• Michael Hudson: U.S. Economic Warfare And Likely Foreign Defenses

  Authored by Michael Hudson via Counterpunch.org,

  Today’s world is at war on many fronts. The rules of international law and order put in place toward the end of World War II are being broken by U.S. foreign policy escalating its confrontation with countries that refrain from giving its companies control of their economic surpluses. Countries that do not give the United States control of their oil and financial sectors or privatize their key sectors are being isolated by the United States imposing trade sanctions and unilateral tariffs giving special advantages to U.S. producers in violation of free trade agreements with European, Asian and other countries.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  This global fracture has an increasingly military cast. U.S. officials justify tariffs and import quotas illegal under WTO rules on “national security” grounds, claiming that the United States can do whatever it wants as the world’s “exceptional” nation. U.S. officials explain that this means that their nation is not obliged to adhere to international agreements or even to its own treaties and promises. This allegedly sovereign right to ignore on its international agreements was made explicit after Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State Madeline Albright broke the promise by President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would not expand eastward after 1991. (“You didn’t get it in writing,” was the U.S. response to the verbal agreements that were made.)

  Likewise, the Trump administration repudiated the multilateral Iranian nuclear agreement signed by the Obama administration, and is escalating warfare with its proxy armies in the Near East. U.S. politicians are waging a New Cold War against Russia, China, Iran, and oil-exporting countries that the United States is seeking to isolate if cannot control their governments, central bank and foreign diplomacy.

  * Keynote Paper delivered at the 14th Forum of the World Association for Political Economy, July 21, 2019.

  The international framework that originally seemed equitable was pro-U.S. from the outset. In 1945 this was seen as a natural result of the fact that the U.S. economy was the least war-damaged and held by far most of the world’s monetary gold. Still, the postwar trade and financial framework was ostensibly set up on fair and equitable international principles. Other countries were expected to recover and grow, creating diplomatic, financial and trade parity with each other.

  But the past decade has seen U.S. diplomacy become one-sided in turning the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, SWIFT bank-clearing system and world trade into an asymmetrically exploitative system. This unilateral U.S.-centered array of institutions is coming to be widely seen not only as unfair, but as blocking the progress of other countries whose growth and prosperity is seen by U.S. foreign policy as a threat to unilateral U.S. hegemony. What began as an ostensibly international order to promote peaceful prosperity has turned increasingly into an extension of U.S. nationalism, predatory rent-extraction and a more dangerous military confrontation.

  Deterioration of international diplomacy into a more nakedly explicit pro-U.S. financial, trade and military aggression was implicit in the way in which economic diplomacy was shaped when the United Nations, IMF and World Bank were shaped mainly by U.S. economic strategists. Their economic belligerence is driving countries to withdraw from the global financial and trade order that has been turned into a New Cold War vehicle to impose unilateral U.S. hegemony. Nationalistic reactions are consolidating into new economic and political alliances from Europe to Asia.

  We are still mired in the Oil War that escalated in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, which quickly spread to Libya and Syria. American foreign policy has long been based largely on control of oil. This has led the United States to oppose the Paris accords to stem global warming. Its aim is to give U.S. officials the power to impose energy sanctions forcing other countries to “freeze in the dark” if they do not follow U.S. leadership.

  To expand its oil monopoly, America is pressuring Europe to oppose the Nordstream II gas pipeline from Russia, claiming that this would make Germany and other countries dependent on Russia instead of on U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG). Likewise, American oil diplomacy has imposed unilateral sanctions against Iranian oil exports, until such time as a regime change opens up that country’s oil reserves to U.S., French, British and other allied oil majors.

  U.S. control of dollarized money and credit is critical to this hegemony. As Congressman Brad Sherman of Los Angeles told a House Financial Services Committee hearing on May 9, 2019: “An awful lot of our international power comes from the fact that the U.S. dollar is the standard unit of international finance and transactions. Clearing through the New York Fed is critical for major oil and other transactions. It is the announced purpose of the supporters of cryptocurrency to take that power away from us, to put us in a position where the most significant sanctions we have against Iran, for example, would become irrelevant.”

  The U.S. aim is to keep the dollar as the transactions currency for world trade, savings, central bank reserves and international lending. This monopoly status enables the U.S. Treasury and State Department to disrupt the financial payments system and trade for countries with which the United States is at economic or outright military war.

  Russian President Vladimir Putin quickly responded by describing how “the degeneration of the universalist globalization model [is] turning into a parody, a caricature of itself, where common international rules are replaced with the laws… of one country.” That is the trajectory on which this deterioration of formerly open international trade and finance is now moving. It has been building up for a decade. On June 5, 2009, then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev cited this same disruptive U.S. dynamic at work in the wake of the U.S. junk mortgage and bank fraud crisis.

  Those whose job it was to forecast events … were not ready for the depth of the crisis and turned out to be too rigid, unwieldy and slow in their response. The international financial organisations – and I think we need to state this up front and not try to hide it – were not up to their responsibilities, as has been said quite unambiguously at a number of major international events such as the two recent G20 summits of the world’s largest economies.

  Furthermore, we have had confirmation that our pre-crisis analysis of global economic trends and the global economic system were correct. The artificially maintained uni-polar system and preservation of monopolies in key global economic sectors are root causes of the crisis. One big centre of consumption, financed by a growing deficit, and thus growing debts, one formerly strong reserve currency, and one dominant system of assessing assets and risks – these are all factors that led to an overall drop in the quality of regulation and the economic justification of assessments made, including assessments of macroeconomic policy. As a result, there was no avoiding a global crisis.

  That crisis is what is now causing today’s break in global trade and payments.

  Warfare on many fronts, with Dollarization being the main arena

  Dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991 did not bring the disarmament that was widely expected. U.S. leadership celebrated the Soviet demise as signaling the end of foreign opposition to U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism and even as the End of History. NATO expanded to encircle Russia and sponsored “color revolutions” from Georgia to Ukraine, while carving up former Yugoslavia into small statelets. American diplomacy created a foreign legion of Wahabi fundamentalists from Afghanistan to Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya in support of Saudi Arabian extremism and Israeli expansionism.

  The United States is waging war for control of oil against Venezuela, where a military coup failed a few years ago, as did the 2018-19 stunt to recognize an unelected pro-American puppet regime. The Honduran coup under President Obama was more successful in overthrowing an elected president advocating land reform, continuing the tradition dating back to 1954 when the CIA overthrew Guatemala’s Arbenz regime.

  U.S. officials bear a special hatred for countries that they have injured, ranging from Guatemala in 1954 to Iran, whose regime it overthrew to install the Shah as military dictator. Claiming to promote “democracy,” U.S. diplomacy has redefined the word to mean pro-American, and opposing land reform, national ownership of raw materials and public subsidy of foreign agriculture or industry as an “undemocratic” attack on “free markets,” meaning markets controlled by U.S. financial interests and absentee owners of land, natural resources and banks.

  A major byproduct of warfare has always been refugees, and today’s wave fleeing ISIS, Al Qaeda and other U.S.-backed Near Eastern proxies is flooding Europe. A similar wave is fleeing the dictatorial regimes backed by the United States from Honduras, Ecuador, Colombia and neighboring countries. The refugee crisis has become a major factor leading to the resurgence of nationalist parties throughout Europe and for the white nationalism of Donald Trump in the United States.

  Dollarization as the vehicle for U.S. nationalism

  The Dollar Standard – U.S. Treasury debt to foreigners held by the world’s central banks – has replaced the gold-exchange standard for the world’s central bank reserves to settle payments imbalances among themselves. This has enabled the United States to uniquely run balance-of-payments deficits for nearly seventy years, despite the fact that these Treasury IOUs have little visible likelihood of being repaid except under arrangements where U.S. rent-seeking and outright financial tribute from other enables it to liquidate its official foreign debt.

  The United States is the only nation that can run sustained balance-of-payments deficits without having to sell off its assets or raise interest rates to borrow foreign money. No other national economy in the world can could afford foreign military expenditures on any major scale without losing its exchange value. Without the Treasury-bill standard, the United States would be in this same position along with other nations. That is why Russia, China and other powers that U.S. strategists deem to be strategic rivals and enemies are looking to restore gold’s role as the preferred asset to settle payments imbalances.

  The U.S. response is to impose regime change on countries that prefer gold or other foreign currencies to dollars for their exchange reserves. A case in point is the overthrow of Libya’s Omar Kaddafi after he sought to base his nation’s international reserves on gold. His liquidation stands as a military warning to other countries.

  Thanks to the fact that payments-surplus economies invest their dollar inflows in U.S. Treasury bonds, the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit finances its domestic budget deficit. This foreign central-bank recycling of U.S. overseas military spending into purchases of U.S. Treasury securities gives the United States a free ride, financing its budget – also mainly military in character – so that it can taxing its own citizens.

  Trump is forcing other countries to create an alternative to the Dollar Standard

  The fact that Donald Trump’s economic policies are proving ineffective in restoring American manufacturing is creating rising nationalist pressure to exploit foreigners by arbitrary tariffs without regard for international law, and to impose trade sanctions and diplomatic meddling to disrupt regimes that pursue policies that U.S. diplomats do not like.

  There is a parallel here with Rome in the late 1st century BC. It stripped its provinces to pay for its military deficit, the grain dole and land redistribution at the expense of Italian cities and Asia Minor. This created foreign opposition to drive Rome out. The U.S. economy is similar to Rome’s: extractive rather than productive, based mainly on land rents and money-interest. As the domestic market is impoverished, U.S. politicians are seeking to take from abroad what no longer is being produced at home.

  What is so ironic – and so self-defeating of America’s free global ride – is that Trump’s simplistic aim of lowering the dollar’s exchange rate to make U.S. exports more price-competitive. He imagines commodity trade to be the entire balance of payments, as if there were no military spending, not to mention lending and investment. To lower the dollar’s exchange rate, he is demanding that China’s central bank and those of other countries stop supporting the dollar by recycling the dollars they receive for their exports into holdings of U.S. Treasury securities.

  This tunnel vision leaves out of account the fact that the trade balance is not simply a matter of comparative international price levels. The United States has dissipated its supply of spare manufacturing capacity and local suppliers of parts and materials, while much of its industrial engineering and skilled manufacturing labor has retired. An immense shortfall must be filled by new capital investment, education and public infrastructure, whose charges are far above those of other economics.

  Trump’s infrastructure ideology is a Public-Private Partnership characterized by high-cost financialization demanding high monopoly rents to cover its interest charges, stock dividends and management fees. This neoliberal policy raises the cost of living for the U.S. labor force, making it uncompetitive. The United States is unable to produce more at any price right now, because its has spent the past half-century dismantling its infrastructure, closing down its part suppliers and outsourcing its industrial technology.

  The United States has privatized and financialized infrastructure and basic needs such as public health and medical care, education and transportation that other countries have kept in their public domain to make their economies more cost-efficient by providing essential services at subsidized prices or freely. The United States also has led the practice of debt pyramiding, from housing to corporate finance. This financial engineering and wealth creation by inflating debt-financed real estate and stock market bubbles has made the United States a high-cost economy that cannot compete successfully with well-managed mixed economies.

  Unable to recover dominance in manufacturing, the United States is concentrating on rent-extracting sectors that it hopes monopolize, headed by information technology and military production. On the industrial front, it threatens disrupt China and other mixed economies by imposing trade and financial sanctions.

  The great gamble is whether these other countries will defend themselves by joining in alliances enabling them to bypass the U.S. economy. American strategists imagine their country to be the world’s essential economy, without whose market other countries must suffer depression. The Trump Administration thinks that There Is No Alternative (TINA) for other countries except for their own financial systems to rely on U.S. dollar credit.

  To protect themselves from U.S. sanctions, countries would have to avoid using the dollar, and hence U.S. banks. This would require creation of a non-dollarized financial system for use among themselves, including their own alternative to the SWIFT bank clearing system. Table 1 lists some possible related defenses against U.S. nationalistic diplomacy.

  As noted above, what also is ironic in President Trump’s accusation of China and other countries of artificially manipulating their exchange rate against the dollar (by recycling their trade and payments surpluses into Treasury securities to hold down their currency’s dollar valuation) involves dismantling the Treasury-bill standard. The main way that foreign economies have stabilized their exchange rate since 1971 has indeed been to recycle their dollar inflows into U.S. Treasury securities. Letting their currency’s value rise would threaten their export competitiveness against their rivals, although not necessarily benefit the United States.

  Ending this practice leaves countries with the main way to protect their currencies from rising against the dollar is to reduce dollar inflows by blocking U.S. lending to domestic borrowers. They may levy floating tariffs proportioned to the dollar’s declining value. The U.S. has a long history since the 1920s of raising its tariffs against currencies that are depreciating: the American Selling Price (ASP) system. Other countries can impose their own floating tariffs against U.S. goods.

  Trade dependency as an aim of the World Bank, IMF and US AID

  The world today faces a problem much like what it faced on the eve of World War II. Like Germany then, the United States now poses the main threat of war, and equally destructive neoliberal economic regimes imposing austerity, economic shrinkage and depopulation. U.S. diplomats are threatening to destroy regimes and entire economies that seek to remain independent of this system, by trade and financial sanctions backed by direct military force.

  Dedollarization will require creation of multilateral alternatives to U.S. “front” institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and other agencies in which the United States holds veto power to block any alternative policies deemed not to let it “win.” U.S. trade policy through the World Bank and U.S. foreign aid agencies aims at promoting dependency on U.S. food exports and other key commodities, while hiring U.S. engineering firms to build up export infrastructure to subsidize U.S. and other natural-resource investors. The financing is mainly in dollars, providing risk-free bonds to U.S. and other financial institutions. The resulting commercial and financial “interdependency” has led to a situation in which a sudden interruption of supply would disrupt foreign economies by causing a breakdown in their chain of payments and production. The effect is to lock client countries into dependency on the U.S. economy and its diplomacy, euphemized as “promoting growth and development.”

  U.S. neoliberal policy via the IMF imposes austerity and opposes debt writedowns. Its economic model pretends that debtor countries can pay any volume of dollar debt simply by reducing wages to squeeze more income out of the labor force to pay foreign creditors. This ignores the fact that solving the domestic “budget problem” by taxing local revenue still faces the “transfer problem” of converting it into dollars or other hard currencies in which most international debt is denominated. The result is that the IMF’s “stabilization” programs actually destabilize and impoverish countries forced into following its advice.

  IMF loans support pro-U.S. regimes such as Ukraine, and subsidize capital flight by supporting local currencies long enough to enable U.S. client oligarchies to flee their currencies at a pre-devaluation exchange rate for the dollar. When the local currency finally is allowed to collapse, debtor countries are advised to impose anti-labor austerity. This globalizes the class war of capital against labor while keeping debtor countries on a short U.S. financial leash.

  U.S. diplomacy is capped by trade sanctions to disrupt economies that break away from U.S. aims. Sanctions are a form of economic sabotage, as lethal as outright military warfare in establishing U.S. control over foreign economies. The threat is to impoverish civilian populations, in the belief that this will lead them to replace their governments with pro-American regimes promising to restore prosperity by selling off their domestic infrastructure to U.S. and other multinational investors.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  There are alternatives, on many fronts

  Militarily, today’s leading alternative to NATO expansionism is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), along with Europe following France’s example under Charles de Gaulle and withdrawing. After all, there is no real threat of military invasion today in Europe. No nation can occupy another without an enormous military draft and such heavy personnel losses that domestic protests would unseat the government waging such a war. The U.S. anti-war movement in the 1960s signaled the end of the military draft, not only in the United States but in nearly all democratic countries. (Israel, Switzerland, Brazil and North Korea are exceptions.)

  The enormous spending on armaments for a kind of war unlikely to be fought is not really military, but simply to provide profits to the military industrial complex. The arms are not really to be used. They are simply to be bought, and ultimately scrapped. The danger, of course, is that these not-for-use arms actually might be used, if only to create a need for new profitable production.

  Likewise, foreign holdings of dollars are not really to be spent on purchases of U.S. exports or investments. They are like fine-wine collectibles, for saving rather than for drinking. The alternative to such dollarized holdings is to create a mutual use of national currencies, and a domestic bank-clearing payments system as an alternative to SWIFT. Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela already are said to be developing a crypto-currency payments to circumvent U.S. sanctions and hence financial control.

  In the World Trade Organization, the United States has tried to claim that any industry receiving public infrastructure or credit subsidy deserves tariff retaliation in order to force privatization. In response to WTO rulings that U.S. tariffs are illegally imposed, the United States “has blocked all new appointments to the seven-member appellate body in protest, leaving it in danger of collapse because it may not have enough judges to allow it to hear new cases.”[5] In the U.S. view, only privatized trade financed by private rather than public banks is “fair” trade.

  An alternative to the WTO (or removal of its veto privilege given to the U.S. bloc) is needed to cope with U.S. neoliberal ideology and, most recently, the U.S. travesty claiming “national security” exemption to free-trade treaties, impose tariffs on steel, aluminum, and on European countries that circumvent sanctions on Iran or threaten to buy oil from Russia via the Nordstream II pipeline instead of high-cost liquified “freedom gas” from the United States.

  In the realm of development lending, China’s bank along with its Belt and Road initiative is an incipient alternative to the World Bank, whose main role has been to promote foreign dependency on U.S. suppliers. The IMF for its part now functions as an extension of the U.S. Department of Defense to subsidize client regimes such as Ukraine while financially isolating countries not subservient to U.S. diplomacy.

  To save debt-strapped economies suffering Greek-style austerity, the world needs to replace neoliberal economic theory with an analytic logic for debt writedowns based on the ability to pay. The guiding principle of the needed development-oriented logic of international law should be that no nation should be obliged to pay foreign creditors by having to sell of the public domain and rent-extraction rights to foreign creditors. The defining character of nationhood should be the fiscal right to tax natural resource rents and financial returns, and to create its own monetary system.

  The United States refuses to join the International Criminal Court. To be effective, it needs enforcement power for its judgments and penalties, capped by the ability to bring charges of war crimes in the tradition of the Nuremberg tribunal. U.S. to such a court, combined with its military buildup now threatening World War III, suggests a new alignment of countries akin to the Non-Aligned Nations movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Non-aligned in this case means freedom from U.S. diplomatic control or threats.

  Such institutions require a more realistic economic theory and philosophy of operations to replace the neoliberal logic for anti-government privatization, anti-labor austerity, and opposition to domestic budget deficits and debt writedowns. Today’s neoliberal doctrine counts financial late fees and rising housing prices as adding to “real output” (GDP), but deems public investment as deadweight spending, not a contribution to output. The aim of such logic is to convince governments to pay their foreign creditors by selling off their public infrastructure and other assets in the public domain.

  Just as the “capacity to pay” principle was the foundation stone of the Bank for International Settlements in 1931, a similar basis is needed to measure today’s ability to pay debts and hence to write down bad loans that have been made without a corresponding ability of debtors to pay. Without such an institution and body of analysis, the IMF’s neoliberal principle of imposing economic depression and falling living standards to pay U.S. and other foreign creditors will impose global poverty.

  The above proposals provide an alternative to the U.S. “exceptionalist” refusal to join any international organization that has a say over its affairs. Other countries must be willing to turn the tables and isolate U.S. banks, U.S. exporters, and to avoid using U.S. dollars and routing payments via U.S. banks. To protect their ability to create a countervailing power requires an international court and its sponsoring organization.

  Summary

  The first existential objective is to avoid the current threat of war by winding down U.S. military interference in foreign countries and removing U.S. military bases as relics of neocolonialism. Their danger to world peace and prosperity threatens a reversion to the pre-World War II colonialism, ruling by client elites along lines similar to the 2014 Ukrainian coup by neo-Nazi groups sponsored by the U.S. State Department and National Endowment for Democracy. Such control recalls the dictators that U.S. diplomacy established throughout Latin America in the 1950s. Today’s ethnic terrorism by U.S.-sponsored Wahabi-Saudi Islam recalls the behavior of Nazi Germany in the 1940s.

  Global warming is the second major existentialist threat. Blocking attempts to reverse it is a bedrock of American foreign policy, because it is based on control of oil. So the military, refugee and global warming threats are interconnected.

  The U.S. military poses the greatest immediate danger. Today’s warfare is fundamentally changed from what it used to be. Prior to the 1970s, nations conquering others had to invade and occupy them with armies recruited by a military draft. But no democracy in today’s world can revive such a draft without triggering widespread refusal to fight, voting the government out of power. The only way the United States – or other countries – can fight other nations is to bomb them. And as noted above, economic sanctions have as destructive an effect on civilian populations in countries deemed to be U.S. adversaries as overt warfare. The United States can sponsor political coups (as in Honduras and Pinochet’s Chile), but cannot occupy. It is unwilling to rebuild, to say nothing of taking responsibility for the waves of refugees that our bombing and sanctions are causing from Latin America to the Near East.

  U.S. ideologues view their nation’s coercive military expansion and political subversion and neoliberal economic policy of privatization and financialization as an irreversible victory signaling the End of History. To the rest of the world it is a threat to human survival.

  The American promise is that the victory of neoliberalism is the End of History, offering prosperity to the entire world. But beneath the rhetoric of free choice and free markets is the reality of corruption, subversion, coercion, debt peonage and neofeudalism. The reality is the creation and subsidy of polarized economies bifurcated between a privileged rentier class and its clients, eir debtors and renters. America is to be permitted to monopolize trade in oil and food grains, and high-technology rent-yielding monopolies, living off its dependent customers. Unlike medieval serfdom, people subject to this End of History scenario can choose to live wherever they want. But wherever they live, they must take on a lifetime of debt to obtain access to a home of their own, and rely on U.S.-sponsored control of their basic needs, money and credit by adhering to U.S. financial planning of their economies. This dystopian scenario confirms Rosa Luxemburg’s recognition that the ultimate choice facing nations in today’s world is between socialism and barbarism.

  

• These Are The Hardest-Working Cities In America

  Productivity in the US has been a hot topic among economists over the past few years, as the Fed and other academics have puzzled over how the longstanding correlations between unemployment & inflation have unraveled in the years since the financial crisis.

  Americans are working longer hours than ever before. Yet, wage growth remains stagnant, and automation is killing more jobs than ever before.

  Still, the US has perennially ranked as one of the hardest-working countries in the world as American workers clock in more hours than almost any of its peers in both the developed and developing world classifications.

  But, in order to drill down and collect more data on the subject,  Kempler Industries carried out a study to rank the 200 hardest working cities in the US. In order to compare apples to apples, Kempler ignored cities with populations below 150,000.

  A map below shows the top 10 hardest working cities.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Washington DC takes the top spot, scoring 90 points out of 100. But although DC takes the top spot, seven out of the top ten hardest-working cities on the list could be found in the Lone Star state.

  One reason why Texas had so many of the hardest working cities: Across Texas, roughly 20% of the state is of retirement-age.

  And not only were workers in these cities working longer hours than Americans elsewhere, they were also commuting longer. With the exception of Irving, every Texas city within the top 10 had an average commute that is longer than the national average.

  In terms of population, the largest cities on our list are Chicago and New York City while Pembroke Pines, Florida and Grand Prairie, Texas are the smallest cities on our list.

  Taking a step back, as the chart below shows, productivity in the US has been declining since the mid-aughts

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Theories about the underlying causes of this slowdown in productivity abound: one explanation holds that institutions and corporations are not deploying the new technologies very effectively for a variety of reasons: the cost of integrating legacy systems, insufficient training of their workforce, and finally, ill-planned investments by some companies utilizing these technologies scaring off others from following suit (perhaps more successfully).

  To be sure, after years of declines, productivity posted its best quarterly growth during Q4 of 2018, according to BLS.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Courtesy of CNN

  Remember: Productivity is important because producing more value with every unit of energy, every tool and every hour of labor helps drive higher wages, profits, taxes and general prosperity.

  Then again, there’s another explanation that has been catching on recently: Social media is helping to distract workers at unprecedented rates. According to one study, Americans are spending nearly 6 hours a day on their phones, facebooking, snap-chatting, insta-graming and interacting with their friends and others via social media networks.

  That time has got to come from somewhere.

  

• Radicalization Of Kids: A Global Threat

  Authored by Raheel Raza via The Gatestone Institute,

  On July 12, a 13-year-old boy blew himself up in a suicide bombing at a wedding in eastern Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province, killing five people and injuring 40, local officials said.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The issue of child radicalization has become a global horror-show.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Radicalization is now easy for the extremists, thanks to technology, the new weapon being brandished by Islamist terrorists in accordance with the mandate of the Muslim Brotherhood to “weaken the West from within”.

  Kids today, as early as three years old, are on YouTube watching videos. Unfortunately, it has never been easier for extremists — from white supremacists to radical Islamists — to target vulnerable children and penetrate a child’s consciousness.

  According to the UN, there are more than 250,000 child soldiers fighting around the world in more than 20 different conflicts. The Combating Terrorism Center reports that ISIS had more than 1,500 kids on the front lines and trained 1,000 kids to become suicide bombers in the first six months of 2015.

  This problem has spilled over into North America. CNN reported last year that about 1,000 investigations of connections with ISIS were open in all 50 states.

  • In August 2018, 11 children were found in a compound in New Mexico being trained by an American radical Islamist to commit school shootings

  • In Minneapolis, 45 boys and young men have left the local Somali community to join al-Shabab or ISIS. Dozens more were stopped in 2018 from traveling.

  • In June 2019, a 22-year-old Bangladeshi living in New York was arrested for plotting an attack on Times Square

  These are only a part of the statistics that tell us we are facing a huge crisis; very few people are willing to speak about the dangers of the radicalization of youths.

  On July 18, leaders and experts with the Clarion Project gathered in Washington DC to hold an exclusive pre-release Congressional screening of the new documentary, “Kids Chasing Paradise” (currently in post-production). The organization flew in key experts and other leaders fighting against radical extremism and who are affiliated with the film to educate Congress, hold media briefings and present its program to Prevent Violent Extremism at the National Press Club.

  Kids Chasing Paradise tells the incredible story of ordinary people that have been directly affected by this radicalization and are now trying to prevent it from happening to others.

  Apart from some in-depth coverage of youths being taught hate, violence and radicalization, the film features:

  • Christianne Boudreau, a Canadian mother who was personally affected by the impact of the violent radicalization process; her son, Damian, was killed while fighting for ISIS. She now coordinates the Mothers for Life Network, which brings together mothers of radicalized jihadis to support one another and combat radicalization.

  • Tania Joya, a former extremist who is now working out of Texas on deradicalization. Tania Joya’s ex-husband was radicalized in Texas as a teenager and became ISIS’ main propagandist in Syria. Originally British, Tania Joya and her four children now live in Texas. Tania used to want her children to grow up to be jihadists. Now she embraces human rights and Western values.

  • Nicola Benyahia is a British woman who founded Families for Life, a nonprofit organization focused on deradicalization and support for families of young extremists. When Nicola’s son, Rasheed, unexpectedly joined ISIS, she found Christianne and they started both a professional collaboration and personal friendship

  The movie is accompanied by a workshop called Preventing Violent Extremism, based on the concept that no one is born a terrorist or extremist. Individuals are manipulated into being radicalized. Therefore, we feel that prevention is possible. The workshop is a way of understanding the path to youth radicalization and suggestions on how to prevent it before it happens.

  As people who care deeply about human rights, we are extremely concerned about the way these children are being subverted and abused, as well as about the future of our next generation, and creating awareness is of utmost importance.

  

• Washington State Releases Hundreds Of Illegal Aliens Charged With Crimes, Including Felonies

  King County Washington, which identifies as a sanctuary county, has spent the last two years releasing hundreds of illegal aliens charged with crimes, including felonies such as homicide, sexual assault and kidnapping, according to Breitbart, citing records obtained by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI). 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The county, which includes Seattle, refused to honor over 370 detention requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for a 27-month period ending on December 31, 2017. 

  Of those, 290 of which were classified by ICE as under suspicion of threat level 1 or 2 offenses. 

  According to ICE.gov:

  Level 1 offenses include the following state or federal crimes: national security violations, homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, threats of bodily harm, extortion or threat to injure a person, sex offenses, cruelty toward child or spouse, resisting an officer, weapons violations, hit and run involving injury or death, and drug offenses involving a sentencing to a term of imprisonment greater than one year.

  Level 2 offenses are primarily property crimes and Level 3 offenses are other crimes, primarily misdemeanors. 

  According to RLI Executive Director Dale Wilcox: “State and local elected leaders like to congratulate themselves for the compassion of their sanctuary policies, but they are actually bringing violent crime and even death to their residents. The people of King County should be outraged and demand accountability from their leaders. Refusing ICE detainer requests means releasing dangerous criminals into the community, period.”

  Breitbart‘s John Binder notes that “recently in King County, a 32-year-old woman who is bound to a wheelchair was allegedly raped by 35-year-old illegal alien Francisco Carranza Ramirez, as Breitbart News reported.”

  Sanctuary City: Illegal Alien Wanted for Attacking His Rape Victim After Being Releasedhttps://t.co/yK02JvrJzE

  — John Binder 👽 (@JxhnBinder) June 21, 2019

  The victim pleaded with the court to give the illegal alien the highest penalty possible, but instead, he was given just 12 months in prison which had already been served and he was released and ordered deported to Mexico.

  Just three days after being released from prison, Ramirez found his rape victim and attacked her while she was with her three-year-old son, pushing her out of her wheelchair and fleeing the scene. Today, Ramirez is wanted by local and state officials and is now an illegal alien fugitive. –Breitbart

   According to former ICE Acting Director Tom Homan, “ICE’s ability to access a jail to speak with an illegal immigrant who’s in violation of federal law and has been locked up for a crime presents no danger at all to victims or witnesses. The fact is if you look up recidivism rates, 50 percent of those criminals will re-offend within the first year, and as many as 75 percent will re-offend within five years.” 

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

• The Five Faulty Premises Of Russiagate

  Authored by Doug “Uncola” Lynn via TheBurningPlatform.com,

  Having watched some of the questions to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller by congress on Wednesday July 24, 2019, as well as Mueller’s dithering deflections – it was obvious the entire affair was another distraction; more of the same ongoing circus show.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Of course, no minds were changed. Those on the Left still consider Trump to be a comprised capitalist pig guarding his tax returns with all the fervor of any good Manchurian Candidate and those on the Right still viewing Mueller as a tyrannical tool of the Deep State.

  After Mueller’s live testimony, this blogger listened to roughly thirty Americans calling into CNN with their comments. Of those callers, only three were in support of Trump and with the rest of them effusively expressing gratitude to Mueller for his service in revealing Trump’s threat to American Democracy.

  Many conservatives, including talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh and some his callers, agreed that Mueller didn’t seem familiar with the contents of his report, let alone the Steele Dossier, Fusion GPS, and other points-of-factbrought up by the Republicans as they were grilling the former special counsel. To be sure, Limbaugh commented on Mueller’s less-than-stellardemeanor and lack of preparedness – even going so far as to say Mueller deserved absolutely zero sympathies for his contributory efforts in the never-ending farce that the former special counsel has perpetrated on the American people.

  But, at the same time, L-Rushbo painted a picture of Mueller simply being (for lack of better terminology) parochial in his search for justice; as if Mueller was simply a Never-Trumper like Mittens Romney or John Kasich.

  In fact, at the close of the Mueller hearing, even House Republican Devin Nunes complimented Mueller, thanked him for his service, and refused to scorch the doddering old fool in the end.

  Unfortunately, a majority of Americans today, including many conservatives, have swallowed hook, line, and sinker one or more of the following five (5) faulty premises of Russiagate:

  1.)  The Russians actually hacked the 2016 elections

  The Mueller Report, as well as most of the Democrats who questioned Robert Mueller on July 24, 2019 claimed Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential Election in a “sweeping and systematic fashion”.

  This is not true.  It did not happen; at least not sweepingly or systematically.

  What did happen one year ago, on July 13, 2018, was Mueller’s boss at the time, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, announced the Mueller Investigation’s single indictment of Twelve Russian intelligence officers for alleged election hacking under President Obama’s watch.  Of course, this was done in an effort to divert publicity away from the July 12, 2018 Capitol Hill testimony of disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and to subvert President Trump’s impending Russian summit on July 16, 2018.

  Even so, in his very conveniently-timed press conference, Rosenstein acknowledged  that “no American was a knowing participant” in the Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and there was “no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election”.

  In other words, much ado about nothing, in the same way the Mueller Report offered zero forensic evidence other than the reliance of the two (2) now discredited Democratic National Committee (DNC) contractors:  CrowdStrike and “Russian dossier compiler Christopher Steele”.

  Furthermore, other so-called “established” and “confirmed” claims in Mueller’s bogus report cited the Russian company, Concord Management, as “sowing discord” throughout U.S. social media prior to the 2016 Presidential Election – and this was shot down by U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich’s May 28, 2019 ruling which concluded that Mueller had “no evidence”.

  Did you get that?  No evidence.

  Squat.  Zip. Nada.  Zilch.

  2.)  Wikileaks was affiliated with Russia

  Another key premise of Democrats, the U.S. Corporate Media, and The Mueller Report, is that Russian Intelligence hacked into the DNC servers and provided stolen e-mails to WikiLeaks through (according to the Mueller Report) “fictitious online personas including DCLeaks” and Guccifer 2.0”.

  Again, this did not happen because reporting as far back as 2017 indicated that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange possessed the DNC e-mails beforeDCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 were created, yet Assange used these entities to obfuscate his true source.

  Veteran intelligence whistleblowers also reported in 2017 on how the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers were not hacked by Guccifer 2.0 and released to WikiLeaks but, instead, the data actually originated via an external storage device.

  All of this means the “fictitious online personas” allegedly linked to Russian intelligence, according to the Mueller Report, were created after-the-fact in order to conceal the true source of the DNC leaks.

  Additionally, when WikiLeaks released the password to Vault 7, also known as: “The Largest Publication of Confidential CIA Documents Ever”, a program entitled UMBRAGE was revealed. This was a formerly top-secret initiative whereby American intelligence agencies could mimic internet hacks from other countries, including Russia.

  Yet, none of that information was revealed in Robert Mueller’s report, was it?  Why?  Probably, for the same reason Team Mueller refused to interview Julian Assange.  Because, had Mueller done so, he might have been asked later by congress why WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information in the case involving Seth Rich.  Rich was the former voter expansion data director for the DNC who was murdered in Washington DC on July 10, 2016.

  But Team Mueller didn’t care about any of that and, instead, disseminated false conclusions regarding Russian election meddling.

  Are you surprised?

  3.) Robert Mueller is an honorable guy

  Even in light of Robert Mueller’s doddering downfall on Congressional Hill, there are those on both sides of the political aisle who consider him, still, as an ethical and honorable man.

  He is neither.

  Former Texas State Court judge, and now sitting Congressman, Louis Buller Gohmert Jr  (R-Texas), has unmasked Mueller’s “long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence”, citing 18 specific examples, including:

  – Collusion with Boston mobster Whitey Bulger in criminality and framing innocent men for murder that resulted eventually in the release of innocent parties and 100 million dollars in compensation for DOJ Boston Office misconduct.

  – The FBI with Mueller as director harassed and hounded Congressman Curt Weldon in revenge for criticizing FBI failures related to 9-11.

  – Dishonest prosecutions of Senator Ted Stevens.

  – Prosecutorial abuses in the anthrax murder investigations post 9-11, producing one suicide and one award of 6.8 million dollars to the other innocent target.

  – Mueller’s unethical acceptance of the special prosecutor position when he was conflicted by his longtime personal and professional relationship with James Comey.

  – Mueller hired extremely partisan, biased, and conflicted attorneys for his special counsel team.

  – Mueller’s investigation ignored that FISA applications evidence presented to justify warrants to surveil Trump associates were not verified and thus a fraud on the court and illegal.

  As was adequately revealed by the Republicans who grilled Robert Mueller during his congressional hearing, the entire special counsel investigation (and it’s ensuing report) amounted to little more than political opposition research on behalf of the Democratic Party; and a concerted effort to gaslight the American public via it’s bizarre, and even Orwellian, deceptions.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Congressman Tom McClintock (R-California) asked Mueller why he couldn’t provide connecting evidence of Russian trolls to the Russian government.  Chris Stewart (R-Utah) questioned Mueller on why his team of angry Democrats always leaked information detrimental to Trump but never a single leak of anything placing Trump in a positive light.  And other Republicans wondered why Hillary Clinton’s “Dirty Dossier” received such extra-special “kid-glove” treatment by Team Mueller.

  Indeed, we now know the following:  In spite of the Mueller probe breaking multiple prosecutorial rules that ensured justice, they were “outfoxed” by Trump’s legal team beginning as far back as June, 2018 – when none other than William Barr sent a 19-page memorandum to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein checkmating Mueller’s apparent “interpretation of a single subsection of a single obstruction-of-justice statute:18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)“.  It was Barr’s contention that Trump could not have violated that particular statute because “he [Trump] was not accused of engaging in any wrongful act of evidence impairment”.

  In his memo to Rosenstein, Barr also claimed Mueller was giving the statute a “new unbounded interpretation” that “would have potentially disastrous implications” for the Executive Branch of government.

  Oh, that Robert Mueller.  What a guy. He folded on collusion and conspiracy before upping the stakes on obstruction via volume two of his report which presented like a legal Chinese finger-trap or Gordian Knot.  Mueller’s “not exonerating” Trump inverted “innocent until proven guilty” into “guilty until proven innocent” and demonstrated the special counsel investigation’s very palpable political prejudice – which was further proven by the specific misrepresentations and selective editing in the final Mueller Report.

  Even, now, if it appears Robert Mueller was a moderately senile figurehead for Andrew Weissmann & Company’s attempted takedown of a sitting president, certainly, history will not be kind to the former special counsel who lent his name to the farce. Undeniably, the former special counsel’s recent fiasco before congress was just the beginning of his once illustrious and ill-deserved reputation becoming a national joke.

  4.) The Democrats actually care about Democracy

  The Democratic Party does not have a political platform beyond Santa Clausian economic initiatives, genitalia, skin color, and disproven conspiracy theories rooted in fraudulent Russiaphobia.  They do not care to secure American elections.  On the contrary.  Why else would they be seeking to turn Texas into a blue state via ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?  Right?

  In truth, the Socialist Party cares only about power; even (as the Mueller hearing demonstrated) to the point of weaponizing their own hypocrisy.

  All throughout The Robert Mueller Show on Wednesday, the former special counsel’s bias and the hypocrisy of the Democrats and sycophants in the media, could not have been more obvious. Mueller’s appearance was meant to provide amplification on behalf of Trump’s political opponents for impeachment, more hearings, and additional investigations.

  Although Mueller received top billing, the Dems and their enablers in the media were always going to be the stars. Mueller was called to testify in order to expand the audience in order to resurrect the dying efforts of Trump’s enemies.

  And it all backfired yugely.

  Even so, during his testimony, Mueller “included some stark warnings” of how the Russians were already attempting to interfere in the 2020 elections.  This allowed the Democrats to continue their Chicken Little cries of how the “sky is falling” while citing Trump’s lackadaisicalness as proof of the president’s political puppetry under Putin.

  Yet, if the Democrats were concerned in the least over alleged Russian election hacking, then why are they not interviewing those who allowed it to happen under the Obama Administration’s watch?  They won’t because they don’t care about democracy or to secure America’s elections.  Instead, they desire to undermine the U.S. electoral process.

  The Democrats currently serving in congress are liars who seek America’s demise.  Sadly, that is the truth.

  5.) Intelligence Agencies under the Obama Administration were working to ensure secure elections

  Anyone even remotely paying attention over the past few years knows that Hillary Clinton and the DNC financed the Russian Dossier on Trump.  According to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the dossier was then used to obtain the FISA warrant required to spy on Team Trump.  A 90-day surveillance warrant on Carter Page was then renewed three times and this was done in order to dig up political dirt and diminish Trump’s chances of winning the 2016 Presidential Election.  Then, later, the FISA warrants were illegally issued to undermine Trump’s presidency.

  At the same time, the now well-known culprits in the Obama Administration (i.e. James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr) were actively concealing the multifarious crimes of Hillary Clinton.

  A mole in Trump’s campaign was also later revealed as Stefan Halper, a 73-year-old Oxford University professor and former U.S. government official who was paid over $1 million by the Obama administration including $411,575 that was made in two payments by September 26, 2016.  That date was three days after a Yahoo News article was published by Michael Isikoff on Trump aide, Carter Page; which the FBI later illicitly used as supporting evidence in the FISA warrant application for Page.

  Then, after Trump won the election, the phony Russian conspiracy was utilized:

  –  By online social networks to censor the alternative media

  –  By President Obama to sign into law the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act”

  –  By Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, to feloniously unmaskTrump administration officials

  –  By Democrats and the Media to pressure the new president’s National  Security Advisor to resign and the nation’s new Attorney General to recuse himself from the Russia investigation

  –  By deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, to appoint his trusted, dear friend and collaborator, Robert Mueller, as Special Counsel to investigate President Trump’s non-existent collusion with Russia

  –  By Robert Mueller to transition the imaginary Russiagate Collusion into illusions of Obstruction of Justice against Trump

  – By Robert Mueller to obtain minor process crimes on Paul Manafort(Trump’s former campaign chairman), Rick Gates (business associate of Manafort), George Papadopoulos (Trump’s former foreign policy advisor) and Michael Flynn (Trump’s former national security advisor) and others

  –  By AP reporters and FBI agents to collude in a conspiracy against Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort

  – By Team Mueller to falsely accuse Russia of meddling in order to undermine the trust of Americans in their electoral process

  – In order to summarily rescind a sitting president’s attorney-client privilege; as well as his presumption of innocence through the special counsel’s “lack of exoneration”.

  – To allow the Democratic candidates in the 2018 Midterm Elections to leverage the issue of election hacking and illegitimately win key senate races as well as control of the U.S. House

  All this from America’s “heroes” who swore an oath to defend America’s constitution.

  Thanks for nothing, you treasonous tribe of traitors.

  Conclusion

  As long as even some of the premises of those who oppose the U.S. Constitution are swallowed hook, line, and sinker by a significant percentage of the U.S. body politic – then these may, in the end, present as evidence in the historical record delineating the downfall of our once-great republic.

  One would like to believe this sordid chapter of corruption will result in the ultimate draining of the American swamp.  The nation now awaits reports from Inspector General Michael Horwitz on FISA Abuse and corruption in the Department of Justice; U.S. Attorney John Huber on Clinton Foundation illegalities; and U.S. Attorney John Durham on the malevolent origins of Russiagate.

  Godspeed gentlemen. Because a very significant percentage of the American public is growing more impatient by the day. Time is of the essence.  Tick tock.

  

• MbS Goes Elon Musk On Steroids: Seeks Flying Cars, Electric Dinosaurs, Robot Maids, & Glowing Sand For Barren Saudi Desert

  In northwest Saudi Arabia, where most people see a barren wasteland, Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has envisioned the future, and according to the Wall Street Journal, it is something straight out of an Elon Musk wet dream, complete with flying taxis, robot maids, robot dinosaurs, robot martial arts, endless booze and glow-in-the-dark sand, among other things.

  Perhaps MbS has been following Elon Musk’s Twitter account a little too closely. Or perhaps he has joined him in a microdosing regimen. Regardless, MbS has hatched a $500 billion plan to cover 10,000 square miles of this desert to attract the “world’s greatest minds and best talents” to the world’s best paying jobs in the world’s most livable city.

  A true modern day, pardon, future Shangri-La.

  The ideas have been laid out in 2300 pages of confidential documents at Boston Consulting Group, McKinsey and Company and Oliver Wyman that the Wall Street Journal was able to review. The project is called “Neom”, which – it will come as no surprise – is a mash up of the Greek word for “new” and the Arabic word for “future”. The documents were dated September 2018.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The consultants employed an expansive (and expensive) mix of science fiction and corporate buzzwords to turn the Prince’s imaginary city into a reality. Local tribes would have to be forcibly relocated and a court system developed by law firm Latham & Watkins would have judges reporting directly to the king and operating under Sharia law.

  Neom’s MbS-led founding board said: “This should be an automated city where we can watch everything. A city where a computer can notify crimes without having to report them or where all citizens can be tracked.”

  Perhaps the inspiration was not the Jetsons, but rather 1984. Also, it sounds like what the US is desperately trying to become. The board has adopted the recommendations of its consultants and people familiar with the project say they don’t know how much the plan will become a reality due to both funding issues and potential technological limitations.

  Neom Chief Executive Nadhmi al Nasr said: “Neom is all about things that are necessarily future-oriented and visionary. So we are talking about technology that is cutting edge and beyond—and in some cases still in development and maybe theoretical.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Perhaps inspired by the movie Syriana, the project marks the centerpiece of MbS’s effort to transform Saudi Arabia from an oil-dependent desert wasteland to a forward looking diversified economy. Rather than relying on just petroleum revenue, MbS has stated that he wants Saudi Arabia to produce goods and services that it currently buys abroad (such as chainsaws and sulfuric acid?) He also proposed Neom as a way to keep Saudis spending domestically.

  To ensure that his vision of Future World is truly unique, MbS plans to roll out the following :

  • 1. Flying Taxis: Scientists might take a flying taxi to work. “Driving is just for fun, no longer for transportation (e.g. driving Ferrari next to the coast with a nice view),” planning documents show.

  • 2. Cloud Seeding: The desert won’t always feel like the desert. “Cloud seeding” could make it rain.

  • 3. Robot Maids: Don’t worry about household chores. While scientists are at work, their homes would be cleaned by robot maids.

  • 4. State-of-the-Art Medical Facilities: Scientists would work on a project to modify the human genome to make people stronger.

  • 5. World Class Restaurants: There would be fine dining galore in a city with the “highest rate of Michelin-starred restaurants per inhabitant.”

  • 6. Dinosaur Robots: Residents could visit a Jurassic Park-style island of robot reptiles.

  • 7. Glow-in-the-Dark Sand: The crown prince wants a beach that glows in the dark, like the face of a watch.

  • 8. Alcohol: Alcohol is banned in the rest of Saudi Arabia. But it likely won’t be here, say people familiar with the plan.

  • 9. Robot Martial Arts: Robots would do more than just clean your house. They also could spar head to head in a “robo-cage fight,” one of many sports on offer.

  • 10. Security: Cameras, drones and facial-recognition technology are planned to track everyone at all times.

  • 11. Moon: A giant artificial moon would light up each night. One proposal suggests it could live-stream images from outer space, acting as an iconic landmark.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  For those concerned about their safety there, fear not – the Saudi state will have everything under control. Cameras, drones and facial-recognition technology will allow state intelligence to track every single person there. “Everything can be recorded,” the founders’ Board stated. Neom has already engaged IBM for potential facial recognition software. 

  The Board even thought of offering Tesla billions in subsidies to move to Neom, while giving the kingdom a stake.

  Clearly, since it is deep in the realm of science fiction, MbS also considered partnering with unicorn-specialist SoftBank on its “Apollo” project, which seeks to create “a new way of life from birth to death reaching genetic mutations to increase human strength and IQ.” 

  Unfortunately, the $500 billion futuristic nirvana doesn’t come without headwinds.

  According to the Journal, the Saudi government plans to forcibly relocate more than 20,000 people, many whose families have inhabited the area for generations. One resident of the area said “You are dismembering an entire society. For us, it’s like death.” 

  Additionally, companies have often avoided investing in Saudi Arabia due to the country’s opaque legal system, corruption, alcohol ban and rules that require women to get a male relative’s permission to travel. MbS has adopted the stance that these rules are so difficult to change because they are so ingrained in existing Saudi cities, that it is simply easier to just develop a new city and start over.

  “Starting Neom from scratch, with independent systems and regulations, will ensure the availability of best services without social limitations,” MbS said at Neom’s first board meeting.

  None of this is hindering MbS’ enthusiasm to come up with a Disney World for the world’s richest and most powerful. Construction on Neom is under way using thousands of foreign workers that in one section of the development were housed six to a tiny room as of June 17. Earlier this year, MBS issued a decree about an area called Silver Beach. “I want the sand to glow,” he said, according to two people familiar with the project. Engineers haven’t figured out a safe way to do it, the WSJ adds sardonically.

  Each night, he told underlings, a fleet of drones should create the illusion of a rising moon—crescent, half, full. “That’s what he wants this future to be,” a former executive said.

  To make that happen, Boston Consulting Group suggested partnering with NASA to make the fake moon “the biggest in the world.”

  Read the full longform WSJ writeup here. 

  

• Escobar: US And Iran Stuck At Negotiation 'Ground-Zero'

  Authored by Pepe Escobar via ConsortiumNews.com,

  All bets are off in the geopolitical insanity stakes when we have the President of the United States (POTUS) glibly announcing he could launch a nuclear first strike to end the war in Afghanistan and wipe it “off the face of the earth” in one week. But he’d rather not, so he doesn’t have to kill 10 million people.

  Apart from the fact that not even a nuclear strike would subdue the legendary fighting spirit of Afghan Pashtuns, the same warped logic – ordering a nuclear first strike as one orders a cheeseburger – could apply to Iran instead of Afghanistan.

  Trump once again flip-flopped by declaring that the prospect of a potential war in the Persian Gulf “could go either way, and I’m OK either way it goes,” much to the delight of Beltway-related psychopaths who peddle the notion that Iran is begging to be bombed.

  No wonder the whole Global South – not to mention the Russia-China strategic partnership – simply cannot trust anything coming from Trump’s mouth or tweets, a non-stop firefight deployed as intimidation tactics.

  At least Trump’s impotence facing such a determined adversary as Iran is now clear: “It’s getting harder for me to want to make a deal with Iran.” What remains are empty clichés, such as Iran “behaving very badly” and “the number one state of terror in the world” – the marching order mantra emanating from Tel Aviv.

  Even the – illegal – all-out economic war and total blockade against Tehran seems not to be enough. Trump has announced extra sanctions on China because Beijing is “accepting crude oil” from Iran. Chinese companies will simply ignore them.

  Okay With ‘OK Either Way’

  “OK either way” is exactly the kind of response expected by the leadership in Tehran. Prof. Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran confirmed to me that Tehran did not offer Trump a “renegotiation” of the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, in exchange for the end of sanctions: “It’s not a renegotiation. Iran offered to move forward ratification of additional protocols if Congress removes all sanctions. That would be a big win for Iran. But the US will never accept it.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Dehghan: U.S. bases would be targeted. (Wikimedia Commons)

  Marandi also confirmed “there is nothing big going on” between Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and tentative Trump administration negotiator Sen. Rand Paul: “Bolton and Pompeo remain in charge.”

  The crucial fact is that Tehran rejects a new negotiation with the White House “under any circumstances,” as expressed by Hossein Dehghan, the top military adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

  Dehghan once again made it very clear that in case of any sort of military adventure, every single base of the U.S. Empire of Bases across Southwest Asia will be targeted.

  This neatly ties in with Iran’s by now consolidated new rules of engagement, duly detailed by correspondent Elijah Magnier. We are well into “an-eye-for-an-eye” territory.

  And that brings us to the alarming expansion of the sanctions dementia, represented by two Iranian ships loaded with corn stranded off the coast of southern Brazil because energy giant Petrobras, afraid of U.S. sanctions, refuses to refuel them.

  Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a fervent Trump groupie, has turned the country into a tropical U.S. neo-colony in less than seven months. On U.S. sanctions, Bolsonaro said, “We are aligned to their policies. So we do what we have to.” Tehran for its part has threatened to cut its imports of corn, soybeans and meat from Brazil – $2 billion worth of trade a year – unless the refueling is allowed.

  This is an extremely serious development. Food is not supposed to be — illegally — sanctioned by the Trump administration. Iran now has to use mostly barter to obtain food — as Tehran cannot remit through the CHIPS-SWIFT banking clearinghouse. If food supplies are also blocked that means that sooner rather than later the Strait of Hormuz may be blocked as well.

  Beltway sources confirmed that the highest level of the U.S. government gave the order for Brasilia to stop this food shipment.

  Tehran knows it well – as this is part of the “maximum pressure” campaign, whose goal is ultimately to starve the Iranian population to death in a harrowing game of chicken.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Chokepoint: The Strait of Hormuz. (Flickr)

  How this may end is described by an ominous quote I already used in some of my previous columns, from a Goldman Sachs derivatives specialist: “If the Strait of Hormuz is closed, the price of oil will rise to a thousand dollars a barrel representing over 45 percent of global GDP, crashing the $2.5 quadrillion derivatives market and creating a world depression of unprecedented proportions.”

  At least the Pentagon seems to understand that a war on Iran will collapse the world economy.

  And Now for Something Completely Different

  But then, last but not least, there’s the tanker war.

  Dutch analyst Maarten van Mourik has noted significant discrepancies involving the UK piracy episode in Gibraltar – the origin of the tanker war. The Grace 1 tanker “was pirated by the Royal Marines in international waters. Gibraltar Straits is an international passage, like the Strait of Hormuz. There is only 3 nautical miles of territorial water around Gibraltar, and even that is disputed.”

  Mourik adds, “The size of the Grace 1 ship is 300,000 MT of crude oil, it has a maximum draught of about 22.2 meters and the latest draught via AIS indicated that she was at 22.1 meters, or fully laden. Now, the port of Banyas in Syria, which is where the offshore oil port is, has a maximum draft of 15 meters. So, in no way could the Grace 1 go there, without first having to offload elsewhere. Probably a very large quantity to get within max draught limitations.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Zarif (r.) negotiating nuclear deal with then US Secretary of State John Kerry in July, 2015. (Wikimedia Common)

  That ties in with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif refusing on the record to say where Grace 1 was actually heading to, while not confirming the destination was Syria.

  The tit-for-tat Iranian response, with the seizure of the Stena Impero navigating under the British flag, is now evolving into Britain calling for a “European-led maritime protection mission” in the Persian Gulf, purportedly to protect ships from Iranian “state piracy.”

  Observers may be excused for mistaking it for a Monty Python sketch. Here we have the Ministry of Silly Seizures, which is exiting the EU, begging the EU to embark on a “mission” that is not the same mission of the U.S. “maximum pressure” campaign. And on top of it the mission should not undermine Britain’s commitment to keep the JCPOA in place.

  As European nations never recede on a chance to flaunt their dwindling “power” across the Global South, Britain, Germany and France now seem bent on their “mission” to “observe maritime security in the Gulf,” in the words of French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian. At least this won’t be a deployment of joint naval forces – as London insisted. Brussels diplomats confirmed the initial muscular request came from London, but then it was diluted: the EU, NATO and the U.S. should not be involved – at least not directly.

  Now compare this with the phone call last week between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and French President Emmanuel Macron, with Tehran expressing the determination to “keep all doors open” for the JCPOA. Well, certainly not open to the Monty Python sketch.

  That was duly confirmed by Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said Iran will “not allow disturbance in shipping in this sensitive area,” while Iranian vice-president Eshaq Jahangiri rejected the notion of a “joint European task force” protecting international shipping: “These kinds of coalitions and the presence of foreigners in the region by itself creates insecurity.”

  Iran has always been perfectly capable, historically, of protecting that Pentagonese Holy Grail – “freedom of navigation” – in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran certainly doesn’t need former colonial powers to enforce it. It’s so easy to lose the plot; the current, alarming escalation is only taking place because of the “art of the deal” obsession on imposing an illegal, total economic war on Iran.

  

• For The First Time In 6 Years, No Central Bank Is Hiking

  The global central bank experiment with renormalization is officially over.

  After roughly half the world’s central banks hiked rates at least once in 2018, the major central banks have returned to easing mode, and as the chart below shows, for the first time since 2013, not a single central bank is hiking rates.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Commenting on the violent reversal away from tightening financial conditions which emerged following the Q4 2018 selloff, Goldman’s Jan Hatzius writes that “The FOMC looks set to cut the funds rate next week, the ECB today sent a strong signal that action in September is likely, and China has resumed easing policy after a spring pause. With global growth running at a below-trend rate of 2¾%—down from about 4% a year ago—a synchronized tilt towards easing looks like a natural response to a weaker outlook.”

  Yet even Goldman can’t help but ask just why the Fed is rushing to commence the first easing cycle in years, pointing out that “the US economy is in decent shape, with a tight labor market, inflation close to target and— in our forecast— growth running a little above 2% both this year and next. We are modestly above consensus because we expect the negative inventory cycle to end and final demand to continue growing robustly on the back of easier financial conditions.”

  This, according to the Goldman economist, should limit Fed easing to two 25bp insurance cuts, one next week and another in September, although the bank, which until very recently did not expect any rate cuts at all, fails to justify just why the Fed is doing what it is about to do, unless of course Powell is merely folding to Trump pressure.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  But if the Fed’s upcoming rate cut remains a mystery, what the ECB is about to do is relatively straightforward, as the European picture has continued to deteriorate, and as Draghi defined it yesterday, the outlook is “getting worse and worse.” Following the weak manufacturing flash PMIs, Goldman’s Current Activity Indicator for Europe in July stood at just +0.5% on an area-wide basis, and at -0.6% in Germany. Underlying inflation remains stuck at 1% “and the slide in inflation expectations points to risks of de-anchoring.” Moreover, fears of a “no deal” Brexit have re-intensified and volatility is likely to return in Italy as the 2020 budget is prepared. Therefore, Goldman expects forceful action from the ECB in September, “including a 20bp deposit rate cut (flanked by a move to a tiered reserve system), a return to QE (including corporate and sovereign debt) and a further strengthening of forward guidance.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Elsewhere the picture is similar, and after what looked like a strong Q1 rebound, Goldman notes that Chinese growth has slowed again to the bottom end of the government’s 6-6½% target range, with the “slower growth and the threat of trade war escalation have persuaded policymakers to return to a gradual easing path.” As a result, short-term interest rates remain in the mid-2% range, fiscal borrowing has stepped up, and credit growth beat expectations in June. Finally, with the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic coming up in October, Goldman expects policy settings to stay supportive in coming months, “likely easing slightly further on the margin.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Additionally, in a world where China has long become the marginal source of growth for much of the emerging world, EM growth outside of China remains sluggish as well, and most large EMs are growing below Goldman’s estimates of long-term potential, and well below policymakers’ aspirations, to wit:

  Exports have decelerated sharply (mainly due to weak DM growth) and domestic demand has disappointed (reflecting tighter financial conditions, especially where policy tightened in 2018). That said, we see slightly brighter prospects for the second half, as low inflation and a dovish Fed will allow EM policymakers to ease policy and support growth.

  And visually:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Finally, the risk of a no deal Brexit has returned to center stage as Boris Jonson took over as Prime Minister, pledging that the UK will leave the EU by October 31 with “no ifs, no buts” according to Hatzius, who expects the tail risks to intensify into Q4 and raised Goldman’s odds of a no deal Brexit to 20%. Even so, Goldman thinks PM Johnson will, on balance, seek to avoid a general election before having delivered Brexit. The only way to avoid a general election may be to avoid a no deal Brexit, and the only way to avoid a no deal Brexit may be to deliver Brexit with a deal. From this perspective, the scope for the new Prime Minister to depart from his predecessor looks very limited, and Goldman’s base case remains a negotiated Brexit deal (with a 45% probability).

   

  So with the entire world now in easing mode, it is relative easy to predict that Goldman expects smooth sailing. As Hatzius summarizes, “following the sharp rally in most asset prices this year, our near-term market views are fairly neutral.

  • On the rates side, we see scope for a further duration rally as the ECB over-delivers relative to current market pricing, but ultimately see rates drifting higher again as the Fed only delivers two insurance cuts and returns to tightening policy after the presidential election.
  • Pressure on the Euro looks likely in the near term, but we do not expect a large move given that the Euro is already undervalued relative to long-run fundamentals.
  • On the equity side, the S&P 500 trades near fair value relative to interest rates, although we believe policy uncertainty and negative revisions to 2020 earnings forecasts will limit the upside from here.
  • Finally, we see commodity prices stuck in a mid-cycle pause, with no strong near-term direction.

  And now we look ahead to next week’s historic catalyst: the Fed’s first rate cut in over a decade… just as the S&P closes at 3,205 – a new all time high.

  

• IRS Sends 1000s Of "Fishing" Letters To Crypto Users

  Authored by Marie Huillet via CoinTelegraph.com,

  The United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is sending letters to crypto investors to apparently scare them into accurately reporting their crypto-related income.  

  “Taxpayers should take these letters very seriously by reviewing their tax filings and when appropriate, amend past returns and pay back taxes, interest and penalties,” IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig said in a statement.

  “The IRS is expanding our efforts involving virtual currency, including increased use of data analytics. We are focused on enforcing the law and helping taxpayers fully understand and meet their obligations.”

  ‘Don’t Panic’

  According to a Forbes report by crypto tax attorney Tyson Cross, published on July 26, a number of Cross’s clients have received a letter “6174-A” from the IRS, threatening “future civil and criminal enforcement activity” if they fail to fully comply with reporting requirements.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  IRS Letter 6174-A. Source: Tyson Cross via Forbes

  While Cross notes that the letter may give the impression that it is a personally targeted enforcement action, he argues that it is much more likely to be a generic mailing campaign intended to encourage voluntary compliance — one year after the IRS first launched its cryptocurrency compliance push. 

  Although the agency could feasibly have identified tax cheats and sent the letter to specific individuals, Cross notes that over a dozen of his clients — all of whom accurately reported their crypto-derived income — had received the letter. 

  Much more likely, he claims, is that the IRS has used its list of taxpayers identified in 2017 by Coinbase and conducted a blanket campaign to exert psychological pressure on investors. He notes: 

  “This would seem to indicate the IRS is sending these letters to taxpayers as a fishing attempt without any real belief that each recipient has under-reported.”

  Cross writes that several other tax professionals have revealed to him that their own clients — despite accurate reporting — had also received Letter 6174-A.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

  The IRS hopes to tighten the noose

  Cross advised investors not to panic should they receive the letter, but to thoroughly ensure the accuracy of their tax returns, given that at the very least it means they are on the agency’s radar. 

  As previously reported, data released ahead of the close of the preceding tax year indicated that just 0.04% of tax filers were reporting capital gains from crypto investments to the IRS.

  Back in July 2017, the IRS had required that major U.S. crypto exchange Coinbase hand over detailed information on every one of its then 500,000+ users in an attempt to prevent tax evasion. However, a court order in November 2017 reduced this number to around 14,000 “high-transacting” users, which the platform later reported as 13,000.

  An alleged presentation by the agency earlier this month reportedly revealed that the IRS hopes to use Grand Jury subpoenas on firms such as Apple, Google and Microsoft to check taxpayers’ download history for crypto-related applications.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Airbus 'Glitch' That Went Undetected For Years Risked Failure Of Critical In-Flight Systems

  Boeing’s unprecedented stumble with the 737 MAX 8, along with President Trump’s trade war, have taken a toll on Boeing’s commercial aerospace business, as its Q2 earnings report, released earlier this week, confirmed. And although Airbus, Boeing’s greatest rival, is now the undisputed leader in building planes for commercial flight, but a scandal or setback could easily shake investors’ confidence in Airbus, and with good reason: reports about potentially dangerous software glitches like this one shouldn’t be ignored.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The Register, a British tech news website, reports that some models of Airbus’s A350 airliners, the company’s ‘workhorse’ model, still need to be rebooted after exactly 149 hours of continuous use, even after the EU’s aviation authority ordered Airbus to fix the glitch ASAP.

  Now, the EU is issuing a reminder to pilots to make sure to turn their planes on and off again after 149 hours of power-on time, or risk the loss of critical systems in-flight.

  In a mandatory airworthiness directive (AD) reissued earlier this week, EASA urged operators to turn their A350s off and on again to prevent “partial or total loss of some avionics systems or functions.”

  The revised AD, effective from tomorrow (26 July), exempts only those new A350-941s which have had modified software pre-loaded on the production line. For all other A350-941s, operators need to completely power the airliner down before it reaches 149 hours of continuous power-on time.

  Of even greater concern, the regulator and Airbus weren’t aware of the glitch until 2017, when the original AD was issued, as pilots started suffering unexplained losses of certain systems, putting them and their passengers and crew in a very risky situation.

  And this glitch apparently went undetected for years. It was only after a few planes suffered in-flight systems failures that they started to look into it.

  Concerningly, the original 2017 AD was brought about by “in-service events where a loss of communication occurred between some avionics systems and avionics network” (sic). The impact of the failures ranged from “redundancy loss” to “complete loss on a specific function hosted on common remote data concentrator and core processing input/output modules.”

  In layman’s English, this means that prior to 2017, at least some A350s flying passengers were suffering unexplained failures of potentially flight-critical digital systems.

  The glitch is similar to one of the problems that afflicted Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, as the Register explains.

  Airbus’ rival Boeing very publicly suffered from a similar time-related problem with its 787 Dreamliner: back in 2015 a memory overflow bug was discovered that caused the 787’s generators to shut themselves down after 248 days of continual power-on operation. A software counter in the generators’ firmware, it was found, would overflow after that precise length of time. The Register is aware that this is not the only software-related problem to have plagued the 787 during its earlier years.

  It is common for airliners to be left powered on while parked at airport gates so maintainers can carry out routine systems checks between flights, especially if the aircraft is plugged into ground power.

  The remedy for the A350-941 problem is straightforward according to the AD: install Airbus software updates for a permanent cure, or switch the aeroplane off and on again.

  Airlines that own these planes and are thus subject to the order include Air France, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and Lufthansa, Air China and Taiwan’s China Airlines.

  It also shows that the problem of over-reliance on AI and other advanced software isn’t limited to Boeing: As these technologies become more advanced, and these aerospace companies start to increasingly rely on them, these issues are bound to become more widespread. So, does that make air travel safer, or more dangerous?

  

• Time Runs Out On Operation Ukraine

  Authored by Tom Luongo,

  Change is now possible in Ukraine. The conflict between it and Russia has been frozen for nearly five years thanks to former President Petro Poroshenko.

  He’s gone. Volodmyr Zelensky is in power along with Zelensky’s political party which won close to a clear majority in Verkovna Rada elections recently.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Zelensky’s Servent of the People party won 253 seats out of 450, giving him not only the presidency but no need to build a coalition government with smaller parties of known foreign-controlled players, like Yulia Tymoshenko (Fatherland) or from Poroshenko’s party itself, European Solidarity.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Source: Wikipedia

  This was the biggest fear coming into these elections. Ukraine’s system is mixed using both proportional allocation (225 seats) and majoritarian allocation (225).

  Zelensky has a mandate now to begin the process of tearing down the barriers to sanity Poroshenko left in his wake. The big one being, of course, the war against separatists in the Donbass.

  For the first few months of his presidency Zelensky has sent mixed signals as to what he intends to do on the world stage. He’s offered to meet with Putin, who then asked saliently, ‘to what end?’

  He’s tried to pull back on the conflict only to see the shelling continue and, at times, intensify.

  Zelensky is dealing with the same kind of bureaucratic revolt against change that Donald Trump has dealt with. In fact, it’s the same people running the both shows.

  If there was one thing that has become glaringly obvious over the past three years it is that the coup attempt by the bureaucracy against Trump it is that much of it was cooked up in Ukraine under the dutiful eye of former President Poroshenko.

  With Poroshenko out of the way, there is still the inertia of those he put in important positions. Ukraine is practically a failed state so don’t expect good news. If anything it’s become a playground for outside forces to start more fires as Zelensky tries to stamp out the ones currently burning.

  All of these fires have one goal in mind, keep Ukraine and Russia separated and in conflict. This is being directed by both U.S. and British interests, if the Steele Dossier tells us anything.

  That is the way these things go. But, that said, what Zelensky can have control over are the big issues setting Russia and Ukraine at odds. Obviously the Donbass is the big one.

  But what’s really pressing is the gas supply contract between Gazprom and Naftogaz. It’s due to expire in December. I’ve written extensively about the machinations surrounding this and it’s worth your review.

  The U.S. is trying to run out the clock on these negotiations by slowing down completion of Nordstream 2 and put Gazprom in the position of not supplying its written contracts with Europe. If Nordstream 2 can’t deliver and there is no supply agreement with Naftogaz then Gazprom can’t deliver contracted gas for the first time ever.

  So I found it very interesting that Zelensky is now openly asking for talks with Gazprom and Naftogaz about the supply contract. This is not a difficult deal to get done. But, it has some outstanding issues. From TASS:

  After securing control over the Verkhovna Rada, the team of Vladimir Zelensky indicated that it is ready for new gas negotiations with Russia. According to Nezavisimaya Gazeta’s experts, Kiev’s decisiveness is explained by the pressure from the European Union and Ukraine’s interest in receiving transit revenues from Russia. Meanwhile, the real chances of a new transit agreement have grown, the newspaper wrote. Ukrtransgas has not paid for services since March and its debts threaten the company’s stability and question the reliability of its supplies, the European Federation of Energy Traders (EFET) said.

  But none of these issues will be difficult to resolve. Poroshenko left Ukraine at the mercy of Putin and Gazprom because they need the gas and the transit fees while Russia has Nordstream 2 and Turkstream coming on line next year.

  Putin energy embargoed Ukraine earlier in the year making things really dicey for Zelensky. At the end of the day, however, Putin and Gazprom will negotiate a deal quickly that will pay Ukraine based on market demand for that gas to satisfy European regulators allaying worries over Ukraine’s finances.

  Europe has made it clear it is no longer interested in paying for its failed Ukrainian project. Europe’s gas demand is rising so quickly that there will be room for everyone in the market. The only thing holding up completion of Nordstream 2 is a final permit from Denmark, which Gazprom expects to finally receive in October.

  Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller is not sanguine about the prospects of a deal as there are outstanding court cases involved, but the long-term political dividends of signing some kind of deal, even an extension of the existing one pending a more thorough overhaul, would be immense.

  Getting that problem solved would build trust between Putin and Zelensky and could lead to unwinding the problems downstream of 2014’s U.S. sponsored coup against Viktor Yanukovich.

  There are so many forces arrayed within the U.S., UK, northern European and Israeli governments against reconciliation between Ukraine and Russia that it will be difficult for Zelensky and Putin to achieve much.

  Europe’s new leadership, under Ursula von der Leyen, will be more confrontational with Russia while the jury is out on Boris Johnson’s new UK government and whether he can even remain in power for long.

  But it is clear that the people of Europe are tired of these games and want change. The Ukrainian elections are proof of this. And that, by itself, is something worth cheering.

  *  *  *

  Join my Patreon if you agree shadow governments are a blight on humanity. Install Brave to help break the control by big tech and its friends in big government.

  

• The Tyranny Of The Police-State Disguised As Law-And-Order

  Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “But these weren’t the kind of monsters that had tentacles and rotting skin, the kind a seven-year-old might be able to wrap his mind around – they were monsters with human faces, in crisp uniforms, marching in lockstep, so banal you don’t recognize them for what they are until it’s too late.”

  – Ransom Riggs, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children

  Enough already.

  Enough with the distractions. Enough with the partisan jousting.

  Enough with the sniping and name-calling and mud-slinging that do nothing to make this country safer or freer or more just.

  We have let the government’s evil-doing, its abuses, power grabs, brutality, meanness, inhumanity, immorality, greed, corruption, debauchery and tyranny go on for too long.

  We are approaching a reckoning.

  This is the point, as the poet W. B. Yeats warned, when things fall apart and anarchy is loosed upon the world.

  We have seen this convergence before in Hitler’s Germany, in Stalin’s Russia, in Mussolini’s Italy, and in Mao’s China: the rise of strongmen and demagogues, the ascendency of profit-driven politics over deep-seated principles, the warring nationalism that seeks to divide and conquer, the callous disregard for basic human rights and dignity, and the silence of people who should know better.

  Yet no matter how many times the world has been down this road before, we can’t seem to avoid repeating the deadly mistakes of the past. This is not just playing out on a national and international scale. It is wreaking havoc at the most immediate level, as well, creating rifts and polarities within families and friends, neighborhoods and communities that keep the populace warring among themselves and incapable of presenting a united front in the face of the government’s goose-stepping despotism.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  We are definitely in desperate need of a populace that can stand united against the government’s authoritarian tendencies.

  Surely we can manage to find some common ground in the midst of the destructive, disrupting, diverting, discordant babble being beamed down at us by the powers-that-be? After all, there are certain self-evident truths—about the source of our freedoms, about the purpose of government, about how we expect to be treated by those we appoint to serve us in government offices, about what to do when the government abuses our rights and our trust, etc.—that we should be able to agree on, no matter how we might differ politically.

  Disagree all you want about healthcare, abortion and immigration—hot-button issues that are guaranteed to stir up the masses, secure campaign contributions and turn political discourse into a circus free-for-all—but never forget that our power as a citizenry comes from our ability to agree and stand united on certain principles that should be non-negotiable.

  For instance, for the first time in the nation’s history, it is expected that the federal deficit will surpass $1 trillion this year, not to mention the national debt which is approaching $23 trillion. There’s also $21 trillion in government spending that cannot be accounted for or explained. For those in need of a quick reminder: “A budget deficit is the difference between what the federal government spends and what it takes in. The national debt is the result of the federal government borrowing money to cover years and years of budget deficits.” Right now, the U.S. government is operating in the negative on every front: it’s spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is borrowing heavily (from foreign governments and Social Security) to keep the government operating and keep funding its endless wars abroad. Meanwhile, the nation’s sorely neglected infrastructure—railroads, water pipelines, ports, dams, bridges, airports and roads—is rapidly deteriorating.

  Yet no matter how we might differ about how the government allocates its spending, surely we can agree that the government’s irresponsible spending, which has saddled us with insurmountable debt, is pushing the country to the edge of financial and physical ruin.

  That’s just one example of many that shows the extent to which the agents of the American police state are shredding the constitutional fabric of the nation, eclipsing the rights of the American people, and perverting basic standards of decency.

  Let me give you a few more.

  Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent government officials, America’s expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour)—and that’s just what the government spends on foreign wars. The U.S. military empire’s determination to police the rest of the world has resulted in more than 1.3 million U.S. troops being stationed at roughly 1000 military bases in over 150 countries around the world. That doesn’t include the number of private contractors pulling in hefty salaries at taxpayer expense. In Afghanistan, for example, private contractors outnumber U.S. troops three to one. 

  No matter how we might differ about the role of the U.S. military in foreign affairs, surely we can agree that America’s war spending and commitment to policing the rest of the world are bankrupting the nation and spreading our troops dangerously thin.

  All of the imperial powers amassed by Barack Obama and George W. Bush—to kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which they might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to operate a shadow government, and to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountability—were inherited by Donald Trump. These presidential powers—acquired through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements and which can be activated by any sitting president—enable past, president and future presidents to operate above the law and beyond the reach of the Constitution.

  Yet no matter how we might differ about how success or failure of past or present presidential administrations, surely we can agree that the president should not be empowered to act as an imperial dictator with permanent powers.

  Increasingly, at home, we’re facing an unbelievable show of force by government agents. For example, with alarming regularity, unarmed men, women, children and even pets are being gunned down by twitchy, hyper-sensitive, easily-spooked police officers who shoot first and ask questions later, and all the government does is shrug and promise to do better. Just recently, in fact, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals cleared a cop who aimed for a family’s dog (who showed no signs of aggression), missed, and instead shot a 10-year-old lying on the ground. Indeed, there are countless incidents that happen every day in which Americans are shot, stripped, searched, choked, beaten and tasered by police for little more than daring to frown, smile, question, or challenge an order. Growing numbers of unarmed people are being shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

  No matter how we might differ about where to draw that blue line of allegiance to the police state, surely we can agree that police shouldn’t go around terrorizing and shooting innocent, unarmed children and adults or be absolved of wrongdoing for doing so.

  Nor can we turn a blind eye to the transformation of America’s penal system from one aimed at protecting society from dangerous criminals to a profit-driven system that dehumanizes and strips prisoners of every vestige of their humanity. For example, in Illinois, as part of a “training exercise” for incoming cadets, prison guards armed with batons and shields rounded up 200 handcuffed female inmates, marched them to the gymnasium, then forced them to strip naked (including removing their tampons and pads), “bend over and spread open their vaginal and anal cavities,” while male prison guards promenaded past or stood staring. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the entire dehumanizing, demoralizing mass body cavity strip search—orchestrated not for security purposes but as an exercise in humiliation—was legal. Be warned, however: this treatment will not be limited to those behind bars. In our present carceral state, there is no difference between the treatment meted out to a law-abiding citizen and a convicted felon: both are equally suspect and treated as criminals, without any of the special rights and privileges reserved for the governing elite. In a carceral state, there are only two kinds of people: the prisoners and the prison guards.

  No matter how we might differ about where to draw the line when it comes to prisoners’ rights, surely we can agree that no one—woman, man or child—should be subjected to such degrading treatment in the name of law and order.

  In Washington, DC, in contravention of longstanding laws that restrict the government’s ability to deploy the military on American soil, the Pentagon has embarked on a secret mission of “undetermined duration” that involves flying Black Hawk helicopters over the nation’s capital, backed by active-duty and reserve soldiers. In addition to the increasing militarization of the police—a de facto standing army—this military exercise further acclimates the nation to the sight and sounds of military personnel on American soil and the imposition of martial law.

  No matter how we might differ about the deference due to those in uniform, whether military or law enforcement, surely we can agree that America’s Founders had good reason to warn against the menace of a national police force—a.k.a. a standing army—vested with the power to completely disregard the Constitution.

  We labor today under the weight of countless tyrannies, large and small, disguised as “the better good,” marketed as benevolence, enforced with armed police, and carried out by an elite class of government officials who are largely insulated from the ill effects of their actions. For example, in Pennsylvania, a school district is threatening to place children in foster care if parents don’t pay their overdue school lunch bills. In Florida, a resident was fined $100,000 for a dirty swimming pool and overgrown grass at a house she no longer owned. In Kentucky, government bureaucrats sent a cease-and-desist letter to a church ministry, warning that the group is breaking the law by handing out free used eyeglasses to the homeless. These petty tyrannies inflicted on an overtaxed, overregulated, and underrepresented populace are what happens when bureaucrats run the show, and the rule of law becomes little more than a cattle prod for forcing the citizenry to march in lockstep with the government.

  No matter how we might differ about the extent to which the government has the final say in how it flexes it power and exerts its authority, surely we can agree that the tyranny of the Nanny State—disguised as “the better good,” marketed as benevolence, enforced with armed police, and inflicted on all those who do not belong to the elite ruling class that gets to call the shots— should not be allowed to pave over the Constitution.

  At its core, this is not a debate about politics, or constitutionalism, or even tyranny disguised as law-and-order. This is a condemnation of the monsters with human faces that have infiltrated our government.

  For too long now, the American people have rationalized turning a blind eye to all manner of government wrongdoing—asset forfeiture schemes, corruption, surveillance, endless wars, SWAT team raids, militarized police, profit-driven private prisons, and so on—because they were the so-called lesser of two evils.

  Yet the unavoidable truth is that the government has become almost indistinguishable from the evil it claims to be fighting, whether that evil takes the form of terrorism, torture, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, murder, violence, theft, pornography, scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering and servitude on humanity.

  No matter how you rationalize it, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

  So how do you fight back?

  How do you fight injustice? How do you push back against tyranny? How do you vanquish evil?

  You don’t fight it by hiding your head in the sand.

  We have ignored the warning signs all around us for too long.

  As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government has ripped the Constitution to shreds and left us powerless in the face of its power grabs, greed and brutality.

  What we are grappling with today is a government that is cutting great roads through the very foundations of freedom in order to get after its modern devils. Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow.

  Therein lies the problem.

  The consequences of this failure to do our due diligence in asking the right questions, demanding satisfactory answers, and holding our government officials accountable to respecting our rights and abiding by the rule of law has pushed us to the brink of a nearly intolerable state of affairs.

  Intolerable, at least, to those who remember what it was like to live in a place where freedom, due process and representative government actually meant something. Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we now find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives.

  The hour grows late in terms of restoring the balance of power and reclaiming our freedoms, but it may not be too late. The time to act is now, using all methods of nonviolent resistance available to us.

  “Don’t sit around waiting for the two corrupted established parties to restore the Constitution or the Republic,” Naomi Wolf once warned. Waiting and watching will get us nowhere fast.

  If you’re watching, you’re not doing.

  Easily mesmerized by the government’s political theater—the endless congressional hearings and investigations that go nowhere, the president’s reality show antics, the warring factions, the electoral drama—we have become a society of watchers rather than activists who are distracted by even the clumsiest government attempts at sleight-of-hand.

  It’s time for good men and women to do something. And soon.

  Wake up and take a good, hard look around you. Start by recognizing evil and injustice and tyranny for what they are. Stop being apathetic. Stop being neutral. Stop being accomplices. Stop being distracted by the political theater staged by the Deep State: they want you watching the show while they manipulate things behind the scenes. Refuse to play politics with your principles. Don’t settle for the lesser of two evils.

  As British statesman Edmund Burke warned, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing.”

  

• Mapping All The Major Bitcoin Forks

  The emergence of Bitcoin took the world by storm through its simplicity and innovation. Yet, as Visual Capitalist’s Ashley Viens details, plenty of confusion remains around the term itself.

  The Bitcoin blockchain – not to be confused with the bitcoin cryptocurrency – involves a vast global network of computers operating on the same distributed database to process massive volumes of data every second.

  These transactions tell the network how to alter this distributed database in real-time, which makes it crucial for everyone to agree on how these changes should be applied. When the community can’t come to a mutual agreement on what changes, or when such rule changes should take effect, it results in a blockchain fork.

  Today’s unique subway-style map by Bitcoin Magazine shows the dramatic and major forks that have occurred for Bitcoin. But what exactly is a Blockchain fork?

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Types of Blockchain Forks

  Forks are common practice in the software industry and happen for one of two reasons:

  • Split consensus within the community
    These forks are generally disregarded by the community because they are temporary, except in extreme cases. The longer of the two chains is used to continue building the blockchain.

  • Changes to the underlying rules of the blockchain
    A permanent fork which requires an upgrade to the current software in order to continue participating in the network.

  There are four major types of forks that can occur:

  1. Soft Forks

  Soft forks are like gradual software upgrades—bug fixes, security checks, and new features—for those that upgrade right away.

  These forks are “backwards compatible” with the older software; users who haven’t upgraded still have access to the network but may not be able to use all functionality in the current version.

  2. Hard Forks

  Hard forks are like a new OS release—upgrading is mandatory to continue using the software. Because of this, hard forks aren’t compatible with older versions of the network.

  Hard forks are a permanent division of the blockchain. As long as enough people support both chains, however, they will both continue to exist.

  The three types of hard forks are:

  • Planned
    Scheduled upgrades to the network, giving users a chance to prepare. These forks typically involve abandoning the old chain.

  • Contentious
    Caused by disagreements in the community, forming a new chain. This usually involves major changes to the code.

  • Spin-off Coins
    Changes to Bitcoin’s code that create new coins. Litecoin is an example of this—key changes included reducing mining time from 10 minutes to 2.5 minutes, and increasing the coin supply from 21 million to 84 million.

  3. Codebase Forks

  Codebase forks copy the Bitcoin code, allowing developers to make minor tweaks without having to develop the entire blockchain code from scratch. Codebase forks can create a new cryptocurrency or cause unintentional blockchain forks.

  4. Blockchain Forks

  Blockchain forks involve branching or splitting a blockchain’s whole transaction history. Outcomes range from “orphan” blocks to new cryptocurrencies.

  Splitting off the Bitcoin network to form a new currency is much like a religious schism – while most of the characteristics and history are preserved, a fork causes the new network to develop a distinct identity.

  Summarizing Major Bitcoin Forks

  Descriptions of major forks that have occurred in the Bitcoin blockchain:

  • Bitcoin / Bitcoin Core
    The first iteration of Bitcoin was launched by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009. Future generations of Bitcoin (aka Bitcoin 0.1.0) were renamed Bitcoin Core, or Bitcore, as other blockchains and codebases formed.

  • BTC1
    A codebase fork of Bitcoin. Developers released a hard fork protocol called Segwit2x, with the intention of having all Bitcoin users eventually migrate to the Segwit2x protocol. However, it failed to gain traction and is now considered defunct.

  • Bitcoin ABC
    Also a codebase fork of Bitcoin, Bitcoin ABC was intentionally designed to be incompatible with all Bitcoin iterations at some point. ABC branched off to form Bitcoin Cash in 2017.

  • Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, Other Fork Coins
    After the successful yet contentious launch of Bitcoin Cash, other fork coins began to emerge. Unlike the disagreement surrounding Bitcoin Cash, most were simply regarded as a way to create new coins.

  Some of the above forks were largely driven by ideology (BTC1), some because of mixed consensus on which direction to take a hard fork (Bitcoin ABC), while others were mainly profit-driven (Bitcoin Clashic)—or a mix of all three.

  Where’s the Next Fork in the Road?

  Forks are considered an inevitability in the blockchain community. Many believe that forks help ensure that everyone involved—developers, miners, and investors—all have a say when disagreements occur.

  Bitcoin has seen its fair share of ups and downs. Crypto investors should be aware that Bitcoin, as both a protocol and a currency, is complex and always evolving. Even among experts, there is disagreement on what constitutes a soft or hard fork, and how certain geopolitical events have played a role in Bitcoin’s evolution.

  

• Pentagon Wants 16-Year-Old Kids To Fight The Empire's Wars

  Authored By Kurt Nimmo via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

  The Pentagon is desperate. Far too many millennials are criminals, so luring them in to become the latest crop of bullet stoppers for the state is a nonstarter. 

  Solution? Recruit 16-year-olds. Most have yet graduated to petty and violent crime, although a lot of them are in video game training for a future of violence and self-destructive stupidity. 

  It’s not being widely reported in the media. Recruiters are ready to go after tenth-graders. They are itching to snag kids before they engage in a life of crime, or before they have fully-mature brains (well, some of them) and decide to kill and be killed isn’t much of a career choice.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  First, though, the state will have to give these little darlings the “right” to vote for a crop of handpicked carnival barkers, euphemistically called representatives of the people. 

  I don’t know about you, but when I was sixteen all I thought about was cruising in my father’s car with a freshly minted state permission to drive card in my wallet as I searched desperately for girls willing to make-out in the backseat. 

  It took a year or two before I was politically aware, mostly as a result of Richard Nixon’s plan to “draft” me (polite speak for slavery) into the meat grinder he inherited from LBJ, aka the Vietnam War, where I would either be minced, traumatized for life, or lucky enough to stay behind lines and scrub latrines while other kids fought and senselessly died. 

  Around this time college, high school students, and millions of other concerned Americans marched against the war, a truly remarkable one-time event now impossible in America because the military is “volunteer” and our wars are “humanitarian.” 

  COMMENTARY: Why we should lower the age for recruitment to 16 https://t.co/CKn974qxis pic.twitter.com/y3BKi6z3PK

  — ArmyTimes (@ArmyTimes) July 11, 2019

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

  Most of these so-called volunteers “joined” the military because they have so few other career options (if you consider killing other people a career choice). Brought up in largely single-parent homes and taught all manner of nonsense in public schools that now resemble locked down prisons, these “volunteers” are completely ignorant of the reason the state needs them to fight and die. 

  It’s all about the psychopathic dominance of a tiny elite. The elite doesn’t send its Harvard-bound kids into its neoliberal meat grinder (because so many of these silver spoon darlings have bone spurs and such). 

  But this system is breaking down, mostly because the state upholds standards that worked in the 1940s and 50s, but are completely irrelevant now. They insist it is not permissible to fill the empty ranks with criminals. Hired killers must be held to the highest moral standard. 

  So, like the United Kingdom, the US is looking to 16-year old kids to fight in the name of the corporate state and, of course, our freedom to live hand-to-mouth in a political and cultural cesspool. 

  Democrats like the idea of 16-year-old voters. Most are far more impressionable and less cantankerous than your average middle-age deplorable. They also approve the idea of feeding kids into the military, but you don’t hear a lot about that because Democrats and progressives don’t think much about war. It’s a big blind spot for them. There are more important issues, for instance trans-gender bathrooms.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  I don’t think this is going to turn out like they think it will. Far too many 16-year olds will flunk out of basic training. Most don’t have what it takes, never mind all those formative years killing bad guys on computer screens. 

  If The Donald gets us into a big shooting war over in the Middle East or in the South China Sea, the mandatory servitude of conscription will be required. It won’t be a turkey shoot like Iraq or Libya. It will be an existential threat, so all males —criminally inclined or not — between 16 and 45 will be inducted, same as they were after FDR tricked the Japanese into invading Pearl Harbor, or Johnson said the North Vietnamese attacked our warships in the Gulf of Tonkin. 

  But the kids are oblivious. They were taught to be so. And the propaganda machine will tell them they’re sacrificing their lives (or limbs and mental health) for the noble cause of star-spangled democracy, which most of them know close to zero about. 

  

• US Targets Vast 'Food Corruption Scam' In Fresh Venezuela Sanctions

  Though international and mainstream media have largely moved on from Venezuela following a failed US-backed coup against socialist president Nicolas Maduro, the US continues to hit the economically collapsed country with more sanctions. 

  On Thursday the US Treasury announced it’s taking aim at a vast “food corruption network,” imposing sanctions on 10 people and 13 groups alleged to be running a Venezuelan food subsidy scheme, the proceeds of which went straight to lining Maduro’s pockets. 

  The Treasury called it a “vast” corruption network profiting from “overvalued contracts” tapping to into Caracas’ food subsidy program, and spearheaded by Colombian national Alex Nain Saab.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  Reuters reports, based on the Treasury statement, that “Saab bribed Maduro’s three stepsons to win no-bid, overvalued government contracts, said Sigal P. Mandelker, under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.”

  “Alex Saab engaged with Maduro insiders to run a wide-scale corruption network they callously used to exploit Venezuela’s starving population,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced Thursday.

  “Treasury is targeting those behind Maduro’s sophisticated corruption schemes, as well as the global network of shell companies that profit from” the country’s military-controlled food distribution program, Mnuchin added.

  Saab’s operation is said to have imported “only a fraction of the food” that was supposed to go to the poor and needy of Venezuela, all while reaping major profits from overvalued contracts. Other individuals considered close to Maduro were also named as part of the new sanctions roll out, including a stepson of the Venezuelan president. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  The Treasury also detailed how Saab was previously involved in a secret scheme to swindle gold from the cash strapped Latin American country, which benefited corrupt Maduro government elites. Reuters detailed further: 

  Saab also began in 2018 to help the Venezuelan government liquidate gold mined in Venezuela and convert it into foreign currency, Treasury said. The gold was then flown to destinations including Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, it said.

  The United States imposed sanctions on the Venezuelan gold sector last year. U.S. envoy to Venezuela Elliott Abrams estimated on Wednesday that Maduro’s government had sold roughly $1 billion in gold in 2019. 

  Interestingly, this week new Miami Herald report detailed that the Trump administration “appears willing to offer guarantees to Nicolas Maduro that the U.S. will leave him alone if he leaves Venezuela.” 

  Though originating from an unnamed “high official” in the US administration, it’s the first time any Trump officials have suggested the US may be willing to “negotiate” an exit for Maduro. 

  

• Escobar: How To Kill 10 Million Afghans And Not Win

  Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

  Afghanistan, bombed and invaded under the Cheney regime, was never a just war…

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  “We’re like policemen. We’re not fighting a war. If we wanted to fight a war in Afghanistan and win it, I could win that war in a week. But I don’t want to kill 10 million people. Afghanistan could be wiped off the face of the Earth. I don’t want to go that route.”

  Even considering the rolling annals of demented Trumpism, bolstered every single day by a torrent of outrageous tweets and quotes, what you’ve just read is simply astonishing. Here we have the President of the United States asserting that, 1) The US is not fighting a war in Afghanistan;  2) If the US wanted a war, the President would win it in a week; 3) He would kill 10 million people – although he doesn’t want it; 4) “Afghanistan” as a whole, for no meaningful reason, could be wiped off the face of the Earth.

  Trump said all of the above while sitting alongside Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan – who, in a deft move, is trying to appease the White House even as he carefully positions Pakistan as a solid node of Eurasia integration alongside Russia, China and Iran.

  When Trump says the US is not fighting a war in Afghanistan, he’s on to something, although it’s doubtful that Team Trump have told the boss that the real game in town, from the beginning, is the CIA heroin rat line.

  It’s also doubtful Trump would ask for input from his hated predecessor Barack Obama. Obama may not have killed 10 million people, but the forces under his command did kill scores of Afghans, including countless civilians. And still Obama did not “win” – much less “in a week.”

  Barack Obama did entertain the notion of “winning” the war in Afghanistan. After deliberating in solitary confinement for 11 hours, as legend goes, he “methodically” settled for a two-step surge, 21,000 troops plus 30,000. Obama believed the war on Afghanistan was a noble crusade and during his presidential campaign in 2008 always defined it as “the right war.”

  Obama defended his surge on humanitarian imperialist grounds; “For the Afghan people, the return of Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people, especially women and girls.” The New York Times and the Washington Post applauded.

  But, Kabul, we got a problem. Afghanistan, bombed and invaded under the Cheney regime, was never a “right” or “just” war. There was never any established Taliban connection to 9/11. Plotting and financing for 9/11 involved Saudis and cells in Germany, Pakistan and the UAE. Mullah Omar never dispatched any “terra-rists” on one-way tickets to America.

  Nevertheless, the Taliban leadership in Kandahar did agree to a deal – brokered by Moscow – to surrender Osama bin Laden, who, without even the hint of an investigation, was proclaimed the evil 9/11 culprit only a few hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers. The Cheney regime rejected the Taliban offer, as well as a subsequent one, to hand over Osama to a Muslim nation for trial. The Cheney regime only wanted an extradition to the US.

  The SCO steps in

  With puppet Hamid Karzai barely reigning in Kabul, and the neocons already focused on their real target, Iraq , the occupation of Afghanistan was handed over to NATO. This had already been decided even before 9/11, at the G8 in Genoa in July, when it became clear Washington had a plan to strike Afghanistan by October. The Cheney regime badly needed a beachhead in the intersection of Central Asia and South Asia not only to monitor Russia and China but also to coordinate a drive to take over Central Asia’s massive gas wealth.

  Notoriously fickle history in the Hindu Kush ruled otherwise. Incrementally, the Taliban started to get their mojo back throughout the 2010s, to the point that now they control as much as half of the country.

  Even that fountain of vanity Gen. David Petraeus – who had crafted the (failed) Iraq surge – always knew the Afghan war was un-winnable. Disgraced Gen. Stanley McChrystal at least was more surgical: “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number, and to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat.”

  Still, certified fun and games were assured by stuff such as Lockheed Martin’s high mobility artillery rocket system laying waste to Pashtun villages and devastating wedding ceremonies. Pentagon propaganda about “low collateral damage” never disguised the absence of real, actionable intel on the ground.

  Seymour Hersh argued that Obama’s version of the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 was an elaborate work of fiction – subsequently duly enshrined by Hollywood. One year later, Obama’s surge still had 88,000 soldiers in Afghanistan plus nearly 118,000 contractors. The surge then died a slow, ignominious death.

  Anyone remotely familiar with the fractious geopolitics at the intersection of Central and South Asia knows that, for the US military-industrial-security complex, to withdraw from Afghanistan is anathema. Trump may be emitting some noise – but that’s just noise. Bagram air base is an invaluable asset in the Empire of Bases to monitor the evolving Russia-China strategic partnership.

  The only feasible solution for Afghanistan is a pan-Eurasia mechanism being advanced by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, with Russia and China at the helm, India and Pakistan as full members and Iran and Afghanistan as observers. Afghanistan will then be fully integrated as a node of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative, as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor as well as the Indian mini-Silk Road through Afghanistan towards Central Asia starting from the Iranian port of Chabahar.

  This is what all major Eurasia players want. This is how you “win” a war. And this is how you don’t need to kill 10 million people.

  

• Iran Just Test Fired A Medium-Range Ballistic Missile: Pentagon

  Pentagon officials confirmed Thursday night that Iran has test fired a ballistic missile, which occurred late Wednesday, in a new show of defiance amid soaring tensions related to both the continued detention of the British-flagged Stena Impero and Iranian threats that it will resist any US-led or European efforts to “secure” the Strait of Hormuz for Persian Gulf shipping. Fox reports the breaking news as follows: 

  Iran successfully test-fired a medium-range ballistic missile Wednesday which flew more than 600 miles from the southern part of the country to an area outside the capital, Tehran, in the north, a U.S. official told Fox News

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  “We are aware of reports of a projectile launched from Iran, and have no further comment at this time,” a senior administration official said.

  It’s been identified as the Shahab-3 missile, an Iranian-made medium-range, liquid-fueled, road-mobile ballistic missile with a maximum range of 800 miles, and designed to reach regional targets in the Mideast region. Notably it’s theoretically capable of reaching Israel. 

  Citing the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA), the report noted it’s “not clear whether Wednesday’s test was in violation of any sanctions against Iran.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  CNN’s Barbara Starr said separately based on Pentagon sources, “While the Shabaab-3 missile did not pose a threat to shipping or U.S. bases, the intelligence assessment is [that] it’s part of Iran’s efforts to improve the range and accuracy.”

  This comes as contradictory and accusatory statements have continued to fly this week between Tehran and the Pentagon related to last week’s controversial Iranian drone downing. The US Navy says it destroyed up to two Iranian drones after they came within 1,000 yards of the USS Boxer in the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran has continued to deny it lost any drones, with even the suggestion from Iranian officials that the US may have taken out its own drone. 

  The new missile test has also been made public just as US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made very surprising remarks, saying in a Bloomberg television interview Thursday that he would travel to Iran for direct talks “if necessary”. Asked if he’d contemplate the dramatic step of going to Tehran, Pompeo said:

  “Sure. If that’s the call, I’d happily go there… I would welcome the chance to speak directly to the Iranian people.”

  However, he could quickly walk back the statement following news of the latest deeply provocative Iranian missile test. 

  

• Ron Paul: Forget Russiagate, Look At FBI-gate Instead

  Via 21stCenturyWire.com,

  Yesterday, the Democratic Congress had their big moment – the testimony of Russiagateprobe figurehead Robert Mueller, whose 448-page report detailing the findings of his nearly-two-year-long investigation into alleged “Trump-Russian collusion” and alleged “Russian interference” in the US 2016 elections.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  After no evidence of collusion or interference could be found, the remit was then shifted over to “possible obstruction of justice. ” And when no evidence of obstruction could be unearthed, the Democrat and Mueller position then became, ‘the Mueller Report has not cleared Trump of obstruction,’ or the report does not exoneration of the President. Here they are trying to prove a negative, something which could be said about about any unproven accusation leveled against anyone – which makes that spurious declaration meaningless.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Even the most ardent Never Trump partisan journalists, like NBC News political director Chuck Todd, admitted that the former special counsel Robert Mueller’s performance in front of the House Judiciary Committee hearing was a “disaster” and did nothing to advance the cause for impeachment.

  As the dust subsides from yesterday’s debacle, the real issues are finally coming into focus.

  Former US Congressman Dr Ron Paul highlights some of the deeper,  fundamental problems with the Russiagate fiasco. RT International reports…

  The Democrats’ dream of impeaching President Trump over the Russiagate scandal has “totally failed,” its fate confirmed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s disastrous showing in Congress, former congressman Ron Paul told RT.

  The utterly anticlimactic hearing saw the ex-special counsel serving up reheated details of his two-year probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, reminding both the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees that there was no proof that members of the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.

  “Hopefully, this will end it all, because Mueller did not have any evidence,” Paul said.

  “I think we should never use the word Russiagate again. I think we ought to use the FBIgate because there was a conspiracy to try to frame Trump.”

  “If they have impeachment hearings next year, it is going to backfire on them, just as I think this hearing today backfired on the Democrats,” Paul said, suggesting that lawmakers should instead investigate the origins of the Russia probe – in particular the Steele dossier, which was partially funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party. The document, produced by Fusion GPS, was full of unsubstantiated tales about Trump and helped to kick off the FBI probe, yet when pressed on the key role of the opposition research firm, Mueller didn’t even appear to be familiar with the organization.

  Both parties have much bigger problems, Paul pointed out, marveling at how Democrats and Republicans are “bosom buddies,” marching in lockstep on “more debt, more interference, more involvement overseas, more welfare-ism,” yet “they hate each other’s guts when it comes to power.”

  “The empire’s broke, the empire’s in trouble, yet [both parties] don’t want to talk about that.”

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• How Will Boris Johnson 'Deliver Brexit'? These Are His Best Options

  There are 99 days left between now and Oct. 31 – the day the UK is set to leave the European Union. And newly elected Tory leader Boris Johnson (soon to be prime minister, barring some unforeseeable circumstance) will need every one of them to try and negotiate his way out of the mess that Theresa May is leaving behind.

  Unlike May, Johnson is a leading voice in the “Brexiteer” faction of the Conservative Party. He has insisted that the UK will leave the EU on Oct. 31 with or without a deal. Of course, he would prefer to succeed where his predecessor failed and strong-arm the EU into a deal that excludes the troublesome Irish Backstop – the contingency in the prior agreement which would have allowed for the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland to remain open. But EU officials have insisted in recent days that they have no plans to change the withdrawal agreement negotiated with May; they are only open to making changes to the political declaration that accompanied it.

  Moving forward, only one thing is clear right now: May’s deal is dead. Johnson, who will officially take over as prime minister this afternoon, and who is currently scrambling to fill the top jobs in his government, is giving off the impression that he would have no problem with taking the UK over the no-deal cliff, and President Trump is dangling a US-UK trade deal in front of Johnson that would make such an outcome slightly more palatable, politically.

  Among the personnel rumors circulating early on Wednesday were that Sajid Javid might be tapped to serve as Chancellor, while Dominic Raab might be tapped to serve as foreign secretary.

  So, what are the options available to Johnson? These are four of the most likely scenarios, according to Bloomberg:

  Renegotiate Withdrawal Deal

  Johnson wants to scrap the deal Theresa May struck and restructure the whole negotiation that was agreed at the start of the process.

  The most controversial element of May’s deal is the so-called Irish backstop, a fallback measure to ensure the border with Ireland remains open whatever future trading terms the two sides eventually agree on. He wants to postpone any talks about the border until after the U.K. has left the bloc, arguing they should be part of future trade negotiations. He also suggests using the 39-billion-pound ($49 billion) divorce settlement as leverage in the talks, making payment contingent on the terms negotiated.

  Obstacles: The EU has repeatedly said it’s not prepared to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, and it’s the only deal on the table. It’s also said a backstop must be part of any withdrawal accord, because it wants to lock in a guarantee that no hard border will emerge. The exit bill is also part of the divorce deal, and is due to be paid whatever trade terms are eventually negotiated. EU law dictates that Brexit should happen in two parts: First the exit negotiation, and once the U.K. has left, formal trade talks can begin.

  Leave on Oct. 31

  Johnson has said that after May twice delayed Brexit, the U.K. must now leave the bloc on Oct. 31, “do or die,” whether a new deal has been negotiated or not. He’s refused to rule out suspending Parliament – known as proroguing – to achieve that.

  Obstacles: The timetable is tight to negotiate an entirely new deal. And the U.K. Parliament is opposed to a no-deal Brexit. That was made clear again last week when Conservative rebels joined the opposition to pass an amendment aimed at preventing Johnson suspending Parliament. The EU side has indicated it would prefer another extension to a no-deal split.

  Standstill Period After Brexit

  Johnson is seeking to negotiate a “standstill” period with the European Union after Oct. 31, during which there would be zero tariffs and zero quotas to “smooth things over for business” – much the same as the transition period negotiated by May. He said it would end “well before the next election,” which is due in 2022.

  Obstacle: The EU has said any form of transition period is contingent on there being a withdrawal agreement, which must contain an Irish backstop.

  Use WTO rules if EU won’t cooperate

  Johnson has said that if the EU won’t offer a new deal, the U.K. will be able to use Article 24 of the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to ensure the terms of commerce remain the same after Brexit.

  Obstacles: The clause Johnson cites applies to countries negotiating a trade deal rather than a country leaving a trading bloc. It would also require the agreement of the EU, and a clear timetable for the negotiation of a trade agreement — neither of which would be guaranteed in the event of an acrimonious no-deal Brexit. The WTO and EU have said this won’t work, and Johnson revealed a hazy understanding during the campaign as to why it would.

  Oddly, Bloomberg’s options don’t include ‘general election’, which is widely seen as possible as the Conservatives’ majority is set to shrink to just one vote (and that’s with Northern Irish DUP’s votes included). Many expect that Johnson will be stuck in a similar impasse to May’s and that he will need to call a general election – much like May once did – to strengthen his mandate. A group of strategists at UBS believe a general election toward the end of the year has the highest probability of all these outcomes, and many suspect that the odds of a vote and, once it’s declared, the polls, will have a similar impact on UK markets that the original pre-referendum Brexit polls had.

  If an election is called, the strategists believe the Bank of England is more likely to cut rates to boost sentiment, stocks with international exposure would outperform domestically focused shares and the FTSE 100 would move modestly lower.

  Before Johnson takes over, May will preside over her last PMQs. Watch live coverage here.

  

• Russian-Chinese Air Patrol Near S.Korea Was 'Show Of Force' To US Hawks

  Via Southfront.org,

  The recent violation of the South Korean airspace during a joint patrol of Russian and Chinese strategic bombers, resulting in scrambled South Korean jets reportedly firing hundreds of warning shots, may have been a message to US hawks. On Tuesday, a group of Russian and Chinese warplanes, including strategic bombers, conducted a joint patrol mission near South Korea’s territory under the annual cooperation plan, the Chinese Defense Ministry’s official spokesman Col. Wu Qian said on Wednesday:

  “As far as the air incident is concerned, I would like to reiterate that China and Russia are engaged in all-encompassing strategic coordination. This patrol mission was among the areas of cooperation and was carried out within the framework of the annual plan of cooperation between the defense agencies of the two states. It was not directed against any other ‘third state,’” the Chinese military official said during the presentation of the white paper headlined ‘China’s National Defense in the New Era.’

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The Defense Ministry said further:

  “As far as the practice of joint strategic patrols is concerned, both sides will make a decision on the matter on the basis of bilateral consultations. Under the strategic command of the heads of states, the armed forces of the two nations will continue developing their relations. The sides will support each other, respect mutual interests and develop corresponding mechanisms of cooperation,” he added.

  Two Russian strategic bombers Tu-95MS and two Chinese strategic bombers Xian H-6 carried a scheduled flight over the neutral waters of the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea.

  South Korean said that a Russian plane breached the republic’s airspace near the Dokdo (Takeshima) islands, which are disputed by Seoul and Tokyo. In response, South Korea’s F-15 and F-16 fighter planes were scrambled.

  On Wednesday, Yoon Do-han, a spokesman for the South Korean president, told reporters that a Russian military attaché in Seoul had conveyed Moscow’s “deep regret” about the incident and had said that the Russian plane mistakenly deviated from its flight plan.

  The news agency Interfax quoted the press officer of the Russian Embassy in South Korea, Dmitry Bannikov, as saying that Russian officials had seen reports on Mr. Yoon’s comments, and that “there are many things in them that aren’t true.”

  “The Russian side did not issue an official apology,” Mr. Bannikov noted, according to the agency.

  That appeared to leave open the possibility that the Russians were apologetic in private. Such appologies are beyond general attitude of states in similar cases. Taking into account this and the Chinese statement, it appears that Russia and China do not see South Korea as a potential enemy. Rather they see it as an equal partner on the international scene.

  China and Russia demonstrated that they are ready to employ jointly their strategic bombardment capability in the event of confrontation.

  Crucially, the July 23rd incident happened a day ahead of meeting between US national security adviser John Bolton with South Korean officials. 

  Bolton was set to meet  with South Korea’s chief of National Security Office Chung Eui-yong, Defense Minister Jeong Kyung-doo, and Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha in Seoul to discuss issues including denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula and ways to strengthen the South Korea-US cooperation.

  Above: Newly published Russian media footage showing clips of Russian bombers encountering South Korean fighter jets during the air patrol

  Of course, Bolton is among the most hawkish voices of the Washington establishment that calls for a further confrontation with China and Russia.

  

• Clark: Don't Mourn May, She Was One Of Britain's Worst-Ever PMs

  Authored by Neil Clark,

  It’s a crowded field but, by any objective standard, outgoing British Prime Minister Theresa May must rate as one of the worst – if not the worst – occupants of the office of all time.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Spare us the Uriah Heep-style hypocrisy and gushing ‘tributes.’ The truth is an Op-Ed on the achievements of Theresa May would be the shortest one ever written.

  Winston Churchill helped defeat the Nazis in World War Two. Clement Attlee gave Britain the NHS. Harold Wilson established the Open University. Ted Heath saved Rolls Royce. Gordon Brown gave over-60s and disabled people free nationwide bus travel. What did Theresa May give us except a Brexit impasse and the worst movements to Abba’s Dancing Queen ever seen?

  May boasted about delivering “strong and stable” leadership but in reality she was as weak and wobbly as a plate of jelly.

  Given the task of implementing the EU referendum vote of 2016, she gave the horse named ‘Brexit’ such a terrible ride that if she’d been a jockey she’d have been hauled before the stewards.

  Of course every one was to blame for this debacle except Theresa herself.  But as Prime Minister, the buck stopped with her. She prevaricated and this prevarication emboldened the ‘Stop Brexit’ campaign.

  In 2017, she needlessly called a general election, and fought the most unimpressive election campaign any sitting prime minister has ever fought. Mr Bean himself couldn’t have ballsed it up more.

  May would in normal circumstances have gone the morning after she lost her party’s Parliamentary majority, but the Establishment’s fear of Jeremy Corbyn kept her hanging on for two more excruciating years.

  On the foreign policy front May did her bit to stoke up Cold War 2.0 tensions with Russia and in April 2018 rushed to join in with Trump’s punishment bombing of Syria before chemical weapons experts could carry out a proper investigation into reports of an attack in Douma.

  New revelations of a leaked but hitherto unpublished report cast doubt on but do not conclusively prove that it wasn’t Syrian government forces that carried out an attack, but May preferred to bomb first and wait for evidence later.

  At home, she continued policies of austerity, which have caused great misery across the land. Drug trade-fuelled knife crime has spiralled horrifically following cuts to frontline police services – which began in 2010 when one Theresa May was Home Secretary. Hundreds of local libraries, the hallmark of a civilized society, have closed during May‘s period in power. In December 2018 it was reported that almost 130 of Britain’s public libraries had closed during the previous year.

  Even under Thatcher it was never this bad.

  Promises to the electorate were broken even before they were made. 

  In 2017, the Tory Manifesto pledged to ‘maintain’ pensioner benefits “including free bus passes, eye tests, prescriptions and TV licences, for the duration of this Parliament”.

  Yet a month before it was published, May’s government had already handed over the power to the BBC to take TV licences away from over-75s in 2020 – a full two years before the new Parliament’s expiry date. Last month, the BBC said they would be withdrawing free TV licenses for up to 3.7 million over-75s. May could have said ‘the government will step in to keep good our promise made to pensioners’ but she didn’t. Instead we just got a government minister saying the BBC ‘should do more to support older people.’  Meaningless waffle when instead action was needed.

  May posed as a ‘moderate‘ – to contrast herself both from her own ‘right-wing’ and Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘left-wing extremism’ but there was, in truth, nothing moderate about her or her policies. Under her watch the gradual privatization of the NHS has continued. In March it was reported that the number waiting more than 18 weeks for operations had tripled in five years. Early this year, NHS chiefs asked May to reverse pro-privatization reforms.

  In October 2018 May declared ‘austerity is over,’ but the situation on the ground was very different.

  Just take a tour of Britain’s town and city centers and count the number of boarded-up retail outlets, to see the impact austerity has had. 

  Theresa Mayhem inspired no-one but demoralized millions.

  Britain is best rid of her.

  

• Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló Resigns After Weeks Of Protest

  Following weeks of unrest amid a corruption scandal and damning text messages, Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello announced his resignation on Wednesday in a videotaped address which aired just before Midnight. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  After discussing his “laundry list of accomplishments,” Rossello said he ‘did his best,’ and ‘worked during vacations, weekend and long days to make Puerto Rico more just.’ His resignation will take effect August 2nd. 

  Now he’s talking about hurricanes Irma and Maria and praising his response to it.

  — claudia irizarry aponte (@clauirizarry) July 25, 2019

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

  He just announced his resignarion effective August 2, 2019.

  — claudia irizarry aponte (@clauirizarry) July 25, 2019

  Rossello’s resignation comes days after thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Old San Juan, calling for his ouster.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Following the announcement, crowds broke out into celebration, exclaiming “Ricky, te botamos!” (“Ricky, we threw you out!”). 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  “After the birth of my son, this is the happiest day of my life,” said Puerto Rican reggaton star René Pérez Joglar, also known as Residente. Joglar released a song last week calling for protesters to take to the streets, rapping “This is coming out early so you can eat it for breakfast … Sharpening the knives. Fury is the only political party that unites us.“

  As we noted last week, protesters broke past a barricade at the governor’s mansion on Wednesday, resulting in the deployment of tear gas. “By early hours Thursday, the old city of San Juan resembled a war zone, with police chasing protesters through the streets while firing rubber bullets, gas canisters and what appeared to be flash bombs,” according to NPR. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

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

• We Will Have To Reboot Our Standard Of Living To Survive As A Nation

  Authored by Tom Chatham via Project Chesapeake,

  In 1940 you could buy a nice cape cod style home for around $2,500. Someone entering the job market likely started out at $25 a week. A 1940 Buick with a straight 8 would run you $895 and up.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Why this stroll down memory lane? Because it is meant to show how much inflation has changed the price of things. When we still used money that was based on gold and silver, inflation was kept in check to some degree. Fractional reserve banking and excessive credit creation have distorted the value of things we depend on for life and we are coming to the end of that failed experiment. All of our recent prosperity has been paid for with our ability to print dollars out of thin air.

  If you want to know where we are being led you only have to stroll down any city street where the homeless live, or you can look through the many pictures of the great depression. The American people are being systematically impoverished and it is being done knowingly by those in charge and is allowed by a dumbed down, apathetic public too busy staring at their iphone to notice.

  If this nation is to survive and retain a reasonable standard of living and quality of life, we will have to downsize to a level that we can actually afford. We will need to forego the 2,000 sq. ft. $300,000 homes we all like so much and settle for a more affordable 900 sq. ft. $30,000 home we can actually pay for. We will have to give up the $40,000 autos coming out of Detroit now and settle for a smaller inexpensive model that can actually get 60 mpg.

  We will also need to return to a financial system that is based on real value. This being gold and silver money. If we try to use anything else we are simply trying to fool ourselves. You cannot use a currency that does not act as a store of wealth over the long term.

  We can do this by choice and salvage what is left of our country or we can continue on the current path and end up an impoverished country with a dictator in charge like most other failed nations in the world.

  If we want to continue having a country worth living in we need to go back to what we know works and try to build up from there. We no longer have sufficient manufacturing capacity to employ all of the people in this country and any kind of welfare will not work without debasing the currency.

  This will necessitate 20% of the population going back to living on small farms to insure they have a job and sufficient resources to care for their families. Nothing else in our current situation will work. We have too many unemployed people living off of the state and this will end soon. We will either have a mass exodus from the country or a mass extinction within it. As unpleasant as it sounds that is our future if we do not make substantial changes while we still have time. That time is nearly up.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Downsizing our lives and our wants will be a necessary change if we want to salvage something of our future. We have lived too long in fantasy land and now we must come back to reality. The west line has moved and we will never get back all of the production jobs we once had. We must accept that and accept that our country will be less productive and less prosperous in the future and learn to live within our means.

  

• US Sends Warship Through Taiwan Strait Hours After China Warns It Is Ready For War

  The US military said on Wednesday that a guided-missile cruiser had sailed through the Taiwan Strait just hours after the Chinese military criticized Washington for “adding complexity to regional security” and warned it to stay clear of the island or else risk war.

  Trump’s support for Taiwan, which recently was cleared by Congress to purchase over $2 billion in US weapons, is among a growing number of flashpoints in the U.S.-China relationship, which include a trade war, U.S. sanctions and a growing geopolitical conflict in the South China Sea, where China has been expanding its military presence while the United States conducts freedom-of-navigation patrols.

  The warship sent to the 112-mile-wide Taiwan Strait was identified as the Antietam. “The (ship’s) transit through the Taiwan Strait demonstrates the U.S. commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific,” Commander Clay Doss, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet, said in a statement. “The U.S. Navy will continue to fly, sail and operate anywhere international law allows,” he added, quoted by Reuters.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  The defiant move comes shortly after China warned that it is ready for war if necessary, to prevent any attempts to split the island from the mainland, or any push toward Taiwan’s independence, and accusing the United States of undermining global stability and denouncing its arms sales to the self-ruled island.

  While the voyage will further escalate tensions with China, it will also be viewed by self-ruled Taiwan as a sign of support from U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration amid growing friction between Taipei and Beijing.

  While the United States has no formal ties with Taiwan but is bound by law to help provide the island with the means to defend itself and is its main source of arms. Meanwhile, China has been ramping up pressure to assert its sovereignty over the island, which it considers a wayward province of “one China” and sacred Chinese territory.

  On Wednesday, Chinese Defense ministry spokesman Wu Qian told a news briefing on a defense white paper, the first like it in several years to outline the military’s strategic concerns, that China would make its greatest effort for peaceful reunification with Taiwan.

  “If there are people who dare to try to split Taiwan from the country, China’s military will be ready to go to war to firmly safeguard national sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity,” he said, in a clear warning to the US.

  Commenting on the white paper’s implications, China’s notorious twitter troll, Hu Xijin, editor in chief of the nationalist Global Times, said “there are few possibilities and necessities for China to possess military power to provoke the US. But if attacked by the US, China must be able to cause unbearable losses to the US.“

  There are few possibilities and necessities for China to possess military power to provoke the US. But if attacked by the US, China must be able to cause unbearable losses to the US. https://t.co/mx3Naqvpui

  — Hu Xijin 胡锡进 (@HuXijin_GT) July 24, 2019

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

  There are few possibilities and necessities for China to possess military power to provoke the US. But if attacked by the US, China must be able to cause unbearable losses to the US.

  In recent years, China has repeatedly sent military aircraft and ships to circle Taiwan on exercises – usually around the time US had sent its own ships in the vicinity – and worked to isolate it internationally, whittling down its few remaining diplomatic allies.

  

• Epstein Found "Nearly Unconscious" In Prison Cell After Possible Suicide Attempt

  Jeffrey Epstein has been found “nearly unconscious in a fetal position inside his New York City jail cell, according to the New York Post, citing sources close to the investigation.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The 66-year-old convicted pedophile is being held in the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in lower Manhattan pending trial. He was found semi-conscious with ‘marks on his neck,’ according to the report – which adds that investigators are still trying to figure out what happened. 

  As NBC New York also reports, “Two sources tell News 4 that Epstein may have tried to hang himself, while a third source cautioned that the injuries were not serious and questioned if Epstein might be using it as a way to get a transfer.”

  A fourth source told the outlet that assault has not been ruled out – as investigators have questioned former Orange County police officer Nicholas Tartaglione in connection with the incident. Tartaglione was arrested in December 2016 on suspicion of killing four men in an alleged cocaine distribution conspiracy, before burying their bodies in his Otisville yard, according to court records. 

  Sources told News 4 investigators questioned Tartaglione, and the former cop claimed not to have seen anything and didn’t touch Epstein, sources said.

  The attorney for Tartaglione denied all the claims that his client attacked the financier, saying he and Epstein get along and saw each other recently. –NBC New York

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  Epstein was arrested on July 6 for allegedly sex-trafficking minors, and was denied bail on July 18 by US District Judge Richard Berman after prosecutors said he poses an “extraordinary risk of flight” due to his “exorbitant wealth.” He has notified the court that he will appeal the decision. 

  Berman said prosecutors established a “preponderance” of evidence of Epstein being a flight risk, calling the fake Saudi passport “concerning,” and said the government also established community danger by “clear and convincing evidence” — which led to his decision to keep the financier behind bars.

  Epstein’s lawyers had wanted him released on house arrest with electronic monitoring at his $77 million Manhattan mansion. They said he wouldn’t run and was willing to pledge a fortune of at least $559 million as collateral.

  That said, Epstein would likely be in solitary confinement for 23 hours per day, lawyer Andrew Laufer, who has represented MCC inmates, told Reuters earlier this month. 

  “When you have someone that’s allegedly a sexual predator like Jeffrey Epstein, he’ll need to be in protective custody,” said Laufer. 

  “The sex offenders have a hard time,” said former BOP employee Jack Donson. “He’s definitely going to get ostracized.” 

  

• Bretton Woods At 75: Has The System Reached Its Limits?

  Via Srinivas Mazumdaru of DW,

  75 years ago, the Bretton Woods conference laid the foundations for much of today’s global economic order. But the system is facing a serious threat from growing nationalism and protectionism worldwide.

  In July 1944, as it appeared that World War II would be coming to an end with victory for the Allies, senior finance officials from 44 countries huddled in a luxury hotel in Bretton Woods, in the US state of New Hampshire, to put in place the post-war economic order.  

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The decades prior to Bretton Woods were characterized by commercial conflict, trade wars and military conflict. Restrictions on global commerce and “beggar-thy-neighbor” economic policies had deepened the reach of the Great Depression in the 1930s, imposing huge economic and social costs, which contributed to the rise of nationalist movements, resulting in the outbreak of World War II.

  The delegates, including the principle architects of Bretton Woods — John Maynard Keynes of the UK Treasury and Harry Dexter White of the US Treasury — were acutely aware of the adverse effects of the depression, two world wars, economic chaos and poverty.

  They set forth to bring about change by promoting international monetary cooperation, supporting the expansion of trade and economic growth, and discouraging policies like trade protectionism and competitive currency devaluations. 

  The mission of Bretton Woods, in the words of then US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, was that it should “do away with the economic evils — the competitive devaluation and destructive impediments to trade — which preceded the present war.”

  The delegates agreed to create a new international monetary system, underpinned by open markets and fixed exchange rates. The agreement pegged the value of other nations’ currencies to the US dollar, which, in turn, was pegged to the price of gold, fixed at $35 (€31.2) an ounce.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was established to monitor and enforce a rules-based system of exchange rates and financial stability, while the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, now part of the World Bank Group, was set up to provide assistance to countries that had been physically and financially devastated by the war.

  The conference at Bretton Woods thus laid the foundations for much of today’s global economic order.

  Shaping economic agenda

  By the early 1970s, the regime of fixed, but adjustable, exchange rates came under heavy pressure. It ultimately collapsed in 1971 when US President Richard Nixon, following large US trade deficits, broke the dollar’s link to gold. It marked the effective end of the Bretton Woods monetary arrangement.

  But the Bretton Woods institutions – the IMF and the World Bank – have continued to shape the international economic agenda. And the objective and spirit of Bretton Woods have continued to guide global policymakers.

  In terms of overall economic development, the decades since have been a success, say many economists, although the world has had to deal with inevitable economic and social challenges.

  For the 75th anniversary, the Washington-based Bretton Woods Committee organized a compendium of 50 essays – Revitalizing the Spirit of Bretton Woods – examining the 1944 conference’s legacy and challenges ahead.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In their chapter, Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics and Amar Bhattacharya of the Brookings Institution pointed out that “overall, world income per capita has grown by a factor of 4 since 1950 as population has roughly trebled, so that total output has gone up by a factor of around 12.”

  They also noted, “inequality between countries has fallen as a result of the more rapid growth of the large populous emerging markets.” Adding, “however, there has been an increase in inequality within many countries, particularly in terms of the shares of income and wealth going to the top 1%.”

  Governance issues

  Overall, the Bretton Woods ideal of multilateral cooperation and open markets worked well. Paul Volcker, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, once said: “Bretton Woods is not a particular institution — it is an ideal, a symbol, of the never-ending need for sovereign nations to work together to support open markets in goods, in services, and in finance, all in the interest of a stable, growing and peaceful economy.”

  But for decades, the Bretton Woods institutions have drawn hefty criticism for imposing “neoliberal” economic policies, involving financial deregulation, mass privatizations and austerity. The IMF has faced flak for forcing debtor countries around the world to open their markets and weaken labor protection.

  Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, some even questioned the continued need for the IMF. But the crisis changed all that, and the institution played a key firefighting role in cooperation with central banks and finance ministries. Today countries from Pakistan to Argentina continue to knock on the doors of the IMF for help when they find themselves in dire financial straits.

  And countries from Asia to South America continue to seek funds from the World Bank to carry out all sorts of developmental projects, despite increased competition from the likes of other institutions, such as the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

  The Bretton Woods institutions have been grappling with governance issues for years, with many emerging economies maintaining that they’re being denied adequate representation in the organizations’ governing bodies.

  Another irritant is the informal arrangement between the US and Europe to name the heads of the institutions, where Europe chooses the IMF’s managing director and the US selects the head of the World Bank.

  Many emerging economies are calling for an increase in their IMF shares, while also protecting the shares of African countries. Experts say that would mean reducing the shares of European countries.

  ‘Reached its limits’

  China’s economic rise and the global shift away from US dominance have also strained the system. 

  “The Bretton Woods order as we know it has reached its limits,” French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire recently said. “Unless we are able to reinvent Bretton Woods, the New Silk Roads might become the new world order,” Le Maire stated, referring to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which envisions rebuilding the old Silk Road to connect China with Asia, Europe and beyond with massive infrastructure spending largely financed by China.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  “And Chinese standards — on state aid, on access to public procurements, on intellectual property — could become the new global standards,” Le Maire said.

  Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump’s “America First” policies and trade protectionist measuresare viewed as a rejection of the spirit of multilateralism and international cooperation that defined Bretton Woods. Many fear that could ultimately lead to instability and conflict.

  As Richard A. Debs, the international council chair of the Bretton Woods Committee, wrote in his chapter in the compendium: “History has proven that a nationalistic, isolationist, protectionist approach to dealing with other countries of the world can lead, and has often led, to instability, conflict and wars.”

  

• $1.6 Trillion Fund Spots A New, Ticking Time Bomb In The Market

  First it was the shocking junk bond fiasco at Third Avenue which led to a premature end for the asset manager, then the three largest UK property funds suddenly froze over $12 billion in assets in the aftermath of the Brexit vote; two years later the Swiss multi-billion fund manager GAM blocked redemptions, followed by iconic UK investor Neil Woodford also suddenly gating investors despite representations of solid returns and liquid assets, and most recently the ill-named, Nataxis-owned H20 Asset Management decided to freeze redemptions.

  By this point, a pattern had emerged, one which Bank of England Governor Mark Carney described best when he said last month that investment funds that promise to allow customers to withdraw their money on a daily basis are “built on a lie.”

  And now, the chief investment officer of Europe’s biggest independent asset manager agrees with him, because while for much of 2019 the biggest risk bogeymen were corporate credit, leveraged loans, and trillions in negative yielding debt, gradually consensus is emerging that investment funds themselves may be the basis for the next liquidity crisis.

  “There is no point denying we are faced with a looming liquidity mismatch problem,” said Pascal Blanque, who oversees more than 1.4 trillion euros ($1.6 trillion) as the CIO of Amundi SA, according to Bloomberg’s Mark Gilbert who in a Bloomberg View piece writes that Blanque told him that the prospect of melting liquidity is one of “various things keeping me awake at night.”

  Continuing the discussion of illiquid institutions, Blanque said that market making, where firms generate prices at which they are willing to either buy or sell financial products, is effectively “a public good” (or “public bad”, if it is being done by HFTs who disappear at the first sign of volatility, and them having to take on real positional risk). Of course, as that activity declines, the drop in turnover reduces the banking industry’s exposure to a collapse in prices or a surge in volatility. But the dangers are simply transferred, rather than diminished.

  “Market making is falling off a cliff at the level of individual banks, but creating a systemic problem,” Blanque told Gilbert. “The banks are less risky – but the risks have been shifted to the buy side.”

  As we have discussed extensively in the past, and as Gilbert reminds us, following the global financial crisis, as part of their macroprudential duties, regulators forced investment banks to bolster their balance sheets, which in turn reduced the amount of capital those institutions are able to commit to the securities markets, resulting in a creeping shortage of liquidity when it comes to market making, not only at buyside institutions but also market making banks.

  “Market making is falling off a cliff at the level of individual banks, but creating a systemic problem,” Blanque says. “The banks are less risky – but the risks have been shifted to the buy side.”

  Blanque is probably referring to a recent report from Deutsche Bank (which should know systemic risks better than anyone), which last month published a report titled “Investment Funds – The next liquidity crisis”, in which it wrote that recent events, i.e. the abovementioned collapse of GAM, Woodford and H20, have been “a timely reminder of the potential risks of illiquid securities within open-ended mutual funds offering daily liquidity.” Citing the FSB (Financial Stability Board), Deutsche Bank noted that over half of global intermediation now happens outside the banking system, and that the assets of NBFIs (Non-bank financial Institutions) have grown by over 50% since 2008.

  The bank showed this transformation in the pursuit of yield and “shift in the hegemony of Wall Street” in the following chart showing the transition from pension and financial institutions (mediated by investment banks), to pension insurers and individual investors (mediated by at times extremely illiquid asset managers) in the following chart.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Deutsche goes on to show how liquidity risks have shifted, highlighting – like Blanque noted – that while post-crisis banking regulations have materially reduced liquidity (and other) risks within the banking system, some of these risks have been merely transferred to the unregulated NBFI ecosystem, notably mutual funds.

  And this is where sudden, unexpected blow ups like Woodford, GAM and H20 are especially jarring as they are an indication of what to expect once the broader market locks up.

  And speaking of the above funds, there is a reason why they are went from liquid to illiquid overnight: they have all geared into corporate bonds. As DB notes, US corporate bond outstandings have doubled since 2005 with recent issuance running at $1.5trn each year.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Over the same period, mutual funds’ ownership of corporate bonds has increased from 12% to almost 30%, or $2.6 trillion…

   

  … with the balance is largely held by insurance and pension funds 45%.

  But the biggest reason why liquidity has become an illusion (or rather mass delusion), is that while the dealer inventory of corporate bonds has declined by 90%…

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  … the ratio of corporate bonds held by mutual funds vs dealer inventory has increased from 2x in 2007 to 43x currently.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In short, as DB highlights, the buy-side significantly outweighs the sell-side and the gap has never been bigger. Worse, this comes at a time when BBB represents 60% of the Investment Grade and 250-300% of the High Yield market.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Incidentally, for those wondering if liquidity remains an illusion – a test that can only be confirmed when there is a crash and the market is indefinitely halted, an outcome that is now virtually inevitable – Deutsche has a simple test: it all has to do with the sequence of events unleashed by widening spreads, where redemptions and first movers rush to sell, collapsing the market’s liquidity, freezing refinancings, and resulting in a surge in defaults and firesales, which in turn leads to even wider spreads and so on, until central banks have to step in to short circuit this toxic loop.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  This also explains why GAM, Woodford, H20 and many more funds (in the near future), will be similarly gated once their investors discover there is no liquidity to sell into and the only “real time” liquidity is offered to those who have a “first seller mover advantage”, to wit:

  • If investors anticipate severe losses on the fund’s investments, they could be incentivised to “run for the exit” to be the first to redeem their shares.
  • The first-mover advantage in open-ended funds arises because losses on asset sales to meet redemptions are incurred by investors which remain in the fund.
  • As in a ‘bank run’, the asset manager is, in principle, forced to sell assets in a fire sale in order to meet its short-dated liabilities

  As an aside, while the above is 100% correct,we find it ironic that it comes from none other than Deutsche Bank, a financial institution which due to a similar considerations among its clients, has itself become the target of a mini “bank run” one targeting the bank’s prime brokerage assets, and which as we explained last week, is reportedly draining roughly $1 billion per day from the German lender.

  In any case, this dramatic imbalance of asset holdings at market making banks and buyside “bagholders” of illiquid securities, is now posing a major problem for regulators, something the Bank of England acknowledged in a working paper published earlier this month, and highlighted by Mark Gilber, to wit: “as the funds industry has supplanted banks as a source of credit in the past decade, households and companies have benefited from a useful alternative source of financing. But, the report warned, we don’t know how this market-based system will respond under stress.”

  Modelling such a scenario “can generate an adverse feedback loop in which lower asset prices cause solvency/liquidity constraints to bind, pushing asset prices lower still,” the BOE found. In other words, the new market structure may be worse than the old.

  The feedback loop discussed by the BOE is the one we showed above. Here it is again:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  And, as recent notable fund “gates” and/or collapses have shown, the difficulty for asset managers in such an eventuality is finding sufficient cash to repay exiting investors while preserving the structure of the portfolio without distorting market prices, according to Amundi’s Blanque.

  According to Bloomberg, part of Amundi’s response to this seemingly intractable issue is to include liquidity buffers in its portfolios, which may mean holding securities such as German bunds and U.S. Treasuries, which should always trade freely. But the industry needs to come up with a common definition so that liquidity is included along with risk and return when assessing a portfolio’s robustness, Blanque says. Additionally, this band aid only works for modest redemptions. A wholesale liquidation would crush even the most “buffered” up fund.

  For now, asset managers have to cope with what Blanque called “the sacred cow” – although a better phrase would be “constant risk” of allowing clients to withdraw funds on a daily basis.

  “It is a bomb, given the risks of liquidity mismatch,” he warns. “We don’t know if what is sellable today will be sellable in six months’ time.”

  That’s not the only we don’t know. As Blanque concluded, “we don’t know the channels of transmission, we don’t know how the actors will act. It is uncharted territory.”

  And that, precisely, is why central banks can never again allow risk asset prices to drop: the alternative means gating not one, or two, or a hundred funds, but halting the entire market, because once everyone start selling and price discovery finally returns to a market that has been dominated by central banks for the past decade, several generations of traders and investors who have grown up without price discovery will be shocked to discover just where “fair” market prices reside.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Russian Econ Minister Warns, Prepare For Economic Downturn By 2021

  With the Russian stock market fading from all-time highs, the Russian economic minister has warned about a severe economic downturn that could start by 2021 amid current declines in personal lending, reported The Moscow Times.

  Consumer debt loads have exploded due to plunging real disposable incomes, an issue that President Vladimir Putin said could produce economic bubbles.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The Russian economy is expected to cycle down through 2H19, partly due to a plunge in retail spending.

  Economic Development Minister Maxim Oreshkin told the Ekho Moskvy radio station Sunday that GDP is expected to drop by 3% in the next year and a half. Demand for consumer loans is also expected to decline, ushering in a default cycle that will de-lever heavily indebted consumers that can’t get new financing.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  According to Oreshkin, many Russians are trapped in insurmountable debts. In the next crisis, he said, massive defaults on these loans will shock the economy.

  Oreshkin noted that it would be difficult to get out of the next recession painlessly.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The economic minister said the government is developing mechanisms to cushion citizens if the economy crashes.

  Natalia Orlova, a chief economist at Moscow-based Alfa Bank, told the Vedomosti business daily, that Oreshkin’s comments were a sign by consumers to take out new loans.

  Moscow-based United Credit Bureau (OKB) reported that personal loans jumped by 46% compared to 2017, totaling $130 billion.

  The Russia economy stalled in the last 4.5 years. From 2014 to 2018, GDP grew by an annual rate of 1.50%. During the same period, real disposable incomes fell by 10.7%, leaving 13% of all citizens living in poverty. In 2018, 600,000 Russian companies closed their doors.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Western countries could’ve sparked Russia’s demise through economic sanctions after Putin annexed Crimea in 2014. The sanctions contributed to capital flight, in excess of $317 billion from 2014 to 2018. Foreign direct investments also plunged. In the first three quarters of 2018, the volume of foreign direct investment was 11 times lower than during the same period in 2017.

  The Russian ruble has fallen 45.5% against the US dollar since 2014, a trend that should have strengthened Russia’s export market, but it didn’t.

  Residential construction, wholesale and retail trade, banking and insurance, personal services, lodging and restaurants, mobile telecoms, and web-based services are likely to come under pressure as an economic crisis in Russia is expected by 2021.

  

• French Military Flocking To Le Pen's RN Party

  Via FreeWestMedia.com,

  A French study on the electoral behavior of soldiers and gendarmes which examined the votes in several municipalities where their presence is significant, found that the National Rally is growing on Republicans party voters.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Done by Ifop for the Jean Jaurès Foundation, the researchers focused on the electoral results in the garrison towns and polling stations where the mobile gendarmes barracks are situated, in an attempt to identify electoral behavior that is difficult to perceive through polls.

  With this technique, Ifop revealed the growing interest of soldiers and gendarmes in the National Rally (RN), observing communes “where the weight of the military and their family counts significantly, that is to say, places where the numbers are relatively large but where the communal population is relatively limited”.

  Therefore, among the municipalities where the army is established, the RN has collected 50,4 percent of the votes in the last European elections in Mailly-le-Camp, 17 points more than on the whole of the department of the Aube. In Suippes too, the RN convinced 45,5 percent of voters, about 15 points above the average recorded in the Marne.

  In the few communes selected, the vote for the RN has also largely progressed between the first round of the presidential election of 2002 and the last European elections. At the same time, the votes favorable to the Republicans (LR) decreased between the first round of the 2017 presidential elections and the European elections:  less 15,5 points in Mailly-le-Camp,  less 10,9 points in Sissonne, less 10,1 points in Mourmelon-le-Grand.

  The study shows that these trends are also noticeable in some municipalities where air bases are situated, according to a report from Le Figaro.

  In Ventiseri, for example, the RN obtained 43,6 percent of the votes in the European elections against 26,5 percent on average in the rest of Upper Corsica.

  Even abroad, the military bases had an influence on the electoral results: in Abu Dhabi, where one of these establishments is implanted, Marine Le Pen has collected 12,6 percent of the votes in the first round of the presidential election in 2017, compared to an average of 4,9 percent at Dubai’s polling stations.

  Another part of the study carried out by Ifop focused on “polling stations housing in their perimeter a barracks of the mobile gendarmerie”, in urban areas. Here again, the areas selected at the time, “showed a vote for Marine Le Pen in the presidential election well above the average of their city (or district for Paris and Lyon)”.

  In Hyères in southern France, the difference between the gendarme vote for the National Rally and the city average was above 20 percent. In Toulouse and Dijon, the difference was 17,4 and 12,5 percent in Rennes.

  This assumption was also confirmed by looking at the lowest scores achieved by the president of the former National Front in polling stations adjacent to those that include a gendarmerie barracks.

  Versailles – which includes only gendarmes and their families – recorded 46,1 percent of the vote in favor of Marine Le Pen, in the first round, and the polling station of Nanterre where only the Republican guards and their families are represented, the RN won 37,5 percent of the vote in the 2012 presidential election, compared with an average of 10,7 percent for the rest of the city.

  In the department of Aube, for example, the list of Jordan Bardella obtained 50,7 percent of the vote in Ville-sous-la-Ferte, where the Clairvaux prison is located, against a departmental average of 33,4 percent, which is similar in urban areas.

  France’s law enforcement has strongly supported Le Pen for a while already. A 2017 Ifop study carried out ahead of the first round of presidential elections, estimated that about 51 percent of gendarmes were likely to vote for Le Pen.

  In 2017 the police union Alliance urged police officers not to back Le Pen for president, but many officers ignored the directive, saying they would vote for Le Pen and the RN anyway.

  Jerome Fourquet , director of the public opinion department at Ifop, said:

  “This is why we have not been able to study the vote of sailors, who live in cities that are too big, or that of police officers, who are never grouped in the same place in sufficient number to be decisive in the local electorate.”

  Fourquet said the numbers were very high. If the inclination of the RN voters “varies depending on the news, the average is still very high,” he told the French daily.

  These differences of vote between the military and the rest of the population can be explained in particular by their “daily life being far removed from that of a ‘average’ voter”. Moreover, President Macron’s LREM party has not managed to impose itself as being the “party of the order”.

  “In the process of political recomposition at work, where we observe the rallying of the right around Macron, the barracks are still impervious,” the head of Ifop explained.

  

• China Armed Forces Prepare For Massive International War Exercise

  The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is preparing for a massive war exercise, called International Army Games (IAG), expected to kick-off next week, reported China Military.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The military exercise will be held in ten countries: Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia, and Uzbekistan. More than 6,000 troops are expected to participate from August 3 to 17.

  In total, there will be 31 exercises spread across ten countries.

  A PLA Naval Aviation brigade will be participating in the Aviadarts drill, which involves 11 aircraft performing en-route flight aerial surveillance and aerial attacks of ground-based targets.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  China Central Television (CCTV) reported Sunday that a recent war exercise involved Xi’an JH-7 fighter bombers flew 62 miles and launched an attack on a target zone.

  “This will be the first time the Naval Aviation troops step out of the country’s border for the IAG, and we value this opportunity,” naval officer Feng Xianzheng told CCTV.

  Overnight, we reported that three Russian military planes (two Tu-95 bombers and one A-50 airborne early warning and control aircraft) entered South Korea’s air defense identification zone off the country’s east coast. South Korean fighter jets scrambled in response, and fired 80 rounds of machine-gun fire and 10 flares – what they described as “warning shots.” Two Chinese bombers joined with the Russian planes on Tuesday and even violated South Korea’s airspace from the Southwest. It’s not uncommon for Chinese jets to wander into South Korean airspace, and there’s no indication so far that connects the incident to IAG.

  Wei Dongxu, a Beijing-based military analyst, told the Global Times on Monday that the increased number of PLA units participating in IAG is more evidence that the Navy is becoming increasingly confident that it can conduct exercises with other countries.

  Chinese and Russian fighter bombers will conduct bombing raids during IAG, will allow Chinese Navy pilots to gain more experience since Russian pilots have already been combat tested, Wei said.

  The Xinhua News Agency said the PLA would send marines to the Seaborne Assault drill in Russia and, for the first time, divers to the Deep Sea exercise in Iran.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The PLA Daily said the Chinese military has participated in IAG for six years and hosted exercises in China for three consecutive years.

  The risk of armed conflict has never been higher, as Washington wages economic wars on allies and foes. The first shots of the current war have already been fired, that is the US and China trade war, these tit-for-tat economic sanctions could eventually spill over into a shooting war. The upcoming IAG exercise gives excellent insight into who Washington could be fighting in World War III.

  

• The US-NATO Military Alliance Continues Confrontation Along Russia's Borders

  Authored by Brian Cloughley via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  The Pentagon and its sub-office in Brussels, HQ NATO, in its new billion dollar building, are intent on maintaining military pressure around the globe. The US itself is much more widely spread, having bases tentacled from continent to continent, with the Pentagon admitting to 514 but omitting mention of many countries, including Afghanistan, Syria and Somalia.

  Independent researchers came up with the more realistic total of 883 bases, and examination of the current US defence budget shows that the Pentagon’s spending priorities are far from modest in regard to spreading its wings, hulls and boots-on-the-ground to maintain military domination by what Trump calls “the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth.” To this end its vast military spending programme includes:

  • increasing the strength of the Army, Navy, and Air Force by almost 26,000;

  • building another ten combat ships for $18.4 billion;

  • increasing production of the most expensive aircraft in world history, the F-35, costing over eleven billion; and

  • upgrading and expanding the triad of nuclear weapons deliverable from air, land and sea.

  The US military budget for 2020 is officially $750 billion. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, total US-NATO military expenditure in 2018 was “$963 billion, which represents 53 per cent of world spending.” In striking (no humour intended) contrast, Russia’s entire defence budget was $61.4 billion, its annual outlay having “decreased by 3.5 per cent,” which even the most brainwashed western war-drummer would have to agree does not reflect the policy of a nation preparing to invade anybody.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Yet the US-NATO alliance is increasing the number and scope of military manoeuvres along Russia’s borders, and announced that “in 2019, a total of 102 NATO exercises are planned; 39 of them are open to partner participation.” The exercises include 25 land, 27 air and 12 maritime-centred groups of manoeuvres.

  “Partner participation” is a disguised way of saying that non-NATO countries around Russia’s borders have been encouraged to join in all the expensive military jamborees aimed at convincing their citizens they should follow “the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth” in its never-ending conquests.

  HQ NATO announced that from 8-22 June military forces of 18 nations took part in the BALTOPS naval manoeuvres which involved “maritime, air and ground forces with about 50 ships and submarines and 40 aircraft” in and around the Baltic. The NATO spokesperson said, presumably with a straight face and no hint of the wry amusement felt by independent observers, that “BALTOPS is now in its 47th year and is not directed against anyone.” Sure. And the Easter Bunny just landed on Mars.

  In the most recent example of US-NATO confrontation, according to US European Command, “the US Air Force deployed F-35 Lightning and F-15E Strike Eagles to Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, as part of Operation Rapid Forge under the Department of Defense’s Dynamic Force Employment Concept. Rapid Forge will involve forward deployments to bases in the territory of NATO allies in order to enhance readiness… and are conducted in coordination with US allies and partners in Europe. Rapid Forge aircraft are forward deploying to the territory of NATO allies… The goal of the operation is to increase the readiness and responsiveness of US forces in Europe…”

  Then on July 16 Stars and Stripes (a remarkably objective commentator, incidentally) reported that the Rapid Forge strike aircraft had been sent to Poland, Lithuania and Estonia “in a test of the service’s ability to quickly deploy air power overseas” These aircraft were specifically deployed to operate as closely as possible to Russian airspace.

  The manoeuvres are part of ongoing refinement of the Pentagon’s new Dynamic Force Employment strategy “which is focused on using more unpredictable deployments to demonstrate military agility to possible adversaries.” This concept involves “a shift away from traditional six-month naval deployments to a flexible system that can involve shorter but more frequent stints at sea. And in March, the Army dispatched 1,500 soldiers from Fort Bliss, Texas, to Germany and onward to Poland in one of the service’s largest snap mobilizations to Europe in years.”

  It was intriguing that the surge in US-NATO military deployment confrontation occurred at the same time it was revealed that the US has been storing nuclear weapons all over Europe for years. Most analysts knew this, although nothing had been admitted, but, as noted in the brilliant BBC TV satire Yes, Minister by the lead character: “First rule in politics: never believe anything until it’s officially denied.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  As the Washington Post reported, “A recently released — and subsequently deleted — document published by a NATO-affiliated body has sparked headlines in Europe with an apparent confirmation of a long-held open secret: some 150 US nuclear weapons are being stored in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.” The moment a “NATO official” announced that “we do not comment on the details of NATO’s nuclear posture… this is not an official NATO document,” it was obvious that the deleted details given in the document must be accurate. And now many questions must be answered. For example : under whose guard are these weapons held? Are officials, politicians and military personnel of host countries permitted access to US nuclear storage facilities? What are the nuclear readiness states, and are the host nations informed of these? And it would be very interesting to know if US practice deployments involve nuclear bombs and missiles.

  One of the most important aspects of the nuclear bases saga is the likely connection between these US weapons and this year’s US-NATO military manoeuvres. The ‘Rapid Forge’ deployments to Russia’s borders involve F-35A and F15E strike aircraft, and Lockheed Martin tells us that “once air dominance is established, the F-35 converts to beast mode, carrying up to 22,000 pounds of combined internal and external weapons.” Similarly, the F-15E is now capable of delivering B61-12 nuclear bombs.

  As reported by the Belgian daily De Morgen (in English in the Brussels Times on 16 July), the document stated that “In the context of NATO, the United States [has deployed] around 150 nuclear weapons in Europe, in particular B61 free-bombs, which can be [delivered] by both US and Allied planes.” But we can be certain that the citizens of the countries concerned, or of any of the other NATO nations, will never be told on what terms the United States is storing nuclear weapons in their countries and what international developments might govern their use.

  Presumably it is the President of the United States who will give approval for release of the nuclear bombs being stored in six of the US bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy (2), the Netherlands and Turkey — but is he going to seek agreement from the governments of these countries to use these weapons? It is far from certain that there would be concurrence on the part of Turkey, for example, whose relations with Trump Washington are extremely precarious.

  What would happen if President Erdoğan objected to an obviously indicated US intention to convert the USAF’s F-35s to “beast mode”, loading B61 nuclear bombs at Incirlik airbase?

  Nobody knows.

  And nobody know if all these US-NATO martial fandangos in the skies around Russia’s borders involve test deployment of strike aircraft in “beast mode”, as nuclear attack preparedness is so aptly described by Lockheed Martin, that prominent member of Washington’s Military-Industrial Complex.

  Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland seem to be delighted that US-NATO is continuing to confront Russia by flying nuclear strike aircraft in their airspace. But have they really thought all this through?

  

• Millennials Are Moving To These US Cities

  Haven Life Insurance Agency LLC (Haven Life), an online life insurance agency, conducted a new study that reveals from 2012 to 2017, millennials moved to large metropolitan areas that already had large concentrations of them.

  The survey noted that millennials are living a life of luxury in expensive neighbors with high wages, rising home prices, and an overall increase in the cost of living. In these areas, the experiences are abundant, and some districts even cater to the lifestyle of these youngsters.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Millennials flocked to large metro areas that have a high concentration of their fellow comrades despite higher home prices and cost of living. The data showed these folks aren’t moving to rural America nor the suburbs.

  The reason for an extended stay in the city could be due to the delay in marriage and starting families — thanks to insurmountable student loan debts, high-interest credit card payments, and 72/84 month auto loans — has made their financial mobility limited.

  Millennials are less price-conscious than any other generation, despite the fact that the 2008 financial crash was a little over a decade ago.

  Haven Life examined data from the Census Bureau to compile a list of the top 50 cities. The life insurance agency also examined data from Zillow to determine its median home prices and data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s Regional Price Parity dataset for the cost of living figures.

  Portland, Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, and Austin metropolitan areas were some of the hottest regions where millennials were moving to over the period.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Portland had the most significant percentage change in millennials of any large metro from 2012 to 2017. The cost of living is some of the highest in the country but not as expensive as San Francisco and Seattle. The main selling point for millennials is the city’s breweries, restaurants, bike lanes, hipster districts, parks, beaches, mountains, and the overall ease of living on the West Coast.

  Seattle was the second most popular city for millennials, who were lured in by higher-paying jobs in the tech sector. Downtown Seattle is home to a number of Fortune 500 companies, including Amazon, Starbucks, and Microsoft.

  Some of the cities that were on the bottom list were Rochester, N.Y., which saw a drop in millennials. Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, Va.-N.C also saw a sizeable drop in the younger population. Tucson, Ariz., came in last with a mass exodus of millennials over the period.

  

• MH17 Evidence-Tampering Exposed: Cover-Ups, Hiding Records, Witness Misreporting, & FBI Seizures

  Authored by John Helmer,

  A new documentary from Max van der Werff, the leading independent investigator of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 disaster, has revealed breakthrough evidence of tampering and forging of prosecution materials;  suppression of Ukrainian Air Force radar tapes;  and lying by the Dutch, Ukrainian, US and Australian governments. An attempt by agents of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to take possession of the black boxes of the downed aircraft is also revealed by a Malaysian National Security Council official for the first time.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The sources of the breakthrough are Malaysian – Prime Minister of Malaysia Mohamad Mahathir; Colonel Mohamad Sakri, the officer in charge of the MH17 investigation for the Prime Minister’s Department and Malaysia’s National Security Council following the crash on July 17, 2014; and a forensic analysis by Malaysia’s OG IT Forensic Services of Ukrainian Secret Service (SBU) telephone tapes which Dutch prosecutors have announced as genuine.

  The 298 casualties of MH17 included 192 Dutch; 44 Malaysians; 27 Australians; 15 Indonesians.  The nationality counts vary because the airline manifest does not identify dual nationals of Australia, the UK, and the US. 

  The new film throws the full weight of the Malaysian Government, one of the five members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), against the published findings and the recent indictment of Russian suspects reported by the Dutch officials in charge of the JIT; in addition to Malaysia and The Netherlands, the members of the JIT are Australia, Ukraine and Belgium. Malaysia’s exclusion from the JIT at the outset, and Belgium’s inclusion (4 Belgian nationals were listed on the MH17 passenger manifest), have never been explained. 

  The film reveals the Malaysian Government’s evidence for judging the JIT’s witness testimony, photographs, video clips, and telephone tapes to have been manipulated by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), and to be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution in a Malaysian or other national or international court.

  For the first time also, the Malaysian Government reveals how it got in the way of attempts the US was organizing during the first week after the crash to launch a NATO military attack on eastern Ukraine. The cover story for that was to rescue the plane, passenger bodies, and evidence of what had caused the crash. In fact, the operation was aimed at defeating the separatist  movements in the Donbass, and to move against Russian-held Crimea.

  The new film reveals that a secret Malaysian military operation took custody of the MH17 black boxes on July 22, preventing the US and Ukraine from seizing them.  The Malaysian operation, revealed in the film by the Malaysian Army colonel who led it, eliminated the evidence for the camouflage story, reinforcing the German Government’s opposition to the armed attack, and forcing the Dutch to call off the invasion on July 27.  

  The 28-minute documentary by Max van der Werff and Yana Yerlashova has just been released. Yerlashova was the film director and co-producer with van der Werff and Ahmed Rifazal. Vitaly Biryaukov directed the photography. Watch it in full here. 

  The full interview with Prime Minister Mahathir was released in advance; it can be viewed and read here. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Mahathir reveals why the US, Dutch and Australian governments attempted to exclude Malaysia from membership of the JIT in the first months of the investigation. During that period, US, Dutch, Australian and NATO officials initiated a plan for 9,000 troops to enter eastern Ukraine, ostensibly to secure the crash scene, the aircraft and passenger remains, and in response to the alleged Russian role in the destruction of MH17 on July 17; for details of that scheme, read this.  

  Although German opposition to military intervention forced its cancellation, the Australians sent a 200-man special forces unit to The Netherlands and then Kiev. The European Union and the US followed with economic sanctions against Russia on July 29.

  Malaysian resistance to the US attempts to blame Moscow for the aircraft shoot-down was made clear in the first hours after the incident to then-President Barack Obama by Malaysia’s Prime Minister at the time, Najib Razak. That story can be followed here and here. 

  In an unusual decision to speak in the new documentary, Najib’s successor Prime Minister Mahathir announced:

  “They never allowed us to be involved from the very beginning.  This is unfair and unusual. So we can see they are not really looking at the causes of the crash and who was responsible. But already they have decided it must be Russia. So we cannot accept that kind of attitude. We are interested in the rule of law, in justice for everyone irrespective of who is involved. We have to know who actually fired the missile, and only then can we accept the report as the complete truth.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  On July 18, in the first Malaysian Government press conference after the shoot-down, Najib (right) announced agreements he had already reached by telephone with Obama and Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian President.

  “ ‘Obama and I agreed that the investigation will not be hidden and the international teams have to be given access to the crash scene.’ [Najib] said the Ukrainian president ‎has pledged that there would be a full, thorough and independent investigation and Malaysian officials would be invited to take part. ‘He also confirmed that his government will negotiate with rebels in the east of the country in order to establish a humanitarian corridor to the crash site,’ said Najib. He also said that no one should remove any debris or the black box from the scene. The Government of Malaysia is dispatching a special flight to Kiev, carrying a Special Malaysia Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team, as well as a medical team. But we must – and we will – find out precisely what happened to this flight. No stone can be left unturned.”

  The new film reveals in an interview with Colonel Mohamad Sakri, the head of the Malaysian team, what happened next.  Sakri’s evidence, filmed in his office at Putrajaya, is the first to be reported by the press outside Malaysia in five years. A year ago, Sakri gave a partial account of his mission to a Malaysian newspaper. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Source: https://www.youtube.com/

  “I talked to my prime minister [Najib],” Colonel Sakri says. “He directed me to go to the crash site immediately.” At the time Sakri was a senior security official at the Disaster Management Division of the Prime Minister’s Department. Sakri says that after arriving in Kiev, Poroshenko’s officials blocked the Malaysians. “We were not allowed to go there…so I took a small team to leave Kiev going to Donetsk secretly.” There Sakri toured the crash site, and met with officials of the Donetsk separatist administration headed by Alexander Borodai. 

  With eleven men, including two medical specialists, a signalman, and Malaysian Army commandos, Sakri had raced to the site ahead of an armed convoy of Australian, Dutch and Ukrainian government men. The latter were blocked by Donetsk separatist units. The Australian state press agency ABC reported   their military convoy, prodded from Kiev by the appearance of Australian and Dutch foreign ministers Julie Bishop and Frans Timmermans, had been forced to abandon their mission. That was after Colonel Sakri had taken custody of the MH17 black boxes in a handover ceremony filmed at Borodai’s office in Donetsk on July 22.

  US sources told the Wall Street Journal  at the time “the [Sakri] mission’s success delivered a political victory for Mr. Najib’s government… it also handed a gift to the rebels in the form of an accord, signed by the top Malaysian official present in Donetsk, calling the crash site ‘the territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic.’…That recognition could antagonize Kiev and Washington, which have striven not to give any credibility to the rebels, whose main leaders are Russian citizens with few ties to the area. State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a briefing Monday that the negotiation ‘in no way legitimizes’ separatists.”

  The Australian state radio then reported the Ukrainian government as claiming the black box evidence showed “the reason for the destruction and crash of the plane was massive explosive decompression arising from multiple shrapnel perforations from a rocket explosion.” This was a fabrication – the evidence of the black boxes, the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder, first reported six weeks later in September by the Dutch Safety Board, showed nothing of the kind; read what their evidence revealed. 

  Foreign Minister Bishop,  in Kiev on July 24, claimed she was negotiating with the Ukrainians for the Australian team in the country to carry arms. “I don’t envisage that we will ever resort to [arms],” she told her state news agency, “but it is a contingency planning, and you would be reckless not to include it in this kind of agreement. But I stress our mission is unarmed because it is [a] humanitarian mission.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In Kiev on July 24, 2014, left to right: Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop; Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin. Source: https://www.alamy.com/ The NATO intervention plan was still under discussion, but the black boxes were already under Malaysian control.

  By the time she spoke to her state radio, Bishop was concealing that the plan for armed intervention, including 3,000 Australian troops, had been called off.  She was also concealing that the black boxes were already in Colonel Sakri’s possession.  

  The document signed by Sakri for the handover of the black boxes is visible in the new documentary. Sakri signed himself and added the stamp of the National Security Council of Malaysia.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
  Col. Sakri says on film the Donetsk leaders expressed surprise at the delay of the Malaysians in arriving at the crash site to recover the black boxes. “Why are you so late”, [Borodai] said…I think [that was] very funny.”

  Source:  https://www.youtube.com/Min. 05:47.

  Sakri goes on to say he was asked by the OSCE’s special monitoring mission for Ukraine to hand over the black boxes; he refused. He was then met by agents of the FBI (Min 6:56). “They approached me to show them the black box. I said no.” He also reports that in Kiev the Ukrainian Government tried “forcing me to leave the black boxes with them. We said no. We cannot. We cannot allow.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
  The handover ceremony in Donetsk, July 22, 2014: on far left, the two black boxes from MH17; in the centre, shaking hands, Alexander Borodai and Mohamad Sakri.

  Permission for Colonel Sakri to speak to the press has been authorized by his superiors at the prime ministry in Putrajaya, and his disclosures agreed with them in advance.  

  Subsequent releases from the Kiev government to substantiate the allegation of Russian involvement in the shoot-down have included telephone tape recordings. These were presented last month by the JIT as their evidence for indictment of four Russians; for details, read this.

  Van der Werff and Yerlashova contracted with OG IT Forensic Services,  a Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, to examine the telephone tapes.  The Kuala Lumpur firm has been endorsed by the Malaysian Bar.  The full 143-page technical report can be read here. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The findings reported by Akash Rosen and illustrated on camera are that the telephone recordings have been cut, edited and fabricated. The source of the tapes, according to the JIT press conference on June 19 by Dutch police officer Paulissen, head of the National Criminal Investigation Service of The Netherlands, was the Ukrainian SBU. Similar findings of tape fabrication and evidence tampering are reported on camera in the van der Werff film by a German analyst, Norman Ritter.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
  Left: Dutch police chief Paulissen grins as he acknowledged during the June 19, 2019, press conference of JIT that the telephone tape evidence on which the charges against the four accused Russians came from the Ukrainian SBU.   Minute 16:02 Right: Norman Ritter presented his analysis to interviewer Billy Sixt to show the telephone tape evidence has been forged in nine separate “manipulations”.  One of the four accused by the JIT last month, Sergei Dubinsky, testifies from Min. 17 of the documentary. He says his men recovered the black boxes from the crash site and delivered them to Borodai at 2300 hours on July 17; the destruction of the aircraft occurred at 1320. Dubinsky testifies that he had no orders for and took no part in the shoot-down. As for the telephone tape-recording evidence against him, Dubinsky says the calls were made days before July 17, and edited by the SBU. “I dare them to publish the uncut conversations, and then you will get a real picture of what was discussed.” (Min. 17:59).  

  Van der Werff and Yerlashova filmed at the crash site in eastern Ukraine. Several local witnesses were interviewed, including a man named Alexander from Torez town, and Valentina Kovalenko, a woman from the farming village of Red October. The man said the missile equipment alleged by the JIT to have been transported from across the Russian border on July 17 was in Torez at least one, possibly two days before the shoot-down on July 17; he did not confirm details the JIT has identified as a Buk system.

  Kovalenko, first portrayed in a BBC documentary three years ago (starting at Min.26:50) as a “unique” eye-witness to the missile launch, clarifies more precisely than the BBC reported where the missile she saw had been fired from.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
  BBC documentary, “The Conspiracy Files. Who Shot Down MH17” -- Min. 27:00. The BBC broadcast its claims over three episodes in April-May 2016. For a published summary, read this. 

  This was not the location identified in press statements by JIT. Van der Werff explains: “we specifically asked [Kovalenko] to point exactly in the direction the missile came from. I then asked twice if maybe it was from the direction of the JIT launch site. She did not see a launch nor a plume from there. Notice the JIT ‘launch site’ is less than two kilometres from her house and garden. The BBC omitted this crucial part of her testimony.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  According to Kovalenko in the new documentary, at the firing location she has now identified precisely, “at that moment the Ukrainian Army were there.”

  Kovalenko also remembers that on the days preceding the July 17 missile firing she witnessed,  there had been Ukrainian military aircraft operating in the sky above her village. She says they used evasion techniques including flying in the shadow of civilian aircraft she also saw at the same time.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  On July 17, three other villagers told van der Werff they had seen a Ukrainian military jet in the vicinity and at the time of the MH17 crash.

  Concluding the documentary, van der Werff and Yerlashova present an earlier interview filmed in Donetsk by independent Dutch journalist Stefan Beck, whom JIT officials had tried to warn off visiting the area. Beck interviewed Yevgeny Volkov, who was an air controller for the Ukrainian Air Force in July 2014. Volkov was asked to comment on Ukrainian Government statements, endorsed by the Dutch Safety Board report into the crash and in subsequent reports by the JIT, that there were no radar records of the airspace at the time of the shoot-down because Ukrainian military radars were not operational.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Volkov explained that on July 17 there were three radar units at Chuguev on “full alert” because “fighter jets were taking off from there;” Chuguev is 200 kilometres northwest of the crash site.  He disputed that the repairs to one unit meant none of the three was operating. Ukrainian radar records of the location and time of the MH17 attack were made and kept, Volkov said. “There [they] have it. In Ukraine they have it.”

  Last month, at the JIT press conference in The Netherlands on June 19, the Malaysian representative present,  Mohammed Hanafiah Bin Al Zakaria,  one of three Solicitors-General of the Malaysian Attorney General’s ministry,  refused to endorse for the Malaysian Governnment the JIT evidence or its charges against Russia. “Malaysia would like to reiterate our commitment to the JIT seeking justice for the victims,” Zakaria said.  “The objective of the JIT is to complete the investigations and gathering of evidence of all witnesses for the purpose of prosecuting the wrongdoers and Malaysia stands by the rule of law and the due process.” [Question: do you support the conclusions?] “Part of the conclusions [inaudible] – do not change our positions.”

  

• Australia Designates Animal Rights Activists 'Domestic Terrorists' After Vigilante Farm Invasions

  Australia’s south-eastern state government has declared Animal rights activists ‘domestic terrorists’ after several trespassing incidents, according to the Independent. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The New South Wales (NSW) government has introduced on-the-spot trespassing charges of $1,000 (£565) for each “vigilante” caught illegally entering private farmland.

  The new rules, which come into force on 1 August, could also see individuals charged up to $220,000 (£124,000) and corporations up to $440,000 (£248,000) for any major violations of the Biosecurity Act. –Independent

  “Vigilantes who are entering our farmers’ property illegally are nothing short of domestic terrorists,” said NSW deputy premier John Barilaro. 

  “Our farmers have had a gutful. They don’t deserve, nor have time, to be dealing with illegal trespass and vile harassment from a bunch of virtue-signalling thugs.” 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  According to the report, “Earlier this year clashes between farm owners and protesters forced the police to step in Western Australia, and the owners of a small goat farm in Victoria blamed closure on continual harassment by abusive “vegan activists”.” 

  Jail time is also under consideration as additional punishment. 

  “Today the government is putting these vigilantes and thugs on notice,” NWS agriculture minister Adam Marshall told Australia’s ABC News. 

  “This is just the first part of a broader package of reforms the government is working on, and jail time will be included in further legislation we are looking at.” 

  Marshall added that the new rules are “the toughest laws anywhere in Australia for people that illegally trespass onto farmers’ properties.” 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Meanwhile, activist group Aussie Farms says that the new rules under the “smokescreen” of biosecurity go too far. 

  Per executive director Chris Delforce, “Once again, the issue of biosecurity is being used as an excuse to attempt to limit consumer awareness of the systemic cruelty occurring in farms and slaughterhouses across the country.” 

  

• Pennsylvania School Warns "Your Child May Be Taken From Your Home" Over Unpaid Lunch Debt

  Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

  A school in Pennsylvania is warning parents that their children can be taken from their homes and placed in foster care if the child has unpaid school lunch debt.  In a letter sent out to about 1,000 parents from the Wyoming Valley West School District, the warning stated that dependency hearings could occur if parents won’t pay their kids’ lunch bills.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The letter’s ominous warning that failure to pay for their children’s school lunches could lead to dependency hearings and the removal of their children from their home came as the school district has multiple unpaid lunch bills. The bills reportedly range from $75 to $450 and total over $20,000, reported RT.

  Obvious fallout continues over the school district’s threats.

  Foster Care fallout! More reaction today to a letter sent to parents in the Wyoming Valley West School District threatening to send their kids to Foster Care unless they make good on delinquent lunch bills. A State lawmaker weighs in. Eyewitness News. https://t.co/DgMV2OFWhb pic.twitter.com/Xo64JxEzCh

  — Andy Mehalshick (@AndyMehalshick) July 19, 2019

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

  Luzerne County child welfare authorities said the alarming threat was false and harmed those most vulnerable – such as those unable to make good on those bills.

  Responding to the outrage, the school district said the stern letter was simply a desperate attempt at collecting fees they are owed. Wyoming Valley West’s lawyer, Charles Coslett, said he did not consider the letters threatening and told WYOU-TV that it’s “shameful” some parents don’t want to contribute towards feeding their own kids.

  Regardless of the reason the letter was sent out, parents were terrified – especially those without the money to immediately pay off their bills.  School officials have now said that they will send out a less severe follow-up letter to parents next week. But this letter tells us all we need to know about those who are “educating” our children with our tax dollars: Comply, or we will make you comply.

  You call this a fucking “lunch”? @BarackObama @MichelleObama pic.twitter.com/jsKW70A1xw

  — Tanner 🚒 (@Twiillss) March 31, 2014

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

  This is not the first time parents have been threatened either.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Back in 2013, parents were threatened with armed raids unless they complied with the demands of the school for children to undergo forced medical exams.

  The US government seems more and more convinced that THEY own YOUR kids. Just this week, a Tennessee dad was arrested for picking up his young children after school instead of allowing them to cross into traffic as the school’s policy demanded. Some schools won’t allow lunches to be sent from home, and if they are, the school insists on supplementing those lunches at extortionist rates in order to control the situation regardless of parental wishes. This doesn’t even take into account the dumbed-down Common Core curriculum, the absurd attempts to be politically correct, and the zero-tolerance insanity that causes kids to be charged with felonies for having loaded fishing tackle boxes in their vehicles or cutlery in their lunch boxes.

  –The Daily Sheeple

  If you’ve ever wondered why the homeschooling rates are so high, you should no longer have to. Parents are being threatened into compliance with government-run schools and most have become sick of it. Unfortunately, most families live paycheck to paycheck and homeschooling children has become a massive financial hardship for too many in the land of the “free.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The book IndocriNation by Colin Gunn andJoaquin Fernandez (is about why a growing number of parents choose not to send their children to public school. The [American] classroom anti-Christian ideologies from humanism, marxism, utopianism, educational psychology, and more confronting students in public schools today

  Look behind the comfortable myths of an educational system actively at work to alter your child’s moral values, worldview, and religious beliefs. Learn the history and philosophy of public school education – and discover it is based on neither Christian nor American values.

  

• Why A 100bps ECB Rate Cut Would Crush European Banks

  Last week, when observing the ongoing drop  in both Wells Fargo’s Net Interest Margin…

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  … as well as the broad decline in Net Interest Income across all US banks as rates continue to drop…

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  … we warned that this is an early warning of just how the upcoming Fed rate cuts will cripple US banks.

  But if US banks are about to get hit, then European banks, which are already in purgatory courtesy of five years of negative rates coupled with both public and private QE, may enter the 9th circle of hell as soon as Thursday, when the ECB previews what may be a 20bps rate cut in September with or without more QE.

  While the disastrous performance of European bank stocks since the financial crisis has been extensively discussed, with the European banking sector trading on the edge of support, beyond which nothing good awaits…

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  … it would be ironic if it is none other than the ECB which tips European bank stocks to new all time lows.

  The reason for that is that, as Goldman recently calculated, further rate cuts are “a very uncomfortable prospect” for the
  sector, and an indicative -20bps rate cut could lead to an aggregate €5.6bn (-6%) profit cut for the 32 Euro banks under Goldman coverage, with 12 banks facing an >10% EPS cut, and 5 banks >20%. Worse, if Draghi were “forced” to cut rates further still, by say -100bp, one quarter of European banks would turn loss making or break-even, and 75% would not meet their cost of capital, according to Goldman calculations.

  First, we lay out a quick, 6-chart summary of what Goldman’s economists will take place in the coming months in Europe:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Next, below are the details from Goldman’s analysis on rate cut-associated hits to income and capital:

  A decline in €-rates by -20bps across the yield curve, all else equal, has scope to lower NII and earnings of Euro area banks under our coverage by -3% and -6%, respectively. A profit hit of €5.6 bn would reduce ROTE for the 32 banks under our coverage by 0.6ppt to 8.2%. This said, for 12 banks the EPS impact, measured on a fully loaded pro-forma basis, could be >10%, and for 5 banks >20%. These are meaningful impacts.

  Bank-by-bank rankings for banks under Goldman’s coverage are laid our below:

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  And the next chart shows the aggregate impact of a -20bps rate cut on European banks.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Furthermore, as noted above, incrementally larger cuts have scope to stress sector profitability further:

  A -100bps cut would reduce sector’s aggregate ROTE by c. 3pp and, importantly, push ¼ of banks into loss making (4 banks) or break-even (4) territory. Returns for ¾ of all Euro area banks would fall 10% over 2014-16, at the time when both short-term policy (deposit rate: -40bps) and long-term market rates (5 year swap: -110bps) fell sharply.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Empirical evidence – or just one look at Deutsche Bank’s stock price – confirms that the ECB’s negative rates have been revenue and profit negative, to wit from Goldman:

  Sharp declines in both short- and long-term rates over 2014-16 corresponded to a substantial (>10%) NII estimate cut, a magnitude which put the sector’s profitability under pressure. However, there are key differences between the current outlook and historical experience, in particular during 2014-16 when rates first turned negative. With diminishing scope to lower deposit rates further and little evidence of easing pressure on lending margins (in particular given the extension of TLTRO, APS), an introduction of reserve tiering by the ECB screens as a key measure to stabilise the Euro area banks’ sector profitability.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  There is just one potential loophole for the ECB to avoid destroying Europe’s banks by cutting rates further. As Goldman notes, deposit rate tiering is therefore critical.

  Unlike Japan or Switzerland, the ECB does not offer deposit rate tiering, and thus its introduction would be critical for moderating the impact of an incremental rate cut. According to Goldman, the ECB adopting the Swiss model of tiering has scope to reduce the negative effect by ~⅓.

  Without tiering, an extremely challenging operating environment becomes worse, and may push an increased number of banks towards break-even, or even loss making territory. However, not all tiering is the same, and the schemes in use  vary greatly in the extent of the offset they provide. In our mind, key questions centre around the following two issues:

  1. could ECB’s tiering efficiency resemble the Swiss or Japanese approach? Swiss approach to tiering is our base-line scenario. And
  2. will it be applied to the incremental cut (-20bp) only, or the full -60bp? In our view, an offset for the entire -60bp is important.

  Implementation aside, we see a strong fundamental case for tiering. Euro area banks paid c. €21bn to the ECB since negative deposit rates were first applied in 2014, with the current €7.5bn annual charge set to increase if an incremental rate cut materialises. The skew of ECB’s deposit charge is high, and incurred almost entirely (>80%) by German, French and Benelux banks. Finally, ECB’s absence of tiering is unlike the approach pursued by the Swiss or Japanese central bank

  Finally below we lay out Goldman’s 4-step approach to gauging the impact of the ECB’s prospective rate cut on bank profits (overview in Exhibits 1-5):

  • Step 1: “Gross effect” (Columns 1 in Exhibit 1): Estimating effect of a -20bp rate cut, without a tiering offset;
  • Step 2: “Tiering shield” (Columns 2 in Exhibit 1): Goldman estimates the revenue uplift from tiering introduction (Swiss approach, Tiered reserve rate offered at 0);
  • Step 3: “Net effect” (Columns 3 in Exhibit 1): Is the combined effect of an incremental rate cut, alongside the positive effect of tiering. This assumes the end effect, when the assets and liabilities fully reprice.
  • Step 4 “Timing impact” (Columns 4 in Exhibit 1): This takes into account the timing mismatch of effects of tiering on one side, and the full repricing of balance sheets on the other. Due to the front-loaded effects of tiering, tiering would result in a neutral near term effect on banks (and even positive effect for some banks).

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In other words, unless the ECB follows the BOJ and SNB into tiering, its rate cut could – ironically – end up being the straw that finally breaks the European’ banking system camel’s back.

  In summary, a reduction in interest rates coupled with tiering impact would differ in magnitude as well as timing. While a negative impact of lower rates would exceed the positive revenue uplift associated with reserve tiering, the latter would likely be front-loaded, in our view. All in all, Goldman concludes that the near-term impact on Euro area banks may prove relatively modest given the upfront benefit of tiering could offset initial pressure from lower reinvestment yields.

  On the other hand, it is unclear if even tiering would much, if anything to stop the melting of Europe’s €45 trillion melting financial icecube, Deutsche Bank.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• New Climate Study Warns London As Hot As Barcelona By 2050

  A recent climate change study has found that London’s weather could feel more like Barcelona’s in 2050.

  Even though that might sound like a dream for Londoners, Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes that the change could be accompanied by severe drought. The research focused on 520 major cities and it was published in journal Plos One. Its most concerning finding was that residents in around a fifth of all cities including Jakarta, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur will experience climate conditions that have never been seen in any major cities.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  By 2050, it is forecast that Madrid will feel like Marrakech, Stockholm will feel like Budapest, Seattle will feel like San Francisco and New York will be like Virginia Beach.

  In the UK, the temperature increase would see the country’s average temperature during its hottest month soar around six degrees to 27C.

  

• Eye-For-An-Eye: UK Caught As Trump's "Useful Idiot" In Dangerous Iran Policy

  Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

  The UK fell for a US trap when it seized an Iranian ship on July 4. Iran struck back last Friday.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Useful Idiots

  Eurointelligence provides interesting commentary of tit-for-tat ship seizures first by the UK, then by Iran in response.

  The extraordinary story behind the capture of the British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero is a cautionary tale on many levels. It has the potential of turning into a major diplomatic calamity for both the UK and the EU.

  Simon Tisdall tells the story in the Observer that this confrontation was masterminded by none other than John Bolton, Donald Trump’s national security adviser. Several weeks ago, US intelligence services tracked an Iranian oil vessel headed for the Mediterranean, bound for a refinery in Syria. The Grace 1 sailed under a Panama flag. As it was too big for the Suez Canal, it undertook the longer journey from Iran around Cape Horn and up the Atlantic towards Spain. Washington alerted the Spanish government 48 hours before the tanker was due to enter the Strait of Gibraltar, but without giving any details that the ship might be in breach of US sanctions. The Spanish Navy escorted the ship but took no action at the time. Spain later said it would have intervened if it had been given information that the ship was in breach of US sanctions. 

  Bolton instead tipped off the British, who felt compelled to intercept the Grace I as it entered the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4, dispatching a force of 30 marines who stormed the ship. 

  The US managed to accomplish three things at the same time: escalating the conflict with Iran; dividing the Europeans by pitching the UK against Spain, which distanced itself from the UK manoeuvre off Gibraltar; and turning the UK once again into the useful idiot of US diplomacy. Not bad for a few days’ work. But it is also a clear indication of the EU’s total lack of preparedness to deal with a hostile Trump administration. 

  Unsurprisingly, the EU’s response is divided. Spain is furious about the UK’s unilateral action in international waters off the Spanish coast. The EU’s external-action service, soon to be headed by Josep Borrell, Spain’s foreign minister, is silent. Germany and France are backing the UK – at least diplomatically – for now. Russia, Japan and China are with Iran. They do not want to risk oil supplies.

  Excellent News?!

  Excellent news: UK has detained the supertanker Grace I laden with Iranian oil bound for Syria in violation of EU sanctions. America & our allies will continue to prevent regimes in Tehran & Damascus from profiting off this illicit trade.

  — John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) July 4, 2019

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

  Dangerous Trap

  The Guardian comments How Trump’s Arch-Hawk Lured Britain Into a Dangerous Trap to Punish Iran

  Bolton’s delighted reaction suggested the seizure was a surprise. But accumulating evidence suggests the opposite is true, and that Bolton’s national security team was directly involved in manufacturing the Gibraltar incident. The suspicion is that Conservative politicians, distracted by picking a new prime minister, jockeying for power, and preoccupied with Brexit, stumbled into an American trap.

  In short, it seems, Britain was set up. As a result, Britain has been plunged into the middle of an international crisis it is ill-prepared to deal with.

  Much of this angst could have been avoided. Britain opposed Trump’s decision to quit the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, the trigger for today’s crisis. It has watched with alarm as the Trump-Bolton policy of “maximum pressure”, involving punitive sanctions and an oil embargo, has radicalised the most moderate Iranians.

  Yet even as Britain backed EU attempts to rescue the nuclear deal, Theresa May and Jeremy Hunt, foreign secretary, tried to have it both ways – to keep Trump sweet.

  Eye for an Eye

  The Financial Times comments on the ‘Eye for Eye’ Ideology Behind Iran’s Seizure of UK Tanker.

  “Eye for eye and hand for hand is our Islamic ideology. An American eye or a European hand are not more valuable than an Iranian eye or hand,” said Mohammad-Sadegh Javadi-Hesar, a reformist politician.

  Lovely.

  Nothing But War Will Do

  Bolton wants war. Nothing less will do.

  To get it, he is willing to radicalize the Iranian moderates and trap allies into doing his immoral bidding.

  I am sick of this administration’s war policy and treatment of allies.

  

• Largest Builder Of Bootleg Luxury Vehicles In Brazil Busted: Police Raid Secret Fake Lambo Factory

  Police in the city of Santa Catarina, Brazil recently raided a secret factory that was used to create bootleg replicas of luxury vehicles, according to CNN. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Santa Catarina Civil Police’s investigative unit seized eight nearly assembled replicas of Lamborghinis and Ferraris during last Monday’s raid, according to a police press release.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The replicas were being sold for between $48,000 and $66,000 – a small fraction of the list price for an original. The starting price for a Ferrari, for instance, is generally around $215,000. In addition to seizing the replica vehicles, tools, molds, fibers and frames used to manufacture the cars were also seized.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The shop was owned by a father and son duo who now both face criminal charges for falsifying commercial property. They are being called “the largest manufacturers of bootleg luxury vehicles in Brazil”.

  Ferrari and Lamborghini representatives had contacted the Santa Catarina civil police, which prompted the investigation to begin with.

  

• How Imperial Washington Rules The World: Sanctions & The Weaponization Of Global Commerce

  Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Futures of Freedom Foundation,

  Ruler Of The World

  Recently released secret documents from Chinese company Huawei provide insights into how the U.S. Empire rules the world. According to the Washington Post, the documents reveal that Huawei secretly helped North Korea “build and maintain the country’s commercial wireless network.”

  What’s wrong with that? you ask.

  It violates U.S. sanctions against North Korea!

  What do U.S. sanctions have to do with commercial relations between a Chinese company and North Korea?

  Well, as the ruler of the world – or, in common parlance, as the world’s sole remaining empire – the U.S. Empire’s rules and regulations apply to everyone in the world. If anyone anywhere in the world is caught violating them, he will be summoned to the United States to face criminal and civil prosecution.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  What about President Trump’s lovefest with North Korean communist dictator Kim Jong-Un?

  Irrelevant! Just because the president of the United States has fallen in love with North Korea’s communist dictator and salutes his communist generals, that still does not relieve foreigners from complying with the Empire’s edicts prohibiting commercial ties with North Korea without the official permission of U.S. officials.

  That’s how the Empire works – its rulers are free to fall in love with anyone they want but that still doesn’t relieve foreign governments and foreign companies of their duty to comply with and obey the rules and regulations of the U.S. Empire.

  Anyway, everyone is supposed to know that North Korea is a communist regime and that communism is bad. That’s in fact why the Empire has maintained a harsh economic embargo against the Cuban people for more than 50 years. Since the Cuban people have refused to oust their communist regime with a coup or a violent revolution, the U.S. Empire has continued to target them with impoverishment and death through economic sanctions, the same thing they are doing to the North Korean people and, well, for that matter, the Iranian people.

  Like Huawei’s helping North Korea to build and maintain a wireless commercial network, woe to the foreigner who does business with communist Cuba in violation of the U.S. embargo. He will be prosecuted, fined, and imprisoned for daring to violate the rules and regulations of the Empire.

  In fact, woe to the American citizen who travels to Cuba and spends money there without the official permission of his rulers. He too will be viciously prosecuted, fined, and imprisoned by the Empire.

  Notice the operative words: “without the official permission of his rulers.” You see, apparently trading with the Cuban Reds is not bad per se because U.S. officials do grant official permission to some Americans – the privileged ones – to travel to Cuba and spend money there. That’s how the Empire works – if you approach it, show respect, bend the knee, and plead for permission to trade with others, they might (or might not) let you. What’s important is that you ask permission. That’s how “freedom” works under an Empire.

  Of course, there is a big exception when it comes to trading with the communists. That exception is North Vietnam or, excuse me, Vietnam, a country that is headed by a communist regime that killed more than 58,000 American men who were sacrificed by the U.S. Empire in a violent war against communism. Apparently Vietnam’s communism is not so bad anymore because U.S. Empire officials have granted Americans official permission to trade with the Vietnamese Reds. 

  In his Fourth of July, 1821, address to Congress, entitled “In Search of Monsters to Destroy,” U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams accurately predicted what would happen if the U.S. government were ever to abandon its founding principle of non-interventionism in favor of a worldwide interventionist empire:

  The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world.

  

• Busted Billion-Dollar Bagholders Hire Private Eyes To Probe Goldman-Led Airline Bailout

  Several years ago, when ZIRP and NIRP was (again) raging, investors jumped at the chance to buy $1.2 billion in bonds whose proceeds wound up with a cluster of airlines linked to Etihad Airlines. As Bloomberg details, the deal was unusual in several ways: Goldman had teamed up with two relatively obscure brokerages and controversial German financier Lars Windhorst was helping structure the deal behind the scenes.

  Ultimately, the deal wound up going bust and a group of creditors has now hired a private eye firm to dig out the details into how the deal came together, including the roles played by Windhorst, Goldman and others.

  The deal and its ensuing investigation are bad PR for Goldman Sachs and highlight the company’s “willingness to raise large pools of capital in unorthodox or risky deals.” It also pairs the company with Windhorst, who has been under scrutiny in recent weeks especially over his role in the blow up of the ill-named H20 fund.

  Roger King, an analyst at research firm CreditSights said:

  “There were a lot of strange characteristics. It was a bizarrely complicated deal. A hairy deal no matter who brought it.”

  One of the main questions about the deal was why did Goldman Sachs step in after another notoriously law-breaking bank, HSBC, dropped out. The financing likely wouldn’t have taken place without the help of a global bank.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Now, creditors including investment managers BlueBay Asset Management and Gramercy Funds Management have enlisted private investigators to help them push for maximum recoveries from the busted bonds. While it is not unheard of for bondholders to hire intelligence companies for due diligence purposes, it’s relatively rare that they will employ them in these types of scenarios.

  Etihad had an issue in 2015. It had bought stakes in several smaller airlines but some of them, like Air Berlin, kept bleeding cash. Windhorst, who was once the airlline’s largest shareholder, was looking to help fix these issues. He proposed that a special purpose vehicle close to Etihad could sell bonds and then turn around to slice up the proceeds to many of the smaller carriers. Those companies would then pay back the special purpose vehicle.

  Anoa, a small brokerage that was contracted to work out the details by Windhorst, was an affiliated company of his investment arm. Anoa has since gone bust and its former CEO is now the CEO of Windhorst’s private investment vehicle. Anoa helped design the transaction but it lacked fundraising firepower. HSBC was initially recruited to lead the deal, but the bank suddenly and inexplicably dropped out before the sale. It was reportedly the participation of Anoa that caused HSBC’s skepticism. Others wondered whether or not the smaller brokerage would be able to commit to carrying out the complex transaction.

  That’s when Goldman Sachs stepped in.

  The deal needed to be cleared many times over at Goldman because of its complexity and because of the involvement of a sovereign entity, Abu Dhabi. Windhorst’s involvement was also an issue.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The SPV issued its first set of junk rated bonds in the amount of $700 million in September 2015. In April 2016, Senior Etihad executives and a Goldman Sachs banker were given an industry award for the structuring of the plan. Two months after that, the financing team raised another $500 million, bringing the total to $1.2 billion. 93.5% of the proceeds went to the airline group.

  However, right after that last deal, things began to go south. Smaller airlines in the partnership like Air Berlin, Alitalia and Jet Airways fell victim to their financial woes and the bonds created. At the same time, Etihad decided it was no longer going to support the affiliate airlines and instead embarked on a management overhaul.

  The bond offering documents didn’t explicitly guarantee support from Etihad, but there was always an “implicit understanding” that they would be there for support if needed. And now, the investor group in the bonds is left holding the bag with no choice left but to hire law firms and private investigators to try and maximize their recoveries.

  Goldman’s dealings with Windhorst were formerly the topic of a lawsuit by a former executive, Chris Rollins. Seth Redniss, a lawyer for Rollins said: “Whether in public or private, the evidence shows that top execs allowed these very large, risky deals to happen.”

  In other words, the buck – as in the case of 1MDB – stopped with none other than Lloyd Blankfein… who conveniently retired last year just as the heat was starting to build.

  

• Every Flaw In Markets Is Worse Under Socialism

  Authored by Chloe Anagnos via The American Institute for Economic Research,

  As the granddaughter of a survivor of communism and socialism, I find it almost unfathomable that the political ideology my family left a continent for is creeping into my neighborhood.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  I was alerted to an event on Facebook called “Summer Socialism 101 classes,” which will be hosted at the Indianapolis Central Library this August. The group will offer the following classes: “Why we need a revolutionary party, Introduction to Marxism, and Contradictions of Capitalism.”

  You can imagine my disbelief and frustration when I saw this event shared on Facebook by people urging others to learn more about a political ideology that killed at least 100 million men, women, and children — more than all the deaths of all the major wars of the 20th century – combined.

  Published by Harvard University Press, The Black Book of Communism documents the victims of each Marxist socialist regime in, but not necessarily limited to, 

  • China under Mao Zedong

  • North Korea under Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-il, and Kim Jong-un

  • Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh

  • Cuba under Fidel Castro

  • Cambodia under Pol Pot

  • Ethiopia under Mengistu Haile

  • Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro

  Greece is no exception.

  After World War II, a civil war broke out in Greece between the Greek government (backed by the U.S. and the UK) and the military branch of the Communist Party of Greece (supported by then-socialist states Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria).

  During the war (1946-49), Greeks either publicly supported or joined the Communists or were thrown in jail. My Yiayia’s (grandmother’s) oldest brother and both of her parents didn’t join the Communists, so they quickly became political prisoners. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  (My great grandparents – the Antonakes family.) 

  As best as my Yiayia can recall, they were held as political prisoners for more than three years.

  When the war broke out, my Yiayia was the youngest of the family — just eight years old. While her parents were in prison, she and her siblings were raised by family and neighbors. Although this conflict started after World War II, the internal political struggles began during the German occupation of Greece in the early 1940s.

  She remembers Nazis occupying her village, one of them shooting a neighbor’s goat in the head in front of her and others while saying something to the effect of “If you don’t fall in line, this is what will happen to you.”

  My great uncle lost part of a finger and some of his scalp during the occupation of another village. That is the only injury I’m aware of  — or at least the only one anyone is willing to talk about. Miraculously, not only did the family survive World War II and the civil war, but the three were released from prison. 

  In total, 80,000 Greeks were killed and another 700,000 were left homeless. Soon, parts of my family left for better opportunities. Some went to Canada and others eventually got to the United States. Some stayed in Greece and are still there today.

  My immediate family and I are only in Indiana because our first relative who came here from Ellis Island wanted to get to Chicago but didn’t have enough money to get there. Instead, he made a life in Elkhart, Indiana — 108 miles short. From there, four generations have worked to achieve the American dream, which wouldn’t be possible without the free market.

  Senior AIER fellow Michael Munger says it best:

  “The problem for Marxists is simple: every flaw in markets is worse under socialism. At the micro level, every flaw in consumers is worse, and in fact much worse, in voters. Unless you are willing to advocate monarchism, or actual communist dictatorship, markets and democracy are the only two mechanisms we have for organizing society.”

  For those in my home state flirting with Marxist ideals, I suggest you read Munger’s forthcoming book from AIER, Is Capitalism Sustainable? along with the other brilliant publications we offer.

  After all, capitalism is what truly lifts the masses out of poverty and into freedom. 

  Just look at my family.

  

• LAPD Spied On And Infiltrated Anti-Trump Protesters

  The Los Angeles Police Department spied on anti-Trump protesters and even infiltrated an activist group that was planning anti-Trump protests, according to the Guardian.

  An informant working for the LAPD secretly infiltrated a group called “Refuse Fascism” in 2017, recording multiple meetings that the group held. LAPD transcripts that were submitted in a criminal case against activists who blocked a California freeway during an anti-Trump rally were the first admissions that the informant existed.

  The undercover officer was equipped with a hidden recording device and attended “Refuse Fascism” gatherings at a local church “in an attempt to elicit information regarding the closure” of the freeway and to express interest in being involved “in any such future activities,” according to the LAPD. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  One of the activists who was monitored and recorded as well as charged with misdemeanors, Miguel Antonio, said he would not let the surveillance stop him from organizing:

   “We’re not scared. We’re not going to back down in the face of repression. You’re in a church, and you’re meeting about organizing a peaceful protest, and you’re running the risk of being charged with conspiracy or these petty crimes.”

  Similar incidents have also taken place across the US. In Sacramento, police pursued cases against left-wing activists at a white supremacist rally. In Berkeley, police collaborated with a “violent pro Trump demonstrator” to prosecute a left-wing group. There have also been similar controversies in Washington DC and Oregon.

  The LAPD surveillance was “striking”, given documented evidence of violence from the far right as well as the far left.

  Mike German, a former FBI agent and expert on local extremist groups, said: 

  “This case seems to fall into a pattern of police agencies viewing anti-fascist organizing as terrorism, while overlooking the far more deadly and frequent violence perpetrated by white supremacists and other far-right militants.”

  The LAPD reportedly didn’t conduct similar spying operations on far right groups.

  The LAPD police chief, Michel Moore, reportedly “ordered a top-to-bottom review to determine whether the department’s stringent requirements for the use of confidential informants were followed”.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  On September 27, 2017, Antonio was arrested after he shut down a freeway in downtown LA to protest Trump a year after his election. Shortly thereafter, the LAPD had an informant approach Antonio at a meeting.

  During an 11 October meeting, the informant approached Antonio and said, “Are we gonna do like any freeway things again…or major things like that?”, according to a transcript of a secret recording.

  “I’m not sure,” Antonio responded.

  The informant then said he was interested in joining future activities: “I thought the freeway thing was pretty good.”

  At one point, the informant caught someone on a recording say: “That’s an awfully hot coffeepot, should I drop it on Donald Trump?”

  Damon Alimouri, Antonio’s lawyer, said:

  “The LAPD surveillance was unjust and outrageous. [I] suspect this type of spying [is] likely to escalate across the country. The further left that younger people go, we will continue to see law enforcement infiltrating these groups secretly. To a certain extent, it might intimidate some, and I think that’s the intention of the LAPD.”

  Frank Wulf, the pastor of the church, said: “The government is interfering with the rights of protest in America,” he said, adding that he worried about a chilling effect: “You never know if the person sitting next to you is a police informant or not.”

  

• Iran Legalizes Crypto-Mining As "Official Industry"

  After weeks of uncertainty, the Iranian government’s Economic Commission has approved a mechanism of cryptocurrency mining in the country, according to an announcement by the Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries, Mines and Agriculture on July 22.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
  As CoinTelegraph’s Ana Alexandre reports, Governor of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), Abdolnaser Hemmati said that “a mechanism to mine digital coins was approved by the government’s economic commission and will later be put to discussion at a Cabinet meeting.”

  Initially, Iranian authorities announced that they are planning to authorize Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining earlier in July, when the CBI governor Abdol Hemmati reportedly claimed that the Iranian government had approved some parts of an executive law that would authorize mining of cryptocurrencies in Iran.

  At the time, Hemmati argued that digital currency miners in Iran should contribute to the country’s economy, rather than letting mined Bitcoin escape abroad.

  Also, at the Commission’s latest meeting, its head Elyas Hazrati said that cryptocurrency is now recognized as official by the government, adding:

  “We do believe that cryptocurrency industry should be recognized as an official industry in Iran to let the country take advantage of its tax and customs revenues.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

  Today’s news also follows yesterday’s reports that The Iranian Economic Commission has reportedly finalized a tariff scheme for cryptocurrency miners, according to a report from Iranian economic daily Financial Tribune.

  CoinTelegraph’s Aaron Wood details that Energy Minister Homayoon Ha’eri announced that while the tariff scheme has been finalized, it is awaiting approval from the Cabinet of Iran – a governmental body consisting of various ministers and other officials chosen by the president. 

  While Ha’eri did not elaborate on the exact price scheme, he stated that the price is dependent on market factors such as fuel prices in the Persian Gulf. 

  The head of Iran Electrical Industry Syndicate, Ali Bakhshi, previously proposed a price of $0.07 per kilowatt hour for cryptocurrency miners. Electricity in Iran is currently very cheap due to government subsidies; one kilowatt hour of electricity currently costs $0.05, with power being cheaper in the agricultural and industrial sectors. 

  To put these prices in context, Mostafa Rajabi Mashhadi, the Energy Ministry spokesman for the power department, previously stated that the production of a single Bitcoin (BTC) uses about $1,400 in state subsidies. 

  The Financial Tribune reports that mining one Bitcoin reportedly consumes as much electricity as 24 buildings in Tehran do in one year. 

  This news follows an announcement from the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), in which the banks governor Abdol Hemmati claimed that the CBI was planning to authorize cryptocurrency mining. 

  Similar to the statements from Energy Minister Ha’eri, Hemmati said that a planned law will require crypto mining in Iran to abide with the price of electricity for export, rather than allowing miners to use the heavily subsidized internal energy grid.

  Also today, Deputy President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Customs Administration Jamal Arounaghi announced that the agency has not yet issued licenses for the import of cryptocurrency mining equipment. While a tariff scheme exists, the final decision on licensure awaits approval from the government.

  

• FBI Raids LA's Department Of Water & Power, City Hall

  Rumors about a federal investigation into Los Angeles city hall have been circulating for months now, and on Monday, the Los Angeles Times reported that the FBI carried out a search of the Department of Water and Power and City Hall.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  A spokesman for the FBI confirmed the search.

  “There is a search taking place at the DWP building. The affidavit in support of the search warrant is under seal by the court,” said Rukelt Dalberis, an FBI spokesman in Los Angeles. Law enforcement sources said the FBI was also at Los Angeles City Hall.

  A champagne-colored van was parked outside the DWP headquarters with a placard saying “FBI” and “Official Business.”

  An FBI van was parked outside City Hall East, which serves as the headquarters for City Atty. Mike Feuer ‘s office and several government agencies.

  A spokesman for the City Attorney’s Office refused to confirm whether the FBI agents had entered the City Attorney’s office.

  The mayor’s office released a statement saying Eric Garcetti’s office welcomed the investigation.

  Alex Comisar, a spokesman for Mayor Eric Garcetti, said in a statement: “We were notified earlier this morning that federal search warrants were being executed today. The mayor believes that any criminal wrongdoing should be investigated and prosecuted. His expectation is that any city employee asked to cooperate will do so fully and immediately.”

  DWP Commissioner Christina Noonan declined to comment, saying she had been advised to refer all questions to a department spokesman.

  LADWP spokesman Joe Romallo did not return multiple calls seeking comment.

  Federal investigators have cast a wide net for information about foreign investment in Los Angeles real estate developments. Among those named in the warrant were Councilman Jose Huizar, Curren Price, the former head of he Department of Building and Safety and high-level appointees of Garcetti and Council President Herb Wesson.

  Recently, the developers of projects in Councilman Jose Huizar’s district have received grand jury subpoenas demanding they turn over communications with the councilman and other current and former staffers.

  The DWP has been struggling with its own series of scandals, including the fallout from a billing system that sent out wildly inaccurate bills to customers, prompting a flood of lawsuits.

  The warrant also named executives of Chinese firms bankrolling new residential and hotel towers on Figueroa Street in downtown Los Angeles. It doesn’t say whether the FBI has gathered evidence of criminal activity.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Europe Faces "Looming Syphilis Epidemic" As 'Hookup' Apps Go Viral

  The rise of dating apps and falling rates of HIV in the developed world have led to the reemergence of an STD that was, until recently, confined to literary novels from the 19th century.

  The spread of syphilis in Europe is intensifying, said Andrew Amato-Gauci, the head of the HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted infections and viral hepatitis program at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). He told RT that various factors play into the outbreak, such as “people having sex without condoms, multiple sexual partners and a reduced fear of acquiring HIV from condomless sex.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  A new report by the ECDC shows that the number of confirmed cases of syphilis across the EU soared by 70% between 2010 and 2017.

  The biggest innovation in the dating world during that period is the rise of “hookup” apps like Tinder, Grindr and Bumble – aka bringing the “sharing economy” to the dating world.

  Rates of HIV/AIDS deaths have been declining across the world after peaking in the early 2000s.

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  Oddly enough, the leader in Europe in Iceland, a country where the 300,000 inhabitants are all, at the very least, distant cousins. The syphilis rate in Iceland has climbed by 876%. In Ireland, syphilis rates have climbed 224%, while Germany and Britain have seen rates double.

  According to the ECDC, homosexual sex – specifically “men having sex with men” – is responsible for two-thirds of the cases reported between 2007 and 2017. Heterosexual men constitute 23% of the cases, and women 15%.

  Amato-Gauci said growing rates of unprotected sex is only part of the problem. Lack of testing and sex education are also issues. Gauci has a few ideas for policies that could lower rates.

  “These include: more testing for syphilis in some groups, such as men who have sex with men, lack of or insufficient sex education, poor access to condoms for teenagers and young adults, sex under the influence of alcohol or drugs, including the use of psychoactive ‘party drugs.'”

  Amato-Gauci said dating apps “may facilitate more sexual encounters, and with that transmission of STI [sexually-transmitted infections] like syphilis.”

  Lorenzo Giacani, associate professor in the Departments of Medicine and Global Health at the University of Washington, said a “robust response” will be needed to lower syphilis rates.

  “The ECDC data clearly shows that syphilis is not a disease of the past but very present among us,” he said.

  There is no vaccine for syphilis, and while penicillin can cure syphilis in its early stages, once it becomes late stage, there’s no cure.

  

• What The Latest Secret Government File Tells Us About The West's Middle East Policy

  Authored by Mark Curtis via TruePublica.org.uk,

  The British government is refusing to release a 1941 file on Palestine, as it might “undermine the security” of Britain and its citizens. Why would a 78-year-old document be seen as so sensitive in 2019?

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  One plausible reason is that it could embarrass the British government in its relations with Israel and Iraq, and may concern a long but hidden theme in British foreign policy: creating false pretexts for military intervention.

  The Colonial Office document, at the National Archives in London, was uncovered by journalist Tom Suarez and concerns the “activities of the Grand Mufti [Haj Amin al-Husseini] of Jerusalem” in 1940-41.

  After the assassination of Lewis Andrews, British district commissioner for Galilee, in September 1937, the British Government dismissed al-Husseini from his post as president of the Supreme Muslim Council and decided to arrest all members of the Arab Higher Committee, including Husseini.

  He took refuge in the Noble Sanctuary (al-Haram al-Sharif), fled to Jaffa and then Lebanon, and ended up in Iraq, where he played a role in the Iraqi national anti-British movement.

  He spent the Second World War moving between Berlin and Rome and took part in the propaganda war against Britain and France through Arabic radio broadcasts.

  A plan ‘to clip the mufti’s wings’

  In April 1941, nationalist army officers known as the Golden Square staged a coup in Iraq, overthrowing the pro-British regime, and signalled they were prepared to work with German and Italian intelligence. In response, the British embarked on a military campaign and eventually crushed the coup leaders two months later.

  But Suarez discovered in the files that the British were already wanting such a “military occupation of Iraq” by November 1940 – well before the Golden Square coup gave them a pretext for doing so.

  The reason was that Britain wanted to end “the mufti’s intrigues with the Italians”. One file notes: “We may be able to clip the mufti’s wings when we can get a new government in Iraq. FO [Foreign Office] are working on this.” Suarez notes that a prominent thread in the British archive is: “How to effect a British coup without further alienating ‘the Arab world’ in the midst of the war, beyond what the empowering of Zionism had already done.”

  As British troops closed in on Baghdad, a violent anti-Jewish pogrom rocked the city, killing more than 180 Jewish Iraqis and destroying the homes of hundreds of members of the Jewish community who had lived in Iraq for centuries. The Farhud (violent dispossession) has been described as the Iraqi Jews’ Kristallnacht, the brutal pogrom against Jews carried out in Nazi Germany three years earlier.

  There have long been claims that these riots were condoned or even orchestrated by the British to blacken the nationalist regime and justify Britain’s return to power in Baghdad and ongoing military occupation of Iraq.

  Historian Tony Rocca noted:

  “To Britain’s shame, the army was stood down. Sir Kinahan Cornwallis, Britain’s ambassador in Baghdad, for reasons of his own, held our forces at bay in direct insubordination to express orders from Winston Churchill that they should take the city and secure its safety. Instead, Sir Kinahan went back to his residence, had a candlelight dinner and played a game of bridge.”

  1953 coup in Iran

  Could this be the reason that UK government censors want the file to remain secret after all these years? It would neither be the first, nor the last time that British planners used or created pretexts to justify their military interventions.

  In 1953, the covert British and US campaign to overthrow the elected nationalist government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran included a “false flag” element. Agents working for the British posed as supporters of the communist Tudeh party, engaging in activities such as throwing rocks at mosques and priests, in order to portray the demonstrating mobs as communists. The aim was to provide a pretext for the coup and the Shah of Iran’s taking control in the name of anti-communism.

  Three years later, in 1956, Britain also secretly connived to create a pretext for its military intervention in Egypt. After Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal and Britain sought to overthrow him, the British and French governments secretly agreedwith Israel that the latter would first attack Egypt. Then, London and Paris would despatch military forces on the pretext of separating the warring parties, and seize the canal. The plan went ahead but failed, largely owing to US opposition.

  Five years later, in 1961, it was a similar story in Kuwait. This little-known British intervention was publicly justified on the basis of an alleged threat from Iraq, but the declassified files that I have examined suggest that this “threat” was concocted by British planners. When Kuwait secured independence in June 1961, Britain was desperate to protect its oil interests and to solidify its commercial and military relations with the Kuwaiti regime. The files suggest that the British therefore needed to get the Kuwaitis to “ask” Britain for “protection”.

  Kuwait intervention

  On 25 June 1961, Iraqi ruler Abdul Karim Qasim publicly claimed Kuwait as part of Iraq. Five days later, Kuwait’s emir formally requested British military intervention, and on 1 July, British forces landed, eventually numbering around 7,000.

  But the alleged Iraqi threat to Kuwait never materialised. David Lee, who commanded the British air force in the Middle East in 1961, later wrote that the British government “did not contemplate aggression by Iraq very seriously”.

  Indeed, the evidence suggests that the emir was duped into “requesting” intervention by the British, and his information on a possible Iraq move on Kuwait came almost exclusively from British sources. The files show that the “threat” to Kuwait was being pushed by the British embassy in Baghdad but contradicted by Britain’s consulate in Basra, near the Kuwaiti border, which reported no unusual troop movements.

  British intervention was intended to reassure Kuwait and other friendly Middle Eastern regimes that were key to maintaining the British position in the world’s most important region. The prime minister’s foreign policy adviser said that letting go of Kuwait would have meant that “the other oil sheikhdoms (which are getting richer) will not rely on us any longer”.

  By the time we reached the invasion of Iraq in 2003, creating false pretexts for interventions had become a familiar theme in British foreign policy.

  A matter of routine

  To return to the 1941 document, British authorities have had a policy of either censoring, “losing” or destroying historical files that could undermine relations with current governments.

  In 2012, an official review concluded that “thousands of documents detailing some of the most shameful acts and crimes committed during the final years of the British empire were systematically destroyed to prevent them falling into the hands of post-independence governments”, according to a report in The Guardian.

  The files covered policies such as the abuse and torture of insurgents in Kenya in the 1950s, the alleged massacre of 24 unarmed villagers in Malaya in 1948, and the army’s secret torture centre in Aden in the 1960s.

  Other papers have been hidden for decades in secret foreign office archives, beyond the reach of historians and members of the public, and in breach of legal obligations for them to be transferred into the public domain.

  Whatever is in the 1941 document, if the British government is withholding its release for fear of upsetting relations with key allies, this would be less than surprising and more a matter of routine.

  

• War Profiteers And The Demise Of The US Military-Industrial Complex

  Authored by Dmitry Orlov via Club Orlov blog,

  Within the vast bureaucratic sprawl of the Pentagon there is a group in charge of monitoring the general state of the military-industrial complex and its continued ability to fulfill the requirements of the national defense strategy. Office for acquisition and sustainment and office for industrial policy spends some $100,000 a year producing an Annual Report to Congress. It is available to the general public. It is even available to the general public in Russia, and Russian experts had a really good time poring over it.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In fact, it filled them with optimism. You see, Russia wants peace but the US seems to want war and keeps making threatening gestures against a longish list of countries that refuse to do its bidding or simply don’t share its “universal values.” But now it turns out that threats (and the increasingly toothless economic sanctions) are pretty much all that the US is still capable of dishing out—this in spite of absolutely astronomical levels of defense spending.

  Let’s see what the US military-industrial complex looks like through a Russian lens.

  It is important to note that the report’s authors were not aiming to force legislators to finance some specific project. This makes it more valuable than numerous other sources, whose authors’ main objective was to belly up to the federal feeding trough, and which therefore tend to be light on facts and heavy on hype. No doubt, politics still played a part in how various details are portrayed, but there seems to be a limit to the number of problems its authors can airbrush out of the picture and still do a reasonable job in analyzing the situation and in formulating their recommendations.

  What knocked Russian analysis over with a feather is the fact that these INDPOL experts (who, like the rest of the US DOD, love acronyms) evaluate the US military-industrial complex from a… market-based perspective! You see, the Russian military-industrial complex is fully owned by the Russian government and works exclusively in its interests; anything else would be considered treason. But the US military-industrial complex is evaluated based on its… profitability! According to INDPOL, it must not only produce products for the military but also acquire market share in the global weapons trade and, perhaps most importantly, maximize profitability for private investors. By this standard, it is doing well: for 2017 the gross margin (EBITDA) for US defense contractors ranged from 15 to 17%, and some subcontractors – Transdigm, for example – managed to deliver no less than 42-45%. “Ah!” cry the Russian experts, “We’ve found the problem! The Americans have legalized war profiteering!” (This, by the way, is but one of many instances of something called systemic corruption, which is rife in the US.)

  It would be one thing if each defense contractor simply took its cut off the top, but instead there is an entire food chain of defense contractors, all of which are legally required, no less, to maximize profits for their shareholders. More than 28,000 companies are involved, but the actual first-tier defense contractors with which the Pentagon places 2/3 of all defense contracts are just the Big Six: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynmics, BAE Systems and Boeing. All the other companies are organized into a pyramid of subcontractors with five levels of hierarchy, and at each level they do their best to milk the tier above them.

  The insistence on market-based methods and the requirement of maximizing profitability turns out to be incompatible with defense spending on a very basic level: defense spending is intermittent and cyclical, with long fallow intervals between major orders. This has forced even the Big Six to make cuts to their defense-directed departments in favor of expanding civilian production. Also, in spite of the huge size of the US defense budget, it is of finite size (there being just one planet to blow up), as is the global weapons market. Since, in a market economy, every company faces the choice of grow or get bought out, this has precipitated scores of mergers and acquisitions, resulting in a highly consolidated marketplace with a few major players in each space.

  As a result, in most spaces, of which the report’s authors discuss 17, including the Navy, land forces, air force, electronics, nuclear weapons, space technology and so on, at least a third of the time the Pentagon has a choice of exactly one contractor for any given contract, causing quality and timeliness to suffer and driving up prices.

  In a number of cases, in spite of its industrial and financial might, the Pentagon has encountered insoluble problems. Specifically, it turns out that the US has only one shipyard left that is capable of building nuclear aircraft carriers (at all, that is; the USS Gerald Ford is not exactly a success). That is Northrop Grumman Newport News Shipbuilding in Newport, Virginia. In theory, it could work on three ships in parallel, but two of the slips are permanently occupied by existing aircraft carriers that require maintenance. This is not a unique case: the number of shipyards capable of building nuclear submarines, destroyers and other types of vessels is also exactly one. Thus, in case of a protracted conflict with a serious adversary in which a significant portion of the US Navy has been sunk, ships will be impossible to replace within any reasonable amount of time.

  The situation is somewhat better with regard to aircraft manufacturing. The plants that exist can produce 40 planes a month and could produce 130 a month if pressed. On the other hand, the situation with tanks and artillery is absolutely dismal. According to this report, the US has completely lost the competency for building the new generation of tanks. It is no longer even a question of missing plant and equipment; in the US, a second generation of engineers who have never designed a tank is currently going into retirement. Their replacements have no one to learn from and only know about modern tanks from movies and video games. As far as artillery, there is just one remaining production line in the US that can produce barrels larger than 40mm; it is fully booked up and would be unable to ramp up production in case of war. The contractor is unwilling to expand production without the Pentagon guaranteeing at least 45% utilization, since that would be unprofitable.

  The situation is similar for the entire list of areas; it is better for dual-use technologies that can be sourced from civilian companies and significantly worse for highly specialized ones. Unit cost for every type of military equipment goes up year after year while the volumes being acquired continuously trend lower—sometimes all the way to zero. Over the past 15 years the US hasn’t acquired a single new tank. They keep modernizing the old ones, but at a rate that’s no higher than 100 a year.

  Because of all these tendencies and trends, the defense industry continues to lose not only qualified personnel but also the very ability to perform the work. INDPOL experts estimate that the deficit in machine tools has reached 27%. Over the past quarter-century the US has stopped manufacturing a wide variety of manufacturing equipment. Only half of these tools can be imported from allies or friendly nations; for the rest, there is just one source: China. They analyzed the supply chains for 600 of the most important types of weapons and found that a third of them have breaks in them while another third have completely broken down. In the Pentagon’s five-tier subcontractor pyramid, component manufacturers are almost always relegated to the bottommost tier, and the notices they issue when they terminate production or shut down completely tend to drown in the Pentagon’s bureaucratic swamp.

  The end result of all this is that theoretically the Pentagon is still capable of doing small production runs of weapons to compensate for ongoing losses in localized, low-intensity conflicts during a general time of peace, but even today this is at the extreme end of its capabilities. In case of a serious conflict with any well-armed nation, all it will be able to rely on is the existing stockpile of ordnance and spare parts, which will be quickly depleted.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  A similar situation prevails in the area of rare earth elements and other materials for producing electronics. At the moment, the accumulated stockpile of these supplies needed for producing missiles and space technology—most importantly, satellites—is sufficient for five years at the current rate of use.

  The report specifically calls out the dire situation in the area of strategic nuclear weapons. Almost all the technology for communications, targeting, trajectory calculations and arming of the ICBM warheads was developed in the 1960s and 70s. To this day, data is loaded from 5-inch floppy diskettes, which were last mass-produced 15 years ago. There are no replacements for them and the people who designed them are busy pushing up daisies. The choice is between buying tiny production runs of all the consumables at an extravagant expense and developing from scratch the entire land-based strategic triad component at the cost of three annual Pentagon budgets.

  There are lots of specific problems in each area described in the report, but the main one is loss of competence among technical and engineering staff caused by a low level of orders for replacements or for new product development. The situation is such that promising new theoretical developments coming out of research centers such as DARPA cannot be realized given the present set of technical competencies. For a number of key specializations there are fewer than three dozen trained, experienced specialists.

  This situation is expected to continue to deteriorate, with the number of personnel employed in the defense sector declining 11-16% over the next decade, mainly due to a shortage of young candidates qualified to replace those who are retiring. A specific example: development work on the F-35 is nearing completion and there won’t be a need to develop a new jet fighter until 2035-2040; in the meantime, the personnel who were involved in its development will be idled and their level of competence will deteriorate.

  Although at the moment the US still leads the world in defense spending ($610 billion of $1.7 trillion in 2017, which is roughly 36% of all the military spending on the planet) the US economy is no longer able to support the entire technology pyramid even in a time of relative peace and prosperity. On paper the US still looks like a leader in military technology, but the foundations of its military supremacy have eroded. Results of this are plainly visible:

  • The US threatened North Korea with military action but was then forced to back off because it has no ability to fight a war against it.

  • The US threatened Iran with military action but was then forced to back off because it has no ability to fight a war against it.

  • The US lost the war in Afghanistan to the Taliban, and once the longest military conflict in US history is finally over the political situation there will return to status quo ante with the Taliban in charge and Islamic terrorist training camps back in operation.

  • US proxies (Saudi Arabia, mostly) fighting in Yemen have produced a humanitarian disaster but have been unable to prevail militarily.

  • US actions in Syria have led to a consolidation of power and territory by the Syrian government and newly dominant regional position for Russia, Iran and Turkey.

  • The second-largest NATO power Turkey has purchased Russian S-400 air defense systems. The US alternative is the Patriot system, which is twice as expensive and doesn’t really work.

  All of this points to the fact that the US is no longer much a military power at all. This is good news for at least the following four reasons.

  First, the US is by far the most belligerent country on Earth, having invaded scores of nations and continuing to occupy many of them. The fact that it can’t fight any more means that opportunities for peace are bound to increase.

  Second, once the news sinks in that the Pentagon is nothing more than a flush toilet for public funds its funding will be cut off and the population of the US might see the money that is currently fattening up war profiteers being spent on some roads and bridges, although it’s looking far more likely that it will all go into paying interest expense on federal debt (while supplies last).

  Third, US politicians will lose the ability to keep the populace in a state of permanent anxiety about “national security.” In fact, the US has “natural security”—two oceans—and doesn’t need much national defense at all (provided it keeps to itself and doesn’t try to make trouble for others). The Canadians aren’t going to invade, and while the southern border does need some guarding, that can be taken care of at the state/county level by some good ol’ boys using weapons and ammo they already happen to have on hand. Once this $1.7 trillion “national defense” monkey is off their backs, ordinary American citizens will be able to work less, play more and feel less aggressive, anxious, depressed and paranoid.

  Last but not least, it will be wonderful to see the war profiteers reduced to scraping under sofa cushions for loose change. All that the US military has been able to produce for a long time now is misery, the technical term for which is “humanitarian disaster.” Look at the aftermath of US military involvement in Serbia/Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, and what do you see? You see misery—both for the locals and for US citizens who lost their family members, had their limbs blown off, or are now suffering from PTSD or brain injury. It would be only fair if that misery were to circle back to those who had profited from it.

  

• How Fukushima Changed Japan's Energy Mix

  The 2011 Fukushima nuclear incident in Japan made international headlines for months, but it also changed Japanese attitudes towards nuclear energy. After a devastating tsunami hit Japan on March 11, 2011, emergency generators cooling the Fukushima nuclear power plant gave out and caused a total of three nuclear meltdowns, explosions and the release of radioactive material into the surrounding areas.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Before the incident, the Japanese had been known as steadfast supporters of nuclear energy, taking previous nuclear catastrophes at Three Mile Island (USA) or Chernobyl (Ukraine) in stride. But a meltdown on their own soil changed the minds of many citizens and kicked the anti-nuclear power movement into gear.

  After mass protests, the Japanese government under then Prime Minister Yoshihiko announced plans to make Japan nuclear free by 2030 and not to rebuild any of the damaged reactors. New Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has since tried to change the nation’s mind about nuclear energy by highlighting that the technology is indeed carbon neutral and well suited to reach emission goals.

  As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, despite one reactor restart at Sendai power plant in Southern Japan in 2015, nuclear energy has almost vanished from Japanese electricity generation. 

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  In 2016 (latest available), only 2 percent of energy generated in Japan came from nuclear power plants.

  Coal and natural gas picked up most of the slack, but renewable sources, mainly solar energy, also grew after 2011.

  

• The Missing Three-Letter Word In The Iran Crisis

  Authored by Michael Klare via TomDispatch.com,

  It’s always the oil. While President Donald Trump was hobnobbing with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the G-20 summit in Japan, brushing off a recent UN report about the prince’s role in the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Asia and the Middle East, pleading with foreign leaders to support “Sentinel.” The aim of that administration plan: to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. Both Trump and Pompeo insisted that their efforts were driven by concern over Iranian misbehavior in the region and the need to ensure the safety of maritime commerce. Neither, however, mentioned one inconvenient three-letter word – O-I-L – that lay behind their Iranian maneuvering (as it has impelled every other American incursion in the Middle East since World War II).

  Now, it’s true that the United States no longer relies on imported petroleum for a large share of its energy needs. Thanks to the fracking revolution, the country now gets the bulk of its oil — approximately 75 percent – from domestic sources. (In 2008, that share had been closer to 35 percent.)  Key allies in NATO and rivals like China, however, continue to depend on Middle Eastern oil for a significant proportion of their energy needs. As it happens, the world economy – of which the U.S. is the leading beneficiary (despite Trump’s self-destructive trade wars) – relies on an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to keep energy prices low. By continuing to serve as the principal overseer of that flow, Washington enjoys striking geopolitical advantages that its foreign policy elites would no more abandon than they would their country’s nuclear supremacy.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Pompeo arriving in Abu Dhabi, June 24, 2019. (State Department/ Ron Przysucha)

  This logic was spelled out clearly by President Barack Obama in a September 2013 address to the UN General Assembly in which he declared that “the United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests” in the Middle East. He then pointed out that, while the U.S. was steadily reducing its reliance on imported oil, “the world still depends on the region’s energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.” Accordingly, he concluded, “We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world.”

  To some Americans, that dictum — and its continued embrace by Trump and Pompeo — may seem anachronistic. True, Washington fought wars in the Middle East when the American economy was still deeply vulnerable to any disruption in the flow of imported oil. In 1990, this was the key reason President George H.W. Bush gave for his decision to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of that land. “Our country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence,” he told a nationwide TV audience. But talk of oil soon disappeared from his comments about what became Washington’s first (but hardly last) Gulf War after his statement provoked widespread public outrage. (“No Blood for Oil” became a widely used protest sign then.) His son, the second President Bush, never even mentioned that three-letter word when announcing his 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet, as Obama’s UN speech made clear, oil remained, and still remains, at the center of U.S. foreign policy. A quick review of global energy trends helps explain why this has continued to be so.

  The World’s Undiminished Reliance on Petroleum

  Despite all that’s been said about climate change and oil’s role in causing it — and about the enormous progress being made in bringing solar and wind power online — we remain trapped in a remarkably oil-dependent world. To grasp this reality, all you have to do is read the most recent edition of oil giant BP’s “Statistical Review of World Energy,” published this June. In 2018, according to that report, oil still accounted for by far the largest share of world energy consumption, as it has every year for decades. All told, 33.6 percent of world energy consumption last year was made up of oil, 27.2 percent of coal (itself a global disgrace), 23.9 percent of natural gas, 6.8 percent of hydro-electricity, 4.4 percent of nuclear power, and a mere 4 percent of renewables.

  Most energy analysts believe that the global reliance on petroleum as a share of world energy use will decline in the coming decades, as more governments impose restrictions on carbon emissions and as consumers, especially in the developed world, switch from oil-powered to electric vehicles. But such declines are unlikely to prevail in every region of the globe and total oil consumption may not even decline. According to projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its “New Policies Scenario” (which assumes significant but not drastic government efforts to curb carbon emissions globally), Asia, Africa, and the Middle East are likely to experience a substantially increased demand for petroleum in the years to come, which, grimly enough, means global oil consumption will continue to rise.

  Concluding that the increased demand for oil in Asia, in particular, will outweigh reduced demand elsewhere, the IEA calculated in its 2017 “World Energy Outlook” that oil will remain the world’s dominant source of energy in 2040, accounting for an estimated 27.5 percent of total global energy consumption. That will indeed be a smaller share than in 2018, but because global energy consumption as a whole is expected to grow substantially during those decades, net oil production could still rise — from an estimated 100 million barrels a day in 2018 to about 105 million barrels in 2040.

  Of course, no one, including the IEA’s experts, can be sure how future extreme manifestations of global warming like the severe heat waves recently tormenting Europe and South Asia could change such projections. It’s possible that growing public outrage could lead to far tougher restrictions on carbon emissions between now and 2040. Unexpected developments in the field of alternative energy production could also play a role in changing those projections. In other words, oil’s continuing dominance could still be curbed in ways that are now unpredictable.

  In the meantime, from a geopolitical perspective, a profound shift is taking place in the worldwide demand for petroleum. In 2000, according to the IEA, older industrialized nations — most of them members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — accounted for about two-thirds of global oil consumption; only about a third went to countries in the developing world. By 2040, the IEA’s experts believe that ratio will be reversed, with the OECD consuming about one-third of the world’s oil and non-OECD nations the rest. More dramatic yet is the growing centrality of the Asia-Pacific region to the global flow of petroleum. In 2000, that region accounted for only 28 — of world consumption; in 2040, its share is expected to stand at 44 —, thanks to the growth of China, India, and other Asian countries, whose newly affluent consumers are already buying cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other oil-powered products.

  Where will Asia get its oil? Among energy experts, there is little doubt on this matter. Lacking significant reserves of their own, the major Asian consumers will turn to the one place with sufficient capacity to satisfy their rising needs: the Persian Gulf. According to BP, in 2018, Japan already obtained 87 percent of its oil imports from the Middle East, India 64 percent, and China 44 percent. Most analysts assume these percentages will only grow in the years to come, as production in other areas declines.

  This will, in turn, lend even greater strategic importance to the Persian Gulf region, which now possesses more than 60 percent of the world’s untapped petroleum reserves, and to the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passageway through which approximately one-third of the world’s seaborne oil passes daily. Bordered by Iran, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, the Strait is perhaps the most significant — and contested — geostrategic location on the planet today.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  One of hundreds of Kuwaiti oil fires set by retreating Iraqi forces in 1991. (Jonas Jordan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers via Wikimedia Commons)

  Controlling the Spigot

  When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the same year that militant Shiite fundamentalists overthrew the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran, U.S. policymakers concluded that America’s access to Gulf oil supplies was at risk and a U.S. military presence was needed to guarantee such access. As President Jimmy Carter would say in his State of the Union Address on Jan. 23, 1980:

  “The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two thirds of the world’s exportable oil… The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world’s oil must flow… Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

  To lend muscle to what would soon be dubbed the “Carter Doctrine,” the president created a new U.S. military organization, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), and obtained basing facilities for it in the Gulf region. Ronald Reagan, who succeeded Carter as president in 1981, made the RDJTF into a full-scale “geographic combatant command,” dubbed Central Command, or CENTCOM, which continues to be tasked with ensuring American access to the Gulf today (as well as overseeing the country’s never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East). Reagan was the first president to activate the Carter Doctrine in 1987 when he ordered Navy warships to escort Kuwaiti tankers, “reflagged” with the stars and stripes, as they traveled through the Strait of Hormuz. From time to time, such vessels had been coming under fire from Iranian gunboats, part of an ongoing “Tanker War,” itself part of the Iran-Iraq War of those years. The Iranian attacks on those tankers were meant to punish Sunni Arab countries for backing Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein in that conflict.  The American response, dubbed Operation Earnest Will, offered an early model of what Pompeo is seeking to establish today with his Sentinel program.

  Operation Earnest Will was followed two years later by a massive implementation of the Carter Doctrine in Bush’s 1990 decision to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Although he spoke of the need to protect U.S. access to Persian Gulf oil fields, it was evident that ensuring a safe flow of oil imports wasn’t the only motive for such military involvement. Equally important then (and far more so now): the geopolitical advantage controlling the world’s major oil spigot gave Washington.

  When ordering U.S. forces into combat in the Gulf, American presidents have always insisted that they were acting in the interests of the entire West. In advocating for the “reflagging” mission of 1987, for instance, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger argued (as he would later recall in his memoir “Fighting for Peace”), “The main thing was for us to protect the right of innocent, nonbelligerent and extremely important commerce to move freely in international open waters — and, by our offering protection, to avoid conceding the mission to the Soviets.” Though rarely so openly acknowledged, the same principle has undergirded Washington’s strategy in the region ever since: the United States alone must be the ultimate guarantor of unimpeded oil commerce in the Persian Gulf.

  Look closely and you can find this principle lurking in every fundamental statement of U.S. policy related to that region and among the Washington elite more generally. My own personal favorite, when it comes to pithiness, is a sentence in a report on the geopolitics of energy issued in 2000 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank well-populated with former government officials (several of whom contributed to the report): “As the world’s only superpower, [the United States] must accept its special responsibilities for preserving access to [the] worldwide energy supply.” You can’t get much more explicit than that.

  Of course, along with this “special responsibility” comes a geopolitical advantage: by providing this service, the United States cements its status as the world’s sole superpower and places every other oil-importing nation — and the world at large — in a condition of dependence on its continued performance of this vital function.

  Originally, the key dependents in this strategic equation were Europe and Japan, which, in return for assured access to Middle Eastern oil, were expected to subordinate themselves to Washington. Remember, for example, how they helped pay for Bush the elder’s Iraq War (dubbed Operation Desert Storm). Today, however, many of those countries, deeply concerned with the effects of climate change, are seeking to lessen oil’s role in their national fuel mixes. As a result, in 2019, the countries potentially most at the mercy of Washington when it comes to access to Gulf oil are economically fast-expanding China and India, whose oil needs are only likely to grow. That, in turn, will further enhance the geopolitical advantage Washington enjoyed as long as it remains the principal guardian of the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. How it may seek to exploit this advantage remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that all parties involved, including the Chinese, are well aware of this asymmetric equation, which could give the phrase “trade war” a far deeper and more ominous meaning.

  The Iranian Challenge and the Specter of War

  From Washington’s perspective, the principal challenger to America’s privileged status in the Gulf is Iran. By reason of geography, that country possesses a potentially commanding position along the northern Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, as the Reagan administration learned in 1987-1988 when it threatened American oil dominance there. About this reality President Reagan couldn’t have been clearer. “Mark this point well: the use of the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not be dictated by the Iranians,” he declared in 1987 — and Washington’s approach to the situation has never changed.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Guided-missile destroyer USS Porter transits Strait of Hormuz, May 2012. (U.S. Navy/Alex R. Forster)

  In more recent times, in response to U.S. and Israeli threats to bomb their nuclear facilities or, as the Trump administration has done, impose economic sanctions on their country, the Iranians have threatened on numerous occasions to block the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic, squeeze global energy supplies, and precipitate an international crisis. In 2011, for example, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi warned that, should the West impose sanctions on Iranian oil, “not even one drop of oil can flow through the Strait of Hormuz.” In response, U.S. officials have vowed ever since to let no such thing happen, just as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did in response to Rahimi at that time. “We have made very clear,” he said, “that the United States will not tolerate blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.” That, he added, was a “red line for us.”

  It remains so today. Hence, the present ongoing crisis in the Gulf, with fierce U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil sales and threatening Iranian gestures toward the regional oil flow in response. “We will make the enemy understand that either everyone can use the Strait of Hormuz or no one,” said Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, in July 2018. And attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz on June 13th could conceivably have been an expression of just that policy, if —as claimed by the U.S. — they were indeed carried out by members of the Revolutionary Guards. Any future attacks are only likely to spur U.S. military action against Iran in accordance with the Carter Doctrine. As Pentagon spokesperson Bill Urban put it in response to Jafari’s statement, “We stand ready to ensure the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce wherever international law allows.”

  As things stand today, any Iranian move in the Strait of Hormuz that can be portrayed as a threat to the “free flow of commerce” (that is, the oil trade) represents the most likely trigger for direct U.S. military action. Yes, Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support for radical Shiite movements throughout the Middle East will be cited as evidence of its leadership’s malevolence, but its true threat will be to American dominance of the oil lanes, a danger Washington will treat as the offense of all offenses to be overcome at any cost.

  If the United States goes to war with Iran, you are unlikely to hear the word “oil” uttered by top Trump administration officials, but make no mistake: that three-letter word lies at the root of the present crisis, not to speak of the world’s long-term fate.

  

• Watch Live Demonstration Of Cleaning Robots That Will Displace Thousands Of Jobs

  As we’ve said in many articles, a new wave of investments in automation is already underway, could eliminate 20% to 25% of the current American workforce by 2030, or about 40 million jobs.

  In the latest installment of robots plotting a takeover, we set our eyes on a Singapore-based firm called LionsBot International – who has developed an autonomous robot that can sing, rap, wink and even tell jokes while scrubbing floors, reported Yahoo.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The company debuted the robot at a live demonstration ceremony on July 17 at the Gardens by the Bay, a resort located in the Central Region of Singapore, adjacent to the Marina Reservoir.

  About 300 of these robots will be produced by March 2020, will allow the company to be the first in the world to offer cleaning robots on a subscription model to clients.

  Prospective and current clients can rent the robots at a rate of $1,350 to $2,150 per month.

  As of last week, two of the robots have been deployed at National Gallery Singapore and Jewel Changi Airport in April, with more expected at other commercial facilities in the coming months.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  LionsBot said at least six of its clients would deploy the robots early next year.

  According to LionsBot, the cleaning robot is more efficient than a human and can work longer hours.

  “Multiple cleaning robots are able to coordinate and clean a given area simultaneously, without the need for human programming,” the company said in a statement.

  Besides regional demand, LionsBot has also received orders from companies based in Australia and Japan, said a company spokesperson, with the possible introduction to the US by 2021 to 2022.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  LionsBot’s clients will be able to choose from 13 different types of robots including ones that scrub, mop, vacuum, and sweep across various terrains, effectively eliminating low wage cleaning jobs. Another version of the robot can also transport up to 1,000 pounds of equipment.

  At the launch event at Gardens by the Bay, Senior Minister of State for the Ministry of Trade and Industry Koh Poh Koon said cleaning robots could raise productivity, adding that the government will continue to promote the proliferation of automation.

  However, the trade minister made zero mention of the upcoming labor force shift due to automation, how hundreds of thousands of people across the region will be displaced because of robots in the years ahead.

  More importantly, once these robots wash ashore in the US (maybe in the next few years), and most likely on the West Coast first, a tidal wave of job losses due to automation will be seen as corporate America continues to streamline their operations with technology to curb margin compression.

  

• California Launches Creepy "Cradle-To-Career" Data System To Track Everything About Children

  Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

  Just in case we haven’t provided you with enough creepy dystopian news lately, the nation’s leader in Creepy Dystopia, California, has a brand new program. The “Cradle to Career Data System” will study and document everything about a child born in the state.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  But don’t worry, it’s for your children’s own good.

  What the heck is the “Cradle to Career Data System”?

  Beginning at birth and stalking the child until he or she joins the workforce, California wants to keep on eye on all sorts of demographics and variables. They’ll do this by collecting information from “partner entities.” They’ll use this information, according to the Pasadena Star, to “provide appropriate interventions and supports to address disparities in opportunities and improve outcomes for all students.”

  Who are these partner entities, you ask?

  The “partner entities” include (but are not limited to) “state entities responsible for elementary and secondary education data, entities responsible for early learning data, segments of public higher education, private colleges and universities, state entities responsible for student financial aid, childcare providers, state labor and workforce development agencies, and state departments administering health and human services programs.” (source)

  So, your kid’s teachers, principles, professors, babysitters, and the purveyors of any state services you happen to use will all cough up every detail of your child’s life.

  Of course, California just wants to help.

  This to me has hints of communist countries who pluck the brightest students from their home and educate them to work for the state. However, the admitted goal is data collection for the folks who make the rules.

  Easily the creepiest thing to come out of California since “The Silence of the Lambs” was released into theaters, the “Cradle to Career Data System” aims to collect the ethnic, economic and educational records of every child in the state, track their grades and their progress into early adulthood, and make some form of the data available to policy makers, analysts and activists. (source)

  This isn’t a maybe. It’s already passed as a trailer bill (so it didn’t go through the usual legislative process) and has been funded with a budget of $10 million.

  The governor’s Office of Planning and Research is now authorized to enter into contracts with “planning facilitators” who will convene advisory groups “comprised of representatives of students, parents, labor, business and industry, equity and social justice organizations, researchers, privacy experts, early education experts, school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education.” (source)

  Californians, your children’s privacy is at stake here. They are going to become part of a pile of data that will be used to enact future laws to assure “equity.” But at any time, these records will be there, the life of your child, every time they got sent to the principal’s office, who stands up to authority, who has special skills or talents, what the child’s parents are like. That person’s entire life in one handy file. And pardon me if I don’t believe the data collection will stop once they get a job. Data is king right now, so why give up on a good thing?

  We’re already tracked everywhere we go once we’re old enough to have a cellphone or use the internet. But this starts right, as the title of the program points out, at the cradle.

  Why are they doing this?

  It’s all about “social justice.” Think quotas on steroids.

  “Advocates have been demanding data for the people in the Golden State for years,” the Equity Alert explains, to “answer key questions about whether and how our state schools, colleges, universities, and workforce systems are closing racial equity gaps and serving Californians.”

  It sounds as if the goal is to go beyond laws that ban discrimination and beyond affirmative action into a brave new world, one in which government bureaucrats tally the economic success of each racial and ethnic group and sub-group and award government funding in an effort to reach “equity.” (source)

  Of course, we all know that things like this are actually not equitable, at least not to kids from groups who are not considered to be “at risk.”

  There’s no word yet on whether or not parents will be able to opt out on behalf of their offspring.

  This certainly normalizes being surveilled.

  We’ve written a great deal on this site about the social credit system and the surveillance state in which we live. To me, a program like this seems like just another nail in the coffin of privacy. Don’t think that this will stop at the border of California.

  These kids will, from their first moment of awareness, be concerned about their permanent record. That’s an awfully big burden to put on someone who still eats with his fingers and wears pull-ups to bed. These children will spend their entire lives under a microscope, for better or for worse, while some data entry person types their every action of note into their record.

  If you want to have a social credit system like the one in China, I guess you’ve got to start early.

  

• Hilarious Hypocrisy: Sanders Campaign Workers Demand $15 Minimum Hourly Wage

  In the Senate, Bernie Sanders is battling to raise the national minimum wage to $15 an hour (a decision that would almost certainly lead to the destruction of millions of low-skill, low-pay jobs, but we digress). But some of his own campaign workers say they’re being forced to survive on less – some calculate their pay at $13 an hour for a 60-hour workweek – and now they’re demanding more.

  Sanders’ unionized campaign organizers have leaked a story to the Washington Post where they complain about how their pay doesn’t meet the standards that Sanders supposedly believes should be applied to all Americans.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The embarrassing story, Sanders’ campaign field organizers, who occupy the lowest rung on the campaign staff ladder, complain that they’re being forced to depend on payday loans to survive and that, in one state, four people have quit in the past month because of their financial struggles (though, if one is struggling financially, giving up one’s only source of income would seem to make little sense).

  One field organizer complained in the Sanders’ campaign internal Slack that he needed more money “because I need to be able to feed myself.”

  Another utilized the rhetorical concept of irony by quoting a Sanders speech: “As you know, real change never takes place from the top on down, it always takes place from the bottom on up.”

  Furthermore, the demands for higher salaries come just months after the Sanders campaign workers union and the campaign leadership reached a collective bargaining agreement that was effective as of May 2.

  The agreement established wage classifications for national and state staff, ranging from $15 an hour for interns and canvassers to $100,000 annual salaries for bargaining unit deputies.

  Field organizers, who are on the front lines of the campaign’s crucial voter contact efforts, were to be paid not by hours worked but via an annual salary set at $36,000. Regional field directors were to be paid $48,000 annually, and statewide department directors were allocated $90,000 per year.

  But shortly after the agreement was reached, the complaints started pouring in. Sanders’ campaign manager Faiz Shakir swiftly called an all-staff meeting where he proposed a modified agreement with modestly higher pay. But in a vote, Shakir’s deal was rejected.

  The messages caught Shakir’s attention, and later that day he sent an email to the staff thanking them for their comments. “I do believe you are owed an explanation for the situation we find ourselves in,” he wrote in an email obtained by The Post.

  In his email, Shakir recapped his thinking from May 17 and expressed regret with the outcome.

  “I have no idea what debates and conversations were had, but candidly, it was a disappointing vote from my perspective,” he wrote of the union’s decision to reject his proposal. “But the campaign leadership respected the union process and the will of the membership.”

  Shakir said that it would be damaging to the campaign’s budget to implement a pay hike after expanding field staff based on previously planned salary figures. In conclusion, he said, he would negotiate the matter only through the channels established by the union arrangement.

  Now, the union is preparing to send Shakir and the rest of the campaign leadership a new (presumably budget busting) proposal.

  Here are some of their demands:

  • That field organizers receive a salary of $46,800, while regional field directors be paid $62,400.
  • That the campaign cover 100% of the health-care costs for employees making $60,000 or less a year (currently, the campaign pays all premiums for salaried employees making $36,000 or less, while those making more are covered at a rate of 85%).
  • That campaign staff be reimbursed for automobile transportation at $0.58 per mile while they’re traveling around canvassing for Sanders.

  In a draft letter to Sanders’ campaign manager obtained by the Washington Post, the campaign workers said they “cannot be expected to build the largest grassroots organizing program in American history while making poverty wages Given our campaign’s commitment to fighting for a living wage of at least $15 an hour, we believe it is only fair that the campaign would carry through this commitment to its own field team.”

  Their union issued a nebulous statement about the workers’ demands on Thursday night.

  In a statement issued earlier Thursday night, the union representing the campaign workers, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 400, said it could not comment “on specific, ongoing internal processes between our members and their employer.”

  “As union members, the Bernie 2020 campaign staff have access to myriad protections and benefits secured by their one-of-a-kind union contract, including many internal avenues to democratically address any number of ongoing workplace issues, including changes to pay, benefits, and other working conditions,” the statement said.

  “We look forward to continuing to work closely with our members and the management of the Bernie 2020 campaign to ensure all workers have dignity and respect in the workplace.”

  While some of Sanders’ campaign workers insist they won’t be able to build a primary-winning machine without being paid “a living wage” the sad reality – for Bernie – is that raising the pay of the campaign’s lowest-paid workers by 50% will force the campaign to shed personnel and ultimately have fewer people in the field out there canvassing.

  We wonder: What kind of impact do they think that will have on Bernie’s chances?

  

• Free Trade, Not Foreign Aid, Will Reduce The Incentive To Flee Central America

  Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

  Former Secretary of State George Schultz has an idea for dealing with increased immigration from the Northern Triangle region of Central America, which includes of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras: he wants to spend more money on foreign aid.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Schultz writes that the countries of the Northern Triangle could “increase the ‘supply’ of good governance by us[ing] foreign aid to fund better policing, transparency and higher-quality services—and apply international pressure to root out corruption and encourage political reform.”

  And who could supply this foreign aid?

  According top Schultz, “the U.S. is the only nation with the economic, technological and political authority to lead,” and “[t]he Inter-American Development Bank could do so by redirecting existing funds without new U.S. expenditures, and could get started with a phone call in Washington.”

  Schultz wisely doesn’t mention any dollar amounts. How could he? His proposal is clearly meant to be a sort of trial balloon: demand more government spending now, and work out all the details in the back rooms later.

  But we know how this sort of thing works.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  There is no real expectation that foreign aid would actually remake the economies of the Northern Triangle.

  In reality, it will be yet another foreign aid boondoggle: friends of the US regime will receive funds. There will be little follow-up as to how the money is spent. The money may even go to fund despots who will use the funds to murder their enemies. George Schultz’s personal friends and colleagues will no doubt get their cut. This is how the US foreign aid game is played.

  It is interesting that Schultz doesn’t mention something that does have the potential for revolutionizing the region’s access to capital and its standard of living. It will do this while greatly lessening the incentive to emigrate from the region to the US: unrestricted trade with the United States.

  To accomplish this, the US need not collect any new taxes. It need not impose any new regulations. It need not form any international “coalitions.”

  Instead, it only has to make the Northern Triangle a true Free Trade Zone with full access to US markets.

  At this point, some observers may claims “the US already has a free trade agreement with Central America! In fact, the region is largely duty free!” But this objection helps to illustrate just how much the term “free trade” has been corrupted in the phrase “free trade agreement.” In practice, only qualifying goodscan be imported to the US from Central America duty free. In order to qualify, goods must meet a variety of bureaucratic requirements stemming from “rule of origin” requirements. These rules exist to prevent “trade diversion” and other types of trade in which a Central American country might import parts from outside the free trade zone, add only small amounts of value, and then export the finished product to the US. Thus, trade between Central America and the US is not really free, and the trade agreements specifically prevent Central American countries from becoming trade and shipping centers where goods and services can be freely imported and exported globally.

  If Central America had a true free trade agreement with the US, however, both US and foreign manufacturers would have an enormous incentive to set up shop in the region and produce goods there for the US market.

  Over time, capital would flood into the region, greatly increasing the standard of living for Central Americans while providing new sources of goods and services for American entrepreneurs and consumers.

  The success of such a plan, of course, is not guaranteed. The regimes of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras could squander the opportunity. They could insist on high domestic taxes or an insecure legal environment in which private business owners would have reason to fear expropriation by the regime.

  But when facing the possibility of true free trade with the US, the stakes would become very high indeed, and the regime could choose between guaranteed moderate levels of tax revenue, or the disastrous policies of expropriation.

  But no matter how it turns out, the US taxpayer is not on the hook for anything. There is no risk of foreign aid flushed down the toilet. Instead, the upside is substantial: access to low-cost goods and services from American, Asian, and European firms all hungry to take advantage of this new “free trade zone” in the western hemisphere. American entrepreneurs would be able to provides goods and services at lower prices. They could hire more workers. They could invest more of their profits.

  Moreover, the geo-political benefits would be substantial. The regimes of the Northern Triangle would become committed to maintaining friendly relations with the US, and the pressures of high levels of migration from the region would be lessened.

  In his essay ” The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration ,” Hans-Hermann Hoppe recognized the benefits of free trade in immigration policy:

  The relationship between trade and migration is one of elastic substitutibility (rather than rigid exclusivity): the more (or less) you have of one, the less (or more) you need of the other . [Emphasis added.] Other things being equal, businesses move to low wage areas, and labor moves to high wage areas, thus effecting a tendency toward the equalization of wage rates (for the same kind of labor) as well as the optimal localization of capital. With political borders separating high- from low-wage areas, and with national (nation-wide) trade and immigration policies in effect, these normal tendencies—of immigration and capital export—are weakened with free trade and strengthened with protectionism. As long as Mexican products—the products of a low-wage area—can freely enter a high-wage area such as the U.S., the incentive for Mexican people to move to the U.S. is reduced. In contrast, if Mexican products are prevented from entering the American market, the attraction for Mexican workers to move to the U.S. is increased. Similarly, when U.S. producers are free to buy from and sell to Mexican producers and consumers, capital exports from the U.S. to Mexico will be reduced; however, when U.S. producers are prevented from doing so, the attraction of moving production from the U.S. to Mexico is increased.

  Bizarrely, protectionists take the opposite self-defeating approach: they want to cut off trade with other nations, thus reducing the standard of living. This then increases the incentive for foreigners to emigrate to the United States. The protectionists then complain there’s too much immigration and the government must intervene even more to control both trade and migration.

  Not surprisingly, Ludwig von Mises saw the ridiculouslness of this position. As I noted in my article ” If You Don’t Like Immigration, You Should Love Free Trade “:

  Opponents and proponents of immigration may argue endlessly about the potential downsides and upsides of immigration. (For an especially nuanced and insightful view of the downsides, see Ludwig von Mises’s work on nationalism and immigration .)

  With free trade, though, there is no downside, which is why Mises, who allowed for a number of caveats on immigration, made no exceptions for free trade.

  For many modern protectionists, though, the desire to close off trade stems not just from economic ignorance, but from an emotional desire to actually harm other countries on nationalistic grounds. The economic implications of these policies then become secondary to other ideological agendas. Mises understood this well, and in Human Action concluded :

  We may, for the sake of argument, disregard the fact that protectionism also hurts the interests of the nations which resort to it. But there can be no doubt that protectionism aims at damaging the interests of foreign peoples and really does damage them. … The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war.

  George Schultz is correct in the sense that a prosperous Central America is a Central America with less incentive to send its workers and families to North America. But the real solution does not lie in throwing a few extra bucks at the central American regimes in hope they might build a couple of new highways. The real solution lies in expansion of trade, capital investment, and . Only then can a sustainable solution to the region’s poverty be found.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• New US Pentagon Chief – Vested Interest In War & Conflict

  Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  Mark Esper is expected to be confirmed in coming days as the new US Secretary of Defense. His appointment is awaiting final Congressional approval after customary hearings this week before senators. The 55-year-old nominee put forward by President Trump was previously a decorated Lieutenant Colonel and has served in government office during the GW Bush administration.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  But what stands out as his most conspicuous past occupation is working for seven years as a senior lobbyist for Raytheon, the US’ third biggest military manufacturing company. The firm specializes in missile-defense systems, including the Patriot, Iron Dome and the Aegis Ashore system (the latter in partnership with Lockheed Martin).

  As Defense Secretary, Esper will be the most senior civilian executive member of the US government, next to the president, on overseeing military policy, including decisions about declaring war and deployment of American armed forces around the globe. His military counterpart at the Pentagon is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, currently held by Marine General Joseph Dunford who is expected to be replaced soon by General Mark Milley (also in the process of senate hearings).

  Esper’s confirmation hearings this week were pretty much a rubber-stamp procedure, receiving lame questioning from senators about his credentials and viewpoints. The only exception was Senator Elizabeth Warren, who slammed the potential “conflict of interest” due to his past lobbying service for Raytheon. She said it “smacks of corruption”. Other than her solitary objection, Esper was treated with kid gloves by other senators and his appointment is expected to be whistled through by next week. During hearings, the former lobbyist even pointedly refused to recuse himself of any matters involving Raytheon if he becomes the defense boss.

  As Rolling Stone magazine quipped on Esper’s nomination, “it is as swampy as you’d expect”.

  “President Trump’s Cabinet is already rife with corruption, stocked full of former lobbyists and other private industry power players who don’t seem to mind leveraging their government positions to enrich themselves personally. Esper should fit right in,” wrote Rolling Stone.

  The linkage between officials in US government, the Pentagon and private manufacturers is a notorious example of “revolving door”. It is not unusual, or even remarkable, that individuals go from one sector to another and vice versa. That crony relationship is fundamental to the functioning of the “military-industrial complex” which dominates the entire American economy and the fiscal budget ($730 billion annually – half the total discretionary public spend by federal government).

  Nevertheless, Esper is a particularly brazen embodiment of the revolving-door’s seamless connection.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Raytheon is a $25 billion company whose business is all about selling missile-defense systems. Its products have been deployed in dozens of countries, including in the Middle East, as well as Japan, Romania and, as of next year, Poland. It is in Raytheon’s vital vested interest to capitalize on alleged security threats from Iran, Russia, China and North Korea in order to sell “defense” systems to nations that then perceive a “threat” and need to be “protected”.

  It is a certainty that Esper shares the same worldview, not just for engrained ideological reasons, but also because of his own personal motives for self-aggrandizement as a former employee of Raytheon and quite possibly as a future board member when he retires from the Pentagon. The issue is not just merely about corruption and ethics, huge that those concerns are. It is also about how US foreign policy and military decisions are formulated and executed, including decisions on matters of conflict and ultimately war. The insidiousness is almost farcical, if the implications weren’t so disturbing, worthy of satire from the genre of Dr Strangelove or Catch 22.

  How is Esper’s advice to the president about tensions with Russia, Iran, China or North Korea, or any other alleged adversary, supposed to be independent, credible or objective? Esper is a de facto lobbyist for the military-industrial complex sitting in the Oval Office and Situation Room. Tensions, conflict and war are meat and potatoes to this person.

  During senate hearings this week, Esper openly revealed his dubious quality of thinking and the kind of policies he will pursue as Pentagon chief. He told credulous senators that Russia was to blame for the collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. That equates to more Raytheon profits from selling defense systems in Europe. Also, in a clumsy inadvertent admission he advised that the US needs to get out of the INF in order to develop medium-range missiles to “counter China”. The latter admission explains the cynical purpose for why the Trump administration unilaterally ditched the INF earlier this year. It is not about alleged Russian breaches of the treaty; the real reason is for the US to obtain a freer hand to confront China.

  It is ludicrous how blatant a so-called democratic nation (the self-declared “leader of the free world”) is in actuality an oligarchic corporate state whose international relations are conducted on the basis of making obscene profits from conflict and war.

  Little wonder then than bilateral relations between the US and Russia are in such dire condition. Trump’s soon-to-be top military advisor Mark Esper is not going to make bilateral relations any better, that’s for sure.

  Also at a precarious time of possible war with Iran, the last person Trump should consult is someone whose corporate cronies are craving for more weapons sales.

  

• Has E.T. Gone Home?

  UFO sightings have been making headlines again lately, notably with The New York Times running an interesting article about several U.S. Navy fighter pilots encountering mysterious objects near the southeastern coast of the United States.

  That high-profile story remains unexplained and so do plenty of other UFO sightings reported by members of the public every year like strange lights crossing the night sky or orange disks hovering in the distance.

  However, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, according to The National UFO Reporting Center – which is based in the U.S. and maintains statistics – global UFO sightings have declined steadily since 2014.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  There were just over 8,000 reported sightings in 2014 and in 2018, there were 3,343. So far in 2019, 2,371 UFO sightings have been reported. Despite the decline in sightings, interest in UFOs and alien life remains strong judging by an event that went viral on social media this week.

  Conspiracy theorists have long maintained that a secret U.S. base in Nevada known as Area 51 harbors alien life or parts of a crashed spacecraft. The event called for people to storm the base and find out and it attracted 1.4 million signatures. Entitled “Storm Area 51, They Can’t Stop All Of Us”, it also prompted the Air Force to issue a warning to stay well away from the facility.

  

• Circumventing The Straits Of Hormuz – Time To Dust Off The Trans-Arabia Canal Project?

  Via Climateer Investing blog,

  Far from a perfect solution, in the event of a shooting war, one sunk tanker would be enough to stop traffic for a considerable period of time. But, and that’s a big but, anything short of that level of bellicosity, such as current Iranian piracy, would make having an alternative to the Straits of Hormuz a strategic and tactical asset.

  The linked piece references the proposed north-south Salman canal but there have also been proposals for longer east-west canals that avoid Iran’s beachhead, Yemen and connect the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  h/t: Thai Military and Aisia Region,  April 24, 2016.

  *  *  *

  Saudi Arabia is planning to build a canal that will connect the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea bypassing the Strait of Hormuz controlled by the Iranians.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Since the canal would pass the Shia territories in Yemen, Riyadh needs to take the country under full military control.

  h/t: Craig Murray, April 21, 2016

  *  *  *

  Study calls for 950-kilometre canal bypassing Hormuz

   

  According to the project by the Riyadh-based Arab Century Centre for Studies, the canal will be 630 kilometres in Saudi Arabia and 320 kilometres in Yemen and will reduce by half the distance ships are currently taking by passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

  “It will be 150-metre wide and 25 metres deep,” Saad Bin Omar, the head of the centre, said.

  “The canal will have a main course across Saudi Arabia and Yemen; however, we have thought of Oman as an alternative for Yemen if the country suffers political instability,” he said.

  h/t: Gulf News, Sept. 10, 2015

  *  *  *

  Additionally, as part of their spat with their LNG producing brothers, the Saudis are threatening to build the Salwa canal across the base of the Qatar peninsula and turn Qatar into an island.

  As we saw in last month’s “Closing the Canal: The 1967 Six Day War’s Impact on Maritime Trade“, canals are important.

  And then there are pipelines, in fact there used to be one that ran northwest through Jordan.

  Either way though, Qatar is screwed, and that’s 25% of world LNG.

  Just sayin’, lots of moving parts here.

  

• 'Noose' Which Sent UMich Dean On Racism Tirade Turns Out To Be Fishing Knot Practice

  A ‘noose’ found last month at the University of Michigan Medical School turns out to have been a practice knot used in fishing after an employee came forward to ‘clear the air,’ according to MLive. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  An investigation by UM’s Division of Public Safety and Security concluded the spool rope used for medical procedures was being used by a person on a break to practice tying a “Uni Knot,” which is a type of knot used for fishing. After the spool was returned to the storage area, the knot was still in place and discovered the following day by an employee. –MLive

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The ‘noose’ was fashioned out of a rope typically used for traction following surgical procedures, according to DPSS Director of Strategic Communications Heather Young, who noted that the loose end of the rope was tied in the knot while still connected to the spool. 

  Not one to hedge his language amid an ongoing investigation, UM Medical School Dean Marschall Runge said in an employee email following the June 20 discovery of the ‘noose’: “Yesterday, in one of our hospitals, a noose — a symbol of hate and discrimination — was found at the work station of two of our employees,” adding “We have taken immediate action to have this investigated as both an act of discrimination and a criminal act of ethnic intimidation. This act of hate violates all of the values that we hold dear and will not be tolerated.” 

  ‘It was the friends we made along the way…’

  Without acknowledging that he participated in ‘sewing racial discord’ with false assumptions, Runge now says  that while the incident has affected the entire community, it united people in their hatred of hate (and hate-shaped fishing knots?). 

  “Our community came together to support each other, reaffirmed our stance against hate, and began having open dialogues about this incident and ways to make our community more inclusive,” he said in a follow-up email. 

  “We continue to stand strong as we make it clear to all that this organization — its leaders, faculty, staff and learners — fiercely values and defends equality, inclusiveness, respect and dignity for all, and the elimination of discrimination and intimidation in all forms.” 

  In short, the whole noose incident managed to bring the community together. And in case you’re interested in learning the Uni Knot, see below: 

  

• The Shape Of The World, According To Old Maps

  Authored by Imam Ghosh via VisualCapitalist.com,

  A Babylonian clay tablet helped unlock an understanding for how our ancestors saw the world.

  Dating all the way back to the 6th century BCE, the Imago Mundi is the oldest known world map, and it offers a unique glimpse into ancient perspectives on earth and the heavens.

  While this is the first-known interpretation of such a map, it would certainly not be the last. Today’s visualization, designed by Reddit user PisseGuri82, won the “Best of 2018 Map Contest” for depicting the evolving shapes of man-made maps throughout history.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  AD 150: Once Upon A Time in Egypt

  In this former location of the Roman Empire, Ptolemy was the first to use positions of latitude and longitude to map countries into his text Geographia. After these ancient maps were lost for centuries, Ptolemy’s work was rediscovered and reconstructed in the 15th century, serving as a foundation for cartography throughout the Middle Ages.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  1050: Pointing to the Heavens

  The creation of this quintessential medieval T-and-O Beatine map is attributed not to an unknown French monk, but to the Spanish monk Beatus of Liébana. Although it shows several continents—Africa, Asia, and Europe—its main objective was to visualize Biblical locations. For example, because the sun rises in the east, Paradise (The Garden of Eden) can be seen pointing upwards and towards Asia on the map.

  1154: The World Turned Upside Down

  The Arabic geographer Muhammad al-Idrisi made one of the most advanced medieval world maps for King Roger II of Sicily. The Tabula Rogeriana, which literally translates to “the book of pleasant journeys into faraway lands”, was ahead of the curve compared to contemporaries because it used information from traveler and merchant accounts. The original map was oriented south-up, which is why modern depictions show it upside down.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  1375: The Zenith of Medieval Map Work

  The Jewish cartographer Abraham Cresques created the most important map of the medieval period, the Catalan Atlas, with his son for Prince John of Aragon. It covers the “East and the West, and everything that, from the Strait [of Gibraltar] leads to the West”. Many Indian and Chinese cities can be identified, based on various voyages by the explorers Marco Polo and Sir John Mandeville.

  After this, the Age of Discovery truly began—and maps started to more closely resemble the world map as we know it today.

  1489: Feeling Ptolemy and Polo’s Influences

  The 15th century was a radical time for map-makers, once Ptolemy’s geographical drawings were re-discovered. Henricus Martellus expanded on Ptolemaic maps, and also relied on sources like Marco Polo’s travels to imagine the Old World. His milestone map closely resembles the oldest-surviving terrestrial globe, Erdapfel, created by cartographer Martin Behaim. Today, it’s preserved at the Yale University archives.

  1529: A Well-Kept Spanish Secret

  The first ever scientific world map is most widely attributed to the Portuguese cartographer Diego Ribero. The Padrón Real was the Spanish Crown’s official and secret master map, made from hundreds of sailors’ reports of any new lands and their coordinates.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  1599: The Wright Idea

  English mathematician and cartographer Edward Wright was the first to perfect the Mercator projection—which takes the Earth’s curvature into consideration. Otherwise known as a Wright-Molyneux world map, this linear representation of the earth’s cylindrical map quickly became the standard for navigation.

  1778-1832: The Emergence of Modern World Maps

  The invention of the marine chronometer transformed marine navigation—as ships were now able to detect both longitude and latitude. Jacques-Nicolas Bellin, a French geographer, was responsible for the 18th century’s highly accurate world maps and nautical charts. His designs favored functionality over the decorative flourishes of cartographers past.

  Finally, the German cartographer and lawyer Adolf Stieler was the man behind Stieler’s Handatlas, the leading German world atlas until the mid-20th century. His maps were famous for being updated based on new explorations, making them the most reliable map possible.

  Is There Uncharted Territory Left?

  It is worth mentioning that these ancient maps above are mostly coming from a European perspective.

  That said, the Islamic Golden Age also boasts an impressive cartographic record, reaching its peak partially in thanks to Muhammad al-Idrisi in the 11th century. Similarly, Ancient Chinese empires had a cartographic golden age after the invention of the compass as well.

  Does this mean there’s nothing left to explore today? Quite the contrary. While we know so much about our landmasses, the undersea depths remain quite a mystery. In fact, we’ve explored more of outer space than we have 95% of our own oceans.

  If you liked the visualization above, be sure to explore the world’s borders by age, broken down impressively by the same designer.

  

• Mueller Should Be Arrested For Conspiracy To Overthrow POTUS; PCR

  Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

  The Mueller report, which had no choice as there was no evidence, but to clear Donald Trump of conspiring with Russian President Putin to steal the last US presidential election from Hillary Clinton, nevertheless managed to keep an aspect of the manufactured hoax known as “Russiagate” alive by indicting some Russian intelligence officers and a Russian Internet clickbait operation for attempting to discredit Hillary with Internet postings.   

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  At the time I noticed that Muller’s indictments were based only on his assertion and not on any evidence.  As there was no prospect whatsoever of the fake indictments coming to trial, I did not comment on them.  I focused instead on Mueller’s statement that Trump might have obstructed justice although he lacked evidence  to support the charge.  I noted how corrupt American law has become when it is possible to obstruct justice in the absence of a crime.  

  Democrats and presstitutes were determined to get Trump by any means and remain uninterested in how justice is obstructed when there is no crime.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In retrospect, not picking up on Mueller’s indictment-by-hearsay of Russians was a mistake.  Not only have the Democrats continued their Russiagate campaign on the basis of the unsubstantiated indictments, but, more importantly, the indictments-by-assertion-alone show Mueller’s total lack of moral character.  A prosecutor, indeed a former Director of the FBI, who confuses his unsubstantiated allegation with evidence, is not only a person devoid of any respect for law, but also an extremely dangerous person to have been vetted for the high government positions that he has held.  

  How did a person as corrupt as Robert Mueller get confirmed in his appointments as US Attorney, US Assistant Attorney General, US Deputy Attorney General, and Director of the FBI?  That a person as ethically-challenged as Robert Mueller could breeze through so many confirmations by the US Senate proves how utterly corrupt the US government is. 

  How does an American patriot respond to a government filled with corrupt individuals serving their private careers by serving not the American people, but the powerful private interests that control their careers or the interest of a foreign country that purchases their loyalty.  Many of these permanent Washington fixtures, such as Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, serve Israel’s interest at the expense of America’s interest. An American nationalist who attempts to serve American interests has little chance against a powerful lobby. Every year Congress hands over to Israel enough billions of dollars for Israel to purchase every federal election and many state ones.

  It is not possible today for anyone who is not “a friend of Israel” to serve in a presidential appointment that requires confirmation by the US Senate. As Admiral Tom Moorer, Chief of Naval Operatons and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff said, “no American president can stand up to Israel.” No truer words have ever been spoken. Before any American president can attend to America’s interests, he must first attend to Israel’s interest.  Generally speaking, the Israel Lobby stresses that American interests conform to Israel’s interest. Therefore, Israel’s interests are America’s interests. If you disagree with this, you will not go far in the US government.

  That Mueller’s indictment of Russians for attempting to throw the presidential election to Trump is unsubstantiated has been highlighted by US Federal District Judge Dabney Friedrich.  The judge just ruled that Mueller’s assertion of Russian “sweeping and systematic” interference in the presidential election does not constitute proof of the charge. It is nothing but an unsubstantiated indictment based on nothing but an assertion by the special prosecutor. Mueller provides no evidence in his report to support his claim.  Mueller is so corrupt that he uses his unsubstantiated indictment as evidence for the indictment!

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In other words, the Federal Judge has ruled that Mueller has made a false indictment.

  If that is not a felony, it should be.  

  The corrupt Mueller covers up his absence of evidence for his indictments by using language such as “widely reported,” “confirmed,” “established.”  He is referring to the words used by his stable of presstitutes, media whores who paved the way for his false accusation.  

  A country without a media is a Police State.  The only media the West has is the English language Russian media and the alternative media on Internet sites, such as this site, Information Clearing House, Global Research, Lew Rockwell, Unz Review. 

  The Russian media was banned from the  conference on press freedom, because the Russian media is free and the UK and US media are not.  The People Really In Charge – PRICs – are at work shutting down the rest of us as fast as they can.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Before long, the only words you will hear willl be those used to control you.  The word freedom will be redefined as per George Orwell’s 1984 or be prohibited.  It will die as a word whose meaning is unknown.

  In the 21st century, the US government has destroyed civil liberty, free speech, and accountable government.  There is no longer any reason for people who want to be free to support any Western government or political party that is in power. The Western World has no greater enemies than its own governments and the private interests governments represent.

  While you await the final cutting out of tongues, say a prayer for Judge Friedrich.  Americans don’t know that a federal judge, indeed any judge, can be arrested by police on false charges and prosecuted by prosecutors based on fake evidence.  The judiciary no longer has the independence that the separation of powers provides.  Judges can be punished if they rule against the interests of those in whom the predominance of power resides.

  Those with the predominance of power rule, not the law, the Constitution, or the people.

  

• Russia's Spy Agency Hit In Massive Hack; 7.5 TB Of Data Stolen In 'Largest Data Breach In History'

  Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB, formerly the KGB) was hit by a massive hack – after 7.5 terabytes of data was extracted from a major contractor. 

  The breach exposed several secret FSB projects, including efforts to de-anonymize the Tor browser, scrape social media, and help Russia to sever its internet from the rest of the world, according to Forbes. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  A week ago, on July 13, hackers under the name 0v1ru$ reportedly breached SyTech, a major FSB contractor working on a range of live and exploratory internet projects. With the data stolen, 0v1ru$ left a smiling Yoba Face on SyTech’s homepage alongside pictures purporting to showcase the breach. 0v1ru$ then passed the data itself to the larger hacking group Digital Revolution, which shared the files with various media outlets and the headlines with Twitter—taunting FSB that the agency should maybe rename one of its breached activities “Project Collander.” –Forbes

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  This isn’t the first time Digital Revolution has targeted the FSB, however this is the most successful hack to date – with the BBC suggesting that it was possibly “the largest data leak in the history of Russian intelligence services.“

  As well as defacing SyTech’s homepage with the Yoba Face, 0v1ru$ also detailed the project names exposed: “Arion”, “Relation”, “Hryvnia,” alongside the names of the SyTech project managers. The BBC report claims that no actual state secrets were exposed. –Forbes

  Programs exposed

  The hack revealed that the Kremlin’s ‘Nautilus’ program is designed to ‘scrape’ user information from social media, while the ‘Nautilus-S’ program is a data-collection effort designed to de-anonymize internet users. Meanwhile, the ‘Mentor’ program collects data on Russian corporations, while the ‘Hope and Tax-3’ project appears to be related to Russia’s effort to disentangle itself from the global internet, and to identify and manually remove information from people under state protection. 

  According to the BBC, contractor SyTech’s projects were almost exclusively conducted for Military Unite 71330 – a component of the FSB’s 16th Directorate responsible for signals intelligence. 

  Nautilus-S, the Tor de-anonymization project, was actually launched in 2012 under the remit of Russia’s Kvant Research Institute, which comes under FSB’s remit. Russia has been looking for ways to compromise nodes within Tor’s structure to either prevent off-grid communications or intercept those communications. None of which is new news. It is believed that some progress has been made under this project. Digital Revolution claims to have hacked the Kvant Research Institute before

  The preparatory activities for splitting off a “Russian internet,” follow Russian President Vladimir Putin signing into law provisions for “the stable operation of the Russian Internet (Runet) in case it is disconnected from the global infrastructure of the World Wide Web.” The law set in train plans for an alternative domain name system (DNS) for Russia in the event that it is disconnected from the World Wide Web, or, one assumes, in the event that its politicians deem disconnection to be beneficial. Internet service providers would be compelled to disconnect from any foreign servers, relying on Russia’s DNS instead. –Forbes

  Forbes notes that while the hacks concern projects which were already ‘known or expected,’ the scale of the hack and ease with which the contractor’s systems were penetrated is ‘more of note.’

  “Contractors remain the weak link in the chain for intelligence agencies worldwide—to emphasize the point, just last week, a former NSA contractor was jailed in the U.S. for stealing secrets over two decades. And the fallout from Edward Snowden continues to this day,” reads the report. 

  Little is known about the 0v1ru$ group, which has not come forth with a statement. 

  

• Woke Capitalism: Answering A Question Nobody Asked

  Via Doug Casey’s InternationalMan.com,

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  International Man: Everything seems to be increasingly politicized these days… in a way that it wasn’t just a few years ago. To name a few, we see it in sports, with large corporations like Procter & Gamble in their razor blade ads.

  Politics is creeping into more and more areas. It’s a trend that seems to be accelerating.

  How did this happen and what does it mean?

  Doug Casey: The politicization of the country is poisonous. Politics is not like the fiction of some friends getting together and deciding what movie to see. It’s about force and coercion. This is the myth of democracy, which amounts to a somewhat gentler version of mob rule.

  Politics is about getting control of the reins of the State. It’s a question of one group of people getting to tell every other group what they must and must not do. And how much they have to pay for the privilege.

  It’s astonishing politics has become so popular—considering that only the worst kind of people are drawn to it. As evidence, I’d offer the current slate of Democratic presidential candidates. Although, I promise you, their Republican counterparts, waiting in the wings, are no better. Remember that lineup of buffoons who were on stage in 2016?

  In theory, the purpose of the State—which itself is congealed force—is to protect its citizens within its bailiwick from illegitimate force. That means police to protect you from force within the country, a military to protect you from outside force, and a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to force.

  But the State has gone far, far, beyond those boundaries. In fact, it does none of those three things well today. Instead, it tries to control every other aspect of life, at the expense of its subjects.

  That’s why everything has become politicized in the US. Americans have come to see the State as their parent, so they’re constantly pleading with it, like children, asking it for favors and benefits. Like children, they expect the State to magically support them.

  They don’t seem to understand that the State isn’t a cornucopia. It’s the opposite. It’s a dangerous parasite. A huge tapeworm in the body of society.

  Over the last 100 years the average American’s mind has been captured by the idea of politics and the State. It’s the Stockholm syndrome—where people are captured by kidnappers and actually grow to love and support them—writ large.

  Where’s this trend going to go?

  I’m a believer that trends in motion tend to stay in motion until they reach a crisis. Only then can the trend change. So the growth of the State—which is abetted by the politicization of American society—is going to continue growing until we reach a crisis. I don’t know what will happen during that crisis. Will it change direction, or will it mutate into something even worse? Could it be as bad as what happened in France in 1789, Russia in 1917, Germany in 1933, or China in 1946? It’s unpredictable.

  International Man: Where do you think this shift in seeing everything through a political lens comes from?

  Doug Casey: The State has expanded hugely from its original function of protecting people from actual force. It’s now perceived as a cornucopia that can give everybody everything.

  For instance, it’s completely taken over the education system—and the public applauds that, because they think it’s “free” and “fair.” Most teachers today—almost all college professors—are cultural Marxists, leftists, socialists, welfare statists, and the like. And they indoctrinate the students in their classes.

  There was always a tendency for this to be the case, because academics naturally tend to live in a bubble. They resent the fact that although they’re well educated, they generally earn far less than businessmen. That resentment is evident in their political and economic views.

  Even as recently as the ‘60s relatively few kids went to college. Now practically everybody goes to college. Not only is the indoctrination now far more virulent, but far more people are being exposed to it.

  You can see this in the Democratic Party, where the two dozen or so people running for president vie with each other to promise more free stuff than the last person. They’re coming up with the most collectivist possible ideas. The millennials—who’ve been indoctrinated in college, high school, and even grade school—accept these ideas. Kids will have a much bigger effect on the 2020 elections than they did in 2016.

  Not only don’t I see any change in the trend—I only see an acceleration of the current trend from every point of view.

  International Man: A big part of this trend involves the politicization of Big Tech companies like Google and Facebook.

  When people engage in discourse that is at odds with mainstream ideas on these platforms—not just in politics but in health, nutrition, economics… everything—there seems to be a concerned effort to silence it.

  How did these powerful platforms become guardians of the mainstream and leftist propaganda?

  Doug Casey: It seems the main way people communicate with each other today is through platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and the like. And these platforms—as huge as they are—are indirectly controlled by elements of the government.

  People on these platforms who believe in ideas at odds with what “everybody” believes are apparently being de-platformed in large numbers.

  I personally know people who’ve had a presence on Facebook or YouTube, and have been kicked off it. Because of what they believe or say. That makes it very hard for them to communicate with their previous audiences.

  Now on the one hand, Facebook, YouTube, and others have a perfect right to kick anybody off their platforms because they’re privately owned. On the other hand, these companies are indirect arms of the government. Or, more precisely, the Deep State.

  The CIA, the NSA, the FBI and the other praetorian agencies all have black budgets. Part of it is money from Congress that’s siphoned into corporations run by sympathetic individuals and cronies. It’s augmented by activities like running drugs, weapons, and God knows what else. This is rather famous in the case of the CIA. But there are probably two dozen government agencies that have black budgets, hidden by the veil of “national security.” They’re governments within the government, secret and untouchable.

  I have little doubt that people from these praetorian agencies invested in and supported outfits like Google, Facebook, and Amazon from the very beginning. And influence them today.

  It used to be in the ‘60s and ‘70s, that computer guys were libertarian oriented. Remember when the guys at Google used to have a sense of humor, and their motto was “Don’t be evil”? Most people have forgotten that was actually their official motto. They now have a lot of power, and power corrupts.

  International Man: With these Big Tech companies it seems to go beyond politics. They’re now policing people who have alternative views on health and medicine.

  For example, recently, Facebook targeted the global exercise brand CrossFit. The group, which had about 1.6 million users on Facebook, was de-listed without warning because the individuals in that group were discussing a low carb, high fat diet.

  This is contrary to the mainstream ideas on health and nutrition, which is of course dictated by large government agencies like the USDA. Is this further proof that companies like Facebook have become extensions of the government?

  Doug Casey: It really is. Busybodies are naturally drawn to organizations where they can impose their views on others.

  Like most government departments, the USDA should be abolished. It has over 100,000 employees and it doesn’t produce a single bushel of wheat, or a single cow. On the contrary, it makes farmers lives miserable. Any useful functions it has would be easily provided by entrepreneurs in the market.

  In the area of food recommendations, the USDA’s food pyramid puts grains at the foundation. However, since modern humans came into being probably about 200,000 years ago, humans have primarily lived on the meat, vegetables, roots, and nuts. Our ancestors didn’t live on grains for 95% of human history, and humans aren’t bred to do so. Grains are fine for maintaining large masses of people cheaply, but they’re not optimal for individual health. Especially not once they’re highly refined and processed.

  Who knows what’s going on in this bureaucracy’s hive mind? But it shouldn’t make any difference to us, because nobody should be getting health advice or medical advice from a government bureaucracy.

  Related to that, I thought it was interesting that the founder of CrossFit is a self-described libertarian.

  Could that have anything to do with the fact that his group was de-platformed?  I don’t know. But if you’re off Facebook and you can’t use Google, it makes it much harder to communicate with people. Right now these companies have an immense amount of power.

  However, I’m not overly concerned.

  Why not? I think, barring State intervention, the market will to solve the problem. I’m certainly not looking for the government to intervene. If anything, by making more laws the government will only cause more distortions making the situation worse directly and indirectly.

  Hopefully, Facebook will annoy enough people that millions, then tens, then hundreds of millions will just cancel their accounts. That will drain power from them. And perhaps a hundred other Facebook or YouTube lookalikes will grow up and decentralize the market. Various innovations using blockchain technology will accelerate the process. Instead of having a few giant platforms, maybe there’ll be hundreds of platforms, with many different characteristics.

  Facebook and most all of the other major tech corporations are tremendous short sale opportunities. Not only are they in an enormous market bubble today. But people are starting to actively distrust and dislike them. They’re like any other large organization – once they get to a certain size they inevitably become corrupt, concrete-bound, unmanageable, and counterproductive.

  I’d look at pair trades – short things like Facebook, and long equal amounts of smaller companies and startups looking to dethrone them.

  *  *  *

  The politicization of everything is spreading like a wildfire across all parts of life. It’s contributing to a growing wave of misguided socialist ideas. All signs point to this trend accelerating until it reaches a crisis… one unlike anything we’ve seen before. That’s exactly why Doug Casey and his team just released this urgent video. Click here to watch it now.

  

• Boston Cops Urge Criminals To "Hold Off" On Breaking The Law This Weekend, Due To The Extreme Heat

  In a “Not, The Onion”-esque story, CBS local affiliate in Boston reports that the Braintree Police Department showed that not all cops are African-American-hating, humorless-monsters, as they jokingly (we assume) told residents that they should “hold off” on any crimes they are planning this weekend.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In a Facebook post, they wrote:

  “Folks. Due to the extreme heat, we are asking anyone thinking of doing criminal activity to hold off until Monday.”

  They said doing so would be dangerous because of the hot temperatures.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Instead, police provided alternatives:

  “Stay home, blast the AC, binge Stranger Things season 3, play with the face app, practice karate in your basement. We will all meet again on Monday when it’s cooler.”

  The post was signed:

  “Sincerely, The PoPo.

  PS: please no spoiler alerts. We’re just finishing season 2.”

  Maybe Chicago PD should consider the same message?

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• It's Un-American To Be Anti-Free Speech: Protect The Right To Criticize The Government

  Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.” – Justice William O. Douglas

  Unjust. Brutal. Criminal. Corrupt. Inept. Greedy. Power-hungry. Racist. Immoral. Murderous. Evil. Dishonest. Crooked. Excessive. Deceitful. Untrustworthy. Unreliable. Tyrannical.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  These are all words that have at some time or other been used to describe the U.S. government.

  These are all words that I have used at some time or other to describe the U.S. government. That I may feel morally compelled to call out the government for its wrongdoing does not make me any less of an American.

  If I didn’t love this country, it would be easy to remain silent. However, it is because I love my country, because I believe fervently that if we lose freedom here, there will be no place to escape to, I will not remain silent.

  Nor should you.

  Nor should any other man, woman or child—no matter who they are, where they come from, what they look like, or what they believe.

  This is the beauty of the dream-made-reality that is America. As Chelsea Manning recognized, “We’re citizens, not subjects. We have the right to criticize government without fear.”

  Indeed, the First Amendment does more than give us a right to criticize our country: it makes it a civic duty. Certainly, if there is one freedom among the many spelled out in the Bill of Rights that is especially patriotic, it is the right to criticize the government.

  The right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom.

  Unfortunately, those who run the government don’t take kindly to individuals who speak truth to power. In fact, the government has become increasingly intolerant of speech that challenges its power, reveals its corruption, exposes its lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

  This is nothing new, nor is it unique to any particular presidential administration.

  President Trump, who delights in exercising his right to speak (and tweet) freely about anything and everything that raises his ire, has shown himself to be far less tolerant of those with whom he disagrees, especially when they exercise their right to criticize the government.

  In his first few years in office, Trump has declared the media to be “the enemy of the people,” suggested that protesting should be illegal, and that NFL players who kneel in protest during the national anthem “shouldn’t be in the country.” More recently, Trump lashed out at four Democratic members of Congress—all women of color— who have been particularly critical of his policies, suggesting that they “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

  Fanning the flames of controversy, White House advisor Kellyanne Conway suggested that anyone who criticizes the country, disrespects the flag, and doesn’t support the Trump Administration’s policies should also leave the country.

  The uproar over Trump’s “America—love it or leave it” remarks have largely focused on its racist overtones, but that misses the point: it’s un-American to be anti-free speech.

  It’s unfortunate that Trump and his minions are so clueless about the Constitution. Then again, Trump is not alone in his presidential disregard for the rights of the citizenry, especially as it pertains to the right of the people to criticize those in power.

  President Obama signed into law anti-protest legislation that makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest activities (10 years in prison for protesting anywhere in the vicinity of a Secret Service agent). The Obama Administration also waged a war on whistleblowers, which The Washington Postdescribed as “the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration,” and “spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records.”

  Part of the Patriot Act signed into law by President George W. Bush made it a crime for an American citizen to engage in peaceful, lawful activity on behalf of any group designated by the government as a terrorist organization. Under this provision, even filing an amicus brief on behalf of an organization the government has labeled as terrorist would constitute breaking the law.

  President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the FBI to censor all news and control communications in and out of the country in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt also signed into law the Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate by way of speech for the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence.

  President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to criticize the government’s war efforts.

  President Abraham Lincoln seized telegraph lines, censored mail and newspaper dispatches, and shut down members of the press who criticized his administration.

  In 1798, during the presidency of John Adams, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to “write, print, utter or publish … any false, scandalous, and malicious” statements against the government, Congress or president of the United States.

  Clearly, the government has been undermining our free speech rights for quite a while now, but Trump’s antagonism towards free speech is much more overt.

  For example, at a recent White House Social Media Summit, Trump defined free speech as follows: “To me free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposely write bad. To me that’s very dangerous speech, and you become angry at it. But that’s not free speech.”

  Except Trump is about as wrong as one can be on this issue.

  Good, bad or ugly, it’s all free speech unless as defined by the government it falls into one of the following categories: obscenity, fighting words, defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, and solicitations to commit crimes.

  This idea of “dangerous” speech, on the other hand, is peculiarly authoritarian in nature. What it amounts to is speech that the government fears could challenge its chokehold on power.

  The kinds of speech the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation, prosecution and outright elimination include: hate speech, bullying speech, intolerant speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, incendiary speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, right-wing speech, left-wing speech, extremist speech, politically incorrect speech, etc.

  Conduct your own experiment into the government’s tolerance of speech that challenges its authority, and see for yourself.

  Stand on a street corner—or in a courtroom, at a city council meeting or on a university campus—and recite some of the rhetoric used by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Paine without referencing them as the authors.

  For that matter, just try reciting the Declaration of Independence, which rejects tyranny, establishes Americans as sovereign beings, recognizes God (not the government) as the Supreme power, portrays the government as evil, and provides a detailed laundry list of abuses that are as relevant today as they were 240-plus years ago.

  My guess is that you won’t last long before you get thrown out, shut up, threatened with arrest or at the very least accused of being a radical, a troublemaker, a sovereign citizen, a conspiratorialist or an extremist.

  Try suggesting, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties, and you might find yourself placed on a terrorist watch list and vulnerable to being rounded up by government agents.

  “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Observed Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

  Better yet, try suggesting as Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, John Adams and Patrick Henry did that Americans should, if necessary, defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights, and you will be labeled a domestic extremist.

  “It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government,” insisted Paine. “When the government violates the people’s rights,” Lafayette warned, “insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.” Adams cautioned, “A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.” And who could forget Patrick Henry with his ultimatum: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

  Then again, perhaps you don’t need to test the limits of free speech for yourself.

  One such test is playing out before our very eyes on the national stage led by none other than the American Police State’s self-appointed Censor-in-Chief, who seems to believe that only individuals who agree with the government are entitled to the protections of the First Amendment.

  To the contrary, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, was very clear about the fact that the First Amendment was established to protect the minority against the majority.

  I’ll take that one step further: the First Amendment was intended to protect the citizenry from the government’s tendency to censor, silence and control what people say and think.

  Having lost our tolerance for free speech in its most provocative, irritating and offensive forms, the American people have become easy prey for a police state where only government speech is allowed. You see, the powers-that-be understand that if the government can control speech, it controls thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

  This is how freedom rises or falls.

  As Hermann Goering, one of Hitler’s top military leaders, remarked during the Nuremberg trials:

  It is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

  It is working the same in this country, as well.

  Americans of all stripes would do well to remember that those who question the motives of government provide a necessary counterpoint to those who would blindly follow where politicians choose to lead.

  We don’t have to agree with every criticism of the government, but we must defend the rights of allindividuals to speak freely without fear of punishment or threat of banishment.

  Never forget: what the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.

  What the First Amendment protects—and a healthy constitutional republic requires—are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

  As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, tolerance for dissent is vital if we are to survive as a free nation.

  While there are all kinds of labels being put on so-called “unacceptable” speech today, the real message being conveyed by those in power is that Americans don’t have a right to express themselves if what they are saying is unpopular, controversial or at odds with what the government determines to be acceptable.

  By suppressing free speech, the government is contributing to a growing underclass of Americans who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

  Mind you, it won’t be long before anyone who believes in holding the government accountable to respecting our rights and abiding by the rule of law is labeled an “extremist,” is relegated to an underclass that doesn’t fit in, must be watched all the time, and is rounded up when the government deems it necessary.

  It doesn’t matter how much money you make, what politics you subscribe to, or what God you worship: we are all potential suspects, terrorists and lawbreakers in the eyes of the government.

  In other words, if and when this nation falls to tyranny, we will all suffer the same fate: we will fall together.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The stamping boot of tyranny is but one crashing foot away.

  

• Cops Bust Fake Ferrari And Lamborghini Factory In Brazil

  O Globo, a Brazilian newspaper based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, reported on Tuesday that a small factory in the southern state of Santa Catarina was producing fake Ferraris and Lamborghinis for $45,000 to $60,000, a substantial discount versus the retail price of a genuine supercar.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The investigation behind the counterfeit vehicles started when representatives of Ferrari and Lamborghini began to notice pictures of the fake supercars circulating social media contacted the Civil Police of Santa Catarina. From there, police launched a raid on Monday of the factory where they discovered a father and son team, along with other employees, working on at least eight replicas at the time. The police used flatbed trucks and seized all vehicles inside the facility for evidence.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Police said there were only three models being produced at the time of the raid: Lamborghini Gallardo and Huracan, and a Ferrari 430 lookalike.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Fake parts, with some including fraudulent engravings of the original manufacturer, were also seized in operation.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Police aren’t sure how many cars were manufactured at the unauthorized facility, nor do they know if other models were sold. Former employees are expected to testify where more clarity into the size of the operation could be determined.

  The raid comes several weeks after Ferrari won a court case against a company offering to build replicas of the 250 GTO, an authentic version of the 1960s supercar has a price tag of $38 million to $48 million.

  

• Escobar: Western Intellectuals Freak Over "Frankenstein" China

  Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

  China seen as a rich Communist monster buying support from poor and corrupt states worldwide…

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Western economists and intellectuals obsessed with demonization of China are never shy of shortcuts glaringly exposing their ignorance.

  The latest outburst posits that “we” – as in Western intellectuals – “are the modern version of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein,” who electro-shocked a dead body (China) into a resurrected “murderous monster.”

  So, welcome to the Sino-Frankenstein school of international relations. What next? A black and white remake with Xi Jinping playing the monster? Anyway, “we” – as in mankind’s best hope – should “avoid carrying on in the role of Frankenstein.”

  The author is an economics professor emeritus at Harvard. He cannot even identify who’s to blame for Frankenstein – the West or the Chinese. That says much about Harvard’s academic standards.

  Now, compare this with what was being discussed at a trade war symposium at Renmin University in Beijing this past Saturday.

  Chinese intellectuals were trying to frame the current geopolitical dislocation provoked by the Trump administration’s trade war – without naming it for what it is: a Frankenstein gambit.

  Li Xiangyang, director of the National Institute of International Strategy, a think tank linked to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, stressed that an “economic decoupling” of the US from China is “completely possible,” considering that “the ultimate [US] target is to contain China’s rise… This is a life-or-death game” for the United States.

  Decoupling

  Assuming the decoupling would take place, that could be easily perceived as “strategic blackmail” imposed by the Trump administration. Yet what the Trump administration wants is not exactly what the US establishment wants – as shown by an open letter to Trump signed by scores of academics, foreign policy experts and business leaders who are worried that “decoupling” China from the global economy – as if Washington could actually pull off such an impossibility – would generate massive blowback.

  What may actually happen in terms of a US-China “decoupling” is what Beijing is already, actively working on: extending trade partnerships with the EU and across the Global South.

  And that will lead, according to Li, to the Chinese leadership offering deeper and wider market access to its partners. This will soon be the case with the EU, as discussed in Brussels in the spring.

  Sun Jie, a researcher at the Institute of World Economics and Politics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that deepening partnerships with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) will be essential in case a decoupling is in the cards.

  For his part Liu Qing, an economics professor at Renmin University, stressed the need for top international relations management, dealing with everyone from Europe to the Global South, to prevent their companies from replacing Chinese companies in selected global supply chains.

  And Wang Xiaosong, an economics professor at Renmin University, emphasized that a concerted Chinese strategic approach in dealing with Washington is absolutely paramount.

  All about Belt and Road

  A few optimists among Western intellectuals would rather characterize what is going on as a vibrant debate between proponents of “restraint” and “offshore balancing” and proponents of “liberal hegemony”. In fact, it’s actually a firefight.

  Among the Western intellectuals singled out by the puzzled Frankenstein guy, it is virtually impossible to find another voice of reason to match Martin Jacques, now a senior fellow at Cambridge University. When China Rules the World, his hefty tome published 10 years ago, still leaps out of an editorial wasteland of almost uniformly dull publications by so-called Western “experts” on China.

  Jacques has understood that now it’s all about the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative:

  “BRI has the potential to offer another kind of world, another set of values, another set of imperatives, another way of organizing, another set of institutions, another set of relationships.”

  Belt and Road, adds Jacques, “offers an alternative to the existing international order. The present international order was designed by and still essentially privileges the rich world, which represents only 15% of the world’s population. BRI, on the other hand, is addressing at least two-thirds of the world’s population. This is extraordinarily important for this moment in history.”

  In fact, we are already entering a Belt and Road 2.0 scenario – defined by Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi as a “high-quality” shift from “big freehand” to “fine brushwork.”

  At the Belt and Road Forum this past spring in Beijing, 131 nations were represented, engaged in linked projects. Belt and Road is partnering with 29 international organizations from the World Bank to APEC, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation.

  Apart from the fact that Belt and Road is now configured as a vast, unique, Eurasia-wide infrastructure and trade development project extending all the way to Africa and Latin America, Beijing is now emphasizing that it’s also a portmanteau brand encompassing bilateral trade relations, South-South cooperation and UN-endorsed sustainable development goals.

  China’s trade with Belt and Road-linked nations reached $617.5 billion in the first half of 2019 – up 9.7% year-on-year and outpacing the growth rate of China’s total trade.

  Chinese scholar Wang Jisi was right from the start when he singled out Belt and Road as a “strategic necessity” to counter Barack Obama’s now-defunct “pivot to Asia”.

  So now it’s time for Western intellectuals to engage in a freak-out: as it stands, Belt and Road is the new Frankenstein.

  

• These Two Charts Reveal The Extraordinary Collapse In Australian Homeownership 

  A housing affordability crisis has been gaining momentum in Australia over the last several decades as the number of people outright owning a home has collapsed by a third as home prices soared 400%.

  The Age, a daily newspaper in Melbourne and Victoria, Australia, reports that in the mid-1990s, nearly 44% of people living in New South Wales (NWS), a southeastern Australian state, outright owned their home, but according to new data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this rate has now plummeted to just 29.7%.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  So what happened over the last twenty years? Why have Australians resorted to hefty mortgages instead of buying homes in cash?

  Well, the swing from outright ownership to financing has primarily been due to a 460% jump in the median house price in Sydney, approaching levels that are considered out of reach for many.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The Age reveals a similar crisis in Victoria, wherein the mid-1990s, more than 45% outright owned a home, but now that number has declined to just 31%.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Over the same period, the median house price in Melbourne has skyrocketed from $126,131 to $806,000, forcing homebuyers in the last decade to resort to mortgages more than ever.

  The Northern Territory has the smallest population of people who own their home mortgage-free, at just 17%. Among the states, just 27% of residents in Queensland and Western Australia live without a mortgage or rental payments.

  Despite a housing bubble that has shown cracks, the median outstanding mortgage in Western Australia is $315,000. The median mortgage in Victoria is $260,000 while it is $265,000 in NSW.

  The single largest age group of new mortgages were those aged between 55 and 64, suggesting as the housing market falters – older adults will experience the most financial pain.

  “There are more and more people who are getting into retirement with a mortgage over their heads,” said National Seniors chief advocate Ian Henschke.

  “The number of people on Newstart aged between 55 and 64 is increasing sharply. These are people having to access their super to try and get on top of their mortgage because they don’t want to retire with such large debts.”

  The affordability crisis has crushed low-income households. In the mid-1990s, the poorest of NSW resident spent 21% of their weekly income on housing; now they spend more than a third.

  The low-income segment in Victoria is paying 25% of their income on rents or mortgages.

  NAB senior economist Kieran Davies, in a recent note, warned that the newly created mortgage debt over the last several decades is mostly carried by older people.

  “Gearing has increased sharply among older Australians, broadly reflecting the changing pattern of homeownership,” he said.

  Earlier this week, the Reserve Bank of Australia said interest rate cuts were going to have little effect in boosting house prices.

  “A decline in interest rates was unlikely to encourage an unwelcome material pick-up in borrowing by households that would add to medium-term risks in the economy,” it said.

  With Australians saddled up with the most debt ever – many are soon going to discover that an era of cheap money will be the financial death of them as the housing market implodes.

  

• Move Over, Millennials: GEN X Is The Generation In The Most Financial Trouble

  Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

  Everyone picks on Millennials these days but a new study by Lending Tree shows that out of all the generations, Gen X is the one dealing with the deepest financial problems.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  First, some definitions.

  • Gen Z or Centennials: Born 1996 – current day

  • Millennials: Born 1977 – 1995.

  • Gen X: Born 1965 – 1976.

  • Baby Boomers: Born 1946 – 1964.

  • The Silent Generation: Born 1945 or before

  We all know that two major financial mistakes are getting into debt and failing to have an emergency fund. A recent study looked into the debt levels of each generation.

  The study

  Lending Tree, an online lending marketplace, did a study on the 3-year changes in each generation’s debt.

  As each generation moves into different stages of their personal and economic lives, the amounts and types of debt they carry shifts, too. We compared the debts of members of the four adult generations — millennials, Gen Xers, baby boomers and silents — between March 2016 and March 2019 to see what’s changed.

  Specifically, we calculated the changes in the average balance of each major debt category — personal loans, credit cards, auto loans, student loans and mortgages — and the change in the percentage of each generation that carries each type of debt. (source)

  Here were the key findings:

  • Millennials saw the greatest spike in overall debt. Their total balances rose by an average of $16,714 — almost 29% — between 2016 and 2019.

  • Gen Xers now have the highest average debt burden of any generation. They increased their average debt burdens by about 10%, or $11,898, between 2016 and 2019, thanks to steady dollar increases across all debt categories.

  • Older generations — boomers and silents — are winding down their debt, thanks to decreases in average mortgage balances. However, they’ve increased their average debt across all other categories.

  • Boomers decreased their debt burdens by 7%, or $10,424. Members of the silent generation dropped their overall debt by $9,486, or 8%. (source)

  But what about Gen X? Why are they in so much trouble?

  Gen X has financial problems in many ways.

  Marketwatch did an analysis on that the ways that Gen X is financially wrecked and it’s not pretty. This is my generation so I was especially interested in their analysis.

  They’ve got the most credit card debt of anyone – yet still spend more than anyone on non-essentials…

  Despite their sky high credit card debt, Gen X spends big on non-essentials, according to data released in 2018 from finance site Bankrate.com. Indeed, “Gen Xers (ages 38-53) spend $3,473 annually on restaurant food, prepared beverages and lottery tickets, the most of any generation,” the report reveals.

  They’re woefully under-saved for retirement… Median retirement savings for Gen X is only $35,000, the same median amount as millennials, despite Gen Xers being much closer to retirement,” according to a study of 3,000 Americans by Allianz Life. Having just $35,000 in retirement savings — especially when you’re a Gen Xer ages 37- 51 — is not even close to enough. Fidelity recommends that by age 40 you have three times your salary saved for retirement. Gen Xers may be so under-saved thanks to the competing financial demands of children… and caring for aging parents.

  Their average debt now tops $150,000. Not only is their credit card debt high, the total amount of debt they have is. Those in the 35-44 age group have “the highest debt levels of any age bracket,” SmartAsset notes, citing Federal Reserve data. 

  They’re more likely than other generations to say they can’t meet their financial goals. All of this debt and the lack of savings may explain why fewer than 1 in 3 members of Gen X says they think they can reach their long-term financial goals, according to a survey released in 2017 by FICO.  (source)

  That’s not a pretty picture for people between the ages of 37 and 51.

  Some of the reasons for this financial mess

  Reading over the data, the thing that jumps out at me is that people of my generation are at the point where they’re taking care of everyone. Some still have kids at home, while others have adult kids who have returned home.  We are often lending a helping hand to our adult children who are in college or trying to get their feet on the ground. Some of this generation are taking care of aging parents.

  It’s pretty tough to save for retirement when you have all these people depending on you.

  Regarding the credit card debt, that one is kind of a mystery to me. While I have used credit cards to fund medical care I couldn’t fully pay for with my emergency fund, I rarely use them otherwise. It seems to me that it is essential to get this high-interest debt under control immediately. (If this is a problem for you, check out this article about paying down debt fast.

  Spending on non-essentials seems to be a problem too. A lot of folks think that being on a budget means you can never have any fun, you can’t travel, you can’t go out to eat. So instead of creating a budget, they throw caution to the wind, spend while they have money, and complain when they don’t. I’d never say that you cannot travel, dine out, or do fun things. I do all of these and on a fairly tight budget. But I work it into my budget, I fund it with cash, and this comes after savings and all my other bills.

  The biggest concern I see is that the money we Gen X-ers are paying into social security right now is going to fund the retirements of the Baby Boomers. The social security system is at a near-breaking point right now and most folks believe it may not even be there by the time we get to retirement age, much less for millennials. All that money that has been taking from our paychecks our entire working life…and none left when we need it. And if you think times are tight now, just wait until you’re too old to work and there’s no social security.

  

• China's Top Carmaker Guides For First Annual Sales Drop In 14 Years

  SAIC Motor – China’s top carmaker and General Motors’ biggest Chinese partner – expects sales to fall annually for the first time in at least 14 years, according to Bloomberg.

  The company is based in Shanghai and projects that for 2019, sales will be down about 7%. The company’s new target of 6.54 million sales is about 8% below the company’s public forecast for a slight increase in sales and would be the company’s first full year drop on record.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  SAIC also has a venture with VW, where sales are expected to fall by about 3% to 2 million units. Deliveries at SAIC General Motors are projected to fall by about 8% to 1.2 million vehicles. These numbers would be the first full year drop for the VW venture and the second straight decline for the GM partnership.

  A representative for SAIC said that the company plans to “sustain its marketshare”, even if the overall market slides this year.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  SAIC reported a 17% drop in first half sales and said it saw declines across its various ventures. The company has offered buyers incentives of as much is 50% over the past few months to help clear out inventory. We reported on this fire sale earlier this month. 

  We noted that passenger car vehicles in China finally showed their first tepid signs of recovery after a historic and record-breaking plunge in the country over the last two years, according to data from the China Passenger Car Association. 

  China was able to – at least temporarily – shake itself from its rut as a result of offering significant discounts to clear inventory before new emissions rules took place on July 1.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Retail sales of passenger vehicles were up 4.9% to 1.8 million units in June from the year prior. This is the first increase since May 2018 for China, according to the CPCA data.

  

• How Long Is Jeffrey Epstein For This World?

  Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

  First of all, I dearly wish I never had to read or write about Jeffrey Epstein again. But I can’t. And going over the reports about him, and watching the videos below (I’m sure there’s a thousand more), I started thinking I don’t see how he can have much longer to live. (Note as always that if you receive this through email, the videos may not show properly. If someone can explain why, and what to do about that, I’m game. Meanwhile, please go to the TAE site.)

  There are three main threats to Jeffrey Epstein’s life (or four, if you include his victims).

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  No. 1 is his fellow inmates in the Manhattan MCC. He’ll be in very strict isolation, because inmates and pedophilia is a very explosive combination. So isolation, but that’s never 100%.

  And Judge Berman yesterday ordered him in jail until his trial(s), instead of in his $77 million Manhattan mansion not far from that same prison, so he’ll be there a while; that trial could take a very long time to happen, even years. All the more chance for an inmate to make an easy $1000 by offing him.

  The no. 2 threat is Epstein himself. Berman’s decision means he’s very unlikely to ever get out again. Chances of him being declared innocent are as close to zero as as anything Kelvin. So why would he want to continue to live? Perhaps his lawyers try and tell him he’s always got a shot, and there’s always a next court date, but he doesn’t strike me as fully delusional.

  I could be wrong, sure, about much of all this, but I don’t think so.

  The no. 3 threat is, obviously, the people he might “sing” about. And that’s an litany of the world’s who’s who. No doubt the FBI may already have their IDs and photos and what-not, but why chance it when you can take down the -potential- crown witness?

  Now, if we may believe just 10% of what George Webb talks about in the last video in this article, everybody who’s anybody in government, secret services et al in the whole wide world should feel threatened right now. But those 2,000 pages from 2015 that Judge Berman ordered to be unsealed are not yet public, and you can bet your donkey that the cream of the global lawyer and secret service crop are going over them as you read this.

  Will we ever know what Epstein really did? The odds are not in favor of that. But let’s try and have a look anyway. See if we can -to an extent- make up our minds based on that.

  First up, an interview with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, one of Epstein’s main accusers. And Ghislaine Maxwell’s, don’t let’s forget that. She’s still walking around free, amazingly.

  This is a Miami Herald video linked to Julie K. Brown’s series for the Miami Herald last fall on Epstein. It was posted to YouTube by the Miami Herald on Nov 30, 2018. It took another 8 months for him to be arrested. The 2,000 pages “supposed” to be unsealed soon stem from a case Roberts Giuffre brought in 2015.

  Fast forward to the present, this is from RT on July 18, tackling the fact that Judge Berman refused to let Epstein out on bail. It’s not all the greatest stuff, but you DO get the feeling.

  This I found interesting, Fox, also from July 18, because it targets Prince Andrew. Is MI6 going to be able to muffle away the obviously very strong and long-term connection between Epstein and Andrew? I’m thinking they’d probably have to get those 2,000 pages re-sealed. Or, you know, burned down. Nuked.

  And then there’s George Webb. Now he is, I understand, someone who’s known as a conspiracy theorist, but then many people are in some circles, including myself, This video was posted on July 8 2019, 2 days after Epstein’s arrest. My thought while watching this is he may be wrong on some things, he may even be making a few points up, but when you’re that detailed on events that occurred over such a long time, you’re either on very powerful drugs or you’re not entirely wrong. Check for yourself.

  To summarize my thoughts on this, and the reason I started writing this, I can’t see Epstein living much longer. There are too many people who would rather see him dead, including perhaps himself. And there are very few people who want him to get into lengthy talks with prosecutors who are actually looking for the truth.

  Now of course we must wonder if any prosecutor wants that truth. Alex Acosta left his US government job because “Epstein is intelligence” was not enough to let him keep his job. And if we can believe some of the stories about the CIA, the State Dept and Mossad being linked to Epstein (and we got worse than that), it looks like he’s just got to go. Unless someone, or some party involved, has a reason to protect him against all odds. If only to handicap some other people.

  After this piece I really hope I never have to write about this topic again. My hopes of that are not overly high, but I do have to say I have a very hard time thinking about child -sex- abuse. I also think we must think much harder about why it is that we pick predators to lead our societies. Because this hardly ever fails, doesn’t it? A bunch of sexual deviants rise to the top everywhere.

  Sexual predation appears to be some inevitable part of political power. Not everywhere and not all the time, but far too much for comfort.

  Let’s hope enough of those predators are exposed through the Jeffrey Epstein case. But, you know, listening to George Webb, you think of the oil sheikhs and the girls being trafficked by Epstein and others, from the Balkans and dirt poor African countries, and you ask yourself, what are the odds of full exposure?

  *  *  *

  Support The Automatic Earth on Patreon.

  

• Drone Startup Gets First-Ever Approval In Iowa To Spray Chemicals On Crops 

  A tech startup in Iowa became the first legally authorized company to fly drones for aerial application of agrichemicals in the state of Iowa, reported Crop Life.

  “Our drone technology had been ready for a few months; we just needed the regulatory landscape to get sorted out,” Rantizo CEO, Michael Ott explained. “Building the technology is the easy part,” he continued.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Record rainfall this spring has decimated the Midwest, including many parts of Iowa.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Rantizo, which developed an easy-to-use drone spraying platform, could soon hit the fields spraying fungicide over crops to ensure parasitic fungi does not spread in the unusual wet conditions.

  “Rain prohibited farmers from getting their corn crops in within the timeline they are used to this year. When I last checked at the end of June, only 96% of corn crop had been planted whereas typically they’re at 100% by this time,” Ott said.

  “This will undoubtedly affect yields,” he continued, citing that the USDA recently lowered the national average corn yield projection to 166 bushels per acre.

  A Rantizo representative told The Gazette in April that the drones will replace traditional sprayer vehicles in the future because the technology is more precise and cheaper to use.

  “Our drone technology offers new improvements to agricultural crop applications such as increased field access, reduced headcount and ability to spot apply,” Ott stated.

  “In other words, we can get in the fields to treat pests faster, with less people and in more effective ways that require less chemicals.”

  Ott told The Gazette that Rantizo faced several challenges with the state of Iowa to get certified for flight. He said the company first needed to get their part 107 and Part 137 certifications from the FAA, which included section 44807 waivers in operating a drone over farmland.

  The startup sorted out all regulatory hurdles and was cleared for flight in May. The final license for pesticide application from the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) was recently granted.

  “As the first company in the state to request this for drone operation there was inherently a learning curve involved, but we are thankful to IDALS for working with us on this and ultimately allowing us to pave a new path necessary for improved agricultural practices. Next we will work with other states to achieve the same,” Craig Perry, Rantizo’s Director of Operations explained.

  Farmers across Iowa have been plagued with record rainfall that delayed many from planing earlier in the season. Wet weather also brings unwanted fungi to farmlands that could significantly reduce yields. Ott suggested that the drones will first spray fungicide on crops in the coming weeks.

  “The last thing corn growers need is to lose additional yield to pests and disease,” Ott stated.

  “Current solutions offer a suboptimal outcome at best. They require growers to spray their entire field. This gives options which are not cost effective or ineffective altogether, so many take the chance and don’t spray anything at all.”

  Ott added, “Fungicide applications are most effective within 72 hours of disease infection. This means if a corn crop is infected, the farmer is left to detect the infection and spray the field (oftentimes by a 3rd party custom applicator) within 72 hours. Imagine this demand now across an entire state.”

  

• DARPA To Put Nuclear, Biological, And Chemical Detectors In Public Venues

  via Mass PrivateI blog,

  Can you imagine living in a country that puts surveillance devices in every city and public venue?

  What would be the first country that comes to mind? China or the United Kingdom, right?

  What if I told you that the United States has joined their ranks?

  Recent news stories revealed that the United States is installing multiple types of surveillance devices in cities and public venues.

  A recent news release by the Defense Department’s, Defense Advanced Research Projects Association (DARPA) and Homeland Security reveal that they are installing nuclear, biological and chemical sensors everywhere.

  The program called,“PReemptive Expression of Protective Alleles and Response Elements” (PREPARE) “addresses four major threat areas: influenza infection, opioid overdose, organophosphate poisoning, and exposure to gamma irradiation.”

  The Marvel Universe will be happy to know that our government apparently only wants one Incredible Hulk.

  DARPA’s news release, also revealed that DHS and law enforcement used handheld and fixed nuclear, biological and chemical detectors on INDY 500 race car fans.

  “As some 300,000 cheering race fans packed the stands at this year’s Indianapolis 500, behind the scenes an advanced network of sensors kept constant vigilance, providing security officials real-time awareness of any potential weapon-of-mass-destruction/terror (WMD/WMT) threat.”

  Did you catch that? DHS and the Metropolitan Police Department used handheld sensors to spy on race car fans in real-time.

  “Integrating our fixed and handheld SIGMA radiation detectors, which are now being deployed operationally, with ChemSIGMA sensors and DHS’s bio sensors on the SIGMA+ network demonstrated the networking of sensors for simultaneous, wide-area monitoring of multiple threats,” Wrobel said. “We’d like to thank the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department for their support in executing this demonstration. We look forward to working with them and other local, state and federal partners on future pilot activities to further refine the system with the goal of transitioning the capability to DoD and DHS users.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The Feds have been spying on race car drivers for at least five years,

  “The Mobile Deployment Detection Program, or MDDP, has been supporting the Indy 500 for five years to augment the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department’s radiation and nuclear detection capabilities.” (To learn more about DHS’s MDDP click here.)

  Feds plan to put DARPA sensors in cities and public venues across the country.

  “Data collected and lessons learned from the tech demo unit in Indy will be joined with data collected from around the country to support the design, development, and future deployment of the BD21 system to safeguard our nation against biothreats,” said Assistant Secretary, James McDonnell.

  If you combine DARPA’s detectors with TSA-PreCheck in sports stadiums and music festivals, HEXWAVE detectors, public transit full-body scanners, police Z-Backscatter vans, police Knightscope robots, Police IMSI detectors (Sting Rays), police Bluetooth detectors, police license plate readers, police digital watch networks (Ring doorbells), US Marine Corps Smart City surveillance, police Opportunity Zones, police surveillance drones, etc., the number of devices law enforcement uses to spy on the public is growing and that should scare everyone.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Russian Nuclear Reactors Taken Offline In 2nd Serious Incident In Under A Week

  In a deeply worrisome development related to Russia’s network of ten nuclear power plants nationwide, two of them suffered significant operating incidents in under only one week, causing multiple reactors to be take offline. 

  Russia’s TASS reported that a “transformer short circuit” at the Kalinin nuclear power plant (NPP) resulted in “a complete shutdown of two and a partial shutdown of another power unit in the Tver region” early on Thursday. In total 3 out of the 4 nuclear plant’s reactors had to be unplugged. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  Hours later, as evening fell, Reuters reported one or more of the units suffering shutdown were back online. Russia is well-known as among the world’s largest producers of nuclear energy.

  The Kalinin plant is north-west of Moscow in central Russia and has been operational since the mid-1980’s, with the last major known accident in 2016, in which two workers were injured when a power unit short circuited. Its newest reactor, No. 4, went operational in 2011. 

  Rosenergoatom, a subsidiary of state nuclear corporation Rosatom, issued a statement stressing there was no need for panic or alarm.

  “The radiation level at the station and surrounding territory remains without change and is in line with normal background levels,” the company said.

  This latest incident follows a similar one which state media reported last Friday involving a a nuclear plant in the central Russian city of Beloyarsk.

  A reactor there had to be disconnected when an automatic safety mechanism was triggered; however, it came back online Tuesday after an inspection found no issues. 

  

• England: Knife Crime Hits New Record High

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit.news,

  Knife crime has hit a new record high in England and Wales, rising 8% on the previous year new figures show.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  “The figures for police-recorded crime revealed there were 43,516 police-recorded offences involving a knife or sharp instrument, which is the highest since comparable records began in 2011,” reports Sky News.

  As I have relentlessly argued, the causes of this epidemic are easily identifiable.

  – The scaling back of “stop and search” because it’s “racist”.

  – The ongoing emasculation of UK police forces who are being trained that mean words and ‘hate crime’ is more important than people dying.

  – Fatherless black homes.

  – UK street gangs becoming more violent to compete with immigrants from countries like Congo and Somalia.

  – The ongoing mass importation of people from violent countries in general.

  – Drill rap music that encourages young people to commit murder.

  – Political leaders like Sadiq Khan refusing to even admit there’s a problem to protect their own pathetic legacies.

  But instead of addressing any of these issues, the political establishment meekly argues that the lack of “youth clubs” for young people and racist police officers are the source of the problem.

  Until that politically correct myopia ends, the carnage will continue.

  *  *  *

  There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

  

• Australia Conducts It's "Largest Amphibious Assult Since WWII"

  A joint Australian-U.S. military exercise, called Talisman Sabre 2019, will continue through early August following this week’s Australian-led amphibious landing at Langham Beach, Queensland, Australia, reported Naval Today.

  Forces from around the world (the U.S., New Zealand, United Kingdom, and Japan) practiced one of the most massive beach assault since World War II off the eastern coast of Queensland. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Maj. Gen. Roger Noble, deputy chief of joint operations for the Australian Defence Force, noted the beach assault was the critical portion of the monthlong exercise.

  “The relationship between the Australian and the United States is the cornerstone of our regional stability. Practicing [working together] builds our flexibility to achieve our shared aims,” he said.

  “A credible amphibious capability significantly broadens the options for Australia and the United States to fulfill these requirements,” Noble said in a statement Wednesday.

  Stripes said the Australian military lacks a dedicated amphibious force. Rather, the Australian army rotates soldiers through land and sea postings, and the Australian navy is in command of sailing them close to the beach for attacks.

  “This is completely foreign to almost all of us,” said Capt. Matthew Stevens of the Royal Australian Army’s 7th Infantry Regiment, who led the group of soldiers on the amphibious landing craft earlier this week.

  The amphibious assault included more than 34,000 personnel, 30 ships, and 200 aircraft, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported Thursday.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Marines started aboard the USS Wasp, USS Green Bay, Royal Australian Navy ships, and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force vessels. The marines then used landing craft air cushion, amphibious assault vehicles, and combat rubber raiding crafts for the beach assault.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  As the first wave of Americans and Japanese landed on the beach, a smokescreen was deployed to disorient the imagined enemy. 

  WATCH || Our amphibious landing was significant because it was done with partner nations. This amazing feat demonstrates our preparedness for future amphibious assaults.

  👉 Read more at https://t.co/buOY3OZDkD#TalismanSabre #TS19 pic.twitter.com/UPq2J864XH

  — TalismanSabre (@TalismanSabre) July 18, 2019

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

  While on land, Australian soldiers observed as two Japanese air-cushioned landing craft drove ashore.

  The exercise came after U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson last month encouraged Australian counterparts to become more active in countering China’s military expansion in the South China Sea.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Tensions flared up earlier this week when the Royal Malaysian Navy conducted anti-ship missile war drills in the South China Sea.

  There’s also been worsening relations between China and Vietnam, who are currently in a South China Sea stand-off. The latest dispute began two weeks ago when a Chinese geological survey ship started conducting a seismic survey near the Vietnamese-controlled – and China-claimed – Vanguard Reef, and has resulted in coastguard vessels from the two countries patrolling the area.

  The South China Sea has overlapping claims, Brunei, the People’s Republic of China, Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan), Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam; all believe they have equal rights to the highly disputed body of water.

  And to make matters worse, the Pentagon told Congress it expects to solidify a $2.2 billion arms sale with Taiwan, further irritating China who warns it will sanction U.S. defense firms connected to Taiwan arms deal.

  As tensions boil in the South China Sea, it becomes evident why Australia and the U.S. conducted one of the most significant amphibious assaults in more than seven decades: the world is preparing for war with the rising power, China.

  

• Bowling Alone: How Washington Has Helped Destroy American Civil Society And Family Life

  Via Ammo.com,

  Church attendance in the United States is at an all-time low, according to a Gallup poll released in April 2019. This decline has not been a steady one. Indeed, over the last 20 years, church attendance has fallen by 20 percent. This might not sound like cause for concern off the bat. And if you’re not a person of faith, you might rightly wonder why you would care about such a thing.

  Church attendance is simply a measure of something deeper: social cohesion. It’s worth noting that the religions with the highest rate of attendance according to Pew Forum have almost notoriously high levels of social cohesion: Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Evangelical Protestants, Mormons and historically black churches top the list.

  There’s also the question of religious donations. Religious giving has declined by 50 percent since 1990, according to a 2016 article in the New York Times. This means people who previously used religious services to make ends meet now either have to go without or receive funding from the government. This, in turn, strengthens the central power of the state.

  It is our position that civil society – those elements of society which exist independently of big government and big business – are essential to a functioning and free society. What’s more, these institutions are in rapid decline in the United States, and have been for over 50 years.

  Such a breakdown is a prelude to tyranny, and has been facilitated in part (either wittingly or unwittingly) by government policies favoring deindustrialization, financialization and centralization of the economy as well as the welfare state. The historical roots of this breakdown are explored below, along with what concerned citizens can do to mitigate its impact on their loved ones.

  What Is Bowling Alone?

  The urtext of this topic is Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community by political scientist Robert D. Putnam. He uses the decline in league bowling as a sort of shorthand for the overall decline in American participation in social life.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The local bowling alley was known as the blue-collar country club, and it was the invention of the automatic pinsetter that changed the game, making it faster and more accessible. The first million-dollar endorsement sports deal was Don Carter receiving a million dollars to bowl with an Ebonite signature ball designed for him in 1964.

  Business was driven by league play. People would sign up to join a league, which had them in for 30 weeks of once-weekly play. In the course of doing this, they would rub elbows with teammates, opponents and whoever happened to be hanging out in the bowling alley at the time. Between 1940 and 1958, the United States Bowling Congress’ membership exploded from 700,000 to 2.3 million. The Women’s International Bowling Congress’membership climbed from 82,000 to 866,000, with the American Junior Bowling Congress ballooning from 8,000 to 175,000. In their heyday, bowling leagues brought in a whopping 70 percent of all bowling alley income. Now they bring in a paltry 40 percent.

  Again, the point here is not that there is something magical about bowling, which acts as a social glue in the United States. Rather, it is that the existence of bowling alleys as a third place in American life was the symptom of a vibrant and healthy civil society, not its cause. People preferred to socialize with others in a place outside of home or work. Putnam is quick to point out that the number of people who bowl in the United States has actually increased since the golden age of bowling – the problem is that they’re all doing it alone.

  The decline in bowling league membership parallels the decline of memberships in a number of other civic organizations including the Knights of Columbus, B’Nai Brith, labor unions, the Boy Scouts, the Red Cross, the Lions, the Elks, the Kiwanis, the Freemasons, parent-teacher organizations, the League of Women Voters and the Junior Chamber of Commerce to name only a few examples other than bowling leagues and churches.

  What this means is that there are significantly fewer connections between people and fewer civic-minded discussions going on now than there were in the past. It also means the loss of identity tied to something other than work and consumer goods (see the explosion of adults spending their money on Star Wars or Harry Potter knick-knacks).

  Putnam lays the blame at the foot of technology. Television, and to a much greater extent, the Internet, individualized how people spend their spare time. Still, there is a solid case to be made that the decline of civil society and the resulting loss of social capital is not simply the result of new technologies. It is equally the result of government policies which, through design or through negligence, further erode civil society.

  The Destruction of the Rust Belt

  It is difficult to talk about the decline of civil society and social capital in the United States without looking at the destruction of the Rust Belt. The decline of the population in Rust Belt industrial cities over the last 50 years is worth a cursory glance before delving further into this topic:

  • In 1940, Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh were all among the 10 most populated cities in the United States.

  • By 1980, Cleveland and Pittsburgh had dropped off.

  • While Detroit hung around in the top 10 until the 2010 census, it was also the first city to have its population drop below one million.

  Cities outside of the top 10 in 1940 paint an even starker picture:

  • Between 1960 and 2010, Buffalo lost over half of its population, plummeting from 532,000 (20) to 261,000 (71).

  • Cincinnati was hit about this hard during the same time period, with its population dropping from 502,000 (21) to 296,000 (63).

  • Gary, Indiana is perhaps the most extreme case of Rust Belt depopulation. It lost over half its population between 1960 and 2010, going from 178,000 (70) to 80,000 (unranked).

  Most of these massive depopulations are tied closely to deindustrialization and the financialization of the economy. While other factors cannot be ignored, such as central air conditioning, which makes living in cities like Phoenix (439,000 in 1960 and the 29th largest city to 1.4 million and the 6th largest by 2010) much more palatable, a conscious set of policies contributed to the destruction of America’s manufacturing base.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  If one sees the United States as nothing more than a group of consumers, there’s nothing to fret about here. If, however, one sees the United States as a nation with a value beyond its simple GDP, the replacement of civil society with the marketplace is a disastrous scenario.

  The Destruction of Black Business Districts

  Another place where this can be seen is the destruction of the black middle class. A frequently untold story of American life is that by the 1950s, the United States actually had a thriving black middle class. Black business ownership peaked during the years between the end of the Second World War and the Great Society. Every city with any significant black population hosted a black business district where a primarily black clientele spent their money within their own community. Black home ownership was likewise high at this point.

  This is all very much a thing of the past.

  The per capita number of black employers declined by 12 percent between the years 1997 and 2014. An article by Brian S. Feldman in Washington Monthly notes a significant decline in certain sectors of black business ownership as well, namely grocers, insurers and banks. Black-owned insurance agencies declined by 68 percent between 1989 and 1999 in what Black Enterprise magazine called “a bloodbath.”

  The article in question lays this at the feet of not specific government policies, but at the doorstep of a more general trend toward market concentration.

  It’s worth looking at the question of wealth and market concentration (separate from the question of so-called “wealth inequality”) from a freedom-minded perspective. The massive amounts of government handouts to big business, in the form of both direct subsidies as well as favorable legislation for regulations and taxes alike, creates an environment favoring those most capable of purchasing influence – namely, big business.

  This is not the half-baked conspiracy theory of a college Marxist. No less an authority than the Foundation for Economic Education correctly identifies that the wealth concentration that made the destruction of black small business possible is choking the American economy at the expense of Main Street. Likewise, licensing regimes in a number of states choke the pipeline of small business competition by making it more difficult for people to enter fields, from nail tech to brain surgeon. The FEE likewise identifies health insurance requirements and increasingly rising minimum wage laws as government intervention raising the bar to entry into the market and crushing small business.

  There is another, highly unlikely and ironic, culprit behind the decimation of black business and the black community – integration.

  This is a position championed by Clay Middleton of the South Carolina House of Representatives. Basically, under segregation, black consumers were limited in their choices of business. They could not, in many cases, go to (for example) white hamburger joints. Instead, they had to patronize the equivalent business for black customers. In many cases, these businesses were owned and operated by fellow black Americans. Black hotels are another example of this phenomenon.

  The point is not that Southern states should reintroduce segregation to prop up black businesses, but simply to give a broader and more complete picture of how and why black business districts have disappeared. It also offers some insight into the destruction of small business in America in general.

  While cheap, imported widgets from Walmart benefit consumers with lower prices, they also create an intangible and difficult-to-quantify social problem. When big business replaces small business, wealth is not only centralized, it is also centralized outside of the communities that it serves.While larger businesses are arguably more “efficient” economically speaking, the loss of small business (most acutely seen in the black community) provides an illustrative example of how lost economic capital and lost social capital are often closely tied. Without black business, there is less of a “black community” than there is a “black marketplace.”

  Strictly speaking, small business (black or otherwise) is business, not civil society proper. However, greater economic leverage of big business in the nation means an economically impoverished civil society.

  Civil Society, the Welfare State, and Mutual Aid

  While direct connections are difficult to establish, it is worth noting that there is a chicken-egg effect of the welfare state, which began during the New Deal, but accelerated under President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society.

  What did people do before the advent of social welfare programs? This is a question that even few libertarians can answer without stammering something about private charity. And indeed, private charity did play a role in meeting social needs for the less fortunate. However, there is a hidden story in how communities met social needs prior to the advent of the welfare state.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Mutual aid in the 21st century is largely a nonprofit form of insurance, particularly life insurance – a sort of analog to the credit union. However, in earlier days they oversaw a number of social welfare programs.

  Mutual aid societies, also known as benefit societies (or friendly societies in the United Kingdom and Ireland) date back to the Middle Ages. Medieval guilds were effectively mutual aid societies organized within skilled trades. In the United States, they were popular with black Americans during post-revolutionary times: the Free African Society dates back to 1787.

  One of the key differences between mutual aid and benefit societies and the welfare state is the role of civil society and accountability. Mutual aid societies presented a counterweight to both the state and big business. They offered services such as healthcare, unemployment benefits, disability insurance and other services now provided by big business or state and federal governments.

  What’s more, the mutual aid societies generally had a set of values tied to their services. Social values were advanced and an ethos of moral character and self-improvement underpinned membership in a mutual aid society. For example, the Ancient Order of United Workmen forbade its members from selling liquor on penalty of forfeiting their death benefit.

  Finally, it’s worth noting the primary difference between mutual aid societies and the welfare state. Members who wanted to collect had to look a peer in the eye and request aid. This had a twin psychological effect: First, it diminished spurious claims. Let’s say “Jim” needed some unemployment insurance. His neighbors are also members of his mutual aid society. They know if Jim actually needs help or if he’s just goldbricking. The flipside is that Jim is also receiving aid from his friends and neighbors. This inspires him to look for work so that he can pay everyone back in his own way, in addition to providing a source of social solidarity during his hardest times.

  According to A Life of One’s Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State, in the year 1890, 112,000 Americans were living in housing provided by private charitable organizations. Compare this to 73,000 residing in publicly funded almshouses. What’s more, benefit societies were decentralized. The spirit was one of fraternity, not of paternalism. Reciprocity was a driving ethic, which in turn removed the stigma of receiving charity. People were not receiving handouts, they were receiving support from the very same people whom they had supported in the past.

  Additionally, belonging to a mutual aid or benefit society was a lot cooler than receiving welfare. They had secret handshakes, among other secret symbols of membership. What’s more, the humble house-call doctor was a feature of mutual aid society membership. Society locals frequently hired a doctor to service a membership area. They have since been regulated to the point where they provide little in the way of services, except for life insurance and annuities, making them effectively non-profit financial organizations.

  In addition to accountability, assistance beyond simple financial support and decentralization, private assistance carries other benefits. For example, philanthropic organizations tend to operate leaner and to be more innovative in how they tackle problems. Such organizations tend to tailor their assistance to the individual in need, rather than offering a one-size-fits-all approach. This is true of individuals and communities alike. Finally, philanthropic and mutual aid societies seek to treat the underlying cause, rather than just the symptom of need.

  Such organizations are now limited by the federal tax code 501(c)(4), which greatly restricts the activities such organizations are allowed to participate in. Many of them, such as Mutual of Omaha, underwent demutualization and handed out stocks in place of membership. They are now for-profit financial organizations.

  A Decline in Family Life

  One of the main pillars of civil society is the nuclear family. Any discussion of the decline of civil society in the United States would be incomplete without a discussion of the decline of family life in the United States.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Perhaps the best numbers to look at with regard to the American family are from the 2010 Census. These are, admittedly, a bit old. However, there is no reason to suspect that the trend has reversed itself and that the nuclear family has experienced some kind of resurgence in the years since that census. If anything, the opposite is probably true. So what does the last United States Census say?

  • Non-college graduates are more than twice as likely to be single parents.

  • Affluent families are more common than poor ones.

  Pew Research likewise has good data on the state of the American family:

  • Americans who have never been married reached an all-time high in 2012, with 25 percent of all adults over the age of 25 having never been married. In 1960, this figure stood at 9 percent.

  • Men were significantly less likely to have ever been married than women.

  • 24 percent of never-married adults were cohabiting with their partner.

  • For black Americans, the percentage over 25 who had never been married was 36 percent.

  • Pew Research indicates that it expects this trend to continue and that, while people are getting married later in life, it does not expect a significant increase in marriage as the population ages.

  • Financial security was cited as the main hurdle to marriage by one third of all those polled who wanted to get married.

  • 67 percent of Americans under 50 who are married are in their first marriage, compared to 83 percent in 1960.

  • 46 percent of children live with two parents in their first marriage. In 1980, this number was 61 percent. In 1960, it was 73 percent.

  The above-cited figures point toward two conclusions: First, the nuclear family is in sharp decline. Second, it is far more common for educated and affluent Americans to form traditional families.

  It’s difficult to assign direct blame to any one factor. The centralization of the economy cited above plays a role, as does the financialization and deindustrialization of the economy. In the 1960s, from where our earliest data comes, it was not difficult for a high school graduate or even a high school dropout to earn a living at a stable job that was effectively a career for life. With this job came a defined benefit pension, healthcare, etc. The wages and benefits made having and raising a family easier.

  The welfare state is another significant driver of the decline of the nuclear family. Unsurprisingly, the black family is massively impacted. In 1965, 25 percent of all black children were born out of wedlock. In 2016, that rate had increased to 70 percent and even topped 80 percent in certain urban areas. In the 1940s, this number was five percent, which was comparable to that of white children. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate in 2016 was 52 percent, while for whites it was 30 percent.

  The rise in children born out of wedlock cannot be separated from the massive expansion of the welfare state under Johnson’s Great Society. In a report from the Mises Institute, the basic argument is that welfare disincentivizes marriage. In times past, when women had children out of wedlock, it meant an incredibly difficult life balancing whatever work and charity they could get. It also carried a social stigma (from our old friend civil society), which further disincentivized single motherhood.

  Today, however, there are a host of social programs specifically for single mothers. A partial list of programs assisting single motherhood includes:

  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) commonly known as “food stamps”

  • Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), another food assistance program

  • Child Care Assistance Program, Head Start and Early Head Start, all daycare assistance programs

  • Section 8 housing assistance

  • Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps single mothers pay their utilities

  • Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), health insurance assistance programs

  • Supplemental Security Income, often called “disability,” but accessible to those without bona fide physical disabilities

  • The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the National School Lunch Program, two more food assistance programs

  These programs act as a disincentive toward family formation. Benefits are means tested, meaning that if one’s income is low enough, one qualifies. This means that it is advantageous in many cases for couples to remain unmarried so that only one income is counted for the purpose of benefits. Such programs, when coupled with a diminishing stigma against single motherhood, further incentivizes promiscuity and poor mate selection – why not have a child with a man who can’t support it when the welfare state is there to pick up the slack?

  The impact of single-parent households is far further reaching than you probably think: In the most extensive study ever done on single parenthood (in permissive, tolerant and liberal Sweden), it was found that children in single-parent households were twice as likely to suffer from psychiatric disorders and addiction. This figure might be conservative, as it only includes hospitalizations. Some other striking statistics about fatherless households include:

  • 63 percent of youth suicides take place in fatherless homes.

  • 90 percent of all homeless youth and runaways are from fatherless homes, which is a whopping 32 times the national average.

  • 85 percent of all children with behavior issues come from fatherless homes, 20 times the national average.

  • 80 percent of rapists with established anger issues come from fatherless homes, 14 times the national average.

  • 71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.

  • 70 percent of those in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes, nine times the national average.

  • 85 percent of all juveniles in prison come from single-parent households, 20 times the national average.

  • 90 percent of adolescent repeat arson offenders are from fatherless homes.

  • Fatherless children are nearly twice as likely to be victims of abuse or neglect.

  These striking statistics are a serious indictment of the decline of the nuclear family. If, as is common of behaviors, single parenthood is heritable, we have not yet begun to see a crisis.

  The End of Civil Society in the United States

  The big takeaway is that in the United States, civil society has declined. While the blame cannot entirely be laid at the feet of big government and big business (individual actors are involved), there is strong evidence to suggest that the crisis in American civil society is driven primarily by the welfare state and government policies favoring deindustrialization, financialization and centralization of the economy.

  There is a reinforcing quality about the destruction of civil society. As the size of big government and big business increases, they become more capable of taking greater power. Smaller communities become increasingly reliant upon each, making it harder to resist further growth and greater disempowerment. It’s a vicious downward spiral.

  So what’s the solution for a concerned individual or family? It’s not political. Instead, the best one can do to counteract these trends are to become as financially independent as possible, make durable local connections in the community, and learn to think critically in order to insulate oneself from the more pernicious effects of social decay and the power of the state.

  

• The Race For The Moon Continues

  On July 21, 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first men to set foot on the moon. Ten more Apollo astronauts followed in their footsteps until 1972 but since then, no human has set foot on Earth’s closest companion in space.

  Fifty years later, the race for the moon is starting anew with several countries and private companies announcing missions. As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz notes, after the successful landings of Chinese probes Chang’e 3 in 2013 and Chang’e 4 in January 2019, who will be the next space agency or company succeeding in landing the next spacecraft or putting the next man (or first woman) on the moon?

  Our graphic gives a rundown of the main lunar missions announced to date. Given the remaining uncertainties surrounding some programs, the dates may be subject to change.

  

  You will find more infographics at Statista

  After a failed mission by the Israeli private company SpaceIL in April, it is the Indian space agency ISRO that will be up next, with the launch of Chandrayaan-2 moon rover mission currently delayed but to commence in 2019.

  Three U.S. companies – Astrobotic, OrbitBeyond and Intuitive Machines – are scheduled to carry out a series of missions in anticipation of astronauts returning to the lunar surface. This is an objective that U.S. President Donald Trump would like to achieve in 2024 and that is supposed to be carried out by NASA in the Artemis 3 and 4 missions.

  Another independent private mission, “DearMoon”, could see a Japanese billionaire accompanied by six artists making the first touristic flight around the moon in a SpaceX vessel as early as 2023.

  Finally, it is interesting to note that the Moon Treaty has still not been ratified by most space-faring nations to date (except for three member countries of the European Space Agency). This treaty, adopted in 1979, stipulates that the moon may only be used for peaceful purposes and that any activity on the moon must comply with international laws.

  

• Demonocracy: The Great Human Scourge!

  Via AntoniusAquinas.com,

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Introduction

  One cannot speak too highly of Christophe Buffin de Chosal’s The End of Democracy.  In a fast paced, readable, yet scholarly fashion, Professor Buffin de Chosal* demolishes the ideological justification in which modern democracy rests while he describes the disastrous effects that democratic rule has had on Western societies.  He explodes the myth of Democracy as a protector of individual liberty, a prerequisite for economic progress, and a promoter of the higher arts.  Once Democracy is seen in this light, a far more accurate interpretation of modern history can be undertaken.  The book is a very suitable companion to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s iconoclastic take down of democracy in Democracy: The God That Failed, released at the beginning of this century.  Buffin de Chosal has spoken of a follow up which will be eagerly awaited for.

  Democratic Governance

  The idea of rule by the people is a scam, one perpetuated by those who, in actuality, are in control of the government.  Through the “democratic process” of voting and elections, a small, determined minority can impose its will despite majority opposition:

  We often hear it said that ‘in a democracy, it is the people who rule…’

  Rule by the people is a myth which loses all substance once confronted with the real practice in democracy.  [13]

  Quoting from a Russian philosopher, Buffin de Chosal continues his criticism:

  The best definition [of democracy] was given by the Russian philosopher Vasily Rozanov.  ‘Democracy is the system by which an organized minority governs an unorganized majority.’ 

  This ‘unorganized majority’ is the people, aggregated and individualistic, incapable of reaction because disjointed.  [28]

  He expands upon Rozanov’s theme:

  …[C]ontrary to what [democracy’s] principles proclaim: one can say that the majority almost never wins.  Democracy is not the system of the majority, but that of the most powerful minority, and it has this power not simply due to its numbers, but also and above all due to its organization. [31]

  Power does not reside in “the people” and certainly not in the individual.  In democracy, the only way to express one’s preference or protect one’s rights is through the ballot box every so often. “Each voter,” writes Buffin de Chosal, “in a democracy, is the depositary of a tiny particle of sovereignty, in itself unusable. His sole power consists in dropping a ballot into a box, whereby he is immediately dispossessed of his particle of sovereignty at the profit of those who are going to represent him.”  [Ibid.]

  Popular democracy has always been condemned and feared by most thinkers since the beginning of human societies.  It was not until intellectuals saw democracy as a way they could attain power that they began to advocate it as a system of social order.  Prior to the democratic age, most of the learned understood that democracy would result in mob rule and the displacement of natural authority with demagogues.  In short, the worst would rise to the top as the author describes the characteristics of a contemporary politician:

  The ideal politician, on the other hand, is pliable, convincing, and a liar by instinct.  He is not attached to any platform and has no ideological objective.  The single thing to which he is truly committed is power.  He wants its prestige and advantages, and seeks above all to be personally enriched by it.  Any politician who presents this aspect is recognized as fit for power in a democracy…

  It is therefore not surprising that democratically elected assemblies are almost exclusively comprised of these kinds of men and women.  Elected heads of state almost always fit this profile, and international institutions, such as the European Union, consider it the only acceptable profile….  [35]

  Democracy and the State

  Since the advent of modern democracy, the principle benefactor of its rule has been the State and the politically-connected financial elites who are in actuality the true rulers of societies.  Instead of putting an end to the supposedly despotic rule of the Ancien Régime, which Democracy’s proponents claim to have existed throughout the monarchial and aristocratic age, governance by the people, has instead witnessed an increase in state power and control of individual lives to an unprecedented level in human history. Few, if any, pope, emperor, king, prince, or duke have ever possessed such suzerainty.

  In contrast to what has been taught in classrooms, on university campuses, and espoused throughout the media, individual rights and freedoms were far better guarded in the age prior to Democracy’s ascendancy.  Pre-revolutionary Europe had social structures which insulated individuals from State power far more effectively than under modern democracy:

  The concept of an organic society was abolished at the time of the French Revolution.  The corps and orders were suppressed, the privileges were abolished, and everything which allowed the people to protect themselves from the power of the state was banished in the name of liberty.  [24]

  And in return for giving up the order that protected them from state depredations, the people received “sovereignty:”

  They were given the false promise that they would no longer need to defend themselves from the state since they themselves were the state.  But if a people organized into corps and orders are incapable of exercising sovereignty, how much more so a people comprising a formless mass of individuals!  [Ibid.] 

  Historically, all of the democratic movements which supposedly stemmed from the people were, in fact, a falsehood, perpetuated largely by revolutionaries who sought to replace the established order with themselves.  While legislatures, congresses, and democratic bodies of all sorts have been interpreted as the fruition of the masses’ desire for representation, the reality was quite different:

  Democracy is not, in its origin, a system of the people.  In England with the advent of the parliamentary system just as in France during the Revolution, it was not the people who were seen at work.  Even the Russian Revolution was not a phenomenon of the people.  To regard the people or what the communist elegantly call the ‘masses’ as the agent of change or political upheaval is purely a theoretical view, a historical myth, of which one sees no trace in reality.  The ‘people’ were the pretext, the dupes, and almost always the victims of the revolutions, not the engines.  [13]

  Not only was propagation of the myth of popular support for democratic ideals propounded for the survival of the new social order, but putting these tenets into practice was accomplished, in large part, by the role of the “intellectual” an often neglected feature of standard historical analysis and the reason behind much social transformation:  

  The ‘nation’ met the desires of the philosophers who wanted to transfer power from the monarch to an enlightened, philosophical, and philanthropic class who, moreover, ought to be financially comfortable.  The educated bourgeoisie of the time were the protagonists of this idea, and a portion of the nobility formed their audience.  [13-14]

  The intellectuals promoted Democracy because it would open up for them considerable opportunities for position and income in the nation state.  It must be remembered that it was the intellectuals who justified the idea of Absolutism.  Later, the intellectuals turned on the monarchies and sided with the emerging republican classes rightly believing that democratic governance would give them greater opportunities for power in the emerging nation states.

  Democracy and Modern History

  While most historians see the advancement of democracy and the development of legislative bodies over the course of the last centuries as an advancement in the human condition and one that has emanated from the people’s desire for greater political representation, Buffin de Chosal presents a far different and more accurate interpretation.  “Democracy,” he asserts, “is not, in its origin a system of the people.” [13] All of the social movements which eventually led to the destruction of Christendom did not come from the people seeking a greater “voice” in their governance.

  “The ‘people,’” he argues, “were the pretext, the dupes, and almost always the victims of the revolutions, not the engines.” [Ibid.]  Liberty, Equality and Fraternity was not a popular cry, but one coined and used by the “enlightened” classes to mobilize and justify their overthrow of the French monarchy and with it the destruction of the Church. 

  The French Revolution was built on the idea of the ‘nation,’ which claimed to bring together the intellectual, social, and financial elite of the country.  It was on this foundation that democracy was established and that it functioned during almost all of the nineteenth century.  [Ibid.]

  A similar historical narrative can be seen in England.

  The rise and eventual triumph of representative democracy in England was not one that percolated from the masses itching for more freedom.  “The appearance of the parliamentary system in England,” Buffin de Chosal contends, “was tied to the great movement of Church property confiscation begun under Henry VIII and continuing until the coming of the Stuarts.” [14] 

  After Henry gorged himself on the Church’s wealth, he sought to bribe as much of the nobility as possible with his ill-gotten gains to insure his power.  An envious Parliament, however, wanted its cut of the loot which led to the great internecine struggle between Crown and Parliament which eventually ended in the suzerainty of the latter with the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  The real power from then on rested with an oligarchical legislative branch:

  The families who had thus helped themselves to the Church’s goods, morally justified by Protestant ethics, formed the gentry, the class of landowners who sat in Parliament.  Parliament was not then, as one might believe today, an organ of poplar representation.  It was an instrument in the hands of the gentry to defend its own class interests. [16-17]

  That Parliament and the monarchy would become the two dominant ruling structures was the result of the breakdown of the feudal structure which was taking place not only in England, but across Europe.  European monarchs continued to gain more and more power at the expense of the feudal landed elite.  The gentry’s power and wealth was also on the wane with the rise of commercial centers which most of the time aligned themselves first with the kings and then later with Parliament.  The eventual triumph of Parliament, however, did not mean greater democracy for the people:

  The financial incentives for England’s adoption of the Protestant Reformation are therefore intimately connected with the bolstering of Parliamentary power. The Parliament in England was used to put the monarchy in check and to replace it with an oligarchic class of wealthy Protestants to whom the kings were required to submit.  This is why the overthrow of James II in 1688 was a true revolution.  It was not a popular revolution or the overthrowing of a tyranny, but it was the rebellion of a class implementing the transfer of sovereign power for its own profit. [17]

  The Market Economy

  The author takes a refreshing look at the market economy that sets straight the inaccurate and often times hostile analysis of it that frequently comes from conservative circles.  He distinguishes and rightly points out that “pure capitalism” or the “unhampered market” is an “excellent thing” [123].  The free market is intimately tied with private property which is a prerequisite for a just society:

  [Capitalism] proceeds from respect for private property. As capitalism is the reinvestment or saved money for the purpose of making new profits, it presupposes respect for property rights and free enterprise.   It has existed in Europe since the Middle Ages and has contributed significantly to the development of Western society.  [Ibid.]

  He insightfully notes that “bad capitalism” often gets lumped in with its “good form” while the latter gets the blame for the baneful excesses of the former.  “Monopoly capitalism,” “corporatism,” “the mixed economy,” and “crony capitalism” are not the result of the market process, but stem from “intervention” brought about by the State in favor of its business favorites through participatory democracy.  In a truly free market, entrenched wealth is rarely maintained but is constantly subjected to challenges by competitors:

  But what one ought to designate as bad capitalism is the concentration of wealth and power this wealth procures.  This danger does not stem from capitalism itself but rather from parliamentary democracy, for it is democracy that enables money powers to dominate the political realm.  [Ibid.]

  The “monied interest” did not exist under “traditional monarchy,” but was a product of Democracy and the protection and extension of the “bad capitalistic” paradigm that came into being and was expanded by the rise of popular representative bodies.  Assemblies, legislatures, and congresses, which emerged, became aligned with the banking and financial interests to bring about the downfall of the monarchies. 

  The concentration of political power could only be attained after the control of money and credit were centralized in the form of central banking and the gold standard was eliminated.  Central banks have been an instrumental part of the democratic age, funding the nation state’s initiatives and enriching the politically- tied financial elites at the expense of everyone else.   

  Wealth concentration is not a by-product of the free market.  Rarely are firms able to maintain their dominance for long periods of time.  Many turn to the State to get protection and monopoly grants to ensure their position in the economy:

  . . . capitalism only becomes harmful when it grants political power to the money powers. This was only made possible thanks to the advent of parliamentary democracy, which was an invention of liberalism.  It is therefore the foundational principles of political liberalism (equality before the law, suppression of privileges, centralization of political power, censitary suffrage, and the accountability of ministers to the legislative houses) which have enabled the rise of a wealthy class and its power over society.  [124]

  Such sound economic analysis abounds throughout his tome.

  Future Prospects

  The author rightly sees that because of its nature and the type of personalities that it attracts, modern democracy cannot reform itself, but will eventually collapse from financial stress, war, and/or civil strife:

  Parliamentary democracy rarely produces true statesmen, as its party system more often promotes ambitious and self-interested persons, demagogues, and even communication experts.  These are generally superficial and egocentric individuals with a very limited understanding of society and man.  These politicians do not have the makings of statesmen.  They are adventurers who use the state to satiate their hunger for power and money or to benefit their party.  [147]

  Efforts to reform it, however, should not be totally dismissed since they could lead to more fundamental change and ultimately the creation of a new political paradigm for Western governance.  Populism and the various movements around the globe which fall into that category should be encouraged.  Populism, because of is lack of definite ideological underpinnings, has meant different things at different times to different people.  Most populists, however, do not want to get rid of democratic forms of government, but want the system to be more “responsive” of its constituents instead of favoring entrenched political elites.  Populism is a symptom of the growing failure of modern democracy’s inability to “deliver the goods” that it promises to a now growing dependency class. 

  As a means of getting rid of totalitarian democracy, populist movements and themes should always be encouraged:

  In Europe, the only political forces today which could, in the more extreme of circumstances assume this rescue role are found on the side of populism.  Conservative in its values, sometimes classically liberal when it is a matter of opposing the stifling interventionism of the state, and yet ready to defend social gains . . .  populism is the only political current which comes to the defense of those interests of the population denied or ignored by the parties in power. [148]

  He adds:

  Populist parties, from the simple fact that they can bring together voters from both the left and the right, have a chance of coming to power in the near enough future.  The deterioration of security conditions in Europe due to mass immigration plays in their favor.  [148-49]    

  While he does not explicitly discuss it, a more concrete and ideological coherent idea and one of historical precedent, is that of secession.  For all those who oppose the democratic order, secession is the most justifiable, logical, and practical strategy for the dissolution of the nation state.  Secession movements, therefore, whether they do not outwardly condemn parliamentary democracy and only seek to establish a “better run” system, should always be supported. 

  Conclusion

  The most likely scenario if there is to be a change in Western democratic life will be from a world-wide economic crisis and collapse of the financial system which will render the nation states unable to meet their financial obligations to their citizens.  All economies are hopelessly indebted from their welfare state excesses and can never hope to meet their promises which now runs in the trillions.  What will emerge in the aftermath of a collapse is hard to predict, but some form of authoritarianism is likely which will be centered on a one-world state with a single, irredeemable currency.

  While the financial demise of Western-styled democracy will be evident for all to see, its ideological underpinnings which have justified its existence needs to be extirpated.  Any hope of it being reconstituted to better serve “the people” needs to be shot down.  There is no better place to start the de-mystification of Democracy than with Christophe Buffin de Chosal’s magnificent, The End of Democracy.  

  *  *  *

  Christophe Buffin de Chosal, The End of Democracy, Translated by Ryan P. Plummer.  Printed in the U.S.A.: Tumblar House, 2017.

  

• Black Homeownership Plunges To All-Time-Low Despite Record-Low Unemployment

  One of President Trump’s favorite talking points is promoting how his economic policies have lifted all Americans. He routinely cites the record low rate of black unemployment and how the economy is the “greatest ever.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  — President Trump tweeted Jan. 2018

  “African American unemployment has reached its lowest rate ever recorded — ever! Ever! Remember ‘What do you have to lose?’ What do you have to lose, right? ‘What do you have to lose?’ I said.”

  Trump wishes Jay-Z were a little more grateful for the low black unemployment rate. https://t.co/PeY2ZxCusO pic.twitter.com/SLJqER2XWs

  — The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) January 30, 2018

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

  — Trump, at a campaign rally in Southaven, Miss., Oct. 2018

  “You look at our economy. You look at jobs. You look at African American — the lowest in the history of our country, unemployment numbers — the best numbers they’ve ever had.”

  — Trump tweeted July 2019

  “The best economy in our lifetime!” @IngrahamAngle

  — Trump tweeted July 2019

  “Lots of great things to tell you about, including the fact that our economy is the best it has ever been. Best Employment & Stock Market Numbers EVER. I’ll talk also about people who love, and hate, our Country (mostly love)!” 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  New census data, reported via The Wall Street Journal, tells an entirely different story in the African-American communities across the country, one where the black homeownership rate has plunged to the lowest on record.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The black homeownership rate increased for three decades and reached nearly 50% in 2004, but all those gains were wiped out in the last decade, hitting a new record low in 1Q19.

  The rate stabilized from 1Q16 through 3Q18, has since dove under the 2.5-year range to 41.1%. The rate plunged 1.8% from 3Q18 to 1Q19, which was a period in the economy where the most recent industrial slowdown started.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  1Q19 was the first time in 20 years that Hispanics and blacks, the two most significant ethnic minorities in the U.S., have seen a divergence in the path towards the American dream: homeownership.

  Policy analyst told The Journal that black communities have developed an indisputable wealth gap that has kept homeownership out of reach. 

  “We can see that discrimination is still there, although it has changed its form,” said Michela Zonta, a senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress.

  The black unemployment rate being at ultra-low levels hasn’t translated into a stronger middle class in inner cities, thus the increase in home buying. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  This could mean one of two things: either the jobs being provided are low skill and low wage, or the birth/death adjustment in the black unemployment rate highly overstated the number of employed so that the Trump administration can create enough propaganda in black communities that by the time 2020 comes around, inner cities would ditch Democrats for Republicans.

  

• Absolute Power Molests Absolutely

  Authored by Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  The Jeffrey Epstein child molestation case made big headlines because of just how close he is to many in power or at least with great pull in Washington and the fact that he had already been busted and possibly used said pull to stay out of jail certainly adds to the drama. Although many people can get photographed with celebrities who don’t really know them or claim to be “friends” with this or that person who’s on TV, most media breakdowns of this case put Epstein as, at the very least, a known associate and maybe even actual friend of Bill Clinton and Donald Trumpand others of their social rank. When someone who has abused large numbers of underage girls at his home also chit chats with the US President, this raises eyebrows and shocks the public.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  But sadly the public should no longer be shocked as there is a crisis of child abuse and rape throughout the halls of power in nations across the Western World.

  Breaking this cycle may be very difficult but there are certain strategies that could work.

  In Britain, Operation Hydrant a police investigation into cases of non-recent child sex abuse has over 2,200 open investigations, but the one thing that unites them is that the suspects, like Mr. Epstein, are all people of “public prominence”. This seemingly large scale operation formed to search for perverts and rapists in the UK elite is sadly not a unique phenomenon.

  The Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has been able to shed a lot of light onto numerous suspected pedophiles within Parliament and evaluate how the nation’s political parties dealt with (or refused to deal with) accusations of this crime being thrown at their members. Unlike Operation Hydrant these are much more recent cases that even involve some current politicians. This inquiry (“Westminster”) which deals with MPs is just one of 13 different “strands” of investigation in different areas of British society including religious organizations as well as the aforementioned governmental bodies like Parliament.

  Just because someone is looking for pedophilia does not mean it is happening for sure, but many under investigation by the IICSA like Green Party member David Challenor (raping a 10 year old) have been convicted and sentenced for their crimes. These investigations are not just a witch hunt or some sort of PR stunt. There would seem to be enough pedophilia within the British halls of power that the police cannot be bribed or dissuaded from exposing it entirely, which means there is quite a mountain of molestation being hidden in London.

  In Australia, Senator Bill Heffernan went forward with police documentation to expose a long list of alleged pedophiles in government which extends even up to one of the former Prime Ministers. The same sort of rumors becoming fact that happened in England are now happening across their former colony.

  In America numerous Democratic politicians have been involved in abuse and pedophilia including Jacob Schwartz who was convicted in May 2017 of child pornography and Sen. Robert Menendez who is accused of having sex with underage prostitutes in 2012 and if we are to believe certain independent media sources this is just the tip of the iceberg in Washington.

  In France, one cabinet minister was accused of having sex with underage boys while in Morocco. But there are many more possible names still yet to be revealed with him.

  In Germany the Green Party which openly advocated for legalizing sex with children in the 1980s has not surprisingly come under investigation/scrutiny for rampant pedophilia. The party at one time had an entire “pedo-commision” working day and night to revoke Section 176 of the German Criminal Code that forbids fornicating with minors.

  It would be totally unfair to say that the West is under rule by pedophiles. In the massive rows of seats of Parliament and Congress there are hundreds of people with only dozens of accusations and a handful of convictions being made, but proportionally, relative to the population at-large it would seem that today’s law makers and bureaucrats have a radically higher percentage of pedophile tendencies. Taking shots in the dark you are way more likely to hit Chester Molester in a crowd of senators than car mechanics, waiters or any other profession outside the elite.

  Perhaps it is easier for the wealthy/powerful to engage in child rape and get away with it or perhaps it is some bizarre form of sexual ennui that drives the powerful to seek new sexual highs from the weakest of victims. But in the 21st century West, absolute power molests absolutely and this is very dangerous for society far beyond the individual lives that are crushed by freaks and perverts with deep pockets and the right connections to cover it up for years or maybe forever.

  Strategically speaking this horrible “tendency” gives governments outside the West the perfect visceral piece of propaganda to use for years to come. “We may be poor, our police may be a little harsh, but at least we don’t *** children” is a message that could make any fumbling government of a poor nation seem tolerable. Even within the West this further undermines any faith the masses may have in their own government and this is the perfect kind of info-armament that could be by revolutionaries. Since many people want pedophiles to be castrated or executed you can see how agitators could use this “stereotype” of men in power to their advantage. These are not strong strategic weaknesses but they exist nonetheless and need to be addressed.

  If the nations of the West want to set up the necessary invisible barbed wire to filter our pedophiles from crawling into the top levels of government they need to do the following…

  • Only allow people who are married with children to be in government. This is no ironclad guarantee but most pedophiles are single and if they are married their marriage is usually hollow meaning they probably do not have children. Being married with children in at least a semi-functional marriage vastly reduces the chances of the individual being a pedophile.

  • Forbid any members of secret societies and fraternities from being in government. Although you may have a constitutional freedom to be in a secret society any organization which tries to hide itself is most certainly up to no good and people who engage in these secret groups need to stay in the private sector for the sake of the nation. Child sex rings are a form of secret society all their own. No one needs to conduct charity or raise money to fix local park benches from the shadows of a secret network. Fraternities often involve bizarre sexual rituals to gain entrance which means they are filled with the type of people who may be inclined to rape children. David Cameron had sex with a dead pig to get into a fraternity (technically labeled “dining club”) after all.

  • Restrict the privacy of those in governmental power. If one wants freedom they need to stay in the private sector, if they want power and the ability to lead society they are going to have to lead by example and sacrifice any scrap of personal privacy they have as part of their mission to bring glory to the state. When politicians use their privacy it is more often than not for ill. Normal people who are unable to do much harm to society get to have privacy, those who can fund a pedophile ring and bribe their way to freedom when caught or pull strings need to have their privacy revoked in advance.

  

• "Please Don’t Flush Your Drugs M’kay." Tennessee Police Warn Of "Meth-Gators"

  A Tennessee police department has published a warning on social media to its residents: “Folks…please don’t flush your drugs m’kay,” such as methamphetamine — because this could trigger aggressive “meth-gators.”

  The warning was published on Facebook, with a post-dated July 13, by the Loretto Police Department who described how officers executed a search warrant on a home and found the occupant attempting to flush a big bag of meth down his toilet. Although the suspect was unsuccessful at disposing of the drugs – the police department felt compelled enough to remind residents on Facebook that flushing drugs down the drain can have environmental impacts, like “meth-gators.”

  “Folks…please don’t flush your drugs m’kay. When you send something down the sewer pipe it ends up in our retention ponds for processing before it is sent down stream. Now our sewer guys take great pride in releasing water that is cleaner than what is in the creek, but they are not really prepared for meth. Ducks, Geese, and other fowl frequent our treatment ponds and we shudder to think what one all hyped up on meth would do,” the statement read.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The post explained how meth traveling in the municipality’s sewer system could find its way into Shoal Creek, down the Tennessee River in North Alabama and into the bodies of alligators.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  In an edit to the post, the police department adds: “We feel the need to mention that “drugs” also includes prescription pills. These medications can be disposed of at City Hall in a designated disposal container in the lobby.” Outlining the gators could also ingest prescription opioids if flushed down the drain.

  Kent Vliet, an alligator biologist and the coordinator of laboratories in the department of biology at the University of Florida, told NBC News that he has never once heard of an alligator on meth.

  “I’ve worked with alligators for 40 years, and I generally can answer any question someone gives me about them. This one’s throwing me for a loop,” Vliet said.

  “I would guess they might be affected by it, but they tend to not react to drugs in the same way we do, and I don’t know if it would take a little or a lot to get an alligator to do something on meth,” he said. “I think it’s a ridiculous notion. If you flush meth it’s going to be diluted.”

  Tennessee’s problem with “meth-gators” could be a significant issue for other states’ ecosystems who have also been hit hard by a three-decades-long drug crisis that includes opioids, meth, and cocaine.

  It’s rarely reported how America’s drug epidemic is affecting nature until now.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Carmageddon Continues: EU Car Registrations Crater In June

  The global automotive collapse continues, denting the narrative of the “strong consumer”, as countries again posted poor YOY comps despite the industry starting to show signs of shakiness during mid-2018. The China/U.S. trade war and global economies that have slipped into recession have played a role in one of the largest global slowdowns in the automotive sector to date. And that trend is now accelerating in the EU. 

  According to new data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association out of Brussels shows, new car registrations in the EU plunged again, this time by 7.8% to 1,446,183 units in June, the biggest monthly drop of 2019.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The drop is being attributed to a negative calendar effect due to the fact that June only counted 19 working days across the EU compared to 21 days in 2018. The five major EU markets all posted declines as a result, with France falling 8.4% and Spain falling 8.3%. However, that’s hardly the full story as individual auto manufacturers in the EU are not showing any signs of relief, according to Bloomberg: 

  • Daimler last week issued its fourth profit warning in just over a year due to the costs of a recall and allegations of emissions-tampering in diesel cars. The carmaker also blamed weaker global markets.
  • BMW in May reported its first loss in a decade in the main automotive division.
  • Renault’s partner Nissan Motor Co. was the worst hit during the first six months of this year, registering a 24% drop in European sales.
  • After Nissan, Honda and Fiat-Chrysler registered the worst sales in Europe since the start of the year with 15.4% and 9.5% declines respectively.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  The European data continues an ugly worldwide trend for automobiles, as the first half of 2019 saw demand for new passenger cars across the EU down 3.1% to 8.2 million registrations. Alas, things don’t look to be getting better anytime soon, either. Peter Fuss, a partner at EY consultancy said: “We’re standing in front of a difficult second half of the year. Little positive impetus for the new car market in the EU can be expected in the coming months.”

  The problems in the auto market are hardly contained to the EU.

  About a week ago, we reported that China was again bracing for another annual drop in auto sales. Earlier in the year, the CAAM had thought zero growth for the year was a possibility, but now it looks like vehicle sales will once again drop – even after an abysmal 2018. 

  The sector contracted for the 12th straight month in June and sales were down 2.8% in 2018. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

• Italy Seizes Weapons From Neo-Nazis… Western Media Immediately Fabricates Link To Russia

  Authored by Danielle Ryan,

  Western media continued its tradition of whitewashing far-right extremism in Ukraine this week, reporting that Italian police busted a neo-Nazi gang ‘linked’ to Russia – but this alleged link was dreamed up out of thin air.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Italian police said on Monday that they had seized a cache of weapons and Nazi memorabilia belonging to a neo-Nazi group operating in northern Italy.

  The bust was part of a year-long investigation into extremists who had fought “against the separatists”  in the Donbass region of Ukraine.

  Those who read the news via major outlets like the BBC, CNN, The Guardian, Politico, ABC News, Sky News, CBS and Reuters learned a totally different version of events, however.

  Rather than fighting “against” the rebels in eastern Ukraine’s breakaway regions, as the police statement made clear, the extremists in question were actually fighting “alongside” the pro-Russia separatists. The neo-Nazis fighting for Kiev in eastern Ukraine had magically morphed into pro-Russia militants aiding the separatist cause.

  Giving the story this added element of mystery, the Italian police also altered their original statement on the weapons seizure, to wipe the phrase about the gang fighting “against” the separatists and watering it down simply to say that the extremists had been monitored “for having taken part in the armed conflict in the Donbass region.”

  Official Italian police statement says the Nazis with the missiles fought “against [pro-Russian] separatists”. But BBC says the Italian Nazis fought *for* Russian-backed separatists.
  Someone’s dezinformatsiya-ing 🤔 https://t.co/jByo12vtjT pic.twitter.com/1XLF32YgIj

  — Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) July 15, 2019

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

  Why exactly the police changed their original statement remains unclear, but it did give the BBC the perfect opportunity to quietly amend its false story, dumping the Russia link and replacing it with the more vague assertion that the extremists had simply taken part “in the conflict in eastern Ukraine,” echoing the altered police statement.

  A Reuters update to its original story claiming the group was fighting “alongside” separatists now says that Italian police“declined to say” who they had been fighting for.

  When contacted by RT, Italian police also said there had been an “error” in the initial press release and claimed that police had not said anything about “which side” the fighters belonged to. Except that in the original statement, they very clearly did specify a side.

  This was confirmed again by Roberto Vivaldelli, a journalist for the Il Giornale newspaper, who reported that even during a press conference on the raid, the head of the Turin Counterterrorism Service, Luigi Spina, said that the Italian neo-Nazis “had helped Ukrainian nationalist groups in the fight against pro-Russian Donbass groups.”

  There does not seem to be any ambiguity here, so the excuse that some kind of “error” was made in the first version of the statement does seem rather implausible. What does seem more plausible is that the police may have altered the release for, shall we say, diplomatic reasons.

  Many news outlets still have not corrected their stories claiming an imaginary link to Russia, despite neither of the two police statements ever having claimed one. The story swept across social media too, with influential Western reporters from other outlets tweeting out the news with the usual mix of disingenuous shock and dismay.

  This is the kind of blatant disinformation that Western media screams about on a daily basis, but engages in without a second thought whenever it suits them. 

  It’s certainly possible that Western reporting on the Italian weapons bust was not even intentionally incorrect, but that a few reporters who were accustomed to a certain narrative just got the facts backwards because nothing else made sense to them – and the rest followed suit: Russia is bad and linked to everything bad. Why would you even need to fact-check or dig any deeper?

  But let’s not be so kind and understanding. Western media has been actively and knowingly airbrushing neo-Nazi activity in Ukraine since the Euromaidan protests in 2013, which were exploited by Western powers who engineered a coup to install Petro Poroshenko as president. 

  From then on, the only acceptable narrative was that anyone on the side of the pro-West Ukrainian government was a heroic freedom fighter and anyone on the separatist side was a terrible Russia-loving troublemaker. This was despite ample proof that the US-installed government was relying on neo-Nazi battalions to fight separatists in the east and actively encouraging dangerous levels of nationalism and anti-Russia sentiment against ethnic Russians living in the breakaway regions.

  Even when Ukraine played host to a massive neo-Nazi march in 2017, Western media ignored it. Encouragement from Kiev combined with lack of interest from Western powers emboldened these groups. But soon their activities could no longer be ignored and media outlets began acknowledging the very real rise of neo-fascism in Ukraine – a problem they had happily turned a blind eye to for years because it simply didn’t suit them to admit that they were, essentially, on the same side as the neo-Nazis.

  With their recent knee-jerk decision to link Italy’s neo-Nazis to pro-Russia separatists instead of Ukrainian nationalists, it looks like they’ve gotten their Ukraine facts conveniently mixed up again. 

  

• Secret US Nuke Locations In Europe Accidentally Dumped Online By NATO Committee

  An embarrassing gaffe has severely compromised NATO defense security and readiness after a public document inadvertently revealed too much. 

  A NATO affiliate body called the Defense and Security Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly published a draft report last April entitled, “A new era for nuclear deterrence? Modernization, arms control and allied nuclear forces,” specifically authored by a Canadian senator. In an egregious accidental leak, the document actually identified the locations of American nuclear weapons sites across Europe, which is considered highly classified information. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  Though the leaked information was quickly deleted after it came to the attention of NATO officials, the Belgian newspaper De Morgen picked up on the mistake, after which its reporting went viral. The Belgian headline in De Morgen stated: “Finally in black and white: There are American nuclear weapons in Belgium.”

  The document revealed secretive information related to the locations of some 150 US nuclear weapons at various bases, “specifically B61 gravity bombs.”

  The report identified in a section titled, “NATO’s Nuclear Posture,” subsequently republished by De Morgen, the following classified information:

  “These bombs are stored at six US and European bases — Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi-Torre in Italy, Volkel in The Netherlands, and Incirlik in Turkey.”

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  The sanitized version of the final edition of the document was republished last week, with the nuclear weapons site information deleted.

  Interestingly, Italy is estimated to maintain the largest stockpile of US nuclear bombs – somewhere between 60 and 70 – with Turkey and Germany also housing a large amount, which is worrisome in the case of Turkey given rising tensions over its Russian S-400 deal. 

  Such an extensive US nuclear arsenal on European soil is a remnant and continuation of the historic Cold War build-up, when Washington was locked in battle to deter Soviet expansion in Europe, which also allowed US allies to not have to pursue their own nukes. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Via Statista: “The B61 is a low to intermediate-yield strategic and tactical thermonuclear gravity bomb which deatures a two-stage radiation implosion design. It is capable of being deployed on a range of aircraft such as the F-15E, F-16 and Tornado. It can be released at speeds up to Mach 2 and dropped as low as 50 feet where it features a 31 second delay to allow the delivery aircraft to escape the blast radius.”

  European newspapers this week ran shocking and alarming headlines over the revelation. Indeed it reveals a dangerous situation given the recent collapse of one crucial Cold War era treaty which kept warhead delivery systems and missiles out of Europe, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

  According to a NATO official statement in The Washington Post, the document did not originate within NATO itself, but by the group’s parliamentary assembly, specifically from one of the alliance’s founding members, Canada. The NATO statement to the Post said, “We do not comment on the details of Nato’s nuclear posture.”

  

• Attacks On "White, Male" Moon Landing Prove No US Achievement Is Beyond Liberals' Virtue-Signaling Rage

  Authored by Igor Ogorodnev,

  Attempts to diminish the triumph of Apollo 11 and to reassign credit don’t just taint the 50th anniversary of the moon landing, but presage the technological decline of the US if it persists with identity politics…

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  With the Founding Fathers now rarely mentioned in the media without side notes about their slave ownership, and the Betsy Ross flag is offensive to Colin Kaepernick and Nike, there is nothing new about liberal attempts to strike at the very heart of American identity.

  But – leaving aside the conspiracy theorists – the moment Neil Armstrong stepped on the surface of the Moon on July 20, 1969 was objectively such a universal milestone that to qualify it seems a fight against human endeavor itself.

  Heroes retconned

  It would seem like the more logical route, for those who resent that this was a feat of white un-woke America, would be to try and diminish their role in favour of supposedly unsung heroes.

  Hidden Figures, the Oscar-winning film from 2016 was the perfect archetype of this revisionist history, exaggerating and fictionalizing the role of a cadre of politically suitable black women, who did an entirely replaceable job and were no more important than thousands of others involved.

  This way everyone would get to celebrate their own role models, even though in time such worthy changes of focus can end up with grotesque urban myths, like Crick and Watson stealing the Nobel Prize from (the actually dead) Rosalind Franklin.

  Celebrating white men in the age of Trump

  But while this unifying narrative, where people of different races and varying attainments are placed alongside each other in anniversary pieces, a more sour, radicalized note has begun to surface, compared to celebrations even five years ago, in the prelapsarian era of Barack Obama.

  It is not yet dominant, but persistent enough to be more than a coincidence.

  “The culture that put men on the moon was intense, fun, family-unfriendly, and mostly white and male,” tweeted the Washington Post, over a behind-the-scenes look at the life of those involved in the program.

  The culture that put men on the moon was intense, fun, family-unfriendly, and mostly white and male https://t.co/x5vQBuU4IN

  — The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) July 16, 2019

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

  “In archival Apollo 11 photos and footage, it’s a ‘Where’s Waldo?’ exercise to spot a woman or person of color,” it continued in the article itself.

  “We chose to go to the moon. Or at least, some did: watching [documentary film] Apollo 11, it is impossible not to observe that nearly every face you see is white and male,” left-wing magazine New Statesman wrote in a recent piece.

  A recent Guardian review of the documentary Armstrong features the writer talking about “good ol’ boys from NASA – elderly white men every one of them, who you suspect are still pining for the days of American life when men were men and women waited by the phone in headscarves,” though no evidence is given for the assertion.

  Why wasn’t von Braun a black woman?

  This is not just bigoted, but astonishing in its unfairness.

  Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins could not have helped being white at birth.

  George Mueller and Max Faget were not proverbial “mediocre white men” – their deeds are tangible.

  No one at NASA could have helped living in 1960s America, or made its social structures, workplace roles, and demographics fit in with 2019 journalists’ conceptions. For God’s sake, many were Germans who had served the Nazi Party with varying degrees of reluctance during World War II, before being whisked away through Operation Paperclip – how do they fit into 21st century privilege hierarchies? Could Wernher von Braun have been an African-American woman from Louisiana?

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Wernher von Braun with John F. Kennedy ©  Getty Images/Bettmann / Contributor

  Or would it have been better to stay on Earth until US society advanced enough to send the right people into space? Or perhaps let the Soviets get there first, since for all their class-based ideology they didn’t want to handicap themselves in the space race.

  America weighs itself down

  And handicap becomes the key word.

  Rewriting history is a crucial weapon in the long-term culture war for the left, disappointed so often at the ballot box. But the implications of this go far beyond the past.

  At the very edge of technological and scientific progress is a meritocracy – you can’t make someone a genius by appointing them. And for all the social changes, the key innovators at NASA and, more importantly, Silicon Valley, remain men, and predominantly white (though more often Asian). Whether it is more due to their superior opportunities, education or creativity, Elon Musk or Larry Page look just like the fathers of the space program.

  Yet to avoid ever producing a picture like the sea of white shirts and black ties and pale arms at Launch Operations Center fifty years ago, there are demands for rectification, for diversity, essentially for positive discrimination.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Neil Armstrong leads his crew to the launchpad. ©  NASA

  But picking people for posts on the basis of historic justice, skin color and chromosome combinations is a recipe for uncompetitive organizations, where the most talented never succeed, or merely drag along the quota-fillers.

  And America’s rivals are not standing still – not just Russia now, but China, India and others. They would have no better chance to overtake the US in whatever is this century’s version of the space race, than if that nation decided to spit on its own achievements, and replace them with dogma.

  

• Social Media, Not Video Games, Linked To Teen Depression

  The use of social media has been linked to an increase in depressive symptoms in teenagers, according to researchers at Montreal’s Sainte-Justine Hospital, according to the CBC. 

  In a new study led by University of Montreal psychiatry professor Patricia Conrod, adolescents were studied over a four-year period to investigate the relationship between depression and various forms of screen time. 

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  

  “What we found over and over was that the effects of social media were much larger than any of the other effects for the other types of digital screen time,” said Conrod. 

  The researchers studied the behaviour of over 3,800 young people from 2012 until 2018. They recruited adolescents from 31 Montreal schools and followed their behaviour from Grade 7 until Grade 11.

  The teenagers self-reported the number of hours per week that they consumed social media (such as Facebook and Instagram), video games and television.

  Conrod and her team found an increase in depressive symptoms when the adolescents were consuming social media and television. –CBC

  The study was published in the JAMA Pediatrics journal on Monday. 

  Unsurprising to some, the study found that all forms of screen time are bad, but that consuming social media was the most harmful. Conrod and her colleague, Elroy Boers, found that being active on platforms like Instagram – where teens can compare their dismal, boring lives to those of glitzy ‘influencers,’ cause the most depression. 

  “It exposes young people to images that promote upward social comparison and makes them feel bad about themselves,” said Conrod. “These sort of echo chambers — these reinforcing spirals — also continually expose them to things that promote or reinforce their depression, and that’s why it’s particularly toxic for depression.” 

  The researchers also observed whether the additional screen time was taking away from things generally known to reduce depression, such as exercise and fun interacting with other human beings, but found no link. 

  ‘A good pastime’

  The study suggests that the average gamer is not socially isolated, as over 70% of gamers play with other people online or in person. 

  “The findings surprised us,” said Boers. “Video gaming makes one more happy. It’s a good pastime.” 

  Dr. Martin Gignac, chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Montreal Children’s Hospital, said there has been an increase in the number of emergency-room visits at the hospital related to teens having suicidal thoughts and behaviour in recent years.

  “I don’t think that [social media] is the only reason, but it’s one of the risk factors we should monitor,” said Gignac, who was not involved with the study.

  As online relationships supplant in-person communication, Gignac said it’s important that young people learn when posting about their lives online is healthy, and when it can hurt.

  He’s hoping that schools expand programs teaching kids about healthy online activity, and that learning how to practise good “digital citizenship” eventually becomes a universal part of school curriculum. –CBC

  Depression in adolescents is linked to substance abuse, lower self-esteem and poor interpersonal skills. According to Boers, teens are spending six-to-seven hours in front of a digital screen per day. 

  “What we found is quite worrisome and needs further investigation,” he said. 

  

• "Wipe The Soviet Union Off The Map" – Planned US Nuclear Attack Against USSR

  Via Southfront.org,

  This video is based on the research of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG); The video was originally released in December 2017

  Below is the full text of Professor Chossudovsky’ article published by Global Research

  According to a secret document dated September 15, 1945, “the Pentagon had envisaged blowing up the Soviet Union  with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against major urban areas.

  All major cities of the Soviet Union were included in the list of 66 “strategic” targets. The tables below categorize each city in terms of area in square miles and the corresponding number of atomic bombs required to annihilate and kill the inhabitants of selected urban areas.

  Six atomic bombs were to be used to destroy each of the larger cities including Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent, Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa.

  The Pentagon estimated that a total of 204 bombs would be required to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”. The targets for a nuclear attack consisted of sixty-six major cities.

  One single atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima resulted in the immediate death of 100,000 people in the first seven seconds. Imagine what would have happened if 204 atomic bombs had been dropped on major cities of the Soviet Union as outlined in a secret U.S. plan formulated during the Second World War.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Hiroshima in the wake of the atomic bomb attack, 6 August 1945

  The document outlining this diabolical military agenda had been released in September 1945, barely one month after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (6 and 9 August, 1945) and two years before the onset of the Cold War (1947).

  The secret plan dated September 15, 1945 (two weeks after the surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945 aboard the USS Missouri, see image below) , however, had been formulated at an earlier period, namely at the height of World War II,  at a time when America and the Soviet Union were close allies.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  It is worth noting that Stalin was first informed through official channels by Harry Truman of the infamous Manhattan Project at the Potsdam Conference on July 24, 1945, barely two weeks before the attack on Hiroshima.

  The Manhattan project was launched in 1939, two years prior to America’s entry into World War II in December 1941. The Kremlin was fully aware of the secret Manhattan project as early as 1942.

  Were the August 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks used by the Pentagon to evaluate the viability of  a much larger attack on the Soviet Union consisting of more than 204 atomic bombs?

  “On September 15, 1945 — just under two weeks after the formal surrender of Japan and the end of World War II — Norstad sent a copy of the estimate to General Leslie Groves, still the head of the Manhattan Project, and the guy who, for the short term anyway, would be in charge of producing whatever bombs the USAAF might want. As you might guess, the classification on this document was high: “TOP SECRET LIMITED,” which was about as high as it went during World War II. (Alex Wellerstein, The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements (September 1945)

  The Kremlin was aware of the 1945 plan to bomb sixty-six Soviet cities.

  Had the US decided not to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclar arms race would not have taken place. Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of deterrence.

  The Soviet Union lost 26 million people during World War II.

  The USSR developed its own atomic bomb in 1949, in response to 1942 Soviet intelligence reports on the Manhattan Project.

  Let’s cut to the chase. How many bombs did the USAAF request of the atomic general, when there were maybe one, maybe two bombs worth of fissile material on hand? At a minimum they wanted 123. Ideally, they’d like 466. This is just a little over a month after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

  Of course, in true bureaucratic fashion, they provided a handy-dandy chart (Alex Wellerstein, op. cit)

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1945-Atomic-Bomb-Production.pdf

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  This initial 1945 list of sixty-six cities was updated in the course of the Cold War (1956) to include some 1200 cities in the USSR and the Soviet block countries of Eastern Europe (see declassified documents below).

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Source: National Security Archive

  “According to the 1956 Plan, H-Bombs were to be Used Against Priority “Air Power” Targets in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe. Major Cities in the Soviet Bloc, Including East Berlin, Were High Priorities in “Systematic Destruction” for Atomic Bombings.  (William Burr, U.S. Cold War Nuclear Attack Target List of 1200 Soviet Bloc Cities “From East Germany to China”, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 538, December 2015

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Excerpt of list of 1200 cities targeted for nuclear attack in alphabetical order. National Security Archive

  In the post Cold War era, under Donald Trump’s “Fire and Fury”, nuclear war directed against Russia, China, North Korea and Iran is “On the Table”.

  What distinguishes the October 1962 Missile Crisis to Today’s realities:

  1. Today’s president Donald Trump does not have the foggiest idea as to the consequences of nuclear war.

  2, Communication today between the White House and the Kremlin is at an all time low. In contrast, in October 1962, the leaders on both sides, namely John F. Kennedy and Nikita S. Khrushchev were accutely aware of the dangers of nuclear annihilation. They collaborated with a view to avoiding the unthinkable.

  3. The nuclear doctrine was entirely different during the Cold War. Both Washington and Moscow understood the realities of mutually assured destruction. Today, tactical nuclear weapons with an explosive capacity (yield) of one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb are categorized by the Pentagon as “harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground”.

  4.  A one trillion ++ nuclear weapons program, first launched under Obama, is ongoing.

  5. Today’s thermonuclear bombs are more than 100 times more powerful and destructive than a Hiroshima bomb. Both the US and Russia have several thousand nuclear weapons deployed.

  Moreover, an all war against China is currently on the drawing board of the Pentagon as outlined by a RAND Corporation Report commissioned by the US Army  

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  “Fire and Fury”, From Truman to Trump: U.S Foreign Policy Insanity

  There is a long history of US political insanity geared towards providing a human face to U.S. crimes against humanity.

  On August 9, 1945, on the day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, president Truman (image right), in a radio address to the American people, concluded that God is on the side of America with regard to the use of nuclear weapons and that

  “He May guide us to use it [atomic bomb] in His ways and His purposes”. 

  According to Truman: God is with us, he will decide if and when to use the bomb:

  [We must] prepare plans for the future control of this bomb. I shall ask the Congress to cooperate to the end that its production and use be controlled, and that its power be made an overwhelming influence towards world peace.

  We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind.

  It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.

  We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes” (emphasis added)

  

• Ex-Fox & Friends Co-Host Flees US Amid Ponzi Scheme Allegations

  Ex-Fox & Friends co-host Clayton Morris has fled the country with his family amid more than two-dozen lawsuits alleging he committed real estate fraud, reported IndyStar.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  According to Natali Morris, Clayton’s wife and a former news anchor with MSNBC, the family moved last month from their $1.4 million mansion in New Jersey to a coastal resort town in Portugal.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Clayton left Fox News in 2017 to begin a new career in real estate, could have been inspired by the “greatest economy ever.” His wife tagged along; she became his partner, and both of them linked up with Bert Whalen and his company Oceanpointe Investments.

  In an email to IndyStar, Natali said the couple would fight the lawsuits from abroad. Both have denied responsibility for investor losses, have shifted the blame on Whalen.

  “We have and continued to take responsibility for all of our legal challenges that came from our relationship with Oceanpointe. We have answered all of our attorney general requests in all states. We have answered all lawsuits,” Natali said.

  “We have not run from anything,” she added. “We continue to show up for this until the last lawsuit is dismissed and it is clear that we neither had the money from Oceanpointe investors nor did we defraud anyone.”

  Investors and their attorneys have sounded the alarm about how Clayton and  Natali have left the country. They fear it would become complicated to serve Clayton and his wife with legal notices.

  “In my clients’ opinion, innocent people don’t flee the country,” said Jynell Berkshire, an Indianapolis real estate attorney who is representing some investors.

  At the moment, there are no criminal charges against the Morris’ or Whalen.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  IndyStar asked local, state and federal law enforcement agencies in Indiana and New Jersey about the Ponzi scheme; all agencies declined to comment at the time.

  In a blog post on Natali’s website last Thursday, she outlined how legal problems with her and her husband forced the family to leave the country.

  “I am not one of those who rejects America,” she wrote. “We had a good life there. But my husband and I have had a hard few years in our business and this collective soul challenge forced us to question everything.”

  She said Clayton was mentally disturbed by all the negative press surrounding the lawsuits.

  “Watching him endure this has felt like what I would imagine it is like to watch him endure chemotherapy,” she said. “I wish I could take it from him. I wish I could fix it. I wish it were me instead. I carry a pain with me knowing that he is in pain and it is with me always. His health began to suffer. He began to withdraw emotionally and it was hard on our family. We both knew that we had to make a change if we wanted to survive.”

  IndyStar was the first to report Clayton’s Ponzi scheme with Whalen’s help back in March. They sold about 700 homes in distressed neighbors across Indianapolis.

  Investors are claiming Clayton sold them homes with a guarantee to rehab them, find tenants, and maintain the properties. According to Clayton’s YouTube videos, all investors had to do was relax and collect rent checks.

  The lawsuits claim Clayton and Whalen covered their tracks by giving investors fake lease forms and sending rent checks even though the properties were vacant. It only took a few notices of code violations and condemnation notices from the city of Indianapolis to convince investors that something was terribly wrong with their investment.

  IndyStar published a report last month found tenants in the flipped homes were living in dangerous and disgusting conditions.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
  Natali’s website talks about “financial freedom,” and how real estate can make you rich.

  “On this site I share with you new ways to think about and use your money in order to build legacy wealth for you and your family,” she said.

  As to why Clayton, Natali, and Whalen thought they could become stupid rich in flipping homes and renting them out for investors during a hiking cycle by the Federal Reserve and the eventual turning point in the economy that started in the summer of 2018 — is beyond us. All schemes tend to come undone at the end part of a business cycle. 

  

• Humanity Is Creating Its Own AI Overlord

  Authored by Dagny Taggart via The Organic Prepper blog,

  Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should…

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  That is an expression I often quote in reference to various things people are doing and creating. When I hear about new AI capabilities and developments, it comes to mind.

  Artificial Intelligence is developing at breakneck speed. While many technological advances benefit humanity, there are plenty of others that may have devastating outcomes.

  Will AI eventually take over the world?

  How long until artificial intelligence makes humans redundant? That’s a chilling prospect to ponder. Robots are already taking jobs.

  Even more horrifying, though, is the very real possibility that artificial intelligence will fully infiltrate every aspect of our lives and eventually take control of the world.

  The thought of losing what freedom we have left to robot overlords is terrifying, especially considering that AI has no sense of humor and is willing to kill over a joke and that robots already can hate without human input.

  Not only can AI do many things faster and better than humans can, but it also can monitor us, read our minds and predict our choices.

  Will humans serve robot overlords someday?

  A new video from Truthstream Media poses a serious question we all should be considering:

  Do People Realize They Are Creating Their Own Overlords?

  “…sophisticated algorithms are being created to ensure the AI will know more about a person than they probably know about themselves, let alone what any spouse or significant other ever could.

  Society is being programmed to not just trust but irrevocably merge their lives with these machines.

  This will change us.” (source)

  This is part two of a set of reports on where exactly these artificially intelligent digital assistants are taking society in the very near future.

  To watch Part one, click here: The Infallible AI “Oracle” and the Future of “One Shot” Answers

  

• Despite Best First Half In A Decade For Hedge Funds, Fees Continue To Fall

  Even though hedge fund performance has rebounded this year, with big-name managers like David Einhorn and Bill Ackman and macro icons such as Brevan Howard finally putting several years of misery behind them, fees are still dwindling, according to Bloomberg.

  The average management fee charged by new hedge funds globally in the first half of 2019 fell to 1.2% from 1.6% in 2007, before the financial crisis hit the industry. It’s now nearly half the mythical 2% that most hedge funds used to charge. Performance fees fell to roughly 14.5%, meaning that funds are still well below the “2 and 20” threshold often thought of as the “standard” hedge fund model.

  <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  Years of underperforming the market as a result of the Fed’s rigged stock environment where fundamentals no longer matter has led many investors to seek out less expensive alternatives, especially since central banks no longer allow even a modest drop in the market.  But hedge funds reported their best first half in a decade this year as managers capitalized on the surge in stocks after their plunge late last year.

  Even still, the 5.7% gain across the hedge fund industry paled in comparison to the S&P 500, which returned almost 19% over the same course of time. This came after hedge funds delivered their worst performance since 2011 last year.

  Even though more than half of hedge fund assets worldwide are managed by firms with a performance fee of at least 20%, managers who charge less have taken more of the market, as their market share has grown to 41.3% of industry assets in June from just 16.3% at the end of 2008.

  The asymmetric nature performance fees has been the main contributor in the decision to charge less. Mohammad Hassan, head analyst of hedge fund research and indexation at Eurekahedge said: “The point that’s being made is that when the fund is performing well, they will pay.”

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest