Today’s News 26th April 2019

  • European Equities May Benefit As $1 Trillion In U.S. Buybacks Vanish Into Thin Air

    European equities may start to finally see some love, as they are now positioned to take advantage of one significant coming tailwind from the U.S., according to Bloomberg. Over the next 12 months, US stocks are going to lose a significant amount of support that they have received from buybacks, as the nearly $1 trillion buyback bonanza that has fueled stock purchases in the United States starts to come to an end, according to Sanford C. Bernstein strategists.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    This could be an area where European stocks, due to their low dependence on buybacks, could see help as a result.

    Bernstein strategists led by Inigo Fraser-Jenkins said:

     “This would remove one advantage of U.S. equities over Europe. As the buyback support is reduced it will make a stronger relative case for Europe.”

    And the decision of the U.S. central bank to hold off on rate increases may have temporarily reduced concerns about debt hurting equities, but the topic is still on the table and credit spreads are expected to keep widening over the next year.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Furthermore, the significance of share repurchases to the US rally has been pronounced, with $1 trillion in buybacks in just 2018 alone, far overshadowing the $100 billion in net inflows from active and passive funds. And even though European equities have rallied to the tune of more than $1.5 trillion since December’s lows, shorting these stocks remains a popular trade globally, according to Bank of America Corp.’s latest fund manager survey. And many traders are still on the sidelines, as Europe’s ugly politics and mixed economic data continues to weigh on sentiment.

    Stock funds in Europe have been hemorrhaging for nearly a year with outflows since the Brexit referendum reaching $139 billion. Redemptions have been so large that they have “erased the inflows fueled by Mario Draghi’s 2012 pledge to do whatever it takes to preserve the Euro.” 

    And although Bernstein strategists aren’t ready to make a buy call for European equities, low investor positioning, discounted valuations and anticipated support from reduced US buybacks are worth acknowledging, they note.

    The analysts concluded: “Europe is uniquely hated. We like to be contrarian and so large outflows incline us to like a region. However, we are not quite ready to issue a ‘buy Europe’ call.”

    1. Poroshenko Out, Zelensky In. Will Things Change In Ukraine?

      Authored by Tom Luongo,

      The incalculable damage that’s been done to the region for cynical geopolitical goals can never be undone but it can stop.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      With art imitating life presidential elections in Ukraine ended with Volodymyr Zelenski garnering a massive majority over incumbent Petro Poroshenko. So, let’s get right to the point.

      Will this change anything?

      The West poured a lot of money and time into Poroshenko. It was obvious months ago he was not going to win a second term no matter what he did. With him mostly gone from the scene it is now up to Zelensky to put together a plan which goes far beyond the protest vote against Poroshenko’s obvious corruption.

      The problem is we have no idea if he’s 1) capable of doing this or 2) strong enough to implement anything he comes up with.

      With his party polling below 30% it’s clear this wasn’t a mandate for him but one against Poroshenko. The probability is high that he will be unable to form a stable, majority government later this year if his election isn’t a country-wide revolution but rather a short-lived temper tantrum.

      Let’s hope it’s the former. Given just how deep the US ties into Poroshenko and Yulia Tymoshenko are I would bet on the latter, unfortunately.

      So, his next steps are important. And the issues facing him are severe.

      From the Donbass, which he supported reconciling with versus Poroshenko’s unbridled belligerence, to Crimea. Zelensky will have to face down enormous political pressure to solve them in ways that reflect reality.

      That means mending some of the bridges burned under Poroshenko with Russia, which he says he wants. But the question is whether he realizes that much of the anti-Poroshenko vote is tied into this. And just how tenuous his position as president truly is.

      It means he will need to look Southeast to Pakistan where outsider and supposed political neophyte Imran Khan is walking a similar tightrope as a geopolitical hot potato. Khan is trying to do unite the civilian and military arms of Pakistan’s leadership under one roof.

      It’s no small task.

      And, so far, Khan has acquitted himself well. He’s cut deals with both Saudi Arabia on energy and Iran on border security/terrorism. He’s survived major conflagrations with India and Iran; false flag operations timed to create maximal chaos and paralyze his government and any reforms.

      In short, Zelensky will have to lead. It will mean talking with Putin. It will mean giving up something to put the Western vultures, both in the US and Europe, at bay. And he needs to do so in a way that is orthogonal to Poroshenko.

      If Zelensky is going to survive and bring Ukraine out of the mess that it’s in, he’s going to have to realize that rapprochement with Russia is the way forward.

      It means having the courage to not make unruly demands on Putin. Poroshenko spent the last year of his presidency leaving poison pills behind for whoever succeeded him.

      Breaking the Treaty of Friendship and attacking the Kerch Strait Bridge being the two big ones. He has to agree to back off on military use of the Sea of Azov and accept blame for the incident in return for getting the sailors Russia holds freed.

      Ending the bombing of the Donbass is also needed, disengaging back to the Minsk contact lines and stop lying about the situation. This would go a long way to establish a baseline of trust.

      And it’s low-hanging fruit. Ukrainians outside of the insane American diaspora, want this done. But, it’s also on a short-timer because 2019 is slipping away and a lot of energy issues have to be solved.

      Putin upped the ante barring coal and oil exports to Ukraine last week placing Ukraine in a very vulnerable position come this winter. And remember, no gas transport deal at the end of this year as well.

      He is not without leverage as the EU has dragged its feet on the final approvals of the Nordstream 2 pipeline. This is a pivotal moment. Gazprom and Russia are pot-committed to the project, with it nearly complete and the EU is now trying to leave it unfinished to inflict maximum pain.

      The Ukrainian economy is collapsing. Coal production is down 8% year-over-year. Putin knows this and has Zelensky in a stranglehold.

      Angela Merkel has made no bones about how important securing gas transit through Ukraine is to getting the EU to change its policies towards Russia. And Vladimir Putin will not budge on his negotiating any new deals until Ukraine changes.

      So, all of these competing agendas are coming to a climax in the next couple of months. And off in the corner is the European Parliamentary elections in a month. And they could easily change the entire political will of the European Union.

      Euroskeptics like Matteo Salvini could finally push for ending sanctions against Russia if Putin and Zelensky bury the hatchet on some of the latest issues left behind by Poroshenko. Returning the sailors would undercut the need for the latest sanctions. Withdrawing the Ukrainian Army from the contact line in accordance with the now only symbolic Minsk II agreement would melt EU resistance to lifting sanctions.

      But, lastly, these things would allow for a nominal gas transit contract between Gazprom and Naftogaz which would end-run around the opposition to Nordstream 2 as Merkel tells her people and Denmark to stand down on the final permits.

      Lots of ifs, I know. But that’s the path in front of Zelensky if he’s serious about making substantive changes to the dynamic in Eastern Europe. The incalculable damage that’s been done to the region for cynical geopolitical goals can never be undone but it can stop.

    2. Ebola Doctors In Congo Are Threatening A Strike At The Worst Possible Time

      The doctors crucial to helping stop Ebola outbreaks in the Congo are threatening to go on strike indefinitely if health workers are attacked again, according to AP.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The threat comes after a Cameroon national that was working for the World Health Organization was killed last week. Dr. Richard Valery Mouzoko Kiboung of Cameroon was killed on Friday during an attack on an Ebola response command center in the eastern Congo.

      Dr. Kalima Nzanzu urged authorities to provide greater security for the Ebola response and said that he wanted residents to understand that doctors and other medical staff are there to help fight the outbreak.

      Politically, eastern Congo is a volatile area where many armed groups operate. Lack of trust in government has subverted efforts to contain Ebola since the outbreak began late last summer. Some residents falsely accuse foreigners of bringing Ebola to the area.

      Just days ago, we reported that the Ebola outbreak in the Congo was close to “becoming a global emergency”. Two weeks ago, the World Health Organization issued a statement on the ongoing Ebola outbreak in North Kivu and Ituri provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

      The recent spike of cases increases the threat that the deadly virus will spread to other countries and efforts must be redoubled to stop it, the WHO said last Friday after a meeting of its expert committee.

      On April 12, the WHO claimed that while the ongoing Ebola outbreak in Congo is of “deep concern” the situation does not yet warrant being declared a global emergency.

      Here are a few concerning excerpts from the statement:

      However, the Committee wished to express their deep concern about the recent increase in transmission in specific areas, and therefore the potential risk of spread to neighbouring countries.

      Special emphasis should be placed on addressing the rise in case numbers in the remaining epicentres, notably Butembo, Katwa, Vuhovi, and Mandima.

      Because there is a very high risk of regional spread, neighbouring countries should continue to accelerate current preparedness and surveillance efforts, including vaccination of health care workers and front-line workers in surrounding countries.

      Cross-border collaboration should continue to be strengthened, including timely sharing of data and alerts, cross-border community engagement and awareness raising. In addition, work should be done to better map population movements and understand social networks bridging national boundaries.

      The Committee maintains its previous advice that it is particularly important that no international travel or trade restrictions should be applied. Exit screening, including at airports, ports, and land crossings, is of great importance; however, entry screening, particularly in distant airports, is not considered to be of any public health or cost-benefit value. (source)

      The outbreak has become the second-deadliest in history, behind the West African one from 2014-16 that killed more than 11,300 people. As of April 15, the outbreak has claimed 821 lives. The total case number is 1273. Unfortunately, both numbers are soaring, and experts say it is not even close to ending.

    3. 'The Satanic Temple' Has Evolved Into An Anti-Trump Movement, And Leftists Are Flocking To It

      Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

      The Satanic Temple is the perfect religion for progressives.  You can believe anything you want, as long as you hate what Donald Trump, Christians and conservatives believe.  Unlike the Church of Satan, the Satanic Temple doesn’t even believe in a supernatural entity called Satan.  Instead, they celebrate Satan as “the ultimate rebel”, and they relish in using the symbol of Satan to greatly upset Christians.  The Satanic Temple was founded in 2013, and from the very beginning it was clear that they were primarily a political movement.  In fact, they openly tell prospective members that the only real requirement for joining is to believe “in the political and secular actions” of the group

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “If there’s a local chapter where you are, to join you do have to be accepted, but there’s no initiation or anything. You don’t even have to be a Satanist, you can just be a strong ally who believes in the political and secular actionswithout being super stoked about all the aesthetic aspects.”

      Previously, Satanism in America had always been a shadowy underground movement, but the Satanic Temple has changed all that.

      Instead of avoiding the public eye, they believe that their rebellion against conservatives and Christians “requires a level of political participation”

      ‘Traditionally, Satanists practice very privately, closed doors, black candles, black metal music, but with the Satanic philosophy being where Satanism represents rebellion against arbitrary authority, we believe it requires a level of political participation. I think that we need to go into the public sphere and announce ourselves without shame.’

      The organization grew rapidly after it was founded, but if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election that probably would have put a damper on their political activism.

      But once Donald Trump won the election, interest in the group absolutely exploded

      “The Satanic Temple attracted ‘thousands’ of new members in just the first 36 hours after the election of Donald Trump,” the group reported“The 4-year-old temple, which had a pre-Trump membership of around 50,000, has never before seen a spike in registration nearly this big.”

      “We’re definitely a resistance movement,”spokesperson and co-founder Lucien Greaves said after a speech outside the University of Colorado Boulder. “We stand in stark opposition to this idea that we must unify under a single religious banner.”

      Thanks to a favorable new documentary about the group, it is getting a lot of attention right now.

      And even many leftists that have absolutely no intention of joining the Satanic Temple are saying very positive things about the organization.  For example, the following comes from a Huffington Post article entitled “Satan Is Having A Moment”

      Satanists, it turns out, are everything you think they’re not: patriotic, charitable, ethical, equality-minded, dedicated to picking up litter with pitchforks on an Arizona highway.

      That much is clear in the fantastic new documentary “Hail Satan?” — which chronicles the rise of the Satanic Temple, a movement that has little to do with its titular demon. Founded in 2013, the organization is equal parts modern-day religion, political activist coalition and meta cultural revolution. By reclaiming the pop iconography that has long frightened evangelical America ― devil worship, ritualistic sacrifice, horns, pentagrams, the so-called Black Mass ― the Satanic Temple aims to catch people’s attention and then surprise them with messages of free speech, compassion, liberty and justice for all.

      Positive articles like that make members of the Satanic Temple sound like civic-minded do-gooders that just want to make a positive impact on society, but the truth is that they absolutely loathe everything that conservatives and Christians stand for.

      They really hate President Trump, and they really, really hate Vice-President Pence.  Just consider what one of the co-founders of the Satanic Temple recently said about Pence

      “[President Trump] is too stupid to predict; the guy has no concept of his own limitations. The thing that makes me most comfortable with Trump is the fact that he has no vision. Mike Pence really scares me,” Lucien Greaves told The Daily Beast in an interview published on Wednesday. “Pence has a clear, theocratic vision for the United States.”

      And despite the fact that they claim that they “don’t worship Satan”, the group does celebrate the black mass, it does conduct Pentagram rituals, and it does seek to put statues of Baphomet up in prominent public locations.

      As the group continues to grow, their national influence undoubtedly will as well.

      Perhaps it is appropriate that the Satanic Temple has gained such prominence.  In our society today, we are literally locked in a battle of good vs. evil for the future of our nation, and it seems quite fitting that Satan has become a key symbol for the other side.

      To me, the Satanic Temple is more than just a little bit hypocritical.  They claim to not believe in any supernatural entities, and yet they were just granted tax-exempt status “as a church” by the Internal Revenue Service…

      The Satanic Temple has been officially recognized as a church by the Internal Revenue Service, three months after taking Sundance by storm as the subject of the documentary “Hail Satan?” According to an announcement from “Hail Satan?” distributor Magnolia Pictures, the temple is now eligible for the tax-exempt status given to other religious institutions.

      Either they are a “faith” or they are not.

      Unfortunately, I have a feeling that there is a lot more to the Satanic Temple than meets the eye.

      Just like their hero, the leaders of the Satanic Temple appear to be experts in deception, and they are leading thousands upon thousands of people down a very dark path.

    4. Preferred Pronouns Or Prison

      “He.” “She.” “They.”

      Have you ever given a moment’s thought to your everyday use of these pronouns?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      It has probably never occurred to you that those words could be misused. Or that doing so could cost you your business or your job – or even your freedom…

      Source: The Strategic Culture Foundation

    5. Next Stop On The War Train – Iran, Venezuela, Or North Korea?

      Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

      If you learn one rule about how governments function today, it should be that political leaders are usually puppets and the real decision makers are almost never out in the open. The question is, how does one know for certain that this is the case with a specific leader? His rhetoric might be compelling, he probably knows every buzzword to spark your interest, and he might even throw you some legislative scraps from the political table every once in a while to make you think that he’s going to follow through on his campaign promises, but does he actually believe in the principles he originally championed?

      The litmus test for any US president is to examine the type of people he invites into his house. Who does he surround himself with? The cabinet is the president’s constant companion and decision making team. The cabinet is looking over his shoulder and influencing everything he does. If you want to find who is pulling the strings of a president, this is a good place to start.

      Once you identify the major players in the cabinet, it’s important to discern what they want. What goals are they trying to squeeze out of a first or second term in the White House? What is the geopolitical or social trend they are creating through their influence? This should not be hard to read…

      The problem with our current president, Donald Trump, is not that he is very different from previous presidents, but that he is very similar to them in many ways. While conservatives that voted for Trump did so most of all in the hopes that he would follow through on his promise to “drain the swamp”, he has instead been actively filling the swamp with ever more slimy and parasitic creatures. Whenever one leaves the cabinet, they are replaced with another equally ghoulish character from a roster of banking elites, think tank sociopaths and globalists.

      The Mueller Report has been a highly effective distraction for both leftists and conservatives when it comes to the true loyalties of Trump. So many Americans have been obsessed with the notion of whether or not the president is controlled by a foreign power they forgot to look for the real influencers right under the roof of the White House.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The notion that Trump could still function as some kind of freedom fighter while playing 10-dimensional chess with the elitists sitting comfortably within his own decision making team is an incredibly absurd fantasy, but some people in the liberty movement still cling to this idea. Cognitive dissonance strikes when reality conflicts with what we want to see in the world, and we choose our ideal version of events over that reality.

      One great danger is that a large number of conservatives will support Trump in actions that they would have once considered contrary to their principles because they want to believe he is something he is not. This includes the potential perpetuation of long running wars based on disinformation as well as the creation of new wars built on similar lies and with ulterior motives.

      The veil on the Trump Administration is being slowly pulled away, perhaps not coincidentally at the same time that the Mueller Report circus has hit a crescendo. Only two days before the report was released Trump vetoed the “War Powers Act” passed by Congress, which removes US support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, a war that has gone utterly under-reported in the mainstream media even though death toll figures have recently been revised five times higher than originally indicated.

      Only one week after the Mueller Report, Trump has backed Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar, who is now engaged in another under-reported and bloody siege in Tripoli in and attempt to assert dominance over the country.  This is yet another event which is clearly being maneuvered by the elites in Trump’s cabinet, while at the same time the media is insinuating that Trump is acting “unilaterally” against their input.

      Constitutionally, no president is supposed to have the power to unilaterally declare war on another country, or to involve the US in such wars covertly. Congress has quietly been ceding that authority over the past several decades. One would think that if Trump was a constitutionalist, one of his first actions would be to voluntarily return constitutional powers to the form they were original intended before they were manipulated by elitist controlled politicians. But Trump rarely even mentions the word “constitution” in public, so expecting him to defend it might be a stretch.

      The underlying suspicion in Trump’s veto decision is that this is not just about Yemen, but about a war (or multiple wars) yet to be initiated. There are at least three major options on the table right now…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Iran

      Everyone knows a war with Iran is coming eventually. The CIA led coup to overthrown democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh (a nationalist) and install the Shah (Mohammed Reza Pahlevi) directly resulted in the Iranian revolution in 1979. Every US president and elitist cabinet since this event has tested the waters of public sentiment on a renewed conflict with Iran. So far they have not been able to find a rationale that the citizenry is willing to buy; either that, or they have simply been too busy perpetuating wars in other regions to get to Iran yet.

      However, under Donald Trump the elites have an opportunity, for now they have the option to launch wars without risking public blowback to their agenda. Confusing? Consider this – Trump has been painted as a conservative stalwart, a nationalist and populist extraordinaire that is vehemently anti-globalist (even though his cabinet is packed with elites and globalists). As a puppet president, Trump is a perfect weapon. The establishment can now launch wars without being forced to construct ANY elaborate rationale, and then they can simply blame the resulting disasters on “populism” and conservatives in general.

      Perhaps this is why tensions with Iran are now skyrocketing as the US reasserts stifling sanctions and declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The US is also set to end all waivers for Iranian oil exports and is threatening economic retaliation against countries that ignore sanctions. This is expected to cause gasoline prices to spike even higher in the near term.

      Iran has responded by declaring the US a state sponsor of terrorism, and is threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which is one of the most important avenues for oil shipping in the world. I would also note that many European nations are not on board with higher oil prices and are seeking ways to circumvent sanctions against Iran.

      The effort to foment war with Iran has been spearheaded primarily by former Director of the CIA and current Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, along with CFR member John Bolton. They have insinuated that if Iran moves to block the Strait of Hormuz, war will result.

      Venezuela

      I have written extensively on the Venezuela situation in the past, including in my recent article ‘Is Venezuela On The Verge Of Becoming Another Syria?’ To summarize, Venezuela was already near collapse due to foolish socialist policies, but the elites have decided to help the South American country along with sanctions as well as the initiation of a coup using Juan Guaido as a frontman. Currently, Guaido has entered Venezuela under the protection of the US, and is openly fomenting revolution against Nicolas Madruro.

      The Venezuela conflict seems to be headed up by Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton. Bolton has indicated numerous times that the military option is on the table for the region if Madruro refuses to step down and relinquish power, or if he dares to arrest Guaido.

      A Venezuela scenario interests me greatly for a number of reason, but primarily because it matches up perfectly with a scenario described in ‘Operation Garden Plot’, a secret continuity of government and martial law program exposed during the Iran/Contra Hearings in the 1980’s. Garden Plot outlines that a crisis in South or Central America followed by mass migrations north to the US border would be a useful crisis and a valid excuse to trigger martial law measures in America, starting first on the border and then spreading from there. Isn’t this the situation we are staring to see today on the border?

      A war in Venezuela, either through a coup or through direct US military action would amplify current unstable conditions to a maximum.

      North Korea

      It should come as no surprise to anyone that the “diplomatic negotiations” with North Korea have ended in shambles.  Trump’s highly publicized walk out during the last summit was even praised by the likes of Joe Biden. NK is now threatening to return to missile and nuclear tests and cut off future summits if the US does not back off of sanctions by the end of this year.

      The current state of devolving affairs with North Korea was highly predictable, though the amount of time it took for the farce to become widely evident was certainly longer than I expected. As I’ve been warning for months, there was never any intention on the part of the Trump Administration and its elitist handlers to secure a legitimate deal with North Korea, and the idea that NK would EVER denuke was ludicrous from the start.

      The kabuki theater was designed as a means to solidify Trump’s base and lure the liberty movement into the neo-con fold.  At the same time, it has staged the Trump Administration for an epic negotiations disaster in the near future.  “So close, and you blew it…”, the media pundits will say.    

      North Korea is still engaging in summit negotiations, not with the US, but with Russia and Vladimir Putin. The result will likely be the exact opposite of what the mainstream media has been suggesting (i.e. renewed efforts to denuke). I suspect that this will only hasten North Korea’s break from peace talks with the West, just as Turkey’s negotiations with Putin have only hasted their departure from NATO.  

      The question is, if NK begins missile and nuclear tests again at the end of this year, as they seem to be threatening to do, will this be used as an excuse for a war in the region? And, is this the next stage in the scripted globalist narrative in which Trump is a “bumbling populist villain” destined to lead the nation to economic and geopolitical ruin…?

      War As A Catalyst For Centralization

      The purpose behind regional and global conflicts should be obvious, but for some reason the motives seem to escape many people, perhaps because they are so easily caught up in false paradigms.

      Almost every war of the past century has been followed by further centralization of government power and the creation of globalist institutions which continually argue for the end of national sovereignty as THE SOLUTION to end all war.  Considering the fact that all modern wars are banker engineered wars, I would suggest that forcibly and permanently removing organized sociopathic elites from positions of power and influence is the only long term solution for ending war.

      War is not just “a racket” as Smedley Butler decried; war is also a useful tool for molding mass psychology.  However, I want to remind everyone that not all globalist schemes succeed; many of them fail spectacularly.  The covert destabilization of Syria and the attempt to lure the American public into supporting a military invasion to remove president Bashar al-Assad from power was initiated over 7 years ago and has ended with dismal results for the establishment cabal.  Not only did they fail to convince Americans that CIA trained Syrian insurgents were “heroic freedom fighters” (the same insurgents that eventually formed ISIS), they also failed to convince the public and US military members that going to war in the region to unseat Assad was a rational option.  The only success in Syria, I suppose, is that no one in intelligence agencies or politics has yet been punished for their covert training, arming and funding of terrorist groups.

      The globalists are not omnipotent.  They often misjudge and underestimate the public.  Their extreme narcissism is one of their greatest weaknesses, and it is a weakness they can do nothing about; they are stuck with it and they are oblivious to it at the same time.  The key to stopping new wars today rests in the hands of conservatives, for it will be in our name that the next wars will be launched.  We must not allow this, let alone support it.  Regardless of what part of the world the next regional conflagration emerges, regardless if it is led by the Trump Administration, it is up to us to say no, expose the agenda and shut the farce down, just as we monkey-wrenched elitist plans in Syria.  It can be done.

      *  *  *

      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.

    6. Who Is Running For President In 2020 (So Far)?

      The number of candidates for the U.S. Democratic presidential primaries in 2020 rose to 19 this week, with former vice president Joe Biden making his long-expected announcement.

      Infographic: 19 Democrats Have Announced Presidential Bids  | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      Among the field of candidates are nine sitting members of Congress, six women and also six minority candidates. Other bids came from former and current mayors, former Congressmen, a governor, an entrepreneur and a self-help author who has been called Oprah’s spiritual adviser.

      Some candidates had decided to form what is called an exploratory committee ahead of a proper campaign announcement, but all of them have since announced a full-fledged run for president.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      There are two candidates for the Republican primaries so far: the current president of the United States, Donald Trump and former governor of Massachusetts, William Weld. Trump filed for a 2020 run on Jan 20, 2017, the day of his inauguration, according to the Federal Election Commission. Weld had previously been associated with the Libertarian party, but changed his affiliation back to Republican ahead of his campaign announcement and filing with the FEC on April 1.

    7. Johnson: Special Counsel Mueller – Disingenuous And Dishonest

      Authored by Larry Johnson via Sic Temper Tyrannis blog,

      While President Trump is correct to celebrate the Mueller Report’s conclusion that no one on Trump’s side of the ledger attempted to or succeeded in collaborating or colluding with the Russian Government or Russian spies, there remains a dark cloud behind the silver lining. And I am not referring to the claims of alleged obstruction of justice.  A careful reading of the report reveals that Mueller has issued findings that are both disingenuous and dishonest. The report is a failed hatchet job. Part of the failure can be attributed to the amount of material that Attorney General Barr allowed to be released. It appears that Bill Barr’s light editing may have been intended to expose the bias and sloppiness of Mueller and his team.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Let us start with the case of trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. If you were to believe that the Steele Dossier accurately reported Vladimir Putin’s attitude towards Trump, then a Trump real estate deal in Moscow was a slam dunk. According to one of Steele’s breathless reports:

      The Kremlin’s cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business deals in Russia, especially in  relation  to  the  ongoing  2018 World Cup soccer tournament. How ever, so far, for reasons unknown, TRUMP had not taken up any of these.

      Then there is reality. The impetus, the encouragement for the Moscow project came from one man–Felix Sater

      In the late summer of2015, the Trump Organization received a new inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow. In approximately September 2015, Felix Sater . . . contacted Cohen on behalf of I.C. Expert Investment Company (I.C. Expert), a Russian real-estate development corporation controlled by Andrei Vladimirovich Rozov.J07 Sater had known Rozov since approximately 2007 and, in 2014, had served as an agent on behalf of Rozov during Rozov’s purchase of a building in New York City.30S Sater later contacted Rozov and proposed that I.C. Expert pursue a Trump Tower Moscow project in which I.C. Expert would license the name and brand from the Trump Organization but construct the building on its own. Sater worked on the deal with Rozov and another employee of I.C. Expert. (see page 69 of the Mueller Report).

      To reiterate–if the Steele Dossier was based on truthful intelligence then the Trump organization only had to sit back, stretch out their hands and seize the moment. Instead, little Felix Sater keeps coming back to the well. In January 2016, according to the Mueller report.

      Sater then sent a draft invitation for Cohen to visit Moscow to discuss the Trump Moscow project,along with a note to “[t]ell me if the letter is good as amended by me or  make whatever changes you want and send it back to me.”

      After a further round of edits, on January 25, 2016, Sater sent Cohen an invitation- signed by Andrey Ryabinskiy of the company MHJ-to travel to”Moscow for a working visit” about the “prospects of development and the construction business in Russia,” “the various land plots available suited for construction of this enormous Tower,” and “the opportunity to co-ordinate a follow up visit to Moscow by Mr. Donald Trump.

      This produced nothing. No deal, no trip. But Sater persisted:

      Beginning in late 2015, Sater repeatedly tried to arrange for Cohen and candidate Trump, as representatives of the Trump Organization, to travel to Russia to meet with Russian government officials and possible financing partners. . . .

      Into the spring of 2016, Sater and Cohen continued to discuss a trip to Moscow in connection with the Trump Moscow project. On April 20, 2016, Sater wrote Cohen, ” [t)he People wanted to know when you are coming?,,

      On May 4, 2016, Sater followed up:

      “I had a chat with Moscow. ASSUMING the trip does happen the question is before or after the convention. I said I believe, but don’t know for sure, that’s it’s probably after the convention. Obviously the pre-meeting trip (you only) can happen anytime you want but he 2 big guys where [sic) the question. I said I would confirm and revert.”

      On May 5, 2016, Sater wrote to Cohen:

      “Peskov would like to invite you as his guest to the St. Petersburg Forum which is Russia’s Davos it’s June 16-19. He wants to meet there with you and possibly introduce you to either Putin or Medvedev, as they are not sure if 1 or both will be there. This is perfect. The entire business class of Russia will be there as well.” 

      On June 14, 2016, Cohen met Sater in the lobby of the Trump Tower in New York and informed him that he would not be traveling at that time.

      Why was Felix Sater the one repeatedly identified pushing to arrange deals with the Russians and yet did not face any subsequent charges by the Mueller team? Sater had been working as part of the Trump team since 2003. Why is it that the proposed deals and travel to Moscow came predominantly from Felix Sater? As I noted in my previous piece–The FBI Tried and Failed to Entrap Trump–Sater was an active FBI undercover informant. He had been working with the FBI since 1998. When he agreed to start working as an undercover informant aka cooperator in December 1998 guess who signed off on the deal? Andrew Weissman. You can see the deal here. It was signed 10 December 1998.

      An honest prosecutor would have and should have disclosed this fact. He, Sater, was the one encouraging the Trump team to cozy up to Russia. Mueller does not disclose one single instance of Trump or Cohen or any of the Trump kids calling Sater on the carpet and chewing his ass for not bringing them deals and not opening doors in Russia. Omitting this key fact goes beyond simple disingenuity. It is a conscious lie.

      The circumstantial evidence indicates that Sater was doing this at the behest of FBI handlers. We do not yet know who they are.

      But Sater’s behavior and status as an FBI Informant was not an isolated incident. We also have the case of Michael Caputo and Roger Stone being approached by a Russian gangster named Henry Greenberg. According to democratdossier.com:

      Greenberg’s birth name is Gennady Vasilievich Vostretsov, the son of Yekatrina Vostretsova and Vasliy Vostretsov. He later adopted new names twice as a result of two different marriages and became Gennady V. Arzhanik and later Henry Oknyansky. Henry Greenberg is not a legal alias, but he uses it quite commonly in recent years.

      But you would not know this from reading the Mueller report. Mr. Disingenuous strikes again:

      In the spring of 2016, Trump Campaign advisor Michael Caputo learned through a Florida-based Russian business partner that another Florida-based Russian, Henry Oknyansky (who also went by the name Henry Greenberg), claimed to have information pertaining to Hillary Clinton . Caputo notified Roger Stone and brokered communication between Stone and Oknyansky.

      Oknyansky and Stone set up a May 2016 in-person meeting.260 Oknyansky was accompanied to the meeting by Alexei Rasin, a Ukrainian associate involved in Florida real estate. At the meeting, Rasin offered to sell Stone derogatory information on Clinton that Rasin claimed to have obtained while working for Clinton. Rasin claimed to possess financial statements demonstrating Clinton’s involvement in money laundering with Rasin’s companies. According to Oknyansky, Stone asked if the amounts in question totaled millions of dollars but was told it was closer to hundreds of thousands. Stone refused the offer, stating that Trump would not pay for opposition research.

      How does a guy like Vorkretsov/Greenberg, with an extensive criminal record and circumstantial ties to the Russian mob gain entrance into the United States? Very simple answer. He too was an FBI informant:

      In an affidavit, Vostretsov explained to an immigration judge he worked for the FBI for 17 years throughout the world, including in the US, Iran and North Korea. He explained in the same paperwork the FBI granted him several temporary visas to visit the US in exchange for information about criminal activities.

      Please take time to read the full dossier at democrat dossier.

      This is more than an odd coincidence. This is a pattern. The FBI was targeting the Trump campaign and personnel in a deliberate effort to implicate them in wanting to work with Russians.

      And there is more. George Papodopoulus was entrapped by individuals linked to British MI-6 and the CIA with offers to provide meetings with Russians and Putin. The Mueller account is a lie:

      In late April 2016, Papadopoulos was told by London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, immediately after Mifsud ‘s return from a trip to Moscow, that the Russian government had obtained “dirt” on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later, on May 6, 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to candidate Clinton.

      Papadopoulos shared information about Russian “dirt ” with people outside of the Campaign, and the Office investigated whether he also provided it to a Campaign official. Papadopoulos and the Campaign officials with whom he interacted told the Office that they did · not recall that Papadopoulos passed them the information. Throughout the relevant period of time and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. That meeting never came to pass.

      Once again, the Mueller team treats the provocateur–i.e., Joseph Mifsud–as some simple guy with ties to Russia’s political elites. Another egregious lie. Mifsud was not working on behalf of Russia. He was deployed by MI-6. Disobedient Media has been on the forefront of exposing Mifsud’s ties to western intelligence in general and the Brits in particular.

      Mifsud’s alleged links to Russian intelligence are summarily debunked by his close working relationship with Claire Smith, a major figure in the upper echelons of British intelligence. A number of Twitter users recently observed that Joseph Mifsud had been photographed standing next to Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee at Mifsud’s LINK campus in Rome. Newsmax and Buzzfeed later reported that the professor’s name and biography had been removed from the campus’ website, writing that the mysterious removal took place after Mifsud had served the institution for “years.”

      WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange likewise noted the connection between Mifsud and Smith in a Twitter thread, additionally pointing out his connections with Saudi intelligence: “[Mifsud] and Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and eight-year member of the UK Security Vetting panel both trained Italian security services at the Link University in Rome and appear to both be present in this [photo].”

      The photograph in question originated on Geodiplomatics.com, where it specified that Joseph Mifsud is indeed standing next to Claire Smith, who was attending a: “…Training program on International Security which was organised by Link Campus University and London Academy of Diplomacy.” The event is listed as taking place in October, 2012. This is highly significant for a number of reasons.

      This is not a meer matter of Mueller and his team “failing” to disclose some important facts.  If they were operating honestly they should have investigated Mifsud, Greenberg and Sater. But they did not. Two of the three–Sater and Greenber–alleged Russian stooges have ties to the FBI. And Mifsud has been living and working in the belly of the intelligence community.

      When you put these facts together it is clear that there is real meat on the bone for Barr’s upcoming investigation of the “spying” that was being done on the Trump campaign by law enforcement and intelligence. These facts must become a part of the public consciousness. The foreign country that worked feverishly to meddle in the 2016 Presidential election and the subsequent rule of Donald Trump is the United Kingdom. Russia is the patsy.

    8. New York's "Green New Deal" To Phase Out Red Meat By 50%

      New York City’s recently-approved “Green New Deal” (not to be confused with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s environmental wish-list) will slash the amount of red meat served in municipally-run facilities by half in order to combat climate change, according to Breitbarts Josh Caplan. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The $14 billion “Green New Deal” will phase out purchases of processed meats in city-run schools, hospitals and correctional facilities by 2040, amid an overall cut in purchases of 50 percent. New York would be the first city in the world to adopt such a policy, and was announced after New York Schools adopted “Meatless Monday” in an effort to encourage the consumption of less meat. 

      Chloe Waterman, who serves as Program Manager for the Climate-Friendly Food Program at Friends of the Earth, said of De Blasio’s proposal in a statement: “New York City is strengthening its climate leadership by acknowledging the importance of slashing consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions associated with factory farmed meat. Eliminating processed meat and cutting red meat purchases will pay dividends for the health of future generations and the planet.” –Breitbart

      “We applaud Mayor de Blasio, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, and all of the advocates who made today’s announcement possible. We hope other cities will soon follow suit, said Waterman.

      De Blasio (D) said on Monday during the Green New Deal announcement on Monday that he also plans to introduce a bill banning the construction of glass skyscrapers in an effort to reduce citywide greenhouse emissions by 30%. 

      “We are going to ban the classic glass and steel skyscrapers, which are incredibly inefficient,” said the Mayor on MSNBC‘s ‘Morning Joe’ Monday morning. 

      At one point during that press conference, Mark Chambers, director of the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, chimed in to clarify that there would be no prohibition on buildings made from glass. “I want to call out that it doesn’t mean that buildings can’t use glass anymore,” he said. And the mayor himself followed the “ban” language with a less bold proclamation.

      “If a company wants to build a big skyscraper,” he said, “they can use a lot of glass if they do all the other things needed to reduce the emissions.” In other words, skyscrapers made out of glass and steel will not be banned; instead, they will be required to meet certain energy-efficiency standards. –Curbed

      As part of the Green New Deal, New York will power all of the city’s operations with energy generated from clean sources, such as Canadian hydropower. The city is also rolling out the mandatory recycling of organics, congestion traffic pricing, and phasing out city-wide purchases of single-use plastic utensils. 

      The so-called “Green New Deal” – or Climate Mobilization Act, was passed last Thursday in a 45-2 vote. 

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 25th April 2019

    • "Slide Into Chaos": 30,000 Displaced, 300 Dead And 1,200 Wounded In Libya Fighting

      African leaders met in Egypt on Tuesday in a summit addressing continuing violence and dramatic political upheavals in neighboring Libya and Sudan, with Egypt’s President Sisi calling for a unified regional response in order avoid “a slide into chaos”.

      This as since early April fighting around Tripoli between Gen. Khalifa Haftar’s advancing Libyan National Army (LNA) and the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) has resulted in 264+ deaths, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), and some 1,266 people wounded, with 21 among the deceased civilians.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Image source: Reuters

      Some media reports have cited as many as 300 killed in the violence. The United Nations has put the number of displaced due to Haftar’s offensive on the capital at more than 30,000 civilians.

      Meanwhile in Sudan fierce protests have continue in Khartoum despite the toppling of longtime strongman Omar al-Bashir, resulting in unpopular rule by military council with emergency powers. “The principle of African solutions to African problems is the only way to deal with common challenges facing us,” Sisi said in opening remarks to the summit.

      Concerning Libya, Sisi’s fear’s of a “slide into chaos” — which has actually long been a reality all the way back to the 2011 NATO-led toppling of Muammar Gaddafi — will be viewed as largely hypocritical considering Sisi is among Gen. Haftar’s main backers.

      This week intense fighting has continued in the southern suburbs of Tripoli, with shelling disrupting daily life in the city’s center. Reuters reports

      Forces supporting Libya’s internationally recognized government pushed back troops loyal to eastern commander Khalifa Haftar to more than 60 km southwest of the capital Tripoli on Tuesday, Reuters reporters said.

      The town of Aziziya was fully under the control of the Tripoli forces, with shops reopening after days of fighting, a Reuters team at the scene said.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Egypt’s Abdel Fattah El Sisi and intelligence chief Abbas Kamel (right) meeting Libyan commander Khalifa Haftar (left) at the presidential Palace in Cairo on April 14, 2019. Image source: Egyptian Presidency/AFP

      However, it appears things could settle into a protracted war and stalemate, as the bulk of pro-Haftar militants have been halted in their push to take the capital, which has included Haftar deploying MiG jet fighters in his arsenal. 

      Meanwhile, EU officials have this week urged President Trump to reverse last week’s surprise declaration of US support for Haftar’s LNA. European officials have further demanded greater clarity of the United States’ position on Libya, saying Washington’s policy confusion will only add fuel to the chaos, similar to recent contradictory US statements on Syria. 

    • The Burning Of Notre Dame And The Destruction Of Christian Europe

      Authored by Guy Milliere via The Gatestone Institute,

      • Barely an hour after the flames began to rise above Notre Dame — at a time when no explanation could be provided by anyone — the French authorities rushed to say that the fire was an “accident” and that “arson has been ruled out.” The remarks sounded like all the official statements made by the French government after attacks in France during the last decade.

      • The Notre Dame fire also occurred at a time when attacks against churches in France and Europe have been multiplying. More than 800 churches were attacked in France during the year 2018 alone.

      • Churches in France are empty. The number of priests is decreasing and the priests that are active in France are either very old or come from Africa or Latin America. The dominant religion in France is now Islam. Every year, churches are demolished to make way for parking lots or shopping centers. Mosques are being built all over, and they are full.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The fire that destroyed much of the Notre Dame Cathedral in the heart of Paris is a tragedy that is irreparable. Even if the cathedral is rebuilt, it will never be what it was before. (Photo by Veronique de Viguerie/Getty Images)

      The fire that destroyed much of the Notre Dame Cathedral in the heart of Paris is a tragedy that is irreparable. Even if the cathedral is rebuilt, it will never be what it was before. Stained glass windows and major architectural elements have been severely damaged and the oak frame totally destroyed. The spire that rose from the cathedral was a unique piece of art. It was drawn by the architect who restored the edifice in the nineteenth century, Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, who had based his work on 12th century documents.

      In addition to the fire, the water needed to extinguish the flames penetrated the limestone of the walls and façade, and weakened them, making them brittle. The roof is non-existent: the nave, the transept and the choir now lie in open air, vulnerable to bad weather. They cannot even be protected until the structure has been examined thoroughly, a task that will take weeks. Three major elements of the structure (the north transept pinion, the pinion located between the two towers and the vault) are also on the verge of collapse.

      Notre Dame is more than 800 years old. It survived the turbulence of the Middle Ages, the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, two World Wars and the Nazi occupation of Paris. It did not survive what France is becoming in the 21st century.

      The cause of the fire has so far been attributed to “an accident,” “a short circuit,” and most recently “a computer glitch.”

      If the fire really was an accident, it is almost impossible to explain how it started. Benjamin Mouton, Notre Dame’s former chief architect, explained that the rules were exceptionally strict and that no electric cable or appliance, and no source of heat, could be placed in the attic. He added that an extremely sophisticated alarm system was in place. The company that installed the scaffolding did not use any welding and specialized in this type of work. The fire broke out more than an hour after the workers’ departure and none of them was present. It spread so quickly that the firefighters who rushed to the spot as soon as they could get there were shocked. Remi Fromont, the chief architect of the French Historical Monuments said: “The fire could not start from any element present where it started. A real calorific load is necessary to launch such a disaster”.

      A long, difficult and complex investigation will be conducted.

      The possibility that the fire was the result of arson cannot be dismissed. Barely an hour after the flames began to rise above Notre Dame — at a time when no explanation could be provided by anyone — the French authorities rushed to say that the fire was an “accident” and that “arson has been ruled out.” The remarks sounded like all the official statements made by the French government after attacks in France during the last decade.

      In November 2015, on the night of the massacre at the Bataclan Theater in Paris, in which jihadists murdered 90 people, the French Department of the Interior said that the government did not know anything, except that a gunfight had occurred. The truth came out only after ISIS claimed responsibility for the slaughter.

      In Nice, after the truck-attack in July 2016, the French government insisted for several days that the terrorist who crushed 86 people to death was a “man with a nervous breakdown“.

      In 2018, Sarah Halimi’s murderer, who recited verses from the Quran while torturing his victim, was declared “mentally disturbed” and held in a psychiatric institution immediately after his arrest. He will most likely never face a court. On April 8, Alain Finkielkraut and 38 other intellectuals published a text saying that her murderer must not escape justice. The text had no effect.

      The fire at Notre Dame took place less than three years after a “commando unit” of jihadi women, later arrested, tried to destroy the cathedral by detonating cylinders of natural gas. Three days before last week’s fire, on April 12, the leader of the jihadis, Ines Madani, a young French convert to Islam, was sentenced to eight years in prison for creating a terrorist group affiliated with the Islamic State.

      The Notre Dame fire also occurred at a time when attacks against churches in France and Europe have been multiplying. More than 800 churches were attackedin France during the year 2018 alone. Many suffered serious damage: broken, beheaded statues, smashed tabernacles, feces thrown on the walls. In several churches, fires were lit. On March 5, the Basilica of St. Denis, where all but three of the Kings of France are buried, was vandalized by a Pakistani refugee. Several stained-glass windows were broken, and the basilica’s organ, a national treasure built between 1834 and 1841, was nearly wrecked. Twelve days later, on March 17, a fire broke out at Saint Sulpice, the largest church in Paris, causing serious damage. After days of silence, the police finally admitted that the cause had been arson.

      For months, jihadist organizations have been issuing statements calling for the destruction of churches and Christian monuments in Europe. Notre Dame was repeatedly named as a primary target. Despite all that, the Cathedral was not adequately protected. A couple of young men, who entered the Cathedral at night, climbed on the roof last November and shot a video that they then put on YouTube.

      Many messages were posted by people with Muslim names on social media — Twitter, Facebook, the website of Al Jazeera — expressing a joy to see an important Christian symbol destroyed. Hafsa Askar, a migrant from Morocco and the vice president of the National Union of Students of France (UNEF), the main student organization in France, published a tweet saying, “People are crying on little pieces of wood… it’s a delusion of white trash”.

      French President Emmanuel Macron, who had never even mentioned the attacks on Saint Denis or Saint Sulpice, quickly went to Notre Dame and declared, “Notre Dame is our history, our literature, our imagination”. He totally left out cathedral’s religious dimension.

      The next evening, he said that Notre Dame would be rebuilt in five years: it was a bold statement. Many commentators interpreted his words as dictated by his will desperately to try to regain the confidence of the French people after five monthsof demonstrations, riots and destruction stemming from his ineffective handling of the “Yellow Vests” uprising. (On March 16, much of the Champs-Élysées was damaged by rioters; repairs have barely begun.) All experts agree that it will almost certainly take far longer than five years to rebuild Notre Dame.

      Macron strangely added that the cathedral would be “more beautiful” than before — as if a badly damaged monument could be more beautiful after restoration. Macron went on to say that the reconstruction would be a “contemporary architectural gesture”. The remark raised concern, if not panic, among defenders of historic monuments, who now fear that he may want to ​​add modern architectural elements to a jewel of Gothic architecture. Again, he totally left out the cathedral’s religious dimension.

      Macron’s attitude is not surprising. From the moment he became president, he has kept himself away from any Christian ceremony. Most of the presidents who preceded him did the same. France is a country where a dogmatic secularismreigns supreme. A political leader who dares to call himself a Christian is immediately criticized in the media and can only harm a budding political career. Nathalie Loiseau — the former director of France’s National School of Administration and the leading candidate on the electoral list of Macron’s party, “Republic on the Move,” for the May 2019 European Parliament elections — was recently photographed exiting a church after mass, which led to a media debate on whether her church attendance is a “problem.”

      The results of French secularism are visible. Christianity has been almost completely wiped out from public life. Churches are empty. The number of priests is decreasing and the priests that are active in France are either very old or come from Africa or Latin America. The dominant religion in France is now Islam. Every year, churches are demolished to make way for parking lots or shopping centers. Mosques are being built all over, and they are full. Radical imams proselytize. The murder, three years ago, of Jacques Hamel, an 85-year-old priest who was slaughtered by two Islamists while he was saying mass in a church where only five people (three of them old nuns) were present, is telling.

      In 1905, the French parliament passed a law decreeing that all the properties of the Catholic Church in France were confiscated. Churches and cathedrals became property of the State. Since then, successive governments have spent little money to maintain them. Those churches that have not been vandalized are in poor condition, and most cathedrals are in poor condition, too. Even before the devastating fire, the Archdiocese of Paris stated that “it can’t afford all the repairs” that Notre Dame needed, “estimated at $185 million.” According to CBS News, in a March 20, 2018 report:

      “The French government, which owns the cathedral, has pledged around $50 million over the next decade, leaving a bill of $135 million. To raise the rest, Picaud helped launch the Friends of Notre-Dame of Paris Foundation. It works to find private donors both in France and across the Atlantic.

      “‘We know Americans are wealthy, so we go where we think we can find money to help restore the cathedral,’ Picaud said.”

      On the evening of the fire at Notre Dame, hundreds of French people gathered in front of the burning cathedral to sing Psalms and pray. They seemed suddenly to understand that they were losing something immensely precious.

      Following the fire, the French government decided to start collecting donationsfrom private individuals, businesses and organizations for reconstruction; more than one billion euros have poured in. French billionaires promised to pay large sums: the Pinault family (the main owners of the retail conglomerate Kering) promised 100 million euros, the Arnault family (owners of LVMH, the world’s largest luxury-goods company), 200 million euros, the Bettencourt family (owners of L’Oréal), also 200 million. Many on the French “left” immediately said that wealthy families had too much money, and that these millions would be better used helping the poor than taking care of old stones.

      For the foreseeable future, the heart of Paris will bear the terrible scars of a fire that devastated far more than a cathedral. The fire destroyed an essential part of what is left of the almost-lost soul of France and what France could accomplish when the French believed in something higher than their own day-to-day existence.

      Some hope that the sight of the destroyed cathedral will inspire many French people to follow the example of those who prayed on the night of the disaster. Michel Aupetit, Archbishop of Paris, said on April 17, two days after the fire, that he was sure France would know a “spiritual awakening”.

      Others, not as optimistic, see in the ashes of the cathedral a symbol of the destruction of Christianity in France. The art historian Jean Clair said that he sees in the destruction of Notre Dame an additional sign of an “irreversible decadence” of France, and of the final collapse of the Judeo-Christian roots of Europe.

      An American columnist, Dennis Prager, wrote:

      “The symbolism of the burning of Notre Dame Cathedral, the most renowned building in Western civilization, the iconic symbol of Western Christendom, is hard to miss.

      “It is as if God Himself wanted to warn us in the most unmistakable way that Western Christianity is burning — and with it, Western civilization.”

      Another American author, Rod Dreher, noted:

      “This catastrophe in Paris today is a sign to all of us Christians, and a sign to all people in the West, especially those who despise the civilization that built this great temple to its God on an island in the Seine where religious rites have been celebrated since the days of pagan Rome. It is a sign of what we are losing, and what we will not recover, if we don’t change course now.”

      For the moment, nothing indicates that France and Western Europe will change course.

    • UK Borrowing Surpasses Most Other Countries

      The rate at which UK institutions, households and businesses are borrowing money is greater than that of all other OECD countries.

      This fact is alarming some economists not only because the rate of UK borrowing is high against the country’s GDP, but, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz points out, it also because households, business and state coffers are running a deficit simultaneously for the first time since the 1980s.

      Infographic: UK Borrowing Surpasses Most Other Countries | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      Yet, a lot of the of the money borrowed is going into the housing market that is currently booming in the UK, therefore potentially creating valuable assets for citizens in the future. The same is true for the state, with some economists claiming investment in the future to be more important than a positive net lending score, according to reporting by the Financial Times.

      The opposite of this attitude can be observed in OECD countries like Germany, where the government is among those pursuing a radically different borrowing strategy aimed at reducing debt. The country with the lowest borrowing rate in the OECD was Ireland.

      Not included in the data by the OECD are overseas investments by Britons as well as foreigners’ financial business in the UK. Here, another troublesome statistic emerges. While the UK had been running a net profit for overseas lending and borrowing in the past, the situation has reversed since the financial crisis.

    • Pepe Escobar: War On Iran & Calling America's Bluff

      Authored by Pepe Escobar via ConsortiumNews.com,

      Vast swathes of the West seem not to realize that if the Strait of Hormuz is shut down a global depression will follow…

      The Trump administration once again has graphically demonstrated that in the young, turbulent 21st century, “international law” and “national sovereignty” already belong to the Realm of the Walking Dead.

      As if a deluge of sanctions against a great deal of the planet was not enough, the latest “offer you can’t refuse” conveyed by a gangster posing as diplomat, Consul Minimus Mike Pompeo, now essentially orders the whole planet to submit to the one and only arbiter of world trade: Washington.

      First the Trump administration unilaterally smashed a multinational, UN-endorsed agreement, the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal. Now the waivers that magnanimously allowed eight nations to import oil from Iran without incurring imperial wrath in the form of sanctions will expire on May 2 and won’t be renewed.

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

      The eight nations are a mix of Eurasian powers: China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Italy and Greece.

      Apart from the trademark toxic cocktail of hubris, illegality, arrogance/ignorance and geopolitical/geoeconomic infantilism inbuilt in this foreign policy decision, the notion that Washington can decide who’s allowed to be an energy provider to emerging superpower China does not even qualify as laughable. Much more alarming is the fact that imposing a total embargo of Iranian oil exports is no less than an act of war.

      Ultimate Neocon Wet Dream 

      Those subscribing to the ultimate U.S, neocon and Zionist wet dream – regime change in Iran – may rejoice at this declaration of war. But as Professor Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran has elegantly argued, “If the Trump regime miscalculates, the house can easily come crashing down on its head.”

      Reflecting the fact Tehran seems to have no illusions regarding the utter folly ahead, the Iranian leadership — if provoked to a point of no return, Marandi additionally told me — can get as far as “destroying everything on the other side of the Persian Gulf and chasing the U.Sout of Iraq and Afghanistan. When the U.Sescalates, Iran escalates. Now it depends on the U.Show far things go.”

      This red alert from a sensible academic perfectly dovetails with what’s happening with the structure of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — recently branded a “terrorist organization” by the United States. In perfect symmetry, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council also branded the U.S. Central Command — CENTCOM — and “all the forces connected to it” as a terrorist group.

      The new IRGC commander-in-chief is Brigadier General Hossein Salami, 58. Since 2009 he was the deputy of previous commander Mohamamd al-Jafari, a soft spoken but tough as nails gentleman I met in Tehran two years ago. Salami, as well as Jafari, is a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war; that is, he has actual combat experience. And Tehran sources assure me that he can be even tougher than Jafari.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In tandem, IRGC Navy Commander Rear Admiral Alireza Tangsiri has evoked the unthinkable in terms of what might develop out of the U.S. total embargo on Iran oil exports; Tehran could block the Strait of Hormuz.

      Western Oblivion 

      Vast swathes of the ruling classes across the West seem to be oblivious to the reality that if Hormuz is shut down, the result will be an absolutely cataclysmic global economic depression.

      Warren Buffett, among other investors, has routinely qualified the 2.5 quadrillion derivatives market as a weapon of financial mass destruction. As it stands, these derivatives are used — illegally — to drain no less than a trillion U.S. dollars a year out of the market in manipulated profits.

      Considering historical precedents, Washington may eventually be able to set up a Persian Gulf of Tonkin false flag. But what next?

      If Tehran were totally cornered by Washington, with no way out, the de facto nuclear option of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would instantly cut off 25 percent of the global oil supply. Oil prices could rise to over $500 a barrelto even $1000 a barrel. The 2.5 quadrillion of derivatives would start a chain reaction of destruction.

      Unlike the shortage of credit during the 2008 financial crisis, the shortage of oil could not be made up by fiat instruments. Simply because the oil is not there. Not even Russia would be able to re-stabilize the market.

      It’s an open secret in private conversations at the Harvard Club – or at Pentagon war-games for that matter – that in case of a war on Iran, the U.SNavy would not be able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. 

      Russian SS-NX-26 Yakhont missiles — with a top speed of Mach 2.9  are lining up the Iranian northern shore of the Strait of Hormuz. There’s no way U.Saircraft carriers can defend a  barrage of Yakhont missiles.

      Then there are the SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missiles — already exported to China and India — flying ultra-low at 1,500 miles an hour with dodging capacity, and extremely mobile; they can be fired from a flatbed truck, and were designed to defeat the U.SAegis radar defense system.

      What Will China Do?

      The full–frontal attack on Iran reveals how the Trump administration bets on breaking Eurasia integration via what would be its weakeast node; the three key nodes are China, Russia and Iran. These three actors interconnect the whole spectrum; Belt and Road Initiative; the Eurasia Economic Union; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; the International North-South Transportation Corridor; the expansion of BRICS Plus.

      So there’s no question the Russia-China strategic partnership will be watching Iran’s back. It’s no accident that the trio is among the top existential “threats” to the U.S., according to the Pentagon. Beijing knows how the U.SNavy is able to cut it off from its energy sources. And that’s why Beijing is strategically increasing imports of oil and natural gas from Russia; engineering the “escape from Malacca” also must take into account a hypothetical U.S. takeover of the Strait of Hormuz.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Night view of coast of Oman, including Strait of Hormuz. (Intl Space Station photo via Wikimedia)

      A plausible scenario involves Moscow acting to defuse the extremely volatile U.S.-Iran confrontation, with the Kremlin and the Ministry of Defense trying to persuade President Donald Trump and the Pentagon from any direct attack against the IRGC. The inevitable counterpart is the rise of covert ops, the possible staging of false flags and all manner of shady Hybrid War techniques deployed not only against the IRGC, directly and indirectly, but against Iranian interests everywhere. For all practical purposes, the U.Sand Iran are at war.

      Within the framework of the larger Eurasia break-up scenario, the Trump administration does profit from Wahhabi and Zionist psychopathic hatred of Shi’ites. The “maximum pressure” on Iran counts on Jared of Arabia Kushner’s close WhatsApp pal Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) in Riyadh and MbS’s mentor in Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Zayed, to replace the shortfall of Iranian oil in the market. Bu that’s nonsense — as quite a few wily Persian Gulf traders are adamant Riyadh won’t “absorb Iran’s market share” because the extra oil is not there.

      Much of what lies ahead in the oil embargo saga depends on the reaction of assorted vassals and semi-vassals. Japan won’t have the guts to go against Washington. Turkey will put up a fight. Italy, via Salvini, will lobby for a waiver. India is very complicated; New Delhi is investing in Iran’s Chabahar port as the key hub of its own Silk Road, and closely cooperates with Tehran within the INSTC framework. Would a shameful betrayal be in the cards?

      China, it goes without saying, will simply ignore Washington.

      Iran will find ways to get the oil flowing because the demand won’t simply vanish with a magic wave of an American hand. It’s time for creative solutions. Why not, for instance, refuel ships in international waters, accepting gold, all sorts of cash, debit cards, bank transfers in rubles, yuan, rupees and rials— and everything bookable on a website?

      Now that’s a way Iran can use its tanker fleet to make a killing. Some of the tankers could be parked in— you got it — the Strait of Hormuz, with an eye on the price at Jebel Ali in the UAE to make sure this is the real deal. Add to it a duty free for the ships crews. What’s not to like? Ship owners will save fortunes on fuel bills, and crews will get all sorts of stuff at 90 percent discount in the duty free.

      And let’s see whether the EU has grown a spine —  and really turbo-charge their Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) alternative payment network conceived after the Trump administration ditched the JCPOA. Because more than breaking up Eurasia integration and implementing neocon regime change, this is about the ultimate anathema; Iran is being mercilessly punished because it has bypassed the U.Sdollar on energy trade.

      *  *  *

      Please Make a Donation to Our Spring Fundraising Drive Today!

    • America's Hottest Housing Markets See Biggest Sale Declines 

      Given mortgage rates have plummeted and home prices aren’t appreciating fast enough, the real estate industry has transformed into a buyers market, where inventory is flooding top metropolitan areas across the US, reported Redfin.

      Home prices were slightly lower in March, falling .10% from a year ago, to a median of $295,100 across 85 metros Redfin monitors. Although this hardly reads as a decline, it’s the first y/y decrease since February 2012.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      About 10.5% or nine of the 85 metros Redfin tracks saw y/y declines in their median price in March, including a 13% plunge in San Jose and a 1% decline in San Francisco. West Coast markets are under pressure, including Los Angeles, Orange County, and Seattle recorded the largest y/y declines in the number of homes sold while more affordable markets on the East Coast saw annual sale increases.

      Redfin notes that housing market activity is shifting to less expensive regions, the slight decline in the median price last month reflects just that.

      “Homebuyers have backed off in West Coast metros where home prices have risen far out of their budgets,” said Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather. “The opposite is happening in more affordable metros where buyers are eager to buy now to take advantage of low mortgage rates. In California, where the tax burden is high, some people are finding they have to move out of state to afford to buy a home. As a result, home sales are down in metros throughout the state.”

      Home sales increased 2% y/y in March, but there was a lot of variation among the 85 metro areas. Homes sold in 37 of the 85 metros recorded declines, while 24 metros saw double-digit increases in sales compared to last year.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The report showed most of the home sale declines were situated on the West Coast and some of the biggest increases were on the East Coast:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Demand in Orange County went from “good to horrible” in late 2018 Rick Palacios, director of research at John Burns Real Estate Consulting LLC, told Bloomberg. In 4Q18, sales of new homes on the coast were the weakest since the Great Recession, he said.

      Across the 85 metros, cities that saw the weakest activity in home sales were listed at a steep premium versus the median price, indicating demand for luxury real estate has collapsed.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The number of homes for sale at the end of the month was up 3.6% from a year earlier in March. The number of homes newly listed for sale fell 2.8% from March 2018.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

       

      Redfin warns that 46 of the 85 metro areas were currently experiencing a flood of inventory in March on a y/y basis, with the largest gains coming from the West Coast: San Jose (+104.3%) and Seattle (+82.9%).

      The report shows that housing markets across the US could be at a cycle turn. Let’s hope this isn’t the start of a multi-year housing slump that could leave many millennials holding the bag in West Coast cities. 

       

    • Globalists Detail Short- And Long-Term Guidance For Further Centralisation Of Powers

      Authored by Steven Guinness,

      During this month’s Spring Meetings in Washington DC, the IMF and World Bank held their annual Development Committee conference which looked at the economic outlook and potential risks for the global economy.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As is tradition, IMF head Christine Lagarde produced a written statement outlining several areas of priority. All of them were predicated on ‘reaching the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals‘. Whilst on paper the statement is geared towards emerging and developing countries, elements of it relate notably to western nations such as the United Kingdom, despite Britain being considered an advanced economy.

      To explain, let’s first examine the stance taken on monetary policy:

      In countries with elevated inflation or where exchange rate depreciations could trigger inflation pass-through, central banks should focus on containing inflation expectations (Angola, Argentina, Iran, Turkey). By contrast, monetary policy can be more accommodative where expectations are well anchored (Brazil, Indonesia).

      In October 2018, a communique from the thirty-eighth meeting of the International Monetary and Financial Committee stated that where inflation was ‘close to or above target‘, central banks should tighten policy. On the opposite end of the scale, banks should ‘maintain monetary accommodation where inflation is below target‘.

      As we have already seen since the 2016 EU referendum, the sustained fall in the value of sterling was according to the Bank of England ‘entirely‘ responsible for a subsequent spike in inflation. Doing what very few thought they would, the BOE raised interest rates in response – the first rise in over ten years. They then followed up with a second hike nine months later, with inflation remaining above the central bank’s mandate of 2%.

      Today, inflation has fallen back to just below 2%. Little surprise then that there are no immediate signs of the BOE planning to raise rates for a third time in under two years. Leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement could quickly see that change. As I have reasoned on several occasions, I believe further depreciation of the pound amidst a no deal scenario would likely see the BOE raise interest rates rather than cut them.

      The statement goes on to mention that for central banks to combat exchange rate instability, they should fall back on their foreign exchange reserves. According to the IMF, such intervention ‘can be used to mitigate disorderly market conditions‘.

      In the 21st century, this has yet to be tested in the UK. In a series of posts I published last month which discussed the possible demise of sterling as a reserve currency, I detailed how the Bank of England’s foreign currency holdings stand close to $150 billion. In the event of a run on the pound, it is these reserves which the bank could use to purchase sterling in an attempt to stave off a collapse. The last example of the BOE doing this was on Black Wednesday in 1992. Some $15 billion was spent on interventions, which at the time amounted to around half the bank’s currency reserves.

      The IMF’s guidance on monetary policy and exchange rates are presented around policies in the short term‘. The ‘medium to longer term‘ takes in a potentially much wider breadth of economic reforms.

      As expressed by the Bank for International Settlements, short term plans for central banks are measured at one to three years, with the medium term at one to six years. We can therefore assume that plans beyond the medium term would stretch out to the ten year mark and beyond, bringing them into line with the United Nation’s Agenda 2030.

      Two key aspects for the medium to longer term include fiscal policy and the rise of Fintech (Financial Technology).

      The IMF make it clear that ‘the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals cannot be achieved‘ without ‘robust and inclusive growth‘. This is a roundabout way of saying that widescale reforms of financial and ecological systems are necessary for globalists to fulfil the objectives mapped out by the UN.

      Looking at fiscal policy first, the statement reads:

      Fiscal policy needs to generate space for priority development spending, while at the same time preserving public debt sustainability. This requires tax policies and administrative reforms that broaden the tax base and enhance revenue collection, as well as prudent debt management. Increasing the efficiency of public spending is also needed, including in priority areas such as education, health, and infrastructure.

      Back in 2017 I posted two articles that discussed the ‘normalisation‘ of monetary policy in the EU using speeches given by Bundesbank chairman and BIS director Jens Weidmann. The subject of national fiscal policies is one that Weidmann paid particular attention to. From his perspective, a future rise in interest rates would serve to place greater emphasis on the importance of ‘fiscal consolidation‘. Central bank intervention in the EU had, according to Weidmann, ‘blurred the boundary between monetary and fiscal policy‘.

      A line that has often been spoken by central banks is that they cannot forever be ‘the only game in town‘. Weidmann’s ideal scenario would see member states relinquish their fiscal autonomy (and with it suffer further inroads into their national sovereignty) by handing control of their national finances over to a centralised authority under the directorship of the EU.

      A fiscal union within the EU would represent a major advancement in the project for European integration. The first step towards the creation of the EU began in 1947 with the Paris agreement on multilateral payments. After multiple stages of centralisation spanning over forty years (for which the Bank for International Settlements played an instrumental part), 1992 saw the inception of the Maastricht Treaty which brought the EU into existence and in so doing established the Economic and Monetary Union. Six years later the European Central Bank was created, and four years on from that marked the introduction of the Euro. So far, though, a fiscal union that binds together national budgets has yet to be conceived.

      Unsurprisingly, globalists continue to call for it. In 2018 the IMF published a paperdetailing the case for a fiscal union in the Euro Area. This was followed by a short precis titled, ‘The Euro Area Needs a Fiscal Union.’

      To summarise, without a fiscal union in place, the IMF’s position is that ‘the architecture supporting Europe’s currency union remains incomplete and leaves the region vulnerable to future financial crises.’ They outline the solution as consisting of a ‘common fiscal policy‘, brought to fruition in the name of preserving ‘financial and economic integration and stability‘ and ‘sharing fiscal risk‘.

      One important aspect the precis highlights is that the 2010-12 Euro debt crisis (which globalists coined as a ‘sovereign‘ debt crisis) led to the creation of the European Stability Mechanism. The ESM is described as being an ‘international financial institution‘ that helps countries in major financial distress by providing them with emergency loans. It currently has the capacity to lend a total of €700 billion.

      Once again this is another example of crisis leading to consolidation. The push for a fiscal union has intensified over the past few years. With public debt at record highs and stymied growth in the Euro Area, it is logical to conclude that the first steps of its introduction would coincide with major economic rupture in the EU. Crisis invariably breeds opportunity for globalists.

      In the IMF’s words, a fully realised fiscal union would need ‘effective rules and institutions to contain it.’ They readily admit that for such rules to get off the ground would likely require ‘moving some decision-making power from the member states to the central level.’

      The economic jeopardy caused by unsustainable levels of debt is a vehicle which globalists may attempt to utilise in a bid to gain full spectrum control over national budgets.

      Along with efforts towards a fiscal union is the development of Financial Technology (Fintech). On this, the statement issued by the Development Committee reads:

      Diversified financial systems increase resilience and facilitate access to financial services for small enterprises and lower-income households. Recent developments in Fintech hold both promise and risks in this regard.

      Fintech relates directly to the rise of digital money through the use of cryptocurrencies and the future issuance of central bank digital currencies (CBDC’s). Over the past year I have written about how both the BIS and IMF have begun to openly question ‘money in the digital age‘, whilst central banks are in the midst of reforming national payment systems that will be compatible with distributed ledger technology (DLT).

      To develop a clearer picture on Fintech, once again we can reference the IMF. At the beginning of April the institution held its second meeting of the IMF Fintech Roundtable Program. Tobias Adrian, Financial Counsellor and Director of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department, gave a speech to mark the occasion (Framing the Debate on Fintech: Current Trends and Continuing Policy Concerns).

      In the speech, Adrian mentions the correlation between the reform of payment systems and the use of DLT:

      Recent developments in retail payments systems suggest a move toward real-time settlements, flatter structures, continuous operations, and global reach. Coinciding with these developments, an increasing number of countries are experimenting with, or researching, Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT) for use in financial market infrastructures, although few countries have carried out pilot projects.

      We also learn from the speech that the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank and the Central Bank of the Bahamas are in the advanced stages of carrying out ‘blockchain-based CBDC pilots‘. The Riksbank of Sweden, a country that is rapidly becoming cashless, is also advancing plans to issue what is termed an ‘e-krona‘ currency.

      Adrian makes the point that Fintech provides ‘new opportunities for central banks to improve their services – including issuing digital currency.’ A recent blog post of mine (BIS General Manager Outlines Vision for Central Bank Digital Currencies) looks into this in more detail.

      Exactly how far advanced globalists are in introducing digital currencies is an open question. If we go simply by what the IMF and the BIS are communicating, they remain in the developmental stages, with less than a quarter of central banks actively seeking to issue CBDC’s and just four pilot tests being undertaken. But behind the scenes the push in the direction of digital currencies grows exponentially. A sign that globalists are rapidly advancing an agenda is when they ratchet up communications on the subject.

      According to Adrian, the Fintech Roundtable Program was launched to ‘facilitate peer-to-peer, in-depth dialogue and information-sharing among the IMF’s member countries regarding the fintech challenges they face and discuss policy responses.’

      The sharing of information, under the direction of the IMF, has no doubt accelerated over the past twelve months. As central banks undertake surveys and conduct pilot tests of new technology, the data accrued eventually goes towards building what Adrian calls a ‘global consensus‘.

      Tied in with this are calls for regularly reforms which Adrian eludes to:

      New issues are also being raised by the introduction of new products that fall within cross-sectoral regulatory gaps, and that are outside existing legal definitions. Such products require adapting prudential regimes and modernizing the legal frameworks.

      Changes on the legal and regularly front are already underway, with China devising a new system of regulations on Fintech and the Swiss Federal Council beginning a consultation on adapting federal law to ‘DLT developments‘.

      What I believe these issues combined illustrate is that ambitions for regional fiscal unions and digital currencies are in no way confined to developing countries. If anything, such nations are being used as test beds for piloting technology and preparing the groundwork for its implementation to advanced economies.

      I also think it would be unwise to assume that extreme fluctuations in currency markets, as witnessed in countries like Argentina and India, will not become a feature in the West as central banks edge nearer to making CBDC’s a reality. From a UK perspective, Brexit is a prime vehicle for destabilising foreign exchange markets.

      If globalists ever manage to successfully present CBDC’s as a solution to economic crisis – one that the general population buys into – that is when their rise will be unstoppable.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      2025 is one staging post for reforms to the financial system. 2030 remains the target for implementing sustainable development goals – goals that work hand in hand with the full digitisation of money. Time is increasingly short, but recognising the dangers now and resisting the advancement of what is a globalist agenda for control remains within our ability.

    • She Wrote The Patriot Act. Her Next Job Is With Facebook

      Facebook announced Monday that Jennifer Newstead, a Trump appointee who served in the Department of Justice (DoJ) under President Bush, will join the social media company as General Counsel, supervising its global legal functions.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Newstead replaces Colin Stretch, who announced in 3Q18 that he will exit. Stretch will remain with Facebook through the transition phase, expected to be completed in the coming months.

      “Jennifer is a seasoned leader whose global perspective and experience will help us fulfill our mission,” said Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer. “We are also truly grateful to Colin for his dedicated leadership and wise counsel over the past nine years. He has played a crucial role in some of our most important projects and has created a strong foundation for Jennifer to build upon.”

      Newstead brings a terrifying history of lobbying and legislating for an Orwellian style of mass electronic surveillance of Americans.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Hill explains she was credited with writing the controversial 2001 Patriot Act, a piece of legislation that stripped Americans of their First and Fourth Amendments in the name of fighting the War on Terror.

      In a 2002 statement, Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh described Newstead’s role in drafting the Patriot Act: “Her enhanced leadership duties and her excellent service on a range of issues — including helping craft the new U.S.A. Patriot Act to protect the United States against terror — have earned her this important distinction. She is first among equals.”

      Congress enacted the Patriot Act in the wake of September 11, 2001 attacks, the Act expanded the scope of the government’s surveillance powers to investigate terrorism, organized crime, and drug trafficking. It allowed government investigators to use roving wiretaps and the ability to collect telephone records from US carriers.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Patriot Act also launched the national security letter (NSL), an administrative subpoena issued by the government to collect specific data without the authorization of a court or judge, citing threats to national security.

      Facebook continues to process the National Security Agency (NSA) data demands, which have spiked in the last five years. The company’s lawyers received more than 32,000 requests for data from law enforcement in the second 2H18, and 20,000 accounts were requested by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court over the same period.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Newstead’s new position will likely spearhead Facebook’s legal troubles as the company continues to fight ongoing privacy battles. Her professional history suggests – she will be more inclined to accept government requests for users’ data than fight them. 

    • REIT ETF Routed With Biggest Outflow In History

      Last week, with a delay of about two years, mall and shopping center stocks and REITs finally tumbled, led by Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, as Scotiabank warned about surging mall occupancy risks, while the 10-year Treasury yield reached its highest level since the March Fed meeting, an ominous development for most REITs.

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

      In justifying its opinion, ScotiaBank calculated that the potential impact of bankruptcies to malls (SKT, MAC, SPG, TCO) was at least double that of shopping centers (REG, WRI, KIM, FRT, BRX) due to apparel exposure; meanwhile Tanger crashed to a nine-year low as the stock screened as having the greatest level of exposure to tenants with a bankruptcy risk in malls.

      As a reminder, shorting malls via CMBX has long been dubbed the “next big short”, one which even Goldman recommended to clients, while providing the handy cheat sheet which CMBX has the most sensitivity to what part of the commercial real estate sector.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And while investors have long been shorting the melting ice cube that is malls, via CMBX, that changed last week when REITs finally got routed: “About 60% of the ~40 retailer bankruptcies since 2017 were apparel-focused; only 4 of the total bankruptcies were listed as top REIT tenants, so we caution that our analysis may under-represent true bankruptcy risk,” ScotiaBank analyst Nicholas Yulico wrote.

      Then this week, the rout finally spilled over to REIT ETFs, and in the first three days of the week, more than $475 million in funds was pulled from the $2.4 billion SPDR Dow Jones REIT ETF, or RWR, reducing the fund’s assets by about 15% according to Bloomberg. The bulk of outflows took place on Monday, when the fund lost $403 million, the most since 2004, in what appeared to be a delayed response to last week’s REIT collapse.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And while the general aversion to REITs took place in response to a (delayed) realization that creeping mall defaults will sooner or later catch up with the equity tranche, another reason cited for the plunge has been the creeping push higher in interest rates, although considering the sharp rate drop in recent days, the REIT plunge was driven not by interest rate fears but by idiosyncratic factors such as mounting delinquencies and defaults.

      Confirming as much, Bloomberg notes that REITs have other exogenous concerns, including potential impacts of retailer and mall bankruptcies. Curiously, despite the sudden and sharp outflow from the ETF, both RWR and the MSCI US REIT Index remain up about 14% year-to-date, as investor refuse to anticipate a worst case scenario.

    • Mueller Time Is Finally Over (But Not For Democrats)

      Authored by Peter van Buren via The American Conservative,

      When it comes to the Mueller report, believing there are still more questions than answers means refusing to accept the answers. With the release of the redacted report, #MuellerTime is now over. Robert Mueller has ended conclusively the three-year Russiagate tantrum, and chosen not to pursue obstruction via indictment or a direct referral to Congress for action. He could have but he did not. Trump will serve his full term and voters will decide whether he gets another. That should be it.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But it won’t be. Mueller’s inclusion of information on obstruction of justice that portrays unbecoming conduct by the president that nonetheless doesn’t rise to the level of indictable crime allows Democrats to decide where to take this next. Mueller has not tossed the ball to a Democratic Congress to play out its check and balance role so much as handed dirt to Democratic politicians to use as they see fit. It’s an odd end for the righteous Robert Mueller, twisting the tools of justice and state to slander.

      The report was issued in two “volumes.” Volume I focuses on Russian interference in the election. Volume II focuses on obstruction of justice.

      Volume I concludes two important and exclusive things. First, the Russian government, under Barack Obama’s watch, tried to influence the election via social media and by obtaining Democratic National Committee emails. And second, no American colluded, cooperated, or coordinated with that effort. The report (volume I, page 2) is clear that the Trump campaign’s reacting to or even anticipating released materials was not criminal. A crime would have required coordinated interaction, not merely two parties (in Mueller’s words) “informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.”

      An analogy (not in the report) might involve the Clinton campaign and the infamous Access Hollywood tape. The campaign may have heard that the tape was going to leak and exploited its release, but that would not have created “collusion” between Clinton and the leaker.

      The report also deflates any credibility left in the Steele Dossier and most of the Russiagate reporting. None of the subplots matter outside of the Washington-Twitter-New York corridor because either they didn’t happen or they did not constitute a crime. That includes the Trump Tower meeting, the Moscow Hotel Project, the polling data, the Alfa Bank server, the changed Republican platform on Ukraine, Jeff Sessions meeting Ambassador Kislyak, the meeting in the Seychelles, Cohen (not) in Prague, Manafort (not) meeting Assange, and Trump (not) ordering Cohen to lie to Congress.

      All of that should be in the headlines but isn’t. That’s because of a new focus on obstruction of justice.

      Volume I of the report deals with actions taken independently by the Russians that had no coordinated connection to Trump’s own actions or decisions. The second half deals with obstruction of justice, events that occurred because there was an investigation into collusion that itself never happened. Obstruction, like a perjury trap, is a process crime, which can only exist because an investigation exists. As with most of Mueller’s perjury convictions in this saga, there was no underlying crime

      And as with collusion, we already know the ending on obstruction. Mueller did not indict because the evidence did not support it. Attorney General Bob Barr and his deputy Rod Rosenstein, by law the actual intended recipients of the report, agreed with Mueller. Trump’s actions were lawful. Though some of them were troublesome and even immoral, they were not criminal. Most significantly, Mueller could not indict on obstruction because it was not possible to determine that Trump had showed the legally required corrupt intent. All of that precedes any consideration given to Department of Justice and Office of Legal Counsel advice that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

      If Mueller had an obstruction case, he would have made it. He could have specifically recommended indictment and made explicit that the complex legal issues around presidential obstruction meant a decision was beyond his and the attorney general’s constitutional roles and must be addressed by Congress via impeachment. He could have indicted any number of people in Trump’s inner circle, or issued a sealed indictment against post-White House Trump himself. He could have said that he couldn’t indict solely because of DOJ/OLC rules and therefore explicitly created a road map for impeachment to guide the next step.

      None of that happened. Mueller had no reason to speak in riddles, show restraint, send signals, embed hidden messages, or hint at things that others should do. He could have swung in any number of ways but instead found reason to leave the bat on his shoulder. Volume II should have ended there.

      But it seems obvious from reading the report that stories alleging that members of Mueller’s team saw evidence of obstruction that they found “alarming and significant” were true. Barr did a great disservice in omitting at least mention of this from his summary, as it forms the bulk of Volume II and will fuel nearly everything that happens next.

      Despite no indictment, the report outlines 10 instances containing elements of obstructed justice by Trump, with a suggestion (volume II, page 8) that someone may want to look again. Apparently not everyone on Mueller’s team agreed with the boss’s conclusion that the evidence was insufficient, and Mueller chose to allow what is essentially dissent Talmudically contradicting his major Volume II conclusion to be baked into his own work.

      Mueller was tasked with making an unambiguous decision: either to prosecute or not. He made it, and then included pages of reasons suggesting he might be wrong even as he also found space to say that the dissent might also be missing the key element of corrupt intent. There is no explanation for this confusing, ambiguous, and jumbled departure from traditional prosecutorial judgment. The final line (volume II, page 182) reads like a Twilight Zone script: “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

      One focus of the dissent is on Trump firing former FBI director James Comey. For this to be obstruction, Trump would have had to have fired Comey with the corrupt intent to impede the investigation. The Mueller report is clear that this was not what happened. Despite the public messaging, the firing was related to Comey’s mishandling of the Clinton email case. The report shows that the president was angry at Comey for telling him privately that he was not under investigation but refusing to say so publicly, as Comey had done (once) for Hillary Clinton. Volume II, page 75: “Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the president’s decision to fire Comey was Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation.” That’s not obstruction of justice; it’s presidential rage.

      Yet elsewhere, the report says something more…leading to set up the argument for obstruction post-Comey. Volume II, page 7: “Some of [Trump’s] actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts,” but “at the same time, the President’s position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses—all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis.” It was even clearer elsewhere. Volume II, page 157: “[we] found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”

      Mueller’s team concluded that Trump lawfully fired Comey, as the intent was not to obstruct, but it was still dirty play, “undue influence,” not a crime but still something that, according to Volume II, page 2, “presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.”

      Ironically, while Trump was not under investigation when he fired Comey for refusing to say that publicly, he was placed under investigation by the FBI (for obstruction) after he fired Comey.

      The report suggests that Trump’s post-Comey actions (broken down into 10 episodes) would have constituted obstruction if seen as a pattern of behavior, not as the discrete acts the law focuses on, and if they had included the critical element of corrupt intent. Those “if” words are doing all the work because there was no corrupt intent. Mueller said so.

      So if Trump could not take his obstructive actions to cover up his crimes with Russia because they did not exist to be covered up, i.e. corrupt intent, why did he act in ways that appear designed to disrupt the investigation? Mueller answers the question. Vol II, page 61:

      Evidence indicates that the President was angered by both the existence of the Russia investigation and the public reporting that he was under investigation, which he knew was not true based on Comey’s representations. The President complained to advisers that if people thought Russia helped him with the election, it would detract from what he had accomplished. Other evidence indicates that the President was concerned about the impact of the Russia investigation on his ability to govern. The President complained that the perception that he was under investigation was hurting his ability to conduct foreign relations, particularly with Russia.

      If you believe Mueller, Trump was concerned about his ability to govern, about as far from corrupt intent as you can get. At the pre-release press conference, Barr agreed with Mueller’s assessment. Trump knew, and Mueller came to know, that he did not collude with the Russians. To show corrupt intent, Mueller would have had to prove Trump was trying to stymie the process that would ultimately clear him. And while there can be obstruction without an underlying crime, that requires even clearer evidence of corrupt intent, because in such cases obstruction on its face is counterproductive.

      Everything that’s happened over the last two years was because Democrats, the media, and the FBI falsely conflated Russia’s actions with Trump’s, and then imagined that Trump committed serial acts of obstruction to cover up something he never did.

      Prosecutors don’t issue road maps for others. They charge or drop a case. Not charging is a conclusion and the only one that matters in the end. The Mueller report is not a pretty picture of power being exercised. But ultimately Trump did not commit a chargeable crime, and in between some muddled dissent text, Mueller the prosecutor said so.

      Politicians, however, are bound by a different code. They can conduct investigations, hold hearings, speculate about what’s under black redaction bars, and file articles of impeachment whose only purpose is to drag Trump through the Benghazi-like muck. They can desperately pursue a climax to this anti-climatic report, but they’ll never achieve it. Democrats know they have no chance of impeaching Trump.

      The question is, by playing at trying, do they think they have a better chance of defeating him in 2020?

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 24th April 2019

    • Iran Celebrates National Army Day With High Tech Ground Drones

      Iran’s Army, Navy, Air Force, and Khatam al-Anbiya Air Defense Base took part in a nationwide military parade last week.

      In Tehran, President Hassan Rouhani and Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) officers, attended the parade near the mausoleum of Imam Khomeini, also referred to as the holy shrine.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      During the parade, the Iranian Armed Forces presented new defense achievements and unveiled new military hardware for the modern battlefield.

      In particular, Iranian media published several photos of a new unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) with a rocket launcher mounted on top.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Another photo shows an anti-drone rifle that is designed to disable or knock out the navigation system of an enemy drone.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      TV footage also showed MiG-29, F-4 Phantom and F-14 Tomcat fighters soaring above the parade area. More footage showed AH-1 Cobra and CH-47 Chinook helicopters.

      Army Day parade in #Iran. pic.twitter.com/FYZ92CrwFI

      — GroundBrief (@GroundBrief) April 18, 2019

      There were reports of missiles, submarines, armored vehicles, radars, and electronic warfare systems showcased at the event.

      In the south, the Navy’s warships practiced attacking and defensives maneuvers in the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman.

      Speaking at the parade, President Rouhani criticized America’s hostile policies against Iran, the latest of which saw the Trump administration designate the IRGC — as a “foreign terrorist organization.”

      The Iranian president described the designation as an “insult to all (Iranian) Armed Forces, and an insult to the great Iranian nation.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Rouhani said Iran’s Armed Forces pose no threat against regional nations.

      He added that Iran will defend the homeland against Western invaders using the weapons showcased at the parade.

      Rouhani noted that the Trump administration is irritated with Iran’s Armed Forces, Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, Iraq’s Hashd al-Sha’abi fighters and Yemen’s Popular Committees due to their abilities to efficiently combat American proxy armies across the Middle East.

      “The Americans and their stooges in the region and the Zionist regime could not imagine that regional nations with the help of Iran, its Armed Forces and the IRGC could annihilate all their proxies, i.e. terrorists, in the Middle East,” he said.

      So maybe the new military hardware showcased at the parade could soon find itself on a modern battlefield fighting against American proxy armies.

    • The Buried Maidan Massacre And Its Misrepresentation By The West

      Authored by Ivan Katchanovski via ConsortiumNews.com,

      The new Ukrainian government is faced with reopening an inquiry into evidence of an organized mass killing in Kiev that Poroshenko stonewalled…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Police in Hrushevsky Street, Kiev, Feb. 12, 2014. (Wikimedia)

      Five years ago, the Maidan massacre in Kiev, Ukraine, of Feb. 18-20, 2014, was a watershed event, not only for the politics and history of Ukraine but also for world politics generally. This mass killing in downtown Kyiv set the stage for the violent overthrow of the pro-Russian government in Ukraine and a new Cold War between Washington and Moscow.

      Therefore, it is remarkable that five years after this massacre shook the world, no one has been sentenced for any of the Maidan killings. This was the best documented case of mass killing in history, broadcast live on TV and the internet, in presence of thousands of eyewitnesses. It was filmed by hundreds of journalists from major media in the West, Ukraine, Russia, and many other countries as well as by numerous social media users.  Yet, to this day, no one has been brought to justice for this major and consequential crime.

      From the start, the dominant narrative promoted by the Ukrainian and Western governments and mainstream media has placed the blame for this tragedy firmly on the Yanukovych government. It contends that forces loyal to former President Victor Yanukovych— either snipers and/or the Berkut, a special anti-riot police— massacred peaceful Maidan protesters on the direct orders of Yanukovych himself. Such charges against Yanukovych, his ministers and commanders and a special Berkut unit—whose five ex-members were tried for the murder of 48 Maidan protesters on Feb. 20, 2014 — are generally taken at face value. With some limited exceptions, challenges to this narrative are treated dismissively.

      For the most part, mainstream news media in the U.S. and other Western countries ignored trial evidence, public statements by officials and politicians and scholarly studies that put the standard narrative under question. This includes non-reporting about my own academic studies of the Maidan massacre.

      Killing Protesters and Police

      My work found that this was an organized mass killing of both protesters and the police, with the goal of delegitimizing the Yanukovych government and its forces and seizing power in Ukraine. Oligarchic and far right elements of the Maidan movement were involved in this massacre. For this reason, the official investigation was fabricated and stonewalled. I presented studies to support this as well as several online video appendixes with various evidence at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association in San Francisco in 2015 and Boston in 2018, the 2017 World Convention of the Association for the Study of Nationalities in New York in 2017, and a joint conference by the Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Uppsala University and the British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies in 2018, and published their summary in an academic press volume.

      The prosecutor general of Ukraine recently announced that the investigation of the Maidan massacre is complete. He cited reconstructions of the Maidan massacre by a New York architecture company, working with a team of Ukrainian “volunteers” to provide a 3D model, as definite evidence that the Maidan protesters were massacred by the Berkut police and that snipers did not massacre the protesters. 

      This model was featured by The New York Times, in its May 30, 2018,  report “Who Killed the Kiev Protesters?” as a proof that the Berkut police massacred Maidan protesters.

      However, no expert knowledge or familiarity with the Maidan massacre or Ukraine is needed to see blatant misrepresentation of elementary data in that 3D model.

      The wound locations of the killed Maidan protesters in the 3D model do not match the wound locations in the forensic medical examinations of the bodies. The reports of those examinations were used in this simulation to determine the locations of the shooters. They are published in Ukrainian and English on the linked website. According to one such report, Ihor Dmytriv was shot in the “right side surface” and the “left side surface” of the torso “from the right to the left, from the top to the bottom, and a little from the front to the back” with the entry wound 20.5cm (8 inches) higher than the exit wound. However, in the simulation, his wounds have been moved to the front and the back and made nearly horizontal.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Actual wound locations of Dmytriv and their misrepresentation.

      A Maidan lawyer visually confirmed at the Maidan massacre trial that these wounds locations of were in the right and left sides. In the video of their examination of Dmytriv right after his shooting, Maidan medics also indicate such locations of his wounds with no wounds visible in the front area, contrary to the 3D model. The forensic medical reports also state that Dmytriv was wounded in his right shoulder from bottom to top direction, with this entry wound 5 cm lower, but the 3D animation also misrepresents this direction.

      The wound locations of the other two victims have been similarly altered. The 3D model moved the exit wound location from around the middle line of the back of Andriy Dyhdalovych’s body in forensic medical and clothing examinations significantly to the right. It also changed a similar large vertical angle from a top and bottom direction and 17 cm difference in height of entry and exit wounds to nearly horizontal level.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Actual wound locations of Dyhdalovych and their misrepresentation.

      In the case of Yuriy Parashchuk, forensic medical examinations found that his entry and exit wounds were in the back of his head on the left side. But the 3D analysis moved the entry wound location to the front area and changed its somewhat top-to-bottom direction to nearly horizontal. Frames from a videoby a French photographer shows a large bullet hole in the back of Parashchuk’s red helmet. How can he be shot in the back of his head by the Berkut police on a nearly similar horizontal level?

      Changing the wound locations invalidates the entire reconstruction and, therefore, the conclusions of the SITU analysis and The New York Times article, that these and other Maidan protesters were shot from the Berkut positions.

      One does not need to be a ballistic expert to see that locations of wounds in the back and on the sides and top-to-bottom directions of wounds specified in forensic medical reports and positions of these three killed protesters facing the Berkut in the videos cannot physically match with Berkut police positions located on a similar horizontal level on the ground in front of them. The forensic medical examinations conducted for the government investigation and made public at the Maidan massacre trial revealed that the absolute majority of the protesters were shot not in front and not from horizontal or near horizontal directions that are consistent with police positions. Rather, they were shot from a top-to-bottom direction and in sides or the back that are consistent with shooting from the Maidan-controlled buildings.

      Government Investigation

      The government investigation, conducted after the Maidan government came to power after this massacre, and which charged the Berkut police behind the barricades with killing these three protesters, raises the same concerns.

      The complex medical examinations, which were published on the SITU website and which are presented by the government investigation in Ukraine as a key evidence that the Berkut police massacred the protesters, showed the same bullet trajectories as the 3D model. The text of these examinations, which are available in Ukrainian and in English translations, shows that these bullet trajectories were determined not by ballistic experts butby medical experts without any calculations or explanations.

      Synchronized videos, which were used by the SITU to determine that the Berkut police behind a truck barricade killed Parashchuk, actually show that he and other protesters were in a blind spot below the line of police fire from behind a truck. It was physically impossible for the police behind the wide and tall truck to shoot at him below over the top of this truck. Dozens of other Maidan protesters who were killed and wounded around the same spot were in the same situation.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Parashchuk in the blind spot below the line of fire from the police behind the truck.

      The locations of the forces of the Yanukovych government during the massacre are well known, and they are identified in my studies, the government investigation charges, numerous videos, and in the SITU 3D model.

      At the time of the killings of these three protesters, Berkut policemen were behind the barricades on Instytutska Street on the government side, while the protesters who were killed were in between Berkut and the Hotel Ukraina.

      Forensic examinations of bullet holes by government experts described numerous bullet holes on the second, third, and higher floors and the roof of the Hotel Ukraina on the side that faced the government forces. But they did not identify a single bullet hole on the first floor on the Berkut facing side of the hotel behind these protesters. Simple positioning of the bullet hole locations described in these forensic reports clearly shows that almost all bullets from the Berkut and other positions flew above the heads of the protesters there or targeted poles, trees, and a flower box. This is also shown in vide and photos — including some I took there after the massacre — and in videos and reports of shooting at journalists in the hotel with a Google Street View image from the first Berkut barricade.

      This confirms my study findings that the special Berkut police unit and the Omega unit of snipers of Internal Troops were shooting at snipers in the Hotel Ukraina.

      After five long years, the failure by the Poroshenko government’s investigation to determine bullet trajectories by ballistic experts or conduct on-site investigative experiments for the same purpose — even after the Maidan massacre trial judges ordered them two years ago to do so — is therefore hardly surprising. It is impossible to bend physical reality. In a literal cover-up, large fences were recently erected on the crime scene for the construction of the Maidan massacre memorial, which would completely alter the landscape. The fences and the memorial would make it impossible to determine bullet trajectories on-site, which still has not been done by the investigation for five years after this mass killing.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with Poroshenko, outside Presidential Palace in Kiev, Feb. 5, 2015, during Kerry’s first round of meetings with the new government. (State Department via Flickr)

      The SITU reconstruction also missed bullet holes that appeared in Dmytriv’s shield and in a shield of another protester in front of Dyhdalovych in videos of their shooting that were used in the reconstruction. The locations of these bullet holes are inconsistent with shooting from the Berkut barricades.

      But these shields with clear locations of the bullet holes, like the helmet of Parashchuk and almost all the shields and helmets of protesters who were killed or wounded, mysteriously disappeared after the massacre, along with a lot of other crucial evidence, such as bullets and security-camera footage.

      Similarly, crucial testimonies of Maidan protesters, who witnessed the killings of Dyhdalovych and Dmytriv, are ignored by the Times’ report, SITU and the official Ukrainian investigation. Dyhdalovych’s wife stated in her Ukrainian media interview that another protester told her that he saw that Dyhdalovych was killed by a sniper on the roof of the Bank Arkada. This protester was filmed following Dyhdalovych when they both went to evacuate Dmytriv after he was shot. The Bank Arkada is a tall green building in the front and to the right of both Dyhdalovych and Dmytriv, and it appears to match the apparent directions of their wounds. My Maidan massacre studies video appendices showed that it was in the Maidan-controlled area and that snipers on its roof during the massacre were reported by both numerous Maidan protesters, including many wounded who spoke at the Maidan massacre trial and investigation, and by Security Service of Ukraine commanders and snipers.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      SITU diagram of victims’ locations and names.

      A female Maidan medic during the massacre was pointing to the top of this green building and shouting about snipers. But her words were translated in BBCreport as referring to six protesters killed by the snipers in that area. AMaidan protester and another Maidan medic, who were wounded near the same spot where these two protesters were killed, both testified at the Maidan massacre trial that they were shot from this building. Government ballistic experts confirmed this during on-site investigative experiments.

      Western Press Silence

      These revelations were not reported by any Western media. This includes The New York Times, which on April 5, 2014, profiled this wounded protester against the backdrop of an unquestioned report by the acting government in Kiev that blaming “former President Viktor F. Yanukovych, his riot police and their suspected Russian assistants for the violence that killed more than 100 people in Kiev in February.”

      It also includes CNN, which filmed the shooting of this medic and attributed it to the government forces.

      The government investigation simply denies that there were any snipers there and in other Maidan-controlled buildings, and refuses to investigate them. This is done despite videos of such snipers and testimonies of the absolute majority of wounded protesters at the trial and investigation and more than 150 other witnesses about snipers in these locations.

      The assumption in the 3D model that Dmytriv was shot by the single bullet is also contradicted bytestimony of another protester who saw that Dmytriv was shot by “a sniper” from the Hotel Ukraina. My Maidan massacre studies and their video appendices showed that this hotel was then controlled by the Maidan forces.   

      The New York Times article described collaboration of the New York architecture firm with a Ukrainian “volunteer” in creating the 3D model. It did not report 2017 admissions by the prosecutor general of Ukraine on Facebook that his government agency funded the work of  a group of anonymous “volunteers,” including this Ukrainian graduate student, in compiling and synchronizing various videos of the Maidan massacre in collaboration with a People’s Front party outlet.

      Some of the People’s Front party leaders were accused by various Ukrainian politicians and Maidan activists, such as Nadia Savchenko, and by five ex-Georgian ex-military members in Italian and IsraeliTV documentaries, of direct involvement in this massacre. Meanwhile, the Times lauds the Ukrainian government’s investigation and Maidan lawyers for drawing on such analyses by these “citizen investigators” and treats a New York architect firm as providing key evidence in the Maidan massacre trial.

      Brad Samuels is a founding partner of Situ Research, the New York architecture company that produced the 3D model of the killing of three protesters, which was presented by the Times as  proof that such snipers did not exist and that 49 protesters were massacred by the Berkut police.

      Samuels said in a video [start at 55:16] that “…eventually, there is a consensus that there was a third party acting. It is clear from forensic evidence that people were shot in the back. Somebody was shooting from rooftops.” His striking observation was not included anywhere in the SITU 3D model report that he produced. Nor was it reported by the Times.

      Cases of protesters, who were shot in the back, were omitted from the SITU model. But even in the deliberately selected cases of the three protesters, who were presented by this simulation as shot in front, their actual wound locations suggest that they were also shot from a Maidan-controlled building, which was located in front and to the right of them.

      There was not a single report in English-language media concerning testimonies at the Maidan massacre trial where 25 wounded Maidan protesters, with whose shootings Berkut policemen are charged, who stated that they were shot from Maidan-controlled buildings or areas.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Video still from trial.

      Major outlets likewise neglected to cover the testimonies by 30 wounded protesters who said they witnessed snipers in those locations or were told about them by other protesters. This is stunning since these testimonies are publicly available in live online recordings of the Maidan massacre trial and they are complied with English-language subtitles into an online video appendix to my study. These testimonies represent the majority of wounded protesters with whose shooting Berkut was charged. They are consistent with video testimonies by about 100 witnesses in the media and social media and at the trial and the investigation. But the official investigation in Ukraine simply denies that there were any such snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings, even though the Prosecutor General Office of Ukraine previously stated that snipers massacred many protesters from the Hotel Ukraina and other buildings. 

      Similarly, not a single media outlet reported segments of the Belgian VRT News video that showed Maidan protesters shouting during the massacre that they saw snipers in the Maidan-controlled Hotel Ukraina shooting Maidan protesters, pointing towards them, and asking them not to shoot. These segments were only shown to a small number of people at the Maidan massacre trial and are included in my online video appendix on YouTube. Other segments from this same video, however,were broadcast to some several hundred million viewers by major television networks in the U.S., U.K., Canada, Germany, France, Poland, Italy, and Ukraine, and many other countries as evidence that the government forces massacred the Maidan protesters.

      With the notable exception of an Associated Press story quoting the charismatic politician Nadia Savchenko, news agencies have ignored the public remarks of several Maidan politicians and activists who said that they witnessed the involvement of specific top Maidan leaders in the massacre.

      Testimonies by five Georgian ex-military members in ItalianIsraeli, Macedonian and Russian media and their published depositions to Berkut lawyers for the Maidan massacre trial have also been ignored. They stated that their groups received weapons, payments, and orders to massacre both police and protesters from specific Maidan and Georgian politicians.

      They also said that they received instructions from a far-right linked ex-U.S. Army sniper and then saw Georgian, Baltic States, and Right Sector-linked snipers shooting from specific Maidan-controlled buildings.

      Western media silence also greeted a recent statement by Anatolii Hrytsenko, one of the top Ukrainian presidential candidates, who was also a Maidan politician and minister of defense, that the investigation of the massacre has been stonewalled because of the involvement of someone from the current leadership of Ukraine in this mass killing.

      In contrast, there were no such testimonies admitting involvement in the massacre or knowledge of such involvement by the Berkut policemen, ex-police and security services commanders; nor by ex-Yanukovych government officials. No specific evidence of orders by then-president Yanukovych or his ministers and commanders to massacre unarmed protesters has been revealed by the trials, investigations or news reporting. Nonetheless, the Western mainstream media report existence of such orders as a matter of a fact.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Yanukovych with Russian President Vladimir Putin. (President of Russia)

      Not a single major Western media reported that a forensic ballistic examination, conducted by government institute experts on the prosecution request with use of an automatic computer-based IBIS-TAIS system, determined that bullets extracted from killed protesters did not match a police database of bullet samples from Kalashnikov assault rifles of members of the entire Kyiv Berkut regiment. The latter included the special Berkut company charged with the massacre of the protesters. The same concerns the forensic examination findings that many protesters were killed with hunting bullets and pellets.  

      There are no Western media reports, at least in English, concerning the investigation by the Prosecutor General Office of Ukraine. This investigation determined, based on protester’s  testimonies and investigative experiments, that almost half of the protesters (77 out of 157) were wounded on Feb. 20 from other sectors than the Berkut police and that no one was charged with their shooting.

      A female Maidan medic, whose wounding on the Maidan was highly publicized by Western and Ukrainian media and politicians and attributed to government snipers, is one of them. Since the official investigation determined that government snipers did not massacre the Maidan protesters, with a single implausible exception announced recently, this implies that these protesters were wounded from the Maidan-controlled buildings and areas.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Medic sniper vicim. (Youtube)

      There was Western media silence, including from the BBC, about revelations by the Prosecutor General Office that one of the leaders of far right party Svoboda, who was also a member of the Ukrainian parliament at the time of the massacre, occupied a Hotel Ukraina room from which a sniper in Maidan-style green helmet was filmed by the BBC shooting in the direction of the Maidan protesters and the BBC’s own journalists.

      Similarly, there are no mainstream media reports of the visual examinations of bullet holes and their impact points by the government investigators that determined that one German ARD television room at the Hotel Ukraina was shot  from the direction of the Main Post Office, which was at the time the headquarters of the Right Sector.  The latter far-right group included radical nationalist and neo-Nazi organizations and football ultras. This bullet just narrowly missed a German ARD TV female producer. The government investigators also determined that another ARD room in the same hotel was shot at from the Music Conservatory building, which was then the headquarters of the Right-Sector-linked special armed Maidan Self-Defense company.

      Likewise, nothing was reported about a forensic ballistic examination made public at the trial that revealed that an ABC News producer was shot in his Hotel Ukraina room by a Winchester caliber hunting soft-point bullet that did not match a caliber of Berkut Kalashnikovs.

      Misrepresentation of the Maidan massacre and its investigation by Western media and governments is puzzling.

      American independence leader John Adams once defended the British soldiers charged with the Boston massacre in 1770. He regarded this defense as important for the rule of law to prevail over politics. He famously stated at the Boston massacre trial that “facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” He not only won this politically charged case of a crucial massacre in U.S. politics and history but became U.S. president afterwards. The question is why this dictum is not heeded almost 250 years later in the case of the Maidan massacre in Ukraine.

    • China Unveils New Guided-Missile Destroyer

      China has unveiled its newest high tech destroyer during Tuesday’s 70th anniversary of the Chinese PLA Navy’s founding, in an event witnessed by naval delegations from some 60 countries around the world gathered at the eastern port city of Qingdao.

      President Xi Jinping reviewed the major naval parade which further had the direct participation of nearly a dozen regional navies, including Japan, Australia, and the Philippines. In hosting the major exercises, China is using the opportunity to both flex its muscle amid heightening tensions with the US in the East and South China seas, and show off its new generation of guided-missile destroyers.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Chinese Navy’s 055-class guided missile destroyer Nanchang takes part in a naval parade off the eastern port city of Qingdao on Tuesday. Image source: Reuters

      China’s navy has been a major focal point and beneficiary of Xi’s push for rapid modernization, which has shifted priority away from a conventional infantry in order to create a more high tech and agile force. 

      The PLA navy has been rapidly growing since 2000, a year ago surpassing the United States’ own in size, and compliments an already huge over 2-million strong PLA troop fighting force.

      Reuters summarized Tuesday’s naval parade scene as follows:

      After boarding the destroyer the Xining, which was only commissioned two years ago, Xi watched as a flotilla of Chinese and foreign ships sailed past, in waters off the eastern port city of Qingdao.

      “Salute to you, comrades. Comrades, thanks for your hard work,” Xi called out to the officers standing on deck as the ships sailed past, in images carried on state television.

      “Hail to you, chairman,” they replied. “Serve the people.”

      In all, 32 Chinese warships are participating the anniversary exercises, including the Liaoning aircraft carrier and nuclear subs, along with destroyers, frigates, landing ships, auxiliary ships.

      Air assets deployed as part of the exercise also include bombers, fighters, carrier-based fighters, and carrier-based helicopters engaged in flyovers. 

      The 70th anniversary exercise appeared an occasion for Beijing to reassert its own vision of “freedom of navigation” and maritime security issues with “major naval leaders” from the region at a time when the US is challenging Chinese territorial claims.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      This week’s PLA Navy exercises via China.org.cn

      Other regional powers sent some of their advanced warships to showcase, such as a stealth guided-missile destroyer of the Indian Navy, INS Kolkata, and the Russian Caliber cruise missile-equipped frigate, the Admiral Gorshkov.

      Noticeably absent from the naval parade and exercises, however, was China’s first domestically produced aircraft carrier, the Type 001A, reported to still be undergoing sea tests before its official future launch. 

      And though older submarines were present, China did not showcase its new nuclear submarines as previously promised, according to footage aired on state television. 

    • The Russian-China Polar Silk Road Challenges Global Geopolitics

      Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      Whether the Arctic will become a platform for cooperation or warfare has been a question often posed throughout the past 150 years.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As early as 1875, a vision for Eurasian-American cooperation was becoming realized as leading Americans and Russians alike foresaw the construction of telegraph and even rail lines across the 100 km Bering Strait crossing separating Russia from Alaska. Proponents of this policy on the American side included Lincoln-ally and Colorado’s 1st governor William Gilpin, whose book The Cosmopolitan Railway was published in 1890 showcasing a “post-imperial world” where mutual development was driven by rail lines across all the continents and featured the Bering Strait rail connection as its keystone. Many of Gilpin’s co-thinkers in Russia grew in influence and even convinced Tsar Nicholas II to endorse the project in 1905. The fact that the newly completed Trans-Siberian Railway was modelled on Lincoln’s Trans-Continental Railway and carried train cars built in Philadelphia made this concept very feasible in the minds of many people in those days… not excluding a British Empire that desperately wished to see this potential destroyed.

      Although a few assassinations, a Russian revolution and Wall Street/London-funded wars disturbed this paradigm of cooperation from unfolding as it should have, hopes again ran high as Franklin Roosevelt and Stalin recognized that they had much more in common with each other than either did with the British Empire’s Winston Churchill. This partnership re-opened discussion for a Bering Strait rail connection during World War II after decades of dormancy. When FDR prematurely passed away in office and his leading American co-thinkers began to be targeted by the FBI-led “red scare”, Stalin ruminated that “the great dream had died”. Churchill’s Iron Curtain ushered in a new age of Mutual Assured Destruction whereby all talk of the Arctic as a domain of cooperation perished.

      Despite efforts of certain leading figures such as John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert in America, or Enrico Mattei of Italy and Charles De Gaulle in France to establish cooperation between east and west, the growth of what has today come to be known as the “deep state” continued apace, with the creation of NATO, and technocratic infiltration of all western governments… often over the dead bodies of nationalist leaders.

      While the west celebrated the collapse of Communism, and puppets like Sir Henry Kissinger and Sir George Bush ushered in the New World Order of NAFTA, NATO, the Eurozone, and WTO during the 1990s, a new alliance was forming, and soon the emergence of such institutions as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS, APEC, and later Eurasian Economic Union occurred.

      With these new institutions, the designs for a Bering Strait rail tunnel were once again revived when Russia signaled its willingness to construct the century-old project in 2011 offering over $65 billion towards its funding, which only required the cooperation of the United States and Canada.

      As China began to emerge as a global force, it not only petitioned to become an observer in the Arctic Council in 2012, but also soon unleashed the Belt and Road Initiative in September 2013. A year later, in May 2014, China too gave its support to the construction of the Bering Strait Tunnel. Until this period the only serious discussion of the program was found in the work of the Schiller Institute, whose founders had publicized the New Silk Road and Bering Strait rail line through thousands of conferences and publications since 1993.

      While the period of 2014-present has been tense at the best of times, and close to world war at the worst of times, the potential of the Arctic as a platform for international dialogue has continued un-abated and has served as the theme of this year’s fifth International Arctic Forum in St. Petersburg from April 9-10, 2019. The theme of the conference which saw the involvement of 3600 representatives of Russian, and international sectors both private and public was “Arctic: Territory of Dialogue”.

      Russia’s Arctic: Territory of Dialogue

      The keynote speech at the forum’s plenary session was given by Vladimir Putin whereby the Russian leader discussed the plans for Russia’s Arctic development for the coming decades stating:

       This year we are going to draft and adopt a new strategy for the development of the Russian Arctic up to 2035. It is to combine measures stipulated in our national projects and state programmes, the investment plans of infrastructure companies and programmes for developing Arctic regions and cities. All Arctic regions should be brought to the level of at least the national average in key socioeconomic indicators and living standards.”

      In attendance were the heads of every Arctic Council nation (except Canada and the USA) who listened to Putin describe the upgrading of a global transportation corridor involving the Northern Sea Route, the Northern Latitudinal Railway connecting western Siberia to ports on the Arctic Ocean, a boost of freight traffic to 80 million tons by 2025 (from its 20 million tons today), and the creation of new nuclear powered ice breakers. Vast programs for resource development of LNG, oil and other minerals were announced throughout the conference and a new federal law to offer a special system of preferences for Arctic zone investments was publicized. Over 100 oil and gas extraction, infrastructure and tourism projects were finalized totalling over $164 billion.

      Most importantly, a vision for this growth process was tied to the creative spirit of scientific discovery that distinguishes the human species as unique among the biosphere, as scientific and educational centers to integrate universities, research institutions and the private sector with the productive industrial processes underlying the “real economy” were announced. This last component of an Arctic vision brought into focus Russia’s partnership with China brilliantly, as a strategic agreement on scientific cooperation was signed between the two allies

      The Russia-China Silk Road on Ice

      China’s Belt and Road Initiative has already spread across Eurasia and Africa uplifting standards of living, cognitive potential and building mega projects along the way. The grand design is a fluid concept driven by rail development and city building on its land (road) component, with ports and shipping lanes on its sea (belt) component. A philosophical commitment to scientific and technological progress (aka: creative reason) which once animated western society is its driving power.

      In January 2018, a Chinese white paper announced China’s northern vision with Russia “will bring opportunities for parties concerned to jointly build a ‘Polar Silk Road’, and facilitate connectivity and sustainable economic and social development of the Arctic.”

      In its press release announcing the creation of the China-Russia Arctic Research Center (CRARC) on April 10, 2019, the Russian government announced: 

      “Joint efforts will be made in Arctic marine science research, which will promote the construction of ‘Silk Road on Ice’. In future, QNLM looks forward to more fruitful and efficient partnerships worldwide to contribute to the sustainable development of the world oceans and a shared future for mankind.”

      NATO hawks Freak Out

      NATO hawks have reacted to these incredible developments as if the Cold war had never ended, with James Stravridis (former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO) penning an op-ed on April 16 stating China’s polar silk road is only an “aggressive program of building influence” and that the melting arctic ice “will create shipping routes that could be geopolitically central for China’s One Belt, One Road global development strategy.” Citing the recent China-Russia joint military exercises such as the Vostok 2018 China-Russia-Mongolia maneuvers of September 11-17, 2018 that involved over 300 000 military personnel, Stravridis said “they [Russia and China] see working together as a hedge against the US and their cooperation will create significant challenges for the NATO nations with Arctic territory”. The cold warrior called on the USA and Canada to respond with their own joint military maneuvers and collaboration with NATO.

      Stravridis’ words echoed those of NORAD chief US General Terrance O’Shaughnessy who spoke in Ottawa earlier calling for joint military cooperation in the Arctic saying “we must acknowledge the reality that our adversaries currently hold our citizens, our way of life and national interests at risk… we are at risk in ways we haven’t been in decades”.

      While fear-mongering headlines documenting Russia’s Arctic Summit with such titles as “Putin Bolsters Arctic Presence with Anti-Aircraft Missiles” are the norm in the western press, a major Canadian Foreign Affairs Committee report published on April 11 features a valuable insight into the powerful effects of which the New Silk Road paradigm is creating even among pro-NATO countries as hostile to the BRI and Russia as Canada has proven itself to be over recent years.

      The New Paradigm inspires potential change in Canadian Artic Strategy

      In the report begun in June 2018 entitled “Nation Building at Home, Vigilance Beyond: Preparing for the Coming Decades in the Arctic”, a non-partisan effort was released to call for a complete reversal on the Arctic policy which has governed Canada since the Deep State-led ouster of Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker in 1963, whose “Northern Vision” was killed with his position as Prime Minister.

      While paying lip service to the “danger of Russian and Chinese interest in the Arctic”, the 140 page committee report broke with the tradition of treating the Canada’s Arctic Sovereign as somehow “threatened by outside forces” as has been the trend for decades and instead stated that “the Committee is of the view that the challenges Canada faces in the Arctic are those of security, national defence, stewardship, well-being, and prosperity. With that in mind, it seems unproductive to continue approaching these issues from the perspective of determining whether Canada is somehow losing sovereignty over land and waters that are Canadian.” Expressing an awareness that a new global system was rising the paper stated “the government must … ensure that it is not caught unprepared if the geopolitical reality changes.”

      While other similar white papers published over the years have taken more aggressive stances against Russia and China’s BRI, this committee report stated “The Arctic situation now goes beyond its original inter-Arctic States or regional nature, having a vital bearing on the interests of States outside the region and the interests of the international community as a whole, as well as on the survival, the development, and the shared future for mankind.”

      Ultimately, the report called for Canada to break the British-steered zero growth/post-industrial policy of the past 60 years and instead create a new federal program for Arctic infrastructure investment, cooperation with China on the Polar Silk Road, involve natives trapped in suicide-laden under-developed reservations with the opportunity to participate in growth programs, mapping of northern resources (which Canada has failed to do unlike their Russian counterparts), and importantly provide for the social integration of natives with the rest of Canada.

      Of extreme importance was the call to reverse the 2016 Trudeau-Obama ban on Arctic drilling which was done to protect the ecosystem while excluding all natives who live in said ecosystems with any opportunity to have a say. The report stated “The manner in which that decision was carried out was not described warmly by the people with whom the Committee met in the North. There was a feeling that the decision had been made without consideration for the interests of the people who live and work there. One Indigenous organization received 20 minutes’ notice.”

      Rather than call for confrontation, or joining NATO’s ABM encirclement of Russia as previous reports had done, the committee called for discussion, science diplomacy, dialogue and a return to an Arctic growth policy not seen in over 70 years.

      While discussions of the Bering Strait rail connection between Eurasia and the Americas was absent, as was all discussion of nuclear energy, whose development is instrumental for the Arctic, it is relevant that no mention was made of “green energy” like windmills and solar panels which would serve no use in any serious national development strategy.

      The fact is that the polar Silk Road is a reality. The ports and shipping lines opening up along the Northwest Passage express only the beginning phases of it, but as Russia continues to develop rail and scientific capabilities with China’s assistance across its Arctic, the rail will follow and the dream of Governor Gilpin and Tsar Nicholas II to unite both worlds new and old with rail will occur, as long as the west chooses to take history seriously and not sleepwalk into world war once more. 

    • Why One 18-Year-Old New Yorker Is Suing Apple For $1 Billion

      An 18-year-old New Yorker is suing Apple for $1 billion, claiming he was falsely arrested and charged for a series of thefts that he did not commit due to facial recognition software that Apple allegedly uses to track theft. Ousmane Bah was arrested at his home in New York in November and was charged with stealing from Apple stores in Manhattan, Boston, Delaware and New Jersey. However, the photo that accompanied the arrest warrant showed somebody that “looked nothing like” the student, according to the Daily Mail.

      Not only that, one of the thefts had occurred on the same day that Bah was attending his senior prom. He was in Manhattan for the event while one of the thefts occurred in Boston. So now, he is suing Apple for the hassle he has suffered as a result… which in his opinion is worth a solid one billion dollars.

      Bah believes that a learners permit that he lost, containing his name, address and other personal information, was used for identification at Apple stores during the thefts. The thief was caught stealing $1200 worth of products from Apple in Boston on May 31, 2018. The same thief then stole from Apple stores in Manhattan, New Jersey and Delaware, while at the same time allegedly being tracked by Apple software.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Bah said he learned about the thefts the hard way: when a Boston municipal court summons arrived at his door in June. He was then arrested by the New York Police Department on November 29.

      When the New York Police Department Detective who was assigned to the case examined surveillance footage from the Manhattan Apple Store, they found that the suspect “looked nothing like” Bah. Instead, the detective found that Apple’s (highly flawed) security technology had been using facial recognition to try and identify suspected thieves. 

      The investigator suspected that the thief had presented Bah’s learners permit during one of the multiple thefts. Bah then was forced to respond to all of the false allegations which led to ‘severe stress and hardship’ and left him ‘feeling humiliated, afraid, and deeply concerned’.  In his lawsuit, he claims:

      ‘[Apple’s] use of facial recognition software in its stores to track individuals suspected of theft is the type of Orwellian surveillance that consumes fear, particularly as it can be assumed that the majority of consumers are not aware that their faces are secretly being analyzed.’ 

      While the charges in most states have been dropped against him, the ones in New Jersey are still pending. Apple has claimed it “does not use facial recognition technology in its stores.”

    • How To Survive A Nuclear Disaster

      Via The Simple Prepper blog,

      With the advent of nuclear technologies – the threat to everyone is unfortunately very real. If you are truly going to prepare for the nuclear threat, you must understand all the possible outcomes to be best prepared. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      When you hear the words nuclear disaster, most people start thinking about a nuclear strike from a foreign country.

      However, the threat of a nuclear disaster is much more than just nuclear weapons and war. In fact, you could have a serious nuclear threat right in your backyard.

      If that’s the case, you need to know how to react and what you need on hand to stay alive through the radiation and fallout.

      Top 3 Known Threats Of Nuclear Disaster

      1) Nuclear Power Plants

      There are nearly a hundred active nuclear power plants in our nation. These power plants supply millions of Americans with power each day and they are simply benign in the landscape and in how they affect our daily lives.

      However, the greatest nuclear disasters of the 21st century did not happen on the battlefield.

      Rather, they happened at a nuclear powerplant in Japan (Fukushima in 2011), and of course Chernobyl in 1986. Both are catastrophic nuclear accidents that have left irreparable damage to their surrounding areas. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: Wikipedia

      Experts estimate it will take 20,000 years before the 19-mile radius around Chernobyl is safe for habitation by humans.

      2) Terrorists

      While the threat of terrorists is very real, their current capacity seems to be limited to things like guns and trucks. Do you think it will be that way forever? Sad to say, but the day may come when we see an American city attacked by a dirty bomb.

      The dirty bomb is an explosive device that contains radioactive material and is used to spread that radiation over a small area. It pales in comparison to the destruction and affect of a nuclear bomb but in a small crowded area the dirty bomb can do plenty of damage.

      The time may come when terrorists figure out how to incorporate nuclear capabilities into their arsenal, so take note.

      3) War

      Of course, we are still facing the threat of nuclear war. Even after all these years and the understanding that an all-out nuclear war could mean the end of humanity. Its hard not to envision a future war where both sides are pushed to the brink and start lobbing nukes at one another.

      Whether we are facing the growing contingent of radical dictatorial leaders or some other nation state, nuclear war is far from a thing of the past.

      How Far Reaching Is Nuclear Fallout?

      We all need to get real when it comes to the conversation of radioactive fallout. While it can be very dangerous, fallout itself requires the right conditions. Of the various nuclear threats we face only one version is going to produce a large cloud of nuclear fallout.

      According to Dave Jones, a long-time military man and expert in the field, a surface detonated nuclear bomb is the only tool that is going to send that plume of radiated material high enough into the sky that it will rain down for miles.

      Dave also mentions that the most likely form of detonation in a large city, in America, would be in a delivery truck at ground level. So, there is validity in being prepared for fallout depending on how far from a city you might be.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      One of the best ways for a civilian to understand the affect or radioactive fallout on their town is to use NUKEMAP. This is a free service that allows you to simulate a detonation of powerful nuclear weapons across a map of your area.

      Aside from offering up information on immediate damage it also shows the full scope and direction of radioactive fallout. You can detonate powerful weapons in the most populated city or army base in your area and see if the fallout reaches your home. You may be out of range of this threat altogether.

      What Happens If You Are Exposed To Nuclear Fallout?

      As bad as nuclear fallout sounds, you may be surprised at the simple methods that can be used to mitigate the risk and exposure.

      If you find yourself exposed to nuclear fallout (ash, rain, radiation, etc.) – it can be managed by simply removing your clothes and leaving them outside or in a rubber made container and promptly taking a soapy shower. Doing this with a protective respirator on will assure the fallout doesn’t get inside the body.

      Once you have been washed off you are free of the debris that has been touched by the radiation. Thus, the radioactive fallout is gone. Only when you are trapped outside in the fallout does it really become an issue.

      Symptoms Of Radiation Sickness

      If you or someone you love has been affected by nuclear fallout you should know how to identify the symptoms. You are going to be feeling a lot of things in a nuclear disaster. Feeling sick from stress, emotional drain and downright terror could all make you feel like sick.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: Wikipedia

      This is a list of symptoms attributed to radiation sickness.

      • Extreme fatigue

      • Ringing in your ears

      • Frequent colds or increased infections

      • Unexplained bleeding or small red spots on your skin

      • Fever or burns

      • Headache or confusion

      • Nausea, vomiting, or bloody diarrhea

      Setting Up A Radiation Shelter In Your Home

      SWhile you might think that the only way to survive the effects of nuclear fallout is buried deep in an emergency shelter, you are wrong. In fact, every American is completely capable of setting up their own in-home fallout shelter and waiting out the radiation.

      Just to be clear I am talking about surviving nuclear fallout not a nuclear blast. If you find yourself in the blast area, unfortunately there is nothing you can do to survive.

      Beyond the blast radius, radiation from a blast will not last forever. Contrary to popular belief. In fact, levels can seriously decrease in a matter of hours. Check out FEMA’s guidelines on the 7:10 rule.

      The 7:10 Rule of Thumb states that for every 7-fold increase in time after detonation, there is a 10-fold decrease in the exposure rate. In other words, when the amount of time is multiplied by 7, the exposure rate is divided by 10. For example, let’s say that 2 hours after detonation the exposure rate is 400 R/hr. After 14 hours, the exposure rate will be 1/10 as much, or 40 R/hr.

      As you can see radiation will decrease over time, but you need to be insulated from it during the decrease period. The best way to do this is to think about insulation. Things like mattresses, cushions, and thick blankets can provide you with this insulation. Even plastic sheeting taped along doors, windows, and any other opening to the outside will provide substantial protection.

      You will want to find a location near the core of your home, away from windows and air flow from the outside world. Here you can create an insulated shelter in a closet or hallway that will put the maximum distance between yourself and the fallout outside.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Source: Business Insider

      Into this shelter you should bring things like food, water, entertainment and an emergency radio. As you can see, you might be holed up in there for a while to avoid as much radiation as possible!

      So be prepared for that. Listen to the radio so you can stay on top of radiation levels and how your area is being affected. These broadcasts will also tell you when its safe to go outside again.

      Addressing Demands That Follow A Nuclear Disaster

      A nuclear disaster is a very scary thought! Depending on the size and scope of nuclear disaster we could see a variety of failures in public service. These will have the biggest impacts on life after the disaster. If we see critical infrastructure like water treatment, power and waste management services disrupted you will quickly feel the effects.

      Contrary to popular belief, a nuclear blast (assuming it is a single event) is much more manageable afterwards than other types of events. In situations like Chernobyl and Fukashima – radioactive waste is dumped for days at a time, or longer, in massive quantities.

      Bombs and power plant disasters are two very different things. If you are in an area facing a meltdown of a power plant, you must leave immediately.  The condition of the land and water will be so bad, it is irrelevant.

      However, if you find yourself managing fallout from a nuclear blast you should consider these 4 things to be best prepared.

      Food and Water

      You can count on your sealed food and water in a nuclear disaster (like these). They will be fine to eat and drink. Don’t grab food from your garden or water from your rain barrels. These will have nuclear particles on them for some time.

      Backup Power

      The effect on your local power grid is going to be substantial. Multiple city blocks will be obliterated. Don’t look for power to be back on for some time. The same can be said for WIFI signals. Be sure that you have other options like solar or a generator.

      Security

      Unfortunately, in times of severe distress people may act in their own self interest and try to take things. Even a nuclear bomb won’t keep the bad people away. You need to have a means to secure that food, water and backup power.

      I will let you decide how you plan to do that, but my first option is a 12-gauge shotgun deterrent.

      First Aid

      Emergency services are going to be busy, to say the least. The more self sufficient you can be when treating illness and injury the better off you will be. This doesn’t mean avoiding the proper care if you need it but just be prepared to be turned away and have another option. Consider reading this if you have a medical condition.

      5 Nuclear Specific Preps

      There are certain preps that really lend themselves to prepping for a nuclear disaster. Take a minute to explore these 5 below. You might find that you are more prepared for a situation like this than you thought.

      1) Potassium Iodide Tablets (PI Tabs)

      These tablets find a home in the nuclear disaster kits of most preppers. These small pills are used to saturate your thyroid which will keep your body from allowing radiation to spread throughout it. These tabs are cheap and are easy to get your hands on. They are not top-secret stuff anymore – be sure you have enough for your family and maybe some extra to spare. The benefits of these tablets are immeasurable immediately after a nuclear disaster.

      2) Radiation Counters

      A much larger investment than the PI Tabs a radiation counter or radiation measurement device is going to tell you exactly how much radiation is in the air. There will be no guessing here. While these are expensive preps, I think if you are near a nuclear power plant it might be worth having. You never know when you might need it.

      3) Baking Soda

      Baking soda or soap and water are the key to radiological decontamination. You know, its not like you need a secret serum to decontaminate yourself. You will need something to scrub your hair and body with. Baking soda is a pretty common prep and you are likely storing it already.

      4) Respirator Masks

      While fallout on the body can be washed away, fallout in the body is going to do serious damage. If you inhale micro fallout particles its going to affect your lungs first and your whole body over time. A quality respirator is a very important prep to have on hand in case of a nuclear disaster. Check out these respirators to add to your stash (link).

      5) Eye Protection

      Eyes are another area that can be affected by fallout. Maybe you rub your eyes with a sleeve and not understand what you are doing. This is very dangerous and will spread that material throughout your body, as well. Be sure to have something to cover your sensitive parts immediately after a nuclear event.

      Make Sure You Are Ready NOW!

      The threat of a nuclear disaster is more complex than most people think. Every radiological disaster is different. The most important takeaway is to understand what items you need to add to your inventory to assure you can respond to such a disaster.

      The one thing that all nuclear disasters have in common is that they inflict serious damage either from blast radius, radiation or both. No matter what the situation, you must act in a nuclear disaster.

      Having the knowledge and the right preps will help but in most instances of fallout and radiation you are going to fall back on two major skills. The first being patience. You can safely wait out radioactive fallout. That is the best move if you are on the outskirts of the disaster.

      The other skill is going to be your evacuation or bugout skills. If you are too close to an area and the radiation is hazardous, well, you have no choice but to leave.

      For those in the blast radius of a modern-day nuclear weapon, well, there aren’t really any preps that will help you. The best thing you can do is be prepared for the worst and hope and pray for the best!

    • Big Pharma Distributor Faces Federal Criminal Charges Over Opioid Crisis

      The nation’s sixth-largest pharmaceutical distributor is facing federal criminal charges over its role in the opioid crisis sweeping the country, according to the New York Times

      Rochester Drug Cooperative and two former company officials were charged on Tuesday with defrauding the federal government and conspiracy to distribute drugs. The case was brought by the US attorney’s office in Manhattan. The former RDC officials charged are former CEO Laurence F. Doud III and former chief of compliance, William Pietruszewski, according to the Times. Doud is expected to surrender to DEA agents and appear in US District Court in Manhattan later Tuesday. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Rochester Drug Cooperative, a major pharmaceutical distributor, and two of its former executives are facing federal criminal charges over its role in the opioid crisis.CreditCreditMustafa Hussain for The New York Times

      The criminal charges leveled at the drug distributor and its former executives marked a new tactic for the government in tackling the nation’s epidemic of addiction to prescription painkillers, like oxycodone.

      Prosecutors applied the same criminal statutes to charge the distributor and its former executives as have been used against illicit street dealers and cartel chiefs who traffic in fentanyl and oxycodone.

      The charges stem from a two-year investigation by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration that began after the company violated the terms of a civil settlement. –NYT

      The company admitted in a civil case that it had failed for years to report thousands of suspicious opioid orders from pharmacies – many of which far exceeded ordering limits, and catered to doctors who ran “pill mills” according to the Times report. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Rochester Drug Cooperative acting CEO John Kinney appeared on behalf of the company during a brief court proceeding Tuesday morning in front of Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the US District Court in Manhattan. Kinney signed a deferred prosecution agreement in which the company – which operates in 10 states – effectively admitted to committing the crimes. “The agreement, along with a civil consent decree, were both approved by Judge Buchwald,” notes the Times. 

      Together, the agreement and the decree will allow the company to continue operating and set standards for its conduct, as well as providing for continued oversight, according to a court document. –NYT

      “We made mistakes,” said company spokesman Jeff Eller. “and RDC understands that these mistakes, directed by former management, have serious consequences.”

      According to federal authorities, despite signing consent decrees and paying fines, drug distributors have continued to ship thousands of doses of opioids to pharmacies which have been red-flagged

      Since the Sackler family – which controls Purdue Pharma – launched OxyContin in the late 1990s, deaths involving prescription and illegal opioids have quadrupled from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1999 to 13.3 per 100,000 in 2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      So far, 36 states and 1,600 cities and counties have filed lawsuits against Purdue. As noted previously, Purdue is contemplating filing for bankruptcy amid the barrage of lawsuits.

    • 28 Years Ago, Our Enslavement Was Predicted… And We're Still Not Listening

      Authored by Yosel Del Valle Pulgarin via Hackernoon.com,

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “An untold future lies ahead, and for the first time, I face it with a sense of hope. For if a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life; maybe we can too.” — Sarah Connor

      I was a kid when I first heard this quote, and It was shocking how we could even think of machines having feelings. Even more, it was interesting the idea in that quote referring that human beings don’t appreciate life.

      At that moment I wasn’t a big fan of terminator and to be honest I’m still not the biggest follower, yet, that bit of the end of the movie was nailed into my memory even -especially these days- several years after.

      Some years after Terminator, the first movie of The Matrix was released and from the very first time, I was hooked into the whole concept, the world, the characters, the problem though never stopped to think about some of the reasoning behind that movie, just thought, “man, that’s cool!”

      There was no literal messaging, just the whole concept to me was exciting and in part was what took me interested in programming and to be honest to try to be “different” because, you know, it felt good at that age to be Neo and I’m not going to lie it still does!

      I’ve watched The Matrix so many times, but never really thought to myself what it meant to me or how I would connect it to The Terminator until these days.

      It has been more than a year that I’ve been commuting to work. Takes me around 30 to 60 min to get there, during which I do some headbanging at the sound of metal music, read tech books or stare at the traffic jams going on the city. One thing I do from time to time is to watch other people behaviors while listening to music, just because sometimes is a good way to keep your mind away from work, to think of something else for a change. One of those days I started experiencing that the more people jumped into the train, the more evident was a particular behavior: Everyone on the train was holding their phones! I was shocked seeing how everyone would go through whatever they were seeing with just barely blinking. The most concerning part to me is I ignored this before because I was looking down to my phone.

      You may think, well it’s 2019, it’s been like that for a couple of years now, so what’s the big deal?

      One of my objectives for the previous year for me was to be more in contact with the external world. Doing so took me to really notice how bad it is. What I think it is sad, is that from the moment I forced myself to lay down my phone, was the moment I realized how the world looks like, how all these situations deeply connect with movies that date back at least 20 years behind the current times.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      It’s more common now that I find myself watching others during commute just because I want to see how smartphones are influencing normal human behaviors. Every day you can see things like people bumping into each other without apologizing. Parents so into their phones that they forget to watch their kids, couples that won’t cross a single word for a whole 30 more min ride and going to touristic places is a bit of a nightmare especially when everyone wants the same selfie to post it to Instagram.

      In 2019 we can say there is a fair amount of technological advances in software development, all of them at our reach thanks to our ever-connected smartphones. Apps and tools, in general, are getting smarter to provide more profound or more personalized experiences to users but none of them is even close to creating something so bright that would or could outreason a human being (At least not yet).

      Thanks to smartphones, humankind is being alienated of its true nature, and the best part of that is it didn’t require machines to be self-aware, feel or think but a bunch of brilliant, hard-working developers. We are preferring contact through limited voice messages rather than having a real talk. We are interrupting real conversations to read what someone else texted you. We are caring more about the unknown folk cat rather than the friend in front of us looking for advice. We seek to be more connected to people “we care about” creating connections that are meaningless or superficial. We are caring too much about how others see our “perfect” lives, and all this is more accessible thanks to the apps we love and use on our daily basis.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Human beings are a social species by design, and in my opinion, and it’s natural to try and find connections or to look for a tool that makes us socialization simpler. But the way we are “socializing” is not the best way. If we care more about the digital world than the real one, our reality can be easily replaced by an idea that would not necessarily be the truth just only what we want to see. We are digging our own tombs and allowing controlling mechanisms. We are the ones that are creating these situations, and if we don’t change that, we will be seating on chairs with screens on our faces all day (Wall-E?), or is that happening already?

      Movies like The Matrix, Terminator or any other film in that genre is they all refer to the times (in a made-up future) where there is a machine take-over and we humans are enslaved to their will. Even with a slight difference in their main argument, they all seem to concur to the fact that controlling humans is best for the sake of the world.

    • Why Chinese Banks Are Running Out Of Dollars

      Following the biggest quarterly credit injection in Chinese history, it is safe to say that China’s banks are flush with yuan loans. However, when it comes to dollar-denominated assets, it’s a different story entirely. As the WSJ points out, in the past few years, a funding problem has emerged for China’s biggest commercial banks, one which is largely outside of Beijing’s control: they’re running low on US dollars so critical to fund operations both domestically and abroad.

      As shown in the chart below, the combined dollar liabilities at China’s four biggest commercial banks exceeded their dollar assets at the end of 2018, a sharp reversal from just a few years ago. Back in 2013, the four together had around $125 billion more dollar assets than liabilities, but now they owe more dollars to creditors and customers than are owed to them.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The reversal is the result of just one bank: Bank of China, which for many years held more net assets in dollars than any other Chinese lender, ended 2018 owing $72 billion more in dollar liabilities than it booked in dollar assets. The other “top 3” lenders finished the year with more dollar assets than liabilities, even though their net dollar surplus has shrunk substantially in the past five years.

      And yet, as everything else with China, there is more than meets the eye: as the WSJ reports looking at Bank of China’s annual report, the bank’s asset-liability imbalance is more than addressed by dollar funding that doesn’t sit on its balance sheet. Instruments like currency swaps and forwards are accounted for elsewhere.

      This is reminiscent of the shady operations discussed recently involving Turkey’s FX reserves, where the central bank has been borrowing dollar assets from local banks via off balance sheet swaps, which it then used to prop up and boost the lira at a time of aggressive selling of the local currency. It is safe to assume that the PBOC has been engaging in a similar operation.

      Additionally, as the WSJ observes, such off-balance-sheet lending “can be flighty”, and citing a recent BIS study, the vast majority of currency derivatives mature in under one year, meaning they are up for constant renewal and could evaporate during times of pressure.

      Of course, as we noted last week, the Turkish central bank got the idea to manipulate its currency using swaps from China, where currency swaps, meant to protect banks from liquidity crises when they lend in currencies other than their own, have boomed in recent years…. even if it still does not have “the most crucial of all” swap line – one with the Federal Reserve.

      The good news is that unlike Turkey, whose net foreign asset position may be as low as just $10 billion, the imbalance at Bank of China is small relative to its balance sheet, so it shouldn’t be seen as an imminent threat. As a reminder, China has roughly $3.1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves (gross of swaps), which remain a safety backstop in case of a crunch or funding crisis, but as the WSJ notes, it is unclear how bad things would have to get before Beijing would permit its use by major commercial banks; meanwhile, in a worst case scenario, “a heightened need to help the big four lenders also makes that hoard of reserves seem somewhat less formidable.”

      As for who is soaking up all the local bank’s dollar assets, one culprit is China’s Belt-and-Road projects, which are overwhelmingly financed in the U.S. currency, and are sending dollars overseas in the form of Chinese loans. Additionally, Chinese property developers have a rapacious demand, too.

      But at the heart of this funding mismatch there is a simple cause: as the WSJ’s Mike Bird notes, “Beijing would like to be a major financial player overseas, but few borrowers have any interest in the yuan. Most international trade is accounted for in dollars, the yuan is difficult to convert and foreign owners of Chinese assets have at best an uncertain relationship with the country’s legal system.”

      Until that changes, expect to see the banks’ net dollar funding position continue to turn increasingly negative.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 23rd April 2019

    • Barclays Slashes Banker Bonuses As Activist Showdown Looms

      Jes Staley’s battle to save one of Europe’s last bulge-bracket investment banks from a marauding activist who is hoping to force his way onto the bank’s board during Barclay’s May 2 GAM has necessitated an abrupt about-face: After a year where Barclays poured resources into the investment bank to beef up its international presence, the bank is now following in the footsteps of several of its even more troubled European peers and slashing bonuses for its bankers.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>BARC

      According to the FT, Britain’s last remaining global investment bank is planning to cut bonuses for its investment bankers as part of a cost-cutting drive after a first quarter that UBS CEO Sergio Ermotti described as “one of the worst” first quarters for investment banks in recent memory. After US banks reported a rocky start to the year, largely thanks to steep declines in trading revenue, banking analysts have downgraded their expectations for their struggling European peers. Analysts at Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and JPM are all forecasting double-digit declines in Q1 revenues, thanks to a drop in equities-trading revenue, per the FT.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>BARC

      The bonus cuts come at a precarious time for Barclays. As the Guardian reported, activist investor Edward Bramson, who owns 5.5% of Barclays via his Sherborne Investors vehicle, saw his campaign to gain a seat on Barclays’ board bolstered over the weekend when Pirc, an institutional advisory firm, declined to give a recommendation one way or the other for 2019, and hinted that it might advise shareholders to vote in favor of Bramson’s proposal next year. Though that might not sound like much, it’s a sign that some of the big institutional advisory firms are beginning to come around to Bramson’s way of thinking. His plans for revitalizing Barclays include steep cuts to the investment bank, something that Staley, Barclay’s CEO, has vowed to resist.

      With Bramson breathing down his neck, Staley has been forced to shift his focus back to cost-cutting for the investment bank. Two sources told FT that the measures will extend beyond cuts to bonuses, and include lower pay for recruits and a pause on promotions.

      Two people briefed on the plans said the bank was also planning to adopt a tougher line on promotions, with fewer bankers progressing from director to managing director. Last year, 85 bankers were promoted in Barclays International compared to 74 in 2017. “It will be reflected in a really tough MD promotion round this year,” said one. “It will be only a rare and special person who makes it over the line.”

      They added that Barclays would also be more disciplined on pay when signing up new recruits.

      The cuts come just weeks after the bank’s former head of investment banking, Tim Throsby, was ousted after pushing back against Staley’s “sacrosanct” profitability targets. Throsby had resisted a policy adopted in 2016 to tie bonuses more closely to profitability, and had succeeded and securing bonuses for his bankers even in business lines where revenues had lagged.

      Going forward, bankers hoping to bring home big bonuses must abide by Staley’s return on tangible equity targets of more than 9% this year and more than 10% in 2020, goals that have been described as “sacrosanct”. And depending on what the bank reveals on Thursday when it reports Q1 earnings, this might not be the last round of cuts to Barclay’s investment bank.

    • The Hubris Of Brexit: Short On Solutions & High On Hope

      Via Accelerating Meltdown,

      “Platforms don’t look like how they work and don’t work like how they look.” – Benjamin H Bratton, The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty

      Complex systems by their very nature are, of course, complex. As Sayama’s diagram at the opening of this post demonstrates…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      An elementary definition of a complex system is one that is constituted of multifarious units (often simple), interacting with each other in abstruse patterns, which in turn, makes them inherently difficult to model. This difficulty in the modelling process is due to properties that such systems manifest, including emergence, cybernetic feedback loops, adaptation, non-linearity and self-organization. Some common examples include transport networks, biological systems and power grids.

      Trans-Continental, technomic, complex systems that encompass nested technomic systems as constituent parts, obviously are recursively complex themselves. From the smallest economic system, recursively building upon themselves we see the emergence of the networks that underlay a socioeconomic structure such as the EU. In other words, the complex systems we see at the state level, manifest at the trans-state level. Take your country’s power grid and scale it up across a continent.

      From 1950 onward numerous treaties were signed among European governments, giving birth to the EECEEASchengen and ultimately the EU. Each set of agreements allowed for evermore emergent properties to manifest. Each overlapping treaty, in turn, allowed for a convergence of networks. Consequently, existing systems became further embedded in a fashion that is difficult to discern until attempting to pry them apart.

      And there lies the fundamental problem, with the understanding that many Brexit supporting politicians have of the EU.

      To me, Brexit is easy  –  Nigel Farage, 20 September 2016

      Very often the platform does not look like how it works. In the case of the EU, it may appear as simply a group of trade treaties binding together a set of sovereign nation states.

      Now, of course, this certainly an aspect of it. What can’t be perceived by simply looking at the platform i.e. the aggregate of treaties and agreements, is the emergent and self-organizing qualities of the European project.

      The EU and related interconnecting bodies have become an astonishingly complex interplay of elements that have fed off the evolution of human society, its scientific discoveries, engineering marvels and social transformations.

      Power to the people

      One such example is the synchronous grid of Continental Europe also known by the acronym CSA (Continental Synchronous Area). Supplying over 400 million customers across 24 EU member states, and running at a phase-locked 50 Hz mains frequency, it forms the largest synchronous electricity grid on earth. It’s formed part of a push towards an internal European energy network and market and also aimed to harmonize with grids located outside of Europe, including those located in North Africa.

      This is a concrete realization of the concept of the energy-information networks that underpin the Earth layer of Benjamin Bratton’s Stack.

      “… energy-information networks … are central to how the Earth layer functions within The Stack — Benjamin Bratton. The Stack | On Software and Sovereignty”

      The CSA which encompasses elements of this layer forms the precursor to the European super grid, which would include not just the various grids in Europe, but those in the mentioned neighbouring areas too.

      The UK is not currently apart of the CSA directly but connects to it via the HVDC Cross-Channel link and BritNed (a submarine cable from Kent to Massvlakte). This is known as an electricity island network and has counterparts with Nordic regional group and Baltic regional group.

      The body behind the CSA is the ENTSO-E or European Network of Transmission System Operators. This currently represents 36 nation states across Europe (some of which lay outside the EU’s borders). ENTSO-E was established and given a legal mandate by the EU itself, via the Third Package for the Internal Energy market in 2009, but is self-funded by member states. The United Kingdom is represented at ENTSO-E by the National Grid, SONI, SHETransmission and SPTransmission.

      So what will be the relationship between ENTSO-E and the UK post-Brexit? Well, it appears nobody actually knows yet. Here is Montel News discussing the subject in August of 2018:

      Brexit could overhaul energy relations between the UK and the EU, derailing plans to increase market coupling with the UK and boost investment in interconnectors. — TSOs ready for no-deal Brexit — Entso-E, Montel.

      How would the UK remain a part of this body?

      Analysts believe the UK can remain a part of the internal energy market as a third country if the British government accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. — TSOs ready for no-deal Brexit — Entso-E, Montel.

      And thus the double-bind. The half-cyborg-half-human, British Prime Minister, known as Theresa May by some and the Maybot by others, has already ruled this out. In a paper published in 2017 May’s government had stated the jurisdiction of the ECJ will come to an end with Brexit.

      In leaving the European Union, we will bring about an end to the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). — Enforcement and dispute resolution, A Future Partnership Paper — HM Government

      As the Montel News article notes, the former Tory politician Tim Yeo told said news agency that leaving the EU internal energy market would force the UK government to complete Hinkley Point nuclear power plant.

      But this path leads us into yet another conundrum — Euratom.

      The European Atomic Energy Community, better known as Euratom, has its origins in the late 1950s. Its goal was to create an internal market for nuclear power and to then trade any excess to non-market members. Since then it has gone on to concern itself with providing a basis for regulating civil nuclear material and also controlling the supply of fissile materials within the EU.

      While Euratom is closely linked to the EU including governance by some of the EU’s institutions it sits outside of the control of the European Parliament and is a legally distinct entity. Thus leaving the EU does not mean one has to leave Euratom.

      Adam Vaughan writing for the Guardian in 2017 discussed the problematic situation of the UK leaving this agency, which it intends to do as part of the exiting process:

      Failure to put in place alternative arrangements to replace the existing European nuclear treaty, Euratom, which the UK is quitting as part of the article 50 process, would have a “dramatic impact” on Hinkley Point C and other new power stations around the country, the industry said. — Adam Vaughan

      It was not until after the referendum the impact of leaving the institution was assessed in the Common Briefing papers CBP-8036.

      As of November 2018, exiting still seemed to be in the works and the draft treaty spells out as much. A December 2018 joint statement fleshed out commitments on the behalf of the UK to align its nuclear safeguards with that of Euratom. The devil as ever will be in the detail here. And if May’s deal is rejected? Well….

      Many shrewdly will be asking, why exactly is the UK leaving Euratom anyway regardless of what deal is struck?

      “It is simply bonkers to leave Euratom,” says Steven Cowley, a theoretical physicist at the University of Oxford who until last year was director of the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, which hosts JET. — Nature.com

      Bonkers indeed.

      In addition to Hinkley Point C, the mentioned JET project centred on Nuclear Fusion experiments, and based in Oxfordshire had no idea if its EU funding (which forms the bulk) would be replaced by equal UK funding. And truth be told, it’s still not concrete.

      Following the impact and confusion Brexit is having on such a fundamental part of the UK’s infrastructure, one has to wonder if anyone in the UK government had actually thought about this prior to triggering article 50?

      *  *  *

      And there we have it, even with May’s deal, confusion reigns supreme. Yet according to the Prime Minister, the commons should vote to support her deal, which relies on promises of alignment and funding for Nuclear operations but mentioned nothing of ENTSO-E. Or to quote her retort to Ian Blackford MP:

      “He should vote for a deal — simples.”  –  May aide won bet with Pm’s ‘simple’ comment:report. Politico

      It is doubtful that there is a single soul in Europe who can grok the complexity of the EU now, let alone any British politician advocating for exiting it. Pelle Neroth captures the complexity pointedly in this quote:

      The EU is a consequence of the complexity of society, a kind of receptacle if you will. Don’t blame the Eurocrats. The EU is not some fictitious them but us: our companies, our NGOs, our trade unions, our scientists. They are in Brussels due to the enormous amount of legislation required to cope with the complicated social and technological interactions that result when all low hanging fruit has been picked. — Pelle Neroth

      Instead of facing this truth (and at times it is admittedly, not pretty), Brexiteer politicians and their tribe have created a simulacrum of a mythical EUSSR, from which they are trying to escape. Paradoxically, we find them voting forthe tentacles they argue strangle them.

      Fake news whether domestically generated, the intervention of a Surkovianintelligence agency, or the repacking of age-old conspiratorial tropes, cements the anti-EU, post-modernist nightmare, that Brexiteers have constructed for themselves.

      Evidence of Leave politicians woeful misunderstanding of the entity they are fighting to exit has been demonstrated over the course of the preceding three years in ample measure.

      Euratom suddenly appeared on the radars of the general public post triggering article 50, yet was barely considered during the Referendum campaign. And what of ENTSO-E? When has there been a public discussion regarding this?

      Oh and you ask, what about the other complexities that have arisen over the past 60 years? The ones that silently govern our day to day lives? Freight agreements, data transfer, mobile roaming, satellite infrastructure, joint procurement agreements, gas pipelines, medical supplies, food, financial instruments, tourists, conferences, insurance provision … this list goes on and on. And frighteningly this only scratches the surface.

      The progression of treaties and accords have paved the way for a rhizomic system to grow from the bottom up organically, and intersect with the molar top-down implementations oftentimes associated with the treaties.

      It’s these bottom-up organic developments that are invisible from merely looking at a set of signed agreements.

      Networks are often complex

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Partial map of the Internet based on the January 15, 2005 data found on opte.org. Wikipedia

      For those of you coming from a background in tech, we’ll use a little analogy.

      Imagine if society were modelled as one giant switched network. Billions of devices connected through it, sending traffic back and forth. A network administrator may understand the complex cabling and switching equipment in place. But could he be expected to understand every protocol that passes across it, especially at Layer 7?

      There are assuredly tools to help and the security analysts in place to monitor the network. But even with the best technology and tools, 100% visibility is improbable. Now scale that network up a billion fold and predict to keep adding nodes Infinitum. Introduce new protocols that none of the networking team understands, or can analyze. Many of these protocols will also be emergent, there’s no standard let alone documentation.

      Welcome to how the other layers of Bratton’s Stack have realised themselves in Europe over the course of 60 years and will continue into the future.

      The way to build a complex system that works is to build it from very simple systems that work — Kevin Kelly

      As Kelly has noted, complex systems that work are often built from simpler building blocks. And this is certainly true of the EU. From the phone call, a florist in England makes to a Dutch flower distributor, to the Irish farmer sending produce to Belfast from Wexford, each act is small and seemingly simple in itself. There are myriad tiny events like this that take place, all predicated on the network existing to allow event X to happen, or item D to get from point N to A. Now scale this up. The complexity is simply impossible to disentangle.

      If you imagined globalization and JIT (Just In Time) lead to complexity, you’d be accurate and the EU is an integral part of this process.

      What the EU does, for a member state, is eliminate a layer of barriers, allowing the system to become more complex in its interior interconnections, and less complex at the barrier level.

      In the EU’s single market (sometimes also called the internal market) people , goods , services , and money can move around the EU as freely as within a single country. Mutual recognition plays a central role in getting rid of barriers to trade. — One market without borders. European Union

      You can think of barriers as like firewalls. Within the EU the traffic between nation states is freer flowing, and the firewall rules looser, allowing the complexity to evolve inside the network, rather than at the point of connecting networks, which in the old model was nation-to-nation agreements.

      This translates into the real world of not needing to invest effort and time into vast amounts of customs paperwork, visas for travel, roaming charges or work permits.

      So now we are presented with a situation where a set of politicians want to yank all the cables from the switches and do a hard reset, disable the wireless access points and start from scratch.

      Applications that were running across this network, which our politicians had no concept of are now no longer communicating. All the complex rules for routing traffic, gone!

      Our poor network administrators and network users (read civil service, businesses and every person on the street) are now trying to figure out how to rebuild all this, and hope that their applications still run.

      And this is basically where the UK finds itself, short on solutions and high on hope.

      What next?

      This week parliament votes yet again on May’s deal. If it passes, a host of issues will likely come to fore, ones that the public has had little to no visibility on up until now. For example, figuring out what happens with the UK’s relationship with ENTSO-E.

      Get used to hearing about all sorts of agencies you never knew existed, and why, after all, they were rather important to the mundane running of day-to-day business.

      If we leave without a deal — all bets are off. The headache we will have with May’s deal will turn into a nightmare under none. The gargantuan task of trying to recreate all the network connection we once had, will take years if not decades. The quality of those connections will likely be inferior in many regards. Britain can expect to see its leverage and power projection weakened substantially. The benefits of its soft power tarnished.

      And all this because some politicians thought to leave the EU was simple.

      Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy — the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation. — John Redwood MP

      Therefore as much as it might hurt these MPs to know, the most complexdecision is to stay, and that would be better for everyone, whether they’d like to admit it or not.

      So, perhaps if politicians studied complexity more, they’d propose unfeasible simple options less. Subsequently, events like the EU referendum would be thrown into the dustbin when proposed, which is exactly where they belong.

    • Bangladeshi PM Sheikh Hasina's Family Targeted In Sri Lanka Blasts

      Via GreatGameIndia.com,

      One of the grandsons of Awami League Presidium member Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim – the cousin of current Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Zayan Chowdhury has been killed in one of the bomb blasts in Sri Lanka on April 21, 2019.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Bangladeshi PM Sheikh Hasina’s Family Targeted In Sri Lanka Blasts

      Sheikh Selim, is a Bangladeshi member of parliament and a member of the standing committee of Bangladesh Awami League party. Selim is the nephew of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, former President of Bangladesh and a cousin of current Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

      Zayan’s father Mashiul Haque Chowdhury was also injured in the blast and later admitted to a local hospital. British MP Tulip Siddiq on Monday said she has lost a relative in the series of blasts which rocked Sri Lanka on Sunday. She did not reveal the identity of the relative. Tulip Siddiq is the niece of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

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

      Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina herself also confirmed that the family members of her cousin Sheikh Selim’s daughter Zohan were among the victims of the bomb blasts as reported by Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Star. The same has also been confirmed by the Dhaka Tribune.

      Initially it was reported that the family was injured with some members missing in the blasts and were taken to a hospital. Later, the news has been confirmed by multiple persons related to the Awami League and PM Sheikh Hasina.

      Sheikh Selim’s daughter Sheikh Amena Sultana Sonia, Mashiul and their sons Zayan and Zohan were staying at hotel in Colombo, where one of the bombs exploded. The family was there on holidays. Sonia and Zohan were in their room on the hotel’s sixth floor while Mashiul and Zayan were eating at a restaurant on the ground floor.

      2016 Plot To Overthrow Bangladeshi Government

      In 2016, a plot to overthrow the Bangladeshi Awami League government was uncovered. Authorities in Bangladesh arrested a member of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), the country’s opposition party in connection with allegations that the party official, Aslam Chowhury, had purportedly made contact with Israel’s Secret Service Mossad in an effort to overthrow the Bangladeshi government.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Israeli who met with Chowhury was Mendi Safadi, who was identified as “a leader” of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likud Party.

      DelAviv, an Indo-Israel relationship platform, and Mendi N Safadi Center for International Diplomacy and Public Relations, posted the photos. The reports sparked uproar in Bangladeshi media and political circles.

      On 26th January 2016, the Jerusalem Online reported that Mendi Safadi, the head of the Safadi Center for International Diplomacy and Advocacy, “is working in order to topple the present government within Bangladesh in favor of a new government that supports establishing full diplomatic and economic relations with Israel.”

      “Soon, the gates of Bangladesh will open up to Israelis in all aspects and this is not an impossible wish,” Safadi explained.

      2014 Plot To Assassinate Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheik Hasina

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Prime Minister of Bangladeshi Sheikh Hasina

      Two years earlier to this coup d’etat attempt, a plot for the assassination of Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was also uncovered by Indian agencies.

      In 2014 India’s top counter-terrorism agency had uncovered a suspected plot to assassinate the prime minister of Bangladesh and carry out a coup. The alleged conspiracy was discovered after two members of the group were killed in an explosion while building homemade bombs at a house in West Bengal in eastern India.

      The militants were Bangladeshis and were using India as a safe haven to plan the attacks. “The strategy was to hit the political leaders of the country and demolish the democratic infrastructure of Bangladesh,” said a senior Indian Home (interior) Ministry official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This was all being planned on Indian soil and we could have been blamed if there was an attack.”

    • How CIA & Allies Helped Jihadists In Syria: French Covert Ops Expert Exposes New Details

      Authored and submitted by GlobalGeoNews.com

      Maxime Chaix, an expert on clandestine operations, intelligence and US foreign policy, is a journalist and regular contributor to GlobalGeoNews.com. He has written La guerre de l’ombre en Syrie (The Shadow War in Syria, published in French by Éditions Erick Bonnier), a shocker of a book in which he reveals insightful information on the support which several Western intelligence services provided to jihadist militias in Syria, starting with the CIA. His investigation reveals a multi-faceted state scandal and points out the murky game played by the Western powers and their Middle Eastern allies in the Levant.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      An exclusive interview by Emmanuel Razavi (founder and editor of GlobalGeoNews.com):

      * * *

      Emmanuel Razavi: First of all, please refresh our memories about what operation Timber Sycamore is.

      Maxime Chaix: Timber Sycamore is the codename of a covert operation officially authorized by Obama in June 2013 to train and equip the anti-Assad rebellion, but which actually started in October 2011, when the CIA was operating via Britain’s MI6 to avoid having to notify Congressthat it was arming the rebels in Syria. Originally, the CIA and MI6 (the British foreign intelligence service) set up a rebel arms supply network in Syria from Libya — a plan that involved the Saudi, Qatari and Turkish intelligence services.

      In 2012, probably in spring, Obama reluctantly signed a top-secret executive order, of which little is known other than that it authorized the CIA to provide “non-lethal support” to the rebels in Syria. In concrete terms, then, what the CIA did was to link up its Qatari and Saudi allies with a number of arms manufacturers in the Balkans (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, etc.). With the backing of NATO, which controls arms exports from the Balkans via EUFOR, Qatari and Saudi secret services began buying up weapons and ammunition from these countries to illegally equip anti-Assad rebels.

      A few months later, in October 2012, the New York Times revealed that this vast CIA-sponsored arms trafficking was mainly going to support jihadist groups in Syria, while arms exports by air were growing, with weapons being injected into Syrian territory from “operation rooms” in Turkey and Jordan, through the FSA (“Free Syria Army”) and local arms traffickers.

      Finally, it turned out that these “operation rooms” were cobbled together by fifteen Western and Middle Eastern intelligence services, including the DGSE(French foreign intelligence service) and MI6, although the we do not yet know exactly what role these various agencies played in this secret war. What is clear — and what I demonstrate in my book with irrefutable evidence —is that tens of thousands of tons of weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition were brought into the Syrian theater of war by this operation. It is also proven that these armaments mostly went to equip jihadist groups, including the terrorist militia which proclaimed itself “Islamic State” in June 2014.

      Ultimately, Donald Trump decided to phase out this operation in early summer 2017. This was a major setback for the CIA, as the US President was thereby conceding the defeat of the United States and its partners in the war against Syria and its Russian, Iranian and Lebanese allies.

      * * *

      ER: What concrete evidence do you have to show that US intelligence services have provided support to jihadist militias in Syria?

      MC: The coordination role that the Agency signed off on in the fall of 2011 is now a proven fact, as we know that it was belatedly confirmed in June 2018 by Ben Rhodes, Obama’s chief adviser from 2009 to 2017. During the interview in question, Rhodes argued that the blacklisting of al-Nusra Front on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations in December 2012 was a “schizophrenic” move, since it was obvious that the jihadist militia was a “big chunk” of the anti-Assad opposition, as he put it in his own words. During that interview, journalist Mehdi Hasan not only elicited from him that the CIA had played a coordinating role in this vast arms trade, but also that US involvement in this shadow war had been much greater than we thought.

      According to the Washington Post, it was one of the CIA’s “largest covert operations” in its history. In January 2016, the New York Times confirmed this, noting that the CIA’s maneuvers to overthrow Assad were part of a multinational campaign involving billions of petrodollars from the Gulf states, mainly spent by Saudi Arabia.

      It must be understood that this secret war ushered in, between 2011 and 2017, close cooperation between Western secret services and their Turkish and Middle Eastern counterparts. Thus, many experts and journalists were making a mistake by analyzing the operations of the various Middle Eastern powers in isolation from those of the Western governments. On the contrary, as the former Qatari Prime Minister admitted in 2017, it was a joint and coordinated operation involving all of those intelligence services.

      Due to the record number of public and private funders backing this campaign, and the tens of thousands of anti-Assad mujaheddin who were directly or indirectly aided by the CIA and its allies, I believe this could be the most massive clandestine operation in the history of the Agency. However, I have not been able to determine that with certainty due to the secrecy of this shadow war, which prevents access to archives and severely limits the quantity of leaks to the press.

      The fact remains, however, that I was able to assemble in my book hundreds of undisputed sources which combine to corroborate my writing. In this book, internationally renowned researchers such as Joshua Landis and Christopher Davidsonsupport my arguments, which I developed after a long investigation that I launched in 2014. Once again, I invite your readers to consult the evidence cited in my book, as it is overwhelming. I would take this opportunity to point out that Bashar al-Assad and his allies have committed major abuses against Syrian civilians, and that my book is not intended to excuse what they are responsible for.

      Nevertheless, and to date, the Western media have focused mainly on the crimes of Assad and his supporters, while suppressing or downplaying the vast shadow war launched by the CIA and its partners in the fall of 2011.

      * * *

      ER: What role did France play in these jihadist militias in Syria? Did it unambiguously support members of the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda?

      MC: Operation Timber Sycamore is a clandestine operation, and such campaigns are not owned up to by those sponsoring them — at least, not typically. In this case, however, the operation has become one of such magnitude over time that Western powers have had to communicate something about it, albeit misleadingly. That is to say, succor to jihadist groups has long been described by Western government spokesmen as “non-lethal support” for so-called “moderate” rebels, yet the reality on the ground is that the “moderate rebel force” that is the Free Syria Army (FSA) has served as a pool of fightersweapons and ammunition for the anti-Assad jihadist nebula, whose tacticians and militiamen were much more effective than the FSA itself.

      As I explain in my book, the FSA has been dependent on jihadist groups, first and foremost al-Nusra Front, and vice versa. Other factions of the FSA were completely put out of action by the jihadists, their arsenals being looted by the Islamist militias, including the Islamic Front in December 2013. At the very least, it is clear that the FSA as a disunited and complex bundle of anti-Assad armed groups was supported by Western powers as it fought shoulder to shoulder with jihadist groups, including with what later became Daesh, until the winter of 2013-2014.

      In January 2014, the first major fighting erupted between Daesh and other rebel groups, including al-Nusra Front. It must be emphasized that, until their split in April 2013, al-Nusra Front and the soon-to-be-called “Islamic State” formed a single entity. More specifically, the founder of al-Nusra was sent to Syria in August 2011 by the leader of the future Daesh, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, to fight Assad’s troops.

      However, between 2012 and 2014, it is beyond question that al-Nusra was the driving force of the rebellion in Syria, its tacticians developing major operations that allowed the conquest of various territories by the “Islamic State”, such as Camp Yarmouk south of Damascus, Raqqa, or Deir ez-Zor. In summary, the combined operations of the FSA and al-Nusra enabled the nascent Daesh to then establish itself in many Syrian cities following the split between al-Nusra and the “Islamic State”.

      It should be noted that, through the FSA, al-Nusra had been enjoying CIA and MI6 support since early 2012, but it is unclear precisely when the French DGSE started becoming involved in this operation. According to François Hollande, the “moderate rebels” of the FSA were in receipt of French lethal support from the end of 2012, in violation of the EU arms embargo on Syria, which was only lifted in May 2013. That same year, Colonel Oqaidi, the commander of the FSA, said to camera that his relationship with Daesh was “good, and even brotherly”… And, as revealed during my investigation, Obama’s then ambassador to Syria, Robert S. Ford, telephoned Colonel Oqaidi to condemn the FSA’s persistent collaboration with al-Nusra.

      At the time, and since at least the fall of 2012, the French intelligence services were alerting their government to the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist groups such as al-Nusra were the driving forces of the anti-Assad rebellion. Despite these alarming surges in theater, Paris, London and Washington resolved to persist in their support for the anti-Assad rebellion, secure in the assurances being given them by their allies in the Gulf that Assad would be toppled quickly and that these groups would not be a problem after the fall of the Syrian government. Both these predictions turned out to be wrong, and the most brutal jihadist group in the Levant struck France directly on November 13th, 2015.

      * * *

      ER: To be clear: In your opinion, France abetted a clandestine operation by supporting entities that then organized attacks in France?

      MC: As I explain in my book, the French state and its key Western allies did not directly support Daesh, but they oversaw a system that massively fueled what I call the anti-Assad jihadist nebula, of which the haplessly-named “Islamic State” on Syrian territory was an outgrowth and a driving force. I do not think that the French state or its allies, in carrying out this operation, ever imagined that Daesh would end up attacking Paris on November 13th, 2015.

      On the other hand, it is clear that our government and its BritishAmerican and Israeli allies were consciously arming jihadist groups. In France, some parliamentarians of the PSLR and LS parties confirmed to me that the DGSE was involved in supporting groups that were not as “moderate” as they were being presented to us in the media. I would go even further, and this is one of the main arguments that I develop in my book: by arming and supporting the FSA in various ways, the Western powers encouraged the rise of what then became the “Islamic State”, which fought “hand in glove” with the FSA from the beginning of 2012 to the winter of 2013–2014. From the time of the break  between the FSA and Islamic State in January 2014 onward, the FSA and al-Nusra maintained a fusional relationship, both against the Assad forces and against Daesh.

      Yet in August 2014, François Hollande acknowledged that French support for the FSA was continuing. Was he unaware of the close ties between the FSA and al-Nusra? If so, such a level of misinformation at the top of the government would be alarming. Nevertheless, in view of the available evidence, it is more likely that French leaders under the Hollande presidency were fully aware of the fact that al-Nusra was inextricably linked to the FSA.

      Moreover, in a book that was never contested in litigation by the then French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, journalists Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot claimed that the head of our diplomacy knew full well that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were infiltrating into al-Nusra’s private funding networks paid agents, professional trainers, known to DGSE officers. Despite this, according to Chesnot and Malbrunot, Fabius was complaining that the Syrian state and its armed forces were not being “hit hard enough [and] not strongly enough”.

      ER: Speaking of Laurent Fabius, why does his name feature in the Lafarge affair? Is there any evidence that he endorsed a financial agreement between that French company and Daesh?

      MC: Given his active stance on the Syria dossier, it is inevitable that his name pops up in the Lafarge affair. What’s more, there are even acronyms in it familiar to the French: DGSI (the Directorate General for Internal Security), DRM (French Military Intelligence Directorate), DGSE, and so on.

      Let’s be clear: the Jalabiya cement factory, constructed by Lafarge in 2010, was transformed during the war into a “bridgehead” for the French intelligence services: that is to say, for the Élysée [President’s office], the Quai d’Orsay [French Foreign Ministry] and all the other ministries concerned. Indeed, as journalist Guillaume Dasquié has proved, “the documents in the case, the testimonies of the few insiders and the documents to which the JDD [the Journal du Dimanche Sunday paper] had access reconstruct a different story [than that put forward by the French authorities.] […] This directly implicates the command in charge of counter-terrorism, the DGSI, the Quai d’Orsay, and the external intelligence services of the DGSE. It spells out for us an improbable war-zone game of chess between industrialists, spies and diplomats, with everyone taking advantage of the presence of the others to advance his pawns, at a time when the Islamic State had not yet committed an attack on French soil.”

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

      Laurent Fabius said in front of the investigative magistrates that he had not been aware of Lafarge’s actions in paying out cash to various local jihadist groups, including the ineptly-named “Islamic State” — an explanation that failed to convince some experts on the issue, including Georges Malbrunot. This is all the more eyebrow-raising since it has now become apparent that the French Military Intelligence Directorate was monitoring transactions between Lafarge and the various armed groups in the field.

      So I return to my previous explanation: a clandestine operation is mounted in such a way that its sponsors have deniability of all knowledge of, as well as their role in, any maneuver of this type. It is now clear that the DGSE has been involved since at least 2012 in supporting the nebula of armed groups opposing Bashar al-Assad.

      As we also know, Laurent Fabius was the most active of Hollande’s ministers on the Syria dossier, acting in the interests of a fickle “Sunni diplomacy” that put our trade relations with Saudi Arabia first — the main state funder of Timber Sycamore. Consequently, it is impossible that the Quai d’Orsay could have been unaware of Lafarge’s actions in Syria, which were part of several intelligence or destabilization operations carried out by the French secret services in that country. Renowned researcher Fabrice Balanche is of the same opinion on this as Guillaume Dasquié or Georges Malbrunot.

      * * *

      ER: On account of what interests might Laurent Fabius have allowed the DGSE to support islamists? Was he acting on behalf of the Saudis, as this same Georges Malbrunot and his co-author Christian Chesnot suggest in their book, Nos très chers émirs [Our Dearest Emirs]?

      MC: First of all, it should be pointed out that the French President is supposed to be the one who sponsors, as a last resort, a clandestine operation. However, he enjoys legal impunity in the exercise of his mandate, which is not the case for any of his ministers.

      During the Hollande presidency, we witnessed a blatant tendency for the French state to support and protect its Gulf allies. This policy materialized not only in Fabius’ hard line against Iran in the nuclear deal negotiations, but also, and much more seriously, in the shifty operations that aimed to shore up the disastrous interventions of the Saudis and their partners in Yemen and in Syria. This approach favorable to the Saudi monarchy was maintained under the Macron presidency, yet with a pro-Qatar instinct which became evident in the aftermath of the Gulf crisis that has set that emirate against Riyadh and Abu Dhabi since 2017.

      But until then, Saudi Arabia was expressly supported by the French state, owing to the economic and strategic interdependencies that are at stake between Paris and Riyadh. Consequently, and in the interests of this notorious “Sunni diplomacy”, the French state has not only turned a blind eye to the suspicious deeds of Saudi Arabia in Syria and Yemen; it has directly supported Saudi campaigns, in the most discreet way possible.

      These maneuvers have led to a literally schizophrenic political stance, whereby in fact the French state trumpets its operations against terrorism whenever it can, but further down at the level of the directorate and the intelligence services, strategies that have the specific effect of bolstering jihadist groups are being illegally imposed on some countries, such as SyriaYemen or Libya.

      In the case of that latter Libyan operation, an anonymous DGSE officer revealed to our colleagues at Canal+ TV station that he had been ordered, in February 2011, to destabilize Benghazi in coordination with the Qatari intelligence servicesnotorious supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, who at that time were dominating the Libyan jihadist nebula.

      According to the reporter François de Labarre, this policy was then challenged by the French Ministry of Defense under Jean-Yves Le Drian, who used the DGSE to support General Haftar against Islamist armed groups. However, it is difficult to explain why the Quai d’Orsay [French Foreign Ministry] continued to support Abdelhakim Belhadj, one of the founders of al-Qaeda in Libya, who was appointed military commander of Tripoli in August 2011.

      It should be noted that Belhadj is Qatar’s man in Libya, and that he is one of the most influential figures of the Muslim Brotherhood in that country. According to François de Labarre, President Hollande was unable to decide between the Defense Ministry’s pro-Haftar line and the pro-Belhadj policy — that is, pro-Qatar and pro-Muslim Brotherhood — which the Quai d’Orsay was adhering to. One is left wondering, therefore, whether François Hollande was able to arbitrate France’s foreign policy. In any case, one can be worried about the schizophrenia that this implies. Indeed, this can lead to operations against jihadist groups initially backed by our intelligence services and their allies – operations that are deadly in effect upon civilians.

      In October 2018, Paris Match magazine co-editor Régis Le Sommier interviewed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. On that occasion, Lavrov revealed a shocking conversation between Laurent Fabius and himself: “Some time after the bombings of Libya, Laurent Fabius, [then] Minister of Foreign Affairs, had called me. According to [the Malian capital] Bamako, mujaheddin from northern Mali were nearing the French contingent’s positions. France intended to stop them by gaining the approval of the Security Council, and I was in favor. I told Laurent Fabius: ‘You surely understand that you are now going to face the same guys you armed in Libya.’ He chuckled and said to me, ‘C’est la vie’.” Lavrov’s comments were not denied by Laurent Fabius, so this type of flippancy in the face of the consequences of French foreign policy towards terrorist groups — and thus of the populations they threaten — is alarming.

      The same is true of the Syrian dossier, which led our leaders to support for nearly five years a Free Syrian Army of which they could not ignore its close ties with al-Nusra since 2012, including when that Syrian branch of al-Qaeda and the ineptly-named “Islamic State” were a single entity.

      ER: Should an investigation into this be opened by the counter-terrorist section of the Paris prosecutor’s office?

      MC: Initially, I became interested in France’s clandestine actions in Syria in the spring of 2014. At the time, parliamentarian and former counter-terrorist judge Alain Marsaud was claiming in the media that our government had previously supported and infiltrated the al-Nusra Front.

      The following year, he revealed to me that the president-supporting majority under François Hollande had refused any parliamentary inquiry on this issue so as not to “uncover such collaboration with a terrorist group, to quote his remarks. It should be noted again that several parliamentarians, including Claude Goasguen (LR party), Jacques Myard (LR) and Gérard Bapt (PS party), have leveled similar accusations at the French government. On LCP [French parliamentary TV], Mr. Goasguen declared in June 2015 that the French state was helping “al-Qaeda in Syria”, then the following year Gérard Bapt confirmed me the “clandestine support by the French state of the various islamist movements in Syria, in view of the porosity and proximity of these allied groups in the field”. He added that “French support for rebels in Syria, and more generally Western support for them, continued even after the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and [the French Jewish supermarket]Hyper Cacher, though these were claimed by al-Qaeda.

      I must say that this explanation by Gérard Bapt seems to me the most accurate: according to him, the French state has supported militias evolving within a nebula of armed groups which was in constant flux, but which indisputably had al-Nusra Front among its driving forces — as Obama’s close adviser Ben Rhodes himself acknowledged.

      Let’s not forget, either, that Claude Goasguen had frequently warned the French state on LCP against this policy of support for anti-Assad factions. Put simply, it is a safe bet that our government will oppose by all means the opening of parliamentary and judicial investigations around the clandestine actions of the French state in Syria.

      But we are looking here at a case obviously much graver than the botched DGSE operation against the Rainbow Warrior, during François Mitterrand’s first term. Let us be clear: if several of our parliamentarians have publicly risen to declaim French state support of al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria, it is inconceivable that they did so without having specific information to back their accusations — which were never officially denied by the government.

      As taxpayers and as citizens, we should be refusing to accept that our authorities can carry out such dangerous and misguided policies on our behalf and with our tax money, but without our consent — and without our even being aware of it at the outset.

      Therefore, and as I explain in my book, several legal and factual arguments could justify at least the setting-up of a parliamentary committee of inquiry, though it seems unlikely to me that investigative magistrates will ever want to launch investigations into such a sensitive subject. Indeed, this clandestine operation is part of the state privilege and conduct of France’s foreign policy — an area in which the Executive has powers so exorbitant that it is able to support Islamist groups abroad that are officially considered enemies within our own borders.

      Authors’s note: if you think this interview was interesting, you can support GlobalGeoNews.com by clicking here.

    • Mapping The Countries With The Most Oil Reserves

      There’s little doubt that renewable energy sources will play a strategic role in powering the global economy of the future.

      But, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, for now, crude oil is still the undisputed heavyweight champion of the energy world.

      In 2018, we consumed more oil than any prior year in history – about 99.3 million barrels per day on a global basis. This number is projected to rise again in 2019 to 100.8 million barrels per day.

      The Most Oil Reserves by Country

      Given that oil will continue to be dominant in the energy mix for the short and medium term, which countries hold the most oil reserves?

      Today’s map comes from HowMuch.net and it uses data from the CIA World Factbook to resize countries based on the amount of oil reserves they hold.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Here’s the data for the top 15 countries below:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Venezuela tops the list with 300.9 billion barrels of oil in reserve – but even this vast wealth in natural resources has not been enough to save the country from its recent economic and humanitarian crisis.

      Saudi Arabia, a country known for its oil dominance, takes the #2 spot with 266.5 billion barrels of oil. Meanwhile, Canada and the U.S. are found at the #3 (169.7 billion bbls) and the #11 (36.5 billion bbls) spots respectively.

      The Cost of Production

      While having an endowment of billions of barrels of oil within your borders can be a strategic gift from mother nature, it’s worth mentioning that reserves are just one factor in assessing the potential value of this crucial resource.

      In Saudi Arabia, for example, the production cost of oil is roughly $3.00 per barrel, which makes black gold strategic to produce at almost any possible price.

      Other countries are not so lucky:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      *Total cost (bbl) includes production cost (also shown), capital spending, gross taxes, and admin/transport costs.

      Even if a country is blessed with some of the most oil reserves in the world, it may not be able to produce and sell that oil to maximize the potential benefit.

      Countries like Canada and Venezuela are hindered by geology – in these places, the majority of oil is extra heavy crude or bitumen (oil sands), and these types of oil are simply more difficult and costly to extract.

      In other places, obstacles are are self-imposed. In some countries, like Brazil and the U.S., there are higher taxes on oil production, which raises the total cost per barrel.

    • The Trump Administration's Iran Policy Will Hasten Imperial Decline

      Authored by Michael Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

      There was a postwar order, but was it liberal?  Like most political orders, it looked much better on paper than it did in practice and to the core members of the order than those on the margins…

      Liberal values were only remotely attached to the postwar institutions.  Sovereign equality did not translate into a liberal world order.  The postwar institutions were run by the most powerful countries, with middle and lesser powers either shunted to the back of the room or locked out altogether…Third World now comprised most of the world’s states, but it was on the outside looking in.  Western states enjoyed democracy and the rule of law, but the U.S. and the former colonial masters undermined rather than supported democracy and human rights elsewhere. Some Western states and analysts presumed that the global order must have some legitimacy because there were no great (or at least successful) revolts by the Third World, but they mistook coercion and the lack of alternative for consent…

      The suggestion, then, is that if the international order is having greater difficulty creating rule-based governance, it might have less to do with the weakening of liberalism and more to do with the fact that the rules that have been in place for decades were overdue for an overhaul, and especially given a shift in power from the West to the East.  

      – From Michael N. Barnett’s piece: The End of a Liberal International Order That Never Existed

      A primary focus of my writing of late centers around the idea that the policies of the Trump administration, and the neocons in control of it, will hasten the decline of U.S. imperial power and more rapidly usher in a multi-polar (and possibly bifurcated) world. Today’s news regarding the elimination of waivers on Iranian oil imports provides another perfect example.

      Specifically, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced earlier today that waivers which allowed eight countries to import Iranian crude oil without being subject to U.S. sanctions would expire on May 2 without extension. The eight countries included are China, India, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Greece, Italy and Taiwan.

      This move is an extraordinarily foolish and reckless act which illustrates the extreme hubris and short-sightedness of those running American foreign policy under Trump. What the U.S. is decreeing to the entire world with this action is that the U.S., and the U.S. alone, decides who gets to trade with who. The U.S. is telling China, the second largest economy in the world and home to over one billion people, that it lacks the sovereign authority to buy oil from Iran if it so desires. If the U.S. can unilaterally play boss on the trade decisions of foreign countries, national sovereignty does not exist in practice anywhere on the planet. There is only empire.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As such, this goes beyond aggressive foreign policy. It’s more or less an assertion by the Trump administration that the world is in fact a global dictatorship run by a single nation (empire) that has granted itself the authority to arbitrarily decide which countries get to participate in global trade, and which ones do not. Now that the true nature of U.S. power is so completely out in the open, countries will have to decide to either bend the knee or resist, which seems to be the point. What do you think China’s going to do?

      One thing people seem to miss when making geopolitical observations is an analysis of the role played by internal politics. It’s not all about military or economic might, popular opinion on the ground and the domestic internal mood also matter when it comes to foreign policy success or failure. It’s from this perspective that China appears to hold a better hand than the U.S.

      Political power is largely about perception and narrative control, which is why the U.S. move here is so fundamentally irresponsible. Chinese leadership can play the victim game and sell their perspective easily to the public. Look at rising oil prices they’ll say, noting that this is the result of the Americans not allowing anyone to buy oil from Iran. Why shouldn’t the great nation of China be able to buy oil from whomever they want, they’ll say.

      The U.S. will look like a global bully meddling in the affairs of a sovereign nation, and this narrative will resonate with the population there. China’s leadership can call this an unprovoked attack on the Chinese people and their national sovereignty. China will not bend the knee to the U.S. for many reasons, but an overlooked factor relates to the fact that the public would not find such subjugation acceptable. If public opinion didn’t matter, governments wouldn’t spend so much time propagandizing and actively keeping their citizens uninformed.

      The U.S. finds itself in the exact opposite scenario. While compulsive liars like Pompeo can endlessly repeat nonsense such as “Iran is the number one state-sponsor of terrorism,” nobody but the most brainwashed Trump diehards actually believe this. As such, the masses of people here in the U.S. won’t get riled up and excited about another pointless Middle East conflict, particularly as oil prices continue to march higher. Unlike China, U.S. leadership can’t reasonably expect to convince the American public the Trump administration is simply playing defense with its aggressive action against Iran. It’s crystal clear the move is nothing more than a power-play designed to consolidate, and possibly even expand, American imperial dominance. Importantly, wars for empire are not particularly popular domestically, and getting less so with each passing day.

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

      What I’m trying to say is Chinese leadership can expect to have the public on its side if it decides to resist U.S. diktats on who it can purchase oil from. China standing up for its right to buy oil from any country it desires is an easily defensible position, representing the only position any truly sovereign state can have. On the other hand, a single country unilaterally deciding trade for everyone else on earth is not a defensible or reasonable position. As mentioned earlier, it’s not just about military and economic might, geopolitics is also impacted by the internal dynamics of various populations, and on this front the U.S. is positioned poorly.

      The American public has become increasingly sick of wars and empire for simple economic and societal reasons, if not for ethical ones. People can look around and see their towns and infrastructure crumbling as trillions are spent overseas. Empire isn’t good for the average American citizen in the long-run, it merely provides lucrative money-making opportunities for our depraved elites. People are finally starting to pick up on this. While national defense is of the utmost importance, national offense is evil, stupid and wasteful.

      Once again, from Michael Barnett’s piece, The End of a Liberal International Order That Never Existed:

      The West has lived with the myth of a liberal international order for many decades.  Myths are powerful and hard to surrender because they serve important functions.  They helped the West maintain a solidarity and sense of purpose.  They acted as an ideology and helped the powerful feel as if might makes right.  It is not clear that those outside the Western club ever bought into the myth, but they had little success posing a viable alternative. 

      U.S. elites appear more focused than ever on imperial ambitions at the exact moment the general population tires of it. This isn’t a recipe for success, it’s a roadmap to collapse.

      *  *  *

      Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. As such, there’s no monetization for this site other than reader support. To make this a successful, sustainable thing I ask you to consider the following options. You can become a Patron. You can visit the Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin or send cash/check in the mail.

    • Leader Of Border Militia Boasted Of Plans To Assassinate Obama, Clinton, Soros: FBI

      The leader of the militia group which we profiled over the weekend for its detention of migrant families at the US border, was arrested and charged of plotting the assassination of former President Barack Obama, George Soros and various other key Democratic Party figures, the FBI said in court papers.

      While militia leader Larry Hopkins, 69, was arrested on Saturday for a weapons charge said to be unrelated to his activities on the border, the FBI now claims Hopkins bragged about his fellow militia members “training to assassinate” former President Barack Obama, Trump’s nemesis in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party’s most generous billionaire donor, George Soros.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      To be sure, Hopkins had been a busy man – if what the Feds say is to be believed (which these days is a stretch) – for a long time, and before the F.B.I. arrested the militia leader, he’d had so many run-ins with the law that his police record stretched across much of the United States. Oregon police arrested him in 2006 on charges of impersonating a police officer and a felony weapons offense. They had found him showing guns to teenagers in a gas-station parking lot while wearing a police-style uniform and a badge emblazoned with the words “Special Agent” according to the NYT.

      “Hopkins stated that he worked for the federal government directly under George Bush,” Officer Jack Daniel of the sheriff’s office in Klamath County, Ore., wrote in his report. Hopkins, the report said, claimed variously to be investigating a meth lab, hunting fugitives and undertaking unspecified “operations” in Afghanistan.

      Over a decade later, Hopkins finally came under the scrutiny of federal authorities in 2017, after the FBI received reports that his group was “training” to assassinate Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and George Soros, according to documents unsealed Monday in federal court.

      Hopkins appeared in Federal District Court on Monday after his arrest over the weekend on yet another charge, this time of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition.

      Hopkins’ group, the United Constitutional Patriots profiled here, claims to have helped the US Border Patrol to detain over 5,600 immigrants in the previous two months. The ACLU has condemned the group as a “fascist militia” and called its members vigilantes. In photos showcasing its actions, the group shows men in camouflage circling and detaining hundreds of migrants in the desert near Sunland Park, N.M., and then handing the migrants over to Border Patrol.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The heavily armed militia’s actions have ignited debate over whether its members broke kidnapping laws and effectively acted as a paramilitary force supporting the Border Patrol. Militia members argue that they were assisting the authorities to patrol remote areas of the border and carrying out “verbal citizen’s arrests.”

      “We cannot allow racist and armed vigilantes to kidnap and detain people seeking asylum,” the ACLU said in a letter to New Mexico Governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham and Attorney General Hector Balderas.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      United Constitutional Patriots

      Hopkins’ attorney, Kelly O’Connell, said the militia group leader planned to plead not guilty.  The militia’s spokesman told local media that he’s “confident” Hopkins will “get through this.” He also claimed that the New Mexico, Hector Balderas, “has declared war on American citizens at the order of the ACLU” by pushing to prevent private citizens “from assisting and documenting a crisis on the border.”

      In an affidavit, FBI special agent David S. Gabriel, said the bureau was made aware of the activities of Hopkins after receiving reports in October 2017 of “alleged militia extremist activity” in northwestern New Mexico. Gabriel said that the following month, two F.B.I. agents went to a trailer park in Flora Vista, N.M., where Hopkins was living at the time. With Mr. Hopkins’s consent, the agents entered the home and saw about 10 firearms in plain view, in what Mr. Hopkins referred to as his office.

      Hopkins, who has also used the name Johnny Horton Jr., told the agents that the guns belonged to Fay Sanders Murphy, whom he described to agents as his common-law wife, according to the affidavit. The agents collected at least nine firearms from the home as evidence, including a 12-gauge shotgun and various handguns.

      According to the NYT, the court affidavit gave few details about the report the F.B.I. received stating that the United Constitutional Patriots “were training to assassinate George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama because of these individuals’ support of Antifa.”

      Hopkins’s lawyer, Kelly O’Connell, disputed the reports about assassination plans. “My client told me that is not true,” Mr. O’Connell said. He also questioned the timing of the arrest. “My question is, why now?” O’Connell said. He suggested that pressure from prominent Democrats in New Mexico may have prompted the F.B.I. to take action.

    • Paul Craig Roberts Warns The Orchestration Of Russophobia Is The Prelude To War

      Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

      Russiagate has three purposes.

      • One is to prevent President Trump from endangering the vast budget and power of the military/security complex by normalizing relations with Russia.

      • Another, in the words of James Howard Kunstler, is “to conceal the criminal conduct of US government officials meddling in the 2016 election in collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign,” by focusing all public and political attention on a hoax distraction.

      • The third is to obstruct Trump’s campaign and distract him from his agenda when he won the election.

      Despite the inability of Mueller to find any evidence that Trump or Trump officials colluded with Russia to steal the US presidential election, and the inability of Mueller to find evidence with which to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice, Russiagate has achieved all of its purposes.

      Trump has been locked into a hostile relationship with Russia. Neoconservatives have succeeded in worsening this hostile relationship by manipulating Trump into a blatant criminal attempt to overthrow in broad daylight the Venezuelan government.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Russian Embassy in Washington has prepared an accurate 121-page report in response to Mueller’s report: THE RUSSIAGATE HYSTERIA: A CASE OF SEVERE RUSSOPHOBIA.

      Everyone should read this report. It documents the fake news, lies, violations of diplomatic standards and international law, and gratuitous aggressive actions taken against Russia during the period beginning May 18, 2016 and continuing through the issuance of the Mueller Report.

      Without explicitly saying so, the report shows that neither the US government nor the American media has a nanoparticle of integrity. Both are criminal organizations that are willing to risk war with Russia in their pursuit of narrow policitized agendas.

      This is important information for Americans and the rest of the world to have. Every person, every government and every private organization that supports Washington’s Russophobic policies is contributing to the growing threat of nuclear war.

      One hopes also that the entirety of the Russian government, media, and population also read the report as it has equally powerful messages for Russia. The messages are no doubt unintended, but they nevertheless emerge from the embassy’s report.

      The Russian government should marvel at its naivete in trusting Washington, US institutions such as Citibank, and US adherence to international law. For 121 pages the report lists transgression against Russia followed by transgression and lie followed by lie; yet the Russian government continued to send diplomatic notes that are never answered, requests for meetings that are never answered, requests for evidence that are never answered. One would think that month after month of abuse would have caused the Russian government to wonder where was the intelligence, “cooperative spirit,” reason, and “common interest in global security” that Russia’s responses to Washington assumed were present in Russia’s “partner.”

      The Russian government’s naive and gullible response to Washington played into Washington’s hands. By responding to Washington’s orchestrated Russophobia as if it were some kind of mistake based on bad information, the Russian government allowed Washington to keep the process of demonization alive and thereby contributed to the ongoing demonization of Russia. If, instead, the Russian government had denounced the demonization of Russia as Washington’s act of preparing Americans for war with Russia and had taken a belligerant rather than a complaining stance, the realization that Washington’s policy had serious cost would have spread throughout the US and Europe and voices would have arisen against Washington’s dangerous and reckless policy. Today in place of the uniformity of voice against Russia, there would be dissent opposing Washington’s irresponsible provocations.

      The danger of Russian self-delusion is not over. The embassy’s report expresses the hope that now that the Mueller report has concluded that the much heralded collusion has no basis in fact, relations between Washington and Russia can be normalized and cooperation achieved.

      There is no such possibility. The Democrats are screaming “coverup” and demanding the resignation of attorney general Barr and Trump’s impeachment. The presstitutes are claiming that the Mueller report vindicates their reporting. Trump continues to use US foreign policy to commit criminal acts. He has declared that the president of Venezuela is the person he picked, not the one Venezuelans elected. He has given to Israel part of Syria as if Syrian territory is his to give. He threatens Iran with war as Israel requires. In other words, American arrogance rises to ever higher heights.

      At some point the Russian government and Russian people are going to have to accept the fact that to reach an understanding with Washington Russia must either surrender her sovereignty or become as belligerent as Washington and replace Russia’s useless refutations of Washington’s accusations with accusations of her own. Otherwise, Washington is going to keep pushing until war is the only possible outcome.

    • Don't Tell Bernie: Medicare's Hospital Fund Will Run Out Of Money In Seven Years

      Ever now and then we get a vivid reminder that America’s biggest threat are not a handful of Facebook ads bought by the KGB, nor Iran’s already brittle regime, nor Venezuela’s hyperinflating basket case of an economy, but over $100 trillion in unfunded future liabilities. Today was one such day, because that’s when the board of trustees for Social Security and Medicare reported that Medicare’s hospital insurance fund – also known as Medicare Part A – will be depleted in 2026, while Social Security program costs would exceed total income in 2020, for the first time since 1982.

      Additionally, and in line with previous forecasts, the report also projected that Social Security funds could be fully depleted by 2035, leading to a devastating hit on expected payouts to retirees and other beneficiaries (read none), unless a comprehensive overhaul of the entire program is implemented in the coming years.

      As a reminder, the Medicare trust fund comprises two separate funds: The hospital insurance trust fund is financed mainly through payroll taxes on earnings and income taxes on Social Security benefits. The Supplemental Medical Insurance trust fund is financed by general tax revenue and the premiums enrollees pay.

      With uncertainty around possible cost-cutting solutions already weighing on healthcare stocks this year, US healthcare costs are expected to be a hot topic during the 2020 presidential campaign; most provocative of all is Bernie Sanders’ proposal of “Medicare-for-All” – a plan that would eliminate private insurance and shift all Americans to a public healthcare plan.

      It now appears, that Bernie’s socialist healthcare vision is at best a pipe dream that will last about 6 more years, in line with Republicans’ complains that the Vermont socialist’s proposal is impractical and too expensive.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “At a time when some are calling for a complete government takeover of the American health car system, the Medicare Trustees have delivered a dose of reality in reminding us that the program’s main trust fund for hospital services can only pay full benefits for seven more years,” Seema Verma, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), said.

      Here’s the reason: as the number of Medicare beneficiaries increases from about 58.4 million in 2017 to nearly 80 million by 2030, the number of workers per beneficiary will decline from 3.1 to 2.4. The cost of health care has increased rapidly as well putting further pressure on program costs. HI trust expenditures exceeded taxes for several years up to 2016, and though these outflows and inflows will roughly stabilize for a few years, the fund is projected to be exhausted by 2027. These pressures now and in the future will force lawmakers to find ways to finance promised benefits or cut services or provider payment rates.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Separately, the report said costs associated with the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund, which covers drug costs in Part B and D in the program for seniors, are likely to grow steadily from 2.1% of gross domestic product in 2018 to about 3.7% of GDP in 2038, given the aging U.S. population and rising costs.

      There was a sliver of good news, and one may have to thank Trump for it: cost projections for Part D drug spending, which covers pharmacy prescription medicines, are actually lower than in last year’s report because of slower price growth and a trend of increasing manufacturer rebates, CMS said.

      Some more good news: unlike Medicare Part A, the trustees projected that the SMI fund for Part B and Part D will remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law provides financing from general revenues and beneficiary premiums each year to meet the next year’s expected costs.

      Finally, in an unexpected twist, the trustees predicted that the Social Security program’s will extend for one more year than projected last year. Which means that instead of being exhausted in 2034, Social Security funding will hit zero in 2035, or as the LA Times put it, “the trust funds’ exhaustion last year was 16 years away; this year it’s still 16 years away.”

      That said, the costs of running Social Security will exceed the revenue next year; in 2018 income of $1.003 trillion only barely exceeded the costs of $1 trillion. The program received $885 million from the payroll tax, $83 million in interest and $35 million from taxing benefits, while it spent $988.6 million on benefit payments, $6.7 million on administrative expenses and $4.9 million on railroad retirement expenses.

      Costs haven’t exceeded revenues since 1982, but are projected to do so in 2020. After that, costs will then remain higher throughout the 75-year projection period, according to the forecast.The rising costs are a sign of America’s increasing aging population.

      Finally, for those eager to save Social Security it could be donw… it will just cost an additional 2.7% from every paycheck. Specifically, the cost of making Social Security fully solvent would require an immediate increase in the payroll tax of nearly 2.7% points, bringing the tax to 15.1% (shared by employers and employees), up from the current 12.4%. Whether or not any Americans will be thrilled with having nearly 3% of each and every paycheck be paid down to fund healthcare for others is a different matter entirely.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 22nd April 2019

    • Air Force Deploys Stealth Fighters To Middle East For First Time 

      Amid the threats of war with Iran, the U.S. Air Force has forward deployed Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets to the Middle East, reported Air Force Times

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Air Force Central Command (AFCENT) announced last week that F-35s from the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, have arrived at Al Dhafra Air Base, United Arab Emirates to continue air superiority missions across the region.

      It’s the first time Air Force F-35s have been sent to the Middle East.

      “We are adding a cutting-edge weapons system to our arsenal that significantly enhances the capability of the coalition,” Lt. Gen. Joseph T. Guastella, commander of AFCENT, said in the release. “The sensor fusion and survivability this aircraft provides to the joint force will enhance security and stability across the theater and deter aggressors.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “The F-35A provides our nation air dominance in any threat,” added Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein. “When it comes to having a ‘quarterback’ for the coalition joint force, the interoperable F-35A is clearly the aircraft for the leadership role.”

      The F-35’s deployment comes one month after Rockwell B-1 Lancer bombers completed their deployment at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which left an operational gap of planes in the Middle East. The F-35s will support regional allies in airstrikes against the Taliban and Islamic State in Afghanistan.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The F-35 is expected to replace aging airframes such as the F-15, F-16, and A-10. The stealth jet’s advanced sensor package is designed to integrate and share data with other assets on the modern battlefield.

      “The F-35A provides our nation air dominance in any threat,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein said in the release. “When it comes to having a quarterback for the coalition joint force, the inter-operable F-35A is clearly the aircraft for the leadership role.”

      AFCENT spokeswoman Maj. Holly Brauer told the Air Force Times that upcoming missions would be on behalf of Operation Inherent Resolve.

      “During their deployment, the Airmen will fly operational and other missions as assigned,” she said. “Consistent with operations security, we will not discuss employment details in advance. The F-35A and their crews will bring the advanced capabilities to the CENTCOM commander’s wide range of options.”

      The deployment comes as the Trump administration formally designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization. Thus setting the stage for potential escalation with Iran.

    • Spain: Does The Term 'Islamist' Constitute Hate Speech?

      Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

      Vox, a fast-rising Spanish populist party, describes itself as is a socially conservative political project aimed at defending traditional Spanish values from the challenges posed by mass migration, multiculturalism and globalism. Vox’s foundational mission statement affirms that the party is dedicated to constitutional democracy, free-market capitalism and the rule of law.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Pictured: Santiago Abascal, President of Vox, arrives at a party rally in Granada, Spain on April 17, 2019. (Image source: David Ramos/Getty Images)

      Spanish prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation to determine whether the secretary general of Vox, a fast-rising Spanish populist party, is guilty of hate speech for warning of an “Islamist invasion.”

      The criminal inquiry, based on a complaint from a Muslim activist group, appears aimed at silencing critical discussion of Islam ahead of national elections on April 28. More broadly, however, the case poses a potentially immeasurable threat to the exercise of free speech in Spain.

      Prosecutors in Valencia, the third-largest city in Spain, said that they were investigating Javier Ortega Smith, the second-ranking leader of Vox, for an alleged hate crime after they received a complaint from a Muslim group called “Muslims Against Islamophobia” (Musulmanes Contra la Islamofobia).

      At a rally in Valencia on September 16, 2018, Ortega Smith declared that Europe’s “common enemy” is the “Islamist invasion”:

      “Spain is facing threats from internal and external enemies. The internal enemies are perfectly identifiable: the [Catalan] separatists, the friends of [Basque] terrorists, those who want to tear our nation apart….

      “The external enemies want to tell us how to run our country…. Angela Merkel and her fellow travelers, George Soros, the immigration mafias, believe that they can tell us who can and cannot enter our country. They demand that our boats pluck so-called castaways out of the sea, transfer them to our ports and shower them with money. Who do they think we are? We say enough is enough….

      “We will unite our voice with those of millions of Europeans who also are standing up. Those voices are saying, long live Germany, long live Switzerland, long live France, long live Great Britain. These Europeans understand the need to respect national sovereignty and national identity. They have no intention of being diluted into the magma of European multiculturalism.

      “Together we will be stronger against the common enemy that has a very clear name. I will not stop saying it. Our common enemy, the enemy of Europe, the enemy of freedom, the enemy of progress, the enemy of democracy, the enemy of the family, the enemy of life, the enemy of the future is called the Islamist invasion.

      “What is at stake is what we understand or know as civilization. It is under serious threat. We are not alone. More and more Europeans are standing up because they are suffering in their cities, on their streets and in their neighborhoods due to the application of Sharia law. They are not willing to have their cathedrals torn down and forcibly replaced with mosques.

      “They are not willing to have their women cover their faces with a black cloth and be forced to walk ten steps behind — to be treated worse than camels. They are not willing to extinguish what we understand as civilization and a respect for rights and freedom.”

      The founder of Muslims Against Islamophobia, Ibrahim Miguel Ángel Pérez, saidthat Ortega Smith’s comments are “completely untrue and undermine social peace and coexistence” by “encouraging the creation of an atmosphere of fear and rejection towards Muslim communities.” Pérez, a Spanish convert to Islam, added:

      “We believe that the content of the video, which is circulating on the Internet, is highly alarmist and could threaten coexistence and social peace, which is why we have decided to act, to determine if the content could be constitutive of an alleged hate crime.”

      Prosecutors must now determine whether Ortega Smith is guilty of a hate crime as described in Article 510.1 of the Criminal Code, which establishes prison sentences of between one to four years for those found guilty of “publicly fomenting, promoting or inciting, directly or indirectly, hate, hostility, discrimination or violence against a group […] for racist, anti-Semitic or other motives associated with ideology, religion or beliefs.”

      Ortega Smith said that he would be “delighted” to explain to prosecutors what the “Islamist invasion” means, namely “the attempt to end freedoms, to end respect for family, life, women and democracy.” If the prosecutor determines that there is some alleged crime, “there will be no problem to explain that Europe and Spain are facing an attempted Islamist invasion because of the Europeans themselves and their erroneous policies regarding national borders and their control,” he added.

      Vox, founded in December 2013 in response to the degeneration of Spanish conservatism, has been soaring in the polls — in large measure because it is filling a political vacuum created by the center-right Popular Party (PP), which in recent years has drifted leftward and is viewed by many Spanish voters as having abandoned its role as standard bearer of conservative values.

      Often derided by Spain’s political and media establishment as a “far right” party, Vox does not fit the traditional left-right paradigm. During regional elections in Andalusia in December 2018, for instance, Vox was catapulted into the Andalusian Parliament by voters from across the political spectrum: 45% of those who voted for Vox in 2018 backed the PP in 2015; another 15% of Vox voters previously supported the centrist party Citizens (Ciudadanos); and a whopping 15% of Vox voters previously opted for center-left and far-left parties.

      Vox (based on the Latin word for voice) describes itself as is a socially conservative political project aimed at defending traditional Spanish values from the challenges posed by mass migration, multiculturalism and globalism. Vox’s foundational mission statement affirms that the party is dedicated to constitutional democracy, free-market capitalism and the rule of law. In foreign policy, Vox is pro-Israel, pro-American and pro-NATO. Party leaders have called for Spain to double its defense spending to meet its commitments to the transatlantic alliance. In domestic policy, Vox’s stated priority is to enact constitutional reforms aimed at preventing the territorial disintegration of Spain from threats by Basque nationalism and Catalan separatism.

      Vox’s growing appeal also rests on the fact that it is the only political party in Spain to fundamentally eschew political correctness. Vox leaders speak with a frankness and clarity of conviction long unheard of in multicultural Spain.

      “We are neither a fascist party, nor the extreme right, nor do we eat children, nor are we totalitarians,” Ortega Smith recently said in an interview with the Espejo Público television program.

      “We are the only party that is defending the constitution and democracy [against Catalan separatists].”

      Vox could be described as “civilizationist,” a term coined by historian Daniel Pipes to describe parties that “cherish Europe’s and the West’s traditional culture and want to defend it from assault by immigrants aided by the left.” In an essay titled, “Europe’s Civilizationist Parties,” Pipes wrote:

      “Civilizationalist parties are populist, anti-immigration, and anti-Islamization. Populist means nursing grievances against the system and a suspicion of an elite that ignores or denigrates those concerns….

      “Civilizationist parties, led by Italy’s League, are anti-immigration, seeking to control, reduce, and even reverse the immigration of recent decades, especially that of Muslims and Africans. These two groups stand out not because of prejudice (‘Islamophobia’ or racism) but due to their being the least assimilable of foreigners, an array of problems associated with them, such as not working and criminal activity, and a fear that they will impose their ways on Europe.

      “Finally, the parties are anti-Islamization. As Europeans learn about Islamic law (the Shari’a), they increasingly focus on its role concerning women’s issues, such as niqabs and burqas, polygamy, taharrush (sexual assault), honor killings, and female genital mutilation. Other concerns deal with Muslim attitudes toward non-Muslims, including Christophobia and Judeophobia, jihadi violence, and the insistence that Islam enjoy a privileged status vis-à-vis other religions.”

      Since Vox’s inception, party leaders have warned against creeping Islamization. In December 2014, for example, Vox President Santiago Abascal criticized the Spanish government’s decision to approve a law that promotes Islam in Spanish public schools. In an essay entitled, “Trojan Horse,” Abascal wrote that the government was conceding a “dangerous privilege” to Islam:

      “The Spanish state is allowing the Muslim community to preach in schools and propose Mohammed as a role model…. This law, according to experts, has been drafted in its entirety by the heads of the Muslim community in Spain, with little review by the competent ministry. The law surprises by its markedly confessional character in each of its articles, and it develops a proselytizing vocation, covering with tolerance the most controversial aspects of a strict theocratic system. The controversial preaching of the imams in our mosques, often bordering on the criminal, is well known. And we all know about the lack of freedom, if not direct persecution, suffered by women and Christians in Islamic countries, while here they enjoy the generosity characteristic of freedom, democracy and reciprocity, of course, all of which they systematically deny….

      “We already know that a part of the Western world is determined to commit suicide and many governments know that, to achieve this, they must destroy their own foundations. The beautiful multiculturalism of the progressive myth — reflected in nonsense such as the Alliance of Civilizations, or false notions of peaceful coexistence of the ‘Three Cultures’ in al-Andalus — is fed above all by the contempt for one’s own culture. The best ally of intolerance is the relativism of those who have no principles.

      “Today we have to face two fundamentalisms that, as we are seeing, are allies: Islamism and radical secularism. Every day they seem less opposed to each other and more complementary.”

      After members of the Muslim community accused Abascal of being “anti-democratic,” “Islamophobic,” and “reactionary,” Abascal replied:

      “It is somewhat curious that the Islamic Commission of Spain accuses me of trying to ‘create permanent confusion’ by identifying the political dimension of Islam with the religious dimension, when, precisely, the mixture of the religious and the political is so obviously constitutive of the Muslim world. It is worth remembering in this regard that, while our Christian civilization was built precisely on the separation of the civil and religious, you cannot say the same about yours….

      “Of course, not all who profess Islam share the most extreme expressions of Islamist intolerance or support terrorism; but it is also true that the failure of multiculturalism is clearly visible throughout Europe. I reiterate that there are better and worse civilizations, a view that, I’m sure, you share. As I said, putting them all on the same level is just paving the way to barbarism.

      “Finally: you refer the ‘myth’ of the invasion (I suppose that refers to the year 711), historical evidence that you seem to question in line with the darkest historical revisionism. We Spaniards, however, know very well that such a ‘myth’ is an unquestionable historical reality, for which we must thank the formation of a deep sense of national identity forged during the eight centuries of struggle for the recovery of the fatherland of our ancestors.”

      In an August 2017 interview, days after the jihadi attacks in Barcelona and nearby Cambrils, in which 14 people were killed and more than 130 injured, Abascal was asked if Spain is at war. He replied:

      A: “We are in a global war. They have declared war. It’s not a war between regular armies. It’s a war that is distinct and very different from the wars we have known unto now. It is a global war against radical Islam.”

      Q: “Is Spain responsible? Are Spaniards responsible? Are Europeans responsible? Do we have to ask for forgiveness for something?”

      A: “Those who have to ask for forgiveness are the politicians for their failure to protect us. The politicians are guilty for accepting the massive Islamic invasion, for failing to value the importance of borders, for providing migrants with economic assistance paid for by Spanish taxpayers.”

      Q: “Are we responsible for people who see no other option than to immolate themselves?”

      A: “Are we responsible because they want to kill us?”

      Q: “An MP from the far-left party Podemos said that we have to assume responsibility.”

      A: “We are not responsible. My children are not responsible. I am not going to accept that my children have to bow the knee to Mecca. I am not going to accept that my daughters are forced to wear a veil. If the far left like these guys, fine. If they like these jihadis, they should invite them into their homes and have them force their daughters to wear the veil. These politicians lack the courage to defend our borders and they lack the courage to defend Spaniards.”

      Q: “What about Islamophobia?”

      A: “The danger is Islamophilia. I am tired of this constant preoccupation with Islamophobia. Muslims do not face persecution in Spain. I do not like that Muslims are incapable of making a distinction between religion and politics. I don’t like the way they treat women. I don’t like their concept of liberty. I don’t like it. And to say this I’m called an Islamophobe. I can criticize a Communist and they don’t call me a Communistphobe. If I criticize the separatists, they don’t call me a Separatistphobe. But if I criticize a Muslim because I don’t like their worldview, they call me Islamophobe. Why?”

      In a radio interview in November 2018, Abascal commented on the growing popular support for Vox:

      “I am very aware of the responsibility we are assuming. More and more people trust us. People are disappointed because the other parties have failed them. We have been able to connect with people who say in their homes the same things we say in public. This is the key to the great support we are getting. We know that people who come to our meetings do so not because of Vox, but because they are worried about their country and because we are not ashamed about talking about Spain.

      “Vox is not ashamed to use words such as ‘Reconquest.’ To a large extent, the success we are reaping is because we have rescued words that seemed to be proscribed. From a historical perspective, the Reconquest is not a bad thing. On the contrary, we avoided Islamization and we live in freedom.”

      Meanwhile, Ibrahim Miguel Ángel Pérez, the man who reported Ortega Smith to Spanish prosecutors, says that he is dedicated to imprisoning those who, according to him, “profess the discourse of hatred against Islam.” Pérez, who married a Moroccan woman before converting to Islam, is a member of the far-left party Podemos. He has bragged of his efforts to force the closure of the social media accounts of dozens of people who are critical of Islam.

      A blogger named “Elentir” wrote about the significance of the hate crime allegations against Ortega Smith:

      “For years the left has maintained a curious double discourse on religious matters: it promotes hatred of Christianity, calling it retrograde and macho, while it is friendly with Islam.

      “With the same ease with which they accuse you of the crime of ‘micro-machismo’ if you compliment a woman, the left defends the use of the Islamic veil and does not dare to criticize the atrocious discrimination suffered by women in Muslim countries.

      “While here in the West the left does everything possible to uproot our Christian heritage, the left considers it respectable that there are countries that have Islam as their official religion and that treat religious minorities as second-class citizens, or even subject them to persecution.

      “Likewise, the left defends any gratuitous offense, even the most beastly ones, against Christians as ‘freedom of expression.’ At the same time, the mere criticism of Islam is branded as ‘Islamophobia.’

      “Note that Ortega spoke of ‘Islamist,’ an adjective used to refer to Islamic extremism.

      “Apparently, now they do not just want us to stop all criticism of Islam: they do not want us to oppose the more extreme version either. On April 4, many media outlets reported that the Prosecutor’s Office will investigate Ortega to verify if there is such a ‘hate crime.’

      “That is to say, that public resources will be used to investigate whether a person had the audacity to meddle with Islam.

      “Is this still Spain or are we in Iran?

      “It was to be expected that sooner or later some Muslims would try to transfer to Spain an environment of intolerance to any criticism of Islam such as that which exists in most Islamic countries.

      “When a Muslim association tries to censor a critique of Islamism, the political and media left remains silent as a grave. It is more: yesterday the progressive media loaded their inks not against the denunciating association, but against the denounced politician.

      “Every time that the Association of Christian Lawyers makes a denunciation against acts of Christianophobia, the leftist media speak of an ‘ultra-Catholic group.’ Yesterday, not one progressive used the term ‘ultra-Islamic group’ to describe an organization that is trying to impede the right to criticize Islamism.

      “Rather, the news seemed designed to imply that the mere fact of being investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office already makes Ortega guilty. No presumption of innocence, no freedom of expression or tolerance. When it comes to Islam, the left changes the relativist ‘anything goes’ for an authoritarian ‘shut your mouth.'”

      Meanwhile, popular support for Vox is higher than ever, according to the Center for Sociological Research (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, CIS), a Spanish public research institute. A recent poll found that Vox is projected to win around 12% of the vote in the upcoming national election on April 28. Vox would win between 29 and 37 seats in the next parliament, positioning the party as king-maker in any potential center-right coalition government.

    • America's "Triumph Of Evil" Exposed, PCR

      Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

      On Wednesday, April 17, I heard a NPR “news” report that described the democratically elected president of Venezuela as “the Venezuelan dictator Maduro.” By repeating over and over that a democratically elected president is a dictator, the presstitutes create that image of Maduro in the minds of vast numbers of peoples who know nothing about Venezuela and had never heard of Maduro until he is dropped on them as “dictator.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Nicolas Maduro Moros was elected president of Venezuela in 2013 and again in 2018. Previously he served as vice president and foreign minister, and he was elected to the National Assembly in 2000. Despite Washington’s propaganda campaign against him and Washington’s attempt to instigate violent street protests and Maduro’s overthrow by the Venezuelan military, whose leaders have been offered large sums of money, Maduro has the overwhelming support of the people, and the military has not moved against him.

      What is going on is that American oil companies want to recover their control over the revenue streams from Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. Under the Bolivarian Revolution of Chavez, continued by Maduro, the oil revenues instead of departing the country have been used to reduce poverty and raise literacy inside Venezuela.

      The opposition to Maduro inside Venezuela comes from the elites who have been traditionally allied with Washington in the looting of the country. These corrupt elites, with the CIA’s help, temporarily overthrew Chavez, but the people and the Venezuelan military secured his release and return to the presidency.

      Washington has a long record of refusing to accept any reformist governments in Latin America. Reformers get in the way of North America’s exploitation of Latin American countries and are overthrown.

      With the exceptions of Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua, Latin America consists of Washington’s vassal states. In recent years Washington destroyed reform governments in Honduras, Argentina and Brazil and put gangsters in charge.

      According to US national security adviser John Bolton, a neoconservative war-monger, the governments in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua will soon be overthrown. New sanctions have now been placed on the three countries. Washington in the typical display of its pettiness targeted sanctions against the son of the Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega. 

      Ortega has been the leader of Nicaragua since for 40 years. He was president 1985-1990 and has been elected and reelected as president since 2006.

      Ortega was the opponent of Somoza, Washington’s dictator in Nicaragua. Consequently he and his movement were attacked by the neoconservative operation known as Iran-Contra during the Reagan years. Ortega was a reformer. His government focused on literacy, land reform, and nationalization, which was at the expense of the wealthy ruling class. He was labeled a “Marxist-Leninist,” and Washington attempted to discredit his reforms as controversial leftist policies.

      Somehow Castro and Ortega survived Washington’s plots against them. By the skin of his teeth so did Chavez unless you believe it was the CIA that gave him cancer. Castro and Chavez are dead. Ortega is 74. Maduro is in trouble, because Washington has stolen Venezuela’s bank deposits and cut Venezuela off the international financial system, and the British have stolen Venezuela’s gold. This makes it hard for Venezuela to pay its debts.

      The Trump regime has branded the democratically twice-elected Maduro an “illegitimate” president. Washington has found a willing puppet, Juan Guaido, to take Maduro’s place and has announced that the puppet is now the president of Venezuela. No one among the Western presstitutes or among the vassals of Washington’s empire finds it strange that an elected president is illegitimate but one picked by Washington is not.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Russia and China have given Maduro diplomatic support. Both have substantial investments in Venezuela that would be lost if Washington seizes the country. Russia’s support for Maduro was declared by Bolton today to be a provocation that is a threat to international peace and security. Bolton said his sanctions should be seen by Russia as a warning against providing any help for the Venezuelan government.

      Secretary of state Mike Pompeo and vice president Pence have added their big mouths to the propaganda against the few independent governments in Latin America. Where is the shame when the highest American government officials stand up in front of the world and openly proclaim that it is official US government policy to overthrow democratically elected governments simply because those governments don’t let Americans plunder their countries?

      How is it possible that Pompeo can announce that the “days are numbered” of the elected president of Nicaragua, who has been elected president 3 or 4 times, and the world not see the US as a rogue state that must be isolated and shunned? How can Pompeo describe Washington’s overthrow of an elected government as “setting the Nicaraguan people free?”

      The top officials of the US government have announced that they intend to overthrow the governments of 3 countries and this is not seen as “a threat to international peace and security?”

      How much peace and security did Washington’s overthrow of governments in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and the attempted overthrow of Syria bring?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Washington is once again openly violating international law and the rest of the world has nothing to say?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      There is only one way to describe this: The Triumph of Evil.

      “The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned; the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” — William Butler Yeats

    • Watch: Shocking Video Shows Parked Tesla Spontaneously Exploding In Chinese Garage

      Karma can be quite the funny thing.

      About 24 hours ahead of Tesla’s coming “Investor Day” and just moments after we broke the news that Tesla had been granted a restraining order on a short seller who has been critical of the company on Twitter, stunning video has surfaced of a Tesla catching fire and exploding, while parked.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      It did not appear that anyone was in the vehicle at the time of the explosion. 

      A self proclaimed Tesla owner in Shanghai that Tweets under the name @ShanghaiJayIn posted video on his Twitter moments ago of what appears to be a Tesla Model S, 1st generation, catching fire spontaneously in a Chinese parking garage.

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

      The video shows what appears to be security footage of a white Tesla that starts with smoke pouring out of the bottom of it. As people can be heard in the background talking in Mandarin, the car simply appears to spontaneously combust.

      Before the video is written off as big oil conspiracy FUD, we should note that the Twitter user also has his own YouTube channel, which appears to mostly be positive content toward the brand.  

      We will be following this story and updating this post with further information, as it becomes available.

    • Here Are The Richest Zip Codes In America

      Personal finance site GoBankingRates has published a new report identifying the wealthiest zip codes in America.

      The report shows that Sagaponack, a community in the Town of Southampton in Suffolk County, New York, is the most expensive zip code in the nation. GOBankingRates studied how much an upscale lifestyle would cost in the town, the result: more than $850,00 per year. On top of that, the median home price jumped from $5,125,000 in 2015 to $8.5 million in 2018, with the most expensive homes and recent sales being logged around Daniels Lane.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      GOBankingRate calculated the annual cost of necessities and the annual income needed to live luxuriously in each zip code using the traditional 50-30-20 budgeting method.

      Coming in at number three is Alpine, New Jersey, with a cost of living of $499,244 per year.

      Fisher Island, Florida, located on a barrier island south of Miami Beach, ranked fourth with a cost of living of $452,630 per annum.

      Aspen, Colorado, number five on the list, costs $380,590 to live comfortably, due in part to the region’s $3 million median home price.

      Sea Island, Georgia, ranked sixth, with a $354,366 annual cost of living. The privately owned, unincorporated area of Glynn County, Georgia, has a median home price of $2.75 million.

      Greenwich, a town in Fairfield County, Connecticut, is in seventh, with an annual cost of living around $340,000.

      Nantucket, an isolated island off Cape Cod, Massachusetts, came in eighth, with a $331,558 cost of living that exceeds living expenses that of Martha’s Vineyard.

      Sullivans Island, South Carolina, placed ninth, with a cost of living around $300,000. The area is a town and island in Charleston County, has a median home price of $2.2 million.

      And number 10 was the 96821 zip code in Honolulu, where residents needed $288,000 to live a lifestyle of comfort.

      Last on the list, coming in at 51, was Brookhaven, West Virginia, which only required a yearly income of $79,786.

      Here is the complete list of the wealthiest zip codes in America:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

       

    • Seattle's Revolt Of The Elites

      Authored by Christopher Rufo via City-Journal.org,

      With residents fed up by the homelessness crisis, city leaders and their allies coordinate a PR campaign to convince them that everything is fine…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In Seattle, people are losing patience with city leadership over the homelessness crisis, but the frustration is running in both directions: the city’s political, cultural, and academic elites are conducting their own revolt—against the people.

      Since the release of Eric Johnson’s documentary Seattle Is Dying, which depicts an epidemic of street homelessness, addiction, crime, and disorder, city elites have launched a coordinated information campaign targeted at voters frustrated with the city’s response to homelessness. Earlier this month, leaked documentsrevealed that a group of prominent nonprofits—the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Campion Advocacy Fund, the Raikes Foundation, and the Ballmer Group—hired a PR firm, Pyramid Communications, to conduct polling, create messaging, and disseminate the resulting content through a network of silent partners in academia, the press, government, and the nonprofit sector. The campaign, #SeattleForAll, is a case study in what writer James Lindsay calls “idea laundering”—creating misinformation and legitimizing it as objective truth through repetition in sympathetic media.

      The key messages of the campaign include a number of misleading claims, including:

      “Seattle is making progress to end homelessness,”

      “1 in 4 people experiencing homelessness in our community struggle with drug or alcohol abuse,” and

      “[62 percent of Seattle voters believe] we are not spending enough to address homelessness.”

      All three contentions fail to meet basic scrutiny:

      • street homelessness has increased 131 percent over the past five years;

      • King County’s lawsuit against Purdue Pharma admits that “the majority of the homeless population is addicted to or uses opioids” (not one in four);

      • and 62 percent of Seattle voters agree to the statement “we are not spending enough” only when it is directly prefaced in the polling questionnaire by the phrase “other cities of the same size are spending 2 to 3 times the amount that Seattle is and are seeing significant reductions in homelessness”—itself an unsubstantiated claim. (When the same question is presented neutrally, without the framing, support for “we are not spending enough” drops to 7 percent).

      Nonetheless, the media have widely circulated or echoed Pyramid’s talking points. “New poll shows the majority in Seattle say we have a moral obligation to help homeless people, and we need to spend more,” declared Seattle Timesdata journalist Gene Balk. Catherine Hinrichsen, director of Seattle University’s Project on Family Homelessness, published “6 reasons why KOMO’s [Seattle’s ABC affiliate, which broadcast Seattle Is Dying] take on homelessness is the wrong one” in the local magazine Crosscut, arguing that the documentary “conflates homelessness with drug use, mental illness, and crime.” And Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan told reporters that “we have made a lot of progress” and dismissed the documentary as “an opinion piece.” Her office pushed the #SeattleForAll messaging on government social media channels.

      Many of the authors and news outlets that published the #SeattleForAll messaging failed to disclose that their work is funded by the same group of foundations that hired Pyramid Communications, and that their content is distributed in direct coordination with Pyramid and the City of Seattle. For example, in her story, Hinrichsen neglects to mention that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the sole funder of her work at the Project on Family Homelessness; the publisher, Crosscut, does not reveal that the Gates and Raikes foundations are major funders of their operations and their homelessness coverage.

      In its own widely circulated story on the polling data, the Seattle Times does disclose that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Campion Advocacy Fund, and the Raikes Foundation support their homelessness coverage—but not that Pyramid commissioned the polling and coordinated the campaign with the city and the mayor’s office. (Pyramid’s Chris Nelson confirmed via email that the #SeattleForAll coalition works in tandem with “City and County advisors working in the homelessness space,” but he refused to answer whether the coalition deliberately withheld this information from the Seattle Times and other media.)

      The inner workings of the #SeattleForAll campaign tell a clear story: a group of well-funded philanthropies hired a PR firm to produce misleading polling results, distributed them through the city’s main newspaper and other media outlets (many of which enjoy generous donations from those same philanthropies), and then concealed the fact that the messaging was part of a broader campaign coordinated with the city. The “counter-narrative” to the Seattle Is Dying documentary was not a spontaneous reaction of a diverse group of experts; it was a planned effort by Seattle’s philanthropic, academic, media, and governmental elites to steamroll critics. Seattle’s institutional powers, in other words, attempted to quash the emerging public consensus that the city’s approach to homelessness is failing.

      A quarter-century ago, social critic Christopher Lasch observed the beginnings of this kind of phenomenon, arguing that America’s political and cultural elites were starting to revolt against the people. While during Lasch’s time this elite contempt was directed against “middle America”—an early iteration of today’s “deplorables”—coastal progressivism has now reached the point that the new elites have gone into revolt against themselves. In Seattle, the emerging activist class—billionaire philanthropists, multimillionaire politicians, and like-minded commentators in academia and prestige media—has begun an information offensive against the liberal, wealthy, educated residents of a city that gave Hillary Clinton 92 percent of its votes. Scolding the public to be more “compassionate,” this new hyper-elite has shown only contempt for middle-class residents in Seattle’s hardest-hit neighborhoods.

      The biggest problem with such top-down management of public knowledge is that it prevents honest debate—which Seattle desperately needs. The gap between elite rhetoric and on-the-ground reality continues to widen. In the most recent polling, 68 percent of Seattle voters say that they don’t trust the mayor and city council to solve the homelessness crisis—yet the foundations, the communications firms, and the mayor’s office keep lashing out at dissenters. In The Revolt of the Elites, Lasch revealed the danger of ignoring public opinion and limiting debate to elite influencers: “Since political debate is restricted, most of the time, to the ‘talking classes,’ as they have been aptly characterized, it becomes increasingly ingrown and formulaic. Ideas circulate and recirculate in the form of buzzwords and conditioned reflex.”

      The #SeattleForAll campaign is destined to fail. The more that majority opinion gets muzzled, the stronger the eventual backlash will be. Seattle Is Dying spoke to the anger of hundreds of thousands of residents whose voices haven’t been heard. City leaders would be wise to give the PR efforts a rest and do some listening. The residents of Seattle are demanding change.

    • This Is How Crazy The Climate Alarmists Are Getting

      Authored by Tom Rogan via The Washington Examiner,

      George Monbiot and the climate change heart of darkness

      George Monbiot appeared recently on Frankie Boyle’s far-left political chat show, “New World Order.” A columnist and environmental activist, Monbiot explained how we have to save the planet. And boy, does Monbiot have some ideas.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The easy things we need to change, Monbiot said, are to end air travel flying and cease consumption of meat. If that doesn’t sound easy to you, then you’re not alone. Indeed, those ideas are so destructive of modern life, economics, and the pursuit of happiness, that they could justifiably be regarded as insane.

      But Monbiot was just getting started. Next up, he took us down the intellectual river, into the heart of activist darkness.

      “We have to overthrow this system which is eating the planet: perpetual growth,” Monbiot declared. And the writer pulled no punches. Annual economic growth targets of 3% represent “madness,” he said. The columnist reached his crescendo.

      “We can’t do it by just pitting around at the margins of the problem; we’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it.

      The morons in Boyle’s audience lapped this up.

      In a way, I’m glad Monbiot said what he did. With this interview, Boyle, a terrorist sympathizer and champagne socialist, unwittingly gave us a rare window into the malicious faux-humanitarianism that motivates many climate change ideologues. I don’t exaggerate when I say it’s malicious.

      The free market system has, since the 1980s, lifted billions of people out of poverty worldwide, exceeding all of the achievements of all the nonprofits in history. Monbiot and his comrades, in seeking to overthrow the modern way of life, are proud servants of moral darkness. They seek to impose socialismcommunism, or some other defective ideology precisely because these will limit economic growth and human flourishing.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      History proves that capitalism uniquely serves a growing and broadly shared prosperity, new innovations for health, technology, and science, and sustaining democratic government.

      And yes, that makes economic growth moral.

      There may also be a moral imperative to adopt reasonable climate change policies — it’s something I’m quite willing to accept. But we must call out the intellectual and moral deceptions offered by people like Monbiot. Failing to do so, we entertain the growing chance of a poorer, less happy, and morally darker world.

    • Telepathic Russian Troops Trained For Psychic Warfare – Something The US Has Studied For Decades

      Earlier this month, it was reported that the Russian military has been training “psychic” special forces to use in combat to “defeat the enemy with non-contact methods,” according to the official magazine of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Armeysky Sbornik (Army Digest). 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Fighters can see right through the enemy soldier: what kind of person they are, what their weak and strong sides are and whether they can be recruited [as a spy],” read the magazine. 

      “By force of thought, it is possible to shut down computer programmes, burn crystals in generators, listen in on conversations and disrupt radio and telecommunications,” the article continues. 

      These ‘goat-staring’ specialists in “parapsychological” warfare are said to have honed their skills during combat in Chechnya, using their purported abilities for applications ranging from managing the amount of pain felt by a wounded soldier, to locating caches of enemy weapons 

      Russia’s chief skeptic, Yevgeny Aleksandrov who chairs the Russian Academy of Science’s committee for combating “false science” called claims of psychological warfare capabilities “complete rubbish,” according to Sky.com

      Such research did indeed exist and was developed in the past but it was made secret. Now it’s being brought out into the light again but such research is recognised as a false science,” Aleksandrov added. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Screenshot: The Men Who Stare At Goats

      Long history of parapsychological research

      The study of parapsychology began in the mid-1800s with the founding of the London Society for Psychical Research in 1882, research which has continued for over 100 years in some form or another. 

      The United States as been officially conducting forms of parapsychological research since the 1930s within various government agencies, however in the 1970s a specific emphasis was placed onremote viewinga technique which purportedly allows one to project their consciousness over vast distances and even time. Physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff of Stanford Research Institute (SRI) received a $20 million government grant for the “Stargate Project” in 1975.

      How does one get $20 million to study “the men who stare at goats?” A film of Russians performing telekinesis is a good start. From a declassified CIA document: 

      In April of 1972, Targ met with CIA personnel from the Office of Scientific Intelligence (PSI) and discussed the subject of paranormal abilities. Targ revealed that he had contacts with people who purported to have seen and documented some Soviet investigations of psychokinesis. Films of Soviets moving inanimate objects by “mental powers” were made available to analysts from OSI. They, in turn, contacted personnel from the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and OTS. An ORD Project Officer then visited Targ who had recently joined the Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Targ proposed that some psychokinetic verification investigations could be done at SRI in conjunction with Puthoff. 

      These proposals were quickly followed by a laboratory demonstration. A man was found by Targ and Puthoff who apparently had psychokenetic abilities. He was taken on a surprise visit to a superconducting shielded magnetometer being used in quark (high energy particle) experiments by Dr. A. Hebbard of Stanford University Physics Department. The quark experiment required that the magnetometer be as well shielded as technology would allow. Nevertheless, when the subject placed his attention on the interior of the magnetometer, the output signal was visibly disturbed, indicating a change in internal magnetic field. Several other correlations of his mental efforts with signal variations were observed. These variations were never seen before or after the visit. 

      For a cost of $874, one OTS and one ORD representative worked with Targ and Puthoff and the previously mentioned man for a few days in August, 1972. During this demonstration, the subject was asked to describe objects hidden out of sight by the CIA personnel. The subject did well. The descriptions were so startingly accurate that the OTS and ORD representatives suggested that the work be continued and expanded. –CIA Reading Room  P.7 (link goes to CIA website)

      Eventually, the program run by Targ and Puthoff was formally given code name PROJECT STAR GATE, with the goal of evaluating “potential adversary applications for remote viewing” at Fort Meade, MD. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      1995 evaluation of remote viewing program (via scribd)

      The Gateway Process

      In order to induce remote viewing and other psychic phenomenon, The US Army studied the “Gateway Process” – essentially perfecting meditation techniques developed by the Monroe Institute which allow humans to harness their own electromagnetic energy waves, control them, and effectively traverse time and space. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The procedure is performed by synchronizing both hemispheres of the brain. 

      Fundamentally, the Gateway Experience is a training system designed to bring enhanced strength, focus and coherence to the amplitude and frequency of brainwave output between the left and right hemispheres so as to alter consciousness, moving it outside the physical sphere so as to ultimately escape even the restrictions of time and space. The participant then gains access to the various levels of intuitive knowledge which the universe offers

      the Gateway process is designed to rather rapidly induce a state of profound calm within the nervous system and to significantly lower blood pressure to cause the circulatory system, skeleton and all other physical organ systems to begin vibrating coherently at approximately 7–7.5 cycles per second. The resulting resonance sets up a regular, repetitive sound wave which propagates in consonance with the electrostatic field of the earth

      To enter these intervening dimensions, human consciousness must focus with such intense coherence that the frequency of the energy pattern which comprises that consciousness (i.e. the brainwave output) can accelerate to the point where the resulting frequency pattern, if displayed on an oscilloscope, would look virtually like a solid line. Achievement of this state of altered consciousness sets the stage for perception of non-time-space dimensions because of the operation of a principle in physics known as Planck’s Distance. 

      Moreover, once the individual is able to project his consciousness beyond time-space, that consciousness would logically tend to entrain its frequency output with the new energy environment to which it is exposed, therein greatly enhancing the extent to which the individual’s altered consciousness may be further modified to achieve a much heightened point of focus and a much refined oscillating pattern.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Declassified document below (searchable here)

      In short, the US Government has been intimately involved in psychic research, and has devoted untold resources towards developing it as a tool for various uses. 

      Former President Jimmy Carter admitted that the CIA had once consulted a psychic without his knowledge to help locate a missing government plane in Zaire. .

      According to Carter, U.S. spy satellites could find no trace of the aircraft, so the CIA consulted a psychic from California. Carter said the woman “went into a trance and gave some latitude and longitude figures. We focused our satellite cameras on that point and the plane was there.” -CNN (archived)

      Meanwhile, one can read examples of remote viewing sessions at the following links: 

      The race of Martians – who wore “cut to fit” silken clothing, were apparently hiding in some sort of underground bunker while the planet’s environment was slowly killing them. They were able to escape in a “shiny metal” craft “to find another place to live” – where the remote viewer saw “a really crazy place with volcanos and gas pockets and strange plants.”  

      Whether or not you think this is all tin foil, the US Government took it very seriouslyand thought it might even led to breakthroughs in human potential. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      1991 Star Gate summary (via MediaFire)

      A declassified 1991 summary of Star Gate reveals that the “primary mission of the STAR GATE project is to pursue a broad range of parapsychological activities to include external research and foreign assessments,” and was described as “a new dynamic approach for pursuing this largely unexplored area of human consciousness/subconsciousness interaction.” 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      1991 Star Gate Summary from CIA archive, P. 16 (alternate download via Media Fire)

      Research has been conducted at various locations across the United States, including Duke University, SRI International, Princeton University, SAIC and elsewhere since 1930. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Project Star Gate summary from CIA archive, P. 15 (alternate download via Media Fire)

      It’s a real, yet unreliable phenomenon

      The declassified materials make clear that “remote viewing is a real phenomenon,” with potential applications in counternarcotics, counterterrorism and counterintelligence – with limited potential for predictive intelligence.

      According to a declassified 1981 threat assessment, “Laboratory demonstrations have shown that gifted individuals using remote viewing can describe small details in a room or describe a SIGINT site and particular types of antennae.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Project Star Gate summary from CIA archive, P. 16 (alternate download via Media Fire)

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Telekinesis too

      The 1981 memo describes telekinesis as well – noting that “Laboratory demonstrations have shown that gifted individuals using telekinetic abilities can alter the state of objects or change electrical or magnetic fields.” 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Declassified memorandum via CIA.GOV. One can find on their own by googling the alphanumeric sequence starting with “NSA” at the top right. 

      In 1973, meanwhile, the CIA studied the cryptologic aspects of ESP (link goes to CIA website). 

      Meta analysis

      In a 1995 executive summary of the government’s remote viewing experiments to that date, a “blue-ribbon” panel was assembled which included two noted experts in parapsychology; Dr. Jessica Utts of the University of California at Davis, and Dr. Raymond Hyman of the University of Oregon – who was more skeptical of the phenomenon. After reviewing “all laboratory experiments and meta-analytic reviews conducted as part of the research program” they concluded: 

      • A statistically significant laboratory effort has been demonstrated in the sense that hits occur more often than chance.
      • It is unclear whether the observed effects can unambiguously be attributed to the paranormal ability of the remote viewers as opposed to the characteristics of the judges or of the target or some other characteristic of the methods used. 
      • Evidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits are due to the operation of paranormal phenomena; the laboratory experiments have not identified the origins or nature of the remote viewing phenomenon, if, indeed, it exists at all. 

      Utts concluded that “anomalous cognition is to some extent possible in the general population,” it also appears that “certain individuals possess more talent than others, and that it is easier to find those individuals than to train people.” 

      Hyman pushed back, arguing that Utts’ conclusion was premature and that the findings needed to be independently replicated, and suggested that the psychic abilities could be “nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation.” 

      In short, the 1995 report does not confirm or deny whether remote viewing is an actual phenomenon, despite a Defense Intelligence Agency summary which clearly states that it is. The program was officially terminated in 1995 after it did not produce reliable intelligence, and was featured in the book (and movie) The Men Who Stare At Goats

      And so while the phenomenon is real according to the US Government, it is also fairly unreliable. In 1988, the Defense Department called in researcher Ed Dames and two psychics to use remote viewing for the location of Marine Lieutenant Colonel William Higgins – who was kidnapped by Hezbollah. 

      While the psychics were able to pinpoint the village Higgins was held in, they were wrong that he was alive, along with that he was being held “on water.” Subsequent reports revealed that Higgins was already dead – while Hezbollah later released a video of his corpse with a noose around his neck, according to New Republic. That said, his body was kept on ice for months – possibly the “water” seen by the psychics. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to the same project summary that the above screenshots came from, remote viewing was also used with some success during Operation Desert Shield/Storm, and explored for applications within Joint Tactical Force support. 

      If one wants to hear directly from the horse’s (goat’s?) mouth – Russell Targ did an interesting TED Talk about his experiences. 

      Controversial TEDTalk about Psychic Abilities | Russell Targ from SuzanneTaylor on Vimeo.

    • 23.2 Million Hack Victims Used '123456" As Their Password

      A shocking number of people who have been hacked used mind-numbingly simple passwords, according to a breach analysis conducted on behalf of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). 

      According to data obtained from the website “Haver I Been Pwned,” more than 23 million people who were hacked used the password ‘123456,’ followed by ‘123456789’ (7.7 million) and ‘qwerty’ (3.8 million). 

      Top 10 most-frequently used passwords by hack victims: 

      • 123456 
      • 123456789
      • qwerty
      • password
      • 111111
      • 12345678
      • abc123
      • 1234567
      • password1
      • 12345

      Separate of the release, the NCSC conducted its first “UK Cyber Survey” ahead of their CYBERUK 2019 conference in Glasgow this week, which found among other things; 

      • Only 15% say they know a great deal about how to protect themselves from harmful activity
      • The most regular concern is money being stolen – with 42% feeling it likely to happen by 2021
      • 89% use the internet to make online purchases – with 39% on a weekly basis 
      • One in three rely to some extent on friends and family for help on cyber security
      • Young people more likely to be privacy conscious and careful of what details they share online
      • 61% of internet users check social media daily, but 21% report they never look at social media
      • 70% always use PINs and passwords for smart phones and tablets
      • Less than half do not always use a strong, separate password for their main email account

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “We understand that cyber security can feel daunting to a lot of people, but the NCSC has published lots of easily applicable advice to make you much less vulnerable,” said NCSC technical director Dr. Ian Levy.” 

      Password re-use is a major risk that can be avoided – nobody should protect sensitive data with somethisng that can be guessed, like their first name, local football team or favourite band.

      Using hard-to-guess passwords is a strong first step and we recommend combining three random but memorable words. Be creative and use words memorable to you, so people can’t guess your password. -Dr. Ian Levy

      “Given the growing global threat from cyber attacks, these findings underline the importance of using strong passwords at home and at work,” said David Lidington, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office. 

      “This is a message we look forward to building on at CYBERUK 2019, an event that reaffirms our commitment to make Britain both the safest place in the world to be online and the best place to run a digital business.” 

      Read the cyber survey below:

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 21st April 2019

    • Escobar: The Deep State Vs. WikiLeaks

      Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      The Made-by-FBI indictment of Julian Assange does look like a dead man walking. No evidence. No documents. No surefire testimony. Just a crossfire of conditionals…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But never underestimate the legalese contortionism of US government (USG) functionaries. As much as Assange may not be characterized as a journalist and publisher, the thrust of the affidavit is to accuse him of conspiring to commit espionage.

      In fact the charge is not even that Assange hacked a USG computer and obtained classified information; it’s that he may have discussed it with Chelsea Manning and may have had the intention to go for a hack. Orwellian-style thought crime charges don’t get any better than that. Now the only thing missing is an AI software to detect them.

      Assange legal adviser Geoffrey Robertson – who also happens to represent another stellar political prisoner, Brazil’s Lula – cut straight to the chase (at 19:22 minutes);

      “The justice he is facing is justice, or injustice, in America… I would hope the British judges would have enough belief in freedom of information to throw out the extradition request.”

      That’s far from a done deal. Thus the inevitable consequence; Assange’s legal team is getting ready to prove, no holds barred, in a British court, that this USG indictment for conspiracy to commit computer hacking is just an hors d’oeuvre for subsequent espionage charges, in case Assange is extradited to US soil.

      All about Vault 7

      John Pilger, among few others, has already stressed how a plan to destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was laid out as far back as 2008 – at the tail end of the Cheney regime – concocted by the Pentagon’s shady Cyber Counter-Intelligence Assessments Branch.

      It was all about criminalizing WikiLeaks and personally smearing Assange, using “shock troops…enlisted in the media — those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth.”

      This plan remains more than active – considering how Assange’s arrest has been covered by the bulk of US/UK mainstream media.

      By 2012, already in the Obama era, WikiLeaks detailed the astonishing “scale of the US Grand Jury Investigation” of itself. The USG always denied such a grand jury existed.

      “The US Government has stood up and coordinated a joint interagency criminal investigation of Wikileaks comprised of a partnership between the Department of Defense (DOD) including: CENTCOM; SOUTHCOM; the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA); Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA); US Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for USFI (US Forces Iraq) and 1st Armored Division (AD); US Army Computer Crimes Investigative Unit (CCIU); 2nd Army (US Army Cyber Command); Within that or in addition, three military intelligence investigations were conducted. Department of Justice (DOJ) Grand Jury and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of State (DOS) and Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). In addition, Wikileaks has been investigated by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Office of the National CounterIntelligence Executive (ONCIX), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the House Oversight Committee; the National Security Staff Interagency Committee, and the PIAB (President’s Intelligence Advisory Board).”

      But it was only in 2017, in the Trump era, that the Deep State went totally ballistic; that’s when WikiLeaks published the Vault 7 files – detailing the CIA’s vast hacking/cyber espionage repertoire.

      This was the CIA as a Naked Emperor like never before – including the dodgy overseeing ops of the Center for Cyber Intelligence, an ultra-secret NSA counterpart.

      WikiLeaks got Vault 7 in early 2017. At the time WikiLeaks had already published the DNC files – which the unimpeachable Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) systematically proved was a leak, not a hack.

      The monolithic narrative by the Deep State faction aligned with the Clinton machine was that “the Russians” hacked the DNC servers. Assange was always adamant; that was not the work of a state actor – and he could prove it technically.

      There was some movement towards a deal, brokered by one of Assange’s lawyers; WikiLeaks would not publish the most damning Vault 7 information in exchange for Assange’s safe passage to be interviewed by the US Department of Justice (DoJ).

      The DoJ wanted a deal – and they did make an offer to WikiLeaks. But then FBI director James Comey killed it. The question is why.

      It’s a leak, not a hack

      Some theoretically sound reconstructions of Comey’s move are available. But the key fact is Comey already knew – via his close connections to the top of the DNC – that this was not a hack; it was a leak.

      Ambassador Craig Murray has stressed, over and over again (see here) how the DNC/Podesta files published by WikiLeaks came from two different US sources; one from within the DNC and the other from within US intel.

      There was nothing for Comey to “investigate”. Or there would have, if Comey had ordered the FBI to examine the DNC servers. So why talk to Julian Assange?

      The release by WikiLeaks in April 2017 of the malware mechanisms inbuilt in “Grasshopper” and the “Marble Framework” were indeed a bombshell. This is how the CIA inserts foreign language strings in source code to disguise them as originating from Russia, from Iran, or from China. The inestimable Ray McGovern, a VIPS member, stressed how Marble Framework “destroys this story about Russian hacking.”

      No wonder then CIA director Mike Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of being a “non-state hostile intelligence agency”, usually manipulated by Russia.

      Joshua Schulte, the alleged leaker of Vault 7, has not faced a US court yet. There’s no question he will be offered a deal by the USG if he aggress to testify against Julian Assange.

      It’s a long and winding road, to be traversed in at least two years, if Julian Assange is ever to be extradited to the US. Two things for the moment are already crystal clear. The USG is obsessed to shut down WikiLeaks once and for all. And because of that, Julian Assange will never get a fair trial in the “so-called ‘Espionage Court’” of the Eastern District of Virginia, as detailed by former CIA counterterrorism officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou.

      Meanwhile, the non-stop demonization of Julian Assange will proceed unabated, faithful to guidelines established over a decade ago. Assange is even accused of being a US intel op, and WikiLeaks a splinter Deep State deep cover op.

      Maybe President Trump will maneuver the hegemonic Deep State into having Assange testify against the corruption of the DNC; or maybe Trump caved in completely to “hostile intelligence agency” Pompeo and his CIA gang baying for blood. It’s all ultra-high-stakes shadow play – and the show has not even begun.

    • Racist, Sexist "Diversity Disaster" Looming In AI Thanks To White Male Programmers

      Sorry white males, you’ve done it again. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to new research by New York University’s AI Now Institute, we may be in for a future of racist, mansplaining, sexist AIs which are “at risk of replicating or perpetuating historical biases and power imbalances,” reports The Guardian

      Examples cited include image recognition services making offensive classifications of minoritieschatbots adopting hate speech, and Amazon technology failing to recognize users with darker skin colors. The biases of systems built by the AI industry can be largely attributed to the lack of diversity within the field itself, the report said. –The Guardian

      “The industry has to acknowledge the gravity of the situation and admit that its existing methods have failed to address these problems,” said report author Kate Crawford. “The use of AI systems for the classification, detection, and prediction of race and gender is in urgent need of re-evaluation.

      As the report notes, over 80% of AI professors are men, while ‘progressive’ Silicon Valley’s super-sexism isn’t helping either. Facebook’s AI research team, for example, is only 15% women. Microsoft’s stands at 10%. Nevermind that women comprise just 18% of computer science majors – which is the exact percentage of authors presenting their work at leading AI conferences. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Via Wired

      Big tech’s ‘overt racism’ is also on display – as just 2.5% of Google’s workforce is black, while Facebook and Microsoft are each at 4%. Could this be why Microsoft’s AI, Tay, turned into a raging Holocaust denier after “machine learning” from the internet over the span of 24 hours

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

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Why is this happening? According to the report, it’s not the fact that far fewer women are entering computer science despite nearly 20 years of encouraging women to pursue STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) majors. It’s issues with “the pipeline” – i.e. the industry (dominated by liberals) is racist and sexist. 

      Despite many decades of ‘pipeline studies’ that assess the flow of diverse job candidates from school to industry, there has been no substantial progress in diversity in the AI industry. The focus on the pipeline has not addressed deeper issues with workplace cultures, power asymmetries, harassment, exclusionary hiring practices, unfair compensation, and tokenization that are causing people to leave or avoid working in the AI sector altogether. –AI Now Institute

      What recommendations does NYU have to save the world from mansplaining AI that don’t respect “historical imbalances”? 

      1. Publish compensation levels, including bonuses and equity, across all roles and job categories, broken down by race and gender.

      2. End pay and opportunity inequality, and set pay and benefit equity goals that include contract workers, temps, and vendors.

      3. Publish harassment and discrimination transparency reports, including the number of claims over time, the types of claims submitted, and actions taken.

      4. Change hiring practices to maximize diversity: include targeted recruitment beyond elite universities, ensure more equitable focus on under-represented groups, and create more pathways for contractors, temps, and vendors to become full-time employees.

      5. Commit to transparency around hiring practices, especially regarding how candidates are leveled, compensated, and promoted.

      6. Increase the number of people of color, women and other under-represented groups at senior leadership levels of AI companies across all departments.

      7. Ensure executive incentive structures are tied to increases in hiring and retention of underrepresented groups.

      8. For academic workplaces, ensure greater diversity in all spaces

      ***

      And remember, AI industry: 

    • Pushing Marijuana Legalization Across The Finish Line

      Authored by Paul Armentano via Counterpunch.org,

      After nearly a century of cannabis criminalization, U.S. voters — and a growing number of high-profile politicians — are demanding that marijuana policy move in a different direction.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      One in five Americans now live in states where the adult, recreational use of marijuana is legal. And the majority of us reside someplace where the medical use of cannabis is legally authorized.

      Many of these latter programs have been in place for the better part of two decades. And it’s plain to see the results have been better for public health and safety than criminal prohibition, because public and political support in for marijuana reform just keeps growing.

      According to the latest national polling compiled by Gallup, 66 percent of U.S. adults — including majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans —  believe that the adult use of marijuana should be legal.

      Separate national surveys, such as the General Social Survey and the latest Pew poll, similarly show that public support for legalization is at a historic high.

      Voters’ support for legalizing and regulating cannabis isn’t born out of a presumption that the plant is altogether harmless. To the contrary, society has long acknowledged that cannabis is a mood-altering substance with some risk potential — particularly for young people or among those with a family history of mental illness.

      In fact, it’s precisely because marijuana use may pose potential risks that advocacy groups like NORML have long urged lawmakers to regulate it accordingly.

      Such regulations already exist governing the use, production, and retail distribution of alcohol and tobacco — two substances that are far more dangerous and costly to society than the responsible adult use of cannabis.

      The enforcement of these regulations, coupled with public awareness campaigns to educate consumers about these products’ health effects, have proven effective at reducing the public’s use of these two substances — particularly among U.S. teens.

      Specifically, according to 2018 data compiled by the University of Michigan, lifetime use of cigarettes by young people has fallen 70 percent since the early 1990s and is now at a historic low. The lifetime use of alcohol is also at an all-time low, having fallen 49 percent during this same time period.

      There is no legitimate reason not to apply these same tried-and-true principles to marijuana.

      In Congress, a growing number of politicians are getting the message.

      In the Senate, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers recently introduced the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act of 2019, which protects state-sanctioned marijuana-related activities from undue federal interference.

      Broader federal reform bills, such as the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act and the Marijuana Justice Act, are also pending in the House, where lawmakers recently took steps to permit banks to legally affiliate with state-licensed marijuana businesses.

      Among the growing field of Democratic presidential hopefuls, almost all are on record in support of legalizing adult use.

      Yet despite these recent cultural and political shifts in opinion, marijuana legalization is not inevitable. These societal and legal changes only occur when advocates remain passionate and vigilant, and when they demand their elected officials to act. And the time for action is now.

      The failures of marijuana prohibition are apparent and too large to any longer ignore. It’s time to move in another direction.

      A pragmatic regulatory framework that allows for the legal, licensed commercial production and retail sale of marijuana to adults but restricts its use among young people — coupled with a legal environment that fosters open, honest dialogue between parents and children about cannabis’ potential harms — best reduces the risks associated with the plant’s use or abuse.

      By contrast, advocating for the marijuana’s continued criminalization only compounds them.

      A freer, healthier, and safer society awaits.

    • Beto O'Rourke Campaign Loses Top Adviser And Her Deputy

      Beto O’Rourke’s is down two aides – one of whom was a self-described “central part of” his 2020 campaign for president, according to BuzzFeed

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to BuzzFeed News:

      A top adviser to Beto O’Rourke, Becky Bond, has split with his campaign, an O’Rourke spokesperson confirmed.

      Bond, a longtime progressive activist and organizer known for her work on O’Rourke’s 2018 Senate bid against Republican Ted Cruz, left the campaign along with her deputy Zack Malitz. Malitz worked closely with Bond on Sen. Bernie Sanders’ first presidential campaign in 2016.

      It has yet to be seen if this will slow the momentum of the former Texas congressman who fantasized about murdering children and wrote weird furry poetry about a ball-buffing, butt-shining, ass-waxing cow that provides “milky wonder.” 

      Perhaps they just didn’t connect with the skateboarding, dabbing, ex-hacker failing miserably with a “how do you do, fellow kids?” campaign to woo progressive voters. Or perhaps they were fired after O’Rourke recruited as his campaign manager veteran Democratic operative Jen O’Malley Dillon, who served in top leadership roles for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, according to BuzzFeed

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      O’Rourke spokesman Chris Evans did not address the reasons for the departures, or whether Bond and Malitz left voluntarily – only that they worked for O’Rourke during his 2018 Senate race and served on a “temporary” one-month basis. 

      Evans said that Bond and Malitz, who worked for O’Rourke during the 2018 Senate race, only served as employees the campaign in a “temporary” one-month basis. Democratic operatives who have worked with Bond this year say she considered herself a central part of O’Rourke’s 2020 operation.

      In a statement about her and Malitz’s departure to BuzzFeed News, Bond said it was “time for us to move on to other challenges.”BuzzFeed

      “Launching a presidential campaign without a big staff or even a campaign manager was no easy feat and it took everyone pitching in,” said Bond. “We’re proud to have been part of the team of deeply dedicated staff and volunteers who nearly pulled off a historic upset in the 2018 Texas Senate race and broke records launching Beto’s campaign for the presidency.” 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Beto dabbing like Hillary Clinton

      According to Evans, the two remain “volunteers” for the O’Rourke campaign. 

      In short, BuzzFeed is reporting mixed messages following their departure, or downgrade, whichever the case may be. 

      “They were not only instrumental to the historic Texas Senate race but they agreed to help get us off the ground in this monumental undertaking of running a grassroots campaign for president in every part of the country,” said Evans in a Saturday statement. “Becky and Zack remain close friends of the campaign, and true to form, they have already joined our army of grassroots volunteers who are signing up for shifts and committing to electing Beto president.”

      Bond is a well-known organizer in progressive circles, serving as political director of CREDO, a San Francisco-based activist group that aimed to push Obama to the left during his administration, before joining the Sanders campaign in 2016. On that race, she and Malitz helped build the Vermont senator’s “distributed organizing” program, which aimed to build volunteer leadership networks in areas of the country where the campaign lacked staff.

      She and Malitz committed to support O’Rourke’s team in 2020 at a time when some progressives, including a handful of Sanders allies, were critical of the Texas congressman. Several of Sanders’ former advisors still work for O’Rourke. –BuzzFeed

      Meanwhile, enjoy some of Beto’s poetry:

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

    • How To Explain Bitcoin To Your Friends & Family

      Authored by Len Ruggiero via The Burning Platform blog,

      Introduction: 

      EVERY new technological development throughout mankind’s recorded history has been met initially with derision, protest, incarceration, torture, death, and sometimes war. From the Catholic Church’s restraint of Galileo, who insisted that Copernicus was correct in his assertion that the sun was the center of the solar system, rather than the Earth as center, as was the position of the church at the time, to the invention of the printing press, which facilitated the French Revolution due to its ability to improve communication exponentially, to the personal computer, to Bitcoin, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, driverless electric vehicles, etc., technology advancement has always intimidated mankind when first introduced. Bitcoin is no exception.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Prediction:

      Taking it to its logical conclusion, the adoption of Bitcoin as a store of value and a means of exchange will literally destroy the existing banking and financial system as we know it.  It is inevitable. Nothing can stop Bitcoin. All current assets owned by people across the globe will become worthless. This will include assets owned by all levels of government, including, social security funds, and any other type of retirement fund. It makes no difference if the asset is measured in Dollars, Euros Yen, or Renminbi, the value of all current forms of assets will disappear, literally overnight.

      So there will be world anarchy, we’ll retreat to the dark ages, everyone will be poor, and we’ll have to subsist off the land, or die.  Right? Wrong. There will exist a fairly large group of Bitcoin Billionaires and Trillionaires, so called “whales,” in all the currently existing advanced economies of the world. These people will control all the power because they control Bitcoin.

      There will be a meeting of these people. It will be like Bretton Woods all over again, but instead of politicians and bankers attending, it will be Bitcoin Billionaires and Trillionaires.  They will  declare a “New World Order.”  Under the Bitcoin “New World Order”, a percentage of all Bitcoin in the world will be taxed at some agreed upon amount sufficient to replace the capital of every private individual, institution, and government around the globe with an amount equivalent to the pre-Bitcoin changeover. All countries will receive Bitcoin in an amount equivalent to local currency and people will continue to work as they do now.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      I further predict this event will transpire within the next five years when the use of bitcoin by individuals and organizations becomes so widespread that local currencies will become unnecessary. The event will be similar to what is happening right now with the Petrodollar. China has declared it will begin using its currency rather than Dollars to buy its oil needs. Potentially, this could lead to China becoming the dominant world power in buying and trading of crude oil. It is currently the largest buyer of crude, which, coincidentally, is the largest traded commodity by Dollar volume.

      I also predict that this event will cause all the world’s central bankers to establish their own form of bitcoin but that attempt will fail because Bitcoin by then will already be established as the gold standard, so to speak.

      History:

      If one reads, listens to, or watches the news, one will hear repeatedly that Bitcoin is a scam, that it will go bust, it will be put out of business by competing bank’s cybercurrencies, or that governments will stop it, etc.  However, I happen to believe Bitcoin will prevail over all obstacles and I therefore boldly

      (or perhaps stupidly), predict its future. In a remark attributed to Mark Twain, “Predictions are hard, especially about the future.”

      On August 18, 2008, the domain name “bitcoin.org” was registered.  In November that year, a link to a paper authored by Satoshi Nakamoto titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System was posted to a cryptography mailing list.  Nakamoto implemented the bitcoin software as open sourcecode and released it in January 2009.   The identity of Nakamoto remains unknown.

      In January 2009, the bitcoin network came into existence after Satoshi Nakamoto mined the first ever block on the chain, known as the genesis block, for a reward of 50 bitcoins.

      The name Satoshi Nakamoto  is shrouded in mystery. It’s not known if it is a single person, a group of people or just a made up name. Whatever it is, it’s certainly prescient!

      Public comments:

      The potential, but real, threat of Bitcoin and the blockchain to the established financial order and to powerful financial elites, recently caused Jamie Dimon, CEO of J.P. Morgan, one of the world’s largest banks, to state that  “…Bitcoin…is a  fraud.

      But the man speaks with forked tongue. It’s a known fact that every bank in the world is frantically analyzing the blockchain upon which Bitcoin and over 1500 other cryptocurrencies are based because it will—and is already—changing the fundamental workings of the global financial system.  This new technology threatens the well-being and very existence of every financial powerhouse and its beneficiaries because it brings a truly distributed, democratic process to the functioning of money as a system for the storage and exchange of value. However, only those who believe in Bitcoin will come out whole on the other side.

      Dimon speaks from his position at the very top of the established financial and political power base.  He speaks not to the point that Bitcoin is a fraud, but rather from outright fear of the ability of this new technology to literally destroy that system he represents. Without a shadow of doubt, he FULLYcomprehends Bitcoin’s and the blockchain’s threat to the current financial system. Fifty to a hundred years from now, his statement will be seen as akin to those made during the advent of the automobile.

      Similarites to existing money as a store of value and means of exchange:

      Bitcoin is fundamentally no different than our current global system of finance. Each country has its own form of currency which serves as a measure of value and means of exchange. Bitcoin, however, does not belong to any country. It belongs to its owners in a fully distributed manner.

      All forms of money currently in existence in advanced economies are fiat, meaning they are backed by nothing. Until 1971 the U.S. dollar was backed by gold. As a result, the government could never print more money than the amount of gold stored in its vaults. This gold backing of the dollar also served to limit the amount of dollars that could be printed or coins minted. Thus the value of money could never decrease below the value of gold.  Now the dollar’s backing exists only in the confidence and belief of people that money serves as a store of value and a means of exchange. Once people lose that confidence and belief, they will panic and there will be runs on banks as people seek to withdraw their money from their bank. This is exactly what happened in the U.S. before the Great Depression and also more recently in Cyprus.

      In 1971, President Nixon removed gold as the backing behind the dollar. Since then, the price of dollars has been allowed to float freely like any other commodity on trading exchanges throughout the world. Each country’s central bank creates its money out of thin air by entering additional digital numbers in their computer ledgers.  This so-called “money printing” has been proven time and time again throughout history to end in financial disaster. It is happening now, as we speak, in Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

      Today, banks operate under what is known as the “fractional reserve system”. The U.S, Government requires that every bank hold in its vaults at least $50 million or $5% of its capital base. A simplified explanation of how the fractional reserve system works is that people deposit money into their bank and the bank is required to keep only 5% of that money in its vaults available for withdrawal by its owners. The bank is in the business of earning profits, so it turns around and loans 95% of its deposits to others in the form of loans or it may invest in financial instruments, such as government bonds, which pay a percentage of interest.

      Value:

      We must ask ourselves what the word “value” truly and fundamentally means. The fundamental value each individual offers in today’s global society is the ability to work if one is in the working age group. For that value we are paid a wage in the currency of the country in which we reside.

      Again, Bitcoin is fundamentally no different. However one key difference is in the type of work that is performed to create value. The work that will be completed by Bitcoin to create value will not be physical or mental. Instead the work that will be performed and is currently performed is digital and virtual.

      This digital and virtual work is made possible by a technology named the “blockchain.” The blockchain is a computer algorithm, akin to a mathematical puzzle, but infinitely more complex. The numbers in the algorithm (actually the ones and zeros of the program), stretch to an unimaginable length, nearing infinity. Each time an algorithm puzzle is solved, a new Bitcoin is produced

      Furthermore, Bitcoin is limited in quantity to 20,000,000 Bitcoins, the maximum amount that will ever be produced. No central bank will be able to create more Bitcoin and thus inflate the currency. Bitcoin’s value will never be diminished because there are too many of them, the way there are too many dollars, Marks, or Zimbabwe Dollars, which ultimately leads to destructive inflation as in countries like Weimar Germany, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.

      The making, or “mining,” of Bitcoin is horrendously expensive, requiring vast networks of the most powerful computer servers to work incessantly, creating a Bitcoin approximately every ten minutes. Furthermore the servers create so much heat in their operation that they must be cooled at high expense to a point they can operate at their peak efficiency. This “mining” will continue until the maximum amount of 20,000,000 Bitcoin is reached. Each Bitcoin “miner” is free to keep or sell the Bitcoin they create.

      The Blockchain:

      The “blockchain” is a virtual ledger designed to track each and every Bitcoin as well as the creation and exchange of Bitcoin. The  blockchain can be used in other digital applications as well, such as global supply chains,and financial transactions. The blockchain bookkeeping ledger is now virtual rather than residing on a computer or in a physical book into which accounting entries are made. Under all currently known technologies, the blockchain can never be hacked or compromised in any way, but that will undoubtedly change much sooner than most expect.

      The virtual ledger is, in fact, a digital chain recording each transaction. This prevents any single transaction from ever being duplicated or changed, thus it provides security along with anonymity. This latter point presents a legitimate concern held by critics due to the fact Bitcoin can be used for illicit purposes without anyone knowing the better. At this point, there is no known antidote. But one could also argue that such activity takes place under the current system of currencies and there is no means to prevent it. However, it seems well within the realm of reason to expect that a virtual solution will indeed be found

      Additional concerns:

      In addition to the above mentioned concerns, investors say Bitcoin is nothing but the latest speculative investment, going all the way back to the Dutch Tulip Mania. They expect that a crash in price is inevitable. That will likely happen and, in fact, has already happened. No investment goes straight up, there are always up and down cycles.

      Many believe another type of cryptocurrencies will replace Bitcoin, but there are no evident advantages to other cryptocurrencies under currently envisioned scenarios,

      Another valid concern has recently been expressed, that 1000 people hold 40% of existing Bitcoin, socalled “whales.”. This concentration of power may allow those with evil intent to corner the market and control price. This very point confirms one point made in my prediction above, except that I would hope those whales would have honorable intentions to help mankind in a massively positive way.

    • When Disruption Goes Horribly Wrong: MoviePass Loses 90% Of Subscribers

      For those curious what happens to new normal “disruptors” when they run out of money and can no longer operate at a loss to capture market share (a favorite strategy for Silicon Valley and most “hot” names such as Tesla, Netflix, Uber, and in many ways, Amazon) look no further than MoviePass.

      The company, which rose to prominence after allowing its members to watch a virtually unlimited number of movies for a very low monthly price, only to see its business model implode after it failed to “scale” and leverage its user base and quickly ran out of cash, has seen a deluge of users hitting the exits after it was forced to scale back the number of movies users could see each month. The embattled cinema-subscription provider has seen its subscriber number collapse by 90% from a peak of more than 3 million to just 225,000 in under a year, according to a report by Business Insider, which cited “internal data” even though the company declined to officially confirm the humiliating figures.

      Last summer, when things were still running relatively smoothly, MoviePass claimed in June 2018 that it had signed up more than 3 million subs for its $9.95 monthly plan, which let customers see one movie every single day. However, that model quickly proved unsustainable as we previously reported, and MoviePass was forced to change that to a three-movies-per-month plan. So, last August MoviePass began to convert subscribers on annual subscription plans to the three-movies-per-month subscription plan, by giving annual subscribers the option to either cancel or refund their annual subscription or continue on the new three-movies-per-month subscription plan.

      As it turns out, most canceled: over 90% of MoviePass’ prior subscribers were no longer interested in paying the same price for a service that offered dramatically scaled-backed terms.

      Then, in an attempt to spark renewed membership interest, in March MoviePass introduced a refashioned “unlimited” plan, dubbed Uncapped, priced at $14.95 per month (or $119.4 per year), to again allow customers to see one movie daily, which however came with big caveats, described by MoviePass like this: “Your movie choices may be restricted due to excessive individual usage which negatively impacts system-wide capacity.”

      It was too little too late, and as BI reports, MoviePass managed to sign up only about 13,000 new subscribers Uncapped launched in mid-March, a far cry from where it was a year ago.

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

      Meanwhile, the company’s liquidity struggles are only getting worse, and as of March 21, 2019, parent company Helios & Matheson Analytics only had $2.8 million in cash on hand and $13.1 million on deposit with its merchant and fulfillment processors related to subscription revenues.

      In an attempt to give the melting ice-cube a few more months before pulling the plug, last month Helios and Matheson said it raised a $6 million new round of financing from “certain institutional investors,” which closed March 25, Variety reported. The company said it would use the $5.56 million net proceeds (after placement-agent fees) “to accelerate MoviePass’ product development, fine tune its subscription technology, and increase MoviePass Films’ investment in new films.”

      Translation: the newly raised funds will be used to fund the company’s cash burn and delay its bankruptcy filing by a few months.

      The only question is whether once MoviePass does file for Chapter 7 liquidation, will anyone go to prison. The answer may well be yes: last month, MoviePass, which hasn’t filed financial results since Q3 2018, announced it would restate historical results for the8 months ended Sept 2018, as a result of a cut in revenue for the first three quarters of 2018 restated to $198.3 million vs $204.9 million previously, which boosted the company’s operating loss from $320 million to $327.4 million for the same period. Separately, the New York Attorney General opened a securities-fraud probe into whether Helios and Matheson misled investors. Among other legal woes noted by Variety, MoviePass also is the target of a class-action lawsuit by subscribers claiming the the change in the “unlimited” plan was a deceptive “bait-and-switch” tactic.

      The good news for investors: at least MoviePass’ painful lesson in what happens when the cash to fund “disruption” runs out, will come in relatively early, before the company could suck in far more capital. And while most other major disruptors will suffer the same fate once their generous VC or public capital backers lose the faith, the amount of capital involved there will be orders of magnitude higher. Until then, we eager look forward to even more unprofitable companies going public and proving that not only is the number of greater fools out there truly unprecedented, but that a sucker is indeed born every millisecond.

    • China's Fake Numbers And The Risk They Pose For The Rest Of The World

      Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

      Not so long ago, London Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard was one of the handful of must-read financial journalists. He probably still is, but since he disappeared behind the Telegraph’s pay wall his work is invisible to non-subscribers, only emerging when a free outlet runs one of his stories.

      That happened this morning when the Sydney Morning Herald carried his analysis of the financial Ponzi scheme that is China.

      After taking on more debt in a single decade than any other country ever — in the process helping to pull the US and Europe out of the Great Recession — China recently shifted into an even higher gear, creating a world record amount of credit in the most recent reporting month.

      And – more important for headline writers and money managers – it reported exactly the right amount of GDP growth.

      This brings to mind a long-ago interview in which economist Nouriel Roubini asserted that China just makes its numbers up, frequently reporting GDP immediately after the end of the period being measured, something that even the US can’t do.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But it’s one thing to for the rest of us to suspect and/or assert that China is just giving the markets what they want to hear, and another thing to understand the implications and explain them coherently. Evans-Pritchard does this in his latest article.

      Maximum vulnerability: China (and the world) are still in big trouble

      China’s majestic and elegantly-stable GDP figures are best seen as an instrument of political combat.

      Donald Trump says “trade wars are good and easy to win” if your foes depend on your market and you can break them under pressure.

      He proclaimed victory when the Shanghai equity index went into a swoon over the winter. This is Trumpian gamesmanship.

      It is in China’s urgent interest to puncture such claims as trade talks come to a head. Xi Jinping had to beat expectations with a crowd-pleaser in the first quarter. The number was duly produced: 6.4 per cent. Let us all sing the March of the Volunteers.

      “Could it really be true?” asked Caixin magazine. This was a brave question in Uncle Xi’s evermore totalitarian regime.

      Of course it is not true. Japan’s manufacturing exports to China fell by 9.4 per cent in March (year on year). Singapore’s shipments dropped by 8.7 per cent to China, 22 per cent to Indonesia, and 27 per cent to Taiwan. Korea’s exports are down 8.2 per cent.

      The greater China sphere of east Asia is in the midst of an industrial recession. Nomura’s forward-looking index still points to a deepening downturn. “Those expecting a strong rebound in Asian export growth in coming months could be in for disappointment,” said the bank.

      China’s rebound is hard to square with its own internal data. Simon Ward from Janus Henderson said nominal GDP growth – trickier to manipulate – is still falling. It dropped to 7.4 per cent from 8.1 per cent in the last quarter on 2018.

      Household demand deposits fell by 1.1 per cent last month. This means that the growth rate of “true” M1 money is still at slump levels. It has ticked up a fraction but this is nothing like previous episodes of Chinese stimulus. It points towards stagnation into late 2019. “Hold the champagne,” he said. A paper last month by Wei Chen and Chang-Tai Tsieh for the Brookings Institution – “A Forensic Examination of China’s National Accounts” – concluded that GDP growth has been overstated by 1.7 per cent a year on average since 2006. They used satellite data to track night lights in manufacturing zones, railway cargo volume, and so forth.

      “Local officials are rewarded for meeting growth and investment targets,” they said. “Therefore, it is not surprising that local governments also have an incentive to skew the statistics.”

      Liaoning – a Spain-sized province in the north – recently corrected its figures after an anti-corruption crackdown exposed grotesque abuses. Estimated GDP was cut by 22 per cent. You get the picture.

      Bear in mind that if China’s economy is a fifth or a quarter smaller than claimed it implies that the total debt ratio is not 300 per cent of GDP (IIF data) but closer to 400 per cent. If China’s growth rate is 1.7 per cent lower – and falling every year – the country is less able to rely on nominal GDP expansion whittling away the liabilities.

      Debt dynamics take an ugly turn – just at a time when the working-age population is contracting by two million a year. The International Monetary Fund says China needs (true) growth of 5 per cent to prevent a rising ratio of bad loans in the banking system.

      China bulls in the West do not dispute most of this. But they say that what matters is the “direction” of the data, and this is looking better. Stimulus is flowing through. It gained traction in March with an 8.5 per cent bounce in industrial output – though sceptics suspect that VAT changes led to front-loading. Suddenly the words “green shoots” are on everybody’s lips.

      The thinking is that China will rescue Europe. Optimists are doubling down on another burst of global growth, clinched by the capitulation of the US Federal Reserve. It will be a repeat of the post-2016 recovery cycle.

      Personally, I don’t believe this happy narrative. But what I do respect after observing late-cycle psychology over four decades – and having turned bearish too early during the dotcom boom – is that investors latch onto good news with alacrity during the final phase of a long expansion. A filtering bias creeps in.

      So sticking my neck out, let me hazard that heady optimism will lead to a rally on asset markets until the economic damage below the waterline becomes clear.

      Let us concede that Beijing has opened its fiscal floodgates to some degree over recent weeks. Broad credit grew by $US430 billion ($601 billion) in March alone. Business tax cuts were another $US300 billion. Bond issuance by local governments was pulled forward for extra impact. But once you strip out the offsets, it is far from clear that the picture for 2019 has changed.

      Nor is it clear what can be achieved with more credit. The IMF said in its Fiscal Monitor that the country now needs 4.1 yuan of extra credit to generate one yuan of GDP growth, compared to 3.5 in 2015, and 2.5 in 2009. The “credit intensity ratio” has worsened dramatically.

      I stick to my view that the US will slump to stall speed before China recovers. Europe is on the thinnest of ice. It has a broken banking system. It is chronically incapable of generating its own internal growth or taking meaningful measures in self-defence.

      Momentum has fizzled out in all three blocs of the international system. We are entering the window of maximum vulnerability.

      Lots of good data here – something notably lacking in most reporting on China’s “miracle.”

      But the best — and scariest — single stat is the dramatic decline in the marginal productivity of debt. China, like the US, is getting progressively less bang for each newly-borrowed buck. There’s a point at which new borrowing doesn’t just product less wealth but actually destroys it. The US and China are heading that way fast, while Europe might be there already.

      As Evans-Pritchard, notes, the result is “maximum vulnerability.”

    • Gen Z Will Ditch Alcohol To Become The "Ultimate" Marijuana Consuming Generation

      America’s newest generation is growing up in a marijuana environment that is unlike anything ever seen in the U.S.

      Generation Z has never experienced an era where marijuana was looked upon as a “scourge”, or the source of extreme political ire – instead, they have only known an era where cannabis is being relentlessly pushed toward acceptance and legality. In fact, California voted to legalize medical marijuana in 1996, just one year before the eldest Generation Z consumers were born, according to Bloomberg. 

      Anna Duckworth, co-founder and chief content officer of Miss Grass, an online cannabis accessories shop and publication based in Los Angeles said:

       “They’re growing up in a world where cannabis is completely normal. Everybody will know how to roll a joint and there won’t be any shame talking about it.”

      Marijuana is already a big industry in the U.S. Sales have passed $10 billion as regulations have been rolled back and the industry only looks to be getting bigger. In fact, Generation Z consumers are twice as likely to use cannabis than they are to earn a steady paycheck. The generation looks poised to be chock full of marijuana consumers who will eventually embrace pot to unwind or treat ailments like insomnia and anxiety. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Bloomberg spoke to 21-year-old student Baruch Levin at UCLA, who said he waited until he was 18 to try smoking pot, worried about his father’s warnings that it would “make him dumb”. And when Gen Z wants to get high, there’s an app for that. Before 2018’s legalization, he had a friend who would get it for him using a medical card, but now he buys it for himself through the “Eaze” delivery app.

      He says that there’s still some stigma attached to talking about marijuana use. “I think it will take one more generation. We grew up with the stigma from our parents,” he said.

      The legal age to buy pot is typically 21, which means that only the top end of Gen Z (ages 7-22) are already part of the legal weed economy. But as each year passes, more consumers will be able to spark one up. Last year, Gen Z consumers accounted for more than 1% of marijuana sales in the legal market. But by 4/20 this year, at least three times more will be able to participate in the holiday. 

      And corporations are taking notice. In addition to widespread firms in Canada, where pot is now legal, there are also some multi-state operators in the U.S. that are among the most valuable pot companies in the world. Companies in the U.S. are “opening stores and cultivation facilities across the country in a race to develop national weed brands.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Food and beverage companies like Coca-Cola and Conagra are also studying the industry, trying to find ways to market to Gen Z and include CBD, a compound that doesn’t have the psychoactive effects of marijuana with THC. 

      And it isn’t just Gen Z that’s embracing cannabis. In the last 2 decades, the percentage of Americans who support legalization has doubled – more than 60% now have access to some form of legal weed. Medical programs have even sprung up in conservative states like Utah and Oklahoma. Industry observers cite the ongoing conversation about the medical benefits of pot as a turning point for public perceptions of it. But just 7% of Baby Boomers use marijuana, a survey by Bloomberg and Morning Consult said.

      Duckworth, of Miss Grass, often takes business meetings at a local dog park where she can spark a joint. She looks at it the same way she looks at meeting a client for a drink. That perception is going to continue to shape the industry, especially as younger Americans fall out of love with alcohol, and in love with cannabis. In fact, back in January, we highlighted how Americans were boozing less, forcing alcohol companies to scramble for booze alternatives. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      According to John Dick, who runs the data and polling firm CivicScience, Americans are becoming more introverted, which fits well with embracing the cannabis lifestyle. Dick’s polling found “a strong correlation between Americans who had reported using CBD, the hemp-derived compound that doesn’t get you high, and survey respondents who said they would prefer to watch a movie at home, rather than go to the theater.”

      He commented: “We’re realizing that deep down we’re introverts. You don’t need rocket science to figure out how that’s going to change things.”

      Bethany Gomez, managing director of Brightfield Group, a cannabis research firm said: “It’s becoming much more palatable. It’s not crazy to think the usage rate could eventually be similar to alcohol.”

      Angelica Bishop is a UCLA transfer student with a part-time job at a law firm and a 3.9 GPA who grew up in California. She is 23 and on the cusp of the Gen Z demographic. She says she gets high before philosophy class because pot helps her “think about things like existentialism without barriers.”

      She concluded: “When it comes to alcohol I’m really turned off. If you drink too much you end up in the hospital with alcohol poisoning. If I smoke too much, I sleep really well.”

    • Visigoth Reparations & 'Karate-Chopped' Testicles

      Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

      Every week we highlight a number of important, and often bizarre stories from around the world that my team and I are closely following:

      Cory Booker introduces reparations bill

      Get ready for a slippery slope, because because Cory Booker just introduced a reparations bill in Congress.

      The 2020 Presidential contender said, “this bill is a way of addressing head-on the persistence of racism, white supremacy, and implicit racial bias in our country… and propose solutions that will finally begin to right the economic scales of past harms…”

      If that’s the route America wants to go, seems like they should start with Native Americans. After all, they were the first ones to be exterminated and have their land stolen. And, comparatively speaking, they’re at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.

      While the rest of the US enjoys historically low unemployment, the unemployment rate on Indian Reservations often exceed 10%.

      Native Americans also have the highest poverty rates of any ethnic group in the Land of the Free.

      It also makes me wonder what standard politicians should apply to correct historic injustice–

      Should the US government make reparation payments for killing countless Filipino civilians in the early 1900s during the armed occupation of the Philippines?

      Or to descendants of Japanese-Americans who died in internment camps during World War II?

      And, how far back should politicians go ?

      Should the government of Mongolia make reparation payments to Ukrainians for murdering tens of thousands of people during the siege of Kiev in 1240?

      Should descendants of the Visigoths have to give money to Italians for the sack of Rome in 410?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      We doubt this bill will ever see the light of day. But it’s yet another striking indicator of what the Bolsheviks are thinking.

      Supreme Court to hear case of TSA Agent who “Karate Chopped” a man’s testicles

      The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is already pretty legendary for touching passengers in intimate ways… and it often crosses the line.

      In one important case, an airline captain was apparently given a swift ‘karate chop’ to his manhood during a TSA frisk back in 2016.

      According to court documents, the TSA agent was irritated, and admitted that he deliberately struck the captain’s groin during the pat-down.

      Federal law prohibits government agents from being sued in the performance of their duties– even if they commit assault and battery.

      But the airline captain (James Linlor) sued anyway, on grounds that the TSA violated the 4th Amendment of the Constitution which protects against unreasonable searches.

      This case is now going to the Supreme Court; and it will be an important one… because, if Linlor is victorious, it will establish a clear precedent that government agents can be sued when they cross the line.

      Nashville, a key music capital, shutting down home music studio

      Every year countless musicians descend upon Nashville to stake their claim on the country music scene.

      With such massive demand, thousands of home recording studios flourish. But now the city is threatening them all.

      Nashville bans home businesses from allowing clients in the home. This rule applies for anyone working from home, whether a hairdresser, massage therapist, or music producers.

      But one man is suing.

      Officials decided to shut down his home recording studio, threatening daily $50 fines and possible jail time if he refused. They even tried to force him to remove equipment from his home, submit to home inspections, and remove YouTube videos recorded in his studio.

      The Institute for Justice will help him argue that the regulation is an unconstitutional restriction on his right to earn a living.

      It is absurd that in a music capital like Nashville, the government claims the authority to prosecute musicians for recording a jam session in the wrong place.

      Timing of IMF loan to Ecuador raises suspicions

      Ecuador recently expelled Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, from its embassy in London.

      He had been living there with asylum since 2012, fearing extradition to the United States.

      Assange helped leaked top secret information exposing US war crimes in the middle east. And last year it was revealed that the US indeed filed a sealed indictment against him.

      Now he will be extradited to the Land of the Free to face charges related to computer hacking.

      But the timing of Ecuador’s revocation of his asylum raises some suspicions.

      Less than two months before Ecuador expelled Julian Assange from its embassy, it secured a $4.2 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

      The last time the IMF gave a loan to Ecuador was 2016. That was only $364 million, and it was to help them rebuild after a devastating earthquake.

      The USA is the largest shareholder in the IMF (and is known to use cash to exert international pressure).

      The timing seems a little too perfect to be a coincidence.

      And to continue learning how to ensure you thrive no matter what happens next in the world, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 20th April 2019

    • Brzezinski's Warning To America

      Authored by Mike Whitney via The Unz Review,

      The liberal world order, which lasted from the end of World War 2 until today, is rapidly collapsing. The center of gravity is shifting from west to east where China and India are experiencing explosive growth and where a revitalized Russia has restored its former stature as a credible global superpower. These developments, coupled with America’s imperial overreach and chronic economic stagnation, have severely hampered US ability to shape events or to successfully pursue its own strategic objectives. As Washington’s grip on global affairs continues to loosen and more countries reject the western development model, the current order will progressively weaken clearing the way for a multipolar world badly in need of a new security architecture. Western elites, who are unable to accept this new dynamic, continue to issue frenzied statements expressing their fear of a future in which the United States no longer dictates global policy.

      At the 2019 Munich Security Conference, Chairman Wolfgang Ischinger, underscored many of these same themes. Here’s an excerpt from his presentation:

      “The whole liberal world order appears to be falling apart – nothing is as it once was… Not only do war and violence play a more prominent role again: a new great power confrontation looms at the horizon. In contrast to the early 1990s, liberal democracy and the principle of open markets are no longer uncontested….

      In this international environment, the risk of an inter-state war between great and middle powers has clearly increased….What we had been observing in many places around the world was a dramatic increase in brinkmanship, that is, highly risky actions on the abyss – the abyss of war….

      No matter where you look, there are countless conflicts and crises…the core pieces of the international order are breaking apart, without it being clear whether anyone can pick them up – or even wants to. (“Who will pick up the pieces?”, Munich Security Conference)

      Ischinger is not alone in his desperation nor are his feelings limited to elites and intellectuals. By now, most people are familiar with the demonstrations that have rocked Paris, the political cage-match that is tearing apart England (Brexit), the rise of anti-immigrant right-wing groups that have sprung up across Europe, and the surprising rejection of the front-runner candidate in the 2016 presidential elections in the US. Everywhere the establishment and their neoliberal policies are being rejected by the masses of working people who have only recently begun to wreak havoc on a system that has ignored them for more than 30 years. Trump’s public approval ratings have improved, not because he has “drained the swamp” as he promised, but because he is still seen as a Washington outsider despised by the political class, the foreign policy establishment and the media. His credibility rests on the fact that he is hated by the coalition of elites who working people now regard as their sworn enemy.

      The president of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, summed up his views on the “weakening of the liberal world order” in an article that appeared on the CFR’s website. Here’s what he said:

      “Attempts to build global frameworks are failing. Protectionism is on the rise; the latest round of global trade talks never came to fruition. ….At the same time, great power rivalry is returning…

      There are several reasons why all this is happening, and why now. The rise of populism is in part a response to stagnating incomes and job loss, owing mostly to new technologies but widely attributed to imports and immigrants. Nationalism is a tool increasingly used by leaders to bolster their authority, especially amid difficult economic and political conditions….

      But the weakening of the liberal world order is due, more than anything else, to the changed attitude of the U.S. Under President Donald Trump, the US decided against joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. It has threatened to leave the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. It has unilaterally introduced steel and aluminum tariffs, relying on a justification (national security) that others could use, in the process placing the world at risk of a trade war….America First” and the liberal world order seem incompatible.” (“Liberal World Order, R.I.P.”, Richard Haass, CFR)

      What Haass is saying is that the cure for globalisation is more globalization, that the greatest threat to the liberal world order is preventing the behemoth corporations from getting more of what they want; more self-aggrandizing trade agreements, more offshoring of businesses, more outsourcing of jobs, more labor arbitrage, and more privatization of public assets and critical resources. Trade liberalization is not liberalization, it does not strengthen democracy or create an environment where human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law are respected. It’s a policy that focuses almost-exclusively on the free movement of capital in order to enrich wealthy shareholders and fatten the bottom line. The sporadic uprisings around the world– Brexit, yellow vests, emergent right wing groups– can all trace their roots back to these one-sided, corporate-friendly trade deals that have precipitated the steady slide in living standards, the shrinking of incomes, and the curtailing of crucial benefits for the great mass of working people across the US and Europe. President Trump is not responsible for the outbreak of populism and social unrest, he is merely an expression of the peoples rage. Trump’s presidential triumph was a clear rejection of the thoroughly-rigged elitist system that continues to transfer the bulk of the nation’s wealth to tiniest layer of people at the top.

      Haass’s critique illustrates the level of denial among elites who are now gripped by fear of an uncertain future.

      As we noted earlier, the center of gravity has shifted from west to east, which is the one incontrovertible fact that cannot be denied. Washington’s brief unipolar moment –following the breakup of the Soviet Union in December, 1991 — has already passed and new centers of industrial and financial power are gaining pace and gradually overtaking the US in areas that are vital to America’s primacy. This rapidly changing economic environment is accompanied by widespread social discontent, seething class-based resentment, and ever-more radical forms of political expression. The liberal order is collapsing, not because the values espoused in the 60s and 70s have lost their appeal, but because inequality is widening, the political system has become unresponsive to the demands of the people, and because US can no longer arbitrarily impose its will on the world.

      Globalization has fueled the rise of populism, it has helped to exacerbate ethnic and racial tensions, and it is largely responsible for the hollowing out of America’s industrial core. Haass’s antidote would only throw more gas on the fire and hasten the day when liberals and conservatives form into rival camps and join in a bloody battle to the end. Someone has to stop the madness before the country descends into a second Civil War.

      What Haass fails to discuss, is Washington’s perverse reliance on force to preserve the liberal world order, after all, it’s not like the US assumed its current dominant role by merely competing more effectively in global markets. Oh, no. Behind the silk glove lies the iron fist, which has been used in over 50 regime change operations since the end of WW2. The US has over 800 military bases scattered across the planet and has laid to waste one country after the other in successive interventions, invasions and occupations for as long as anyone can remember. This penchant for violence has been sharply criticized by other members of the United Nations, but only Russia has had the courage to openly oppose Washington where it really counts, on the battlefield.

      Russia is presently engaged in military operations that have either prevented Washington from achieving its strategic objectives (like Ukraine) or rolled back Washington’s proxy-war in Syria. Naturally, liberal elites like Haass feel threatened by these developments since they are accustomed to a situation in which ‘the world is their oyster’. But, alas, oysters have been removed from the menu, and the United States is going to have to make the adjustment or risk a third world war.

      What Russian President Vladimir Putin objects to, is Washington’s unilateralism, the cavalier breaking of international law to pursue its own imperial ambitions. Ironically, Putin has become the greatest defender of the international system and, in particular, the United Nations which is a point he drove home in his presentation at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly in New York on September 28, 2015, just two days before Russian warplanes began their bombing missions in Syria. Here’s part of what he said:

      “The United Nations is unique in terms of legitimacy, representation and universality….We consider any attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. It may result in the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations, leaving no rules except the rule of force. The world will be dominated by selfishness rather than collective effort, by dictate rather than equality and liberty, and instead of truly sovereign nations we will have colonies controlled from outside.”(Russian President Vladimir Putin at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly)

      Putin’s speech, followed by the launching of the Russian operation in Syria, was a clear warning to the foreign policy establishment that they would no longer be allowed to topple governments and destroy countries with impunity. Just as Putin was willing to put Russian military personnel at risk in Syria, so too, he will probably put them at risk in Venezuela, Lebanon, Ukraine and other locations where they might be needed. And while Russia does not have anywhere near the raw power of the US military, Putin seems to be saying that he will put his troops in the line of fire to defend international law and the sovereignty of nations. Here’s Putin again:

      “We all know that after the end of the Cold War the world was left with one center of dominance, and those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know best what needs to be done and thus they don’t need to reckon with the UN, which, instead of rubber-stamping the decisions they need, often stands in their way….

      We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress.

      It seems, however, that instead of learning from other people’s mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue to export revolutions, only now these are “democratic” revolutions. Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa already mentioned by the previous speaker. … Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention indiscriminately destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life.

      I’m urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you’ve done?” (Russian President Vladimir Putin at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly)

      Here Putin openly challenges the concept of a ‘liberal world order’ which in fact is a sobriquet used to conceal Washington’s relentless plundering of the planet. There’s nothing liberal about toppling regimes and plunging millions of people into anarchy, poverty and desperation. Putin is simply trying to communicate to US leaders that the world is changing, that nations in Asia are gaining strength and momentum, and that Washington will have to abandon the idea that any constraint on its behavior is a threat to its national security interests.

      Former national security advisor to Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, appears to agree on this point and suggests that the US begin to rethink its approach to foreign policy now that the world has fundamentally changed and other countries are demanding a bigger place at the table.

      What most people don’t realize about Brzezinski, is that he dramatically changed his views on global hegemony a few years after he published his 1997 masterpiece The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperative.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In his 2012 book, Strategic Vision, Brzezinski recommended a more thoughtful and cooperative approach that would ease America’s unavoidable transition (decline?) without creating a power vacuum that could lead to global chaos. Here’s a short excerpt from an article he wrote in 2016 for the American Interest titled “Toward a Global Realignment”:

      “The fact is that there has never been a truly “dominant” global power until the emergence of America on the world scene….That era is now ending….As its era of global dominance ends, the United States needs to take the lead in realigning the global power architecture….The United States is still the world’s politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity but, given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, it is no longer the globally imperial power.

      America can only be effective in dealing with the current Middle Eastern violence if it forges a coalition that involves, in varying degrees, also Russia and China….

      A constructive U.S. policy must be patiently guided by a long-range vision. It must seek outcomes that promote the gradual realization in Russia… that its only place as an influential world power is ultimately within Europe. China’s increasing role in the Middle East should reflect the reciprocal American and Chinese realization that a growing U.S.-PRC partnership in coping with the Middle Eastern crisis is an historically significant test of their ability to shape and enhance together wider global stability.

      The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for a one-sided militarily and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and self-destructive futility.

      Since the next twenty years may well be the last phase of the more traditional and familiar political alignments with which we have grown comfortable, the response needs to be shaped now…. And that accommodation has to be based on a strategic vision that recognizes the urgent need for a new geopolitical framework.” (“Toward a Global Realignment”, Zbigniew Brzezinski, The American Interest)

      This strikes me as a particularly well-reasoned and insightful article. It shows that Brzezinski understood that the world had changed, that power had shifted eastward, and that the only path forward for America was cooperation, accommodation, integration and partnership. Tragically, there is no base of support for these ideas on Capital Hill, the White House or among the U.S. foreign policy establishment. The entire political class and their allies in the media unanimously support a policy of belligerence, confrontation and war. The United States will not prevail in a confrontation with Russia and China any more than it will be able to turn back the clock to the post war era when America, the Superpower, reigned supreme. Confrontation will only accelerate the pace of US decline and the final collapse of the liberal world order.

    • Libertarian 'Seasteaders' Face Execution In Thailand For 'Violating National Sovereignty'

      Despite its location just outside  of Thailand’s territorial waters, leaving it outside the reach of the country’s laws according to international maritime law, the world’s second “seastead” was raided by Thai police earlier this week as the country’s military-dominated government pressed charges of violating national sovereignty against the two bitcoin enthusiasts who had lived there.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Thai

      The couple, Chad Elwartowski and his partner Supranee Thepdet, who goes by Nadia, could face life in prison or a death sentence in a Thai court if they are caught and formally charged. The two had sought to be pioneers in the seasteading movement, which advocates building structures anchored in international waters to allow people to live outside the control of governments and their laws. The couple’s home in the Adaman Sea, off the coast of Phuket.

      Elwartowski claimed in a Facebook post published earlier this week that the Thai government “wants us killed”, though he added that he and Nadia had sought refuge somewhere safe, outside the reach of Thai authorities. The two only lived on the vessel part time.

      “Hunting us down to our death is just plain stupid and highlights exactly the reason someone would be willing to go out in middle of the ocean to get away from governments,” he wrote. “We never had any ill intentions and I even state plainly several times that I would not want to be a citizen of any seastead nation that would have me.”

      Thai authorities revoked Elwartowski’s visa and said they would destroy the seastead within a week. The crackdown has dashed the couple’s plans to build ‘underwater restaurants’ and ‘floating hotels’ to Phuket.

      “We were hoping to bring tourism to Phuket with an underwater restaurant, floating hotels and medical research, tech jobs, etc. We had 3 wealthy entrepreneurs in the past week tell us they were coming to live in Phuket because they were excited about the project,” Elwartowski wrote.

      […]

      “We’re looking forward to freedom-loving people to come join us out on the open ocean,” he said.

      A promotional video from March showed the couple toasting champagne to the future on the open water. Elwartowski said during the video that their home would be the first of 20 built by the company Ocean Builders.

      Instagram photos and video posted by Nadia, also known as “bitcoingirlthailand,” also showed life out at sea.

       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

      First Seastead in International Waters Now Occupied, Thanks to Bitcoin Wealth Two libertarians now have a private home off the coast of Thailand—proof of concept for a world of more competitive governance and greater ocean environmental health read more on my website.. Do you Really Love My Planet.?. Support (me) @bitcoingirlthailand Thank you 🙏🏽 🙌🏽👌🏽😉…. #BitcoinGirlThailand #oceanbulleds #XLII #cryptocurrency #bitcoin #seasteading #seasteaders #floating #island #sailor #sailing #beach #summer #friends #bitcoingirl #love #happy #model #smart #life #fashion #instagood #fitness #healthy #food #smile #inspiration #beautiful #thailand

      A post shared by Nadia Summergirl (@bitcoingirlthailand) on

      //www.instagram.com/embed.js

      But Thailand’s navy said the couple’s outpost still endangered national sovereignty, charging them with article 119 of the Thai Criminal Code, an offense punishable by life imprisonment or death.

      //www.instagram.com/embed.js

       

      Ocean Builders, the company that built the couple’s seastead, released a statement on Monday saying that the couple were “volunteers excited about the prospect of living free” and were in “no way” involved in building the structure. They also confirmed that the couple are safe…at least for now.

      “Chad and Nadia are safe for now but understand that Thailand is currently being run by a military dictator. There will be no trial if they are caught,” the group said. “They already demonstrated that by being judge jury and executioner of the historic very first seastead.”

      While charges against the two had been filed by the Navy, Thai Police colonel Nikorn Somsuk said the country’s AG would still need to sign off for charges of violating national sovereignty – charges that carry max penalties of life imprisonment or execution – to be brought.

      While Ocean Builders had been planning to build more seasteads near Phuket, we imagine those plans are on hold for now. And with it, the dream held by many in the cryptocurrency community of living a life free of government intervention has faced a serious setback.

    • Zombie Science: Researchers Kept The Brains Of Decapitated Pigs Alive For 36 Hours

      Authored by Dagny Taggart via The Organic Prepper blog,

      Scientists seem to be crossing a lot of boundaries as of late, which begs the question: Just because they can do something, does it mean they should?

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Advances in brain-related technology are reaching dystopian levels. Scientists recently developed the ability to predict our choices before we are consciously aware of them, and can now translate people’s thoughts into speech. Smart chips that will create super-intelligent humans are in development, and China is mining data from the brains of citizens.

      While there are legitimate uses for some of this technology, it doesn’t take much stretch of the imagination to realize that much of it could also be used for nefarious purposes.

      Are scientists taking some research too far?

      Developments in artificial intelligence are both fascinating and terrifying, but they pale in comparison to a recent discovery in neuroscience.

      This headline caught my attention a few days ago:

      Yale Scientists Kept Decapitated Pigs’ Brains Alive for 36 Hours

      That article goes on to explain the study:

      In March 2018, Yale neuroscientist Nenad Sestan shared a remarkable bit of news with his peers at a National Institutes of Health (NIH) meeting: he was able to keep pigs’ brains “alive” outside their bodies for up to 36 hours.

      The news quickly made its way from that meeting to the media. And now, more than a year later, the details of the radical study have finally been published in the highly respected journal Nature, confirming that what sounded initially like science-fiction was actually sound science — and raising startling questions about what it really means to be “dead.” (source)

      A press release titled Pig brains kept alive outside body for hours after death outlines the details of the study:

      Researchers at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, hooked the organs to a system that pumped in a blood substitute. The technique restored some crucial functions, such as the ability of cells to produce energy and remove waste, and helped to maintain the brains’ internal structures. (source)

      Sestan wanted to know if a whole brain could be revived hours after death, so he decided to find out…

      …using severed heads from 32 pigs that had been killed for meat at a slaughterhouse near his lab. His team removed each brain from its skull and placed it into a special chamber before fitting the organ with a catheter. Four hours after death, the researchers began pumping a warm preservative solution into the brain’s veins and arteries.

      The system, which the researchers call BrainEx, mimics blood flow by delivering nutrients and oxygen to brain cells. The preservative solution the team used also contained chemicals that stop neurons from firing, to protect them from damage and to prevent electrical brain activity from restarting. Despite this, the scientists monitored the brains’ electrical activity throughout the experiment and were prepared to administer anaesthetics if they saw signs that the organ might be regaining consciousness. (source)

      The researchers tested how well the brains fared during a six-hour period.

      Here’s what they found:

      …neurons and other brain cells had restarted normal metabolic functions, such as consuming sugar and producing carbon dioxide, and that the brains’ immune systems seemed to be working. The structures of individual cells and sections of the brain were preserved — whereas cells in control brains, which did not receive the nutrient- and oxygen-rich solution, collapsed. And when the scientists applied electricity to tissue samples from the treated brains, they found that individual neurons could still carry a signal.

      But the team never saw coordinated electrical patterns across the entire brain, which would indicate sophisticated brain activity or even consciousness. The researchers say that restarting brain activity might require an electrical shock, or preserving the brain in solution for extended periods to allow cells to recover from any damage they sustained while deprived of oxygen. (source)

      This research revealed some shocking information.

      It appears that the death of brain cells may not be as sudden, or as irreversible, as previously believed. The cells of the brain remained viable six hours later, compared with other brains not preserved using the newly developed process, the researchers reported.

      This study revealed a surprising degree of resilience among cells within a brain that has lost its supply of blood and oxygen, Sestan said. “Cell death in the brain occurs across a longer time window than we previously thought,” he explained.

      “Although the experiments stopped short of restoring consciousness, they raise questions about the ethics of the approach — and, more fundamentally, about the nature of death itself. The current legal and medical definitions of death guide protocols for resuscitating people and for transplanting organs,” the press release states.

      “For most of human history, death was very simple,” says Christof Koch, president and chief scientist of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, Washington. ”Now, we have to question what is irreversible.”

      In most countries, a person is considered to be legally dead when brain activity ceases or when the heart and lungs stop working. The brain requires an immense amount of blood, oxygen and energy, and going even a few minutes without these vital support systems is thought to cause irreversible damage. (source)

      The researchers say their findings might lead to new therapies for stroke and other conditions, as well as provide a new way to study the brain and how drugs work in it. They said they had no current plans to try their technique on human brains.

      Last year, Sestan said the BrainEx system is far from ready for use in people – not least because it is difficult to use without first removing the brain from the skull.

      This study and its possible uses raise serious ethical concerns.

      Do the possible implications and consequences of this research send chills down your spine?

      We’ve long been told that the brain cannot survive long without blood – that brain deterioration begins within minutes, and death soon follows.

      This study brings those beliefs into question and raises some serious concerns about ethical issues.

      Scientists – both those involved with the study and some who were not – have weighed in on the ethical issues surrounding this type of research and its possible uses, reports the Associated Press:

      Christof Koch, president of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, who didn’t participate in the study, said he was surprised by the results, especially since they were achieved in a large animal.

      “This sort of technology could help increase our knowledge to bring people back to the land of the living” after a drug overdose or other catastrophic event that deprived the brain of oxygen for an hour or two, he said. Unlike the pig experiments, any such treatment would not involve removing the brain from the body.

      The pig work also enters an ethical minefield, he said. For one thing, it touches on the widely used definition of death as the irreversible loss of brain function because irreversibility “depends on the state of the technology; and as this study shows, this is constantly advancing,” he said.

      And somebody might well try this with a human brain someday, he said. If future experiments restored the large-scale electrical activity, would that indicate consciousness? Would the brain “experience confusion, delusion, pain or agony?” he asked. That would be unacceptable even in an animal brain, he said. (source)

      In an editorial in Nature asserting the need for ethical guidelines for research on brain tissue, Sestan and 16 other scientists explained the various forms this tissue could take, such as samples removed via surgery or tissue grown in a lab from stem cells. They noted that “the closer the proxy gets to a functioning human brain, the more ethically problematic it becomes.”

      The study also raises questions about whether brain damage and death are permanent:

      Lance Becker, an emergency-medicine specialist at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, says that many physicians assume that even minutes without oxygen can cause irreversible harm. But the pig experiments suggest that the brain might stay viable for much longer than previously thought, even without outside support. “This paper throws a hand grenade into the middle of what the common beliefs are,” says Becker. “We may have vastly underestimated the ability of the brain to recover.” (source)

      This may be the most troubling excerpt from the ethical issues editorial:

      In the meantime, scientists and governments are left to confront the legal and ethical quandaries related to the possibility of creating a conscious brain without a body. “This really is a no-man’s land,” says Koch. “The law will probably have to evolve to keep up.”

      Koch wants a broader ethical discussion to take place before any researcher tries to induce awareness in a disembodied brain. “It is a big, big step,” he says. “And once we do it, it’s impossible to reverse it.” (source)

      Also chilling: When MIT Technology Review contacted Sestan last year to ask a few questions about his study, he declined to elaborate, “saying he had submitted the results for publication in a scholarly journal and had not intended for his remarks to become public”.

      Steve Hyman, director of psychiatric research at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was among those briefed on the work. He shared his thoughts on the experiments with MIT Technology Review:

      “These brains may be damaged, but if the cells are alive, it’s a living organ. It’s at the extreme of technical know-how, but not that different from preserving a kidney.”

      Hyman says the similarity to techniques for preserving organs like hearts or lungs for transplant could cause some to mistakenly view the technology as a way to avoid death. “It may come to the point that instead of people saying ‘Freeze my brain,’ they say ‘Hook me up and find me a body,’” says Hyman.

      Such hopes are misplaced, at least for now. Transplanting a brain into a new body “is not remotely possible,” according to Hyman. (source)

      More disturbing concerns were raised in the MIT article:

      Sestan acknowledged that surgeons at Yale had already asked him if the brain-preserving technology could have medical uses. Disembodied human brains, he said, could become guinea pigs for testing exotic cancer cures and speculative Alzheimer’s treatments too dangerous to try on the living.

      The setup, jokingly dubbed the “brain in a bucket,” would quickly raise serious ethical and legal questions if it were tried on a human.

      For instance, if a person’s brain were reanimated outside the body, would that person awake in what would amount to the ultimate sensory deprivation chamber, without ears, eyes, or a way to communicate? Would someone retain memories, an identity, or legal rights? Could researchers ethically dissect or dispose of such a brain? (source)

      If you are interested in additional information on the ethical issues surrounding this type of experiment and its possible consequences, the full editorial is worth reading and can be found here: The Ethics of Experimenting With Human Brain Tissue.

    • Cord-Cutting Is Quickly Picking Up Pace

      Over the past couple of weeks, things went from bad to worse for pay-TV providers in the United States, after both Apple and Disney announced their own subscription-based video streaming services to launch this year. Already struggling to hold on to subscribers lured away by the likes of Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime, Statista’s Felix Richter points out that the last thing the pay-TV industry needs is two new heavyweight competitors with deep pockets and plenty of ambition.

      According to Leichtman Research Group, the largest pay-TV providers in the United States, accounting for 95 percent of all subscribers, lost more than 2.85 million subscribers, collectively, in 2018, with satellite services seeing the biggest drop in customers (-2.4 million) and cable companies also losing 0.9 million subs. Part of the decline was offset by a rise in internet-delivered services such as Sling TV, but overall things are looking increasingly bleak for the pay-TV industry.

      Infographic: Cord-Cutting Is Quickly Picking Up Pace | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      As the chart above shows, cord-cutting is really picking up pace, with net subscriber losses of the largest pay-TV providers growing from 125,000 in 2014 to 2.85 million last year, with total subscriber losses amounting to more than 5.5 million over the five-year period.

      At the same time, household penetration of SVOD services has grown from 47 percent to 69 percent between 2014 and 2018, indicating who is likely to blame for pay-TV’s losses.

    • Russia's Military Doctrine For 2019 And Beyond

      Submitted by South Front

      The term “Gerasimov Doctrine”, apparently wholly made up Mark Galeotti who, to his credit, owned up to his mistake, has been used by the Western media to the point of obscuring the real work on developing national security doctrines for Russia’s 21st century needs.  In this work, General Valeriy Gerasimov, Chief of General Staff of the Russian Federation Armed Forces, has played a major role. During a recent conference at the Academy of Military Sciences, where Gerasimov delivered the keynote speech, he outlined the national security priorities facing the Russian Federation. This included areas where further theoretical research is necessary to inform the future dimensions of armed forces development.

      While Gerasimov’s address dedicated considerable attention to the problem of nuclear deterrence, it also made clear that, in terms of meeting challenges posed by the threat of rapid evolution and expansion of the United States’ strategic nuclear potential, Russia’s symmetrical and asymmetrical responses will ensure the viability of its nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. The emphasis appears to be on diversification, and not only of launch platforms but also of delivery vehicles. The problem with the existing force of ICBMs, SLBMs, and bomber-launched ALCMs is that they represent a relatively well-known potential to counter. This means that should the US decide to invest heavily in anti-missile and anti-air defenses, it could defeat Russia’s nuclear deterrent in an all-out war. Moreover, the existence of widespread anti-air and anti-missile networks means that limited escalation using small numbers of offensive weapons might be stopped, forcing Russia to make an “all or nothing” choice—either no escalation at all, or an all-out nuclear strike. Gerasimov’s discussion of a genuinely strategic system such as the Avangard hypersonic glider, Burevestnik global-range cruise missile, and Poseidon underwater unmanned vehicle together with operational-level systems such as the Zircon hypersonic cruise missile and Kinzhal aeroballistic missile, indicates the desire to constitute Russia’s nuclear deterrent on the basis of an array of mutually complementary systems carried by an expanded range of carrier vehicles, including fighter aircraft such as the MiG-31 and attack submarines.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Russia’s leadership would thus be able to hold at risk a wide range of leadership and value targets using both conventional and nuclear systems against which it would be extremely difficult to construct a defensive barrier that would be viable in the minds of US decision makers.

      Remarkably, the traditional strong suit of the Russian military, namely large-scale land warfare, received relatively little attention in Gerasimov’s speech. Regarding that, he only touched upon the existing reorganization of army-brigade structure into army-division-regiments which are better suited for high-intensity operations. He also discussed the continued equipment modernization and expansion of the volunteer components of the armed forces. There were no indications that the mission of the Land Forces was about to shift from the emphasis on fighting a limited land battle on one of Russia’s many frontiers against a conventional incursion launched with little warning. However, Gerasimov’s concept of defensive action also includes the “strategy of limited actions” in order to safeguard not only Russia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity but also its interests abroad, including in far-flung theaters of operations such as Syria and possibly even Venezuela. Here, depending on the situation, the strategy calls for the establishment of a forces group led by one of the main branches of forces such as the Land Forces, Aerospace Forces, Airborne Assault Forces, or the Navy, in order to deploy to a remote destination and conduct operations in support of a regional ally. The unveiling of the concept of “strategy of limited actions” indicates that the Syria operation was to a large extent an improvisation, a test-bed for not only weapons but also, and perhaps especially, operational concepts including inter-service cooperation.  While a successful improvisation, the Syria campaign did reveal a number of gaps in Russia’s military capabilities, including the use of unmanned platforms where it clearly lags behind the United States, and also the ability to assess and strike emerging targets in near-real time. The repeated drone swarm attacks on the Hmeimim airbase are a case where Russian forces, while able to defeat the swarms themselves, did not appear able to quickly locate and destroy the source of these swarms. Gerasimov’s address recognized the need for theoretical and practical solutions to these problems, as well as the importance of political and humanitarian factors in the ultimate settlement of the conflict which definitely proved to be the case in Syria, where the adroitness of Russia’s diplomacy and Moscow’s ability to use political and economic levers of influence considerably changed the political landscape of not only Syria, but of the entire Middle East.

      The final aspect of Gerasimov’s address that is worthy of attention is the recognition that Russia has less to fear from NATO’s conventional or even nuclear warfare than from unconventional “hybrid” attacks, including information and cyber-warfare, and even direct subversion using a domestic “fifth column”. It is here that Gerasimov made the most extensive request for theoretical research, acknowledging that dealing with such a threat would require close coordination of military, paramilitary, and purely civilian government agencies. What Gerasimov described is essentially the Venezuela scenario. The dispatch of a delegation of some 100 Russian military personnel appears to be intended to provide both a show of support and tangible assistance in the form of advice to the beleaguered Venezuelan government.  However, in view of Gerasimov’s emphasis on theoretical research into dealing with unconventional threats, Venezuela also offers an opportunity to study US methods being used in this undeclared “hybrid” war.  There the United States is, in effect, conducting an experiment in “non-kinetic” warfare using chiefly economic pressure, information operations, and cyberwarfare, in conjunction with what appears to be a rather weak “fifth column”. The apparent lack of use of even proxy armed forces may yet change should the current US strategy fail.

      All in all, even though the Russian Federation was able to successfully weather the military and political challenges of the past several years, including the undoubted success in Syria that has considerably enhanced Russia’s prestige not only in the Middle East but all over the world, there was no evidence of complacency in Gerasimov’s address. Instead there was a sense of awareness that this is a crisis which will not be quickly resolved and which will require the ability to rapidly develop and deploy counters to whatever new methods of confrontation Western powers will adopt.

    • Wild Bee Population Collapses By 90% In New England, Study Warns 

      Researchers from the University of New Hampshire conducted a study to document declines in about 100 wild bee species critical to pollinating crops throughout New England. What they discovered, according to the study, was a collapse in the wild bee population across the state, reported AP.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Researchers analyzed 119 species in the state from a museum collection at the college dating back more than a century. Sandra Rehan and Minna Mathiasson published the study in the peer-reviewed journal called Insect and Conservation Diversity this month. They concluded 14 species found across New England were on the decline by as much as 90%. Several of the species include leafcutter and mining bees.

      “We know that wild bees are greatly at risk and not doing well worldwide,” Rehan, assistant professor of biological sciences and the senior author on the study, said in a prepared statement. “This status assessment of wild bees shines a light on the exact species in decline, besides the well-documented bumblebees. Because these species are major players in crop pollination, it raises concerns about compromising the production of key crops and the food supply in general.”

      The AP noted that wild bee populations across the world are in decline, and scientists have blamed a wide range of factors including industrialization, insecticides, herbicides, parasites, disease, and climate change. Bees are crucial for pollination, and about one-third of the human diet derives from plants that are directly pollinated by bees.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Greg Burtt, founder of Burtt’s Apple Orchard in Cabot, Vermont, told the AP that his farm relies heavily on wild bees for crop production. 

      “Making sure that pollinators in the area are healthy and doing well is definitely something we’re concerned about,” Burtt said.

      Jeff Lozier, a bee expert from the University of Alabama who didn’t participate in the study, said the results are a critical step in expanding research into lesser-known species of bees. He cautioned that the study relied upon bees in a museum that were not collected “for the purpose of large scale population surveys.”

      “The most important use of the data in my view is in providing a baseline set of hypotheses for groups of species that are potentially declining or stable across a much greater set of species than is usually examined, which can then be investigated in more detail to determine why they may be changing,” Lozier said in an email interview. “This study doesn’t really determine the why quite yet, but gives us a reference point for further study.”

      The study noticed that half of those wild bees on the decline were located in higher elevation regions like the White Mountains than in the state’s coastal areas. The study said as the wild bees shift northward, some of the species don’t have the same kind of flowers and plants to pollinate.

      “They have nowhere else to go,” Rehan said. “That is the biggest concern.”

      Rehan warned as wild bee populations collapse so will crop yields, which could produce food shortages across the country. She says wild bees are facing similar threats that have also caused honeybee populations to plunge – including the overuse of pesticides and herbicides, a lack of seasonal wild plant diversity and volatile weather.

    • Petras: Why Venezuela Has Not Been Defeated

      Authored by James Petras via The Unz Review,

      Introduction

      Over the past half decade, a small army of US analysts, politicians, academics and media pundits have been predicting the imminent fall, overthrow, defeat and replacement of the Venezuelan government.

      They have been wrong on all counts, in each and every attempt to foist a US client regime.

      In fact, most of the US-induced ‘regime change’-efforts have strengthened the support for the Chavez – Maduro government.

      When the US promoted a military-business coup in 2002, a million poor people surrounded the presidential palace, allied with the military loyalists, defeated the coup. The US lost their assets among their business and military clients, strengthened President Chavez, and radicalized his social program. Likewise, in 2002-03 when state oil company executives launched a lock-out.They were defeated, and hundreds of hardcore US supporters were fired and Washington lost a strategic ally.

      A more recent example is the overbearing role of President Trump’s bellicose proclamation that the US is prepared to invade Venezuela. His threat aroused massive popular resistance in defense of national independence ,even among discontented sectors of the population.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Venezuela is in the vortex of a global struggle which pits the imperial aspirations of Washington against an embattled Venezuela intent on defending its own, and like countries, in support of national and social justice.

      We will proceed by discussing the multi-sided means and methods adopted by Washington to overthrow Venezuela’s government and replace it by a client regime.

      We will then analyze and describe the reasons why Washington has failed, focusing on the positive strengths of the Venezuelan government.

      We will conclude by discussing the lessons and weaknesses of the Venezuelan experience for other aspiring nationalist, popular and socialist governments.

      US Opposition: What Venezuela Faces

      The US assault on Venezuela’s state and society includes:

      1. A military coup in 2002

      2. A lockout by the executives of the Venezuelan oil company

      3. The exercise of global US power – organized political pressure via clients and allies in Europe, South and North America

      4. Escalating economic sanctions between 2013 – 2019

      5. Street violence between 2013 – 2019

      6. Sabotage of the entire electrical system between 2017 -2019

      7. Hoarding of goods via corporations and distributors from 2014 – 2019

      8. Subversion of military and civilian institutions 2002 – 2019

      9. Regional alliances to expel Venezuelan membership from regional organizations

      10. Economic sanctions accompanied by the seizure of over $10 billion dollars of assets

      11. Sanctions on the banking system

      The US direct intervention includes the selection and appointment of opposition leaders and ‘dummy’ representatives overseas.

      In brief the US has engaged in a sustained, two decades struggle designed to bring down the Venezuelan government. It combines economic, military, social and media warfare. The US strategy has reduced living standards, undermined economic activity, increased poverty, forced immigration and increaser criminality. Despite the exercise of US global power, it has failed to dislodge the government and impose a client regime.

      Why Venezuela has Succeeded?

      Despite the two decades of pressure by the world’s biggest imperial power ,which bears responsibility for the world’s highest rate of inflation, and despite the illegal seizure of billions of dollars of Venezuelan assets, the people remain loyal , in defense of their government. The reasons are clear and forthright.

      The Venezuelan majority has a history of poverty, marginalization and repression, including the bloody massacre of thousands of protestors in 1989. Millions lived in shanty towns, excluded from higher education and health facilities. The US provided arms and advisers to buttress the politicians who now form the greater part of the US opposition to President Maduro. The US- oligarch alliance extracted billions of dollars from contracts from the oil industry.

      Remembrance of this reactionary legacy is one powerful reason why the vast majority of Venezuelans oppose US intervention in support of the puppet opposition.

      The second reason for the defeat of the US is the long-term large-scale military support of the Chavez-Maduro governments. Former President Chavez instilled a powerful sense of nationalist loyalty among the military which resists and opposes US efforts to subvert the soldiers.

      The popular roots of Presidents Chavez and Maduro resonates with the masses who hate the opposition elites which despise the so-called ‘deplorables’. Chavez and Maduro installed dignity and respect among the poor.

      The Venezuelans government defeated the US-backed coups and lockouts, these victories encouraged the belief that the popular government could resist and defeat the US-oligarch opposition. Victories strengthened confidence in the will of the people.

      Under Chavez over two million modern houses were built for the shanty town dwellers; over two dozen universities and educational centers were built for the poor, all free of charge . Public hospitals and clinics were built in poor neighborhoods as well as public supermarkets which supplied low-cost food and other necessities which sustain living standards despite subsequent shortages.

      Chavez led the formation of the Socialist Party which mobilized and gave voice to the mass of the poor and facilitated representation. Local collectives organized to confront corruption, bureaucracy and criminality. Together with popular militias, the community councils ensured security against CIA fomented terror and destruction.

      Land reform and the nationalization of some mines and factories secured peasant and workers support – even if they were divided by sectarian leaders.

      Conclusion

      The cumulative socio-economic benefits consolidate support for the Venezuelan leadership despite the hardships the US induces in recent times. The mass of the people have gained a new life and have a lot to lose if the US-oligarchy return to power. A successful US coup will likely massacre tens of thousands of popular supporters of the government. The bourgeoisie will take its revenge for those many who have ruled and benefited at the expense of the rich.

      There are important lessons to be learned from the long-term large-scale successful resistance of the Venezuelan government’s experience but also its limitations.

      Venezuela , early on, secured the loyalty of the army. That’s why the Chavista government has endured over 30 years while the Chilean governments of Salvador Allende was overthrown in three years.

      The Venezuelan government retained mass electoral support because of the deep socio-economic changes that entrenched mass support in contrast to the center-left regimes in Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador which won three elections but were defeated by their right-wing opponents, including electoral partners, with a downturn in the economy, and the flight of middle-class voters and parties.

      Venezuelas linkages with allies in Russia, China and Cuba provided ‘life jackets’ of economic and military support in the face of US interventions, something the center-left governments failed to pursue.

      Venezuela built regional alliances with nearly half of South America, weakening US attempts to form a regional or US invasion force.

      Despite their strategic successes the Venezuelan government has committed several costly mistakes which increased vulnerability.

      1. Failure to diversify their exports, markets and banking system. The US sanctions exploited these weaknesses.

      2. Failure to carry out monetary reforms to reverse or contain hyperinflation.

      3. Failure to maintain the hydro-electoral system and secure it from sabotage.

      4. Failure to invest in and recruit new technical professional to upgrade the operation of the financial system and prosecute financial corruption in the banking system. Venezuela worked with high officials who engaged in financial and real estate transactions of a dubious nature.

      5. The failure to recruit and train working class and professional political cadres capable of oversight over management.

      Venezuela has taken steps to rectify these errors but the question is whether they have time and place to realize radical reforms?

    • CIA Chief Says Russia And Iran Are New Focus, Praises Trump's North Korea Efforts

      On the same day the Mueller report went public, CIA Director Gina Haspel made a rare public appearance at Auburn University outlining the Central Intelligence Agency’s new priority to better understand “nation-state adversaries such as Russia and Iran,” according to a new WSJ report. 

      Though she made no mention of the special council’s now public report, she said the agency had made both Russia and Iran a central focus over the past year, shifting resources to these areas to better prepare for the threat. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      CIA director Gina Haspel. Image source: CNN

      “Our Russia and Iran investment has been strengthened after years of falling behind our justifiably heavy emphasis on counter-terrorism” in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Haspel said in the remarks. “We still have a lot of work to do on that front, but we’re making good progress,” she added.

      She mentioned new potential government adversaries “whether in Moscow, Tehran or Pyongyang” according to the WSJ’s summary of the speech, but also pledged to put continued focus on threats from al-Qaeda and ISIS. 

      Significantly, it was only the second time the CIA chief had given public remarks since taking the director post last May. She’s seen as having kept a low profile, given her clandestine service background and intelligence community tensions with the Trump White House. 

      Also interesting is her praise of Trump’s engagement with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, per the WSJ:

      On North Korea, the CIA director said Mr. Trump “has shown a lot of wisdom” in reaching out to leader Kim Jong Un in a bid to rid the country of its nuclear arms. “And that’s not to downplay the difficulty or the obstacles and challenges associated with” the effort, she said.

      In January, Mr. Trump clashed with his spy chiefs via Twitter after intelligence leaders, including Ms. Haspel, told a Senate panel that U.S. analysts were skeptical about Mr. Kim’s willingness to give up his nuclear program.

      On state actors like Russia, as well as resurgent terror groups, she stopped short of saying these threats were “existential,” however. 

      But given her remarks revealing the CIA prioritizing efforts focused on Russia, it doesn’t appear the Mueller report, which has now effectively debunked the past three years of “Moscow-centric national security threat hysteria,” will make Washington’s neo-Mccarthyite anti-Russia craze go away anytime soon.  

    • Ilargi Meijer: "They Were All Lying!"

      Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

      A dear friend the other day accused me of defending Trump. I don’t, and never have, but it made me think that if she says it, probably others say and think the same; I’ve written a lot about him. So let me explain once again. Though I think perhaps this has reached a “you’re either with us or against us’ level.

      What I noticed, and have written a lot about, during and since the 2016 US presidential campaign, is that the media, both in the US and abroad, started making up accusations against Trump from scratch. This included the collusion with Russia accusation that led to the Mueller probe.

      There was never any proof of the accusation, which is why the conclusion of the probe was No Collusion. I started writing this yesterday while awaiting the presentation of the Mueller report, but it wouldn’t have mattered one way or the other: the accusation was clear, and so was the conclusion.

      Even if some proof were found through other means going forward, it would still make no difference: US media published over half a million articles on the topic, and not one of them was based on any proof. If that proof had existed, Mueller would have found and used it.

      And sure, Trump may not be a straight shooter, there may be all kinds of illegal activity going on in his organization, but that doesn’t justify using the collusion accusation for a 2-year long probe. If Trump is guilty of criminal acts, he should be investigated for that, not for some made-up narrative. It’s dangerous.

      Axios report[ed] that since May 2017, exactly 533,074 web articles have been published about Russia and Trump-Mueller, which in turn have generated “245 million interactions – including likes, comments and shares – on Twitter and Facebook.” “From January 20, 2017 (Inauguration Day) through March 21, 2019 (the last night before special counsel Robert Mueller sent his report to the attorney general), the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts produced a combined 2,284 minutes of ‘collusion’ coverage, most of it (1,909 minutes) following Mueller’s appointment on May 17, 2017,” MRC reports

      What the Mueller report says is that 500,000 articles about collusion, and 245 million social media interactions in their wake, were written without any proof whatsoever (or Mueller would have used that proof). That doesn’t mean they may not have been true, or that they can’t be found to be true in the future, it means there was no proof when they were published. They Were All Lying.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The same goes for the Steele dossier. It holds zero proof of collusion between Trump’s team and Russia. Or Mueller would have used that proof. New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, CNN: they all had zero proof when they published, not a thing. Or Mueller would have used that proof. Rachel Maddow’s near nightly collusion rants: no proof. Or Mueller would have used that proof.

      That there is no proof also means there has never been any proof. Why that is important, and how important it is, is something we’re very clearly seeing in the case concerning Julian Assange. That, too, is based on made-up stories.

      I suggested a few days ago in the Automatic Earth comment section that the advent of the internet, and social media in particular, has greatly facilitated the power of repetition: say something often enough and few people will be able to resist the idea that it must be true. Or at least some of it.

      If you look at the amount of time people spend in ‘their’ Facebook, the power of repetition becomes obvious. 245 million social media interactions. On top of half a million articles. How were people supposed to believe, in the face of such a barrage, that there never was any collusion?

      Or that Assange is squeaky clean, both in person and in his alleged involvement in the collusion? There is only one way to counter all this: for people like me to keep pointing it out, and to hope that at least a few people pick it up.

      That has nothing to do with defending Trump. It has to do with defending my own sanity and that of my readers. Of course it would have been easier, and undoubtedly more profitable, to go with the flow and load on more suspicions, allegations and accusations.

      All those media made a mint doing it, and the Automatic Earth might have too. But that is not why we are here.

      The Democrats, and the media sympathetic to them, now have seamlessly shifted their attention from Collusion to Obstruction. Which leads to a bit of both interesting and humorous logic: No Collusion? No Obstruction.

      The Mueller probe would never have happened if it had been clear there was no collusion. But everyone and their pet hamster were saying there was. And there was the Steele dossier, heavily promoted by John McCain and John Brennan. Neither of whom had any proof of collusion.

      The obstruction the anti-Trumpers are now aiming their arrows at consists of Trump allegedly wanting to fire Mueller and/or stopping an investigation that should never have been instigated into a collusion that never existed and was based on a smear campaign.

      And now they want to impeach him for that? For attempting to stop the country wasting its resources and halt an investigation into nothing at all?

      Know what I hope? That they’ll call on Mueller to testify in a joint session of Senate and Congress and that Rand Paul gets to ask him to address this tweet of his:

      “Rand Paul: BREAKING: A high-level source tells me it was Brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in the Intelligence Report… Brennan should be asked to testify under oath in Congress ASAP.”

      And why Mueller refused to go talk to Assange, who offered actual evidence that no Russians were involved. Or how about these stonkers:

      “Undoubtedly there is collusion,” Adam Schiff said. “We will continue to investigate the counterintelligence issues. That is, is the president or people around him compromised? … It doesn’t appear that was any part of Mueller’s report.”

      Preet Bharara: “It’s clear that Bob Mueller found substantial evidence of obstruction.”

      There’ll never be such a joint session, the Democrats want to play a home game in Congress. So there will have to be a separate session in the Senate. No doubt that will happen. Trump was right about one thing (well, two): 1) A special Counsel fcuks up a presidency, and 2) this should never happen to another president again.

      Not that I have any faith in Capitol Hill, mind you. Because they will agree, and they will agree on one thing only, as Philip Giraldi stipulates once more:

      Rumors of War – Washington Is Looking for a Fight

      [..] even given all of the horrific decisions being made in the White House, there is one organization that is far crazier and possibly even more dangerous. That is the United States Congress, which is, not surprisingly, a legislative body that is viewed positively by only 18 per cent of the American people. A current bill originally entitled the “Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act (DASKA) of 2019,” is numbered S-1189.

      It has been introduced in the Senate which will “…require the Secretary of State to determine whether the Russian Federation should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and whether Russian-sponsored armed entities in Ukraine should be designated as foreign terrorist organizations.”

      And that brings us back to Robert Mueller’s investigation into hot air, which, while it entirely eviscerates even the notion of collusion, still contains accusations against Julian Assange and ‘the Russians’.

      Why does he leave those in, when there was no collusion? It’s dead simple. Because unlike accusations against Trump, he doesn’t have to prove them. Which is why I will not stop saying, as I first did some 10 weeks ago, that Robert Mueller Is A Coward And A Liar.

      Again, this has nothing to do with defending Trump, it’s about defending and maintaining my own sanity and yours, and the rule of law.

      As I said back then about Mueller refusing to talk to Assange, and James Comey in 2017 making sure the DOJ didn’t either :

      Every single American should be alarmed by this perversion of justice. Nothing to do with what you think of Trump, or of Assange. The very principles of the system are being perverted, including, but certainly not limited to, its deepest core, that of every individual’s right to defend themselves. Just so Robert Mueller can continue his already failed investigation into collusion that has shown no such thing, and which wouldn’t have been started 20 months ago if we knew then what we know now.

      Get off your Trump collusion hobby-horse, that quest has already died regardless, and start defending the legal system and the Constitution. Because if you don’t, what’s to keep the next Robert Mueller from going after you, or someone you like or love? It’s in everyone’s interest to demand that these proceedings – like all legal proceedings- are conducted according to the law, but in Mueller’s hands, they are not.

      And that should be a much bigger worry than whether or not you like or dislike a former game-show host.

      I’ve said this before as well: I’ll always defend Julian Assange, but I won’t defend Donald Trump. Is that clear now?

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 19th April 2019

    • Info Overload? All Of The Data Created In 2018 Is Equal To…

      As revealed in the newly released Statista Digital Economy Compass, the world created an enormous 33 zettabytes of data in 2018.

      If that number means nothing to you, you’re surely not alone. While the size guide at the bottom of this infographic might be of help, a more effective way to provide some context to the number is to compare it to something more tangible.

      Infographic: All of the data created in 2018 is equal to… | Statista

      You will find more infographics at Statista

      If you were to burn all of the information created last year onto Blu-ray discs, you would need to invest in an astounding 660 billion – each with a standard capacity of 50 gigabytes.

      Moving into the biological realm, 33 terrabytes is equivalent to the estimated storage space of 33 million human brains.

      Delving even deeper, and as an equally impressive testament to the power of DNA, you would need 73 grams of our genetic material to create a backup of 2018’s global data.

      You can download the Statista Digital Economy Compass 2019 for free, here.

    • US/NATO Using Europe For Strategy Of Controlled Chaos

      Authored by Manlio Dinucci via GlobalResearch,

      Everyone against everyone else – this is the media image of chaos which is spreading across the Southern shores of the Mediterranean, from Libya to Syria. It is a situation before which even Washington seems powerless. But in reality, Washington is not the sorcerer’s apprentice unable to control the forces now in motion. It is the central motor of a strategy – the strategy of chaos – which, by demolishing entire States, is provoking a chain reaction of conflicts which can be used in the manner of the ancient method of “divide and rule”.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Emerging victorious from the Cold War in 1991, the USA self-appointed themselves as “the only State with power, reach, and influence in all dimensions – political, economic and military – which are truly global”, and proposed to “prevent any hostile power from dominating any region – Western Europe, Eastern Asia, the territories of the ex-Soviet Union, and South-Western Asia (the Middle East) – whose resources could be enough to generate a world power”.

      Since then, the United States, with NATO under their command, have fragmented or destroyed by war, one by one, the states they considered to represent an obstacle to their plan for world domination – Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and others – while still others are in their sights (among which are Iran and Venezuela).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In the same strategy came the coup d’État in Ukraine under the direction of the USA and NATO, in order to provoke a new Cold War in Europe intended to isolate Russia and reinforce the influence of the United States in Europe.

      While we concentrate politico-media attention on the fighting in Libya, we leave in the shadows the increasingly threatening scenario of NATO’s escalation against Russia. The meeting of the 29 Ministers for Foreign Affairs, convened in Washington on 4 April to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Alliance, reaffirmed, without any proof, that “Russia violated the FNI Treaty by deploying new missiles with a nuclear capacity in Europe”.

      One week later, on 11 April, NATO announced that the “update” of the US Aegis “anti-missile defence system”, based at Deveselu in Romania, would be implemented this summer, assuring that it would “not add any offensive capacity to the system”.

      On the contrary, this system, installed in Romania and Poland, as well as on board ships, is able to launch not only interceptor missiles, but also nuclear missiles. Moscow issued a warning – if the USA were to deploy nuclear missiles in Europe, Russia would deploy – on its own territory – similar missiles pointed at European bases.

      Consequently, NATO’s spending for « defence » has skyrocketed – the military budgets of European allies and those of Canada will rise to 100 billion dollars in 2020.

      The Ministers for Foreign Affairs, united in Washington on 4 April, agreed in particular to “face up to Russia’s aggressive actions in the Black Sea”, by establishing “new measures of support for our close partners, Georgia and Ukraine”.

      The following day, dozens of warships and fighter-bombers from the United States, Canada, Greece, Holland, Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria began a NATO aero-naval war exercise in the Black Sea at the limit of Russian territorial waters, using the ports of Odessa (Ukraine) and Poti (Georgia).

      Simultaneously, more than 50 fighter-bombers from the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and Holland, taking off from a Dutch airbase and refuelling in flight, practised “offensive aerial missions of attack against earth-based or sea-based objectives”. Italian Eurofighter fighter-bombers were once again sent by NATO to patrol the Baltic region to counter the “threat” of Russian warplanes.

      The situation is increasingly tense and can explode (or be exploded) at any moment, dragging us down into a chaos much worse that of Libya.

      *  *  *

      This article was originally published on Il Manifesto. Translated by Pete Kimberley.

    • Rumors Of War: Washington Is Looking For A Fight

      Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      It is depressing to observe how the United States of America has become the evil empire. Having served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War and in the Central Intelligence Agency for the second half of the Cold War, I had an insider’s viewpoint of how an essentially pragmatic national security policy was being transformed bit by bit into a bipartisan doctrine that featured as a sine qua non global dominance for Washington. Unfortunately, when the Soviet Union collapsed the opportunity to end once and for all the bipolar nuclear confrontation that threatened global annihilation was squandered as President Bill Clinton chose instead to humiliate and use NATO to contain an already demoralized and effectively leaderless Russia.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      American Exceptionalism became the battle cry for an increasingly clueless federal government as well as for a media-deluded public. When 9/11 arrived, the country was ready to lash out at the rest of the world. President George W. Bush growled that “There’s a new sheriff in town and you are either with us or against us.” Afghanistan followed, then Iraq, and, in a spirit of bipartisanship, the Democrats came up with Libya and the first serious engagement in Syria. In its current manifestation, one finds a United States that threatens Iran on a nearly weekly basis and tears up arms control agreements with Russia while also maintaining deployments of US forces in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and places like Mali. Scattered across the globe are 800 American military bases while Washington’s principal enemies du jour Russia and China have, respectively, only one and none.

      Never before in my lifetime has the United States been so belligerent, and that in spite of the fact that there is no single enemy or combination of enemies that actually threaten either the geographical United States or a vital interest. Venezuela is being threatened with invasion primarily because it is in the western hemisphere and therefore subject to Washington’s claimed proconsular authority. Last Wednesday Vice President Mike Pence told the United Nations Security Council that the White House will remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, preferably using diplomacy and sanctions, but “all options are on the table.” Pence warned that Russia and other friends of Maduro need to leave now or face the consequences.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The development of the United States as a hostile and somewhat unpredictable force has not gone unnoticed. Russia has accepted that war is coming no matter what it does in dealing with Trump and is upgrading its forces. By some estimates, its army is better equipped and more combat ready than is that of the United States, which spends nearly ten times as much on “defense.”

      Iran is also upgrading its defensive capabilities, which are formidable. Now that Washington has withdrawn from the nuclear agreement with Iran, has placed a series of increasingly punitive sanctions on the country, and, most recently, has declared a part of the Iranian military to be a “foreign terrorist organization” and therefore subject to attack by US forces at any time, it is clear that war will be the next step. In three weeks, the United States will seek to enforce a global ban on any purchases of Iranian oil. A number of countries, including US nominal ally Turkey, have said they will ignore the ban and it will be interesting to see what the US Navy intends to do to enforce it. Or what Iran will do to break the blockade.

      But even given all of the horrific decisions being made in the White House, there is one organization that is far crazier and possibly even more dangerous. That is the United States Congress, which is, not surprisingly, a legislative body that is viewed positively by only 18 per cent of the American people.

      A current bill originally entitled the “Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act (DASKA) of 2019,” is numbered S-1189. It has been introduced in the Senate which will “…require the Secretary of State to determine whether the Russian Federation should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and whether Russian-sponsored armed entities in Ukraine should be designated as foreign terrorist organizations.” The bill is sponsored by Republican Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado and is co-sponsored by Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey.

      The current version of the bill was introduced on April 11th and it is by no means clear what kind of support it might actually have, but the fact that it actually has surfaced at all should be disturbing to anyone who believes it is in the world’s best interest to avoid direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia.

      In a a press release by Gardner, who has long been pushing to have Russia listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, a February version of the bill is described as “…comprehensive legislation [that] seeks to increase economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on the Russian Federation in response to Russia’s interference in democratic processes abroad, malign influence in Syria, and aggression against Ukraine, including in the Kerch Strait. The legislation establishes a comprehensive policy response to better position the US government to address Kremlin aggression by creating new policy offices on cyber defenses and sanctions coordination. The bill stands up for NATO and prevents the President from pulling the US out of the Alliance without a Senate vote. It also increases sanctions pressure on Moscow for its interference in democratic processes abroad and continued aggression against Ukraine.”

      The February version of the bill included Menendez, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as co-sponsors, suggesting that provoking war is truly bipartisan in today’s Washington.

      Each Senator co-sponsor contributed a personal comment to the press release. Gardner observed that “Putin’s Russia is an outlaw regime that is hell-bent on undermining international law and destroying the US-led liberal global order.” Menendez noted that “President Trump’s willful paralysis in the face of Kremlin aggression has reached a boiling point in Congress” while Graham added that “Our goal is to change the status quo and impose meaningful sanctions and measures against Putin’s Russia. He should cease and desist meddling in the US electoral process, halt cyberattacks on American infrastructure, remove Russia from Ukraine, and stop efforts to create chaos in Syria.” Cardin contributed “Congress continues to take the lead in defending US national security against continuing Russian aggression against democratic institutions at home and abroad” and Shaheen observed that “This legislation builds on previous efforts in Congress to hold Russia accountable for its bellicose behavior against the United States and its determination to destabilize our global world order.”

      The Senatorial commentary is, of course, greatly exaggerated and sometimes completely false regarding what is going on in the world, but it is revealing of how ignorant American legislators can be and often are. The Senators also ignore the fact that the designation of presumed Kremlin surrogate forces as “foreign terrorist organizations” is equivalent to a declaration of war against them by the US military, while hypocritically calling Russia a state sponsor of terrorism is bad enough, as it is demonstrably untrue. But the real damage comes from the existence of the bill itself. It will solidify support for hardliners on both sides, guaranteeing that there will be no rapprochement between Washington and Moscow for the foreseeable future, a development that is bad for everyone involved. Whether it can be characterized as an unintended consequence of unwise decision making or perhaps something more sinister involving a deeply corrupted congress and administration remains to be determined.

    • Mapping The World's Busiest Air Routes

      Modern air travel gives us almost unlimited possibilities for getting around.

      Whether you are acting on your wanderlust to explore new and exotic destinations, hopping to a familiar island for a well-deserved vacation, or jetsetting to London in the comfort of business class, the modern airline industry can get you almost anywhere you need to go.

      But, as Visual Capitalists’ Jeff Desjardins notes, while flying allows us to have unique experiences, it’s often the case that we are all coming and going from many of the same popular destinations. As a result, the world’s busiest air routes have hundreds of flights per day connecting important city pairs together.

      Ranking City Pairs

      Today’s chart pulls data from OAG, which has compiled a detailed report ranking the busiest domestic and international air routes from around the globe.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      It’s worth noting that the data is over the period of March 2018 to February 2019, and it excludes carriers that operate fewer than 500 routes per year.

      Let’s dive in to see which city pairs have the most air travel between them.

      Domestic Routes

      Domestic routes are far more popular than international routes globally. According to the report, there are 15 domestic routes that have more operating flights per year than any international route anywhere.

      Here’s a look at the top 10 domestic routes:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The busiest domestic route might be a surprise, unless you are familiar with Asian geography.

      With almost 80,000 annual flights, the 300-mile hop between Seoul and Jeju Island in South Korea is the busiest air route in the world by a large margin. Overall, there are seven carriers competing on it each day, with over 200 daily flights available between them.

      What makes Jeju so popular?

      Known as the “Hawaii of South Korea”, this volcanic island is an extremely popular vacation destination within the country, and it hosts roughly 15 million guests per year.

      International Routes

      On an international basis, the busiest route has almost 50,000 fewer flights per year than the Jeju-Seoul city pair listed above. Not surprisingly, this route – and many other top international routes – are also located in the Asia Pacific region.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The short hop between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur takes only one hour, and it connects two major Southeast Asian commercial hubs. The route has 41 flights per day between eight airlines, making it one of the most competitive routes globally.

      The busiest international route outside of the Asia Pacific is between Toronto and New York (LaGuardia) with 17,038 annual flights. Interestingly, it only has three competing carriers – the lowest of any of the top 10 routes.

    • The Elites Laugh As Americans Revel In Their Enslavement While Fearing Each Other

      Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

      Americans are increasingly living in fear of the opposing political party.  While the elites laugh and continue to enslave the populace even further because of this fear, Americans increasingly embrace their chains while asking them to be shortened, and all while dehumanizing those on a different plantation.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The fact is, none of us are free. We are all slaves to the same master – the political elites.  The only way to be free is to accept it and attempt to free others in the process. So far, the government has not had to put literal chains on anyone because most Americans are mental slaves.  If you own the mind, you won’t need to enslave the body.  This is causing problems in problems in our society, however, as many fear those who think differently than they do while giving a pass to the ones actually at fault for their dissatisfaction.

      Extreme partisanship has infected both democrats and republicans to the point of no return. According to Oregon Live, more than 40 percent of Americans say they are surrounded by “downright evil” and they’re referring to their fellow Americans who happen to belong to a different political party. This division and fear keep the elite wealthy, powerful, and increasingly authoritarian. While we fight each other, we can’t be bothered to actually take on the behemoth monster that is responsible for all this fear and division in the first place.

      A recent academic paper by political scientists Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason, presented at the National Capital Area Political Science Association conference in January, concludes that the extreme partisanship of recent decades has made millions of Americans intellectually insular and emotionally numb. As a result, these hyper-partisans – and, to be clear, all of this goes for members of both major parties – feel little or no sympathy “in response to deaths and injuries of political opponents.” Some even show “explicit support for partisan violence.” –Oregon Live

      The key component to all of this fear is ensuring the public stays divided by dehumanizing each other.  This makes violence against each other suddenly “acceptable” to those stuck and enslaved by the system. A key reason for this “moral disengagement” is that partisanship in the cable-TV and social-media age has proven exceptionally good at dehumanizing one’s ideological opponents. Kalmoe and Mason’s unpublished paper found that about one in five Americans believe that those on the other side of the partisan divide “lack the traits to be considered fully human — they behave like animals.”

      The portion of hyper-partisan Americans is worrisome even for those not on the political spectrum.  Morality no longer matters if another human being is not seen as a human being. Kalmoe and Mason’s work indicates that the nature of this uptick in extreme partisanship provides people with the “psychological distancing” that allows them to rationalize physical violence and discrimination against others.

      Instead of accepting that it is ALWAYS  morally wrong to initiate force or violence against another human being for ANY REASON, Americans have rationalized such violence and theft as taxation or police brutality in order to justify their own political violence. This type of path is leading our society down a very dangerous path.

    • Legal Weed In Canada Struggles To Compete With Black Market 

      Six months after Canada became the first country in the developed world to legalize marijuana, legal sales of dried cannabis flower went up in smoke as consumers shifted to illicit markets.

      A marijuana shortage left the industry in shock earlier this year and caused concerns that Canadian cannabis producers were not properly structured to handle the massive demand from the Canadian marketplace.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As a result, a majority of marijuana sales in the country — approximately $5 billion — were transacted on the black market, compared to $2 billion in legal sales, according to new government data from January 2019.

      Pot smoking Canadians purchased 6,671 kilograms of legal cannabis in February, down 9% from January, and the lowest amount since October when 6,415 kilograms were sold, according to Health Canada.

      While the legal cannabis market has been hit with supply chain bottlenecks and overpricing, the black market continued to flourish into 2Q.

      Canadians paid 57% on average more for legal cannabis than they did from their drug dealer, according to the data.

      Since October [the month when pot became legal], consumers purchasing legal cannabis paid $7.47 per gram on average, compared with buyers on the black market who paid an average $4.70 per gram.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Industry experts believe the illicit cannabis market will continue to expand by offering affordable weed to all.

      “As long as that price differential exists, there will likely be a black market – because people will go to where they can get a deal,” Rosalie Wynoch, a policy analyst at the CD Howe Institute, a conservative think tank, told the Guardian. “The government was aware that it wouldn’t fully displace the black market on day one.”

      A recent survey of 500 pot smokers conducted by BMO Capital Markets found that 35% of all respondents indicated they have purchased legal cannabis. BMO’s survey responses also suggest that muted legal sales were due to supply shortages and overpricing.

      Ahead of legalization last October, Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau, emphasized that legal pot would eliminate the black market. Unfortunately, Trudeau has been terribly mistaken as the illicit market continues to expand.

    • RussiaGate Is Dead! Long Live Russiagate!

      Authored by Gerald Sussman via Counterpunch.org,

      Now that Mueller’s $40 million Humpty Trumpty investigation is over and found wanting of its original purpose (to retire Trump), perhaps the ruling class can return without interruption to the business of destroying the world with ordnance, greenhouse gases, and regime changes. A few more CIA-organized blackouts in Venezuela (it’s a simple trick if one follows the Agency’s “Freedom Fighter’s Manual”), and the US will come to the rescue, Grenada style, and set up yet another neoliberal regime. There is a small solace that with Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton, there is at least a semblance of transparency in their reckless interventions. The assessed value of Guaido and Salman, they forthrightly admit, is in their countries’ oil reserves. And Russians better respect the Monroe Doctrine and manifest destiny if they know what’s good for them. Crude as they may be, Trump’s men tell it like it is. And when Bolton speaks of “the Western Hemisphere’s shared goals of democracy, security, and the rule of law,” he is of course referring to US-backed coups, military juntas, debt bondage, invasions, embargoes, assassinations, and other forms of gunboat diplomacy.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      That the US is not already formally at war with Russia (even with NATO forces all along its borders) has only to do with the latter’s nuclear arsenal deterrent. Since World War II, a period some describe as a “a period of unprecedented peace,” the US war machine has wiped out some 20 million people, including more than 1 million in Iraq since 2003, engaged in regime change of at least 36 governments, intervened in at least 82 foreign elections, including Russia (1996), planned more than 50 assassinations of foreign leaders, and bombed over 30 countries. This is documented here and here.

      Despite unending US and US-supported assaults on Africa and western and central Asia, the authors who see postwar unprecedented peace argue that it’s Russia and China, not the US, that represent the real threats to peace and deserve to be treated as “outcasts.” That NATO has warships plying the Black Sea and making port calls at the ethnically Russian Ukraine city of Odessa and is conducting war games from Latvia to Bulgaria and Ukraine represents unprecedented peace? While NATO, which together has 20 times the military spending of Russia and includes member states along virtually the entire perimeter of Russia, in Western propaganda Russia is the aggressor.

      Although the US corporate media may have missed the news, the rest of the world gets the fact that the greatest threat to peace on the planet is Uncle Sam. In 2013, a WIN/Gallup International poll of 66,000 people in 65 countries found that the US was considered by far the most dangerous state on earth (24% of respondents), while Russia didn’t even register statistically on that poll. In 2017, a Pew poll found the same perception of US power and that such a view had increased to 38% and had grown in 21 of 30 countries compared to 2013. Even America’s neighbors, Canada and Mexico, see the US as a major threat to their countries, worse than either China or Russia. The mainstream media (MSM) stenographers’ myopia in failing to cover this story is not an oversight. Carl Bernstein, of Watergate exposé fame, documented in 1977 the fact that from the early 1950s to the late 1970s, the MSM (New York TimesWashington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, and the rest) had regularly served as overseas informers for the CIA. It would be hard to believe that those ties are not still intact given the level of collaboration among the CIA, the MSM, and the Democratic Party in the Russiagate conspiracy drama.

      Context is everything.

      In blaming others for the instability of the Middle East, it is important to bear in mind that for 36 years since Reagan launched air attacks on Beirut and parts of Syria, the US, and its ally Israel, has been using the greater Middle East region as a testing ground for its weapons systems. This has meant repeated bombing and droning of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Yemen, Kuwait, and Sudan, and increased weapons sales to the region to assure continuous instability and profits. The US has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces stationed in three-quarters of them, altogether over 800 military bases and installations in as many as 130 countries (the Pentagon refuses to give the exact number). By comparison, apart from several bases in some of the former Soviet republics, Russia has a naval resupply facility in Vietnam and small temporary leased naval and airport stations in Syria. China opened a combined naval and army base in Djibouti in 2017 and an “unofficial military presence” in Tajikistan. There is nothing remotely close to equivalence.

      We can expect a continuing outcasting of Russia, either under a second Trump presidency or, if the long dark shadow of the Clintons prevails, a Joe Biden White House. Biden claims without the benefit of evidence that currently “the Russian government is brazenly assaulting the foundations of Western democracy around the world,” as if the huge imbalance of military forces and the long history of US interventions against liberal democracies and socialist states were unknown or irrelevant. In his (and the establishment’s) heavy-handed uses of propaganda, Biden has learned well the tactics of Goebbels – repeat the lies often enough to make the imperial state appear as the victim.

      With regard to a brazen assault on democracy, Biden might take a cue from Clinton, who knew how to capitalize on her power position by signing off on huge arms sales to the Saudis (e.g., a $29 billion sale of fighter jets to that country to be used against Yemen) and other Gulf States while securing tens of millions of dollars in donations from the sheikhs ($25 million from Saudi Arabia alone) to her private foundation, run by her husband. This is all the more contemptuous given that she acknowledged in 2013: “The Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons… clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region…and pretty indiscriminately – not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future.”

      In other words, she knew the Saudis and other Gulf dictators were arming ISIS (ISIL) and other caliphate actors but continued to keep them as allies and patrons. She also took $800 thousand for her 2016 campaign (almost double what Trump received) and some $3 million for her private foundation from oil and gas companiesafter approving lucrative gas pipeline in the Canadian tar sands. Part of the foundation staff’s business was to arrange meetings of top donors meetings with the then secretary of state. Following Clinton and Obama’s lead and without a second thought, Trump has authorized US energy companies to sell the Saudi monarchy nuclear power technology and assistance.

      In foreign policy, indeed, it’s hard to see any meaningful difference between Republican and Democratic administrations. Obama and John Kerry sent Undersecretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Victoria Nulandto Kiev’s Maidan to cheer on the 2014 coup, hand out sandwiches to protesters, and give marching orders to her ambassador there to arrange for Yatsenyuk to be prime minister and to “fuck the EU.” Poroshenko, a regular informer at the US embassy, as WikiLeaks revealed, was already in the bag for president. Biden was brought in to “midwife” and “help glue this thing” by pressuring the still-ruling Yanukovych to step down in favor of the US-designated coup leaders. Along the same lines, Trump’s then ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, joined Venezuelan protesters outside UN headquarters in New York, using a megaphone to publicly call for a coup against Maduro. “I will tell you,” she told the group, “the U.S. voice is going to be loud.”

      Both the Ukraine and Venezuela interventions are in part a grand strategy to isolate Russia. However, the orchestration of a new Cold War against Russia and to implicate Trump as a Kremlin puppet has failed, and the problem for Russiagate propagandists is how to keep the conspiracy theory alive now that Mueller’s unsuccessful hunt for 5thcolumnists is in the dustbin. The leading Russia scholar, Stephen Cohen, who has been professionally marginalized because of his skepticism toward the CIA narrative, sees the impact of a larger scandal – the corruption of the Democratic Party and its minions in the media that formed an alliance with the spooks. He asks: “what about the legions of high-ranking intelligence officials, politicians, editorial writers, television producers, and other opinion-makers, and their eager media outlets that perpetuated, inflated, and prolonged this unprecedented political scandal in American history…?”

      Another question is, how would the mainstream media financially survive an ending of Russiagate, if indeed the media moguls allow it to end? This spectacular failure of the “fourth estate” in covering the Clinton and Democrats’ defeat in 2016 greatly weakened their trust status, which has been in quite steady decline since the 1970s, especially among Republicans. Democrats tend to look more favorably on the largely partisan liberal MSM for obvious reasons. However, as of December 2018, according to an IPSOS/Reuters poll, only 44% of Americans has much (16%) or some (28%) confidence in the MSM, compared to hardly any (48%). On whether MSM news organizations are more interested in making money than telling the truth, 59% agreed with the former assessment. No known organization has published findings on MSM trust since the completion of the Mueller debacle.

      What is to be made politically of the Russia obsession? Russiagate, which Matt Taibbi calls “this generation’s WMD,” can be seen as serving three broad major purposes.

      It has given the Democratic Party leadership and its partners in the CIA and MSM a cause célèbre inorder to salvage the status and image of the party and distract from its disastrous electoral defeats from 2008 to 2016. It thereby serves as an alternative reality to the widespread recognition that the ruling forces in the party have no genuine popular agenda and represent corporate, banking, neoliberal, and neoconservative militarist projects designed under Bill Clinton’s New Democrat agenda.

      On foreign policy, Russiagate puts the Democrats to the right of the Republicans, similar to the way that John Kennedy in the 1960 campaign accused the Eisenhower (and VP Nixon) administration of weakening America’s defenses, which presently enables the energy and defense industries and their lobbyists to unduly influence the perception of international threats and flashpoints. Democrats in the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly for the 2019 $716 billion defense budget, over and above what even Trump requested. In 2018, five military contractors – Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon – provided key political leaders in both parties with $14.4 million in addition to $94 million spent on lobbying efforts that year. Oil & gas spent $89 million on the election campaign and $125 million on lobbying.

      And, third, it serves to stifle the political left in and outside the party and the demands for progressive legislative changes activated by Bernie Sanders in 2016 and by newer members like Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Tulsi Gabbard.

      Where is the center of public political confidence these days? Certainly not with the mainstream media, which is even lower than that for Trump. Even in terms of its vaunted claims of press freedom, the US fares quite badly. Reporters Without Borders ranked the US number 45th worldwide (of 180 countries cited) in press freedom in its 2018 report. Tory-led Britain slid from 33rd in 2014 to 40th– only Italy and Greece were behind the UK among western European countries. And although Trump hasn’t helped with his attacks on the media (and more than reciprocated by the media’s extraordinarily hostile coverage of the president), the situation wasn’t much better under Obama, who threatened whistle blowers in the press with enforcing the 1917 Espionage Act. This is law that may be pressed against the journalist Julian Assange. There still exists no “shield law” guaranteeing journalists the right to protect their sources’ identities. Journalism students should be concerned for another reason as well:Newspaper employment between 2001 and 2016 has been cut by more than half, from 412,000 to 174,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

      William Arkin, who quit NBC News as a political commentator last January, accused the station of peddling “ho-hum reporting” that “essentially condones” an endless US war presence in the Middle East and Africa. He also took the network to task for not reporting “the failures of the generals and national security leaders,” and essentially becoming “a defender of the government against Trump” and a “cheerleader for open and subtle threat mongering.”

      In his parting comments, he wrote: “I’m alarmed at how quick NBC is to mechanically … be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war.… Even on Russia, though we should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for the Cold War?”

      It may be whistling in the wind, but there are more important things to worry about than whether “the Russians” exposed the DNC’s perfidious behavior in 2016. It would be more worthwhile for Democrats to demand programs that eliminate child poverty, which is at 20% in the US, compared to an OECD average of 13%. It might also be useful to concentrate a bit more on the white working class and working poor that went to Trump in 2016, whose kids make up 31% of  the child poverty bracket (black children are 24%, and Latino children are 36%).

      And while they’re at it, they might try to change the fact that the US ranks 25thout of 29 industrialized countries in investments in early childhood education or the fact that the disgraceful American infant mortality rate at 5.8 deaths per 1,000 live births is 50% higher than the OECD average (3.9%). Many of the parents of these less privileged children are serving long sentences in prison for non-violent crimes, the discarded citizens who form the highest incarceration rate in the world. Overall, the Stanford Center on Inequality and Poverty ranked the US 18th out of 21 wealthy countries on measures of labor markets, poverty rates, safety nets, wealth inequality, and economic mobility. On the other hand, the US has more than 25% of the world’s 2,208 billionaires. This is American exceptionalism at its worst.

      The corporate-run market system and the calamities it is bringing to the world depends on such distractions. As the New York Times journalist and defender of US global supremacy, Thomas Friedman, has noted, “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the U.S. Air Force F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.” In his view, the system needs protecting, for which his “journalism” and most of the MSM are certainly doing their part.

      Unless the rather soft left within the Democratic Party can somehow capture the public imagination, the Democrats’ political agenda, the MSM and their cohorts in the deep state will likely continue to report fake Russian conspiracies around the world.

      Russiagate is a propaganda industry that keeps on giving. In the longue durée of American elections, the question is what discourse will dominate the next campaign – social justice and a rational foreign policy or more aggressive polemics about Russia aimed at a steady pathway to nuclear war?

    • Nearly Half Of Millennials Wouldn't Invest In Stocks Even If They Had The Money

      As the American equity market roars back toward its all-time highs, a majority of the millennial generation is probably learning the true meaning of FOMO, because as study after study has showed, those who came of age immediately before, during and after the financial crisis were so scarred by the experience that they refused to ever buy in to the equity market. Overall, equity ownership among American adults remains 8% below its pre-crisis levels.

      Of course, the factors behind the millennial generation’s inability to accumulate wealth are myriad: Stagnant wages, crushing student loan debt and widening inequality are just a few reasons why the savings rate among those under the age of 35 is basically nil. And when they do invest, they appear doomed to repeat the mistakes of the not-too-distant past, favoring get-rich-quick bubble plays like marijuana stocks and bitcoin over blue-chip stalwarts like Apple.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Apple

      But while most would probably chalk millennials’ aversion to investing up to the fact that they don’t have any savings or income to spare, one recent study suggested that even if they had the money, they wouldn’t put it in stocks.

      Lexington Law, a firm that offers services to help people fix their credit, asked 1,000 millennials how they would invest $10,000 if they had it to spare.

      Nearly half – 46% – said they wouldn’t put the money in stocks.

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

      Only one in three respondents said they would rely on a financial advisor, reflecting a distrust of financial ‘professionals’ that has lingered since the crash.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>One in Three

      And although a slightly higher percentage of men than women said they would rely on their own advice, most expressed a lack of confidence in their investing acumen that was reflective of their lack of acumen.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>Acumen

      As the study’s authors  argued, this distrust in the financial system isn’t terribly surprising.

      Considering the effects of the last market crash, it’s not terribly surprising that 46 percent of adults aged 25 to 34 said they wouldn’t invest in the stock market. Many of the financial institutions that played a role in the last recession continue to operate as investment banks today. Though employment and wages are up, the crisis hasn’t been forgotten.

      We wonder if their attitudes would be different if Congress and the Fed didn’t step in to bail out banks and the wealthy while leaving average working Americans to shoulder the brunt of the consequences?

    • Five Companies Represent 35% Of All The S&P 500’s Value Creation Over The Last 5 Years

      Submitted by Nicholas Colas of DataTrek

      Six companies represent 37% of all the S&P 500’s value creation over the last 5 years: Amazon (10.1%), Apple (6.5%), Facebook (4.7%), Google (6.4%), Microsoft (7.8%), and Netflix (1.8%). And even though NFLX may look small, its increase in market value over the last 5 years is essentially the same as JP Morgan’s. US equity valuations reflect present and future Tech disruption. No other narrative need apply.

      * * *

      In our Markets section 2 nights ago we mentioned that Amazon is responsible for 6.7% of the S&P 500’s market value gain since November 2005. Amazon was added to the index in the that month, and since then:

      • The value of the companies in the S&P 500 has risen by $13,161 billion.
      • Amazon’s market cap has increased by $886 billion
      • Divide the two figures and you get 6.7%

      That got us to thinking: how much have large Tech companies influenced the S&P 500 over just the last 5 years? Here are a few baseline numbers to start the analysis:

      • At the end of March 2014, the S&P 500 had a total value of $17,206,453 million.
      • At the end of March 2019, it was $24,760,982 million
      • The difference: $7,554.5 billion, or 43.9% higher
      • One technical note: the S&P 500 is +51.3% over this period with the difference due to stock buybacks.

      So how much of that $7.6 trillion comes from Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Netflix? Here are the numbers:

      Amazon: 10.1% of the market’s value gain over the last 5 years:

      • Market cap Q1 2014: $157.4 billion
      • Market cap now: $917.6 billion
      • Difference: $760.2 billion

      Apple: 6.5% of the market’s gains over the last 5 years:

      • Market cap Q1 2014: $472.1 billion
      • Market cap now: $963.9 billion
      • Difference: $491.8 billion

      Facebook: 4.7% of the market’s gains over the past 5 years:

      • Market cap Q1 2014: $157.2 billion
      • Market cap now: $510.5 billion
      • Difference: $353.3 billion

      Google: 6.4% of the market’s gains over the last 5 years:

      • Market cap Q1 2014: $375.6 billion
      • Market cap now: $859.5 billion
      • Difference: $483.9 billion

      Microsoft: 7.8% of the market’s gains over the last 5 years:

      • Market cap Q1 2014: $343.0 billion
      • Market cap now: $934.2 billion
      • Difference: $591.2 billion

      Netflix: 1.8% of the market’s total gains over the last 5 years:

      • Market cap Q1 2014: $21.6 billion
      • Market cap now: $154.9 billion
      • Difference: $133.3 billion

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Pulling all this into 3 summary points:

      #1: Netflix may not seem all that impressive at “just” $133 billion of added market cap, but that’s essentially what JP Morgan added to the S&P 500 over the same period. JPM’s market cap has increased by $139.1 billion in the last 5 years.

      Conclusion: disruption at global scale can add as much market value as a much larger but old-school business even if the latter is very well-run.

      #2: In aggregate, these 6 companies are responsible for 37.3% of all the S&P’s incremental value creation over the last 5 years. Take out Netflix, and the remaining 5 are still 35.5%.

      Conclusion: over a third of the S&P’s 44% value accretion in the last 5 years comes down to a handful of now-super cap tech disruptors. Without them, the S&P’s total value would only have compounded annually at 5.0% instead of 7.6%.

      #3: The right question out of this analysis: what will be the source of the S&P’s value creation over the next 5 years (i.e. where is the next $3-5 trillion of market cap coming from)? Here’s how we handicap the odds:

      • 65% chance it will be these same companies. They have the scale and scope to develop the next wave of disruptive technologies and get them to market.
      • 30% chance it will be either new businesses (such as the raft of IPOs currently in the pipeline) or already public Tech companies with a break-through technology or platform. This is why investors are looking so hard at Uber, for example.
      • 5% chance it will come from a strategic shift in non-Tech companies to incorporate disruptive business models at scale. The challenge here is the Innovator’s Dilemma – established businesses rarely burn their boats and strike off into the wilderness.

      Final thought: remember that we only highlighted 6 disruptive Tech companies here and still got to 37% of all the value creation for US stocks over the last half decade. Add another dozen or two and we suspect we could get to well north of 50%. The US stock market, or at least the S&P 500, is inextricably tied to the present and future of disruptive technology. We don’t see that changing.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 18th April 2019

    • Pink Floyd's Roger Waters "Ashamed To Be An Englishman" Over Assange Saga

      As the establishment attempts to paint a narrative of Julian Assange in cahoots with every thug and terrorist in the world – and definitely not a journalist – many ‘dissenters’ refuse to allow the whitewashing to go unanswered.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      One such voice is legendary Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters, who told RT, in a wide-ranging interview this week, that he was “ashamed to be an Englishman” after seeing Assange being physically removed from his shelter at the Ecuadorian Embassy.

      “To think that the UK has become such a willing accomplice and satellite of the American Empire that it would do such a thing in contravention with all laws, moral, ethical, and actual legal restrictions is absolutely, stunningly appalling and makes me ashamed to be an Englishman.

      UK authorities will soon decide whether to deport Assange to Sweden, where he faces possible rape charges, or to the US, where he is wanted for conspiring with former army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to break into a classified government computer.

      The second scenario would be worse, Waters believes.

      Citizens “barely have rights anymore” after the Patriot Act was adopted, and “everything is at the whim of the commander-in-chief.”

      “If we let the UK get away with allowing him to be extradited to the United States, we allow the United States government, at their whim, to torture him and to detain him possibly for the rest of his life.”

      The rock icon concluded by slamming Washington and London for simply wanting to hush up Assange as he exposes “the matters of torture, or incarceration of innocent people.”

      “And also, what they’re doing – Trump and the rest of them, and Theresa May – is to try to frighten would-be Julian Assanges who may provide this incredibly important service for the rest of us in society in the future.” 

      Assange, along with Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and other whistleblowers, “are the heroes who help us gain some of the knowledge that the [powerful] would keep secret if they could.”

      Watch the full interview below:

    • Escobar: Now Comes The Notre Dame Of Billionaires

      Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Saker blog,

      The Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed by an intolerant sect pretending to follow Islam. Buddhism all across Asia grieved. The West hardly paid attention.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The remaining ruins of Babylon, and the attached museum, were occupied, plundered and vandalized by a US Marine base during Shock and Awe in 2003. The West paid no attention.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Vast tracts of Palmyra – a legendary Silk Road oasis – were destroyed by another intolerant sect pretending to follow Islam with their backs covered by layers of Western “intelligence”. The West paid no attention.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Scores of Catholic and Orthodox churches in Syria were burnt to the ground by the same intolerant sect pretending to follow Islam with their backs sponsored and weaponized, among others, by the US, Britain and France. The West paid no attention whatsoever.

      Notre-Dame, which in many ways can be construed as the Matrix of the West, is partially consumed by a theoretically blind fire.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Especially the roof; hundreds of oak beams, some dating back to the 13th century. Metaphorically, this could be interpreted as the burning of the roof over the West’s collective heads.

      Bad karma? Finally?

      *  *  *

      Now back to the nitty-gritty.

      Notre-Dame belongs to the French state, which had been paying little to no attention to a gothic jewel that traversed eight centuries.

      Fragments of arcades, chimeras, reliefs, gargoyles were always falling to the ground and kept in an improvised deposit in the back of the cathedral.

      Only last year Notre-Dame got a check for 2 million euros to restore the spire – which burned to the ground yesterday.

      To restore the whole cathedral would have cost 150 million euros, according to the top world expert on Notre-Dame, who happens to be an American, Andrew Tallon.

      Recently, the custodians of the cathedral and the French state were actually at war.

      The French state was making at least 4 million euros a year, charging tourists to enter the Twin (Bell) Towers but putting back only 2 million euros for the maintenance of Notre-Dame.

      The rector of Notre-Dame refused to charge for a ticket to enter the cathedral – as it happens, for example, at the Duomo in Milan.

      Notre-Dame basically survives on donations – which pay the salaries of only 70 employees who need not only to supervise the masses of tourists but also to organize eight masses a day.

      The French state’s proposal to minimize the ordeal; organize a beneficent lottery. That is; privatize what is a state commitment and obligation.

      So yes: Sarkozy and Macron, their whole administrations, are directly and indirectly responsible for the fire.

      Now comes the Notre-Dame of Billionaires.

      Pinault (Gucci, St. Laurent) pledged 100 million euros from his personal fortune for the restoration. Arnault (Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy) doubled down, pledging 200 million euros.

      So why not privatize this damn fine piece of real estate – disaster capitalism-style? Welcome to Notre-Dame luxury condo, hotel and attached mall.

    • China Builds World's First Amphibious Drone Boat For Island Assaults 

      President Xi Jinping wants to ‘Make China Great Again’, — and that implies bringing Taiwan under the Communist Party’s control. For that to happen, China would need to strengthen its military capabilities before it launched a potential invasion of the island nation.

      New evidence this week from China’s state-owned media reveals that the world’s first armed amphibious drone boat for sea assault operations has rolled off the assembly line.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Manufactured by Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Group under China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC), the new drone boat, dubbed Marine Lizard, passed “delivery checks” and left the factory on April 8 in Wuhan, capital of Central China’s Hubei Province, state-run Global Times reported on Monday.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The vessel measures 40 ft long, is powered by a diesel-powered hydro jet engine for a maximum speed of 50 knots. 

      Hubei Daily reported on Sunday, citing an anonymous CSIC manager, that the amphibious drone ship releases four continuous track units hidden under its belly as it approaches land, can traverse over hard terrain at about 13 mph.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      They vessels have a maximum operational range of 745 miles and can be remotely controlled from 31 miles away.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      CSIC mounted advance radar, optical and BeiDou satellite navigation systems in the vessel that can connect to other autonomous vehicles.

      Marine Lizards are constructed from special aluminum alloy, could be used to transport troops, establish perimeter surveillance around coasts, conduct inshore monitoring, support airport defenses, and even lead sea assault operations.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The drone boats could lie dormant near a target for eight months before being reactivated to launch an attack, a tactic that could be used to commandeer uninhabited islands in the East and the South China Sea, or even Taiwan.

      “They can hide and hibernate, do autonomous patrols, and launch rapid assaults and landings,” CSIC told Hubei Daily.

      Beijing-based military commentator Song Zhongping told Hubei Daily that the quick speed of the boats means China can launch surprise attacks on islands.

      Song said the boats would be ideal for the military to start autonomous surveillance operations throughout the South China Sea.

      “In the South China Sea, it can be used to either seize a reef or guard a reef, both offensive and defensive,” he said.

      The drone boat is available for export, read a statement issued by Wuchang Shipbuilding Industry Group. 

    • Psy-Op Of The Day: North Korea And Bitcoin

      Authored by Tom Luongo,

      So the latest threat to global security we’re supposed to believe is cybercrime from North Korea involving Bitcoin.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      There is a new report from the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI) called Closing the Crypto Gap: Guidance for Countering North Korean Cryptocurrency Activity in Southeast Asia.

      It’s important stuff apparently. Because it’s all over the news feeds. All the major MSM outlets are covering this story by doing what they always do, quote the executive summary and dress it up as journalism.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      FEAR! HATE!

      Welcome to Fearville folks. I know a catchy title is all part of the eyeballs game of the daily news feed but come on! The RUSI report is nothing but warmed over innuendo and generalizations that could be levied at anyone who owns a Trezor and a small pile of coins they overpaid for in late 2017.

      In general, North Korea could seek to use cryptocurrencies as part of its proliferation financing efforts through:

      • Fundraising: To sustain its ongoing needs for cash, North Korea may obtain cryptocurrencies with the aim of converting them to fiat currencies in the short term.

      • Stockpiling: North Korea could accumulate reserves of cryptocurrencies with the objective of eventually spending them or converting them into fiat currency at some point in the future.

      • Circumvention: North Korea could use cryptocurrencies to pay directly for goods, services and resources that are explicitly prohibited by international sanctions.

      RUSI Report on North Korea and Bitcoin.

      The fiends!

      They may *gasp* get around sanctions or convert bitcoins to dollars to *gasp* BUY FOOOD!

      It’s all so ridiculous it’s beyond belief. Implicit in all of these arguments is that sanctions are a legitimate tool for political gain. They aren’t. Sanctions hit the people not the regime. They starve the people of the capital they need to effect change.

      So never forget that sanctions are simply punishment by evil men of ordinary people. Everything else is just what it looks like, a psy-op.

      If you just read the executive summary itself you’ll see the classic scholastic trick of footnoting someone else’s speculation, in this case The UN Security Council’s Panel of Experts on North Korea, to corroborate RUSI’s speculations.

      This is called appeal to authority. It’s not research. It simply says, “Some other person with an official sounding name agrees with me.” It’s not an argument.

      The point here is that this report from RUSI is designed to create headlines and keep the narrative alive that the North Koreans are untrustworthy. That they are shifty, under-handed and, most importantly, dangerous.

      It supports the notion that U.S. and U.N. sanctions on North Korea are justified for all reasons.

      I have no doubt that North Korea is using cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoin, to circumvent sanctions. There’s little incentive for them not to. This is one of the use cases Bitcoin was designed for in the first place, serving the unbanked and the unbankable, as it were.

      Muddying Waters

      This report came out the same time that there is a potential summit between Kim Jong-un and Russian President Vladimir Putin. That rumor has been upgraded by Fort Russ News which seems to think Putin and Kim will meet next week.

      North Korean leader Kim Jong-un may visit Russia in late April, South Korean news agency Yonhap reported, citing sources familiar with the contacts between Moscow and Pyongyang.

      It is expected that Russian President Vladimir Putin will attend an event in the Russian Far East on April 24,” the source writes, adding that his sources believe that just then “the expected summit” of the two leaders could be held.

      Even if that doesn’t happen there is a lot of smoke out there that Russia and China have both had enough of the U.S.’s approach to North Korean talks. It’s become clear, really, that the Russians, in particular, have had enough of the Trump administration.

      The talks in Hanoi collapsed thanks to John Bolton and the U.S. added more sanctions in response. It’s all so tired and predictable at this point.

      The RUSI report is designed to keep the news feed mixed on North Korea as it and China opened up a new border crossing last week and the U.S. special envoy to North Korea travels to Moscow for talks.

      Putin and Kim will meet before Kim meets again with Trump and I would expect something surprising to come from that meeting with Putin. It’s clear the U.S. is not interested in solving the situation. Bolton wants North Korea as a prize and will accept nothing less.

      And therefore everything else we read on a daily basis about the talks are simply misdirection and false hope. The sanctions will remain in place but they will be actively circumvented further over time.

      Russia and China will continue assisting North Korea in this while saying they aren’t. The U.S. will fulminate and pile on more sanctions. And eventually everyone will stop listening. Meanwhile, trade will develop, relationships that want to develop will, the North Koreans will still have nukes and eventually someone will call the U.S.’s bluff.

    • Navy's $128 Billion Nuclear Sub Project Faces Audit Over "Unreliable Cost Estimates"

      A new report published several weeks ago raised red flags about the affordability of the U.S. Navy’s latest nuclear submarine project.

      The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the Navy is considering to ask Congress for additional funds in fiscal 2021 to procure the first of its new 12-ship fleet of nuclear-armed submarines.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      The Columbia-class submarine program has an estimated value of approximately $128 billion including research and development costs, with $115 billion for procurement. GAO said that makes it the third-costliest program for any weapon systems in the Pentagon’s history. But stressed the cost estimate for the program “is not accurate because it relies on overly optimistic” reductions in labor costs, added GAO.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Now the Pentagon’s inspector general is getting involved and wants to audit the program’s propulsion and steering system.

      Bloomberg said an audit would begin on the first of 12 vessels, will “determine whether the Navy is managing the development” of the system to “ensure that it meets performance requirements without cost increases or schedule overruns,” the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG) said in its fiscal 2019 audit plan.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “There is a suggestion in this statement that the stern section may present some risk of cost growth or schedule delay,” Ronald O’Rourke, a naval systems analyst for the Congressional Research Service, said in an email to Bloomberg.

      The audit will surround the propulsor, a mechanical device that gives propulsion to the vessel and allows it to manuever through the water. The fleet of submarines is being built by General Dynamics Corp.’s Electric Boat division.

      “We look forward to working with the DoD IG on any such effort,” said William Couch, a spokesman for the Naval Sea Systems Command.

      The audit could take a year to complete as Congress deliberates the fiscal 2021 defense budget. The Navy is expected to request additional funds to start construction of the first vessel in October 2020.

    • Mapping The Global Migration Of Millionaires

      Submitted by Visual Capitalist

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      High net worth individuals (HNWIs) – persons with wealth over US$1 million – may decide to pick up and move for a number of reasons. In some cases they are attracted by jurisdictions with more favorable tax laws, or less pollution and crime. Sometimes, they’re simply looking for a change of scenery.

      Today’s graphic, using data from the annual Global Wealth Migration Review, maps the migration of the world’s millionaires, and clearly shows which countries are magnets for the world’s rich, and which countries are seeing a wealth exodus.

      The Flight of the Millionaires

      It’s no secret that China has been a wealth creation machine over the past two decades. Although the country is still making a number of its citizens very wealthy, over 15,000 Chinese HNWIs still chose to migrate to other countries in 2018 – the most significant migration of any country.

      Here’s a look at the top countries by HNWI outflows:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Unlike the middle class, wealthy citizens have the means to pick up and leave when things start to sideways in their home country. An uptick in HNWI migration from a country can often be a signal of negative economic or societal factors influencing a country.

      This is the case in Turkey, which has been rocked by instability, mass protests, and an inflation rate estimated to be in the triple-digits by some sources.

      For the third straight year, Turkey lost more than 4,000 millionaires. An estimated 10% of Turkey’s HNWIs fled in 2018, which is concerning because unlike China and India, the country is not producing new millionaires in any significant number.

      Millionaire Magnets

      Time-honored locations – such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands – continue to attract the world’s wealthy, but no country is experiencing HNWI inflows quite like Australia.

      The Land Down Under has a number of attributes that make it an attractive destination for migrating millionaires. The country has a robust economy, and is perceived as being a safe place to raise a family. Even better, Australia has no inheritance tax and a lower cost of health care, which can make it an attractive alternative to the U.S.

      In 2018, Australia jumped ahead of both Canada and France to become the seventh largest wealth market in the world.

      Here’s a look at HNWI inflows around the world:

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Greece, which was one of the worst performing wealth markets of the last decade, is finally seeing a modest inflow of millionaires again.

    • Watch: Wolf Pack Of Robot Dogs Pulls Box Truck Across Parking Lot 

      Robotics company Boston Dynamics published a stunning video Tuesday of ten SpotMini robots pulling a Freightliner box truck across a parking lot, presumably at their headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “It only takes 10 Spotpower (SP) to haul a truck across the Boston Dynamics parking lot (~1 degree uphill, truck in neutral),” the company wrote in the video description posted on Youtube. “These Spot robots are coming off the production line now and will be available for a range of applications soon.”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      SpotMini is a medium size four-legged robot that is intended to complete tasks in offices, homes, and outdoor environments. The robot dog can carry approximately 31 pounds, weighs about 66 pounds and stands 2.6 feet high. This all-electric robot has a battery life of 90 minutes, depending on the task(s).

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      SpotMini can pick up and handle objects using its five degree-of-freedom arm and advanced sensors. The sensor suite includes stereo cameras, depth cameras, an IMU, and position/force sensors in the legs. These sensors allow the robot to navigate various terrains with extreme ease.

      Boston Dynamics wasn’t open for comment when asked by CNET but said the robots are being developed for a range of applications. Last spring, the company’s president, Marc Raibert, said SpotMini would be released to the public in 2019.

       

       

    • Lori Loughlin's Daughter Is First Student Under Criminal Investigation In Admissions Scandal

      A third member of the Loughlin family – the most familiar faces in the recent college admissions scam – is now facing a criminal investigation, according to The Daily Mail. A daughter of Full House star Lori Loughlin, who recently plead not guilty to charges in “the largest ever college admissions scandal” is now the focus of a Department of Justice probe as to her involvement in the case.

      Multiple sources have said that the actress’ daughter was on the receiving end of a letter from federal prosecutors in Massachusetts earlier this month regarding the investigation. The letter said that Loughlin’s daughter was the subject of an investigation that could result in criminal charges.

      One person who saw the letter said: “It is a not-so-veiled threat. [The US Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts] is making it pretty clear that they have evidence that very strongly suggests she knew of the illegal plot.”

      The tone of the letter was described as “ominous”. A source said that these letters are an indication that prosecutors are working to obtain evidence and possibly pursue additional charges and defendants.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Another source interpreted the letter as clear telegraphing of more charges to come: “It is clear that some students are going to be charged.”

      Sources said that five additional people whose children received letters all refused a plea deal and filed a plea of not guilty, as Loughlin and her husband have done. Loughlin’s daughters, as part of the scam, pretended they had previously been on crew teams in order to gain preferential treatment as potential athletic recruits. To sell that idea, they posed for photos on ergometers, offering the suggestion that they were aware and willing participants in their parents’ plan. Loughlin daughter Olivia also reportedly had scam ringleader William Rick Singer’s team fill out her college applications for her.

      According to the complaint:

      ‘On or about December 12, 2017, Loughlin e-mailed [Singer], copying Giannulli and their younger daughter [Olivia], to request guidance on how to complete the formal USC application, in the wake of her daughter’s provisional acceptance as a recruited athlete,’ states the complaint.

      ‘Loughlin wrote: “[Our younger daughter] has not submitted all her colleges [sic] apps and is confused on how to do so. I want to make sure she gets those in as I don’t want to call any attention to [her] with our little friend at [her high school]. Can you tell us how to proceed?”‘

      In response, Singer wrote an email ‘directing an employee to submit the applications on behalf of the Giannullis’ younger daughter [Olivia].

      Loughlin and Giannulli ‘agreed to pay bribes totaling $500,000 in exchange for having their two daughters designated as recruits to the USC crew team – despite the fact that they did not participate in crew – thereby facilitating their admission to USC,’ according to the documents.

      Perhaps if you’re too “confused” on how to fill out a college application, that should automatically discredit you from admission – just a thought.

      Regardless, this is the first report of a student potentially being investigated in the scandal that has already seen 16 parents face indictments. Previously it had been reported that Loughlin was worried about what a guilty plea would do to her daughters. 

      “She is very concerned about what a guilty plea would do to her daughters, who may not have grasped everything that was going on. Yes, she can think about the public perception of her, but that’s nothing compared to what her daughters think of her. So that is something that has understandably made her less likely to enter a plea,” a source told People several days ago. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Just days ago, we reported that the Harvard test taking whiz who was central to the scheme, Mark Riddell, had cut a deal with prosecutors and was facing 33 to 41 months in prison. 14 other parents were also recently indicted in the scandal last week. Two weeks ago, we noted that parents charged in the scheme were seeking out “prison life consultants” to find out what life would be like in the big house. Perhaps Loughlin’s daughters can now benefit from the same consultant. 

      We have been following the admissions scandal at length. As part of our coverage, we detailed how financial speaking gigs and elite high schools helped facilitate the scam for years.

      We’ve also covered the fallout from the scandal, like when UCLA’s Men’s Soccer Coach and former U.S. Men’s national team player Jorge Salcedo recently resigned from his position at the university as a result of taking bribes. We also wrote about how students were being encouraged to fake learning disabilities in order to cheat on college entrance exams. 

      We profiled Mark Riddell for the first time in March. Prior to that, we also reported on the tipster who gave the SEC the lead on the admissions scandal.

    • Again!! Are Establishment Democrats Plotting To Sabotage Bernie?

      Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

      Bernie Sanders is on a roll, and this is absolutely terrifying many establishment Democrats.  He has raised far more money that any of the other Democratic candidates, he just took the lead in a major national poll, and a Fox News town hall featuring Sanders was just watched by nearly 2.6 million viewersYou would think that the Democratic establishment would be thrilled to see such enthusiasm for one of their presidential candidates, but instead they are totally freaking out because they don’t want him to be the nominee.

      On Tuesday, the New York Times published an article entitled “‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum”, and in that article we are told that “his critics are chiefly motivated by a fear that nominating an avowed socialist would all but ensure Mr. Trump a second term”.  And of course those critics are right.  If Sanders is the nominee, that will give Trump the best chance of winning again in 2020.  It would be a complete and total nightmare for the Democratic Party, and so in order to avoid that scenario some Democratic operatives are already plotting how to sabotage the Sanders campaign.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Right now there are 17 Democrats running for president, and it looks like Joe Biden will jump into the race very soon.

      But most of the other candidates have not gained any traction at all, and a brand new poll that just came out actually shows Sanders beating Biden

      Sen. Bernie Sanders finished ahead of Joe Biden in the first major national poll of the year that did not find the former vice president leading the pack of potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

      When asked whom they would support from a list of 20 candidates – including “someone else” –  29% named Sanders, and 24% named Biden in an Emerson College poll released Monday. They were trailed by South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who was the pick of 9% of likely Democratic primary voters.

      What is even more important is the trajectory of the support for the two candidates.  Biden’s support appears to be dropping because of his history of “inappropriate touching”, and support for Sanders has risen 12 points since February

      “Biden has seen his support drop. In February, he led Sanders 27% to 17%, and in March, the two were tied at 26%. Now, Sanders has a 5-point lead,” said Spencer Kimball, director of Emerson Polling.

      If Biden ends up flopping as a candidate, establishment Democrats are going to be in quite a quandary because nobody else is even polling in double digits at this point.  Perhaps someone like Pete Buttigieg will end up catching fire, but there is no guarantee that will happen.

      As it stands today, there is a very good chance that Bernie Sanders could be the Democratic nominee, and many establishment Democrats are trying to figure a way out of this mess

      From canapé-filled fund-raisers on the coasts to the cloakrooms of Washington, mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried that their effort to defeat President Trump in 2020 could be complicated by Mr. Sanders, in a political scenario all too reminiscent of how Mr. Trump himself seized the Republican nomination in 2016.

      How, some Democrats are beginning to ask, do they thwart a 70-something candidate from outside the party structure who is immune to intimidation or incentive and wields support from an unwavering base, without simply reinforcing his “the establishment is out to get me”’ message — the same grievance Mr. Trump used to great effect?

      Of course if Sanders supporters get the impression that the nominating process is being rigged against their guy again, that could cause a full-blown civil war in the Democratic Party.

      Needless to say, Republicans would absolutely love that.

      But despite that danger, establishment Democratic operatives such as David Brock are publicly talking about sabotaging Sanders

      “There’s a growing realization that Sanders could end up winning this thing, or certainly that he stays in so long that he damages the actual winner,” said David Brock, the liberal organizer, who said he has had discussions with other operatives about an anti-Sanders campaign and believes it should commence “sooner rather than later.”

      Once this New York Times story came out, it was inevitable that there would be a tremendous amount of backlash from Bernie supporters.

      For example, Bernie supporter Katherine Krueger very quickly released a response piece entitled “I’m Going to Have a Rage Stroke Over This Story About Dem Elites Trying to Take Bernie Out”

      I’m spent. I want nothing from these people; in fact, I’d prefer they retire from politics entirely for their role in losing what was arguably the most winnable presidential election in modern history. Neera Tanden might punch me in the chest for saying this, but that’s OK!

      It’s insanely telling that the people featured in this story—who call themselves “progressives,” despite being wedded to deeply middle-of-the-road centrist policies—are so threatened by a candidate who, after being screwed by them in 2016, isn’t inclined to make concessions to the vast, useless apparatus of consultants and donors that they represent. Of course they want to stop Sanders. He’s sworn off big money, has actual progressive policy ideas, and is thumbing his nose at scolds like Tanden and her cronies! If the voters choose Bernie, he should be the nominee. End of story. If you’re the kind of person who would tack a “but,” onto the end of that sentence, you’re probably more wedded to rewriting the perceived wrongs of 2016 than actually taking back the White House in 2020.

      The fact that Bernie Sanders has so much support shows how much America has moved to the left in 2019.  He represents just about the opposite of everything that our founders believed in, but a large percentage of the nation is embracing him anyway.

      But could a self-described socialist actually go all the way and win the entire thing?

      Probably not, and that is why establishment Democrats are so freaked out right now.

      There is still plenty of time, and a lot can change in the coming months.  But at this moment, many are describing Sanders as the front-runner

      “Right now, he is the front-runner,” said Karine Jean-Pierre, the chief public affairs officer for MoveOn, a progressive group. “He is leading in the fundraising. He is leading in the polling — except for Biden, who has not jumped in yet. … Bernie’s start has been impressive. Clearly his base is still with him and still excited.”

      Of course there is one Democrat that would beat Bernie very easily, but she has insisted over and over that she is not running.

      However, the stronger the Sanders campaign gets, the louder the calls for her to run will become.

    Digest powered by RSS Digest

    Today’s News 17th April 2019

    • Governments Come Clean In New 'Honest Ad' About Assange's Arrest

      The British, Australian, Ecuadorian and US Governments have made an ad about Julian Assange’s arrest and it’s surprisingly honest and informative!

    • Notre Dame & The Identity Of France

      Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

      These are not matters solely of politics and finance; they are manifestations of the elite war on the identity of France.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As rationalists, we’re supposed to take the dramatic and profoundly tragic fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris as random chance or bad luck. But I cannot be the only one who feels a symbolic tie between the near-destruction of a French religious and cultural icon and the embattled identity of France.

      As it happens, I am reading Fernand Braudel’s massive two-volume history The Identity of France: Volume One: History and Environment and Volume Two: People and Production.

      Longtime readers know I have often recommended Braudel’s three-volume history, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century, as essential to the understanding of the rise of Capitalism in Europe:

      The Structures of Everyday Life (Volume 1)

      The Wheels of Commerce (Volume 2)

      The Perspective of the World (Volume 3)

      The Chinese famously view natural disasters and similar events as portents of political change, as disasters suggest the Emperor/ruling elite has lost the Mandate of Heaven. It is difficult not to see the disastrous fire in Notre Dame as just such a portent.

      For the identity of France is under assault on a number of fronts. The left-leaning status quo has set up a false duality: one either worships multiculturalism and rejects a national identity as the sworn enemy of multiculturalism, or one is a rightist racist. Thus anyone who even refers to a national identity of France is quickly vilified and marginalized.

      This is of course a false choice: one can value multiculturalism as an essential part of a national identity without sacrificing the entire notion of a national identity.

      As Braudel notes at the end of Volume Two, France has long been ruled by tiny elites. A mere 242 financiers held contracts to collect taxes for the monarchy in the early 1700s; Braudel notes that “La Haute Banque in Paris, during the Restoration and later, consisted of a mere 25 families.”

      In the highly centralized political power structure of today’s France, the leadership–from Macron down– are all graduates of a few select universities. Like Macron, the leadership was selected early and quickly advanced over lesser elites.

      Globalized, hyper-financialized elitist Capitalism, so dependent on cheap immigrant labor for its servants, has left “deep France” behind, stripped of economic and political power, and relegated to dependency on the welfare state in rural regions (only the favored few and those with state-subsidized housing can afford to live in Paris).

      These are not matters solely of politics and finance; they are manifestations of the elite war on the identity of France, to transform it into a bland, globalized hierarchy in which capital and power benefit the few, a system enforced by state propaganda and public virtue-signaling.

      To quote Slavoj Žižek:

      “The yellow vests movement fits the specific French Left tradition of large public protests targeting the political, more than the business or financial, elites. However, in contrast to the 68’ protests, the yellow vests are much more a movement of France profonde (‘deep France’), its revolt against big metropolitan areas, which means that its Leftist orientation is much more blurred.”

      Here is Andrew Joyce (On Yellow Vests and Monsters):

      “Amidst the sea of evasions, disavowals, and contradictions, it remains the case that the White working class has been abandoned by both the Old Right and the Left. In some cases, the White working class is the reason for the same evasions, disavowals, and contradictions: they are an uncomfortable, and now more visible, reminder of broken promises and unfulfilled obligations.

      Guilluy adds that ‘the economic divide between peripheral France and the metropolises illustrates the separation of an elite and its popular hinterland. Western elites have gradually forgotten a people they no longer see. The impact of the gilets jaunes, and their support in public opinion (eight out of 10 French people approve of their actions), has amazed politicians, trade unions and academics, as if they have discovered a new tribe in the Amazon.’

      I disagree that visibility, presented in passive terms, is the key issue here. In fact, I believe a better analogy would be that of an Amazonian tribe that had been systematically targeted for extinction, and was assumed to have been incapable of mustering any kind of resurgence.

      We shouldn’t forget that it became common practice on the Left to pretend the White working class didn’t exist, and that it was also viewed as explicitly oppositional on the Left and among cosmopolitan elites to offer the White working class, as an ethno-economic group, any kind of material or ideological support.”

      Lastly, here is Christophe Guilluy, author of Twilight of the Elites: Prosperity, the Periphery, and the Future of France:

      Employment and wealth have become more and more concentrated in the big cities. The deindustrialised regions, rural areas, small and medium-size towns are less and less dynamic. But it is in these places – in peripheral France (one could also talk of peripheral America or peripheral Britain) – that many working-class people live. Thus, for the first time, “workers” no longer live in areas where employment is created, giving rise to a social and cultural shock. … The globalised metropolises are the new citadels of the 21st century – rich and unequal, where even the former lower-middle class no longer has a place. Instead, large global cities work on a dual dynamic: gentrification and immigration. This is the paradox: the open society results in a world increasingly closed to the majority of working people.”

      The corporate media, a key defender of the self-serving elite, will reject any symbolism in the near-destruction of Notre Dame. But deep down, many sense what cannot be spoken openly: the elites in France have lost the Mandate of Heaven.

      *  *  *

      I just added a new benefit for all subscribers/patrons: a monthly Q&A where I respond to your questions/topics. You get other exclusive benefits with a $1, $5 or $10/month patronage via patreon.com.

    • China Tests Tactical Laser Similar To US Navy System

      China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA Navy) unveiled a tactical laser system with a striking resemblance to a solid-state laser system tested by the US Navy in 2014, according to The Maritime Executive

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Appearing in a promotional video broadcast by state-owned channel CCTV, Beijing’s new laser can be deployed on both land and sea, and can be used for both close-in surface-to-surface combat and air defenses. According to CCTV, the laser could be mounted on the PLA Navy’s Type 055 destroyers as an alternative to the HHQ-10 surface-to-air missile. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      China’s laser (left) vs. Kratos Defense XN-1 LaWS

      As The Maritime Executive notes, Beijing’s system looks limilar to the US Navy’s XN-1 LaWS system that was tested on the USS Ponce in 2014. The Navy reported that the system worked as designed against low-end asymmetric threats, and can be used at low power to dazzle enemies. At higher power it can fry sensors, burn out motors and detonate explosive materials. During one test, a UAV was able to shot down in as little as two seconds. 

      This is just the latest in China’s laser technology. In April, satellite photos revealed that Beijing has what appears to be a sophisticated anti-satellite laser base in Western China

      The satellite images were published by Indian Army Col. Vinayak Bhat, whose expertise is often widely cited in western media reports, and show a base with advanced satellite tracking capabilities and facilities which house large-scale lasers located about 145 miles south of the Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang.

      A full report featuring the satellite imagery was published by the Washington Free Beacon which concluded alarmingly, “China likely is pursuing laser weapons to disrupt, degrade or damage sat­ellites and their sensors and possibly already has a limited capability to employ laser systems against satellite sensors.”

      The Xinjiang base is one of those laser bases that include four main buildings with sliding roofs that Bhat assesses contain high-powered chemical lasers powered by neodymium.

      Bhat estimates that the smaller shed with the sliding roof is a laser tracker. Taken together, the Chinese can fire one to three of the lasers against an orbiting satellite that China is seeking to disrupt.

      Giving credence to the claim, the report cites the US Defense Intelligence Agency which said in its own assessment published in February that China is set to deploy a ground based laser cannon at some point next year. 

       Meanwhile, last July we reported that China has a “laser AK-47” which its manufacturer claimed could set fire to a target from almost one kilometer away (.62 miles). After naysayers doubted the gun’s capabilities, the South China Morning Post featured a test video in response to the critics. 

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

      The company says the filmed test was not conducted at maximum range, citing “safety reasons, to avoid anyone accidentally walking into the beam” — as the beam is invisible and the device without sound, various objects are shown igniting, including clothing and even a tire. 

      A company spokesman cited by the SCMP said “And after an upgrade it will be the world’s most advanced laser cannon – it will be able to take down a drone several kilometres away.”

    • From Jesus Christ To Julian Assange: When Dissidents Become Enemies Of The State

      Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

      “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” — George Orwell

      When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals.

       

      In the current governmental climate, where laws that run counter to the dictates of the Constitution are made in secret, passed without debate, and upheld by secret courts that operate behind closed doors, obeying one’s conscience and speaking truth to the power of the police state can render you an “enemy of the state.”

      That list of so-called “enemies of the state” is growing.

      Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is merely the latest victim of the police state’s assault on dissidents and whistleblowers.

      On April 11, 2019, police arrested Assange for daring to access and disclose military documents that portray the U.S. government and its endless wars abroad as reckless, irresponsible, immoral and responsible for thousands of civilian deaths.

      Included among the leaked materials was gunsight video footage from two U.S. AH-64 Apache helicopters engaged in a series of air-to-ground attacks while American air crew laughed at some of the casualties. Among the casualties were two Reuters correspondents who were gunned down after their cameras were mistaken for weapons and a driver who stopped to help one of the journalists. The driver’s two children, who happened to be in the van at the time it was fired upon by U.S. forces, suffered serious injuries.

      There is nothing defensible about crimes such as these perpetrated by the government.

      When any government becomes almost indistinguishable from the evil it claims to be fighting—whether that evil takes the form of war, terrorism, torture, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, murder, violence, theft, pornography, scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering and servitude on humanity—that government has lost its claim to legitimacy.

      These are hard words, but hard times require straight-talking.

      It is easy to remain silent in the face of evil.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      What is harder—what we lack today and so desperately need—are those with moral courage who will risk their freedoms and lives in order to speak out against evil in its many forms.

      Throughout history, individuals or groups of individuals have risen up to challenge the injustices of their age. Nazi Germany had its Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The gulags of the Soviet Union were challenged by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. America had its color-coded system of racial segregation and warmongering called out for what it was, blatant discrimination and profiteering, by Martin Luther King Jr.

      And then there was Jesus Christ, an itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist, who not only died challenging the police state of his day—namely, the Roman Empire—but provided a blueprint for civil disobedience that would be followed by those, religious and otherwise, who came after him.

      Indeed, it is fitting that we remember that Jesus Christ—the religious figure worshipped by Christians for his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection—paid the ultimate price for speaking out against the police state of his day.

      A radical nonconformist who challenged authority at every turn, Jesus was a far cry from the watered-down, corporatized, simplified, gentrified, sissified vision of a meek creature holding a lamb that most modern churches peddle. In fact, he spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, and pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire.

      Much like the American Empire today, the Roman Empire of Jesus’ day had all of the characteristics of a police state: secrecy, surveillance, a widespread police presence, a citizenry treated like suspects with little recourse against the police state, perpetual wars, a military empire, martial law, and political retribution against those who dared to challenge the power of the state.

      For all the accolades poured out upon Jesus, little is said about the harsh realities of the police state in which he lived and its similarities to modern-day America, and yet they are striking.

      Secrecy, surveillance and rule by the elite. As the chasm between the wealthy and poor grew wider in the Roman Empire, the ruling class and the wealthy class became synonymous, while the lower classes, increasingly deprived of their political freedoms, grew disinterested in the government and easily distracted by “bread and circuses.” Much like America today, with its lack of government transparency, overt domestic surveillance, and rule by the rich, the inner workings of the Roman Empire were shrouded in secrecy, while its leaders were constantly on the watch for any potential threats to its power. The resulting state-wide surveillance was primarily carried out by the military, which acted as investigators, enforcers, torturers, policemen, executioners and jailers. Today that role is fulfilled by the NSA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the increasingly militarized police forces across the country.

      Widespread police presence. The Roman Empire used its military forces to maintain the “peace,” thereby establishing a police state that reached into all aspects of a citizen’s life. In this way, these military officers, used to address a broad range of routine problems and conflicts, enforced the will of the state. Today SWAT teams, comprised of local police and federal agents, are employed to carry out routine search warrants for minor crimes such as marijuana possession and credit card fraud.

      Citizenry with little recourse against the police state. As the Roman Empire expanded, personal freedom and independence nearly vanished, as did any real sense of local governance and national consciousness. Similarly, in America today, citizens largely feel powerless, voiceless and unrepresented in the face of a power-hungry federal government. As states and localities are brought under direct control by federal agencies and regulations, a sense of learned helplessness grips the nation.

      Perpetual wars and a military empire. Much like America today with its practice of policing the world, war and an over-arching militarist ethos provided the framework for the Roman Empire, which extended from the Italian peninsula to all over Southern, Western, and Eastern Europe, extending into North Africa and Western Asia as well. In addition to significant foreign threats, wars were waged against inchoate, unstructured and socially inferior foes.

      Martial law. Eventually, Rome established a permanent military dictatorship that left the citizens at the mercy of an unreachable and oppressive totalitarian regime. In the absence of resources to establish civic police forces, the Romans relied increasingly on the military to intervene in all matters of conflict or upheaval in provinces, from small-scale scuffles to large-scale revolts. Not unlike police forces today, with their martial law training drills on American soil, militarized weapons and “shoot first, ask questions later” mindset, the Roman soldier had “the exercise of lethal force at his fingertips” with the potential of wreaking havoc on normal citizens’ lives.

      A nation of suspects. Just as the American Empire looks upon its citizens as suspects to be tracked, surveilled and controlled, the Roman Empire looked upon all potential insubordinates, from the common thief to a full-fledged insurrectionist, as threats to its power. The insurrectionist was seen as directly challenging the Emperor.  A “bandit,” or revolutionist, was seen as capable of overturning the empire, was always considered guilty and deserving of the most savage penalties, including capital punishment. Bandits were usually punished publicly and cruelly as a means of deterring others from challenging the power of the state.  Jesus’ execution was one such public punishment.

      Acts of civil disobedience by insurrectionists. Much like the Roman Empire, the American Empire has exhibited zero tolerance for dissidents such as Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manningwho exposed the police state’s seedy underbelly. Jesus branded himself a political revolutionary starting with his act of civil disobedience at the Jewish temple, the site of the administrative headquarters of the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish council. When Jesus “with the help of his disciples, blocks the entrance to the courtyard” and forbids “anyone carrying goods for sale or trade from entering the Temple,” he committed a blatantly criminal and seditious act, an act “that undoubtedly precipitated his arrest and execution.” Because the commercial events were sponsored by the religious hierarchy, which in turn was operated by consent of the Roman government, Jesus’ attack on the money chargers and traders can be seen as an attack on Rome itself, an unmistakable declaration of political and social independence from the Roman oppression.

      Military-style arrests in the dead of night. Jesus’ arrest account testifies to the fact that the Romans perceived Him as a revolutionary. Eerily similar to today’s SWAT team raids, Jesus was arrested in the middle of the night, in secret, by a large, heavily armed fleet of soldiers.  Rather than merely asking for Jesus when they came to arrest him, his pursuers collaborated beforehand with Judas. Acting as a government informant, Judas concocted a kiss as a secret identification marker, hinting that a level of deception and trickery must be used to obtain this seemingly “dangerous revolutionist’s” cooperation. 

      Torture and capital punishment. In Jesus’ day, religious preachers, self-proclaimed prophets and nonviolent protesters were not summarily arrested and executed. Indeed, the high priests and Roman governors normally allowed a protest, particularly a small-scale one, to run its course. However, government authorities were quick to dispose of leaders and movements that appeared to threaten the Roman Empire. The charges leveled against Jesus—that he was a threat to the stability of the nation, opposed paying Roman taxes and claimed to be the rightful King—were purely political, not religious. To the Romans, any one of these charges was enough to merit death by crucifixion, which was usually reserved for slaves, non-Romans, radicals, revolutionaries and the worst criminals.
      Jesus was presented to Pontius Pilate “as a disturber of the political peace,” a leader of a rebellion, a political threat, and most gravely—a claimant to kingship, a “king of the revolutionary type.” After Jesus is formally condemned by Pilate, he is sentenced to death by crucifixion, “the Roman means of executing criminals convicted of high treason.”  The purpose of crucifixion was not so much to kill the criminal, as it was an immensely public statement intended to visually warn all those who would challenge the power of the Roman Empire. Hence, it was reserved solely for the most extreme political crimes: treason, rebellion, sedition, and banditry. After being ruthlessly whipped and mocked, Jesus was nailed to a cross.

      As Professor Mark Lewis Taylor observed:

      The cross within Roman politics and culture was a marker of shame, of being a criminal. If you were put to the cross, you were marked as shameful, as criminal, but especially as subversive. And there were thousands of people put to the cross. The cross was actually positioned at many crossroads, and, as New Testament scholar Paula Fredricksen has reminded us, it served as kind of a public service announcement that said, “Act like this person did, and this is how you will end up.”

      Jesus—the revolutionary, the political dissident, and the nonviolent activist—lived and died in a police state. Any reflection on Jesus’ life and death within a police state must take into account several factors: Jesus spoke out strongly against such things as empires, controlling people, state violence and power politics. Jesus challenged the political and religious belief systems of his day. And worldly powers feared Jesus, not because he challenged them for control of thrones or government but because he undercut their claims of supremacy, and he dared to speak truth to power in a time when doing so could—and often did—cost a person his life.

      Unfortunately, the radical Jesus, the political dissident who took aim at injustice and oppression, has been largely forgotten today, replaced by a congenial, smiling Jesus trotted out for religious holidays but otherwise rendered mute when it comes to matters of war, power and politics.

      Yet for those who truly study the life and teachings of Jesus, the resounding theme is one of outright resistance to war, materialism and empire.

      What a marked contrast to the advice being given to Americans by church leaders to “submit to your leaders and those in authority,” which in the American police state translates to complying, conforming, submitting, obeying orders, deferring to authority and generally doing whatever a government official tells you to do.

      Telling Americans to march in lockstep and blindly obey the government—or put their faith in politics and vote for a political savior—flies in the face of everything for which Jesus lived and died.

      Ultimately, this is the contradiction that must be resolved if the radical Jesus—the one who stood up to the Roman Empire and was crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be—is to be an example for our modern age.

      As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we must decide whether we will follow the path of least resistance—willing to turn a blind eye to what Martin Luther King Jr. referred to as the “evils of segregation and the crippling effects of discrimination, to the moral degeneracy of religious bigotry and the corroding effects of narrow sectarianism, to economic conditions that deprive men of work and food, and to the insanities of militarism and the self-defeating effects of physical violence”—or whether we will be transformed nonconformists “dedicated to justice, peace, and brotherhood.”

      As King explained in a powerful sermon delivered in 1954, “This command not to conform comes … [from] Jesus Christ, the world’s most dedicated nonconformist, whose ethical nonconformity still challenges the conscience of mankind.”

      We need to recapture the gospel glow of the early Christians, who were nonconformists in the truest sense of the word and refused to shape their witness according to the mundane patterns of the world.  Willingly they sacrificed fame, fortune, and life itself in behalf of a cause they knew to be right.  Quantitatively small, they were qualitatively giants.  Their powerful gospel put an end to such barbaric evils as infanticide and bloody gladiatorial contests.  Finally, they captured the Roman Empire for Jesus Christ… The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists, who are dedicated to justice, peace, and brotherhood.  The trailblazers in human, academic, scientific, and religious freedom have always been nonconformists.  In any cause that concerns the progress of mankind, put your faith in the nonconformist!

      …Honesty impels me to admit that transformed nonconformity, which is always costly and never altogether comfortable, may mean walking through the valley of the shadow of suffering, losing a job, or having a six-year-old daughter ask, “Daddy, why do you have to go to jail so much?”  But we are gravely mistaken to think that Christianity protects us from the pain and agony of mortal existence.  Christianity has always insisted that the cross we bear precedes the crown we wear.  To be a Christian, one must take up his cross, with all of its difficulties and agonizing and tragedy-packed content, and carry it until that very cross leaves its marks upon us and redeems us to that more excellent way that comes only through suffering.

      In these days of worldwide confusion, there is a dire need for men and women who will courageously do battle for truth.  We must make a choice. Will we continue to march to the drumbeat of conformity and respectability, or will we, listening to the beat of a more distant drum, move to its echoing sounds?  Will we march only to the music of time, or will we, risking criticism and abuse, march to the soul saving music of eternity?

    • Mike 'Dirty Jobs' Rowe Routs America's School System: "We're Obsessed With Credentialing, Not Education"

      Almost exactly a year ago, Dirty Jobs’ Mike Rowe noted that many Americans are dissatisfied with their lives because they no longer appreciate the intrinsic value of work.

      Additionally,  Rowe previously concluded, millions of reasonable people – Republicans and Democrats alike – are worried that our universities are doing a poor job of preparing students for the real world. They’re worried about activist professors, safe spaces, the rising cost of tuition, a growing contempt for history, a simmering disregard of the first amendment, and most recently the so-called ‘Varsity Blues’ scandal of systemic elite cheating into prestigious schools.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And on the heels of that, Mike Rowe slammed the system on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show last night, blasting Americans, and the American establishment for being “obsessed with credentialing, not education.”

      “I think because stuck in this binary box, this or that. Right, blue-collar or white color, good job or a bad job. Higher education or higher alternative education.

      When you only have two choices or you think you only have two choices, then you do one thing at the expense of the other.

      So for instance, you know we have talked about this before, but it just seems so clear now. When four year degree universities needed a P.R. Campaign 40 years ago, they got one.

      But the P.R. Came at the expense of all of the other forms of education. So it wasn’t hey, Tucker get your liberal arts degree because it will give you a broad base of appreciation for humanity. It was come if you don’t go get that degree, you will wind up over here turning a ranch or running a welding torch or doing some kind of consolation prize.

      So we promoted the one thing at the expense of all of the others.

      And that one thing just happened to be the most expensive thing. And so, look come I don’t think the skills set is the mystery. A reflection of what we value.

      7 million — 7 million jobs available and they require training. Yet we are obsessed not really with education, you know. What we are obsessed with this credentialing.

      People are buying diplomas. They are buying their degrees. It is a diploma dilemma, honestly. And it is expensive. It is getting worse. It’s not just the kids holding the note. It is us.”

      All of which confirms his recent Facebook post, directing his frustration at the exorbitant cost of attending college, especially the elite schools that were involved with the scandal:

      You don’t have to be rich or famous to believe your kid is doomed to fail without a four-year degree. Millions of otherwise sensible parents in every tax-bracket share this misguided belief, and many will do whatever it takes to get their kids enrolled in a “good school.” Obviously, those who resort to bribery are in a class by themselves, but what about parents who allow their kids to borrow vast sums of money to attend universities they can’t possibly afford? What about the guidance counselors and teachers who pressure kids to apply for college regardless of the cost? What about the politicians and lobbyists who so transparently favor one form of education at the expense of all the others? What about the employers who won’t even interview a candidate who doesn’t have a degree? Where’s the outrage?

      The cost of college today has almost nothing to do with the cost of an education, and everything to do with the cost of buying a credential. That’s all a diploma is. Some are more expensive than others, but none of them reflect the character of the recipient, none are necessary to live a happy and prosperous life, and none of them come with any guarantees. And yet, the pressure we put on kids to borrow whatever it takes is constant, and precisely why tuition is so costly. It’s also why we have $1.6 trillion of student loans on the books along with a widening skills gap. That’s a bigger scandal, in my opinion.

      Rowe has long been an advocate for trade and blue-collar skilled jobs. In many cases, these careers can earn similar salaries to those earned by college graduates.

    • Diego Garcia: The "Unsinkable Carrier" Springs A Leak

      Authored by Conn Hallinan via Counterpunch.org,

      The recent decision by the Hague-based International Court of Justice that the Chagos Islands – with its huge U.S. military base at Diego Garcia – are being illegally occupied by the United Kingdom (UK) has the potential to upend the strategic plans of a dozen regional capitals, ranging from Beijing to Riyadh.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      For a tiny speck of land measuring only 38 miles in length, Diego Garcia casts a long shadow. Sometimes called Washington’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier,” planes and warships based on the island played an essential role in the first and second Gulf wars, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the war in Libya. Its strategic location between Africa and Indonesia and 1,000 miles south of India gives the U.S. access to the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and the vast Indian Ocean. No oil tanker, no warship, no aircraft can move without its knowledge.

      Most Americans have never heard of Diego Garcia for a good reason: No journalist has been allowed there for more than 30 years, and the Pentagon keeps the base wrapped in a cocoon of national security. Indeed, the UK leased the base to the Americans in 1966 without informing either the British Parliament or the U.S. Congress.

      The February 25 Court decision has put a dent in all that by deciding that Great Britain violated United Nations Resolution 1514 prohibiting the division of colonies before independence. The UK broke the Chagos Islands off from Mauritius, a former colony on the southeast coast of Africa that Britain decolonized in 1968. At the time, Mauritius objected, reluctantly agreeing only after Britain threatened to withdraw its offer of independence.

      The Court ruled 13-1 that the UK had engaged in a “wrongful act” and must decolonize the Chagos “as rapidly as possible.”

      “The Great Game” in the Indian Ocean

      While the ruling is only “advisory,” it comes at a time when the U.S. and its allies are confronting or sanctioning countries for supposedly illegal occupations – Russia in the Crimea and China in the South China Sea.

      The suit was brought by Mauritius and some of the 1,500 Chagos islanders who were forcibly removed from the archipelago in 1973. The Americans, calling it “sanitizing” the islands, moved the Chagossians more than 1,000 miles to Mauritius and the Seychelles, where they’ve languished in poverty ever since.

      Diego Garcia is the lynchpin for U.S. strategy in the region. With its enormous runways, it can handle B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers, and huge C-5M, C-17, and C-130 military cargo planes. The lagoon has been transformed into a naval harbor that can handle an aircraft carrier. The U.S. has built a city — replete with fast food outlets, bars, golf courses and bowling alleys — that hosts some 3,000 to 5,000 military personnel and civilian contractors.

      What you can’t find are any native Chagossians.

      The Indian Ocean has become a major theater of competition between India, the U.S., and Japan on one side, and the growing presence of China on the other. Tensions have flared between India and China over the Maldives and Sri Lanka, specifically China’s efforts to use ports on those island nations. India recently joined with Japan and the U.S. in a war game — Malabar 18 — that modeled shutting down the strategic Malacca Straits between Sumatra and Malaysia, through which some 80 percent of China’s energy supplies pass each year.

      A portion of the exercise involved anti-submarine warfare aimed at detecting Chinese submarines moving from the South China Sea into the Indian Ocean. To Beijing, those submarines are essential for protecting the ring of Chinese-friendly ports that run from southern China to Port Sudan on the east coast of Africa. Much of China’s oil and gas supplies are vulnerable, because they transit the narrow Mandeb Strait that guards the entrance to the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz that oversees access to the oil-rich Persian Gulf. The U.S. 5th Fleet controls both straits.

      Tensions in the region have increased since the Trump administration shifted the focus of U.S. national security from terrorism to “major power competition” — that is, China and Russia. The U.S. accuses China of muscling its way into the Indian Ocean by taking over ports, like Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Gwadar in Pakistan that are capable of hosting Chinese warships.

      India, which has its own issues with China dating back to their 1962 border war, is ramping up its anti-submarine forces and building up its deep-water navy. New Delhi also recently added a long-range Agni-V missile that’s designed to strike deep into China, and the right-wing government of Narendra Mori is increasingly chummy with the American military. The Americans even changed their regional military organization from “Pacific Command” to “Indo-Pacific Command” in deference to New Delhi.

      The term for these Chinese friendly ports —”string of pearls” — was coined by Pentagon contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and, as such, should be taken with a grain of salt. China is indeed trying to secure its energy supplies and also sees the ports as part of its worldwide Road and Belt Initiative trade strategy. But assuming the “pearls” have a military role, akin to 19th century colonial coaling stations, is a stretch. Most the ports would be indefensible if a war broke out.

      An “Historic” Decision

      Diego Garcia is central to the U.S. war in Somalia, its air attacks in Iraq and Syria, and its control of the Persian Gulf, and would be essential in any conflict with Iran. If the current hostility by Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the U.S. toward Iran actually translates into war, the island will quite literally be an unsinkable aircraft carrier.

      Given the strategic centrality of Diego Garcia, it’s hard to imagine the US giving it up — or rather, the British withdrawing their agreement with Washington and de-colonizing the Chagos Islands. In 2016, London extended the Americans’ lease for 20 years.

      Mauritius wants the Chagos back, but at this point doesn’t object to the base. It certainly wants a bigger rent check and the right eventually to take the island group back.

      It also wants more control over what goes on at Diego Garcia. For instance, the British government admitted that the Americans were using the island to transit “extraordinary renditions,” people seized during the Afghan and Iraq wars between 2002 and 2003, many of whom were tortured. Torture is a violation of international law.

      As for the Chagossians, they want to go back.

      Diego Garcia is immensely important for U.S. military and intelligence operations in the region, but it’s just one of some 800 American military bases on every continent except Antarctica. Those bases form a worldwide network that allows the U.S. military to deploy advisors and Special Forces in some 177 countries across the globe. Those forces create tensions that can turn dangerous at a moment’s notice.

      For instance, there are currently U.S. military personal in virtually every country surrounding Russia: Norway, Poland, Hungary, Kosovo, Romania, Turkey, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Bulgaria. Added to that is the Mediterranean’s 6th Fleet, which regularly sends warships into the Black Sea.

      Much the same can be said for China. U.S. military forces are deployed in South Korea, Japan, and Australia, plus numerous islands in the Pacific. The American 7th fleet, based in Hawaii and Yokohama, is the Navy’s largest.

      In late March, U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships transited the Taiwan Straits, which, while international waters, the Chinese consider an unnecessary provocation. British ships have also sailed close to Chinese-occupied reefs and islands in the South China Sea.

      The fight to de-colonize the Chagos Islands will now move to the UN General Assembly. In the end, Britain may ignore the General Assembly and the Court, but it will be hard pressed to make a credible case for doing so. How Great Britain can argue for international law in the Crimea and South China Sea, while ignoring the International Court of Justice on the Chagos, will require some fancy footwork.

      In the meantime, Mauritius Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth calls the Court decision “historic,” and one that will eventually allow the 6,000 native Chagossians and their descendants “to return home.”

    • Global Attention Spans Are Shrinking Amid Deluge Of Information

      Thanks to information-overload in a hyperconnected world, people’s attention spans are decreasing, according to a recent study from the Technical University of Denmark

      Between social media, a “hectic news cycle” and everything else people have going on, people are spending less time on various topics, based on several metrics studied – including 40 years of movie ticket sales, google searches, Reddit comments and other domains.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      “We wanted to understand which mechanisms could drive this behavior. Picturing topics as species that feed on human attention, we designed a mathematical model with three basic ingredients: ‘hotness’, aging and the thirst for something new,” says Dr. Philipp Hövel, lecturer for applied mathematics, University College Cork.

      This model offers an interpretation of their observations. When more content is produced in less time, it exhausts the collective attention earlier. The shortened peak of public interest for one topic is directly followed by the next topic, because of the fierce competition for novelty. –EurekAlert

      “The one parameter in the model that was key in replicating the empirical findings was the input rate – the abundance of information. The world has become increasingly well connected in the past decades. This means that content is increasing in volume, which exhausts our attention and our urge for ‘newness’ causes us to collectively switch between topics more rapidly.” 

      One metric studied was how long popular ‘hashtags’ – used to promote topics, remain on Twitter’s “top 50” global daily rankings. 

      In 2013, a hashtag would remain on the top 50 list for an average of 17.5 hours. In 2016, this decreased to 11.9 hours. Of course, we had the chaotic 2016 US election season in which a cocky billionaire predicted to lose wiped the floor with the GOP’s ‘top candidates’ (please clap), before defeating Establishment shoe-in Hillary Clinton in a dramatic upset finish. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Measuring the speed of hashtag dynamics: Average trajectories in top 50 Twitter hashtags from 2013 to 2016. In the background a 1% random sample of trajectories is shown in grey.

      And since the 2016 election, news cycles have been a long rolling boil of constant drama – with the left insisting that Trump is an illegitimate, unfit president who was elected with help from Vladimir Putin, and the right insisting that the left is, in not so many words, an intellectually challenged party of conspiracy theorists. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      On top of the Trump-Russia hysteria dominating news cycles, we can add add terrorism, mass migration, constant alarm bells over climate change, and 2020 Democratic candidates trying to out-outrage each other, it’s no wonder people can’t focus on things the way they used to. 

      In short, we’re overloaded. 

      It seems that the allocated attention in our collective minds has a certain size, but that the cultural items competing for that attention have become more densely packed. This would support the claim that it has indeed become more difficult to keep up to date on the news cycle, for example,” according to DTU Compute Professor Sune Lehmann. 

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Photo via csdesignworks blog

      Interestingly, the only exceptions to the diminished attention span appear to be Wikipedia and scientific publications. 

      While the study looked at the global attention span as a whole, it would be interesting to see how individual attention spans break down. 

      According to Lehmann; “Our data only supports the claim that our collective attention span is narrowing. Therefore, as a next step, it would be interesting to look into how this affects individuals, since the observed developments may have negative implications for an individual’s ability to evaluate the information they consume. Acceleration increases, for example, the pressure on journalists’ ability to keep up with an ever-changing news landscape. We hope that more research in this direction will inform the way we design new communication systems, such that information quality does not suffer even when new topics appear at increasing rates.”

    • Respecting 'The Other'

      Authored by Dmitry Orlov via Club Orlov blog,

      One of my old friends’ father was at one time something of a Cold Warrior: he did something or other for the US defense establishment – nuclear submarine-related, if I recall correctly. This work activity apparently led him to develop a particularly virulent form of Russophobia; not so much a phobia as a pronounced loathing of all things Russian. According to my friend, her father would compulsively talk about Russia in overly negative terms. He would also sneeze a lot (allergies, perhaps), and she said that it was often difficult for her to distinguish his sneezes from his use of the word “Russia” as an expletive. But perhaps she was trying to draw a distinction without a difference: her father was allergic to Russia, his allergy caused him to sneeze a lot and also to develop a touch of Tourette’s, thus his sneezes came out sounding like “Russia!”

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      What had caused him to develop such a jaundiced view of Russia? The reason is easy to guess: his work activity on behalf of the government forced him to focus closely on what his superiors labeled as “the Russian threat.” Unfolded a bit, it would no doubt turn out that what Russia threatened was Americans’ self-generated fiction of overwhelming military superiority. Unlike the United States, which had developed any number of plans to destroy the Soviet Union (of which nothing ever came due to said lack of overwhelming military superiority) the Soviet Union had never developed any such plans. And this was utterly infuriating to certain people in the US. Was this truly necessary, or was this an accident?

      We could take into account geopolitical, military or economic considerations, consider the (no longer relevant) clash of socialist vs. capitalist ideologies or any number of other irrelevancies. Or we could find hints of what’s really behind this syndrome from certain efforts to combat it. Consider this lyrics from Sting’s 1985 debut solo album “The Dream of Blue Turtles.” Sting sang soulfully: “I hope the Russians love their children too.” From what mystical source sprang Sting’s forlorn hope? That the Russians may be a race of soulless automatons hell-bent on wanton destruction of all life on Earth, but that perhaps there is just a tiny streak of humanity running through their character—they love their children too—and that it will hold them back? Sting’s Russia is almost pure evil, but not quite, and a tiny speck of goodness is what keeps the world balanced on the edge of destruction.

      Looking at history, a different vista presents itself. Since it first came together as a superethnos (Great Rus) around ten centuries ago, Russia has been consistently attacked and invaded from the west. It has been invaded by the Swedes, the Germans, the Poles/Lithuanians, the French and the Germans again. Note that these are all Northern European ethnic groups; this turns out to be important. All of these incursions the Russians managed to repulse. Russia was also invaded from the east, by a large and diverse group of nomadic peoples collectively known as the Mongols (even though actual ethnic Mongols among them numbered no more than a thousand) and this eventually led to integration and either assimilation or peaceful coexistence.

      Why such a difference? Why are the Russians and the Poles like oil and water in spite of both being Christian, neighbors and speaking a Slavic language. Why did the Russians and the Tatars and other Turkic groups fuse together through intermarriage in spite of vast differences in language, custom, religion and geographic origin? Let us propose a daring hypothesis: the reason is organic. Ethnic compatibilities and incompatibilities are not accounted for by any historical, cultural, religious or economic factors. They may be genetic, but they do not necessarily have anything to do with genealogy (relatedness) but could just as easily result from random mutations. They could be part of an innate friend-or-foe identification system—a rather coarse-grained one, that may have evolved at a time when hominids first progressed beyond bands and tribes and started forming the first ethnic groups.

      This hypothesis may seem outlandish at first, but upon consideration it explains enduring conflicts much better than do any of the other factors—ideological, cultural, religious or economic. Consider the Thirty Years’ War which ravaged Central Europe between 1618 and 1648. Reading historical accounts of it makes it sound as if a set of obtuse theological arguments (far too obtuse for most of the participants to grasp) was resolved largely by slaughtering innocent civilians—an odd way to hold a scholastic disputation. But looking at the result an altogether different purpose becomes clear: that of delineating and separating incompatible ethnicities.

      This incompatibility became clear in the New World. On the one side we have the Catholic Europeans (the Spanish, the Portuguese and, to a lesser extent, the French) who happily went native, intermarrying with native tribes and forming new, racially and ethnically fused nations such as the Mexicans, the Brazilians, the Cubans and so on. On the other side we have Northern European, Protestant Europeans (the English, the Germans, the Scandinavians, the Dutch and the Belgians) who refused to intermarry and insisted on forming highly segregated societies that persist to this day.

      Acceptance of exogamy by the Catholics and insistence on endogamy by the Protestants (even unto the promulgation of racist laws against “miscegenation” in the US which were highly regarded and emulated by the German Nazis) cannot be accounted for by differences between Catholic and Protestant religious dogma, since these tendencies persist among the religious and the nonreligious alike. A far simpler explanation is that the Northern Europeans are internally compatible but largely incompatible with other groups while the Southern and Eastern Europeans are compatible with a much larger group. The superficial coincidence between ethnic compatibility and Protestantism/Catholicism is an artifact of the Thirty Years’ War and similar historical accidents.

      What makes the understanding of ethnic compatibilities and incompatibilities important is that if they are ignored the result is a phenomenal amount of mayhem, murder and strife. Incompatible ethnic groups can thrive side by side provided they stay separate and cultivate a healthy respect for The Other. (The plantation economy of the US antebellum South, where a large number of Africans toiled on behalf of a tiny group of Europeans, is hardly such an example). Compatible ethnic groups fuse together through intermarriage and form new nations with no special effort required.

      But history attests that mashing incompatible ethnic groups together through an enforced ideology, be it religious or secular in nature, produces very poor results. Yes, it is possible to boost the rate of intermarriage by shaming those who exhibit racist tendencies while rewarding those who intermarry as a way of signaling their virtuousness, and on the surface the resulting society does not appear broken. What breaks is its sense of itself. Being among compatible people, who accept you and whom you accept unconsciously and unconditionally, creates a sense of harmony and well-being, convincing you that the world is a good place and is to be nurtured and celebrated.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      But being forced to live among incompatible people, whose acceptance of you, and yours of them, is based on an enforced ideology of sameness contradicted at every turn by your innate sense, creates a sense of disharmony and malaise, leading you to believe that the world is an evil place to be cleansed and purged of all that is offensive, be it your government, your neighbors or ancient statues. The resulting ethnos is a chimera—a nonviable composite entity that is ever in search of a means to destroy itself. The ideologies it generates range from nihilism to violent anarchism, from secessionist movements to revolutionary ones, from apocalyptic cults to devil-worship and from gang rape to cold-blooded mass murder. In historical events such as the Spanish Inquisition or Stalin’s purges, it is a waste of time to look for rational reasons for them. But if instead we examine them as resulting from clashes between incompatible ethnic groups, then a much clearer picture emerges.

      One of the advantages of this approach over trying to pick apart complex and largely irrelevant questions of history, religion, culture and so on is that it can be based on readily available statistics: rate of intermarriage and viability of outcome (in terms of productivity and positive outcomes of the resulting family units). The inability to identify the organic mechanism underlying ethnic differentiation and incompatibility is, of course, a problem. But perhaps this mechanism will eventually be found, once enough evidence has been collected and cross-correlated with DNA samples. In the meantime, there is much more that is already understood about the nature of ethnos as an aspect of the Earth’s biosphere.

      I will have more to say on this topic in the next installment. In the interim, I propose that there is just one safe and valid way to act when you sense another’s otherness: respect the otherness of others – and try to leave them well alone. Set aside your ideology of “humanity as a whole” (should you have one) for it will only cause trouble.

    • China's Bond Vigilantes Loom As Economic Data Stabilizes

      All hope-filled eyes are straining at tonight’s data deluge from China for signs that confirm the PMI spike (and exports rebound) that fueled the latest leg higher in global stocks and bond yields.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      Remember, the official narrative is that after a rocky start to the year, the roll out of targeted stimulus has boosted investment, bouyed consumption and helped the manufacturing sector.

      Or put another way, thanks to unprecedented injections of credit and endless fiscal and monetary largesse, Chinese stocks have tracked aggressively higher, following China’s world-leading credit impulse back from the abyss…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And thanks to that resurgence of China’s credit impulse (in the face of a Fed that has talked a lot but done nothing), the divergence between US and Chinese macro data performance is at an extreme…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And yet – amid all this exuberant indication – China GDP growth is expected to slow in Q1.

      The headliner…

      China Q1 GDP Growth YoY BEAT at +6.4% vs +6.3% expected (and +6.4% prior)

      That is still equal to the weakest Chinese growth on record (at least 27 years), the same as the Q1 2009 plunge lows.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      And the undercard:

      China March Industrial Production YoY BEAT at +6.5% vs +5.6% expected (up from +5.3% prior)

      China March Retail Sales YoY MEET at +8.3% vs +8.3% expected (up from +8.2% prior)

      China March Fixed Asset Investment YoY MEET at +6.3% vs +6.3% expected (up from +6.1% prior)

      China March Property Investment YoY ROSE to 11.8% from +11.6% YoY prior

      China March Surveyed Jobless Rate FELL to 5.2% from 5.3% prior

      Graphically…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      All of which could be a problem.

      As Bloomberg notes, for China bonds, already the worst performer among the world’s debt markets this year, things may be about to get worse. The figures tonight on the economy confirm broad improvement for March. That’ll tend to help stocks and sap demand for the safety of government debt. What’s more, the PBOC is adopting a hawkish tone, emphasizing it plans to control excessive money supply amid signs of a recovery. Overnight repo rates just jumped to the highest in 4 years…

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      As Bloomberg notes, much of this year’s rally in bonds and stocks have to do with the PBOC re-opening liquidity tap. But China’s central bank is now stepping back. Here’s the timeline:

      The much anticipated reserve ratio cut on April did not materialise; the PBoC skipped open-market operations for 18 days in a row; this morning, the new MLF PBOC offered is not enough to cover the retiring one.

      All of that suggests the government will have a tough time finding buyers for its 1- and 10-year bonds up for sale Wednesday.

      And with Chinese yields accelerating at an extreme pace, we wonder if China’s unprecedented stimulus (record credit injections and endless fiscal and monetary promises) may be about to bite them in the arse as it appears there is at least one nation left with Bond Vigilantes still standing… who will stymie a fragile economic rebound with a soaring cost of capital and a vicious cycle that PBOC will struggle to escape – withdraw/slow stimulus chatter to avoid incendiary default-inducing rate spike (but face economic and equity market slump), or keep the pedal to the metal blowing bubbles around the world until it all goes pop.

      <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

      In the immortal words of Britney Spears, “oops, they did it again.”

    Digest powered by RSS Digest