Jul 06

Today’s News 6th July 2019

  • Another, Even Bigger, Quake Just Hit Southern California, Gas Leaks/Fires Reported

    Update (1145ET): Less than 12 hours after seisomologist Lucy Jones warned of another large quake, a massive 7.1 quake just hit 17km NNE of Ridgecrest.

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

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This continues the swarm of aftershocks that has hit all day… (Seismologists at Cal Tech said Friday afternoon that there had been around 1,400 aftershocks since Thursday’s 6.4-magnitude quake, with 17 of those with a magnitude of 4 or above.)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The quake hit at 2319ET less than 24 hours after the largest quake (6.4) in over 20 years struck the same region.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It was big enough to felt on the east coast…

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

    The news and accompanying video started to surface on Twitter at around 11:30pm EST on Friday night. The Dodgers even played their baseball game through the quake: 

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

    One person on social media reported feeling dizzy and his dog threw up. Chandeliers and hanging plants swayed. Pools sloshed. Electrical wires rocked.

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

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

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

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

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

    Even Northern California residents noted their pools making waves and Vegas residents felt the shake.

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

    NBC LA reports gas leaks and fires have been reported.

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

    Friday night, the power went out in Ridgecrest, a city of 27,600, around 100 miles north of Los Angeles, according to NBC reporters in the area.

    The San Bernardino County Fire District tweeted that calls were coming in from northwestern communities and that people were reporting “homes shifted, foundation cracks, retaining walls down.”

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

    The fire district reported one minor injury and said firefighters were treating the patient. “No unmet needs currently,” the fire department said.

    A major rockslide occurred…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

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

    *  *  *

    As we detailed earlier, the strongest earthquake to hit southern California in nearly 2 decades has also resulted in an unusual number of aftershocks, seismologists are saying. The quake has already prompted one city to declare a state of emergency Thursday and affected residents from Las Vegas to Orange County, according to the Mercury News.

    The quake registered a 6.4 on the Richter scale and was centered about 150 miles north of Los Angeles. An astounding 159 aftershocks of magnitude 2.5 or greater have been recorded already. This is a higher than normal, with the largest aftershocks registering at 4.6.

    Seismologist Lucy Jones called it a “robust” series of aftershocks and says there’s a 50% chance of another large quake in the next week. She also said there is a 1 in 20 chance that a bigger earthquake will hit within the next few days.

    She commented that earthquakes actually increase the risk of future quakes.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Jones said:

    “It’s certain that this area is going to be shaking a lot today, and some of those aftershocks will probably exceed magnitude 5.”

    “Plate tectonics hasn’t suddenly stopped; it is still pushing Los Angeles toward San Francisco at the same rate your fingernails grow — about 1.5 inches each year… Their motion cannot be stopped any more than we could turn off the sun,” Jones wrote in her recent book.

    Earthquake scientists Ross Stein and Volkan Sevilgen, writing on their blog at Temblor.net said that this quake may have just made things worse for the area. 

    The two wrote that they believe that parts of three other faults — in remote areas of California — were actually “brought closer to failure by the 4th July quake.”

    The area hit by Thursday’s quake likely became loaded with more seismic strain after two previous temblors — the 1872 Owens Valley and the 1992 Landers earthquakes.

    The earthquake, now named the Searles Valley Quake, was preceded by 4.2 magnitude foreshock.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This has caused the city of Ridgecrest to declare a state of emergency, with the mayor citing five fires and broken gas lines as part of the city’s problems. There were also power outages that affected 28,000 residents. Meanwhile, the forecasted high temperature for the area is 100° today.

    Near the epicenter of the quake, the fire department responded to more than 20 incidents, including fires and medical emergencies. Ridgecrest Regional Hospital was evacuated and about 15 patients from the emergency room were taken to another hospital. The facility is currently being inspected.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    One nearby resident said of the earthquake: “We were panicked trying to get out of the house because everything is falling out of the cabinets, off the shelves, off the walls. … They were flying like missiles off the shelves.”

    Another, directing a Fourth of July kids program, said that the quake startled the 65 children on stage. “It was terrifying,” she said.

    Many residents near the area upset because the city’s smartphone app – set up to warn of quakes – didn’t send a warning in advance.

    The earthquake was also felt in Las Vegas. It was the largest quake to hit southern California since 1999, when a 7.1 earthquake hit in the Mojave Desert. In 1994, a 6.7 magnitude quake hit Los Angeles, causing $25 billion in damage.

  • Escobar: The Un-Submersible US-Iran Stalemate

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    Lost in the submarine uproar, the deadline set by Tehran for the EU-3 to support Iranian crude sales expires Sunday…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    A thick veil of mystery surrounds the fire that broke out in a state of the art Russian submersible in the Barents Sea, leading to the death of 14 crew members poisoned by toxic fumes.

    According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the submersible was conducting bathymetric measurements, as in examining and mapping deep sea conditions. The crew on board was composed of “unique naval specialists, high-class professionals, who conducted important research of the Earth’s hydrosphere.” Now the – so far unnamed – nuclear-powered vessel is at the Arctic port of Severomorsk, the main base of Russia’s Northern Fleet.

    A serious, comprehensive military investigation is in progress. According to the Kremlin, “the Supreme Commander-in-Chief has all the information, but this data cannot be made public, because this refers to the category of absolutely classified data.”

    The submersible is a Losharik. Its Russian code is AS-12 (for “Atomnaya Stantsiya” or “Nuclear Station“). NATO calls it Norsub-5. It’s been in service since 2003. Giant Delta III nuclear submarines, also able to launch ICBMs, have been modified to transport the submersible across the seas.

    NATO’s spin is that the AS-12/Norsub-5 is a “spy” sub, and a major “threat” to undersea telecommunication cables, mostly installed by the West. The submersible’s operating depth is 1,000 meters and it may have operated as deep as 2,500 meters in the Arctic Ocean. It may be comparable to, or be something of an advanced version of, the US deep submergence vessel NR-1 (operating depth 910m) famous for being used to search for and recover critical parts of the space shuttle Challenger, lost in 1986.

    It’s quite enlightening to place the Losharik within the scope of the latest Pentagon report about Russian strategic intentions. Amid the proverbial demonization terminology – “Russia’s gray zone tactics,” “Russian aggression.” Russian “deep-seated sense of geopolitical insecurity” – the report claims that “Russia is adopting coercive strategies that involve the orchestrated employment of military and nonmilitary means to deter and compel the US, its allies and partners prior to and after the outbreak of hostilities. These strategies must be proactively confronted, or the threat of significant armed conflict may increase.”

    It’s no wonder that, considering the incandescence of US-Russia relations on the geopolitical chessboard, what happened to the Losharik fueled frenetic speculation  including totally unsubstantiated rumors it had been torpedoed by a US submarine in a firefight – on top of it, in Russian territorial waters.

    Connections were made between US Vice-President Mike Pence’s suddenly being ordered to return to the White House while the Europeans were also huddled in Brussels, as President Putin had an emergency meeting with Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu.

    In the end, it was nothing but mere speculation.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Submersible incident

    The submersible incident – complete with the speculative plot line of a US-Russia firefight in the Arctic – did drown, at least for a while, the prime, current geopolitical incandescence: the US economic war on Iran.

    Expanding on serious discussions at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Bishkek – which included Iran’s President Rouhani – and the Putin-Xi meetings in Moscow and St. Petersburg and at the G20 in Osaka, both Russia and China are fully invested in keeping Iran stable and protected from the Trump administration’s strategy of chaos.

    Both Moscow and Beijing are fully aware Washington’s divide-and-rule tactics are geared towards stopping the momentum of Eurasia integration – which includes everything from bilateral trade in local currencies and bypassing the US dollar to further interconnection of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative, the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) and the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC).

    Beijing plays a shadow game, keeping very quiet on the de facto US economic blockade against one of its key Belt and Road allies. Yet the fact is China continues to buy Iranian crude, and bilateral trade is being settled in yuan and rial.

    The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), the mechanism set up by the EU-3 (France, UK and Germany) to bypass the US dollar for trade between Iran and the EU after the US unilaterally abandoned the nuclear deal, or JCPOA, may finally be in place. But there’s no evidence INSTEX will be adopted by myriad European companies, as it essentially covers Iranian purchases of food and medicine.

    Plan B would be for the Russian Central Bank to extend access to Iran as one the nations possibly adopting SPFS (System for Transfer of Financial Messages), the Russian mechanism for trade sanctioned by the US that bypasses SWIFT. Moscow has been working on the SPFS since 2104, when the threat to expel Russia from SWIFT became a distinct possibility.

    As for Iran being accused – by the US – of “breaching” the JCPOA, that’s absolute nonsense. To start with, Tehran cannot possibly “breach” a multinational deal that was declared null and void by one of the signatories, the US.

    In fact the alleged “breach” is due to the fact the EU-3 were not buying Iran’s low-enriched uranium, as promised, because of the US embargo. Washington has de facto forced the EU-3 not to buy it. Tehran duly notified all JCPOA parties that, as they are not buying it, Iran will have to store more low enriched uranium than the JCPOA allows for. If the EU-3 resumes buying it that automatically means Iran is not “breaching” anything.

    Cliffhanger

    Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif is correct; INSTEX, already too little too late, is not even enough, as the mechanism does not allow Tehran to continue to export oil, which is the nation’s right. As for the “breach,” Zarif says it’s easily “reversible” – as long as the EU-3 abide by their commitments.

    Russian energy minister Alexander Novak concurs: “As regards restrictions on Iranian exports, we support Iran and we believe that the sanctions are unlawful; they have not been approved by the UN.”

    Still, Iran continues to export crude, by all means available, especially to Asia, with the National Iranian Oil Co (NIOC) predictably shutting off satellite tracking on its fleet. But, ominously, the deadline set by Tehran for the EU-3 to actively support the sale of Iranian crude expires this coming Sunday. That’s a major cliffhanger. After that, the stalemate won’t be submersible anymore.

  • How Advanced Robotics Will Impact Job Markets

    Robots are set to have a major impact on workforces around the world over the coming years with jobs involving routine manual activity most at risk from automation.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, in order to gauge how the adoption of advanced robotics will affect the labor market, the Boston Consulting Group carried out a survey of executives and managers from 1,314 global companies in early 2019.

    Infographic: How Advanced Robotics Will Impact Job Markets | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The research found that 67 percent of Chinese companies are expecting a reduction in the number of employees due to automation, along with 60 percent in Poland and 57 percent in Japan. Some companies are more at risk than others with only 34 percent of organizations in Italy expecting reductions by comparison.

  • Power Versus The Press: The Extradition Cases Of Pinochet & Assange

    Authored by Disobedient Media’s Elizabeth Vos, via ConsortiumNews.com,

    With Julian Assange facing possible extradition from Britain to the U.S. for publishing classified secrets, it is worth reflecting on the parallel but divergent case of a notorious Chilean dictator…

    Eight months from now one of the most consequential extradition hearings in recent history will take place in Great Britain when a British court and the home secretary will determine whether WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange will be extradited to the United States to face espionage charges for the crime of journalism.

    Twenty-one years ago, in another historic extradition case, Britain had to decide whether to send former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to Spain for the crime of mass murder.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Pinochet in 1982 motorcade. (Ben2, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

    In October 1998, Pinochet, whose regime became a byword for political killings, “disappearances” and torture, was arrested in London while there for medical treatment.

    A judge in Madrid,  Baltasar Garzón, sought his extradition in connection with the deaths of Spanish citizens in Chile.

    Citing the aging Pinochet’s inability to stand trial, the United Kingdom in 2000 ultimatelyprevented him from being extradited to Spain where he would have faced prosecution for human rights abuses.

    At an early point in the proceedings, Pinochet’s lawyer, Clare Montgomery, made an argument in his defense that had nothing to do with age or poor health.   

    “States and the organs of state, including heads of state and former heads of state, are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal proceedings in the national courts of other countries,” the  Guardianquoted Montgomery as saying. She argued that crimes against humanity should be narrowly defined within the context of international warfare, as the BBC reported.

    Montgomery’s immunity argument was overturned by the House of Lords. But the extradition court ruled that the poor health of Pinochet, a friend of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, would prevent him from being sent to Spain.

    Same Participants

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Assange in 2014, while in the Ecuadorian Embassy. (Cancillería del Ecuador, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

    Though the cases of Pinochet and Assange are separated by more than two decades, two of the participants are the same, this time playing very different roles.

    Montgomery reappeared in the Assange case to argue on behalf of a Swedish prosecutor’s right to seek a European arrest warrant for Assange.

    Her argument ultimately failed. ASwedish court recently denied the European arrest warrant. But as in the Pinochet case, Montgomery helped buy time, this time allowing Swedish sexual allegations to persist and muddy Assange’s reputation.

    Garzón, the Spanish judge, who had requested Pinochet’s extradition, also reappears in Assange’s case.  He is a well-known defender of human rights, “viewed by many as Spain’s most courageous legal watchdog and the scourge of bent politicians and drug warlords the world over,” as the The Independent described him a few years ago.

    He now leads Assange’s legal team.

    Friends and Enemies

    The question that stands out is whether the British legal system will let a notorious dictator like Pinochet go but send a publisher such as Assange to the United States to face life in prison.

    The tide of political sentiment has been running against Assange.

    Before the U.K. home secretary signed the U.S. extradition request for Assange, leading to the magistrate’s court setting up a five-day hearing at the end of February 2020, British lawmakers publicly urged that the case against Assange proceed. Few elected officials have defended Assange (his image tainted by the unproven Swedish allegations and criticism about the 2016 U.S. election that have nothing to do with the extradition request).

    Pinochet, by contrast, had friends in high places. Thatcher openly called for his release.

    “[Pinochet] reportedly made a habit of sending chocolates and flowers to [Thatcher] during his twice-yearly visits to London and took tea with her whenever possible. Just two weeks before his arrest, General Pinochet was entertained by the Thatchers at their Chester Square address in London,” the BBCreported.  CNN reported on the “famously close relationship.”

    Similar affection was also documented between Pinochet and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The Nation reported on a declassified memo of a private conversation in Santiago, Chile, in June 1976, that revealed “Kissinger’s expressions of ‘friendship,’ ‘sympathetic’ understanding and wishes for success to Pinochet at the height of his repression, when many of those crimes – torture, disappearances, international terrorism – were being committed.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Pinochet, left, greeting Kissinger in 1976. (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

    Systematic, Widespread Abuse

    Pinochet rose to power following a U.S.-backed, violent coup by the Chilean army on Sept. 11, 1973, which ousted the country’s democratically-elected president, the socialist Salvador Allende. The couphas been called “one of the most brutal in modern Latin American history.”

    The CIA funded operations in Chile with millions of U.S. tax dollars both before and after Allende’s election, the 1975 U.S. Senate Church Committee reported. 

    Although the Church Committee report found no evidence of the agency directly funding the coup, theNational Security Archive noted that the CIA “actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of President Allende. Many of Pinochet’s officers were involved in systematic and widespread human rights abuses. Some of these were contacts or agents of the CIA or US military.”

    The violence Pinochet inflicted spilled over the borders of Chile. His orders for murder have been linked to the killing of an exiled Chilean dissident, Orlando Letelier, in a car bomb blast on U.S. soil. The attack also killed Ronni Moffitt, a U.S. citizen.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Villa Grimaldi, one of the largest torture centers during the Pinochet military dictatorship. (CC BY 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons)

    More than 40,000 people, many only tangentially tied to dissidents, were “disappeared,” tortured or killed during Pinochet’s 17-year reign of terror.

    Pinochet’s Chile almost immediately after the coup became the laboratory for the Chicago School’s economic theory of neoliberalism, or a new laissez-faire, enforced at the point of a gun.  Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan championed a system of privatization, free trade, cuts to social services and deregulation of banking and business that has led to the greatest inequality in a century.

    By contrast to these crimes and corruption, Assange has published thousands of classified documents showing U.S. and other nations’ officials engaged in the very acts of crime and corruption. 

    Yet it is far from certain that Assange will receive the leniency from the British extradition process that Pinochet enjoyed.

    After the dictator’s death, Christopher Hitchens wrote that the U.S. Department of Justice had an indictment for Pinochet completed for some time. “But the indictment has never been unsealed,” Hitchens reported in Slate.

    Assange’s indictment, by contrast, was not only unsealed, more charges were heaped on.

    Given the longstanding difficulties he has had accessing justice, it’s fair to say that the U.K. and the rest of the Western world are committing a slow-motion “enforced disappearance” of Assange.

  • Carmageddon Continues: New Vehicle Sales Plunge To "Horribly Mature" 1999 Levels

    The auto industry continues to look like a bursting bubble in progress and all around sad state of affairs, despite low rates and the “prosperity” of the stock market hitting new all time highs. Meanwhile, under the surface of those numbers, the actual economy – especially in autos – is telling a different story.

    New vehicle deliveries, combining fleet sales and retail sales, were down 1.5% in Q2 to 4.5 million vehicles, according to Wolf Street.

    For the first half of the year, vehicle deliveries fell 2.4% to 8.4 million vehicles. This puts the pace for new vehicle sales on track to fall below 17 million for the year, which would be the worst level since 2014. Further, it has lowered estimates for the full year to 16.95 million units delivered, on par with a “horribly mature market” in 1999. In addition to a struggling consumer, these lowered estimates are also result of rising interest rates and competition from off-lease vehicles. 

    This has resulted, simply, in fewer customers splurging on new cars.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As we noted on Friday morning, it’s likely Ford and General Motors are breaking a sweat after the latest slate of economic data hit the wires. Though its overall truck sales held up, those of Ford’s signature F-Series pickup truck fell over last year in June. GM was not as fortunate with sales of its Silverado and Sierra trucks down, especially on the heavy-duty side of the line-up. With the caveat that fleet sales can indeed be trucks and comprised 24% of Fiat Chrysler’s June sales, Ram pickups were nonetheless the standout as a fresh redesign and fat incentives drove sales up over 2018.

    Ford’s sales fell 4.1% in Q2. Car sales at Ford plunged another 21.4% to just 110,195 units, as customers continue to favor new pick up trucks, SUVs and vans instead. Truck sales rose 7.5% but F-series pickups fell 1.3%, cannibalized by Ford’s midsized pick up, the Ranger. However, even the company’s SUV sales look ugly – they fell 8.6% to 215,898 units.

    According to newly released data on Friday, Ford also posted an abysmal quarter in China, selling a total of 154,042 vehicles in the second quarter, a 21.7% decrease compared to the same period last year. 

    General Motors saw sales fall 1.5% in Q2 after plunging 7% in Q1. Fiat Chrysler sales fell 0.5% in Q2 and the company announced that it will abandon reporting deliveries on a monthly basis, following in the footsteps of Ford and GM. Here’s a better look at Q2 numbers for most auto makers:

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    No matter how you look at it, 2019 has been ugly:

    • Year to date, Toyota Motor sales are down 3.1% to 1,152,108 vehicles.

    • Year to date, Honda Motor sales have fallen 1.4% to 776,995 vehicles.

    • Year to date, Nissan sales are down 8.2% to 717,036 vehicles.

    • Year to date, Fiat Chrysler sales are down 2% to 1,096,110 vehicles.

    • Year to date, total GM auto sales in the U.S. are down 4.2% to 1,412,499.

    • Over the first half of 2019, total Ford sales are down 2.9% to 1,240,585.

    To try and continue capitalizing on truck demand, automakers are flooding the market “with efficient and restructured versions of pickup trucks”. And the industry – not unlike most market participants across all sectors in general – is hoping for help from the Fed. A rate cut this summer could help drive more business to dealerships heading into the middle of the third quarter. 

    Recall, we reported just days ago that more than 25% of June’s 41,977 announced job cuts came in the automotive industry, according to Managing Economist for Refinitiv Jeoff Hall. Hall commented on Twitter that the industry’s 10,904 redundancies were the most in seven months and the second most in seven years.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Hall also noted that excluding autos, there were only 31,073 job cuts in June, the fewest in 11 months, in low-normal range.

    About a month ago we focused on layoffs in the auto industry, noting that China, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the United States have all seen at least 38,000 job cuts over the last six months.

    Recall, at the beginning of June we noted that Bank of America had said that “the auto cycle had peaked”. 

    While Bank of America attributed much of the downturn in the manufacturing sector to the ongoing trade war, it singled out the automotive industry as a specific area for concern. Calling the problem a “classic story of demand/supply mismatch”, the bank pointed out that producers continue to ramp up output at a time when demand has softened. It’s easy to see in the two following charts – one showing auto sales topping out and the other showing output and production not falling.

     

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

  • Why Gold Is Money: A Periodic Perspective

    Authord by Nicholas LePan via Visual Capitalist,

    The economist John Maynard Keynes famously called gold a “barbarous relic”, suggesting that its usefulness as money is an artifact of the past. In an era filled with cashless transactions and hundreds of cryptocurrencies, this statement seems truer today than in Keynes’ time.

    However, gold also possesses elemental properties that has made it an ideal metal for money throughout history.

    Sanat Kumar, a chemical engineer from Columbia University, broke down the periodic table to show why gold has been used as a monetary metal for thousands of years.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Periodic Table

    The periodic table organizes 118 elements in rows by increasing atomic number (periods) and columns (groups) with similar electron configurations.

    Just as in today’s animation, let’s apply the process of elimination to the periodic table to see why gold is money:

    • Gases and Liquids
      Noble gases (such as argon and helium), as well as elements such as hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine and chlorine are gaseous at room temperature and standard pressure. Meanwhile, mercury and bromine are liquids. As a form of money, these are implausible and impractical.

    • Lanthanides and Actinides
      Next, lanthanides and actinides are both generally elements that can decay and become radioactive. If you were to carry these around in your pocket they could irradiate or poison you.

    • Alkali and Alkaline-Earth Metals
      Alkali and alkaline earth metals are located on the left-hand side of the periodic table, and are highly reactive at standard pressure and room temperature. Some can even burst into flames.

    • Transition, Post Transition Metals, and Metalloids
      There are about 30 elements that are solid, nonflammable, and nontoxic. For an element to be used as money it needs to be rare, but not too rare. Nickel and copper, for example, are found throughout the Earth’s crust in relative abundance.

    • Super Rare and Synthetic Elements
      Osmium only exists in the Earth’s crust from meteorites. Meanwhile, synthetic elements such as rutherfordium and nihonium must be created in a laboratory.

    Once the above elements are eliminated, there are only five precious metals left: platinum, palladium, rhodium, silver and gold. People have used silver as money, but it tarnishes over time. Rhodium and palladium are more recent discoveries, with limited historical uses.

    Platinum and gold are the remaining elements. Platinum’s extremely high melting point would require a furnace of the Gods to melt back in ancient times, making it impractical. This leaves us with gold. It melts at a lower temperature and is malleable, making it easy to work with.

    Gold as Money

    Gold does not dissipate into the atmosphere, it does not burst into flames, and it does not poison or irradiate the holder. It is rare enough to make it difficult to overproduce and malleable to mint into coins, bars, and bricks. Civilizations have consistently used gold as a material of value.

    Perhaps modern societies would be well-served by looking at the properties of gold, to see why it has served as money for millennia, especially when someone’s wealth could disappear in a click.

  • Japan Is Once Again Inflating A Massive Real Estate Bubble

    Real estate firms in Japan are once again “entering dangerous territory,” according to Bloomberg. S&P Global Ratings said on Friday that the sector’s debt levels are now higher than the nation’s bubble era.

     

    It is bringing back memories of the 1980s, when the grounds of the Tokyo Imperial Palace were being proclaimed as more valuable than all of the real estate in California. This proclamation was then famously followed by a quarter of a century of stagnation in the country’s real estate sector. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    S&P said:

    “Japan’s real estate market is peaking out and ready to head down. Although the conditions in the office leasing market are solid, there are signs of a slowdown in corporate earnings, particularly among manufacturers. In addition, we expect major upticks in central Tokyo office building supply in 2020 and 2023.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Companies that are said to be most at risk include Mitsubishi Estate Co., Mitsui Fudosan Co., Sumitomo Realty & Development Co. and Nomura Real Estate Holdings Inc.

    Low interest rates in Japan haven’t prevented domestic lenders from seeing their profitability weaken, mostly due to lower net interest margins. These lenders have increased loans to developers because demand from other corporate customers is relatively weak.

    This, in turn, has prompted developers to take on large redevelopment projects and acquisitions. S&P thinks that financial leverage in the sector is only going to increase as firms use more debt to finance its growth.

    S&P concluded: 

    “If banks reduce their loans to real-estate companies as financial conditions deteriorate, they could pull down property prices and push up debt financing costs. This, in turn, could worsen the financial standing of real estate majors.”

    1. Corporate America's Virtue-Signaling Is Opportunist, Dangerous, And Undermines The Spirit Of Capitalism

      Authored by Robert Bridge via RT.com,

      Once upon a time, the raison d’être of US companies was to simply make a buck. Those days are long gone. Today, corporations are in the business of radicalizing the country by taking sides in cultural standoffs.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Just in time for the Fourth of July festivities, which this year celebrates the 243rd anniversary of America’s independence, Nike decided to ignite a political firestorm the size of a Chinese fireworks factory, thereby further dividing the nation.

      The Fortune 500 tennis shoe maker, with $30 billion in annual global sales, announced it would cancel the release of its ‘Air Max 1’ trainers after former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick told the company “he and others” found the Betsy Ross-era flag that adorned the sneaker “offensive.” Why? Because the symbol was stitched at a time when slavery was still part of the fledgling nation’s experience. And since a handful of right-wing ‘white supremacist’ groups have reportedly been seen waving this flag (as well as former President Barack Obama, incidentally), which celebrates the original 13 US colonies and their successful fight against the British crown, suddenly it is deemed toxic and unworthy of the mighty Nike.

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

      According to this warped logic, anything that came to fruition when slavery was still a thing – up to and including the Declaration of Independence, signed on July 4, 1776 – is eligible for eradication in history’s great dumpster fire.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      So who is Colin Kaepernick, and why should Nike kneel to his demands? It might be better to say what Kaepernick is not. He is not a historian, he is not a marketing executive, and he is not even a professional football player. Today, Kaepernick could best be described as an activist and an agitator. In 2017, after a year of refusing to stand during the US national anthem in protest against police brutality, he opted out of his NFL contract, eventually settling with the league in a confidential agreement rumored to be worth many millions of dollars.

      Incidentally, the ex-athlete starred in a 2018 Nike ad where he was featured before a huge American flag as the narrator said, “Believe in something even if it means sacrificing everything.” Does “sacrificing everything” include the very country of your birth, as well as the very flag it represents? Is that really the sort of controversial message a US corporation, built on the solid foundation of American freedom and ingenuity, should be endorsing?

      In any case, the bigger question here has little to do with Colin Kaepernick. The real question is: why do so many US corporations feel the need to take sides in the nation’s ongoing culture wars, triggered by political correctness and ‘social justice’ theory gone stark-raving mad? After all, this is not the first time America has passed through the fires of an existential challenge without the need for corporate sponsorship. In the 1960s and 70s, the country nearly tore itself apart during the anti-Vietnam War and Civil Rights battles, when violence on the streets between protesters and police was a daily occurrence. These social volcanoes brought to the surface a number of great orators and leaders, like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, individuals who did not cheapen their messages and work by appearing on TV with a Coca Cola, for example, or Nike footwear.

      Without subscribing to any absurd Illuminati conspiracy theories, it would seem that the largest US corporations have an agenda that goes far beyond the simple capitalistic ambition of turning a profit. Much like the Silicon Valley titans of tech, many Fortune 500 companies simply cannot resist expressing their political views, especially in these turbulent ‘Times of Trump’ when so many otherwise intelligent people have lost their minds. After all, what could be the purpose of a corporation endorsing a fiercely contestable message that alienates at least 50 percent of the American population, not to mention their consumer base? 

      The Gillette Company provides perhaps the best example of a corporation abandoning its primary mission – in this case, selling razor blades and shaving cream – to endear itself to the social warrior lunatic fringe.

      Despite a massive public outcry (1.4 million thumbs down and counting) following Gillette’s puke-inducing lecture ad on ‘toxic masculinity’ which showed American men abandoning their backyard barbecues en masse to (finally) teach their malevolent male offspring that bullying is bad, they waded back into the deep end of the public swimming pool, this time to make a pitch for transgender lifestyles. Without venturing into the politics of the idea, which essentially says that men and women can become the opposite sex regardless of their biological sex at birth, it is enough to wonder exactly what the company hopes to gain by appealing to an infinitesimal segment of the population that risks – once again – alienating millions of dedicated consumers who just want a close shave.  

      Even ice cream companies now feel the need to flash their political identities while diving headlong into the cultural bloodbath. Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, for example, last year unveiled their ‘Pecan Resist’ brand, handcrafted to appeal to those Americans who are “fighting President Trump’s regressive agenda.” Yum! And just like that, the subsidiary of the globe-straddling Unilever Corporation alienated millions of US Republicans who just want to enjoy a good bowl of ice cream, much like their Democratic counterparts. Again, the question must be asked: what kind of corporate strategy actively aims to lose half of its consumer base? Or have these corporations morphed into such vast money-making empires that they can afford to not give a good damn?

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

      In these dizzying days of political correctness a company can get embroiled in a cultural imbroglio without even trying. In 2012, for example, Jack Phillips, the proud owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood Colorado, refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple over his religious convictions. The couple sued and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Phillips was eventually found within his rights to refuse the request on the basis of the freedom of expression. That is a far cry, however, from a Fortune 500 company that actively dumps its ‘personal beliefs’ on the political landscape.

      For better or for worse, corporations today have come to dominate nearly every aspect of our waking hours, to the point that it is nearly impossible to imagine performing the simplest tasks without them. Now it seems these monstrosities have become confident enough in their economic and political power that they can lecture consumers on modern issues now dividing the nation. That approach seems to have very little in common with the spirit of capitalism, itself a complicated and controversial project, without the need for gratuitous virtue signaling that exasperates so many people.

      Considering everything that is at stake, it would seem far more expedient for corporations to stick to the capitalist credo of making a profit and distance themselves from the cultural battles now raging across the land. Nothing less than the very survival of American democracy, which provides the groundwork for free markets and capitalism, is at stake.

    2. Technological Dependence And The End Of Freedom

      Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

      Technology can be dazzling but also debilitating to real human progress, and when I say “progress” I do not mean advancements in the world of machines but advancements in the world of people, and one does not necessarily lead to the other.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      First, I fully recognize that whenever anyone attempts to criticize technological innovation they take the risk of being labeled a “crackpot” or an “outdated fossil”, a barbaric relic of a foregone era. However, this attitude is an ignorant one. It assumes that the path we are on as a species is one of perpetual improvement as long as we continue to follow the great technology god; but what if this assumption is completely wrong? What if we are actually devolving rather than evolving?

      I’m not here to grunt and shake my spear at the wheel and the combustion engine and the programmable computer – I like all these things. But, what I don’t like is the dark future I see when humanity turns machinery into a great metal, polymer and digital “nurse maid” and we lose our ability to take care of ourselves. Dependency is the cornerstone of slavery, and our civilization is becoming increasingly dependent.

      In my time on this earth I have had the privilege and suffered the pain of watching the digital age come to fruition. I’ve witnessed the creation of the home computer, the birth of the internet, the proliferation of cellular technology, and now the spread of “artificial intelligence” and 5G. I have also seen the decay of an entire generation of millennials into uselessness and despondency, lacking any practical skills of production or survival and completely reliant on digital technology for everything, including building up illusions of friendship and intimacy. I have witnessed the pussification of America.

      The counterarguments against this will vary. Some will say that our society has simply become more convenient and more comfortable, and this is a good thing. Others will claim that skeptics like myself are afraid of the social changes that come with the globalization that the digital age brings. Still, others will maintain that centralization and dependency are “natural” extensions of man’s evolution; that it is inevitable and so we should embrace it.

      These are also the classic arguments of the Futurists, a subculture of ideological zealots who believe that all old ideas and ways of living must be treated as obsolete and thrown out to make way for all new ideas and ways of living. The notion is that all new ideas are an automatic improvement; that each new generation is superior to the one before it as they supposedly have access to more knowledge, and thus they are more wise. But knowledge is not the same thing as wisdom and it is often misused to achieve rather brutal and vulgar goals.

      What the futurists will never admit is that there are very few new ideas in the world, only old ideas rehashed and recycled and repainted to look different. In the grand scheme of history, freedom as an idea is very old, but it’s social application on a grand scale is something entirely new. Centralization, whether by force, manipulation or technological entrapment, is hardly a revolutionary concept. It is the oldest of philosophies.

      The trend today indicates a path to swift centralization, and according to the evidence this is not a natural progression but the consequence of a deliberate agenda by elitist groups that wish to remain in power for centuries to come. The advent of many technologies today is not necessarily the problem, it is how these technologies are being applied in our society that is infantilizing the masses.

      Let’s discuss some specific examples…

      Communication Overload

      Cell technology and the internet have changed the world. With a web connected computer in your pocket, you will always be able to communicate with others, you will rarely get lost, and you can even record video of everywhere you go and everything you do – instant memories. Who knows how much time this technology has added to a person’s day, or how many lives it has saved. But let’s consider the darker side…

      First, attention spans of Western nations have shortened to less than that of goldfish since 2002; right around the time that cell phone and internet use began to explode. According to overall research the average person now spends up to 4 hours a day just looking at their cell phone, and combined with daily social media use at home and at work I expect that this number increases dramatically. In fact, American adults spend approximately 11 hours per day interacting with various media. That’s most of their waking life being distracted by minutia.

      The parts of the world that have instant access to this technology are being zombified and they don’t seem to realize it. Over-saturation of information and instant gratification trigger an oxytocin and dopamine response in the human brain similar to the response we get when we socialize normally, but there is evidence to suggest that the strength of human interaction has a lot to do with the level of pleasure we receive through a dopamine response.  Social media interactions are a poor proxy for real relationships. So, social media creates a near constant flow of dopamine, but also weaker and less significant. This has led to a new form of addiction, perhaps more invasive than any chemical drug in existence.

      Interaction with other human beings without social media or instant gratification has become unthinkable, but the real world does not function according to personal whims, and so, people have begun to discard time when functioning away from the web; they become grossly impatient, like small children.   When forced to do the “remedial tasks” that are required for survival they grow frustrated and complacent.  They avoid the pauses or quiet moments in life, refusing to ponder experiences and explore the deeper meaning behind the events they read about briefly each day in their news feeds. All the information is at their fingertips, but they have no clue how to absorb it and apply it critically.

      Inviting The Watchers Into Your Home

      People do a lot of stupid things in the name of convenience, including opening their homes to surveillance and tyranny under the guise of easy living. While a cell phone is essentially a listening device, video surveillance device and tracking device in your pocket that governments and corporations can exploit anytime they wish, the problems do not stop there. The future of technology is fully interconnected homes in which everything is digital and everything is linked to the “internet of things”.

      We have seen some of this exposed recently with controversies over Amazon’s Alexa tech, which is essentially a large and sensitive listening device which people pay for with their own money and voluntarily place in the middle of their homes. Amazon has been caught on multiple occasions collecting vast amounts of data from their Alexa network, including recordings of customer conversations which employees and even the government then have access to.

      But this is a less subtle example. Consider having ALL your home appliances linked to the web and what this would mean? Government surveillance of daily electrical usage and appliance usage; which means they would know when you are home and what you are doing at all times. This might not seem like a big deal if you think you “have nothing to hide”, but in a world where carbon Nazis are attempting to dictate every aspect of our lives over fraudulent global warming claims, your electrical usage might become a legal issue one day. Not to mention, if every single device in your home is voice activated for convenience, then this means your every private word becomes subject to bureaucratic scrutiny.

      Take this a step further and consider a society in which digital connection is required in order to live.  Cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology are building the foundation for a cashless economic system in which privacy in trade becomes a long forgotten memory.  Every transaction can be tracked, and and monitored.  And while crypto is being sold to the public as “decentralization”, the reality is that it is even more centralized than fiat currency, as all trade must flow through a government and corporate dominated internet and be recorded on the blockchain in order for the cryptocurrency to proliferate.  Not only this, but many crypto innovations are being accomplished by people deeply connected to government surveillance agencies like the NSA, and the infrastructure is being built by globalist corporations like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.

      Privacy is the foundation of freedom. All tyranny relies first on the invasion of privacy and the removal of private spaces. The 4th Amendment exists for a very good reason. The argument that “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” is a very foolish one. Governments are commonly made up of fallible people who are often corrupt or psychopathic, but frankly NO ONE has the objectivity and wisdom necessary to oversee the private actions and conversations of millions of citizens and then judge them fairly. Politicians and bureaucrats are the least qualified and yet we give them the most power to oversee our lives, all in the name of technological convenience.

      Artificial Intelligence And Automation

      When it comes to technology the mass surveillance issue is the subject most discussed, but there is a problem that concerns me even more – automation. There are plenty of menial tasks in this world that probably should be handled through industry and robotics, but some things should be required learning for every person. For example, do we really want the complete automation of food production in our society? Well, that is the goal of corporations, and it could destroy our ability to provide our own necessities in the future simply by removing the knowledge from our social memory.

      The ability to grow food and harvest food, as well as collecting seeds for future harvests, is integral to human survival. The concept of hunting and gathering is so far removed from the average person’s daily life that it is almost a lost art form, but we have not lost all knowledge of food production yet. What I see though is a bleak future if the current path of technological centralization continues.

      Imagine a world in which nearly everyone is hyperconnected to media, to the point that they wear their devices like clothing at all times. Imagine a society where the average person is so enveloped by data that they no longer pay any attention to the tangible world around them and almost all human interactions are achieved through the middle man of the internet. Imagine people so infantilized by convenience that they no longer know how to do ANYTHING for themselves. They no longer know how to produce goods. They no longer know how to fix anything that is broken. They no longer know how to grow food or find water, nor do they even know where it comes from. They are completely dependent on automation.

      They live completely on the grid – they are born on the grid, and if you were to pluck them from their life of comfortable slavery and place them in the middle of the woods surrounded by food, water and potential shelter they would still die. Now realize that this is basically reality today for many people, and the virus of dependency is spreading.

      Technological advancement serves no purpose to humanity except as a crutch or a cage unless it serves the purpose of liberty and is tempered by the conservation of ancient knowledge and skills passed down through generations. The two ideologies must balance each other out. Those who say otherwise are trying to con you into trading your freedom for a fantasy.

      *  *  *

      If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Jul 05

    Today’s News 5th July 2019

    • EU Experiences Decline In Terrorist Attacks

      Terrorism continued to represent a major threat to EU Member States in 2018 according to Europol.

      13 people were killed in terrorist attacks across the EU in 2018, with, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, all of them jihadist in nature and committed by individuals acting alone. Even though they didn’t lead to any deaths, ethno-nationalist and separatist attacks in the EU continued to outnumber other types of terrorist attacks.

      There were 129 foiled, failed and completed terrorist attacks in the EU in 2018, a decline on the 205 recorded by Europol in 2017.

      Infographic: EU Experiences Decline In Terrorist Attacks | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      24 of last year’s attacks were jihadist in nature while 19 were left-wing and one was right-wing. The vast majority, 83, were ethno-nationalist and separatist. The trend was similar in 2017 when there were 137 ethno-nationalist and separatist attacks compared to 33 jihadist attacks and 24 left-wing attacks.

    • Germany: A Shocking Degree Of Self-Censorship

      Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,

      • There appears to be a significant gap between what Germans say in public and what they think…. Fifty-seven percent of Germans say that it is getting on their nerves that they are “increasingly being told what to say and how to behave”.

      • “It makes a big difference… whether citizens feel that they are increasingly being watched and evaluated… Many citizens miss being respected in the sense that they want their concerns and positions to be taken seriously, [and] that important developments are openly discussed…” — From a survey on self-censorship in Germany, conducted by Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach.

      • This retreat [from respect for free speech], so far, culminated in 2018 with Germany’s censorship law, which requires social media platforms to delete or block any alleged online “criminal offenses”, such as defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint. If the platforms fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros. People in Germany have been prosecuted for criticizing the government’s migration policies….

      • Dániel Tóth-Nagy, a candidate for the Liberal Democrats in the UK, was suspended from the party for comments he made, such as: “There is no such thing as Islamophobia,” and, in response to a tweet, “What about FGM? Honor Killings? Forced marriage? What do you think about the protest of women in Iran, Saudi-Arabia and other Islamic countries against the compulsory hijab? What about Sharia in Britain? LGBT rights and education denied by Muslims in Birmingham?”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A new survey on self-censorship in Germany has shown that Germans censor their own speech to an astounding degree. Asked whether it is “possible to express oneself freely in public” a mere 18% answered yes. By contrast, 59% of Germans said that in their circle of friends and acquaintances they express themselves freely.

      “Nearly two-thirds of citizens are convinced that ‘today one has to be very careful on which topics one expresses oneself’, because there are many unwritten laws about what opinions are acceptable and admissible” according to the survey, conducted by Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach for the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ).

      “The refugee issue is one of the most sensitive topics for the vast majority of respondents, followed by statements of opinion on Muslims and Islam,” it stated. By contrast, “The situation is different when it comes to topics such as climate protection, equal rights, unemployment or child rearing, about which one can express oneself frankly, according to the overwhelming majority”. As an example, 71% of Germans say, according to the survey, that one can only comment on the refugee issue “with caution”.

      Among the topics considered taboo, a significant development has occurred over roughly the past two decades. In 1996, only 16% of Germans felt that patriotism was a sensitive issue. Today that figure has risen to 41%.

      “Patriotism, cosmopolitanism and support for Europe”, (meaning support for the EU) did not use to be mutually exclusive, according to the survey. Today, however, “The population is no longer so sure that the elites, with their strong support for European integration and in a globalized global economy, are still holding the nation in high regard… citizens increasingly fear being considered right-wing when they emerge as patriots. Meanwhile, a third of the population says that politicians should be wary of proclaiming national pride if they do not want to expose themselves to harsh attacks”.

      There is a very large discrepancy between what Germans consider taboo in the public sphere, as opposed to in private conversations with friends and acquaintances. For example, 62% of Germans are convinced that a politician stating that Islam has too much influence in Germany will expose himself to harsh criticism, but only 22% believe that expressing such a sentiment in private conversations would cause offense. Similarly, the sentiment that ‘too much is being done for refugees in Germany’ is viewed as a risky statement to air in public, but only 31% would consider it a problem to say that in private. There appears, in other words, to be a significant gap between what Germans say in public and what they think.

      “Remarkably many [Germans] have the impression that social control has been reinforced when it comes to statements of opinion in the public sphere and that individual statements and behavior are increasingly under observation,” the survey notes. “Every second citizen is convinced that today much more attention is paid to how one behaves in public and what one says. 41 percent say that political correctness is exaggerated, and 35 percent even conclude that free expression is only possible in private circles”.

      That the German public believes political correctness to have become exaggerated is exemplified by the survey’s finding that two-thirds of Germans disagree that special, politically correct terms for migrants, such as “people with a migration background” should be used in public discourse rather than more everyday terms, such as “foreigner”. Fifty-seven percent of Germans say that it is getting on their nerves that they are “increasingly being told what to say and how to behave”. Germans from the formerly Communist GDR complain more about this than the average German, as they have “fresh historical memories of regulation and constriction” according to the survey, which ends on the following note:

      “It makes a big difference whether a society generally accepts and submits to meaningful norms, or whether citizens feel that they are increasingly being watched and evaluated… Many citizens miss being respected in the sense that they want their concerns and positions to be taken seriously, [and] that important developments are openly discussed…”

      The results that the survey conveys are hardly a huge surprise to observers of the retreat of respect for freedom of speech in Germany in recent years. This retreat, so far, culminated in 2018 with Germany’s censorship law, which requires social media platforms to delete or block any alleged online “criminal offenses”, such as defamation or incitement, within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint. If the platforms fail to do so, the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros.

      People in Germany have been prosecuted for criticizing the government’s migration policies: In 2016, a married couple, Peter and Melanie M., were prosecuted in a criminal trial for creating a Facebook group that criticized the government’s migration policy. According to news reports, the page stated that, “The war and economic refugees are flooding our country. They bring terror, fear, sorrow. They rape our women and put our children at risk. Make this end!”

      At the trial, Peter M. defended his remarks online and said, “One cannot even express a critical opinion of refugees without getting labelled as a Nazi. I wanted to create a discussion forum where you can speak your mind about refugees…” In his verdict, the judge said, “The description of the group is a series of generalizations with a clear right-wing background.” Peter M. was sentenced to a nine-month suspended prison sentence and his wife to a fine of €1,200. The judge added, “I hope you understand the seriousness of the situation. If you sit in front of me again, you will end up in jail.”

      In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air “xenophobic” views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children. There need not even be a criminal offense for a court to consider the child’s welfare to be endangered and to restrict the parents’ right to see his or her child or to order “an educator” present during a meeting between parent and child, who can “intervene as required.” It is also possible to forbid certain actions, expressions or meetings in the presence of the child. As a last resort, the court can take the child out of the parent’s care entirely.

      In August 2017, the Munich district court gave Michael Stürzenberger, a journalist, a six-month suspended jail sentence for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of “inciting hatred towards Islam” and “denigrating Islam” by publishing the photograph. The court found Stürzenberger guilty of “disseminating the propaganda of anti-constitutional organizations”. After he appealed the sentence, an appeals court in Munich, in December 2017, acquitted Stürzenberger of all charges. The appeals court ruled that his comments were protected by the freedom of expression. Nevertheless, the impression left on German society is that even historical facts have now become a taboo.

      So, while Germans’ fears of speaking their minds in public are not motivated by any legitimate fears of being put in Soviet or Chinese types of gulags, there are extremely real fears and extremely real concerns, such as those exemplified by the prosecutions above.

      While the survey was limited to Germany, it is probably reasonable to assume that if such a survey were to be conducted in like-minded Western European countries, such as the UK for instance, the results would not be much different. The space for free speech has been shrinking there, too, as exemplified here and here. In a recent case, a candidate for the Liberal Democrats, Dániel Tóth-Nagy, was suspendedfrom the party for comments he made, such as: “There is no such thing as Islamophobia” and responding to a tweet about Islamophobia with, “What about FGM? Honor Killings? Forced marriage? What do you think about the protest of women in Iran, Saudi-Arabia and other Islamic countries against the compulsory hijab? What about Sharia in Britain? LGBT rights and education denied by Muslims in Birmingham?”

      Those questions are all legitimate questions for a politician to ask, yet this is what the party’s local spokesman had to say:

      “These posts are completely outside of our party’s values and beliefs, and will not be tolerated. Had we been aware of this before, there’s no way he would have been selected as a candidate. We have immediately suspended him and we apologise to anyone that has been upset or offended by these comments”.

      More recently, posters advertising British singer Morrissey’s new album, California Son, were removed from trains and stations in Liverpool and the surrounding areas after a traveler contacted the rail company to ask if it agreed with Morrissey’s opinions, and questioned whether the posters were “appropriate”. The question came after Morrissey appeared on the Tonight Show in the US, while wearing a badge supporting For Britain, the right-wing party led by Anne Marie Waters.

      “It’s very Third Reich, isn’t it? And it proves how only the feelings of the most narrow-minded can be considered within the British Arts,” Morrissey said about the removal of the posters. “We are not free to debate, and this in itself is the ultimate rejection of diversity… I am afraid we are living through the Age of Stupid, and we must pray that it passes soon.”

      Given how advanced the rout of free speech in Europe has become, there is little chance of it passing any time soon. If the German survey is anything to go by, Europeans will not even need to be further censored by governments: they have become expertly conditioned to do the job themselves.

    • Goodbye Dollar, It Was Nice Knowing You!

      Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      Over the past two years, the White House has initiated trade disputes, insulted allies and enemies alike, and withdrawn from or refused to ratify multinational treaties and agreements. It has also expanded the reach of its unilaterally imposed rules, forcing other nations to abide by its demands or face economic sanctions. While the stated Trump Administration intention has been to enter into new arrangements more favorable to the United States, the end result has been quite different, creating a broad consensus within the international community that Washington is unstable, not a reliable partner and cannot be trusted.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      This sentiment has, in turn, resulted in conversations among foreign governments regarding how to circumvent the American banking system, which is the primary offensive weapon apart from dropping bombs that Washington has to force compliance with its dictates.

      Consequently, there has been considerable blowback from the Make America Great Again campaign, particularly as the flip side of the coin appears to be that the “greatness” will be obtained by making everyone else less great. The only country in the world that currently regards the United States favorably is Israel, which certainly has good reason to do so given the largesse that has come from the Trump Administration. Everyone else is keen to get out from under the American heel.

      Well the worm has finally turned, maybe. Even the feckless Angela Merkel’s Germany now understands that national interests must prevail when the United States is demanding that it do the unspeakable. At the recently concluded G20 meeting in Tokyo Britain, France and Germany announced that the special trade mechanism that they have been working on this year is now up and running. It is called the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (Instex) and it will permit companies in Europe to do business with countries like Iran, avoiding American sanctions by trading outside the SWIFT system, which is dollar denominated and de facto controlled by the US Treasury.

      The significance of the European move cannot be understated. It is the first major step in moving away from the dominance of the dollar as the world’s trading and reserve currency. As is often the case, the damage to US perceived interests is self-inflicted. There has been talk for years regarding setting up trade mechanisms that would not be dollar based, but they did not gain any momentum until the Trump Administration abruptly withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran over a year ago.

      There were other signatories to the JCPOA, all of whom were angered by the White House move, because they believed correctly that it was a good agreement, preventing Iranian development of a nuclear weapon while also easing tensions in the Middle East. Major European powers Germany, France and Great Britain, as well as Russia and China, were all signatories and the agreement was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council. The US withdrawal in an attempt to destroy the “plan of action” was therefore viewed extremely negatively by all the other signatories and their anger increased when Washington declared that it would reinstate sanctions on Iran and also use secondary sanctions to punish any third party that did not comply with the restrictions on trade.

      Instex is an upgrade of a previous “Special Purpose Vehicle” set up by the Europeans a year ago to permit trading with Iran without any actual money transfers, something like a barter system based on balancing payments by value. The announcement regarding Instex came as a result of last week’s meeting in Vienna in which the JCPOA signatories minus the US got together with Iranian ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi, who called the gathering “the last chance for the remaining parties…to gather and see how they can meet their commitments towards Iran.”

      Iran is quietly pleased by the development, even though there are critics of the arrangement and the government is officially declaring that Instex is not enough and it will proceed with plans to increase its uranium production. This produced an immediate response from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last week speaking in New Delhi “If there is conflict, if there is war, if there is a kinetic activity, it will be because the Iranians made that choice.” Nevertheless, Instex could possibly be a model for mechanisms that will allow Iran to sell its oil without hindrance from Washington. But a sharp reaction from the White House is expected. While Instex was in the development phase, US observers noted that the Iranian Special Trade and Finance Instrument, that will do the actual trading, includes government agencies that are already under US sanctions. That likely means that Washington will resort to secondary sanctions on the Europeans, a move that will definitely make the bilateral relationship even more poisonous than it already is. A global trade war is a distinct possibility and, as observed above, the abandonment of the dollar as the international reserve currency is a possible consequence.

      Trump has already been “threatening penalties against the financial body created by Germany, the U.K. and France to shield trade with the Islamic Republic from US sanctions.” The Treasury’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Israeli Sigal Mandelker, warned in a May 7th letter that “I urge you to carefully consider the potential sanctions exposure of Instex. Engaging in activities that run afoul of US sanctions can result in severe consequences, including a loss of access to the US financial system.”

      Indeed, the White House appears to be willing to engage in economic warfare with Europe over the issue of punishing Iran. The Treasury Department issued a statement regarding the Mandelker letter, saying “entities that transact in trade with the Iranian regime through any means may expose themselves to considerable sanctions risk, and Treasury intends to aggressively enforce our authorities.” Mike Pompeo also was explicit during a visit to London on May 8th when he stated that “…it doesn’t matter what vehicle’s out there, if the transaction is sanctionable, we will evaluate it, review it, and if appropriate, levy sanctions against those that were involved in that transaction. It’s very straightforward.”

      It is perhaps not unreasonable to wish the Europeans success, as they are supporting free trade while also registering their opposition to the White House’s bullying tactics using the world financial system. And if the dollar ceases to be the world’s trade and reserve currency, what of it? It would mean that the Treasury might have to cease printing surplus dollars and the US ability to establish global hegemony on a credit card might well be impeded. Those would be good results and one might also hope that some day soon the United States might once again become a normal country that Americans would be proud to call home.

    • Fourth Of July Food Spending Is Falling

      According to the National Retail Federation, 61 percent of Americans will be celebrating Independence Daythis year with a barbecue, cookout or picnic.

      As Statista’s infographic shows, all of that food comes with a hefty price tag, but one which has been getting smaller in recent years.

      Infographic: Fourth of July Food Spending Is Falling | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      $7.1 billion was expected to be spent for the festivities in 2017, but the figure is $6.8 billion this year – back to 2016 levels of planned spending.

      Best economy ever?

    • On The Importance Of Being Anti-War

      Authored by Tom Luongo,

      Justin Raimondo died the last week. It was a long-time coming.

      Co-Founder of Antiwar.com, Justin was one of the most important men in America you’ve probably never heard of.

      In the dark days after 9/11 he was the Antiwar movement in America. I remember how quickly everything turned against libertarians politically after that.

      And yet, there was Raimondo, plugging away exposing the truth, naming names and showing no fear.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Inspiration doesn’t cover it.

      For close to 20 years, three times a week, wielding the biggest rhetorical stick he could find, he let the Empire have it right where it deserved it most.

      Right between the eyes.

      I haven’t talked about him much here on the blog or even recently on my livestreams and it was an omission.

      I may have been avoiding this, to be honest. Why else would it take me a week to even address the subject?

      I was forced to the other day, thankfully, by Garland Nixon when I was on Fault Lines. I stumbled through it. The interview starts at 130 minutes in.

      So, I’ll try to do a slightly better job here.

      We’ve all known for a long time that Justin had lung cancer. Frankly, who wants to face knowing that someone whose voice was precious to you, to your development, and without whom you wouldn’t be where you are today would be leaving?

      The first time he replied to me on Twitter I was star-struck.

      Raimondo was required reading for well more than a decade. He introduced me to a version of the world I didn’t know existed. Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday I would soak up what I could of what he knew and integrate it into my evolving worldview.

      He wrote about the one subject that libertarians can always claim the moral high ground on: war is never the answer. War is the health of the state.

      As Scott Horton says in his short statement here, it’s cool that Antiwar.com was owned by libertarians, not leftists. Not that it should matter. But looking at the current state of politics in the U.S. it certainly does right now.

      Because we are the only people who are consistently, at all times, against war, philosophically. It’s something we have to teach people over and over and over again. And now Raimondo isn’t here to shoulder the load.

      Okay, Justin, challenge accepted.

      It is the obligation, nee the duty, of all libertarians to focus on that above all other issues. Sure lower taxes are nice and all but where do you think the push for those taxes comes from?

      War.

      When we withhold our taxes where do you think the funding for the Empire and all its wars comes from? The Fed and central banks around the world.

      Why do you think, really, Nixon closed the gold window?

      Being anti-war is not a consequence of the non-aggression principle, it is the non-aggression principle writ large.

      You can’t fix what’s wrong with America until you fix the foreign policy. And you can’t fix the foreign policy until we come clean about where it comes from.

      And Raimondo talked about this incessantly until he couldn’t anymore.

      This is why I was so uninterested in the election in 2016 at first. Why stress about who’s in the White House when the White House doesn’t set policy? As Vladimir Putin so eloquently put it, “Presidents change. Policies do not.”

      But then it looked like Donald Trump might be the real deal.

      Raimondo and I were both filled with a sense of hope we hadn’t, I presume, felt since Ron Paul broke out in the 2012 race. But, even then, deep down we knew they would never let him be the nominee.

      Better false hope than no hope? Or was it just the enthusiasm of knowing that the issue was popular and it, at times, gets a voice.

      That, eventually, the pendulum swings back the other way and who once were kooks are now the cool kids. Hey, a guy can dream a little, no?

      Trump alongside Bernie Sanders was something different than 2012. This was the Great Awakening of the American impulse to reject these neocon usurpers and pull the country (and the world, frankly) back from the brink of their planned demolition.

      It is too bad he didn’t live long enough to see Trump put a small down payment on that promise the other day in North Korea.

      Raimondo taught me to understand that foreign policy is just war by other means, and it was the most important part of our national policy. The foreign policy orthodoxy can never be challenged in the public sphere.

      It is verboten.

      Because it is that which drives the Empire and all the perks that come with that for those in charge of it.

      It was Raimondo who helped coin and popularize the term neoconservative. It was he that traced their Trotskyite roots back to the 1950’s and helped expose the rank hypcrisy of fake conservatives like Bill Buckley, George Will and the rest of them.

      It was he that also connected the dots to Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Sheldon Adelson, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and the Clintons. It was Justin who broke open the seventh seal of foreign policy, naming the names in Israel that stood alongside them.

      And it’s our job to continue exposing them in his absence.

      The world is a diminished place today without this lion of peace. A man who embodies the following:

      Live a life of consequence, leave a life of significance.

      *  *  *

      Fuck war. Join my Patreon.

    • Philly DA Eliminates Fines And Fees For Defendants In Poverty

      Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner has announced that the city will eliminate various court-related fines and fees for impoverished defendants, and will instead focus on their payment of restitution in cases involving victims according to the Philly Voice. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “Today, Philadelphia is a giant leap closer to a truly fair and consistent system of justice in which low-income defendants do not face additional punishment by way of unaffordable fines and fees that drive them deeper into debt and poverty,” said Krasner. 

      The current system requires defendants to pay fees such as the court-mandated booking center fee ($175), judicial computer project fee ($12), Commonwealth costs ($20.30), costs of prosecution ($50), county court costs ($29.85), state court costs ($13.55), monthly offender supervision fees (minimum $25) and fees associated with the particular crimes in question. –Philly Voice

      Under the new policy, fees would be waived for indigent defendants if they meet the following criteria. 

      • Representation by the public defender, court-appointed counsel, pro bono counsel, or any free legal services organization
      • Are receiving means-based public assistance
      • Have an income at or below 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines
      • Provide evidence showing that they are indigent

      “Waiving fines and fees can help indigent defendants afford transportation and other costs associated with employment, education and training programs, completing probation terms, and child or elder care,” added Krasner. 

      For offenders who owe restitution to a victim, what little funds or income they do have would be used to make those payments. 

      “For people living just above the poverty line, fines and court fees become an obstacle to rehabilitation,” said Chief Defender Keir Bradford-Grey of the Philadelphia Defender Association. “They can trap people in a cycle of poverty and incarceration and effectively turn our jails into debtors’ prisons. Just last year, courts in Philadelphia ordered people to pay over $21 million in fees despite the fact that more than a quarter of Philadelphians live below the poverty line.” 

    • Is This A Turning Point In Libya's Civil War?

      Authored by Nick Cunningham via OilPrice.com,

      Libya’s civil war has taken a catastrophic turn, plunging the country even deeper into crisis…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      An airstrike hit a detention center for migrants on the outskirts of Tripoli, killing at least 44 people, a death toll that is likely to climb. At the time of this writing, it was not clear who launched the airstrike, although the militia led by Khalifa Haftar, known as the Libyan National Army (LNA), is widely suspected. The Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) blamed Haftar and called on the UN to investigate. The airstrike hit a weapons cache adjacent to the detention center.

      The attack comes as the LNA recently suffered a severe setback in its three-month assault on Tripoli. Last week, militias backing the GNA seized the town of Gharyan, roughly 60 miles from the capital. The town has been used as a supply route to refurbish the forces of the LNA. Shortly after the town was seized, Haftar’s LNA said it would launch an air campaign against GNA-backed forces in Tripoli, a strategy that conspicuously coincides with the horrific airstrike killing dozens of migrants.

      “There appears to have been an immediate change of LNA strategy in response to the loss of Gharyan, with an air force commander stating that after ‘exhausting all traditional means’ to take Tripoli, the LNA will now intensify its airstrikes on GNA targets in Tripoli,” Standard Chartered wrote in a note.

      At the same time, the Interior Minister for the GNA told the AP that the airstrike could have been conducted by foreign backers of Haftar, rather than the LNA itself. Adding to the intrigue is the fact that American made missiles have showed up in Libya, and some U.S. officials suspect they found their way via the United Arab Emirates, which backs Haftar’s LNA. If true, the transfer of U.S.-made missiles to Libya would violate both the U.S. sales agreement to the UAE as well as an international arms embargo on Libya.

      “The Emiratis are clearly stepping up their involvement as Hifter is floundering on the ground,” Tarek Megerisi of the European Council on Foreign Relations, told the New York Times.

      “They feel obliged to make sure he wins to protect their investment.”

      For its part, the LNA blames Turkey for its loss at Gharyan. Turkey and the UAE find themselves on opposite sides of the civil war in Libya.

      “The UN arms embargo is meant to protect civilians in Libya. But Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey, among others, are blatantly flouting it by providing sophisticated armoured vehicles, drones, guided missiles and other weapons,” Amnesty International said in a statement.

      “The UN Security Council must urgently take steps to enforce the embargo, and the warring parties must respect international humanitarian law and stop recklessly endangering civilians.”

      The head of the African Union said the airstrike on the detention center could amount to a war crime.

      But it could be the loss of the town of Gharyan that may prove a turning point in the civil war, which could “comprise the LNA offensive on Tripoli,” according to Standard Chartered.

      While Libya’s oil exports have surprisingly held steady even as the fighting has intensified, “there is now a likelihood that new fronts will be opened.” The investment bank said that Haftar and the LNA have three options.

      • First, they could focus their fighting on retaking Gharyan to reopen supply lines.

      • Second, it could “wind down the Tripoli offensive, and open up a new front against Sirte in the east.”

      • Third, the LNA could “simply disengage” and instead consolidate territory it already controls.

      “All three present some risk to the maintenance of oil exports,” the investment bank said, although it would be the assault on Sirte that could present the biggest short-term risk to oil supply. Also, the GNA could begin to advance towards the Ras Lanuf oil export terminal “in an attempt to push LNA forces back towards Benghazi,” Standard Chartered said.

      “In total we think the military situation in Libya is more fluid than it has been for three months, and the uncertainty over future export levels is accordingly higher,” Standard Chartered concluded. As the LNA suffers setbacks, the fighting may intensify, leading to a greater toll on the civilian population. But Libya’s oil exports are also at risk.

    • June Payrolls Preview: Great News Will Be Very Bad News For Stocks

      With US nonfarm payrolls in two of the past four months printing at a disappointing 75K or below, Wall Street expects a decent rebound when the BLS reports June payrolls tomorrow at 830am, which are seen rising up to 160K. Fed’s Powell suggested in his recent press conference that the central bank looks at the three-month trend, rather than a single print, and if the headline was realised, it would only be a touch above the three-month average rate at 155k, according to RanSquawk.

      Alongside the rebound in jobs, the pace of wage growth is also expected to accelerate vs May levels, while there will also be attention on the U6 underemployment rate, which fell to a cyclical low in May, amid a stable participation rate, which is seen as a positive. Most importantly, the data will be a key part of the FOMC’s case on whether it chooses to cut rates or stand pat on policy at the July policy meeting. A “surprisingly” poor number: anything double-digit or lower, will send stocks soaring higher as it will guarantee at least one rate cut in 3 weeks, with a big possibility for two cuts.

      Courtesy of RanSquawk, here are the key expectations for tomorrow’s report:

      • Non-farm Payrolls: Exp. 160k, Prev. 75k.
      • Private Payrolls: Exp. 153k, Prev. 90k.
        • Manufacturing Payrolls: Exp. 0k, Prev. 3k.
        • Government Payrolls: Prev. -15k.
      • Unemployment Rate: Exp. 3.6%, Prev. 3.6%.
        • U6 Unemployment Rate: Prev. 7.1%.
        • Labour Force Participation: Prev. 62.8%.
      • Avg. Earnings Y/Y: Exp. 3.2%, Prev. 3.1%.
        • Avg. Earnings M/M: Exp. 0.3%, Prev. 0.2%.
        • Avg. Work Week Hours: Exp. 34.4hrs, Prev. 34.4hrs.

      Arguing for an surprise beat, Goldman estimates nonfarm payrolls increased 175k in June, matching its average pace over the previous six months and a sharp rebound from the 75k gain in May, adding that it does not believe that Mississippi River flooding (or bad weather more generally) can explain last month’s job growth slowdown. Instead, its preferred explanation “is a modest deceleration in labor demand coupled with seasonal labor supply constraints—the latter of which often weigh on May job growth when the labor market is tight.” If so, the June arrival of students and recent graduates into the labor force should support a reacceleration in job growth in Friday’s report.

      Why does this report matter? 

      Because it will either cement the case for a rate cut at the end of the month, or – if the report is especially strong, 250K and above, it may spark speculation that the Fed could remain on hold indefinitely. As such, “very good news would be very bad news for the market”, which has priced in roughly 20% odds of two rate hikes in July.

      The Fed has indicated that it was monitoring the outcome of G20 summit, and the tone of incoming data in order to make the case for any July rate cuts. The G20 meeting has passed now, and the outcome was favourable. Data points have been mixed of late, and the payrolls data will one of the key drivers of the Fed’s decision making in order to determine whether a cut is appropriate.  After the disappointing 75k reported in May, analysts look for 160k nonfarm payrolls to the US economy in June. In his recent post meeting press conference, chair Powell said he was watching the three-month average rate of payroll growth, rather than a single months’ print; as such, it is worth noting that the three month average inched up in May (to 155k from 144k), despite the disappointing headline.

      However, there is no doubt that the pace of additions is easing as the US economy enters the late cycle stage. Capital Economics looks for a sub-trend and below consensus 125k in June, which it says suggests that the labour market is succumbing to the broader slowdown in economic growth. The consultancy notes that the weak May jobs report comes while the alternative household measure of employment slows more sharply: “That wouldn’t usually receive much attention because the small sample size means household employment is much more volatile than the payroll estimate,” Capital Economics argues, “but the household survey has historically been quicker at detecting turning points.” CapEco explains that the payroll data relies on the birth-death model of employment at new firms and those going out of businesses, which do not do a great job in real-time, and says initial payroll estimates at the onset of past downturns are frequently revised lower.

      Key factors going into tomorrow’s jobs report

      JOBLESS CLAIMS:

      Weekly jobless claims data for the nonfarm payroll survey period fell by 5k in the week to 217k, and the four-week rolling average measure also decreased. Combined with the continuing claims measure, the pace of layoffs remains low, analysts said, and the trend rate of jobless claims remains between 210-220k, close to all-time lows as a share of the workforce.

      ADP:

      The headline missed expectations again, printing 102k in June against the Street’s view for 140k. Pantheon Macroeconomics explains that the ADP figure is generated by a model which incorporates data from firms which use ADP’s payroll processing services but also includes the previous month’s official measure, because payrolls tend to mean-revert. The consultancy says that May’s modest 90K increase in private payrolls, therefore, constrained the June ADP measure., and notes that the official numbers, however, are based only on survey data for the reference month, so Friday’s nonfarm payrolls data should be stronger than ADP suggests. “The bigger picture here is that payroll growth had to slow this year because the economy is no longer being boosted by last year’s tax cuts,” Pantheon writes, “more recently, however, payroll growth has been unusually sluggish as a result of the hit to business confidence from the drop in stock prices in Q4. But the key private sector survey measures of hiring, notably the ISM surveys and the NFIB survey, have substantially recovered.” Pantheon looks for job gains of 175K per month in Q3, and sees the June figure (released Friday) around +160K.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      BUSINESS SURVEYS:

      The manufacturing ISM report saw the employment sub-index rise by 0.8 points to 54.5, indicating employment rose for the 33rd consecutive month. “Employment continued to expand, and at marginally higher levels compared to May. An Employment Index above 50.8 percent, over time, is generally consistent with an increase in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data on manufacturing employment. Comments were predominantly ‘pro hire’ in support of capacity expansion, replacing retiring workers and adding summer help. Few comments were in support of hiring freezes and head-count reductions,” ISM’s Fiore said. The non-manufacturing survey, meanwhile, saw the employment sub-index fell by 3.1 points to 55.0, though has remained above 50.0 for 64 straight months now. Comments from respondents include: “We are currently recruiting for vacant positions” and “Downsizing due to closing brick-and-mortar stores.”

      CHALLENGER:

      June announced job cuts printed 41,977, and US-based employers announced plans to cut 140,577 jobs from their payrolls in the second quarter of this year, down 26% from the 190,410 cuts announced in the first quarter, Challenger reported. It said that despite the drop, Q2 cuts are 34% higher than the 104,800 cuts announced in the same quarter last year. For the June data specifically, Challenger said that despite the monthly drop, June’s cuts are 13% higher than the 37,202 cuts announced in June of last year, which is the eleventh consecutive month job cuts are higher than the corresponding month the year prior. “Job cuts are trending higher overall. In addition to Retail, we’ve seen significant cuts in the Industrial Manufacturing and Automotive sectors in recent months,” Challenger said, “manufacturers are grappling with not only technological changes, but also increased competition, tariffs, changes in consumer behaviour, and skills shortages. The Automotive sector particularly has experienced some setbacks, as consumer demand for traditional vehicles wanes.”

      WAGES:

      Goldman Sachs estimates that average hourly wages will rise by 0.4% M/M, on the back of rounding, and that would boost the Y/Y rate to 3.2% it said. “Our forecast reflects favourable calendar effects and a possible boost from rebounding supervisory earnings—which have underperformed the production-worker subset in each of the last three months.”

      Key factors arguing for a stronger report:

      Seasonality. Goldman views the labor market as somewhat beyond full employment, and believes the dwindling availability of workers weighed on job growth in the May report. As shown in Exhibit 1, in years with relatively tight labor markets, payroll growth tends to slow in May and reaccelerate in June and July. This could reflect the timing of students and recent graduates joining the labor force—and the related possibility that some firms pull forward hiring earlier in the year (anticipating a shortage of workers in the late Spring). Indeed, tje May job growth was particularly soft in several service industries that showed strong gains in the first four months of the year, including education and health (+27k in May vs. Jan-Apr average of +58k), other services (-1k vs. +12k), and leisure and hospitality (+26k vs. +35k).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Public Education. The 14k May decline in public education payrolls is expected to reverse in Friday’s report. As shown in Exhibit 2, May swings in this sub-industry tend to mean-revert in June, and there is the possibility that the relatively late May survey week (ended the 18th) resulted in the exclusion of some employees at state colleges (who had already left for the summer).

      Jobless claims. Initial jobless claims edged down over the four weeks between the payroll reference periods (-3k to 219k on average) and remain very low by historical standards.

      Service-sector surveys. Service-sector business surveys were sequentially softer in June but generally remain at solid levels. Our headline non-manufacturing tracker declined by 0.9pt and the employment component declined by 0.3pt to 54.3. Despite the sequential declines, the tracker’s levels continue to suggest that service-sector employment continues to rise at a healthy pace. Service-sector job growth rose 82k in May and averaged 143k over the last six months.

      Arguing for a weaker report:

      ADP. The payroll-processing firm ADP reported a 102k increase in June private payroll employment, well above the 41k rise in May but still 38k below consensus. While we had expected a soft report because of the various inputs to the ADP model this month, Mark Zandi (the chief economist of Moody’s Analytics who oversees the ADP report) indicated on CNBC that small-business hiring has stalled. Accordingly, we view the ADP report as a negative factor this month. 

      Manufacturing surveys. Manufacturing-sector surveys were soft in June, as our headline manufacturing survey tracker declined by 3.0pt to 50.6—a three-year low. Our manufacturing employment tracker pulled back by less (-1.2pt to 53.5), as the employment components generally outperformed and remained at healthier levels. Manufacturing payroll employment rose 3k in May and has increased by 8k on average over the last six months.

      Trade war escalation. The return of the trade war has weighed on some US growth data, particularly the May and June manufacturing surveys. The higher tariff rate on imports from China implemented over the course of May and early June—coupled with the uncertainty surrounding Mexico trade (tariffs announced May 30th and cancelled June 7th)— will likely weigh on June payrolls in some exposed industries. For example, Goldman is assuming a decline in manufacturing employment, and notes that the agreement at the G20 to delay additional Chinese tariffs occurred well after the June payroll survey period.

      Job availability. The Conference Board labor market differential—the difference between the percent of respondents saying jobs are plentiful and those saying jobs are hard to get—declined by 5.9pt to +27.6 in June, its largest monthly decline since February 2009. While concerning, the widely reported May payrolls miss likely influenced survey responses, and the resulting weakness may be telling us more about May than about June. If so, it may contain minimal information about the pace of June job growth, reminiscent of a similar situation in March (the labor market differential declined by 5.3pt but job growth reaccelerated from +56k to +153k). Other job availability readings were mixed, as JOLTS job openings remained high (-25k to 7,449k in April, up from 7,142k in February).

    • Has Trump Turned An Important Corner?

      Authored by Tom Luongo via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      Donald Trump’s surprise visit to North Korea last week was impressive. It was a bold first step in repairing a foreign policy in tatters after more than a year of assaults by his neoconservative boobsie-twins Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Trump took Kim at his word who said after talks broke down thanks to Bolton and Pompeo in Hanoi that no dialogue would be possible if Bolton was involved.

      So, Trump sent Bolton to Mongolia. Then he went to Korea and did the one thing he had to do to begin unraveling the mess he’d gotten himself into.

      Last week I asked where does Trump go after his confrontation with Iran? Trump answered that question in dramatic fashion. And he deserves a lot of credit for it.

      But what does this mean in the wider context? It’s a good first step but we’ve seen this game from him before, making bold moves only to be reined in by his staff.

      I would say that the optics of sending Bolton to Mongolia are pretty clear. Bolton’s time in the White House is nearly over. This is also a strong signal to Iran that Trump trying to back down without actually saying that.

      The drone incident was intended to box Trump into a path to war with Iran after the tanker attack in the Gulf of Oman two weeks prior. That was likely not the Iranians but the Saudis and/or MEK, again trying to get Trump to fly off the handle, since he’s easily manipulated into emotional acts.

      But he was talked out of it at the last minute, presumably by Tucker Carlson, who was with him on Air Force One when Trump went to meet Kim.

      Has Trump finally woken up to the reality that he can’t appease these neocons anymore? That their lust for power can only be sated by perpetual war? That he has to lead and be President? Asking for advice from your cabinet is one thing, being led by your nose to foregone conclusions which are anathema to what put you in the White House in the first place is another.

      He hasn’t drained one ounce of The Swamp because he wasn’t strong enough to do it.

      His instincts are correct. His desire for denuclearization is sincere. Like Trump or not, he’s a patriot. What he does he does out of this sense of patriotism. It’s laudable but it also makes him vulnerable to bad advice and his own personality defects.

      And those things nearly got the world into a war where no one wins.

      So, with all that said, now what?

      A lot has changed in the past four months since the end of the Mueller investigation. And the signs are all there that Trump is feeling a lot more secure both politically and financially that would allow him to not only make bold first moves but follow through on them.

      Speaker Nancy Pelosi backed down on border wall funding. She’s ruled out impeachment as a bad political tactic. And she’s under fire from the hard-core Progressives in the party. This makes them weak.

      So, from a re-election standpoint Trump looks very secure, especially after the “I’m more woke than you” fest that was the first debate among DNC candidates.

      We’re looking at a mirror of 2016 with the Republicans that Trump beat. A wide and shallow pool of less than capable candidates who will all eat each other alive while he rides to re-election.

      The difference is that these weren’t hand-selected to be pushovers to coronate Hillary Clinton. This is just the best the Democrats have to offer. And, with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, that’s not saying much.

      From a re-election perspective Trump has to shore up his foreign policy position and admit that whatever he’s tried to do to this point hasn’t worked. In fact, it has done nothing but weaken him and is adding to an already messy economic landscape worldwide, as I’ve pointed out in the past.

      This turn by him is more than a small blip, in my mind. It is Trump backing away from the abyss created for him by his neocon handlers, who all hate him anyway.

      Bolton was pushed on him by major Republican donor and Israeli Firster, Sheldon Adelson. And Adelson is the real issue here. So much of Trump’s foreign policy has centered around the wishes of this odious man.

      With RussiaGate behind him and leading Democrats refusing to let it lie down as they try to obfuscate the obvious trail which leads back to them Trump looks a lot more secure. He’s looking at the fundraising numbers, the crowds he’s drawing at rallies more than a year out from the election, a stock market at all-time highs and he’s thinking he doesn’t really need Adelson’s money network anymore.

      And if that is the case, then we may finally see the Donald Trump that he sold us during the campaign. I’m not holding high hopes for this, but I would be remiss in not pointing out his incentives.

      It’s becoming obvious to everyone that the Deal of the Century for Israel and Palestine is a dead letter. So many of Trump’s mistakes have been in service of this deal which they can’t even bring to the table.

      The last piece of this puzzle is whatever happened at the G-20 between Trump, Vladimir Putin and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping. Trump folded on the worst of his trade war with China. His uber-hawks wanted Huawei destroyed for not giving the US backdoor access to spy on the world, everything is just noise.

      He did this agreeing to more soybean imports from China. This was a cop to the farmers he needs to keep onside if he’s going to win in 2020.

      But the most important part of this are the signals by Russia and China that they would assist Iran in getting its oil to market. The Chinese will buy it and the Russians will clear the trades through their electronic payment system analogous to the US-dominated SWIFT.

      Since any further action by the US to stop Iranian oil exports involve physical confrontation and interdiction that threat is now off the table after Trump nixed bombing Iran. No one will be happy with an order by Trump to detain Iran’s oil tankers, except the people who have been playing games with him, the Israelis and the Saudis.

      But even then, Putin surely held the Saudis feet to his fire in agreeing to extend the oil production cuts into next year. A little leverage on the over-levered can be very effective. From the looks of things, post G-20, Trump assessed the landscape and began pulling back.

      Bullying can only take you so far. Pressure applied too forcefully can always be turned against you. And in politics overplaying your hand will bust you. Next move, Mr. President?

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Jul 04

    Today’s News 4th July 2019

    • It's Time To Declare Your Independence From Tyranny, America

      Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

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

      It’s time to declare your independence from tyranny, America.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      For too long now, we have suffered the injustices of a government that has no regard for our rights or our humanity.

      Too easily pacified and placated by the pomp and pageantry of manufactured spectacles (fireworks on the Fourth of July, military parades, ritualized elections, etc.) that are a poor substitute for a representative government that respects the rights of its people, the American people have opted, time and again, to overlook the government’s excesses, abuses and power grabs that fly in the face of every principle for which America’s founders risked their lives.

      We have done this to ourselves.

      Indeed, it is painfully fitting that mere days before the nation prepared to celebrate its freedoms on the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the City Council for Charlottesville, Virginia—the home of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration—voted to do away with a holiday to honor Jefferson’s birthday, because Jefferson, like many of his contemporaries, owned slaves. City councilors have opted instead to celebrate “Liberation and Freedom Day” in honor of slaves who were emancipated after the Civil War.

      This is what we have been reduced to: bureaucrats dithering over meaningless trivialities while the government goosesteps all over our freedoms.

      Too often, we pay lip service to those freedoms, yet they did not come about by happenstance. They were hard won through sheer determination, suffering and sacrifice by thousands of patriotic Americans who not only believed in the cause of freedom but also had the intestinal fortitude to act on that belief. The success of the American revolution owes much to these men and women.

      In standing up to the British Empire and speaking out against an oppressive regime, they exemplified courage in the face of what seemed like an overwhelming foe.

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

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

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

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

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

      No document better states their grievances than the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson.

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

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

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

      The result: our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

      Imagine the shock and outrage these 56 men would feel were they to discover that 243 years later, the government they had risked their lives to create has been transformed into a militaristic police state in which exercising one’s freedoms—at a minimum, merely questioning a government agent—is often viewed as a flagrant act of defiance.

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

      The danger is real.

      We could certainly use some of that revolutionary outrage today.

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

      Then again, perhaps what we need to do is declare our independence from the tyranny of the American police state.

      It’s not a radical idea.

      It has been done before.

      The Declaration of Independence speaks volumes about the abuses suffered by early Americans at the hands of the British police state.

      Read the Declaration of Independence again, and ask yourself if the list of complaints tallied by Jefferson don’t bear a startling resemblance to the abuses “we the people” are suffering at the hands of the American police state.

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

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

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

      All people are created equal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      To prove this, consider the following:

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

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

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

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

      • The government has obstructed justice by refusing to appoint judges who respect the Constitution and has instead made the Courts march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

      • The government has allowed its agents to harass the people, steal from them, jail them and even execute them.

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

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

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

      • The government has allowed its militarized police to invade our homes and inflict violence on homeowners.

      • The government has failed to hold its agents accountable for wrongdoing and murder under the guise of “qualified immunity.”

      • The government has jeopardized our international trade agreements.

      • The government has overtaxed us without our permission.

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

      • The government has engaged in extraordinary rendition.

      • The government has continued to expand its military empire in collusion with its corporate partners-in-crime and occupy foreign nations.

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

      • The government has not only declared its federal powers superior to those of the states but has also asserted its sovereign power over the rights of “we the people.”

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

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

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

      • The government through its political propaganda has pitted its citizens against each other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      That was 243 years ago.

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

      Only this time, the tyrant is one of our own making: the American Police State.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      And we are still being held at gunpoint by a government of soldiers: a standing army in the form of a militarized police.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Frankly, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we may see no relief from the police state in my lifetime or for several generations to come.

      That does not mean we should give up or give in or tune out.

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

      That price is tyranny.

      As Edmund Burke, the eighteenth-century British statesman and author who supported the American colonists warned, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

    • China Accounts For 90% Of U.S. Fireworks Imports

      For people aiming to “buy American” for Independence Day this year, it might prove difficult to obtain U.S.-manufactured fireworks.

      As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, most of the bottle rockets, roman candles and other fireworks on sale across the country trace their origin to China. Last year, China accounted for 90 percent of total U.S. fireworks imports, amounting to approximately $325 million, according to website World City.

      Infographic: China Accounts For 90% Of U.S. Fireworks Imports | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      Given that there are almost 14,000 fireworks displays every 4th of July, the fireworks industry is big business.

      Infographic: Consumer Firework Revenue Is Exploding | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      Revenue from consumer fireworks has exploded, increasing by 232 percent over the past two decades. Over that same time, revenue from display fireworks has increased by 155 percent as well. While a fun time for many and a growing consumer industry, over 15,000 people visited the hospital due to fireworks in July alone between 2006 and 2010, according to a recent study published by the Journal of Surgical Research.

      Interestingly, one man drives fireworks trade across the Pacific and his name is Ding Yan Zhong, a Chinese businessman. Also known as “Mr. Ding”, his companies account for about 70 percent of the pyrotechnics entering the U.S. and on average, 72 of his containers enter the country every single day.

      Even though China accounts for the bulk of the fireworks trade by far, the U.S. does rely on several other countries for imports. Israel comes second in terms of import value with nearly $10 million, a miniscule amount compared to China.

    • Technocrats And Neocons Respond To The Polar Silk Road

      Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic CUlture Foundation,

      “Fate leads the willing and drags the unwilling”

      – Seneca

      Over the past months, an unexpected world of economic activity has opened up across Russia’s Arctic frontier with the unveiling of the Polar Silk Road. While many western business and political interests have seen this incredible opening up of the last unexplored frontier on the earth as a chance for dialogue and peace, too many neo-conservative warmongers and neo-liberal technocrats have chosen instead to view this development as a threat to be destroyed at all costs.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      American Neocons Respond

      Representing the regressive neocon viewpoint, Mike Pompeo described his geopolitical view of the Arctic seaway as “the 21st century Panama and Suez Canals” – then hypocritically attacked China as a threat to America saying:

      “China’s pattern of aggressive behavior elsewhere should inform what we do, and how it might treat the Arctic… Do we want crucial Arctic infrastructure to end up like Chinese-constructed roads in Ethiopia? Crumbling and dangerous after only a few years. Do we want the Arctic Ocean to transform into a new South China Sea? Fraught with militarization and competing territorial claims.”

      Before the end of June, American lawmakers will vote on a bill to increase military capabilities in the long-neglected arctic under National Defense Authorization Act 2020 which proposes to upgrade America’s dismal ice breaker fleet from its current roster of one (compared to Russia’s 40) and develop one or more military ports in Alaska. The NDAA 2020 both recognizes the Russia-China economic leadership in the zone and calls for creating infrastructure needed to tap into the “abundance of uranium, rare earth minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources” which would make America a competitor.

      The Case of Canada

      While the militarist/monetarist neocons on the “right” push confrontation and war, militarily impotent Canadian technocrats under the control of the Privy Council Office (currently managed by Rhodes Scholar Chrystia Freeland) have taken a slightly different anti-Polar Silk Road policy. This policy is essentially a religious commitment to doing nothing and demand that others join in this absence of all activity.

      In the wake of the successful St Petersburg Arctic Forum on April 9-10, a non-partisan parliamentary Canadian study group published an incredibly positive white paper calling for Canada to respond to the polar silk road by reforming the entire 70 year Arctic doctrine from its Cold War mindset to becoming a zone of mass infrastructure development and growth in harmony with the Eurasian philosophy. The governing elite of the Anglo-Canadian establishment took one whole month to assess this remarkably sane proposal before deciding to go in the opposite direction.

      In May 23, the chosen course of action began to take form with the submission of a 1200 page report to the United Nations claiming that the North Pole is the sole property of Canada. The Canadian “scientific” study supposedly found that since the continental shelf connected to Ellesmere Island extends to the North Pole’s Lomonosov Ridge (disputed with Russia since 2007), Canada’s property in the Arctic can be grown to 1.2 million squared kilometers. This zone, which extends far beyond the 200 mile “exclusive economic zone” has been a point of conflict for years and was used to provoke a diplomatic crisis in 2007 when a Russian scientific submarine planted a Russian flag on the sea bed, and again in 2014 when then Prime Minister Stephen Harper, humored Canada’s joining NATO’s ABM shield in the Arctic stated that Santa Claus is Canadian.

      Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland gleefully said of this Arctic claim:

       “Canada is committed to furthering its leadership in the Arctic. Defining our continental shelf is vital to ensuring our sovereignty and to serving the interests of all people, including indigenous peoples in the Arctic. Today’s submission is a major step toward securing legal and international recognition of the outer limits of Canada’s continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean.”

      Technocrats Dig their Heals into the Permafrost: Demand Stasis for All

      The next phase of Canada’s anti-Polar Silk Road policy has now been unveiled in the form of Bills C-48, C-69, C-88 and a fourth Bill passed on June 17 declaring that Canada is officially in a “Climate Emergency”.

      All three major omnibus bills passed just days of each other might cause one to think of a toddler having a temper tantrum in a super market, screaming while letting their bodies go limp and forcing their annoyed parents to drag them out of the store.

      Under the hysteria fomented by Canada’s new “climate emergency”, Bill C-48 legally enforces a moratorium on all oil tankers in Northern British Columbia banning their existence from Vancouver Island all the way to Alaska.

      Bill C-88 amends the Canada Petroleum Resources Act banning all offshore Arctic drilling thus taking a policy begun by Trudeau and Obama in December 2016 when the duo declared the Arctic “off limits” to all development, and now establishing it in the form of law for the first time. Once given “Royal Assent” (all laws must be approved by the Monarchy), all existing licenses will be frozen and financial compensation will be given to all companies who have purchased exploratory licenses in Canadian waters.

      Bill C-49 overhauls the already over-bloated environmental review process for all energy infrastructure making it even more impossible than it previously was to start any new infrastructure across the vast Arctic.

      These three bills combined threaten to devastate the Canadian economy which heavily relies on resource development (especially since its manufacturing sector has been so viciously hollowed out over the course of 25 years of NAFTA outsourcing). Already, Alberta which is a hub of the Canadian Yellow vest movement, is on fire with thousands protesting the shutdown of employment and economic potential under the ideologically driven craze to “stop global warming” (which has a lot more to do with stopping Russia and China than many would care to admit). The beleaguered Trudeau/Freeland government which faces collapse in the upcoming October elections has now found itself in a paradoxical situation of 1) needing to resist the growth policy driven by the Russia-China alliance on the one side while 2) needing to appease the flames of mass revolt within the country on the other side.

      For this reason, Trudeau also approved the Trans Mountain pipeline project which has been on the rocks for several years. The project will increase oil and natural gas output from Alberta to 890 000 barrels/day by connecting a pipeline from Edmonton Alberta to Burnaby, BC.

      The Trudeau/Freeland green regime have justified this paradoxical decision by claiming that all profits from the pipeline will now be used to fund Canada’s transition to a zero-growth green energy infrastructure grid which will ironically prohibit all such major projects from ever being built again. If it sounds absurd, that is because all empires committed to a policy of Malthusian depopulation must somehow balance an agenda of killing human cattle on the one side while keeping those cattle happy enough to vote into power those political operatives assigned to cull the herd.

      China and Russia Understand Real Economics

      In opposition to monetarists and Malthusians dominant across the Anglo-sphere, the leadership of Russia and China have demonstrated a clear understanding of the core principles of real economics and the moral/intellectual/financial bankruptcy of the derivatives-laden western banking system. Describing the collapse of the “each against all paradigm”, President Putin said on June 6th that the world was suffering under a “fragmentation of the global economic space by a policy of completely unlimited economic egoism and a forced breakdown. But this is the road to endless conflict, trade wars and maybe not just trade wars. Figuratively, this is the road to the ultimate fight of all against all.”

      He went on to describe the need for “a more stable and fair development model. These agreements should not only be written clearly but should also be observed by all participants. However, I am convinced that talk about an economic world order like this will remain wishful thinking unless we return to the centre of the discussion, that is, notions like sovereignty, the unconditional right of every country to its own development road and, let me add, responsibility for universal sustainable development, not just for one’s own development.”

      This positive approach is at the heart of the Belt and Road Initiative, and its Arctic extensions which are founded upon the respect of each participating nation, as well as the group of nations working on projects which satisfy common aims and interests of all people. Under this system, which uplifts the conditions of life of every individual as well as the productive powers of labour of each nation, private interests, and public good do not find themselves in contradiction since everyone aspires to make life better for their children.

      Great projects rooted in scientific and technological progress satisfy that need brilliantly. Both China and Russia know that if the world is to embark upon great infrastructure projects as the foundation for the new order of constant progress and “win-win cooperation” then the Arctic’s vast resources will be vital in that recipe for success. If the west is intelligent then it will reject the zero-growth agenda which has designated Canada’s Arctic as untouchable as fast as they reject the zero-sum neocon agenda of militarism and unilateralism.

    • Virginia Becomes First State To Ban 'Deepfake' Revenge Porn

      In a sign of just how slow the American legal system has been to respond to the advent of ‘deepfakes’ – images or video of people, either real or computer-generated using AI, that are created using AI – Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam recently signed into law the first measures that would make abusing the technology to, say, generate nude photos and video of real women, a crime. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Pelosi

      That’s actually a real photo of her.

      According to Ars Technica, the bill merely extended existing laws criminalizing the distribution of nudes or sexual imagery without a subject’s consent⁠ – i.e. “revenge porn” – as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The new bill added “falsely created videographic or still image” to the text of the law.

      This makes Virginia the first US state to adopt laws about deepfakes.  And only a few weeks after the Nancy Pelosi deepfake episode gave the US a taste of what this technology is capable of doing.

      Virginia’s new law takes effect July 1.

      Virginia isn’t alone in taking steps to criminalize the abuse of deepfakes; a small handful other states are working on developing laws outlawing the use of deepfakes for election manipulation or sexual exploitation. However, deep fakes are becoming more widely used every day. Just this past week, a group of women convinced a company to stop distributing technology that could be used to manufacture fake nude photos. Even the mighty tech baron Mark Zuckerberg has felt the shame of being ‘deep faked’.

      Still, little has been done at the federal level, and the technology is getting cheaper and easier to use every day. In Congress, lawmakers have put forth a couple of bills, but they don’t appear to be going anywhere.

      New York Rep. Yvette Clarke on June 12 introduced a bill in the House that would distributing sexually-explicit deep fakes “with the intent to humiliate” or harass a crime.

      Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse introduced a bill in late 2018 that would criminalize the production or knowing distribution of deepfakes affecting government business and, notably, elections.

      And lawmakers should probably catch up soon. Because there will come a time when the legal system is caught up with more intransigent deepfake-related issues, like determining whether a video is authentic or forged.

    • The Death Of The Liberal Idea

      Authored by Dmitry Orlov via Club Orlov blog,

      Last week’s G20 gathering in Osaka was a signal event: it signaled how much the world has changed. The centerpieces of the new configuration are China, Russia and India, with the EU and Japan as eager adjuncts, and with Eurasian integration as the overarching priority. The agenda was clearly being set by Xi and Putin. May, Macron and Merkel – the European leaders not quite deserving of that title – were clearly being relegated to the outskirts; two of the three are on their way out while the one keeping his seat (for now) is looking more and more like a toyboy. The Europeans wasted their time haggling over who should head the European Commission, only to face open rebellion over their choice the moment they arrived back home.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And then there was Trump, let loose now that the Robert Mueller farce has come to its inevitable conclusion. He was running around trying to figure out which of America’s “partners” can still be thrown under the bus before the roof comes down on Pax Americana. It’s a stretch goal because he is out of ammo. He has already threatened all-out war—twice, once against North Korea, once against Iran, but, given the disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, sanity caused him to keep his military Humpty-Dumpty safely seated on the wall.

      Trump hasn’t completely given up on trade war yet, but here too he is encountering problems and is being forced to backtrack: Huawei is being recalled from the sanctions doghouse. Trump must knock out another major player—either China, Russia or the EU—before Eurasia becomes cemented together via land trade routes controlled by China, Russia and Iran instead of sea routes patrolled by the US Navy; if he doesn’t succeed, then the US is out of the game, its military might and the US dollar both rendered irrelevant. Of these, the EU seems like the softest target, but even the Europeans somehow managed launch the mechanism that allows them to circumvent US sanctions against Iran. Trump is definitely in a tough spot. What is the author of “The Art of the Deal” to do when nobody wants to negotiate any more deals with the US, now knowing full well that the US always finds ways to renege on its obligations?

      And then comes the bombshell announcement.

      In an interview with Financial Times Putin declares that “the liberal idea… has finally outlived its usefulness” because it no longer serves the needs of the majority of the peoples. Not “people,” mind you, but “peoples”—all different, but all the viable ones united in their steadfast adherence to the principle that family and nation (from the Latin verb nasci—to be born) are über alles. Some might perceive hints of fascism in this train of thought, but that would be akin to arguing that since fascists are known to use toothbrushes, then ipso facto toothbrushes are fascist implements to be outlawed and everyone must go back to cleaning their teeth with twigs and sticks. That Putin was able to utter words to the effect that the liberal idea is dead—something no Western leader would dare say—shows how much the world has changed.

      Not that some Western leaders wouldn’t say it, if they only could. “Our Western partners,” Putin said, “have conceded that some elements of the liberal idea are simply not realistic… such as multiculturalism. Many of them conceded that yes, unfortunately it doesn’t work (LOL) and that we must remember the interests of the native population.” Not that Russia doesn’t have its share of problems related to migrants, due to its open border policy with certain former Soviet republics, but it works to resolve them by demanding competency in Russian and respect for Russian culture and traditions, while “the liberal idea presupposes that nothing needs to be done, that migrants can rob, rape, steal, but that we must defend their rights… What rights? You broke a rule—you are punished!”

      The migrant crisis is a perfect example of how liberalism has outlived its usefulness. Liberalism offers two ways forward, both of which are fatal to it. One approach is distinctly illiberal: halt the influx of migrants by any means necessary; insist that the migrants already in the country either conform to a strict set of requirements, including demonstrated competency in the nation’s language, detailed knowledge of its laws and administrative systems, strict obedience to its laws and demonstrated preference and respect for the customs and culture of the native population—or be not so much deported as expelled. The other approach is liberal at first: allow the influx to continue, do not hinder the formation of foreign ghettos and enclaves which native citizens and officials dare not enter, and eventually surrender to Sharia law or other forms of foreign dictate—guaranteeing the eventual death of the liberal idea along with much of the native population. Thus, the choice is between killing the liberal idea but saving the native population or letting the liberal idea die willy-nilly, taking the native population along with it. It offers no solution at all.

      “We all live in a world based on traditional Biblical values,” quoth Putin. “We don’t have to demonstrate them every day… but must have them in our hearts and our souls. In this way, traditional values are more stable and more important to millions of people than this liberal idea which, in my view, is ceasing to exist.” This is true not just of the believers—be they Christian, Moslem or Jewish—but of the atheists as well. To put it in terms that may shock and astound some of you, you don’t have to believe in God (although it helps if you do—to avoid cognitive dissonance) but if you aspire to any sort of social adequacy in a traditional society you have no choice but to sincerely think and act as if God exists, and that He is the God of the Bible—be He Yahweh, Elohim, Jesus and the Holy Trinity or Allah (that’s the Arabic word for “God”).

      Putin capped off his argument by ever so gently and politely putting the boot in. He said that he has no clue about any of this “transformer-trans… whatever” stuff. How many genders are there? He has lost count. Not that he is against letting consenting adult members of various minority sexual groups do whatever they want among themselves—“Let everyone be happy!”—but they have no right to dictate to the rest. Specifically, Russian law makes homosexual propaganda among those who are under age illegal. Hollywood’s pro-LGBT mavens must be displeased: their choice is either to redact LGBT propaganda from the script, or to redact it from the finished film prior to its release in Russia (and China).

      Here Putin is tapping into something that is fast becoming a political trend everywhere, including that former bastion of liberalism—the West. It is in the nature of democracies that previously repressed minorities tend to clamor for more and more rights up to and often well beyond the point where they begin to impinge on the rights of the majority; but at some point the majority starts pushing back. By now it can be stated with some certainty that in the view of the majority the LGBT movement has gone too far. Opinion surveys attest to this fact: LGBT support crested at well over 50% but has been dropping by roughly 10% per year for several years now.

      How far beyond that point has the LGBT movement gone? In some Western countries children as young as three are subjected to “gender reassignment” that follows a sequence of indoctrination, chemical castration and physical castration, even against the wishes of their parents, resulting in a sterile individual. Pray tell, why should any sane parent agree to having their offspring sterilized, thus ending their bloodline? The vast majority of Earth’s population finds such practices appalling, and this is starting to include the home of the now dead liberal idea—the West itself. As a first, timid step of the overwhelming pushback that seems likely ensue, a “heterosexual pride parade” is scheduled to be held in Boston.

      Note that the item in question is not “gender” but “sex.” The word “gender” does exist, but the sense in which LGBT activists and feminists use it is an instance of overloading—of linguistic violence. The only sense in which the term is valid is as grammatical gender, which is a feature of most Indo-European languages. In these languages, all nouns are assigned to one of exactly three genders—male, female and neuter—in English identified by the pronouns “he,” “she” and “it” while in Russian they are “on” “oná” and “onó” and, quite typically, “he” (“on”) is the default or unmarked gender while the other two require gender-specific endings (“-a”, “-o”). Male and female nouns and pronouns can denote either animate or inanimate objects, which answer either to “Who?” or to “What?” while neuter nouns and pronouns can only denote inanimate objects, which answer to “What?” (except in poetry, as permitted by poetic license). By the way, this clears away the confusion over alternative “gender-specific” pronouns, be they “ze,” “hir” or “ququuuxx”: in order to function grammatically, they must still make a choice between masculine and feminine, or they indicate that someone is an inanimate being—a “what” rather than a “who.”

      The grammatical use of the term “gender” is justified; all others are fanciful efforts to overload the term in a way that does not comport with physical reality. And the reality is this: tissue samples of any specimen of the human species allow the specimen to be readily sexed by looking for an XX or an XY chromosome pair and assigning a corresponding “F” or “M” symbol. In the vast majority of cases, the specimen itself can be sexed by visual inspection, just like a chicken but far more easily—by examining the genitals. Crucially for the survival of the species, an “F” specimen should generally be capable of giving birth after mating with an “M” specimen. There are various abnormalities and pathologies that lie outside this basic scheme, but they are sufficiently rare as to be considered “in the noise” for most purposes.

      The outliers certainly deserve the liberty to engage in any hanky-panky that tickles their fancy, but pretending that they belong to a rainbow of fictional “genders” does not help the rest of us at all. Perhaps referring to them all as “pidor,” as the Russians often do, oversimplifies matters a bit. (The word is short for “pederast” which is from the ancient Greeks, who were famous for pederasty, and which literally means “boy-love.”) On the other hand, with most Russians it would probably be a mistake to try to explain to them the difference between Q1 and Q2 in LGBTQ1Q2 because to them this question is sooo interesting! (Italicized phrase is to be read with a groan, a slack-jawed face and an eye-roll.)

      That said, you can certainly go on believing in a rainbow of genders, or in elves, or unicorns, for that matter, and those who are kind and polite will tiptoe around your liberal shibboleths while those who are rude and uncouth will laugh in your face or even shove and slap you around a bit in a vain effort to knock some sense into your head. But we should be kind and polite and, as Putin said, “Let everyone be happy.” In turn, we should probably try to avoid being shoved and slapped around by people whose heads are full of outdated, wooly notions. Some of these heads—notably those belonging to snowflakes, who seem congenitally unable to brook any disagreement—will explode on their own.

      Most importantly, we should deny these people any and all access to our children. Here, Putin issued a clarion call that should resound around the entire planet: “Leave the children alone!” His call should resonate with the vast majority of humans, of all ethnicities, cultures and faiths, who take the divine exhortation to “be fruitful and multiply” quite literally and wish for their progeny to do the same. When conditions turn for the worse, as they often do, they drop like flies in autumn, but then death is an essential part of life, and they regenerate and live to swarm again once conditions improve.

      As an aside, now that liberalism is dead, those who feel that the planet is overpopulated only have the right to speak for themselves. That is, it may very well be the case that Earth is overpopulated with you, but that, of course, is for you alone to decide. If you feel sufficiently strongly about this matter, you should perhaps take charge and rid the planet of your good self, but please allow the rest of us wait to depart this world in some other, more naturalistic and less ideologically motivated manner. In the meantime, the rest of us should be able to have as many children as local conditions warrant. Putin had nothing to say on this question; he is the president of Russia, Russia is not overpopulated, and the rest of the planet didn’t elect him. Likewise, now that liberalism is dead, your opinion on Russia’s demographics matters not at all—unless you happen to be Russian, that is.

      There is much more to say about the death of the liberal idea, and this is only the first installment—clearing the decks by throwing some useless baggage overboard, if you will. Far more important is the question of what will replace the liberal idea now that it is dead. Free market capitalism is also dead (just look at all of the financial shenanigans, the sanctions and the tariffs!) and Western free-market conservatives and libertarians should note that ideologically they are still liberals and that their ideology is also now dead.

      But what is there to replace liberalism? It seems that the choice is between artificially resuscitated Marxism-Leninism (with Leon Trotsky lurking menacingly and Pol Pot sitting Buddha-like atop a pile of rotting corpses) and shiny, high-tech modern Stalinism (with distinctive Chinese characteristics). Intelligent boys and girls, when offered a false choice by being asked “Do you want an apple or a banana” usually respond “No!” I would like to do the same. But then what other choices are there?

    • China Will Lead 5G Smartphone Purchases Through 2023 

      A new report from Canalys shows that 5G smartphones will reach nearly 800 million units in 2023, accounting for 51.4% of all smartphone shipments across the world.

      The era of 5G is here, meaning 2G, 3G, and 4G are obsolete. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5G smartphone shipments between 2019 and 2023 will be about 180%, while more than 1.9 billion devices will flood global markets by 4Q23.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Canalys shows China will lead the world in 5G smartphone shipments in 2023 (34%), followed by North America (18.8%), and Asia Pacific (17.4%).

      Governments around the world, including China, Europe, and the US, have sponsored initiatives to accelerate 5G infrastructure development in major metropolitan areas.

      “There was a phenomenal amount of 5G discussion at this year’s MWC Shanghai, with Chinese 5G licenses granted a year earlier than planned. The role of the Chinese government and the well-orchestrated joint investments of operators and equipment suppliers were critical to this earlier commercial launch,” said Nicole Peng, Vice President of Mobility at Canalys.

      By 4Q20, Canalys projects that China will account for 17.5% of all 5G smartphone shipments, and this percentage will jump to 62.7% in 2023

      “5G smartphones will see rapid adoption in China, thanks to a strong government technology roadmap and operators’ financial capabilities. China is also home to many major 5G equipment suppliers and smartphone vendors, which will be responsible for an aggressive marketing push over the next few years,” added Peng.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “But mass-market adoption of 5G smartphones does not necessarily mean a successful 5G deployment. Full 5G deployment will take much longer, and be much more complex than the previous network generation, in order to realize the benefits of 5G beyond eMBB (enhanced Mobile Broadband). And this is very costly, putting more pressure on global operators, which are already facing declining revenue and more price competition from MVNOs.”

      Between 1981 and 2008, China lifted 600 million people out of poverty – has spurred remarkable growth in the country. Now the superpower is expected to lead the world in technology and innovation by the mid-2020s.

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

      China’s top-down national agenda has moved the country ahead in 5G development in technology R&D, equipment, network, terminals, platform, to application development.

      “Chinese operators’ investments in 5G will reach US$5 billion this year, and around 70,000 to 90,000 5G base stations will be built across the country. Among the three operators, China Mobile will be extending its market advantage, given its vast user base and financial strength,” said Canalys Analyst Mo Jia.

      “China Mobile has the broadest 5G smartphone portfolio at launch. Given the government has just implemented the long-awaited mobile number portability policy, all three operators will be even more aggressive with promotions to target 5G early adopters and high-value customers later this year. Unsurprisingly, local Chinese brands, such as Huawei, Oppo, Xiaomi and ZTE, are 5G handset launch partners for the three operators, while Samsung will also use this window of opportunity to fight back in China. Yet Apple will miss out, leaving loyal iPhone users waiting another year, which might risk them switching to aggressive competitors,” added Jia.

      5G  opens up new possibilities to accelerate artificial intelligence, automation, robotics and the Internet of Things, therefore providing tremendous potential for China to lead the innovation wave of the 2020s – could result in the eventual displacement of the American empire by 2030.

    • Map Of Mars: The Geology Of The Red Planet

      For centuries, Mars has been mythically defined by its characteristic red appearance.

      In Babylonian astronomy, Mars was named after Nergal, the deity of fire, war, and destruction. In Chinese and Japanese texts, the planet was known as 火星, the fire star.

      Although this unique reddish hue has been a key defining characteristic of Mars in culture for centuries, Visual Capitalist’s Nicholas LePan notes that today we now know that it’s the iron oxide soil of the Martian landscape that makes it the “Red Planet” – and that there is much more to Mars than its color upon closer observation.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Above, today’s map, posted and created by Reddit user /hellofromthemoon, brings together the data from centuries of observation and the numerous missions to the Red Planet to map out its geology on a grand scale.

      A Red Dot in the Sky

      Egyptian astronomers first observed the planet Mars four thousand years ago and named it “Horus-the-red.” Babylonian astronomers marked its course through the night sky to track the passage of time. But it was not until 1610, when Galileo Galilei witnessed Mars with his own eyes through a telescope, that Mars was revealed as a whole other world.

      Over the centuries with improving technology, a succession of astronomers observed and crudely mapped out everything from polar ice caps to yellow clouds, and white and dark spots denoting varying elevations across the Martian surface. Some of the earliest maps of Mars date to 1831. But there is only so much you can accurately observe from the surface of the Earth.

      On July 14, 1965, NASA successfully received the first up-close images of Mars from the Mariner 4 spacecraft, passing within 9,844 kilometers (6,117 miles) of Mars’ surface. Mariner 4 captured the image of a large ancient crater and confirmed the existence of a thin atmosphere composed largely of carbon dioxide.

      Since then, four space agencies have successfully made it to Mars: NASA, the former Soviet Union space program, the European Space Agency and the Indian Space Research Organization. From orbital satellites to surface exploration with robots, each successful mission has brought back important data to develop an evolving picture of the planet.

      Here is a complete list of both the successful and failed missions to Mars.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Martian Geology

      On Mars, we see volcanoes, canyons, and impact basins much like the ones on Earth. The yellows scattered across the map indicate meteor impacts of varying size while the swaths of red indicate volcanoes and their associated lava flows. The varying colors of brown indicate the cratered highlands and midlands that make up most of the southern hemisphere.

      The planet appears asymmetric. Most of the southern hemisphere is heavily cratered and resembles the moon’s highlands. In contrast, the northern hemisphere is sparsely cratered and has many large volcanoes.

      Mars is approximately one-half the diameter of the Earth, but both planets have the same amount of dry land. This is because the current surface of Mars has no liquid water.

      Mars and Earth are very different planets when it comes to temperature, size, and atmosphere, but geologic processes on the two planets are eerily similar. The sheer size of some landforms on Mars would shadow over similar features on Earth because of the lack of water erosion. This lack of erosion has preserved billion year-old geologic features.

      The tallest mountain on Mars and in the solar system is Olympus Mons, and it is two and a half times taller than Mt. Everest. A Martian canyon system, called Valles Marineris, is the length of the entire continental United States and three times deeper than the Grand Canyon.

      Mars Colony: Location, Location, Location

      The first step to building a colony is to figure out where the best chance of survival is. For Mars, some researchers have identified the planet’s poles, which contain millennia-old ice deposits. These are thought to contain large amounts of ice, which mars settlers could extract and turn into liquid water.

      The poles also host other natural resources, such as carbon dioxide, iron, aluminum, silicon and sulfur, which could be used to make glass, brick and plastic. Furthermore, the planet’s atmosphere contains enough hydrogen and methanol for fuel.

      Closing the Distance

      The map above represents the culmination of centuries of work which we are lucky enough to view here on a computer, conveniently online for us to appreciate and wonder what life’s like on the surface of Mars.

      Who knows what more exploration will reveal.

       

    • Man Who Stayed At New Yorker Hotel For One Day In 2018 Now Claims He Owns The Whole Building

      The New Yorker hotel is in the middle of a court battle with a man who allegedly filed a phony deed to try and usurp ownership of the entire midtown building, according to the New York Post. A man that wound up staying at the hotel for a year rent free under an obscure legal loophole is sparring with the owners of the hotel after, in June 2018, he stayed at the hotel for one night and then asked for a six-month lease under an obscure section of the city’s rent stabilization laws.

      The hotel declined to offer 44 year old Mickey Barreto a lease, but he wound up going to housing court, where a judge ordered the hotel to let him back in. Barreto then convinced clerks at the city department of finance that the paperwork he was issued gave him not only a room, but ownership of the entire building.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      He filed a deed on May 28 that lists the building as a “religious structure” and claims that he had purchased it by court order for $189,336,000.

      Now, he claims to run “Mickey Barreto Missions” out of the address, has been demanding rent from two restaurant tenants, has tried to take over hotel operations and has attempted to get the building’s bank accounts transferred to him. He even summoned the fire department at one point because of a nonexistent gas leak, trying to get the building evacuated.

      He’s requested a $15 million payment from the building’s actual owners and at one wrote on his LinkedIn page: 

      “I OWN the building where the New Yorker Hotel is located in Manhattan. ALL MINE!!! Please apply here for your section 8 apartment in Manhattan.”

      The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, who owns the hotel, fears that “Barreto could take out a lien or mortgage on the building” or sell it to an innocent third party.

      The city’s finance department says it gets 40 new deed fraud complaints every month. Meanwhile, a Manhattan supreme court judge called Barreto’s attempt “bizarre” and ruled that it was “abundantly clear” that he was not the owner. The court also ordered him to remove public references to himself as the owner.

      Barreto told the Post: “I never committed any fraud.”

       

    • Johnstone: Jingoistic Military Fetishization Is As American As Bald Eagle McNuggets

      Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

      “Putin’s America,” tweeted Anand Giridharadas, a pundit who was genetically engineered in a Monsanto laboratory to appeal to NPR listeners on every possible level.

      Giridharadas used these words yesterday to caption a short video clip of two tanks being carted through the streets of DC in preparation for their appearance in a parade for Independence Day, a holiday in which Americans gather to eat hot dogs and drink Mountain Dew in celebration of the anniversary of their lateral transfer from monarchy to corporatist oligarchy.

      The military hardware parade is taking place at the behest of President Bolton’s social media assistant Donald Trump, and critics have been vocally decrying it as alien and un-American. Pundits like Giridharadas and Steve Silberman have been saying it’s something Russia would do. The Independentsaid it’s a spectacle you’d see in “authoritarian regimes such as North Korea, Iran and China.” Adam Best and Charles Pierce both likened it to something that would be done in a “banana republic”, an interesting choice of phrase for a gratuitous display of American military bravado given that term’s blood-soaked origins in US corporate colonialism.

      All of these people are of course being ridiculous. There’s nothing alien or un-American about Trump’s parade at all. Jingoistic fetishization of the military is as American as a deep-fried trademark symbol.

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

      All this parade is, actually, is just one of the many, many, many many times over the last two and a half years that Trump has shown America its true face, and Americans haven’t liked what they’ve seen.

      “That’s not my reflection!” the Americans scream at the mirror he holds up for them. “That’s Putin!”

      “That’s not my reflection!” they protest. “That’s North Korea!”

      “That’s not my reflection!” they say. “That’s a banana republic!”

      No, America. That’s you. It’s been you all along.

      This is the same country, after all, in which someone simply mentioning that they were in the armed forces often elicits a reverent “Oh, thank you for your service!” from whoever happens to hear them, as though spending four years protecting Raytheon profit margins and crude oil is something ordinary civilians should be grateful for. You guys know no other country does that, right? In Australia if you tell someone you were in the army they’ll tell you “Aww, bonza mate. I’m a plumber meself.” It’s not a thing, because when you’re not part of the most powerful military force in the history of civilization, powerful people don’t have nearly as much invested in making a thing out of it.

      This is the same country where every second house and every single McDonald’s has its flag flying over it, a cult of idolatry that’s become so ubiquitous that a football player choosing to kneel instead of stand before that stupid piece of cloth generates national outrage. The same country where simply bleating “Support the troops!” or “Freedom isn’t free!” was in and of itself seen as a be-all, end-all debate-winning argument for the rape of Iraq. The same country that spent weeks on end mourning the death of bloodthirsty psychopath John McCain on the grounds that he’s a “war hero” when they should have loaded his heartless cadaver onto a trebuchet and launched it into the nearest tire fire as part of a telethon benefit for Syria.

      All that’s considered perfectly normal by mainstream America, and liberals are getting their knickers in a knot over a few tanks and “Blue Angels” (another ridiculous yet perfectly normalized American spectacle)? Hell, it’s not even like Trump invented presidential parades full of instruments of mass military slaughter.

      Check out this photo from JFK’s inaugural parade:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Or this one from Eisenhower’s:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Or this one from FDR’s:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And the fact that it’s mostly Democrats kvetching about this parade is especially absurd, given that in 2019 they’ve somehow managed to become even more hawkish and jingoistic than the Republicans. This is the same crowd that just the other day was attacking Trump for having the audacity to meet with Kim Jong-Un, the same crowd that’s constantly accusing Trump of being weak on Syria and Afghanistan, the same crowd that’s made heroes of the US intelligence community and the “grownups in the room” generals in the administration, and the same crowd that’s been shrieking hysterically for the last three years demanding greater and greater escalations against a nuclear superpower because something-something Putin’s cock holster. The biggest problem with Trump’s tank parade will be that male Democrats in attendance will have trouble hiding their erections.

      Americans are the most aggressively propagandized people in the world, and US service personnel are the most aggressively propagandized people in America. That’s the group that all this special reverence and fetishization has been attached to: a bunch of kids who’ve been manipulated into killing and dying for plutocratic investments and the mommy-shaped hole in John Bolton’s heart. That’s what this parade is meant to manufacture even more support for in a culture that is saturated past the brim in a relentless barrage of war propaganda.

      Face it, America. Trump’s tank parade isn’t in any way alien to anything you’ve ever stood for. The only way to make it more American would be to add a few monster trucks and a Kardashian. This parade is your reflection. This parade is you.

      *  *  *

      The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

      Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Jul 03

    Today’s News 3rd July 2019

    • France's Richest People Have Seen Their Net Worth Rocket 35% This Year

      Despite the civil unrest in France to start the year, the country’s richest citizens still had a fantastic start to 2019, according to Bloomberg.

      Amidst protesters taking to the streets to demand higher wages and better pensions, the 14 people from France on the Bloomberg Billionaire’s Index added a combined $78 billion to their collective net worth since the beginning of 2019. That is an astounding 35% increase. The figures will likely serve as additional fuel for protests over income inequality in the country.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      France’s pace was more than double China’s richest, who saw growth of 17% for the first six months of the year. The richest in the U.S. saw their wealth grow 15% during the first half the year.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Outside of France, the other highest returns came from Thailand at 33% and Singapore, who came in at 31%. The richest in Japan saw their wealth grow 24%. The only Nigerian on the list, Aliko Dangote, saw his wealth up 60% so far in 2019.

      Specifically in France, luxury businessmen Bernard Arnault and Francois Pinault, combined with cosmetics heir Francoise Bettencourt Meyersedit combined to make up $53 billion of the growth. The demand for luxury goods from China has continued even though there has been uncertainty from the ongoing trade war. Arnault’s LVMH shares are up 45% this year, making the company the second best performer in France’s CAC 40 index. He joined Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates as the only people that have fortunes of over $100 billion.

      Thailand’s success was a result of Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi, founder and chairman of TCC Group. Sirivadhanabhakdi’s net worth rose by $4 billion to $16.5 billion as shares of his company, listed in Singapore, were up 38%. 

    • In Germany, Some Hate Speech Is "More Equal Than Others"

      Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,

      • Although the “military arm” of Hezbollah is prohibited in the EU, the “political arm” is not, which means that in Germany, Hezbollah is free to engage in “non-military” activities — such as fundraising.

      • On the one hand, the federal police conduct countrywide raids on middle-aged Germans who post their thoughts on Facebook, while on the other, members of openly lethal terrorist organizations who espouse nothing but hatred towards a specific ethnic group, the Jews, are not only allowed to march in the heart of the German capital… but are free to organize and fundraise for their purpose.

      • That participants in the anti-Semitic Al Quds march have been allowed to flaunt their hatred for nearly four decades now, while middle-aged Germans are having their apartments searched for anti-Semitic and racist messages on Facebook, exposes a disturbing double standard in the application of the law.

      • At the very least, it shows that German authorities appear to harbor extremely selective views of what constitutes hate speech, based, it seems, on nothing more than the identity of the group that voices it.

      In June, the “Al Quds Day” march took place in Berlin. Al Quds Day, in the words of the late historian Robert S. Wistrich, is “The holiday proclaimed by Khomeini in 1979 to call for Israel’s annihilation” which “has since been celebrated worldwide…”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Pictured: Participants in the anti-Israel Al-Quds Day march wave the flag of the Hezbollah terrorist group, on July 25, 2014 in Berlin, Germany. (Photo by Carsten Koall/Getty Images)

      In Germany, Al Quds Day marches have been taking place in the country’s capital since the 1980s[1], first in Bonn and since 1996 in Berlin. On Al Quds Day in December 2000, more than 2,000 demonstrators in the Kurfürstendamm — a central boulevard in Berlin — called for “the liberation of Palestine and the holy city of Jerusalem”. In November 2002, only one year after 9/11, the march featured slogans such as “Death to Israel” and “Death to the USA”. At the march in 2016, the slogans were, among others, “Death to Israel”, “Zionists kill children”, and so on.

      Despite nearly four decades of such rhetoric — the kind that is arguably capable — according to paragraph 130 of Germany’s Criminal Code, which prohibits hate speech — “of disturbing the public peace” by inciting “hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins”, German authorities have continually refused to ban the Al Quds Day march. The argument is, reportedly, that the Administrative Court would overrule such a ban. “A constitutional state must act in accordance with the rule of law,” said the spokesperson for the interior administration of the city of Berlin, Martin Pallgen. “Freedom of assembly and expression also applies to those who reject the rule of law”. Instead, German authorities have prohibited marchers from being overtly anti-Semitic and inciting hatred against Jews. The exercise is a bit like telling a neo-Nazi march please to cover up the swastikas to look more presentable.

      It has not helped. In 2016, police issued specific instructions for the march’s participants, banning them from expressing anti-Semitic views or inciting violence against Jews. That restriction, according to Benjamin Steinitz, the director of the Berlin-based Department for Research and Information on anti-Semitism (RIAS), curbed the undisguised hate speech somewhat, but led to the use of “coded messages”, frequently in Arabic or Farsi, which most German police do not speak. “So,” said Steinitz in 2017, “the police regulations have had some effect, but since the goal of this demonstration is the dismantling of the State of Israel, the anti-Semitic content is always there.”

      Indeed, according to Der Tagesspiegel, despite the specific police instructions of previous years, in the June 2018 march, the police had to issue the following instructions to the participants:

      “It is forbidden to burn dolls. There must be no open calls for kidnapping or murder. The participants should not chant, ‘Zionists into the gas’ or ‘Jew, Jew, cowardly pig, come out and fight alone'”.

      According to Der Tagesspiegel, these were all incidents that happened in previous marches — and all, presumably, violations of Germany’s hate speech laws.

      This year, according to a report by RIAS, “The Al Quds march did not lose any of its anti-Semitic character, despite attempts to deceive the public by the organizers”. The report mentions, as an example, the presence of anti-Semitic posters and praising Hezbollah. Protesters wearing T-shirts with the name and slogans of the terrorist group Hamas — which vows to eliminate Israel — were also present.

      The refusal of the authorities to ban the Al Quds march appears even more suspect in light of the fact that around the same time of the march, on June 6, German authorities launched nationwide coordinated police raids in 13 federal states against suspects who had posted hate speech online. In a total of 38 cases, apartments were searched and suspects interrogated, the Federal Criminal Police Office reported. The suspects were alleged to have posted hate comments, including “public calls for crimes, insults of officials or anti-Semitic verbal abuse.” One of the largest operations reportedly took place in the city of Koblenz, where the apartments of 12 suspects were searched in connection to two far right-wing Facebook groups. The 12 suspects were between the ages of 45 and 68, and were believed to be responsible for the groups called “The Patriots,” and “Our Germany patriotic & free.” The groups were suspected of having made the following comment, among others, about refugee family reunification: “In my opinion all should be gassed”. The nationwide action day to combat hate postings was established three years ago and has since been held once a year. The Federal Police claim that most of the hate speech is “from the right-wing extremist spectrum” (77%), 9% from the “extreme-left” and 14% “foreign or religious ideologies or no concrete political motivation”.

      While the Federal Criminal Police Office was searching the homes of middle-aged Germans posting racist comments in Facebook groups, a recent German intelligence report concluded that in 2018, the membership numbers in German for Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based Iranian proxy terrorist organization, rose to a total of 1050, up from 950 in 2017. “Hezbollah denies the right of existence of the State of Israel and fights it with terrorist means,” the intelligence report noted. “In Germany, the followers of Hezbollah maintain organizational and ideological cohesion in local mosques associations that are financed primarily by donations.” The report also mentioned the travel of functionaries between Lebanon and Germany for the purpose of connecting with Hezbollah and noted that “Hezbollah is against the idea of ​​international understanding and the peaceful coexistence of peoples”.

      The presence of such a large number of Hezbollah operatives in the country does not appear to worry the German government. Although the “military arm” of Hezbollah is prohibited in the EU, the “political arm” is not, which means that Hezbollah is free to engage in “non-military” activities in Germany — such as fundraising.

      In March, the German government refused to ban the terrorist organization in its entirety, and in June, a majority of the Bundestag, including the Christian Social Union, the Social Democratic Party, the Left, the Greens, Free Democrats and Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) rejected a proposal by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to ban or alternatively limit Hezbollah’s operations in Germany, such as abolishing its non-profit status.

      Thus, there seems to be in Germany a revealingly uneven application of hate speech laws.

      On the one hand, the federal police conduct countrywide raids on middle-aged Germans who post their thoughts on Facebook. On the other hand, people who back openly lethal terrorist organizations that espouse nothing but hatred towards a specific ethnic group, the Jews, are free to organize, fundraise, and march in the heart of the German capital — if they please just omit “Zionists to the gas” or “Jew, Jew, cowardly pig, come out and fight alone“.

      Whatever one’s opinion of hate speech laws, they, like all laws, have to be applied in an equal and consistent manner. That participants in the anti-Semitic Al Quds march have been allowed literally to parade their hatred for nearly four decades now, while middle-aged Germans are having their apartments searched for anti-Semitic and racist messages on Facebook, exposes a disturbing double standard in the application of the law.

      It shows at the very least, that German authorities appear to harbor extremely selective views of what constitutes hate speech, based, it seems, on nothing more than the identity of the group that voices it.

    • China's Military Closed Off Area Of South China Sea For "Anti-Ship" Missile Tests

      Things are set for yet more dangerous intercepts and incidents in the South China Sea this summer given Beijing just announced it had closed off an area of the sea near the Spratly Islands for a five-day military drill which began over the weekend.

      NBC News also confirmed a series of anti-ship ballistic missiles tests are underway, citing US defense officials, which said at least one missile was fired over the sea this weekend and more tests will continue through July 3rd. One US official said the drills in the hotly disputed waters which has been scene of recent incidents between China the the US and its allies like the Philippines were “concerning”. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A Chinese military rescue center on artificial Spratly island in the South China Sea, via Yahoo Singapore

      It’s unknown if the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) conducted tests of next generation weaponry, like the JL-3 submarine-launched ballistic missile, or which capabilities were deployed; however, multiple reports suggest the PLA has been practicing sinking enemy vessels with anti-ship naval missiles.

      According to Business Insider:

      For ballistic-missile tests, Chinese authorities typically issue Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) identifying “temporary danger areas,” Ankit Panda, senior editor at The Diplomat, explained. Such a NOTAM was issued for the period between June 30 and July 1, marking off two locations in the South China Sea.

      Beijing previously moved land-based anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), such as the YJ-62 and YJ-12B, to Chinese-occupied territories in the region, a move the US condemned.

      Alarmingly, parts of the area closed off by the PLA are actually claimed by the Philippines, and the US Navy regularly conducts freedom of navigation exercises in the region; however, an official told NBC that American naval vessels are currently nowhere close to the drills. 

      Interestingly the missile tests and closure of the maritime area occurred simultaneous to Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan on Saturday, where Xi reportedly told Trump that “at present China-US relations have encountered some difficulties, which are not in the interests of both sides”.

      “China and the US should not fall into a so-called trap of conflict and confrontation, but should promote each other and develop together,” Xi said.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Over the past years the US and its allies have condemned expanding Chinese sovereign claims over much of the South China Sea, claims which Beijing has sought to bolster through a series of man-made islands and accompanying network of small military bases. 

      One Hong Kong-based military analyst who echoed the PLA’s position on the dispute told the South China Morning Post: “Countries outside the region continue to stir up the issue through so-called freedom of navigation operations and close surveillance, threatening China’s national security,” and added, “The Chinese military must fight back at those provocations.”

    • Why Won't The Media Criticize US Interventionism?

      Authored by Tom Engelhardt via TomDispatch.com,

      Despite military involvement in 75% of the world, mainstream news outlets always stop short of calling out American aggressions…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Headlined “U.S. Seeks Other Ways to Stop Iran Shy of War,” the article was tucked away on page A9 of a recent New York Times. Still, it caught my attention. Here’s the first paragraph:

      “American intelligence and military officers are working on additional clandestine plans to counter Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf, pushed by the White House to develop new options that could help deter Tehran without escalating tensions into a full-out conventional war, according to current and former officials.”

      Note that “Iranian aggression.” The rest of the piece, fairly typical of the tone of American media coverage of the ongoing Iran crisis, included sentences like this: “The C.I.A. has longstanding secret plans for responding to Iranian provocations.” I’m sure I’ve read such things hundreds of times without ever really stopping to think much about them, but this time I did. And what struck me was this: rare is the moment in such mainstream news reports when Americans are the “provocative” ones (though the Iranians immediately accused the U.S. military of just that, a provocation, when it came to the U.S. drone its Revolutionary Guard recently shot down either over Iranian air space or the Strait of Hormuz). When it comes to Washington’s never-ending war on terror, I think I can say with reasonable confidence that, in the past, the present, and the future, the one phrase you’re not likely to find in such media coverage will be “American aggression.”

      I mean, forget the history of the second half of the last century and all of this one so far. Forget that back in the Neolithic age of the 1980s, before Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein turned out to be the new Adolf Hitler and needed to be taken down by us (no aggression there), the administration of President Ronald Reagan actively backed his unprovoked invasion of, and war against, Iran. (That included his use of chemical weapons against Iranian troop concentrations that American military intelligence helped him target.) Forget that, in 2003, the administration of George W. Bush launched an unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq, based on false intelligence about Saddam’s supposed weapons of mass destruction and his supposed links to al-Qaeda. Forget that the Trump administration tore up a nuclear agreement with Iran to which that country was adhering and which would indeed have effectively prevented it from producing nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future. Forget that its supreme leader (in fatwas he issued) prohibited the creation or stockpiling of such weaponry in any case. 

      Forget that the Trump administration, in a completely unprovoked manner, imposed crippling sanctions on that country and its oil trade, causing genuine suffering, in hopes of toppling that regime economically as Saddam Hussein’s had been toppled militarily in neighboring Iraq in 2003, all in the name of preventing the atomic weapons that the Obama-negotiated pact had taken care of. Forget the fact that an American president, who, at the last moment, halted air strikes against Iranian missile bases (after one of their missiles shot down that American drone) is now promising that an attack on “anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force… In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration.”

      Provocations? Aggression? Perish the thought!

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And yet, just ask yourself what Washington and the Pentagon might do if an Iranian drone were spotted off the East Coast of the United States (no less in actual U.S. air space).  No more need be said, right?

      So here’s the strange thing, on a planet on which, in 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces deployed to 149 countries, or approximately 75% of all nations; on which the U.S. has perhaps 800 military garrisons outside its own territory; on which the U.S. Navy patrols most of its oceans and seas; on which U.S. unmanned aerial drones conduct assassination strikes across a surprising range of countries; and on which the U.S. has been fighting wars, as well as more minor conflicts, for years on end from Afghanistan to Libya, Syria to Yemen, Iraq to Niger in a century in which it chose to launch full-scale invasions of two countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), is it truly reasonable never to identify the U.S. as an “aggressor” anywhere?

      What you might say about the United States is that, as the self-proclaimed leading proponent of democracy and human rights (even if its president is now having a set of love affairs with autocrats and dictators), Americans consider ourselves at home just about anywhere we care to be on planet Earth.  It matters little how we may be armed and what we might do. Consequently, wherever Americans are bothered, harassed, threatened, attacked, we are always the ones being provoked and aggressed upon, never provoking and aggressing. I mean, how can you be the aggressor in your own house, even if that house happens to be temporarily located in Afghanistan, Iraq, or perhaps soon enough in Iran?

      A Planet of Aggressors and Provocateurs

      To mine the same New York Times piece a little more, here’s another paragraph:

      “Some officials believe the United States needs [to] be willing to master the kind of deniable, shadowy techniques Tehran has perfected in order to halt Iran’s aggressions. Others think that, while helpful, such clandestine attacks will not be enough to reassure American allies or deter Iran.”

      Of course, such clandestine American attacks would, by definition, not be “aggression,” not given that they were directed against Iran. Forget the grim historical humor lurking in the above passage, since the present Iranian religious hard-liners probably wouldn’t be there if, back in 1953, the CIA hadn’t used just such techniques to overthrow a democratically elected Iranian government and install its own autocrat, the young Shah, in power.

      As that Times piece also emphasizes, Iran now uses “proxy forces” throughout the region (indeed it does!) against U.S. (and Israeli) power, a tactic Americans evidently just hadn’t thought about employing themselves in this century — until now. Americans naturally have no proxy forces in the Greater Middle East. That’s a well-known fact. Just out of curiosity, however, what would you call the local forces our special ops guys are training and advising in so many of those 149 countries around the planet, since obviously they could never be proxy forces? And how about the Afghan and Iraqi militaries that the U.S. trained, supplied with weaponry, and advised in these years? (You know, the Iraqi army that collapsed in the face of ISIS in 2014 or the Afghan security forces that have been unable to staunch either the growth of the Taliban or of the Afghan branch of ISIS.)

      Now, don’t get me wrong. Yes, the Iranians can (and sometimes do) provoke and aggress. It’s an ugly planet filled with aggression and provocation. (Take Vladimir Putin’s Russia in Crimea and Ukraine, for instance.) The Chinese are now aggressing in the South China Sea where the U.S. Navy regularly conducts “freedom of navigation” operations — though no provocation there, as the Pacific’s an American lake, isn’t it?

      In short, when it comes to provocation and aggression, the world is our oyster. There are so many bad guys out there and then, of course, there’s us. We can make mistakes and missteps, we can kill staggering numbers of civilians, destroy cities, uproot populations, create hordes of refugees with our never-ending wars across the Greater Middle East and Africa, but aggression? What are you thinking?

      One thing is obvious if you follow the mainstream media: in our world, no matter what we do, we’re still the good guys on a planet filled with provocateurs and aggressors of every sort.

      War to the Horizon

      Now let’s think for a moment about that remarkable American comfort level, that unprecedented sense of being at home practically anywhere on Earth we choose to send armed Americans — and while we’re at it, let’s consider a related subject: America’s wars.

      If, in the early 1970s, you had told me or any other American that, in the nearly half-century to come, the U.S. would fight wars and other lesser conflicts of almost every imaginable sort in startling numbers of places thousands of miles from home, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen, countries most Americans couldn’t then (or now) find on a map, I guarantee you one thing: we would have thought you were nuts. (Of course, if you had described Donald Trump’s White House to me then as our future reality, I would have considered you beyond delusional.)

      And yet here we are. Think about Afghanistan for a moment. In those distant days of the last century, that country would undoubtedly have been known here only to small numbers of young adventurers eager to hike what was then called “the hippy trail.” There, in a still remarkably peaceful place, a young American might have been greeted with remarkable friendliness and then spaced out on drugs.

      That, of course, was before Washington’s first (covert) Afghan War, the one the CIA oversaw, with the help of Saudi money (yes, even then!) and a major hand from the Pakistani intelligence services. Do you remember that conflict, which began in 1979 and ended a decade later with the Red Army limping out of Kabul in defeat, heading for a land, the Soviet Union, which would implode within two years? What a “victory” that proved to be for America, not to speak of the groups of extremist Islamic militants we helped to fund and support, including a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden.

      And keep in mind as well that that was our “short” war in Afghanistan, a mere decade long. In October 2001, soon after the 9/11 attacks, instead of launching a police action against Osama bin Laden and crew, the administration of George W. Bush decided to invade that country. Almost 18 years later, the U.S. military is still fighting there (remarkably unsuccessfully) against a thoroughly rejuvenated Taliban and a new branch of ISIS. It now qualifies as the longest war in our history (without even adding in that first Afghan War of ours).

      And then, of course, there’s Iraq. By my count, the U.S. has been involved in four conflicts involving that country, starting with Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in 1980 and the ensuing war, which the administration of President Ronald Reagan supported militarily (as the present one does the Saudi war in Yemen). Then there was President George H.W. Bush’s war against Saddam Hussein after his military invaded Kuwait in 1990, which resulted in a resounding (but by no means conclusive) victory and the kind of victory parade in Washington that Donald Trump can only dream of. Next, of course, was President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq (mission accomplished!), a grim and unsatisfying eight-year conflict from which President Barack Obama withdrew U.S. troops in 2011. The fourth war followed in 2014 when the U.S.-trained Iraqi military collapsed in the face of relatively small numbers of ISIS militants, a group that was an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which didn’t exist until the U.S. invaded that country. That September, President Obama loosed the U.S. air force on Iraq and Syria (so you can add a fifth war in a neighboring country to the mix) and sent U.S. troops back into Iraq and into Syria where they still remain.

      Oh, yes, and don’t forget Somalia. U.S. troubles there began with the famed Black Hawk Down incident amid the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 and never, in a sense, really ended. Today, U.S. Special Operations forces are still on the ground there and U.S. air strikes against a Somali militant Islamic group, al-Shabaab, have actually been on the rise in the Trump era.

      As for Yemen, from the first U.S. drone strike there in 2002, the U.S. had been in an on-again, off-again low-level conflict there that included commando raids, cruise missile attacks, air strikes, and drone strikes against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, another offshoot of the original al-Qaeda. Since, in 2015, the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates launched their war against Houthi rebels (backed by Iran) who had come to control significant parts of the country, the U.S. has been supporting them with weaponry, intelligence, and targeting, as well as (until late last year) mid-air refueling and other aid. Meanwhile, that brutal war of destruction has led to staggering numbers of Yemeni civilian casualties (and widespread starvation), but as with so many of the other campaigns the U.S. has involved itself in across the Greater Middle East and Africa it shows no sign of ending.

      And don’t forget Libya, where the U.S. and NATO intervened in 2011 to help rebels take down Muammar Gaddafi, the local autocrat, and in the process managed to foster a failed state in a land now experiencing its own civil war. In the years since 2011, the U.S. has sometimes had commandos on the ground there, has launched hundreds of drone strikes (and air strikes), often against a branch of ISIS that grew up in that land. Once again, little is settled there, so we can all continue to sing the Marine Hymn (“…to the shores of Tripoli”) with a sense of appropriateness.

      And I haven’t even mentioned Pakistan, Niger, and god knows where else. You should also note that the American forever war on terror has proven a remarkably effective war for terror, clearly helping to foster and spread such groups, aggressors and provocateurs all, around significant parts of the planet, from the Philippines to the Congo.

      Addicted to war? Not us. Still, all in all, it’s quite a record and let’s not forget that looming on the horizon is another possible war, this time with Iran, a country that the men overseeing the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (including present National Security Advisor John Bolton) were eager to go after even then. “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad,” so the saying reputedly went in Washington at the time. “Real men want to go to Tehran.” And it’s just possible that, in 2019, Bolton and crew will be able to act on that much delayed urge. Considering the history of American wars in these years, what could possibly go wrong?

      To sum up, no one should ever claim that we Americans aren’t “at home” in the world. We’re everywhere, remarkably well funded and well armed and ready to face off against the aggressors and provocateurs of this planet. Just one small suggestion: thank the troops for their service if you want, and then, as most Americans do, go about your business as if nothing were happening in those distant lands. As we head into election season 2020, however, just don’t imagine that we’re the good guys on Planet Earth. As far as I can tell, there aren’t many good guys left.

    • China Eyes Green Supersonic Civilian Jetliner Prototype By 2035

      China, the rising power of the world, has transformed its country into a superpower that will likely dominate the US by the 2030s. To do this, they need to advance their aerospace industry, along with supersonic civil jetliners that could take a traditional flight of ten hours down to five.

      A new report from China Central Television (CCTV), reported in English via the Global Times, says China is expected to develop an environmentally friendly supersonic civil aircraft with prototypes expected for flight tests in 2035.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      China Association for Science and Technology announced on Sunday at its annual meeting held in Harbin, Northeast China’s Heilongjiang Province, that it has started designing a green supersonic civil jetliner.

      The CCTV report said supersonic air travel would take a traditional ten-hour flight down to five, would revolutionize travel between continents.

      “Green supersonic civil aircraft is currently a hot research topic internationally, as well as the direction of future aerospace development,” Xu Yue, a senior engineer at the Chinese Aeronautical Establishment under the state-owned Aviation Industry of China, told CCTV.

      We have extensively covered the developments of supersonic and even hypersonic technologies that are expected to revolutionize aerospace in the next decade.

      Countries including the US, Japan, and some European countries have already published designs for supersonic planes, CCTV said.

      In November 2018, Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works started to build the X-59 Quiet Supersonic Technology (QueSST) plane, which could take to the skies in the next several years.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The QueSST is for NASA’s Low-Boom Flight Demonstration program will be flown above several US cities to measure the public’s reaction of a low-boom sound from supersonic flight.

      We even reported that an Atlanta-based startup is working on the development of hypersonic jetliners.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      China has already made breakthroughs in technologies for supersonic and hypersonic flight.

      “We hope that, through our own technological development and continued scientific investment, we can launch our own supersonic civil aircraft prototype in around 2035,” Xu said.

      A race between China and the US has developed, in who can build, test, and launch a supersonic jetliner first. For the US, this will be about defending its aerospace empire. And for China, well, it’s about becoming the world’s next greatest superpower through technological advances, starting in aerospace, then in all other industries to displace the American empire.

    • Drowning Children & Democrat Denial

      Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

      Any image of a dead child is always harrowing, for everyone but the most deranged psychopaths among us. If the child has drowned while seeking a better life it is possibly worse. The public reaction of politicians to such images, which varies from doing very little, or nothing, to solve the issues that have led to a child drowning, to trying to make cheap political gains from the image, must be the worst.

      On September 2 2015, this photo of Syrian Kurdish 2 year-old Alan Kurdi, lifeless on a beach near Bodrum, Turkey, went viral. Almost 4 years later, all Europe has done is try to hide the problems that led to his death, by handing Turkey billions of euros to keep refugees inside that country. And still today conditions in Lesbos, Greece are appalling. Hardly a thing has changed.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Improvements to the situation that lead to Alan Kurdi’s death, within Syria itself, have had very little to do with European efforts. Russia had a much bigger role in that. And Syria is not the only source, or place, of troubles and refugees. Libya has turned into an open air slave market thanks to US and EU “efforts” under Obama. And Iraq is not exactly a land of milk and honey either. Or Afghanistan.

      And then this week another picture of a drowned child made the frontpages -and more. That child, too, drowned due to a situation that has a long history: the US seeking to turn Central America into a dirt-poor, chaotic and unsafe environment that local people desperately want to escape. Same difference. And again, in the US and EU it is used as propaganda material.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      So who do you blame for this? Trump of course. Who also gets the blame for the conditions in which children are held at the US-Mexico border, in “cages”. A disaster that caused Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to stage a scene in which she cried her heart out while looking at an empty parking lot in an expensive dress.

      The truth is, it doesn’t seem to matter anymore. The people who are on AOC’s side of the divide will never see the reports on her faking the scene, that’s how segregated America has become. The “appropriate media” will convey the “appropriate” message” to the “appropriate audience”. Chuck Schumer even took the photograph to Capitol Hill for some quick and easy points.

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

      What Schumer et al do not mention was that the “cages” AOC -ostensibly- cried about were built by the Obama government, i.e. Schumer’s own party. And there’s a few other things he conveniently left out. Like the fact that the horrible situations in their home countries that these people face are caused by the US itself, including Democrats like Schumer.

      But first, some of the press on June 26, when the pictures came out: A Grim Border Drowning Underlines Peril Facing Many Migrants

      The searing photograph of the sad discovery of their bodies on Monday, captured by journalist Julia Le Duc and published by Mexican newspaper La Jornada, highlights the perils faced by mostly Central American migrants fleeing violence and poverty and hoping for asylum in the United States. According to Le Duc’s reporting for La Jornada, Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez, frustrated because the family from El Salvador was unable to present themselves to U.S. authorities and request asylum, swam across the river on Sunday with his daughter, Valeria.

      He set her on the U.S. bank of the river and started back for his wife, Tania Vanessa Ávalos, but seeing him move away the girl threw herself into the waters. Martínez returned and was able to grab Valeria, but the current swept them both away. The account was based on remarks by Ávalos to police at the scene — “amid tears” and “screams” — Le Duc told The Associated Press.

      That border did not become “grim” overnight, it has been exactly that for many years. We have proof of that. But first, more easy points.

      ‘Trump Is Responsible’

      The Democratic presidential candidates rushed to condemn the “inhumane” situation on the US border with Mexico – with some directly blaming Donald Trump – after a picture of a Salvadoran father and his toddler daughter found dead in the Rio Grande shocked the nation. The photograph, which emerged on Tuesday night, showed Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez, 26, and his 23-month-old daughter Valeria laying facedown near Matamoros, Mexico, on the bank of the river that marks the US border – reopening a fierce debate about the scale of the crisis.

      The picture, by journalist Julia Le Duc, has drawn comparisons to the 2015 image of three-year-old Syrian boy Alan Jurdi, who drowned off Kos in Greece – sparking a significant moment in the European debate over migrants and refugees. Beto O’Rourke said: “Trump is responsible for these deaths.”Writing on Twitter, the former Texas congressman added: “As his administration refuses to follow our laws – preventing refugees from presenting themselves for asylum at our ports of entry – they cause families to cross between ports, ensuring greater suffering & death. At the expense of our humanity, not to the benefit of our safety.”

      Fellow 2020 hopeful senator Kamala Harris condemned the picture as “a stain on our moral conscience”. She wrote: “These families seeking asylum are often fleeing extreme violence. And what happens when they arrive? Trump says, ‘Go back to where you came from.’ That is inhumane. Children are dying.” Corey Booker, New Jersey senator and 2020 candidate, also blamed the president. “We should not look away. These are the consequences of Donald Trump’s inhumane and immoral immigration policy. This is being done in our name,” he tweeted.

      These people don’t appear to have any knowledge of their own history, their own party. Either that or they’re flat-out lying. Kamala Harris: “..what happens when they arrive? Trump says, ‘Go back to where you came from.’ That is inhumane. Children are dying.” Here Kamala, Corey, Beto, take a listen to what Obama said in both 2007 and again in 2014. Take your time, we’ll wait:

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

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

      While it’s impossible to quantify misery, and we should not even try, perhaps the closest we can get to doing it anyway is by looking at the number of people who have died at the US Southwest border. And if you can do that over an entire 20-year period, you at least have some indication.

      And what do we see? The number of deaths under Trump is not high at all, at least in relative terms. Every death is one too many, true enough. But still. Since 2000, there was only one year, 2015, in which there were fewer deaths than in the two Trump years, 2017 and 2018.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Here’s a more detailed version of this (click for larger pic in new tab):

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But yes, I know how much people love to hate Trump and his administration, and often for good reason too. But this whole thing appears to be about issues that existed during the previous Obama administration- and W. Bush- just as much, if not more. When Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi already were where they are now: in positions of -real- power. So you know, what do you do when they try and blame Trump for the very things they were complicit in?

      And then there’s Salvini in Italy refusing entry to a ship filled with refugees. Which pretty much says he’s trying to force captains to break age-old maritime law (or the Law of the Sea, admiralty?!). And you can say he’s an idiot for doing it, and he is, but he is also telling the EU that Italy can’t accept 10 times more refugees than other EU nations just because it happens to have a coastline.

      And sure Salvini is a belligerent fool, and so is Trump, but if you want to understand what happens you can’t stop at blaming only them. It’s tempting but it’s also far too easy. Even the Dalai Lama said people should stay in their own countries. But also that they should receive help from the west. Which for many decades have only been terrorizing them. This is as true in Africa as it is in Central America.

      Arguably, all we need to do to stop children like Alan Kurdi and Valeria from drowning at border crossings is to make their home countries safe from our own criminal and deathly activities. But that’s not going to be easy. I read this piece today from think tanking US professors Mark Hannah and Stephen Wertheim, and it doesn’t even make sense beyond the initial message:

      Here’s One Way Democrats Can Defeat Trump: Be Radically Anti-War

      The last two presidents, Obama and Trump, were unlikely aspirants to the office partly because they bucked national-security orthodoxy, blasting Middle East wars and the political class that started them. Obama and Trump won their elections partly for the same reason. Once in office, however, they struggled to deliver. Endless war continues; diplomacy is in tatters; Americans suffer from underinvestment where they live and work; and the greatest threats, like climate change, loom larger across the globe. In 2020, the candidate who not only identifies these problems, but offers real solutions, will benefit.

      Problem is, the Democrats are a radically pro-war party, just like the Republicans. The writers silently admit this by not naming one Democrat who is anti-war, and by not at all naming the one presidential candidate who is, Tulsi Gabbard. Which makes one suspect that they and their backers are not so much anti-war as they are anti-Trump, but since many Americans are anti-war these days, they see it as a possibly winning platform.

      Given that Wertheim is a co-founder with George Soros and the Koch brothers of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, none of this is surprising. They just want the power back, and if that takes promising no more forever war during an election campaign, hey, that’s fine with them. And then once the election’s done, they can go back to their merry ways of inciting wars. They might as well claim they’re going to save us from climate change too.

      The solution to the problem of children -and adults- drowning at border crossings is dead -pun intended- simple. Stop bombing people, stop interfering in their countries altogether, stop strangling them with economic sanctions. Implementing these very easy policies, though, is far from simple. And so the problem keeps growing.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The most important take-away from all this is that the problem is not Salvini or Trump, but the EU and US, the entire “body politic” of both. Where left and right are on the same side, that of power and money, and their ‘differences’ are mere distractions that serve to entertain their audiences. And the media whipping up a blind hatred of everything Salvini or Trump, is not going to make this world a better place.

      Left and right alike dance to the tunes of the arms industries and other large corporations, which profit from chaos and misery, both in ‘powerless’ countries and at home. We’re stuck with “progressives” who have no meaningful link to progress and conservatives whose very last idea seems to be to conserve anything of value.

      But be critical of the left and you’re labeled right wing, and vise versa. We live in a modern version of a segregated society, not progressing anywhere and not conserving a single thing on its way there.

      We need to do better, much better, if we are to prevent the next child from drowning.

      *  *  *

      Support The Automatic Earth on Patreon.

    • LA Mega-Mansion Sets Record After Selling For $120 Million

      The Los Angeles luxury housing market has finally gotten the shot in the arm that it needed. The Manor, a 56,000 square-foot mansion in Holmby Hills, just sold for $120 million, according to the Los Angeles Times. The sale price is the highest in LA County history.

      Despite not yet appearing in the public record, the transaction appears to be a “done deal”, according to the report. It represents another “notch in the belt” for the county, where the previous sale record was $110 million.

      It is the fourth sale of $100 million or more in LA ever and a third in Holmby Hills, which sold two mansions for more than $100 million in 2016, one of which was the Playboy mansion. Still, the price tag is astronomical for one of the largest single-family homes in the country.

      The mansion is set on 4.7 acres and the Manor includes more than 1 acre of living space. It’s 1500 square feet larger than the White House, which is about 50,000 square feet in size. It was built in 1991 for late producer Aaron Spelling and then sold to its current owner for $85 million in an all cash deal eight years ago.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The mansion was nicknamed “Candyland” during the Spelling’s tenure there. It has 20+ custom rooms, including a flower cutting room, a humidity controlled silver storage room, a barbershop and multiple gift wrapping rooms. It also includes a French wine and cheese room that is furnished with sidewalk tables, chairs, and French music. It also supports a one lane bowling alley.

      A staff of 30 is required to take care of the mansion.

      The current owner, Petra Ecclestone, daughter of Formula One billionaire Bernie Ecclestone, made some changes including opting for more contemporary interiors, a lounge lined in marble and a large aquarium. A room once used for Aaron Spelling’s wife’s doll collection has been converted into a hair salon and massage parlor. The home encompasses 123 rooms, including 14 bedrooms and 27 bathrooms.

      There’s also a tanning room, solarium, game room, statues, koi ponds, swimming pool, a spa and a tennis court.

      The mansion had been shopped for $150 million in 2014 and was brought to market in 2016 at $200 million. At the time it sold for $120 million, it was listed on the market for $160 million.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      This looks to be a good sign for the stagnating LA real estate market. UCLA real estate professor Paul Habibi said: “If $120 million is the new benchmark, that makes it more plausible to sell a home for $75 million or $100 million.”

      “They’re not looking for affordability thresholds, and they’re not dependent on mortgage rates. Estates like these have an extremely limited, idiosyncratic buyer pool,” he continued.

      In Los Angeles as of June, there were about 230 sales of $5 million or more this year, down from 273 deals compared to the same period last year. For deals that have closed at $10 million or more, the market has seen a drop of more than 25% year-over-year. Sales of $20 million or more are down about 50%.

      But the high-end market has heated up a little bit this summer:

      Two transactions topped $40 million in May, including Adam Levine’s Beverly Hills mansion that sold to Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi for $42.5 million.

      Last week, Uber co-founder Garrett Camp quietly dropped roughly $71 million on a newly built home in Trousdale Estates.

      The Platinum Triangle – comprised of Bel Air, Holmby Hills and Beverly Hills – is no stranger to massive sales. This year alone, the wealthy area has seen 11 property transactions of $20 million or more, records show.

      “Holmby Hills is probably the most affluent submarket in L.A. County,” Habibi concluded. 

    • $4.5 Trillion: The Price Tag of A Fossil Fuel-Free USA

      Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

      Decarbonizing the U.S. grid and replacing fossil fuels with renewables could cost US$4.5 trillion in investments over the next 10 to 20 years, Wood Mackenzie analysts have calculated.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Such a move away from fossil fuels would require the installation of 1,600 GW of new solar and wind capacity, the research firm said. This compares with a total capacity of 1,060 GW across the United States, of which 130 GW renewable capacity.

      Yet a lot more generation capacity is not all, either. A lot of utility-scale storage installations would also be necessary to make the power produced by solar and wind farms reliable enough to replace fossil fuels in the long run. More precisely, Wood Mac’s analysts have calculated the storage capacity needed at 900 GW.

      This sort of change has no precedent, the research firm said, and would necessitate a complete overhaul of the power generation industry.

      “The challenges of achieving 100% renewable energy go far beyond the capital costs of new generating assets. Most notably, it will need a substantial redesign of electricity markets, migrating away from traditional energy-only constructs and more towards a capacity market,” said Wood Mac’s head of Global Wind Energy Research, Dan Shreve.

      If the complete transformation to a fossil fuel-free U.S. is to be done by 2030, this would mean adding more renewable capacity every year over the next 11 years than has been added over the last 20 years combined.

      Yet, there is a middle ground: pushing the all-renewables deadline further into the future and allowing some natural gas capacity in the mix. According to Wood Mac’s analysts, if 20 percent of the energy generated in the U.S. comes from natural gas, this would cut renewable installations costs by 20 percent as well, but it will also help reduce energy storage costs by as much as 60 percent.

    • Russia Releases Video Of 'Satellite Killer' Anti-Missile System Test

      The Russian Ministry of Defense announced Tuesday it had successfully tested a new anti-missile system in Saryshagan firing range in central Kazakhstan, as shown by a video released by the MoD.

      Though the MoD did not disclose any further information about the test, including the precise type of next generation weaponry featured in the video, the military and Middle East affairs news site Al-Masdar identified it as the A-235 so-called “Satellite Killer” based on visual similarities to a prior publicized A-235 test from last year.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Screengrab from the new missile launch test via Russian Defense Ministry/RT

      “The anti-missile system shown in the video is believed to be an A-235 Nudul (‘satellite killer’); it was first unveiled in 2014. The A-235 is supposed to succeed the A-135 Amur, which is still in service,” according to the report. 

      The Russian Aerospace Defense Forces oversaw the tests which a defense ministry spokesman described as follows: “The new anti-ballistic missile, after several trials, has reliably confirmed its characteristics and successfully fulfilled the task by striking an assigned target with precision,” according to TASS.

      Other Russian media sources described it only as a “new interceptor missile” – which also comes just as the S-500 ‘Prometheus’ is being prepped for delivery to operational units. 

      The A-235 is part of the Kremlin’s developing supersonic arsenal, reaching supersonic speeds which are several times faster than an average rocket.

      Prior tests and capabilities of the A-235 were described previously by The National Interest:

      Russia has been preparing a purpose-built ASAT missile, the A-235 Nudol, for years, development of which has already included seven flight tests. The latest, on December 23, 2018, appeared highly successful, with the missile flying for seventeen minutes and 1,864 miles before splashing into its intended target area at sea. Described by Russian state-media as part of a new “space defense intercept complex,” the Nudol’s flight tests suggest an orbital ballistic intercept trajectory ideal for ASAT operations.

      Below is a prior video of the A-235 being tested in December 2018:

      Russia is carrying out and highly publicizing these tests at a moment when the fate of key international weapons treaties hang by a thread, especially the now all but collapsed Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces and the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty between Russia and the United States.  

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Jul 02

    Today’s News 2nd July 2019

    • Scottish Nuclear Facility Evacuated After "Human Error" Triggers Radioactive Contamination

      With HBO’s Chernobyl mini-series re-heightening fears about nuclear power plants, headlines from The Aberdeen Press and Herald that workers were evacuated from part of Dounreay nuclear facility on northern Scotland after radioactive contamination was detected there, have spooked locals and raised questions about the decommissioned facility.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The incident occurred on June 7 but site bosses only publicly released details at a meeting of Dounreay Stakeholder Group on Wednesday evening.

      Site managing director Martin Moore said human error was to blame for the episode which is the subject of an in-house probe.

      “The contamination was very local but it wasn’t in a place it should have been, normally.”

      “The levels were insignificant but they should not have been there so we cleared the area and then had a controlled re-entry.”

      “It came down to a lack of due diligence in monitoring around one of the barriers.”

      “It was human error. It shouldn’t have happened and we’re very disappointed that it did.”

      Dounreay, an experimental nuclear power site, is being demolished and cleaned up at a cost of £2.32bn in a job expected to last up until 2033.

      Officials from Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd (DSRL), the company tasked with decommissioning the plant, said that the measure had been precautionary and that the public was never in any danger.

      “There was no risk to members of the public, no increased risk to the workforce and no release to the environment. “

      DSRL have already been censured for a safety violation at the same site in 2014, when a fire caused by employees released radioactivity into the atmosphere.

      In the wake of that incident, the company promised to “learn lessons” and implement a wide-ranging new safety strategy, which seemingly turned out to have issues as well.

    • Europe's Missing Islamic State Fighters

      Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

      • Swedish Television surveyed officials in the five Swedish municipalities — Gothenburg, Stockholm, Örebro, Malmö and Borås — that are home to most of the 150 IS returnees and found that those municipalities combined only have knowledge of the whereabouts of a maximum of 16 adults and 10 children.

      • “The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial… The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them…” — U.S. President Donald Trump, Twitter, February 16, 2019.

      • The Wall Street Journal, in a recent editorial, “The West’s Foreign Fighter Problem,” noted that European governments face a “Catch-22” situation: either repatriate and prosecute their jihadis, or risk that they disappear off the radar and carry out new attacks in Europe.

      The German government has lost track of scores of Germans who travelled to Iraq and Syria in recent years to join the Islamic State (IS). The revelation comes amid growing fears that some of these fighters are returning to Germany undetected by authorities.

      The German Interior Ministry, in response to a question from the Secretary General of the classical liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), Linda Teuteberg, revealed that German authorities lack information on the whereabouts of at least 160 Germans who left to fight with the IS, according to Welt am Sonntag. The ministry said that while some had probably been killed in combat, others have gone into hiding and may be trying to resettle in Germany.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “In view of the very fragmented protection of the EU’s external borders, it is particularly worrying that the federal government appears to have taken no further measures to prevent the uncontrolled re-entry of underground IS fighters,” Teuteberg told Welt am Sonntag.

      She added that the government “still has no concept” for dealing with former IS fighters from Germany, including “Germans detained in the war zone as well as the more than 200 former IS supporters who are now back in Germany.”

      Teuteberg said that the Interior Ministry should come up with a plan for how to deal with IS returnees and how to hold them accountable, by, for example, strengthening the legal capacity to investigate and prosecute war crimes abroad.

      Of the estimated 1,050 Germans who travelled to Iraq and Syria to fight in recent years, approximately one-third (350) have returned to Germany. Another 220 are believed to have been killed on the battlefield. According to government sources cited by the German television program Tagesschau, approximately 120 are being detained in Iraq and Syria. In addition, at least 138 children of German IS fighters are being held Iraq and Syria. The whereabouts of the others are unknown.

      The German government downplayed Teuteberg’s concerns that IS fighters can return to Germany unnoticed:

      “Given the different measures (including most-wanted lists or entry barriers) that make uncontrolled re-entry significantly more difficult, it is also assumed in the future that entry without the knowledge of the German security authorities should remain the exception.”

      It is known, however, that IS fighters have entered Europe — including Germany — undetected by posing as migrants: a majority of the terrorists who carried out the November 2015 Paris attacks, in which 130 people were killed and 360 injured, entered Europe by posing as migrants, according to counter-terrorism investigators. Most of the attackers were well-known to police and at least nine were on terrorist watch lists. Once they passed through the EU’s porous borders in southern Europe, they were able to travel throughout the rest of Europe undetected.

      Missing IS fighters are a Europe-wide problem. A July 2018 study by the International Center for the Study of Radicalization (ICSR) at King’s College London estimated that more than 5,900 people — 3,379 men, 1,023 women, 1,502 minors — from Western Europe joined the Islamic State. Another 7,250 people from Eastern Europe joined the group.

      According to ICSR estimates, around 1,765 IS fighters have returned to Western Europe, and 784 have returned to Eastern Europe. At least 800 IS fighters are being held at Kurdish detention camps in northern Syria. Around 700 of the fighters’ wives and 1,500 of their children are also in camps, according to Reuters. It remains unclear how many of the unaccounted IS fighters have been killed on the battlefield, and how many have gone into hiding.

      In Austria, for instance, of the 250 IS fighters, 93 have returned. In Belgium, of the 500 IS fighters, 123 have returned. In Britain, of the 850 IS fighters, 425 have returned. In Denmark, of the 145 IS fighters, 72 have returned. In France, of the 1,900 IS fighters, 400 have returned. In Italy, of the 129 IS fighters, 11 have returned. In the Netherlands, of the 300 IS fighters, 60 have returned. In Spain, of the 210 IS fighters, 30 have returned.

      In Sweden, of the estimated 300 people who left the country to join the Islamic State, approximately 150 have returned, according to the Swedish Security Service (Säpo). Around 100 Swedish fighters are believed to have died on the battlefield; the government does not have information on the whereabouts of the others.

      Between 35 and 40 Swedish IS fighters have returned to Stockholm, but the municipality has not made contact with a single returnee, and may not even know where any of them live, according to an exposé by Swedish Television (SVT), the national public television broadcaster.

      SVT surveyed officials in the five Swedish municipalities — Gothenburg, Stockholm, Örebro, Malmö and Borås — that are home to most of the 150 IS returnees, and found that those municipalities combined only have knowledge of the whereabouts of a maximum of 16 adults and 10 children.

      The apparent apathy has been attributed to Sweden’s lack of legislation.

      “We are almost the only country in the EU that lacks legislation against participation and cooperation with terrorist organizations,” said Magnus Ranstorp, a counter-terrorism expert at the Swedish Defense University in Stockholm.

      “We are of course vulnerable,” he added. “Those who are dangerous and out on our streets can recruit more, and they can even plan terrorist acts.”

      Meanwhile, hundreds of foreign jihadi fighters who are being held in Syria represent a “time bomb” and could escape and threaten the West unless countries do more to take them back, according to the Kurdish-led, U.S.-backed authorities holding them.

      “It seems most of the countries have decided that they’re done with them, let’s leave them here, but this is a very big mistake,” said Abdulkarim Omar of the Syrian Democratic Forces.

      “Their home countries must do more to prosecute foreign fighters and rehabilitate their families, or else this will be a danger and a time bomb.”

      In February 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump called on European countries to repatriate and prosecute their foreign fighters:

      “The United States is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back over 800 ISIS fighters that we captured in Syria and put them on trial. The Caliphate is ready to fall. The alternative is not a good one in that we will be forced to release them…

      “The U.S. does not want to watch as these ISIS fighters permeate Europe, which is where they are expected to go. We do so much, and spend so much. Time for others to step up and do the job that they are so capable of doing. We are pulling back after 100% Caliphate victory!”

      In April, Trump tweeted:

      “We have 1,800 ISIS Prisoners taken hostage in our final battles to destroy 100% of the Caliphate in Syria. Decisions are now being made as to what to do with these dangerous prisoners…. European countries are not helping at all, even though this was very much done for their benefit. They are refusing to take back prisoners from their specific countries. Not good!”

      On June 24, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, called for all foreign fighters who are being detained in Syria and Iraq to be repatriated, investigated and prosecuted, or released. “The continuing detention of individuals not suspected of crimes, in the absence of lawful basis and regular independent judicial review, is not acceptable,” she said.

      Europe’s reluctance to take back their IS fighters is based on a mix of legal, financial and political factors. Some countries have begun repatriating the children of IS jihadis on a case-by-case basis but taking back foreign fighters and their families is deeply unpopular and carries political risk.

      In France, for instance, Prime Minister Édouard Philippe recently said that he preferred that French jihadis were repatriated rather than them risk evading justice. They should be “tried, convicted and punished in France rather than disappearing in the wild to plan other actions, including against our country,” he said in a January 30 interview with France Inter. His comments sparked an immediate backlash. Valérie Boyer of the center-right party Les Républicains toldparliament that the government must “prevent the return of jihadists who betrayed France and fought against our civilization.”

      National Assembly MEP Nicolas Bay, who is also a member of the executive board of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN), added:

      “The French jihadis, by their commitment alongside groups that declared war on our country, having committed ignoble attacks on our territory, these jihadists have deliberately chosen to break with France and there is no justification for granting them any protection.

      “Rather than preparing for their return, the government should do everything possible to prevent them from returning to French territory! They must be judged by the competent Syrian and Iraqi authorities.”

      Philippe subsequently did an about-face. In a March 6 interview with BFM TV, he said:

      “We will not bring back anybody. The French doctrine has always been that the French fighters who are going to combat zones are fighting against us. When they are detained, they are to be judged and, if necessary, punished on the spot [in Iraq or Syria].”

      The Wall Street Journal, in a recent editorial, “The West’s Foreign Fighter Problem,” noted that European governments face a “Catch-22” situation: either repatriate and prosecute their jihadis, or risk that they disappear off the radar and carry out new attacks in Europe. The Journal wrote:

      “In February President Trump tweeted that the U.S. ‘is asking Britain, France, Germany and other European allies to take back’ their ISIS fighters and prosecute them at home. Indonesia, Morocco, Russia, and Sudan started the process months ago, but Western European governments are resisting.

      “Bending to domestic political pressure, European politicians like U.K. Home Secretary Sajid Javid have vowed to reject ISIS members and even strip them of citizenship. German and French officials also publicly express skepticism about accepting imprisoned terrorists. Countries that criticized the U.S. over Guantanamo Bay now are turning a blind eye to the detention of their citizens elsewhere….

      “The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have treated detainees humanely, but it can’t hold them forever. The group eventually will have no choice but to let the prisoners go — making a manageable security threat much worse. These battle-hardened fighters are especially dangerous given their practical knowledge and the respect they could command among would-be jihadists.

      “Many released fighters would slip into Iraq, blend in with sympathetic Sunni populations, and prepare for an ISIS revival. Others could exploit security vacuums in Libya or Somalia or jump-start conflicts in other unstable regions. Perhaps the greatest risk is that some will return to the West undetected alongside refugees. Countries hesitant to take back their citizens now should realize they might return anyway—clandestinely.”

    • In Unprecedented Blow To Lame Duck Merkel, Partners Reject "Half Baked" Socialist For Top EU Job

      Negotiations between President Trump and President Xi drew the lion’s share of the market’s attention over the weekend, as the two world leaders reenacted their ‘truce’ from the prior G-20 summit, giving global equity markets the optimistic trade headlines they crave (In the US, stocks started the month at record highs).

      Moving over to Europe, Boris Johnson’s quest to succeed Theresa May as the next occupant of No. 10 Downing Street has sopped up most of the political bandwidth. But though it didn’t garner quite as much attention, the first cracks in the facade of the center-right bloc that has controlled the EU for decades formed over the weekend as German Chancellor Angela Merkel failed to win a consensus for her pick to succeed Jean-Claude Juncker as the next head of the European Commission.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Merkel

      As we explained back in May, Europe’s populist parties banked their strongest showing yet in last month’s EU Parliamentary vote – though readers wouldn’t know that if they simply absorbed their news from left-leaning outlets like the BBC and the Guardian, which tried to spin the results as a critical victory. Though the center-right coalition known as the EPP and center-left coalition S&D lost their combined majority in the Parliament, they retained a plurality of votes, while populist parties like Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party and Italy’s League made strong gains. Though establishment voices still outnumber populists, the blow dealt to the establishment’s coalition, we noted at the time, would make selecting the replacements for Juncker, ECB President Mario Draghi, and other senior bloc-level positions (most of which are filled via backroom wheeling and dealing, not by the voters themselves).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Elections

      The new parliament’s term hasn’t even started yet, and already, Merkel has proven that she’s a lame duck (even after her latest attempt at “un-retirement”) who can’t be relied upon to secure the coronation of her coalition’s next round of picks. According to Bloomberg, after a marathon post-Osaka session in Brussels, Merkel failed to anoint Socialist Frans Timmermans the next chairman of the European Commission as her made-in-Osaka plan faced unprecedented backlash in Brussels.

      One official quoted by BBG called the unexpected pushback to Merkel’s plan – which came both from her coalition partners as well as ‘smaller countries’ who took umbrage in the fact that they were excluded from a deal cooked up in Osaka – a “rebellion of rabbits.”

      If there was one thing Angela Merkel didn’t factor into her plan to make Socialist Frans Timmermans the European Union’s next chief executive, it was what one official in the room called the “rebellion of rabbits.”

      As she flew back from the G-20 in Japan, the German chancellor and veteran of many an EU marathon summit was fairly confident that the 58-year-old Dutchman would be accepted by the rest of the leaders gathering in Brussels to decide who to put forward as the next head of the European Commission.

      Sure, it was going to be a long night, but she’s faced down worse. As the sun rose, there was no deal and shortly after noon it was decided to reconvene on Tuesday at 11 a.m. after almost 19 hours of going around in circles. It was something almost without precedent.

      What became clear was that Merkel had miscalculated the degree of opposition on two fronts: from her own center-right political family that felt betrayed she gave away the top prize. And also the smaller countries that often feel unseen and bared their teeth at the what felt like a stitch-up cooked up in Osaka.

      As dawn approached on Monday morning, Merkel was forced to hold one-on-one meetings with national leaders. And still, no deal materialized. Here’s how Bloomberg explained it.

      For starters, the stage hadn’t been properly set. Deals and assurances weren’t put in place. Young powers smelled blood and growing intolerance for backroom deals – especially in an increasingly fragmented political landscape following May’s EU elections.

      For Merkel, one year ago, this type of snub would have been unthinkable. But now that she has stepped down as party leader and set an end date for her historic chancellorship, the new blood in Europe is trying to make its voice heard.

      But it wasn’t just the young bloods like Italy’s Giuseppe Conte who opposed Merkel’s deal…

      Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said he objected to a package of nominations that was formulated outside Brussels without consulting all members states: “If I sit here, I need the proposal to be made by components of the EU Council, I want the proposal to be discussed here, to be motivated here and to be confronted here.”

      It may not have been of Merkel’s making, and she may have endorsed it only in the spirit of compromise, but the fierce opposition to the plan erodes the chancellor’s grip and authority — even if an accord is reached. Talks have now gone on longer than the 2015 Greek crunch meeting when she was at height of her power.

      …Even longtime allies like Emmanuel Macron refused to come to her rescue.

      And French President Emmanuel Macron was not coming to her rescue – their relationship has been showing signs of strain. “In the long run we must draw consequences of such a failure,” he said at the end of day two. “Our credibility is deeply stained by these endless meetings that lead to nothing. We’re giving an image of Europe that is not serious.”

      Perhaps the Prime Ministerof Bulgaria best articulated the frustration of the EPP’s smaller coalition partners: “Nobody has the right to negotiate on our behalf, from EPP, whatever post they have.” Another described Merkel’s plan to anoint Timmermans as “half baked”.

      Others lashed out at the chancellor, saying the impasse is a sign of how much of a lame duck she is. There was no plan to come up with a proposal that her own people, lawmakers at the EU parliament and other center-right leaders were going to shoot down in such an insulting manner.

      “Merkel is leader of the CDU, not the EPP,” Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov told reporters. “Well many other things came from Osaka as well. But nobody has the right to negotiate on our behalf, from EPP, whatever post they have.”

      Such open defiance to Merkel would have been unthinkable even a year ago. Today she appears a weakened figure, both at home and internationally, with her term ending in 2021.

      Markets might not be paying attention now (the BBG headlines went largely unnoticed), but as talks over ECB President Mario Draghi’s replacement falter, we imagine that investors will soon be paying attention to the new era of political gridlock looming over Brussels.

    • Escobar: Contrast Between Russia-India-China & Trump Could Not Be Starker

      Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

      The most important trilateral at the G20 in Osaka was confined to a shoddy environment unworthy of Japan’s unrivaled aesthetic minimalism.

      Japan excels in perfect planning and execution. So it’s hard to take this setup as an unfortunate “accident.” At least the – unofficial – Russia-India-China summit at the sidelines of the G20 transcended the fate of an interior decorator deserving to commit seppuku.

      Leaders of these three countries met in virtual secrecy. The very few media representatives present in the shabby room were soon invited to leave. Presidents Putin, Xi and Modi were flanked by streamlined teams who barely found enough space to sit down. There were no leaks. Cynics would rather joke that the room may have been bugged anyway. After all, Xi is able to call Putin and Modi to Beijing anytime he wants to discuss serious business.

      New Delhi is spinning that Modi took the initiative to meet in Osaka. That’s not exactly the case. Osaka is a culmination of a long process led by Xi and Putin to seduce Modi into a serious Eurasia integration triangular road map, consolidated at their previous meeting last month at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek.

      Now Russia-India-China (RIC) is fully back in business; the next meeting is set for the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok in September.

      In their introductory remarks, Putin, Xi and Modi made it clear that RIC is all about configuring, in Putin’s words, an “indivisible security architecture” for Eurasia.

      Modi – very much in a Macron vein – stressed the multilateral effort to fight climate change, and complained that the global economy is being ruled by a “one-sided” dictate, emphasizing the necessity of a reform of the World Trade Organization.

      Putin went a step ahead, insisting, “our countries are in favor of preserving the system of international relations, whose core is the UN Charter and the rule of law. We uphold such important principles of interstate relations as respect for sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs.”

      Putin clearly underlined the geopolitical interconnection of the UN, BRICS, SCO and G20, plus “strengthening the authority of the WTO” and the International Monetary Fund as the “paragon of a modern and just multipolar world that denies sanctions as legitimate actions.”

      The Russia-India-China contrast with the Trump administration could not be starker.

      Those ‘tremendous assets’

      BRICS, as it stands, is dead. There was an “official,” pro-forma BRICS meeting before the RIC. But it’s no secret both Putin and Xi completely distrust Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, regarded as a Trump neocolonial asset.

      Ahead of his bilateral with Trump, Bolsonaro peddled Brazil’s mineral wealth, claiming the country may now export “niobium trinkets.”

      Well, that’s certainly less controversial than the Brazilian military sherpa arrested in Spain for carrying industrial quantities of cocaine (36kg) in the presidential plane, definitely ruining the after-hours party time in Osaka.

      Later on, Trump eagerly praised Brazil’s “tremendous assets,” now being fully privatized to the benefit of US companies.

      Xi, as he addressed the BRICS meeting, denounced protectionism and called for a stronger WTO. BRICS nations, he said, should “increase our resilience and capability to cope with external risks.”

      Putin went one up. Apart from denouncing “protectionist” tendencies in global trade, he called for bilateral trade in national currencies bypassing the US dollar – mirroring a commitment by the Russia-China strategic partnership.

      Russia-China, via Finance Minister Anton Siluanov and head of the People’s Bank of China, Yi Gang, have signed an agreement to switch to rubles and yuan in bilateral trade, starting with energy and agriculture, and increase cross-currency settlements by 50% in the next few years.

      There will be a concerted effort to increasingly bypass SWIFT, using the Russian System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS) and the Chinese Cross-Border Inter-Bank Payments System (CIPS).

      Sooner or later Russia-China will entice India to join. Moscow has excellent bilateral relations with both Beijing and New Delhi, and is decisively playing the role of privileged messenger.

      The mini-trade war against New Delhi launched by the Trump administration – including the loss of India’s special trade status and punishment for buying Russian S-400 missile systems – is quickening the pace of the process. India, by the way, will pay for the S-400s in euros.

      There were no leaks whatsoever from Russia-India-China about Iran. But diplomats say that was a key theme of the discussion. Russia is already – covertly – helping Iran on myriad levels. India has an existential choice to make: keep buying Iranian oil or say goodbye to Iran’s strategic help, via the Chabahar port, to facilitate India’s mini-Silk Road to Afghanistan and Central Asia.

      China sees Iran as a key node of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative. Russia sees Iran as essential for strategic stability in Southwest Asia – a key theme of the Putin-Trump bilateral, which also discussed Syria and Ukraine.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The leaders of RIC – Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping – hold a meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka on June 28, 2019. Photo: Mikhail Klimentyev / Sputnik / AFP

      RIC or Belt and Road?

      Whatever the psyops tactics employed by Trump, Russia-India-China is also directly implicated in the massive short and long-term ramifications of the Trump-Xi bilateral in Osaka. The Big Picture is not going to change; the Trump administration is betting on re-routing global supply chains out of China, while Beijing advances full speed ahead with its Belt and Road Initiative.

      Trump is heavily distrusted across Europe – as Brussels knows the EU is the target of another imminent trade war. Meanwhile, with over 60 nations committed to myriad Belt and Road projects, and with the Eurasia Economic Union also interlinked with Belt and Road, Beijing knows it’s just a matter of time before the whole of the EU hits the BRI highway.

      There’s no evidence that India may suddenly join Belt and Road projects. The geopolitical lure of “Indo-Pacific” – essentially just another strategy for containment of China – looms large. That’s good old imperial Divide and Rule – and all the major players know it.

      Yet India, now on the record, is starting to spin that Indo-Pacific is not “against somebody.” India getting deeper into RIC does not imply getting closer to Belt and Road.

      It’s time for Modi to rise to the occasion; ultimately, he will decide which way the geoeconomic pendulum swings.

    • NASA Will Fly Quadcopter On Saturn's Largest Moon Looking For Signs Of Life

      On Thursday, NASA announced that its next space mission was to send a quadcopter named Dragonfly to Saturn’s largest moon, called Titan, looking for signs of life. Dragonfly will launch in 2026 and land on Titan in 2034.

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

      The quadcopter will be looking for prebiotic chemical processes common on both Titan and Earth. Dragonfly will be the first time NASA operates a multi-rotor vehicle for space exploration on another planet; it is classified as rotorcraft, has eight rotors and flies like a drone. Flying will be difficult and will use a lot of energy. This is because of Titan’s atmosphere is four times thicker than Earth’s.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      NASA says the moon is comparable to Earth in its youth, can provide evidence to how life has evolved over millions of years.

      Dragonfly will operate on Titian for three years, will explore diverse environments across the moon. It has several sensors that will study how far prebiotic chemistry may have progressed.

      “With the Dragonfly mission, NASA will once again do what no one else can do,” said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine.

      “Visiting this mysterious ocean world could revolutionize what we know about life in the universe. This cutting-edge mission would have been unthinkable even just a few years ago, but we’re now ready for Dragonfly’s amazing flight.”

      Researchers used data from the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft that started its mission in 2004 and used sensors to scan through the moon’s haze. Cassini was able to detect clouds of methane and various geologic surfaces with only a few crater impacts.

      NASA has said Titan’s atmosphere is “the most chemically complex in the solar system.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Sometime in 2034, Dragonfly will land at the equatorial “Shangri-La” dune fields, which are similar to dunes in Namibia in southern Africa. For the next three years, Dragonfly will leapfrog around the moon, 5 miles at a time. At the end of its mission, it will reach the Selk impact crater, where there could be evidence of water and possible life.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Titan has a nitrogen-based atmosphere similar to Earth. However, Titan has clouds and rain of methane. The moon’s weather and surface processes could have enough to create life.

      “Unveiling Titan is like reading a mystery novel,” said Dr. Charles Elachi, director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and team leader for the radar instrument on Cassini. “Each time you flip the page you learn something new, but you don’t know the whole story until you’ve read the whole book. The story of Titan is unfolding right before our eyes, and what we are seeing is intriguing.”

      While everyone is focused on Mars and the Moon – it seems by the mid-2030s – human beings will get a glimpse of what it’s like on one of Saturn’s 62 confirmed moons.

    • Where Does Trump Go From Here With Iran?

      Authored by Tom Luongo via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      Donald Trump has boxed himself into a corner. His maximum pressure campaign on Russia, China, Iran and the Palestinians isn’t working. Time is ticking by and we are now, officially, into campaign season for 2020, when these operations were supposed to have been resolved by now.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      While Trump still draws nearly unfathomable crowds for his rallies he is staring at an abyss of bad decisions in front of him which will see him either reverse course on all of his signature wins with his base over the past year – getting tough on Iran and China, going after evil socialists in Venezuela – or face a global economic meltdown which his daily Surreality Show is fomenting.

      Trump refuses to take responsibility for anything that is happening. Everything is someone else’s fault.

      • Trade balance? China. Europe. Mexico. Canada.

      • Unrest in the Middle East? Iran. ISIS. Hezbollah. Russia.

      • Collapse and conflict in Ukraine? Russia.

      • Border Security? The Democrats.

      • Interest Rates? The Fed.

      His inability to see how his moves affect events in the context of the global arena is his greatest weakness. It should have been a strength, his lack of shame. But it isn’t. Because now he’s gotten himself so far over-extended on Iran he’s been exposed as all bark and no bite.

      He’s pushed Iran into a corner and from that corner they decided to finally strike back by downing a Global Hawk drone flying in full stealth mode over Iranian airspace if the Iranian side of the story is to be believed.

      And regardless of the specifics of the situation, since we will never know the truth of the matter, the outcome and the way the narratives were handled it’s clear that Iran was sending a very strong message to the US.

      Not one more inch.

      Because while the US is more than capable of wiping Iran off the map for all intents and purposes, the truth is that for all of that capability, the after-effects of using it would be devastating for the world.

      In common parlance the term is ‘blowback.’

      The Western financial system is very much a paper tiger. And I do believe someone finally whispered in Trump’s ear after the drone was shot down that if he strikes Iran the consequences would be devastating for everyone.

      Remember, Iran has nothing left to lose financially. The US has tried to take it all away. If the sanctions are working they are only doing so to accelerate the timetable which brought us to this point.

      And a man who has nothing left to lose is a man who could easily lose it and take everyone with him. Pepe Escobar wrote about this at length recently. And while I agree with his overall thesis I think he’s out over his skis about the numbers themselves.

      Suffice it to say that with nearly $13 trillion in negative-yielding debt, Deutsche Bank functionally insolvent and oil supplies vulnerable to supply shock that the aftermath of a series of attacks on infrastructure around the region, that over-leveraged capital markets trading at nose-bleed prices could collapse quickly triggering cascading defaults around the globe.

      Regardless of the specifics, chaos would be the order of the day and markets hate chaos.

      So Iran shot down that drone knowing full well that any US response would be disproportionate, to use Trump’s words. It took a level of character I didn’t think he or anyone else thought he had in calling off the airstrikes.

      So I’ll give him credit for that. He needs to do more of it. And his signaling to Iran that he’s willing to talk with no pre-conditions is proof that he’s got negotiations on his mind. But Iran can no more come to the table with Trump than Trump can back down on his bluster and sabre-rattling with Iran.

      Iran is right to say they won’t negotiate at gunpoint. This is especially true when it has been revealed that the guns themselves can’t actually be fired. Their leadership would collapse overnight if they began talks with Trump. That drone is now a rallying point for Iranians to support their government on in the short-term.

      They gain nothing by coming to the table. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif went on a charm tour earlier this year to make Iran’s case and was roundly ignored by the US The opportunity was there then and the message from Iran was ignored.

      What’s changed now that Trump wants to talk?

      The sanctions are working? Please, don’t make me laugh. Russia’s National Security Advisor Nikolai Patrushev made it clear in his remarks that Russia stands behind Iran and that it will not tolerate any more aggression by the US I’m sure John Bolton’s mustache didn’t want to hear that.

      “In the context of the statements made by our partners with regard to a major regional power, namely Iran, I would like to say the following: Iran has always been and remains our ally and partner, with which we are consistently developing relations both on bilateral basis and within multilateral formats,” Patrushev said after the trilateral meeting.

      “This is why we believe that it is inadmissible to describe Iran as a major threat to regional security and, moreover, to put it on par with the Islamic State or any other terrorist organization,” Patrushev stated.

      Russia’s National Security Advisor calling Iran an ally was significant. And I have to think that given some of the circumstances surrounding the drone that part of Iran’s message was 1) we have better weapons than you think we had and 2) the Russians gave them to us while denying it.

      So, if you are coming after us it will have to be at a level that will make everyone outside of K-Street very uncomfortable. Trump will literally have to ‘go big or go home.’ Given the circumstances that seems unlikely.

      It is in Russia’s long-term best interest to keep Iran stable and relatively prosperous. They cannot afford a failed state and chaos in Iran. Note the timing of violent uprisings in Georgia. Don’t think these things are related? Think again.

      Keeping the Russians busy with multiple hotspots is the plan here. But Russia isn’t confused about this strategy. Expect in the coming weeks to see more direct support from Russia to Iran. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Goods-for-Oil program hasn’t already been expanded and that Iran is one of those countries the Bank of Russia mentioned wanting access to Russia’s version of SWIFT, SPFS, to clear transactions sanctioned by the US

      It’s not like it would matter one bit to most Russian banks since they are already sanctioned by the US in the first place.

      Once that happens and it’s clear the US will not stop Iranian tankers from sailing, all that remains is for the proper financial intermediaries to be put in place to keep the US off balance and Iran’s oil will flow.

      The sanctions will be in effect, Iran will be starved of dollars and the medium-term pain will be acute. But it will be another move away from the dollar settling the trade of oil.

      So back to my original question, where does Trump go from here?

      Iran won’t allow him to save face. I don’t have a good answer for that but Iran is betting that re-election will stay his hand for another year. He can and should start with firing the architects of this failed ‘maximum pressure’ policy and send everyone a clear signal that he’s ready to climb off the mountain they’ve built for him.

      As long as the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia look the other way while Iran ‘smuggles’ its oil everything will calm down. If they don’t then things will get ugly from here for all involved.

    • Modern Day "Hamburglar" Breaks Into Wendy's And Steals Safe – But Only After Cooking Himself A Burger

      Why does it seem like these things always happen in Florida?

      South Florida authorities are trying to track down a man that they are actually referring to as a modern day “Hamburglar”, according to WSB TV. The man allegedly broke into a fast food restaurant and stole the restaurant’s safe – but not before making himself a hamburger.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And despite the hamburglar traditionally showing up at McDonald’s, this thief broke into a Wendy’s on Sunday, according to the Martin County Sheriff’s Office. The office said that the man used a brick to smash in the door at the restaurant before turning on the oven to make himself a meal. The same suspect also reportedly tried to break into a second restaurant and a nearby gas station.

      “I think he was drunk,” said Vinay Solanki, the manager of the gas station.

      Yeah. And hungry.

      The Martin County Sheriff’s Office has put out an APB for the man, who has a tattoo on his left upper arm and is described as heavyset and in his mid-30s with facial hair.

      He walked out with “more than just a full belly” according to the Sheriff’s office’s Facebook post. 

       

    • Deloitte: China Looking To Use Blockchain As A "Strategic Weapon"

      Authored by Helen Partz via CoinTelegraph.com,

      As much as 73% of Chinese enterprises believe that blockchain is a top-five strategic priority, according to a report by Big Four audit and consulting firm Deloitte released on June 27.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

      In the report, titled “Deloitte’s 2019 Global Blockchain Survey,” the company surveyed 1,386 enterprise representatives in 11 countries, including 200 respondents in China to provide a greater knowledge about major attitudes and investments in blockchain as a technology.

      The research was conducted between Feb. 8, 2019, and March 4, Deloitte noted in the report.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Coverage of Deloitte’s 2019 Global Blockchain Survey. Source: Deloitte

      According to the survey results, Chinese enterprise employees have expressed the highest rate of confidence that blockchain tech is one of the top-five critical priorities in the country, while the same metrics in the United States has accounted for 56%.

      At the same time, on a global scale, 53% of respondents claimed that they see distributed ledger technology (DLT) as a top-five strategic priority, up 10% from the numbers of 2018, according to the report.

      Paul Sin, leader of Deloitte’s Asia-Pacific blockchain lab and consulting partner at Deloitte Advisory, noted in the report that China will be implementing blockchain strategically “more than anywhere else in the world” instead of “tactically.” He wrote in the report:

      “More projects [in China] are driven by top management who use blockchain as a strategic weapon rather than a productivity tool.”

      While China has been among anti-crypto countries, having banned both initial coin offerings (ICOs) and bitcoin (BTC)-to-fiat exchanges in late 2017, the country has been actively disrupting the underlying technology of crypto. In March 2018, Financial Times reported that the most patent filings for blockchain tech to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 2017 came from China.

      Since then, blockchain has remained a major focus of the development in China, with the country reportedly leading the world in the number of developed blockchain projects as of April 2019. Alongside, China’s tight policies to crypto have not appeared to soften so far, with the country’s social media giant and payment service supplier WeChat having banned crypto transactions in its payments policy in May 2019.

    • China Confirms Test Of Sub-Launched Ballistic Missile After "Mystery Lights" Filmed

      After in early June a mysterious light shooting across the horizon with what onlookers described as a ‘massive tail’ was spotted in the sky, alarming residents across several central China provinces, Beijing has now belatedly suggested it was part of a successful test of its next-generation submarine-launched ballistic missile, the JL-3.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Images of the mysterious military test circulated through June, fueling intense speculation. Via NavalNews.com

      “The scientific research and tests conducted according to plan are normal,” a Ministry of National Defense was cited in Chinese state sources as saying of the June 2 test in comments delivered late last week.

      While the statements didn’t precisely confirm it was the next generation JL-3, multiple international outlets are taking this as “confirmation” given the intense month-long speculation and the PLA’s very visible non-denial. 

      Throughout June media reports speculated whether it was a “UFO or missile test”.

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

      Alarmingly, the JL-3 is capable of delivering a nuclear strike on the American mainland via hypersonic warhead; however, a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) spokesman was quick to emphasize, “These tests are not targeted against any country or specific entity.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to The Daily Mail, “American officials said the JL-3 was launched from a submarine test platform in the Bohai Sea and flew several thousand miles to a missile impact range in western China.”

      Prior reports out of Chinese media claimed the JL-3 possesses a full operational range of between 7,400 miles and approaching 9,000 miles – putting the US coast within easy strike distance. 

      Videos showing a “mysterious light” went viral during early June on Chinese social media, fueling intense speculation over secretive military tests conducted by the PLA. China’s Global Times said many residents expressed concern over “UFO sightings”.

      The PLA spokesman added further in his statements: “China has always followed a defense policy which is defensive in nature and an active defense military strategy. The development of weapons and equipment is to meet the basic needs of safeguarding China’s national security.”

      However as the Washington Free Beacon pointed out in its report:

      American defense officials disputed the Chinese claim that the test was not targeted at any country and said the missile firing on June 2 coincided with the visit to Asia by then-acting defense secretary Patrick Shanahan.

      The intercontinental “Julang” series translates to ‘big waves’ – named for being specifically developed to outfit China’s growing nuclear-powered submarine arsenal, something the Pentagon has been monitoring closely with increased alarm.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Jul 01

    Today’s News 1st July 2019

    • Russia Launches "Floating Chernobyl" Bound For The Arctic

      Next month, the world’s first floating nuclear power unit (FPU) dubbed ‘Academik Lomonosov’ will be towed via the Northern Sea Route to its final destination in the Far East, after almost two decades in construction.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Russia’s first floating nuclear power plant has two KLT-40S reactor units that collectively generate 70 MW of energy.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      A year ago we noted video of the beginning of the ships’ voyage (from St.Petersburg to Murmansk)

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

      The vessel is now expected to be towed “along the Northern Sea Route to the work site, unloaded at the mooring berth, and connected to the coastal infrastructure in Pevek,” added the press release.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Pevek is a small Arctic port town and the governmental center of Chaunsky District in Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Russia, located on Chaunskaya Bay.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Once the floating nuclear power plant is moored and connected to the coastal infrastructure in Pevek, the nuclear reactors aboard will be used to power 100,000 homes in the region, a desalination plant, and critical energy infrastructure assets. Rosatom said the floating power plant “will replace the Bilibino nuclear power plant and Chaunskaya TPP that are technologically outdated,” and become the most northerly nuclear facility in the world.

      However, the floating nuclear power plant has been extensively criticized by antipollutionist — Greenpeace has called it a “floating Chernobyl.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “Nuclear reactors bobbing around the Arctic Ocean will pose a shockingly obvious threat to a fragile environment, which is already under enormous pressure from climate change,” Greenpeace nuclear expert Jan Haverkamp said in a statement.

      “The floating nuclear power plants will typically be put to use near coastlines and shallow water … contrary to claims regarding safety, the flat-bottomed hull and the floating nuclear power plant’s lack of self-propulsion makes it particularly vulnerable to tsunamis and cyclones.”  

      Meanwhile, Rosatom states  the vessel meets all requirements from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and “does not pose any threat to the environment.”

      “The FNPP is designed with the great margin of safety that exceeds all possible threats and makes nuclear reactors invincible for tsunamis and other natural disasters. In addition, the nuclear processes at the floating power unit meet all requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and do not pose any threat to the environment.”

      Why would Russia want a floating power plant in the Arctic? 

      Speaking to reporters in 2017 after a conference with Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that Russia’s proposal to jointly explore the Northern Sea Route was “a great idea,” and that “China welcomes this idea and supports efforts with partners in the region to develop a ‘Silk Road on ice’.”

      The Answer:  To provide the needed energy to build infrastructure for the ‘Ice Silk Road.’ 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As CNN concludes, the last Russian nuclear project of a comparable scale was completed in 2007, when the “50 Years of Victory” nuclear-powered icebreaker finally sailed after sitting in the docks since 1989. Now, after more than 20 years of arguments, changes of contractors and economic crises, Russian engineers can finally take pride in launching the world’s only nuclear floating rig.

    • Christians In Africa: "You Have Three Days To Go Or You Will Be Killed!"

      Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,

      • “Christianity originated in the Middle East. Thus, the displacement or evacuation of Christians from the Middle East is very dangerous for the safety of the region… also in the Mediterranean Sea region. Europe is affected by this.” — Egyptian Coptic Pope Tawadros II, in Germany, where he was inaugurating a new Coptic church for his exiled community. Deutsche Welle, May 14, 2019.

      • Regrettably, the tragedy of these Christian massacres is directly proportional to the neglect with which they are reported in the West.

      • “‘Islamophobia’ looms large; talk of ‘Christophobia’ is almost nonexistent”. — Ross Douthat, “Are Christians Privileged or Persecuted?”, The New York Times, April 23, 2019.

      • Algeria — the country of origin of some of the Christian fathers such as Augustine of Hippo — has become a country… where officially there are “no native Christians”. How many other countries will meet the same fate? And will the West ever come to the help of their Christian brethren?

      Persecution of Christians in the Middle East is now close to “genocide“, a UK-commissioned report just revealed. The same threat has also become critical for Christian communities in Africa.

      Some say it began in Algeria in the 1990s, when 19 monks, bishops, nuns and other Catholics were killed during the civil war. Since then, in Nigeria, Christian faithful have been massacred in their churches; in Kenya, Christians have been killed in universities; in Libya, Christians have been beheaded on beaches; in Yemen, nuns have been assassinated and in Egypt, massive anti-Christian violence is prompting an exodus. It is the new African archipelago of persecution.

      Distressingly, these Christians have been finding themselves in the blind spot of the West: they are “too Christian” to get the Left’s attention, but too far away for the Right. Africa’s Christians are orphans. They have no “allies”, John O’Sullivan writes.

      Christian families recently fled the city of Diffa, in Niger, after Boko Haram delivered the message: “You have three days to go or you will be killed!”. “There is no Christian anymore in this town”, someone reported to the non-governmental organization, the Barnabas Fund. The town, Arbinda, is in Burkina Faso. Numbers are telling: 82 pastors, 1,145 Christians and 151 households have fled from violence in the Muslim-majority nation. Just in the last few weeks, several of the Christian faithful and clergy have been murdered. Jihadists killed six Christians in a Catholic church in the town of Dablo. A pastor was murdered in an attack in Silgadji, Catholic parades have been targeted.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Pictured: The gate of a school in Diffa. (Image source: Roland Hunziker/Wikimedia Commons)

      Jihadists apparently want to “cleanse” these areas of Christians — and they are succeeding. “There is an atmosphere of panic in the town,” the mayor of Dablo, Ousmane Zongo, said. “People are holed up in their homes, nothing is going on. The shops and stores are closed. It’s practically a ghost town”.

      In Nigeria, attacks on Christians never stop. The country has become a “war zone for Christians“.

      “The attacks on Christians are growing more flagrant and more aggressive,” Father John Bakeni from the Maiduguri Diocese, northern Nigeria, said. “We consider each day we live in safety a blessing because we do not know what will happen the next day”.

      “We Christians are at risk of extinction and an attempt is being made to Islamize the whole country because controlling Nigeria means expelling Christians from all of West Africa”, said Father Joseph Fidelis Bature, a Catholic priest in the Nigerian diocese of Maiduguri, in the Italian monthly Tempi.

      Unfortunately, we Westerners have a short memory. Al Qaeda’s first attacks took place in Africa: the bombings against US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Africa matters for the West. That is why we should take this monstrous new anti-Christian persecution more seriously. “Christianity originated in the Middle East”, the Egyptian Coptic Pope Tawadros II said in Germany, where he was inaugurating a new Coptic church in May for his exiled community. “Thus, the displacement or evacuation of Christians from the Middle East is very dangerous for the safety of the region, not only in the Middle East but also in the Mediterranean Sea region. Europe is affected by this, and the Arab countries as well”. The West should take much more seriously these appeals from the Eastern Christian leaders.

      With a secularized Europe and a Middle East close to becoming emptied of Christians, those jihadists who are obsessed with eradicating Christianity understand that their current ideological battlefield is in Africa. “By 2025, 50 percent of the (world’s) Christian population will be in Africa and Latin America”, wrote the scholar Philip Jenkins. The share of the world’s Christians in sub-Saharan Africa is expected grow from 24% in 2010 to 38% by 2050. That is why jihadists there are pursuing a horrific project of religious cleansing.

      “Christianity has literally ‘gone south’, exploding demographically in the developing world and augmenting ongoing sociopolitical turmoil in places such as West Africa”, the Pew Forum reports. Radical Islam wants to stop this demographic movement, which Professor Philip Jenkins called “the largest religious change of any kind that has ever occurred”.

      According to another report, in one century the number of Muslims living in sub-Saharan Africa has increased more than 20-fold, rising from 11 million in 1900 to 234 million in 2010. At the same time, the number of Christians has grown 70-fold, rising from 7 million to 470 million. Sub-Saharan Africa now is home to 21% of all the Christians in the world and 15% of the world’s Muslims. “Islamic extremism has two global centers of gravity, one in the Arab Middle East, but the other is in sub-Saharan Africa”, researcher Ron Boyd-MacMillan noted in a report for Open Doors.

      Every year, Open Doors lists the world’s 50 worst persecutors of Christians. The list include 14 African countries, called home to “extreme” or “very high” levels of persecution: Algeria, the Central African Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, and Tunisia. Mali, for instance, went from no listing to seventh place in just two years. In Kenya last year, Islamists forced passengers of a bus to present their identification cards. Then they separated Muslims and killed the two Christians.

      Regrettably, the tragedy of these massacres of Christians is directly proportional to the neglect with which they are reported in the West. “One of the basic facts of contemporary religious history is that Christians around the world are persecuted on an extraordinary scale”, Ross Douthat recently wrote in The New York Times.

      “Yet as an era-defining reality rather than an episodic phenomenon this reality is barely visible in the Western media, and rarely called by name and addressed head-on by Western governments and humanitarian institutions. (‘Islamophobia’ looms large; talk of ‘Christophobia’ is almost nonexistent.)”

      Jihadists know a secret: persecution works. Algeria — the country of origin of some of the Christian fathers such as Augustine of Hippo — has become a country that is 99.9% Muslim and where officially there are “no native Christians“. How many other countries will meet the same fate? And will the West ever come to the help of their Christian brethren?

    • Zuesse: The Civil War Now In America

      Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Saker blog,

      America is controlled only by its wealthiest, and they are solidly in control of both political Parties.

      However, now that they are in control, they are fighting bitterly amongst one-another. They are on two sides.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Concerning foreign policies, and domestic policies, Republican Party billionaires hate especially Iran, and especially all progressivism.

      By contrast, concerning foreign policies, and domestic policies, Democratic Party billionaires hate especially Russia, and accept some progressivism.

      (They need to do the latter so that they can be considered to be liberals and thus tolerated or even admired by Democratic Party voters. That’s necessary for them because, for example, Democratic Party voters would be just as turned off toward a politician who is financed by and fronts for the conservative Koch brothers, as Republican Party voters would be turned off toward a politician who is financed by and fronts for the liberal George Soros — and everybody knows that billionaires fund the major politicians; it’s not a totally hidden fact. Soros and other liberal billionaires can claim to be ‘public spirited’, which is necessary for them in order to be able to appeal to liberals; but the Koch brothers and other avowedly conservative billionaires have no need to make that pretense in order to appeal to conservatives.)

      Actually, all  billionaires are conservatives, because they need to be that, in order to call a country like America “democratic” instead of “dictatorial,” and they need that myth of American ‘democracy’ in order to prevent a revolution, which would strip them of their power.

      (No American billionaire calls America a “dictatorship,” even though it is and each of them knows it, since they collectively are the dictators here, and since they don’t become involved in politics, at all, unless they want to remain in control over it. The richer a person is, the more conservative the person tends to be, and billionaires are the richest people of all, so all of them are actually conservatives. Even billionaire liberals are conservative, because otherwise the individual would be fomenting revolution, and none of them is doing any such thing — what would they be revolting against, if not themselves? They can pretend to be progressive, but only pretend. Furthermore, every study shows that the richer a person is, the more involved in politics the person tends to be. Poor people are the least involved in politics, and this is one of the reasons why the U.S. is a dictatorship. It’s a dictatorship by the richest, and throughout thousands of years that has been called an “aristocracy,” as opposed to a “democracy.”)

      The first scientific study of whether the U.S. is a dictatorship or a democracy was published in 2014 and it found that America is a dictatorship and that its richest are in control over it. Only wealth and political involvement determined whether a person’s desired governmental policies get passed into law and implemented by governmental policies, the researchers found. Furthermore, “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” Consequently, the public’s desires are actually ignored  by the American Government. It’s not responsive to what the public wants; it is responsive only  to what the politically involved super-rich — the people who mainly fund politics — want. And those billionaires also control, or even own, all of the major ’news’media, and so their propaganda filters-out such realities as that the country is a dictatorship, no democracy at all.

      Barack Obama was, from the very first moment when he became President, aiming to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government, and the reason for that was never made clear, but some people thought it was because Syria is allied with Iran, and some of them thought that it was instead because Syria is allied with Russia. When the Democrat Obama negotiated and signed the multinational pact in which Iran guaranteed that it would produce no nuclear bombs and the U.S. and its allies would end their sanctions against Iran, the reality became clear that Obama didn’t actually hate Iran (which the Republican Trump clearly does). Obama was invading Syria because it’s allied with Russia, not because it’s allied with Iran. His successor, the Republican Donald Trump, is just as anti-Iran as Obama was anti-Russia. Whereas the Republican Party especially hate Iran, the Democratic Party especially hate Russia. And that’s because their billionaires do — the Democratic ones hate Russia the most, and the Republican ones hate Iran the most. That’s the biggest single difference between the two Parties.

      The main personal difference between Obama and Trump (other than that Obama was intelligent and Trump isn’t) is that Obama was a much more skilled liar than Trump is. For example, he was able to string Vladimir Putin along until 2012 to hope that Obama’s ‘reset with Russia’ wasn’t merely a ploy. On 26 March 2012, Obama informed Dmitry Medvedev to tell Putin that “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [the incoming President Putin] to give me space. This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

      However, it was all a lie. The fact is that, already, Obama was actually planning, even as early as 2011, to overthrow the neutralist Government right next door to Russia, in Ukraine, and to replace it with a rabidly anti-Russian regime on Russia’s doorstep, which he was planning to bring into NATO even though only around 30% of Ukrainians wanted Ukraine to join NATO. But Putin had no way of knowing that Obama was planning this. And immediately after Obama’s February 2014 coup in Ukraine, around 60% of Ukrainians suddenly wanted Ukraine to join NATO. (That’s because the newly installed Obama regime propagandized hatred against Russia.)

      Obama won Ukraine as being an enemy of Russia; it’s as if Putin had wrangled a coup in Mexico and suddenly Mexicans turned rabidly hostile toward the U.S. But it was a Democrat who did this, not a Republican. And the Republican Trump is just as hostile to Iran as Obama was to Russia. These aren’t foreign governments that are interfering in America’s foreign policies; maybe Israel is doing that, and maybe Saudi Arabia is, and maybe UAE is, but certainly America’s 585 billionaires are. And they are allied with those three Middle Eastern countries. When America imposes sanctions against a country in order to wreck the target-nation’s economy, that target-nation is officially an ‘enemy’, and that’s because it is allied with or at least friendly toward either Russia, or Iran, or both. America’s 585 billionaires control America’s foreign policies, but disagree on whether America’s top enemy is (if the billionaire is a Republican) Iran, or (if the billionaire is a Democrat) Russia.

      For example: If the next President is Biden, then conquering Russia will be the main foreign-policy goal, but if the next President is Trump, then conquering Iran will be.

      *  *  *

      Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

    • Still Stonewall'd: Mapping The Legal Status Of Homosexuality Worldwide

      This week marks the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots and LGBTQ people across the world are gearing up for a weekend of celebrations to remember the event that kickstarted the gay rights revolution. However, as Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, while a lot has been achieved over the past half a century in the United States, there is still more work to do.

      The same cannot be said of other countries, many of which are waiting for their own Stonewall moment.

      The following infographic was made with EQUALDEX data and it shows where homosexuality remains illegal.

      Infographic: The Legal Status Of Homosexuality Worldwide | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      In 2019, homosexuality is still punishable by death in at least ten countries and it remains illegal in countless others.

      Brunei recently provoked international outrage when it introduced strict Islamic laws in April that made homosexual activity punishable by stoning to death.

    • Orwell's 1984 No Longer Reads Like Fiction: It's The Reality Of Our Times

      Authored by Robert Bridge, op-ed via RT.com,

      70 years ago, the British writer George Orwell captured the essence of technology in its ability to shape our destinies in his seminal work, 1984. The tragedy of our times is that we have failed to heed his warning.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      No matter how many times I read 1984, the feeling of total helplessness and despair that weaves itself throughout Orwell’s masterpiece never fails to take me by surprise. Although usually referred to as a ‘dystopian futuristic novel’, it is actually a horror story on a scale far greater than anything that has emerged from the minds of prolific writers like Stephen King or Dean Koontz. The reason is simple. The nightmare world that the protagonist Winston Smith inhabits, a place called Oceania, is all too easily imaginable. Man, as opposed to some imaginary clown or demon, is the evil monster. 

      In the very first pages of the book, Orwell demonstrates an uncanny ability to foresee future trends in technology. Describing the protagonist Winston Smith’s frugal London flat, he mentions an instrument called a ‘telescreen’, which sounds strikingly similar to the handheld ‘smartphone’ that is enthusiastically used by billions of people around the world today.

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

      Orwell describes the ubiquitous device as an “oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror” affixed to the wall that “could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely.” Sound familiar? It is through this gadget that the rulers of Oceania are able to monitor the actions of its citizens every minute of every day. At the same time, the denizens of 1984 were never allowed to forget they were living in a totalitarian surveillance state, under the control of the much-feared Thought Police. Massive posters with the slogan ‘Big Brother is Watching You’ were as prevalent as our modern-day advertising billboards. Today, however, such polite warnings about surveillance would seem redundant, as reports of unauthorized spying still gets the occasional lazy nod in the media now and then.

      In fact, just in time for 1984’s anniversary, it has been reported that the National Security Agency (NSA) has once again been illicitly collecting records on telephone calls and text messages placed by US citizens. This latest invasion of privacy has been casually dismissed as an “error” after an unnamed telecommunications firm handed over call records the NSA allegedly “hadn’t requested” and “weren’t approved” by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In 2013, former CIA employee Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA’s intrusive surveillance operations, yet somehow the government agency is able to continue – with the help of the corporate sector – vacuuming up the private information of regular citizens. 

      Another method of control alluded to in 1984 fell under a system of speech known as ‘Newspeak’, which attempted to reduce the language to ‘doublethink’, with the ulterior motive of controlling ideas and thoughts. For example, the term ‘joycamp’, a truncated term every bit as euphemistic as the ‘PATRIOT Act’, was used to describe a forced labor camp, whereas a ‘doubleplusgood duckspeaker’ was used to praise an orator who ‘quacked’ correctly with regards to the political situation.

      Another Newspeak term, known as ‘facecrime’, provides yet another striking parallel to our modern situation. Defined as “to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense.” It would be difficult for the modern reader to hear the term ‘facecrime’ and not connect it with ‘Facebook’, the social media platform that regularly censors content creators for expressing thoughts it finds ‘hateful’ or inappropriate. What social media users need is an Orwellian lesson in ‘crimestop’, which Orwell defined as “the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought.” Those so-called unacceptable ‘dangerous thoughts’ were determined not by the will of the people, of course, but by their rulers.

      And yes, it gets worse. Just this week, Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘private company’ agreed to give French authorities the“identification data” of Facebook users suspected of spreading ‘hate speech’ on the platform, in what would be an unprecedented move on the part of Silicon Valley.

      ‘Hate speech’ is precisely one of those delightfully vague, subjective terms with no real meaning that one would expect to find in the Newspeak style guide. Short of threatening the life of a person or persons, individuals should be free to criticize others without fear of reprisal, least of all from the state, which should be in the business of protecting free speech at all cost.

      Another modern phenomenon that would be right at home in Orwell’s Oceania is the obsession with political correctness, which is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.” But since so many people today identify with some marginalized group, this has made the intelligent discussion of controversial ideas – not least of all on US college campuses, of all places – exceedingly difficult, if not downright dangerous. Orwell must be looking down on all of this madness with much surprise, since he provided the world with the best possible warning to prevent it.

      For anyone who entertains expectations for a happy ending in 1984, be prepared for serious disappointment (spoiler alert, for the few who have somehow not read this book). Although Winston Smith manages to finally experience love, the brief romance – like a delicate flower that was able to take root amid a field of asphalt – is crushed by the authorities with shocking brutality. Not satisfied with merely destroying the relationship, however, Smith is forced to betray his ‘Julia’ after undergoing the worst imaginable torture at the ‘Ministry of Love’.

      The book ends with the words, “He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.” Will we too declare, like Winston Smith, our love for ‘Big Brother’ above all else, or will we emerge victorious against the forces of a technological tyranny that appears to be just over the horizon? Or is Orwell’s 1984 just really good fiction and not the instruction manual for tyrants many have come to fear it is? 

      An awful lot is riding on our answers to those questions, and time is running out.

    • WaPo, NYT Giving Dangerous Platform To Left-Wing Apologists Stoking Civil Discord

      The Washington Post and New York Times have recently opened up their platforms to Op-Eds defending, justifying and promoting abhorrent behavior committed against conservatives. Calling them out is the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York, who notes that “the toxicity of the resistance to President Trump has risen in recent days,” with both papers “publishing rationalizations for denying Trump supporters public accommodation and for doxxing career federal employees.” 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      First up, Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of the infamous Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. Wiklinson unapologetically booted White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family last June. Wilkinson told the Washington Post at the time that her gay employees were too triggered by Sanders to serve her due to the Trump administration’s transgender military ban. 

      On Friday, Wilkinson essentially told conservatives that it’s their own fault if they are attacked in public. 

      In her new article, Wilkinson discussed the case of The Aviary, a trendy bar in Chicago where a waitress recently spat on Eric Trump, the president’s son. Wilkinson wrote that the incident, along with her own decision to oust Sanders, shows that in the age of Trump “new rules apply” in public accommodations: Americans who work for the administration or support the president should stay away.

      “If you’re directly complicit in spreading hate or perpetuating suffering, maybe you should consider dining at home,” Wilkinson wrote.

      Wilkinson noted that “no one in the industry condones the physical assault of a patron,” but at the same time declared that Americans should understand that a “frustrated person” — for example, a restaurant employee — will “lash[] out at the representatives of an administration that has made its name trashing norms and breaking backs.” Americans should accept that such things will happen.

      “If you’re an unsavory individual,” Wilkinson concluded, “we have no legal or moral obligation to do business with you.” Better to stay home than risk the spittle. (And of course, Wilkinson and her colleagues in the hospitality industry will decide who is “unsavory.”) –Washington Examiner

      And what constitutes an unsavory individual? Apparently half of the country! 

      New York Times and Doxxing

      York next calls out the New York Times for allowing a University College London assistant professor of human rights, Kate Cronin-Furman, who justifies doxxing the personal details of low-and-mid level Customs and Border Protection employees who are responsible for taking care of migrant children at border detention facilities. 

      Cronin-Furman discussed the detentions, as well as actions by employees of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in terms of the Holocaust and genocides in Cambodia and Rwanda. Those are, of course, contexts which most Americans would likely dismiss as preposterous and offensive but which Cronin-Furman and the New York Times apparently take seriously. Her idea is that opponents of the administration should publicly identify and shame low- and mid-level Customs and Border Protection employees who care for migrant children.

      Such workers would be dismayed at being publicly shamed because they are “sensitive to social pressure,” Cronin-Furman wrote, “which has been shown to have played a huge role in atrocity commission and desistance in the Holocaust, Rwanda, and elsewhere. The campaign to stop the abuses at the border should exploit this sensitivity.” –Washington Examiner

      “This is not an argument for doxxing,” Cronin-Furman continued. “It’s about exposure of their participation in atrocities to audiences whose opinion they care about. The knowledge, for instance, that when you go to church on Sunday, your entire congregation will have seen you on TV ripping a child out of her father’s arms is a serious social cost to bear. The desire to avoid this kind of social shame may be enough to persuade some agents to quit and may hinder the recruitment of replacements. For those who won’t (or can’t) quit, it may induce them to treat the vulnerable individuals under their control more humanely. In Denmark during World War II, for instance, strong social pressure, including from churches, contributed to the refusal of the country to comply with Nazi orders to deport its Jewish citizens.”

      As York notes, “Needless to say, that was a clear argument for doxxing.“

      Time and time again we’ve heard from the left that ‘hate speech’ is so dangerous because it could inspire people to commit violent acts. If that’s the case, why are the Washington Post and New York Times allowing people to use their platform to justify actual violence and potentially dangerous acts against conservatives? Doesn’t the same theoretical slippery slope of ideological division that ends in tiki torches and lynchings similarly feed the countless acts of actual violence committed by Antifa? We’re guessing you already know the answer. 

    • China Slumps Into Full-Blown Manufacturing Contraction Following "Awful" Asian PMI Prints

      Now that the Osaka G-20 has come and gone, and while nothing has been resolved in the US-China trade war, at least there has been no escalation and China is safe from US tariffs on the remainder of its exports to the US, which in turn has given algos a dose of optimism that all is well pushing S&P futures just shy of 3,000, things in the real world are going from bad to worse.

      One day after China’s official NBS manufacturing PMI on Sunday printed unchanged at 49.4 in June, below expectations of an increase from May…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      … with most of the key sub-components sliding to new cycle lows:

      • production index 0.4 lower at 51.3,
      • new orders sub-index was 0.2 lower at 49.6
      • employment sub-index edged down 0.1pp to 46.9.
      • imports sub-index down to 46.8, from 47.1,
      • new export order index down to 46.3, vs. 46.5 in May

      … the other Chinese PMI, the Caixin Manufacturing PMI, hammered expectations as it unexpectedly slumped back into contraction.

      Falling from 50.2 in May to 49.4 in June, the Cixin PMI – which differs from the official, NBS report by shifting away from SOEs and large enterprises and instead focusing on small and medium businesses – was below the critical 50.0 threshold which divides contraction and expansion, for the first time in four months.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to the report, the June data highlighted a “challenging month” for Chinese manufacturers, with trade tensions reportedly  causing renewed declines in total sales, export orders and production.

      Commenting on the June PMI data, Zhengsheng Zhong, Director of Macroeconomic Analysis at CEBM Group said: “The Caixin China General Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index was 49.4 in June, the second lowest since June 2016, indicating a clear contraction in the manufacturing sector, and only for the first time since late 2016, identical to China’s official Mfg PMI print (which was also 49.4).

      “The subindex for new orders slid into contractionary territory, pointing to notably shrinking domestic demand. The gauge for new export orders returned to contractionary territory, but was better than the levels seen from last April to last December. Front-loading by exporters was likely to support this gauge as the China-U.S. trade relationship was under great uncertainty.

      The output subindex fell into contractionary territory. The employment subindex remained relatively stable in negative territory, likely due to government policies to stabilize the job  market. The State Council set up a leading group on employment in late May.

      The subindex measuring sentiment toward future output plunged further, albeit staying in expansionary territory, a reflection of continuously weakening business confidence amid the Sino-U.S. trade conflict.

      Overall, China’s economy came under further pressure in June. Domestic demand shrank notably, foreign demand was still underpinned by front-loading exports, and business confidence fell sharply. It’s crucial for policymakers to step up countercyclical policies. New types of infrastructure, high-tech manufacturing and consumption are likely to be the main policy focuses.”

      In short, the US-China trade war is Trump’s for the taking… if he wants it: companies responded to the latest escalation by reducing headcounts further and making fewer purchases of raw materials and semi-finished items. At the same time, China appears to be sliding into stagflation, as selling prices were raised following another increase in input costs, though rates of inflation were negligible, suggesting that companies failed to pass on costs to consumers. Also, business sentiment was broadly neutral at the end of the second quarter, with firms mainly concerned about the US-China trade dispute.

      It wasn’t just China that was a shitshow: Asian factory PMIs were almost universally awful on Monday, adding to the signal from the official China report out Sunday that as Bloomberg put it, “the global economy has been harpooned by the trade wars.” To wit:

      • Taiwan’s PMI dropped to 45.5, the lowest since 2011, and it’s now been below the 50 line separating contraction from expansion for 9 straight months — the longest since a 10-month stretch that ended in Feb. 2009.
      • South Korea’s gauge slumped further into contraction (47.5 vs 48.4 in May) to confirm April’s spike above 50 was an outlier
      • Japan’s came in at 49.3, worse than the initial reading of 49.5.
      • Australia’s AIG factory gauge fell into contraction for the first time since 2016
      • Malaysia’s PMI sank again to hold below 50.
      • Indonesia and Thailand’s gauges fell, while holding above 50.
      • The Philippines was the only substantial regional economy to see a tick up.

      Meanwhile, futures blissfully continue to ignore the collapsing global economic reality, and instead rejoice at the “successful” conclusion of the Trump-Xi meeting, which notd only achieved nothing, but  confirmed the status quo – massive tariffs and the threat of more.

      The decision to resume talks, meanwhile, offers little cause for optimism given that this conflict has now dragged on for more than a year as Bloomberg Garfield Reynolds says, adding that “the PMIs underscore how much damage has been done by the trade spat, and even the central bank stimulus being forecast by rates markets is looking more and more like band aids that won’t stop the bleeding.”

    • Russian Military Intervenes After Deadly Clashes Between Syrian & Turkish Armies 

      Via AlMasdarNews.com

      The Russian military quickly intervened to prevent a deadly confrontation between the Syrian and Turkish forces on Saturday.

      The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) first opened fire on the militant-held Sheir Magher area after the Turkish-backed rebels fired several artillery shells towards their positions in northwestern Hama. The Sheir Magher area is where the Turkish observation post is located in northwestern Hama.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Image via AMN

      Following the Syrian Army attack on the Turkish observation post area, the Russian Armed Forces quickly intervened to prevent further hostilities, a source near the front-lines told Al-Masdar News.

      The source added that the Russian Armed Forces are currently present in the northwestern countryside of Hama, with many of their soldiers deployed to the towns of Mhardeh and Al-Sqaylabiyeh.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Image via AMN

      Earlier this week, the Syrian Army killed a Turkish soldier in the Sheir Magher area after the former was responding to an attack by the militants in northwestern Hama.

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

      The Turkish Armed Forces later retaliated by shelling the Syrian Army checkpoints near Sheir Magher – no casualties were reported.

      That prior deadly incident involved the Syrian Army striking a Turkish observation post in the same area, resulting in the death of one soldier and hospitalization of three others.

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

      In retaliation, the Turkish military attacked a couple of the Syrian Army checkpoints in northwestern Hama.

      Following the incident, the Turkish authorities summoned the Russian military attache in Syria and demanded that they control the Syrian Army in northwestern Hama.

      The potential for further direct Syrian-Turkish clashes in Syria’s north, along with a significant uptick in both Russian and NATO aerial activity over the region, makes for an intensifying and volatile situation. 

    • Tucker Carlson By Trump's Side At Korean DMZ, But Where Was Bolton? 

      Fox’s Tucker Carlson was present in the official US delegation accompanying President Trump for his historic meeting with Kim Jong Un along the demilitarized line, where Trump became the first sitting American president to ever step foot in North Korea. 

      Following recent soaring tensions with Iran, which nearly led to war less than two weeks ago, it’s since been confirmed that the outspoken non-interventionist Fox pundit was in Trump’s ear advising him not to go to war against Tehran. And now Carlson has been seen prominently at Sunday’s events along the Korean DMZ.

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

      But notably absent for the history-making occasion was the president’s uber-hawk national security adviser John Bolton.

      And where was the one person who’s supposed to be America’s most influential foreign policy thinker and personal adviser to the commander-in-chief? 

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

      Where else but Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia? Apparently Trump is keeping Bolton far away from Korea at a time the White House is attempting to repair the damage from the failed Hanoi summit. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Guardian confirms Tucker’s presence at the DMZ summit while Bolton was simultaneously consigned to the Gobi Desert:

      The DMZ meeting was all about shaping a narrative. That is why John Bolton, the ultra-hawkish national security adviser, was nowhere to be seen; he had been sent, or sent himself, to Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. But the official US party included Tucker Carlson, a Fox News talkshow host, who is Trump’s principal channel to the non-interventionist section of his far-right base. Eleventh-hour conversations with Carlson reportedly persuaded Trump not to launch missiles against Iran this month, after the downing of a US drone.

      The report suggests further that US-North Korea dialogue is at too sensitive a stage to have the blustering loudmouth neocon anywhere near it.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Trump became the first sitting American president to set foot in North Korea. Photo: AP

      The Guardian continues: 

      The fact that the meeting on Sunday with Kim was more than perfunctory suggests that Trump, for all his bluster, is aware that a mere photo op could not guarantee his image as master deal maker all the way up to the November 2020 presidential election. There had to be some substance, and that would require repairing the damage done in Hanoi.

      Last week Trump said during a Meet the Press interview while discussing Iran: “John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he’d take on the whole world at one time, okay?”

      Meanwhile, Carlson’s presence as guest of the White House for the Kim summit is already subject of controversy, given that during a Fox & Friends interview he gave from South Korea he said that part of “what it means to lead a country” is “killing people.”

      Carlson was responding to criticisms questioning how Trump could possibly meet with a vile dictator, for which the president has increasingly come under fire from both sides of the aisle. Trump is aiming to breath new life into nuclear negotiations which have been dormant since February, which requires direct talks with Kim. 

      In the controversial statements Carlson called Pyongyang a “monstrous” and “disgusting” regime, but also explained: 

      “It’s not a choice between the evil people and the great people, it’s a choice most of the time between the bad people and the worse people.”

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

      Monday night is also set to be interesting, given that Fox News will reportedly air a special interview with President Trump by Carlson which is to be recorded sometime Sunday. 

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Jun 30

    Today’s News 30th June 2019

    • For Americans, War Has Always Been A Spectator Sport

      Authored by Nick Turse via TomDispatch.com,

      From the Civil War to Vietnam, Americans have always been captivated by war’s spectacle…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Sometimes war sounds like the harsh crack of gunfire and sometimes like the whisper of the wind. This early morning – in al-Yarmouk on the southern edge of Libya’s capital, Tripoli – it was a mix of both.

      All around, shops were shuttered and homes emptied, except for those in the hands of the militiamen who make up the army of the Government of National Accord (GNA), the UN-backed, internationally recognized government of Libyan Prime Minister Fayez al-Serraj. The war had slept in this morning and all was quiet until the rattle of a machine gun suddenly broke the calm.

      A day earlier, I had spent hours on the roof of my hotel, listening to the basso profundo echo of artillery as dark torrents of smoke rose from explosions in this and several other outlying neighborhoods. The GNA was doing battle with the self-styled Libyan National Army of warlord Khalifa Haftar, a US citizen, former CIA asset, and longtime resident of Virginia, who was lauded by President Donald Trump in an April phone call. Watching the war from this perch brought me back to another time in my life when I wrote about war from a far greater distance—of both time and space—a war I covered decades after the fact, the one that Americans still call “Vietnam” but the Vietnamese know as “the American War.”

      During the early years of US involvement there, watching the war from the hotels of Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, was a rite of passage for American journalists and the signature line of unfortunate articles that often said far more about the state of war reporting than the state of the war. “On clear days patrons lunching in the ninth-floor restaurant in the Caravelle Hotel can watch Government planes dropping napalm on guerrillas across the Saigon River,” Hedrick Smith wrote in a December 1963 New York Times article.

      As that war ground on, the pastime of hotel war-watching never seemed to end, despite a recognition of the practice for what it was. Musing about the spring of 1968 in his fever dream memoir, Dispatches, Esquire’s correspondent in Vietnam, Michael Herr, wrote:

      “In the early evenings we’d do exactly what the correspondents did in those terrible stories that would circulate in 1964 and 1965, we’d stand on the roof of the Caravelle Hotel having drinks and watch the airstrikes across the river, so close that a good telephoto lens would pick up the markings on the planes. There were dozens of us up there, like aristocrats viewing Borodino from the heights, at least as detached about it as that even though many of us had been caught under those things from time to time.”

      “IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT THERE WAS A WOMAN KILLED THERE BY OUR GUNS”

      Today, few know much about Borodino—unless they remember it as the white-hot heart of the war sections of Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace—a Napoleonic victory that proved so pyrrhic it would have been regarded as the French Emperor’s Waterloo, if the actual battle of that name hadn’t finally felled him. Still, even for those who don’t know Borodino from Bora Bora, Herr’s passage points to a grand tradition of detached war-watching. (Or, in the case of Ernest Hemingway’s famed Spanish Civil War coverage, war-listening: “The window of the hotel is open and, as you lie in bed, you hear the firing in the front line seventeen blocks away.”)

      In fact, the classic American instance of war-as-spectator-sport occurred in 1861 in the initial major land battle of the Civil War, Bull Run (or, for those reading this below the Mason-Dixon line, the first battle of Manassas).

      “On the hill beside me there was a crowd of civilians on horseback, and in all sorts of vehicles, with a few of the fairer, if not gentler sex,” wrote William Howard Russell who covered the battle for the London Times.

      “The spectators were all excited, and a lady with opera glasses who was near me was quite beside herself when an unusually heavy discharge roused the current of her blood—‘That is splendid, Oh my! Is not that first rate? I guess we will be in Richmond tomorrow.’”

      That woman would be sorely disappointed. US forces not only failed to defeat their Confederate foes and press on toward the capital of the secessionist South but fled, pell-mell, in ignominious retreat toward Washington. It was a routof the first order. Still, not one of the many spectators on the scene, including Congressman Alfred Ely of New York, taken prisoner by the 8th South Carolina Infantry, was killed.

      But that isn’t to say that there were no civilian casualties at Bull Run.

      Judith Carter Henry was as old as the imperiled republic at the time of the battle. Born in 1776, the widow of a US Navy officer, she was an invalid, confined to her bed, living with her daughter, Ellen, and a leased, enslaved woman named Lucy Griffith when Confederate snipers stormed her hilltop home and took up positions on the second floor.

      “We ascended the hill near the Henry house, which was at that time filled with sharpshooters. I had scarcely gotten to the battery before I saw some of my horses fall and some of my men wounded by sharpshooters,” Captain James Ricketts, commander of Battery 1, First US Artillery, wrote in his official report.

      “I turned my guns on that house and literally riddled it. It has been said that there was a woman killed there by our guns.”

      Indeed, a 10-pound shell crashed through Judith Henry’s bedroom and tore off her foot. She died later that day, the first civilian death of America’s Civil War.

      No one knows how many civilians died in the war between the states. No one thought to count. Maybe 50,000, including those who died from war-related disease, starvation, crossfire, riots, and other mishaps. By comparison, around 620,000 to 750,000 American soldiers died in the conflict—close to 1,000 of them at that initial battle at Bull Run.

      “WHAT YOU SAW WAS THEM SHELLING MY HOME.”

      A century later, US troops had traded their blue coats for olive fatigues and the wartime death tolls were inverted. More than 58,000 Americans lost their lives in Vietnam. Estimates of the Vietnamese civilian toll, on the other hand, hover around two million. Of course, we’ll never know the actual number, just as we’ll never know how many died in air strikes as reporters watched from the rooftop bar of Saigon’s Caravelle Hotel, just as I’ll never know how many—if any—lives were snuffed out as I scanned the southern edge of Tripoli and watched smoke from artillery shells and rockets billow into the sky.

      That same afternoon in Libya’s capital, while taking a break from war watching, I met Salah Isaid and his two children. They were, like me, guests at the Victoria Hotel, although we were lodged there for very different reasons. When I mentioned having spent the previous hour on the roof as a suburb was being shelled hard, a glimmer of recognition flashed across Isaid’s face. “That’s Khalat Furjan,” he replied with a sad smile. “What you saw was them shelling my home.”

      Isaid, his wife, and his two boys had found it difficult to escape the war zone, but finally made it to the safer north side of Tripoli, to this very hotel, in fact, a few weeks earlier. Worried that his house had been looted or destroyed, he tried several times to investigate only to be turned away at militia checkpoints. Now, he was homeless, jobless, and—even with the hotel’s special displaced-persons’ rate—rapidly burning through his savings. “I sold real estate, but who wants to buy a house in a war zone?” Isaid asked me with a wry smile that faded into a grimace.

      My own experience as a reporter, in country after country, has more than confirmed his assessment. The “real estate” I saw in Tripoli’s war-ravaged suburbs was spectral, the civilian population having fled. Other than a car that had been hit by an air strike, the only vehicles were tanks or “technicals”—pickup trucks with machine guns or anti-aircraft weapons mounted in their beds. Many buildings had been peppered with machine-gun fire or battered by heavier ordnance. The sole residents now were GNA militiamen who had appropriated homes and shops as barracks and command posts.

      Real estate, as Isaid well knows, is a losing proposition on a battlefront. After Judith Carter Henry’s hilltop home in Manassas Junction, Virginia, was blasted by artillery, its remains were either demolished by Confederate soldiers or burned down during the Second Battle of Bull Run, another staggering US defeat with even heavier casualties in August 1862. A photograph of Henry’s home, possibly taken in March 1862, months before that battle, already shows the house to be a crumpled ruin. (It wouldn’t be rebuilt until 1870.) Judith Henry was buried in a small plot next to her devastated home. “The Grave of Our Dear Mother Judith Henry” reads the tombstone there, which notes that she was 85 years old when “the explosion of shells in her dwelling” killed her.

      One hundred and fifty years after Henry became the first civilian casualty of the Civil War, Libyans began dying in their own civil strife as revolutionaries, backed by US and NATO airpower, ended the 42-year rule of dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. Before the year was out, that war had already cost an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 lives. And the killing never ended as the country slid into permanent near-failed-state status. The current conflict, raging on Tripoli’s doorstep since April, has left more than 4,700 people dead or wounded, including at least 176 confirmed civilian casualties (which experts believe to be lower than the actual figure). All told, according to the United Nations, around 1.5 million people—roughly 24 percent of the country’s population—have been affected by the almost three-month-old conflict.

      “Heavy shelling and airstrikes have become all too common since early April,” said Danielle Hannon-Burt, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross’s office in Tripoli.

      “Fierce fighting in parts of Tripoli includes direct or indiscriminate attacks against civilians and their property. It also includes attacks against key electricity, water, and medical infrastructure essential for the survival of the civilian population, potentially putting hundreds of thousands of people at risk.”

      In this century, it’s a story that has occurred repeatedly, each time with its own individual horrors, as the American war on terror spread from Afghanistan to Iraq and then on to other countries; as Russia fought in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere; as bloodlettings have bloomed from the Democratic Republic of Congo to South Sudan, from Myanmar to Kashmir. War watchers like me and like those reporters atop the Caravelle decades ago are, of course, the lucky ones. We can sit on the rooftops of hotels and listen to the low rumble of homes being chewed up by artillery. We can make targeted runs into no-go zones to glimpse the destruction. We can visit schools transformed into shelters. We can speak to real estate agents who have morphed into war victims. Some of us, like Hedrick Smith, Michael Herr, or me, will then write about it—often from a safe distance and with the knowledge that, unlike Salah Isaid and most other civilian victims of such wars, we can always find an even safer place.

      War has an all-consuming quality to it, which is at least part of what can make it so addictive for those blessed with the ability to escape it and so devastating to those trapped in it. A month of war had clearly worn Isaid down. He was slowly being crushed by it.

      In the middle of our conversation, he pulled me aside and whispered so his boys couldn’t hear him, “When I go to bed at night, all I can think is ‘What is going on? What does war have to do with me?’” He shook his head disbelievingly. Some days, he told me, he gets into his car and weaves his way through the traffic on the side of the capital untouched by shelling but increasingly affected by the war. “I drive by myself. I don’t know where I’m going and don’t have any place to go. My life has stopped. This is the only way to keep moving, but I’m not going anywhere.”

      I kept moving and left, of course. Isaid and his family remain in Tripoli – homeless, their lives upended, their futures uncertain – pinned under the heavy weight of war.

    • Recreational Drug Use Surges Worldwide

      The use of recreational drugs rose 30% between 2009 and 2017, according to new data from the United Nations World Drug Report, counting some 271 million people aged 15 to 64 in the study. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Marijuana is the most popular drug, followed by opioids, amphetamines and cocaine, Bloomberg reports. 

      The most popular drug globally continues to be cannabis, with an estimated 188 million people having used it in 2017, according to the study. Cannabis usage is most prevalent in North America, where there are an estimated 56.6 million users, followed by Asia with 54.2 million. –Bloomberg

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Meanwhile, the global area under opium poppy cultivation is the second largest ever estimated, after a record high in 2017.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Stoned Israelis, Baked Jamaicans

      According to the UN report, one-third of Israeli men aged 15-64 and 28.5% of Jamaican men in the same age range use marijuana at a greater frequency than the other countries studied. American men followed at 21.4%, while Canadians and New Zealanders came in at 19.1% and 18.6% respectively. 

      <!–

      <!–

      <!–

      //–>

      //–>

      //–>

      The legalization of cannabis in some North American jurisdictions has contributed to a decline in seizures, which have slumped 77% since 2010, the study said.

      Meanwhile, a record 693 tons of opiates was seized worldwide in 2017, a 5% increase from the previous year, as law enforcement efforts and international cooperation curtailed the global distribution of opium. –Bloomberg

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Last week a Brazilian Air Force sergeant traveling with President Jair Bolsonaro’s entourage to the G20 in Japan was busted with 86 pounds of cocaine. 

    • 40 Lessons To Teach Your Kids Before They Leave Home

      Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper,

      “Millennials” have been the butt of a million jokes about incompetence. The generation born between 1981 and 1996 is considered entitled, ultra-liberal, and naive about how life works. But maybe they’ve gotten a bad rap because what no one ever points out is that maybe the issue isn’t with these young people but with how they were raised. I know that my own millennial daughter is competent, frugal, and independent.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As a parent, the most important job I will ever hold is “mom” to my two daughters. And if I’m not teaching them the important life lessons they need to survive and thrive in this crazy world, I’m not doing a very good job at all. Of course, once they get out there, there are a million variables, but how they deal with those variables has a lot to do with whether they were raised to think independently or raised to wait for rescue.

      While I raised girls, I think it’s essential that we teach our kids skills outside the typical gender roles. Boys need to know how to cook. Girls need to know how to fix things. Maybe it won’t be their lot in life to do things outside their traditional roles, but take it from someone who never planned to become a single mom, things don’t always go the way you expect.

      As my younger daughter prepares to leave the nest (*mom sobbing*) I feel confident she’ll be just fine because I’ve taught her to the best of my ability the things she needs to know to be a successful adult.

      The skills you teach your children while they’re your captive audience will see them through many things – not just everyday life but also through a potential disaster.

      Everyday skills every young person should have

      Here are the lessons that I think every parent needs to teach their child, whether you’re raising boys or girls. Before leaving the nest, they should be able to:

      1. Cook inexpensive, nutritious meals from scratch

      2. How to use up leftovers

      3. Get from point A to point B using public transit or under their own power

      4. Budget limited money so that the most important things are paid first

      5. Mend and repair items instead of replacing them

      6. Take a course in First Aid, CPR, and anything else applicable that is offered.  The more you know, the calmer you are able to remain during a crisis.

      7. Have a good basic First Aid kit and know how to use everything in it

      8. Know some home remedies for various common illnesses: teas for tummy aches, treatment for flu symptoms, how to soothe skin irritations, and how to care for a fever

      9. Drive.  Not only an automatic transmission but also a standard transmission

      10. Change a tire.  You don’t want your teenage daughter stranded on the side of the road at the mercy of whoever stops to help. My daughters were not allowed to drive the car until they demonstrated their ability to change the tire with the factory jack.

      11. Perform minor maintenance, like checking the oil and fluid levels, filling up the washer fluid, checking tire pressures and topping them up if needed, and changing the windshield wiper blades.

      12. Use basic tools for repairs

      13. Cook a healthy meal from scratch

      14. Cook a “company” meal – everyone needs one delicious meal that’s a little fancier they can cook when they have a guest

      15. Grocery shop within a budget and have healthy food for the week ahead

      16. Speaking of that, how to budget in general, so that they don’t have “too much month and not enough money”

      17. How to clean

      18. How to do laundry, including stain removal

      19. How to think for themselves and question authority

      20. How to budget for holidays and vacations

      21. How to manage their time to get necessary tasks accomplished by the deadlines

      22. How to tell the difference between a want and a need

      23. How to be frugal with utilities and consumable goods

      24. How to pay bills

      25. How to stay out of debt (not easy with the college credit card racket that you see on campuses across the country and rampant student loans)

      26. How to pay off debt if they have it

      27. How to keep safe: they need to have basic self-defense and weapons-handling skills.

      28. How to navigate with a paper map – not Google or their car’s GPS

      29. How to make extra money fast if an emergency arises

      Emergency skills every young person should have

      Some of the skills above will cross over into emergencies, like First Aid. Outside of the basics of everyday life, your kids leaving home should know:

      1. How to light a fire

      2. How to cook safely over an open fire

      3. How to keep warm when the power is out, whether that means safely operating an indoor propane heater, using the woodstove/fireplace, or bundling up in a tent and sleeping bags in the living room

      4. How to keep themselves fed when the power is out – they should have enough supplies on hand that they can stay fed at home for up to two weeks: cereal, powdered milk, granola bars, canned fruit, etc.

      5. How to deal with the most likely disasters in their area

      6. About the dangers of off-grid heating and cooking, such as the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning in unventilated rooms.

      7. How to purify water

      8. How to keep safe both at home and when they’re out. Be sure they know the difference between cover and concealment

      9. How to do laundry by hand and hang it to dry

      10. How to keep things sanitary without running water

      11. How to acquire food: foraging, fishing, gardening, hunting

      It’s our job to make sure our kids are competent when they leave home.

    • US Army Wants 500,000 Active Troops By 2020, Amid Threats Of War

      The US Army wants 500,000 active duty military personnel by 2020, amid threats of war with Iran near the Strait of Hormuz and potential conflict with China across the South China Sea. The service’s recruiting goals, however, first reported by Army Times, is facing significant difficulties with unhealthy, ineligible millennials.

      “It’s a difficult market because it’s a very healthy job market,” said Acting Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. “This environment is as challenging as we’ve faced- 3.6% unemployment. We have no benchmark historically for the all-volunteer force.”

      McCarthy told the Times that it would be difficult to reach the recruitment goal by year’s end.

      “We are on target, but it’s close,” McCarthy said. “We, statistically, can make it, but we’re going to have to run through the finish line- undoubtedly a full sprint.”

      McCarthy said Army officials are speaking with municipalities across the country to formulate a strategy to enhance recruitment at a local level.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Army officials are shocked that a soaring stock market, booming job market, and low unemployment hasn’t translated into higher recruiting numbers.

      “That’s coupled with all the other factors we talk about all the time: obesity, mental health, challenges with law enforcement,” McCarthy said. “Things of that nature that would require waivers.”

      McCarthy is expected to meet with trainers and NCOs at Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Kentucky, next week to strategize how future recruitment programs can attract more millennials.

      “You got to engage kids,” McCarthy said. “It’s the mentality that a recruiter needs to have to get someone to understand their story — why an opportunity to serve in the US Army would be a great thing.”

      “It’s the lifeblood of our business, and it’s something, in particular in the last six months, I’ve tried to invest more of my time because the first 18 [months] has been predominately modernization and the budget,” he added.

      President Trump’s “America first” foreign policy with interventionists John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, attempting to force regime change in Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and trying to kill a rising power, China, through economic warfare, has led to massive military spending, modernization efforts, and forced the service to increase active duty personnel amid the recent threats of war.

    • Wikipedia Co-Founder Unveils "The Declaration Of Digital Independence"

      Authored by Larry Sanger,

      Humanity has been contemptuously used by vast digital empires. Thus it is now necessary to replace these empires with decentralized networks of independent individuals, as in the first decades of the Internet. As our participation has been voluntary, no one doubts our right to take this step. But if we are to persuade as many people as possible to join together and make reformed networks possible, we should declare our reasons for wanting to replace the old.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      We declare that we have unalienable digital rights, rights that define how information that we individually own may or may not be treated by others, and that among these rights are free speech, privacy, and security. Since the proprietary, centralized architecture of the Internet at present has induced most of us to abandon these rights, however reluctantly or cynically, we ought to demand a new system that respects them properly. The difficulty and divisiveness of wholesale reform means that this task is not to be undertaken lightly. For years we have approved of and even celebrated enterprise as it has profited from our communication and labor without compensation to us. But it has become abundantly clear more recently that a callous, secretive, controlling, and exploitative animus guides the centralized networks of the Internet and the corporations behind them.

      The long train of abuses we have suffered makes it our right, even our duty, to replace the old networks. To show what train of abuses we have suffered at the hands of these giant corporations, let these facts be submitted to a candid world.

      They have practiced in-house moderation in keeping with their executives’ notions of what will maximize profit, rather than allowing moderation to be performed more democratically and by random members of the community.

      They have banned, shadow-banned, throttled, and demonetized both users and content based on political considerations, exercising their enormous corporate power to influence elections globally.

      They have adopted algorithms for user feeds that highlight the most controversial content, making civic discussion more emotional and irrational and making it possible for foreign powers to exercise an unmerited influence on elections globally.

      They have required agreement to terms of service that are impossible for ordinary users to understand, and which are objectionably vague in ways that permit them to legally defend their exploitative practices.

      They have marketed private data to advertisers in ways that no one would specifically assent to.

      They have failed to provide clear ways to opt out of such marketing schemes.

      They have subjected users to such terms and surveillance even when users pay them for products and services.

      They have data-mined user content and behavior in sophisticated and disturbing ways, learning sometimes more about their users than their users know about themselves; they have profited from this hidden but personal information.

      They have avoided using strong, end-to-end encryption when users have a right to expect total privacy, in order to retain access to user data.

      They have amassed stunning quantities of user data while failing to follow sound information security practices, such as encryption; they have inadvertently or deliberately opened that data to both illegal attacks and government surveillance.

      They have unfairly blocked accounts, posts, and means of funding on political or religious grounds, preferring the loyalty of some users over others.

      They have sometimes been too ready to cooperate with despotic governments that both control information and surveil their people.

      They have failed to provide adequate and desirable options that users may use to guide their own experience of their services, preferring to manipulate users for profit.

      They have failed to provide users adequate tools for searching their own content, forcing users rather to employ interfaces insultingly inadequate for the purpose.

      They have exploited users and volunteers who freely contribute data to their sites, by making such data available to others only via paid application program interfaces and privacy-violating terms of service, failing to make such freely-contributed data free and open source, and disallowing users to anonymize their data and opt out easily.

      They have failed to provide adequate tools, and sometimes any tools, to export user data in a common data standard.

      They have created artificial silos for their own profit; they have failed to provide means to incorporate similar content, served from elsewhere, as part of their interface, forcing users to stay within their networks and cutting them off from family, friends, and associates who use other networks.

      They have profited from the content and activity of users, often without sharing any of these profits with the users.

      They have treated users arrogantly as a fungible resource to be exploited and controlled rather than being treated respectfully, as free, independent, and diverse partners.

      We have begged and pleaded, complained, and resorted to the law. The executives of the corporations must be familiar with these common complaints; but they acknowledge them publicly only rarely and grudgingly. The ill treatment continues, showing that most of such executives are not fit stewards of the public trust.

      The most reliable guarantee of our privacy, security, and free speech is not in the form of any enterprise, organization, or government, but instead in the free agreement among free individuals to use common standards and protocols. The vast power wielded by social networks of the early 21st century, putting our digital rights in serious jeopardy, demonstrates that we must engineer new—but old-fashioned—decentralized networks that make such clearly dangerous concentrations of power impossible.

      Therefore, we declare our support of the following principles.

      Principles of Decentralized Social Networks

      1. We free individuals should be able to publish our data freely, without having to answer to any corporation.

      2. We declare that we legally own our own data; we possess both legal and moral rights to control our own data.

      3. Posts that appear on social networks should be able to be served, like email and blogs, from many independent services that we individually control, rather than from databases that corporations exclusively control or from any central repository.

      4. Just as no one has the right to eavesdrop on private conversations in homes without extraordinarily good reasons, so also the privacy rights of users must be preserved against criminal, corporate, and governmental monitoring; therefore, for private content, the protocols must support strong, end-to-end encryption and other good privacy practices.

      5. As is the case with the Internet domain name system, lists of available user feeds should be restricted by technical standards and protocols only, never according to user identity or content.

      6. Social media applications should make available data input by the user, at the user’s sole discretion, to be distributed by all other publishers according to common, global standards and protocols, just as are email and blogs, with no publisher being privileged by the network above another. Applications with idiosyncratic standards violate their users’ digital rights.

      7. Accordingly, social media applications should aggregate posts from multiple, independent data sources as determined by the user, and in an order determined by the user’s preferences.

      8. No corporation, or small group of corporations, should control the standards and protocols of decentralized networks, nor should there be a single brand, owner, proprietary software, or Internet location associated with them, as that would constitute centralization.

      9. Users should expect to be able to participate in the new networks, and to enjoy the rights above enumerated, without special technical skills. They should have very easy-to-use control over privacy, both fine- and coarse-grained, with the most private messages encrypted automatically, and using tools for controlling feeds and search results that are easy for non-technical people to use.

      We hold that to embrace these principles is to return to the sounder and better practices of the earlier Internet and which were, after all, the foundation for the brilliant rise of the Internet. Anyone who opposes these principles opposes the Internet itself. Thus we pledge to code, design, and participate in newer and better networks that follow these principles, and to eschew the older, controlling, and soon to be outmoded networks.

      We, therefore, the undersigned people of the Internet, do solemnly publish and declare that we will do all we can to create decentralized social networks; that as many of us as possible should distribute, discuss, and sign their names to this document; that we endorse the preceding statement of principles of decentralization; that we will judge social media companies by these principles; that we will demonstrate our solidarity to the cause by abandoning abusive networks if necessary; and that we, both users and developers, will advance the cause of a more decentralized Internet.

      Sign the petition here…

    • Vancouver Housing Unaffordability Due To Foreign Ownership, Chinese Funds, & Migrant Millionaires, Study Says

      A new study has provided evidence linking unaffordable housing in Vancouver to foreign ownership, Chinese capital and millionaire migrants, according to the SCMP. 

      A white paper published by Josh Gordon, an assistant professor at Simon Fraser University’s school of public policy, found a stunning 96% correlation between metro Vancouver municipalities’ price to income ratios and the proportion of their detached houses in which at least one owner was a non-resident. The correlation was called “unimpeachable” by a leading research who commented on the paper. 

      In short, this means that the more that a Vancouver municipality was sought after by non-resident owners, the more unaffordable it became. 

      Gordon said: “When I plugged the numbers in it blew my mind … I mean, holy smokes.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      His paper stated: “This is compelling evidence that when it comes to the extreme ‘decoupling’ [of prices from local incomes] seen in the Vancouver housing market, foreign ownership is the primary culprit.”

      Vancouver has often been considered the world’s most unafforable housing, second only to Hong Kong. It has a price-to-income ratio for all housing of 12.6. Among detached houses, the ratio climbs to 25 to 30 to one, especially in areas popular with Chinese buyers, like the City of Vancouver, Richmond and West Vancouver.

      Gordon’s paper was checked afterwards by University of British Columbia geography professor David Ley, who has studied Vancouver real estate unaffordability for decades. It was also checked by Andy Yan, director of the City Programme at Simon Fraser University.

      Ley commented: “Such a high correlation is rarely seen in social science research … It indicates a very strong relationship. So it is the presence of non-resident buyers that is forcing up prices. But there’s a qualifier here because it forces up prices relative to incomes … we can more accurately say that non-resident demand shapes affordability.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In the country’s condo market in 2016, the correlation between the unaffordability ratio and non-resident ownership was “strong” at 75%. His research shows that the correlation would rise to 88% if the single municipality of West Vancouver was discounted.

      Yan commented that the study was “very straightforward” and said: “This puts together the story about the forces that are behind Vancouver real estate … [it] gives us a foundation and a direction, for how we [produce] effective housing policy. Key to that was understanding just how much Vancouver real estate is connected to the global economy, of which a large component is being driven by China.”

      Gordon also sought out to investigate “satellite families” who live in Vancouver, but whose breadwinners earned money abroad. The study said: “[A] family with a low declared Canadian income might live in a multimillion-dollar mansion. This particular situation would represent ‘decoupling’ on steroids.”

      Millionaire migration from mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan is primarily responsible for the satellite family phenomenon. As the article notes, “Vancouver was long the world’s most popular destination city for such migrants under wealth-determined schemes, attracting them by the tens of thousands.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Now, the country has “become a global test bed for affordability policies, with the introduction of a foreign buyers’ tax, a speculation and vacancy tax, and increased provincial property taxes.”

      The average price of a detached house in metro Vancouver is now $1.2 million.

      Gordon’s study was the result of Richard Wozny’s 2017 report, which concluded that local incomes could not support prices. Wozny examined 14 Vancouver municipalities and Gordon, who said his work was “testament to Richard Wozny’s instincts and character”, looked at the same municipalities during his study. 

      Yan concluded: “These are proxies for foreign money at times when we don’t have direct measures of foreign money. So we have these various scholars, with various data sets, all pointing in the same direction. That is a call for action.”

      And how bad has the market gotten in Vancouver? Just 2 weeks ago, we wrote that desperate developers in Vancouver were trying to woo millennials into buying using avocado toast and free wine. 

      “It’s a slower, more competitive market,” according to Vancounver-based Wesgroup Properties VP Brad Jones, adding “The onus is on us to show we have the most attractive offering.” 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As we noted in April, the decline of Vancouver’s housing market has become worldwide news – with sales plummeting 46% over the past year to levels not seen since 1986. 

      In late 2018, we wrote about how Chinese fentanyl kingpins had laundered over $5 billion through Vancouver homes since 2012.

    • What America Needs Is A Paradigm Shift

      Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

      From the Democratic Party debates, it’s not difficult to see that there really isn’t any difference in principle between any of the Democratic presidential candidates and, for that matter, between Republicans and Democrats.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Oh, yes, I know how the mainstream media is portraying the “big” differences between the Democrats and President Trump but that’s just because their mindsets are stuck in the statist paradigm. For a person whose mind is stuck in the statist paradigm, the various candidates within the paradigm appear to have monumental differences. But once a person breaks out of the statist paradigm, he realizes that the differences between the various Democratic and Republicans candidates are minor and really go to degree, not principle.

      Consider healthcare. The Democrats favor Medicare for All. Trump and his fellow Republicans favor Medicare for Some.

      Now, that’s obviously a big difference to the mainstream media because they are operating within the statist paradigm.

      From a libertarian perspective, my reaction is, big deal. There is no difference in principle between Medicare for All and Medicare for Some. The only difference is in degree. The point is that they all support government involvement in healthcare because that’s a core feature of the statist paradigm, just like it is in Cuba.

      Consider immigration controls. A Berlin Wall versus a Berlin Fence. Big deal. Well, okay, it is considered a big deal by the mainstream media because, again, they are operating within the statist paradigm. For that type of person, a Berlin Wall is very much different from a Berlin Fence.

      We libertarians? Big deal. There is no difference in principle. Both Republicans and Democrats believe in a system of immigration controls, a system that is based on the socialist principle of central planning. Oh, yes, Trump and his cohorts say, “Let in less immigrants (or no immigrants)” while the Dems says, “Let in more immigrants.” But the operative word is “let.” They both believe that the government should be the central planner and that, given such a role, it should “let” in more or less immigrants.

      Like I say, big deal. One of the amusing aspects of the immigration debate is that none of these people realize that their decades-long, ongoing, never-ending, perpetual immigration crisis is due to their system of immigration controls. That’s because it is a socialist system, and as anyone in Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela can attest, socialism produces crises, mayhem, and a police state, just like what Republicans and Democrats have foisted upon us here in the United States with their system of immigration controls.

      Consider Social Security, the crown jewel of America’s system of mandatory charity. Both Republicans and Democrats fight with each other as to who is going to better protect and preserve this gigantic socialist program, one that forcibly takes money from people to whom it belongs in order to give it to people to whom it does not belong. Never mind that young people — the people who are funding this welfare for seniors — are financially strapped, can’t make ends meet as it is, are unable to save any money, can’t afford to get married, and can’t afford to buy a house. That’s unimportant. What’s matters to the Republicans and Democrats, first and foremost, is the preservation of this socialist program. If young people have to be plundered and looted even more to cover the costs of the ever-increasing number of Baby Boomers who are retiring every day, so what? They should be thankful they live in a “free” society — one in which the IRS is forcing them to be good and caring.

      The battle in the 2020 presidential race is over who is going to get to manage this statist paradigm

      To the mainstream media, that’s exciting. Just think, they write: We have a chance to get rid of Trump and have a Democrat running the welfare-warfare state. But everyone knows that regardless of who is running this crooked, corrupt, and immoral system, nothing fundamental is going to change, at least not with respect to genuine freedom.

      What we need in this country is not better people in public office but rather a complete change of paradigms — the replacement of the statist paradigm with the libertarian paradigm. That would mean no more mandatory charity, no more drug war, no more government planning or control of economic activity (i.e., free enterprise), no more trade wars and tariffs, no more immigration controls, no more sanctions and embargoes, no more assassinations, no more indefinite-detention-torture camps, no more public (i.e., government) schooling, no more national-security state, and no more foreign wars, foreign meddling, foreign aid, and foreign interventionism.

      For those who want to continue with the mandatory charity, the mass incarceration, the socialist envy and covetousness, and the forever wars, assassinations, torture, invasions, occupations, coups, support of dictators, sanctions, trade wars, embargoes, and other dark-side practices, you can support any Republican or Democratic candidate. It makes no difference which one you choose.

      For those who want to restore liberty, peace, prosperity, harmony, voluntary charity, morality, and a limited-government republic to our land, there is but one paradigm that will accomplish that: libertarianism.

    • Mainstream Media "Outraged!" That US Missiles Are In "Unknown" Libyan Rebel Hands

      The New York Times is outraged, just outraged! — that US anti-tank missiles have been found in “unknown” Libyan rebel hands. Of course, when tons of American military hardware was covertly sent to al-Qaeda linked “rebels” fighting to topple Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and when those same weapons were later transferred to the anti-Assad insurgency in Syria, many of them no doubt used by ISIS and al-Nusra Front, the mainstream media didn’t find much to complain about. But now the “scandal” is being uncovered in 2019? 

      Currently, it’s the UN-backed government in Tripoli which finds itself on the receiving end of deadly accurate high-tech US-made weapons systems, according to the Times:

      Libyan government fighters discovered a cache of powerful American missiles, usually sold only to close American allies, at a captured rebel base in the mountains south of Tripoli this week.

      The four Javelin anti-tank missiles, which cost more than $170,000 each, had ended up bolstering the arsenal of Gen. Khalifa Hifter, whose forces are waging a military campaign to take over Libya and overthrow a government the United States supports.

      Markings on the missiles’ shipping containers indicate that they were originally sold to the United Arab Emirates, an important American partner, in 2008.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      It was only months ago that President Trump for the first time voiced public support to Haftar’s forces, which are engaged in a renewed civil war against the UN-supported Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli. The president’s April comments signaled a complete reversal of US policy, given that up to that point the US had officially backed the GNA.

      “We take all allegations of misuse of U.S. origin defense articles very seriously,” a State Department official said in a statement following the Javelin anti-tank missile recovery.

      “We are aware of these reports and are seeking additional information. We expect all recipients of U.S. origin defense equipment to abide by their end-use obligations,” the statement continued. 

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

      The Times report noted further, “If the Emirates transferred the weapons to General Hifter, it would likely violate the sales agreement with the United States as well as a United Nations arms embargo.”

      Gen. Haftar — who solidified control of Eastern Libya over the past two years and swept through the south early this year, has sought to capture Tripoli and seize military control of the entire country, with the support of countries like the UAE and France, but is strongly opposed by Turkey and most European countries. 

      Haftar has long been described by many analysts as “the CIA’s man in Libya” — given he spent a couple decades living in exile a mere few minutes from CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia during Gaddafi’s rule.

      He was inserted back onto the Libyan battlefield before Gaddafi’s eventual capture and field execution at the hands of NATO supported Islamist fighters in 2011.  

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

      The NYT offered further details of the US weapons recovered this week as follows:

      Markings on the missile crates identify their joint manufacturer, the arms giants Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, and a contract number that corresponds with a $115 million order for Javelin missiles that was placed by the United Arab Emirates and Oman in 2008.

      Again, isn’t it a little late for the mainstream media to somehow only now discover and care about the “scandal” of major US weapons systems in “unknown rebel hands”?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      From Libya to Syria: Walkie talkie courtesy of Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Missile launcher courtesy of Hillary Clinton’s Libya War.

      For a trip down memory lane, and to review just what Obama and Hillary’s original Libya war has wrought, see Dan Sanchez’s 2015 essay, “Where Does ISIS Get Those Wonderful Toys?”

    • Everyone's Got A "Surveillance Score" And It Can Cost You Big Money

      Authored by Dagny Taggart via Our Organic Prepper blog,

      In these Orwellian times, when it is revealed that yet another government agency is spying on us in yet another way, most of us aren’t one bit surprised. Being surveilled nearly everywhere we go (and even in our own homes) has become the norm, unfortunately.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Yesterday, it was revealed that the NSA improperly collected Americans’ call and text logs in November 2017 and in February and October 2018 – just months after the agency claimed it was going to delete the 620 million-plus call detail records it already had stockpiled.

      But this article isn’t about that.

      It is about something far more insidious.

      When it comes to spying on people, the government has competition.

      The Chinese government is currently implementing a social credit system to monitor its 1.3 billion citizens (China already has 200 million public surveillance cameras). Facial recognition technology and personal data from cell phones and digital transactions are being used to collect intimate details about people’s lives, including their purchasing habits and whom they socialize with.

      The gathered data is used to create mandatory social credit ratings for every citizen. These ratings will score citizens’ “general worthiness” and provide those with higher scores opportunities like access to jobs, loans, and travel. Those with lower scores will not have access to those opportunities.

      While the United States government has yet to implement such a system, companies in the country are, reports The Hill:

      Consumer advocates are pushing regulators to investigate what they paint as a shadowy online practice where retailers use consumer information collected by data brokers to decide how much to charge individual customers or the quality of service they’ll offer.

      #REPRESENT, a public interest group run by the Consumer Education Foundation in California, filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Monday asking the agency to investigate what the group is calling “surveillance scoring” of customers’ financial status or creditworthiness. (source)

      Companies are using Secret Surveillance Scores to evaluate you.

      The opening paragraphs of the 38-page complaint are chilling:

      Major American corporations, including online and retail businesses, employers and landlords are using Secret Surveillance Scores to charge some people higher prices for the same product than others, to provide some people with better customer services than others, to deny some consumers the right to purchase services or buy or return products while allowing others to do so and even to deny people housing and jobs.

      The Secret Surveillance Scores are generated by a shadowy group of privacy-busting firms that operate in dark recesses of the American marketplace. They collect thousands or even tens of thousands of intimate details of each person’s life – enough information, it is thought, to literally predetermine a person’s behavior – either directly or through data brokers. Then, in what is euphemistically referred to as “data analytics,” the firms’ engineers write software algorithms that instruct computers to parse a person’s data trail and develop a digital “mug shot.” Eventually, that individual profile is reduced to a number – the score – and transmitted to corporate clients looking for ways to take advantage of, or even avoid, the consumer. The scoring system is automatic and instantaneous. None of this is disclosed to the consumer: the existence of the algorithm, the application of the Surveillance Score or even that they have become the victim of a technological scheme that just a few years ago would appear only in a dystopian science fiction novel. (source)

      These scores are used to discriminate based on income.

      Written by lawyers Laura Antonini, the policy director of the Consumer Education Foundation, and Harvey Rosenfield, who leads the foundation, the complaint highlights four areas in which companies are using surveillance scoring: pricing, customer service, fraud prevention, and housing and employment.

      “This is a way for companies to discriminate against users based on income and wealth,” Antonini told The Hill.

      “It can range from monetary harm or basic necessities of life that you’re not getting.”

      Antonini and Rosenfield argue that the practices outlined in the complaint are illegal – and that consumers are largely unaware that they’re being secretly evaluated in ways that can influence how much they pay online.

      “The ability of corporations to target, manipulate and discriminate against Americans is unprecedented and inconsistent with the principles of competition and free markets,” the complaint reads. “Surveillance scoring promotes inequality by empowering companies to decide which consumers they want to do business with and on what terms, weeding out the people who they deem less valuable. Such discrimination is as much a threat to democracy as it is to a free market.”

      Stores are using this scoring system to charge you higher prices.

      Here’s more detail, from The Hill:

      The filing points to a 2014 Northeastern University study exploring the ways that companies like Home Depot and Walmart use consumer data to customize prices for different customers. Rosenfield and Antonini replicated the study using an online tool that compares prices that they’re charged on their own computers with their own data profiles versus the prices charged to a user browsing sites through an anonymized computer server with no data history.

      What they found was that Walmart and Home Depot were offering lower prices on a number of products to the anonymous computer. In the search results for “white paint” on Home Depot’s website, Rosenfield and Antonini were seeing higher prices for six of the first 24 items that popped up.

      In one example, a five-gallon tub of Glidden premium exterior paint would have cost them $119 compared with $101 for the anonymous computer.

      A similar pattern emerged on Walmart’s website. The two lawyers found the site was charging them more on a variety of items compared with the anonymous web tool, including paper towels, highlighters, pens and paint.

      One paper towel holder cost $10 less for the blank web user. (source)

      To see screenshots of different “personalized” prices shown for items from Home Depot and Walmart, please see pages 12-16 of the complaint. The examples presented demonstrate just how much these inflated prices for common household goods can really add up.

      The travel industry is particularly sneaky.

      A few days ago, we reported on hidden fees that could be costing you big bucks. The travel industry is a particularly large offender when it comes to sneaky fees, and they are also implicated in this scheme:

      Travelocity. Software developer Christian Bennefeld, founder of etracker.com and eBlocker.com, did a sample search for hotel rooms in Paris on Travelocity in 2017 using his eBlocker device, which “allows him to act as if he were searching from two different” computers. Bennefeld found that when he performed the two searches at the same time, there was a $23 difference in Travelocity’s prices for the Hotel Le Six in Paris.

      CheapTickets. The Northeastern Price Discrimination Study found that the online bargain travel site CheapTickets offers reduced prices on hotels to consumers who are logged into an account with CheapTickets, compared to those who proceed as “guests.” We performed our own search of airfares on CheapTickets without being logged in. We searched for flights from LAX to Las Vegas for April 5 through April 8, 2019. Our searches produced identical flight results in the same order, but Mr. Rosenfield’s prices were all quoted at three dollars higher than Ms. Antonini’s.

      Other travel websites. The Northeastern Price Discrimination Study found that Orbitz also offers reduced prices on hotels to consumers who were logged into an account (Orbitz has been accused of quoting higher prices to Mac users versus PC users because Mac users have a higher household income); Expedia and Hotels.com steer a subset of users toward more expensive hotels; and Priceline acknowledges it “personalizes search results based on a user’s history of clicks and purchases. (source)

      There is an industry that exists to evaluate you and sell your data to companies.

      The complaint also describes an industry that offers retailers evaluations of their customers’ “trustworthiness” to determine whether they are a potential risk for fraudulent returns. One such firm – called Sift – offers these evaluations to major companies like Starbucks and Airbnb. Sift boasts on its website that it can tailor “user experiences based on 16,000+ real-time signals – putting good customers in the express lane and stopping bad customers from reaching the checkout.”

      The Hill contacted Sift for comment, and the company was not able to respond. But, back in April, a Sift spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that it rates customers on a scale of 0 to 100, likening it to a credit score for trustworthiness.

      While credit scores can wreak havoc on a person’s ability to make big purchases (and sometimes, gain employment), they at least are transparent. Surveillance scoring is not. There is NO transparency for consumers, and Rosenfield and Antonini argue that companies are using them to engage in illegal discrimination while users have little recourse to correct false information about them or challenge their ratings.

      We are being spied on and scored on a wide variety of factors.

      “In the World Privacy Forum’s landmark study “The Scoring of America: How Secret Consumer Scores Threaten Your Privacy and Future,” authors Pam Dixon and Bob Gellman identified approximately 44 scores currently used to predict the actions of consumers,” the complaint explains:

      These include:

      The Medication Adherence Score, which predicts whether a consumer is likely to follow a medication regimen;

      The Health Risk Score, which predicts how much a specific patient will cost an insurance company;

      The Consumer Profitability Score, which predicts which households may be profitable for a company and hence desirable customers;

      The Job Security score, which predicts a person’s future income and ability to pay for things;

      The Churn Score, which predicts whether a consumer is likely to move her business to another company;

      The Discretionary Spending Index, which scores how much extra cash a particular consumer might be able to spend on non-necessities;

      The Invitation to Apply Score, which predicts how likely a consumer is to respond to a sales offer;

      The Charitable Donor Score, which predicts how likely a household is to make significant charitable donations;

      The Pregnancy Predictor Score, which predicts the likelihood of someone getting pregnant. (source)

      The government isn’t doing anything to stop these practices.

      Back in 2014, the Federal Trade Commission held a workshop on a practice they call “predictive scoring” but the agency has done little since to reign in the practice. Antonini said that their complaint is pushing the agency to reexamine the industry and investigate whether it violates laws against unfair and deceptive business practices, according to The Hill:

      “It’s far, far worse than when they looked at it in 2014,” she said. “There’s an exponentially larger amount of data that’s being collected about the American public that’s in the hands of data brokers and companies. Their ability to process that data and write algorithms have also improved exponentially.” (source)

      We seem to be past the point of expecting our data to remain private, The Introduction to the complaint begins with a passage that sums up reality for us now:

      This Petition does not ask the Commission to investigate the collection of Americans’ personal information. The battle over whether Americans’ personal data can be collected is over, and, as of this moment at least, consumers have lost. Consumers are now victims of an unavoidable corporate surveillance capitalism.

      Rather, this Petition highlights a disturbing evolution in how consumers’ data is deployed against them. (source)

      We can’t go anywhere without being surveilled now.

      It is now impossible to shop in any large chain stores without being spied on. Stores are starting to use “smart coolers”, which are refrigerators equipped with cameras that scan shoppers’ faces and make inferences on their age and gender. And, a recent article from Futurism describes how security cameras are no longer being used solely to reduce theft:

      “Instead of just keeping track of who’s in a store, surveillance systems could use facial recognition to determine peoples’ identities and gathering even more information about them. That data would then be out there, with no opportunity to opt out. (source)

      A new ACLU report titled “The Dawn of Robot Surveillance” describes how emerging AI technology enables security companies to constantly monitor and collect data about people.

      “Growth in the use and effectiveness of artificial intelligence techniques has been so rapid that people haven’t had time to assimilate a new understanding of what is being done, and what the consequences of data collection and privacy invasions can be,” the report concludes.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Jun 29

    Today’s News 29th June 2019

    • The West's Moral Bankruptcy Exposed

      Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      The moral bankruptcy of Western powers was exposed – inadvertently – with the recent publication of three separate news reports. Taken together the reports out last week illustrate the rank hypocrisy of Western governments.

      Also, the way that the reports were prioritized or left disconnected demonstrates how the Western mainstream media serves as a dutiful propaganda service for state and corporate power.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      First there was the Dutch-led inquiry into downing of the Malaysian MH17 airliner, which put the finger of blame on Russia for the disaster in 2014 when all 298 people onboard were killed.

      That nearly five-year investigation has never provided any credible proof of Russian culpability, yet the Dutch-led investigators known as the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) continually level allegations that Russia supplied an anti-aircraft missile to Ukrainian rebels who purportedly blasted the Boeing 777 out of the sky.

      Despite its evident failures of due process, nonetheless Western governments and media have lent the JIT allegations (slanders) undue credibility. The US, Britain and other NATO members last week called on Russia to comply with the JIT “investigation”, smearing Moscow as guilty of causing the MH17 deaths.

      However, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad denounced the report as “ridiculous hearsay” aimed at “scapegoating Russia”. Tellingly, his comments were not widely reported in Western media.

      For its part, Russia has vehemently rejected allegations of involvement in the MH17 disaster, as have pro-Russian Ukrainian rebels. Russia’s repeated offers of contributing information to the probe have been rebuffed by the Dutch-led JIT. By contrast, Russia’s own investigation has uncovered credible radar and forensic evidence that an anti-aircraft missile fired at the passenger jet actually came from military forces under the Kiev regime’s command. Russia’s evidence has been steadfastly ignored by Western media reports.

      The credible suspect party – Kiev political and intelligence authorities – have been allowed to participate in and frame the JIT probe to inculpate Russia. The US, European Union and NATO back the Neo-Nazi dominated regime in Kiev, financially and militarily, since it seized power in a violent coup d’état back in 2014. That should be the real focus of scandal in the MH17 story.

      On the back of the MH17 imbroglio, as well as other slanders, Western governments have continued to impose economic sanctions on Russia. These sanctions have cost the Russian economy an estimated $50 billion. On top of that, Western states and their media portray Russia and President Putin as a rogue regime and pariah.

      Now contrast the undue priority given to the above dubious JIT claims with two other reports also out last week.

      One was on the horrific death toll among civilians in Yemen inflicted by the Western-backed Saudi-led war on that country. It is estimated that over 90,000 people have been killed in violence over the past four years, with most of the civilian victims caused by indiscriminate Saudi air strikes.

      It is an indisputable fact that the US, Britain, France, Germany and other NATO powers have been arming the Saudi regime with warplanes, helicopters, missiles and logistics to carry out this slaughter of Yemeni civilians. The Western states are complicit in war crimes.

      President Trump continues to defy US lawmakers by ordering multi-billion-dollar arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite the carnage. The British government and wannabe prime minister Boris Johnson claims that its weapons exports are not involved in killing Yemeni civilians, in blatant denial of the facts.

      A British court last week ruled that UK weapons exports were in breach of its own supposed ethical codes protecting civilian lives in conflicts. The British government is set to appeal the court ruling and will likely ignore it anyway given the systematic relationship of Britain arming Saudi Arabia – the UK’s biggest weapons export market – year after year.

      Western media last week, as usual, gave only minimal reporting on the shocking human suffering in Yemen. The whole barbarity and Western governments’ culpability is largely hushed-up and omitted by the media.

      The third report we refer to was on the conclusions of the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur investigating the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Khashoggi was killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last October. His tortured body is believed to have been cut up and dumped by his killers. Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard made a damning assessment that the Saudi state was responsible for Khashoggi’s murder. And she called on Western states to impose sanctions on the Saudi monarchy.

      Despite mounting evidence of Saudi regime guilt in the journalist’s murder and in the deaths of tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians, Western governments have not imposed any sanctions against Riyadh. Indeed, they continue to ply this regime with billions-of-dollars-worth of killing machines.

      Admittedly, Western media did give some coverage to the UN report on the Khashoggi murder. But in proportion to the gravity of the crime, the response of media as well as of Western governments is woefully lacking.

      Western media do not put the last two mentioned reports in the context of Western state relations with Saudi Arabia. The oversight is for a good reason. Because to delve into the issues would expose criminal complicity.

      Meanwhile, the US and its NATO allies impose sanctions on Russia based on unsubstantiated allegations about MH17, Ukraine, Crimea, election meddling, the Skripal spy poisoning affair, among other fabrications. Those sanctions – based on flimsy innuendo – are leading to ever-worsening relations with Russia and international tensions between nuclear powers. Western media do not expose the insanity, they foment it.

      Such media are unwilling and incapable of pointing out this gross double standard. They propagate the double standard.

      The moral bankruptcy of Western governments must be covered up by a servile media. Because the state, corporate power and media are all complicit.

      Truth, justice and democracy, which they pontificate about, have nothing to do with the functioning of Western capitalist power; they’re mere illusions to distract from systematic criminality. Last week was an object lesson for those willing to see it.

    • The Great Transformation: Robots Will Displace 20 Million Jobs By 2030

      A new report by Oxford Economics says accelerating technological advances in automation, engineering, energy storage, artificial intelligence, and machine learning have the potential to reshape the world in the 2020s through 2030. The collision of these forces could trigger economic disruption far greater than what was seen in the early 20th century.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Across the world, a new wave of investment in automation could displace 20 million manufacturing jobs by 2030. This coming period of change should be called the great transformation period where job losses due to automation will be on par to the automation of agriculture revolution ( the transition of farm workers into the industrial sector) from 1900 to 1940.

      Robots have so far increased three-fold since the Dot Com bust. Momentum in trends suggests the global stock of robots will multiply even quicker through the 2020s, reaching as many as 20 million by 2030, with 14 million in China alone. The collision of automation in the economy will lead to more volatility and economic swings.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The adoption of new automation technologies can significantly boost income inequality and, by extension, wealth inequality. Many countries, including the US, are entering the 2020s with extreme inequalities, and automation will likely accelerate that trend. Oxford Economics estimates that 20 million manufacturing jobs across the world will be displaced by robots by 2030.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      By 2030, most of the automation disruption in major manufacturing countries will be centered in China, the EU, and the US:

      • China: over 11 million

      • European Union: almost 2 million

      • United States: nearly 1.7 million

      • South Korea: nearly 800,000

      • The rest of the world: 3 million

      Oxford Economics developed the Robot Vulnerability Index – where specific regions across the US are at the highest risk of labor disruption thanks to automation.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The crosscurrents of these macroeconomic force could dramatically reshape economies around the world. Nevertheless, displacing blue-collar manufacturing jobs with robots will continue to drive income/wealth inequality to such extreme levels that governments will be forced to become more interventionist, using higher taxes, regulation, and policy to control economic imbalances.

    • Yellowstone Geyser Keeps Erupting: Scientists Don't Know Why

      Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

      Scientists have said that the Steamboat Geyser in Yellowstone National Park keeps erupting erratically and they can’t pinpoint a reason.  This recent activity is a new record for the geyser, which has come back to life in recent years.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to the Billings Gazette, the Steamboat geysers’ eruptions are historic. This recent activity is the shortest time ever recorded between eruptions. Yellowstone National Park’s Steamboat Geyser blasted steam and water into the air at 12:52 p.m. local time on June 12. Then, three days, 3 hours and 48 minutes later at 4:40 p.m. on June 15, it blasted steam and water into the air again, according to the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS)’s Volcano Hazards Program. That’s a new record for the geyser.

      The newspaper also reported that the eruptions were especially dramatic, large and loud, with one ejecting a rock that shattered a wooden post. Researchers don’t have good, tested theories to explain why geysers like one this slip in and out of active periods, according to the Gazette. Which can be translated as: we have no idea what the hell is going on, all we know is don’t panic.  “Geysers are supposed to erupt, and most are erratic, like Steamboat,” the USGS wrote in a statement. Meaning, don’t worry about the supervolcano erupting any time soon. Especially considering  Steamboat’s eruptions records only go back to 1982, the Billings Gazette noted. Of course, Yellowstone’s history is much older than that.

      The eruptions suggest that now is a particularly good time to go see Steamboat Geyser erupt if you are interested in doing so. After all, the scientists say its perfectly safe. The geyser set a record for the total number of eruptions back in 2018, with 32 in the calendar year, according to USGS. Already in 2019, there have been 24 eruptions, six of them in June at the time of Billings Gazette’s reporting.

      “I wish I could tell you,” said Michael Manga, of the University of California, Berkeley, who studies geysers when asked why Steamboat has been more active.

      “I think this is what makes Steamboat, and geysers in general, so fascinating is that there are these questions we can’t answer.”

      Manga, however, was a bit more cautious about the geyser’s activity. He stressed that it “should trouble everyone” that scientists can’t better explain geysers since they are similar in many respects to their much more dangerous cousin, the volcano. Steamboat sits atop the Yellowstone supervolcano, a large caldera that has erupted in the past.

      Michael Poland, the scientist in charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, said the irregularity of Steamboat is just “a geyser being a geyser.” Poland added: “Steamboat clearly has a mind of its own “and right now it’s putting its independence on display.”

    • Fugitive Who Kept Attack-Squirrel Hopped-Up On Meth Found And Arrested

      Police have finally tracked down and arrested a fugitive who kept an “attack squirrel” caged and hopped up on methamphetamine at his house for protection, according to the NY Post.

      The man, identified as 35 year old Mickey Paulk, was arrested on Thursday after authorities caught him leaving a hotel in a stolen ambulance. Paulk eventually rammed into an investigator’s vehicle after a short chase and was arrested.

      He was booked on drug and gun charges, as well as charges of attempting to elude, criminal mischief, receiving stolen property and felon in possession of a pistol. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Police had been looking for Paulk since June 18 after police raided his apartment and rescued the “attack squirrel”. During the bust, they also seized drugs, paraphernalia and body armor. It had been reported to police previously that Paulk was keeping an “attack squirrel” and feeding it drugs to keep it aggressive. 

      The squirrel was released to a nearby wooded area. 

      According to USA Today, the squirrel’s name was “DeezNuts”. 

    • Escobar: Russia-India-China Will Be The Big G-20 Hit

      Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

      India under Modi, an essential cog in US strategy, gets cozy with China and Russia…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      It all started with the Vladimir Putin–Xi Jinping summit in Moscow on June 5. Far from a mere bilateral, this meeting upgraded the Eurasian integration process to another level. The Russian and Chinese presidents discussed everything from the progressive interconnection of the New Silk Roads with the Eurasia Economic Union, especially in and around Central Asia, to their concerted strategy for the Korean Peninsula.

      A particular theme stood out: They discussed how the connecting role of Persia in the Ancient Silk Road is about to be replicated by Iran in the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). And that is non-negotiable. Especially after the Russia-China strategic partnership, less than a month before the Moscow summit, offered explicit support for Tehran signaling that regime change simply won’t be accepted, diplomatic sources say.

      Putin and Xi solidified the roadmap at the St Petersburg Economic Forum. And the Greater Eurasia interconnection continued to be woven immediately after at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek, with two essential interlocutors: India, a fellow BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and SCO member, and SCO observer Iran.

      At the SCO summit we had Putin, Xi, Narendra Modi, Imran Khan and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani sitting at the same table. Hanging over the proceedings, like concentric Damocles swords, were the US-China trade war, sanctions on Russia, and the explosive situation in the Persian Gulf.

      Rouhani was forceful – and played his cards masterfully – as he described the mechanism and effects of the US economic blockade on Iran, which led Modi and leaders of the Central Asian “stans” to pay closer attention to Russia-China’s Eurasia roadmap. This occurred as Xi made clear that Chinese investments across Central Asia on myriad BRI projects will be significantly increased.

      Russia-China diplomatically interpreted what happened in Bishkek as “vital for the reshaping of the world order.” Crucially, RIC – Russia-India-China – not only held a trilateral but also scheduled a replay at the upcoming Group of Twenty summit in Osaka. Diplomats swear the personal chemistry of Putin, Xi and Modi worked wonders.

      The RIC format goes back to old strategic Orientalist fox Yevgeny Primakov in the late 1990s. It should be interpreted as the foundation stone of 21st-century multipolarity, and there’s no question how it will be interpreted in Washington.

      India, an essential cog in the Indo-Pacific strategy, has been getting cozy with “existential threats” Russia-China, that “peer competitor” – dreaded since geopolitics/geo-strategy founding father Halford Mackinder published his “Geographical Pivot of History” in 1904 –  finally emerging in Eurasia.

      RIC was also the basis on which the BRICS grouping was set up. Moscow and Beijing are diplomatically refraining from pronouncing that. But with Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro seen as a mere Trump administration tool, it’s no wonder that Brazil has been excluded from the RIC summit in Osaka. There will be a perfunctory BRICS meeting right before the start of the G20 on Friday, but the real deal is RIC.

      Pay attention to the go-between

      The internal triangulation of RIC is extremely complex. For instance, at the SCO summit Modi said that India could only support connectivity projects based on “respect of sovereignty” and “regional integrity.” That was code for snubbing the Belt and Roads Initiative – especially because of the flagship China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which New Delhi insists illegally crosses Kashmir. Yet India did not block the final Bishkek declaration.

      What matters is that the Xi-Modi bilateral at the SCO was so auspicious that Indian Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale was led to describe it as “the beginning of a process, after the formation of government in India, to now deal with India-China relations from both sides in a larger context of the 21st century and of our role in the Asia-Pacific region.” There will be an informal Xi-Modi summit in India in October. And they meet again at the BRICS summit in Brazil in November.

      Putin has excelled as a go-between. He invited Modi to be the guest of honor at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok in early September. The thrust of the relationship is to show to Modi the benefits for India to actively join the larger Eurasia integration process instead of playing a supporting role in a Made in USA production.

      That may even include a trilateral partnership to develop the Polar Silk Road in the Arctic, which represents, in a nutshell, the meeting of the Belt and Road Initiative with Russia’s Northern Sea Route. China Ocean Shipping (Cosco) is already a partner of the Russian company PAO Sovcomflot, shipping natural gas both east and west from Siberia.

      Xi is also beginning to get Modi’s attention on the restarting possibilities for the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCMI) corridor, another major Belt and Road project, as well as improving connectivity from Tibet to Nepal and India.

      Impediments, of course, remain plentiful, from disputed Himalayan borders to, for instance, the slow-moving Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – the 16-nation theoretical successor of the defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership. Beijing is adamant the RCEP must go into overdrive, and is even prepared to leave New Delhi behind.

      One of Modi’s key decisions ahead is on whether to keep importing Iranian oil – considering there are no more US sanctions waivers. Russia is ready to help Iran and weary Asian customers such as India if the EU-3 continue to drag the implementation of their special payment vehicle.

      India is a top Iran energy customer. Iran’s port of Chabahar is absolutely essential if India’s mini-Silk Road is to reach Central Asia via Afghanistan. With US President Donald Trump’s administration sanctioning New Delhi over its drive to buy the Russian S-400 air defense system and the loss of preferred trade status with the US, getting closer to Bridge and Road – featuring energy supplier Iran as a key vector – becomes a not-to-be-missed economic opportunity.

      With the roadmap ahead for the Russia-China strategic partnership fully solidified after the summits in Moscow, St Petersburg and Bishkek, the emphasis now for RC is to bring India on board a full-fledged RIC. Russia-India is already blossoming as a strategic partnership. And Xi-Modi seemed to be in sync. Osaka may be the geopolitical turning point consolidating RIC for good.

    • Florida City Pays $462,000 In Ransom After Second Cyberattack Cripples City's Infrastructure

      Cyber-criminals have struck for the second week in a row, this time on a small Florida city called Lake City, according to the WSJ. The city has agreed to pay ransom to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars after a ransomware attack crippled its systems. 

      Lake City’s council approved the measure during an emergency meeting Monday night and will be paying about $462,000 via Bitcoin, by way of the city’s insurer. This payment follows a similar incident in Riviera Beach, a city of 34,000 near West Palm Beach, where the city’s council authorized a similar $600,000 ransom payment.

      The event [in Lake City] began June 10 with what the city described as a “triple threat” malware attack, then escalated with a ransom demand last week, the city said in a news release. The attack knocked out email and hindered city services, and people had to temporarily pay utility bills on terminals at the police station, the city manager said. The attack included a ransomware variant called Ryuk that is known for hefty ransom demands.

      Emergency services weren’t affected. But Lake City authorities worried they wouldn’t be able to access encrypted files such as ordinances, public-record requests and utility information.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      These are both signs of how increasingly sophisticated hackers are targeting cities with outdated IT infrastructure and holding them ransom for sizeable sums. And suceeding. The Riviera Beach ransom was about 12 times the size of a ransom demand that Atlanta refused to pay last year. These demands are becoming more common and are growing in size. The six figure sums averaged only a couple thousand dollars a few years ago. 

      Ironically, the hacking measures appear to come thanks to a hack of the NSA’s own weaponized hacking arsenal, which is now being used against the US.

      Larry Ponemon, whose Michigan research company, the Ponemon Institute, focuses on information security said: “There are a lot of copycats out there, and they figure they’re going to ride the gravy train.”

      Attackers are going after both companies and cities regularly by exploiting vulnerabilities via malicious email attachments and demanding payments for decryption keys. 

      The attacks occur “every day and many are never publicized”. Local governments are especially vulnerable if they lack resources to update infrastructure and invest in security. 

      Michael Tanenbaum, head of North America cyber and professional liability at insurance giant Chubb said: “We do see an increased frequency against municipalities.” 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The FBI advises against paying hackers, saying there’s no guarantee they will release data and that it could make victims susceptible to future attacks. But some victims don’t have a choice: for instance, in March, Jackson County, Georgia paid $400,000 after realizing a cyber attack had compromised its backups. 

      Joe Helfenberger, city manager in Lake City said: “I thought we had a backup, but obviously we didn’t have a good enough backup for this kind of attack. Fortunately, we had all the financial data backed up properly off-site, so that wasn’t affected, but pretty much everything else was.”

      The payouts are emboldening hackers to raise their demands. Ponemon said: “That might explain why the ransom is going up: The bad guys can get away with it.”

      At the start of this month, we detailed a similar ransomware attack on the City of Baltimore. Officials have estimated that attack, where Baltimore rejected a $76,000 ransom, will instead cost the city about $18 million in IT costs and lost revenue. 

    • Have You Heard Of The CIA’s Iran Mission Center?

      Authored by Vijay Prashad via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

      In 2017, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) created a special unit — the Iran Mission Center — to focus attention on the U.S. plans against Iran. The initiative for this unit came from CIA director John Brennan, who left his post as the Trump administration came into office. Brennan believed that the CIA needed to focus attention on what the United States sees as problem areas — North Korea and Iran, for instance. This predated the Trump administration.

      Brennan’s successor — Mike Pompeo, who was CIA director for just over a year (until he was appointed U.S. Secretary of State) — continued this policy. The CIA’s Iran-related activity had been conducted in the Iran Operations Division (Persia House). This was a section with Iran specialists who built up knowledge about political and economic developments inside Iran and in the Iranian diaspora.

      It bothered the hawks in Washington — as one official told me — that Persia House was filled with Iran specialists who had no special focus on regime change in Iran. Some of them, due to their long concentration on Iran, had developed sensitivity to the country.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>
      Trump’s people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group that would provide the kind of intelligence that tickled the fancy of his National Security Adviser John Bolton.

      To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D’Andrea. D’Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program, and he ran the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach.

      It was D’Andrea who expanded the CIA’s drone strike program, in particular the signature strike. The signature strike is a particularly controversial instrument. The CIA was given the allowance to kill anyone who fit a certain profile — a man of a certain age, for instance, with a phone that had been used to call someone on a list. The dark arts of the CIA are precisely those of D’Andrea.

      What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D’Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D’Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed attitude toward Iran, D’Andrea is known—ironically—as “Ayatollah Mike.”

      D’Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the worldview of the Saudi royal family. These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The initiative for this unit came from CIA director John Brennan, who left his post as the Trump administration came into office. Getty Image.

      D’Andrea and the hawks edged out several Iran experts from the Iran Mission Center, people like Margaret Stromecki — who had been head of analysis. Others who want to offer an alternative to the Pompeo-Bolton view of things either have also moved on or remain silent. There is no space in the Trump administration, a former official told me, for dissent on the Iran policy.

      Saudi Arabia’s War

      D’Andrea’s twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here. These groups — and Kaplan himself — promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular.

      Kaplan blamed Iran for the creation of ISIS, for it was Iran — Kaplan said — that “used a terrible Sunni movement” to expand its reach from “Persia to the Mediterranean.” Such absurdity followed from a fundamental misreading of Shia concepts such as taqiya, which means prudence and not — as Kaplan and others argue — deceit. Kaplan, bizarrely, shares more with ISIS than Iran does with that group — since both Kaplan and ISIS are driven by their hatred of those who follow the Shia traditions of Islam.

      It is fitting that Kaplan’s anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the chief executive of Kaplan’s Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments — which it admits — would benefit from “instability in the Middle East.” Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

      Roule has offered his support to the efforts of the Arabia Foundation, run by Ali Shihabi — a man with close links to the Saudi monarchy. The Arabia Foundation was set up to do more effective public relations work for the Saudis than the Saudi diplomats are capable of doing. Shihabi is the son of one of Saudi Arabia’s most well-regarded diplomats, Samir al-Shihabi, who played an important role as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Pakistan during the war that created al-Qaeda.

      These men — Kaplan and Bolton, D’Andrea and Shihabi — are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran.

      Evidence, reason. None of this is important to them. They will not stop until the U.S. bombers deposit their deadly payload on Tehran and Qom, Isfahan and Shiraz. They will do anything to make that our terrible reality.

      This article was produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

    • Millennials Blame Unprecedented "Burnout" Rates On Work, Debt & Finances

      The issue of Millennial ‘burnout’ has been an especially hot topic in recent years – and not just because the election of President Trump ushered in an epidemic of co-occurring TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) that sent millions of American twenty somethings on a never-ending quest for a post-grad ‘safe space’.

      For those who aren’t familiar with the subject, the World Health Organization recently described burnout as “a syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” As birth rates plunge and so-called deaths from despair (suicides and overdoses) climb, sending the US left expectancy lower for multiple consecutive years for the first time since the 1960s, many researchers see solving the problem of burnout as critical to fixing many of our societal issues.

      To try and dig deeper into the causes and impact of millennial burnout, Yellowbrick, a national psychiatric organization, surveyed 2,000 millennials to identify what exactly is making a staggering 96% of the generation comprising the largest cohort of the American labor force say they feel “burned out” on a daily basis.

      The answer is, unsurprisingly, finances and debt: These are the leading causes of burnout (and one reason why Bernie Sanders latest proposal to wipe out all $1.6 trillion in outstanding student debt might be more popular with millennial voters than many other Americans realize).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Trump

      Because of this ‘burnout’, a plurality of respondents said they experience mental and physical exhaustion tied to burnout on a daily basis.

      Work, finances and socializing (that is, dating) were the top three reasons given for millennial burnout.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Work

      When it comes to work, pressure to work long hours coupled with low pay and job insecurity were seen as the primary drivers of burnout.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Work

      Amazingly, more than half of respondents said they work more than one job to make ends meet (having a second job has become known as having a “side hustle” in millennial parlance). 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Burnout

      When it comes to coping with burnout, the top strategies listed were watching Netflix/Hulu, sleeping and exercise. And for those who take drugs to cope, roughly 70% said that drug is marijuana.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>burnout

      Fortunately for millennials, popular lifestyle ‘news’ websites like Buzzfeed and Slate.com have plenty of resources to help them improve their lifestyles.

    • Johnstone: Kamala Harris Is An Oligarch's Wet Dream

      Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

      California Senator Kamala Harris won the Democratic presidential debate last night. It was not a close contest. She will win every debate she enters during this election cycle. If she becomes the nominee, she will win every debate with Trump.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Night two of the debates was just as vapid and ridiculous as night one. Candidates interrupted and talked over each other a lot, questions about foreign policy were avoided like the plague to prevent NBC viewers from thinking critically about the mechanics of empire, and Eric Swalwell kept talking despite everyone in the universe desperately wanting him not to. Buttigieg and Gillibrand did alright, Bernie played the same note he’s been playing for decades, and everyone was reminded how bad Joe Biden is at talking and thinking.

      Biden has been treated kindly by polls and regarded as a “frontrunner” in this race exclusively because for the last decade he hasn’t had to do anything other than be associated with Barack Obama. Now that he’s had to step out of that insulated role and interact with reality again, everyone’s seeing the same old garbage right-wing Democrat who sucks at making himself look appealing just as badly as he did in his last two presidential campaigns. By the end of the night, even Michael Bennet was slapping him around.

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

      The moment everyone’s talking about was when Harris created a space for herself to attack Biden on his citing his collaboration with segregationists as an example of his ability to reach across the aisle and “get things done”. Harris had not been called upon to speak, and once given the go-ahead by moderator Rachel Maddow after interjecting went way beyond the 30 seconds she’d been allotted in tearing Biden apart. She skillfully took control of the stage and engineered the entire space for the confrontation by sheer dominance of personality, and Biden had no answer for it.

      That’s the moment everyone’s talking about. But Harris had already been owning the debate prior to that.

      The goal of a political debate is to make yourself look appealing and electable to your audience. You can do that by having a very good platform, or you can do it with charisma and oratory skills. It turns out that Kamala Harris is really, really good at doing the latter. She made frequent and effective appeals to emotion, she built to applause lines far more skillfully than anyone else on the stage, she kept her voice unwavering and without stammer, she made herself look like a leader by admonishing the other candidates to stop talking over each other, and she hit all the right progressive notes you’re supposed to hit in such a debate.

      Unlike night one of the debates, night two had a clear, dominant winner. If you were a casual follower of US politics and didn’t have a favorite coming into the debate, you likely went away feeling that Harris was the best.

      This wasn’t a fluke. Harris has been cultivating her debate skills for decades, first in the Howard University debate team where she is said to have “thrived”, then as a prosecutor, then as a politician, and she’ll be able to replicate the same calibre of performance in all subsequent debates. There’s more to getting elected than debate skills, but it matters, and in this area no one will be able to touch her.

      Harris won the debate despite fully exposing herself for the corporate imperialist she is in the midst of that very debate. While answering a question about climate change she took the opportunity to attack Trump on foreign policy, not for his insane and dangerous hawkishness but for not being hawkish enough, on both North Korea and Russia.

      “You asked what is the greatest national-security threat to the United States. It’s Donald Trump,” Harris said. “You want to talk about North Korea, a real threat in terms of its nuclear arsenal. But what does he do? He embraces Kim Jong Un, a dictator, for the sake of a photo op. Putin. You want to talk about Russia? He takes the word of the Russian president over the word of the American intelligence community when it comes to a threat to our democracy and our elections.”

      Harris is everything the US empire’s unelected power establishment wants in a politician: charismatic, commanding, and completely unprincipled. In that sense she’s like Obama, only better.

      Harris was one of the 2020 presidential hopefuls who came under fire at the beginning of the year when it was reported that she’d been reaching out to Wall Street executives to find out if they’d support her campaign. Executives named in the report include billionaire Blackstone CEO Jonathan Gray, 32 Advisors’ Robert Wolf, and Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly. It was reported two entire years ago that Harris was already courting top Hillary Clinton donors and organizers in the Hamptons. She hasn’t been in politics very long, but her campaign contributions as a senator have come from numerous plutocratic institutions.

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

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

      Trump supporters like to claim that the president is fighting the establishment, citing the open revulsion that so many noxious establishment figures have for him. But the establishment doesn’t hate Trump because he opposes them; he doesn’t oppose existing power structures in any meaningful way at all. The reason the heads of those power structures despise Trump is solely because he sucks at narrative management and puts an ugly face on the ugly things that America’s permanent government is constantly doing. He’s bad at managing their assets.

      Kamala Harris is the exact opposite of this. She’d be able to obliterate non-compliant nations and dead-end the left for eight years, and look good while doing it. She’s got the skills to become president, and she’ll have the establishment backing as well. Keep an eye on this one.

      *  *  *

      The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

      Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

       

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Jun 28

    Today’s News 28th June 2019

    • Melted Motorways, Widespread Nudity, & "Thermal Shock" – Record Heat-Wave Sparks Panic Across Europe

      Record-breaking heat scorches central Europe as many braced Thursday for temperatures above 100 F.

      Wednesday was one of the most sizzling days on record across Europe with average June temperatures and all-time temperature records broken, reported AccuWeather.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic recorded its highest temperatures ever during June.

      Temperatures were 100.8 F at Radzyń, Poland, on Wednesday, while Coschen station (Berlin-Brandenburg) printed 101.5 F in Germany. However, temperatures in Germany didn’t surpass the 104.5 F all-time high, set in Kitzingen on August 2015.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Czech Republic, Doksany recorded 102 F, hitting an all-time high for the country that was previously set at 100.8 F at Brno-Žabovřesky in June 2000.

      Governments across the European Union warned citizens earlier this week about how the heat wave could cause harmful air, increase health-related illnesses at hospitals, and overload power grids.

      The heat wave blasted central Europe on Thursday and will produce 104 F temperatures in France, Spain, and Greece on Friday.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      French Health Minister Agnes Buzyn told people to prepare for intense heat and expressed some irritation that some aren’t taking government advice of staying indoors during the heat wave.

      “We see citizens who are quite irresponsible and continue to go jogging between midday and 2:00 pm,” she told France 2 TV.

      Grospierres, France, located in the southern region of the country, hit 107.6 F on Thursday, which was a record-breaking high.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      About two hours south of Grospierres, located on the Mediterranean coast, is Narbonne, which recorded highs near 106.7 F.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Friday could be absolute hell for France, as temperatures are expected to approach 110 F across the southeast interior of the country.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Final exams for students in France were delayed a week because of the heat wave, while French President Emmanuel Macron promised, “The whole government is mobilized.”

      In France, several elderly swimmers died, apparently of “thermal shock,” after entering the cool seawater after broiling on land.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In 2003, caught unprepared by a brutal heat wave, an estimated 20,000 people died in Europe, most of them in France.

      Heat waves are frequent in Europe; it was just that this one was very early in the season.

      As WaPo reports, newspapers in Germany published guides on whether the heat meant that employees could simply skip work (Answer: No) and if wearing shorts at work was acceptable amid the heat wave (Answer: It depends).

      In Switzerland, the heat wave also coincided with the first weeks of basic training for the country’s new military conscripts. To prevent the recruits from overheating, Swiss officials require them to regularly fill in forms to document their hourly water consumption, an official told Swiss media.

      In Germany, heated rows broke out over how much nudity to tolerate in the midst of the heat wave. After a group of women took off their bikini tops in Munich last weekend to bathe along the banks of the city’s Isar River, five security guards ordered them to put their tops back on, citing local public nudity prohibitions. In response, about two dozen women also took their tops off “out of solidarity,” according to the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung. The security guards proceeded to call the police, who insisted the women cover their breasts.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      It wasn’t just the ladies. In eastern Germany, officers pulled over a naked man on a moped; apparently, it was so hot outside so he had to take off his clothes and jump on his moped to catch a breeze.

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

      Additionally, law enforcement in Germany have decreased speed limits on several parts of the Autobahn due to fears the hot weather could cause roadways to warp as vehicles pass over.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Amid the heat, the worst wildfires in two decades broke out across Catalonia, Spain.

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

      Climatologists told Associated Press that weather is becoming more volatile making heat waves more common.

      “This increase in heat extremes is just as predicted by climate science as a consequence of global warming caused by the increasing greenhouse gases from burning coal, oil, and gas,” Stefan Rahmstorf, a climatologist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said.

      Numerous studies have shown that extreme heat waves could be connected to human-caused global warming – while none of that has been officially confirmed – we certainly must say that weather across the world has become more volatile than the past.

    • The European Union In The Pentagon's Nuclear Strategy

      Authored by Manlio Dinucci via VoltaireNet.org,

      France no longer possesses the nuclear triad (land, sea and air vectors) since 1996, and the United Kingdom has never had such weaponry. Only the United States, Russia and China enjoy this privilege. In a new document, the commander of the Committee of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff confirms his intention to disarm his allies of their nuclear weapons – thereafter, they will no longer have the right to use their own, but will have to use US bombs.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The NATO Ministers for Defence (Elisabetta Trenta, M5S, for Italy, and Florence Parly, LREM for France) were convened in Brussels on 26 and 27 June to approve the new measures of « dissuasion » against Russia, which has been accused – with no proof whatsoever – of having violated the INF Treaty. Basically, this means they will fall into step behind the United States, which, by withdrawing definitively from the Treaty on 2 August, is preparing to deploy in Europe ground-based intermediate range nuclear missiles (a range of between 500 and 5,500 kilometres), similar to those from the 1980’s (the Pershing II and the cruise missiles) which were eliminated (with the Soviet SS-20’s) by the Treaty signed in 1987 by Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan.

      The major European powers, increasingly divided within the EU, are re-grouped in NATO under US command in order to support their common strategic interests. At the UNO, this same European Union – of which 21 of its 27 members are part of the Alliance (as is the United Kingdom although it is leaving the EU) – rejected the Russian proposition to maintain the INF Treaty. On a matter of such importance, European public opinion is deliberately left in a state of ignorance by their governments and the major medias. In this way we do not notice the growing danger which is threatening us all – the increasing possibility that we may one day suffer the use of nuclear weapons.

      This is confirmed by the latest strategic document from the US Armed Forces, Nuclear Operations (11 June), written under the direction of the President of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

      Given that « our nuclear forces offer the USA the capacity to pursue our own national objectives », the document underlines that they must be « diversified, flexible and adaptable » to a « wide range of adversaries, threats and contexts ». Despite Russian warnings that the use of even one low-power nuclear weapon would begin a chain reaction which could lead to large-scale nuclear conflict, the US doctrine is beginning to orient itself on the basis of a dangerous concept – « flexibility ».

      The strategic document affirms that « US nuclear forces give us the means to apply force to a wide range of targets at the time and with the means decided by the President ». Those targets (specifies the same document) are in truth chosen by the Intelligence agencies, who evaluate their vulnerability to a nuclear attack, and also calculate the effects of radioactive fallout. The use of nuclear weapons – emphasises the document – « can create the conditions for decisive results. In particular, the use of a nuclear weapon would fundamentally transform the context of a battle by creating the conditions which would enable the commanders to win the confrontation ».

      Nuclear weapons would also enable the USA to « reassure their allies and partners » who, trusting in these weapons, « would give up the idea of possessing their own nuclear weapons, thus participating in the objective of the United States, which is non-proliferation ».

      However, the document indicates that « The USA and certain selected NATO allies would be able to keep aircraft capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional weapons ». This is an admission that four countries of the EU which are officially non-nuclear – Italy, Germany, Belgium, Holland – and also Turkey, in violation of the non-proliferation Treaty, are not only storing US nuclear weapons (B-61 bombs which from 2020 will be replaced by the more destructive B61-12), but are prepared to use them in a nuclear attack under command of the Pentagon.

      All of this is kept secret by our governments and parliaments, televisions and newspapers, with the guilty silence of the vast majority of politicians and journalists, who nonetheless repeat day after day how important « security » is for we Italians and other Europeans of the Union. It will apparently be guaranteed for us by the US deployment of other nuclear weapons.

    • New Video Shows China Simulating Hypersonic Missile Attack On Enemy Forces 

      An animated video published by China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) showcased hypersonic boost-glide vehicles (HBGV) in a four-minute war propaganda video, reported Global Times.

      Chinese media said the weapon might be Dong Feng (“East Wind”), DF-17 for short, is designed to fly at hypersonic speeds and evade existing missile defense systems, such as America’s anti-ballistic missile defense system called: Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Experts told the Times Monday that the HBGV would be impossible for the world’s most advanced missile shields to detect.

      The animated video, posted on CASIC’s social media platform Douyin on Friday, shows warfare capabilities of the company’s missiles.

      According to the Chineses video captions, translated by the Daily Mail, it described several missiles, including subsonic submarine cruise missiles, subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles, supersonic cruise missiles and HBGVs.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Passion News, a media outlet under k618.cn, said the promotion video was the first time a simulated animation of an HBGV has ever been released to the public.

      Wei Dongxu, a Beijing-based military analyst, told the Times Monday that HBGV “is essentially a warhead, is stored in the nose of a missile, and will be released once the rocket booster sends it fast and high enough. It will then fly over the upper edge of the atmosphere, changing directions frequently, which makes it very difficult to intercept by anti-missile systems.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In a December report, the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF), said China conducted two separate tests of the HBGV in November.

      China just showed its hypersonic-BGV in a vid on 08 Oct. Probably a test design model, but AFAIK this is first pics of an actual object 1/ pic.twitter.com/EXIMHkXTEA

      — Raymond Wang (@soraywang) November 5, 2017

      QQ.com speculated the HBGV could be an aircraft carrier killer with a range of 1,533 miles, enough distance for Mainland China to guard its militarized islands in the South China Sea from American naval forces.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Pentagon recently sounded the alarm on the proliferation of hypersonic technological advances that are being made around the world.

      “Although hypersonic glide vehicles and missiles flying non-ballistic trajectories were first proposed as far back as World War II, technological advances are only now making these systems practicable,” Vice Admiral James Syring, director of the US Missile Defense Agency, said in June, during testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee.

      In 2015, Lockheed Martin upgraded its THAAD missile system to counter Chinese HBGV threats.

      That said, China is a rising power with hypersonic technologies, could deploy HBGVs around the South China Sea as soon as 2020. This move would undoubtedly complicate US naval fleets operating in the western Pacific.The countdown to World War III has started. 

    • US Army Officer Urges "Swift, Responsible Disengagement" From Afghanistan, Part 2

      Authored by Danny Sjursen via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

      Read Part 1 here…

      Since the supposed end of the American combat mission in Afghanistan in 2014, the primary mission of U.S. military forces has been to train, support, and bolster the ANDSF (Afghan National Defense and Security Forces) in order to ensure their long-term success and ability to secure the country.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      This effort is at least sixteen years old, but the outcomes have been disappointing. The negative metrics are simply overwhelming. At present, the following conditions prevail in the ANDSF:

      • There are high rates of absenteeism and 35 percent of the force is not reenlisting each year.

      • Widespread illiteracy remains rampant.

      • Inconsistent leadership pervades and so does a “deficit of logistical capabilities.”

      • Senior U.S. commanders have admitted that casualty rates within the ANDSF are “unsustainable” — numbering 5,500 fatalities in 2015, 6,700 in 2016, and estimates (the number is newly classified) of “about 10,000” in 2017. The 2018 estimates run even higher.

      • Between casualties and desertions, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) estimated an overall 10 percent attrition rate for the ANDSF in 2017.

      • The U.S. Congress has appropriated about $72.8 billion to this failing force since 2002, with 75 percent of the estimated annual ANDSF budget of $5 billion coming from the United States (the rest pro-vided by America’s international allies, mostly NATO).

      • Credible allegations of child sexual abuse and other human rights abuses perpetrated by ANDSF personnel continue to be reported.

      • The Afghan National Army (ANA) component of the ANDSF is more than 30,000 troops under its authorized size and actually down 8,000 personnel since May 2017.

      • The Afghan Air Force (AAF) component of the ANDSF faces “equipment, maintenance, and logistical difficulties,” and has only 104 total rotary and fixed-wing aircraft — a completely insufficient number to provide tactical air support nationwide — and comparable to just the number of rotary aircraft in a single U.S. Army Aviation Brigade.

      • The Afghan National Police (ANP) component of the ANDSF (not strictly police in the American sense of the word, but rather a well-armed paramilitary army) has even higher attrition and desertion rates. Two percent of policemen desert each month and overall attrition stands at about 25 percent annually.

      The candid assessments of several U.S. military commanders and advisors are correct — none of the above metrics is sustainable. In spite of optimistic and sanitized assertions from top policymakers, the ANDSF appears on the verge of a veritable breaking point. Seventeen years of American military training, support, and mentoring have, ultimately, been unable to avoid this outcome.

      U.S. and NATO troops levels and missions

      U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan have fluctuated for nearly two decades, reaching a high of 100,000 in 2011 — when the author served in Kandahar Province — and standing today at about 14,500. Nevertheless, this sustained commitment and sacrifice (to the tune of 2,419 dead as of mid January 2019) has not meaningfully staunched the tide of Taliban gains. The question at hand is this: what can about 15,000 U.S. troops accomplish in 2019 that 100,000 could not achieve in 2010-11?

      NATO provides limited support to the U.S. mission but the American military still contributes the vast majority of troops. While NATO leaders have publicly committed to support the mission through 2020, it is unclear what will occur if or when NATO countries lose interest or patience with the two-decade war. Furthermore, it is clear that the ANDSF is still highly reliant on the logistical support, air cover, and special-forces raids of U.S. and NATO troops. That, too, is unsustainable.

      Much of the current U.S. mission — in addition to training and advising the ANDSF — is dedicated to combatting the relatively new Islamic State affiliate in Afghanistan — the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP). That said, ISKP is mostly limited to a few districts in the country’s east and has, according to U.S. military estimates, been attritted from 1,300 fighters in September 2016, to 700 in April 2017, with the pressure only increasing. Furthermore, ISKP is as much a branding slogan as a genuine ISIS identity and, at times, ISKP and the Taliban have clashed over territorial or political control. That presents an opportunity to divide the two groups with little effort or commitment and demonstrates the eminently containable nature of the Afghan ISKP threat.

      President Trump’s instincts to withdraw from the country are commendable and he ought to follow them. His “new” compromise strategy, which defined his first two years in office, on the other hand, represented little more than a paltry synthesis of old Obama- and Bush-era thinking on the intractable problem set in Afghanistan.

      Unsustainable: Economics and corruption in Afghanistan

      Decades of brutal warfare have “stunted the development of domestic industries,” including the vital mining sector. Afghanistan’s GDP (according to 2015 estimates) tops out at only $62.62 billion. Foreign aid accounts for more than 95 percent of the national GDP. Furthermore, annual Afghan government revenues amount to only $2 billion, despite the country’s having a $7.3 billion annual budget (the remainder is picked up primarily by the U.S. taxpayers and other foreign partners). Afghan revenue mostly comes from taxation, but that is also tied to the security crisis, as enemy-held districts are difficult to effectively tax, even with the new computerized system. Afghanistan’s government is also stagnant. Despite initial annual GDP gains of about 7 percent per year from 2003 to 2013, growth has dropped to about 1 and 2 percent from 2014 to 2017.

      The costs to the United States to maintain this unsustainable economic status quo have been immense. Congress has appropriated more than $126 billion in aid to Afghanistan’s government (62 percent for security, 38 percent for development) since 2001 — and that doesn’t count U.S. military operational expenses, which run to at least $752 billion over the last seventeen years. Furthermore, despite recent improvements, corruption runs rampant in Afghan government industries. Owing to concerns about fraud, waste, and abuse (including losing billions), the FY2008 defense authorization bill mandated the establishment of a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), which has churned out one pessimistic report after another ever since.

      The economic bottom line is as simple as it is stark: The Afghan GDP is largely based on foreign aid; and domestic revenue is insufficient even to fund the security sector (which runs at $5 billion annually against $2 billion of domestic revenue). That is an unsustainable formula for perpetual U.S. involvement in the conflict. Afghanistan’s government (and economic sector) has an incentive to maintain the status quo in order to ensure continued U.S. funding and thereby propping up the economy; that also fuels and feeds ongoing problems with corruption.

      Come home 

      The prudent course for the United States is to swiftly and totally disentangle from the Afghan maelstrom and immediately bring all U.S. troops home. Afghanistan has been at war, persistently, for 39 years. In 2001, the United States entered a nation already long at war and the U.S. portion of the mission has covered only 17 of those 39 years of Afghan conflict. Afghanistan was broken when the United States arrived; it will, undoubtedly, remain at war when America departs — whether that is now or in a generation.

      The United States, which has already spent nearly a trillion dollars and 2,500 lives in this land-locked backwater, should pivot instead to homeland defense from any actual existential threats to American security. Here it is vital to remember that contemporary transnational terror does not require the safe haven of the ungoverned caves and valleys of Afghanistan — even 9/11 was largely planned from Germany and within the United States itself. Finally, the opportunity costs and tradeoffs inherent in the expenditure of $1 trillion in a losing and futile war must be understood. Resources are limited.

      Countering critiques

      Undoubtedly, some readers will counter with certain common, if worn out, counterarguments. Each is rather easily refuted:

      • If the United States leaves, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State will enjoy a “safe haven” from which to plan the “next” 9/11-style attack on the United States. At this point, the safe-haven myth belies reality. Transnational terror groups populate portions of countries from Niger to Pakistan, yet the United States has neither the capacity nor intent to indefinitely occupy them all with military forces. Indeed, Afghanistan has fewer al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters than several other countries in the Greater Middle East.

      • If the withdrawal of American troops hasn’t brought stability, perhaps a greater infusion of troops and counterinsurgency saturation will bring victory. Beyond the questionable definition of what exactly would constitute victory, the United States possesses neither the resources nor the national will to militarily pacify Afghanistan. How many troops would it take? That is a difficult question, but it’s possible to estimate. In 2003, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki estimated — correctly — that it would take “several hundred thousand troops” to occupy and stabilize Iraq — far more than the Bush administration (incorrectly, as became obvious) argued were necessary. If one defines “several hundred thousand” as 500,000 troops, takes into account that Iraq is about two-thirds the size of Afghanistan, and that the Afghan terrain is far more mountainous and imposing, an estimate of 750,000 troops on the ground is not inconceivable. Considering that the entire U.S. Army numbers fewer than 500,000 soldiers, it becomes obvious that the United States lacks the necessary resources to achieve “victory.”

      • Still, won’t there be chaos in the wake of American withdrawal? Yes! There will, but that is inevitable no matter when the U.S. military departs. First off, the chaos and insecurity are already worsening even with U.S. troops still on the ground. Indeed, the outcome in Afghanistan will very likely be ugly, but matters in this troubled country have long been ugly. The likely reality is that an Afghan equilibrium will eventually be reached. That may mean a new national partition along ethnic and geographic lines, with a Taliban-influenced south and a Northern Alliance-like federal government in Kabul and in the country’s north. The question is what, exactly, the U.S. military can do — short of perpetual occupation — to reverse that likely outcome?

      Disentangle from Afghanistan

      There is no military solution to the Afghan War. An Afghan settlement to the ongoing Afghan conflict will be ugly, but that is an inevitable, irreversible reality the United States must accept and immediately end its costly and futile, indefinite intervention.

      The “melancholy fact,” according to long-time regional specialist Ahmed Rashid, “is that the American public is not much engaged with what happens in Afghanistan, either way.” That, in itself, is a persuasive argument for military disengagement. The American people may, in fact, be way ahead of Washington policymakers in realizing the futility of continued U.S. engagement. When announcing his “new” strategy in August 2017, Trump candidly admitted that his “original instinct” was to pull out of Afghanistan. He, and the American people, were correct — and he should follow those sound instincts.

    • Pilot Labeled As "Mercenary" Captured In Libya Said To Be US Air Force Veteran

      The US media identified Jamie Sponaugle as a fighter jet pilot that was shot down and captured by one of Libya’s rival governments on May 7, according to a new report from RT. The pilot had been previously reported as a Portuguese national.  

      The pilot was captured by the Libyan National Army (LNA) near Tripoli when his Mirage F1 was shot down. The LNA claims he was “conducting bombing raids against its troops on behalf of Libya’s internationally-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA)” and referred to him as a mercenary. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      He was called a Portuguese national named Jimmy Reiss at the time of his capture, when the LNA released photos of him.

      The Washington Post said that Sponaugle enlisted as an airman in 2006, worked as a mechanic until 2013 and served in the Florida Air National Guard before retiring in 2016. The paper claims that he didn’t have pilot training and that U.S. officials didn’t know what he was doing in Libya. 

      He was released with the help of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, though the Saudis have said they did not pay for his release. He was flown to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday to meet with US officials and undergo medical examination. 

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

      Task and Purpose gave a different spin on Sponaugle’s service record, claiming merits that indicate deployments to Iran and South Korea, as well as involvement with the US Air Force’s nuclear deterrence operations.

    • China's Rogue Regime

      Authored by David Archibald via American Thinker,

      It is commonly accepted now that China is using its trade with the United States and other OECD countries to increase the size of its economy, which in turn will allow it to build its military to the point where it can attack the United States and other countries and hope to win. At its simplest, every Chinese container landed at the Port of Los Angeles contributes to a U.S. combat death at some point in time of China’s choosing. Every item of injection-moulded plastic from China picked off the toy shelves at Walmart contributes to a future U.S. combat death.

      Some of our leaders seem to comprehend this but speak in a kind of code. Thus,Vice President Mike Pence told the West Point graduating class last month, “You will lead soldiers in combat. It will happen.” General James Mattis has made similar remarks. How can they be so certain that the size of the U.S. military won’t be enough to discourage a belligerent from disturbing the peace of the world?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      National emblem of the People’s Republic of China (source)

      Because that belligerent country is China and their intentions are as plain as day. Would a peaceful country continually bait Japan as China does?  This graph from the Japanese Foreign Ministry shows Chinese incursions into Japanese waters.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The sudden leap in incidents in 2012 was due to the rise of Xi Jinping as Supreme Leader, later uprated to Core Leader. All these incursions by Chinese fishing vessels are funded by the Chinese Government; it seems the budget is for 12 per month. This is the steady heartbeat of Chinese hate and enmity while they wait for the moment when they can attack.

      All this is known, but still Chinese goods and people enter the country. There is a certain amount of inertia in the system while Trump’s tariffs reach their full effect. But each day’s delay in bringing in those tariffs likely will result in more U.S. combat deaths.

      Perhaps a more personal aversion to the Chicoms is needed to speed things up and reduce U.S. combat deaths. What will help to that end is reading this interview of incontrovertible China expert Steven Mosher. Mr. Mosher begins with some interesting economic observations, including that if Hong Kong loses its special trade status with the United States due to the suppression of rights there, then this will be a big hit to the Chinese economy. Tariffs are our best tool in defanging the monster:

      “If the tariffs come into play across the whole gamut of Chinese imports, then the export sector of the Chinese economy will be devastated. Remember that the export sector of the Chinese economy is the only sector of the economy that operates according to market principles and makes money. The rest of the economy is an old Stalinist state-planned nightmare. The Party itself consumes probably $1 trillion a year in wealth just on its salaries, on its resorts, on its vacations, on its foreign junkets, on the rest. So the Party itself is a great hurdle or handicap for the Chinese people that they have to carry a cross, carry through life.

      The second burden the Chinese people have to bear of course is the state-owned sector which loses trillions of dollars a year. All of the state-owned economic enterprises lose money. China Railway, for example, is $750 billion in debt. They built beautiful high-speed rail all over China. Not one of those high-speed rail lines is making money. Not one of them is paying back the money it took to construct the rail line, which was probably two or three times what it should have cost because of corruption — officials on the take at every level of government.”

      There are some parallels with the leadup to World War II in the Pacific. Roosevelt put an oil embargo on Japan in response to Japanese aggression in China. The Japanese Navy did their sums and calculated they had nine months before they ran out of fuel. So they moved up their war timetable. Mosher’s opinion is that tariffs will cause China to burn through their $3 trillion of foreign exchange reserves very quickly. They are now the world’s largest oil importer. If Xi Jinping thinks his window of opportunity is closing he might move up his war timetable even if the chance of success is much less than what he would prefer it to be. The Germans made the same tradeoff in starting World War I.

      And then Mosher tells a tale which reveals the Chinese Communist Party is as repugnant as ISIS was when they were chopping heads of two-year-old girls for being Christians. The Chicom organ harvesting industry started innocently enough back in the 1960s with senior party officials receiving blood transfusions from young people, which does have a life-lengthening effect. Mr Mosher continues the story:

      “And then they moved into transplants in the 1980s, and I think it was originally senior Party officials who were the beneficiaries of the transplants. The prisoners who were executed were those who were at that time being given this horrible sentence of immediate execution with a two-year suspended sentence. And that meant that they were on the chopping block at any given time. And when their tissue was a match to the tissue of a Party leader who was in need of an organ, they would be executed by a single bullet to the back of their head. And they would be, their body would be transported to a medical van and their heart or liver would be extracted immediately.”

      Then the Chicoms expanded the operation to make money selling to wealthy transplant tourists from all over the world:

      “The Party authorities realized that foreigners were willing to pay $150,000 for a heart, $180,000 for a liver. The price varies. And so they began developing transplant centers throughout the country. I think the People’s Liberation Army were the leaders in this regard because first of all, they had a ready source of prisoners through the police state that they help to run, and they had army hospitals in existence.

      So as the traffic ramped up, and more and more transplant tourists began to come to China, the advantage of coming to China was not just the cost, which was lower than the cost of getting an organ overseas. The advantage was that you could get a transplant almost immediately.”

      They have also become more efficient by using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).  Mosher continues:

      “Now with this extracorporeal membrane oxidation, this heart lung machine, you can harvest all of the organs. And the worst part of it is this: They can actually put a balloon catheter in the carotid arteries going to your brain and block the blood flow to your brain, while they keep the blood flowing to your organs. So they kill the brain at the same time that they keep blood flowing to the organs and can harvest them one by one. So they’re able to make not just $150,000 off a single killing. Now they can make $750,000 off a killing because they’re harvesting both kidneys, both lungs, the heart, the liver.”

      Despite the likes of Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia with his advocacy of infanticide and Planned Parenthood with its trade in fetal tissue, we have better standards than the Chicoms. As Mosher’s interlocutor asks, “why isn’t the CCP just generally considered a pariah regime?”

      Well, yes – good question. Their true nature is readily apparent. Let’s not wait until they start killing American troops or drowning American sailors to bestow pariah status. The Chicoms are aggressive, amoral barbarians. Let’s treat them as such which starts with not allowing them into this country for any reason.

    • Russia Unveils New Military Drones At Army Forum

      TASS News reports Russia has just unveiled its most advanced Korsar reconnaissance drone at the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation’s Army 2019 International Military Techincal Forum on Tuesday.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Korsar belongs to the class of short-range reconnaissance drones. It has a maximum takeoff weight of 440 pounds and has a 74.5-mile range. It can maintain speeds of 70 mph to 95 mph at an altitude of 16,700 feet.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Korsar is powered with a 50 horsepower piston engine. An upgraded version of the drone will offer additional horsepower.

      The military forum began at the Patriot Congress and Exhibition Center outside Moscow on Tuesday and will last through June 30.

      The forum’s events will be held in the exhibition center and other regions in Russia. According to government estimates, the forum will host 1,500 defense companies that will demonstrate more than 27,000 products and technologies.

      The defense ministry said 60 units of weapons, military, and specialized equipment would be tested in the Western Military District at the Alabino training ground near Moscow during this week.

      These are the newest modifications of T-90A, T-80U, T-72BZ tanks, self-propelled artillery mounts 2S19 SAU “Msta-S”, volley fire systems 2B17 “Tornado-G”, infantry fighting vehicles BMP-2, BMP-3, armored personnel carriers BTR -82A, reconnaissance strike complex 1L261 “Zoo-1M”, as well as modern automotive and robotic technology

      The ground component of the forum will be demonstrated in the framework of static and dynamic shows. In the course of the latter, viewers will see the running, maneuverable and fire capabilities of the new Russian weapons.

      The international military-technical forum “Army-2019” will last from June 25 to 30 not only in the Moscow region, but also in military districts and in the Northern Fleet. As part of the business program of the main forum, practical conferences, seminars, round tables and presentations of new technologies of the military-industrial complex are planned, the defense minstry tweeted. 

      A journalist from Al-Mayadin News Network tweeted pictures of several exhibits showing new tactical vehicles.

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

      Another journalist stood in front of a combat robot used for reconnaissance and support missions in Syria.

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

      A defense writer had her pictures taken in front of an S-400 missile system.

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

      Defense World tweeted a photo of a model of Russia’s next nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

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

      Sputnik shows one exhibit that had a drone with an optical sensor that looked like a snowy owl.

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

      Army Recognition found one display that had an unmanned ground vehicle, used for storage and helps alleviate the weight from paratroopers in the field.

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

      Live Journal was another source that has been covering developments at the forum:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

       

    • How To Destroy A Civilization

      Authored by Jeffrey Harding via The Mises Institute,

      There are lots of ways to kill off a civilization. Wars, politics, economic collapse. But what are the actual mechanics? It might be a useful thing to know whether or not we are killing ourselves off.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Ancient Rome is a good place to start. They had an advanced civilization. They had running water, sewers, flush toilets, concrete, roads, bridges, dams, an international highway system, mechanical reapers, water-powered mills, public baths, soap, banking, commerce, free trade, a legal code, a court system, science, literature, and a republican system of government. And a strong army to enforce stability and peace (Pax Romana). It wasn’t perfect, but they were on their way to modernity.

      One of my favorite quotes is from Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator and writer (106-43 BCE):

      Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.

      If that isn’t a mark of a civilized society I don’t know what is.

      But Rome collapsed. I often wonder what would have happened if it hadn’t. Could we have avoided a thousand years of the Dark Ages. Could we have been flying airplanes and driving cars in the year 1000?

      What the hell happened to Rome?

      Dictators. After 500 years, the famous Roman Republic ended with the dictator Julius Caesar taking power. Four hundred years later his progeny and usurpers ran the Empire into the ground and Rome fell to invading barbarians.

      The standard explanation for Rome’s decline and fall is that they devolved into dictatorships (true, but not the cause of their fall). Or they became decadent and corrupt (true, but not the cause of their fall). They fell to barbarian invasions (true, but not the cause of their fall).

      Rome fell because the dictators ruined the Roman economy and the institutions that had made it prosperous. Rome was falling apart before the barbarian invasions.

      How did the Caesars do that? They were profligate spenders. As emperors with absolute power usually do, they thought big: infrastructure (roads, temples, palaces), a huge bureaucracy, and, as the key to maintaining their power they had a very large, loyal, and well paid army. As a consequence, massive government spending far outstripped revenue. They had what today we call a deficit problem.

      They did two disastrous things to solve their deficit.

      First, they kept raising taxes which became punitive. Not caring much about the consequences to the merchants, small farmers, and peasants, they came up with new ways to squeeze money out of their citizens. Onerous taxes led to tax evasion. The government’s response was to double down and implement laws that restricted economic freedoms in order to raise even more taxes. Heavy taxes forced property owners, small and large, off the land. Large feudal estates run by political cronies arose in their place. Laws were enacted that forced peasants into virtual serfdom. Business owners and their children were prevented from changing jobs or towns. And, taxes had to be paid either in gold or in kind or they would lose everything. Gold became scarce. Gold money was only lawfully available to the government, army, and bureaucrats.

      Second, they debased the currency which led to inflation. It was the equivalent of printing money to pay for things. The resulting bouts of high inflation destroyed much of commerce and agriculture. Like most dictators they thought they could stop rising prices by implementing price controls, but that just led to gold and goods disappearing from the economy. Black markets grew despite threats of capital punishment. Unemployment and homelessness rose. Their large welfare system kept running short of money. Commercial, legal, and moral institutions were falling apart. Corruption was endemic. The resulting booms and busts and depressions were destroying the economy.

      By the time the Goth and Visigoth invaders came along, Rome was so weakened that they could not hold back the waves of invasions. At the end, Roman citizens saw the government as the enemy and the invading barbarians as their saviors. Rome fell in 410 CE. What emerged was what we now know as the Middle Ages — it lasted for a thousand years. You know what that was like. They didn’t call it the Dark Ages for nothing.

      Much of Rome’s economic history is quite familiar in modern times. Even after thousands of years of evidence of repeated failure, bad ideas simply don’t die. Proponents of bad ideas are either ignorant of history or just ignorant. Or they are politicians (as Mark Twin said, “But I repeat myself.”).

      One bad idea with ancient precedents is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). MMT is the New Thing among Progressives in America. Politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Bernie are quite excited about MMT. They think they have discovered the Holy Grail of economics.

      Progressives believe that government can and should cause economic growth and prosperity. They believe government can do this by various controls, regulations, spending programs, and monetary manipulation. They believe proper government spending will stimulate demand, generate consumer spending, kick-start production, and, voila! we have full employment and prosperity. Along the way we can solve various social problems.

      The idea of MMT takes this one step further. They believe that the government can spend/buy whatever it wants and print pieces of greenish paper to pay for it. Government doesn’t need to tax us or borrow money to do this — it can print whatever money it needs to pay for it. Deficits don’t matter because by printing money to pay for stuff they instantly solve the deficit problem. MMTers claim, with no shortage of arrogance, that they, Oz-like, can fine-tune the mechanics of how the economy is to be run and generate prosperity, prevent inflation, end inequality, and save the planet.

      In other words, everything will be perfect; “just trust us” to run things. It sounds too good to be true.

      AOC and Bernie Sanders and their supporters heartily embrace MMT. They want to break free of old-fashioned concepts such as fiscal integrity, balanced budgets, and monetary stability because they want no limits on their utopian schemes.

      MMT is a crackpot idea. It is the monetary equivalent of the Perpetual Motion Machine — it ignores the laws of economics. It’s like asking third graders to invent money. (“I’m gonna print me a bunch of money and buy me a Ferrari an’ a jet an’ all the coolest video games an’ …”). Proponents confuse pieces of greenish paper with wealth and, as history has repeatedly proven, you can’t print your way to wealth and prosperity.

      There is nothing “modern” about Modern Monetary Theory. It has been tried many times over the centuries and it has never worked. In every case where governments have printed money to pay for things, the result has been cycles of boom and bust, inflation (and hyperinflation), economic stagnation, and social disorder. MMTers simply don’t understand what money is or the mechanics of the business cycle or the concept ofmalinvestment and the destruction of capital.

      Why is it not possible that we could go the way of Rome? Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal resulted in 25 years of economic stagnation. Only post-FDR deregulation, more economic freedoms, capital investment, and fiscal and monetary sanity led to economic growth.

      AOC’s Green New Deal plus MMT would be worse than the old New Deal in that it places no limit on government’s ability to spend which means government can command economic resources and control the direction of the economy. History has shown that governments aren’t very good at that. Absolute power in the hands of the few is a bad idea.

      How much destruction could MMT and utopian Progressive schemes like AOC’s utopian Green New Deal inflict on our civilization? It is hard to tell, but I hope we don’t have to look back some day and say the end started now.

    • Life On Mars Gets A Head Start In Utah Desert

      Since 2001, the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS), a facility simulating Mars analog habitat owned by the Mars Society, has allowed thousands of space enthusiasts from countries around the world to put on a makeshift spacesuit and live in a space station for an extended period, reported the Los Angeles Times.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The station was built near Hanksville, Utah, in the early 2000s, and is visited by engineers, physicians, geologists, astronomers, and biologists.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      NASA aims to send astronauts to Mars by 2033, and the buzz about commercial space travel has made MDRS much more popular than ever before.

      Last month, 500 college students from ten countries gathered at MDRS for the annual University Rover Challenge, designed at developing space vehicles for use on Mars.

      “I could run two of these programs side by side, and there would still be a demand,” said station director Shannon Rupert.

      “You no longer have to work at NASA to go into space, and a lot of people want to go into space.”

      Many of the visitors are forking over $1,500 per person for a two-week stay. Each visitor can perform their own experiments as long as they observe one protocol: don’t leave the station without a spacesuit.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      MDRS includes a two-story habitat, a greenhouse, a robotic observatory, an engineering pod, and a science dome. Above-ground walkways connect all buildings except the robotic observatory allow crews to travel between buildings without a spacesuit.

      Camila Castillo, a 23-year-old biologist from Peru, was on her second mission when the Times interviewed her. She said she was made commander of a seven-person team.

      “As commander my role is to keep people calm,” she explained. “We are all passionate, but I must make sure we observe the protocols.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Two Italian engineers, Vittorio Netti, 29, and Paolo Guardabasso, 27, spent their time operating a drone that could one day fly on Mars.

      “We can use them to photograph the area around the station in a short time rather than send people out on potentially dangerous missions,” Netti said.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      One of the walkways led the Times to the greenhouse was overseen by Hector Palomeque, a 28-year-old from Mexico who investigates life in harsh climates.

      “The first people on Mars will be more farmers than astronauts,” Palomeque said.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Mariona Badenas, 25, of Spain, was in command of a special telescope that allowed her to look at the sun’s chromosphere.

      “Observing the sun on Mars would be critical to understanding how it would affect the crew and possibly interfere with communications,” she said.

      The creator of the MDRS is 67-year-old, Robert Zubrin, the president of Mars Society and owner of Pioneer Astronautics in Lakewood, Colorado.

      Zubrin, a nuclear engineer and NASA contractor, told the Times he believes a trip to Mars could be completed today in six months with existing technology.

      “NASA had plans in 1969 to land on Mars by 1981; then Nixon canned the whole thing. We had a total failure of leadership,” he said. “If that plan had carried through, we would have landed on Mars in 1981, had a permanent base on Mars by the late 1980s, and the first children born on Mars would be graduating from high school this June. That was the future not taken.”

      MDRS recently received donations from SpaceX founder Elon Musk.

      Musk in a series of cryptic tweets around 4:20 pm Sunday hinted at his plans on colonizing the red plant

      “Accelerating Starship development to build the Martian Technocracy,” Musk tweeted on Sunday.

      About an hour later around 5 pm, he tweeted “OCCUPY MARS” and an image of the moon.

      Mars seems like the next place where humans will travel in the next decade.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Jun 27

    Today’s News 27th June 2019

    • Demographic Doom? Germany, Italy, Korea, & Japan Face Workforce Collapse By 2050

      Forget the trade war, debt, deflation, automation, and artificial intelligence: one of the most significant threats to the global economy and the future of the world as we know it is demographics.

      A new OECD report, published by International Business Times, said Korea, Japan, Germany, and Italy could see their working-age populations decline to dangerously low levels by 2050.

      The report took each OECD country’s population between the ages of 20 and 64 in the year 2000 as a base and was able to project the 2050 population. What they discovered was the working class population by 2050 would be 80% of its base year in Korea and Italy. In Japan, the workforce population would be much worse, approximately 60% of its original size.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      For the OECD as a whole, there are about 34 countries from around the world, the size of the working age population is expected to increase by 111% of its original size by 2050. Much of the growth will be driven by stable birth rates and growing populations, like Australia and Turkey.

      The OECD noted that Japan’s working-age population has been in collapse for nearly three decades. Korea’s working-age population was expanding until just recently but is expected to begin contracting this year.

      For countries experiencing a decline in the working-age population, there will be widespread consequences across all aspects of the global economy: as households shrink, so does discretionary spending, and ultimately will impact living space. In developed markets, large cities will see increased pressure on real estate and rent prices for apartments.

      In a separate report, we showed how countries around the world are set to experience a decline in the number of children per household in the 2000 – 2030 period. More specifically, looking from 2015 out to 2030, Euromonitor expects developed markets to have a ~20% decline in the number of children per household and developing markets a ~15% decline. In fact, as RBC points out, it was as recently as 2012 when the number of couples without children globally surpassed the number of those with children.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      While this demographic trend is troubling, it’s only set to worsen in the coming decades. Many developed countries will have a severe demographic imbalance where the older generation is disproportionately larger than, the younger generations. In other words, many parts of the world are marching straight towards Japanification.

    • South African Leaders Clueless As Multipolar New World Order Looms

      Authored by Prince Mashele via Sowetan Live,

      We South Africans are so consumed by the mess of our politics that we rarely take time to make sense of what is going on around the world.

      In a nutshell, the world has gone through two historic periods:

      • a period of crude empire, which lasted until the mid-20th century, and

      • a very short period of subtle empire, which lasted until 2008.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      During the centuries-long period of crude empire, rulers of kingdoms, principalities or states derived a sense of greatness from either invading, destroying or subjugating other societies.

      Kingdoms or states that had a reputation for greatness were those that mastered the craftiest military strategy, typically under the leadership of a feared commander-tyrant.

      Names such as Hannibal of Carthage, Julius Caesar of the Roman Empire, Alexander the Great of the Greek kingdom of Macedonia, or Shaka Zulu of the Zulu kingdom, are emblematic of the ancient world of the crude empire.

      Modern imperialism up to the 20th century was also a form of imperial crudity, driven by a modernized Westphalian state. The instinct of imperial crudity was sustained by the crudity of ancient warfare.

      The tyrants and military strategists of yore harbored the belief they could destroy the society next door without being destroyed in turn. It was always a bloody gamble.

      In the era of the Westphalian state, the same urge to destroy or subjugate a neighbor, with the hope not to be destroyed, drove modern rulers into wars of crude imperialism. This is how the first and the second world wars came about.

      The frightening scale of human destruction that took place, especially in the World War Two, facilitated by a more sophisticated modern weaponry and awakened humankind to the suicidal folly of the hope to destroy without being destroyed.

      Thus, the last European lords of crude empire – Great Britain and France – realized the need to entrust their global security and interests to the new leader of an emerging period of subtle empire, the US.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In the new era of weapons of mass destruction, the US knew it enjoyed no luxury to destroy a neighbor without being destroyed.

      Banking on its economic strength in the mid-20th century, the US sponsored the erection of a novel institutional architecture that would buttress that country’s leadership in the new era of subtle imperialism. That’s how the UN, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation came about.

      Although there were times when the US applied crudity in its imperial engagement, particularly during the Cold War, internal democracy and the protection of human freedoms were used to project the cultural and ideational supremacy of the US in the world.

      Over time, ordinary people across the world, even in countries that professed to pursue an alternative social order, such as Russia, envied American culture and its way of life.

      It all collapsed in 2008, when America’s financial system proved to be the cancerous cells infecting the economic blood of the rest of the world. Suddenly all American-linked or -sponsored institutions became suspect in the eyes of the people of the world.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      By the time America’s subtle empire collapsed, China had sufficient economic resources to signal its readiness to take over the global leadership.

      But the US does not want the locus of global power to shift from the West to the East. This is precisely what the trade war between China and the US is about.

      But where does SA stand in all this? Unfortunately, there is no evidence that either our intellectually bland president or our tired international relations minister has a clue.

    • China Tests World's Largest Transport Drone With Airdrop Exercise

      Last October, we were one of the first to report that China tested the world’s largest transport drone. Now it appears the drone has undergone several more tests, this time with a heavy cargo delivery exercise.

      The aerial delivery exercise was conducted by the National Defense University of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the state-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation in Zhangye, Northwest China’s Gansu Province, at an unspecified time, reported The Global Times.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The exercise featured a Feihong-98, the world’s largest transport drone, with a maximum payload of 1.5 tons. It’s a modified single-engine biplane, called the Shifei Y5B, a China-developed transport plane from the 1950s.

      The Feihong-98 carried military supplies and successfully airdropped it at an unspecified area on a plateau with difficult terrain.

      “The exercise met our expected objective. It is very significant for our unmanned logistics chain in future warfare,” said Bi Guangyuan, executive director of the exercise, CCTV reported.

      This was China’s first airdrop of cargo from a transport drone weighing more than 1,100 pounds and traveling at a distance of about 310 miles, Li Ruixing, the president of the PLA National Defense University’s joint logistics academy, told CCTV.

      “We … explored a new model of military cargo delivery in joint combat as well as in strategic and tactical logistics support,” Ruixing said.

      A military expert who asked to remain anonymous told The Global Times on Sunday that the plane is expected to haul even heavier cargo loads in upcoming tests.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      With a takeoff and landing distance of roughly 500 ft., the transport drone could be the most affordable means of resupplying Chinese militarized islands in the South China Sea.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In the last twenty years, China has emerged as one of Washington’s top competitors in the global drone market. China is offering affordable drone technology, that has been rapidly gaining global market share.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      China manufactures several types of drones. The Caihong 5 (CH-5) Rainbow, its newest multi-role capable drone, has seen increased activity in the Middle East — especially the Yemeni Civil War. The CH-5 competes with the American Reaper and Israeli Heron TP.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      China is a major exporter of multi-role strike capable drones. Between 2008 and 2017, China exported a total of 88 drones to eleven different countries.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      China, the rising power in the Eastern Hemisphere, has challenged the US, the status quo power in the South China Sea. China is rapidly developing and deploying armed and transport drones as a sign that military conflict between both powers is inevitable.  

    • How Evil Wins: The Hypocritical Double Standards Of Political Outrage

      Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

      “She was asked what she had learned from the Holocaust, and she said that 10 percent of any population is cruel, no matter what, and that 10 percent is merciful, no matter what, and that the remaining 80 percent could be moved in either direction.” – Kurt Vonnegut

      Please spare me the media hysterics and the outrage and the hypocritical double standards of those whose moral conscience appears to be largely dictated by their political loyalties.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Anyone who believes that the injustices, cruelties and vicious callousness of the U.S. government are unique to the Trump Administration has not been paying attention.

      No matter what the team colors might be at any given moment, the playbook remains the same. The leopard has not changed its spots. Scrape off the surface layers and you will find that the American police state that is continuing to wreak havoc on the rights of the people under the Trump Administration is the same police state that wreaked havoc on the rights of the people under every previous administration.

      Brace yourselves.

      While we squabble over which side is winning this losing battle, a tsunami approaches.

      Case in point: in Charlottesville, Va.—home of Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, champion of the Bill of Rights, and the nation’s third president—city councilors in a quest for so-called “equity” have proposed eliminating Jefferson’s birthday as a city holiday (which has been on the books since 1945) and replacing it with a day that commemorates the liberation of area slaves following the arrival of Union troops under Gen. Philip Sheridan.

      In this way, while the populace wages war over past injustices, injustice in the here and now continues to trample innocent lives underfoot. In Charlottesville, as in the rest of the country, little is being done to stem the tide of the institutional racism that has resulted in disproportionate numbers of black Americans being stopped, frisked, shot at, arrested and jailed.

      Just recently, in fact, Phoenix police drew their guns, shouted profanities, assaulted and threatened to shoot a black couple whose 4-year-old daughter allegedly stole a doll from a dollar store. The footage of the incident—in which the cops threaten to shoot the pregnant, young mother in the head in the presence of the couple’s 1- and 4-year-old daughters—is horrifying in every way.

      Tell me again why it’s more important to spend valuable political capital debating the birthdays of dead presidents rather than proactively working to put a stop to a government mindset that teaches cops it’s okay to treat citizens of any color with brutality and a blatant disregard for their rights?

      It doesn’t matter that Phoenix and Charlottesville are 2100 miles apart. The lethal practices of the American police state are the same all over.

      No amount of dissembling can shield us from the harsh reality that the danger in our midst is posed by an entrenched government bureaucracy that has no regard for the Constitution, Congress, the courts or the citizenry.

      We’ve got to get our priorities straight if we are to ever have any hope of maintaining any sense of freedom in America. As long as we allow ourselves to be distracted, diverted, occasionally outraged, always polarized and content to view each other—rather than the government—as the enemy, we’ll never manage to present a unified front against tyranny (or government corruption and ineptitude) in any form.

      Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.

      This is the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedoms of its citizenry.

      So stop with all of the excuses and the hedging and the finger-pointing and the pissing contests to see which side can out-shout, out-blame and out-spew the other. Enough already with the short- and long-term amnesia that allows political sycophants to conveniently forget the duplicity, complicity and mendacity of their own party while casting blame on everyone else.

      This is how evil wins.

      This is how freedom falls and tyranny rises.

      This is how good, generally decent people—having allowed themselves to be distracted with manufactured crises, polarizing politics, and fighting that divides the populace into warring us vs. them camps—fail to take note of the looming danger that threatens to wipe freedom from the map and place us all in chains.

      Anytime you have an entire nation so mesmerized by the antics of the political ruling class that they are oblivious to all else, you’d better beware. Anytime you have a government that operates in the shadows, speaks in a language of force, and rules by fiat, you’d better beware. And anytime you have a government so far removed from its people as to ensure that they are never seen, heard or heeded by those elected to represent them, you’d better beware.

      The world has been down this road before.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As historian Milton Mayer recounts in his seminal book on Hitler’s rise to power, They Thought They Were Free:

      Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people‑—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies’, without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.

      We are no longer living the American Dream. We’re living the American Lie.

      Indeed, Americans have been lied to so sincerely, so incessantly, and for so long by politicians of all stripes—who lie compulsively and without any seeming remorse—that they’ve almost come to prefer the lies trotted out by those in government over less-palatable truths.

      The American people have become compulsive believers: left-leaning Americans are determined to believe that the world has become a far more dangerous place under Trump, while right-leaning Americans are equally convinced that Trump has set us on a path to prosperity and security.

      Nothing has changed.

      The police state is still winning. We the people are still losing.

      In fact, the American police state has continued to advance at the same costly, intrusive, privacy-sapping, Constitution-defying, heartbreaking, soul-scorching, relentless pace under the current Tyrant-in-Chief as it did under those who occupied the White House before him (Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.).

      Police haven’t stopped disregarding the rights of citizens. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip, shoot and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials are no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace. Indeed, they continue to keep the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies and slaves rather than citizens.

      SWAT teams haven’t stopped crashing through doors and terrorizing families. Nationwide, SWAT teams continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activities or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession. With more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own heavily armed law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties continue to rise.

      The Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security haven’t stopped militarizing and federalizing local police. Police forces continue to be transformed into heavily armed extensions of the military, complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones. In training police to look and act like the military and use the weapons and tactics of war against American citizens, the government continues to turn the United States into a battlefield and “we the people” into enemy combatants.

      Schools haven’t stopped treating young people like hard-core prisoners. School districts continue to team up with law enforcement to create a “schoolhouse to jailhouse track” by imposing a “double dose” of punishment for childish infractions: suspension or expulsion from school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to juvenile court. In this way, the paradigm of abject compliance to the state continues to be taught by example in the schools, through school lockdowns where police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom, and zero tolerance policies that punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish behavior.

      For-profit private prisons haven’t stopped locking up Americans and immigrants alike at taxpayer expense. States continue to outsource prison management to private corporations out to make a profit at taxpayer expense. And how do you make a profit in the prison industry? Have the legislatures pass laws that impose harsh penalties for the slightest noncompliance in order keep the prison cells full and corporate investors happy.

      Censorship hasn’t stopped. First Amendment activities continue to be pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged all across the country. The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remained the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.”

      The courts haven’t stopped marching in lockstep with the police state. The courts continue to be dominated by technicians and statists who are deferential to authority, whether government or business. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decisions in recent years have most often been characterized by an abject deference to government authority, military and corporate interests.

      Government bureaucrats haven’t stopped turning American citizens into criminals. The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to an overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal, while reinforcing the power of the police state and its corporate allies.

      The surveillance state hasn’t stopped spying on Americans’ communications, transactions or movements. On any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether it’s your local police, a fusion center, the National Security Agency or one of the government’s many corporate partners, is still monitoring and tracking your every move.

      The TSA hasn’t stopped groping or ogling travelers. Under the pretext of protecting the nation’s infrastructure (roads, mass transit systems, water and power supplies, telecommunications systems and so on) against criminal or terrorist attacks, TSA task forces (comprised of federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, transportation security officers, behavior detection officers and explosive detection canine teams) continue to do random security sweeps of nexuses of transportation, including ports, railway and bus stations, airports, ferries and subways, as well as political conventions, baseball games and music concerts. Sweep tactics include the use of x-ray technology, pat-downs and drug-sniffing dogs, among other things.

      Congress hasn’t stopped enacting draconian laws such as the USA Patriot Act and the NDAA. These laws—which completely circumvent the rule of law and the constitutional rights of American citizens, continue to re-orient our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the rule of law, our U.S. Constitution, becomes the map by which we navigate life in the United States.

      The Department of Homeland Security hasn’t stopped being a “wasteful, growing, fear-mongering beast.” Indeed, this is the agency that is notorious for militarizing the police and SWAT teams; spying on activists, dissidents and veterans; stockpiling ammunition; distributing license plate readers; contracting to build detention camps; tracking cell-phones with Stingray devices; carrying out military drills and lockdowns in American cities; using the TSA as an advance guard; conducting virtual strip searches with full-body scanners; carrying out soft target checkpoints; directing government workers to spy on Americans; conducting widespread spying networks using fusion centers; carrying out Constitution-free border control searches; funding city-wide surveillance cameras; and utilizing drones and other spybots.

      The military industrial complex hasn’t stopped profiting from endless wars abroad. America’s expanding military empire continues to bleed the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour). The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense.

      The Deep State’s shadow government hasn’t stopped calling the shots behind the scenes.Comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes, this government within a government continues to be the real reason “we the people” have no real control over our so-called representatives. It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.

      And the American people haven’t stopped acting like gullible sheep. In fact, many Americans have been so carried away by their blind rank-and-file partisan devotion to their respective political gods that they have lost sight of the one thing that has remained constant in recent years: our freedoms are steadily declining. And it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government.

      So you can try to persuade yourself that you are free, that you still live in a country that values freedom, and that it is not too late to make America great again, but to anyone who has been paying attention to America’s decline over the past 50 years, it will be just another lie.

      The German people chose to ignore the truth and believe the lie.

      They were not oblivious to the horrors taking place around them. As historian Robert Gellately points out, “[A]nyone in Nazi Germany who wanted to find out about the Gestapo, the concentration camps, and the campaigns of discrimination and persecutions need only read the newspapers.”

      The warning signs were definitely there, blinking incessantly like large neon signs.

      “Still,” Gellately writes, “the vast majority voted in favor of Nazism, and in spite of what they could read in the press and hear by word of mouth about the secret police, the concentration camps, official anti-Semitism, and so on. . . . [T]here is no getting away from the fact that at that moment, ‘the vast majority of the German people backed him.’”

      Half a century later, the wife of a prominent German historian, neither of whom were members of the Nazi party, opined:

      “[O]n the whole, everyone felt well. . . . And there were certainly eighty percent who lived productively and positively throughout the time. . . . We also had good years. We had wonderful years.”

      In other words, as long as their creature comforts remained undiminished, as long as their bank accounts remained flush, as long as they weren’t being discriminated against, persecuted, starved, beaten, shot, stripped, jailed and turned into slave labor, life was good.

      Life is good in America, too.

      Life is good in America as long as you’re not one of the hundreds of migrant children (including infants, toddlers, preschoolers) being detained in unsanitary conditions by U.S. Border Patrol without proper access to food and water, made to sleep on concrete floors, go without a shower for weeks on end, and only allowed to brush your teeth once every 10 days.

      Life is good in America as long as you don’t have to come face to face with a trigger-happy cop hyped up on the power of the badge, trained to shoot first and ask questions later, and disposed to view people of color as a suspect class.

      Life is good in America as long as you’re able to keep sleep-walking through life, cocooning yourself in political fantasies that depict a world in which your party is always right and everyone else is wrong, and distracting yourself with bread-and-circus entertainment that bears no resemblance to reality.

      Life is good in America as long as you’ve got enough money to spare that you don’t mind being made to pay through the nose for the government’s endless wars, subsidization of foreign nations, military empire, welfare state, roads to nowhere, bloated workforce, secret agencies, fusion centers, private prisons, biometric databases, invasive technologies, arsenal of weapons, and every other budgetary line item that is contributing to the fast-growing wealth of the corporate elite at the expense of those who are barely making ends meet—that is, we the 99%. 

      Life is good in America for the privileged few, but as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it’s getting worse by the day for the rest of us.

    • Air Force Warns Of Angry "Incel" Men Who Can't Get Laid And Go On Mass Killing Sprees Instead

      Joint Base Andrews in Maryland recently issued a threat brief regarding “incels”: members of an online movement that “adopt an ideology of misogyny, mistrust of women, and violence in response to their failed attempts at romantic relationships,” according to Task and Purpose.

      The term “incel” is generally defined as: “…members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom. Self-identified incels are largely white and are almost exclusively male heterosexuals. The term is a portmanteau of “involuntary celibates”.”

      Another, simpler definition: men who can’t get laid. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Several mass casualty events as a result of “incels” have happened with increasing frequency since May 2014, after a 22 year old man shot and killed six women in California as “retribution” for years of being rejected by the opposite sex. 

      The Air Force included in its briefing a screenshot of a common internet meme used by “incels” called “Becky vs. Stacy”, a diagram that purportedly shows how “incels” judge women based solely on their physical features.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And the screenshot appeared the day after a former Army infantryman who frequently noted the “incel” movement, Brian Isaack Clyde, opened fire outside a Dallas building and was subsequently shot by Federal officers. Clyde frequently shared memes related to the movement before the incident. 

      According to the briefing:

      “Incels believe “they are owed attention from ‘Beckys’. Most Incels believe only men can be Incels as women could engage in sexual activity if they wanted to.”

      The briefing claims that the meme shows an “increase in discussion” of the topic on forums like Reddit and 4chan, forums where an April 2018 van attack in Toronto was cheered after its perpetrator declared he wanted to incite an “incel rebellion”.

      And there have been numerous other examples of “incels” committing crimes:

      The following November, 40-year-old Scott Beierle shot and killed two women in a Tallahassee, Florida yoga studio. A former Army second lieutenant, he was discharged for “unacceptable conduct” that involved “inappropriate contact with female soldiers,” according to a Washington Post investigation.

      Beierle “was an avowed hater of women, a man who repeatedly grabbed women in real life and fantasized about raping and killing them in the horrific collection of lyrics, poetry and novels he began writing as a teenager,” according to the investigation. “His interactions with the opposite sex had gotten him fired from teaching jobs, booted from the Army and hauled before the principal of his high school.

      Then, in January 2019, 27-year-old Christopher Wayne Cleary was arrested on terrorism charges following social media posts threatening a mass shooting over his virginity. “I’m planning on shooting up a public place soon and being the next mass shooter cause I’m ready to die and all the girls the turned me down is going to make it right by killing as many girls as I see,” he wrote on Facebook.

      11th Wing spokesman Aletha Frost confirmed the document’s autheticity, noting: 

      “The intent of the brief was to educate the Joint Base Andrews commanders on the behaviors and activities attributed to the group to safeguard our Airmen/installation.”

      Let’s hope no one ever introduces this community to Islam’s promise of 72 virgins…

    • Hot Mic Mayhem Strikes Democrat Debate In Awkward Interruption

      An awkward moment straight out of The Naked Gun unfolded at Wednesday night’s 2020 Democratic presidential primary debates, after the microphones belonging to the first hour’s moderators were left on while they were backstage. 

      As second hour moderator Chuck Todd began to ask a gun control question, former moderators José Díaz-Balart and Savannah Guthrie could be heard having a conversation backstage which included the phrases “I need to go to the restroom” and “someone’s got my binder.” 

      A visibly steamed Todd turned to fellow moderator Rachel Maddow and said “We are hearing our colleagues audio. If the control room could turn off the mics of our previous moderators…,” making the best of it. 

      “We prepared for everything. We did not prepare for this,” Maddow replied. 

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

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

      The interruption marked an mildly entertaining spectacle as 10 Democrats shouted over each other to make the same exact points, sometimes in Spanish. 

      First Cory Booker:

      Then Beto O’Rourke: 

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

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

      Let’s see what happens during Thursday night’s debate, which will include Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders among others. Hopefully NBC can better manage their equipment. 

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

    • Suspected State-Backed Hackers Transformed Telecoms Giant Into 'Global Spy System'

      On what has been an otherwise relatively slow news day as President Trump heads to Japan for this weekend’s G-20 summit, the Associated Press has joined Reuters in publishing an expose about a cyberespionage campaign that just might have its origins in Beijing.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Telecoms

      According to the AP, which sourced its story from a presentation given by the head of Cybereason, a global cybersecurity contractor brought in by telecoms firms to trace the source of another potentially major breach, a group of possibly state-backed hackers infiltrated the system of an unnamed telecoms giant to spy on a group of unnamed “VIPs” call records, location data and other information. The hack essentially allowed the hackers to track the movements and activities of the targets. And because the hack occurred at the service-provider level, it would be virtually impossible for the 20 or so end-user targets to discover the breach on their own. In essence, the hackers were able to transform the targeted firm into a “global surveillance system.”

      Cybereason Chief Executive Lior Div said because customers weren’t directly targeted, they might never discover that their every movement was being monitored by a hostile power.

      The hackers have turned the affected telecoms into “a global surveillance system,” Div said in a telephone interview. “Those individuals don’t know they were hacked – because they weren’t.”

      Div, who presented his findings at the Cyber Week conference in Tel Aviv, provided scant details about who was targeted in the hack. He said Cybereason had been called in to help an unidentified cellular provider last year and discovered that the hackers had broken into the firm’s billing server, where call records are logged.

      The hackers were using their access to extract the data of “around 20” customers, Div said.

      And here’s some food for thought: Cybereason cautioned that even though all signs of who the culprit might be pointed to APT10, the MSS-backed hacker crew that orchestrated China’s ‘Operation Cloud Hopper’, the campaign that reportedly infiltrated eight of the world’s largest enterprise tech companies, they were reluctant to conclusively blame APT10 for the intrusions.

      Why? Because these signs could have been manufactured to point to APT10, even though the real culprit could have been another government, or a criminal organization, or maybe even the infamous ‘400-pound basement dweller’ that Trump once joked about.

      Who might be behind such hacking campaigns is often a fraught question in a world full of digital false flags. Cybereason said all the signs pointed to APT10 – the nickname often applied to a notorious cyberespionage group that U.S. authorities and digital security experts have tied to the Chinese government.

      But Div said the clues they found were so obvious that he and his team sometimes wondered whether they might have been left on purpose.

      “I thought: ‘Hey, just a second, maybe it’s somebody who wants to blame APT10,'”  he said.

      Since Cybereason was contracted by a large telecoms firm to carry out its investigation, it couldn’t say for sure whether the targets of the hacking campaign had been alerted to the intrusion. Whether to notify the targets, they said, had been left to their client to decide. The firm said it had been in contact with a ‘handful’ of law enforcement agencies about the intrusions, but again they refused to reveal who exactly had been brought in the loop.

      Whoever hired Cybereason would be remiss if they didn’t disclose the intrusion, since failing to alert their investors could be construed as securities fraud. But if the recent past is any guide (remember Equifax?), companies that have been the victim of large-scale hacks are often reluctant to disclose it for fear of the market backlash.

      But if China is behind the hacks, that would give the Trump Administration one more reason to hold off on striking a trade deal on the grounds that Beijing simply can’t be trusted to end its sweeping cyberespionage campaign.

    • Trump: War President Or Anti-Interventionist?

      Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

      Visualizing 150 Iranian dead from a missile strike that he had ordered, President Donald Trump recoiled and canceled the strike, a brave decision and defining moment for his presidency.

      Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Vice President Mike Pence had signed off on the strike on Iran as the right response to Tehran’s shootdown of a U.S. Global Hawk spy plane over the Gulf of Oman.

      The U.S. claims the drone was over international waters. Tehran says it was in Iranian territory. But while the loss of a $100 million drone is no small matter, no American pilot was lost, and retaliating by killing 150 Iranians would appear to be a disproportionate response.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Good for Trump. Yet, all weekend, he was berated for chickening out and imitating President Barack Obama. U.S. credibility, it was said, has taken a big hit and must be restored with military action.

      By canceling the strike, the president also sent a message to Iran: We’re ready to negotiate. Yet, given the irreconcilable character of our clashing demands, it is hard to see how the U.S. and Iran get off this road we are on, at the end of which a military collision seems almost certain.

      Consider the respective demands.

      Monday, the president tweeted:

      “The U.S. request for Iran is very simple — No Nuclear Weapons and No Further Sponsoring of Terror!”

      But Iran has no nuclear weapons, has never had nuclear weapons, and has never even produced bomb-grade uranium.

      According to our own intelligence agencies in 2007 and 2011, Tehran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.

      Under the 2015 nuclear deal, the JCPOA, the only way Iran could have a nuclear weapons program would be in secret, outside its known nuclear facilities, all of which are under constant U.N. inspection.

      Where is the evidence that any such secret program exists?

      And if it does, why does America not tell the world where Iran’s secret nuclear facilities are located and demand immediate inspections?

      “No further sponsoring of terror,” Trump says.

      But what does that mean?

      As the major Shiite power in a Middle East divided between Sunni and Shiite, Iran backs the Houthi rebels in Yemen’s civil war, Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon, Alawite Bashar Assad in Syria, and the Shiite militias in Iraq who helped us stop ISIS’s drive to Baghdad.

      In his 12 demands, Pompeo virtually insisted that Iran abandon these allies and capitulate to their Sunni adversaries and rivals.

      Not going to happen. Yet, if these demands are nonnegotiable, to be backed up by sanctions severe enough to choke Iran’s economy to death, we will be headed for war.

      No more than North Korea is Iran going to yield to U.S. demands that it abandon what Iran sees as vital national interests.

      As for the U.S. charge that Iran is “destabilizing” the Middle East, it was not Iran that invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, overthrew the Gadhafi regime in Libya, armed rebels to overthrow Assad in Syria, or aided and abetted the Saudis’ intervention in Yemen’s civil war.

      Iran, pushed to the wall, its economy shrinking as inflation and unemployment are rising, is approaching the limits of its tolerance.

      And as Iran suffers pain, it is saying, other nations in the Gulf will endure similar pain, as will the USA. At some point, collisions will produce casualties and we will be on the up escalator to war.

      Yet, what vital interest of ours does Iran today threaten?

      Trump, with his order to stand down on the missile strike on Iran, signaled that he wanted a pause in the confrontation.

      Still, it needs to be said: The president himself authorized the steps that have brought us to this peril point.

      Trump pulled out of and trashed Obama’s nuclear deal. He imposed the sanctions that are now inflicting something close to unacceptable if not intolerable pain on Iran. He had the Islamic Revolutionary Guard declared a terrorist organization. He sent the Abraham Lincoln carrier task force and B-52s to the Gulf region.

      If war is to be avoided, either Iran is going to have to capitulate, or the U.S. is going to have to walk back its maximalist position.

      And who would Trump name to negotiate with Tehran for the United States?

      The longer the sanctions remain in place and the deeper they bite, the greater the likelihood Iran will respond to our economic warfare with its own asymmetric warfare. Has the president decided to take that risk?

      We appear to be at a turning point in the Trump presidency.

      Does he want to run in 2020 as the president who led us into war with Iran, or as the anti-interventionist president who began to bring U.S. troops home from that region that has produced so many wars?

      Perhaps Congress, the branch of government designated by the Constitution to decide on war, should instruct President Trump as to the conditions under which he is authorized to take us to war with Iran.

    • Stunning Exposé Offers New Details About China's Infiltration Of 8 Tech Giants

      Over the past year, Western media organizations have published a non-stop stream of reports about “Operation Cloudhopper”: The Chinese government’s clandestine program to spy on and siphon economic secrets from some of the world’s largest tech companies.

       

      We have shared some details of the program before: China’s Ministry of State Security has worked with a shadowy group of hackers called ‘Advanced Persistent Threat’ 10 to infiltrate American and European enterprise tech firms using a very consistent MO: Hackers would infiltrate the cloud computing networks of ‘managed service providers’, then ‘hop’ from network to network’, gaining entree to the networks of these firms’ clients. Back in December, the US named some of the hackers suspected of working with APT10, and was backed up by Germany, New Zealand, Canada, Britain, Australia and other allies all issued statements.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>US

      Notably, the Chinese cyberespionage campaign continued even after Beijing and the Obama Administration agreed to a pact to cease all cyberespionage activities.

      But as devastating as these attacks have been, the details have been kept under wraps, as corporate victims have pushed for their privacy to be protected. But for the first time since the US indicted the two suspected APT members, a sweeping Reuters investigation has laid out details of attacks, many of which have been previously reported, but not in quite as much depth.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>China

      An investigation by Reuters found that “Cloud Hopper” impacted six additional firms aside from IBM and HPE, which it had previously reported. These included at least five of the world’s 10 largest tech service firms. In addition to HPE and IBM, the hacks emanated out to those firms’ clients, including Swedish telecoms firm Ericsson, and a handful of Japanese fims. Ultimately, industrial and commercial secrets were stolen.

      The hacking campaign, known as “Cloud Hopper,” was the subject of a U.S. indictment in December that accused two Chinese nationals of identity theft and fraud. Prosecutors described an elaborate operation that victimized multiple Western companies but stopped short of naming them. A Reuters report at the time identified two: Hewlett Packard Enterprise and IBM.

      Yet the campaign ensnared at least six more major technology firms, touching five of the world’s 10 biggest tech service providers.

      Also compromised by Cloud Hopper, Reuters has found: Fujitsu, Tata Consultancy Services, NTT Data, Dimension Data, Computer Sciences Corporation and DXC Technology. HPE spun-off its services arm in a merger with Computer Sciences Corporation in 2017 to create DXC.

      Waves of hacking victims emanate from those six plus HPE and IBM: their clients. Ericsson, which competes with Chinese firms in the strategically critical mobile telecoms business, is one. Others include travel reservation system Sabre, the American leader in managing plane bookings, and the largest shipbuilder for the U.S. Navy, Huntington Ingalls Industries, which builds America’s nuclear submarines at a Virginia shipyard.

      “This was the theft of industrial or commercial secrets for the purpose of advancing an economy,” said former Australian National Cyber Security Adviser Alastair MacGibbon. “The lifeblood of a company.”

      Over the course of its reporting, Reuters interviewed 30 people involved in the “Cloud Hopper” investigations, including government officials, company insiders and private security contractors. One of the most stunning aspects of the investigation was how persistent the hackers were. Even after their code was purged from the network, APT managed to find its way back in. 

      Also incredible: How the security breaches went unnoticed, sometimes for years.

      For security staff at Hewlett Packard Enterprise, the Ericsson situation was just one dark cloud in a gathering storm, according to internal documents and 10 people with knowledge of the matter.

      For years, the company’s predecessor, technology giant Hewlett Packard, didn’t even know it had been hacked. It first found malicious code stored on a company server in 2012. The company called in outside experts, who found infections dating to at least January 2010.

      Hewlett Packard security staff fought back, tracking the intruders, shoring up defenses and executing a carefully planned expulsion to simultaneously knock out all of the hackers’ known footholds.

      But the attackers returned, beginning a cycle that continued for at least five years.

      Throughout the investigation, the Chinese hackers showed their American peers how woefully ill-equipped they were. Not only did the hackers stay one step ahead of the investigators tracking them, but they littered their code with expletives and taunts.

      The intruders stayed a step ahead. They would grab reams of data before planned eviction efforts by HP engineers. Repeatedly, they took whole directories of credentials, a brazen act netting them the ability to impersonate hundreds of employees.

      The hackers knew exactly where to retrieve the most sensitive data and littered their code with expletives and taunts. One hacking tool contained the message “FUCK ANY AV” – referencing their victims’ reliance on anti-virus software. The name of a malicious domain used in the wider campaign appeared to mock U.S. intelligence: “nsa.mefound.com.”

      Ultimately, it’s impossible to say how many of HP’s customers were impacted by “Cloud Hopper”. Though investigators were able to envision at least one “nightmare scenario” involving an HP client: Sabre Corp., a travel-reservation company and HP client, might become vulnerable to Chinese infiltration. If APT and the MSS could gain access to Sabre’s systems, they could easily track the travel patterns of American corporate executives and other VIPs, exposing them to in-person surveillance and bugging.

      The HPE operation had hundreds of customers. Armed with stolen corporate credentials, the attackers could do almost anything the service providers could. Many of the compromised machines served multiple HPE customers, documents show.

      One nightmare situation involved client Sabre Corp, which provides reservation systems for tens of thousands of hotels around the world. It also has a comprehensive system for booking air travel, working with hundreds of airlines and 1,500 airports.

      A thorough penetration at Sabre could have exposed a goldmine of information, investigators said, if China was able to track where corporate executives or U.S. government officials were traveling. That would open the door to in-person approaches, physical surveillance or attempts at installing digital tracking tools on their devices.

      In 2015, investigators found that at least four HP machines dedicated to Sabre were tunneling large amounts of data to an external server. The Sabre breach was long-running and intractable, said two former HPE employees.

      Via the breach at HP, APT and the MSS also gained entree to the American defense industry by accessing the server of Huntington Ingalls, a company that builds nuclear powered submarines.

      In early 2017, HPE analysts saw evidence that Huntington Ingalls Industries, a significant client and the largest U.S. military shipbuilder, had been penetrated by the Chinese hackers, two sources said.

      Computer systems owned by a subsidiary of Huntington Ingalls were connecting to a foreign server controlled by APT10.

      In Sweden, Huawei rival Ericcson was a persistent target of MSS, though the company often couldn’t tell what, exactly, the hackers were after.

      Like many Cloud Hopper victims, Ericsson could not always tell what data was being targeted. Sometimes, the attackers appeared to seek out project management information, such as schedules and timeframes. Another time they went after product manuals, some of which were already publicly available.

      In what has become a pattern for reports about China’s cyberespionage, the Reuters expose was published as President Trump prepares to depart for Osaka for the G-20 summit, where he’s scheduled to meet with President Xi. Under Trump, the DoJ has stepped up its efforts to punish China and individuals spies for their cyberespionage activity. Whether Trump stands his ground on cyberespionage is only one factor here. Even if Beijing grants assurances that it will stop, how can the US be sure that it’s not simply lip service like that paid to the Obama administration?

    Digest powered by RSS Digest