagine conditions under which they’d voluntarily move to dismantle the surveillance systems over which they preside. And not just because the new powers conferred by this infrastructure — the ability to micromanage the private lives of young adults, track and adjudicate the propriety of their movements, etc. — is probably creepily intoxicating on a level these administrators may not be overtly conscious of, and in any event would almost certainly never publicly admit.

    No, the infrastructure won’t be dismantled any time soon because doing so would also require accepting a major paradigm shift in how COVID is understood. And for certain segments of society, that whole system of thought is just too all-consuming. Benign instances of transmission — i.e. transmission that results in no severe disease, which is almost invariably the case with vaccinated young adults at astronomically low risk from COVID — would have to stop being portrayed as alarming “outbreaks,” necessitating a never-ending stream of frenzied Zoom strategy meetings and swift, all-hands-on-decks interventionist tactics. The very word outbreak would also probably have to be ditched, given its alarmist connotations. I would suggest instead that outbreak be applied to these frantic upswells of bureaucratic overreaction. Perhaps the epidemiological origins of this diseased mentality could be “contact traced.”

    Why should anyone be alarmed by an alleged “outbreak” of overwhelmingly asymptomatic or mild “cases” among a population of healthy vaccinated undergrads — “cases” which would never have been detected at all if not for the superfluous “surveillance testing” structures that these institutions require students submit to? And before anyone chimes in with the standard “because they can transmit to others” response: the “others” they’re surrounded by have had the opportunity to get vaccinated at no cost for the past eight months. Even the US prestige media is beginning to reject the utility of using “cases” as a benchmark for anything of consequence, so you’d think college administrators would eventually follow suit, but a combination of bureaucratic inertia and weirdly flamboyant zeal appears to be preventing that from happening.

    Having read way too much administrative jargon recently, there are a number of obnoxious rhetorical strategies they employ to engender acceptance of edicts that more and more people seem to recognize are wildly, overbearingly arbitrary. “We all have to hold each other accountable,” these administrators will often pronounce, or some variation thereof, which ironically shields them from accountability for their own capricious and intrusive actions. Their orders are often cloyingly filled with artificial appeals to “the community,” which raises the question of who elected these surveillers and snoops to be spokespersons for “the community,” and how they even define “communities,” which seem to contain growing segments of unwilling inhabitants.

    One key thing to know is that despite their pretension of acting at the direction of “expert” epidemiologists and public health officials, the day-to-day decisions about practical implementation at these places often come down to the individual discretion of officials who in no sane world would ever be deferred to on questions of infectious disease protocol, or really anything else of significance. The latest restrictions at Columbia were promulgated by the “Dean of Undergraduate Student Life,” one of those titles which you know must encompass a whole slew of useless, indecipherable makework — and now tends to include a never-ending cycle of COVID monitoring. In her official bio, Dean Cristen Scully Kromm of Columbia is described as having an esteemed background in something called “residence life and leadership oversight.” I don’t know about you, but I can think of few things more unappealing than to have my personal activity surveilled by official busybodies who have dedicated their careers to learning the majesties of “leadership oversight,” which sounds like a field invented specifically for people who actually enjoy receiving LinkedIn emails.

    Thanks to my trusty network of informants, I was able to listen in on a Zoom meeting held Sunday night by Dean Victor Arcelus, the chief COVID decider at my old stomping grounds of Connecticut College. I apologize again for the unrelenting focus on this obscure liberal arts college in southeastern Connecticut, but it’s just become irresistible. Dean Arcelus convened a panel of all his subordinate Deans involved in the crafting of COVID rules; studying the credentials of these people sure is fascinating. 

    One member of the ad hoc infectious disease task force, Ariella Rabin Rotramel, currently serves as the College’s “Interim Dean of Institutional Equity and Inclusion,” and is also Associate Professor of Gender, Sexuality and Intersectionality Studies, with a specialty in “Queer Theory and Activism.” Here is Rotramel answering a Zoom question from an anonymous student:

    I’m sure they is a lovely person, but it’s unclear why Rotramel should be endowed with authority to issue virology-related policy pronouncements. Either way, they gave some indication that they is perhaps not up for the task, describing the whole situation as “exhausting” — that familiar exasperated rallying cry of activists demanding acquiescence. 

    Demonstrating his unparalleled leadership abilities, however, Dean Arcelus stated that he was “quite disappointed” at reports that parties had been rudely held this past weekend at an on-campus residential facility. “There will be conduct consequences,” he warned. “Suspension is most definitely on the table.” Though the most extreme variation of the Australia-style lockdown had been lifted just hours after my visit last week, students are still being ordered not to partake in normal social gatherings such as parties (gasp) or going to bars (gasp).

    “If you have parties, if you go to the bars, you’re not going to be able to have everything else,” the Dean exhorted, threatening that those who misbehave could prompt a return to lockdown for everybody. However, he did leave a glimmer of hope, enticing students that “if we were able to see that you all were actually being really good” about acceding to his prohibitions, then “things could potentially change.”

    “The power in preventing this from happening again is in you and in holding each other accountable,” Dean Arcelus continued. There’s that ubiquitous feature of the contemporary college administrator jargon — presumably tailored to the sensibilities of “accountability”-minded young adults. Again with the added irony that these invocations of “accountability” serve to deflect scrutiny from those who wield the real decision-making power. In the name of “accountability,” students become scapegoats for the irrational policy choices of the people actually in charge. “Accountability” is usually also demanded on behalf of some imagined “community,” so you are not to comply solely at the behest of Dean Arcelus, but rather at the behest of some diffused assemblage of individuals who are claimed to represent a unified community. There’s always this incredibly annoying pretense that bureaucratic operatives and public health “experts” are alone the most exalted guardians of “community safety,” and if you don’t agree with them on moral, practical, or epidemiological grounds, you are a menace.

    “Moving forward, none of you should be OK with people not having a mask on inside, or not having it properly worn,” the Dean inveighed, again appealing to the shockingly pervasive snitch culture being fertilized at this and other academic institutions. Deans at Georgetown University and the University of Southern California have also been sending out these imperious injunctions for students to rat out the alleged violators among them, or as USC Law School Andrew T. Guzman put it in that typically manipulative style: “non-compliant members of our community.” What’s a “non-compliant member” of the USC “community,” exactly? Someone who engages in unsanctioned indoor “hydration.” No, I’m not kidding.

    Do you find any of this arbitrary or ridiculous? Tough luck. Because nowadays all public and private officials apparently have to do is incant the magic word “Delta,” and people whose dictates about proper interpersonal behavior would otherwise be ignored are suddenly imbued with this awesome, unchallengeable power. Their decrees must be obeyed, preferably with effusions of gratitude. Forcing masks on crying two-year-olds? “Delta.” Forbidden to remove your mask for a few seconds in order to take a sip of water at USC, even as a lavish and unmasked Emmys extravaganza just took place right down the road? “Delta.” Shutting down a special needs school in East Harlem less than a week into the academic year? “Delta.” Concerned about the privacy implications of being made to walk around with your health information stored on mandatory smartphone apps, as is the current policy at the University of Michigan, and being made to display this information on command? “Delta.” Also, I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Delta.

    For all his foibles, at least Dean Arcelus nicely encapsulates the mindset which is now running rampant at major US educational institutions — the same institutions producing the graduates who will soon be governing the rest of the country. At the disciplinary Zoom meeting, the good Dean admitted: “I know all of us thought, going into getting vaccinated in April and May, we thought that we would be able to come back to campus and live campus differently [sic] having been vaccinated… But as I’ve said multiple times now, the Delta Variant just presents a whole new level of challenge to us. And that’s why we can’t do what we thought we were going to be able to do back when we got vaccinated in April and May.”

    Well, there you have it. Vaccination was never the gateway to normalcy it was presented to be, and the only option is apparently to instate “Permanent Emergency” protocols with no cognizable “off-ramp” in sight, as a Duke University “expert” helpfully conceded this week. Reneging on these prior assurances is portrayed as some inherently unavoidable fait accompli, rather than a conscious policy choice undertaken to the exclusion of other vastly more sensible options. Choosing another option would mean re-assessing the underlying logic of constantly surveilling a 99% vaccinated population of healthy young adults with these increasingly dubious “tests,” and gathering their private data so as to opine about the permissibility of their social activities. College administrators are totally committed — politically, professionally, metaphysically — to that logic. There’s also an entire financial infrastructure that’s been erected to sustain the endless provision of nonsensical testing services. Ultimately, these officials can’t or won’t extricate themselves from the scolding surveillance paradigm — and why would they? That would entail the relinquishment of power. 

    Tyler Durden
    Wed, 09/29/2021 – 00:05

  • US Debt Rises Irrespective Of Who's In The White House
    US Debt Rises Irrespective Of Who’s In The White House

    The U.S. has seen three Republican and three Democratic administrations since the 1980s, but no matter who is in the White House, U.S. debt has been rising steadily throughout the years, also expanding the debt ceiling in the process.

    Infographic: U.S. Debt Rises Irrespective of Who Is in the White House | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Currently, Congress is once more called upon to raise the amount of debt the country can take on or at least temporarily suspend the debt ceiling mechanism, which says that the Treasury Department is not allowed to go into debt beyond a certain limit unless explicitly authorized by lawmakers. A previous suspension expired on July 31, increasing the debt ceiling to a de-facto $28.5 trillion, the amount of government debt at that time. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said that under the present circumstances, her department would run out of money in October.

    Despite Democrats and Republicans equally expanding debt while in office, the necessary raising of the debt ceiling is routinely causing a fair share of debate – often stretching until the last minute of the country’s solvency. While Democrats have floated another temporary suspension of the limit, Republicans said that the party would not have the GOP’s support in such a vote. Republicans are blocking the effort in protest of the current administration’s $3.5 trillion budget plan, while Democrats point the finger at Trump era tax cuts that contributed to the need for new debt.

    As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, in early 2018 and again in late 2018 and early 2019, the fight about the debt ceiling was not resolved on time, leading to two government shutdowns. Controversies around the DACA act and the border wall caused federal government agencies to largely shut down for three and 35 days, respectively, as Democrats jilted attempts to expand the debt limit. In 2013, the government shut down for 16 days as Republicans were the ones who did not want to support such a measure as money would flow towards the Affordable Care Act.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 23:45

  • Jim Bovard: He Thought I Was An Undercover Fed
    Jim Bovard: He Thought I Was An Undercover Fed

    Authored by Jim Bovard via The Libertarian Institute, 

    From the early 1990s onward, I was exposing FBI crimes, lies, and cover-ups. FBI director Louis Freeh publicly denounced me after I wrote a Wall Street Journal piece on the FBI’s killing of an innocent mother holding her baby at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. I continued hammering FBI abuses in the Journal, Playboy, American Spectator, and other publications.

    One of the FBI’s biggest blunders occurred when it falsely accused a hapless security guard of masterminding an explosion at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. Richard Jewell heroically saved lives by detecting and removing a pipe bomb before it exploded. But the FBI decided that Jewell had actually planted the bomb and leaked that charge to the media, which proceeded to drag Jewell’s life through the dirt for eighty-eight days. The FBI did nothing to curb the media harassment long after it recognized Jewell was innocent. I flogged the FBI’s vilification of Jewell in my 2000 book, Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years.

    In August 2001, I took a brief vacation in the mountains of western North Carolina. My then spouse was leafing through a tourist guidebook and swooned over a chalet inn she saw that was far off the beaten path. Alas, the directions to that hideaway were not worth a plug nickel. After futilely roving that zip code for an hour, I pulled up in front of a hardware store in Whittier, a one-stoplight hamlet, to cuss and recheck the map.

    I stepped out of my car and fired up a cheap cigar as I leaned against the front hood of my Ford. Ninety seconds later, a big ol’ bald guy wearing bib overalls came bounding out of the hardware store and asked in a booming voice: “What part of Maryland you from?”

    “Rockville,” I replied.

    He told me his name was Dennis and started chatting me up at racehorse pace. He told me that he was originally from Maryland, had been living down here for twenty years, worked as a long-haul truck driver and maybe that’s why he had prostate problems. He boasted that he lost $5,000 gambling last year at a nearby Cherokee Indian casino but a buddy of his lost $60,000. He said he owned four acres of land a few miles away and then bragged about all the babes he’d boinked before he got married in 1987.

    I nodded and threw in an occasional “huh.” Since I was raised in the mountains of Virginia, I was accustomed to country folks rattling on like they hadn’t spoken to anyone since the last solar eclipse. But something about this guy’s palavering seemed amiss.

    And then he suddenly paused midsentence and stared at me intently. “I think you might be an undercover federal agent,” he gravely announced. Holy crap! I would have been less astounded if he’d accused me of being a vampire come to rob the local blood bank.

    “Why do you think I’m a fed?” I asked incredulously. Shazam—my battered railroad cap was supposed to make me immune from such suspicions. “Because you’re driving a black car with a Maryland license plate,” he replied without missing a beat.

    I rolled my eyes and raised both arms by my side. “Are there any other signs of undercover federal agents?” I asked.

    “Ya—they have hidden tracking devices on the underside of the back of the car.”

    “Feel free to check out my car,” I grinned.

    “OK!”

    Whittier, North Carolina. Wiki Commons

    He and I walked to the back of my vehicle, he got down on his knees and pawed his big right hand around the Ford’s underside. A minute later, after he found no GPS tracker, he decided I wasn’t a G-man and gave me a hearty handshake.

    “I didn’t mean no harm by saying you were a fed,” he apologized.

    “No sweat,” I replied. “Feds don’t like me.”

    “It’s just that this whole area was crawling with hundreds of FBI agents a few years ago—ever since they heard Eric Rudolph was hiding out somewhere in the mountains nearby,” Dennis explained. “Whoa—I had forgotten the feds came looking for Rudolph in North Carolina,” I replied.

    After the FBI finished slandering Richard Jewell, they announced that Rudolph was the 1996 Olympic bomber, placed him on their Most Wanted list, and put a million-dollar bounty on his head.

    Dennis warmed to the subject. “The FBI bragged that they were sending their best agents here and would catch Rudolph real quick. FBI came in like they owned the place. When they took over a motel for their headquarters, their agents went around banging on doors and threw every guest out on the spot. Their strutting was so bad that some restaurants refused to serve them. Well, they didn’t really refuse—they just told the FBI agents they had to leave their guns outside. Restaurants knew the agents weren’t allowed to do that. People taunted the feds with signs saying, ‘Eric Rudolph Ate Here.'”

    “And they never caught Rudolph,” I commented. “No,” Dennis replied. “Nobody would give them the time of day. After a few months, most of the agents were sent back to Washington.”

    Dennis became more at ease after I mentioned that I’d written about federal outrages at Waco and Ruby Ridge—two cases that epitomized the FBI’s right to kill with impunity. Dennis was far better informed on Waco and Ruby Ridge than the vast majority of people I met inside the Beltway, who took their reality from the Washington Post.

    Dennis wasn’t the type to take guff from any federal agent. He was a hunter, and proudly recapped how he’d told a Fish and Wildlife Service agent to go to hell a few months earlier. He started out talking about how the people in that neck of the woods were fine folks but later lamented that most of his neighbors had no interest in ideas. He wasn’t like them, he assured me, because “I didn’t fall off the pickle wagon yesterday” (i.e., wasn’t born yesterday).

    After two hours, Dennis was “talked out.” He wasn’t familiar with that chalet that my wife wanted to visit but said that she and I were welcome to stay at his house that night. I thanked him kindly but said we should probably be heading down the road toward Asheville.

    Eric Rudolph was finally captured in 2003 by a local policeman in a small town about an hour from that hardware store. He pleaded guilty to the Atlanta bombing as well as bombings of abortion clinics and a lesbian nightclub. Shortly after Rudolph was apprehended after more than four years in the mountains, a British newspaper pointed out that the FBI’s failure to catch him illustrated “all the shortcomings of a hi-tech, militarized federal force unable to negotiate such alien, not to say hostile, territory.” 

    To nail Rudolph, the feds had pulled out all their tricks, including “bloodhounds, electronic motion detectors, and heat-sensing helicopters.” Instead of a triumphal “perp walk” and press conference, the FBI spurred the local sale of bumper stickers proclaiming, “Eric Rudolph: 1998 Hide and Seek Champion.”

    One lesson I took from Dennis was that the FBI’s power and federal legitimacy are far more tenuous than Washington recognizes. Beyond the nation’s big cities and the coastlines, federal authority hinges largely on the consent of local citizens. Once that consent vanishes, FBI agents are left to sit in their cars eating their lunches all by themselves. But plenty of pundits and congressmen still clamor for the government to confiscate everyone’s guns or forcibly inject their children. If the feds came in and started shooting mountain men who refused to surrender their firearms, they would likely quickly find themselves in a worse plight than Custer at the Little Big Horn.

    And the other lesson I took from meeting Dennis?

    People in Washington think I’m a redneck, and rednecks think I’m an undercover fed. I can’t get a break.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 23:25

  • Afghan Social Media Users Frantically Deleting Accounts After Taliban Revenge Killings
    Afghan Social Media Users Frantically Deleting Accounts After Taliban Revenge Killings

    Prominent Afghan activists and social media personalities have been rapidly deleting past posts and even their accounts altogether since the Taliban took power amid the US withdrawal last month. A new report in BCC details that “since 15 August, Afghans have been deleting photos and tweets from their past – and many have turned away from social media altogether for fear of being targeted by Taliban forces.”

    Although in their official announcements the Taliban is purporting to offer amnesty for officials and supporters of the previous US-backed government, widespread reports of civilians being killed by Taliban forces have emerged since the group entered Kabul.

    Getty Images

    In recent days journalists are reportedly being targeted as well, and the Taliban has begun hanging bodies of “criminals” in public squares, such as recently in the large city of Herat.

    The BBC interviewed dissidents with large social media followings, including “Fida” – who had this to say: 

    Speaking to the BBC, he claimed that after the Taliban gained control of Kabul, he was told by relatives that he was in danger for playing a detrimental role in the Taliban’s war against “occupiers”.

    “They told my relatives that people will not forgive, despite the general amnesty,” he said, adding that his name appeared on a list describing people being “shot in the head wherever they are found”. According to Fida, the day after the Taliban’s takeover of the capital, on 16 August, he deleted all of his social media accounts.

    He further described that his last Facebook post had been openly anti-Taliban and indicated he was looking to leave the country.

    The Taliban’s defense minister Mohammad Yaqoob has recently admitted the government is aware of reports of “revenge killings”. He was recorded as saying, “Recently, some people have been killed deliberately [by our fighters] in some parts of the country,” RFERL reported.

    But he emphasized, “Once we have declared a general amnesty, none of our fighters have the right to break that amnesty or violate it by settling personal scores or taking personal revenge.”

    Meanwhile, in the continuing saga of now exiled US-backed leaders…

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

    Another Afghan ‘influencer’ interviewed by BBC, identified as Haris, said of the Taliban, “They are still targeting people, killing people and searching for them,” he said, adding: “It’s just the beginning, just wait.” Haris added: “I don’t think any educated Afghan will be able to stay here.”

    Less than two weeks ago the Taliban restored its office of Islamic sharia law enforcement, which it’s calling the Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. Ironically the ministry building in Kabul now used as its headquarters was previously the Ministry of Women’s Affairs – a government department now permanently shut down.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 23:05

  • Australia's Astonishing Tyranny Keeps Growing
    Australia’s Astonishing Tyranny Keeps Growing

    Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    In the early summer of 1798, an Irish stone mason named Philip Cunningham reached his breaking point.

    Cunningham was sick and tired of English rule in Ireland. And along with 50,000 of his fellow Irishmen, Cunningham picked up a weapon and started in uprising against Great Britain.

    Their rebellion was a complete disaster; the rebels hoped that the British army was too weak to resist after their defeat in the American Revolution.

    But within a few short months the British had regained tight control of Ireland.

    Naturally their first order of business was to round up all the remaining rebels— and Cunningham was among them.

    His punishment was being shipped off to a British penal colony in the south Pacific, in a place that was generally known at the time as “New Holland”.

    Today we call it Australia.

    Cunningham wasn’t one to accept his fate easily. Even while en route to Australia, he and other prisoners briefly managed to take over the ship… though British marines eventually regained control and gave Cunningham 100 lashes.

    But Cunningham still wasn’t finished. A few years later in March of 1804, he led about 300 Australian prisoners in yet another rebellion against their British jailers.

    That rebellion was so severe that the British governor was forced to declare martial law— the first, but certainly not the last time in Australia’s history this would happen.

    It’s ironic that, each year, ‘Australia Day’ is celebrated on January 26, which commemorates the day that the British Navy first sailed into Sydney Cove, hoisted their flag, and declared the land their penal colony.

    So Australia Day does not celebrate the birth of a nation so much as the ribbon-cutting of a giant prison.

    Clearly in 2021, Australia has simply been returning to its roots as the world’s largest prison.

    You know the story by now— “two weeks to control the spread” of COVID-19 became “indefinite dictatorship and total suspension of basic human rights.”

    Over the course of the last 18 months, Australia’s state and federal governments have:

    • Banned citizens from leaving the country without permission.

    • Banned citizens from entering the country, with threat of five years in prison.

    • Banned citizens and residents from crossing state borders.

    • Banned citizens and residents from traveling further than 5k from home without permission.

    Ironically, an Australian government website lays out citizens’ “right to freedom of movement” and says that this very basic human right “cannot be made dependent on establishing a purpose or reason for leaving.”

    But Australia doesn’t have to follow its own rules, nor care about the human rights of all the little people, because it’s an emergency.

    In the name of COVID Australian police and government officials have also:

    It is also now illegal to plan, publicize, or participate in protests.

    The right to peaceably assemble and hold public protests against unjust government actions is enshrined in the Western legal tradition. But for organizing protests against the Australian government’s tyranny, Anthony Khallouf has been sentenced to several months in prison.

    His “crimes” include not complying with COVID decrees, and “encouraging the commission of crimes”— that is, sharing information about the time and location of protests.

    He is a political prisoner, like many of his forebears.

    But at least Philip Cunningham was imprisoned because he engaged in actual violence.

    Khallouf, on the other hand, was found guilty of… illegally crossing Australian state borders.

    That hasn’t stopped the protests however.

    Thousands of Australian construction workers, for example, protested because they refuse to be coerced into vaccination against their will.

    They actually were peaceful protestors. For real. They literally sang the national anthem.

    Yet police pepper sprayed them and fired rubber bullets into the crowd of thousands (which included children).

    Perhaps even more diabolical is that the government restricted the media from showing footage of the event as it was happening, and restricted airspace to prevent media helicopters from filming.

    That didn’t stop people on the ground from recording it with their phones.

    In one exchange, a protestor filmed a police officer agreeing, “I’m just as over this fucking [lockdown] as you are,” but, “we get paid to do this [fire on peaceful protestors] mate…”

    I’m just doing my job. I’m just following orders.

    Other police were caught on video going door-to-door to ask residents if they planned to attend, or knew of any planned protests.

    They asked one homeowner if he is on any social media platforms, but declined to tell him why they targeted that particular address.

    What’s really crazy is that this authoritarianism goes beyond COVID hysteria.

    Australia’s parliament has passed a new bill eradicating Australians’ right to digital privacy.

    It’s called “Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2021.”

    It gives the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) sweeping new powers to not just surveil Australian citizens online, but also take over and run their online accounts, lock the actual user out of the account, and add or delete data.

    The police never have to notify a person that their account has been hacked by the government.

    What they are calling “warrants” actually do not always require an actual court or judge to sign off.

    An “emergency authorisation,” allows police to bypass the courts entirely. And why should anyone be concerned about that? It’s not like the Australian government has ever abused its emergency powers before…

    The right to travel, the right to protest, the right to privacy, the right to due process, the right to leave your home and earn a living— these are basic human rights that are now gone in Australia.

    It should be obvious by now to every citizen of any Western nation that never-ending “emergency powers” can easily snowball into a full-blown dictatorship.

    There is no reason it couldn’t happen to other formerly free nations as well.

    And that means, more than ever before, it’s time to think about a Plan B.

    *  *  *

    We think gold could DOUBLE and silver could increase by up to 5 TIMES in the next few years. That’s why we published a new, 50-page long Ultimate Guide on Gold & Silver that you can download here.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 22:45

  • US To Exclude Travelers Vaccinated With Russia's Sputnik V Despite Distribution To 70 Countries 
    US To Exclude Travelers Vaccinated With Russia’s Sputnik V Despite Distribution To 70 Countries 

    A week ago the US relaxed prior pandemic restrictions on foreign travelers entering the country, announcing that vaccination proof and a negative Covid test would be required. However, one major foreign-produced vaccine will now be deemed not eligible as proof one is fully vaccinated.

    Beginning in November, US rules will exclude Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine as being considered an acceptable vaccine, the Washington Post reports, potentially impacting millions of travelers given that the Russian-produced vaccine could eventually see distribution to 70 other countries. 

    The Post indicated that for any non-citizen traveling inbound, they must be vaccinated with a shot on either the FDA or World Health Organization (WHO) list of ’emergency use’ approved inoculations.

    The United Kingdom also recently imposed travel restrictions which only recognizes specific vaccines as valid, which excludes Sputnik. Though US and international health officials have raised concerns over the manufacturing process utilized in making Sputnik V, Moscow sees the US and global bodies as playing politics over the science.

    For example, earlier in the pandemic there were widespread accusations the State Department was waging an ‘infowar’ in Latin America specifically to dissuade countries from receiving Sputnik from Russia.

    Days ago Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York urged mutual recognition of vaccines, saying that Moscow is ready to fight Covid as “our common enemy”:

    “COVID-19 is our common enemy. We support mutual recognition of vaccines approved by national oversight bodies, in the interests of lifting restrictions on international travel of citizens as soon as possible.”

    But the suspicion remains that in the case of Russia, Washington will continue to red flag its shot, despite mounting evidence that it’s just as safe and effective as Western developed and manufactured vaccines.

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

    For now it appears yet another example of the “trust the science” mantra being in reality supplanted by pure politics, or in this case geopolitical and economic rivalry and competition, which tends to distrust all things Russian.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 22:25

  • Biden's Vax Mandate To Be Enforced By Fining Companies $70,000 To $700,000?
    Biden’s Vax Mandate To Be Enforced By Fining Companies $70,000 To $700,000?

    By Adam Andrzejewski, CEO/Founder of OpenTheBooks.com; originally published in Forbes

    President Joe Biden didn’t just announce a Covid-19 vaccine mandate on companies employing 100 or more people, he plans to enforce it.

    On Saturday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House quietly tucked an enforcement mechanism into their $3.5 trillion “reconciliation” bill, passed it out of the Budget Committee, and sent it to the House floor.

    Buried on page 168 of the House Democrats’ 2,465-page mega bill is a tenfold increase in fines for employers that “willfully,” “repeatedly,” or even seriously violate a section of labor law that deals with hazards, death, or serious physical harm to their employees.

    The increased fines on employers could run as high as $70,000 for serious infractions, and $700,000 for willful or repeated violations—almost three-quarters of a million dollars for each fine. If enacted into law, vax enforcement could bankrupt non-compliant companies even more quickly than the $14,000 OSHA fine anticipated under Biden’s announced mandate.

    The Biden Administration has already started implementing its vaccine mandate enforcement blueprint:

    • The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) set precedent this summer and published an emergency Covid-19 rule in the Federal Register taking jurisdiction over and providing justification for Covid-19 being a workplace hazard for healthcare employment.

    • Early in September, Biden announced his 100-or-more employee Covid-19 vaccine mandate and tasked OSHA with drafting an enforcement rule to exert emergency vaccine compliance authority over companies with 100 or more employees.

    • The legislative provision that passed the Budget Committee raises the OSHA fines for non-compliance 10 times higher – and up to $700,000 for each “willful” or “repeated” violation. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not announced when the House will vote on the reconciliation bill that includes the new OSHA fines.

    • If the legislation is enacted, OSHA could levy draconian fines to enforce Biden’s vaccine mandate, a move that could rapidly bankrupt non-compliant companies. The Biden mandate affects employers collectively employing an estimated 80 million workers.

    The Democrats are playing hardball.                      

    President Biden embraced an aggressive stance earlier this month when he challenged Republicans who are threatening lawsuits over what they decry as his federal overreach: “Have at it. … We’re playing for real here. This isn’t a game.”

    The Legislation

    The provision tucked in the House reconciliation budget bill (on page 168) that increases OSHA fines reads:

    SEC. 21004. ADJUSTMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES.

    (a) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970.—Section 17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 666) is amended—

    (1) in subsection (a)—

      (A) by striking ‘‘$70,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$700,000’’; and

    (B) by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000’’;

    (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘$7,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$70,000’’; and

    (3) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘$7,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$70,000’’

    That provision would change existing law relating to OSHA’s enforcement fines, the very same section of law whose fines OSHA referenced in its June Covid-19 healthcare worker rule and is likely to use again to enforce its forthcoming vaccine compliance rules.

    The Existing Law

    29 U.S.C.§ 666 lays out OSHA enforcement fine levels. The 1970-enacted law reads:

    29 U.S. Code § 666 – Civil and criminal penalties

    (a) Willful or repeated violation Any employer who willfully or repeatedly violates the requirements of section 654 of this title, any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $70,000 for each violation, but not less than $5,000 for each willful violation

    (b) Citation for serious violation Any employer who has received a citation for a serious violation of the requirements of section 654 of this title, of any standard, rule, or order promulgated pursuant to section 655 of this title, or of any regulations prescribed pursuant to this chapter, shall be assessed a civil penalty of up to $7,000 for each such violation [emphasis added].

    Each year, OSHA adjusts these penalties for inflation, so for 2021, the fines are not actually capped at $70,000 and $7,000, but $136,532 and $13,653 per violation. If House Democrats get their way, by enacting the page 168 changes, those fines would increase to $700,000 for willful and repeated violations and $70,000 for serious violations.  

    Section 654, cross-referenced in the OSHA enforcement penalty code, outlines the law requiring workplaces to be “free from recognized hazards” causing harm or death:

    29 U.S. Code § 654 – Duties of employers and employees

    (a) Each employer—

    (1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;

    (2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this chapter.

    (b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this chapter which are applicable to his own actions and conduct [emphasis added].

    OSHA has already published a rule this year claiming Covid-19 is a workplace hazard, and the agency is using this provision of law to assert and enforce its authority. It is likely the new rule to enforce Biden’s mandate will also use this authority, and by extension use the fines upon enforcement.

    Huge Crippling OSHA Fines, Likely By Design

    The crippling change described on page 168 of the Democrats’ bill isn’t a typo or a clerical error. It was inserted by design and, likely, with the hope that no one would notice before Democrats ram the bill through Congress.

    If enacted, it could bankrupt a whole host of companies that do not believe they should have to comply with the Biden administration’s mandate or harbor the cost of intrusive, weekly tests.

    In its June 2021 emergency rule affecting health care workers, OSHA complained it was having a hard time motivating employers with its paltry $13,653 fine:

    “OSHA has been limited in its ability to impose penalties high enough to motivate the very large employers who are unlikely to be deterred by penalty assessments of tens of thousands of dollars, but whose noncompliance can endanger thousands of workers …”

    The Critics

    Some have openly discussed businesses defying the mandate and taking their risks with OSHA fines. For example, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) tweeted that businesses “should openly rebel” against any OSHA rule.

    It’s one thing to defy a $14,000 fine. It’s quite another to risk incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. One or two disgruntled employees, for example, could bring an employer $70,000-$140,000 in OSHA fines. If considered “willful,” as per Rep. Roy’s tweet — just three “violations” could quickly become a $2.1 million OSHA fine.

    Conclusion:

    If its provision becomes law, the Biden administration may force American businesses to choose between vaccinating their employees, testing them weekly for Covid-19, or going bankrupt under crippling OSHA fines.

    In September, Biden warned the tens of millions of Americans who have declined vaccination against Covid-19, “We’ve been patient. But our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us.”

    Now the Democrats in the House are hoping to make employers foot the bill for that “cost” in the form of fines and bankruptcy.

    Republicans might want to read page 168 of the Democrats’ bill. After all, as we like to say at OpenTheBooks.com, the text of the bill is online in real time.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 22:05

  • More Than Half Of China's Provinces Are Now 'Rationing' Electricity, Governors Demand More Coal Imports To Resolve Crisis
    More Than Half Of China’s Provinces Are Now ‘Rationing’ Electricity, Governors Demand More Coal Imports To Resolve Crisis

    At least 20 Chinese provinces and regions making up more than 66% of the country’s GDP have announced some form of power cuts. Guangdong province, the southern industrial hub, is cutting ~10% of its peak power demand…

    And as the severe power crunch hits major industrial hubs in China’s northeastern heartland, top political leaders face mounting pressure from businesses and citizens to solve the crisis through increasing coal imports to keep the lights on and factories humming. 

    Reuters spoke with Han Jun, governor of the northeastern province of Jilin, who said new coal suppliers are needed from Russia, Mongolia, and Indonesia. He added the province would also need to acquire coal mining contracts in the neighboring region of Inner Mongolia to ensure adequate supply. 

    Jilin is one of the ten provinces that have been hit hard by the power crunch. The government has rationed power to energy-intensive heavy industries like steel, cement, and aluminum plants to solve the problem, but that has yet to work. Power plants are also facing a surge in thermal coal prices and are unwilling to pass on to consumers.

    Han said companies must satisfy their “social responsibilities” and “overcome the difficulties” caused by elevated coal prices. 

    On Sunday, top suppliers of Apple and Tesla reported they had suspended operations as the government limited power to their factories. The power crunch is becoming an international issue that may cause additional headaches for global supply chains, especially when US importers are ordering goods ahead of the holiday season. 

    Goldman Sachs told clients this week that as much as 44% of China’s industrial activity has been affected by the power crunch. Therefore the bank slashed 2021 GDP growth forecasts for the year to 7.8%, from the previous 8.2%. Also, S&P Global Ratings cut its 2021 GDP forecast due to rising uncertainties in the country. 

    There are several reasons for the surge in thermal coal, among them already extremely tight energy supply globally (already seen in Europen markets); the sharp economic rebound post-COVID lockdowns that have boosted demand from households and businesses; a warm summer which led to increased air condition consumption across China; the escalating trade spat with Australia that has dwindled coal trade, and Chinese power plants ramping up power purchases to ensure winter coal supply. There’s also Beijing’s pursuit of curbing carbon emissions to ensure the skies at the Winter Olympics in Beijing next February are clear, along with Xi’s international commitment to de-carbonizing the economy. 

    Short-term relief for the country would be importing more coal for power generation and temporarily abandon Xi’s carbon emission curbs to get the energy situation under control. 

    John Kemp, a Reuters commodity market analyst and reporter, points out the energy shortage resulting in soaring coal, gas, and oil prices is a worldwide phenomenon, occurring primarily in Europe and Asia at the moment. 

    There’s no timeline on how long the power crunch will last. As we noted above, increasing coal imports to feed fossil fuel power plants is the country’s only solution besides its attempt to shut down energy-intensive industries that will paralyze its economy and disrupt the global supply chain even more. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 21:45

  • ShortageWatch: "Sorry – No French Fries With Any Order, We Have No Potatoes"
    ShortageWatch: “Sorry – No French Fries With Any Order, We Have No Potatoes”

    Authored by Matt Stoller via BIG,

    Welcome to BIG, a newsletter about the politics of monopoly. If you’d like to sign up, you can do so here. Or just read on…

    Today I’m going to follow up on last week’s issue on shortages. I got a TON of feedback, and the topic even came up at last week’s Federal Trade Commission meeting. The good news is that shortages are now on the political radar, with one FTC Commissioner talking about the rise of “Too Big to Fail” industrial firms causing shortages across the economy.

    *  *  *

    And now…

    “Sorry. No French Fries with any order. We have no potatoes.”

    In the last BIG issue, I asked you for help identifying shortages in your neck of the woods. Hundreds of you responded, so I’ll talk about some of the shortage stories you are sharing, as well as how this problem is resonating among policymakers.

    My favorite story is quintessentially American, and un-American, at the same time. It’s from a Florida realtor who was in a hurry and stopped at a Burger King for lunch. He saw a sign, “Sorry. No French Fries with any order. We have no potatoes.” At first he thought he was imagining things. What kind of fast food place runs out of fries? Is this, he wondered, a sign of things to come?

    It’s a good question. Fast food exists in a land of plenty, of surplus, of mass produced food with a reliable infrastructure of trucks, trains, farms, and distributors. Shortages of everyday goods conflicts not only with most of our lived experiences, but also with our very conception of who we are. There’s a name for this framework, and it’s called affluence.

    In 1958, John Kenneth Galbraith coined the term “The Affluent Society” to describe a nation beyond material concerns, a nation with immense unthinkable wealth. In such a world, with consumer sovereignty paramount, the only way to go without is if you cannot afford something, not if society can’t produce it. Think about all the politicians who say ‘in the wealthiest country in the world surely we can afford XYZ.’ For the last sixty years, with the exception of the oil crisis in the 1970s, we haven’t had to think about production. If you have the money, you can get the stuff. But now our production systems, once so resilient and strong they appeared invisible, are breaking down.

    So what is happening in the case of this particular Burger King? It’s hard to say, but the problem is clearly widespread. Taco Bell, Chick-fil-A, and Starbucks are having trouble sourcing ingredients, as are school and college cafeterias. Here’s one notice posted on Reddit on school districts having similar issues.

    One culprit is the food distribution industry, which is highly consolidated (due to the standard litany of anti-competitive tactics like mergers and exclusive contracts with customers and suppliers). Problems at some of the biggest firms, like Sysco, have even forced summer camps and restaurants in some areas to shut down.

    Burger King uses McLane distribution, a leading firm for grocery distribution. McLane is having trouble recruiting drivers, which is a clear problem everywhere. You’ll hear a number of causes for this shortage, from poaching by Amazon to a large number of truckers retiring rather than be on the road during the pandemic. Here’s a BIG reader on the problem.

    Truck drivers that would transport cargo on flatbed trucks are being recruited away by Walmart and Amazon to exclusively pull box trailers or shipping containers. Large items like steel piles and premade concrete pieces either can’t fit or can’t be loaded into containers or box trailers. Vendors tell me demand is as high as 40:1, meaning for every available flatbed truck there are up to 40 waiting customers. The roads around the NYC metro area are as clogged with truck traffic as ever, but we’re facing longer waits and higher prices to haul non-containerized cargo.

    If you listen to transportation executives, they’ll tell you the real cause. “It comes down to money for drivers in many respects,” said Mark McKendry, regional vice president of intermodal at NFI Industries. “If we get the pay right, you know, we’ll have a little more flexibility.”

    Driving a truck, which used to be a middle class job in the 1970s, has become a cyclical low-paid profession with high burnout and little stability, a so-called “sweatshop on wheels.” While it’s tempting to blame this situation on trucking firms, the reality is that the problem is due to the market structure of transportation created by the deregulation of the 1970s. Prior to deregulation, state and national regulators set routes and prices for trucking firms, which allowed for sufficient margin to make trucking a unionized well-paid profession. Such rules raised shipping prices and were often needlessly bureaucratic, but also ensured the system would be stable, free from ‘ruinous competition,’ as well as absurd drops and spikes in pricing and wages.

    Jimmy Carter, however, and a litany of Democrats, simply hated the union representing truck drivers, which was the Teamsters. Carter advisor Alfred Kahn, the economist who later deregulated airlines with Stephen Breyer’s help, was explicit about lowering trucker wages and breaking their political power. (Kahn, not coincidentally, is beloved by center-left antitrust scholars.)

    The deregulation of the 1970s forced trucking firms to compete against each other to offer lower shipping prices, and the way they did this was by lowering pay to their drivers. Trucking on a firm-level became unpredictable and financially fragile, so for drivers the scheduling became nightmarish and unsustainable, even if the pay during boom times could be high. Today, few think trucking has a future, and even though pay is high, the scheduling is crushing drivers. And so, because we’ve allowed an unregulated trucking system for decades and treated truck drivers like crap for forty years, increasingly we can’t count on getting french fries from Burger King.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 21:25

  • Brothels And Illegal Massage Parlors Outnumber Starbucks 2-To-1 Across NYC
    Brothels And Illegal Massage Parlors Outnumber Starbucks 2-To-1 Across NYC

    Back in March 2020, as the reaction to the pandemic was shaping up at countries around the world, in New York City, many black-market “entrepreneurs” decided to try and ramp up their own “massage parlors” and brothels to try and attract male customers, and earn themselves a slice of all that stimulus money rattling around the economy.

    Meanwhile, the New York Post reported Monday that the number of illegal massage parlors is higher in some neighborhoods than the number of Starbucks’, the upscale coffee shop that is seemingly effervescent.

    Per the NYP, for every Starbucks that’s in the five boroughs, there are at least two illicit massage parlors. In Queens, staffers at the nonprofit tracking the proliferation of sex trafficking in NYC has dound at least 269 open brothels, the illicit businesses outnumber Starbucks 5 to 1, the data from the intelligence-driven counter-trafficking organization that focuses exclusively on the illicit massage industry shows.

    Many of the massage parlors blend in easily with their surrounding businesses. Take, for example, the Ming Happy Spa on Montague Street, which is wedged between two legal businesses, and handles mostly males in upscale dress.

    In one of New York’s toniest neighborhoods, just a few blocks from the Brooklyn federal courthouse, a shady massage parlor is hidden in plain view. The Ming Happy Spa on Montague Street, conspicuously open until 1 a.m. seven nights a week, is next door to a high-end women’s boutique and operates an innocuous second-floor storefront that sees a steady stream of well-dressed male clientele late into the night. The alleged illicit massage business in the upscale neighborhood is one of at least 629 others currently operating across the five boroughs — a network of illegal enterprises so vast, they outnumber Starbucks 2 to 1 citywide, according to data from Heyrick Research.

    For every Starbucks that’s in the five boroughs, there are at least two massage parlors. In Queens, which has at least 269 roughly open-air brothels, the illicit businesses out number Starbucks 5 to 1, the data from the intelligence-driven counter-trafficking organization that focuses exclusively on the illicit massage industry shows.

    In case consumers are unaware, the reviews explicitly expose what the business truly is via sites like Oarkir, sort of an aggregator of reviews for massage parlors around NYC and the country.

    In most recent reviews, the men claim they paid $60 for the massage and between $40 and $50 for the alleged sex act that came at the end and described in repulsive detail what groping they were allowed to do, how skilled the workers were and their overall rating of the experience. When reached by phone, the spa declined comment. Hundreds of such businesses across the five boroughs, from the Upper East Side to Staten Island, are reviewed on the website and many of them allegedly sell full-service sex, not just post-massage masturbation, the reviews indicate.

    Experts told The Post that the prevalence of brothels and massage parlors, fueled by their ability to operate with immunity, reflects an unofficial, citywide shift toward the decriminalization of the sex trade, something Hizzoner Bill de Blasio imposed months ago. As for whether he (or his successor, Eric Adams) might support full decriminalization, that remains to be seen. But there’s no question that whether they’re violent crimes, or quality of life issues, crime is soaring in Gotham once again.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 21:05

  • Military Leaders Saw Pandemic As Unique Opportunity To Test Propaganda On Canadians: Report
    Military Leaders Saw Pandemic As Unique Opportunity To Test Propaganda On Canadians: Report

    Authored by David Puliese via NationalPost.com,

    A plan devised by the Canadian Joint Operations Command relied on propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghan war…

    Canadian military leaders saw the pandemic as a unique opportunity to test out propaganda techniques on an unsuspecting public, a newly released Canadian Forces report concludes.

    The federal government never asked for the so-called information operations campaign, nor did cabinet authorize the initiative developed during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Canadian Joint Operations Command, then headed by Lt.-Gen. Mike Rouleau.

    Lt.-Gen. Mike Rouleau PHOTO BY ADRIAN WYLD /The Canadian Press

    But military commanders believed they didn’t need to get approval from higher authorities to develop and proceed with their plan, retired Maj.-Gen. Daniel Gosselin, who was brought in to investigate the scheme, concluded in his report.

    The propaganda plan was developed and put in place in April 2020 even though the Canadian Forces had already acknowledged that “information operations and targeting policies and doctrines are aimed at adversaries and have a limited application in a domestic concept.”

    A copy of the Dec. 2, 2020, Gosselin investigation, as well as other related documents, was obtained by this newspaper using the Access to Information law.

    The plan devised by the Canadian Joint Operations Command, also known as CJOC, relied on propaganda techniques similar to those employed during the Afghanistan war. The campaign called for “shaping” and “exploiting” information. CJOC claimed the information operations scheme was needed to head off civil disobedience by Canadians during the coronavirus pandemic and to bolster government messages about the pandemic.

    A separate initiative, not linked to the CJOC plan, but overseen by Canadian Forces intelligence officers, culled information from public social media accounts in Ontario. Data was also compiled on peaceful Black Lives Matter gatherings and BLM leaders. Senior military officers claimed that information was needed to ensure the success of Operation Laser, the Canadian Forces mission to help out in long-term care homes hit by COVID-19 and to aid in the distribution of vaccines in some northern communities.

    BLM organizers have questioned why military officials gathered information on their initiative, pointing out they followed pandemic rules and did not hold any gatherings outside LTC homes.

    Then chief of the defence Staff Gen. Jon Vance shut down the CJOC propaganda initiative after a number of his advisers questioned the legality and ethics behind the plan. Vance then brought in Gosselin to examine how CJOC was able to develop and launch the propaganda operation without approval.

    Gosselin’s investigation discovered the plan wasn’t simply the idea of “passionate” military propaganda specialists, but support for the use of such information operations was “clearly a mindset that permeated the thinking at many levels of CJOC.” Those in the command saw the pandemic as a “unique opportunity” to test out such techniques on Canadians.

    The views put forth by Rear Adm. Brian Santarpia, then CJOC’s chief of staff, summed up the command’s attitude, Gosselin noted in his report.

    “This is really a learning opportunity for all of us and a chance to start getting information operations into our (CAF-DND) routine,” the rear admiral stated.

    The command saw the military’s pandemic response “as an opportunity to monitor and collect public information in order to enhance awareness for better command decision making,” Gosselin determined.

    Gosselin also pointed out CJOC staff had a “palpable dismissive attitude” toward the advice and concerns raised by other military leaders.

    The directive for the propaganda plan was issued by CJOC on April 8, 2020, but it took until May 2 of that year before Vance’s order to shut it down took effect.

    Gosselin recommended a comprehensive review of Canadian Forces information operations policies and directives, particularly those that may impact any activities for domestic missions.

    There is an ongoing debate inside national defence headquarters in Ottawa about the use of information operations techniques. Some public affairs officers, intelligence specialists and senior planners want to expand the scope of such methods in Canada to allow them to better control and shape government information that the public receives. Others inside headquarters worry that such operations could lead to abuses, including having military staff intentionally mislead the Canadian public or taking measures to target opposition MPs or those who criticize government or military policy.

    Military propaganda training and initiatives within Canada over the last year have proved to be controversial.

    The Canadian Forces had to launch an investigation after a September 2020 incident when military information operations staff forged a letter from the Nova Scotia government warning about wolves on the loose in a particular region of the province. The letter was inadvertently distributed to residents, prompting panicked calls to Nova Scotia officials who were unaware the military was behind the deception. The investigation determined the reservists conducting the operation lacked formal training and policies governing the use of propaganda techniques were not well understood by the soldiers.

    Yet another review centred on the Canadian Forces public affairs branch and its activities. Last year, the branch launched a controversial plan that would have allowed military public affairs officers to use propaganda to change attitudes and behaviours of Canadians as well as to collect and analyze information from public social media accounts.

    The plan would have seen staff move from traditional government methods of communicating with the public to a more aggressive strategy of using information warfare and influence tactics on Canadians. Included among those tactics was the use of friendly defence analysts and retired generals to push military PR messages and to criticize on social media those who raised questions about military spending and accountability.

    The Canadian Forces also spent more than $1 million to train public affairs officers on behaviour modification techniques of the same sort used by the parent firm of Cambridge Analytica, the company implicated in a 2016 data-mining scandal to help Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential election campaign.

    The initiative to change military public affairs strategy was abruptly shut down in November after this newspaper revealed details about the plan. A military investigation determined what the Canadian Forces public affairs leadership was doing was “incompatible with Government of Canada Communications Policy (and the) mission and principles of Public Affairs.” None of the public affairs leadership was disciplined for their actions.

    Several months ago, Acting Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre and DND deputy minister Jody Thomas acknowledged in an internal document that the various propaganda initiatives had gotten out of control. “Errors conducted during domestic operations and training, and sometimes insular mindsets at various echelons, have eroded public confidence in the institution,” noted a June 9, 2021, message signed by Eyre and Thomas. “This included the conduct of IO (Information Operations) on a domestic operation without explicit CDS/DM direction or authority to do so, as well as the unsanctioned production of reports that appeared to be aimed at monitoring the activities of Canadians.”

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 20:45

  • US Hog Herd Hit By Largest Monthly Drop Since 1999
    US Hog Herd Hit By Largest Monthly Drop Since 1999

    US hog herds experienced the most significant monthly drop in two decades, according to new data from the USDA. The reason behind the drop is because farmers decreased hog-herd development over the last year due to labor disruptions at slaughterhouses plus high animal feed. 

    USDA data showed the US hog herd was 3.9% lower in August than a year ago. It was the largest monthly drop since 1999 after analysts only expected a decline of about 1.7%, according to Bloomberg. 

    On Monday, hog futures soared in Chicago after the news of tightening supply. Since contracts hit a seven-year high in June, they have plunged from $120 to $80 but have since recovered in recent days to $90. 

    Supply chain woes at slaughterhouses, and declining cold pork storage in US warehouses, have pushed up pork consumer prices to record highs. 

    Farmers are experiencing a challenging environment of skyrocketing feed prices and other commodity prices used to maintain and growing pig herds, along with the labor disruptions at slaughterhouses that sometimes force them to cull herds. 

    Soaring supermarket meat prices have been devastating for working-poor families who allocate a high percentage of their incomes to basic and essential items. The Biden administration spent most of the year ignoring the dramatic increase in food prices and only addressed the issue earlier this month by blaming meatpackers. The administration even had the nerve to say that if meat prices are taken out of the equation, troubling grocery inflation would be lower. 

    To sum up, shrinking hog herds means pork prices will stay high. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 20:25

  • US Adults' Estimates Of COVID Hospitalization Risk Depends On Party, Vaxx Status: Gallup
    US Adults’ Estimates Of COVID Hospitalization Risk Depends On Party, Vaxx Status: Gallup

    By Jonathan Rothwell of Gallup

    The American public’s understanding of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines may have been put to the test in recent weeks as national public health leaders openly debated whether a booster shot is needed for the general population. Meanwhile, a large gap in vaccination rates persists between Democrats and Republicans, possibly reflecting partisans’ different views on the relative risks of COVID-19 versus the vaccines.

    In August, Gallup surveyed over 3,000 U.S. adults on their understanding of the likelihood of hospitalization after contracting COVID-19 among those who have versus have not been vaccinated. The results show that most Americans overstate the risk of hospitalization for both groups: 92% overstate the risk that unvaccinated people will be hospitalized, and 62% overstate the risk for vaccinated people. At the same time, U.S. adults are fairly accurate at estimating the effectiveness of vaccines at preventing hospitalization, with the median respondent putting it at 80%.

    Democrats provide much higher vaccine efficacy estimates than Republicans (88% vs. 50%), and unvaccinated Republicans have a median vaccine efficacy of 0%, compared with 73% for vaccinated Republicans.

    Background

    Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, political affiliation has been a strong predictor of attitudes and behaviors related to disease risks and mitigation. Gallup’s monthly tracking of adult (18+) vaccination rates in the U.S. reveals a deep political divide. As of September 2021, 92% of Democrats reported having had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine compared with 56% of Republicans.

    Previous Gallup research has found that the American public has a poor understanding of the true risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and that misperceptions vary by political party. In December 2020, through the Franklin Templeton-Gallup Economics of Recovery Study, we asked 5,000 U.S. adults: “As far as you know, what percentage of people who have been infected by the coronavirus needed to be hospitalized?” Only 18% provided the correct answer, which at that time was between 1% and 5%, and a higher percentage of Republicans (26%) gave the correct response than did Democrats (just 10%). Likewise, experimental research from Gallup and Franklin Templeton found that providing people information about high vaccine efficacy led to greater acceptance of the vaccine.

    Data from Gallup’s most recent COVID-19 Panel survey, in August, is especially relevant to the public’s understanding of vaccine efficacy; in recent weeks, the Biden administration, health officials, and many in the media have expressed concerns about breakthrough infections stemming from the Delta variant of SARS-CoV2, pointing to rising infections, hospitalizations and deaths. On Aug. 18, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it was making plans for administering booster shots to people who are already vaccinated, pending FDA approval. This caused some debate among experts. For example, on September 13, medical scholars published an analysis in a leading journal concluding that “Current evidence does not appear to show a need for boosting in the general population.” Four days later, on September 17, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel rejected Pfizer’s application for broad emergency use of a third dose, opting instead to restrict such authorization for only select groups of higher-risk persons.

    In light of these debates, Gallup tested public understanding of the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines by asking 3,158 U.S. adults two questions during a field period of August 16-22. The items tested respondents’ overall assessment of COVID hospitalization risks facing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, allowing researchers to calculate the implied efficacy of vaccines.

    The items were the following:

    • As far as you know, what percentage of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized due to the coronavirus?
    • As far as you know, what percentage of fully vaccinated people have been hospitalized due to the coronavirus?

    The implied efficacy of vaccines is calculated by subtracting the second response from the first and dividing by the first. If a respondent answers that 10% of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized from COVID and 5% of vaccinated people, this implies a vaccine efficacy of 50%.

    How the Public Understands Hospitalization Risk

    For both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, very few adults reported a correct answer, which is less than one percent. See the discussion in the appendix for details about the correct hospitalization rates and efficacy estimates. Only 8% of U.S. adults gave correct answers for the unvaccinated population and 38% for the vaccinated population.

    Partisanship was a strong predictor of accuracy, but party accuracy varied by whether the respondent was assessing the risk of the vaccinated or unvaccinated populations.

    For unvaccinated hospitalization risk, 2% of Democrats responded correctly, compared with 16% of Republicans. In fact, 41% of Democrats replied that at least 50% of unvaccinated people have been hospitalized due to COVID-19.

    By contrast, Democrats were more likely to estimate hospitalization risk for the vaccinated population correctly: 42% of Democrats compared with 33% of Republicans correctly reported that less than one percent of vaccinated people have been hospitalized. Very few respondents thought the risks exceed 50% (only 2% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans).

    Public Understanding of Vaccine Efficacy

    The relative reduction of risk from vaccination is known as the efficacy estimate. U.S. CDC data suggest that vaccines are roughly 99% effective at reducing hospitalizations. Careful studies that attempt to compare people living in the same area who face similar risks find efficacy rates around 95%, even against Delta variant, for the most common vaccines found in the United States (Pfizer, Moderna).

    We used individual responses to the items on hospitalization probabilities for vaccinated and unvaccinated people to calculate an implied efficacy rate, which is the percentage reduction in risk for the vaccinated group. Again, partisanship is a strong predictor of the accuracy of these estimates. U.S. adults estimated a median efficacy rate of 80%, which is close to the actual rate. Democrats, however, were even more accurate, with a median efficacy rate of 88%. Republicans, however, expressed an efficacy rate of only 50%.

    Vaccination status was also a strong predictor of efficacy estimates. Unvaccinated Republicans reported risk rates that implied zero benefit of vaccination — an efficacy rate of 0%. By contrast, vaccinated Republicans reported an estimated efficacy of 73%, much closer to the truth. Unvaccinated Independents were also far off (12% efficacy), but vaccinated independents were close (83%) to Democrats. For Democrats, vaccination status made little difference, however. Unvaccinated Democrats still reported 80% efficacy rates. Given previous studies on the effects of the media and information during COVID, one possible reason is that Democrats are more consistently exposed to information that favorably portrays vaccine efficacy.

    Discussion

    Democrats are more likely to overstate hospitalization risks for unvaccinated people, which may fuel efforts, often led by Democratic Party leaders, to enforce both mask and vaccine mandates. At the same time, Republicans overstate risks to vaccinated people, leading to very low vaccine efficacy estimates. This may be one of the reasons that so many Republicans have been reluctant to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Previous research links these behavioral patterns to differences in information exposure. If so, vaccine acceptance is unlikely to significantly increase among Republicans until their trusted media or other information sources emphasize the benefits of vaccination.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 20:05

  • Tense Exchange As Tom Cotton Asks Gen. Milley: "Why Haven't You Resigned?"
    Tense Exchange As Tom Cotton Asks Gen. Milley: “Why Haven’t You Resigned?”

    US CentCom Commander Gen. Mark Milley got into a testy exchange with Republican Sen. Tom Cotton over the botched Afghan withdrawal and evacuation in Congressional testimony on Tuesday. He appeared to undercut President Biden, who previously told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that “no one” that he “can recall” advised in favor of keeping a few thousand-strong force inside Afghanistan to ensure there’d be no rapid collapse or attacks on Americans. “I can only conclude your advice about staying in Afghanistan was rejected,” Cotton began in his questioning.

    But things really got tense when Cotton questioned, “If all this is true General Milley then why haven’t you resigned?” 

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

    “It’s a political act if I’m resigning in protest,” Milley began his response. “My job is to provide advice.. to provide the best military advice to the president, and that’s my legal requirement – that’s what the law is.”

    “This country doesn’t want generals figuring out what orders we are going to accept and do or not,” Milley emphasized. He added that “on a personal note”…

    “My dad didn’t get a choice to resign at Iwo Jima. Those kids at Abbey Gate didn’t get a chance to resign.”

    “I’m not gonna turn my back on them. They can’t resign so I’m not going to resign,” he added. “If the orders are illegal, then we’re in a different place.”

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

    While the explanation of a top commander’s duties and the Constitution’s laying out elected civilian control of the armed forces are certainly accurate, the whole exchange does bring up the question of accountability. 

    It remains that now a month out, there’s been no accountability whatsoever for the series of bungled actions which in the end resulted in the deaths of 13 American troops and over 60 Afghan civilians. 

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

    There’s also been zero accountability for the drone strike targeting a misidentified “ISIS-K terrorist” – which ended up being a local humanitarian aid worker. In total the strike killed 10 civilians, including up to 7 children.

    So far there’s not been so much as a single formal reprimand or demotion over the Aug.29 drone strike within either the Biden administration or military ranks. This despite the Pentagon since openly admitting that the drone operation was a “mistake”. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 19:55

  • T-Shirt And Jean Inflation Coming With Decade High Cotton Prices
    T-Shirt And Jean Inflation Coming With Decade High Cotton Prices

    Cotton futures in New York are squeezing higher Tuesday morning, racing past $1 per pound for the first time in a decade as adverse weather conditions and robust demand tighten global supply.

    In New York, the contract for December delivery climbed as high as $1.01 per pound, the highest since November 2011. In the last six sessions, prices have surged more than 14% on news of heavy rains damaged crops in Texas and Mississippi, the top growing regions in the U.S., according to Maxar Technologies Inc.’s senior meteorologist Donald Keeney who spoke with Bloomberg. 

    Higher fiber prices could soon mean more expensive T-shirts to jeans and other apparel, which would be another headache for consumers already paying an arm and a leg for gas and food. 

    Some analysts believe the mechanics of the push higher in prices is because of an epic short squeeze. 

    “This is a classic short squeeze,” said Peter Egli, the Chicago-based director for Plexus Cotton Ltd. “The trade is short.”

    O.A. Cleveland, a Mississippi State University economics professor, and consultant, believes more price gains are coming because of the “outstanding short positions in the market.” 

    Supply chain disruptions could make matters worse for the industry.  An economist for North Carolina-based researcher Cotton Inc., Jon Devine, said, “it is not easy to get cotton to mills in short order.” 

    Devine said China has been increasing U.S. supplies in recent weeks. The “raw-fiber equivalence of cotton estimated to be contained in U.S. apparel imports has been occurring at the highest rate since the 2010-11 price spike” when futures reached record highs, he said. 

    A significant problem developing is China’s move to acquire U.S. cotton comes when Beijing has shut down electricity-intensive factories such as apparel manufacturers to conserve power. All of this means consumers could see price increases in the clothing they purchase. 

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 19:45

  • Chaos On The Hill: Progressives Threaten To Nuke Infrastructure Deal, Schumer Blows Gasket Over Reconciliation, McConnell Smug
    Chaos On The Hill: Progressives Threaten To Nuke Infrastructure Deal, Schumer Blows Gasket Over Reconciliation, McConnell Smug

    Republicans on Capitol Hill are watching with Cheshire cat grins as Democrats scramble to avoid a US default, while attempting to pass two major pieces of time-sensitive legislation that have the party’s progressives pitted against moderate Democrats.

    For starters, House progressives have banded together to nuke the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure package passed by the Senate in August, unless Speaker Nancy Pelosi links it to the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better act – which party moderates including Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) will tank in the Senate unless it’s significantly smaller and has legitimate budgetary mechanisms to pay for it that doesn’t just include a beefed-up IRS collecting deadbeat taxes.

    Sen Joe Manchin (D-WV)

    “Progressives will vote for both bills, but a majority of our members will only vote for the infrastructure bill after the President’s visionary Build Back Better Act passes,” said Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair (and boss from hell) Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). The progressive caucus, which claims 95 members, is using their vote on the infrastructure bill as leverage to force the Build Back Better act via the reconciliation process, according to Bloomberg.

    “This agenda is not some fringe wish list: it is the President’s agenda, the Democratic agenda, and what we all promised voters when they delivered us the House, Senate, and White House,” Jayapal added.

    According to Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) – a member of the so-called “Squad” of progressive Democrats, Pelosi’s decision to separate the bills is a “betrayal.”

    “Let me be clear: bringing the so-called bipartisan infrastructure plan to a vote without the #BuildBackBetter Act at the same time is a betrayal. We will hold the line and vote it down,” Tlaib wrote on Twitter, adding “This is not the time for half measures or to go back on our promises.”

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

    On Monday night, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) knocked Manchin and Sinema, telling CNN‘s Manu Raju “It is saddening to see them use Republican talking points. We obviously didn’t envision having Republicans as part of our party. And I hope that they will understand that Democrats need to be united behind the president’s agenda, and we need to have urgent conversations on how to get this agenda done.”

    Meanwhile, President Biden(‘s handlers) have arranged for separate meetings on Tuesday with Manchin and Sinema in an attempt to broker an agreement.

    Pelosi says she plans to move forward with the infrastructure vote on Thursday, however even close allies such as Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) have cast doubt on its current ability to pass.

    “If she were to call the bill, it will fail,” she told The Hill, adding “Not because the Progressive Caucus, people like me, aren’t willing to vote for it. But … we had an agreement that we were going to get these two pieces [together].”

    Debt ceiling disaster

    Democrats – which could simply raise the debt ceiling via reconciliation to avoid a US default, have dug in their heels over Republican involvement – with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calling it a “non-starter.”

    “Going through reconciliation is risky to the country and is a non-starter,” he said at a press conference following a meeting of the Senate Democratic conference, adding “It’s very, very risky.”

    On Tuesday, Republicans shut down a bid by Schumer to hold a vote to suspend the debt limit with a 51-vote threshold, to which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) objected – saying that Democrats can do it by themselves.

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

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 19:25

  • Most Americans No Longer Trust Biden's COVID Info, New Poll Finds
    Most Americans No Longer Trust Biden’s COVID Info, New Poll Finds

    Americans’ trust in President Biden continues to slide, according to the latest Axios/Ipsos Coronavirus Index. The poll found that fewer than half of the respondents trust the president regarding accurate information about COVID-19, a 13-percentage decline since his inauguration in January. 

    Axios/Ipsos found trust in President Biden, the federal government and the mainstream media to deliver accurate information about the virus pandemic slumped in tandem with no end in sight. 

    Only 45% of respondents said they trust the president to provide accurate information about the virus, down from 58% in January. The result of this poll is exemplified in Biden’s outlandish comment on Monday about pre-pandemic life can only return if 97% of Americans are vaccinated.

    Compared with rating earlier this year, Biden is losing trust among Democrats (an 11-percentage point decline to 81% trust a great deal or fair amount) and Republicans (a 10-point drop to 11%). He has experienced the most significant decline in confidence among independents (a 17-point decline to 42%).

    Similarly, less than half of Americans (49%) trust the federal government to provide accurate COVID-19 information, down from 54% earlier this month. 

    “Delta and other issues have undermined the public’s perception,” Cliff Young, president of Ipsos public affairs, told Axios. He said that no clear resolution to ending the pandemic is the main contributor to the decline in trust. 

    What’s not helping with regaining trust is the administration’s sweeping new federal vaccine mandate for 100 million Americans (with no discussion of natural immunity), many of which are private-sector employees as well as health care workers and federal contractors. People across the country, if they’re in health care or law enforcement, among others, are walking off the job in droves because of the mandate. 

    The survey was taken with a little more than 1,100 adults between Sept. 24–27 and has a margin of error of 3.2 percentage points. 

    These findings are a big concern for the Democratic president and his party ahead of the 2022 midterms. It appears Biden’s honeymoon period is over, and the first real glimpse of this was in late July when a Gallup opinion poll found his approval ratings were slipping. 

    Compound the botched exit of Afghanistan, Mexico–US border crisis, and soaring food, gas, and rent prices, the president’s ratings continue to tumble. 

    Meanwhile, former President Trump received a healthy boost in support following the Republican National Convention last month.

    Tyler Durden
    Tue, 09/28/2021 – 19:25

Digest powered by RSS Digest