Today’s News 15th October 2019

  • "We Came From Fire": A Brief History Of The Syrian Kurds
    “We Came From Fire”: A Brief History Of The Syrian Kurds

    “You can say the war is like a giant game of chess…” the Syrian Kurdish ‘fixer’ and driver told photographer and author Joey Lawrence as they traveled across the Kurdish northern Syrian heartland locally dubbed Rojava.

    As perhaps confusing and chess-like the now eight-year long war might be even for the players on the ground, many in the West woke up Monday morning to a new seeming contradictory reality: US-backed Syrian Kurdish forces (SDF) have struck a deal with the Syrian government, and the national flag of President Bashar al-Assad is now flying alongside that of the Kurdish resistance movement, which had been for years backed by American forces. Currently, US special forces are in retreat from the Turkish border upon White House orders, and simultaneously the Syrian Army is moving in. 

    How did such a reunion occur seemingly overnight between the two “enemies”? Hours before the deal was struck, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Force’s top commander, Mazloum Abdi, wrote a Foreign Policy op-ed in which he explained to the world“We know we would have to make painful compromises with Moscow and Assad if we go down that road. But if we have to choose between compromises and the genocide of our people, we will surely choose life.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Jîn, a YPJ fighter, with rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Credit: Joey L. Photography. All images used with permission.

    To understand this, as well as why the invading Turkish Army and its ‘rebel’ proxies now face a nightmarish resistance and insurgency, it is crucial to revisit the little-discussed role of Syria’s main Kurdish militias from the start of the war, how they’ve survived as the region’s fiercest and most experienced ground force, and further how their secular identity and pragmatism has ensured not just survival but flourishing even as they’ve faced extinction by ISIS and the invading Turkish state, and after enduring multiple historic betrayals.  

    Extracts in the below essay are taken from the book We Came From Fire, by Joey L. published by Powerhouse Books (2019), and are used with permission.

    * * *

    For Kurds, fire is extremely important. We came from fire, and we will return to fire — it’s an ancient saying,” one Syrian Kurdish fighter explained to Joey Lawrence.

    “The recent war in Iraq and Syria had become a globalized conflict, except rather than a world war fought with state armies, it was fought by proxy, with the blood of the local people. The world had become entwined in the conflict in ways never before imaginable, and events were both amplified and distorted by propaganda from all sides…”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via Joey L.

    “After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the great European powers divided up the former Ottoman territory. The ensuing treaty — the Treaty of Sevres — promised the Kurds their own continguous and sovereign entity for the first time in modern history. However, three years later, after a series of military victories by the former Ottoman Brigadier General Kemal Pasha (now known as Ataturk), the great powers had to relent to Turkish pressure and replace Sevres with the Treaty of Lausanne. This new treaty established the new Republic of Turkey and squashed Kurdish hopes for a state of their own. The land of the Kurds would be divided between four different countries, splitting tribal lines, villages, and even families…

    As the latest conflict in Iraq and Syria, starting in 2011, spiraled out of control, state powers that once kept the Kurdish ethnic minority down found themselves spread thin, fighting against both rebellions and jihadist insurgencies; they were forced to retreat from Kurdish areas and dedicate resources to government heartlands. However grim, the crisis and dismantling of perceived nation-state borders presented Kurds with a golden opportunity. The once-persecuted rose to secure power in the vacuum.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via Joey L.

    “Seeing an opportunity to crush the Assad government — an old rival often at odds with the Western and Gulf sphere of influence — Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and other NATO-aligned European powers all acted in their own way against the crumbling Syrian state. Intelligence services sent vast amounts of weapons, money, and other materials to the rebels. Western and Gulf states chose their own champions in the war…

    Turkey purposely left its border wide open… It became a gateway for tens of thousands of international jihadists to openly enter Syria and fight alongside the FSA against the Syrian government. These foreign fighters filled the ranks of al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, the al-Nusra Front, the Salafist group Ahrar al-Sham, and later, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). A Syrian jihad was born.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via Joey L.

    “As the largest ethnic minority in Syria — some 10 to 15 percent of the population — the Kurds are treated by the government with both deep suspicion and discrimination. While smaller minorities were given status, the Syrian Ba’ath regime viewed the Kurdish population as too large to risk empowering with representation in politics, yet small enough to keep down. The regime outlawed speaking the Kurdish language in public, as well as all related cultural activities. In the 1970s, the Syrian Ba’ath regime had enacted a forced resettlement program that changed the ethnographic makeup of predominantly Kurdish regions…

    In April 2011, the Assad government, losing control of the population following the large-scale demonstrations and riots sweeping the country, reversed some of these policies. The Syrian government vowed to issue identity cards back to a small portion of the stateless Kurds, but could never fully reconcile given the growing dissent within the population. The country was in crisis; it was too little too late.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via Joey L.

    “In July 2012, the Syrian Arab Army abandoned Kurdish enclaves of Syria to dedicate their dwindling resources to other areas of the country at war. Kurds were now free of the repressive nature of the Assad regime, but at the same time, they were left on their own to defend themselves from the al-Qaeda-linked rebel groups ravaging the land. Even though the Syrian Kurds were predominantly of Sunni faith, the secular nature of the community in general was perceived as heretical by Sunni fundamentalists groups like ISIS, and were therefore targeted for conversion or extermination…

    Thus, the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and their all-female wing, the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ), were born. Other spectrums of Kurdish political voices either abandoned the region and fled across the border, or were forced out by the domination of the new power structure.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via Joey L.

    “At the same time, the Syrian Arab Army’s retreat was self-serving. As foreign fighters were flooding into Syria from Turkey, the regime left the Kurds — Turkey’s insurgent enemy — to fight jihadist groups along the border. Clashes between the YPG/J and the Syrian Arab Army happened on many occasions, but a pragmatic neutrality would always be restored. Both sides knew that opening fronts against one another would weaken themselves, and both feared the future country falling in the hands of jihadists. It seemed neither the Syrian government nor the Turkish-backed rebels could guarantee minority rights for the Kurds, and the YPG/J chose a delicate third path in the war.

    For the first time the term Rojava could be uttered in public. (Rojava, which means “the west” in the Kurdish language, refers to the part of the northeast syria that makes up west Kurdistan, and also is sued to describe the setting sun.) The newly empowered Rojava Kurds immediately began establishing popular governance, from neighborhood communes and academies to citywide councils to a regional administration spread across three different cantons: Afrin, Kobane, and Jazira. In January 2014, the three self-governing cantons declared themselves as autonomous zones.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via Joey L.

    “The YPG/J would prove themselves to be one of the first forces capable of stopping the ISIS advance in Syria… Most of these battles were unreported in the Western press, and the war between the Syrian Kurds and the radical Islamists was generally viewed as a sideshow to the greater war between Assad and the rebellion…

    ISIS — seemingly the world’s most terrifying boogeyman — was collapsing under every offensive. It was purely a military alliance [the US and YPG/J/SDF forces], and the Americans rejected recognizing any political project of Kurdish autonomy in Syria. The US-led coalition support was extremely limited to the occasional delivery of light weapons and airstrikes, which were called in covertly by a small number of special operations forces embedded among the fighters. The US was wary to give the YPG/J heavy weapons such as the anti-tank TOW missile, perhaps fearing that one day they could fall into the hands of the PKK against their NATO partner, Turkey.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    PKK sniper in Makhmour, Iraq. Image via Joey L.

    “After the fall of Idlib Governate and its provincial capital to a controversial coalition of al-Qaeda-affiliated armed groups and CIA-backed FSA rebels, the Syrian conflict took a dramatic turn. Russia entered the war… Although the YPG/J had openly fought Assad’s forces in the beginning of the war, the fragile neutrality that later formed was only seldom broken by odd skirmishes over checkpoints and access to roads. While they were opposed to everything the Assad regime represented, the YPG/J’s reluctance to join the rebels in the beginning of the war had benefited them greatly.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Image via Joey L.

    “They were not yet targets of Russian airpower. After all, the Syrian Arab Army was severely lacking in manpower, and the YPG/J mostly had the same enemies. They say it’s wise to fight your enemy’s enemy last.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Via The New York Times/Conflict Monitor/IHS Markit

    * * *

    See Joey L.’s full account and photos in We Came From Fire: Photographs of Kurdistan’s Armed Struggle Against ISIS.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/15/2019 – 02:45

  • Weep For Catalonia – Separatist Leaders Handed Vicious Prison Terms
    Weep For Catalonia – Separatist Leaders Handed Vicious Prison Terms

    Authored by Craig Murray,

    The vicious jail sentences handed down today by the fascists (I used the word with care and correctly) of the Spanish Supreme Court to the Catalan political prisoners represent a stark symbol of the nadir of liberalism within the EU.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As The BBC reports, Spain’s Supreme Court has sentenced nine Catalan separatist leaders to between nine and 13 years in prison for sedition over their role in an independence referendum in 2017.

    The prosecution had sought up to 25 years in prison for Oriol Junqueras, the former vice-president of Catalonia and the highest-ranking pro-independence leader on trial.

    Junqueras was handed the longest sentence of 13 years for sedition and misuse of public funds.

    Others to receive prison sentences for sedition were:

    • Dolors Bassa, former Catalan labour minister (12 years)

    • Jordi Turull, former Catalan government spokesman (12 years)

    • Raül Romeva, former Catalan external relations minister (12 years)

    • Carme Forcadell, ex-speaker of the Catalan parliament (11.5 years)

    • Joaquim Forn, former Catalan interior minister (10.5 years)

    • Josep Rull, former Catalan territorial minister (10.5 years)

    • Jordi Sànchez, activist and ex-president of the Catalan National Assembly (9 years)

    • Jordi Cuixart, president of Catalan language and culture organisation Òmnium Cultural (9 years)

    The nine leaders, who had already spent months in pre-trial detention, were acquitted of a more serious charge of rebellion.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    That an attempt to organise a democratic vote for the Catalan people in pursuit of the right of self determination guaranteed in the UN Charter, can lead to such lengthy imprisonment, is a plain abuse of the most basic of human rights.

    I was forced to withdraw my lifelong personal support for the EU when, in response to the vicious crushing of the Catalan referendum by Francoist paramilitary forces, when the whole world saw grandmothers hit on the head and thrown down stairs as they attempted to vote, all the institutions of the EU – Council, Commission and Parliament – lined up one after the other to stress their strong support for the Madrid paramilitary action in maintaining “law and order”.

    Today we see the same thing. As the Catalans are imprisoned for efforts at democracy, the EU Commission stated that it “respects the position of the Spanish judiciary” and “this is, and remains, an internal matter for Spain, which has to be dealt with in line with its constitutional order.” The Commission here is simply ignoring what is very obviously a fundamental breach of basic human rights. This is far worse than anything Poland or Hungary have done in recent years, and the Commission is also showing a quite blatant hypocrisy in its relative treatment of its Western and Eastern members.

    There was a time when the EU was a shining example of economic and environmental regulation and of regional wealth redistribution. My fondness for the institution dates from it being one of our few defences from economic Thatcherism. But it has evolved into something very different, a mutual support club for neoliberal political leaders.

    I do not much blog about Brexit because I am less concerned about it than the majority of the population. I neither think remaining inside is essential nor that leaving it is a political panacea. I do desperately wish to retain freedom of movement, and believe leaving the customs union would be economic self-harm on a large scale. A Norway style relationship would suit me fine, but by and large I prefer to stay out of the argument. I do believe that, as a matter of democratic legitimacy, having had the 2016 referendum the result should be respected; England should leave and Scotland and Northern Ireland remain.

    But I also say this. A million people are expected to march on Saturday in support of the EU. That is the EU which has just expressed its active support for the jailing of Catalans for holding a vote. They join Julian Assange as political prisoners in the EU held for non-violent thought crime.

    I say this to anyone thinking of marching on Saturday.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It is morally wrong, at this time, to show public support for the EU, unless you balance it by showing your disgust at the fascist repression of the Catalans and the EU’s support for that repression.

    Every single person going on Saturday’s march has a moral obligation to balance it by sending a message to the EU Commission that their support for this repression is utterly out of order, and carrying a flag or sign on the march indicating support for the Catalan political prisoners. Otherwise you are just a smug person marching for personal self interest. Alongside the progenitors of the Iraq War, who doubtless will again dominate the platform speeches.

    *  *  *

    Unlike his adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, Craig’s blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate. Subscriptions to keep Craig’s blog going are gratefully received.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/15/2019 – 02:00

    Tags

  • Ecuador… And The IMF's Killing Spree
    Ecuador… And The IMF’s Killing Spree

    Authored by Peter Koenig via GlobalResearch.ca,

    For close to 40 years the IMF has weaponized its handle on the western economy through the dollar-based western monetary system, and brutally destroyed nation after nation, thereby killed hundreds of thousands of people. Indirectly, of course, as the IMF would not use traditional guns and bombs, but financial instruments that kill – they kill by famine, by economic strangulation, preventing indispensable medical equipment and medication entering a country, even preventing food from being imported, or being imported at horrendous prices only the rich can pay.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The latest victim of this horrifying IMF scheme is Ecuador.

    For starters, you should know that since January 2000, Ecuador’s economy is 100% dollarized, compliments of the IMF (entirely controlled by the US Treasury, by force of an absolute veto). The other two fully dollarized Latin American countries are El Salvador and Panama.

    The Wall Street Journal recently stated that Ecuador “has the misfortune to be an oil producer with a ‘dollarized’ economy that uses the U.S. currency as legal tender.” The Journal added,

    “the appreciation of the U.S. dollar against other currencies has decreased the net exports of non-oil commodities from Ecuador, which, coupled with the volatility of oil prices, is constraining the country’s potential for economic growth.”

    Starting in the mid 1990’s, culminating around 1998, Ecuador suffered a severe economic crisis, resulting from climatic calamities, and US corporate and banking oil price manipulations (petrol is Ecuador’s main export product), resulting in massive bank failures and hyper-inflation. Ecuador’s economy at that time had been semi-dollarized, like that of most Latin American countries, i.e. Peru, Colombia, Chile, Brazil – and so on.

    The ‘crisis’ was a great opportunity for the US via the IMF to take full control of the Ecuadorian (petrol) economy, by a 100% dollarizing it. The IMF propagated the same recipe for Ecuador as it did ten years earlier for Argentina, namely full dollarization of the economy in order to combat inflation and to bring about economic stability and growth. In January 2000, then President Jorge Jamil Mahuad Witt, from the “Popular Democracy Party”, or the Ecuadorian Christian Democratic Union (equivalent to the German CDU), declared the US dollar as the official currency of Ecuador, replacing their own currency, the Sucre.

    Adopting another country’s currency is an absurdity and can only bring failure. And that it did, almost to the day, 10 years after Argentina was forced by the same US-led villains to revalue her peso to parity with the US-dollar, no fluctuations allowed. Same reason (“economic crisis”, hyper-inflation), same purpose: controlling the riches of the country – absolute failure was preprogrammed. Did Ecuador not learn from the Argentinian experience and converted her currency at the very moment the Argentinian economy collapsed due to dollarization, into the US dollar? – That is not only a fraud, but a planned fraud.

    Ecuadorian goods and services quoted in dollars, became unaffordable for locals and uncompetitive for exports. This led to social unrests, resulting in a popular ‘golpe’. President Mahuad was disposed, had to flee the country, and was replaced by Gustavo Noboa, from the same CDU party (2000 – 2003). Ever since the dollar remained controversial among the Ecuadorian population. President Rafael Correa’s quiet attempt to return to the Sucre, was answered by a CIA-inspired police coup attempt on 30 September 2010.

    In 2017, the CIA / NED (National Endowment for Democracy) and the US State Department have brought about a so-called “soft” regime change. They urged (very likely coerced) Rafael Correa to abstain from running again for President, as the vast majority of Ecuadorians requested him to do. This would have required a Constitutional amendment which probably would have been easily accepted by Parliament. Instead they had Correa endorse his former Vice-President (2007-2013) Lenin Moreno, who run on Correa’s platform, the socialist PAIS Alliance. Therefore, expected to continue in Correa’s line with same socioeconomic policies.

    Less than a year later, Moreno turned tables, became an outright traitor to his country and the people who voted for him. He converted Ecuador’s economy to the neoliberal doctrine – privatization of everything, stealing the money from the social sectors, depriving people of work, drastically reducing social services and converting a surplus economy of tremendous social gains into one of poverty and misery.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    President Correa left the country a modest debt of about 40% to GDP at the end of his Presidency in 2017. A debt-GDP ratio that would be no problem anywhere in the world. Compare this to the US debt vs. GDP – 105% in current terms and about 700% in terms of unmet obligations (net present value of total outstanding obligations). There was absolutely no reason to call the IMF for help. The IMF, the long arm of the US Treasury – ‘bought’ its way into Moreno’s neoliberal Ecuador, coinciding with Moreno evicting Julian Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

    The IMF loan of US$ 4,2 billion increases the debt / GDP ratio by 4% and brings social misery and upheaval in return, and that as usual, at an unimaginable cost, by neoliberal economists called “externalities”. It was practically a US “present” for Moreno’s treason, bringing Assange closer into US custody. What most people are unaware of, is that at the same time, Moreno forgave US$ 4.5 billion in fines, interest and other dues to large corporations and oligarchs, hence decapitalizing the country’s treasury. The amount of canceled corporate fiscal obligations is about equivalent to the IMF loan, plunging large sectors of the Ecuadorian population into more misery.

    Besides, under wrong pretexts it allowed Moreno to apply neoliberal policies, all those that usually come as draconian conditions with IMF loans and that eventually benefit only a small elite in the country – but allows western banking and corporations to further milk the countries social system.

    According to a 2017 report of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), an economic thinktank in Washington, Ecuador’s economy has done rather well under Rafael Correa’s 10-year leadership (2007 – 2017). The country has improved her key indicators significantly: Average annual GDP growth was 1.5% (0.6% past 26 years average); the poverty rate declined by 38%, extreme poverty by 47%, a multiple of poverty reduction of that in the previous ten years, thanks to a horizontally distributive growth; inequality (Gini coefficient) fell substantially, from 0.55 to 0.47; the government doubled social spending from 4.3% in 2006 to 8.6% in 2016; tripled education spending from 0.7% to 2.1% with a corresponding increase in school enrollments; increased public investments from 4% of GDP in 2006 to 10% in 2016.

    Now, Moreno is in the process of reversing these gains. Only six months after contracting the IMF loans, he has already largely succeeded. The public outcry can be heard internationally. Quito is besieged by tens of thousands of demonstrators, steadily increasing as large numbers, in the tens of thousands, of indigenous people are coming from Ecuador’s Amazon region and the Andes to Quito to voice their discontent with their traitor president. Government tyranny is rampant. Moreno declared a 60-day state of emergency – with curfew and a militarized country. As a consequence, Moreno moved the Government Administration to Guayaquil and ordered one of the most severe police and military repressions, Ecuador has ever known, resulting within ten days to at least 7 people killed, about 600 injured and about 1,000 people arrested.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Workers’ Voice

    The protests are directed against the infamous Government Decree 883, that dictates major social reforms, including an increase in fuel prices by more than 100%, reflecting directly on public transportation, as well as on food prices; privatization of public services, bringing about untold layoffs, including some 23,000 government employees; an increase in Aggregated Value Taxes – all part of the so-called “paquetazo”, imposed by the IMF. Protesters called on Moreno, “Fuera asesino, fuera” – Get out, murderer, get out! – Will they succeed?

    The IMF’s guns are needlessly imposed debt, forced privatization of social services and public assets as railways, roads, and worst of all, health, education, water supply and sewerage services. Unemployment rises, extreme poverty skyrockets, public service tariffs – water, electricity, transportation – increase, often exponentially, depriving people from moving to work or look for new employment elsewhere. Diseases that otherwise may have been curable, like cancers, under the new regime lack medication. Patients die prematurely. Depression brings about rapidly rising suicide rates, as the British medical journal Lancet has observed in many IMF oppressed countries, but especially in Greece.

    Targeted are primarily those nations that do not want to bend to the dictate of Washington, and even more so those with natural resources the west covets, or countries that are in strategic geographic locations, where NATO wants to establish itself or get a stronger foothold, i.e. Greece. The IMF is often helped by the World Bank. The former providing, or rather coercing, a ‘debt-strapped’ country into accepting so-called rescue packages, billions of dollars of loans, at exorbitant “high-risk” interest rates, with deadly strings attached.

    The latter, the WB, would usually come in with loans – also euphemistically called “blank checks” – to be disbursed against a matrix of fulfilled conditions, of economic reforms, privatizations. Again, all usually resulting in massive government layoffs, unemployment, poverty. In fact, both the IMF and the WB approaches are similar and often overlapping – imposing “structural adjustment” (now in disguise given different names), to steal a countries resources, and sovereignty, by making them dependent on the very financial institutions that pretend to ‘help’ them.

    The three most recent and flagrant cases of IMF interference were Greece, Ukraine and Argentina.

    Greece was doubly destroyed, once by her brothers and sisters of the European non-Union that blackmailed them into staying with the euro, instead of exiting it and converting to their local currency and regaining financial sovereignty.

    Ukraine, possibly the richest country in terms of national resources and with an enormous agricultural potential due to her fertile soil, was “regime changed” by a bloody coup, The Maidan massacre in February 2014, instigated and planned by the CIA, the EU and NATO and carried out through the very US Embassy in Kiev. This was all long-term planning. Remember Victoria Nuland boasting that the US has spent more than 5 billion dollars over the past five year to bring about regime change and to convert Ukraine into a fully democratic country and making it ready to enter the European Union?

    The western allies put a Nazi Government into Kiev, created a “civil war” with the eastern Russia-aligned part of Ukraine, the Donbass. Thousands of people were killed, millions fled the country, mostly to Russia – the country’s debt went through the roof, and – in comes the IMF, approving in December 2018a 14-month Stand-By Arrangement for Ukraine, with an immediate disbursement of US$ 1.4 billion. This is totally against the IMF’s own Constitution, because it does not allow lending to a country at war or conflict. Ukraine was an “exception”, dictated by the US. Blamed for the ever-changing and escalating Ukraine fiasco was Russia.

    Another IMF victim is Argentina. In December 2015 through fraudulent election, Washington put a neoliberal henchman into the Presidency, Mauricio Macri. He carried out economic and labor reforms by decree and within the first 12 months in office, increased unemployment and poverty from about 12% he inherited from his predecessor, Christine Kirchner, to over 30%.

    Within 15 years of Kirchner Governments, Argentina largely recovered from the collapse of 2000 / 2001 / 2002, accumulating a healthy reserve. There was no need to call the IMF to the rescue, except if it was a pre-condition for Macri to become president. In September 2018, Argentina contracted from the IMF the largest ever IMF loan of 57.1 billion dollars, to be disbursed over a three-year period, plunging Argentina in an almost irrecoverable debt situation.

    The Bretton Woods Organizations – World Bank and IMF, were created in 1944 precisely for that reason, to enslave the world, particularly the resources-rich countries. The purpose of these so-called international financial institutions, foresaw an absolute veto power of the United States, meaning they are doing the bidding of the US Treasury. They were created under the UN Charter for good disguise, and are to work hand-in-glove with the fiat monetary system created in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act. The pretext was to monitor western “convertible” currencies that subscribed to the also newly modified gold standard (1 Troy ounce [31.1 grams] of gold = US$ 35) , also established during the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944.

    Both organizations started lending money – the Marshall Fund, managed by the world Bank in the 1950s – to war devastated Europe, moving gradually into economic development of “Third World” countries – and, eventually, in the 1980s showing their evil heads by introducing the neoliberal doctrines of the Washington Consensus worldwide. It is a miracle how they get away with spewing so much misery – literally unopposed for the last 30 – 40 years – throughout the world. Why are they not be stopped and dismantled? – The UN has 193 members; only a small proportion of them benefit from the IMF-WB financial crimes. Why does the vast majority – also potential victims, remain silent?


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/14/2019 – 23:50

  • The People's Republic Of China: Visualizing 70 Years Of Economic History
    The People’s Republic Of China: Visualizing 70 Years Of Economic History

    From agrarian economy to global superpower in half a century – China’s transformation has been an economic success story unlike any other.

    Today, China is the world’s second largest economy, making up 16% of $86 trillion global GDP in nominal terms. Furthermore, as Visual Capitalist’s Imam Ghosh points out, if you adjust numbers for purchasing power parity (PPP), the Chinese economy has already been the world’s largest since 2014.

    The upward trajectory over the last 70 years has been filled with watershed moments, strategic directives, and shocking tragedies — and all of this can be traced back to the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on October 1st, 1949.

    How the PRC Came to Be

    The Chinese Civil War (1927–1949) between the Republic of China (ROC) and the Communist Party of China (CPC) caused a fractal split in the nation’s leadership. The CPC emerged victorious, and mainland China was established as the PRC.

    Communist leader Mao Zedong set out a few chief goals for the PRC: to overhaul land ownership, to reduce social inequality, and to restore the economy after decades of war. The first State Planning Commission and China’s first 5-year plan were introduced to achieve these goals.

    Today’s timely chart looks back on seven decades of notable events and policies that helped shape the country China has become. The base data draws from a graphic by Bert Hofman, the World Bank’s Country Director for China and other Asia-Pacific regions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Mao Era: 1949–1977

    Mao Zedong’s tenure as Chairman of the PRC triggered sweeping changes for the country.

    1953–1957: First 5-Year Plan
    The program’s aim was to boost China’s industrialization. Steel production grew four-fold in four years, from 1.3 million tonnes to 5.2 million tonnes. Agricultural output also rose, but it couldn’t keep pace with industrial production.

    1958–1962: Great Leap Forward
    The campaign emphasized China’s agrarian-to-industrial transformation, via a communal farming system. However, the plan failed—causing an economic breakdown and the deaths of tens of millions in the Great Chinese Famine.

    1959–1962: Lushan Conference and 7,000 Cadres meeting
    Top leaders in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) met to create detailed policy frameworks for the PRC’s future.

    1966–1976: Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution
    Mao Zedong attempted to regain power and support after the failures of the Great Leap Forward. However, this was another plan that backfired, causing millions more deaths by violence and again crippling the Chinese economy.

    1971: Joined the United Nations
    The PRC replaced the ROC (Taiwan) as a permanent member of the United Nations. This addition also made it one of only five members of the UN Security Council—including the UK, the U.S., France, and Russia.

    1972: President Nixon’s visit
    After 25 years of radio silence, Richard Nixon was the first sitting U.S. President to step foot into the PRC. This helped re-establish diplomatic relations between the two nations.

    1976–1977: Mao Zedong Death, and “Two Whatevers”
    After Mao Zedong’s passing, the interim government promised to “resolutely uphold whatever policy decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly follow whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave.”

    1979: “One-Child Policy”
    The government enacted an aggressive birth-planning program to control the size of the country’s population, which it viewed as growing too fast.

    A Wave of Socio-Economic Reforms: 1980-1999

    From 1980 onward, China worked on opening up its markets to the outside world, and closing the inequality gap.

    1980–1984: Special Economic Zones (SEZs) established
    Several cities were designated SEZs, and provided with measures such as tax incentives to attract foreign investment. Today, the economies of cities like Shenzhen have grown to rival the GDPs of entire countries.

    1981: National Household Responsibility System implemented
    In the Mao era, quotas were set on how many goods farmers could produce, shifting the responsibility of profits to local managers instead. This rapidly increased the standard of living, and the quota system spread from agriculture into other sectors.

    1989: Coastal Development Strategy
    Post-Mao leadership saw the coastal region as the potential “catalyst” for the entire country’s modernization.

    1989–1991: Post-Tiananmen retrenchment
    Early 1980s economic reforms had mixed results, and the growing anxiety eventually culminated in a series of protests. After tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square in 1989, the government “retrenched” itself by initially attempting to roll back economic reforms and liberalization. The country’s annual growth plunged from 8.6% between 1979-1989 to 6.5% between 1989-1991.

    1990–1991: Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges open
    Combined, the Shanghai (SSE) and Shenzhen (SZSE) stock exchanges are worth over $8.5 trillion in total market capitalization today.

    1994: Shandong Huaneng lists on the NYSE
    The power company was the first PRC enterprise to list on the NYSE. This added a new N-shares group to the existing Chinese capital market options of A-shares, B-shares, and H-shares.

    1994–1996: National “8-7” Poverty Reduction Plan
    China successfully lifted over 400 million poor people out of poverty between 1981 and 2002 through this endeavor.

    1996: “Grasp the Large, Let Go of the Small”
    Efforts were made to downsize the state sector. Policy makers were urged to maintain control over state-owned enterprises to “grasp the large”. Meanwhile, the central government was encouraged to relinquish control over smaller SOEs, or “let go of the small”.

    1997: Urban Dibao (低保)
    China’s social safety net went through restructuring from 1993, and became a nationwide program after strong success in Shanghai.

    1997-1999: Hong Kong and Macao handover, Asian Financial Crisis
    China was largely unscathed by the regional financial crisis, thanks to the RMB (¥) currency’s non-convertibility. Meanwhile, the PRC regained sovereignty of Hong Kong and Macau back from the UK and Portugal, respectively.

    1999: Western Development Strategy
    The “Open Up the West” program built out 6 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 1 municipality—each becoming integral to the Chinese economy.

    Turn of the Century: 2000-present

    China’s entry to the World Trade Organization, and the Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor (QFII) program – which let foreign investors participate in the PRC’s stock exchanges – contributed to the country’s economic growth.

     

    https://www.zerohedge.com/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.jshttps://public.flourish.studio/resources/embed.js

    2006: Medium-term Plan for Scientific Development
    The PRC State Council’s 15-year plan outlines that 2.5% or more of national GDP should be devoted to research and development by 2020.

    2008-2009: Global Financial Crisis
    The PRC experienced only a mild economic slowdown during the crisis. The country’s GDP growth in 2007 was a staggering 14.2%, but this dropped to 9.7% and 9.5% respectively in the two years following.

    2013: Belt and Road Initiative
    China’s ambitious plans to develop road, rail, and sea routes across 152 countries is scheduled for completion by 2049—in time for the PRC’s 100th anniversary. More than $900 billion is budgeted for these infrastructure projects.

    2015: Made in China 2025
    The PRC refuses to be the world’s “factory” any longer. In response, it will invest nearly $300 billion to boost its manufacturing capabilities in high-tech fields like pharmaceuticals, aerospace, and robotics.

    Despite the recent ongoing trade dispute with the U.S. and an increasingly aging population, the Chinese growth story seems destined to continue on.

    China Paving the Way?

    The 70th anniversary of the PRC offers a moment to reflect on the country’s journey from humble beginnings to a powerhouse on the world stage.

    Because of China’s economic success, more and more countries see China as an example to emulate, a model of development that could mean moving from rags to riches within a generation

    – Bert Hofman, World Bank

     


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/14/2019 – 23:30

  • Solar Storms Can Devastate Entire Civilizations
    Solar Storms Can Devastate Entire Civilizations

    Authored by Irina Slave via OilPrice.com,

    Climate has inarguably become a hot topic of discussion in developed economies over the last decade, and it is getting hotter by the day as study after study warn we are close to doomed if we don’t change our ways urgently. Yet climate on Earth is not the only problem that humankind faces. There is another climate we need to pay attention to, and there is nothing we can do to change that.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Solar storms, whose more scientific name is coronal mass ejections, were until recently believed to be a rare occurrence—only happening once every couple of centuries or so. However, there is reason to believe they may be a lot more frequent than that. In a world increasingly dependent on electricity, this is, to put it mildly, a problem.

    In 1859 the Sun spewed concentrated plasma that broke through its magnetic fields in the direction of the Earth. Commonly referred to as the Carrington Event, that coronal mass ejection hit the Earth’s magnetic field, which warped it and caused telegraphs around the world to fail. For a long time, the scientific consensus was that solar storms of this magnitude were a rarity.

    That was in the 19th century where telegraphs were cutting-edge tech. Now, we have power grids, airplanes, satellites, and computers, and all of them are potentially susceptible to the effects of another solar storm. We also know that solar storms of the magnitude of the Carrington Event or even worse occur more frequently.

    The Carrington Event was considered to be the worst-case scenario for space weather events against the modern civilization… but if it comes several times a century, we have to reconsider how to prepare against and mitigate that kind of space weather hazard,” the lead research in a study that reached that conclusion, Hisashi Hayakawa, said after the release of the study earlier this month.

    The question of how to prepare is a tricky one. According to astrophysicist and aerospace engineer Robert Coker, the fallout from a severe solar storm could cost up to a trillion dollars. And that was in 2017, when he wrote “The trillion-dollar solar storm” for The Space Review. In it he discussed a 1921 solar storm with a magnitude similar to that of the Carrington Event. If that storm occurred today, he wrote, it would cost $1 trillion. It is certainly worth to be prepared, but how?

    For starters, by predicting solar storms, writes atmospheric sciences professor Marshall Shepherd in an article for Forbes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, together with the U.S. Geological Survey, recently presented a Geoelectric Field Model. This model, according to them, “calculates regional electric field levels in the U.S. caused by disturbances in Earth’s magnetic field from geomagnetic storms.”

    This, according to Shepherd, will provide relevant government agencies with near real-time information about upcoming storms, a kind of a heads-up before a storm hits the Earth’s magnetic field. Yet it seems this heads-up cannot prevent the consequences of a geomagnetic storm. In fact, according to Shepherd, it is mainly useful as an impact assessment tool rather than a tool of prevention:

    “Such near-real time information on geomagnetic storms like a CME is valuable for assessing impacts on the infrastructure associated with the electrical power grid,” he wrote, adding, “Take a moment and think about how you would function for weeks without electrical power, GPS, or air travel.”


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/14/2019 – 23:10

  • "This Did Not Go Well" – PG&E's Rolling Blackout Sparked Chaos In Bay Area
    “This Did Not Go Well” – PG&E’s Rolling Blackout Sparked Chaos In Bay Area

    Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E) historic blackout plunging hundreds of thousands of customers into darkness last week was a massive communication breakdown that sparked criticism over the two-day blackout that was designed to avoid wildfires, reported The New York Times.

    PG&E officials said over the weekend that most of the power had been restored to everyone except for 2,500 customers across several Bay Area counties and promised to fix communication channels with customers.

    “We’ll get better in the next month and better in the next year,” PG&E CEO Bill Johnson said Saturday.

    “Communication to customers, coordination with state agencies, website availability, call center staff, that’s where you will see short-term improvements.”

    Last Wednesday, PG&E triggered rolling blackouts for nearly 735,000 homes and or businesses in the San Francisco Bay Area amid the threat of strong winds and dry conditions that would’ve damaged transmission wires and sparked dangerous wildfires, similar to what was seen last year. Most of the residents were restored by Friday afternoon, but 99.5% of its customers saw full power by Saturday. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The shutdown caused widespread confusion about the planned power outage, and according to some experts, billions of dollars in economic losses were sustained by local businesses during the two-day blackout.

    PG&E’s website and communication network that relayed essential data about the blackouts crashed, leaving many without details about what was happening. 

    “There were definitely missteps,” said Elizaveta Malashenko, a spokesperson for the state Public Utilities Commission who was in the PG&E control center. “It’s pretty much safe in saying, this did not go well.”

    PG&E’s approach to shutdown various grids during a powerful windstorm that hit the Bay Area was never tried before, nor such failure in attempting to manage a controlled blackout and effectively communicate what was happening customers.

    “Today marks an unprecedented turn in the history of electricity in California,” State Senator Jerry Hill, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, Utilities and Communications, said in a letter on Wednesday to the utilities commission. “This situation is not acceptable nor sustainable.”

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

    Johnson said crews inspected 25,000 miles of line across the state after the windstorm passed. PG&E confirmed that at least 50 poles and power lines were damaged during the storm, which could have triggered wildfires considering the dry conditions.

    “Had that line not be de-energized,” he said, it could have led to a “catastrophic outcome.”

    Bay Area customers are furious with PG&E for its rolling blackout that plunged hundreds of thousands into darkness, along with crashed communication networks that left many ill-informed. 

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

    And judging by PG&E’s latest defensive tactic to thwart wildfires during windstorms, it appears Bay Area customers could expect more rolling blackouts in the future. Maybe next time, PG&E can communicate more effectively before the next outage. Nevertheless, Bay Area residents should seriously consider diesel generators. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/14/2019 – 22:50

  • Escobar: Behind Hong Kong's Black Terror
    Escobar: Behind Hong Kong’s Black Terror

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

    Deciphering who’s behind the violence leads to a long list of possibilities…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “If we burn, you burn with us.” “Self-destruct together.” (Lam chao.)

    The new slogans of Hong Kong’s black bloc – a mob on a rampage connected to the black shirt protestors – made their first appearance on a rainy Sunday afternoon, scrawled on walls in Kowloon.

    Decoding the slogans is essential to understand the mindless street violence that was unleashed even before the anti-mask law passed by the government of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) went into effect at midnight on Friday, October 4.

    By the way, the anti-mask law is the sort of measure that was authorized by the 1922 British colonial Emergency Regulations Ordnance, which granted the city government the authority to “make any regulations whatsoever which he [or she] may consider desirable in the public interest” in case of “emergency or public danger”.

    Perhaps the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, was unaware of this fine lineage when she commented that the law “only intensifies concern over freedom of expression.” And it is probably safe to assume that neither she nor other virulent opponents of the law know that a very similar anti-mask law was enacted in Canada on June 19, 2013.

    More likely to be informed is Hong Kong garment and media tycoon Jimmy Lai, billionaire publisher of the pro-democracy Apple Daily, the city’s Chinese Communist Party critic-in-chief and highly visible interlocutor of official Washington, DC, notables such as US Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and ex-National Security Council head John Bolton.

    On September 6, before the onset of the deranged vandalism and violence that have defined Hong Kong “pro-democracy protests” over the past several weeks, Lai spoke with Bloomberg TV’s Stephen Engle from his Kowloon home.

    He pronounced himself convinced that – if protests turned violent China would have no choice but to send People’s Armed Police units from Shenzen into Hong Kong to put down unrest.

    “That,” he said on Bloomberg TV, “will be a repeat of the Tiananmen Square massacre and that will bring in the whole world against China… Hong Kong will be done, and … China will be done, too.”

    Still, before the violence broke out, hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people had gathered in peaceful protests in June, illustrating the depth of feeling that exists in Hong Kong. These are the working-class Hongkongers that Lai supports through the pages of Apple Daily.

    But the situation has changed dramatically from the early summer of non-violent demonstrations. The black blocs see such intervention as the only way to accomplish their goal.

    For the black blocs, the burning is all about them – not Hong Kong, the city and its hard-working people. Those are all subjected to the will of this fringe minority that, according to the understaffed and overstretched Hong Kong police force, numbers 12,000 people at the most.

    Cognitive rigidity is a euphemism when applied to mob rule, which is essentially a religious cult. Even attempting the rudiments of a civilized discussion with these people is hopeless. The supremely incompetent, paralyzed Hong Kong government at least managed to define them precisely as “rioters” who have plunged one of the wealthiest and so far safest cities on the planet “into fear and chaos” and committed “atrocities” that are “far beyond the bottom line of any civilized society.”

    “Revolution in Hong Kong”, the previous preferred slogan, at face value a utopian millennial cause, has been in effect drowned by the heroic vandalizing of metro stations, i.e., the public commons; throwing petrol bombs at police officers; and beating up citizens who don’t follow the script. To follow these gangs running amok, live, in Central and Kowloon, and also on RTHK, which broadcasts the rampage in real-time, is a mind-numbing experience.

    I’ve sketched before the basic profile of thousands of young protestors in the streets fully supported by a silent mass of teachers, lawyers, bewigged judges, civil servants and other liberal professionals who gloss over any outrageous act – as long as they are anti-government.

    But the key question has to focus on the black blocs, their mob rule on rampage tactics, and who’s financing them. Very few people in Hong Kong are willing to discuss it openly. And as I’ve noted in conversations with informed members of the Hong Kong Football Club, businessmen, art collectors, and social media groups, very few people in Hong Kong – or across Asia for that matter – even know what black blocs are all about.

    The black bloc matrix

    Black blocs are not exactly a global movement; they are a tactic deployed by a group of protesters – even though intellectuals springing up from different European strands of anarchism mostly in Spain, Italy, France and Germany since the mid-19th century may also raise it from the level of a tactic to a strategy that is part of a larger movement.

    The tactic is simple enough. You dress in black, with lots of padding, ski masks or balaclavas, sunglasses, and motorcycle helmets. As much as you protect yourself from police pepper spray and/or tear gas, you conceal your identity and melt into the crowd. You act as a block, usually a few dozen, sometimes a few hundred. You move fast, you search and destroy, then you disperse, regroup and attack again.

    From the inception, throughout the 1980s, especially in Germany, this was a sort of anarchist-infused urban guerrilla tactic employed against the excesses of globalization and also against the rise of crypto-fascism.

    Yet the global media explosion of black blocs only happened over a decade later, at the notorious Battle of Seattle in 1999, during the WTO ministerial conference, when the city was shut down. The WTO summit collapsed and a  state of emergency was in effect for nearly a week. Crucially, there were no casualties, even as black blocs made themselves known as part of a mass riot organized by radical anarchists.

    The difference in Hong Kong is that black blocs have been instrumentalized for a blatantly search-and-destroy agenda. The debate is open on whether black bloc tactics, deployed randomly, only serve to legitimize the police state even more. What’s clear is that smashing a subway station used by average working people is absolutely irreconcilable with advancing a better, more responsible, local government.

    My interlocutor shows up impeccably dressed for dim sum on Saturday at a deserted Victoria City outlet in CITIC tower, with a spectacular view of the harbor. He’s Shanghai aristocracy, the family having migrated to Hong Kong in 1949, and he’s a uniquely informed insider on all aspects of the Hong Kong-China-US triangle. Via mutual Chinese diaspora connections that hark back to the handover era, he agreed to talk on background. Let’s call him Mr. E.

    In the aftermath of dark Friday, Mr. E is still appalled:

    “Not only you’re harming the people making their living in businesses, companies, shopping malls. You’re destroying subway stations. You’re destroying our streets. You’re destroying our hard-earned reputation as a safe, international business center. You’re destroying our economy.”

    He cannot explain why there was not a single police officer in sight, for hours, as the rampage continued.

    Cutting to the chase, Mr. E attributes the whole drama to a pathological hatred of China by a “significant majority” of Hong Kong’s population. Significantly, the day after our conversation, a small black bloc contingent circled around the PLA’s Kowloon East Barracks in Kowloon Tong in the early evening. Chinese soldiers in camouflage filmed them from the rooftop.

    There’s no way black blocs would take their gas masks, steel rods and petrol bombs to fight the PLA. That’s an entirely new ball game compared with thrashing metro stations. And color-coded “revolution” manuals don’t teach you how to do it.

    Mr. E points out there is nothing “leaderless” about the Hong Kong black blocs. Mob rule is strictly regimented. One of the black shirt slogans  – “Occupy, disrupt, disperse, repeat” – has in effect mutated into “Swarm, destroy, disperse, repeat.”

    Mr. E asks me about black blocs in France. Western mainstream media, for months, have ignored solid, peaceful protests by the Gilets Jaunes/Yellow Vests across France, against corruption, inequality and the Macron administration’s neoliberal push to turn France into a start-up benefitting the 1%.

    Charges that French intel has manipulated black blocs and inserted undercover agents and casseurs (persons vandalizing property, specifically during protests) to discredit and demonize the Yellow Vests are widespread. As I’ve witnessed in Paris first hand, the feared CRS have been absolutely ruthless in their RAND-conceptualized militarized operations in urban terrain – repression tactics – without excluding the odd beating up of elderly citizens.

    In contrast, mob rule in Hong Kong is excused as protest against “totalitarian” China.

    Most of the conversation with Mr. E centers on possible sources of financing for the initial nonviolent protest and, particularly, for the mob rule that the black blocs have brought in its place.

    Motivation and opportunity will get you on the list, which is not terribly long – but is long enough to include names of people and organizations diametrically opposed to one another and thus unlikely to be working together.

    Among governments, we can start with the still (if not, probably, for much longer) number one superpower.

    Trump administration officials, locked in a trade war with Beijing, would have no trouble imagining some advantage coming from a weakening of the People’s Republic’s rule over Hong Kong, and could perhaps see good in positively destabilizing China, starting with fomenting a violent revolution in the former British colony.

    The United Kingdom, contemplating a lonely post-Brexit old age, could have pondered how nice it would be to get closer to its favorite former colony, still an island of Britishness in a less and less British world.

    Taiwan, of course, would have had interest in provoking a test run of how One Country, Two Systems – the formula that the PRC and the UK used with Hong Kong in 1997 and that Beijing has offered to Taiwan, as well – might work out under stress. And after the stress of peaceful protest had exposed weak underpinnings, the temptation may well have arisen to go farther and make such a hash of Chinese-ruled Hong Kong that no Taiwanese would ever again fall for the merger propaganda.

    The People’s Republic seems an unlikely protagonist for the initial, nonviolent phase, but there are plenty of Hong Kongers who believe it is now encouraging provocations that would justify a major crackdown. And we can’t completely rule out the possibility that a mainland CCP faction – opposed to the breach of recent tradition with which Xi Jinping extended his time in the presidency, say – is trying to discredit him.

    OK, enough about governments. Now we need some on-the-ground agents, Chinese with plausible deniability who can blend in as they receive and disburse the necessary funding and handle organizational and training matters.

    Here the possibilities are far too numerous to list, but one popular name would be Guo Wengui, aka Miles Kwok. The billionaire fell out with the CCP and, in 2014, fled to the United States to pursue a career as a long-distance political operative.

    Even more popular would be name of Jimmy Lai, mentioned above. Confirming another of my key meetings, when Mr. E points to the usual funding suspects, the name of Jimmy Lai inevitably comes up. In fact, a US-Taiwan-Jimmy Lai combination may be number one on the hit parade when it comes to the common wisdom.

    But when I tried that combination on for size I encountered problems. For one big thing, Jimmy Lai has made no effort to hide his aid to pro-democracy groups but in his public remarks has invariably encouraged nonviolent agendas.

    As South China Morning Post columnist Alex Lo wrote not long ago, “What’s wrong with making massive donations to political parties and anti-government groups? Nothing! So I am puzzled by the media brouhaha over Apple Daily boss Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s alleged donations worth more than HK$40 million to his pals in the pan-democratic camp over a two-year period.”

    Let’s not give up so easily, though. I believe that some things are best hidden right out in the open in bright daylight.

    Yes, Lai’s public voice happens to be Mark Simon, who worked for four years as a US naval intelligence analyst.

    Yes, Lai has been good friends with neo-con guru Paul Wolfowitz since the latter became chairman of the US Taiwan Business Council in 2008, according to a Lai aide.

    Wolfowitz served as deputy secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005 under Donald Rumsfeld, sort of by accident: He was supposed to become George W Bush’s head of CIA. But, alas, that didn’t work out because his wife got wind of an affair Paul, a member of the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED, had with a staffer, who was married at the time … and so it goes.

    And, yes, according to Wikileaks documentation, in 2013 Lai paid US$75,000 to Wolfowitz for an introduction to Myanmar government bigwigs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A document suggesting a transaction between Lai and Wolfowitz.
    Photo: Wikileaks via SCMP

    But none of that really proves anything, does it now? Innocent until proven guilty. Colluding with arguably the most important US policy and intelligence operative of the past two decades, apparently yes – but can we establish active involvement by either the Pauls or the Jimmys of this world in black bloc provocations to achieve the bloody Chinese intervention that Lai forecast? Innocent until proven guilty.

    This is going to take some further work. Back to the old drawing board with Asia Times.

    There will be blowback

    “We in Hong Kong are few in number. But we know that the world will never know genuine peace until the people of China are free.” – Wall Street Journal op-ed by Jimmy Lai,  Sept 30

    As much as there have been frantic efforts by the usual suspects to obliterate them, the images of black bloc mob rule and rampage across Hong Kong are now imprinted all over the Global South, not to mention in the unconscious of hundreds of millions of Chinese netizens.

    Even the black blocs’ invisible financial backers may have been stunned by the counter-productive effects of the rampage, to the point of essentially declaring victory and ordering a retreat. In any case, Jimmy Lai continues to blame the Hong Kong police for “excessive and brutal violence” and to demonize the “dictatorial, cold-blooded and violent beast.”

    Yet there’s no guarantee the black terror mob will back down – especially with Hong Kong fire officials now alarmed by the proliferation of online instructions for making petrol bombs using lethal white phosphorous. Once again – remember al-Qaeda’s “freedom fighters” – history will teach us: Beware of the Frankenstein terrors you create.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/14/2019 – 22:30

  • Pork-Panic Sends China CPI To 6 Year Highs As Factory Deflation Deepens
    Pork-Panic Sends China CPI To 6 Year Highs As Factory Deflation Deepens

    China’s producer prices deflated for the 3rd straight month, slumping 1.2% YoY – the biggest deflationary impulse since July 2016 – but, thanks to the explosion in pork prices (as ‘pig ebola’ spreads), Chinese consumers are facing the worst inflation since 2013.

    • China Sept CPI +3.0% YoY (2.9% exp and 2.9% prior)

    • China Sept PPI -1.2% YoY (-1.2% exp and -0.8% prior)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    “The return to PPI deflation since July is not only acting as a drag on manufacturing investment, already under stress from U.S.-China trade tensions and supply-chain relocation, but also poses a major risk for onshore corporate debt refinancing,” Bo Zhuang, chief China economist at research firm TS Lombard, said before the data.

    “Sustained PPI deflation, where the monthly rate remained below -2% for more than three to six months, would be a likely catalyst for the reversion to old-style credit stimulus.”

    The biggest driver of China’s consumer price inflation was food prices, which rose 11.2% (highest since Oct 2011), thanks to pork prices surging 69.3% YoY – the biggest spike since 2007.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The divergence between CPI and PPI is boxing Chinese officials into a corner, fearful of broad-based rate-cuts to rescue PPI from deflationary hell sending CPI even higher, but analysts are hopeful this is ‘transitory’…

    “Surging pork prices as a result of the African swine fever outbreak could cause headline consumer price inflation to increase beyond the 3% official target in the coming months,” Tommy Wu, senior economist at Oxford Economics Hong Kong Ltd, wrote in a report before the data. “But we don’t think that CPI inflation will rise substantially beyond the target and create a major constraint on Chinese monetary policy.”

    Yuan showed little to no reaction to these mixed signals.

    As we detailed previously, African swine fever, which has been raging across China, and Asia, has decimated pork supplies. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Pork prices are likely to remain elevated for some time, said Betty Wang, a senior economist at ANZ. She said farmers had culled so many pigs that it would take a while for supplies to build up again. “If people feel that food inflation is going up, it may spur policy actions,” she added, although it wasn’t clear just how Beijing can find a quick and easy substitute to domestic farms.

    An apparent trade truce between China and the US reached last Friday could be what China needs to stabilize its pork supplies. 

    China has said it could import as much as 400,000 tons of pork as domestic supplies shrink. The country is likely to boost purchases of pork from the US in the coming weeks. 


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/14/2019 – 22:10

  • "Saving Ammunition" Is Not A Reason To Avoid Rate Cuts
    “Saving Ammunition” Is Not A Reason To Avoid Rate Cuts

    Submitted by Eric Hickman, president of Kessler Investment Advisors, Inc., an advisory firm located in Denver, Colorado specializing in U.S. Treasury bonds.

    It isn’t just how much the Fed cuts rates that matters; it is how soon they do it.

    You don’t have to go far to hear calls for the Federal Reserve to not cut rates because they need to, “save ammunition” for when things are really bad. This imagines that the rate cut itself is the countervailing force against economic weakness

    But it doesn’t work that way.

    Outside of a questionable psychological effect, the change in rate isn’t important, it is the level of the rate and for how long it persists. In fact, the Fed’s stimulative effect is more potent the sooner it is used, because lowering interest rates sooner will cost borrowers less than lowering them later.

    In order to illustrate this, consider two scenarios. In the first scenario, “fire the ammunition,” the Fed cuts 0.25% at each of the next seven meetings to get down to the prior Fed low – a range of 0-0.25%. In the second scenario, “save the ammunition,” the Fed doesn’t cut rates again until March of next year and subsequently lowers 50 basis points three times, then 25 basis points once.

    In both scenarios, the Fed has lowered to 0.125% by July of next year. These scenarios shouldn’t be construed as predictions, but rather were arranged to illustrate the concept. See the chart below for a graphical representation. For simplicity, I considered the Fed Funds target rate to be the mid-point of the target range.

    If you compare the average interest rate over the next year between the two, it doesn’t take much imagination to guess that the, “fire the ammunition” scenario costs a borrower less than the, “save the ammunition” scenario. And it isn’t a trivial amount. It would cost 0.28% less on average for the whole year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And so, lowering earlier could generate more than a full rate cut worth of stimulus. The stimulating effect of rate cuts is not just how much the Fed cuts, but also how soon they do them. There are reasons left to be cautious in cutting rates, but saving ammunition isn’t one of them.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/14/2019 – 21:50

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 14th October 2019

  • Crypto Nightmare: 97% Of South Korean Exchanges Are At Risk Of Going Bankrupt
    Crypto Nightmare: 97% Of South Korean Exchanges Are At Risk Of Going Bankrupt

    South Korean regulators have launched strict rules for cryptocurrency startups and crypto traders, and this has forced many Koreans to list and or trade on foreign exchanges. As a result, the majority of domestic exchanges are at risk of imploding, reported BusinessKorea.

    An increasing amount of South Korean blockchain startups are listing on foreign exchanges than domestic ones. International exchanges have introduced South Korean won for crypto to fiat-involved transactions without real-name accounts, and this move has attracted cryptocurrencies projects in the country to list on oversea exchanges.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    BusinessKorea said Binance Labs, headquartered in the European Union, has added the won feature to its platform to attract cryptocurrency projects from South Korea.

    Medibloc and Temco, are two Korean blockchain projects that are expected to list on foreign exchanges.

    Crypto experts tell BusinessKorea that Korean blockchain companies are desperately trying to list in foreign markets because domestic cryptocurrency exchanges are faltering.

    One reason for the souring conditions of domestic exchanges is that hundreds of smaller ones cannot open real-name virtual accounts, which means, traders cannot convert digital assets into fiat, or won.

    The country’s four largest exchanges, Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, and Korbit, allow traders to swap digital assets for fiat. Still, traders have to use their legal name on the account as part of Anti-Money Laundering regulations enacted in 1Q18. Crypto traders tell BusinessKorea that investors cannot benefit from anonymity, one of the fundamental characteristics of cryptos, so many have shied away from the major exchanges in the country.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As per strict regulations, crypto traders have said, transaction volumes on domestic exchanges have collapsed. Only five South Korean exchanges rank in the world’s top 100 exchanges in terms of transaction volume.

    BusinessKorea warned: “It is no exaggeration to say that 97 percent of domestic exchanges are in danger of going bankrupt due to their low volume of transactions.”

    And it seems the dominos have already started to fall.

    South Korea’s Prixbit cryptocurrency exchange declared it would cease operations in early August. The founder of the company said: “Due to negative internal and external influences, management difficulties could not be overcome and the normal operation became impossible.”

    San Fransico-based software entrepreneur Frank Marcantoni said as long as regulators in South Korea continue to intervene in domestic crypto markets with more stringent regulation(s), crypto firms will continue an exodus to foreign exchanges. He added, tighter regulations, as per what BusinessKorea said, would likely result in more exchange failures in 2020.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/14/2019 – 02:45

  • France: More Death To Free Speech
    France: More Death To Free Speech

    Authored by Guy Milliere via The Gatestone Institute,

    On September 28, a “Convention of the Right” took place in Paris, organized by Marion Marechal, a former member of French parliament and now director of France’s Institute of Social, Economic and Political Sciences. The purpose of the convention was to unite France’s right-wing political factions. In a keynote speech, the journalist Éric Zemmour harshly criticized Islam and the Islamization of France. He described the country’s “no-go zones” (Zones Urbaines Sensibles; Sensitive Urban Zones) as “foreign enclaves” in French territory and depicted, as a process of “colonization”, the growing presence in France of Muslims who do not integrate.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Zemmour quoted the Algerian writer Boualem Sansal, who said that the no-go zones are “small Islamic Republics in the making”. Zemmour said that a few decades ago, the French could talk freely about Islam but that today it is impossible, and he denounced the use of the “hazy concept of Islamophobia to make it impossible to criticize Islam, to reestablish the notion of blasphemy to the benefit of the Muslim religion alone…”

    “All our problems are worsened by Islam. It is a double jeopardy…. Will young French people be willing to live as a minority on the land of their ancestors? If so, they deserve to be colonized. If not, they will have to fight … [T]he old words of the Republic, secularism, integration, republican order, no longer mean anything … Everything has been overturned, perverted, emptied of meaning.”

    Zemmour’s speech was broadcast live on LCI television. Journalists on other channels immediately accused LCI of contributing to “hate propaganda”. Some said that LCI should lose its broadcasting license. One journalist, Memona Hinterman-Affegee, a former member of France’s High Council of Audiovisual Media (Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel), the body that regulates electronic media in France, wrote in the newspaper Le Monde:

    “LCI uses a frequency which is part of the public domain and thus belongs to the entire nation … LCI has failed in its mission and lost control of its program, and must be sanctioned in an exemplary manner”.

    The journalists of Le Figaro, the newspaper employing Zemmour, wrote a press release demanding his immediate dismissal. Calls heard on most radio and television stations for a total boycott of Zemmour stressed that he had been condemned several times for “Islamophobic racism”.

    Alexis Brézet, the managing editor of Le Figarosaid that he expressed his “disapproval” to Zemmour and reminded him of the need for “strict compliance with the law”, but did not fire him. SOS Racisme, a left-wing movement created in 1984 to fight racism, launched a campaign to boycott companies publishing advertisements in Le Figaro and said that its aim was to coerce the management of the newspaper to fire Zemmour. The mainstream RTL radio station that employed Zemmour decided to terminate him immediately, saying that his presence on the air was “incompatible” with the spirit of living together “that characterizes the station”.

    A journalist working for RTL and LCI, Jean-Michel Aphatie, said that Zemmour was a “repeat offender” who should not be able to speak anywhere and compared him to the anti-Semitic Holocaust denier Dieudonné Mbala Mbala:

    “Dieudonné is not allowed to speak in France. He must hide. That is fine, since he wants to spread hatred. Éric Zemmour should be treated the same way.”

    Caricatures were published depicting Zemmour in a Waffen SS uniform. Another journalist, Dominique Jamet, apparently not seeing any problem comparing a Jew to a Nazi, said that Zemmour reminded him of Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. On the internet, death threats against Zemmour multiplied. Some posted the times Zemmour takes the subway, what stations, and suggested that someone push him under a train.

    The French government officially filed a complaint against Zemmour for “public insults” and “public provocation to discrimination, hatred or violence”. The investigation was handed over to the police. Someone in France accused of “public provocation to discrimination, hatred or violence” can face a sentence of one year in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros ($50,000).

    Whoever reads the text of Zemmour’s speech on September 28 can see that the speech does not incite discrimination, hatred or violence, and does not make a single racist statement: Islam is not a race, it is a religion.

    Zemmour’s speech describes a situation already discussed by various writers. Zemmour is not the first to say that the no-go zones are dangerous areas the police can no longer enter, or that they are under the control of radical imams and Muslim gangs who assault and drive out non-Muslims. Zemmour is not the only writer to describe the consequences of the mass-immigration of Muslims who do not integrate into French society. The pollster Jerome Fourquet, in his recent bookThe French Archipelago, points out that France today is a country where Muslims and non-Muslims live in separate societies “hostile to each other”. Fourquet also emphasizes that a growing number of Muslims living in France say they want to live according sharia law and place sharia law above French law. Fourquet notes that 26% of French Muslims born in France want to obey only Sharia; for French Muslims born abroad, the figure rises to 46%. Zemmour merely added that what was happening is a “colonization”.

    Zemmour had been hauled into court many times in the recent past and has had to pay heavy fines. On September 19, he was fined 3,000 euros ($3,300) for “incitement to racial hatred” and “incitement to discrimination”, for having said in 2015 that “in countless French suburbs where many young girls are veiled, a struggle to Islamize territories is taking place”.

    In a society where freedom of speech exists, it would be possible to discuss the use of these statements, but in France today, freedom of speech has been almost completely destroyed.

    Writers other than Zemmour have been hauled into court and totally excluded from all media, simply for describing reality. In 2017, the great historian Georges Bensoussan published a bookA Submissive France, as alarming as what Zemmour said a few days ago. Bensoussan, in an interview, quoted an Algerian sociologist, Smaïn Laacher, who had said that “in Arab families, children suckle anti-Semitism with their mother’s milk”. Laacher was never indicted. Bensoussan, however, had to go to criminal court. Although he was acquitted, he was fired by the Paris Holocaust Memorial, which until then had employed him.

    In 2011, another author, Renaud Camus, published a bookThe Great Replacement. In it, he talked about the decline of Western culture in France and its gradual replacement by Islamic culture. He also noted the growing presence in France of a Muslim population that refuses to integrate, and added that demographic studies show a birth rate higher in Muslim families than in non-Muslim ones.

    Immediately, commentators in the media accused Camus of “anti-Muslim racism” and called him a “conspiracy theorist”. His demographic studies were omitted. He had never mentioned either race or ethnicity, yet was nonetheless described as a defender of “white supremacism” and instantly excluded from radio and television. He can no longer publish anything in a French newspaper or magazine. In fact, he has no publisher at all anymore; he has to self-publish. In debates in France, he is referred to as a “racist extremist,” and credited with saying things he never said. He is then denied the possibility of answering.

    The difference between Eric Zemmour and Georges Bensoussan or Renaud Camus is that Zemmour had published books that became best sellers before he talked explicitly about the Islamization of France.

    Those who have destroyed the careers of other writers for stating unfashionable facts have been doing their best to condemn Zemmour to the same fate. So far, they have not succeeded, so they have now decided to launch a major offensive against him. What they clearly want his personal destruction.

    Zemmour is not only risking a professional ban; like many other writers being silenced by an intolerant “lynch mob”, he is risking his life.

    Almost no one shows any interest in defending him, just as no one defended Georges Bensoussan or Renaud Camus. Defending someone accused of being a “racist” implies the risk of being accused of being a “racist” too. Intellectual terror now reigns in France.

    A few days ago, the writer and philosopher Alain Finkielkraut said that suggesting that “Islamophobia is the equivalent of yesterday’s anti-Semitism” is scandalous. He said that “Muslims do not risk extermination” and that no one should “deny that today’s anti-Semitism is Arab Muslim anti-Semitism.” He added that France is moving from a “muzzled press to a muzzling press that destroys free speech”.

    France, wrote Ghislain Benhessa, a professor at the University of Strasbourg, is no longer a democratic country and gradually become something very different:

    “Our democratic model which was based on the free expression of opinions and the confrontation of ideas is giving way to something else … Relentless moral condemnations infect the debates and dissenting opinions are constantly deemed ‘nauseating’, ‘dangerous’, ‘deviant’ or ‘retrograde’, and therefore the elements of language repeated ad nauseam by official communicators will soon be the last words deemed acceptable. Lawsuits, charges of indignity and proclamations of openness are about to give birth to the evil twin of openness: a closed society.”

    On October 3, five days after Zemmour’s speech, four police employees were murdered in Paris police headquarters by a man who had converted to Islam. The murderer, Mickaël Harpon, had gone every week to a mosque where an imam, who lives in a no-go zone ten miles north of Paris, made radical remarks. Harpon had been working at police headquarters for 16 years. He had recently shared on social networks a video showing an imam calling for jihad, and saying that “the most important thing for a Muslim is to die as a Muslim”.

    Harpon’s colleagues said that he had been delighted by the 2015 jihadist attacks in France in 2015, and said they had reported “signs of radicalization” to no avail. The government’s first reaction had been to say that the murderer was “mentally disturbed” and that the attack had no connection with Islam. French Minister of the Interior Christophe Castaner simply stated that there had been “administrative dysfunctions,” and acknowledged that the killer had access to files classified “secret”.

    A month before that, on September 2, an Afghan man who had the status in France of a political refugee, slit the throat of a young man and injured several other people in a street in Villeurbanne, a suburb of Lyon. He announced that the fault of those he killed or injured was that they did “not read the Koran”. The police immediately stated that he was mentally ill and that his attack had nothing to do with Islam.

    Soon in France, no one will dare to say that any attack openly inspired by Islam has any connection with Islam.

    Today, there are more than 600 no-go zones in France. Every year, hundreds of thousands immigrants coming mainly from Muslim countries, settle in France and add to the country’s Muslim population. Most of those who preceded them have not integrated.

    Since January 2012, more than 260 people in France have been murdered in terrorist attacks, and more than a thousand wounded. The numbers may increase in the coming months. The authorities will still call the attackers “mentally ill”.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/14/2019 – 02:00

  • Margolis: More "Stupid Wars" In Syria
    Margolis: More “Stupid Wars” In Syria

    Authored by Eric Margolis via LewRockwellc.om,

    More war in wretched Syria.  Half the population are now refugees; entire cities lie shattered by bombing; bands of crazed gunmen run rampant; US, French, Israeli and Russian warplanes bomb widely.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Now, adding to the chaos, President Donald Trump has finally given Turkey, NATO’s second military power, the green light to invade parts of northeastern Syria after he apparently ordered a token force of US troops there to withdraw.

    Infographic: The Current Situation In Syria  | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    This, of course, puts the Turks in a growing confrontation with the region’s Kurds, who have occupied large swaths of the area during Syria’s civil war.  The Kurdish militia, known as YPG (confusingly part of the so-called Free Syrian Army), is armed, lavishly financed and directed by the CIA and Pentagon.

    Most Kurdish forces are deployed along the line of the former Berlin-Baghdad railway, a major source of warlike tensions before World War I.  Interestingly, Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was making a state visit to blood enemy Serbia when the Turkish offensive kicked off.

    Turkey calls the Kurdish militias ‘terrorists’ and links them to the original Kurdish resistance movement PKK which is on the US and Turkish black list.  I covered the brutal conflict in eastern Anatolia (southern Turkey) between the Turkish Army and Kurdish militias known as ‘peshmerga.’ If the US can brand Syrian and Iraqi groups ‘terrorists,’ why can’t the Turks do their own terrorist branding? After all, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are in their backyard.

    Infographic: Refugee Camps In Northern Syria | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The US media is fiercely anti-Turkish because Ankara is seen as somewhat pro-Palestinian.  Israel is a bitter foe of Turkey’s Erdogan.  One rarely reads anything positive about Turkey or its leader.  Not very many western readers even know that since the early 1500’s, Syria was part of the Ottoman Empire, the predecessor of modern Turkey.  So were Iraq, Palestine, today’s Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.

    Most important, Iraq’s vast oil fields used to belong to the Ottoman Empire until the British Empire grabbed them at the end of World War I.  France seized Syria and Lebanon. Both former imperial powers are still mucking around today in the region and have the gall to criticize Turkey’s involvement in neighboring Syria.

    The United States has zero historic interest in the region. US troops in Syria appear to have come from the US garrison in Iraq, which, as VP Dick Cheney hoped, would become a central US military base for the entire Mideast.  The Washington war party is moaning that Trump has ‘betrayed’ the Kurds.  Their unofficial head, Sen. Lindsey Graham, is demanding more war in Syria – the same warrior senator who dodged the Vietnam War by joining the National Guard as a lawyer.

    The Kurds have been used and betrayed since 1918.  They always seem to get the short end of the stick.  The old Kurdish saying, ‘no friends but the mountains,’ is painfully true.  Washington does not want to get involved in a new Kurdish state carved out of Syria or Iraq even though Israel is pushing it hard to further splinter the Mideast.  Iraq’s and Syria’s oil deposits are still a powerful lure for imperial-minded powers.

    Trump rightly calls the fracas in Syria ‘a stupid war.’  But many pro-war forces play on this tired, confused president who has gotten himself deep into the Syrian morass, a problem of largely American but also Turkish making.  Ironically, former president Barack Obama foolishly authorized America’s effort to overthrow Syria’s Assad government under the guise of a phony civil war.  This was one of the few Obama policies that Trump chose to follow. The neophyte president was unwilling or unable to prevent the deep state in Washington from encouraging the war.

    The region in question is hardly the beating heart of Syria. It looks large on the map but is mostly desert and scrub, dotted by miserable little villages with Arab or Kurdish populations.  Turkey, which has over 2 million Syrian refugees, is eager to begin repatriation of this massive burden created by its policy errors and the western powers.

    In the middle is the scattered debris of the short-lived ISIS caliphate.  Russia, which is selling Turkey its very capable S-400 anti-aircraft system, is watching with delight as old allies Turkey and the US split.

    Even Trump knows how important Turkey is to the NATO alliance.  A rupture between Washington and Ankara could see the vital US bases at Incirlik and Adana thrown out of Turkey.  That’s why Trump needs to tread carefully.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/13/2019 – 23:30

  • California's New 'Red Flag' Gun Law So Extreme ACLU Deems "Significant Threat To Civil Liberties"
    California’s New ‘Red Flag’ Gun Law So Extreme ACLU Deems “Significant Threat To Civil Liberties”

    California adopted 15 firearms-related bills last Friday, including a controversial ‘red flag’ gun confiscation law which adds co-workers, employers and educators to the list of who can file a gun violence restraining order on those they say are a danger to themselves and others. Currently, only law enforcement and immediate family members can apply to temporarily confiscate peoples’ firearms. Most of the new laws take effect January 1, according to the LA Times.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) after being vetoed twice by his Democratic predecessor Jerry Brown (who said that educators can work through family members or law enforcement if a restraining order is required), the gun confiscation bill is so broad that the ACLU said it “poses a significant threat to civil liberties” since guns can be seized from owners before they have an opportunity to contest the requests, and those making the requests may “lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment,” NBC San Diego reports.

    All that’s needed for a co-worker or educator to file a complaint is to have had “substantial and regular interactions” with gun owners, along with permission from their employers or school administrators. Those seeking the orders will be required to file a sworn statement outlining their concerns. 

    The author of the bill, Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco, said that “With school and workplace shootings on the rise, it’s common sense to give the people we see every day the power to intervene and prevent tragedies,” citing a recent study which found that 21 mass shootings may have been prevented by a gun restraining order. 

    Meanwhile, a companion bill signed by Newsom and written by Democratic Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks allows gun violence restraining orders to last one and five years, though gun owners would be allowed to petition the state to get their guns back earlier. In another Ting-authored companion bill, gun owners who agree to voluntarily surrender their firearms can notify the court via a form, vs. a hearing which Ting says wastes time and resources. 

    The National Rifle Association (NRA)’s Amy Hunter, meanwhile, said of another bill signed on Friday (SB 61) which prohibits Californians from buying more than one semiautomatic rifle per month, and bans the sale of such rifles to those younger than 21: “This bill places burdens on law-abiding residents,” adding “It will not make anyone safer.” 

    Republican state legislators criticized the one-gun-a-month bill, as well as the state’s failure to remove guns from the thousands of felons and the severely mentally ill as they are already empowered to do so. 

    “Instead we continue to do more and more legislation that interferes with the law-abiding citizen’s right to own and possess firearms, which is their constitutional right to do,” said Yuba City Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher (LA Times)

    According to the Times, other bills signed Friday by Newsom will:

    • Allow those subject to a gun-violence restraining order to submit a form to the court voluntarily relinquishing their firearm rights
    • Require firearm packaging to contain a warning statement on suicide prevention
    • Mandate that county sheriffs who issue licenses for concealed weapons charge a fee covering the cost of vetting the applicant, thus eliminating the current $100 cap on fees
    • Prohibit gun shows at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego County
    • Require, starting in 2024, that the sale of components used to build a firearm — often used to build untraceable “ghost guns” — be carried out through a licensed vendor.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/13/2019 – 23:05

    Tags

  • "From Constitution… To Algorithms"
    “From Constitution… To Algorithms”

    Via Jim Quinn’s Burning Platform blog,

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Comment from Aldous Huxley:

    For those too ignorant or too full of cognitive dissonance here is a short understanding for ya…

    It is Saturday morning and I like to wake up early so I had set my iPhone alarm to wake me at 5am. (Apple now knows what time i woke). I grab my iPhone and head to the kitchen and turn the coffee maker on (it wirelessly informs several other kitchen appliances, Alexa and my iPhone denotes this too). I open the fridge (it sends a signal to other kitchen appliances and my iPhone) and to grab a few items. Yogurt, orange juice, some blueberries. When I shut the fridge door the RFID signal on the packages I took out were read by the fridge so it knows what was removed and at what time. Now apple and others know, with near certainty who was up, rummaging in the fridge and what they took out. (Ok I think you get the point of “breakfast in the new age” so let’s move on. )

    I go to my closet and grab blue jeans a button down shoes belt. Each has an RFID from the retail location I purchased as does my cleaners who placed a very small RFID barcode on each garment for tracking purposes. Both these signals are tracked by my iPhone, wifi signals, kitchen appliances etc. The kitchen appliances are still snooping on me so they can sell my activity tracking information to other retailers. Seems if you purchased a microwave for hundreds of dollars you should get a huge discount if they informed you they were going to spy on you and sell your activity or at least offer a choice of no spying. Seems every single thing I buy, with MY hard earned money, is now making money OFF ME. But I digress.

    Anyway, I head out to the basement and every door has a sensor from my home security. It can track every door that opens and infrared movement. It tracks me via door openings going to the basement and the motion sensor follows my every move. I open my safe grab my gun and head to my vehicle. With the fridge, microwave, coffee maker, doors and motion sensors, iPhone, Alexa and numerous other things now tracking me, my car now gets involved. The hands free portion of my entertainment system recognizes me and my voice. The car starts and the little black box, gps, phone system are all on me like a bloodhound. I am tracked to every location I go, every traffic signal camera, and every light I stop at. Every song I listen too whether sad or upbeat is denoted, filed, logged. I pass near businesses and all my data is shared with them and to their own security cameras. Yet, here I am thinking nobody knows where I am, where I am going, what I am listening to, what I am thinking, or what I am about to do.

    I was truly enjoying my weekend and looking forward to spending quality time with my wife and kids.

    Over the past week, a stressful week at that, I needed some quite relaxing woods time. I had decided to go for a short hike. I had brought my gun because it was coyote-mating season and they can get aggressive. As I was driving down the nearly abandoned country road I see blue lights in my rear view mirror. I pull over. A loud speaker comes on and demands I throw the gun out of the car and step out slowly. I have done nothing wrong and do not understand and certainly do not want to scratch up my $7,500 .22 nearly rusted revolver. I have a permit and am not a threat.

    So I decided to open the door and the last thing I remember before being shot to death was loud banging.

    *  *  *

    The ensuing investigation and media narrative was they “knew” I had a stressful week and was planning on hurting, someone, or myself. That I had chosen to “die by cop” instead. Even though the sweet note I had left my wife and kids stating I was going hiking and will bring my revolver just in case because coyotes were in abundance since hunting was outlawed and how much I loved them and looked forward to picking them up in a few hours to go to the local town fair. Well, that was all but ignored and explained away. It did not fit the narrative that guns are evil and people that own them have them or even like them are borderline unstable at a minimum.

    What nobody was asking is how did the officer “know” I had a gun? “Why” did the officer feel I was a threat at that time due to a stressful week? Amongst any other questions at all.

    It did not matter, I was dead, my family lost, kids life changed forever and my reputation as a gun wielding mad man will forever follow my family and negatively affect them until they die. When others see this example, they will all, like rank and file, stiffen up and toe the line of compliance for surely they do not want a similar situational issue or outcome because they all deep down realize they are being tracked but they ignore it because Clash of Clans is just so addictive and gives you something to do for the 38 seconds you must be alone in public while waiting on friends to park their car.

    Welcome to your new life and country controlled by algorithms vs the Constitution. Hope you really get a full mouthful of it, so much in fact it makes you sick. You deserve it all.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/13/2019 – 22:40

  • "Compromise Or Genocide": Putin's 'Deal Of The Century' Rapidly Unfolding In Syria
    “Compromise Or Genocide”: Putin’s ‘Deal Of The Century’ Rapidly Unfolding In Syria

    “Putin is capitalizing on the chaotic retreat of the US and Turkey’s brutality toward the Kurds in order to assert Russia’s leadership,” Syria analyst Joshua Landis observed of a newly published Vladimir Putin interview“He contrasts how Russia has stood beside its beleaguered ally, Syria, while the US has abandoned both its allies, the Kurds and the Turks,” Landis added. 

    Putin said in the interview: “Syria must be free from other states’ military presence. And the territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic must be completely restored.”

    Given this weekend’s rapidly unfolding events, with state actors Turkey and the Syrian Army squaring up on front lines, Russia’s role in all this is probably still the greatest unknown, but what do we know at this point? 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    File image via Reuters

    Precisely one week since Trump first unveiled a US troop exit from northeast Syria while essentially giving a green light to invading Turkish forces, events are unfolding at blistering speed, possibly toward a major Syrian Army clash with pro-Turkish forces, and no doubt toward a complete and final American withdrawal from Syria altogether. 

    Currently Syrian Army convoys  including tanks and artillery — have begun deployment to northern Syrian battlefronts at a moment US troops have been confirmed in retreat. Syrian state media affirmed that Damascus is set to “confront a Turkish aggression” on Syrian territory, after what appears to be a major deal struck between Damascus and the main US-backed Syrian Kurdish groups.

    Reuters revealed on Sunday that Damascus and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have been in direct negotiations, with crucial Russian participation. “The source close to the Syrian government said meetings between the SDF and Damascus had taken place before and after the latest Turkish offensive,” according to the report.

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

    And hours before it was announced Sunday that an initial deal has been reached, resulting in Syrian Army deployment to currently Turkish-besieged northern cities, the SDF’s top commander Mazloum Abdi wrote in a Foreign Policy op-ed

    “We know we would have to make painful compromises with Moscow & Assad if we go down that road. But if we have to choose between compromises and the genocide of our people, we will surely choose life.”

    Abdi noted that Washington’s betrayal is two-fold: not only did the Pentagon retreat at the most crucial moment, but ordered its Kurdish proxy force to weaken its own defenses (not to mention that Washington had long actively thwarted negotiations with Damascus). 

    “At Washington’s request, we agreed to withdraw our heavy weapons from the border area with Turkey, destroy our defensive fortifications, and pull back our most seasoned fighters. Turkey would never attack us so long as the U.S. government was true to its word with us” implying that Washington threw the Kurds to the wolves in a worsened state.

    “We are now standing with our chests bare to face the Turkish knives,” the SDF’s top commander concluded. “Syria has two options: a religious sectarian and ethnic bloody war if the United States leaves without reaching a political solution, or a safe and stable future—but only if the United States uses its power and leverage to reach an agreement before it withdraws,” Abdi explained.

    “Two questions remain: How can we best protect our people? And is the United States still our ally?” It appears that question has been answered, given the SDF has invited in the Syrian Army

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

    Again given how fast all of this has played out, a number of pundits and analysts questioned: are we witnessing a Putin-brokered ‘deal of the century’ unfold?

    We explained late last week that there are a number of signs suggesting this is the case, noting that Moscow had begun organizing “reconciliation talks” between Syria and Turkey, in what would truly be an unprecedented development, given President Erdogan’s long-time position that Turkey won’t negotiate with Damascus so long as Assad is in power, after the two cut diplomatic relations in 2012. 

    But Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov recently confirmed as much saying“Moscow will ask for start of talks between Damascus and Ankara”.

    Putin’s timing for such potential deal-making couldn’t have been better, given that:

    • A US ground retreat from the border area means Washington now has little active leverage over the situation (Trump has said he desires regional powers to sort it out).
    • Syria’s beleaguered Kurds now see Damascus as the only option for survival (and thus Syria’s ally Russia). 
    • Turkey is now at odds with all major Western and regional powers over ‘Operation Peace Spring,’ is also hated in international media, and thus will be more sensitive to reputational damage. 
    • Turkey is now under a human rights and war crimes microscope
    • For many reasons, especially the recent S-400 deal and F-35 hold-up, US-Turkey relations are currently at their lowest point, with threat of new US sanctions on Ankara looming.
    • With Washington ceding the driver’s seat, all of the above means Putin alone can “check” Erdogan’s actions

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

    Just ahead of this weekend’s rapidly developing Syria events, Reuters reported that Putin is positioned to be the only voice with “positive” relations with Turkey, able to “limit” Erdogan’s ambitions inside Syria:

    In a phone call with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan before the operation against U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters, Russian leader Vladimir Putin, an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, made clear he hoped the incursion would be limited in time and scale, the sources said.

    “If he [Putin] manages to fix this it would be considered a major political victory,” commented Andrey Kortunov, head of the Russian International Affairs Council, as cited in the report. “Putin could argue that the Americans failed to sort this out but we managed it, which implies our approach to the conflict is more efficient than our geopolitical opponents,” he added.

    And one senior former Russian diplomat confirmed to Reuters further that, “If Turkey limits its operation to a 30-mile security zone inside Syria and conducts a quick operation, Russia is likely to tolerate it.”

    And even CNN now reluctantly admits that:

    Russia is already by far the strongest foreign power operating in Syria, and President Vladimir Putin has allied himself with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, throwing the full weight of the Russian military behind the Syrian Army.

    Now, a planned Turkish operation to “clear” Kurdish forces from the Northeastern Syrian border zone could give Putin a chance to expand Russian influence to the alarm of US hawks.

    Likely, the outcome to the current escalation unfolding in northeast Syria will also determine the outcome to final and still festering Idlib problem — an issue which presents further opportunity for Putin and Erdogan to find common ground. 

    Meanwhile, the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi perhaps put it best in saying, “Assad appears to be coming in to fight on the side of the Kurds against Erdogan. The heads of Washington pundits, who love to reduce geopolitical fights into battles between good and evil, will explode…”


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/13/2019 – 22:15

    Tags

  • Galloway: "What Quakes Are To California, Softbank Is To Real Estate Unicorns"
    Galloway: “What Quakes Are To California, Softbank Is To Real Estate Unicorns”

    Authored by Scott Galloway via No Mercy/No Malice blog,

    Unicorn Feces

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Season 1, Episode 1: SoftBank and Real Estate

    Last night I met up with friends at Soho House, a members-only club. I’ve always wanted to be a member, and have several friends who’ve offered to sponsor me. But the thought of being rejected for membership by a club where all my friends are members is damage my ego couldn’t endure. So, no membership for the dawg. As a guest, I’ll have a nice meal and a couple Maker’s and Gingers (i.e., 5). I’ll then go home and decide the smart thing to do would be a preemptive strike against my member-like hangover, so I’ll ingest 32 ounces of water, 3 Advil, and a hit of my dosist sleep vape. I’ll then watch the last 2 episodes of Succession and get 4-5 hours of sleep. 

    Thursday. Night. In. NYC.

    I’m going on Barron’s TV (yep, that’s a thing) Friday morning to discuss Tesla (which I believe is overvalued), Amazon, and Apple. As I don’t rave about the stock, on the subway back I’ll learn via Twitter (where technology meets hate) that I’m an idiot, not a real professor, and hard to look at, from handles that are some version of @Teslalong. I’m fairly certain there are more fake Twitter handles managed by Tesla longs than the GRU. 

    Note: If it sounds strange that I’ll be going on TV possibly still drunk, keep in mind the show is broadcast on Fox. Most of their anchors seem high when they broadcast.

    I’ll also avoid making any important decisions Friday. When I have a member/guest hangover, my judgment is impaired. This poor judgment is predictable and can be reverse-engineered to a pattern: alcohol, marijuana, lack of sleep. So, where else could we apply pattern recognition to predict what might happen in the markets?

    I know, let’s talk about WeWork.

    The pattern of tectonic plates grinding: SoftBank, real estate, red flags. Where else can we discern the kind of plate collision that leads to an earthquake? (Note: especially proud of the seismology metaphor in the previous sentence.) Btw, best movie involving a guy who could predict earthquakes? Phenomenon

    What earthquakes are to California, SoftBank is to real estate unicorns:

    Compass 

    Business model

    • Use technology to pair top brokers with home buyers

    Yogababble

    • “To help everyone find their place in the world.”

    Funding

    Differentiation

    • Proprietary technology and 19% of non-broker employees work in “technology”
    • Highest Glassdoor rating (4.3) for real estate companies
    • Has acquired 14 other brokerages

    Feces (red flags)

    • Yogababble 
    • C-Suite turnover is a sh*tshow: includes the CFO, COO, CMO, CTO, CPO, General Counsel, Head of Product, VP of Product, and VP of Communications
    • Capital masking as growth (some brokers receive entire commission, with nothing going to Compass, for their first 8 deals)

    Summary/prediction: Strategy makes sense, and they are buying real assets. The SoftBank effect (drunk capital) likely means they have overpaid. Value will decline, but not implode, making it one of SoftBank’s better real estate investments.

    OYO

    Business model

    • Buy or franchise run-down hotels, fix up, train staff, and take a commission (25-30%)

    Yogababble

    • “To offer tasteful spaces, whenever you need them, at unbeatable prices.”

    Funding

    Differentiation

    • Improving fallow assets (old/out of date hotels)
    • No global player for budget hotels
    • Uses a tech platform to help hotel partners with distribution

    Feces (red flags)

    • Bought Hooters Casino in Las Vegas for $135 million (sold for $54 million 4 years ago, signal of overpaying)
    • Leadership: Ritesh Agarwal — 25, first venture
    • Lightspeed Ventures and Sequoia Capital getting out of dodge: selling 50% of their stake for $1.5 billion
    • SoftBank (and founder) putting money in: Ritesh Agarwal invests $700 million in latest $1.5 billion fundraising round with Softbank helping to fund the remainder
    • SoftBank has been a lead investor in every round since 2015 (smoking own supply)
    • Reviews = sh*t

    Summary/prediction: OYO feels like the WeWork of budget hotels with red flags the size of Days Inns. A 25-year-old founder and SoftBank is a toxic mix. Yes, the Zuck and Bill Gates founded their firms at the same age, but it’s a bad strategy to assume your CEO is the next Zuck/Gates. Founders buying additional shares is a good sign, unless you are 25 and borrowing against your existing shares to buy more. That means he’s hugely committed and immature. 

    Lightspeed and Sequoia also have too much capital and are under pressure to deploy additional money in portfolio firms where they’ve negotiated pro-rata investment rights for subsequent rounds. With OYO, they not only passed, but having the full inside information and observing the CEO, they’ve decided to sell shares. Customer feedback is awful, and customer acquisition does not appear to be scaling. Here. We. Go.

    Opendoor

    Business model

    • iBuying: sell your house to Opendoor in less than 24 hours in all-cash deal; firm collects service charge, resells house, and offers financing to a captive market

    Yogababble

    • “To empower everyone with the freedom to move.” 

    Funding

    Differentiation

    • Provide immediate cash to homeowners
    • Hugely inefficient market ripe for disruption
    • Compelling value proposition (liquidity in traditionally illiquid asset class)

    Feces (red flags)

    • Management and board have little real estate experience 
    • The risks of iBuying are substantial in a downturn
    • Can algorithms replace nuance of valuation in real estate?

    Summary/prediction: A compelling value proposition in a market that’s hugely dislocated/inefficient. Without knowing average hold/margin on properties, difficult to assess. In absence of this data, feels like a levered bet on US real estate market.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    *  *  *

    The Bigger Story 

    The business story of the month is WeWork’s meltdown. The bigger story will be SoftBank’s Vision Funds impairment. Earlier this year, we predicted the 2019 IPO unicorn class would lose money — YTD it’s up 5%, vs. 13% in 2018 and 94% in 2017. The 2020 story will be a 50%+ decline in the value of privately traded unicorns. The world is not as impressed with Silicon Valley as Silicon Valley is with itself. 

    An 11-year expansion, cheap capital, and investors chasing a Facebook/Google high have resulted in an environment that is not “different this time.” People love WeWork and Uber as I loved Pets.com and Urban Fetch. A 60-pound bag of dog food and a pint of Ben & Jerry’s delivered next day/hour for less than cost was awesome, except for shareholders. Value is a function of growth and margins. Many/most of today’s unicorns have deployed massive capital to achieve the former while not demonstrating the patience or skill to achieve the latter. Record deficits during full employment are irresponsible, as is capital-driven growth meant to create the illusion of innovation.

    There is also a bigger fault line. In 1999 I was 34 and running an e-commerce incubator (Brand Farm) backed by GS, JPM, and Maveron. I mistook my good fortune — being born a white male in sixties California — for talent. My money/success was a virtue that gave me license to demonstrate poor character and a lack of empathy. The market had a swift and effective immune response to my ailment. 

    There is, again, an epidemic of hubris that has rendered the Unicorn Industrial Complex a hot zone. 

    The good news? The antidote is imminent.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/13/2019 – 21:50

  • "It's Not A Game When It's Real-Life" – China's Social Credit System
    “It’s Not A Game When It’s Real-Life” – China’s Social Credit System

    In an attempt to imbue trust, China has announced a plan to implement a national ranking system for its citizens and companies. Currently in pilot mode, the new system will be rolled out in 2020, and go through numerous iterations before becoming official.

    While the system may be a useful tool for China to manage its growing 1.4 billion population, Visual Capitalist’s Katie Jones notes that it has triggered global concerns around the ethics of big data, and whether the system is a breach of fundamental human rights.

    Today’s infographic looks at how China’s proposed social credit system could work, and what the implications might be.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Government is Always Watching

    Currently, the pilot system varies from place to place, whereas the new system is envisioned as a unified system. Although the pilot program may be more of an experiment than a precursor, it gives a good indication of what to expect.

    In the pilot system, each citizen is assigned 1,000 points and is consistently monitored and rated on how they behave. Points are earned through good deeds, and lost for bad behavior. Users increase points by donating blood or money, praising the government on social media, and helping the poor. Rewards for such behavior can range from getting a promotion at work fast-tracked, to receiving priority status for children’s school admissions.

    In contrast, not visiting one’s aging parents regularly, spreading rumors on the internet, and cheating in online games are considered antisocial behaviors. Punishments include public shaming, exclusion from booking flights or train tickets, and restricted access to public services.

    Big Data Goes Right to the Source

    The perpetual surveillance that comes with the new system is expected to draw on huge amounts of data from a variety of traditional and digital sources.

    Police officers have used AI-powered smart glasses and drones to effectively monitor citizens. Footage from these devices showing antisocial behavior can be broadcast to the public to shame the offenders, and deter others from behaving similarly.

    For more serious offenders, some cities in China force people to repay debts by switching the person’s ringtone without their permission. The ringtone begins with the sound of a police siren, followed by a message such as:

    “The person you are calling has been listed as a discredited person by the local court. Please urge this person to fulfill his or her legal obligations.”

    Two of the largest companies in China, Tencent and Alibaba, were enlisted by the People’s Bank of China to play an important role in the credit system, raising the issue of third-party data security. WeChat—China’s largest social media platform, owned by Tencent—tracked behavior and ranked users accordingly, while displaying their location in real-time.

    Following data concerns, these tech companies—and six others—were not awarded any licenses by the government. However, social media giants are still involved in orchestrating the public shaming of citizens who misbehave.

    The Digital Dang’an

    The social credit system may not be an entirely new initiative in China. The dang’an (English: record) is a paper file containing an individual’s school reports, information on physical characteristics, employment records, and photographs.

    These dossiers, which were first used in the Maoist years, helped the government in maintaining control of its citizens. This gathering of citizen’s data for China’s social credit system may in fact be seen as a revival of the principle of dang’an in the digital era, with the system providing a powerful tool to monitor citizens whose data is more difficult to capture.

    Is the System Working?

    In 2018, people with a low score were prohibited from buying plane tickets almost 18 million times, while high-speed train ticket transactions were blocked 5.5 million times. A further 128 people were prohibited from leaving China, due to unpaid taxes.

    The system could have major implications for foreign business practices—as preference could be given to companies already ranked in the system. Companies with higher scores will be rewarded with incentives which include lower tax rates and better credit conditions, with their behavior being judged in areas such as:

    • Paid taxes

    • Customs regulation

    • Environmental protection

    Despite the complexities of gathering vast amounts of data, the system is certainly making an impact. While there are benefits to having a standardized scoring system, and encouraging positive behavior—will it be worth the social cost of gamifying human life?


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/13/2019 – 21:25

  • Hedge Fund CIO: There’s So Much Going Wrong, So Many Manipulations, That I Don’t Trust Anything Right Now
    Hedge Fund CIO: There’s So Much Going Wrong, So Many Manipulations, That I Don’t Trust Anything Right Now

    Submitted by Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

    Here We Go Again

    “Here we go again, right near the highs, people bearish,” said the CIO. “It’s not that they’re explicitly short, I don’t know anyone who is, it’s more that they’re hedged, underweight,” he continued. “The economy is slowing, geopolitical risks keep rising, but there are so many things to worry about that the Fed remains in play – now they’re restarting QE while assuring us it’s anything but QE – and no one can afford to miss another leg higher,” he said. “The irony is that the worst possible thing for this market would be a pause in the bad news.”

    Told You So

    “If I wound the clock back and told you this is where we’d be,” said the CIO, “Impeachment inquiry, trade war, slowing economies, renewed easing, rising wages, shrinking margins – you’d have said the S&P 500 would be trading at 2000.” The S&P closed at 2970. “And if I told you the Iranians and Saudis would be in a hot war, you’d have said oil would be $100.” WTI crude oil is $55. “Typically, this would mean stocks will break higher, but there’s so much going wrong, and so many policy manipulations, that I don’t trust anything right now.”
     
    Last Traded

    A few weeks back, when the whistleblower blew, betting website odds of Trump completing his 1st term plunged from 84% to 71% (last traded at 69%). Biden’s odds of being the Dem nominee fell from 26% to 22% (last traded 23%). Odds of Warren being the Dem nominee jumped from 41% to 51% (last traded 47%). Odds of a Dem presidency win in 2020 remained broadly unchanged at 58% (last traded 55%). Dem retention of the House was steady at 75% (last traded 75%). Republican hold of the Senate was unchanged at 68% (last traded 65%).
     
    Polls

    According to Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight, public support for impeachment/removal rose 2 points this week to 48.8% (with 43.6% not in support). 58% support an impeachment inquiry while 38% don’t support an inquiry. 53.7% disapprove of Trump and 42.1% approve. Fox News reported 51% of voters want Trump impeached and removed from office (+9% jump from July). 40% do not want him impeached/removed (All these polls were taken before Giuliani’s Ukrainian business associates were arrested, and before Giuliani came under investigation.)
     
    Pop Culture

    “Like the NBA, we welcome Chinese censors into our homes and hearts,” read the faux apology from South Park (the only TV I watch). Its creators mocked Chinese censorship, human rights abuses, hypocrisy. A backlash against China’s communist party dictatorship is going mainstream in US pop culture, supercharging our conflict. Beijing erased South Park from its internet. “We too love money more than freedom and democracy. Xi doesn’t look like Winnie the Pooh at all. Long live the great Communist Party of China. May the autumn’s sorghum harvest be bountiful. We good now China?”


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/13/2019 – 21:00

    Tags

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 13th October 2019

  • China's Modern Blueprint For Global Power
    China’s Modern Blueprint For Global Power

    Authored by Lawrence Franklin via The Gatestone Institute,

    The People’s Republic of China, which celebrated its 70th anniversary on October 1, is led by the Chinese Communist Party’s General Secretary, President Xi Jinping. In his speeches, Xi often refers to “Qiang Zhong Gwo Meng” (“the Chinese dream“), a code phrase for the era of rejuvenation when China will eventually overtake the United States as the most powerful nation in the world.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Xi claims that China offers the world a different type of rising global leader — a “guiding power.”

    Beijing apologists depict China as a non-predatory power, comparing it favorably to Europe’s colonial countries in the past and to today’s United States.

    Similarly, the state-controlled Chinese media depict Chinese statecraft as being based on and reflecting ancient Confucian ethics:

    Only when things are investigated is knowledge extended; only when knowledge is extended are thoughts sincere; only when thoughts are sincere are minds rectified; only when minds are rectified are the characters of persons cultivated; only when character is cultivated are our families regulated; only when families are regulated are states well governed; only when states are well governed is there peace in the world.

    This portrayal is part of China’s traditional self-image as “Jungwo” (the “Middle Kingdom”), a society synonymous with “civilization,” as opposed to the “barbarians” beyond its borders. Such was the impetus for China’s Great Wall: to keep out uncultured barbarians.

    In spite of China’s pretense of being a new type of global power, Beijing’s attempt to restore its historical role as a world leader involves ancient Chinese political concepts. Xi’s call for China’s “rejuvenation,” for instance, is a signal to his people that under the leadership of the Communist Party, the national humiliations endured during the 19th and 20th centuries will be redressed.

    Xi’s nationalist sentiment echoes the ideas of Sun Yat-sen, the “founding father” and first president of the Chinese Republic. Sun called for the embrace of “Min-ts’u” (“people’s nationalism”) to redeem the nation from its status as a “hypo-colony” ruled by many colonial masters, including tiny Portugal, which dominated the South China Sea.

    Xi’s doctrine includes rejecting as illegitimate any “unequal treaties” forced on China by Euro-Atlantic powers, such as Great Britain’s imposition of the McMahon Line, which awarded to the British Crown Colony of India hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of Chinese territory. China never recognized the McMahon Line; it was among the factors ultimately leading to an India-China War in 1962 and periodic skirmishes ever since.

    This determination to retrieve Chinese territory might be rooted in Xi’s sense of humiliation, still felt among Chinese patriots of all political persuasions, who harbor an enduring resentment over such Euro-Atlantic encroachment.

    Xi’s posture is also possibly an indirect warning to the West, which may be harboring a desire to assist the people of Hong Kong in their drive for more autonomy from Beijing. This warning underscores the willingness of the Chinese Communist leadership to engage the United States in a limited military conflict, should the US support Hong Kong’s or Taiwan’s official independence from China or if it positions offensive strategic-weapons systems on those lands.

    In his essay, “If You Want Peace Prepare for War” — using the famous quote from the ancient Roman strategist, Publius Flavius Renatus — Chinese author Li Mingfu states that if the US attempts to block the Chinese Motherland’s unification with Taiwan, China is ready militarily to force unification.

    There can be little doubt that Xi’s China is deeply committed to the retrieval of Formosa (Taiwan) as an integral part of the Chinese patrimony. Historically, China risked war with Japan after Japanese expeditions to the island province. China also has resisted past attempts by Britain to weaken its hold on Tibet. Moreover, despite fierce resistance to Russia’s 19th century invasions in the northwestern province of Xinjiang (Sinkiang), China lost control of the region. That event also might help to explain for China’s willingness to invite universal condemnation for its massive human-rights violations against the region’s Uighur Muslim population, rather than risk again losing control of the province to Islamist independence movements.

    Chinese military exercises, new weapons systems and the surreptitious militarization of several landfill and disputed islands in the South China Sea, all indicate that Beijing intends to become — at the very least — East Asia’s dominant regional power, thereby supplanting the US as the pre-eminent authority in the Western Pacific Ocean. According to one American analyst on Chinese military affairs, in 2018 alone, China conducted approximately 100 military exercises with 17 countries.

    In recent years, the Chinese Navy has been demonstrating better precision targeting by its anti-ship missile system, the presumed targets being US aircraft carriers. The Chinese Air Force now utilizes runways built on some of the disputed islands, and has also landed heavy bombers there.

    In addition, the Chinese also have deployed anti-ship missiles and jet fighter planes on disputed islands. These developments suggest that in the event of a crisis or conflict with the West and its Asian allies, the Chinese Communist Party’s Military Commission is planning to leapfrog any possible Free World strategy to confine China’s naval and air assets to the Chinese mainland.

    China’s economic model, according to which a socialist regime will for the first time surpass the world’s greatest capitalist enterprise, also has historical roots. For millennia, China was the premier power in Asia, if not the world. During that time, China’s diplomacy centered on the “Tributary System,” whereby regional states recognized the superiority of Chinese Civilization.”

    Many of China’s neighboring states, such as Annam (Northern Vietnam), Korea and even Japan, for a period, rendered an annual tribute to the Chinese imperial court, acknowledging the imperial dynasty’s august standing under heaven. The emperor’s dynastic administration would in turn provide generous support for compliant neighboring countries. Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative bears some — dubious — resemblance to the tributary system of dynastic China. This initiative has China providing the income and expertise to build the logistical infrastructure of a recipient nation, which in turn imports Chinese goods and services employing that new infrastructure. Worse, however, China lends countries money; then when the country cannot repay the debt, China helps itself to resources or infrastructure or whatever, in a “debt-trap.”

    To date, it appears that the strategic objective of China to establish regional primacy in the Western Pacific, and possibly in Asia, is militarily, politically and economically achievable. The world, however, is no longer under any illusions about China’s acquisitive intent.

    US President Donald J. Trump also indicated recently — during his September 24 address to the UN General Assembly — that America harbors no illusions about China’s unbridled ambitions.

    Trump said, in part:

    “In 2001, China was admitted to the World Trade Organization. Our leaders then argued that this decision would compel China to liberalize its economy and strengthen protections to provide things that were unacceptable to us, and for private property and for the rule of law. Two decades later, this theory has been tested and proven completely wrong.

    “Not only has China declined to adopt promised reforms, it has embraced an economic model dependent on massive market barriers, heavy state subsidies, currency manipulation, product dumping, forced technology transfers, and the theft of intellectual property and also trade secrets on a grand scale…

    “For years, these abuses were tolerated, ignored, or even encouraged. Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders, causing them to ignore their own national interests.

    “But as far as America is concerned, those days are over. To confront these unfair practices, I placed massive tariffs on more than $500 billion worth of Chinese-made goods. Already, as a result of these tariffs, supply chains are relocating back to America and to other nations, and billions of dollars are being paid to our Treasury.

    “The American people are absolutely committed to restoring balance to our relationship with China. Hopefully, we can reach an agreement that would be beneficial for both countries…

    “As we endeavor to stabilize our relationship, we’re also carefully monitoring the situation in Hong Kong. The world fully expects that the Chinese government will honor its binding treaty, made with the British and registered with the United Nations, in which China commits to protect Hong Kong’s freedom, legal system, and democratic ways of life. How China chooses to handle the situation will say a great deal about its role in the world in the future…”

    It is imperative for the administration in Washington to continue to exert maximum pressure on Beijing, to prevent China’s hegemonic aims being realized.

    *  *  *

    Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/12/2019 – 23:50

    Tags

  • Visualizing The Rise And Fall Of Social Media Platforms
    Visualizing The Rise And Fall Of Social Media Platforms

    Since its inception, the internet has played a pivotal role in connecting people across the globe, including in remote locations.

    While the foundational need for human connection hasn’t changed, Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley points out that the platforms and technology continue to evolve, even today. Faster internet connections and mobile devices have made social networks a ubiquitous part of our lives, with the time spent on social media each day creeping ever upward.

    The Scoreboard Today

    Over the last 15 years, billions of people around the world have jumped onto the social media bandwagon – and platforms have battled for our attention spans by inventing (and sometimes flat-out stealing) features to keep people engaged.

    Here’s a snapshot of where things stand today:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Today’s entertaining video, from the Data is Beautiful YouTube channel, is a look back at the rise and fall of social media platforms – and possibly a glimpse at the future of social media as well.

    Below we respond to some key questions and observations raised by this video overview.

    Points of Interest

    1. What is QZone?

    Qzone is China’s largest social network. The platform originally evolved as a sort of blogging service that sprang from QQ, China’s seminal instant messaging service. While Qzone is still one of the world’s largest social media sites – it still attracts around half a billion users per month – WeChat is now the service of choice for almost everyone in China with a smartphone.

    2. LinkedIn has been around for a long time.

    It’s true. LinkedIn, which hasn’t left the top 10 list since 2003, is a textbook example of a slow and steady growth strategy paying off.

    While some networks experience swings in their user base or show a boom and bust growth pattern, LinkedIn has grown every single year since it was launched. Surprisingly, that growth is still clocking in at impressive rates. In 2019, for example, LinkedIn reported a 24% increase in sessions on their platform.

    3. Will Facebook ever lose its top spot?

    Never say never, but not anytime soon. Since 2008, Facebook has been far and away the most popular social network on the planet. If you include Facebook’s bundled services, over 2 billion people use their network each day. The company has used acquisitions and aggressive feature implementation to keep the company at the forefront of the battle for attention. Facebook itself is under a lot of scrutiny due to growing privacy concerns, but Instagram and WhatsApp are more popular than ever.

    4. What Happened to Snapchat?

    In 2016, Snapchat had thoroughly conquered the Gen Z demographic and was on a trajectory to becoming one of the top social networks. Facebook, sensing their position being challenged by this upstart company, took the bold step of cloning Snapchat’s features and integrating them into Instagram (even lifting the name “stories” in the process). The move paid off for Facebook and the video above shows Instagram’s user base taking off in 2016, fueled by these new features.

    Even though Facebook took some of the wind out of Snapchat’s sails, the company never stopped growing. Earlier this year, Snapchat announced modest growth as its base of daily active users rose to 190 million. For advertisers looking to reach the 18-35 age demographic, Snapchat could still be a compelling option.

    5. Why is TikTok so popular now?

    The simple answer is that short-form video is extremely popular right now, and TikTok has features that make sharing fun. The average user of TikTok (and its Chinese counterpart, DouYin) spends a staggering 52 minutes per day on the app.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Also propelling its growth is the company’s massive marketing budget. TikTok spent $1 billon last year on advertising in the U.S., and is currently burning through around $3 million per day to get people onto their platform. One looming question for the China-based company is not whether Facebook will co-opt their features, but when.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/12/2019 – 23:20

  • The CIA Versus Donald J. Trump
    The CIA Versus Donald J. Trump

    Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

    It’s both pathetic and laughable that Democrats, the mainstream press, and Trump critics are referring to the CIA agent who turned in Trump for his telephone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky as a “whistleblower.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s pathetic because it denigrates real whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou, Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, and William Binney. Those people are the courageous ones. They risked their careers, their liberty, and even their lives to expose criminal wrongdoing within the national-security state agencies they were working for.

    That’s not what that supposed CIA agent did when he filed his complaint against Trump. He didn’t blow the whistle on his agency, the CIA, by exposing some secret dark-side practices, such as MK-Ultra drug experimentation on unsuspecting Americans, secret assassinations of Americans, secret assets within the mainstream press, or secret destruction of torture videotapes of incarcerated inmates at a top-secret CIA prison center in some former Soviet-bloc country.

    If he had done that, the CIA would have come after him with all guns blaring, just as the national-security establishment has gone after Snowden and those other genuine whistleblowers. In fact, that’s how one can usually identify a genuine whistleblower. That’s obviously not happening here. Instead, the national-security establishment is hailing this “whistleblower” as being a brave and courageous hero for disclosing supposed wrongdoing by Trump, not by the CIA.

    That anti-Trump CIA agent isn’t a whistleblower at all. Instead, he’s nothing more than a spy and a snitch. He is obviously a spy. After all, he works for the CIA, the premier spy agency in the world. And by turning in Trump in an obvious attempt to get him into trouble, he’s also obviously a snitch.

    A “gotcha” moment

    In fact, the entire episode has a “gotcha” feeling to it. For almost three years, Americans have been made to suffer under a constant stream of speeches, commentaries, op-eds, and editorials about what Trump rightly called the “collusion delusion” theory. Democrats, the mainstream press, and Trump critics were 100 percent certain that their real-life hero Robert Mueller, the special counsel, was going to find evidence that Trump conspired with Russian officials to deny Hillary Clinton her rightful place as president of the United States. They had impeachment plans set in place, ready to go.

    And then Mueller dashed their hopes. His report disclosed that the collusion delusion was the biggest conspiracy theory in U.S. history, one openly promoted by Democrats, the mainstream press, and Trump critics on a daily basis for almost three years.

    All they needed and wanted was an opportunity — any opportunity — to apply their impeachment process to another set of a facts. Fortunately for them, Trump himself gave them that opportunity. That supposed CIA agent was ready with a “gotcha!” and proceeded to snitch on Trump with his “whistleblower” complaint.

    Trump is obviously a smart man, both businesswise and politically. But to make that telephone call to Zelensky and request him to investigate Joe Biden, while holding up a foreign aid package to Ukraine, immediately after being exonerated by Mueller of the collusion delusion allegation, was about the dumbest thing he could do. How could he not realize that his enemies would be looking for any opportunity to set their impeachment process into motion against him?

    The likely explanation lies with arrogance and hubris. After Trump got his exoneration on the collusion delusion accusation, he figured that he was now all-powerful and could do whatever he wanted. The fact that he was, at the same time, exercising such dictatorial powers as raising tariffs, starting trade wars, building his Berlin Wall along the border, and imposing sanctions and embargoes, all without the consent of Congress, was also making him feel omnipotent and untouchable. His admiration for foreign dictators no doubt filled his mind with the same sense of totalitarian, untouchable power.

    That’s what likely caused Trump to give his enemies the “gotcha” episode for which they were clearly thirsting. Trump turned out to be his own very worst enemy.

    National security enmity toward Trump

    Despite his campaign rhetoric against “endless wars,” Trump has kept U.S. troops in Afghanistan and the Middle East, where they have continued to kill, die, and wreak massive destruction. He has also authorized the continuation of the Pentagon’s and CIA’s assassination program. He has also continued the Pentagon’s and CIA’s indefinite detention and torture center at Guantanamo Bay. He has done nothing to rein in the NSA and its secret surveillance schemes. The fact is that Trump’s term in office, despite his “America First” rhetoric, has proven to be nothing more than a continuation of the Bush-Obama administrations.

    That’s what he should be impeached for, but unfortunately his critics feel that those high crimes don’t rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

    But it’s also true that Trump has failed to demonstrate the complete deference to authority of the national-security establishment that Hillary Clinton and other Washington, D.C., political elites have. Trump’s failure to bend the knee to the national-security establishment made him suspect from the very beginning, especially since the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI were certain that their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, was going to be the new president.

    Thus, there has been a war between Trump and the national-security establishment from even before he was elected and especially after he was elected. In a remarkable moment of candor and honesty, Congressman Charles Schumer, commenting on the war between Trump and the national-security establishment, stated, “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

    One way of getting back at Trump is, of course, through assassination, a power that the Supreme Court has confirmed that the national-security state wields against American citizens, so long it is necessary to protect “national security.”

    Another way of getting back at Trump is smear tactics through the use of assets within the mainstream press. The CIA’s Operation Mockingbird comes to mind.

    Coup through impeachment 

    And other option to get back at Trump is through impeachment and conviction, especially through assets within Congress. But before any collusion-delusion proponent cries “conspiracy theory,” recall that President Eisenhower warned Americans in his 1961 Farewell Address about the threat that the “military-industrial complex” poses to the liberties and democratic processes of the American people. Actually, Ike planned to use the term “military-industrial-congressional complex” but changed his mind at the last minute. He was referring to the intimate, integrated relationship between members of Congress and the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, Eisenhower is not perceived to be a “conspiracy theorist,” the term that the CIA popularized to keep people from examining the Kennedy assassination too closely.

    Speaking of the Kennedy assassination, early in his administration Trump announced that he intended to comply with the deadline for releasing the CIA’s long-secret records relating to the assassination. At the very last minute, Trump folded and granted the CIA’s request for continued secrecy.

    Why did Trump do that?

    One possibility is that he became convinced that “national security” would be jeopardized if the American people were to see the CIA’s long-secret JFK assassination records.

    Another possibility is that he struck some sort of secret negotiated deal with the CIA.

    A third possibility is that he figured that if he would ingratiate himself with the CIA in the hope that they would leave him alone. If that was the case, Trump might well go down as one of the most naïve presidents in history.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/12/2019 – 22:50

    Tags

  • American STD Cases Rise To Record High
    American STD Cases Rise To Record High

    Health officals are voicing serious concern after it emerged that the U.S. is experiencing a significant spike in sexually transmitted diseases.

    As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, 2.4 million cases of gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis combined were recorded in 2018, an all-time high. The data was part of the Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance Report which was published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday. The scale of the problem can be seen by the pace of new infections documented since 2014. Chlamydia went up 19 percent, gonorrhea rose 63 percent, primary and secondary syphilis grew 71 percent while congenital syphilis soared 185 percent.

    Numerous factors are being blamed for the increase, particularly funding cuts for local health departments that have caused staff shortages and clinic closures, as well as a decrease in condom usage. Reuters quoted the CDC’s directer of STD Prevention, Gail Bohan, who sad that “the resurgence of syphilis, and particularly congenital syphilis, is not an arbitrary event, but rather a symptom of a deteriorating public health infrastructure and lack of access to health care.”

    Infographic: U.S. STD Cases Rise To Record High  | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    That is resulting in less people going to get screened despite the fact that antibiotics can cure chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis.

    Cases are highest among adolescents and young adults with over half occurring among young people aged between 15 and 24.

    The CDC called for urgent action to curb the problem, with the report stating that “it is imperative that federal, state and local programs employ strategies that maximize long-term population impact by reducing STD incidence and promoting sexual, reproductive, maternal, and infant health”.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/12/2019 – 22:20

  • Will American Exceptionalism Rise Again?
    Will American Exceptionalism Rise Again?

    Authored by Richard Moser via Counterpunch.org,

    American Exceptionalism remains one of the innermost ideas shaping our national identity and still lies behind all of the war stories used to justify US foreign policy. Exceptionalism has been a part of American culture since the very first European settlers landed.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At its core, exceptionalism places America outside of normal history into a category of its own. Our initial “escape” from history followed two interrelated tracks: one was the religious radicalism of the Puritans, the other was the frontier experience. Both paths were the warpath.

    The early settlers believed that they were “chosen” — blessed by a special relationship to their God. They viewed their “errand in the wilderness” as a holy mission destined to bring a new and better way of life to the world. God’s judgment on their progress was revealed in the bounty of a harvest or the outcome of a war.

    Exceptionalism was not a free-floating idea but was forged into a lasting culture by the frontier wars aimed at the elimination or assimilation of native people and the conquest of land. America’s frontier history produced a lasting mythology that popularized empire and white settler culture while cloaking their many contradictions.

    I know it is hard to believe that the Puritans are still camped out in our minds. The old religious radicalism has taken modern form in the liberal-sounding belief that the US military is a “force for good (read God) in the world.” The double-edged sword of exceptionalism traps us into repeating history: our high moral standards and special role in the world gives us license for wars and aggressions. It is the liberal elements of exceptionalism that are most seductive, most difficult to wrap our heads around, and the most effective at winning our consent to war.

    Exceptionalism Wins Our Consent to War With A One-Two Punch

    On the one hand, we have the “hard” exceptionalism like that of the Cold War (New and Old) and the War on Terrorism. These war stories revolve around a rigid binary of good and evil. After 9/11, in scores of speeches, George W. Bush repeated the mantra that there were “no gray areas” in the struggle between good and evil.

    On the other hand, “soft” exceptionalism takes a slightly different tack by appealing to the liberal in us. Stories of rescue, protection, democracy and humanitarian efforts assure us of our goodness. Obama mastered this narrative by claiming the US had a “duty to protect” the weak and vulnerable in places like Libya.

    These two strains of war stories are the narrative one-two punch, winning our consent to war and empire.

    Here is how war propaganda works: if authority figures in government and media denounce foreign leaders or countries or immigrants as an evil threat and repeat it thousands of times, they do not even have to say, “We are the chosen people destined to bring light to the world.” They know that millions of Americans will unconsciously refer to the exceptionalist code by default because it’s so deeply embedded in our culture. Once made brave by our exceptional character and sense of superiority, the next moves are war, violence and white supremacy.

    Myth Meets the American War in Vietnam

    The Vietnam War, and the resistance to it, profoundly challenged all existing war stories. At the heart of this disruption was the soldier’s revolt. Thousands of US soldiers and veterans came to oppose the very war they fought in. An anti-war movement inside the military was totally unprecedented in US history. The war-makers have been scrambling to repair the damage ever since.

    Following the defeat of US forces in Vietnam, the elites shifted gears. The idea that the US could create a new democratic nation — South Vietnam — was an utter illusion that no amount of fire-power could overcome. In truth, the US selected a series of petty tyrants to rule that could never win the allegiance of the Vietnamese people because they were the transparent puppets of American interests. The ruling class learned a lesson that forced them to abandon the liberal veneer of “nation-building.”

    The Next Generation of War Stories: From “Noble Cause” to “Humanitarian War.” 

    Ronald Regan tried to repair the damaged narratives by recasting the Vietnam War as a “Noble Cause.” The Noble Cause appealed to people hurt and confused by the US defeat,  as well as the unrepentant war-makers, because it attempted to restore the old good vs. evil narrative of exceptionalism. For Regan, America needed to rediscover its original mission as a “city on a hill” — a shining example to the world. Every single President since has repeated that faith.

    The Noble Cause narrative was reproduced in numerous bad movies and dubious academic studies that tried to refight the war (and win this time!). Its primary function was to restore exceptionalism in the minds of the American people. While Regan succeeded to a considerable degree — as we can see in the pro-war policy of both corporate parties  — “nation-building” never recovered its power as a military strategy or war story.

    The next facade was Clinton’s “humanitarian war.” Humanitarian war attempted to relight the liberal beacon by replacing the problems of nation-building with the paternalistic do-gooding of a superior culture and country. In effect, the imperialists recycled the 19th Century war story of “Manifest Destiny” or “White Man’s Burden.” That “burden” was the supposed duty of white people to lift lesser people up to the standards of western civilization — even if that required a lot of killing.

    This kind of racist thinking legitimized the US overseas empire at its birth. Maybe it would work again in empires’ old age?

    From the “War on Terrorism” to the “Responsibility to Protect.”  

    After the shock of 9/11 the narrative shifted again. Bush’s “global war on terrorism” reactivated the good vs. evil framing of the Cold War. The “war on terror” was an incoherent military or political strategy except for its promise of forever wars.

    Just as the Cold War was a “long twilight struggle” against an elusive but ruthless communist enemy, terrorists might be anywhere and everywhere and do anything. And, like the fight against communism, the war on terrorism would require the US to wage aggressive wars, launch preemptive strikes, use covert activities and dodge both international law and the US Constitution.

    9/11 also tapped into deeply-rooted nationalistic and patriotic desires among everyday people to protect and serve their country. The first attack on US soil in modern memory powerfully restored the old binary: when faced with unspeakable evil, the US military became a “force for good in the world.” It’s easy to forget just how potent the combination is and how it led us into the War in Iraq. According to The Washington Post:

    Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.

    The mythology is so deep that at first the people, soldiers especially, just had to believe there was a good reason to attack Iraq. So we fell back on exceptionalism despite the total absence of evidence. Of course Bush made no attempt to correct this misinformation. The myth served him too well — as did the official propaganda campaign claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

    But in due course, some of the faithful became doubters. A peace movement of global proportions took shape. But in the US far too much of what appeared as resistance was driven by narrow partisan opposition to Republicans rather than principled opposition to war and empire.

    But fear not war-makers — Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton came to the rescue! As they continued Bush’s wars in the Middle East and expanded the war zone to include Libya, Syria and then all of Africa, they sweetened “humanitarian war” with a heaping dose of cool-coated “Responsibility to Protect.” Once again, American goodness and innocence made the medicine go down and our wars raged on.

    Obama restored legitimacy to the empire so effectively that it took years for the illegal, immoral, racist and “unwinnable” wars to reveal themselves to the public. I was told by one of the leaders of About Face: Veterans Against War that they almost had to close shop after Obama was elected because their donor base dried up. Obama’s hope was our dope. Just as the daze was finally lifting, Trump started to take the mask off.

    Is The Mask Off?

    Today’s we face an empire with the mask half off. Trump’s doctrine — “We are not nation-building again, we are killing terrorists.” — is a revealing take on military trends that began with the first US – Afghan War (1978-1992). US leaders gave up nation-building and opted for failed states and political chaos instead of the strong states that nation-building, or its illusion, required. The US military began to rely on mercenaries and terrorists to replace the American citizen-soldier. The soldier revolt of the Vietnam Era already proved that everyday Americans were an unreliable force to achieve imperial ambitions.

    Nothing rips the mask off of the humanitarian justifications better than the actual experience of combat in a war for oil and power — so the war managers tried to reduce combat exposure to a few. And they succeeded. The number of official US troops abroad reached a 60-year low by 2017. Even still a new resistance movement of veterans is gathering steam.

    Can the mask be put back on? It’s hard to say, because as The Nation reports, Americans from a wide spectrum of political positions are tired of perpetual war.

    Can the “Green New Military” Put The Mask Back On? 

    The recycled imperial justifications of the past are losing their power: Manifest Destiny, White Mans’ Burden, leader of the free world, nation-building, humanitarian war, war against terrorism, responsibility to protect — what’s next? If only the military could be seen as saviors once again.

    A last-ditch effort to postpone the collapse of the liberal versions of war stories might just be the “Green New Military.” Elizabeth Warren’s policy claims, “Our military can help lead the fight in combating climate change.” It’s a wild claim that contradicts all evidence unless she is also calling for an end to regime-change wars, the New Cold War and the scaling down of our foreign bases. Instead, Warren is all about combat readiness. She did not invent this — the Pentagon had already embraced the new rhetoric. Given that the Working Families Party and some influential progressives have already signaled their willingness to accept Warren as a candidate, she might just silence dissent as effectively as Obama once did.

    But, the lie is paper-thin: “There is no such thing as a Green War.” You can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time but you cannot fool mother nature one little bit. War and climate change are deeply connected and ultimately there is no way to hide that.

    The New Cold War and More of The Same Old Wars

    So far the New Cold War against Russia and China has recycled the anti-communist conspiracy of the old Cold War into the xenophobic conspiracy theory of Russia-gate. Even a trusted tool like Mueller could not make it work as a coherent narrative but no matter — the US did not skip a beat in building up military bases on Russia’s borders.

    The media and political attacks on Russia or China or immigrants, or Iran or Syria are likely to continue because propagandists cannot activate the exceptionalist code without an evil enemy. Still, it takes more than evil. An effective war story for the US ruling class must project the liberal ideas of helping, protection, saving and the spread of democracy in order to engineer mass consent to war. Hence the need for “Humanitarian War,” “Duty to Protect” or maybe the”Green New Military.”

    Let anyone propose a retreat from any battlefield and the “humanitarian” war cry will rally the empire’s pawns and savior-types. If we practice our exceptionalism religiously — and religion it is — then the US empire will never ever pull back from any war at any time. There is always someone for the empire to “protect and save:” from the “Noble Savages” and innocent white settlers of the frontier, to the Vietnamese Catholics, to the women of Afghanistan, to the Kurds of Syria.

    We so want to see our wars as a morality play, just as the Puritans did, but the empire is all about power and profit.

    “War is the Continuation of Politics by Other Means.” — Carl von Clausewitz

    All the Big Brass study Clausewitz because he is the founder of western military science — but they are so blinded by the dilemmas of empire that they make a mess of his central teaching: War is politics.

    None of the war narratives and none of the wars can solve the most important question of politics: governance. Who will govern the colonies? The overwhelming verdict of history is this: colonies cannot be democratically or humanely governed as long as they are colonies. Until the empire retreats its heavy hand will rule in places like Afghanistan.

    The empire is reaching the limits of exceptionalism as both war narrative and national mythology. This is why our rulers are forced to desperate measures: perpetual war, occupation, intense propaganda campaigns like Russia-gate, the reliance on mercenaries and terrorists, and the abuse and betrayal of their own soldiers.

    Just as damning to the war machine is the collapse of conventional ideas about victory and defeat. The US military can no longer “win.” The question of victory is important on a deep cultural level. According to the original mythology, the outcome of wars waged by “the chosen people” are an indication of God’s favor or disfavor. In modern terms, defeat delegitimizes the state. Endless war is no substitute for “victory.”

    But it’s not military victory we want. Our victory will be in ending war, dismantling the empire, abolishing the vast militarized penal system and stopping irreparable climate chaos. Our resistance will create a new narrative but it can only be written when millions of people become the authors of their own history.

    The empire is slipping into decline and chaos – one way or another. Will we be actors deciding the fate of the American Empire or will it’s collapse dictate our fate? But these wars will, sooner or later, become the graveyard of empire — or else America is truly exceptional and we really are God’s chosen people.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/12/2019 – 21:50

  • Retail Investors Are Acting As If A Financial Crisis Is Just Around The Corner
    Retail Investors Are Acting As If A Financial Crisis Is Just Around The Corner

    While algos continue to zig and zag, daytraing the barrage of optimistic and pessimistic US-China trade deal headlines, and stock buybacks are set for another record, with a recent report finding that cumulative buybacks YTD are already up +20% YoY compared to 2018 which was already a record year for stock buybacks…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … while insiders quietly dump stock, selling an estimated $26BN of their own stock in 2019, the fastest pace since the year 2000, when executives sold $37bn of stock amid the giddy highs of the dotcom bubble…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … retail investors are acting as if a financial crisis is just around the corner.

    A recent report by Bank of America found that retail investors haven’t been this bearish since the collapse of Lehman. The bank looked at money market fund flows, which attracted a near record $322 billion in the past 6 months, the largest since the second half of 2008 when the global financial crisis was unleashed.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As BofA explains, this means that instead of putting their money to work, investors are doing the opposite and raising cash at a furious pace, expecting a market crash, even though – just like in like 2007 and 08 – rates are now falling, while the S&P 500 put-call ratio has soared to the highest since April 10.

    One explanation according to BofA’s chief investment strategist, Michael Hartnett, is that investors are suffering from “bearish paralysis,” driven by unresolved issues such as the trade war, Brexit, the Trump impeachment investigation and recession fears. Underscoring this point, in the week ending Oct. 9, investors continued to aggressively exit equity funds globally, with outflows reaching $9.8 billion according to EPFR data, while allocating cash to safe havens, with bond funds enjoying $11.1 billion of inflows.

    Picking up on this there, JPMorgan’s Nick Panagirtzoglou writes that the bearishness of retail investors with respect to equity funds has been getting progressively worse during the course of 2019, which as captured in the chart below, shows that retail investors globally sold more equity funds in Q3 vs. Q2 and in Q2 vs. Q1.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    To the extent that this growing equity fund selling is indicative of retail investors’ confidence, or lack thereof, the JPM strategist writes that “the picture above points to waning consumer confidence reinforcing the message from the negative trend in the economic measure of Figure 3” which shows that after peaking in 2017, consumer confidence has stumbled and is now at 3 year lows.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Such diminishing consumer confidence would naturally raise further expectations of recession by both economists and markets given the key role the consumer is playing in gauging recession risks.

    Indeed, the release of the October 2019 Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey which every month presents economists’ forecasts for the US economy, showed a rise in the average probability of a US recession taking place in 2020 to 39%, surpassing the previous high recorded in the February 2019 survey. This 39% probability is also the highest for this cycle. This is shown in the next chart, which depicts the probability of a US recession taking place in different years based on successive Blue Chip Economic Indicators monthly surveys conducted since 2017. There has been an upward shift in the recession probabilities pattern after each successive year and the current 39% US recession probability represents the highest reading for this cycle.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What to the JPM strategist is also striking is that in the Blue Chip Economic Indicators surveys, the probabilities of a US recession taking place in 2020 based on the monthly surveys conducted during the course of 2019 are significantly higher that the probabilities of a US recession taking place in 2008 based on the monthly surveys conducted during the course of 2007.

    In other words, according to at least one measure, what is coming will be even worse compared to the financial crisis – after all, this time economists see what’s coming; that nobody is acting on it yet, is a different matter.

    As Panigirtzoglou recounts, a decade ago, “we had to wait until the December 2007 survey for the probability of a US recession taking place in 2008 to approach 40% and it was only with the February 2008 survey conducted, after the 2008 recession had started, that this probability went above 50%.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Which again brings us back to fund flows, as a proxy of consumer confidence. 

    As JPM notes, “the vast majority of the fund universe in the world is owned by households or retail investors. And retail investors’ behavior in the fund space this year has the hallmarks of late cycle investing with outflows from equity funds and inflows into bond funds.”

    As the next chart shows, the last time we saw such strong outflows from equity funds was during 2008! Admittedly Figure 4 shows that during 2008 we had seen outflows from bond funds also, in contrast to the strong bond fund inflows seen this year. But the difference is less significant than appears in the chart below, as the bond fund outflows at the time had mostly taken place post Lehman crisis once credit spreads rose to unprecedented levels post September 2008

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But, Panigirtzoglou asks, “what if this selling of equity funds does not reflect fears of a recession or late cycle dynamics but rebalancing, i.e. an effort by retail investors to prevent their equity weighting from rising too much given the strong 15% rally in global equities YTD.”

    Indeed the equity share in the fund universe has been hovering at pretty high levels by historical standards since the end of 2017. This equity share is proxied by the AUM of equity funds plus the equity holdings of hybrid funds divided by the sum of the AUM of equity, bond, hybrid and money market funds. And it could be considered as a proxy of how overweight equities retail investors are as shown in Figure 6 (since 1996 for US domiciled funds and since 2005 globally).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As JPM further notes, this equity fund share has exhibited mean reversion since the mid-1990s. It had increased sharply in the five years to 2017 as a result of the equity rally, with most of the increase taking place during 2013 and during 2017. The metrics in Figure 6 declined sharply during the equity market correction of Q4 2018 but all of this decline reversed in the first quarter of this year shifting retail investors to very overweight territory.

    As a result, at 59% currently at a global level, retail investors are entering the fourth quarter of this year at a similar equity overweight position to the record high of the end of 2017. For US domiciled investors, the equity share is currently somewhat lower than the record high of 63% seen at the end of 2017. But at 61% this equity share is still pretty high by historical standards and equal to the previous cycle peaks of 1999 and 2006.

    In other words, even if they aren’t dumping stocks because they fear a financial crisis, retail investors appear to be very overweight equities at the moment given the strong 15% rally in global equities this year. So it is possible to view their growing equity fund selling this year as an effort by retail investors to rebalance and prevent their equity weighting from rising too much rather than as a reflection of waning confidence or increasing fear of recession.

    This, however, is also not good news, because even if this alternative “rebalancing” hypothesis is correct, it implies that the equity weighting of the household sector has peaked and thus retail investors are likely to limit any equity market upside from here. Therefore, as JPM concludes, “this alternative hypothesis has rather negative implications for equity markets also” asretail investors could act as a drag on equity market upside from here even if consumer confidence improves.

    In conclusion, even an optimistic read of the ongoing liquidation by retail investors “poses a challenge to the bullish equity market thesis emerging from this week’s positive news on US-China trade negotiations and Brexit” Panigirtzoglou concludes, because any upside from this week’s news could be constrained by retail investors trying to prevent their equity overweights from rising too much.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/12/2019 – 21:20

  • The World's Least-Free Countries Reveal Just How Much "Socialism Sucks"
    The World’s Least-Free Countries Reveal Just How Much “Socialism Sucks”

    Authored by David Gordon via The Mises Institute,

    [Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way Through the Unfree World. By Robert Lawson and Benjamin Powell.  Regnery Publishing, 2019. 192 pages.]

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Robert Lawson and Benjamin Powell are well-known free market economists, and they do not look with favor on a disturbing trend among American young people.

    “In the spring of 2016,” they tell us, “a Harvard survey found that a third of eighteen-to twenty-nine year olds supported socialism. Another survey, from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, reported that millennials supported socialism over any other economic system.” (p.8)

    Unfortunately, the young people in question have little idea of the nature of socialism. Lawson and Powell would like to remedy this situation, but they confront a problem. Ordinarily, one would urge students to read Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, Mises’s “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” and similar classic works, in order to understand the basic facts about the free market and socialism, but the millennials are unlikely to do so. One must attract their attention. What can be done?

    Lawson and Powell have had the happy idea of presenting elementary economics in a humorous way that will appeal to those “turned off” by serious and sober scholarship. In the latter adjective lies the key to their approach. Both of the authors enjoy drinking beer, and they travel around the world to various socialist countries in pursuit of their beloved beverage, making incisive comments about the economy of each country as they do so. They write in a salty style that will make millennials laugh, though some readers will find it jarring.

    For the young, “socialism” means no more than vague ideas about “fairness”, but, the authors note, the term has a precise meaning:

    “To separate the state from socialism in any large society is like trying to separate private property from capitalism. It can’t be done. I’ll say it once more for the people in the back: socialism, in practice, means that the state owns and controls the means of production.” (p.128)

    No country is completely socialist, but some are more socialist than others. How can the degree of socialism be evaluated? Lawson has, along with James Gwartney, produced an annual economic freedom index for the Fraser Institute, which the authors use to answer this question, sometimes with surprising results.

    Many professed socialists look to Sweden for inspiration, but according to the freedom index, “Sweden gets a 7.54 rating, which is good enough for twenty-seventh place out of the 159 countries in the study. . .Bottom line: Sweden is a prosperous, mostly capitalist country.” (pp.10-11)

    The authors must now confront an objection. Why should we not prefer welfare-state capitalism to the straightforward free market economy the authors want? They reply that Sweden prospered under freedom, but the increased taxation needed to finance the welfare state has brought about stagnation. “Sweden grew most when it was freer than it is today.” (p.13)

    If some people admire Sweden, few except fanatics have good words for the economy of Cuba. Nevertheless, must we not recognize the wonders accomplished by the Cuban socialized medicine? We must give the devil his due. Lawson and Powell are not convinced.

    “Official Cuban health statistics are impressive. . .Yet, we also know that the hospitals most Cubans use are so poorly equipped that people often have to bring their own sheets. What gives? The silence [on the streets} is part of the answer. The lack of automobiles means a lack of traffic fatalities. Since automobile accidents are a leading cause of death among younger people, the lack of automobiles has a disproportionate impact on life expectancy statistics for reasons that have nothing to do with health care. The low rate of infant mortality is a product of data manipulation.” (p.53)

    Why has Cuban socialism, like all other centralized socialist economies, failed? The authors present with great clarity the essential point:

    “’[A]lmost a hundred years ago, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises explained that socialism, even if run by benevolent despots and populated with workers willing to work for the common good, could still not match capitalism’s performance. Socialism requires abolishing private property in the means of production. But private property is necessary to have the free exchange of labor, capital, and goods that establish proper prices. Without proper prices, socialist planners could not know which consumer goods were needed or how best to produce them. . .Socialism also gives tremendous power to government officials and bureaucrats who are the system’s planners—and with that power comes corruption, abuse, and tyranny.” (p.37)

    Socialist tyrants were the greatest mass murderers in history, and the young must be apprised of this melancholy fact.

    “Stalin ranks just behind Mao as history’s second greatest mass murderer, with Hitler coming in third—and all three dictators were, of course, committed socialists of one sort or another.” (p.115)

    Some millennial socialists respond with a distinction. The despotic governments mentioned were not genuinely socialist. The authors answer with appropriate severity:

    “This is the same dirty trick socialists have played for decades. Whenever things go south, as they inevitably do, they claim that it wasn’t ‘real’ socialism. I [Lawson[ find the whole thing more than a little disingenuous and very irritating. When socialists, democratic and otherwise, held up Venezuela as a great socialist experiment in the 2000s, the message was, ‘See, we told you so; socialism works!’ but when failure happened, the message changed to, “No, wait—that’s not real socialism!’ They want to claim socialism during the good times but disavow it during the bad.” (pp.127-128)

    A related gross error, the famous “nirvana fallacy,” is to compare an ideal state of affairs, conjured up by socialists, with difficulties of real-world capitalism.

    If the authors are ready to rebuke the errors of misguided youth, they look with sympathy on some of their hopes. Many young people condemn the drug war, with its rampant racism and mass incarcerations, and they are right to do so:

    “The U.S. government’s war on drugs is unwinnable because, in the language of economists, it is a supply-side war, when demand isn’t very price-sensitive. This means when the U.S. government scores a ‘win’ in the war, the price of the remaining drugs goes up more than the usage falls. As a result, net revenue to drug cartels increases, which increases their ability to corrupt law enforcement and buy weapons and other smuggling equipment. The result has been an endless cycle of increasing violence along the entire supply chain in Central and South America. . .” (p.135)

    It is not only the drug war, but the war on terror as well, that ought to be condemned, and here once more, the many millennials who protested against the war are in the right.

    “We feel the same about the war on terror. The wars and violence associated with it in the Middle East are a major reason for Europe’s immigration wave. . .advocates for capitalism can be against war precisely because war undermine capitalist institutions and freedoms.. . .Chris Coyne wrote a book entitled After War: The Political Economy of Exporting Democracy, in which he shows that when the U.S. engages in foreign intervention, it rarely creates the kind of lasting institutional change that supports what some might call a ‘neoliberal’ society. Economist Robert Higgs’s classic book, Crisis and Leviathan, shows how crises in the United States, especially wars, have led to expanded government at the expense of markets. Chris’s latest book, Tyranny Come Hone: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism, co-authored with another friend of ours, Abby Hall, has shown how U.S. military interventions abroad ‘boomerang’ back to the United States in ways that decrease our freedoms at home. See, anti-war isn’t a uniquely leftist position. Capitalists should be anti-war too.” (pp.136-137. I regret the use of “neoliberal” as a term of praise and the solecism “advocates for.”)

    I confess that I approached the authors’ project of a drinking tour of the socialist countries with skepticism. Would it be more than ajeu d’esprit? Reading the book has laid my skepticism to rest. Socialism Sucks has the potential to do great good, if it gets into the right hands, and its impressive sales suggest that it will do so.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/12/2019 – 20:50

  • Apple Warned Apple TV+ Showrunners Not To Anger China
    Apple Warned Apple TV+ Showrunners Not To Anger China

    As Apple embarked on the development of a series of exclusive programming for its Apple TV+ service in early 2018, the company’s leadership advised content creators not to piss off China, according to BuzzFeed News

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In early 2018 as development on Apple’s slate of exclusive Apple TV+ programming was underway, the company’s leadership gave guidance to the creators of some of those shows to avoid portraying China in a poor light, BuzzFeed News has learned. Sources in position to know said the instruction was communicated by Eddy Cue, Apple’s SVP of internet software and services, and Morgan Wandell, its head of international content development. It was part of Apple’s ongoing efforts to remain in China’s good graces after a 2016 incident in which Beijing shut down Apple’s iBooks Store and iTunes Movies six months after they debuted in the country. –BuzzFeed

    And for all the left’s virtue-signaling over ‘microaggressions’ and the patriarchy depriving every gender their own bathroom, the progressive minds behind Hollywood and Silicon Valley After are hypocritically mum when it comes to China’s well-documented human rights violations. 

    “They all do it,” one showrunner told BuzzFeed. “They have to if they want to play in that market. And they all want to play in that market. Who wouldn’t?

    Apple of course relies on China for tens of billions in annual sales – not to mention the annual manufacture of hundreds of millions of iPhones – which as the report notes, makes it “particularly important to avoid running afoul of Chinese government,” especially in light of what we’ve seen over the past weeks with the NBA and other organizations whose employees have expressed solidarity with Hong Kong’s pro-democracy demonstrators. 

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

    Apps yanked

    Last week, Apple removed HKmap.live from the iOS App Store – an app which helped Hong Kong protesters track, elude, and stage counterattack operations against the police. The removal sparked outrage, including Hong Kong IT legislator Charles Mok, who tweeted in a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook “We Hongkongers will definitely look closely at whether Apple chooses to uphold its commitment to free and other basic human rights, or become an accomplice for Chinese censorship and oppression.”

    As BuzzFeed notes, “Apple’s recent actions in China are a continuation of the company’s years-long practice of appeasing Beijing.” 

    To do business in China, the company adopts to local dictates, distasteful as they may be to its CEO Tim Cook, an outspoken gay rights advocate and privacy crusader. It’s an ironic inversion of a longstanding argument in the West that by bringing China into the world trade system, the country would adopt western values. Instead, China is asking tech companies to adopt its values — and Apple is willing to pay that price. 

    The removal of HKmap.live was one of a series of actions Apple took at China’s instigation in the past week. Apple removed the Quartz app from its app store in China — “Presumably because of the excellent work our team in Hong Kong has been doing covering the protests,” Quartz technology editor Mike Murphy said — and removed the Taiwan flag emoji for iOS users in Hong Kong. –BuzzFeed

    Also noted is that Apple only rejected just two of 56 app takedown requests from Beijing – eliminating 517 apps the communist government disapproved of, according to the Cupertino, California company’s transparency report. What’s more, “Apple provided customer data to the Chinese government 96% of the time when it asked about a device, and 98% of the time when it asked about an account. In the US, those numbers were around 80% and the US government did not make any app removal requests.” 

    Read the rest of the report here

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


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/12/2019 – 20:20

  • The "Safe Drivers Act" Is A Real-Time National Driver Surveillance Program
    The “Safe Drivers Act” Is A Real-Time National Driver Surveillance Program

    Via MassPrivateI blog,

    A new Senate bill would create a real-time national driver surveillance program that would allow law enforcement to know anything and everything about a driver at the click of a button.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A recent article in WCVB Channel 5 revealed that the “Safe Drivers Act” is designed for one purpose and that is to share everything a motorist has ever done with law enforcement nationwide.

    Outside the Danvers branch of the Registry of Motor Vehicles on Tuesday, Congressman Seth Moulton publicly announced legislation he’s filed in hopes of making it easier for traffic safety officials to share information about drivers across state lines.

    How Moulton plans to make it easier to share drivers’ personal information with law enforcement across the country is frightening.

    The ultimate goal of the bill is to help lead to the creation of a national, real-time data sharing program, Moulton’s office said.

    Apparently, knowing a driver’s Social Security Number, address, date of birth, checking their driving record and running their name against a national criminal database is not enough.

    There are few places in America that do not use Automatic License Plate Readers to track our every movement and even that does not appear to be enough for Big Brother’s insatiable desire to know everything about everyone.

    The Salem News revealed that the bill would “incentivize states” into creating a national real-time driver sharing program.

    Moulton said, “the goal is to incentivize states to modernize their systems and work together to make sure their databases are compatible to improve communication on dangerous drivers.”

    WCVB Channel 5 explains how the U.S. DOT would offer states more than $50 million to help create a national real-time data sharing program.

    Moulton’s bill would also create a $50 million competitive grant program that would allow states to bid for additional grant money and would enable the U.S. Department of Transportation to connect states that have similar modernization needs.

    One has to ask, why would states need bribes grant money to help create a national driver surveillance program?

    According to The Salem News, this bill would also give law enforcement, real-time alerts of every driver.

    Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has also called for the creation of a nationwide system to alert states when one of their drivers incurs a violation that could trigger a suspension in another jurisdiction.

    Will Amber Alerts become a thing of the past? Because this bill would give law enforcement real-time alerts about every driver.

    I wonder if they will be called Bad Driver alerts?

    THE SAFE DRIVERS ACT IS A PRIVACY NIGHTMARE

    H.R. 4531 would also give law enforcement access to videos of accidents a driver was involved in and much more.

    Developing or acquiring programs to identify, collect, and report data to State and local government agencies, and enter data, including crash, citation or adjudication, driver, emergency medical services or injury surveillance system, roadway, and vehicle, into the core highway safety databases of a State.

    Collecting and storing court judgments of any auto accident a motorist has been involved in will give law enforcement unprecedented access to a motorist’s driving records.

    It would link core highway safety databases of a State with such databases of other States or with other data systems within the State, including systems that contain medical, roadway, and economic data.

    Calling this a national, real-time data sharing program really doesn’t do it justice. It should be renamed and called a real-time national driver surveillance program.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    You can bet that this bill will be modified to monitor motorists in ways that we haven’t dreamed of yet, making the “Safe Drivers Act” even more of a privacy nightmare.

    By storing and tracking everything a motorist has ever been involved in, we are turning every driver into a suspected criminal, and that scares the you-know-what out of me.

    Americans do not need or want another national surveillance program. We already have a national ID program called Real-ID, which gives law enforcement an unprecedented look into everyone’s personal lives.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/12/2019 – 19:50

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 12th October 2019

  • National Geographic Warns Billions "Face Shortages Of Food And Clean Water" Over Next 30 Years
    National Geographic Warns Billions “Face Shortages Of Food And Clean Water” Over Next 30 Years

    Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    A lot of people out there don’t like when I write these kinds of articles, because they directly contradict the false narrative that humanity has an extremely bright future ahead.  Sadly, the truth is that our planet and everything that lives on it is rapidly deteriorating. And I am not talking about the false environmentalism being pushed by the mainstream media, Greta Thunberg and countless well-funded NGOs. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What I am talking about is the stuff that is happening right in our face.  We are systematically poisoning our planet, thousands upon thousands of species are going extinct, and we are literally running out of all of our most important natural resources.  There isn’t going to be enough of anything in the not too distant future.  In fact, even National Geographic is admitting that up to five billion people could soon be facing “shortages of food and clean water”…

    As many as five billion people, particularly in Africa and South Asia, are likely to face shortages of food and clean water in the coming decades as nature declines. Hundreds of millions more could be vulnerable to increased risks of severe coastal storms, according to the first-ever model examining how nature and humans can survive together.

    “I hope no one is shocked that billions of people could be impacted by 2050,” says Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer a landscape ecologist at Stanford University. “We know we are dependent on nature for many things,” says Chaplin-Kramer, lead author of the paper “Global Modeling Of Nature’s Contributions To People” published in Science.

    The clock is literally ticking for humanity, but meanwhile we spend immense amounts of energy on relatively meaningless political squabbles.

    Look, the reality of the matter is that this is going to happen no matter which political party is in control of the White House.  We are in very big trouble, and nobody really has any idea how we can possibly turn things around.

    At this point, we are running out of topsoil at a staggering rate.  In fact, we have already lost “nearly half of the most productive soil” within the last 150 years

    The world grows 95% of its food in the uppermost layer of soil, making topsoil one of the most important components of our food system. But thanks to conventional farming practices, nearly half of the most productive soil has disappeared in the world in the last 150 years, threatening crop yields and contributing to nutrient pollution, dead zones and erosion. In the US alone, soil on cropland is eroding 10 times faster than it can be replenished.

    If we continue to degrade the soil at the rate we are now, the world could run out of topsoil in about 60 years, according to Maria-Helena Semedo of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.

    So do any of you have a viable plan for how we can stop losing our topsoil?

    Because if nobody has a plan, mass starvation is an absolute certainty.  Even if we found a way to save our topsoil, we aren’t going to have anyone to pollinate our crops because all of the insects are dying.  I covered this phenomenon in a previous article entitled “Insect Species Are Rapidly Going Extinct Across The Globe – All Insects Could Be Gone ‘In 100 Years’”.

    And without enough insects to eat, the bird population is rapidly declining as well.  This is something that I wrote about in a previous article entitled “North America’s Bird Population Is Collapsing – Nearly 3 Billion Birds Have Been Wiped Out Since 1970”.

    Despite all of our advanced technology, we can’t seem to do much of anything to stop the death and decay that we see all over the globe.

    Even the human race is steadily deteriorating.  Scientists tell us that humans are now smaller, shorter, weaker and dumber than our ancestors were thousands of years ago.  Today, our genes contain tens of thousands of mistakes (mutations), and those mistakes are passed on to the next generation.  And each new generation adds additional mistakes (mutations) to the gene pool, and so over time the number of mutations being passed on continues to grow.  In virtually every case those mutations are harmful, and we have absolutely no way to stop this systematic decay of the human genome.

    Literally, our planet and everything in it is falling apart.

    Here in the western world, things may seem okay for the moment because our debt-fueled lifestyles and our advanced technology allow us to live fairly comfortable lives.

    But things are already starting to change, and global events are accelerating at a pace that is very alarming.  As the fabric of our society unravels, it is going to be imperative to have others that you can lean on for support.

    Unfortunately, making friends is not something that most of us are very good at doing.  In fact, one recent study discovered that the average American adult “hasn’t made a new friend in the last five years”

    Spending time in the company of good friends regularly has been shown to have a positive impact on health. But for many Americans, socializing in adulthood gets harder with age. A recent survey reveals that 45% of adults admit they find it hard to make new friends. In fact, the average adult hasn’t made a new friend in the last five years, according to the survey.

    In this day and age, our screens have become our friends.  We spend countless hours with our televisions, our phones and our computers.  Meanwhile, many of us don’t have any idea how the people living right next door are doing.

    One of the reasons why I write so many articles is because that is how I can reach the most people.

    If the most effective way of waking people up was traveling the country and holding meetings, I would do it.

    But these days it is exceedingly difficult to get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting.  But once I publish this article on the Internet, it will be seen by enough people to easily fill a sports stadium.

    The Internet is where the battle for hearts and minds is being won or lost, and we need to do all that we can to wake more people up.

    Because the clock is ticking for humanity, and the destiny of billions hangs in the balance.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/11/2019 – 23:40

  • 40% Of Hongkongers Want To Flee City Amid Protests And Imminent Recession
    40% Of Hongkongers Want To Flee City Amid Protests And Imminent Recession

    A mind-boggling 40% of Hongkongers want to emigrate overseas because of the escalating social unrest that is expected to trigger an imminent recession in the coming quarters.  

    The new study, published by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, asked 707 individuals by phone in late September if they would leave the city because of the turmoil. More than 42% answered yes, which is up from 34% last December. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Of those who were asked, 23% of respondents said they’ve already started emergency plans to leave. Some of those plans include getting out of housing leases, selling their homes and cars, and packing up their possessions, ahead of a move to a foreign city. 

    The study was published on Thursday, and university researchers said political chaos was the most significant factor in triggering an emergency move for respondents. 

    The largest two factors for respondents planning to move were “too much political dispute or social cleavage” (27.9%) and “no democracy in Hong Kong” (21.5%).

    About 20% of the respondents had no confidence in China and Hong Kong to fix the overcrowded living conditions.

    Hong Kong was already in an economic rout, which started in late 2017. 

    The increasingly violent anti-government protests from June have likely triggered the city’s first recession since the global financial crisis — this could also crash housing prices. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Protestors have brought luxury hotels, shopping districts, neighborhood stores, restaurants, and tourist-centric districts to a virtual standstill. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hong Kong’s GDP contracted in 2Q19, and 3Q will likely contract as economic data is crashing. 

    The Government of Hong Kong has been unsuccessful in containing the protests, as well as troughing economic growth through various stimulus packages in 2019.  

    “I do not expect to see any strong measures that can instantaneously turn things around,” said Dong Chen, senior Asia economist with Pictet Wealth Management, one of a growing chorus of experts predicting Hong Kong had a second straight quarterly contraction in the three months through September. “The best scenario is after this political unrest they can come up with longer-term planning or measures to solve structural problems.”

    Economists believe growth in the city will slip below 1% in 2019. 

    JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s bear case for the city is about .30%, the weakest full-year GDP reading in a decade. 

    The social and economic chaos has sparked a downturn in Hong Kong’s equities and real estate markets. 

    It seems that Hongkongers, as per the study, are overwhelmingly packing their bags as it appears an economic collapse in the city could be imminent.

    And judging by the surge in local bitcoin trading volumes, capital is leaking out fast, with bodies to follow…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Is the implosion of Hong Kong what triggers the next global economic crisis? 


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/11/2019 – 23:20

  • Sesame Street Introduces A Muppet Who Has A Mother Addicted To Opiates
    Sesame Street Introduces A Muppet Who Has A Mother Addicted To Opiates

    Authored by John Vibes via The Mind Unleashed,

    “Sesame Street,” one of the longest-running children’s television shows in the United States, has introduced a new character that has a mother who is addicted to opiates. The new character is a bright green muppet with yellow hair who is friends with Elmo. Karli will reportedly talk about how addiction has affected her and her family in new editions of the show’s online community resource initiatives.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The show’s creators say that they wanted to cover this topic on the show because there are millions of children who are currently facing this reality, and there are no resources out there for these kids.

    In an interview with Stat News, Dr. Jeanette Betancourt, senior vice president for U.S. social impact at Sesame Workshop, estimated that there were 5.7 million children under the age of 11 who live in a house with a parent who struggles with addiction.

    Betancourt said the shows featuring Karli approach the issue of addiction with compassion, from a perspective that young people can understand. The episodes illustrate that addiction is an “adult illness,” and emphasizes that children are not in any way responsible for their parent’s actions.

    Kama Einhorn, a senior content manager with Sesame Workshop, said that these shows can just as beneficial for parents as they are for children.

    “There’s nothing else out there that addresses substance abuse for young, young kids from their perspective. It’s also a chance to model to adults a way to explain what they’re going through to kids and to offer simple strategies to cope. Even a parent at their most vulnerable — at the worst of their struggle — can take one thing away when they watch it with their kids, then that serves the purpose,” Einhorn told the Guardian.

    In one of the scenes, the Muppet tells her friend that addiction is “A sickness that makes people feel like they have to take drugs or drink alcohol to feel OK. My mom was having a hard time with addiction and I felt like my family was the only one going through it. But now I’ve met so many other kids like us. It makes me feel like we’re not alone.”

    The creation of the scenes and dialogue was assisted by Jerry Moe, the national director of the Hazelden Betty Ford Children’s Program. Moe said that children often don’t receive the emotional help and support that they need when a family member is dealing with addiction.

    These boys and girls are the first to get hurt and, unfortunately, the last to get help. For them to see Karli and learn that it’s not their fault and this stuff is hard to talk about and it’s OK to have these feelings, that’s important. And that there’s hope,” Moe said.

    Children live in the same world and the same homes that the rest of us do, and they are smart enough to know what is happening right in front of them. Some people think that these types of issues should be swept under the rug and hidden from children, but for the millions of children who are facing these problems in their families, ignoring it isn’t an option.

    “Sesame Street,” is known for covering sensitive topics that children are often sheltered from, and in the past, the show has tackled issues like HIV, homelessness, or having parents in jail.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/11/2019 – 23:00

  • These Are The Richest People In China
    These Are The Richest People In China

    The latest rich list published by The Hurun Research Institute has revealed the richest people in China in 2019.

    At the top of the ranking is co-founder of the Alibaba Group, Jack Ma and his family. In total, he is estimated to have a net worth of $39 billion. Close behind is Pony Ma Huateng, CEO of Tencent.

    Infographic: The Richest People in China | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    How does this vast wealth compare to the richest people in the world?

    According to the latest Forbes ranking, the richest person in the world is Jeff Bezos, with a staggering net worth of $131 billion.

    For now, no one from China makes it on to the top ten global list – with the benchmark currently at $51 billion – but it is surely just a matter of time.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/11/2019 – 22:40

  • Shepard Smith Out At Fox News
    Shepard Smith Out At Fox News

    Despite a palpable shift to the left at Fox News, the very liberal Shepard Smith is stepping down from his role as Chief News Anchor and Managing Editor at the network after a public spat with host Tucker Carlson. According to Smith, he’s leaving to begin “a new chapter” in his career, and his last day at the anchor desk will be today. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “Recently I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News and begin a new chapter,” Smith said, adding “After requesting that I stay, they graciously obliged. The opportunities afforded this guy from small town Mississippi have been many. It’s been an honor and a privilege to report the news each day to our loyal audience in context and with perspective, without fear or favor. I’ve worked with the most talented, dedicated and focused professionals I know and I’m proud to have anchored their work each day — I will deeply miss them.”

    Until Smith’s replacement is found, the network will deploy a series of rotating anchors to host the 3 p.m. time slot. 

    Word of Smith’s departure comes two weeks after a “war of words” broke out between Smith and fox anchor Tucker Carlson, after Smith called Carlson and legal analyst Joe diGenova “repugnant” in a daytime analysis of their reporting on the Democratically manufactured Ukrainegate scandal.

    As we noted at the time, Smith was flanked by Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, who drew a starkly different conclusion on Trump’s actions than pro-Trump lawyer diGenova, who appeared the night before on Carlson’s show.

    Napolitano concluded that Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine constituted “a crime” during the day on Tuesday. 

    diGenova had called Napolitano a “fool” for his analysis on that night, to which Smith returned fire the following evening, stating that diGenova was a “partisan guest” who was “repugnant” for attacking Napolitano. 

    “Apparently our daytime host, who hosted Judge Napolitano, was watching last night and was outraged by what you said and quite ironically called you partisan,” Carlson replied. 

    Later, Carlson took yet another shot at Smith to conclude the segment:

    It doesn’t seem honest to me when a host, any host on any channel, including this one, pretends that the answer is obvious. That’s not news, is it? That’s opinion. Why do we find ourselves in a situation where people aren’t willing to admit that their passions are guiding their news coverage?

    Wouldn’t it be better if we just said out loud you know this is what I think? For example you will never hear me criticize Rachel Maddow. I never agree with anything she says. But she is straightforward, it’s her opinion. Why wouldn’t it be better if we were all that transparent about what’s driving our shows? 

    It makes people cynical when you dress up news coverage, when you dress up partisanship as news coverage and pretend that your angry political opinions are news, you know, people tune out.”

    And now Smith is out.

    ***

    Fox said in a statement (via Forbes): 

    NEW YORK – October 11, 2019 — FOX NEWS Channel’s (FNC) Shepard Smith will step down from his role as Chief News Anchor and Managing Editor of the network’s breaking news unit and Anchor of Shepard Smith Reporting, announced Jay Wallace, President & Executive Editor of FOX News Media. This afternoon’s edition of Shepard Smith Reporting was Mr. Smith’s final show, during which he addressed his decision. A series of rotating anchors will host the 3PM/ET time slot until a new dayside news program is announced.

    In making the announcement, Mr. Wallace said, “Shep is one of the premier newscasters of his generation and his extraordinary body of work is among the finest journalism in the industry. His integrity and outstanding reporting from the field helped put FOX News on the map and there is simply no better breaking news anchor who has the ability to transport a viewer to a place of conflict, tragedy, despair or elation through his masterful delivery. We are proud of the signature reporting and anchoring style he honed at FOX News, along with everything he accomplished here during his monumental 23-year tenure. While this day is especially difficult as his former producer, we respect his decision and are deeply grateful for his immense contributions to the entire network.”

    Mr. Smith added, “Recently I asked the company to allow me to leave FOX News and begin a new chapter. After requesting that I stay, they graciously obliged. The opportunities afforded this guy from small town Mississippi have been many. It’s been an honor and a privilege to report the news each day to our loyal audience in context and with perspective, without fear or favor. I’ve worked with the most talented, dedicated and focused professionals I know and I’m proud to have anchored their work each day — I will deeply miss them.”

    One of FNC’s original hires in 1996, Mr. Smith has covered virtually every major news story over the course of his career as both a correspondent and an anchor, playing a fundamental role in the network’s innovation of the way news is presented.

    As the anchor of Shepard Smith Reporting (weekdays 3-4PM/ET), Mr. Smith utilized state-of-the-art news gathering techniques enhanced with advanced technologies, as well as digital and social media, to bring viewers the latest hard news from the signature studio known as The FOX News Deck.

    Throughout the most recent portion of his tenure, Mr. Smith anchored numerous breaking news stories, including: the El Paso shooting; the Parkland school shooting; Hurricanes Dorian & Irma; the Las Vegas massacre; the 2016 terrorist attacks in Nice, France and Belgium; the coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015; the 2014 riots following the shooting of civilian Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, MO; and the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, among many others.

    Before taking the helm of the breaking news division with the advent of Shepard Smith Reporting, Mr. Smith anchored The FOX Report and Studio B, both of which ranked number one in their respective timeslots. In this role, among the stories he notably anchored were: the Boston Marathon bombing of 2013 along with the subsequent manhunt and ultimate capture of the Tsarnaev brothers; the financial crisis of 2008; the War in Iraq (2003); the War in Afghanistan (2001), as well as the murderous terrorist attacks and devastating aftermath of 9/11.

    Additionally, Mr. Smith has traveled to Ukraine to report on the unrest in Kiev and Crimea, and reported live from Rome during the election of Pope Francis, as well as on the retirement of Pope Benedict XVI. In 2011, he was on location from Japan following the destructive earthquake and tsunami amid nuclear threats. During that same year, he provided significant news coverage of the anti-government protests and civil unrest in Egypt and Libya. Mr. Smith also reported extensively on the Middle East conflict between Israel and Hezbollah forces from Beirut, Lebanon in 2006.

    Prior to joining FNC, Mr. Smith was a Los Angeles-based FOX News Edge correspondent, reporting on a wide range of stories for the FOX affiliate news service, including the crash of TWA Flight 800, the Montana Freeman standoff, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Before this, he gained extensive local news experience throughout the state of Florida serving as a reporter for WSVN-TV (FOX) in Miami, the former WCPX-TV (CBS) in Orlando, WBBH-TV (NBC) in Fort Myers, FL and WJHG-TV (NBC) in Panama City, FL where he began his television career.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/11/2019 – 22:22

  • Luongo: Pompeo Can't Blame Iran For Attacking Itself
    Luongo: Pompeo Can’t Blame Iran For Attacking Itself

    Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

    “You’re gonna need a bigger boat”

    –JAWS

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water someone poked a couple of holes in an oil tanker belonging to Iran.

    This sent oil prices up briefly in the vain hope of stabilizing them.

    But, strangely, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was silent.

    This was a warning to Iran from someone on the Saudi/Israeli/U.S. side, “You won’t win without costs.”

    Well, of course, that’s true. The big question everyone is asking is, of course, “Who did this?”

    Details are sketchy with a lot of back and forth. Iran initially reported missile strikes.

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

    But Iran’s national tanker company, the owner of the boat, is now ruling out missiles.

    But who did this is honestly not even relevant at this point. It could be Israel, the Saudis, rogue U.S. or British agents, etc.

    Once we started down this path of sanctions, attacks on oil assets, and the like, it opened up the possibility of anyone with an axe to grind creating an incident for their purposes and blaming someone else for it.

    There are so many conflicting priorities on all sides of this issue that all it takes is the right suitcase of money to start a war, or spike oil prices for a few hours, or whatever.

    I can spin a dozen motivations out of my head right now whereby everyone involved has motive to attack an Iranian tanker. And they would all sound plausible, including the one that you know Mike Pompeo is just itching to waddle away from the buffet table to announce, that Iran attacked itself.

    And the less that evangelical crazy-man says about this, the better everyone will be. In fact, it is Pompeo’s silence is deafening, since he never misses an opportunity to bash Iran. It makes you wonder just how much he may or may not know about this.

    But honestly, that’s just me pushing boundaries.

    The reality is that Occam’s Razor is the most useful tool in this situation.

    The people squawking the loudest about the President’s recent policy decisions in the Middle East are the ones most likely behind this. They are the ones with the most to lose if Saudi Arabia falls and the U.S. pulls much of its force out of the Middle East.

    The most likely candidate is the one actor who has consistently overstepped its bounds in attacking neighbors it considers hostile for any reason. Israel.

    The headlines this week have been wall-to-wall gnashing of teeth and pearl clutching over the fate of the Kurds in Northern Syria, left to the tender mercies of the Turks.

    And that has been coming most forcefully from the gaggle of AIPAC drones that inhabit the D.C. Swamp.

    But the reality is that the partitioning of Syria has been a U.S. neoconservative project from the beginning of the civil war. Israel has given aid and comfort to ISIS fighters along the Golan Heights. This is not news, folks.

    And the use of the Kurds to destabilize not only Syria but Iraq, Iran and Turkey by outside actors, like the U.S., Saudi Arabia and YES, Israel, is well established.

    Pompeo has helped preside over sending the Kurds more than 30,000 truckloads of weapons. Who paid for those weapons, by the way?

    We did.

    How many of these SDF fighters are nothing more than foreign mercenaries paid by us to hold strategic areas of Syria– the oil fields and the border crossings –to starve Assad out of power?

    It’s been long established that the U.S. presence in Syria is unsustainable. But who keeps the pressure on Trump politically to maintain the situation?

    Israel.

    There comes a point where the evidence of influence is overwhelming and the state of the game board so degraded that it’s time for someone to make a bold call and change tactics.

    If the neocons and Israeli Firsters in Congress (and formerly in his cabinet) have turned on Trump to the point of starting impeachment proceedings against him for not going to war with Iran, then Trump is free to finally just blow it all wide open.

    Which is exactly what he is doing. The Kurds were simply mercenaries to help us defeat ISIS. Job’s done, your beef with Turkey is your problem.

    Remember that Russia’s intervention in Syria outed who was really behind the coalition to overthrow President Assad and when Turkey’s Erdogan was framed into a fight with Russia, shooting down an SU-24 in November 2015, Erdogan realized he would be the scapegoat for the entire operation and swiftly began changing his tune.

    Don’t you think Trump can see the same setup happening here now with the Kurds?

    They jumped the gun on impeachment. They didn’t neuter Trump, they unleashed him. Because he simply has nothing left to lose.

    Today that shift by Erdogan has culminated in his securing Northeastern Syria from Kurdish forces whose sole intention was to sow dissent and try and form an independent state, the dreams of which died with Barzani’s Peshmerga Forces getting routed at Erbil in 2017.

    Everything since then has been a delaying action. Trump was willing to go along if he could get Iran to the table on nuclear weapons. Putin and Erdogan prevailed on Trump to do a double deal. Turkey would give up support of Al-Qaeda in Idlib and the U.S. would begin pulling support for the Kurds in eastern Syria.

    Syria can begin normalizing and the Saudis and Israelis will have to face up to the need to sue for peace.

    But that means the end of the dream to partition Syria and striking Iran. Trump beginning to pull U.S. forces out of harm’s way is the surest way to ensure there isn’t another accident which sets us on the path to war.

    So, to me, it makes perfect sense to see rogue elements around the region acting independently to try and revive the war footing while cynically supporting a collapsing oil price.

    It’s clear that no one in the U.S. or Saudi Arabian power circles wants oil collapsing below $50 per barrel. The Russians and the Iranians don’t care, they trade oil now mostly outside the dollar and their currencies immunize them to the fluctuations.

    Trump watches the stock market like a hawk and the Saudis watch the price of Brent like their lives depend on it, because they do.

    So, some noises that talks are good and an attack on Iran’s tankers are good for oil prices. An end to the trade war (very unlikely) and Iran bowing to U.S. demands to stop exporting oi (even less likely) is doing nothing more than creating yet another opportunity to short oil.

    That’s the legacy of the chaos created by making terrible decisions intervening in other people’s affairs. That’s why it really doesn’t matter who attacked the Iranian tanker. It was a bad move. All it does it convince Trump further that it’s time to get out of the way and cut bait.

    The Saudis and the Israelis are harboring huge and ancient grudges against Iran that can no longer be tolerated in U.S. political circles. This is crippling U.S. politics.

    Regardless of who actually attacked this tanker their collective grudge and control over the corridors of power in the U.S. is the fuel that keeps these conflicts ongoing.

    Trump, to his credit, is now finally voicing and acting on his long-held beliefs that the Iraq War was a mistake, that Syria is an Obama/Clinton quagmire and that Russia has a strong role to play in cleaning up their messes.

    And the less we listen to the cries of anguish from “the usual suspects” the quicker we can back away from war.

    *  *  *

    Join My Patreon if you believe telling the truth is the only goal worth pursuing (and bacon). Download and Install Brave if you want to retain some privacy while doing so.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/11/2019 – 22:20

    Tags

  • Soaring Used-Car Prices "Push Americans Over The Edge" As Subprime Delinquencies Surge
    Soaring Used-Car Prices “Push Americans Over The Edge” As Subprime Delinquencies Surge

    Millions of Americans are finding it virtually impossible to keep up with their car payments, despite supposed “economic growth” and low unemployment, according to Reuters. In fact, more than 7 million Americans are already late by 90 days or more on their car loans, according to data from the New York Federal Reserve, as delinquency rates among borrowers with low credit scores have seen the fastest acceleration.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Part of the issue stems from the economic downturn a decade ago where automakers slashed production. This has made a rarity of 10-year-old used vehicles, which are typically the cars sought out by low-wage earners.

    This lack of supply and rising demand has caused prices to spike, with the average price of a 10-year-old used vehicle coming in at $8,657, nearly 75% higher than 2010, which is “pushing poor Americans over the edge” according to Reuters. Over the same time, the average increase in new car prices is only 25%.

    Ivan Drury, Edmunds’ senior manager of industry analysis, said that “this is pinching people at the worst point possible. If you need basic A to B transportation, you have to get an older car that needs more repairs and has more wear-and-tear issues.”

    Monthly auto payments for Americans that make under $40,000 per year have remained flat since 2017. Those in higher wage brackets have seen payments rise. But rather than this being good news, it indicates that poor Americans are stretched so much that they literally can’t afford to pay more. As Cox chief economist Jonathan Smoke pointed out, “they just don’t have any flexibility to increase their payment.”

    And the rising delinquency rates are being blamed on weaker lending standards in recent years.

    Warren Kornfeld, a senior vice president on Moody’s financial institutions team, said: “Auto lenders are belatedly tightening lending standards, but it may already be too late. The economy is masking the true performance of auto loans. If we hit a downturn today, the performance of auto loans would not look very good.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    New York Fed data shows that delinquencies among subprime borrowers have been rising and have been the catalyst pushing up the overall delinquency rate. About 8% of loans originated by buyers with a credit score under 620 are categorized as seriously late. Fed researchers called this data “a development that is surprising during a strong economy and labor market.”

    Gordy Tormohlen of Good People Automotive says that business is up 10% this year as auto finance companies have been tightening lending standards. Ominously, he said “the market feels like it did before the financial crisis hit in 2008, when consumers were over-extended with debt.”

    Customers of his include people like Hollis Heyward, who recently had to rework his loan and is now only paying $120 per month to pay off his principal owed, down from about $350 a month.  And it doesn’t look like there will be good news anytime soon: analysts are predicting that it could take years for older used cars to return to more affordable levels. 

    Ken Shilson, president of the National Alliance of Buy Here, Pay Here Dealers (NABD), said:

    American consumers have become too comfortable with debt and subprime customers have been “poisoned” by easy access to capital for much of the long economic expansion. But he added those customers will be forced by tighter underwriting to seek even older vehicles.

    “The American way is to always live beyond your means and Americans aren’t good at making life adjustments,’ Shilson said. “But there’s a reality check coming and many subprime buyers will be forced to find more affordable transportation.”

    Just days ago, Bloomberg reported  that “sticker shock” was the cause for growing stress in the automotive industry.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Auto dealer Robert Loehr said of new car prices: “Prices are crazy on cars nowadays — all of them. They’re crazy to me, and I do it every single day, all day long,”

    Brian Irwin, who leads the automotive and industrial practice for consulting firm Accenture, says the auto industry has reached the end of its run, stating: “It’s a step down from where we thought we would be a few months ago. I expect to see stronger incentives coming out.”


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/11/2019 – 22:00

  • Is Trump's Syria Withdrawal Gambit An Anti-Impeachment Card?
    Is Trump’s Syria Withdrawal Gambit An Anti-Impeachment Card?

    Authored by Joaquin Flores via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The 19th century Baptist Particular preacher from England, Charles Spurgeon, is best known for the one-line wisdom: “A lie spreads half way around the world while the truth is putting on his shoes.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But what of half-truths, do they spread a quarter-way, or a third? Are these more like lies, or more like the truth?

    By now the half-truth that President Trump announced the pull-out of US forces from its activities aiding the Kurdish separatists in Syria, on Monday, for the sole purpose of distracting the whole discourse from the impeachment proceedings against the sitting president, has spread at least some portion around the world by now.

    A half-truth? It is indeed true that Trump had said the time had come for the US to extricate itself from its series of “ridiculous endless wars”, something which, before Trump, no Republican president in living memory has said.

    The impeachment itself has the look and feel of yet another Democratic Party impeachment stunt, one which in all reality will have a difficult time getting through the House of Representatives and perhaps an impossible time getting through Senate, given Trump’s overall popularity among the energized base which numerous critical Senators will rely on. If the process would go through to the Senate, it is Chief Justice Roberts that would preside on the trial part, and being bound by his conservative record, it is nigh impossible that Roberts would be friendly to efforts to remove Trump on the extremely squishy grounds they would be presented on. After all, creating such future precedents would ultimately have a destabilizing effect on the executive branch, thereby threatening the constitutional framework of checks and balances between the two branches in question.

    But the controversy surrounding the impeachment itself would be enough to raise serious questions in the minds of at least 1% of voters, to at minimum refrain from voting. That’s all Biden would need if he then, in turn, focusses his campaign on a few critical swing states. That’s what the strategy for Biden might hinge on – or is it? If the impeachment process goes through to the end, but ultimately fails, there is probably no other figure in American politics that could use the failure alone to energize his base to such a degree that the failure alone is part of what delivers victory to Trump towards a second term.

    Whatever the case, for certain there is more here than meets the eye to this, and in politics nothing is random, nothing is coincidental. There is no doubt that there is a connection between the impeachment proceedings and Trump’s sudden announcement on Syria and the Kurdish YPG.

    The honest question right now is simple enough: Is Donald Trump’s announcement a mere distraction from moves to impeach him?

    No, it goes deeper than this – and here’s why.

    While this wasn’t the first time either he as president, nor as candidate, had said as much, along with this announcement came a specific and determined public order of sorts: American troops would be pulled back from northern Syria as the Turkish military prepares to clean up Kurdish forces active in the region. Under the Obama administration, and – if we are to believe the sitting president – reluctantly under the present one too, Kurds have enjoyed a degree of support towards the US plan to partition Syria.

    The rise of anti-war Republicans is a relatively new phenomenon, something which came to be broadly known to the public and outside of its own previously insular sphere, through the campaign of former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul in 2012 – a strong libertarian figure whose anti-war position was prescient and based in integrity, and whose campaign was frustrated by the neo-conservative establishment running the Republican Party.

    This is far from a mere distraction, and has a far deeper meaning, motivation, and possible outcome. At least two times during Trump’s presidency, he has announced some curtailment of the US efforts in Syria, declaring that the US had succeeded in defeating the real threat of ISIS.

    This threat of ISIS, incidentally, was the stated aim of the US involvement in Syria under the Obama administration. It was only after a few years by way of the slippery-slope of mission creep that this involvement began to openly declare the overthrow of the decidedly anti-terrorist administration of Bashar al-Assad as its ‘real’ primary aim. Trump’s move to ‘declare victory and go home’, a declaration that was in reality made possible by the Russian aerial campaign, was nevertheless met with some significant push-back.

    And this push-back, both times, came in the form of moves from House Democrats to start impeachment proceedings. These calls for impeachment, for various and apparently random ‘whatevers’, all long before the final findings of Mueller which seem to have exonerated Trump, had their intended effect.

    Yes, both times Trump was forced to continue the US misadventure in Syria, and after he reversed his de facto position on the matter, both times indeed, impeachment proceedings magically disappeared.

    To wit, after the 2017 Shayrat missile strike which Trump ordered to ward of impeachment threats, the infamously anti-Trump CNN declared that Trump was finally acting like a real US president [Insert wise comment here that in America, being presidential has to involve bombing people or things in the eyes of liberal establishment media].

    Trump doesn’t forget those times he had his nose rubbed in it, as Democrats threatened to work with never-Trump Republicans in the pockets of AIPAC and the Military Industrial Complex, and the so-called intelligence community [something something deep state ], to frustrate his proposed policy changes. Along with appeasing these directly through his de-facto reversal on Syria withdrawal, he ramped up sanctions on Iran to appease AIPAC and even moved to out-do his predecessor on military funding – all within a geopolitical environment that sees Trump calling on European partners to ‘finally’ do their part to finance NATO.

    Now, we suppose we’re just going to have to wait for the ‘allegations’ that Trump worked hand in hand with a foreign government – not Russia, not Ukraine – but rather this time Turkey, to coordinate their attack on the YPG to time nicely with Trump’s strategy to frustrate calls to impeach him.

    Maybe Trump’s opponents will go so far as to claim that his push to expand NATO’s presence in Greece was timed precisely to get Erdogan’s attention to make the Turkish move against the YPG here and now. That means we should be on the look-out for transcripts of ‘Trump-Erdogan conversations’, and more ‘insider leaks’ from ‘whistleblowing’ darlings of the deep-state. As Matt Taibi wrote in Rolling Stone, the real whistleblowers like Manning and Assange, wind up persecuted, tortured, imprisoned. The Ukraine ‘whistleblower’, he astutely observes “isn’t a real whistleblower”. Others less known wind up black-listed, permanently unemployed, doxed, and so it goes.

    But if Trump is anything, he’s a man with a larger-than-life ego, but more than that he is underestimated as an intelligent and strategic thinker, and moreover, doubly excels at symbolic messaging. If his opponents really imbibe the propaganda they put out against him, they’ll always be in for one surprise after another.

    So if in the past, impeachment was used as a reaction to his calls to end the Syrian campaign, and forced him to essentially re-think that apparently unrealized campaign promise – then now impeachment is being used against Trump to punish him for his moves to drain the swamp in Ukraine. Yes, a swamp filled by Victoria Nuland with over $5 bln dollars, Biden’s son Hunter’s unexplainable and magical seat upon the Ukrainian natural gas concern, Burisma, and the blood of the thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians killed by the Obama installed Kiev Junta in its ethnic cleansing operation in the former eastern regions of Ukraine.

    With impeachment being used as a Democratic Party campaign/immunity ploy to perhaps elect or, why not, just install Biden, then what’s Trump’s interest on holding back on his peace plan for Syria? Surely this makes sense for Democrats as neither Pence nor any other Republican has either any appeal against just about any Democrat including Biden.

    But Democrats didn’t plan that Trump would use something perceived as a weakness, a point of capitulation, as a bargaining chip, a card, a strength.

    Just think of how Trump could map his options and possible outcomes out on a semiotic flow chart, and create multiple contingency plans. This has the look and feel of a well-planned maneuver, one that Trump will emerge the stronger from. In many ways it all begs the question, why do his opponents continually fall into his traps? Maybe this is what happens when Democratic Party strategic decisions are made by committee, by lobbyists, by pollsters interpreting the pseudo-data from their own convoluted push-polls. Maybe this is what happens when people really start to believe the hype they created about their opponent.

    Trump’s team has counted the votes against him in the House and Senate – and guess what? These probably include the same never-Trump Republicans that lined up against him previously over his failed attempts in the past to wind down Syria. So what motive would Trump have now to keep these same war-hawks happy about Syria? He can only use Syria to his advantage here and now.

    And keeping it real, Trump is interested primarily now in his re-election, and being able to implement whatever he can manage in his second term – but he has to get there first.

    All in all, this means that rather than Syria being used against him under threat of impeachment, Trump can use Syria withdrawal threats to get those never-Trump Republicans to get back in line – yes, a little party discipline and solidarity.

    Trump has had to let go on Syria a few times, and for all we know it was always set up as one of those cards he could play to survive. Maintaining a presence in Syria lines up generally with his policy against Iran, but claiming that he’s against such a presence allows him to play that card when it’s needed.

    Conclusion

    And on Trump’s end? He has a win-win.

    If Democrats buckle on impeachment, he wins big. If they do not buckle and take impeachment a far as it can go, and prolong the process through the election, they await Chief Justice Roberts jurisprudence and Senate Republicans, taken together, doesn’t look good. If Trump can, as he likely will, use that to his advantage, he wins some and loses some, it will mean some recalibrating on swing states.

    If Democrats don’t buckle and Trump can continue to make big news on ending US presence in Syria, he might make more moves against US presence in Syria, like at Al-Tanf, and all together win even more points with anti-war Republicans, and even Democrats who voted Trump on issues including employment and the economy as well as foreign wars.

    In swing states, Democrats so anti-war and suspicious of China’s relationship to the bleak US employment reality, may vote Trump. And anti-war Republicans themselves aren’t some small grouping.

    Overall, as the American Conservative put it together based on polling done by Politico, “Trump’s December announcement that he would withdraw US troops from Syria, polling data from Morning Consult/Politico shows that 49 percent of Americans support the decision while 33 percent oppose it.” The same article goes on to quote the [in other cases very unreliable] Glenn Greenwald of the [limited hangout] Intercept – “Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent.”

    And, by the way, this also helps make it clearer why the DNC made a full reversal on Tulsi Gabbard’s ejection from the race for the nomination – they need to keep that segment of the ‘audience’ engaged until future notice, especially if Trump can angle to keep ahold of Democrats and Republicans who value foreign policy and war above most anything else. Now Tulsi’s magical reappearance in next week’s 4th debate, after missing the 3rd, makes a lot more sense. She previously showed she had a game-mind when she strategically attacked Harris’ attack on Biden’s alleged racism – showing that she could win support from [white] Americans fed up with being accused of such, and that she understood that Biden was the DNC darling, making her defense of him a clear indicator what they could use her in the debates later on, a brilliant insurance policy on the part of Tulsi.

    If Dems don’t drop impeachment then he scores high in those above broken-down demographics, and likely score big enough to reverse the damage done by any impeachment proceedings that threaten his re-election, as they ultimately fail anyhow at the process level.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/11/2019 – 21:40

    Tags

  • "Rip The Mask Off Anonymous LLCs:" NYC Billionaires Set To Be Exposed In New Housing Law
    “Rip The Mask Off Anonymous LLCs:” NYC Billionaires Set To Be Exposed In New Housing Law

    The ultra-rich are panicking after New York lawmakers passed a new law that is expected to expose the names of people who purchased Manhattan condos anonymously over the years with shell companies. 

    The Wall Street Journal said the new law was passed last month, is having “unintended consequences for the legions of billionaires, celebrities and other privacy-seeking condo owners: Every buyer’s name will be publicly available under the state’s Freedom of Information Law.” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Financial elites purchase homes through shell companies, and it’s meant to keep their purchases protected from lawsuits, but also shields the public from knowing what assets they own. 

    The Journal said, in one example, a condo tower in Manhattan, known as 220 Central Park South, had nearly 85% of the condos in the building owned by LLCs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Billionaire investor Ken Griffin famously bought a $240 million condo under the LLC called “NYCP LLC,” according to property records.

    More than 61,000 homes in NYC are owned by shell companies, an analysis of city tax records obtained via The Journal. This means that shell companies own roughly 12% of all condos and 5% of all homes in the city. All condos built since the 2008 financial crisis are owned by LLCs.

    The federal government alleges that some of these shell companies are laundering money through the properties. 

    The ultra-rich, lawyers, brokers, and title companies were shocked when they heard about the new law, which took effect Sept. 13 when Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo approved it.

    “This new law will rip the mask off of these anonymous LLCs that continue to purchase massive amounts of real estate in the Hudson Valley,” said Democratic state Sen. James Skoufis. “Neighbors have a fundamental right to know who owns the home next-door to them.”

    While The Journal didn’t give any details on when the state’s new freedom of information law would dump the treasure trove of names tied to shady LLCs, we assume it could be released by year-end or at least some time in 1H20. 

     


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/11/2019 – 21:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 11th October 2019

  • "A Serious Malfunction" – How French Intelligence Overlooked The Terrorist In Their Ranks
    “A Serious Malfunction” – How French Intelligence Overlooked The Terrorist In Their Ranks

    It’s an alarming oversight with terrifying implications: The intelligence unit of Paris Police somehow overlooked a radicalized Islamic convert within their own ranks. Last week, the troubled individual in question carried out an attack inside Paris Police headquarters that ended with four victims stabbed to death, while the attacker was shot down by his former colleagues.

    WSJ has the full the story of how Mickaël Harpon, the 45-year-old attacker in question, evolved from a quiet IT expert into a disaffected convert to Salafism – a fundamentalist version of Islam that is widely credited as the inspiration for Al Qaeda and other terror groups.

    During a lunch break last week, Harpon bought two knives, returned to the office with them, then suddenly started stabbing colleagues.

    According to WSJ, the attack has destroyed the country’s confidence in its intelligence apparatus and its procedures for rooting out potential purveyors of Islamic terror.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Even though he worked inside the Paris Police’s Intelligence Unit, his transformation into a dangerous ideologue somehow went unnoticed. What’s worse: As one of the unit’s IT specialists, Harpon had access to top-secret information, including the identities of agents going undercover inside mosques around the city. His desk was positioned just steps away from the division’s leaders. Now, hundreds of agents are examining flash drives found at Harpon’s desk, and they’re trying to determine whether he shared any classified intel with other extremists.

    Despite his seeming importance within the organization, Harpon told friends that he felt he wasn’t being taken seriously at the office, and that he suspected he had been passed over for promotion because of a disability.

    The disability? Deafness in one ear that forced him to wear a hearing aid. The disability stemmed from his childhood on the French Caribbean island of Martinique. As a boy, Harpon was afflicted with meningitis in his youth. The sometimes fatal illness caused the hearing loss.

    Soon after he was hired by the intelligence division inside the Paris police force in 2003, his superiors found him to be a dedicated and efficient employee. Slowly, he gained more trust and more seniority within the organization. He converted to Islam several years after joining the Paris PD, after he had moved in with a Muslim woman from Madagascar. They eventually married, despite a complaint filed by the woman claiming she had been abused by Harpon. The complaint was later withdrawn, but it resulted in Harpon receiving an administrative sanction.

    When he married, Harpon should have triggered another background check for himself and his bride. However, it was never carried out, and he maintained his security clearance.

    French Interior Minister Christophe Castaner described this oversight as “a malfunction”. “Would that have changed things? I don’t know,” he added.

    But that’s not even the most galling oversight. In 2015, shortly after the shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a colleague of Harpon’s allegedly heard him comment that the victims “deserved it.” He reported this comment to superiors within the department. But shockingly, nothing was done.

    There was neither a mention of the complaint in Harpon’s personnel file, nor a motion to carry out another background check. His next background check to maintain his security clearance was slated for 2020.

    Castaner described this oversight as “a serious malfunction.”

    A friend of Harpon’s told WSJ that he was a quiet man who never showed any indication that he had become radicalized, and was planning an attack.

    “He felt people didn’t take him seriously because of his handicap,” the friend told WSJ.

    Even his wife told police that she didn’t suspect an attack. At worst, she feared, Harpon might kill himself.

    Hopefully, French intelligence will tighten up its security standards and oversight of its employees after this incident. But winning back the trust of the public will probably require a serious effort on behalf of the agency.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/11/2019 – 02:45

  • The Return Of Hyperinflation In Zimbabwe
    The Return Of Hyperinflation In Zimbabwe

    Authored by Pavel Mordasov via The Mises Institute,

    It has been over a decade since Zimbabwe was ravished by one of history’s worst experiences in hyperinflation, reaching 79,600,000,000 percent as prices doubled approximately every 24.7 hours in November of 2008. Today under new leadership, it seems as though the government of Zimbabwe has failed to learn from its previous mistakes in what policy to ascribe to as it enters into another period of tumultuous times and economic hardship for its citizens as hyperinflation has entered the picture again.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Zimbabwe’s horrendous experience with hyperinflation came from monetizing its expenses as a result of several years of failed political reforms such as confiscation of agricultural properties and price controls. This resulted in GDP declining -17 percent  in 2008 (see Figure 1). With Zimbabwe’s practice of printing money, the government decided in 2009 to abandon their local currency and replaced it with foreign currency such as the US dollar and African Rand, which helped provide more stabilization.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure 1: Source: World Bank (Zimbabwe GDP 2008–2018)

    However, after its rapid expansion from 2009 to 2012, Zimbabwe’s economy began to slow down significantly in 2013 as they were met in the beginning of the year with the government having a minuscule balance of $217 in its public account. The same year Robert Mugabe, representing the ZANU-PF party, was reelected in the general election with the promise of continuing indigenization policies. The indigenization policies would attempt to create greater equality and economic growth by violating property rights and requiring foreign or white-owned companies to give a majority portion of their ownership to indigenous blacks. In doing so, Mugabe’s policy sent uncertainty within the market as it discouraged future foreign investment with the threat of asset confiscation, creating a lack of capital to expand production.

    In addition, thanks to continued regime uncertainty, and with no monetary policy of its own, by 2014 Zimbabwe began to experience a shortage of physical cash which had reportedly led some people to use candied sweets and condoms in replace of change. Combined with this challenge, Zimbabwe had a poor harvest as it faced a drought in 2016 affecting five million people causing it to run a USD 1.4 billion deficit that made up 10 percent of national output causing an even further shortage of cash.

    On November 21, 2017, after 37 years of ruling Zimbabwe with an iron fist, Mugabe resigned amidst political pressure of impeachment through a military coup. By the end of that week on the 24th, Emmerson Mnangagwa had become the new president of Zimbabwe. Immediately following Mnangagwa’s ascension to power, the president assured the population of drastic policy changes to help stabilize and boost economic growth.

    Shortages and Price Controls

    In the start of 2019, Zimbabwe’s highly-regulated economy began to experience a shortage of fuel. To curb the demand, and as an attempt to keep fuel supplies within the country, Mnangagwa decided to use the state-managed energy sector to raise diesel by 125 percent and petrol by 131 percent overnight. Such a drastic increase immediately led to a three-day protest leaving 12 people dead and 78 treated for gunshot wounds as a result.

    In Zimbabwe, the increase in the price of fuel has caused transportation costs to soar, which resulted in detrimental effects for businesses as their costs rose. In order to compensate for the increased cost in fuel, entrepreneurs must offset that by either lowering profit margins or raising prices. In an interconnected economy where entrepreneurs rely on each other to supply goods and services to each other and utilize those goods and services for future production when one entrepreneur increases their prices, this begins to cause other entrepreneurs to raise their prices in order to maintain profitability.

    Returning to Local Currency

    By June of this year, worsened by a variety of factors from fuel prices to declining domestic output, ZIMSTATS (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency) reported that inflation in Zimbabwe had reached 175.66 percent%. In an effort to to combat this hyperinflation, Zimbabwe’s finance minister Mthuli Ncube then declared that the use of foreign currency will be forbidden in domestic transactions and that its civilians can only use electronic Real Time Gross Settlement Dollars (RTGS) to combat the shortage of US dollars. If a citizen decides to withdrawal the RTGS from their local bank, then they will receive paper bond notes in the denominations of $2, $5, $10, and $20.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Adopting the RTGS as a single unit of exchange is a rapid change from the not too long ago hyperinflation blunder. After 2009, the Zimbabwean state had stabilized its monetary affairs by using nine different currencies as legal tender. Now, the act of abolishing the use of foreign currency will only invoke the practice of off-the-grid transactions through the black market if businesses lose confidence in the RTGS. Confidence in the RTGS has already taken a hit as the black market ratio for RTGS to USD has reached 11 to 1 compared to the governments set ratio at 6.2 to 1. The difference in exchange ratios has shown that Zimbabwe cannot be trusted by issuing its currency as people have yet to build that confidence since it’s debacle in 2008.

    Furthermore, Zimbabwe has suffered a drought this year and is estimated to have its corn crop drop by 54 percent, which would result in the necessity to import corn to make up for the shortage. However, importing goods is challenging, considering the country has been short of US dollars for the past few years. In the same period, Zimbabwe has also undergone continuous power outages due to the drought, lasting up to 18 hours per day and costing manufacturers over $200 million in lost production. To make matters worse President Mnangagwa in August raised fuel for the seventh time up over 500 percent.

    Since the inflation report, Zimbabwe’s finance minister Mthuli Ncube said that inflation figures would be postponed until February 2020. The reason for the delay is so that government officials will have more time and information to accurately determine what the inflation rate is as the present prices are not measured in US dollars. However, many citizens have objected to this postponement with the belief that the government is attempting to hide the real inflation rate while the black market inflation rate in Zimbabwe is estimated to be at 558 percent.

    When government intervenes within the market by setting the price of a commodity outside of the natural market forces of supply and demand while enforcing legal-tender laws to require its citizens to make transactions in a currency they do not trust, such actions will inevitably lead to hyperinflation such as the situation in Zimbabwe. As we reflect upon the present crisis and monitor the situation until the next inflation statistics come out in 2020, the conditions look gloomy going forward unless Zimbabwe changes its direction toward more free-market-oriented policies and avoids continued government intervention that impoverishes the standard of living of its people.


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/11/2019 – 02:00

  • Former US-Backed Rebel Leader Now Spearheading Attack On US-Backed Syrian Kurds
    Former US-Backed Rebel Leader Now Spearheading Attack On US-Backed Syrian Kurds

    Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced Thursday that his forces have killed 109 Syrian Kurdish militants since the start of the northern Syria incursion, dubbed ‘Operation Peace Spring’. 

    “The operation is currently continuing with the involvement of all our units… 109 terrorists have been killed so far,” Erdogan stated, as quoted by Reuters.

    At the same time pro-Kurdish media sources have cited nearly a dozen pro-Turkish forces killed in border areas where both sides have clashed on the ground. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Currently it appears Turkey is mustering large forces and cutting off communications and ground access points outside the largest Syrian population centers near the border, ahead of expected major clashes.

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

    Local reports suggest Kurdish YPG/SDF forces are prepping their fighters for major urban ground warfare while their families continue to flee to safer zones. 

    Though at this point it is impossible to gain an accurate civilian casualty toll figure, which is likely much higher, international reports cite at least 8 Syrian civilians killed after yesterday’s first wave of Turkey’s military operation, including at least two children among the dead. 

    The Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA), comprised of former ‘Free Syrian Army’ (FSA) and Syrian al-Qaeda linked militants (and likely former ISIS members) — now spearheading the ground invasion  have reportedly captured at least two towns after pushing south from the Turkish border.

    Underscoring the absurd contractions of Washington’s Syria policy over the course of the past seven years of proxy war, the pro-Turkish Syrian National Army rebels are actually led by Salim Idris (among two other top commanders), the former Chief of Staff of the Supreme Military Council of the FSA. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The late Senator John McCain posed for a picture with Syrian ‘rebel’ leader Gen. Salim Idris (2nd Right) in 2013. Others photographed alongside McCain were later confirmed to be terrorists which had been involved in kidnapping Shia pilgrims. 

    * * *

    During the early years of the conflict in Syria, when the US was supporting an anti-Assad insurgency in pursuit of regime change, Idris was the “US man in Syria” among other top FSA leaders.

    This means America’s former top “rebel” leader is now leading an invasion force against America’s current Kurdish partners (the SDF) with NATO ally Turkey’s support. 

    As even The New York Times has for years admitted, the United States was paying the salaries of Idris and other “rebel” fighters in Syria seeking to topple Assad, along with supplying them with weapons and increasingly sophisticated military hardware and equipment. Idris was removed as Chief-of-Staff of the FSA’s Supreme Military Council in 2014, after which he became increasingly close to Ankara.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Former commander of the US-funded Free Syrian Army, General Salim Idris, via Getty

     And now, Idris is Erdogan’s point man in attacking US-backed SDF forces, as US state-funded Voice of America (VOA) notes in asking ‘Which Syrian Groups Are Involved in Turkey’s Syria Offensive?’: 

    Salim Idris, an SNA commander, said Monday in a press conference in Turkey that his group “is standing in strength, resolve and support with our Turkish brethren in Turkey” in their military operation into Syria.

    Last year the VOA quoted Idris as saying he and his forces were seeking “payback” against Syria Kurds.

    “The problem is not only that the Kurdish fighters cooperated with the Syrian regime and the Russians during the battle for Aleppo, but that the YPG burned dozens of Arab villages and displaced their inhabitants,” Idris told VOA.

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

    Given Erdogan and other top Turkish leaders’ vow of “demographic correction” in northern Syria through use of military force — which is clearly code for ethnic cleansing along Turkey’s border — it is all the more disturbing.

    * * * 

    Considering the years-long absurd contradictions inherent in America’s actions in Syria, maybe this is why Trump wants to get the hell out? 

    “I am trying to end the ENDLESS WARS,” the president tweeted again on Thursday.

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


    Tyler Durden

    Fri, 10/11/2019 – 01:00

  • America's Political Implosion
    America’s Political Implosion

    Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The polarization in American politics has become so extreme there seems no longer to be any center ground. The political establishment is consequently imploding into an abyss of its own making.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    President Trump is being driven into an impeachment process by Democrats and their media supporters who accuse him of being “unpatriotic” and a danger to national security.

    Trump and Republicans hit back at Democrats and the “deep state” whom they condemn for conspiring to overthrow the presidency in a coup dressed up as “impeachment”.

    The White House is being subpoenaed, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives wants to access transcripts to all of Trump’s phone calls to foreign leaders; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has blasted congressmen for “harassing the State Department” in their search of evidence to indict Trump. Trump calls the impeachment bid a “witch-hunt”.

    Republican Representatives protest that the US is facing a dark day of constitutional crisis, whereby opposing Democratic party leaders are abusing their office by accusing Trump of “high crimes” without ever presenting evidence.

    It’s an Alice in Wonderland scenario writ large, where the gravest verdict is being cast before evidence is presented, never mind proven; the president is guilty until proven innocent.

    Trump, in his turn, has berated senior Democrat Adam Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, for “treason” – a capital offense. Are federal police obliged to arrest him? Schiff is accused of colluding with a supposed CIA whistleblower in concocting the complaint that Trump tried to extort Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to dig dirt on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

    There seems no end to this political civil war in the US. The American political class is literally tearing itself apart, destroying its ability to govern with any normal function.

    So-called liberal media outlets, in lockstep with the Democrats, inculpate Trump for wrongdoing, while they staunchly assert that credible reports of Joe Biden abusing his former vice presidential office to enrich his son over Ukraine gas business are false. Many Americans don’t see it that way. They see Biden as being up to his neck in past corruption; they also see a flagrant double-standard of the establishment protecting Biden from investigation while hounding Trump at every possible opportunity, even when evidence against Trump is scant.

    What Trump is being subjected to is the same “highly probable” paranoia that Russia has been subjected to by Washington over recent years. Guilt is asserted without evidence. It becomes a “fact” by endless repetition of baseless claims, such as Russia allegedly interfering in US elections, or allegedly destabilizing Ukraine. Hundreds of economic sanctions have been imposed on Moscow as a result of this blame game, a game that, ironically, Trump has also indulged.

    Ironically, Trump and the very highest political office of president is getting the same phobic treatment. No matter that the two-year Mueller Report into alleged Trump-Russia collusion collapsed in a pile of dust for lack of evidence, the Democrats and their media, as well as their deep state patrons, have persisted to accuse the president of enlisting a foreign power, Ukraine, to boost his electoral chances.

    The transcript of Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s Zelensky back in July shows he did not make a quid pro quo demand linking US military aid to a requested investigation into alleged corruption by former Vice President Joe Biden. Nevertheless, Democrats and their political establishment allies are relentless in pursuing the impeachment of Trump. Based on such flimsy reasoning, this impeachment process looks like a euphemism for “coup” – to overturn the result of the 2016 presidential election. The so-called “Russiagate” debacle failed for lack of evidence; now it is “Ukrainegate” that is the pretext for pushing the coup attempt.

    Under freedom of information release, Judicial Watch in the past week has uncovered categorical proof that the Mueller probe was a coup attempt to oust Trump. Unsealed communications between the Department of Justice, FBI and liberal media outlets show a clear motive and deliberate orchestration to topple Trump based on no evidence of wrongdoing.

    America’s democracy and constitution is being trashed by unelected shadowy forces, aided and abetted by prestigious media outlets like the New York Times. These forces presume to know better or have more privilege than their fellow Americans who “voted the wrong way”.

    The inescapable conclusion is that powerful political forces within the US simply do not recognize the democratic rights of the electorate who voted Trump into office. Not only do these forces not respect democratic principle, they also, patently, do not respect due legal process or the high offices of their own government. This is a lurking ideology of dictatorship and fascism. Paradoxically, these labels are pinned on the maverick Trump. More accurately, they apply to the politicians and media who claim to be “liberal” and “democrats”.

    The accelerating political implosion in the US nails the lie to oft-repeated American proclamations about their nation being the paragon of “sacred” democratic virtue and rule of law. And the people who are doing the damage to US politics and its constitution are “patriotic” Americans, not Russia or any other imagined foreign adversary.

    Is that not poetic justice after all the decades of calumny, deception and self-declared “exceptional” American vanity.

    America is at war with itself. It is Americans themselves who destroying their own political system, and perhaps even the very society, with their own hands and their addled, paranoid brains – without any assistance from a “foreign enemy”.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/10/2019 – 23:45

    Tags

  • D.C. Considers 1.5C-Per-Ounce Soda Excise Tax One Week After Implementing 2% Soft Drink Sales Tax
    D.C. Considers 1.5C-Per-Ounce Soda Excise Tax One Week After Implementing 2% Soft Drink Sales Tax

    Today in “we must find new things to tax, even if we’ve already taxed them” news, Washington DC’s City Council is considering a plan to place a 1.5 cent per ounce excise tax on soda and other sweetened beverages, according to Fooddive.

    The proposal comes just a week after the DC Council put an additional 2% sales tax on soft drinks and it already has support from 8 of the 13 DC council members. It will affect soda and any other sugary drinks, such as Gatorade, iced coffee and orange juice.

    Drinks like diet soda or other beverages containing artificial sweeteners would be exempt from the tax, as would alcohol and beverages with milk as the main ingredient. The estimated $21 million in annual revenues the tax would bring in will go to educational and food programs.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Naturally, the beverage industry stands in stark opposition to the tax. Ellen Valentino, a spokeswoman for the DC Beverage Association, called the tax a “big mistake” and said “people will flee in order to purchase beverages and other grocery items outside the city’s borders.”

    And yet again, it’s the consumers that wind up getting screwed: the tax would add about a dollar to the price of a 2 liter bottle of soda. This will cause manufacturers and retailers to likely hike prices to consumers. Some have speculated that since Washington DC is close to the Maryland border, people could travel across state lines for their soft drink needs.

    These types of taxes have also been enacted in several cities in California, Boulder, Philadelphia and in the state of West Virginia. Cook County Illinois implemented a similar tax in 2017 but repealed it just months later after pressure from the American Beverage Association. California’s proposed tax didn’t make it through the state assembly this year, although it may be brought up again soon.

    States like Arizona and Michigan have already passed legislation prohibiting local governments from adopting food and beverage taxes.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The effect of the tax has been noticeable where it has been implemented.

    A study published earlier this year took five years of data from Berkeley, California, and found a 52% decrease in soda consumption in the first three years after the tax was adopted. After two months of Philadelphia’s soda tax, which is the same rate as the proposed D.C. excised tax, a study found residents were about 40% less likely to drink sugary drinks daily than those in other cities. Philadelphia’s tax projections, however, were lowered 15% in March 2018 and didn’t make major changes in the population’s consumption of healthier fare, so its tax could face a repeal.

    Beverage makers are likely to posture up for a significant fight of the DC excise tax. The beverage industry has already spent $48.9 million since 2009 to work to oppose these taxes.

    But two other groups of concerned individuals, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association, are both urging legislation to reduce consumption of sugary beverages, not only through taxes, but also through marketing campaigns. They argue that milk and water should be the default drinks for children in vending machines and that soda should not be allowed to be purchased with government benefits.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/10/2019 – 23:25

  • Did China Just Announce The End Of US Primacy In The Pacific?
    Did China Just Announce The End Of US Primacy In The Pacific?

    Authored by Scott Ritter via TheAmericanConservative.com,

    Last week’s military parade previewed a series of game-changing weapons that could neutralize American seapower…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For decades, the United States has taken China’s ballistic missile capability for granted, assessing it as a low-capability force with limited regional impact and virtually no strategic value. But on October 1, during a massive military parade celebrating the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Beijing put the U.S., and the world, on notice that this assessment was no longer valid. 

    In one fell swoop, China may have nullified America’s strategic nuclear deterrent, the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and U.S. missile defense capability. Through its impressive display of new weapons systems, China has underscored the reality that while the United States has spent the last two decades squandering trillions of dollars fighting insurgents in the Middle East, Beijing was singularly focused on overcoming American military superiority in the Pacific. If the capabilities of these new weapons are taken at face value, China will have succeeded on this front. 

    In the West, it is called RMA, short for “Revolution in Military Affairs.” The term was first coined by Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov in the early 1980s. Ogarkov, who was at the time serving as the chief of the Soviet general staff, spoke of “developments in nonnuclear means of destruction [which] promise to make it possible to sharply increase (by at least an order of magnitude) the destructive potential of conventional weapons, bringing them closer, so to speak, to weapons of mass destruction in terms of effectiveness.” 

    Ogarkov’s work caught the attention of Andrew Marshall, who headed the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment. Marshall took Ogarkov’s premise and put it into action, integrating new technology with innovative operational concepts that positioned the U.S. military to be able to prevail over a numerically superior Soviet army in a ground war in Europe. The capabilities of Marshall’s RMA were potently displayed during the Gulf War in 1991, when the U.S. led a coalition that handily defeated Saddam Hussein.

    One of the nations keenly observing the impact of the American RMA in the Persian Gulf was China. Chinese military theorists studied how Marshall adapted Ogarkov’s theories into an American version of RMA, and responded with a Chinese adaptation, developing weapons specifically intended to overcome American superiority in critical areas. 

    These weapons became known as “shashoujian,” or “the Assassin’s Mace,” derived from the traditional Chinese way of describing a weapon of surprising power. “A shashoujian,” a contemporary Chinese military journal notes, “is a weapon that has an enormous terrifying effect on the enemy and that can produce an enormous destructive assault.” More importantly, the modern Chinese concept of shashoujian envisions not a single weapon, but rather a system of weapons that combine to produce the desired effect.

    Defeating the United States in a ground war has never been an objective of the Chinese military—the Korean War was an historical anomaly. China’s focus instead has been to develop shashoujian weapons to safeguard its national security and territorial integrity. This couldn’t be accomplished simply by mimicking the American RMA example; they needed to create a uniquely Chinese military superiority that combined Western technology with Eastern wisdom. “This,” the Chinese believe, “is our trump card for winning a 21st century war.” 

    For China, the three principle points of potential military friction with the U.S. are Taiwan, South Korea-Japan, and the South China Sea. Apart from South Korea and Japan, where the U.S. has significant ground and air forces already forward deployed, the main threat to China is maritime power projected by American aircraft carrier battlegroups and amphibious assault ships. The Chinese response was to develop a range of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities designed to target American naval forces before they arrived in any potential contested waters.

    Traditionally, the U.S. Navy has relied on a combination of surface warships armed with sophisticated air defense systems, submarines, and the aircraft carrier’s considerable contingent of combat aircraft to defend against hostile threats in time of war. China’s response came in the form of the DF-21D medium-range missile, dubbed the “carrier killer.” With a range of between 1,450 and 1,550 kilometers, the DF-21D employs a maneuverable warhead that can deliver a conventional high-explosive warhead with a circular error of probability (CEP) of 10 meters—more than enough to strike a carrier-sized target. 

    To compliment the DF-21D, China has also deployed the DF-26 intermediate-range missile, which it has dubbed the “Guam killer,” named after the American territory home to major U.S. military installations. Like the DF-21, the DF-26 has a conventionally armed variant, which is intended to be used against ships. Both missiles were featured in the 2015 military parade commemorating the founding of the PRC. 

    The U.S. responded to the DF-21/DF-26 threat by upgrading its anti-missile destroyers and cruisers, and forward deploying the advanced Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) surface-to-air missile system to Guam. A second THAAD system was also deployed to South Korea. From America’s perspective, these upgrades offset the Chinese advances in ballistic missile technology, restoring the maritime power projection capability that has served as the backbone of the U.S. military posture in the Pacific.

    As capable as they were, however, the DF-21D and DF-26 were not the shashoujian weapons envisioned by Chinese military planners, representing as they did reciprocal capability, as opposed to a game-changing technology. The unveiling of the true shashoujian was reserved for last week’s parade, and it came in the form of the DF-100 and DF-17 missiles. 

    The DF-100 is a vehicle-mounted supersonic cruise missile “characterized by a long range, high precision and quick responsiveness,” according to the Chinese press. When combined with the DF-21/DF-26 threat, the DF-100 is intended to overwhelm any existing U.S. missile defense capability, turning the Navy into a virtual sitting duck. As impressive as the DF-100 is, however, it was overshadowed by the DF-17, a long-range cruise missile equipped with a hypersonic glide warhead, which maneuvers at over seven times the speed of sound—faster than any of the missiles the U.S. possesses to intercept it. Nothing in the current U.S. arsenal can defeat the DF-17—not the upgraded anti-missile ships, THAAD, or even the Ground Based Interceptors (GBI) currently based in Alaska. 

    In short, in the event of a naval clash between China and the U.S., the likelihood of America’s fleet being sent to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean is very high.

    The potential loss of the Pacific Fleet cannot be taken lightly: it could serve as a trigger for the release of nuclear weapons in response. The threat of an American nuclear attack has always been the ace in the hole for the U.S. regarding China, given that nation’s weak strategic nuclear capability. 

    Since the 1980s, China has possessed a small number of obsolete liquid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles as their strategic deterrent. These missiles have a slow response time and could easily be destroyed by any concerted pre-emptive attack. China sought to upgrade its ICBM force in the late 1990s with a new road-mobile solid fuel missile, the DF-31. Over the course of the next two decades, China has upgraded the DF-31, improving its accuracy and mobility while increasing the number of warheads it carries from one to three. But even with the improved DF-31, China remained at a distinct disadvantage with the U.S. when it came to overall strategic nuclear capability. 

    While the likelihood that a few DF-31 missiles could be launched and their warheads reach their targets in the U.S., the DF-31 was not a “nation killing” system. In short, any strategic nuclear exchange between China and the U.S. would end with America intact and China annihilated. As such, any escalation of military force by China that could have potentially ended in an all-out nuclear war was suicidal, in effect nullifying any advantage China had gained by deploying the DF-100 and DF-17 missiles.

    Enter the DF-41, China’s ultimate shashoujian weapon. A three-stage, road-mobile ICBM equipped with between six and 10 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads, the DF-41 provides China with a nuclear deterrent capable of surviving an American nuclear first strike and delivering a nation-killing blow to the United States in retaliation. The DF-41 is a strategic game changer, allowing China to embrace the mutual assured destruction (MAD) nuclear deterrence posture previously the sole purview of the United States and Russia. 

    In doing so, China has gained the strategic advantage over the U.S. when it comes to competing power projection in the Pacific. Possessing a virtually unstoppable A2/AD capability, Beijing is well positioned to push back aggressively against U.S. maritime power projection in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits

    Most who watched the Chinese military parade on October 1 saw what looked to be some interesting missiles. For the informed observer, however, they were witnessing the end of an era. Previously, the United States could count on its strategic nuclear deterrence to serve as a restraint against any decisive Chinese reaction to aggressive American military maneuvers in the Pacific. Thanks to the DF-41, this capability no longer exists. Now the U.S. will be compelled to calculate how much risk it is willing to take when it comes to enforcing its sacrosanct “freedom of navigation.” 

    While the U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s independence remains steadfast, its willingness to go to war with China over the South China Sea may not be as firm. The bottom line is that China, with a defense budget of some $250 billion, has successfully combined “Western technology with Eastern wisdom,” for which the U.S. has no response. 


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/10/2019 – 23:05

  • Border Patrol Installing Invisible Shields At Wall To Stop Drug Smuggling Drones
    Border Patrol Installing Invisible Shields At Wall To Stop Drug Smuggling Drones

    A new report from Defense One shows the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is installing an invisible shield along President Trump’s Mexico-US border wall that will deny access to drug smuggling drones.

    CBP recently signed a $1.2 million deal with Citadel Defense Company to install an automated, invisible defense shield at the border to detect and engage unwanted drones using proprietary machine learning algorithms. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The contract is for six systems, and each will provide a 1.8-mile hemisphere of protection horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically on an unknown part of the wall. This contract is likely a pilot run, and if the results exceed expectations, more systems could be deployed across the border.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to Citadel, the “autonomous, artificial intelligence-enabled counter-drone solution” is essentially a drone jamming tool that can easily be deployed within minutes. The system monitors the airspace above, can commandeer a drone’s navigation system and reroute its path back to its home base or safely land it on the ground. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The contract includes 12 months of software upgrades, support, and training, said Defense One. 

    “Drones have become a greater challenge along the border. Our nation’s border agents deserve the safest and most advanced technology available,” Citadel CEO Christopher Williams. “Citadel’s automated solution provides front-line operators with an awareness of drone threats and decision-making to respond faster than the adversary.”

    Williams said the initial rollout is for six systems, collectively can provide a hemisphere of protection of about 11 miles.

    “Technology is being deployed in limited quantities in 2019 after months of testing and validation,” he said. “Following 2020 presidential budget decisions, the potential for additional systems at larger quantities will be explored.”

    Shown below are several examples of drug smuggling drones found on the Mexico-US border. 

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

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

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


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/10/2019 – 22:45

  • How Low Will US Births Go?!?
    How Low Will US Births Go?!?

    Authored by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,

    Summary

    • Births in America continue to tumble despite a growing child bearing population.

    • The growth among the child bearing population is decelerating and this population will begin outright declines around 2029.

    • US births are likely to continue falling, faster and far deeper, while current Census estimates continue to anticipate growth (continually just around the corner).

    The chart below is the 20 to 40 year old US population (blue line) and the columns are the annual change in that population (maroon columns).  The 1960 to 1990 population surge in the wake of the baby boom is easy to see as is the echo-boom from early 2005 through the 2020’s.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    From a births perspective, it doesn’t matter what the total US population is…the only population that matters are those capable of child birth.  I show the 20 to 40 year US population as they are responsible for over 90% of the births while those under 20 and those over 40 are producing so few children relative to 20 to 40 year olds as to be statistical noise (births per thousand by age group is detailed by the CDC HERE).

    From 1957 through 2007, the child bearing population increased by 72% while births increased only 0.2% (just two tenths of 1%).  Obviously, it was the rise in the child bearing population offsetting the collapse in the fertility rate that maintained the flat birth rate.

    • 1957 through 2007
      • Child bearing population rose by 34.8 million (72% increase)

      • Annual births rose by 10 thousand (0.2% increase)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    2007 through 2019 was the period that births were anticipated to spike with the rising echo-boom child bear population busily reproducing.  An echo baby-boom was anticipated.  Instead, a prolonged and deepening baby-bust has taken place.  According to the CDC, in the 1st quarter of 2019 births continued to plummet across the board, but I’m assuming 2019 births will come in slightly less negative through the remainder of 2019 (I’m likely overestimating 2019 actual births at 3.73 million).

    • 2007 through 2019
      • Child bearing population rose by +9.3 million (11.5% increase)

      • Annual births fell by thousand (13.7% decrease)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The implications for what comes next should be obvious.

    • 2019 through 2029
      • Child bearing population estimated to rise “just” 3.2 million or a little over 3%

      • Births are likely to continue falling as deeply negative fertility rates overcome what little child bearing population growth remains

    • 2029 through 2040
      • Child bearing population estimated to fall 1.9 million

      • Births likely to fall even faster with a combined declining child bearing population and continued deeply negative fertility rates

    Census birth estimates from 2000 (plus the nearly identical ’08 estimate) and 2017 are displayed below.  Clearly, since 2008, the Census is having a hard time adequately curbing their enthusiastic projections.  Although each projection is lower than the last, each projection continues significantly overestimating births.  With decelerating growth among the child bearing population through the 2020’s and outright child bearing population declines in the 2030’s…there is no reason for birth projections to be rising but the Census is having a very hard time catching down to reality.  In truth, there is good reason to begin projecting ongoing and deepening birth declines in the 2020 Census estimate (my estimate at a realistic 2020 Census estimate is included below, blue dashed line).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    From 2009 through 2019, actual births versus estimated births were 5.3 million fewer than anticipated (and this includes all births, whether the mother was here legally or otherwise).  This is a crack in present and future growth nearly five times larger than all Americans lost in all wars the US has ever fought!  That’s 5.3 million Americans not in existence and not consuming the average $25,000 per/capita annually throughout their lifetimes.   But what is now a crack turns into a chasm, taking the same ’08 birth estimate versus a more realistic birth estimate through 2040, this represents almost 34 million fewer births (-22%) than was estimated in 2000 and 2008.  The Census will be forced to continue collapsing their total US population projections, as they have been doing since 2008 (detailed HERE).  The implications for declining potential economic growth based on collapsing quantity of potential consumers (while productivity, innovation, and advancements continue increasing capacity…for a declining basis of consumption) should have the CBO and the like heads spinning.

    A continuation of the current falling fertility and birth rates is a really, really good bet (chart below).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The age segment that will continue to grow rapidly, the post childbearing 45+ year old population (red line, below).  Notice even showing the broadest child bearing population (15 to 45 year-olds, yellow line), the stall in growth since 1990 relative to the growth of elderly.  Among the 45+ year-olds, the majority of population growth over the coming decade will be among 75+ year-olds, a segment with less than 10% labor force participation, consumes at very low relative levels, and utilizes little to no credit (nor should they, primarily living on fixed incomes).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The debt based US economic system premised on perpetual consumptive growth (as a dual net importer and net debtor) is now facing long term depopulation from the bottom-up while the numbers of elderly surge.  But only those who suggest this is likely to lead to some sort of “hiccup” are the crazy ones?!?

    Population data via US Census Population Projections and UN World Population Prospects 2019


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/10/2019 – 22:25

  • California Hit By Dual Shock: LA Gas Prices Spike Above $5 As Residents Learn Solar Panels Don't Work In Blackouts
    California Hit By Dual Shock: LA Gas Prices Spike Above $5 As Residents Learn Solar Panels Don’t Work In Blackouts

    Millions of Californians may have just suffered an unprecedented, induced blackout by the state’s largest (and bankrupt) utility, PG&E, just so it isn’t blamed for starting even more fires causing it to go even more bankrupt… but at least the price of gas is soaring.

    According to Fox5NY, citing figures from AAA and the Oil Price Information Service, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline in Los Angeles County was $4.25 on Wednesday, 4.5 cents higher than one week ago, 57.6 cents more than one month ago and 37.1 cents greater than one year ago. It has also risen 86.4 cents since the start of the year. What is more troubling is that as California gas prices reached the highest level in the state since 2015, some Los Angeles area gas stations are charging more than $5 a gallon.

    The gas price spike started last month after Saudi Arabia oil production facilities were attacked, and accelerated after three Los Angeles-area refineries slowed or halted production due to maintenance issues and no imported gasoline was available to make up for the shortfall, according to Jeffrey Spring, the Automobile Club of Southern California’s corporate communications manager.

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

    The shortage was made worse after local refineries cut back production of summer-blend gasoline in anticipation of switching to selling the winter blend beginning Nov. 1.

    But wait, there’s more: America’s most “environmentally conscious” state got a harsh lesson in electrical engineering when many of the tens of thousands of people hit by this week’s blackout learned the hard way that solar installations don’t keep the lights on during a power outage.

    That, as Bloomberg reports, is “because most panels are designed to supply power to the grid, not directly to houses. During the heat of the day, solar systems generate more juice than a home can handle. However, they don’t produce power at all at night. So systems are tied into the grid, and the vast majority aren’t working this week as PG&E cut power to much of Northern California to prevent wildfires.”

    Of course, the only way for most solar panels to work during a blackout is pairing them with batteries, however as Tesla has found out the hard way, that market is just starting to take off and even so it’s having a very difficult time making headway. The largest U.S. rooftop solar company, Sunrun, said hundreds of its customers are making it through the blackouts with batteries. Alas, the total number of those affected – and without power – is in the hundreds of thousands.

    “It’s the perfect combination for getting through these shutdowns,” Sunrun Chairman Ed Fenster said in an interview. He expects battery sales to boom in the wake of the outages.

    For those wondering if their appliances can work of the power generated by a Tesla, the answer is no, at least without special equipment. Incidentally, without electricity, a Tesla itself won’t run. So those Californians who still have “uncool” internal combustion engines are in luck; they just may have to pay nearly $6 per gallon soon to fill up.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/10/2019 – 22:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 10th October 2019

  • For The First Time Ever, Greece Issues Negative Yielding Debt
    For The First Time Ever, Greece Issues Negative Yielding Debt

    As armies of fixed income strategists battle over whether US Treasuries are facing higher or lower yields, Greece has no such qualms and in a historic shift today, the former bond market pariah and Eurozone’s most indebted nation, joined the exclusive club of negative-yielding European nations when bond investors lined up to pay the nation that was at the heart of Europe’s sovereign debt crisis.

    A sale of €487.5 million of 13-week bills on Wednesday drew Greece’s first-ever negative yield of minus 0.02% as investors now pay Athens for the privilege of lending it cash, as Bloomberg first reported. Greece joins the likes of Ireland, Italy and Spain – not to mention virtually all core Eurozone nations – which benefit from the ECB’s insane monetary policy and deepening fears of a global recession.

    It’s been an unprecedented turnaround for twice bankrupt Eurozone member, whose bondholders suffered massive losses back in March 2012 when the country was forced to accept the biggest bond restructuring in history, bringing the Eurozone to the verge of collapse.

    Just a few years and several trillions in bond purchases by the ECB later, the region is grappling with an altogether different problem – the spread of negative yields, which reduces borrowing costs for governments in a form of soft default, one which is crushing savers, pension funds and insurers, and which has prompted some of the most respected names in finance to shriek in terror as the cost of money in even Europe’s most insolvent nations is now negative.

    Jon Day, a fixed-income portfolio manager at Newton Investment Management, said the move was “another symptom” of the “global grab for yield, especially in euro-denominated bonds,” pointing out that short-dated Greek bonds were previously one of the few government markets where a positive return was on offer. Indeed, as recently as 2017, the Greek 13-week bills yielded a “generous” 2.70% before they started their journey to NIRP just over two years ago.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Still, despite Europe’s artificial, central bank-propped up bond market, nothing has been fixed with respect to the Greek economy: “There remain substantial risks around Greece’s financial position and it remains vulnerable to a significant economic slowdown,” Day said. “Current yields on their bonds do not reflect this risk.”

    Greece foray into negative rates comes after the ECB cut its deposit rates even deeper into negative territory and said it would restart quantitative easing (unlike in the US, the ECB has no qualms about calling “not a QE” by its real name). Investors are also looking toward fiscal stimulus as the ability of monetary policy to stoke growth is tested to its limits, and unlike Germany, we expect Greece to fully take advantage of negative yields to stick it to creditors “investing” with other people’s pensions. Earlier this week, the nation also took advantage of record-low borrowing costs by selling 10-year bonds this week at a yield of 1.5%.

    Greece’s government is forecasting 2.8% economic growth in 2020, which it says puts it on track to meet a budget target agreed with creditors while still enacting tax relief measures.

    “Greece issuing negative-yielding bills is more evidence of the positive effect that negative interest rates and QE has on debt sustainability for governments,” said Mizuho’s head of rates strategy Peter Chatwell, even though it is not quite clear how Greece accumulating even more debt to “fix” a catastrophe that was the result of record debt actually works out in the long run… but that’s ok, by then it will be someone else’s problem.

    “Side effects are large for banks and investors, but for the governments there are very significant benefits.”

    Indeed: as the world’s banks and investors founder, at least perpetually corrupt and incompetent governments are rewarded, and all it took was several years of insane monetary policy by a former Goldmanite to unleash the biggest revolution in the European bond market in history, one which will end in the biggest bond bubble crash ever seen.

    But – as the supporters of the ECB will tell you – “not yet”…


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/10/2019 – 02:45

  • UK: New Subversive "Guidance" For Journalists
    UK: New Subversive “Guidance” For Journalists

    Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,

    The British think-tank Policy Exchange, recently published a report, Eroding the Free Press, about a leaked draft of “Guidance for Reporting on Islam and Muslims”. The guidance was drafted by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the UK’s independent press regulator, an initiative that IPSO announced in late 2018. In the past, IPSO has, among other issues, published guidance on the reporting of death and inquests, sexual offencessuicides, and transgender people. According to IPSO, its guidance is “designed to support editors and journalists” and “does not limit or restrict editorial decision making, but may inform that decision making”.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In a January 2019 blog on IPSO’s main priorities for 2019, IPSO Head of Standards Charlotte Urwin laid out the five priorities of the year. “Reporting of Islam and Muslims” was listed as the first priority and described in the following way:

    “In October 2018, we began working towards producing guidance for journalists on the reporting of Islam and Muslims in the UK, an area of broad political and social concern. The guidance will help journalists to report on a sensitive area, whilst also ensuring that it does not impinge their right to criticise, challenge or stimulate debate. We have established an informal working group to help us draft the guidance, bringing together academics who have research experience in relation to Islam and Muslims in the UK and representatives of organisations interested in the coverage of Islam…”

    Policy Exchange’s report on the leaked guidance gives rise for concern.

    In the words of the report, the guidance, “seems designed to bind the hands of UK newspapers when it comes to reporting on stories relating to Islam and Muslims – with potentially serious long-term consequences for the workings of a free and independent press”.

    According to the Policy Exchange report, the draft IPSO guidance states:

    “Journalists should be aware that their content can have an impact on the wider community and on how minority communities are treated. Inaccuracies and insensitivities can damage communities and prevents their accurate representation. They can also contribute to members of communities feeling divorced from, or misunderstood, by the media. Finally, inaccuracies and unbalanced coverage can work to increase tension between communities, which can make harassment more likely”.

    As the Policy Exchange authors write:

    “In all of this, there seems to be a suggestion that journalists should take a different approach to covering Muslims than that employed towards other faith groups. This all seems remarkably ill-conceived. If we ruled out reporting on matters specific to Muslims not only would we miss some big issues – not least the threat from Islamist extremist terrorism, which continues to dwarf other global terrorist threats – but we would also be unable to report properly on discrimination against Muslims. More generally, we must ask: is it really the role of journalists to consider community cohesion before truth and accuracy? And what are the potential consequences of such an ethos?”

    In addition, the draft guidance has a section on “accuracy in reporting”, which suggests that journalists should do one, or all of the following: “Provide contextualising information; present more than one opinion; verify the information from another source”. While sounding banal and innocuous in and of itself, the guidance goes on to say, more disturbingly:

    “Identifying the ‘right’ person to speak to can be extremely challenging and journalists should be aware that individuals and organisations may have different interpretations of a particular belief. Journalists may find it helpful to consider the expertise of the person/organisation, their background and any previous comments on the issues, in deciding who to approach for comment.”

    In a previous draft, the Policy Exchange report tells us, the word was not “expertise”, but “representativeness”.

    It does appear to be the case that what is uppermost in the minds of the drafters of the guidance is not so much factually accurate reporting, but concerns of a far more political nature, namely those of accommodating religious and cultural “sensitivities” and avoiding the causing of any offense.

    Another aspect also concerns the authors of the Policy Exchange report: The “informal working group” under IPSO that has authored the guidance apparently includes members who have publicly supported[3] the new definition of “Islamophobia” as defined by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG). In December 2018 the APPG published Report on the inquiry into a working definition of Islamophobia / anti-Muslim hatred. The report, conflating religion with ethnic origin or nationality, defined “Islamophobia” as a form of racism: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” For a full account of that report, see Gatestone’s previous reporting on the issue here.

    The authors of the Policy Exchange Report write:

    “Against this backdrop, one might ask whether the IPSO ‘guidance’ process is being used to advance the kind of ‘anti-Islamophobia’ agenda promoted by the APPG on British Muslims… despite the fact that the Government has deemed that definition not fit for purpose… one of the things that makes the APPG’s attempts to institutionalise an illiberal definition of Islamophobia so unpalatable, is the fact that it resembles a form of blasphemy law, protecting Islam specifically, implemented by the back door“.

    In conclusion, the Policy Exchange report states:

    “Taken as a whole, the IPSO guidance document seems to mark a decisive shift in the purpose of the regulator – which takes it beyond considerations of accuracy or discrimination, as per the Editor’s Code. Instead, it is moving into the realm of ‘insensitivities’ and ‘unbalanced coverage’ – elastic and subjective terms”.

    Policy Exchange’s description of the leaked guidance is hardly shocking if one recalls the campaigns and guidelines made by European journalists’ own organizations in recent years. As previously reported by Gatestone, the largest organization of journalists in Europe, the European Federation of Journalists (EJF) — which represents more than 320,000 journalists in 72 journalists’ organizations across 45 countries and claims that it “promotes and defends the rights to freedom of expression and information as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European convention on human rights” — ran a Europe-wide campaign, sponsored by the EU, called “Media against Hate” in 2016-2018. The purpose of it was to, “improve media coverage related to migration, refugees, religion and marginalised groups… counter hate speech, intolerance, racism and discrimination… improve implementation of legal frameworks regulating hate speech and freedom of speech…”

    None of the above appears to have had much to do with freedom of expression or journalism. Rather, it was actually a political campaign, spearheaded by one of the largest journalism organizations and supported by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) Programme of the European Union. The Council of Europe, another international political body constituted by 47 European member states was also listed as a partner. The mix-up of government interests with journalistic principles seemed to bother no one.

    Similarly, in September 2017, a project called respectwords.org published guidelines — the publication of which were financially supported by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) Programme of the European Union — on reporting about migration and minorities. According to those guidelines, “more than 150 European radio outlets and 1300 journalists from the eight RESPECT WORDS countries (Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia and Spain) have joined together to strengthen media coverage of migrants and minorities, an indispensable tool in the fight against hate speech”.

    One of the guidelines in the book, which IPSO’s recommendations seem to echo, was to “Remember that sensitive information (eg race and ethnicity, religious or philosophical beliefs, party affiliation or union affiliation, health and sexual information) should only be mentioned when it is necessary for the public’s understanding of the news”. The key here, again, seems to have been to respect “sensitivities” and avoid causing offense – not the factually correct reporting of newsworthy events. The guidelines also advised:

    “Take care not to further stigmatise terms such as ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’ by associating them with particular acts… Don’t allow extremists’ claims about acting ‘in the name of Islam’ to stand unchallenged. Highlight… the diversity of Muslim communities…”

    The respectwords.org guidelines, two years old, barely seek to hide that they are a political tool.

    This, then, is the highly politicized atmosphere that journalists breathe and that their organizations openly promote. It is hardly surprising, then, that even independent regulators, such as IPSO, choose to take what looks like a similar path. As for the eroding of the freedom of the press, the question seems not so much to be “if” as “to what degree”.


    Tyler Durden

    Thu, 10/10/2019 – 02:00

  • Forget Facial Recog: DHS New Amazon-Based Database Uses Scars, Tattoos, & Your Voice To ID You
    Forget Facial Recog: DHS New Amazon-Based Database Uses Scars, Tattoos, & Your Voice To ID You

    Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

    These days, you can’t really go anywhere without encountering cameras.  Going into a store? Chances are there are security cameras. Getting money at an ATM? More cameras. Driving through the streets of a city? More cameras still. Your neighbors may have those doorbells from Amazon that are surveilling the entire neighborhood.

    And many of these cameras are tied into facial recognition databases, or the footage can be quite easily compared there if “authorities” are looking for somebody.

    But as it turns out, it isn’t just facial recognition we have to worry about.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    DHS has a new recognition system called HART.

    Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology system is the alarming new identity system being put in place by the Department of Homeland Security.

    DHS is retiring its old system that was based on facial recognition. It’s being replaced with HART, a cloud-based system that holds information about the identities of hundreds of millions of people.

    The new cloud-based platform, called the Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology System, or HART, is expected to bring more processing power, new analytics capabilities and increased accuracy to the department’s biometrics operations. It will also allow the agency to look beyond the three types of biometric data it uses today—face, iris and fingerprint—to identify people through a variety of other characteristics, like palm prints, scars, tattoos, physical markings and even their voices. (source)

    Incidentally, the cloud hosting for HART is being done by none other than Amazon – you know, the ones with surveillance devices like the Ring doorbell and the Alexa home assistant and the Nest home security system. Does anyone see a pattern here?

    Also note that Amazon Web Services also hosts data for the CIA, the DoD, and NASA.

    More about HART

    As HART becomes more established, that old saying “you can run but you can’t hide” is going to seem ever more true. The DHS is delighted at how much further the new system can take them into surveilling Americans.

    And by freeing the agency from the limitations of its legacy system, HART could also let officials grow the network of external partners with whom they share biometric data and analytics capabilities, according to Patrick Nemeth, director of identity operations within Homeland Security’s Office of Biometric Identity Management.

    “When we get to HART, we will be better, faster, stronger,” Nemeth said in an interview with Nextgov. “We’ll be relieved of a lot of the capacity issues that we have now … and then going forward from there we’ll be able to add [capabilities].” (source)

    The DHS wants to break free of the limitations of the old system with their new and “improved” system. HART will use multiple pieces of biometric data to increase identification accuracy.

    Today, when an official runs a person’s face, fingerprint or iris scans through IDENT’s massive database, the system doesn’t return a single result. Rather, it assembles a list of dozens of potential candidates with different levels of confidence, which a human analyst must then look through to make a final match. The system can only handle one modality at a time, so if agent is hypothetically trying to identify someone using two different datapoints, they need to assess two lists of candidates to find a single match. This isn’t a problem if the system identifies the same person as the most likely match for both fingerprint and face, for example, but because biometric identification is still an imperfect science, the results are rarely so clear cut.

    However, the HART platform can include multiple datapoints in a single query, meaning it will rank potential matches based on all the information that’s available. That will not only make it easier for agents to analyze potential matches, but it will also help the agency overcome data quality issues that often plague biometric scans, Nemeth said. If the face image is pristine but the fingerprint is fuzzy, for example, the system will give the higher-quality datapoint more weight.

    “We’re very hopeful that it will provide better identification surety than we can provide with any single modality today,” Nemeth said. And palm prints, scars, tattoos and other modalities are added in the years ahead, the system will be able to integrate those into its matching process. (source)

    HART will also use DNA.

    Remember a while back when we reported that DNA sites were teaming up with facial recognition software? Well, HART will take that unholy alliance even further.

    The phase-two solicitation also lists DNA-matching as a potential application of the HART system. While the department doesn’t currently analyze DNA, officials on Wednesday announced they would start adding DNA collected from hundreds of thousands of detained migrants to the FBI’s criminal database. During the interview, Nemeth said the agency is still working through the legal implications of storing and sharing such sensitive data. It’s also unclear whether DNA information would be housed in the HART system or a separate database, he said. (source)

    Nifty.

    The DHS is operating without any type of regulation.

    Currently, there’s no regulation or oversight of government agencies collecting and using this kind of data. Civil liberty activists and some lawmakers are alarmed by this, citing concerns about privacy and discrimination. This hasn’t slowed down the DHS one iota, however.

    Critics have taken particular issue with the government’s tangled web of information sharing agreements, which allow data to spread far beyond the borders of the agency that collected it. The Homeland Security Department currently shares its biometric data and capabilities with numerous groups, including but not limited to the Justice, Defense and State departments.

    In the years ahead, HART promises to strengthen those partnerships and allow others to flourish, according to Nemeth. While today the department limits other agencies’ access to IDENT to ensure they don’t consume too much of its limited computing power, HART will do away with those constraints. (source)

    Mana Azarmi, the policy counsel for the Freedom, Security and Technology Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology is one of those people voicing concern.

    A person might give information to a single agency thinking it would be used for one specific purpose, but depending on how that information is shared, they could potentially find themselves subjected to unforeseen negative consequences, Azarmi said in a conversation with Nextgov.

    “The government gets a lot of leeway to share information,” she said. “In this age of incredible data collection, I think we need to rethink some of the rules that are in place and some of the practices that we’ve allowed to flourish post-9/11. We may have overcorrected.” (source)

    You think?

    Many people voluntarily provide biometric data.

    Many folks provide biometric data without giving it a second thought. They cheerfully swab a cheek and send it into sites like Ancestry.com, providing not only their DNA, but matches to many relatives who never gave permission for their DNA to be in a database.

    Then there are cell phones. If you have a newer phone, it’s entirely possible that it has asked you to set up fingerprint login, facial recognition, and even voice recognition. It isn’t a stretch of the imagination to believe that those samples are shared with folks beyond the device in your hand. Add to this that your device is tracking you every place you go through a wide variety of seemingly innocuous apps, and you start to get the picture.

    You can’t opt-out.

    Back in 2013, I wrote an article called The Great American Dragnet.  At that time, facial recognition was something that sounded like science fiction or some kind of joke. Our drivers’ licenses were the first foray into creating a database but even in 2013, it far exceeded that.

    Another, even larger, database exists. The US State Department has a database with 230 million searchable images.  Anyone with a passport or an immigration visa may find themselves an unwilling participant in this database.   Here’s the breakdown of who has a photo database:

    • The State Department has about 15 million photos of passport or visa holders

    • The FBI has about15 million photos of people who have been arrested or convicted of crimes

    • The Department of Defense has about 6 million photos, mainly of Iraqis and Afghans

    • Various police agencies and states have at least 210 million driver’s license photos

    This invasion of privacy is just another facet of the surveillance state, and should be no surprise considering the information Edward Snowden just shared about the over-reaching tentacles of the NSA into all of our communications. We are filing our identities with the government and they can identify us at will, without any requirement for probable cause. (source)

    Some people don’t even seem to mind that their identities have been tagged and filed by the US government. And even those of us who do mind have no option. If you wish to drive a car or travel outside of the country or have any kind of government ID, like it or not, you’re in the database. Six years ago, I wrote:

    The authorities that use this technology claim that the purpose of it is to make us safer, by helping to prevent identity fraud and to identify criminals.  However, what freedom are we giving up for this “safety” cloaked in benevolence? We are giving up the freedom of having the most elemental form of privacy – that of being able to go about our daily business without being watched and identified.  And once you’re identified, this connects to all sorts of other personal information that has been compiled: your address, your driving and criminal records, and potentially, whatever else that has been neatly filed away at your friendly neighborhood fusion center.

    Think about it:  You’re walking the dog and you fail to scoop the poop – if there’s a surveillance camera in the area, it would be a simple matter, given the technology, for you to be identified. If you are attending a protest that might be considered “anti-government”, don’t expect to be anonymous.  A photo of the crowd could easily result in the identification of most of the participants.

    Are you purchasing ammo, preparedness items, or books about a controversial topic?  Paying cash won’t buy you much in the way of privacy – your purchase will most likely be captured on the CCTV camera at the checkout stand, making you easily identifiable to anyone who might wish to track these kinds of things.  What if a person with access to this technology uses it for personal, less than ethical reasons, like stalking an attractive women he saw on the street?  The potential for abuse is mind-boggling.

    If you can’t leave your house without being identified, do you have any real freedom left, or are you just a resident in a very large cage? (source)

    When I wrote that, it still seemed far-fetched but remotely possible, even to me. This was before we were really aware of anything like the social credit program in China or how crazy the censorship was going to become or how social media would change the very fabric of our society.

    Now, it’s here and it looks like there’s no stopping it.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/09/2019 – 23:45

  • 18-Year Old US Soldiers Now Entering Afghanistan 18 Years After War Began
    18-Year Old US Soldiers Now Entering Afghanistan 18 Years After War Began

    This week America’s longest war in Afghanistan turned eighteen, and so did its youngest solder. To mark the occasion, ABC News profiled the US occupation’s newest American member: “Pvt. Hunter Nines is about to join a war nearly as old as he is,” the report said.

    Reflecting on his first impending deployment with the Army Pvt. Nines said, “I didn’t have a lot of thoughts on Afghanistan in particular.” He was but 7 months when the war began with the arrival of US troops on Oct. 7, 2001 following the 9/11 attacks. “I honestly just had the notion of I wanted to serve, and wherever that is, that’s where I’ll go.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Army Pvt. Hunter Nines, via ABC News.

    Over the span of the now eighteen-year long war, an estimated 775,000 American troops have served at least one tour in the historically war-racked central Asian country, in a region which everyone from Alexander the Great to Genghis Khan to the British Empire had trouble subduing, as all were ultimately unsuccessful.

    Very soon, the US will begin sending young service personnel who hadn’t even been born at the time of the start of Bush’s so-called ‘war on terror’. As this stunning line from the report emphasizes:  

    Department of Defense statistics reflect the increasing shift in demographics of service members such as Nines who were babies or not even yet born on Sept. 11, 2001, which led to what’s become America’s longest war.

    By the numbers, there are 15,364 active-duty enlisted Army members who are 18, and among these 1,052 of whom were born after the 9/11 attacks, reported ABC.

    And the much smaller (by total numbers), more elite branch, the Marine Corps, has 28,048 active-duty personnel aged 17 to 19.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It appears that Trump as Commander-In-Chief had this tragic reality of the country’s longest running quagmire in mind when he tweeted early this week, specifically in response to the unfolding crisis in Syria, that “it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home.”

    To be expected, the DC beltway blob had a collective conniption fit this week at the mere suggestion of a US troop exit from the Middle East.

    To see inside the warped worldview of ‘official Washington’ it’s enough to recall this 2014 Washington Post op-ed (no, not The Onion) which argued, “War may be the worst way imaginable to create peaceful societies but it is pretty much the only way.”

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

    Assuming the ‘deep state’ continues to have its way, we can expect many more 18-year olds to be sent to distant lands the American military machine has been active in since before they were born. 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/09/2019 – 23:25

  • National (In)Security: The Hypersonic Road To Hell
    National (In)Security: The Hypersonic Road To Hell

    Authored by Rajan Menon via TomDispatch.com,

    Why Arms Races Never End

    Hypersonic weapons close in on their targets at a minimum speed of Mach 5, five times the speed of sound or 3,836.4 miles an hour. They are among the latest entrants in an arms competition that has embroiled the United States for generations, first with the Soviet Union, today with China and Russia. Pentagon officials tout the potential of such weaponry and the largest arms manufacturers are totally gung-ho on the subject. No surprise there. They stand to make staggering sums from building them, especially given the chronic “cost overruns” of such defense contracts — $163 billion in the far-from-rare case of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

    Voices within the military-industrial complexthe Defense Department; mega-defense companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, and Raytheon; hawkish armchair strategists in Washington-based think tanks and universities; and legislators from places that depend on arms production for jobsinsist that these are must-have weapons. Their refrain: unless we build and deploy them soon we could suffer a devastating attack from Russia and China.  

    The opposition to this powerful ensemble’s doomsday logic is, as always, feeble.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The (Il)logic of Arms Races

    Hypersonic weapons are just the most recent manifestation of the urge to engage in an “arms race,” even if, as a sports metaphor, it couldn’t be more off base. Take, for instance, a bike or foot race. Each has a beginning, a stipulated distance, and an end, as well as a goal: crossing the finish line ahead of your rivals. In theory, an arms race should at least have a starting point, but in practice, it’s usually remarkably hard to pin down, making for interminable disputes about who really started us down this path. Historians, for instance, are still writing (and arguing) about the roots of the arms race that culminated in World War I. 

    The arms version of a sports race lacks a purpose (apart from the perpetuation of a competition fueled by an endless action-reaction sequence). The participants just keep at it, possessed by worst-case thinking, suspicion, and fear, sentiments sustained by bureaucracies whose budgets and political clout often depend on military spending, companies that rake in the big bucks selling the weaponry, and a priesthood of professional threat inflators who merchandise themselves as “security experts.”  

    While finish lines (other than the finishing of most life on this planet) are seldom in sight, arms control treaties can, at least, decelerate and muffle the intensity of arms races. But at least so far, they’ve never ended them and they themselves survive only as long as the signatories want them to. Recall President George W. Bush’s scuttling of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Trump administration’s exit from the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in August. Similarly, the New START accord, which covered long-range nuclear weapons and was signed by Russia and the United States in 2010, will be up for renewal in 2021 and its future, should Donald Trump be reelected, is uncertain at best. Apart from the fragility built into such treaties, new vistas for arms competition inevitably emerge — or, more precisely, are created. Hypersonic weapons are just the latest example.

    Arms races, though waged in the name of national security, invariably create yet more insecurity. Imagine two adversaries neither of whom knows what new weapon the other will field. So both just keep building new ones. That gets expensive. And such spending only increases the number of threats. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, U.S. military spending has consistently and substantially exceeded China’s and Russia’s combined. But can you name a government that imagines more threats on more fronts than ours? This endless enumeration of new vulnerabilities isn’t a form of paranoia. It’s meant to keep arms races humming and the money flowing into military (and military-industrial) coffers.

    One-Dimensional National Security

    Such arms races come from the narrow, militarized definition of “national security” that prevails inside the defense and intelligence establishment, as well as in think tanks, universities, and the most influential mass media. Their underlying assumptions are rarely challenged, which only adds to their power. We’re told that we must produce a particular weapon (price tag be damned!), because if we don’t, the enemy will and that will imperil us all.  

    Such a view of security is by now so deeply entrenched in Washington — shared by Republicans and Democrats alike — that alternatives are invariably derided as naïve or quixotic. As it happens, both of those adjectives would be more appropriate descriptors for the predominant national security paradigm, detached as it is from what really makes most Americans feel insecure.

    Consider a few examples.

    Unlike in the first three decades after World War II, since 1979 the average U.S. hourly wage, adjusted for inflation, has increased by a pitiful amount, despite substantial increases in worker productivity. Unsurprisingly, those on the higher rungs of the wage ladder (to say nothing of those at the top) have made most of the gains, creating a sharp increase in wage inequality. (If you consider net total household wealth rather than income alone, the share of the top 1% increased from 30% to 39% between 1989 and 2016, while that of the bottom 90% dropped from 33% to 23%.) 

    Because of sluggish wage growth many workers find it hard to land jobs that pay enough to cover basic life expenses even when, as now, unemployment is low (3.6% this year compared to 8% in 2013). Meanwhile, millions earning low wages, particularly single mothers who want to work, struggle to find affordable childcare — not surprising considering that in 10 states and the District of Columbia the annual cost of such care exceeded $10,000 last year; and that, in 28 states, childcare centers charged more than the cost of tuition and fees at four-year public colleges.  

    Workers trapped in low-wage jobs are also hard-pressed to cover unanticipated expenses. In 2018, the “median household” banked only $11,700, and households with incomes in the bottom 20% had, on average, only $8,790 in savings; 29% of them, $1,000 or less. (For the wealthiest 1% of households, the median figure was $2.5 million.) Forty-four percent of American families would be unable to cover emergency-related expenses in excess of $400 without borrowing money or selling some of their belongings.

    That, in turn, means many Americans can’t adequately cover periods of extended unemployment or illness, even when unemployment benefits are added in. Then there’s the burden of medical bills. The percentage of uninsured adults has risen from 10.9% to 13.7% since 2016 and often your medical insurance is tied to your job — lose it and you lose your coverage — not to speak of the high deductibles imposed by many medical insurance policies. (Out-of-pocket medical expenses have, in fact, increased fourfold since 2007 and now average $1,300 a year.)

    Or, speaking of insecurity, consider the epidemic in opioid-related fatalities (400,000 people since 1999), or suicides (47,173 in 2017 alone), or murders involving firearms (14,542 in that same year). Child poverty? The U.S. rate was higher than that of 32 of the 36 other economically developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    Now ask yourself this: how often do you hear our politicians or pundits use a definition of “national security” that includes any of these daily forms of American insecurity? Admittedly, progressive politicians do speak about the economic pressures millions of Americans face, but never as part of a discussion of national security.

    Politicians who portray themselves as “budget hawks” flaunt the label, but their outrage over “irresponsible” or “wasteful” spending seldom extends to a national security budget that currently exceeds $1 trillion. Hawks claim that the country must spend as much as it does because it has a worldwide military presence and a plethora of defense commitments. That presumes, however, that both are essential for American security when sensible and less extravagant alternatives are on offer.  

    In that context, let’s return to the “race” for hypersonic weapons.

    Faster Than a Speeding Bullet

    Although the foundation for today’s hypersonic weaponry was laid decades ago, the pace of progress has been slow because of daunting technical challenges. Developing materials like composite ceramics capable of withstanding the intense heat to which such weapons will be exposed during flight leads the list. In recent years, though, countries have stepped up their games hoping to deploy hypersonic armaments rapidly, something Russia has already begun to do.

    China, Russia, and the United States lead the hypersonic arms race, but others — including BritainFranceGermanyIndia, and Japan — have joined in (and more undoubtedly will do so). Each has its own list of dire scenarios against which hypersonic weapons will supposedly protect them and military missions for which they see such armaments as ideal. In other words, a new round in an arms race aimed at Armageddon is already well underway.

    There are two variants of hypersonic weapons, which can both be equipped with conventional or nuclear warheads and can also demolish their targets through sheer speed and force of impact, or kinetic energy. “Boost-glide vehicles” (HGVs) are lofted skyward on ballistic missiles or aircraft. Separated from their transporter, they then hurtle through the atmosphere, pulled toward their target by gravity, while picking up momentum along the way. Unlike ballistic missiles, which generally fly most of the way in a parabolic trajectory — think of an inverted U — ranging in altitude from nearly 400 to nearly 750 miles high, HGVs stay low, maxing out about 62 miles up. The combination of their hypersonic speed and lower altitude shortens the journey, while theoretically flummoxing radars and defenses designed to track and intercept ballistic missile warheads (which means another kind of arms race still to come). 

    By contrast, hypersonic cruise missiles (HCMs) resemble pilotless aircraft, propelled from start to finish by an on-board engine. They are, however, lighter than standard cruise missiles because they use “scramjet” technology.  Rather than carrying liquid oxygen tanks, the missile “breathes” in outside air that passes through it at supersonic speed, its oxygen combining with the missile’s hydrogen fuel. The resulting combustion generates extreme heat, propelling the missile toward its target. HCMs fly even lower than HGVs, below 100,000 feet, which makes identifying and destroying them harder yet. 

    Weapons are categorized as hypersonic when they can reach a speed of at least Mach 5, but versions that travel much faster are in the works. A Chinese HGV, launched by the Dong Feng (East Wind) DF-ZF ballistic missile, reportedly registered a speed of up to Mach 10 during tests, which began in 2014. Russia’s Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, or “Dagger,” launched from a bomber or interceptor, can reportedly also reach a speed of Mach 10. Lockheed Martin’s AGM-183A Advanced Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), an HGV that was first test-launched from a B-52 bomber this year, can apparently reach the staggering speed of Mach 20.

    And yet it’s not just the speed and flight trajectory of hypersonic weapons that will make them so hard to track and intercept. They can also maneuver as they race toward their targets. Unsurprisingly, efforts to develop defenses against them, using low-orbit sensorsmicrowave technology, and “directed energy” have already begun. The Trump administration’s plans for a new Space Force that will put sensors and interceptors into space cite the threat of hypersonic missiles. Even so, critics have slammed the initiative for being poorly funded.

    Putting aside the technical complexities of building defenses against hypersonic weapons, the American decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and develop missile-defense systems influenced Russia’s decision to develop hypersonic weapons capable of penetrating such defenses. These are meant to ensure that Russia’s nuclear forces will continue to serve as a credible deterrent against a nuclear first strike on that country.

    The Trio Takes the Lead

    China, Russia, and the United States are, of course, leading the hypersonic race to hell. China tested a medium-range new missile, the DF-17 in late 2017, and used an HGV specifically designed to be launched by it. The following year, that country tested its rocket-launched Xing Kong-2 (Starry Sky-2), a “wave rider,” which gains momentum by surfing the shockwaves it produces. In addition to its Kinzhal, Russia successfully tested the Avangard HGV in 2018. The SS-19 ballistic missile that launched it will eventually be replaced by the R-28 Samrat. Its hypersonic cruise missile, the Tsirkon, designed to be launched from a ship or submarine, has also been tested several times since 2015. Russia’s hypersonic program has had its failures — so has ours — but there’s no doubting Moscow’s seriousness about pursuing such weaponry.

    Though it’s common to read that both Russia and China are significantly ahead in this arms race, the United States has been no laggard. It’s been interested in such weaponry — specifically HGVs — since the early years of this century. The Air Force awarded Boeing and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne a contract to develop the hypersonic X-51A WaveRider scramjet in 2004. Its first flight test — which failed (creating something of a pattern) — took place in 2010.

    Today, the Army, Navy, and Air Force are moving ahead with major hypersonic weapons programs. For instance, the Air Force test-launched its ARRW from a B-52 bomber as part of its Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSWthis June; the Navy tested an HGV in 2017 to further its Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) initiative; and the Army tested its own version of such a weapon in 2011 and 2014 to move its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) program forward. The depth of the Pentagon’s commitment to hypersonic weapons became evident in 2018 when it decided to combine the Navy’s CPS, the Air Force’s HCSW, and the Army’s AHW to advance the Conventional Prompt Global Strike Program (CPGS), which seeks to build the capability to hit targets worldwide in under 60 minutes.

    That’s not all. The Center for Public Integrity’s R. Jeffrey Smith reports that Congress passed a bill last year requiring the United States to have operational hypersonic weapons by late 2022. President’s Trump’s 2020 Pentagon budget request included $2.6 billion to support their development. Smith expects the annual investment to reach $5 billion by the mid-2020s.

    That will certainly happen if officials like Michael Griffin, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for research and engineering, have their way. Speaking at the McAleese and Credit Suisse Defense Programs conference in March 2018, he listed hypersonic weapons as his “highest technical priority,” adding, “I’m sorry for everybody out there who champions some other high priority… But there has to be a first and hypersonics is my first.” The big defense contractors share his enthusiasm. No wonder last December the National Defense Industrial Association, an outfit that lobbies for defense contractors, played host to Griffin and Patrick Shanahan (then the deputy secretary of defense), for the initial meeting of what it called the “Hypersonic Community of Influence.”

    Cassandra Or Pollyanna?

    We are, in other words, in a familiar place. Advances in technology have prepared the ground for a new phase of the arms race. Driving it, once again, is fear among the leading powers that their rivals will gain an advantage, this time in hypersonic weapons. What then? In a crisis, a state that gained such an advantage might, they warn, attack an adversary’s nuclear forces, military bases, airfields, warships, missile defenses, and command-and-control networks from great distances with stunning speed.

    Such nightmarish scenario-building could simply be dismissed as wild-eyed speculation, but the more states think about, plan, and build weaponry along these lines, the greater the danger that a crisis could spiral into a hypersonic war once such weaponry was widely deployed. Imagine a crisis in the South China Sea in which the United States and China both have functional hypersonic weapons: China sees them as a means of blocking advancing American forces; the United States, as a means to destroy the very hypersonic arms China could use to achieve that objective. Both know this, so the decision of one or the other to fire first could come all too easily. Or, now that the INF Treaty has died, imagine a crisis in Europe involving the United States and Russia after both sides have deployed numerous intermediate-range hypersonic cruise missiles on the continent. 

    Some wonks say, in effect, Relax, hi-tech defenses against hypersonic weapons will be built, so crises like these won’t spin out of control. They seem to forget that defensive military innovations inevitably lead to offensive ones designed to negate them. Hypersonic weapons won’t prove to be the exception.

    So, in a world of national (in)security, the new arms race is on. Buckle up.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/09/2019 – 23:05

    Tags

  • Inside Hunter Biden's Dealings With Shadowy Foreign Firms
    Inside Hunter Biden’s Dealings With Shadowy Foreign Firms

    Hunter Biden is the ultimate fail-son, or black sheep.

    For those who are unfamiliar with the term, it has emerged in recent years to describe the spoiled, sloppy and clumsily power-hungry offspring of powerful individuals. Hunter Biden is more infamous for his often drug-fueled antics, and the brief and embarrassingly public romance he shared with his deceased brother’s widow, than he is for being a successful businessman. But now his business career has been exposed for what it truly is: Foreign players hoping to use the younger Biden as a backdoor connection to the White House, and the American political elite.

    Often, Biden dropped hints about how these connections could be useful, though there’s not much of a record of him actually using his connections (that is, actually being useful) on his employer’s behalf (which doesn’t mean it didn’t happen).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the FT, Biden’s business interests “often show up in unexpected places.” While Democrats obviously prefer to focus on their impeachment investigation, there’s no denying that Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine, China and elsewhere clearly raise questions about potential conflicts that existed while his father was in office. Joe Biden has denied wrongdoing, but questions linger over his role in the ouster of a top Ukrainian prosecutor, which some have suggested was done to help protect Hunter.

    When Hunter joined the Navy Reserves in May 2013, he required several waivers (at 42, he was above the age of enlistment, and there was an unspecified ‘drug-related’ incident that also would have disqualified him).

    Despite his apparent eagerness to join, Biden was discharged from the Navy the following year after testing positive for cocaine. Soon after, his more successful older brother, Beau, passed away, and his wife Kathleen filed for divorce, citing Hunter’s “spending extravagantly on his own interests including drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs and gifts for women with whom he has sexual relations.”

    Next, he started dating his brother’s widow.

    But in between trips to rehab and legendary drug benders. In 2016, shortly after he started dating Hallie Biden, Beau’s widow, Hunter made plans to stay at a detox center in Arizona. But he somehow got sidetracked during a stopover in Los Angeles, and ended up missing the next wing of his flight. Instead, he traveled to Skid Row, where he was reportedly held up at gun point, but nevertheless apparently succeeded in buying and using crack, causing him to return several times over the following days. Eventually, Hunter Biden took a Hertz rental car to his treatment center in Arizona, but workers at the Hertz office called the police after finding a crack pipe and baggie of crack, along with Biden’s license and a badge from Beau’s time as Delaware AG.

    Prosecutors declined to pursue the case, claiming a lack of evidence, but it definitely wasn’t a good look for Hunter. More recently, Hunter has been in the headlines for his whirlwind marriage to a South African Instagram model, and for a paternity suit brought by a woman claiming Hunter is the father of her newborn son. 

    Of course, none of these transgressions have stopped Biden from earning millions of dollars off his family name and connections. In Wednesday’s issue, the FT published a breakdown of Biden’s foreign business interests.

    Burisma Holdings:

    Role: Board member (2014-2019)

    Pay: $50,000 a month.

    Burisma, Ukraine’s leading privately owned natural gas producer, obtained some of its most prized production assets while its founder Mykola Zlochevsky headed a ministry that doled out gas licences under the kleptocratic administration of ex-president Viktor Yanukovich. After Mr Yanukovich fled to Russia in 2014, investigators started probing the company.

    That year Burisma appointed prominent westerners to its board, including Hunter Biden, who reportedly earned $50,000 per month for this role. Mr Trump’s calls for his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Burisma over links to Joe Biden, his potential Democratic rival in next year’s presidential election, triggered the impeachment probe.

    In tweets and in a July phone call with Mr Zelensky, Mr Trump and Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, alleged that Joe Biden protected Burisma and his son’s interests while he was vice-president. Ukraine’s western backers deny this narrative.

    Paradigm Companies

    Role: investor and employee

    Pay: $1.2 million salary

    In 2006, Hunter Biden acquired a stake in Paradigm, a hedge fund group, following a failed attempt to buy the entire company through LBB, a limited liability partnership set up with his uncle James Biden. Hunter Biden recently told the New Yorker that, while the failed deal sounded “super attractive”, it fell apart after he and his uncle learned that the company was worth less than they had thought.

    Both James and Hunter Biden faced a lawsuit from Anthony Lotito Jr, a former business partner, who accused them of defrauding him over the failed deal. The Bidens countersued Mr Lotito, accusing him of hiding company debts and falsely claiming he held securities licences. An independent audit of the fund conducted in 2008 found accounting problems at the firm including “failure to timely prepare financial statements” and “failure to reconcile Investment Advisors reimbursement of fund expenses”.

    Paradigm itself was founded by James Park in 1991, the son-in-law of one of the founder’s of the Korean Unification Church, which some have called a cult. In 2009, a fund run by Paradigm became associated with Allen Stanford, a Texas financier, who was later convicted of running an $8bn Ponzi scheme. Stanford’s company was responsible for marketing one of Paradigm’s funds of hedge funds, and also invested millions of dollars in it. At the time, a lawyer representing Paradigm said neither Hunter nor James Biden had ever met Stanford.

    The Bidens filed for voluntary liquidation of the company in 2010.

    Seneca Global Advisors

    Role: Founder, consultant

    Pay: n/a

    Hunter Biden launched his consultancy in September 2008, weeks after his father Joe Biden had been announced as Barack Obama’s running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket. Mr Obama was elected president in November 2008, with Joe Biden as his vice-president.

    The consultancy pitched itself as a firm that could help small and midsized companies expand across the US and into foreign markets. Clients included Achaogen, a pharmaceutical company focused on anti-bacterial treatments that filed for bankruptcy in April 2019, and GreatPoint Energy, an energy technology start-up.

    In 2012, GreatPoint received a $420m investment from China Wanxiang Holdings, an industrial conglomerate. It was the largest venture capital investment into the US that year. It is unclear if Hunter Biden was directly involved in securing this investment.

    Rosemont Seneca Partners

    Role: Co-founder, consultant

    Pay: n/a

    Hunter Biden co-founded Rosemont Seneca Partners in 2009 with Christopher Heinz, stepson of John Kerry, the former secretary of state, and scion of the Heinz processed food fortune, and Devon Archer, a financier and former Abercrombie & Fitch model who attended Yale with Mr Heinz.

    In 2014, Rosemont Seneca was involved in an attempted $1.5bn fundraise for a new fund launched by Harvest Fund Management and Bohai Industrial Group, the Chinese asset manager, according to a Wall Street Journal report at the time. The Bank of China International Holdings was one of the biggest stakeholders in Bohai at the time.

    Mr Archer first connected with Mykola Zlochevsky, co-founder of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, in 2014 when he travelled there to pitch a Rosemont-linked real estate fund that he managed. Mr Archer joined Burisma’s board in 2014. Hunter joined soon after.

    BHR Partners

    Role: Director, consultant, 2013-today

    Pay: n/a

    BHR Partners, of which Hunter remains a director, is a private investment fund backed by some of China’s largest state banks, local government and the national pension fund.

    At its inception in 2014, BHR listed Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC, an investment firm co-founded by Hunter Biden, as a shareholder that owned 30% of the fund.

    A year later, the two partners in RST, a consortium of Rosemont Seneca and Thornton Group, a Massachusetts-based firm with local political ties, split their shares in BHR. Rosemont Seneca took 20% and Thornton 10%. Rosemont Seneca unloaded its BHR stakes in 2017, while Thornton kept its shares.

    BHR is known for being an early investor in some of the fastest-growing technology start-ups, including Didi Chuxing, the digital transport group. It has also invested in Megvii, a facial recognition start-up whose technology has been used in Chinese government surveillance of Uighur populations in China’s western provinces.

    Li Xiangsheng, CEO of BHR, told local media that the fund’s strong government background would allow it to make super-big investments, saying the fund could take loans from its shareholders such as China Development Bank and Bank of China to complete transactions.

    Hunter Biden’s investment in the fund totalled $420,000, according to one of his lawyers, implying the fund’s total value sits at $4.2m. The New Yorker reported in July that Hunter and his partners said they had not yet received a payment from BHR.

    BHR Portfolio Companies (per FT):

    Didi Chuxing:

    Cashed out. China’s largest ride-hailing service. BHR invested in Didi in 2015 and exited two years later.

    Megvii

    Current. Leading facial recognition company whose technology was linked to Beijing’s mass surveillance of Uighurs in Xinjiang. BHR was an investor in Megvii’s Series C funding round in 2017.

    Sinopec Petroleum Sales

    Current. Retail unit of one of world’s largest oil refiners. Sinopec participated in China’s mixed ownership reform of the state sector by selling shares in its retail business in 2014 to an investor group that includes BHR. The fund paid Rmb6bn for a 1.7% stake.

    Yancoal Australia

    Current. Australian subsidiary of China’s third-largest coal producer. BHR teamed up with two Chinese banks in 2016 to purchase a nine-year bond issued by Yancoal Australia and valued at $950m.

    CGN Power Group

    Current. Major nuclear power company that was placed under US export blacklist in August over accusations of stealing US technology for military use. BHR was a cornerstone investor in CGN’s Hong Kong IPO in 2014.

    Tuniu

    Current. Major online travel agency. BHR invested in Tuniu in 2016.

    Contemporary Amperex Technology

    Current. World’s largest lithium-ion battery maker. BHR invested Rmb100m in CAT in 2015 and cashed out for Rmb197m three years later.

    3SBio

    Current. Leading Chinese biopharmaceutical firm in which BHR has invested.

    Tenke Copper Mine

    Cashed out. BHR paid $1.1bn for a 24% stake in DRC’s Tenke copper mine, one of the world’s largest, from Canada-based Lundin Mining. BHR acted as middleman in the deal, as it later sold its stake to China Molybdenum, a state-backed miner, allowing the latter to gain full control of Tenke.

    Henniges Automotive

    Current. In 2015, BHR teamed up with Chinese state-owned Avic Auto to acquire Michigan-based Henniges Automotive, which makes auto components. The deal, valued at $600m, gave BHR a 49% stake in Henniges. A research institute under Avic Auto’s parent company, China’s largest defence contractor, was added to the US export blacklist in 2014.

    Gemini-Rosemont Realty

    Current. In 2015, Gemini Investments Limited, the investment arm of China’s state-owned Sino-Ocean Land Holdings, purchased a 75 per cent stake in Rosemont Realty, Devon Archer’s sister company of Rosemont Seneca, where Hunter Biden was a partner. The deal resulted in a joint venture — Gemini-Rosemont Realty that owns 135 buildings in 22 US states.

    Jilin Zhishi Dairy Co   

    Current. BHR-invested dairy product maker based in northeastern China.

    Chengdu Xijiao Rail Transportation Technology Co   

    Current. Leading railway technology firm in which BHR has a 10% stake.

    Source: Financial Times


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/09/2019 – 22:45

  • Secretary Of Defense, Incorporated
    Secretary Of Defense, Incorporated

    Authored by Danny Sjursen via TruthDig.com,

    The man is so beautifully bland. In fact, I’d wager that only a tiny segment of Americans could name the current Secretary of Defense—and far fewer could pick him out of a lineup. Perhaps that’s the point. President Trump, a celebrity ham, has tired of sharing the stage with big-name advisers such as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser John Bolton. So they’re both gone. In their place, Trump has installed faceless bureaucrats to run the most powerful national security state in human history. And the rest of us hardly notice.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Trump’s appointment of Mark Esper as head of the largest and most active Cabinet department, and the new Defense Secretary’s near unanimous approval by the U.S. Senate, is no less of a scandal than Trump’s apparent efforts to seek foreign interference in the 2020 elections. Only it isn’t.

    Still, the nomination of Esper, a recent lobbyist for the defense contracting corporation Raytheon, ranks as one of the most egregious illustrations of the “revolving door” between lobbyists and the Defense Department. It’s crony capitalism in fatigues, and while nothing new, a clear indication that things have only worsened under our reality-show-mogul-president.

    Of course, seen through the rose-colored glasses of American empire, Esper is highly qualified to head the Defense Department. He’s a West Point graduate, former Army infantry officer, recipient of a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard and a doctorate in public policy from George Washington University, and has past experience working in the Pentagon.

    If one digs further, however, Esper is wildly problematic—loaded with conflicts of interest, a veteran of the (should be) discredited neoconservative Bush-era DOD, and little more than a corporate “company man.” He didn’t just work for Raytheon, he lobbied on the defense contractor’s behalf only recently. Under rather sharp questioning by Sen. Elizabeth Warren during his confirmation hearings, Esper refused to recuse himself from participating in government business involving Raytheon. In typically lifeless language, Esper replied that “On the advice of my ethics folks at the Pentagon, the career professionals: No, their recommendation is not to.” How’s that for accepting responsibility? No matter, he was swiftly and quietly confirmed by a vote of 90-8 in the Senate.

    Expect another banner year for Raytheon. It’s already the third-largest U.S. defense contractor, and produces, among other tools of destruction, Paveway precision-guided missiles—the very weapons that Congress recently sought to stop shipping to Saudi Arabia due to (rather tardy) concerns about the heads of Yemeni civilians upon which they’re dropped.

    I predict more deals and more taxpayer billions for Raytheon with Esper at the Defense helm. Not that the company has done poorly during the Trump years. In 2018, Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy candidly quipped that “It’s the best time that we’ve ever seen for the defense industry.” Not for indebted taxpayers, bombed-out Middle Easterners or U.S. soldiers still dying in endless wars, it’s not. But sure, it truly is the best of times for what prominent American leaders—once upon a time—labeled the “merchants of death.”

    Conflicts of interest, sliding seamlessly between defense contracting boards and the Pentagon, and securing post-government largesse on corporate boards, that’s an old story indeed. Looking back to 2001, most Defense Secretaries have troublesome private sector connections. Donald Rumsfeld entered the Pentagon after a 24-year business career; Robert Gates was on the board of directors of Fidelity Investments and the Parker Drilling Company; Chuck Hagel served on the boards of Chevron and Deutsche Bank; Ash Carter—an exception—was mostly an academic and a bureaucratic wonk, but still consulted for Goldman Sachs. All made millions.

    That covers the Bush and Obama years. What we’ve seen in the Trump administration, is, however, something far more brazen. His three Secretaries of Defense (one of whom, Patrick Shanahan, was only acting head) have been unapologetically ensconced in the world of defense contracting and corporate lobbying.

    “Saint” Jim Mattis had, while still a general, encouraged the military to buy the blood test products of Theranos, then dropped the service and joined its corporate board. But Theranos’ products did not work, the deal described by the Securities and Exchange Commission as an “elaborate, years-long fraud.” Mattis also served, both before and after his Pentagon stint, on the board of General Dynamics, the nation’s fifth largest defense contractor. Nonetheless, Mattis easily slid through his confirmation and was praised by all types of mainstream media as the administration’s “adult in the room.”

    After Mattis resigned, he being unable to countenance even Trump’s hints at modest withdrawal from the wars in Syria and Afghanistan, Patrick Shanahan stepped in as interim defense chief. Unlike his predecessor, Shanahan didn’t emerge from the military, but rather from yet another defense contractor, Boeing, for which he’s worked some 30 years. Trump thought that was dandy and nominated him to officially replace Mattis, but Shanahan decided to withdraw due to alleged personal scandals. Enter Mark Esper, Raytheon lobbyist extraordinaire.

    Esper’s in good company in Washington’s military-industrial swamp. Recent reports by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO)—a vital organization that hardly any American has heard of—identified “645 instances in the past 10 years in which a retired senior official, member of Congress or senior legislative staff member became employed as a registered lobbyist, board member or business executive at a major government contractor.” POGO also noted that “those walking through the revolving door included 25 generals, nine admirals, 43 lieutenant generals and 23 vice admirals.”

    All of which begs some questions and provides some disturbing answers. Perhaps we ought to ditch the myth that the Defense Secretary simply heads the Pentagon, and admit that Esper is really the emperor of a far grander military-industrial complex that includes a veritable army of K-Street lobbyists and venal arms dealers. Maybe it’s time to concede that unelected national security czars, and not a stalemated bought-and-sold Congress, run national defense and set the gigantic Pentagon budget. Perhaps we should confess to ourselves that the nation’s vaunted soldiers are little more than political pawns in a game that’s far bigger, far more Kafkaesque, than those troopers could begin to fathom. And, finally, let’s admit one last thing: Few of us care.

    *  *  *

    Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to Truthdig. His work has also appeared in Harper’s, The LA Times, The Nation, Tom Dispatch, The Huffington Post and The Hill. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, “Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge.” He co-hosts the progressive veterans’ podcast “Fortress on a Hill.” Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/09/2019 – 22:25

    Tags

  • People Who Work From Home Earn More Money, New Study Shows
    People Who Work From Home Earn More Money, New Study Shows

    According to a new Census Bureau report, people who work from home were the highest earning workers in the “median earnings by means of transportation to work” category. Bloomberg highlighted this in a new report that also noted that in 2018, people who took public transportation to work had higher median earnings than those who didn’t.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    From the public transportation angle, the statistics are mostly a reflection of where buses, subways and commuter trains are located. Places like New York, Chicago and San Francisco accounted for a large portion of Americans who took public transportation to work, and pay is notably higher in those areas.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    People who work from home gain their income advantage from the kind of work that can be done remotely. For instance, white-collar work is much more likely to be done from home than blue-collar work. Perhaps this is a reason why, in 2010, those who worked from home made 11% less than those who drove to work, but in 2018, they made 5% more.

    Over the same period of time, the number of people who reported working at home has risen to 8.3 million from 5.9 million. The rise began in the early 2000’s, as broadband connections at home made it easier for people to accomplish work tasks while not in the office.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Bloomberg notes, the survey can also leave some people out:

    The annual American Community Survey from which the current data 1 are derived asks people how they usually got to work the previous week. This misses out on lots of people who didn’t happen to work from home that particular week but do sometimes. A 2016 Gallup survey found that 43% of American employees worked remotely at least occasionally. The European Union’s Eurostat tracks whether people work at home “usually” or “sometimes,” and over the past decade the former group hasn’t grown as a share of the EU workforce but the latter has.

    But in general, the trend toward working at home seems to be a good one. Studies have shown that employees who are given the opportunity to work from home are more productive and happier with their jobs. They can also save time and money by not commuting.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    People who work at home also get the advantage of being able to live in scenic places, like Boulder, Colorado or the Catskills.

    And another portion of the study shows that people who work at home either make a significant sum of money, or not very much at all. This could be due to some people working at home just as part-timers looking to supplement household income. Others, who make $75,000 or more, are likely white-collar executives or work in technology. Remote work websites like Upwork are also becoming popular for people to take on full-time workloads from remote locations.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Finally, the study showed that working at home seems to still predominantly be the most popular with white people.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/09/2019 – 22:05

  • Duelling US-China Trade Headlines Spark Chaotic Volatility In Futures
    Duelling US-China Trade Headlines Spark Chaotic Volatility In Futures

    Update: Good luck trading this…

    Dow futures have swung up and down 300-plus points four times…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And Yuan is even more chaotic…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    *  *  *

    And to think how blissfully stocks surged today on optimism that China was willing to pursue a partial deal…

    Moments after US equity futures reopened for trading, they plunged after the SCMP reported that deputy-level trade talks between the US and China aimed at laying the groundwork for high-level negotiations later this week “failed to yield any progress on critical issues, according to two sources with knowledge of the meetings.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to the report, the deputy-level negotiators, led on the Chinese side by vice-minister for finance Liao Min, spent the time focusing on only two areas: agricultural purchases and intellectual property protection. This apparently was not enough.

    As other newswire reported earlier, during the discussions on Monday and Tuesday in Washington, the Chinese refused to talk about forced technology transfers, one source said, which is a core US grievance regarding China’s economic policies.

    Speaking on condition of anonymity, the person said that talks had also skirted the issue of state subsidies, which the Trump administration says give Chinese companies an unfair advantage over international competitors.

    “They have made no progress,” said another source familiar with the talks, adding that the Chinese side had not made headway in persuading US negotiators to consider a freeze on tariff increases, a main priority for Beijing.

    And confirming that the week’s entire negotiation was a fiasco from the start, the SCMP reports that the Chinese delegation is planning to leave Washington on Thursday – one day early – and after just one day of principal-level talks, the SCMP source noted. Beijing’s negotiating team, headed by Vice-Premier Liu He, had previously planned to leave Washington late on Friday, allowing for up to two full days of talks.

    Liu arrived in the US capital on Tuesday afternoon amid one of the tensest weeks for bilateral relations since the trade war began in July 2018.

    It appears that this week’s NBA fiasco may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back:

    Fallout from an NBA team general manager’s message of support for Hong Kong protesters has roiled public opinion on both sides. And earlier this week Washington announced sanctions against Chinese government entities, officials and companies it considers implicated in Beijing’s policies targeting largely Muslim ethnic minority groups in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region.

    The Chinese government shot back, calling for an immediate reversal in the administration’s actions.

    To be sure, Wednesday’s announcement that the US would block visa of various Chinese officials did not help.

    In any case, with any hopes of even a modest, or mini, trade deal now seemingly collapsed, so have futures, which are puking after hours… (Dow futures -320 points)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … as is the Yuan.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    And gold is spiking…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    If confirmed, expect much more pain for a market which some have said has priced in the US-China trade deal no less than three times already.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/09/2019 – 21:50

    Tags

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 9th October 2019

  • Refugee Explosion "Even Greater" Than 2015 To Hit Europe, German Minister Warns
    Refugee Explosion “Even Greater” Than 2015 To Hit Europe, German Minister Warns

    The German government is warning that a number of indicators suggest Europe could be on the brink of witnessing a new refugee crisis explode on its borders. 

    Germany’s Interior Minister Horst Seehofer said early this week that refugees and migrants are set to flood Europe on a scale even bigger that the peak of the 2015 crisis“We must do more to help our European partners with controls on the EU external borders. We have left them alone for too long,” he told Germany’s Bild am Sonntag newspaper after returning from a visit to Greece and Turkey, where he inspected the renewed refugee crisis first hand. 

    “If we do not do that we will once again face a refugee wave like in 2015 or maybe even greater,” Seehofer warned  ominously. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Refugees arriving at the the Greek Island of Lesbos in 2015. Image source: Antonio Masiello via “6 Degrees”

    Seehofer further said that if the EU doesn’t unite to find “strength to solve this problem problem” it faces total “loss of control” if and when the next major crisis hits. 

    At the height of the crisis three years ago, which was driven by the vastly destabilizing wars in Syria and Libya, and by the turmoil left in the wake of the Islamic State caliphate in western Iraq, there were near weekly mass drownings and accidents involving migrants attempting to traverse the Mediterranean, as well as fires and unrest at makeshift refugee camps in France and Greece. It further created turmoil in the domestic politics of multiple EU countries, with a number of right-wing populist figures and parties coming to power on anti-illegal immigration platforms. 

    And now, with Turkey on the brink of a major military incursion into northeast Syria, the Middle East is about to witness a major new conflagration resulting in potentially millions of new refugees being pushed out of the Turkey-Syria border region

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Germany’s Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, left, via Deutsche Welle

    Coupled with that, Turkey’s President Erdogan recently threatened to release one million refugees on Europe if he can’t have his so-called ‘safe zone’ which is to reach some 30km deep (19 miles) inside Syrian territory. He threatened early last month: We will be forced to open the gates. We cannot be forced to handle the burden alone,” while demanding that European countries give political support to the controversial plan that would end in annexing UN member Syria’s sovereign territory. 

    It was the 2015 crisis that saw precisely around a million refugees and migrants flood Europe, crossing by land through the Balkans, as well as making the more dangerous Mediterranean route. 

    It appears Interior Minister Seehofer is convinced Erdogan is not bluffing, and is warning Europe to be prepared for the chaos to come. Indeed recent figures published by the UN refugee agency (UNHCR), reveal that numbers of migrants crossing by sea from Turkey to Greece are shooting up over the past nine months, compared to the year prior. 

    Seehofer said of Turkey’s current situation, which is now openly declaring it stands ready to “correct the demographics” of northern Syria by forcibly removing its Kurdish inhabitants, and then move some 2 million Arab Syrian refugees into the ‘safe zone’, that “it is clear that we cannot manage the future with the resources of the past.” This in reference to a prior EU deal with Ankara to take back refugees from Greece for €6 billion in aid. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The main migrant routes to Europe at the opening of 2015 which saw a million flood Europe in a short span, something which some are warning is set to be repeated in the coming year. 

    One thing is for certain, should “all out war” — as the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have promised — be the result of the expected imminent Turkish invasion of Syria, there will be a new refugee explosion out of northern Syria and possibly Iraq, given Iraq’s Kurdistan region is precisely where many Syrian Kurdish as well as Christian civilians fleeing Turkish tanks would end up. 

    This is in addition to a renewed grinding multi-party civil war in Libya unfolding as Gen. Khalifa Haftar’s forces continue their push to wrest the capital of Tripoli from the UN-backed Government of National Accord. 


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/09/2019 – 02:45

  • The Duplicitous Agenda Endorsed By The UN And NATO
    The Duplicitous Agenda Endorsed By The UN And NATO

    Authored by Ramona Wadi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    To the undiscerning, the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) perform different roles in the international arena. Yet both organisations have a common aim – the promotion of foreign intervention. While the UN promotes its humanitarian façade, NATO provides the militarisation of the UN’s purported human rights agenda.

    NATO’s participation at the 74th session of the UN General Assembly in September provided an overview of the current collaboration the organisation has with the UN. Jens Stoltelberg, NATO’s Secretary-General, mentioned the organisations’ collaboration in “working closely to support Afghanistan and Iraq”.

    Since the 1990s, the UN and NATO cooperation was based on a framework which included decision-making and strategy on “crisis management and in the fight against terrorism.” In 2001, US President George W Bush launched his ‘War on Terror’ which eventually expanded to leave the Middle East and North Africa in perpetual turmoil, as the coined euphemism morphed into the so-called Arab Spring.

    While the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 were led by the US, it is worth remembering that the absence of the organisation at that time is not tantamount to the exclusion of warfare from NATO member states. Notably, the US invasion of Afghanistan invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which stipulates that an attack on a NATO member state constitutes an attack on all member states.

    “For NATO-UN cooperation and dialogue to remain meaningful, it must continue to evolve.” The statement on NATO’s website is a bureaucratic approach which detaches itself from the human rights violations created and maintained by both parties, which form the premise of such collaboration.

    UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), upon which NATO based its collaboration with the UN, reaffirms, “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognised by the Charter of the United Nations.” The resolution provides impunity for member-states and other collaborators with the UN, including NATO, to define what constitutes terrorism while eliminating foreign intervention as a terror act, despite the ramifications which last long after the aggression has been terminated or minimised.

    The UN-NATO duplicity is exposed in Stoltenberg’s speech when he states, “NATO has also contributed to developing UN disposal standards to counter improvised explosive devices, which remain one of the greatest threats to peacekeepers.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Why are the UN and NATO selecting rudimentary forms of warfare over precision bombing which has killed thousands of civilians in the name of fighting terror or bringing democracy?

    In 2011, the UNSC’s arms embargo was supposed to prevent the proliferation of weapons to the rebels in Libya – a contradiction given the UNSC’s authorisation for NATO to bomb Libya. France, however, defied the resolution by publicly declaring its proliferation of weapons to rebels in Libya, on the pretext of their necessity to protect Libyan civilians. NATO denied its involvement as an organisation in providing arms to the rebels, despite the fact that action was taken by a NATO member. With the UN endorsing foreign intervention and NATO implementing the atrocities, the UN can fall back on its alleged peace-building and humanitarian roles, of which there is never a decline due to the irreparable damage both organisations have wreaked upon exploited, colonised and ravaged countries. The cooperation lauded by NATO does not rest on a division of roles but rather on blurring the differentiation between war and humanitarianism, in order to generate both as a duplicitous agenda.

    NATO maintains that the UNSC holds “primary responsibility” for maintaining international peace and security. What the statement evades is the individual interest of each member, as well as their collective framework as NATO members. To satisfy the UNSC, individual interests and NATO membership, a common denominator is imperative. For the perpetrators of foreign intervention, war constitutes the binding legacy.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/09/2019 – 02:00

  • Madsen: The Plot To Overthrow The Pope
    Madsen: The Plot To Overthrow The Pope

    Authored by Wayne Madsen via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The moment that Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina was elected the first Jesuit Roman Catholic pontiff in papal history, the political long knives aimed at Pope Francis I came out of the shadows of the Vatican.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    From the outset of his papacy, Francis found himself dealing with his right-wing predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI – a rarity in papal history – who insisted on remaining domiciled in an apartment on Vatican grounds. Benedict has not remained in quiet retirement but has conspired with Francis’s politically influential enemies in the Vatican, Italy, the United States, and other countries.

    Donald Trump, who has publicly criticized Francis, has not interfered as his surrogates, who include former White House strategist Steve Bannon; Cardinal Raymond Burke, the former Archbishop of St. Louis; Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States; and others have conspired with the powerful fascist-oriented Opus Dei sect of the church to undermine Francis’s authority. Trump’s eyes and ears inside the Vatican – US ambassador to the Holy See Callista Bisek Gingrich – is the wife of Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the US House of Representatives, a convert to Catholicism, and a major Trump political ally.

    Francis, a former bar bouncer in a tough working-class neighborhood of Buenos Aires, has not been a shrinking violet when it comes to fighting back against his right-wing enemies. Francis’s Italian parents were escaping Benito Mussolini’s fascist rule when they emigrated to Argentina. For Francis, defending the church against the fascist Opus Dei and its allies is a battle worth fighting.

    Francis’s enemies have taken a page from the Trump political book. Francis vowed to clean up the church of pedophile priests but he has been charged by his right-wing enemies, including Vigano, Burke, Bannon, Opus Dei, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, and from behind the scenes – Benedict – of tolerating pedophiles and homosexuals in the church. This is the same sort of gaslighting to which Americans have become all-too-accustomed under Trump.

    In order to limit Cardinal Burke’s international reach, Francis suspended him from the post of patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), an autonomous international charity entity in Rome that issues its own passports and maintains diplomatic relations with 107 countries and maintains permanent observer status at the United Nations. In 2017, Francis came to the assistance of the Grand Chancellor of the SMOM, Albrecht von Boeselager, after discovering that Burke and Opus Dei were conspiring to oust Boeselager, a member of a German royal house, as Grand Chancellor. Burke and the rightists wanted to sack Boeselager for distributing condoms to people in Myanmar. Francis suspended Burke and appointed Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu as the Pope’s special envoy to the SMOM. Francis is now assured that with Boeselager and Becciu as his eyes and ears inside the SMOM, the rightists and Opus Dei are checkmated when it comes to using the diplomatic offices of the SMOM for their own purposes. Francis also banned the right-wing Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate from conducting public masses in Latin. As far as limiting the power of the rightists inside the Vatican City State, Francis appointed Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga from Honduras as his enforcer to rid the Vatican hierarchy of the pro-Benedict faction, as well as pedophile enablers and financial fraudsters, money launderers, and embezzlers.

    Francis told the Italian newspaper “La Repubblica” that Roman Catholic officials have often been “narcissists, flattered and thrilled by their courtiers,” adding, “the court [the Vatican curia] is the leprosy of the papacy.”

    On October 1, 2019, Francis ordered Vatican police to seize documents, computers, and portable electronic devices from the Vatican Secretary of State and the Financial Information Authority, the latter the financial watchdog of the Vatican. In addition to these two offices, Francis has also placed the Institute of Religious Works (IOR), the so-called “Vatican Bank,” under increased supervision and control. The IOR has been misused in the past for a number of covert operations, including the funding of several right-wing Central Intelligence Agency-linked terrorist groups and death squads in Latin America, particularly the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (AAA), or “Triple A.”

    Francis was also instrumental in denying to Bannon and Burke the use of a 13th century monastery, the Certosa di Trisulti in Collepardo in central Italy, as a training academy for neo-fascist political operatives from around the world. Bannon’s Brussels-based international “neo-fascisti” grouping, called “The Movement,” had made a deal with a group connected to Burke, the Institute of Human Dignity, or Dignitatis Humana Institute, to lease the 800-room monastery for political training. Burke is the president of the institute’s board of advisers, which provides a direct link between Burke and Bannon. Eleven Cardinals, all opponents of Francis, are on the board of advisers, including Walter Brandmuller; Edwin O’Brien, former Archbishop for the US Military Services and a proponent of the “Just War”; Robert Sarah, the former Archbishop of Conakry, Guinea and an opponent of large scale immigration; Peter Turkson of Ghana; Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith of Colombo, Sri Lanka; including US military intervention in Syria; and Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, a former Bishop of Kong Kong and leading opponent of China’s policies. Benjamin Harnwell, a noted conservative British Catholic, is the President of the Institute’s Board of Trustees. Bannon is both a member of the Board of Trustees and a patron of the institute.

    Bannon called the proposed school the Academy for the Judaeo-Christian West. The Institute of Human Dignity and its British connections has led many to believe that it is also politically connected to the increasingly powerful Catholic wing of the British Conservative Party. Prime Minister Boris Johnson was baptized Catholic and the Speaker of the House of Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, is affiliated with right-wing Catholic circles.

    From the outset, Francis understood that the Bannon training academy would not only be targeting progressive forces around the world but also his papacy. It was fortuitous for Francis that Nicola Zingaretti, the president of the Lazio region, in which the monastery is located, condemned the lease by Bannon’s group. Zingaretti is a member of the left-wing faction of the Democratic Party, which includes former Christian Democrats and Socialists.

    The coup de grace against the fascist academy came in May of this year when it was discovered that the 19-year lease guarantor, a person purporting to be an official of the Jyske Bank of Gibraltar, had forged the lease guarantee letter. On May 31, 2019, the Italian Ministry of Heritage annulled the lease. The forged letter and the financial fraud concerns that led Francis to order files seized from the IOR and the Vatican Secretariat of State are indications that the Catholic right-wing, including Opus Dei, are not conceding defeat but are doubling down using any means necessary, even if they are illegal.

    There is little doubt in Rome that Pope Francis and his allies were working as hard as they could to ensure that after the fall of the coalition government of the far-right League or “Lega” and the populist Five Star Movement, Lega leader and Interior Minister Matteo Salvini would not be able to form a new government. Instead, the Democratic Party and the Five Star Movement formed a center-left coalition and Salvini was relegated to the opposition. It has been reported in Rome that Francis appointed Cardinal Pietro Parolin as a special envoy to combat the influences of the neo-fascists in Italy and throughout the European Union. And Francis has picked up an important ally in Forza Italia, the party of former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, now a member of the European Parliament.

    Bannon, Burke, and their allies gambled on winning control of an ancient monastery, the SMOM, and the Italian government. Pope Francis saw their bid and raised it. Francis’s royal flush has sent the neo-fascisti forces of Opus Dei, Bannon, and Salvini into a much-weakened opposition. The moral of the story for the fascisti is to never underestimate a one-time bar bouncer. Francis has been as effective in ousting the far-right from their perches of power in Rome as he once was in ejecting unruly drunks from bars in Buenos Aires.


    Tyler Durden

    Wed, 10/09/2019 – 00:05

    Tags

  • The Surge In "Surprise" Medical Bills Bankrupting Americans Can Be Blamed On Private Equity
    The Surge In “Surprise” Medical Bills Bankrupting Americans Can Be Blamed On Private Equity

    Surging “surprise” medical bills in the U.S. are private equity’s fault, a new FT opinion piece claims. 

    These “surprise” medical bills continue to be a major talking point in the U.S. and are likely to be a key issue during the upcoming 2020 Presidential race. The term refers to invoices that are generated after a patient is admitted to the hospital and treated, without their knowledge, by someone not in their insurance plan. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And a recent Stanford study shows that these “surprise” bills continue to become more ubiquitous. They are up from about 33% of visits in 2010 to almost 43% in 2016. For inpatient stays, the number is even more alarming: the jump goes from 26% to 42%, with the average cost per patient rising from $804 to $2,040. It’s an issue that only adds to the overwhelming debt bubble we have again created in the U.S. 

    The opinion piece notes that these rising costs come not from hospitals, but rather from the “backwaters of the financial markets”:

    The prices of junk bonds issued by “physician services companies” have been sliding in the past month as their owners weigh the possibility and costs of political intervention. These point to the real source of the problem: private equity’s silent colonisation of parts of the healthcare profession.

    A recent paper by two US academics highlights how private equity activity has driven up the price of healthcare for American consumers. The problem is a result of “the interplay of buyout strategies (which pile leverage on to companies and emphasise financial returns) and the business of treating people, where sick patients have no power to shop around and outcomes come first,” the piece notes. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Private equity has acted as a consolidator in healthcare services, building giant physician services groups like Envision, HealthTeam and AirMedical Group. 

    Envision was a company that was flipped between public and private ownership since 2005. It employs 70,000 staff and spans services like emergency rooms, radiology and anaesthesiology. The businesses are perfect for what private equity is looking for. The academic paper states:

    “Emergency medical services are a perfect buyout target because demand is inelastic, that is it does not decline when prices go up.”

    And in addition to being inelastic, demand is robust: about 50% of medical care comes from emergency room visits.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The deals that physician service groups work out with hospitals are rarely transparent to the public. And this is probably for good reason:

    But a study by Yale University of the billing practices of EmCare, Envision’s physician staffing arm, showed that when it took over the management of emergency rooms, it nearly doubled patient charges compared with those levied by previous physician organisations.

    Which raises the question why hospitals go along with these arrangements. Well, some have struck joint-venture deals with physician companies, splitting the extra revenues these entities stick on patients. But for many, they don’t have the resources or the industry clout to combat surprise billing on their own.

    As a result, congress is now considering legislation to curb “surprise” billing in healthcare. The larger debate, as the U.S. will certainly be subjected to leading up to 2020, is whether or not private equity companies belong in the healthcare sector to begin with. Their tactics have done nothing but “give more credence to the arguments of Elizabeth Warren and others,” the piece concludes. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/08/2019 – 23:45

  • Time To Reassess CrowdStrike's Credibility
    Time To Reassess CrowdStrike’s Credibility

    Authored by Julie Kelly via The Center for American Greatness,

    Days before the Senate voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh last year, a former FBI assistant director appeared on MSNBC to suggest the Supreme Court nominee had a major credibility problem.

    “This is not…an investigation about the sexual allegations, I think it really has moved toward credibility,” Shawn Henry, an NBC News analyst, told Nicolle Wallace on October 1, 2018.

    “At this point now, there are very clear allegations, and subsequent to the judge’s testimony, people have come out who appear to be credible who…appear to be contradicting his testimony sworn before the United States Senate.”

    Henry, clearly reciting Democratic talking points to imply Kavanaugh perjured himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his September showdown with Christine Blasey Ford, also referred to Ford as a “victim” and claimed that the FBI’s investigation into Kavanaugh’s testimony had “fallen short.”

    Henry was presented to viewers as the channel’s “national security analyst,” but there was one title the network overlooked: Shawn Henry is a top executive for CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the Democratic National Committee to investigate the infamous hack of its email system in early 2016.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Perhaps not coincidentally, the firm determined that the Russians were behind the intrusion.

    CrowdStrike’s June 2016 assessment remains the sole source of evidence to supply the pretext of the government’s Russian election interference claim; later, it would help bolster the Trump-Russia collusion fable.

    The president, according to a transcript released by the White House, mentioned CrowdStrike during a phone call with the new Ukranian president over the summer. Now, the California-based company is facing renewed scrutiny both about the handling of the DNC email hack and the firm’s political affiliations. Last month, in response to questions about the firm’s clear connections to Democrats, CrowdStrike rejected accusations of bias in an FAQ posted on its website:

    CrowdStrike is not affiliated with any political party. We are a public cybersecurity company, and are non-partisan. We have done cybersecurity work for, and currently protect, both Republican and Democratic political organizations at the state, local, and federal level.”

    That may be true in the most technical sense, but there are plenty of reasons to suspect that CrowdStrike is far from a disinterested player in the impeachment drama engulfing official Washington and gaslighting the American public. And since CrowdStrike produced the single piece of evidence used in the endless feedback loop to convince Americans that the Russians breached the DNC’s email system—the party refused to surrender its email devices to the FBI—reassessing the firm’s credibility in light of new information is warranted; in fact, it’s vital.

    Henry, the president of CrowdStrike’s Washington operation, is a regular contributor to both MSNBC and NBC News programs. (His affiliation with CrowdStrike, however, is never mentioned.) Although he hasn’t worked for the FBI since 2012, Henry often weighs in as an FBI “expert,” opining on a variety of political issues from government shutdowns to the Kavanaugh debacle. Curiously, his views always come down on the side opposite of Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

    In March 2017, Henry—who worked for Robert Mueller’s FBI during Barack Obama’s first term—participated in a post-inauguration forum to discuss the implications of Russia’s “hacking” the 2016 presidential election. The panel also featured former Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and Marc Elias, the general partner at Perkins Coie, a politically-influential law firm based in D.C..

    It was a symbolic trio. Perkins Coie hired CrowdStrike in the spring of 2016 on behalf of the DNC. Instead of going directly to the FBI or other law enforcement agency about the breach, Democratic party leaders, working through Perkins Coie, retained CrowdStrike to find the culprits. Very cozy.

    But that wasn’t Perkins Coie’s only involvement in the Russia-hacked-the-election plotline. The law firm also hired Fusion GPS—who in turn hired British political operative Christopher Steele to author his infamous dossier—on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC around the same time Perkins retained CrowdStrike. According to disclosure reports, the DNC paid Perkins Coie $7.2 million during the 2016 election cycle: The PAC also paid CrowdStrike more than $400,000 during the same time period. (The DNC has paid CrowdStrike nearly $80,000 so far this year.)

    And while CrowdStrike was working for the DNC in 2016, the firm also collaborated with key officials in the Obama Justice Department as it was ramping up its investigation into Trump’s presidential campaign. During a technology conference in March 2016, CrowdStrike hosted a cyber “war game” with Obama administration officials: “Four teams of ten people met for two hours to play the game,” according to an October 2016 profile in Esquire. “[National Security Division chief] John Carlin; Chris Painter…at the State Department; and Chris Inglis, the former deputy director of the NSA, were all part of the government team. A former member of GCHQ, the British intelligence organization, was on the international team. Ash Carter, the defense secretary, arrived halfway through and asked to play, but the game was already under way.”

    Before Obama’s intelligence officials released a statement on October 7 that blamed the Russians for the DNC email breach, according to the Esquire article, Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s co-founder, was given a heads-up.

    “Alperovitch got a phone call from a senior government official alerting him that a statement identifying Russia as the sponsor of the DNC attack would soon be released. Once again, Alperovitch was thanked for pushing the government along.”

    The statement, issued by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper one month before Election Day, lifted some of the wording from CrowdStrike’s report on the DNC breach. (Again, it’s important to note that no federal agency was allowed access to the DNC email servers; all evidence of Russian hacking came directly from CrowdStrike.)

    Further, according to reporting by Michael Tracey, CrowdStrike had a contract with the FBI for $150,000 between July 2015 and July 2016 for unknown services.

    Interesting.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    So, to summarize, at the same time Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS to dig up Russia-related dirt on Donald Trump, it hired CrowdStrike to investigate the hack of the DNC email systems. CrowdStrike, also at the same time, was working with the Obama Justice Department as the agency began investigating Trump campaign aides for suspected “collusion” with the Kremlin.

    Even if one accepts those connections as standard Washington operating procedure, Henry’s political commentary should be enough to give more fair-minded observers pause about his company’s objectivity. In August, Henry appeared on Andrea Mitchell’s MSNBC show to push for stricter gun control in the aftermath of the El Paso mass shooting. “There’s a whole host of things that need to be done to change the climate, background investigations, background checks, will keep guns out of the hands of bad people,” Henry said on August 8. “But there’s a lot more that needs to be done in order to successfully mitigate what we’ve seen here over the past few years.” Yes, because mass shootings only started happening after Bad Orange Man was elected.

    Last January, during the government shutdown, Henry warned that the move was affecting the “morale” of the FBI and threatened national security. “These operations are being impacted and that is a risk to the American public, it’s a risk to this country and it is absolutely a national security challenge,” Henry told MSNBC’s Brian Williams on January 23.

    Henry also lamented the climate at the FBI after the arrest of the so-called package bomber Casar Sayoc last year. “What the FBI has gone through has been some morale issues of course with a lot of the language that’s been out there,” Henry said on the “Today” show on October 27, 2018. The language, it’s safe to assume, was criticism by President Trump, congressional Republicans and conservative media about the FBI’s activities in 2016 and 2017.

    Trump foes dismiss any scrutiny of CrowdStrike as part of a “conspiracy theory.” But the tangled web between CrowdStrike, Democratic operatives, the Trump-hating media and the Obama Justice Department isn’t a theory, it is fact. And since the firm played a critical early role in planting the Russia collusion hoax, Trump and his allies are right to raise more questions.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/08/2019 – 23:25

    Tags

  • Rail Recession: Carloads Tumble To Thee-Year Lows Amid Manufacturing Implosion
    Rail Recession: Carloads Tumble To Thee-Year Lows Amid Manufacturing Implosion

    As manufacturing plummets to the weakest levels since September 2009 and new export orders collapse, the US railroad industry has jus seen carload volumes tumble to three-year lows, according to a weekly report from the Association of American Railroads (AAR), first reported by Bloomberg on Monday. 

    AAR’s report showed a decline in carloads for 3Q19, down 5.5%, and one of the most significant drops in three years, indicating that the US economy continues to decelerate into year-end. Most of the shipment declines were seen in autos, coal, grain, chemicals, and consumer goods, but there was a small improvement in crude oil shipments.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bloomberg blames the trade war between the US and China for the rail recession. 

    “What’s quite clear is that we’re not yet at a trough. Trains have not yet bottomed,” said Ben Hartford, an analyst with Robert W. Baird & Co. “We need to have some clarity in trade policy.”

    The manufacturing recession is more widespread than the mid-cycle slowdowns in 2012 and 2015/16. The slowdown has been concentrated in manufacturing for well over a year, driven by a downturn in business investments in 2019. 

    The rail slowdown is a direct result of a manufacturing recession. As of last week, there is an indication that the downturn has spilled over into service sector output and employment.

    Now, “there are no pockets of growth,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Lee Klaskow, who said a “railroad recession” could be imminent in a recent report. “There’s really nothing that’s tapping me on the shoulder saying, ‘Hey look at me. I’m going to be your next growth engine.'” 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Klaskow said, a rail recession isn’t a sign that a full-blown recession is imminent, but as we said a little bit ago, the slowdown has spilled over into services and employment, which could mean a much broader slowdown is already here. 

    Last Friday, we outlined how class 8 orders crashed 71% in September, reaching 12,600 units. This makes September the 11th consecutive month of YoY order declines and the 9th consecutive month of orders below 20,000.

    Class 8 orders, otherwise known as heavy-duty trucks, are often seen as a pulse on the US economy. That can also be said for rail.  

    “That’s the risk at this point in time, that the consumer does begin to show impacts from the pain that we see on the manufacturing side,” Hartford said. As for rail freight, “when is it going to turn? I honestly have no idea.”

    And we can answer Hartford’s question above: There are no indications that manufacturing will trough and turn higher this year – the deceleration should continue through year-end. This means a growth scare for the US economy is imminent, and or has already been triggered with the recent deluge of awful manufacturing and non-manufacturing data points. 


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/08/2019 – 23:05

  • John Lennon Vs. The Deep State: One Man Against The "Monster"
    John Lennon Vs. The Deep State: One Man Against The “Monster”

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “You gotta remember, establishment, it’s just a name for evil. The monster doesn’t care whether it kills all the students or whether there’s a revolution. It’s not thinking logically, it’s out of control.”—John Lennon (1969)

    John Lennon, born 79 years ago on October 9, 1940, was a musical genius and pop cultural icon.

    He was also a vocal peace protester and anti-war activist and a high-profile example of the lengths to which the Deep State will go to persecute those who dare to challenge its authority.

    Long before Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning were being castigated for blowing the whistle on the government’s war crimes and the National Security Agency’s abuse of its surveillance powers, it was Lennon who was being singled out for daring to speak truth to power about the government’s warmongering, his phone calls monitored and data files illegally collected on his activities and associations.

    For a while, at least, Lennon became enemy number one in the eyes of the U.S. government.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Years after Lennon’s assassination it would be revealed that the FBI had collected 281 pages of files on him, including song lyrics. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI at the time, directed the agency to spy on the musician. There were also various written orders calling on government agents to frame Lennon for a drug bust.

    “The FBI’s files on Lennon … read like the writings of a paranoid goody-two-shoes,” observed reporter Jonathan Curiel.

    As the New York Times notes, “Critics of today’s domestic surveillance object largely on privacy grounds. They have focused far less on how easily government surveillance can become an instrument for the people in power to try to hold on to power. ‘The U.S. vs. John Lennon’ … is the story not only of one man being harassed, but of a democracy being undermined.”

    Indeed, all of the many complaints we have about government today – surveillance, militarism, corruption, harassment, SWAT team raids, political persecution, spying, overcriminalization, etc. – were present in Lennon’s day and formed the basis of his call for social justice, peace and a populist revolution.

    For all of these reasons, the U.S. government was obsessed with Lennon, who had learned early on that rock music could serve a political end by proclaiming a radical message. More importantly, Lennon saw that his music could mobilize the public and help to bring about change. Lennon believed in the power of the people. Unfortunately, as Lennon recognized: “The trouble with government as it is, is that it doesn’t represent the people. It controls them.”

    However, as Martin Lewis writing for Time notes: “John Lennon was not God. But he earned the love and admiration of his generation by creating a huge body of work that inspired and led. The appreciation for him deepened because he then instinctively decided to use his celebrity as a bully pulpit for causes greater than his own enrichment or self-aggrandizement.”

    For instance, in December 1971 at a concert in Ann Arbor, Mich., Lennon took to the stage and in his usual confrontational style belted out “John Sinclair,” a song he had written about a man sentenced to 10 years in prison for possessing two marijuana cigarettes. Within days of Lennon’s call for action, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered Sinclair released.

    What Lennon did not know at the time was that government officials had been keeping strict tabs on the ex-Beatle they referred to as “Mr. Lennon.” Incredibly, FBI agents were in the audience at the Ann Arbor concert, “taking notes on everything from the attendance (15,000) to the artistic merits of his new song.”

    The U.S. government, steeped in paranoia, was spying on Lennon.

    By March 1971, when his “Power to the People” single was released, it was clear where Lennon stood. Having moved to New York City that same year, Lennon was ready to participate in political activism against the U. S. government, the “monster” that was financing the war in Vietnam.

    The release of Lennon’s Sometime in New York City album, which contained a radical anti-government message in virtually every song and depicted President Richard Nixon and Chinese Chairman Mao Tse-tung dancing together nude on the cover, only fanned the flames of the conflict to come.

    The official U.S. war against Lennon began in earnest in 1972 after rumors surfaced that Lennon planned to embark on a U.S. concert tour that would combine rock music with antiwar organizing and voter registration. Nixon, fearing Lennon’s influence on about 11 million new voters (1972 was the first year that 18-year-olds could vote), had the ex-Beatle served with deportation orders “in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement.”

    Then again, the FBI has had a long history of persecuting, prosecuting and generally harassing activists, politicians, and cultural figures. Most notably among the latter are such celebrated names as folk singer Pete Seeger, painter Pablo Picasso, comic actor and filmmaker Charlie Chaplin, comedian Lenny Bruce and poet Allen Ginsberg.

    Among those most closely watched by the FBI was Martin Luther King Jr., a man labeled by the FBI as “the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country.” With wiretaps and electronic bugs planted in his home and office, King was kept under constant surveillance by the FBI with the aim of “neutralizing” him. He even received letters written by FBI agents suggesting that he either commit suicide or the details of his private life would be revealed to the public. The FBI kept up its pursuit of King until he was felled by a hollow-point bullet to the head in 1968.

    While Lennon was not—as far as we know—being blackmailed into suicide, he was the subject of a four-year campaign of surveillance and harassment by the U.S. government (spearheaded by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover), an attempt by President Richard Nixon to have him “neutralized” and deported. As Adam Cohen of the New York Times points out, “The F.B.I.’s surveillance of Lennon is a reminder of how easily domestic spying can become unmoored from any legitimate law enforcement purpose. What is more surprising, and ultimately more unsettling, is the degree to which the surveillance turns out to have been intertwined with electoral politics.”

    As Lennon’s FBI file shows, memos and reports about the FBI’s surveillance of the anti-war activist had been flying back and forth between Hoover, the Nixon White House, various senators, the FBI and the U.S. Immigration Office.

    Nixon’s pursuit of Lennon was relentless and in large part based on the misperception that Lennon and his comrades were planning to disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention. The government’s paranoia, however, was misplaced.

    Left-wing activists who were on government watch lists and who shared an interest in bringing down the Nixon Administration had been congregating at Lennon’s New York apartment. But when they revealed that they were planning to cause a riot, Lennon balked. As he recounted in a 1980 interview, “We said, We ain’t buying this. We’re not going to draw children into a situation to create violence so you can overthrow what? And replace it with what? . . . It was all based on this illusion, that you can create violence and overthrow what is, and get communism or get some right-wing lunatic or a left-wing lunatic. They’re all lunatics.”

    Despite the fact that Lennon was not part of the “lunatic” plot, the government persisted in its efforts to have him deported. Equally determined to resist, Lennon dug in and fought back. Every time he was ordered out of the country, his lawyers delayed the process by filing an appeal. Finally, in 1976, Lennon won the battle to stay in the country when he was granted a green card. As he said afterwards, “I have a love for this country…. This is where the action is. I think we’ll just go home, open a tea bag, and look at each other.” 

    Lennon’s time of repose didn’t last long, however. By 1980, he had re-emerged with a new album and plans to become politically active again.

    The old radical was back and ready to cause trouble. In his final interview on Dec. 8, 1980, Lennon mused, “The whole map’s changed and we’re going into an unknown future, but we’re still all here, and while there’s life there’s hope.”

    The Deep State has a way of dealing with troublemakers, unfortunately. On Dec. 8, 1980, Mark David Chapman was waiting in the shadows when Lennon returned to his New York apartment building. As Lennon stepped outside the car to greet the fans congregating outside, Chapman, in an eerie echo of the FBI’s moniker for Lennon, called out, “Mr. Lennon!”

    Lennon turned and was met with a barrage of gunfire as Chapman—dropping into a two-handed combat stance—emptied his .38-caliber pistol and pumped four hollow-point bullets into his back and left arm. Lennon stumbled, staggered forward and, with blood pouring from his mouth and chest, collapsed to the ground.

    John Lennon was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. He had finally been “neutralized.”

    Yet where those who neutralized the likes of John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy and others go wrong is in believing that you can murder a movement with a bullet and a madman.

    Thankfully, Lennon’s legacy lives on in his words, his music and his efforts to speak truth to power. As Yoko Ono shared in a 2014 letter to the parole board tasked with determining whether Chapman should be released: “A man of humble origin, [John Lennon] brought light and hope to the whole world with his words and music. He tried to be a good power for the world, and he was. He gave encouragement, inspiration and dreams to people regardless of their race, creed and gender.”

    Sadly, not much has changed for the better in the world since Lennon walked among us.

    Peace remains out of reach. Activism and whistleblowers continue to be prosecuted for challenging the government’s authority. Militarism is on the rise, with local police dressed like the military, all the while the governmental war machine continues to wreak havoc on innocent lives across the globe. Just recently, for example, U.S. military forces carried out drone strikes in Afghanistan that killed 30 pine nut farmers.

    For those of us who joined with John Lennon to imagine a world of peace, it’s getting harder to reconcile that dream with the reality of the American police state.

    Meanwhile, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, those who dare to speak up are labeled dissidents, troublemakers, terrorists, lunatics, or mentally ill and tagged for surveillance, censorship, involuntary detention or, worse, even shot and killed in their own homes by militarized police.

    As Lennon shared in a 1968 interview:

    “I think all our society is run by insane people for insane objectives… I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal means. If anybody can put on paper what our government and the American government and the Russian… Chinese… what they are actually trying to do, and what they think they’re doing, I’d be very pleased to know what they think they’re doing. I think they’re all insane. But I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.”

    So what’s the answer?

    Lennon had a multitude of suggestions.

    “If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there’d be peace.”

    “War is over if you want it.”

    “Produce your own dream…. It’s quite possible to do anything, but not to put it on the leaders…. You have to do it yourself. That’s what the great masters and mistresses have been saying ever since time began. They can point the way, leave signposts and little instructions in various books that are now called holy and worshipped for the cover of the book and not for what it says, but the instructions are all there for all to see, have always been and always will be. There’s nothing new under the sun. All the roads lead to Rome. And people cannot provide it for you. I can’t wake you up. You can wake you up. I can’t cure you. You can cure you.”

    “Peace is not something you wish for; It’s something you make, Something you do, Something you are, And something you give away.”

    “If you want peace, you won’t get it with violence.”

    And my favorite advice of all:

    “Say you want a revolution / We better get on right away / Well you get on your feet / And out on the street / Singing power to the people.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/08/2019 – 22:45

    Tags

  • "Liberate Hong Kong" – Blizzard Goes Berserk On Gamer For Hong Kong Support, Pulls Cash Prize
    “Liberate Hong Kong” – Blizzard Goes Berserk On Gamer For Hong Kong Support, Pulls Cash Prize

    Hong Kong player Chung “blitzchung” Ng Waig, a Hearthstone Grandmaster, appeared over the weekend on an official Taiwanese Hearthstone live stream for a post-game wrap-up, wearing protestor attire, the same attire that would be found at the Hong Kong riots, reported Kotaku

    During the live stream, he screamed in Chinese: “Liberate Hong Kong, a revolution of our age!”

    The live stream hosts immediately cut the feed, and it was reported shortly thereafter that game developer Blizzard, pulled blitzchung’s cash winnings to avoid controversy in China. 

    As soon as blitzchung made the pro-Hong Kong protest statement, the hosts of the live stream hid under a desk.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One of the hosts said, “Ok, that’s it, Blitz bro,” as the production team killed blitzchung’s feed — and the live stream shortly ended with a commercial break. 

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

    Blizzard knew severe political consequences were ahead in China if it allowed blitzchung to go unpunished.

    The game developer issued a statement shortly after the incident that said blitzchung violated a competition rule, which states:

    2019 HEARTHSTONE® GRANDMASTERS OFFICIAL COMPETITION RULES v1.4 p.12, Section 6.1 (o)

    Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image will result in removal from Grandmasters and reduction of the player’s prize total to $0 USD, in addition to other remedies which may be provided for under the Handbook and Blizzard’s Website Terms.

    Blizard said the player had been removed as a Grandmaster from the game, his cash prize, and participation in Hearthstone esports will be suspended “for 12 months beginning from Oct. 5th, 2019, and extending to Oct. 5th, 2020”.

    Blizzard also said they terminated the hosts of the official Taiwanese Hearthstone live stream. 

    “While we stand by one’s right to express individual thoughts and opinions, players and other participants that elect to participate in our esports competitions must abide by the official competition rules,” the statement said.

    This comes at a time when Hong Kong protests intensified over the weekend. Protesters took to the streets on Saturday and Sunday in another round of violent clashes with police. 

    It’s already been a rocky start to the week for anyone speaking their minds on Hong Kong. 

    We reported earlier on Tuesday, China’s state broadcaster, CCTV, canceled broadcasts of NBA games in China after Daryl Morey tweeted (then swiftly deleted) a message of support for the Hong Kong protesters.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/08/2019 – 22:25

  • Ripple CEO: Facebook's Libra Will Not Launch Before 2023
    Ripple CEO: Facebook’s Libra Will Not Launch Before 2023

    Authored by William Suberg via CoinTelegraph.com,

    Brad Garlinghouse, the CEO of blockchain payments network Ripple, thinks that Facebook will fail to launch its Libra digital currency before 2023. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

    Garlinghouse bets on a 3-year Libra delay

    Speaking in an interview with Fortune on Oct. 7, Brad Garlinghouse argued that regulatory pushback would continue to plague the project that was only announced in June, noting:

    “I would bet that Libra… let’s say, by the end of 2022, I think Libra will not have launched.”

    Garlinghouse also noted various problems governments have raised with Facebook around the world over its digital currency plans.

    As Cointelegraph reported, it was Germany’s finance minister who most recently vented concerns, arguing that money issuance should remain in the hands of the state.

    Tim Cook, the CEO of Applesaid likewise on Oct. 4, adding that the tech giant would not follow Facebook’s lead.

    Facebook left with fewer allies

    “I think maybe it would have been better received if Facebook had not been the point of the arrow,” Garlinghouse continued. He added that regulators likely saw Libra as a Facebook project.

    The comments come after a particularly tough week for Facebook’s Libra Association, the nonprofit behind the project. On Friday, PayPal, one of its major backers, pulled out of participation altogether, citing worries that its own reputation would suffer.

    “We remain supportive of Libra’s aspirations and look forward to continued dialogue on ways to work together in the future,” a representative of the firm told Cointelegraph.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/08/2019 – 22:05

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 8th October 2019

  • Goldman Believes Johnson Can Still Pull Off Last-Minute Brexit Deal
    Goldman Believes Johnson Can Still Pull Off Last-Minute Brexit Deal

    Analysts at Goldman have been assiduously tracking ‘Brexit’ odds, and with the uproar over Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s alternative Brexit plan this week, the bank’s Brexit team has published a new note laying out the various alternatives for how the Brexit drama might play out over the coming weeks.

    In terms of the final outcome, the bank’s odds haven’t changed much:  Goldman’s team of analysts still believe that the most likely outcome (60%) is for the UK and EU to agree on a deal before Oct. 31. Next up? Another delay – the ‘no Brexit at all’ option – to which the analysts assigned odds of 25%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The least likely outcome (15%), despite all of the handwringing and hysteria in Parliament, is a ‘no deal’ Brexit on Oct. 31, as most expect the Commons will find some way to force Johnson to comply with a law requiring him to request a delay if a Brexit deal isn’t reached by mid-October.

    Their biggest cause for optimism is their belief that Johnson’s deal, contentious as it may be, will serve as the basis for a final deal with the EU27.

    According to PM Johnson’s latest Brexit proposals, Northern Ireland (NI) and Great Britain (GB) would both leave the EU’s customs union, but NI would remain aligned with EU regulations on all goods and agri-foods. This plan would necessitate customs checks on North-South trade and regulatory checks on East-West trade, with the former taking place away from the frontier and the latter subject to re-approval by the Northern Ireland Assembly every four years. In most other respects, PM Johnson’s Brexit proposals resemble the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated between the UK and the EU under former Prime Minister Theresa May.

    The customs checks proposed between Northern Ireland and Ireland are contentious because they repudiate the joint commitment made in December 2017 to avoid “a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls” on the island of Ireland.

    The mechanism for approval by the NI Assembly is contentious because, at least on current proposals, the DUP would have an effective veto over Northern Ireland’s position in the EU’s single market. Any such veto would be unacceptable to Ireland, not least because it risks hardening the North-South regulatory border in the future.

    Johnson’s plan, as the analysts observe, strikes a compromise between two proposals: “The Northern Ireland-Only Backstop” (which was rejected by the Commons) and the “Brady Amendment”, which was rejected by the EU27.

    Because of this, they believe both sides have room for compromise.

    We think there is political space for further compromise. PM Johnson was careful to present last week’s proposals as an opening offer rather than an ultimatum. First, the NI consent mechanism could be re-configured to remove any single party’s potential veto power. Second, the implementation period preceding any new customs arrangements could be extended, well beyond the end of 2020. Third, if a backstop were to be reinserted into current proposals, that backstop could be covered by a time limit together with the principle of consent, in order to allay concerns that NI might be permanently excluded from the customs territory inhabited by the rest of the UK.

    In our view, a mutually acceptable compromise could include NI (not UK) membership of the “facilitated customs arrangement” proposed in the Political Declaration advocated by PM May, with the default position beneath Stormont’s consent mechanism implying ongoing NI membership of EU (not UK) regulatory rules. Taking a longer view, it is important to note that the current UK government seems intent on: (i) leaving the EU “whole and entire”, (ii) pursuing an independent trade policy, and (iii) respecting the peace process in Northern Ireland. These three objectives imply that – sooner or later – the UK and the EU must negotiate a practical solution to allow two customs territories to co-exist on the island of Ireland. That solution is likely to rely on the reconciliation of two different interpretations of the Good Friday Agreement.

    And Johnson’s ability to shift the DUP’s position ever-so-slightly from opposing to accepting regulatory checks suggests that the PM would be able to sell a backstop-compromise deal to Parliament if it truly comes down to ‘this deal or no Brexit at all’.

    PM Johnson has managed to shift the DUP from a position in which they oppose any checks of any kind between GB and NI, to a position in which they accept regulatory checks but oppose customs checks on East-West trade. If the DUP agree to the EU’s counter-offer, we think the majority of the Eurosceptics in the Conservative Party will follow suit. If the existing Political Declaration is also enhanced to include commitments to uphold workers’ rights and maintain existing environmental standards, we think a clutch of Labour MPs from “Leave” constituencies will also be incentivised to vote in favour of a Brexit deal.

    Of course, any keen observer of the Brexit process would have some thoughts on the possibility of a snap election. Goldman believes Parliament ultimately won’t brook the risk that an election returns a Johnson-led majority in favor of a no-deal exit. Polls suggest this is a real possibility (even if the perception from all of the media coverage might suggest that the conservatives would be in for a serious electoral beatdown).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For Johnson, the key to securing a deal, according to Goldman, is fanning the perception that no-deal is a real possibility. Thanks to the Benn Act (the law that was passed by last month by a ‘rebel alliance’ of MPs), Johnson will be legally compelled to request an extension if there’s no deal by Oct. 19. Goldman’s analysts are skeptical that Johnson will be able to find a legal loophole…but this must continue to seem like a real possibility for Europe.

    But if Johnson has any trouble winning support for whatever compromise agreement is hammered out with the EU, a legal challenge to the Benn Act could help Johnson give Parliament the impression that its only choices are ‘Johnson’s deal’ or ‘no deal’. Which might be enough to convince any remaining Tory holdouts.


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/08/2019 – 02:45

  • "World Take Note!" – Genocide Of Christians In Nigeria Escalates
    “World Take Note!” – Genocide Of Christians In Nigeria Escalates

    Authored by Raymond Ibrahim via The Gatestone Institute,

    Muhammadu Buhari, the Muslim president of Nigeria – who reached that position in part thanks to former US President Barack H. Obamacontinues to fuel the “genocide” of Christians in his nation, according to Nigerian Christian leaders.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Most recently, Father Valentine Obinna, a priest of the Aba diocese of Nigeria, attributed the ongoing slaughter of Christians to the planned “Islamization of Nigeria”:

    People read the handwriting on the wall. It’s obvious. It’s underground. It’s trying to make the whole country a Muslim country. But they are trying to do that in a context with a strong presence of Christians, and that’s why it becomes very difficult for him [Buhari].”

    Nigeria is roughly half Muslim, half Christian. A 2011 ABC News report offers context on when and why Muslim anger reached a boiling point:

    The current wave of [Muslim] riots was triggered by the Independent National Election Commission’s (INEC) announcement on Monday [April 18, 2011] that the incumbent President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan [a Christian], won in the initial round of ballot counts. That there were riots in the largely Muslim inhabited northern states where the defeat of the Muslim candidate Muhammadu Buhari was intolerable, was unsurprising. Northerners [Muslims] felt they were entitled to the presidency for the declared winner, President Jonathan, [who] assumed leadership after the Muslim president, Umaru Yar’Adua died in office last year and radical groups in the north [Boko Haram] had seen his [Jonathan’s] ascent as a temporary matter to be corrected at this year’s election. Now they are angry despite experts and observers concurring that this is the fairest and most independent election in recent Nigerian history.

    Between 2011 and 2015, Boko Haram – a jihadi group that committed ISIS-types of atrocities even before ISIS came into being — terrorized and slaughtered thousands of Christians, particularly those living in the Muslim-majority north. In 2015, Nigeria’s Muslims finally got what they wanted: a Muslim president in the person of Muhammadu Buhari. The violence, however, only got worse. Muslim Fulani herdsmen – the ethnic tribe from which Buhari hails – joined and even surpassed Boko Haram in their slaughter of Christians.

    Between June 2017 and June 2018 alone, Muslim Fulani slaughtered approximately 9,000 Christians and destroyed at least a thousand churches. (It took three times longer for the Fulani to kill a fraction [1,484] of Christians under Jonathan’s presidency.) In just the first six months of this year, 52 lethal terror attacks targeting Christian villages occurred.

    “Nearly every single day, I wake up with text messages from partners in Nigeria, such as this morning: ‘Herdsmen stab 49-year-old farmer to death in Ogan,'” human rights lawyer Ann Buwalda said in July.

    Whenever the mainstream media touches on the violence wracking Nigeria, it repeats what Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson, claimed after a church was bombed, leaving nearly 40 Christian worshippers dead on Easter Sunday, 2012.

    “I want to take this opportunity,” Carson said, “to stress one key point and that is that religion is not driving extremist violence” in Nigeria.

    As Sister Monica Chikwe recently explained, however:

    “It’s tough to tell Nigerian Christians this isn’t a religious conflict since what they see are Fulani fighters clad entirely in black, chanting ‘Allahu Akbar!’ and screaming ‘Death to Christians.'”

    Similarly, the Christian Association of Nigeria asked:

    “How can it be a [secular or economic] clash when one group [Muslims] is persistently attacking, killing, maiming, destroying, and the other group [Christians] is persistently being killed, maimed and their places of worship destroyed?”

    In short, Christians are being targeted by Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen because, to quote Fr. Valentine Obinna, President Buhari and his Muslim cabinet “want to make sure the whole country becomes a Muslim country,”

    As the following quotes make clear, Fr. Obinna is not alone in accusing President Buhari of clandestinely fueling his Fulani clansmen’s jihad against Christians:

    • “[T]he Muslim president [Buhari] has only awarded the murderers with impunity rather than justice and has staffed his government with Islamic officials, while doing essentially nothing to give the nation’s Christians, who make up half the population, due representation….. Hundreds of indigenous Numan Christians in Adamawa state were attacked and killed by jihadist Fulani herdsmen. When they tried to defend themselves the Buhari govt. sent in the Airforce to bomb hundreds of them and protect the Fulani aggressors. Is this fair? WORLD TAKE NOTE!” — former Minister of Aviation, Femi Fani-Kayode, 2017 (caps in original; see here too).

    • “Under President Buhari, the murderous Fulani herdsmen enjoyed unprecedented protection and favoritism… Rather than arrest and prosecute the Fulani herdsmen, security forces usually manned by Muslims from the North offer them protection as they unleash terror with impunity on the Nigerian people.” — Rev. Musa Asake, the General Secretary of the Christian Association of Nigeria, 2018.

    • Buhari “is himself from the jihadists’ Fulani tribe, so what can you expect?” — Emmanuel Ogebe, Washington DC-based human rights lawyer, in conversation with Gatestone, 2018.

    • “They want to strike Christians, and the government does nothing to stop them, because President Buhari is also of the Fulani ethnic group.” — Bishop Matthew Ishaya Audu of Lafia, 2018.

    • Buhari “is openly pursuing an anti-Christian agenda that has resulted in countless murders of Christians all over the nation and destruction of vulnerable Christian communities.” — Bosun Emmanuel, the secretary of the National Christian Elders Forum, 2018.

    While acknowledging President Buhari’s role, the National Christian Elders Forum has been more direct concerning the ultimate source of violence in Nigeria:

    “JIHAD has been launched in Nigeria by the Islamists of northern Nigeria led by the Fulani ethnic group. This Jihad is based on the Doctrine of Hate taught in Mosques and Islamic Madrasas in northern Nigeria as well as the supremacist ideology of the Fulani. Using both conventional (violent) Jihad, and stealth (civilization) Jihad, the Islamists of northern Nigeria seem determined to turn Nigeria into an Islamic Sultanate and replace Liberal Democracy with Sharia as the National Ideology. … We want a Nigeria, where citizens are treated equally before the law at all levels….”

    Although Christians were only recently the majority of Nigeria’s population, the ongoing genocide against them has caused their population to drop – to the point that Christianity in Nigeria is, according to the National Christian Elders Forum, “on the brink of extinction,” thanks to “the ascendancy of Sharia ideology in Nigeria [which] rings the death toll for the Nigerian Church.”

    Such is the current state of affairs: a jihad of genocidal proportions has been declared on the Christian population of Nigeria — and according to Nigerian Christian leaders, spearheaded by that nation’s president and his fellow Fulani tribesmen — even as Western media and analysts present Nigeria’s problems as products of economics — or “inequality” and “poverty,” to quote former US President Bill Clinton on the supposedly true source that is “fueling all this stuff.”


    Tyler Durden

    Tue, 10/08/2019 – 02:00

  • Democracy Is Now A Hindrance To The Imperial State
    Democracy Is Now A Hindrance To The Imperial State

    Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

    Democracy is the coat of paint applied for PR purposes to the Imperial State.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    If we step back from the histrionics of impeachment and indeed, the past four years of political circus, we have to wonder if America’s democracy is little more than an elaborate simulation, a counterfeit democracy that matches our counterfeit capitalism (Matt Stoller’s term).

    If we review the mechanics of our “democracy,” we find that swapping which party controls Congress doesn’t really change the policies of The Imperial State, the central state that oversees America’s global commercial and geopolitical empire.

    Next, consider the high return rate of incumbents. Once in power, politicos can skim the millions of dollars in campaign contributions needed to win re-election.

    Then there’s the some are more equal than others nature of the judicial system that serves the interests of financial and political elites: Bernie Madoff was free to continue his Ponzi scheme for years despite whistleblower attempts to instigate a federal investigation, and pedophile /schmoozer / “intelligence agency asset” Jeffrey Epstein was free to exploit underage teens and pile up $200 million after a wrist-slap conviction.

    The corporate mass media is the PR machine for the Imperial State. If the state seeks to sell the public a war of choice, the media dutifully pounds the drums of war. If the Imperial State decides to disempower a president or other elected official, the media will hound the elected official until he/she is disgraced or buried, too busy fighting off the ceaseless media propaganda to function. The mass media excels at ruthlessly mocking political targets, reducing their stature in the public eye and undermining their “soft power.”

    As for presidents: as long as the prez follows the Imperial minders’ orders, everything will be fine. Cross the minders and you’re out. The perfect presidential candidate from the perspective of the Eastern Establishment / National Security State was Bush I: Eastern Establishment blue-blood, Yale, combat military service, and stints in high offices, including high-level diplomacy and the CIA.

    Bush I famously lacked “the vision thing,” but presidents only need “the vision thing” during the campaign–witness Obama’s “hope and change” slogan. Once elected, they just need to follow the Imperial script, which includes a permanent PR campaign touting “democracy” as a necessary facade for the actual workings of the Imperial State.

    Bush I was the ideal Imperial State president because he understood the need for the velvet glove of diplomacy, the most important element of which is an orchestrated demonstration of Imperial restraint. This also includes healthy dollops of PR about the sanctity of our alliances, which are heavily promoted as the acme of win-win cooperation, etc. He also understood the essential role of America’s commercial Empire: the US dollar, US banking and US corporate interests around the world.

    Imperial State handlers cannot tolerate loose-cannon presidents, those who keep their own council and who act outside the “recommended guidelines,” for example, trying to make peace with rivals and enemies that the Imperial State cultivates as “enemies” for its own purposes.

    John F. Kennedy appeared to be the ideal Imperial State president: wealthy Eastern Establishment, Harvard, combat military service, informal diplomatic experience via his father’s connections, an enthusiastic supporter of the Imperial State’s Cold War and a youthful politician with superb communication skills who the mass media fell for hook, line and sinker.

    Once Kennedy soured on the CIA, things got dicey. The ideal president quickly became less ideal as his independence grew.

    The Imperial State and mass media always feared and hated Richard Nixon, a poker player who kept his cards hidden and who surrounded himself with loyalists and outsiders, a rogue politician who could upstage the Imperial State’s agenda by private diplomacy (opening relations with China) or expanding wars of choice (the invasion of Cambodia).

    Nixon’s cabinet was well-stocked with Establishment pros, but they were largely figureheads when it came to the bold private diplomatic moves Nixon favored. In other words, Nixon was the Imperial State’s nightmare president.

    Just to show that the Imperial State plays no favorites in party affiliations, the State and its media organs also hated Jimmy Carter, another independent who wandered outside the “recommended guidelines” and had to be destroyed via endless mockery and the undermining of his initiatives.

    (Maintaining the circus entertainment of party politics is a core function of the mass media.)

    The Imperial State was deeply distrustful of Reagan, hence the constant media mockery and the attempt to unseat him via the Iran-Contra Affair. But Reagan was smart enough to surround himself with insiders (Cap Weinberger, James Baker et al.) and popular enough to fend off the constant media attacks, much to the media’s intense frustration (hence their mocking description of Reagan as the “Teflon president.” How dare he survive our campaign to undermine and destroy him!)

    Bush II was no Bush I, but he followed orders and never strayed from the “recommended guidelines.” The same can be said of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, telegenic communicators in the Kennedy mold.

    Needless to say, the Imperial State and its media organs loathe Trump, the loosest cannon imaginable. Hillary Clinton had proven herself a reliable water carrier for the Imperial State, and so her election was elaborately planned and staged: potentially loose cannon Bernie Sanders was shivved in the primaries by the Democratic Party, and the champagne was chilled for Hillary’s victory.

    Alas, the party was crashed in a most unforgivable fashion, and the Imperial State’s war on Trump has been unremitting and ham-handedly obvious.

    Democracy is the coat of paint applied for PR purposes to the Imperial State. “Democracy” is only tolerated if it follows the approved script. The Republic is good PR, but the Empire makes the rules and the scripts that elected officials follow, and woe to anyone who wins an election they were supposed to lose or who strays too far from the “recommended guidelines.” (Imperial enemies must remain enemies until the Empire decides otherwise.)

    Democracy has always been a “problem” for the Imperial State to manage, but now it is a hindrance to Imperial pretensions and power that is setting up an existential crisis unlike any other in American history.

    *  *  *

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


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/07/2019 – 23:45

    Tags

  • Crisis In The Skies: 2019 Airline Bankruptcies On Pace For "Fastest Growth" In History
    Crisis In The Skies: 2019 Airline Bankruptcies On Pace For “Fastest Growth” In History

    As macroeconomic headwinds develop in the global economy, something odd, but not really surprising, is occurring: the bankruptcy rate for airliners across the world is exploding, at a pace never seen before, reported Reuters, citing a new report from the International Bureau of Aviation (IBA). 

    Airline bankruptcies generally start to gain pace right before an economic downturn, and during a recession, which means the latest surge in bankruptcies, from companies like India’s Jet Airways, British travel group Thomas Cook and Avianca of Brazil, suggests 2020 could be a disastrous year for the global economy. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    IBA states, “2019 has seen the fastest growth in airline failure in history,” with about 17 carriers filing for bankruptcy protection as of Sept. 

    With peak summer travel season winding down, many airliners are dealing with high debt loads, earnings deterioration, dwindling cash, higher fuel costs, a stronger dollar, and global economic turmoil that is squeezing the most vulnerable carriers. 

    “The last quarter of the year tends to see more failures during the northern hemisphere winter,” Phil Seymour, IBA’s chief executive, told Reuters. 

    Seymour said the strong dollar had severely damaged emerging market carriers. 

    Reuters notes that the series of bankruptcies has helped cash-strapped carriers acquire planes and airport slots at heavily discounted prices. 

    France’s Aigle Azur and XL Airways, Germania, Flybmi, and Adria of Slovenia, are some of the carriers that filed for bankruptcy this week. 

    With the Boeing 737 MAX fleet grounded, cash-strapped carriers have been exploring substitutes, and it’s the bankrupted carriers’ fleets that those companies are seeking to acquire. 

    Irish low-cost carrier Ryanair has been dealing with financial distress tied to the grounding of the MAX. The carrier decided to acquire Airbus A-320s that were previously leased by bankrupted Thomas Cook, as a substitute for the MAX. 

    “Opportunities crop up out of things like the failure of Thomas Cook,” Ryanair group CEO Michael O’Leary told Reuters. 

    “We’re talking to a number of the leasing companies about taking some of those Airbus aircraft and putting them into Lauda next summer,” he said.

    And judging by the Reuters Global Airline Index, the industry has been in a downturn since the start of 2018.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Reuters Global Airline Index topped out in late 4Q17, several months before JPMorgan Global Manufacturing PMI peaked at the beginning of 1Q18. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    With a global economy expected to weaken through year-end, more airline carriers will likely file for bankruptcy protection. Just imagine what will happen to the industry if a worldwide trade recession starts next year.

     


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/07/2019 – 23:25

  • How Washington's Food Subsidies Have Helped Make Americans Fat And Sick
    How Washington’s Food Subsidies Have Helped Make Americans Fat And Sick

    Via Ammo.com,

    Farm subsidies are perhaps the ultimate, but secret, third rail of American politics. While entitlements are discussed out in the open, farm subsidies are rarely talked about – even though they are the most expensive subsidy Washington doles out.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    All told, the U.S. government spends $20 billion annually on farm subsidies, with approximately 39 percent of all farms receiving some sort of subsidy. For comparison, the oil industry gets about $4.6 billion annually and annual housing subsidies total another $15 billion. A significant portion of this $20 billion goes not to your local family farm, but to Big Aggie.

    (Note that this $20 billion annual farm subsidy figure doesn’t take into account the 30+ years of ethanol subsidies to the corn industry nor export subsidies to U.S. farmers issued by the USDA.)

    The government never properly explains why this is. Certainly small farmers are growing their crops at enormous risk. However, it’s not clear that agriculture is any different than other high-risk industries – especially because the United States is blessed with some of the most fertile farmland in the world, and a highly skilled labor force.

    Subsidies don’t just cost taxpayers, an expense that might properly be justified by showing a return on investment. Subsidies also provide powerful disincentives against innovation, as well as cost effectiveness and diversification of land use.

    There is also a strong case to be made that farm subsidies are a major driver of the obesity and cancer epidemic in the United States. Every time Washington interferes in the private sector, they are picking winners and losers. The winners chosen are companies producing food that’s high in calories and low in nutritional density – and that helps make Americans sick and fat, because it distorts what food is available at what price.

    While President Trump has sometimes discussed reducing farm subsidies, the solution to the problem is much more radical – the total elimination of all farm subsidies from the federal budget.

    Food Subsidies in the United States

    There have long been federal programs in the United States propping up the agricultural sector. For example, the Morrill Act of 1862 established land-grant universities with a focus on agricultural education. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 similarly provided funding for agricultural education.

    The first program similar to the farm subsidies of today was the Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916. This still exists in the form of the Farm Credit System, which currently holds $280 billion in assets. This Act came out of a study done by progressive Republican President Theodore Roosevelt. At this time, rural Americans made up the bulk of the United States’ population.

    The Act allowed farmers to borrow 50 percent of the value of their land and 20 percent of the value of their improvements. Loans were available between $100 and $10,000 and amortized between five and 40 years. It was intended to provide poor farmers with an alternative source of credit from large banks. The successor of this Act, the Farm Credit System, currently provides approximately a third of the credit in rural America.

    The Great Depression, the New Deal and Farm Subsidies

    As with many other aspects of American economic life, farming changed with the advent of the Great Depression and the New Deal, which, at least it was argued, sought to minimize the impact of the worst parts of the Depression.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929 was passed on the watch of Republican President Herbert Hoover, widely blamed for the Depression and maligned as having “done nothing” to protect Americans from it. This Act created the Federal Farm Board, which was itself a modification of the Federal Farm Loan Board.

    Hoover believed that he could halt the collapse of agricultural prices by buying, selling and storing surplus grains. Another method to prevent the collapse was to lend to farmers on generous terms. Farmers used the loans to purchase seed and feed. This was particularly important in the South, where farmers were just getting over a drought.

    This had a very predictable effect: Farmers began raising more crops than they knew they could sell. They knew the government would buy whatever they produced, and the bill contained no production limit. Deflation was not countered and the Depression worsened for American farmers. The federal government spent $500 million before the program was abolished in 1933.

    The real expansion of federal subsidies for the American farmer began under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Programs enacted under FDR’s New Deal included price supports for commodities, regulations on the supply of farm commodities, barriers to prevent importation of farm commodities, and crop insurance programs. These programs, while modified and greatly expanded, form the basis of current federal farm policy. There is no other way to describe this than central planning.

    The first major program passed by FDR as part of the New Deal was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. This was the somewhat infamous program that had the government paying farmers to not plant crops, to dump out milk and the like when people were going hungry in the streets. Not only did it look bad, it was also declared unconstitutional in 1936, in the United States v. Butler case, on the grounds that the Constitution made agricultural regulations a state matter. This was in the ancient days, when the Supreme Court declared acts unconstitutional when the Constitution did not authorize them to do so.

    The first replacement was the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936. This paid farmers to plant fewer crops on the basis that it was preventing topsoil erosion. A more straightforward replacement, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, preserved many of the earlier provisions of its 1933 cousin, and was passed at a time when the Supreme Court was more amenable to the wishes of President Roosevelt following his proposed threat to pack the court with up to 15 judges. This new version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act mandated price supports for broad sections of American agriculture. When challenged in court, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld it under (what else) the commerce clause.

    Commodity price and income supports are now a staple in the federal budget. But what does the money go toward?

    Where Do Farm Subsidies Go?

    Farm subsidies are often painted as the last refuge of the American small farmer. But even a close examination of where farm subsidies go reveals that nothing could be further from the truth. The 10 largest recipients of aid receive between $14 million and $23.7 million, averaging $18.2 million, or approximately $1.8 million per year for what are giant agricultural combines. Part of this is a deliberate result of United States agricultural policy – after the Second World War, farmers were told to “get big or get out.”

    Let’s look at some startling facts about U.S. farm subsidies:

    • Over 6,000 farming companies and combines received more than $1 million federal aid in the years between 2008 and 2018.

    • This constituted a total of over $11 billion in this 10-year period.

    • 18 different farming entities received over $10 million.

    • Over $626 million went to urban areas – i.e., places with over 250,000 residents and precisely zero farms.

    • The five most populated cities in America (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) received a collective $18 million in farm subsidies. 25 percent of all subsidies went to someone receiving over $250,000 in subsidies.

    • The 150 most affluent zip codes in America received $5 million in subsidies in 2017 alone.

    • What’s more, the government is still paying farmers to not farm.

    • 12 members of Congress received as much as $637,059 in farm subsidies in 2017.

    All of this adds up to underscore the true nature of America’s food subsidy system: It’s a massive welfare program directed at the rich and affluent, which artificially distorts food prices for everyone.

    Perhaps worst of all, the massive farm subsidies aren’t keeping people out of debt. American farmer debt currently stands at $409 billion. Wheat is receiving $45.9 billion in subsidies while corn is getting $112 billion. Farmers received $12 billion in aid from the Trump Administration to help hedge against potential losses from the trade war with China. While it’s difficult to say to what extent any of this is vote-buying, it is worth noting that Iowa is the second-largest recipient of USDA subsidies, only slightly behind Texas.

    But if the story here were simply one of government largesse, this would be a very short article, indeed. The story is much deeper, and goes to the heart of health and wellness in the United States.

    Earl Butz: Father of the Modern Food Subsidy System

    The subsidy system might have had its problems, but the system really went off the rails with the advent of Earl Butz as Secretary of Agriculture under both President Richard Nixon and President Gerald Ford. He was the one who pioneered the fundamental change in farm subsidies. No longer would farmers be paid to take fields out of production. Instead they would be paid for producing absolutely insane amounts of corn.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    He was the man who coined the term “get big or get out.” He also urged farmers to use every available square inch of land – to plant “from fencepost to fencepost.” This change in policy had a dramatic impact on the world of American agriculture. Small family farms were crushed and big agribusiness became the norm rather than the exception.

    Part of the change was due to the high cost of food during the early 1970s. The Nixon Administration (and thus, Butz) were taking heat over soaring food prices. Thus, Butz decided to switch from paying people not to grow food to paying them to grow it. He brokered the sale of 30 million tons of grain to the Soviet Union to keep prices afloat. This was not simply to help farmers, but also to keep them in the Nixon fold – there was a strong fear that they would vote for 1972 Democratic Party candidate George McGovern.

    Butz argues in the documentary King Corn that he provided a valuable service to both the American consumer and the American farmer: both the dramatic reduction of the cost per calorie of food and also the dramatic increase in the efficiency of farming techniques. Indeed, this generation spends less feeding itself than any other in human history.

    Still, as we will discuss in greater detail below, one of the unintended side effects of the newly crowned “King Corn” was the development of high fructose corn syrup – the consequences of which have been a disaster for the American diet.

    The Emblem of USDA: The Food Pyramid

    Everyone is familiar with the food pyramid, the alleged template for a healthy diet produced by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1992. The original Food Pyramid urged Americans to eat as many as 11 servings of carbs per day, in addition to another four servings of fruit (i.e., more carbs). Meat, poultry, eggs, fish, beans and nuts were to total only two to three servings per day between all of them.

    Fats – even healthy ones like avocados and olive oil – were to be “used sparingly.” They were lumped into the same group as sugars and sugary snacks. Healthy plant-based oils like olive or avocado oil were not separated from less healthy processed plant-based oils like canola or corn oil.

    The USDA’s latest version of the Food Pyramid is known as MyPlate, and some insight into how it was created and what purpose it serves can be found with the previous pyramid (the Eating Right Pyramid) and why it was discontinued. The Eating Right Pyramid, the original Food Pyramid, was replaced due to industry concerns from beef and poultry farmers that their product was not being presented properly.

    An alternative to MyPlate is the Healthy Eating Plate from the Harvard School of Public Health. This stresses whole grains, healthy proteins and fats, drinking water and other sugar-free drinks, and adequate amounts of vegetables.

    Harvard School of Public Health Department of Nutrition Chair Walter Willett claimed that, “like the earlier U.S. Department of Agriculture pyramids, MyPlate mixes science with the influence of powerful agricultural interests, which is not the recipe for healthy eating”.

    Dr. Marion Nestle, former chair of the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University stated that, “There’s a great deal of money at stake in what these guidelines say.”

    A lot of money is in the subsidies themselves, but there is also a trickle-down effect. Cheap corn, for example, has totally changed the world of agriculture and food. Cows never ate corn until farmers started getting money to grow it everywhere. This is what makes the 99-cent hamburger possible. Fish, likewise, are another animal that would never eat corn if left to its own devices, but humans have trained them to eat corn because it is arguably the world’s cheapest and most plentiful food source – not due to naturally occuring market forces, but because of corn subsidies.

    If you’re horrified by factory farming – the penning in of tons of cows, pigs and other animals in tiny spaces – you can lay the blame right at the feet of farm subsidies. Such practices are simply not economically viable or sustainable without massive subsidies or corn. Ethanol is another creation of the agriculture-industrial complex.

    The bottom line is that the USDA Food Pyramid and its antecedents and successors have more to do with feeding money into the agricultural system – where the subsidies are – than it does with teaching Americans proper nutrition.

    Corn Subsidies Are a Killer

    Corn subsidies are big business in the United States, and this can be seen in the explosion of a simple ingredient now found in everything from sodapop to hot dogs – high fructose corn syrup, also known as HFCS.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Between the development of HFCS in 1970 and 1990, the consumption of HFCS skyrocketed by 1,000 percent. It’s not just that HFCS is in just about everything. It’s also that HFCS makes a number of things possible that otherwise wouldn’t be – think the now ubiquitous 99-cent three-liter bottle of sodapop available at every big-box supermarket around the country.

    The New York Times reported that junk food is the largest source of calories in the United States. The top 10 calorie sources in the United States are, according to Harvard Medical School:

    • Grain desserts (everything from cake to granola bars)

    • Bread

    • Chicken

    • Sodapop, energy drinks and sports drinks

    • Pizza

    • Alcohol

    • Pasta

    • Mexican food

    • Beef

    • Dairy-based desserts

    This means that at least four out of the 10 top calorie sources in the American diet are junk food. Most of them are based on ingredients from highly subsidized food groups like corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice. Barely any subsidies exist for fruit and vegetables, the foods that Americans are ostensibly supposed to fill half of their plates with.

    A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published in JAMA Internal Medicine in August 2016, was able to document a connection between heavily subsidized food sources and obesity. The study found that those subsisting on a diet of heavily subsidized foods were 37 percent more likely to be obese than those who did not. Belly fat, abnormal cholesterol, and high blood sugar levels were likewise linked to a diet heavy in foods subsidized by the federal government.

    Fruits and vegetables are called, in a typical act of government doublespeak, “specialty crops.” They claim approximately 75 percent of all farmland in the United States, but net a scant 14 percent of all subsidies. These are primarily grown by small family farmers. Some subsidy bills stipulate that farms receiving subsidies for commodity crops like corn and wheat cannot grow “specialty crops.”

    The Coming Tax on Meat

    Meat, in particular red meat, has long been maligned as a source of unhealthy calories. However, the paleo movement, the low-carb movement, and the extreme carnivore diet movement have all championed meat, in particular red meat, as the healthiest thing you can possibly eat. Most health conscious people these days are, at the very least, avoiding simple sugars and opting for healthy complex carbohydrates in their diet, if not drastically reducing the number of calories they get from carbs.

    Whether or not carbs are good for you or not is a source of continued debate, and largely centers around which carbs and how much of them. Likewise, dairy is enjoying a renaissance among people who tout the health benefits of whole milk and raw milk.

    Taxing meat in the manner of cigarettes and sugar, however, is becoming an increasingly mainstream idea. The proposal is linked not just to a desire to exert even more control over what Americans eat, but also with (of course) carbon emissions and saving the environment.

    Beyond the simple fact that a tax on meat would be yet another example of government overreach, there are other problems with a meat tax. It is also based on a subjective and dubious interpretation of the effects of meat on both the environment and on personal health. Such a tax would, like existing taxes on sugar and tobacco products, disproportionately impact the poorest Americans.

    Given the poor job that the United States Department of Agriculture has done with attempting to dictate what people eat with the Food Pyramid, it’s unlikely that they’re going to hit paydirt with a meat tax.

    Subsidies Cause Cancer

    The consequences of subsidies are far reaching when one considers the correlation with obesity. While tobacco use is responsible for one-third of all cancer cases, obesity is considered responsible for another third. Put more directly, there is a health epidemic in the United States similar to tobacco, but rather than a public campaign against it, it’s subsidized by the federal government.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This is what led a presidential report commission on cancer to attack food subsidies in much the same way that it did tobacco.

    There is another aspect to subsidizing unhealthy food, which will become increasingly expensive: healthcare. As the federal government creeps more into healthcare, the more you and other taxpayers will be subsidizing (again) by paying for treatments for those who are clinically obese, diabetic, or otherwise unhealthy from the nutrient-poor foods promoted by the United States government through its subsidies. This creates a maniac cycle, whereby the federal government subsidizes foods that make people sick and fat, then subsidizes the healthcare of sick and fat people. In all likelihood, this will all be paid for disproportionately by people who are neither sick nor fat.

    It’s important to point out that more government intervention, in the form of taxation or subsidizing “healthy” (according to some) foods, is not the answer – it’s the problem. Subsidies and other government handouts are invariably shaped by those with the most political influence. The ultimate programs always bear little resemblance to how they are touting through what are effectively PR campaigns in the nominally independent media.

    In the age of digital media, it has never been easier for the average person to learn what they need to know about feeding themselves and their family in the most healthy way possible. Government subsidies are not required for this and, as we have shown, have very much the opposite impact on public health. It is time for a revolution in the world of food subsidies – one of drastic reduction and ultimately the elimination of these wasteful and counterproductive programs.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/07/2019 – 23:05

  • Bizarre: Colombian Navy Rescues Shipwrecked Smuggling Suspects Found Floating On Cocaine Bales
    Bizarre: Colombian Navy Rescues Shipwrecked Smuggling Suspects Found Floating On Cocaine Bales

    In a bizarre story reported by the Colombian Navy, personnel from the Colombian Navy and Coast Guard found drug smugglers clinging to cocaine bales in shark-infested Pacific Ocean waters after their vessel was hit by a rogue wave last week.

    The incident occurred in the waters near Tumaco in Colombia, about 30 nautical miles from shore, said Captain Jorge Maldonado of Colombia’s Task Force Against Drug Trafficking.

    Maldonado said navy and coast guard personnel were conducting surveillance and maritime control operations when they discovered the shipwreck. He said the smugglers were clinging onto cocaine hydrochloride bales for at least seven hours. In total, the navy and coast guard recovered 2,789 lbs of cocaine. 

    “The coastguard arrived, and these three people were floating on a material that by its characteristics resembled drugs,” Maldonado said.

    Footage of the rescue was posted on the official Twitter account of the Colombian Navy. Several pictures show three men floating in the water, surrounded by black bales of cocaine. Navy personnel can be seen tossing in life preserves to the smugglers. The men and the cocaine were eventually extracted from the water and hauled to a support base on land for further analysis.

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

    Maldonado said the floating bales tested positive for cocaine hydrochloride.

    He said the smugglers were en route to Central America. It’s likely, he said, the men left the Port of Tumaco, which is one of the primary exit points of cocaine from the country.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC) indicated in a 2018 report that, Colombia is the top producer of cocaine in the world.

    A majority of the cocaine is smuggled by boat to the US. 

    The UNDOC report also said Colombia’s 2018 cocaine output hit record highs as demand from the US soared.

    Back in July, we reported on a container ship that had around $1 billion worth of cocaine hidden in containers at a Philadelphia port after having stopped in Colombia. We also learned the vessel, the MSC Gayane, is owned by JP Morgan, was seized by US authorities. 

    And as long as stocks blast to new highs, partly funded by endless stock buybacks and easy money policies by the Federal Reserve, cocaine demand will continue to soar on Wall Street, giving Colombian drug cartels more of a reason to continue boosting output.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/07/2019 – 22:45

  • "Paper Money Systems Have Always Wound-Up With Collapse And Chaos", Buffett Senior
    “Paper Money Systems Have Always Wound-Up With Collapse And Chaos”, Buffett Senior

    Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    Warren Buffett, despite his extraordinary investment success, has a rather famous and long-standing love/hate relationship with precious metals.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Maybe it started with his dad – Congressman Howard Buffett of Nebraska – who, as a staunch advocate for the gold standard, argued to his colleagues on Capitol Hill that “paper money systems have always wound up with collapse and economic chaos.”

    Warren himself acquired a record-setting 128 million ounces of silver back in the late 1990s… which he later sold at a profit in the early 2000s.

    But to listen to him talk about precious metals these days, he’s always negative.

    Buffett often quips that if you took the world’s entire supply of gold and melted it together, it would form a cube of about 68 feet (~21 meters) per side and be worth around $9 trillion.

    With that same $9 trillion, you could buy every share of Apple, Disney, Google, Microsoft, JP Morgan, Exxon Mobil, all the farmland in the United States, all the developable land in Manhattan, and still have more than a trillion dollars left over.

    This is Buffett’s central argument: gold doesn’t produce anything. So it’s much better to invest in a productive asset like a business, farmland, etc.

    Sure, I’d rather own a profitable, productive asset than a pile of metal.

    But Buffett is completely wrong to compare gold to productive assets… they’re apples and oranges.

    Gold isn’t an ‘investment’. It’s an insurance policy against paper currencies will lose value over time. So a MUCH better comparison for gold is CASH.

    Using Buffett’s same thought experiment, would an investor with $9 trillion rather have all that money sitting in a bank earning 0%? Or buy all the productive assets I mentioned above?

    Clearly it’s more attractive to own productive assets than cash sitting in a bank.

    Now, most people obviously don’t have hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars to invest.

    But foreign governments, pension funds, central banks, and Sovereign Wealth Funds do.

    And if it were so easy to simply buy up all the farmland in the United States, or every share of Disney, etc. they would have done it already.

    But life isn’t so black and white. Negotiating and closing a very large investment deal takes a lot of time and hard work.

    Buffett himself understands this. That’s why he made only ONE major acquisition in 2017 (a chain of gas stations called Pilot Flying J) and ZERO in 2018.

    Buffett’s company has $700 billion in assets and over $100 billion in cash; it’s extremely difficult to find enough large, credible deals to invest that much capital.

    And large institutions like central banks and foreign governments have the same problem.

    I have friends who are senior executives at some of these institutions who manage hundreds of billions of dollars; they’re constantly on the lookout for sensible deals where they can invest billions of dollars at a time.

    But those opportunities are rare. And in the meantime, they need to park the money somewhere.

    Just like Warren Buffett’s father, many of these institutional managers understand that paper money loses value over time.

    Especially now, in places like Europe and Japan, interest rates are actually NEGATIVE. And any large fund that has a mountain of euros or yen is bleeding money due to negative yields.

    So let’s go back to Buffett’s analogy:

    Imagine you’re a large Sovereign Wealth Fund with $500 billion in cash.

    Of course you’re searching for high quality, productive assets that you can acquire. But you know it’s going to take 10-15 years to fully invest that capital.

    So in the meantime, do you:

    (A) keep the $500 billion in a paper currency that has a 100+ year track record of losing value and being abused as a political prop?

    Or

    (B) keep at least a portion of the investment capital in gold– an asset with a 5,000+ year history of maintaining its value?

    For large institutions, Option B is extremely compelling.

    And THAT’S what has been primarily driving gold prices over the past year.

    Central Banks and foreign governments like China, Russia, Turkey, Qatar, Colombia, etc. have been loading up on gold because it’s a better, safer, long-term alternative to holding dollars and euros.

    As a result, the price has risen.

    Clearly they’re still holding plenty of dollars (and euros). But they’re increasingly diversifying their reserves.

    They can see that the US government will continue having $1+ trillion deficits. They can see that the Federal Reserve will continue debasing the currency with interest rate cuts…

    (and the European Central Bank recently made interest rates even MORE negative.)

    They can see that diplomatic and trade relations with the US are strained.

    So it would be foolish for a foreign government to keep 100% of its reserve assets denominated in US dollars.

    They can also see that gold is practically the ONLY asset that isn’t at an all-time high.

    Almost ever major stock market, property market, and bond market around the world is at/near an all-time high.

    Gold has had a good run lately. But its price (in US dollars) would still need to rise another 25% before surpassing its previous all-time high.

    This is what’s likely to keep fueling demand for gold: very large sovereign wealth funds and central banks don’t have a lot of options, and gold is one of the only assets that makes sense for them.

    This will likely continue to be the case.

    It’s worth noting that, even though gold is not a ‘productive asset’, the price of gold over the past 20 years has beaten the stock market, including Warren Buffett.

    From September 1999 through September 2019, the S&P 500 returned a solid 229%, including dividends. And the stock price of Buffett’s company (Berkshire Hathaway) is up an astonishing 536% over the same period. But the price of gold has surpassed even Buffett, returning 591%.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/07/2019 – 22:25

  • Watch Paralyzed Man Walk Thanks To Brain-Controlled Exoskeleton Suit
    Watch Paralyzed Man Walk Thanks To Brain-Controlled Exoskeleton Suit

    A paralyzed man has spent nearly two years testing a mind-controlled robotic suit. Now French researchers, who are responsible for building the exoskeleton, have published a new report documenting the proof-of-concept demonstration

    Researchers at the University of Grenoble, located in southeastern France, published the latest results of the suit and a video last week. 

    The suit was operated by a 30-year-old man, only identified as Thibault. He was able to control the suit with his brain, moving the suit forward while he was strapped to the exterior of it.  

    Thibault told BBC that his latest robotic walk was like being “the first man on the moon.” The tests were held in a heavily secured lab at Clinatec and the University of Grenoble. 

    The robotic suit is controlled by two implants that were surgically placed in Thibault’s head. The implants are wireless, able to beam brain activity to a nearby computer where artificial intelligence converts the signals into instructions for the exoskeleton. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Thibault has been paralyzed for four years. He’s been training with the researchers for two years, at several labs to control the 140-pound exoskeleton suit.

    Researchers first trained an algorithm to interpret brain signals and convert them into commands for the suit. Thibault was able to play a game similar to Pong, while the algorithm learned his brain activity and turned the signals into commands to control a digital paddle where he hit a ball. The training started as early as 1H17 and went on for at least two years. 

    Once the algorithm learned Thibault’s brain commands, researchers strapped him to mechanical exoskeleton with 14 moveable joints. He first used the arms of the machine to tap levers, and it was only until recently, he was able to walk the machine forward. 

    As shown in the video below, Thibault’s exoskeleton suit was suspended with cables from the ceiling during the test. 

    Researchers have said the technology will be refined in the coming years and could be a replacement for wheelchairs in the next decade. But within the next 5-years, it’s likely the technology will be used to control wheelchairs. 

    “Our findings could move us a step closer to helping tetraplegic patients to drive computers using brain signals alone, perhaps starting with driving wheelchairs using brain activity instead of joysticks and progressing to developing an exoskeleton for increased mobility,” Professor Stephan Chabardes, a neurosurgeon from the CHU of Grenoble-Alpes, said.

    And it’s almost guaranteed that when millennials start retiring in 2045-2055, mind-controlled robotic suits will be fully matured and have already entered series production decades before. Can you imagine, elderly millennials in exoskeleton suits walking to the corner store for some avocado toast?


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/07/2019 – 22:05

  • China Services PMI Tumbles To 7-Month Lows
    China Services PMI Tumbles To 7-Month Lows

    With China coming back from Golden Week celebrations, all eyes are on PMI data (expected to be flat from August) as a sign that things are not getting any worse ahead of this week’s trade negotiations in Washington.

    This is the last PMI print for September (after a mixed bag from official data across services and manufacturing):

    • China Official Manufacturing PMI small rise to 49.8

    • China Official Non-Manufacturing small drop to 53.7 (lowest since Nov 2018)

    • China Caixin Manufacturing notable rebound to 51.4 (highest since Feb 2018)

    • China Caixin Non-Manufacturing dropped to 51.3 (lowest since Feb 2019)

    The weakness is somewhat surprising given the position China might want to portray during this week’s negotiations.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    For the first time since Sept 2017, Services PMI is weaker than Manufacturing.

    The level of positive sentiment in the manufacturing sector was little-changed from August, while optimism in the service sector slipped to its lowest since May. In both cases, expectations were among the lowest seen in the series history.

    Commenting on the China General Services PMI data, Dr. Zhengsheng Zhong, Director of Macroeconomic Analysis at CEBM Group said:

    “The Caixin China General Services Business Activity Index dipped to 51.3 in September from 52.1 in the previous month, the lowest reading in seven months.

    1) Among the gauges included in the survey, the one for new business rose further, hitting the highest point since January 2018 and reflecting stable demand in the services sector. The increase was partly driven by new product launches. The gauge for new export business continued to drop, reflecting that growth in new business was mainly driven by domestic demand.

    2) The employment measure increased significantly, reaching a level unseen since January 2017. The increase in employment was linked to growth in new orders.

    3) The measure for input prices increased to the highest in a year, mainly driven by rising costs for labor, fuel and raw materials. However, the gauge for prices charged by service providers dipped marginally, indicating fierce competition. The gauge for business expectations dropped as rising costs restrained company confidence. “

    China’s notable credit impulse recovery is perhaps helping overall as China’s Composite PMI rises for the third month in a row…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    The Caixin China Composite Output Index increased to 51.9 in September from 51.6 in August, mainly driven by strengthened growth in the manufacturing sector. The gauge for new orders increased, hitting the highest level since February 2018. Employment increased at the fastest pace since January 2013, driven by the service sector. Backlogs of work had not expanded this quickly since April 2018. The pressure on companies from rising costs was great and business confidence dipped further.

    China’s economy showed signs of marginal recovery in September, as the labor market improved and domestic demand increased at a faster pace. However, fluctuations in exchange rates, and rising costs of labor and raw materials increased pressure on companies, which restrained business confidence. Due to previous destocking and capacity-reduction activities, constraints on companies’ production capacity became more severe and backlogs of work increased noticeably, which will help companies restore their investment. After a fast slowdown in previous quarters, China’s economic growth began to show signs of stability.”

    Since China has been closed, US equities have dumped and pumped back to almost unchanged but the Trump administration placed eight Chinese tech companies on a blacklist after the US close today.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: Bloomberg

    Chinese officials have confirmed that Vice Premier Liu He has departed China for his visit to Washington later in the week (so at least that’s a positive).

    Finally, we note that gold has bounced modestly as the Chinese return from celebrations, fitting with the historical pattern of weakness into and through Golden Week, and strength after.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/07/2019 – 21:54

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 7th October 2019

  • Battle For The Arctic: Russia To Install New Missile Warning Systems To Monitor New Frontier
    Battle For The Arctic: Russia To Install New Missile Warning Systems To Monitor New Frontier

    In a continuing story from last month, Russia continues to establish military dominance in the Arctic region, where $35 trillion worth of natural resources could be hiding underneath the ocean floor. 

    Two new early warning radar systems will be operational in northern Russia by 2022, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation said, also reported by Sputnik News.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The defense Ministry said the Voronezh radar system would be installed in the Komi Republic and the Murmansk region in northern Russia. The radar systems are expected to become operational by 2022, will monitor Arctic airspace for ballistic missile attacks, and monitor aircraft in the region.

    “Work continues on the construction of new radar stations for the missile early warning network in the Komi Republic and the Murmansk region. These works are planned to be completed in 2022,” the ministry said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The radar systems have a range of 3,700 miles, enough distance to monitor planes in parts of Alaska. 

    Russia already has seven Voronezh radar systems in operation. By 2022, there could be as many as 9 to 11 across the country.

    The first Voronezh system was constructed in Lekhtusi near St Petersburg in 2005 and was declared “combat ready” in 2012.

    Here’s a list of the current operational Voronezh systems, along with ones that are in development.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Last month, we reported that the Russian Northern Fleet deployed a new S-400 Triumph system on the Novaya Zemlya archipelago in the Arctic.

    Russia has been aggressively expanding its military presence in the Arctic in the last several years. It has also been increasing exploration activities in the region, such as oil and gas and mineral extraction.

    Washington has widely criticized Moscow for its increased presence in the Arctic.

    Responding to criticism, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow isn’t intimidating anyone, noting that increased defense capabilities in the Arctic are to protect its assets.

    Russia and China are establishing the “Polar Silk Road” in the Arctic as warming temperatures give way to new shipping lanes and economic opportunities.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Arctic is home to at least 20-25% of the world’s untapped fossil-fuel resources, along with minerals, including gold, silver, diamond, copper, titanium, graphite, uranium, and other rare earth minerals.

    Russia is aggressively militarizing the Arctic ahead of the next global military conflict that could involve countries fighting over Arctic resources. The first country to secure dominance in the Arctic could be the next global superpower.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/07/2019 – 02:45

  • Who's Afraid Of Scandinavia's Crime Statistics?
    Who’s Afraid Of Scandinavia’s Crime Statistics?

    Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,

    In Sweden, discussing who is behind the current crime epidemic in the country has long been taboo. Such a statistic has only been published twice by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ), in 1996 and in 2005. In 2005, when BRÅ published its last report on the subject, “Crime among people born in Sweden and abroad,” it contained the following note:

    “Critics have argued that new results can be inflated, taken out of context and misinterpreted and lead to reinforcing ‘us and them’ thinking. There is every reason to take such risks seriously. However, BRÅ’s assessment is… that a knowledge-based picture of immigrant crime is better than one based on guesses and personal perceptions. The absence of current facts about the crime among the foreign-born and their children facilitates the creation and consolidation of myths. If crime is a problem in certain groups of the foreign-born, then the problems do not disappear unless you highlight them and speak openly about them. A correct picture of the extent and development of the problems should instead be the best basis for analyzing conditions and improving the ability of all residents to function well in Sweden, regardless of ethnic origin.”

    Back then, apparently, the authorities still appreciated facts.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Twelve years later, in January 2017, however, Minister of Justice Morgan Johansson flatly refused to publish statistics about the ethnic origins of criminals in Sweden. According to Johansson:

    “[Studies] have been done both in Sweden in the past, and there are countless international studies that all show much the same thing: That minority groups are often overrepresented in crime statistics, but when you remove socio-economic factors, it [the overrepresentation] almost completely disappears. So the political conclusions that I need to make, I can already make with existing international and Swedish studies.”

    Johansson, who in addition to being Minister of Justice also serves as Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy, was not alone in his views. When Swedish Television asked the political parties in the Swedish parliament, the majority said that they did not think such a statistic was needed.

    This summer, however, in the continued absence of any forthcoming public statistics on such an extremely important public issue, a private foundation, Det Goda Samhället (“The Good Society”) took it upon itself to produce these statistics in a new report, Invandring och brottslighet – ett trettioårsperspektiv (“Immigration and crime – a thirty-year perspective”). All the raw data in it were ordered from and supplied by BRÅ. The raw data from BRÅ can be accessed here.

    According to the new report by Det Goda Samhället:

    For the first time now, more crimes — in absolute terms — are committed by persons of foreign background than by persons of Swedish origin… The most crime-prone population subgroup are people born [in Sweden] to two foreign-born parents.”

    The report concludes:

    In the more than thirty years that the surveys cover, one tendency is clearer than all others, namely that the proportion of the total amount of crimes committed by persons with a foreign background is steadily increasing… During the first of the investigated periods, 1985-1989, persons with a foreign background accounted for 31 percent of all crimes. During the period 2013-2017, the figure had risen to 58 percent. Thus, people of Swedish origin now account for less than half, 42 per cent, of the total crime in Sweden, despite constituting 67 per cent of the population surveyed.”

    In 1996, in its first report on the issue, BRÅ disclosed (p. 40) that, “The general picture from foreign studies of immigrants’ children’s crime is that they have a higher crime rate than first-generation immigrants. That is not the case in Sweden”. According to the new report, it is the case now, and that is perhaps the greatest indictment against Swedish integration policies of the past 30 years: the policies clearly do not work.

    Another notable conclusion of the report is the increase in crimes committed by foreign-born non-registered persons in Sweden — these include illegal immigrants, EU citizens and tourists. The crimes this group has committed have increased from 3% in the period 1985-89 to 13% in 2013-17.

    The report has largely been ignored by the Swedish press and political echelons, apart from a few exceptions, such as the local newspapers Göteborgs-Posten and Norrköpings Tidningar.

    In Norway, recently, a report about the overrepresentation of immigrants and their descendants in crime statistics was ordered from Statistics Norway, by Fremskrittspartiet (FrP), which forms part of the Norwegian government. “We had known that immigrants are overrepresented in these statistics, but not [by] so much” said FrP immigration policy spokesman Jon Helgheim.

    “For example, if we use the unadjusted figures… Afghans and Somalis are charged five times more for violence and abuse than Norwegians. Adjusted for age and gender, the overrepresentation is almost triple… Most immigrants are not criminals, but when the immigrant population is overrepresented in almost every crime category, then there is a problem that we must dare to talk about”.

    According to Dagbladet, FrP has, for years, been calling for detailed statistics on crimes perpetrated by immigrants and children of immigrants. In 2015, the party commissioned data from Statistics Norway, but the agency refused to compile crime statistics based on immigrants’ country of origin.

    Two years later, Statistics Norway published research showing that immigrants were strongly overrepresented in the crime statistics, but the report was not detailed enough, according to FrP, which ordered a new report, now available. According to Dagbladet, the new statistics “show that immigrants from non-Western countries are overrepresented in 65 out of 80 crime categories. In 2017, 7.1 per cent of Norway’s population were immigrants from a non-western country.”

    According to Dagbladet, the new statistics also show that, “The largest overrepresentation [is] in violence and abuse in close relationships.”

    “Non-Western immigrants and their descendants are charged with family violence eight times as often as the rest of the population. In total, 443 persons were charged per year on average during the period 2015-2017, [and] 35 per cent (155) of those charged were from a non-western country or had a non-Western background. Only half of those charged with abuse in close relationships were what SSB [the statistical bureau] calls the rest of the population… Africa, Asia, Latin America, Oceania except Australia and Europe outside the EU and the EEA are considered non-Western countries.”

    According to Dagbladet, men from the Palestinian Authority and Somalia are charged with violence and abuse three times more often than Norwegian men.

    FrP has been accused by its political opponents of ordering these statistics specifically for municipal elections that took place in Norway on September 9, 2019. Dagbladet asked Helgheim whether using these statistics was “cynical.” Helgheim responded:

    “No, it’s not cynical at all. This is very relevant for the citizens to know something about. It would be a failure of FrP not to do everything we can to inform voters of what are realities and facts. Our opponents constantly criticize us for pulling the immigration card… I can find no explanations other than that those who do not want this to be known also do not want to know about the consequences of immigration to Norway.”

    In Denmark, unlike Sweden and Norway, the publication of such statistics in itself is fairly uncontroversial. The Danish statistical bureau, Statistics Denmark, publishes them as a matter of fact every year and they are publicly available to everyone.

    According to one of the latest such reports, “Immigrants in Denmark in 2018,” as reported by Berlingske Tidende in April:

    “The figures show that crime in 2017 was 60% higher among male immigrants and 234% higher in male non-Western descendants than the entire male population. If one takes into account, for example, that many of the descendants are young, and Statistics Denmark does so in the report, the figures are 44% for immigrants and 145% for descendants, respectively. If further corrected, for both age and income, of immigrants and descendants from non-western countries, the figures are 21% and 108%”.

    As for the nationality of the criminal migrants, Berlingske Tidende reported:

    “At the top of the list are male Lebanese who, as far as [their] descendants are concerned, are almost four times as criminal as average men, when [the figures are] adjusted for age. [That is] sharply followed by male descendants from Somalia, Morocco and Syria. The violence index is 351 for descendants from non-western countries. They are 3.5 times more violent than the population as a whole. Descendants from Lebanon have an index of violent crimes of 668 when corrected for age.”

    Unless Scandinavian political leaders begin actively to engage with the facts that these statistics describe, the problems are only going to become more intractable — to the point where they might not be solvable at all.


    Tyler Durden

    Mon, 10/07/2019 – 02:00

  • The US-Iran Silent War Is Suddenly Transformed Into An "Iraq Uprising"
    The US-Iran Silent War Is Suddenly Transformed Into An “Iraq Uprising”

    Authored by Elijah Magnier, Middle East based chief international war correspondent for Al Rai Media

    The last four days have shown that the ongoing US-Iran war is acutely affecting the whole region. This is now evident in Iraq where more than 105 people have been killed and thousands wounded in the course of demonstrations that engulfed the capital Baghdad and southern Shia cities including Amara, Nasririyeh, Basrah, Najaf and Karbalaa. Similar demonstrations could erupt in Beirut and other Lebanese cities due to the similarity of economic conditions in the two countries. The critical economic situation in the Middle East offers fertile ground for uprisings that lead to general chaos.

    Iraq has special status due to its position, since the 2003 US occupation of the country, as both an Iranian and as a US ally. Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi up to now has armed himself with article 8 of the constitution, seeking to keep Iraq as a balancing point between all allies and neighboring countries, and to prevent Mesopotamia from becoming a battlefield for conflicts between the US and Iran or Saudi Arabia and Iran.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Notwithstanding the efforts of Baghdad officials, the deterioration of the domestic economic situation in Iraq has pushed the country into a situation comparable to that of those Middle Eastern countries who were hit by the so-called “Arab Spring”. 

    Fueled by real grievances including lack of job opportunities and severe corruption, domestic uprisings were manipulated by hostile foreign manipulation for purposes of regime change; these efforts have been ongoing in Syria since 2011. Baghdad believes that foreign and regional countries took advantage of the justified demands of the population to implement their own agenda, with disastrous consequences for the countries in question.

    Sources within the office of the Iraqi Prime Minister said “the recent demonstrations were already planned a couple of months ago. Baghdad was working to try and ease the situation in the country, particularly since the demands of the population are legitimate. The Prime Minister has inherited the corrupt system that has developed since 2003; hundreds of billions of dollars have been diverted into the pockets of corrupt politicians. Moreover, the war on terror used not only all the country’s resources but forced Iraq to borrow billions of dollars for the reconstruction of the security forces and other basic needs.” 

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

    “The latest demonstrations were supposed to be peaceful and legitimate because people have the right to express their discontent, concerns and frustration. However, the course of events showed a different objective: 16 members of the security forces were killed along with tens of civilians and many government and party buildings were set on fire and completely destroyed. This sort of behavior has misdirected the real grievances of the population onto a disastrous course: creating chaos in the country. Who benefits from the disarray in Iraq?”

    The unrest in Iraqi cities coincides with an assassination attempt against Iran’s Soleimani. Sources believe that the “assassination attempt against the commander of the Iranian IRGC-Quds Brigade Qassem Soleimani is not a pure coincidence but related to events in Iraq”.

    “Soleimani was in Iraq during the selection of the key leaders of the country. He has a lot of influence, like the Americans who have their own people. If Soleimani is removed, those who may have been behind the recent unrest may think it will create enough confusion in Iraq and Iran, allowing room for a possible coup d’état carried out by military or encouraged by foreign forces, Saudi Arabia and the US in this case. Killing Soleimani, in the minds of foreign actors, could lead to chaos, leading to a reduction of Iranian influence in Iraq”, said the sources.

    The recent decisions of Abdel Mahdi made him extremely unpopular with the US. He has declared Israel responsible for the destruction of the five warehouses of the Iraqi security forces, Hashd al-Shaabi, and the killing of one commander on the Iraqi-Syrian borders. He opened the crossing at al-Qaem between Iraq and Syria to the displeasure of the US embassy in Baghdad, whose officers expressed their discomfort to Iraqi officials. He expressed his willingness to buy the S-400 and other military hardware from Russia.

    Abdel Mahdi agreed with China to reconstruct essential infrastructure in exchange for oil, and gave a $284 million electricity deal to a German rather than an American company. The Iraqi Prime Minister refused to abide by US sanctions and is still buying electricity from Iran and allowing the exchange of commerce that is bringing large amounts of foreign currency and boosting the Iranian economy. And lastly, Abdel Mahdi rejected the “Deal of the Century” proposed by the US: he is trying to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia and therefore is showing his intention to keep away from the US objectives and policies in the Middle East.

    US officials expressed their complete dissatisfaction with Abdel Mahdi’s policy to many Iraqi officials. The Americans consider that their failure to capture Iraq as an avant-garde country against Iran is a victory for Tehran. However, this is not what the Iraqi Prime Minister is aiming at. He is genuinely trying to keep away from the US-Iran war, but is confronted with increasing difficulties.

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

    Abdel Mahdi took over governance in Iraq when the economy was at a catastrophic level. He is struggling in his first year of governance even though Iraq is considered to have the fourth largest of the world’s oil reserves. A quarter of Iraq’s over 40 million people live at poverty level.

    The Marjaiya in Najaf intervened to calm down the situation, showing its capacity to control the mob. Its representative in Karbalaa Sayyed Ahmad al-Safi emphasises the importance of fighting corruption and creating an independent committee to put the country back on track. Al-Safi said it was necessary to start serious reforms and asked the Parliament, in particular “the biggest coalition”, to assume its responsibility. 

    The biggest group belongs to Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr, with 53 MPs. Moqtada declared – contrary to what the Marjaiya hoped – the suspension of his group from the parliament rather than assuming his responsibilities. Moqtada is calling for early elections, an election where he is not expected to gather more than 12-15 MPs. Al-Sadr, who visits Saudi Arabia and Iran for no strategic objective, is trying to ride the horse of grievance so he can take advantage of the just requests of the demonstrators. Moqtada and the other Shia groups who rule the country today, in alliance with Kurds and Sunni minorities, are the ones to respond to the people’s requests, and not hide behind those in the street asking for the end of corruption, for more job opportunities, and improvement of their conditions of life.

    Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi doesn’t have a magic wand; the people can’t wait for very long. Notwithstanding their justified demands, the people were “not alone in the streets. The majority of social media hashtags were Saudi: indicating that Abdel Mahdi’s visits to Saudi Arabia and his mediation between Riyadh and Tehran have not rendered him immune to regime change efforts supported by Saudi,” said the source. Indeed, Iraq’s neighbours gave strong indications to the Prime Minister that Iraq’s relation Iran is the healthiest and the most stable of relations with neighbouring countries. Tehran didn’t conspire against him even if it was the only country whose flag was burned by some demonstrators and reviled in the streets of Baghdad during the last days of unrest.

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

    The critical economic situation is making the Middle East vulnerable to unrest. Most countries are suffering due to the US sanctions on Iran and the monstrous financial expenditure on US weapons. US President Donald Trump is trying hard to empty Arab leaders’ pockets and keep Iran as the main scarecrow to drain Gulf finances. The Saudi war on Yemen is also another destabilizing factor in the Middle East, allowing plenty of room for tension and confrontation.

    Iraq seems headed for instability as one aspect of the multidimensional US war on Iran; the US is demanding support and solidarity from Gulf and Arab countries to stand behind its plans. Iraq is not conforming to all US demands. The Iraqi parliament and political parties represent the majority of the population; regime change is therefore unlikely, but neighboring countries and the US will continue to exploit domestic grievances. It is not clear whether Abdel Mahdi will manage to keep Iraq stable. What is clear is that US-Iran tensions are not sparing any country in the Middle East.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/06/2019 – 23:40

  • Airport Customs Agent Badgers Journalist; Won't Let Pass Until He Admits To 'Writing Propaganda'
    Airport Customs Agent Badgers Journalist; Won’t Let Pass Until He Admits To ‘Writing Propaganda’

    A journalist for Defense One was badgered by a Customs and Border Protection individual while passing through Dulles International Airport on a return trip from Denmark – forcing the newsman, Ben Watson, to admit to writing ‘propaganda’ before he was allowed to pass. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Of note, Defense One is rated as being “Least Biased” by Media Bias/Fact Check, and publishes “well written, well sourced, and highly factual” articles. 

    Read below for an account of the incident by Defense Ones Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston.

    ***

    A U.S. passport screening official held a Defense One journalist’s passport until he received an affirmative answer to this repeated question: “You write propaganda, right?” 

    The incident took place about 4 p.m. on Thursday at Dulles International Airport. News Editor Ben Watson was returning from an assignment in Denmark when he entered permanent resident reentry aisle No. 17 at Dulles. After the Customs and Border Protection official asked the usual question about undeclared fruit or meat, the interaction took an unusual and unsettling turn.

    Watson recalls the conversation: 

    CBP officer, holding Watson’s passport: “What do you do?”

    Watson: “Journalism.”

    CBP officer: “So you write propaganda, right?”

    Watson: “No.”

    CBP officer: “You’re a journalist?”

    Watson: “Yes.”

    CBP officer: “You write propaganda, right?”

    Watson: “No. I am in journalism. Covering national security. And homeland security. And with many of the same skills I used in the U.S. Army as a public affairs officer. Some would argue that’s propaganda.”

    CBP officer: “You’re a journalist?”

    Watson: “Yes.”

    CBP officer: “You write propaganda, right?”

    Watson waited five seconds. Then: “For the purposes of expediting this conversation, yes.”

    CBP officer, a fourth time: “You write propaganda, right?”

    Watson, again: “For the purposes of expediting this conversation, yes.”

    CBP officer: “Here you go.” 

    At that point, the CBP officer handed back the passport.

    The CBP official’s behavior appeared to violate the spirit, and possibly the letter, of DHS’s internal Directive 0480.1, “Ethics/Standards of Conduct”; DHS Code of Conduct § 102-74.445; and possibly U.S. Customs and Border Protection Directive 51735-013A, “Standards of Conduct.” 

    Watson has filed a civil rights complaint with DHS.

    Update: In an email, a CBP spokesperson said that the agency is aware of and is investigating the “allegation about an officer’s alleged inappropriate conduct at Washington Dulles International airport,” adding that the agency holds its employees accountable and does not tolerate inappropriate comments or behavior. The spokesperson declined to be identified.

    In a separate email, a DHS spokesperson said that the agency’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties office has “received the information and is reviewing it.” The spokesperson declined to be identified.

    Over the past year, several journalists have reported being harassed and even detained by U.S. customs agents. In February, CBP officials apologized to a BuzzFeed reporter who was aggressively questioned upon entering New York’s JFK Airport. In June, freelance reporter Seth Harp described his hours-long detention by CBP officers in the Austin, Texas, airport. In August, British journalist James Dyer said he was harassed as “fake news” by a CBP agent at Los Angeles International Airport. “He wanted to know if I’d ever worked for CNN or MSNBC or other outlets that are ‘spreading lies to the American people,’ ” he tweeted, per a Washington Post story that links to other instances of CBP harassment of journalists.

    The Post also noted that in April, the United States’ ranking in the annual World Freedom Press Index dropped for a third year in a row. It classified the treatment of journalists in the United States as “problematic,” a first in the 17 years the report has been issued. The report’s authors attributed the decline “to President Trump’s anti-press rhetoric and continuing threats to journalists,” the Post reported at the time. Watson, who writes the D Brief newsletter and produces the Defense One Radio podcast, said that he’d never before encountered a CBP officer who’d tried to extract a statement in this way. And he noted that the incident was particularly striking in the wake of his reporting trip, during which Danish officials had voiced concerns about a global decline in respect for and adherence to a rules-based order, beginning in the United States. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/06/2019 – 23:15

  • Pat Buchanan Dares To Ask – Is China The Country Of The Future?
    Pat Buchanan Dares To Ask – Is China The Country Of The Future?

    Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

    “Who Lost China?”

    With the fall of the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek, the defeat of his armies and the flight to Formosa, that was the question of the hour in 1949. And no one demanded to know more insistently than the anti-Communist Congressman John F. Kennedy:

    “Whatever share of the responsibility was Roosevelt’s and whatever share was (General George) Marshall’s, the vital interest of the United States in the independent integrity of China was sacrificed, and the foundation was laid for the present tragic situation in the Far East.”

    Tragic indeed was the situation. The most populous nation on earth, for which America had risked and fought a war with the Japanese Empire, had been lost to Stalin’s empire.

    A year after Peking fell to Mao Zedong, Chinese armies stormed into Korea to drive the Americans back from the Yalu River and back across the 38th parallel, threatening to throw them off the Peninsula.

    In the seven decades since October 1949, millions of Chinese have perished in ideological pogroms like the “Great Leap Forward” of the ’50s, and the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” during which President Nixon came to China.

    Yet in terms of national and state power over those 70 years, and especially in the last 30 when America threw open her markets to Chinese goods and Beijing ran up $4 trillion to $5 trillion in trade surpluses with the U.S., a new China arose. It was on display this week in Tiananmen Square.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The China of Xi Jinping boasts land- and submarine-based missiles and bombers that provide a strategic deterrent against the United States. Beijing’s conventional forces on land, sea, and in air and space rival any on earth.

    Since Y2K, its economy has swept past that of Italy, France, Britain, Germany and Japan to become the world’s second largest. China is now the world’s premier manufacturing power.

    Yet, under Xi Jinping, the mask of benign giant has slipped and the menacing face of 21st-century China is being revealed, for its people, its neighbors, and the world to see.

    The Uighurs of west China are being forced into re-education camps to be cured of their tribalist, nationalist and Islamic beliefs. Christians are being persecuted. Tibetans are being replaced in their homeland by Han Chinese. The Communist Party’s role and rule as the font of ideological, political and moral truth is being elevated and imposed.

    The Chinese still hold land seized from India 50 years ago. China now claims as sovereign territory virtually all of a South China Sea, which encompasses territorial waters of six nations. It has begun building air, naval and military bases on rocks and reefs belonging to Manila.

    China has warned foreign warships to stay out of the Taiwan Strait and has built up its force on the mainland opposite the island, warning that any move by Taiwan to declare independence would be regarded as an act of war. It claims the Japanese-held Senkaku Islands.

    In its Belt and Road projects to tie China to Central and South Asia and Europe, China has lent billions to build ports, only to take possession of the facilities when local regimes default on their loans.

    But not all is going well for the regime on its 70th birthday.

    The people of Hong Kong, who are surely being cheered by many on the mainland of China, have been protesting for months, demanding the liberty and independence for which American patriots fought in our Revolution, not Mao’s revolution.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Nor are the newly prosperous Chinese people fools. They relish the rising power of China and the respect their country commands in the world, but they know it was not Marx, Lenin or Mao who produced their prosperity. It was capitalism. They cannot but be uneasy seeing the freedoms and benefits they enjoy being dissipated in a trade war with the Americans and the new repression issuing from Beijing.

    Among the epochal blunders America has committed since the end of the Cold War, three stand out.

    The first was our disastrous plunge into the Middle East to create regimes oriented to the West.

    The second was the expansion of NATO to the front porch of Russia, driving the largest nation on earth, and one of its most formidable nuclear powers, into the arms of China.

    The third was to throw open America’s markets to Chinese goods on favorable terms, which led to the enrichment and empowerment of a regime whose long-term threat to U.S. interests and American values is as great as was that of the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

    The question for America’s statesmen is how to cope with the rising challenge of China while avoiding a war that would be a calamity for all mankind. Patience, prudence and perseverance commend themselves.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    But the first necessity is to toss out the ideological liberalism which proclaims that David Ricardo’s free trade dogmatism is truth for all nations at all times and that John Locke’s ideas apply to all cultures and countries.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/06/2019 – 22:50

    Tags

  • Frost-Apocalypse Set To Sweep Across US, Could Mark End Of Growing Season
    Frost-Apocalypse Set To Sweep Across US, Could Mark End Of Growing Season

    We are tracking frost and freeze potential US temperature weather maps this weekend that indicate a strong possibility frost-apocalypse is headed for the Pacific, Rocky Mountains, and Midwest regions over the next ten days. This could mean the end of the growing season for many agriculture producing states.

    As shown in the EC Operational maps below, a 32°F contour line in the 5-10 day forecast indicates US frost risks could shift from the Northwest too much of the North Central states, which would officially mark the end of the growing season in those areas if confirmed by mid-month.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    * * * 

    Andrei Evbuoma, a meteorologist for NOAA National Weather Service, provides further insight into the frost situation in the US, and what he thinks this could mean for grain prices. 

    Frost and freeze watches/warnings hoisted for portions of the north-central and Northeast U.S.; weather outlook turns colder across the northern and central U.S. raising risks for frost/freeze and thus upside potential of prices.

    On the weather front, frost and freeze watches/warnings are in effect for much of North Dakota, eastern South Dakota, northeastern Nebraska, western Minnesota, northwestern Iowa, a large portion of Upstate New York and Vermont, extreme western Massachusetts, and extreme northern Pennsylvania. The frost and freeze warnings are in effect tonight through Friday morning. The freeze watch is in effect for late Friday night through early Saturday morning. The freeze and frost warnings over North Dakota and Minnesota cover a good portion of spring wheat. However, with much of the crop harvested, the impacts should be minimum. The northwestern portions of the corn and soybean belt will be impacted by the frost and freeze Thursday night/Friday morning. The freeze watch covers a very small portion of corn and soybeans that will not really be able to make any difference. Figure 5 below is an image depicting the areas under a freeze/frost watch or warning.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The weather pattern over the next 10 days or so can be described as progressive/changeable with bouts of both cool and warm air masses. The pattern will be driven by a couple of strong upper level troughs that will pivot around a pinwheeling parent upper low centered over the Arctic Circle near the Queen Elizabeth Islands. These upper level troughs will be associated with strong surface cold frontal boundaries that will spread across Canada and the Lower 48 bringing in intervals of unseasonably cool air. Upper level ridging will bring warm temperatures in between these upper level troughs.

    Over the next five days, the first upper level trough will eject out of the western U.S. eastward across the northern U.S. This will bring unseasonably cool air across the Northwest U.S. and Northern Rockies late week into the weekend, across the Plains and Midwest U.S. late weekend into early next week, and finally across the Midwest/Great Lakes into the Northeast U.S. early to mid next week. By early to mid next week, upper level ridging will build over the Northern Rockies and Plains bringing in warmer-than-normal temperatures before the next upper level trough quickly moves into western Canada from Alaska. Figure 6 below is a map from the 12z GFS ensemble depicting the 1-6 day (October 4-9) temperature pattern.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A second upper level trough with cold temperatures from Alaska will be oriented over western/central Canada in the beginning parts of the 6-11 day period. This upper level feature will quickly be moving inbound towards the Lower 48 meaning that the warm-up across the northern, central, and eastern U.S. will be brief. This second upper level trough will not only be stronger than the previous in strength, but will also be larger in size and will have more impact in bringing widespread cooler-than-normal temperatures across the Lower 48. Because this upper level weather feature is forecast to travel further south, unseasonably cool temperatures will encompass the central, southern, and eastern U.S. in the 6-11 day period. The reinforcing shot of cool air coming in behind this second trough will send temperatures as much as 20 degrees below normal across the Northern Rockies by Wednesday. This colder development amongst the forecast models has recently increased prospects of heating demand across the Lower 48. The GFS has been most consistent with this pattern. Figure 7 below is a map from the 12z GFS ensemble depicting the 7-12 day (October 10-15) temperature pattern.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Temperatures look to be on the cooler side across the northern U.S. (especially the Great Lakes and Northeast U.S.) and warmer across the southern U.S. (especially the Southwest U.S.) in the 11-16 day time period with the pattern possibly remaining in a variable/changeable state. Figure 8 below is a map from the 12z ECMWF ensemble depicting the 10-15 day (October 12-17) temperature pattern.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In terms of precipitation, the heat and dryness have set the stage for rapidly developing drought conditions across the eastern and southern U.S. including the southeastern Midwest. These areas have seen week/week increase in drought/dryness. Looking ahead, the pattern overall will transition into a drier pattern from the prior week. There will be chances for precipitation to come across the central U.S. in association with the upper level troughs/associated surface cold fronts. The first chance will come this upcoming weekend. The second chance will come mid to late next week. Figure 9 is a map from the U.S. Drought Monitor depicting areas of drought or abnormally dry conditions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure 10 below is a map showing the seven-day accumulated precipitation forecast (Thursday morning to next Thursday morning) across the Lower 48.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure 11 is a map from the 06z GEFS depicting a normal to drier-than-normal pattern across much of the country and a wetter-than-normal pattern over parts of the central U.S. in the 2-8 day time frame (October 4-11).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Figure 12 is a map from the 12z GEFS depicting a normal to drier-than-normal pattern across much of the country in the 9-15 day time frame (October 11-18).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Evbuoma says the cold spell sweeping across agriculture producing states could be bullish for grain prices.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    He says, “the weather outlook over the next couple of weeks has gotten colder, the risk of damage to crops not yet harvested have increased (particularly across the northern sections of the grain belt). This combined with the fact that China has been purchasing more soybeans means that upside potential is increasing.”

     


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/06/2019 – 22:25

    Tags

  • Luongo: Is Trump The Dude To Break The Woke?
    Luongo: Is Trump The Dude To Break The Woke?

    Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

    “I like your style Dude… but do you have to use so many cuss words?”

    “The fuck you talkin’ about?”

    – The Big Lebowski

    When Donald Trump won the 2016 election it was obvious to many, including myself, that he could be what Strauss & Howe called, ‘The Grey Champion’ in their seminal book “The Fourth Turning.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Grey Champion isn’t perfect. In fact, he’s a strongman. He can be a force for good or evil, depending on the times. At his essence, he is the right person in the right place at the right time to usher in a new era of human society for the next cycle of generations, usually four lasting around 85 years, or one human lifetime.

    Past Grey Champions in the U.S have been FDR and Abraham Lincoln. Neither of these men would be people I would consider having been good for the country or, frankly, the world.

    But they were ideally placed to shepherd and, most importantly, put into effect the changes demanded by the people as the Prophet Generation (Baby Boomers) gives way to the Nomads (Gen X) who hold the fort until the Heroes (Millenials) decide what comes next, for good or ill.

    They were strong enough figures to overcome the enormous forces arrayed against them and, in the end, win out, forcing a new regime into being.

    So, looking back over the near three years of Trump has he lived up to this ideal? I don’t think so for a number of reasons but I do think the potential is still there.

    Trump’s strengths and weaknesses as a political player have been on full display from the beginning. And he’s made a number of errors which have cost him dearly to this point.

    Most of these have to do with foreign policy, which I have outlined in gory detail nearly every day for three years. And it was these deals he’s made on foreign policy, outsourcing it to advisers like H.R. McMaster, John Bolton and James Mattis, to gain time to deal with his domestic enemies that have done the most damage.

    I think Trump now sees the traps set for him and how badly they will boomerang on him this election season. He’s begun changing course on issues like Iran, Syria and, yes, Ukraine.

    And for this he is now being targeted, quite amateurishly, for removal from office. Of this I’m convinced at this point.

    Since Ukraine cuts across so many different narratives of the past few years, going all the way back to 2013 EU accession talks, it is no wonder that President Trump calls to the new Ukrainian President, who isn’t one of ‘our guys’ like Poroshenko was, would be heavily scrutinized.

    Anything that sniffed even vaguely like Presidential overreach would be used against Trump to remove him from office. This is the standard Alinsky tactic of accusing your opponent of what you are guilty of to de-legitimize any information that comes out of the investigation.

    This tactic is nothing new. It’s all they ever do folks, because Trump has already proven he’s immune to Nuts and Sluts.

    And this brings me back to my original point, which is that only Donald Trump has the skills, temperament and lack of shame needed to fight this fight the way he has.

    Comedian Stephen Crowder made this point recently and I think that rant is worth your fifteen minutes.

    It’s nice to see Crowder finally come around and realize what Trump’s true value is to the world. It isn’t his wisdom or his inherent morality. He’s not been sent here by god to save us from the heathen.

    He’s not Orange Jesus, as I pointed out ages ago.

    He’s just the guy with the right set of skills for his time and place. To combat the incessantly woke and the cravenly corrupt you need a guy narcissist without shame. One who will scrap on the battlefields he knows well, the media, and when given an ounce of leverage will push it to its hilt.

    And you need a man ruthless enough to be vindictive.

    Trump tried to be magnanimous to Hillary. She repaid him with bile, deceit and three years of hell. His dipping his toe into Ukraine sent all of Washington into veritable apoplexy. Everyone’s got dirty fingers there be it from the coup on the Maidan, to arms sales, gas deals, false flags and, the big one from Trump’s perspective, RussiaGate.

    Pat Buchanan, at the start of Trump’s presidency, warned us that Trump was not Nixon. Nixon resigned out of shame and for the good of the office and the country. Trump would not go so gently into that good night.

    He was built of different stuff. Right or wrong they would have to drag him out of the Oval Office feet first. And that’s where we are now.

    And that trait alone is what makes him still a potential Grey Champion. Because he can beat this impeachment trap that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff have set for him if he’s smart and if he has the goods to take down the right people.

    But at some point Trump will have to stop trying to make a deal with these people and act. He will have to stop trying to get them to like him and use his office as it is written in the Constitution and not let weasels like Schiff and Jerry Nadler define it for him.

    If he does that he’ll be The Dude, the man for his time and place. If not, he’ll just be another pretender in a nice suit and his head in a toilet.

    *  *  *

    Join my Patreon to get the kind of analysis that makes sense of the senseless. Install Brave if you want to neuter social media, regain some privacy and support your favorite creators.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/06/2019 – 22:00

  • Chinese Farmers Raise Mutant Pigs The Size Of Polar Bears Amid 'Pig Ebola' Crisis
    Chinese Farmers Raise Mutant Pigs The Size Of Polar Bears Amid ‘Pig Ebola’ Crisis

    Amid one of the worst food crises in recent memory, Chinese farmers are reportedly trying to breed larger pigs as the African swine fever – less affectionately known as ‘pig ebola’ – has destroyed over 100 million pigs, between one-third and a half of China’s supply of pigs by various estimates, causing pork prices to explode to levels never seen before.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Beijing scrambles to make up for the lost domestic supply with imports, even desperately waiving tariffs on American pork products in what China’s politicians tried to sell to their population (and Washington) as a “gesture of goodwill”, farmers in southern China have raised a pig that’s as heavy as a polar bear.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Once slaughtered, these giant mutant pigs can fetch a, well, giant price on the market. Here’s more from Bloomberg:

    The 500 kilogram, or 1,102 pound, animal is part of a herd that’s being bred to become giant swine. At slaughter, some of the pigs can sell for more than 10,000 yuan ($1,399), over three times higher than the average monthly disposable income in Nanning, the capital of Guangxi province where Pang Cong, the farm’s owner, lives.

    Soaring pork prices have encouraged small and large farms to experiment with DIY genetic experimentation, in the name of raising pigs that are about 40% heavier than the ‘normal’ weight of 125 kilos.

    High pork prices in the northeastern province of Jilin is prompting farmers to raise pigs to reach an average weight of 175 kilograms to 200 kilograms, higher than the normal weight of 125 kilograms. They want to raise them “as big as possible,” said Zhao Hailin, a hog farmer in the region.

    On some large farms, the average weight of pigs at the time of slaughter has climbed from 125 kgs (275 pounds) to 140 kgs (about 310 pounds). Some are pushing to boost weight by another 14% or more.

    The trend isn’t limited to small farms either. Major protein producers in China, including Wens Foodstuffs Group Co, the country’s top pig breeder, Cofco Meat Holdings Ltd. and Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Co. say they are trying to increase the average weight of their pigs. Big farms are focusing on boosting the heft by at least 14%, said Lin Guofa, a senior analyst with consulting firm Bric Agriculture Group.

    But Beijing is understandably pleased by these developments which have boosted farmers’ profits by more than 30%: It has been pushing farmers to boost production to compensate for as much of the shortfall as possible to help combat inflation in the coming years.

    As we noted last week, the pork crisis has already cost the Chinese economy some $140 billion at a time when it’s already grappling with slowing growth.

    Senior Chinese officials have already warned that the pork supply situation is “extremely severe” and will likely remain that way at least through the first half of next year.

    Chinese Vice Premier Hu Chunhua warned that the supply situation will be “extremely severe” through to the first half of 2020. China will face a pork shortage of 10 million tons this year, more than what’s available in global trade, meaning it needs to increase production domestically, he said.

    Others are worried that the aftershock of the crisis will last for much longer: “It may be at least 10 years before we get back to the levels of production that we saw coming into this,” said Rabobank senior protein analyst Christine McCracken. “We’re looking at a very long tail on this, that should lead to a lot of incremental demand for U.S. protein going forward.”

    Indeed, US food producers couldn’t be more happy by the crisis hitting China’s pork production. Commenting on the state of the pork market, this is what Tyson Food said in its latest earning call:

    In our last quarterly call, I talked about the inventories in China being fairly high at that point in time. We do believe that those inventories have come down substantially. We are seeing the price of pork rise pretty significantly, most recently in China as well as poultry and other protein prices. So no surprises on that front. I think the impact will be sometime during our fiscal 2020…. anytime that there is that amount of protein that is lost from a global perspective, there is going to be an impact on price. And whether the United States is a direct supplier to China or whether they source from other countries to the extent that they can, it might be from continents in Europe, it might be South America, it might be in other countries. But that creates backfill opportunities for us. So net disappearance is going to remain the same I think on a global basis. Supply is lower which translates to higher prices. Not only in pork, but I think across the board in our other proteins.

    To offset the collapse in China’s pork supply, officials have not only ordered an emergency release from China’s strategic pork supply, but have ordered farmers to resume pig breeding and birthing as soon as possible even though many farmers are still wary about the outbreak, worried that they could lose their entire investment if they start too soon and the virus is still present. Plus, the spread of ‘pig ebola’ has left prices of piglets and breeding sows at record highs, making it more expensive than ever for farmers to restock.

    All of this points to raising larger, super-mutant pigs as a possible solution to mitigate risks and boost returns.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/06/2019 – 21:35

  • The Saudi Crown Prince's Final Option
    The Saudi Crown Prince’s Final Option

    Authored by Cyril Widdershoven via OilPrice.com,

    Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has been making headlines again these last few days. After giving an interview to CBS in which he admitted the mistakes of the Khashoggi murder last year, a media frenzy started, with a vast lineup of reports linked to the one-year remembrance day of the brutal Khashoggi murder, mainly intended to weaken the position of the Saudi crown prince. Unnamed sources are being quoted stating that MBS’s position is being attacked from all sides, including within the Kingdom.

    Since the emergence of MBS as a main power player in the Kingdom, the crown prince has been under fire from his ultra-conservative religious opponents inside Saudi Arabia. More recently, more liberal voices such as former minister of energy Khalid Al Falih have been criticizing some of the Crown Prince’s policies. MBS has responded emphatically to this dissent, first with the Ritz Project and then with the removal of Khalid Al Falih and several other major power players. The strategy currently being implemented is designed to support the long-awaited Aramco IPO, an event that MBS sees as solidifying his power in the Oil Kingdom.

    The consolidation of MBS’ power all seemed to be going to plan until the recent drone attacks on Abqaiq. The severity of these attacks seems not to be fully understood by media and analysts as most are still taking the word of Aramco and the Saudi minister of energy as gospel when it comes to the impact. To call the updates coming out of Saudi Arabia optimistic is an understatement, an attack of that size cannot be undone in a matter of days.

    And even if the damage done to Abqaiq is technically restored, and Saudi oil is flowing at the same rates as before, the world has changed. We now know that with a small amount of low intensity advanced weapon systems, the heart of the global oil sector can be significantly disrupted. Saudi Arabia’s pivotal position as the main stabilizer of the oil markets has been at best dented or, at worst, destroyed. No repair shop will be able to bring back the unquestioned confidence in Saudi Arabia as the eternal swing producer upon which the security of energy supply can depend. With less than 30 drones and cruise missiles, Saudi’s spare production capacity was removed from the market. And, contrary to what many analysts believe, it is yet to come back online

    The Iran-Saudi conflict has entered a new phase, with the real threat of a full-scale conflict. The situations in Iraq and Libya will also suffer from the instability created by this stand of. And despite this instability, Saudi Arabia’s important ally, the United States, has refused to be fully drawn into the conflict. The link between Trump and MBS appears to be weakening as the geopolitical pressure cranks up. Washington appears will to bark but not to bite when it comes to Iran’s actions against Saudi Arabia. U.S. analysts and policy makers don’t seem to understand that this stance not only weakens US influence in the region, but directly opens the doors for opposition to MBS inside of the Kingdom.

    Western and Arab media sources have published several stories recently about the growing opposition to MBS inside the Al Saud Royal Family. These reports are undoubtedly true, and MBS is heading for crunch time. The Crown Prince’s future is to be decided in the next couple of months, so very little time remains for opposition players. After the Yemen War quagmire and the damage done in Abqaiq, some royals will undoubtedly try to weaken MBS position. The main issue currently is that here is no real contender available, as most Saudis are still supportive of MBS. The old guard, such as the brother of King Salman, prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz (77), are not favored by the young. Still, MBS has to speed up his passion projects as success is everything when it comes to winning power in Riyadh.

    It is not surprising that the recent positive media reports emerging from Saudi Arabia come just before the Davos in the Desert or FII2019 meeting is held. A possible Aramco IPO presentation at FII2019, followed by a 1% listing at the Saudi Tadawul, would put MBS firmly back in the spotlight and weaken any opposition. With the current stalemate in the region, more than 4000 investment funds, sovereign wealth funds and corporations will be sitting in the conference halls of the Ritz, willing to hand over the much needed cash and multibillion projects to solidify MBS’ position.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Open support for MBS will be in place very soon, with Russian president Vladimir Putin expected to head to Riyadh very soon. In stark contrast to the waning Trump-MBS friendship, Putin is openly a big supporter of the crown prince’s strategy and dreams. Russian sovereign wealth fund RDIF and others are flocking to Riyadh’s hotels as further evidence of Russian support. Moscow appears set to capitalize on Washington’s weak response to the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia, and MBS will be eager to take advantage. A closer Saudi-Russian relationship may end up helping to restrain Iran, as the Islamic Republic is heavily dependent on Moscow’s support.


    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/06/2019 – 21:10

    Tags

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 6th October 2019

  • As Hong Kong ATMs Run Out Of Cash, Central Bank Steps In To Prevent "Panic Among The Public"
    As Hong Kong ATMs Run Out Of Cash, Central Bank Steps In To Prevent “Panic Among The Public”

    As the violence in Hong Kong escalates with every passing week, culminating on Friday with what was effectively the passage of martial law when the local government banned the wearing of masks at public assemblies, a colonial-era law that is meant to give the authorities a green light to finally crack down on protesters at will, one aspect of Hong Kong life seemed to be surprisingly stable: no, not the local economy, as HK retail sales just suffered their biggest drop on record as the continuing violent protests halt most if not all commerce:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We are talking about the local banks, which have been remarkably resilient in the face of the continued mass protests and the ever rising threat of violent Chinese retaliation which could destroy Hong Kong’s status as the financial capital of the Pacific Rim in a heart beat, and crush the local banking system. In short: despite the perfect conditions for a bank run, the locals continued to behave as if they had not a care in the world.

    Only that is now changing, because one day after a junior JPMorgan banker was beaten in broad daylight by the protest mob, a SCMP report confirms that the social upheaval has finally spilled over into the financial world: according to the HK publication, the local central bank, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, was forced to issue a statement warning against a “malicious attempt to cause panic among the public” after rumors were spread online about the possibility of the government using emergency powers to impose foreign-exchange controls.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And while the de facto central bank stressed that the banking system remained robust and well positioned to withstand any market volatility, some of the statistics it provided gave a rather troubling impression: the monetary authority said that not only were more than 10% of 3,300 ATMs damaged and could not function, but that banks were negotiating with logistics firms to refill cash machines as 5% of them had run out of money, adding that banknote delivery was affected by the closure of shopping malls and MTR stations.

    Will this be enough to prevent a bank run on the remaining ATMs? The answer will largely depend on what happens in the next 24-48 hours in Hong Kong, although the signs are grim.

    Earlier in Saturday, Hong Kong’s embattled leader, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, appealed to the public to condemn protest violence and disassociate themselves from rioters, saying the chaos they unleashed across the city the previous night after the announcement of a ban on the wearing of face masks at public assemblies was the reason such a controversial restriction had to be imposed in the first place.

    In a five-minute taped video released on Saturday afternoon, a grim-faced Lam, flanked by 14 of her top officials, slammed those who were responsible for the “outrageous” rampage. After rioting mobs trashed MTR stations, set a train on fire and assaulted railway staff on Friday night, the entire network remained closed on Saturday, depriving citizens of their primary mode of public transport. It remained uncertain whether it would open on Sunday.

    “Horribly violent incidents took place in various districts in Hong Kong last night. The extreme acts of the masked rioters were shocking and the level of vandalism was unprecedented,” Lam said.

    “The extreme acts of the rioters brought dark hours to Hong Kong last night and half-paralysed society today. Everyone is worried, anxious and even in fear.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Carrie Lam, flanked by 14 of her ministers, blasted the acts of rioters on Friday night and called them ‘shocking and outrageous

    Meanwhile, Hong Kong is on the verge of complete socio-economic paralysis as dozens of shopping centres, retail outlets, grocery stores and banks did not open for business for fear of more protest violence and vandalism.

    Lam mentioned the case of a plain-clothes officer who was beaten and burned with petrol bombs by a mob in Yuen Long, saying he “had no choice but to shoot in self-defence”, wounding a teenager who was later arrested on charges of taking part in a riot and assaulting police. The violence provided solid grounds for imposing the anti-mask law, she said, defending the government’s decision to introduce it by invoking the tough colonial-era Emergency Regulations Ordinance for the first time in more than half a century.

    “The government will curb violence with utmost determination,” she said. “Let’s condemn violence together and resolutely disassociate with rioters.”

    Alas, if she had hoped her address would ease tensions, she was wrong: even as Lam’s video message was being broadcast on television and shared on the internet, hundreds of Hongkongers, many of them masked, started to march from Causeway Bay to Central to protest against the ban.

    One of the marchers, a 22-year-old named Louie, said it was unfair of Lam to ask the public to shun masked rioters.

    “She is making us a target even though we are the ones fighting for our freedom as Hongkongers,” she said. “Masks hold an important symbol in Hong Kong. We used masks during the Sars [severe acute respiratory syndrome] outbreak of 2003 and to protect ourselves against tear gas. It’s a symbol of resistance and you cannot take that away from us.”

    Earlier on Saturday, Security Secretary John Lee Ka-chiu made a similar appeal for the public to stop supporting the rioters, while dismissing accusations that the government had added fuel to the fire with the mask ban.

    “The introduction of the anti-mask regulation is to make sure that those who commit crimes and commit violence will have to face justice, so that they cannot hide behind their masks to escape their responsibilities,” Lee said.

    “What is adding oil to violence is people’s support for these acts or people’s acquiescence in finding reasons for this violence to continue. So what is important is that everybody comes out to say, ‘No, society will not accept violence.’”
    Lee noted that no one had been arrested yet under the new law that came into effect on Saturday.

    Justice Secretary Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah said the government would not rule out tougher measures using emergency powers if the protests continued to spiral out of control. These could include extending detention hours for those arrested and directly funding police without prior scrutiny by the legislature.

    Ultimately, however, it will be up to China: does Beijing allow the protests to gather ever more momentum and international support before it intervenes, or will the People’s Liberation Army finally make a grand entry and begins the crackdown that marks the beginning of the end for Hong Kong as the financial pearl of the orient.

    For an indication of what happens next, keep an eye on bitcoin: as we reported previously, LocalBitcoins, a popular platform for directly trading Bitcoin peer-to-peer, posted its highest trading volume ever in Hong Kong last week.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And if the local ATMs just happen to “run out” of money, watch as Hong Kong demand for bitcoin and other altcoins – not to mention gold – sends shockwaves across the world… and prices sharply higher.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/05/2019 – 23:00

  • A Fake Letter To Fake Employees On The Verge Of A Modern IPO
    A Fake Letter To Fake Employees On The Verge Of A Modern IPO

    Authored by Jason Gay of the Wall Street Journal

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    ILLUSTRATION: ZOHAR LAZAR

    To the staff:

    Folks, I know everyone was excited about cashing in on our upcoming public offering, but it looks like this whole “profitability” craze is here to stay, at least for a while. We’re going to have to delay the IPO. Believe me, I am as disappointed as you are. I’d already picked out four private islands! Which technically would have been—yes—my own archipelago. Sigh.

    In the meantime, we’re going to have to tighten up until this businesses-should-make-money fad blows over. Here are some company-wide decisions, effective immediately:

    After great consideration, we are going to sell the private jets. This is a decision that is both symbolic and practical. It was not a good look for us to own a fleet of Gulfstreams. It was especially not a good look for us to fly them to Rome for Thursday pizza nights.

    We are also going to sell the company elephant, Bobo. We all loved him, and he was fantastic at staff birthday parties, but Bobo was becoming a bit of a distraction in the office. And let’s face it: the smell.

    Our founder has emailed to ask that you no longer refer to him as Supreme Genius Being of Gaia. He’s back to being Dennis.

    Also: Dennis’s 2020 independent presidential campaign has NOT ended. It’s simply “suspended.” (Admittedly, I do think Dennis got a little bored and forgot he was running.)

    Remember, Dennis is still in month three of a two-year executive vow of silence, so do not expect a verbal response from him on any of these topics.

    Those of you who “borrowed” a company Bugatti from the company Bugatti share, please return it ASAP.

    We need to put a good public face on our situation. If a stranger mentions the IPO delay and asks you what our company is really about, take a good look at the their footwear. If they’re wearing dress shoes, say “we’re a revenue-based subscription model.” If they’re wearing sneakers, it’s still OK to say “we’re a lifestyle brand.”

    I don’t know what a “lifestyle brand” is, either, but if you get stuck, just say “it’s like Nike meets Netflix.”

    If they keep asking questions, just run and hide behind a tall plant.

    Really, all you need to know is this: We are not launching a chain of fast-casual vegan restaurants on the moon in November. It’s delayed indefinitely.

    Same goes for the cat yoga studios. We’ll workshop those internally, with stuffed cats.

    There will no longer be a manager’s retreat in Gstaad, Switzerland. It will be at Applebee’s.

    We are not going to be breaking ground on HQ 2.0. Wall Street did not seem terribly enthused with Dennis’s idea for a Frank Gehry-designed underwater office building with a private missile defense system and a dolphin launch.

    Playing beer pong on Friday afternoon is still OK. But please stop playing Pappy Van Winkle 23 pong. And no more Ortolan Wednesdays.

    I regret the Rolling Stones will not be playing the Holiday Party, as previously announced. Instead, it will be Side Door, the band Dennis’s son founded with his teammates on the USC crew team.

    Ashton Kutcher is STILL visiting the office on Tuesday. Smiles, everyone! And zipped lips about Bobo. Bobo loved Ashton.

    Last but not least, and you probably saw this coming, but we will not be furnishing company logo fleece vests for the winter.

    I know this stresses some of you out. Because of this, we will be returning carbohydrates to the cafeteria.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/05/2019 – 22:30

  • Who Owns Your Favorite News Media Outlet?
    Who Owns Your Favorite News Media Outlet?

    Submitted by Visual Capitalist

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It’s no secret that news media is a tough industry.

    For various reasons — from tech disruption to changing media consumption habits — the U.S. has seen a net loss of 1,800 local newspapers over the past 15 years. As regional newspapers are bundled together, and venture-backed digital media brands expand their portfolios, the end result is a trend towards increased consolidation.

    Today’s graphic, created by TitleMax, is a broad look at who owns U.S. news media outlets.

    Escaping the News Desert

    As outlets battle the duopoly of Google and Facebook for advertising revenue, the local news game has become increasingly difficult.

    As a result, news deserts have been springing up all over America:

    <!–

    <!–

    <!–

    800 ) { vizElement.style.minWidth=’600px’;vizElement.style.maxWidth=’1100px’;vizElement.style.width=’100%’;vizElement.style.minHeight=’427px’;vizElement.style.maxHeight=’627px’;vizElement.style.height=(divElement.offsetWidth*0.75)+’px’;} else if ( divElement.offsetWidth > 500 ) { vizElement.style.minWidth=’600px’;vizElement.style.maxWidth=’1100px’;vizElement.style.width=’100%’;vizElement.style.minHeight=’427px’;vizElement.style.maxHeight=’627px’;vizElement.style.height=(divElement.offsetWidth*0.75)+’px’;} else { vizElement.style.width=’100%’;vizElement.style.height=’677px’;} var scriptElement = document.createElement(‘script’); scriptElement.src = ‘https://public.tableau.com/javascripts/api/viz_v1.js’; vizElement.parentNode.insertBefore(scriptElement, vizElement);
    //–>

    //–>

    //–>

    //–>

    What happens when times get tough?

    One option is to simply go out of business, while another traditional solution is to combine forces through consolidation. While not ideal, the latter option at least provides a potential route to revenue and cost synergies that make it easier to compete in a challenging environment.

    Nation of Consolidation

    Though the numbers have decreased in recent years, regional news media still reaches millions of people each day.

    Below is a look at the top 20 owners of America’s newspapers:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Turnover in this segment of the market has been brisk. In fact, more than half of existing newspapers have changed ownership in the past 15 years, some multiple times. For example, the LA Times is now in the hands of its third owner since 2000, after being purchased by billionaire biotech investor Patrick Soon-Shiong.

    The industry may be facing another dramatic drop off in ownership diversity as the two largest players, New Media Investment Group and Gannett, are on the path to merging. If shareholders give the thumbs-up during the vote this November, Gannett will have amassed the largest online audience of any American news provider.

    The Flying Vs: Vox and Vice

    It isn’t just regional papers being swept up in the latest round of mergers and acquisitions — new media is getting into the mix as well.

    Vox Media recently inked a deal to acquire New York Media, the firm behind New York Magazine, Vulture, and The Cut.

    I think you’re going to see that trend [of consolidation] across the industry. I just hope it’s done for the right reasons. You see too many of these things done for financial engineering.

    – Jim Bankoff, CEO of Vox Media

    Meanwhile, Vice recently acquired Refinery29 for $400 million, giving it access to a new audience skewed towards millennial women. This match-up seems awkward on the surface, but it allows advertisers to reach a broader cross-section of people within each ad ecosystem.

    Both companies announced layoffs in the past year, and this restructuring may help both companies win as they consolidate resources.

    The Bottom Line

    While news media isn’t quite as consolidated as the broader media ecosystem, it’s certainly trending in that direction. Thousands of American communities that had local newspapers in 2004 now have no news coverage at all, while remaining papers are increasingly becoming units within an umbrella company, with no direct stake in community reporting.

    That said, until the issue of monetization is definitively sorted out, consolidation may be the only way to keep the presses from stopping.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/05/2019 – 22:00

  • Identity Of 'American Psycho' Who Killed 4 Homeless Men In NYC Revealed
    Identity Of ‘American Psycho’ Who Killed 4 Homeless Men In NYC Revealed

    Update: The New York Post has managed to dig up some more information about the (allegedly) homeless man suspected of murdering four other vagrants (and badly injuring a fifth) during a late night/early morning killing spree.

    The suspect has been identified as 24-year-old Rodriguez “Randy” Santos.

    Santos was arrested last November on an assault charge: He leaped over a desk at a store on West 35th Street in Midtown and grabbed a man by the neck, then bit his chest. The NYP reportedly obtained the information from a “high ranking law enforcement source”.

    Before Friday night’s attack, Santos had racked up some 14 arrests – four of them in the last year. He’s believed to be homeless, though it’s unclear how long he’s been living on the street.

    The police said Santos’s attack had all the hallmarks of a random killing spree.

    Here’s some information about Santos’s motive according to a detective who spoke at an NYPD press conference.

    “Motive appears to be, right now, just random attacks. It doesn’t seem anybody was targeted by race, age, anything of that nature,” said Chief of Manhattan South Detective Michael Baldassano.

    Santos is still in police custody.

    * * *

    There’s a new ‘American Psycho’ prowling the streets of New York City.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Four homeless men were found murdered in Lower Manhattan Saturday morning. Police said the men were attacked and beaten to death, likely while they slept. A fifth man was found badly wounded, but alive.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Police discovered the first two victims after responding to a report of an assault in progress on Bowery Street near Doyers Street in Chinatown shortly before 2 am on Saturday morning, CNN reports.

    The attacker fled as police approached, but officers soon found two men, both with severe head trauma after being bludgeoned with a bat or a pipe. One was pronounced dead at the scene. Another was taken to New York-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan Hospital.

    A search of the area turned up three more victims with similar head trauma, all pronounced dead at the scene. Two of the men were discovered in front of a store on East Broadway, another was found across the street.

    Police then spotted the suspected assailant – he was reportedly carrying a three-foot-long, blood-covered metal poll that he had apparently stolen from a construction site. The 24-year-old man was taken into custody, but police haven’t released his name, though they did say they believe the suspect is also homeless.

    NYC’s homeless population has exploded in recent years as housing prices and rents have soared, and the killings will almost certainly draw attention to the homelessness crisis gripping the city. Notably, the killings are reminiscent of a scene from the movie ‘American Psycho’, based on a novel by Brett Easton Ellis, where the movie’s anti-hero, Patrick Bateman (played by actor Christian Bale), stabs and kills an unsuspecting homeless man.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/05/2019 – 21:44

    Tags

  • Erdogan Vows Sunday Incursion Into Syria As Pentagon Waffles
    Erdogan Vows Sunday Incursion Into Syria As Pentagon Waffles

    After weeks of threats, Turkey looks to finally make good on Erdogan’s repeat promises to unilaterally invade northern Syria, as a deal to conduct joint “land and air patrols” with the US is collapsing just as it barely got off the ground.

    Turkey’s military is on high alert, ready to carry out the Turkish president’s orders on short notice, after a longtime military build-up along the border. We will carry out this operation both on land and air as soon as today or tomorrow,” Erdogan said on Saturday. “We gave all warnings to our interlocutors regarding the east of Euphrates and we have acted with sufficient patience,” the president added.

    He further slammed the prospect of cooperating with the US on a US-Turkey administered safe zone “a fairytale” given Washington’s recalcitrance regarding Syria’s Kurds, the ethnic group’s militias of which Turkey considers “terrorists”. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Prior build-up of Turkish forces along the Syrian border AFP/GETTY Image

    The Kurdish dominated and US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has vowed it will treat any invading Turkish soldiers as an act of war. In a statement the SDF said it would “not hesitate to turn any unprovoked (Turkish) attack into an all-out war” to defend its region in northeast Syria, according to Reuters

    Erdogan named Sunday as a likely day to launch the operation in a rare moment of specificity (he indicated “as soon as today or tomorrow”), though he’s on up to a dozen or more occasions generally threatened such action. Bloomberg reports major troop reinforcements observed at the border with northeast Syria:

    Turkey reinforced army units at the Syrian border hours after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan signaled an imminent cross-border operation against U.S.-backed Kurdish militants in Syria.

    Turkey sent additional armored vehicles and troops to the border town of Akcakale late Saturday, across from Tal Abyad in Syria, according to state TV television TRT.

    Assuming the moment finally does arrive on Sunday, the next big question is the American response: withdraw troops or dig in to protect its on the ground Kurdish SDF/YPG partners? 

    Secretary of Defense Mark Esper during a Saturday press briefing was asked point blank precisely this question. Esper’s response was notably ambiguous and evasive when compared to Erdogan’s saying it’s “a fairy tale”.

    “Right now, we’re focused on making the security mechanism functional in northern northeast Syria,” Esper began. “I’m sorry. I had a long conversation with my counterpart Mr. Akar yesterday, and this was the specific focus of our discussion, and I made very clear to him and he agreed as well that we need to make the security mechanism work,” he continued, clinging to the prior agreement with Ankara.

    “You know, we have the joint center up and working in southern Turkey, we have air patrols going on, we had another ground patrol just happen.  We’ve got to work through all the details,” he added

    “And so I just told him, let’s keep working at it that’s the best path forward for all of us, so that’s what I’m focused on right now,” Esper finished  — ultimately not saying much that’s different from prior such statements, despite Turkish impatience and bellicose threats to go it alone. 


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/05/2019 – 21:30

    Tags

  • Inquirygate: Did Pelosi Just 'Prorogue' The US House?
    Inquirygate: Did Pelosi Just ‘Prorogue’ The US House?

    Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    It took just 4 months after the deplorably failed Mueller probe of alleged Trump links to Russia, for the Democrats to raise the next -faded- red flag, Ukraine. And they do so in a manner that reminds me, personally, a lot of what happens in the UK. That is, the process has now moved on to what is legal or not and who decides what is or not.

    Nancy Pelosi apparently has been told by her legal advice that it’s okay for her to move ahead with an inquiry, that she can even label an Impeachment Inquiry, without following established Capitol Hill procedure. Needless to say, them slopes are mighty slippery. Because if true, it would mean she can call the ‘other side’ offside for as long as she wishes.

    She would, in effect, prorogate the US House the same way Boris Johnson tried to do Parliament in Britain. And not by shutting it down from the outside (Boris as PM) but from the inside (using her powers as Speaker). It would appear it’s time for every American to pay attention, because this could have grave consequences far into the future.

    Pelosi’s plan is to not have a House vote on initiating the inquiry, but to just go ahead and have one, and stealing the name Impeachment Inquiry for it. Why? Because she thinks that way she can have only Democrats ask questions, issue subpoenas etc., while House Republicans could only sit and watch the spectacle (not what they were elected for).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional scholar, but when I read these things there are a million red hot five-alarms going off in my head. Because this is not about enacting the law, it’s about circumventing it. Just because you have a House majority cannot mean you can simply ignore the minority, or procedure. That would turn democracy into a proxy dictatorship. You don’t want to go there, not even if you’re a desperate Democrat.

    But she seems to have made up her mind. So now we face Trump not being allowed to investigate what Joe Biden was up to in the run-up to the 2016 election though his party could turn that same run-up into a 3-year Social Counsel probe, which turned up emptier then .. well, you fill it in. It is something to behold.

    At the same time, though, there is no Impeachment Inquiry, even if Pelosi calls it that. The White House today will send a letter to a judge contesting exactly that. A House Impeachment Inquiry has a procedure, and if she doesn’t follow that, the White House will deny it’s actually happening.

    Now, if you follow the headlines this week, you wouldn’t know this. because they all talk of impeachment. But you can’t get impeachment without following the official procedure, and Pelosi doesn’t follow it. The media just go along for the ride without caring about procedure.

    And obviously you can’t watch this theater and not think that Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff et al have not thought about stretching out this whole tragedy for another year, right on the eve of the 2020 election, or even beyond. That they think allegations about Russia, Ukraine and China will help them win.

    Because it’s clear that flouting procedure the way they try to do in the House will inevitable have to lead to court decisions, and eventually to the Supreme Court. They’re counting on the damage they can do to Trump while the courts decide. But it won’t just be damage to Trump, however it turns out, it will be damage to the entire country.

    And you would think both sides of the aisle recognize that, if we do, but there are very few if any signs of that. Everyone’s gearing up for a very big fight because everyone else in their echo chamber is. The problem is, whatever happens, and whoever becomes president, the dividing lines will only become deeper and darker.

    AG Bill Barr, along with the State Department and DOJ, and whoever else is involved, will release multiple reports from investigations conducted by US Attorney John Durham, DOJ IG Michael Horowitz and potentially others. The Dems and MSM viewpoint appears to be that is was fine to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate Trump’s links to Russia, but not Democrats’ links to, well, anyone at all.

    And that is just not okay. I saw this very short clip of John Brennan saying:

    “I think I suspected there was more than there actually was.” 

    And that’s supposed to atone for 3 years of incessant smearing? It’s ridiculous. Brennan is ridiculous.

    https://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=6091945197001&w=466&h=263Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

    And yeah, I know that’s Fox, and I know I’ve on occasion had to turn to right wing media for news because the MSM have closed ranks and ‘report’ only on one side of the story. Sue me for wanting actual news.

    None of this negates the fact that we’re in for ever bitter fights, up to and including at the US Supreme Court, ever more, to decide who rules the country. Just like in Britain.

    I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind. At least, unlike Britain, they cared enough to write a Constitution. A lot of good that did.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/05/2019 – 21:14

    Tags

  • 11 Tons Of Water And "Special Container" Used To Extinguish Burning Tesla In Austria
    11 Tons Of Water And “Special Container” Used To Extinguish Burning Tesla In Austria

    It was just days ago that we reported that the NHTSA was opening an inquiry into the use of Tesla’s “Smart Summon” feature. Then, just hours ago we followed up by reporting that a petition had been filed with the NHTSA claiming that Tesla was using over the air software updates to cover up dangerous battery issues. 

    Today, we offer a stark reminder that just because the NHTSA has started to perk up its ears, doesn’t mean that Teslas haven’t stopped going up in flames all over the world. The most recent example comes from Austria, where after a Tesla was involved in an accident and caught fire, firefighters had to use a special container to transport the remains of the vehicle and the battery. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    According to a translated version of this ORF News story, a 57 year old driver lost control of his Tesla and crashed into a tree, after first hitting the guardrail. It was then that the vehicle caught fire. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The driver was lucky, as “people passing by the scene of the accident took the man out of the vehicle and called emergency services.”

    In order to put out the fire, the street had to be closed and fire authorities had to bring in a container user to cool the vehicle. The container held 11,000 liters (11 tons) of water and was designed to eliminate the biggest risk in an EV accident which is the battery catching fire.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Tesla battery is mounted on the underside of the vehicle and contains acids and chemicals that can easily escape during a fire, placing the firefighters in danger. 

    Here is the problem: according to the article, some 11,000 liters of water are needed to finally extinguish a burning Tesla but an average fire engine only carries around 2,000 liters of water.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Fire brigade spokesman Peter Hölzl warned that the car could still catch fire for up to three days after the initial fire. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The container used is said to be suitable for all common electric vehicles. It measures 6.8 meters long, 2.4 meters wide and 1.5 meters high, it is (obviously) waterproof and weighs three tons.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    We hope the NHTSA has a nice long hard look at these photos, as it has now become painfully obvious that the fire issue is very real and very dangerous for Tesla. We can only hope that the agency is acting with the expediency necessary to promptly address an issue that is putting lives at risk every day. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/05/2019 – 21:11

  • Floating Nuclear Power Plants Are Ready To Shape Global Energy Market
    Floating Nuclear Power Plants Are Ready To Shape Global Energy Market

    Submitted by South Front

    On September 14, the Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear power plant reached the port city of Pevek in Russia’s Chukotka after covering a distance of more than 4,700km from Murmansk. After connecting to power grids there, it will become a fully-fledged energy producing facility, supplying electricity to the city of Pevek and the Chukotka Autonomous Region. This will include replacing the capacity of the Bilibino Nuclear Power Plant, which will be finally stopped in early 2020.

    The Akademik Lomonosov is the lead project for a series of low-power mobile transportable power units. Floating nuclear power plants (FNPPs) in the Far North and the Far East are a new class of energy sources based on Russian nuclear shipbuilding technologies. The station is equipped with two KLT-40S icebreaker-type reactors which are capable of generating up to 70 MW of electricity and 50 Gcal/h of thermal energy in the nominal operating mode. This is enough to ensure that energy consumption demands are satisfied for a city with a population of about 100 000 people.

    The Akademik Lomonosov has a length of 144 meters and a width of 30 meters. It has a displacement of 21 500 tones and a crew of 69 people. The reactors were designed by OKBM Afrikantov and assembled by Nizhniy Novgorod Research and Development Institute Atomenergoproekt. The reactor vessels were produced by Izhorskiye Zavody. The turbo generators were supplied by the Kaluga Turbine Plant.

    The FNPP’s planned service life is 40 years. The operating time of reactor installations between reloading of the core is three years. All nuclear fuel and radioactive material handling systems are located inside the FNPP. The core reloading and storage of spent fuel is carried out on board the FNPP.

    The FNPP can carry sufficient enriched uranium to power the two reactors for 12 years. Then, it, with its spent fuel, should be towed back to Russia, where the radioactive waste will be processed. In addition, such power units allow creating powerful desalination plants on their bases.

    Initially, the Akademik Lomonosov project cost was expected to be $140 million. However, during construction, the cost increased to about $574 million. This includes $107 million for coastal infrastructure.

    The State Atomic Energy Corporation, Rosatom is already working on the second generation FNPP called the Optimized Floating Power Unit. It will be smaller and more powerful than its predecessor. The Optimized Floating Power Unit is to be equipped with two RITM-200M reactors with a total capacity of 100 MW. There is no disclosed plan of how many of these power plants will be produced. Currently, Russia operates 11 nuclear power plants, including the Akademik Lomonosov.

    Russia’s Energy giant, Gazprom, reportedly has plans to use at least 5 FNPPs for oil and gas field development as well as for support of infrastructure for transportation operations. Possible locations where they could be used include the Shtokman natural gas field in the Barents Sea, and in the developing oil and gas fields on the Yamal Peninsula.

    FNPPs would be useful along the Northern Sea Route, in and around the Arctic. The floating nuclear power plants will solve the issue of the energy supply in the region and will make possible the creation of a comprehensive support infrastructure there. According to Rosatom, 15 countries, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Algeria, Namibia, Cape Verde and Argentina, have already shown interest in hiring floating nuclear power plants.

    Floating nuclear power plants will solve energy issues in areas where construction of classic nuclear plants is not possible (for example, because of a seismic hazard) or is too costly and complicated. In Russia, this could help to provide additional electricity to port cities such as Sevastopol, Novorossiysk or Vladivistok.

    African states, many of which suffer from constant energy shortages, also could solve their issues with help from FNPPs. In addition, the deployed FNPPs would make feasible the the creation of desalination plants providing massive amounts of clean, drinkable water for the local population. Therefore, another key humanitarian issue in Africa will be resolved.

    One more likely location is the Arabian Peninsula. For example, an FNPP could be employed to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Yemen after the end of the Saudi-led invasion. Such a ship deployed near al-Hudaydah could provide western Yemen with energy and clean water.

    Furthermore, floating nuclear power plants can be used on river routes, for example in Russia and throughout Asia. Some United States cities in remote areas such as Alaska might also benefit, since, until the US makes some adequate icebreakers, they would still need to ask Russia for assistance in case of crises.

    The launch of the first ever floating nuclear power plant has become an important engineering breakthrough that will impact the energy sphere on a global scale. This technology, which could potentially provide safe and clean energy to a large part of the planet, could also be provided at an attractive price.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/05/2019 – 21:00

  • China Launches HD Satellite To Monitor Belt And Road Projects
    China Launches HD Satellite To Monitor Belt And Road Projects

    On Saturday, China launched an observation satellite into space that will soon monitor its Belt and Road projects around the world. The satellite, which according to Xinhua  will be called Gaofen-10, was launched early Saturday morning aboard a Long March 4C orbital carrier rocket from the Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center in Northern China.

    Gaofen-10 is a high-definition (HD) microwave remote sensing satellite that is part of the China High-resolution Earth Observation System (CHEOS) that will be activated by 2020.

    The satellite is capable of taking HD photographs with a resolution of about one meter. In total, CHEOS will have seven optical/microwave satellites that will be used in “land survey, urban planning, and road network designs” along the Belt and Road, reported Xinhuanet.

    The Belt and Road is China’s ambitious infrastructure investment plan that is currently constructing railways, energy pipelines, and highways in 152 countries, that could soon become the world’s future economic system.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Gaofen-10 will orbit at 370 to 430 miles above Earth and will have a life span of 5-8 years. It was reported that the Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology developed the satellite, and China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation built the rocket.

    China’s goal of deploying a network of HD satellites to monitor its Belt and Road projects could become a reality next year.


    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/05/2019 – 20:30

Digest powered by RSS Digest