Jul 28

Today’s News 28th July 2018

  • Watch Ocasio-Cortez Flub Her Way Through Simple Question On Democratic Socialism

    The “new face” of the Democratic party, 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, botched yet another simple question about her political views that sheer spunk and tenacity couldn’t overcome. 

    During an appearance on last night’s Daily Show, host Trevor Noah pitched Ocasio-Cortez perhaps the slowest softball he could – asking her to explain how she’s planning on paying for her “Medicare for All” agenda along with her other ideas on funding Democratic Socialism, reports the Daily Caller. 

    “This is an excellent question,” she replied – the standard response to buy time while one’s brain clicks away at various options. 

    Unfortunately, the rest of her answer did not compute: 

    “I sat down with a Nobel Prize economist last week — I can’t believe I can say that, it’s really weird — But one of the things that we saw is, if people pay their fair share, if corporations and the ultra wealthy — for example, as Warren Buffett likes to say, if he pays as much as his secretary paid, 15 percent tax rate, if corporations paid — if we reverse the tax bill, raised our corporate tax rate to 28 percent … if we do those two things and also close some of those loopholes, that’s $2 trillion right there.”

    She also said it would take $3 trillion to $4 trillion and a carbon tax to create a “renewable energy economy” and claimed the Trump tax cut bill prevents the wealthiest Americans from paying “their fair share.”

    “One of the wide estimates is that it’s going to take $3 trillion to $4 trillion to transition us to 100 percent renewable economy,” she continued. –Daily Caller

    “So we’ve got $2 trillion from folks paying their fair share, which they weren’t paying before the Trump tax bill,” she said. “They weren’t paying that before the Trump tax bill. If we get people to pay their fair share, that’s $2 trillion in 10 years. Now if we implement a carbon tax on top of that, so that we can transition and financially incentivize people away from fossil fuels, if we implement a carbon tax — that’s an additional amount, a large amount of revenue that we can have.”

    Ocasio-Cortez also said that she would “re-prioritize” military spending, shooting off the completely false claim that “Just last year we gave the military a $700 billion budget increase, which they didn’t even ask for.” “They’re like, ‘We don’t want another fighter jet!’ They’re like, ‘Don’t give us another nuclear bomb,’ you know?”

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

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

    No wonder James Comey and the rest of the establishment left is absolutely freaking out over the “rising star.”

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

  • American Society Would Collapse If It Weren't For These 8 Myths

    Authored by Lee Camp via TruthDig.com,

    Our society should’ve collapsed by now. You know that, right?

    No society should function with this level of inequality (with the possible exception of one of those prison planets in a “Star Wars” movie). Sixty-three percent of Americans can’t afford a $500 emergency. Yet Amazon head Jeff Bezos is now worth a record $141 billion. He could literally end world hunger for multiple years and still have more money left over than he could ever spend on himself.

    Worldwide, one in 10 people only make $2 a day. Do you know how long it would take one of those people to make the same amount as Jeff Bezos has? 193 million years. (If they only buy single-ply toilet paper.) Put simply, you cannot comprehend the level of inequality in our current world or even just our nation.

    So … shouldn’t there be riots in the streets every day? Shouldn’t it all be collapsing? Look outside. The streets aren’t on fire. No one is running naked and screaming (usually). Does it look like everyone’s going to work at gunpoint? No. We’re all choosing to continue on like this.

    Why?

    Well, it comes down to the myths we’ve been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned.

    I’m going to cover eight of them. There are more than eight. There are probably hundreds. But I’m going to cover eight because (A) no one reads a column titled “Hundreds of Myths of American Society,” (B) these are the most important ones and (C) we all have other shit to do.

    Myth No. 8—We have a democracy.

    If you think we still have a democracy or a democratic republic, ask yourself this: When was the last time Congress did something that the people of America supported that did not align with corporate interests? … You probably can’t do it. It’s like trying to think of something that rhymes with “orange.” You feel like an answer exists but then slowly realize it doesn’t. Even the Carter Center and former President Jimmy Carter believe that America has been transformed into an oligarchy: A small, corrupt elite control the country with almost no input from the people. The rulers need the myth that we’re a democracy to give us the illusion of control.

    Myth No. 7—We have an accountable and legitimate voting system.

    Gerrymandering, voter purging, data mining, broken exit polling, push polling, superdelegates, electoral votes, black-box machines, voter ID suppression, provisional ballots, super PACs, dark money, third parties banished from the debates and two corporate parties that stand for the same goddamn pile of fetid crap!

    What part of this sounds like a legitimate election system?

    No, we have what a large Harvard study called the worst election system in the Western world. Have you ever seen where a parent has a toddler in a car seat, and the toddler has a tiny, brightly colored toy steering wheel so he can feel like he’s driving the car? That’s what our election system is—a toy steering wheel. Not connected to anything. We all sit here like infants, excitedly shouting, “I’m steeeeering!”

    And I know it’s counterintuitive, but that’s why you have to vote. We have to vote in such numbers that we beat out what’s stolen through our ridiculous rigged system.

    Myth No. 6—We have an independent media that keeps the rulers accountable.

    Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can’t get anything resembling hard news because it’s funded by dicks.) The corporate media’s jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It’s their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I’m telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they’re standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat.

    Myth No. 5—We have an independent judiciary.

    The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted, “The most basic constitutional rights … have been erased for many. … Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security.”

    If you’re not part of the monied class, you’re pressured into releasing what few rights you have left. According to The New York Times, “97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence.”

    That’s the name of the game. Pressure people of color and poor people to just take the plea deal because they don’t have a million dollars to spend on a lawyer. (At least not one who doesn’t advertise on beer coasters.)

    Myth No. 4—The police are here to protect you. They’re your friends.

    That’s funny. I don’t recall my friend pressuring me into sex to get out of a speeding ticket. (Which is essentially still legal in 32 states.)

    The police in our country are primarily designed to do two things: protect the property of the rich and perpetrate the completely immoral war on drugs—which by definition is a war on our own people.

    We lock up more people than any other country on earth. Meaning the land of the free is the largest prison state in the world. So all these droopy-faced politicians and rabid-talking heads telling you how awful China is on human rights or Iran or North Korea—none of them match the numbers of people locked up right here under Lady Liberty’s skirt.

    Myth No. 3—Buying will make you happy.

    This myth is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious).

    If we’re lucky, we’ll make enough money during the week to afford enough beer on the weekend to help it all make sense. (I find it takes at least four beers for everything to add up.) But that doesn’t truly bring us fulfillment. So what now? Well, the ads say buying will do it. Try to smother the depression and desperation under a blanket of flat-screen TVs, purses and Jet Skis. Nowdoes your life have meaning? No? Well, maybe you have to drive that Jet Ski a little faster! Crank it up until your bathing suit flies off and you’ll feel alive!

    The dark truth is that we have to believe the myth that consuming is the answer or else we won’t keep running around the wheel. And if we aren’t running around the wheel, then we start thinking, start asking questions. Those questions are not good for the ruling elite, who enjoy a society based on the daily exploitation of 99 percent of us.

    Myth No. 2—If you work hard, things will get better.

    According to Deloitte’s Shift Index survey: “80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs” and “[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime.” That’s about one-seventh of your life—and most of it is during your most productive years.

    Ask yourself what we’re working for. To make money? For what? Almost none of us are doing jobs for survival anymore. Once upon a time, jobs boiled down to:

    I plant the food—>I eat the food—>If I don’t plant food = I die.

    But nowadays, if you work at a café—will someone die if they don’t get their super-caf-mocha-frap-almond-piss-latte? I kinda doubt they’ll keel over from a blueberry scone deficiency.

    If you work at Macy’s, will customers perish if they don’t get those boxer briefs with the sweat-absorbent-ass fabric? I doubt it. And if they do die from that, then their problems were far greater than you could’ve known. So that means we’re all working to make other people rich because we have a society in which we have to work. Technological advancements can do most everything that truly must get done.

    So if we wanted to, we could get rid of most work and have tens of thousands of more hours to enjoy our lives. But we’re not doing that at all. And no one’s allowed to ask these questions—not on your mainstream airwaves at least. Even a half-step like universal basic income is barely discussed because it doesn’t compute with our cultural programming.

    Scientists say it’s quite possible artificial intelligence will take away all human jobs in 120 years. I think they know that will happen because bots will take the jobs and then realize that 80 percent of them don’t need to be done! The bots will take over and then say, “Stop it. … Stop spending a seventh of your life folding shirts at Banana Republic.”

    One day, we will build monuments to the bot that told us to enjoy our lives and … leave the shirts wrinkly.

    And this leads me to the largest myth of our American society.

    Myth No. 1—You are free.

    And I’m not talking about the millions locked up in our prisons. I’m talking about you and me. If you think you’re free, try running around with your nipples out, ladies. Guys, take a dump on the street and see how free you are.

    I understand there are certain restrictions on freedom we actually desire to have in our society—maybe you’re not crazy about everyone leaving a Stanley Steamer in the middle of your walk to work. But a lot of our lack of freedom is not something you would vote for if given the chance.

    Try building a fire in a parking lot to keep warm in the winter.

    Try sleeping in your car for more than a few hours without being harassed by police.

    Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms.

    Try signing up for the military because you need college money and then one day just walking off the base, going, “Yeah, I was bored. Thought I would just not do this anymore.”

    Try explaining to Kentucky Fried Chicken that while you don’t have the green pieces of paper they want in exchange for the mashed potatoes, you do have some pictures you’ve drawn on a napkin to give them instead.

    Try running for president as a third-party candidate. (Jill Stein was shackled and chained to a chair by police during one of the debates.)

    Try using the restroom at Starbucks without buying something … while black.

    We are less free than a dog on a leash. We live in one of the hardest-working, most unequal societies on the planet with more billionaires than ever.

    Meanwhile, Americans supply 94 percent of the paid blood used worldwide. And it’s almost exclusively coming from very poor people. This abusive vampire system is literally sucking the blood from the poor. Does that sound like a free decision they made? Or does that sound like something people do after immense economic force crushes down around them? (One could argue that sperm donation takes a little less convincing.)

    Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers—most of the time—don’t need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults.

    It’s time to wake up.

  • Paul Craig Roberts Exposes The All-Pervasive Military-Security Complex

    Via PaulCraigRoberts.org,

    The article below by Professor Joan Roelofs appeared in the print edition of CounterPunch Vol. 25, No. 3.

    The article is long but very important and is worth a careful read. It shows that the military/security complex has woven itself so tightly into the American social, economic, and political fabric as to be untouchable. President Trump is an extremely brave or foolhardy person to take on this most powerful and pervasive of all US institutions by trying to normalize US relations with Russia, chosen by the military/security complex as the “enemy” that justifies its enormous budget and power.

    In 1961 President Eisenhower in his last public address to the American people warned us about the danger to democracy and accountable government presented by the military/industrial complex.

    You can imagine how much stronger the complex is 57 years later after decades of Cold War with the Soviet Union.

    The Russian government, Russian media, and Russian people desperately need to comprehend how powerful the US military/security complex is and how it is woven into the fabric of America. No amount of diplomacy by Lavrov and masterful chess playing by Putin can possibly shake the control over the United States exercised by the military/security complex.

    Professor Roelofs has done a good deed for the American people and for the world in assembling such extensive information documenting the penetration into every aspect of American life of the military/security complex. It is a delusion that a mere President of the United States can bring such a powerful, all-pervasive institution to heel and deprive it of its necessary enemy.

    The Political Economy of the Weapons Industry

    Guess Who’s Sleeping With Our Insecurity Blanket?

    By Joan Roelofs

    For many people the “military-industrial-complex (MIC)” brings to mind the top twenty weapons manufacturers. President Dwight Eisenhower, who warned about it in 1961, wanted to call it the military- industrial-congressional-complex, but decided it was not prudent to do so. Today it might well be called the military-industrial-congressional-almost-everything-complex. Most departments and levels of government, businesses, and also many charities, social service, environmental, and cultural organizations, are deeply embedded with the military.

    The weapons industry may be spearheading the military budget and military operations; it is aided immensely by the cheering or silence of citizens and their representatives. Here we will provide some likely reasons for that assent. We will use the common typology of three national sectors: government, business, and nonprofit, with varying amounts of interaction among them. This does not preclude, though it masks somewhat, the proposition that government is the executive of the ruling class.

    Every kind of business figures in the Department of Defense (DoD) budget. Lockheed is currently the largest contractor in the weapons business. It connects with the worldwide MIC by sourcing parts, for example, for the F-35 fighter plane, from many countries. This helps a lot to market the weapon, despite its low opinion among military experts as well as anti-military critics. Lockheed also does civilian work, which enhances its aura while it spreads its values.

    Other types of businesses have enormous multi-year contracts—in the billions. This despite the constitutional proviso that Congress not appropriate military funds for more than a two year term. Notable are the construction companies, such as Fluor, KBR, Bechtel, and Hensel Phelps. These build huge bases, often with high tech surveillance or operational capacity, in the US and abroad, where they hire locals or commonly, third country nationals to carry out the work. There are also billion-funded contractors in communications technology, intelligence analysis, transportation, logistics, food, and clothing. “Contracting out” is our modern military way; this also spreads its influence far and wide.

    Medium, small, and tiny businesses dangle from the “Christmas tree” of the Pentagon, promoting popular cheering or silence on the military budget. These include special set-asides for minority-owned and small businesses. A Black-owned small business, KEPA-TCI (construction), received contracts for $356 million. [Data comes from several sources, available free on the internet: websites, tax forms, and annual reports of organizations; usaspending.gov (USA) and governmentcontractswon.com (GCW).] Major corporations of all types serving our services have been excellently described in Nick Turse’s The Complex. Really small and tiny businesses are drawn into the system: landscapers, dry cleaners, child care centers, and Come- Bye Goose Control of Maryland.

    Among the businesses with large DoD contracts are book publishers: McGraw-Hill, Greenwood, Scholastic, Pearson, Houghton Mifflin, Harcourt, Elsevier, and others. Rarely have the biases in this industry, in fiction, nonfiction, and textbook offerings, been examined. Yet the influences on this small but significant population, the reading public, and the larger schooled contingent, may help explain the silence of the literate crowd and college graduates.

    Much of what is left of organized industrial labor is in weapons manufacture. Its PACs fund the few “progressive” candidates in our political system, who tend to be silent about war and the threat of nuclear annihilation. Unlike other factories, the armaments makers do not suddenly move overseas, although they do use subcontractors worldwide.

    Military spending may be only about 6% of the GDP, yet it has great impact because:

    1. it is a growing sector;

    2. it is recession-proof;

    3. it does not rely on consumer whims;

    4. it is the only thing prospering in many areas; and

    5. the “multiplier” effect: subcontracting, corporate purchasing, and employee spending perk up the regional economy.

    It is ideally suited to Keynesian remedies, because of its ready destruction and obsolescence: what isn’t consumed in warfare, rusted out, or donated to our friends still needs to be replaced by the slightly more lethal thing. Many of our science graduates work for the military directly or its contractee labs concocting these.

    The military’s unbeatable weapon is jobs, and all members of Congress, and state and local officials, are aware of this. It is where well-paying jobs are found for mechanics, scientists, and engineers; even janitorial workers do well in these taxpayer-rich firms. Weaponry is also important in our manufactured goods exports as our allies are required to have equipment that meets our specifications. Governments, rebels, terrorists, pirates, and gangsters all fancy our high tech and low tech lethal devices.

    Our military economy also yields a high return on investments. These benefit not only corporate executives and other rich, but many middle and working class folk, as well as churches, benevolent, and cultural organizations. The lucrative mutual funds offered by Vanguard, Fidelity, and others are heavily invested in the weapons manufacturers.

    Individual investors may not know what is in their fund’s portfolios; the institutions usually know. A current project of World Beyond War (https://worldbeyondwar.org/divest) advocates divestment of military stocks in the pension funds of state and local government workers: police, firepersons, teachers, and other civil servants. Researchers are making a state-by-state analysis of these funds. Among the findings are the extensive military stock holdings of CALpers, the California Public Employees Retirement System (the sixth largest pension fund on earth), the California State Teachers Retirement System, the New York State Teachers Retirement System, the New York City Employees Retirement System, and the New York State Common Retirement Fund (state and local employees). Amazing! the New York City teachers were once the proud parents of red diaper babies.

    The governmental side of the MIC complex goes far beyond the DoD. In the executive branch, Departments of State, Homeland Security, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Interior; and CIA, AID, FBI, NASA, and other agencies; are permeated with military projects and goals. Even the Department of Agriculture has a joint program with the DoD to “restore” Afghanistan by creating a dairy cattle industry. No matter that the cattle and their feed must be imported, cattle cannot graze in the terrain as the native sheep and goats can, there is no adequate transportation or refrigeration, and the Afghans don’t normally drink milk. The native animals provide yogurt, butter, and wool, and graze on the rugged slopes, but that is all so un-American.

    Congress is a firm ally of the military. Campaign contributions from contractor PACs are generous, and lobbying is extensive. So also are the outlays of financial institutions, which are heavily invested in the MIC. Congresspeople have significant shares of weapons industry stocks. To clinch the deal, members of Congress (and also state and local lawmakers) are well aware of the economic importance of military con- tracts in their states and districts.

    Military bases, inside the US as well as worldwide, are an economic hub for communities. The DoD Base Structure Report for Fy2015 lists more than 4,000 domestic properties. Some are bombing ranges or re- cruiting stations; perhaps 400 are bases with a major impact on their localities. The largest of these, Fort Bragg, NC, is a city unto itself, and a cultural influence as well as economic asset to its region, as so well described by Catherine Lutz in Homefront. California has about 40 bases (https://militarybases.com/by– state/), and is home to major weapons makers as well. Officers generally live off-base, so the real estate, restaurant, retail, auto repair, hotel and other businesses are prospering. Local civilians find employment on bases. Closed, unconvertible installations are sometimes tourist attractions, such as the unlikeliest of all vacation spots, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

    DoD has direct contracts and grants with state and local governments. These are for various projects and services, including large amounts to fund the National Guard. The Army Engineers maintain swimming holes and parks, and police forces get a deal on Bearcats. JROTC programs nationwide provide funding for public schools, and even more for those that are public school military academies; six are in Chicago.

    National, state and local governments are well covered by the “insecurity blanket;” the nonprofit sector is not neglected. Nevertheless, it does harbor the very small group of anti-war organizations, such as Iraq Veterans Against War, Veterans for Peace, World Beyond War, Peace Action, Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for International Policy, Catholic Worker, Answer Coalition, and others. Yet unlike the Vietnam War period there is no vocal group of religious leaders protesting war, and the few students who are politically active are more concerned with other issues.

    Nonprofit organizations and institutions are involved several ways. Some are obviously partners of the MIC: Boy and Girl Scouts, Red Cross, veterans’ charities, military think-tanks such as RAND and Institute for Defense Analysis, establishment think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Atlantic Council, and the flagship of US world projection, the Council on Foreign Relations. There are also many international nongovernmental organizations that assist the US government in delivering “humanitarian” assistance, sing the praises of the market economy, or attempt to repair the “collateral” damage inflicted on lands and people, for example, Mercy Corps, Open Society Institutes, and CARE.

    Educational institutions in all sectors are embedded with the military. The military schools include the service academies, National Defense University, Army War College, Naval War College, Air Force Institute of Technology, Air University, Defense Acquisition University, Defense Language Institute, Naval Postgraduate School, Defense Information School, the medical school, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and the notorious School of the Americas in Fort Benning, GA, now renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. “In addition, Senior Military Colleges offer a combination of higher education with military instruction. SMCs include Texas A&M University, Norwich University, The Virginia Military Institute, The Citadel, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), University of North Georgia and the Mary Baldwin Women’s Institute for Leadership” (https://www.usa.gov/military-colleges).

    A university doesn’t have to be special to be part of the MIC. Most are awash with contracts, ROTC programs, and/or military officers and contractors on their boards of trustees. A study of the 100 most militarized universities includes prestigious institutions, as well as diploma mills that produce employees for military intelligence agencies and contractors (https://news.vice.com/article/these-are-the-100– most-militarized-universities-in-america).

    Major liberal foundations have long engaged in covert and overt operations to support imperial projection, described by David Horowitz as the “Sinews of Empire” in his important 1969 Ramparts article. They have been close associates of the Central Intelligence Agency, and were active in its instigation. The foundation created and supported Council on Foreign Relations has long been a link among Wall Street, large corporations, academia, the media, and our foreign and military policymakers.

    Less obvious are the military connections of philanthropic, cultural, social service, environmental, and professional organizations. They are linked through donations; joint programs; sponsorship of events, exhibits, and concerts; awards (both ways); investments; boards of directors; top executives; and contracts. The data here covers approximately the last twenty years, and rounds out the reasons for the astounding support (according to the polls) that US citizens have conferred on our military, its budget, and its operations.

    Military contractor philanthropy was the subject of my previous CP reports, in 2006 and 2016. Every type of nonprofit (as well as public schools and universities) received support from the major weapons manufacturers; some findings were outstanding. Minority organizations were extremely well endowed. For many years there was crucial support for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) from Lockheed; Boeing also funded the Congressional Black Caucus. The former president and CEO of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, is now on the Board of Trustees of Northrop Grumman.

    General Electric is the most generous military contractor philanthropist, with direct grants to organizations and educational institutions, partnerships with both, and matching contributions made by its thousands of employees. The latter reaches many of the nongovernmental and educational entities throughout the country.

    Major donors to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (listed in its 2016 Annual Report) include the Defense Intelligence Agency, Cisco Systems, Open Society Foundations, US Department of Defense, General Electric, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Lockheed Martin. This is an echo of the CEIP’s military connections reported in Horace Coon’s book of the 1930s, Money to Burn.

    The DoD itself donates surplus property to organizations; among those eligible are Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Little League Baseball, and United Service Organizations. The Denton Program allows non-governmental organizations to use extra space on U.S. military cargo aircraft to transport humanitarian assistance materials.

    There is a multitude of joint programs and sponsorships. Here is a small sample…

    The American Association of University Women’s National Tech Savvy Program encourages girls to enter STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) careers, with sponsorship from Lockheed, BAE Systems, and Boeing.

    Junior Achievement, sponsored by Bechtel, United Technologies, and others, aims to train children in market-based economics and entrepreneurship.

    Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts is partnered with Northrop Grumman for an “early childhood STEM ‘Learning through the Arts’ initiative for pre-K and kindergarten students.”

    The Bechtel Foundation has two programs for a “sustainable California”— an education program to help “young people develop the knowledge, skills, and character to explore and understand the world,” and an environmental program to promote the “management, stewardship and conservation for the state’s natural resources.”

    The NAACP ACT-SO is a “yearlong enrichment program designed to recruit, stimulate, and encourage high academic and cultural achievement among African-American high school students,” with sponsorship from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman et al. The national winners receive financial awards from major corporations, college scholarships, internships, and apprenticeships—in the military industries.

    In recent years the weapons makers have become enthusiastic environmentalists. Lockheed was a sponsor of the US Chamber of Commerce Foundation Sustainability Forum in 2013. Northrop Grumman supports Keep America Beautiful, National Public Lands Day, and a partnership with Conservation International and the Arbor Day Foundation (for forest restoration). United Technologies is the founding sponsor of the U.S. Green Building Council Center for Green Schools, and co-creator of the Sustainable Cities Design Academy. Tree Musketeers is a national youth environmental organization partnered by Northrop Grumman and Boeing.

    Awards go both ways: industries give awards to nonprofits, and nonprofits awards to military industries and people. United Technologies, for its efforts in response to climate change, was on Climate A list of the Climate Disclosure Project. The Corporate Responsibility Association gave Lockheed position 8 in 2016 in its 100 Best Corporate Citizens List. Points of Light included General Electric and Raytheon in its 2014 list of the 50 Most Community-Minded Companies in America. Harold Koh, the lawyer who as Obama’s advisor defended drone strikes and intervention in Libya, was recently given distinguished visiting professor status by Phi Beta Kappa. In 2017, the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility recognized 34 Young Hispanic Corporate Achievers; 3 were executives in the weapons industry. Elizabeth Amato, an executive at United Technologies, received the YWCA Women Achievers Award.

    Despite laborious searching through tax form 990s, it is difficult to discover the specifics of organizations’ investments. Many have substantial ones; in 2006, the American Friends Service Committee had $3.5 million in revenue from investments. Human Rights Watch reported $3.5 million investment income on its 2015 tax form 990, and more than $107 million in endowment funds.

    One of the few surveys of nonprofit policies (by Commonfund in 2012) found that only 17% of foundations used environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria in their investments. ESG seems to have replaced “socially responsible investing (SRI)” in investment terminology, and it has a somewhat different slant. The most common restriction is the avoidance of companies doing business in regions with conflict risk; the next relates to climate change and carbon emissions; employee diversity is also an important consideration. Commonfund’s study of charities, social service and cultural organizations reported that 70% of their sample did not consider ESG in their investment policies. Although 61% of religious organizations did employ ESG criteria, only 16% of social service organizations and 3% of cultural organizations did.

    Weapon industries are hardly ever mentioned in these reports. Religious organizations sometimes still used the SRI investment screens, but the most common were alcohol, gambling, pornography, and tobacco. The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a resource for churches, lists almost 30 issues for investment consideration, including executive compensation, climate change, and opioid crisis, but none concerning weapons or war. The United Church (UCC) advisory, a pioneer in SRI investment policies, does include a screen: only companies should be chosen which have less than 10% revenue from alcohol or gambling, 1% from tobacco, 10% from conventional weapons and 5% from nuclear weapons.

    The Art Institute of Chicago states on their website that “[W]ith the fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns on investment consistent with appropriate levels of risk, the Art Institute maintains a strong presumption against divesting for social, moral, or political reasons.” Listed as an associate is Honeywell International, and a major benefactor is the Crown Family (General Dynamics), which recently donated a $2 million endowment for a Professorship in Painting and Drawing.

    Nonprofit institutions (as well as individuals and pension funds of all sectors) have heavy investments in the funds of financial companies such as State Street, Vanguard, BlackRock, Fidelity, CREF, and others, which have portfolios rich in military industries (https://worldbeyondwar.org/wp– content/uploads/2016/11/indirect.pdf). These include information technology firms, which, although often regarded as “socially responsible,” are among the major DoD contractors.

    In recent years foundations and other large nonprofits, such as universities, have favored investments in hedge funds, real estate, derivatives, and private equity. The Carnegie Endowment, more “transparent” than most, lists such funds on its 2015 tax form 990 (Schedule D Part VII). It is unlikely that Lockheed, Boeing, et al, are among the distressed debt bonanzas, so these institutions may be low on weapons stock. Nevertheless, most of them have firm connections to the MIC through donations, leadership, and/or contracts.

    Close association with the military among nonprofit board members and executives works to keep the lid on anti-war activities and expression. The Aspen Institute is a think-tank that has resident experts, and also a policy of convening with activists, such as anti-poverty community leaders. Its Board of Trustees is chaired by James Crown, who is also a director of General Dynamics. Among other board members are Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Javier Solana (former Secretary-General of NATO), and former Congresswoman Jane Harman. Harman “received the Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service in 1998, the CIA Seal Medal in 2007, and the CIA Director’s Award and the National Intelligence Distinguished Public Service Medal in 2011. She is currently a member of the Director of National Intelligence’s Senior Advisory Group, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.” Lifetime Aspen Trustees include Lester Crown and Henry Kissinger.

    In recent years, the Carnegie Corporation board of trustees included Condoleezza Rice and General Lloyd Austin III (Ret.), Commander of CENTCOM, a leader in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and also a board member of United Technologies. A former president of Physicians for Peace (not the similarly named well-known group) is Rear Admiral Harold Bernsen, formerly Commander of the US Middle East Force and not a physician.

    TIAA, the college teachers’ retirement fund, had a CEO from 1993-2002, John H. Biggs, who was at the same time a director of Boeing. TIAA’s current board of directors includes an associate of a major military research firm, MITRE Corporations, and several members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Its senior executive Vice President, Rahul Merchant, is currently also a director at two information technology firms that have large military contracts: Juniper Networks and AASKI.

    The American Association of Retired Persons’ chief lobbyist from 2002-2007, Chris Hansen, had previously served in that capacity at Boeing. The current VP of communications at Northrop Grumman, Lisa Davis, held that position at AARP from 1996-2005.

    Board members and CEOs of the major weapons corporations serve on the boards of many nonprofits. Just to indicate the scope, these include the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Newman’s Own Foundation, New York Public Library, Carnegie Hall Society, Conservation International, Wolf Trap Foundation, WGBH, Boy Scouts, Newport Festival Foundation, Toys for Tots, STEM organizations, Catalyst, the National Science Center, the US Institute of Peace, and many foundations and universities.

    The DoD promotes the employment of retired military officers as board members or CEOs of nonprofits, and several organizations and degree programs further this transition. U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Eden Murrie (Ret.) is now Director of Government Transformation and Agency Partnerships at the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service. She maintains that “[F]ormer military leaders have direct leadership experience and bring talent and integrity that could be applied in a nonprofit organization. . .” (seniormilitaryintransition.com/tag/eden-murrie/). Given the early retirement age, former military personnel (and reservists) are a natural fit for positions of influence in federal, state, and local governments, school boards, nonprofits, and volunteer work; many are in those places.

    Perhaps the coziest relationships under the insecurity blanket are the multitudes of contracts and grants the Department of Defense tenders to the nonprofit world. DoD fiscal reporting is notoriously inaccurate, and there were conflicting accounts between and within the online databases. Nevertheless, even a fuzzy picture gives a good idea of the depth and scope of the coverage.

    From the TNC 2016 Annual Report: “The Nature Conservancy is an organization that takes care of people and land, and they look for opportunities to partner. They’re nonpolitical. We need nongovernment organizations like TNC to help mobilize our citizens. They are on the ground. They understand the people, the politics, the partnerships. We need groups like TNC to subsidize what government organizations can’t do” (Mamie Parker, Former Assistant Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Arkansas Trustee, The Nature Conservancy).

    Among the subsidies going the other way are 44 DoD contracts with TNC totaling several million for the years 2008-2018 (USA). These are for such services as Prairie Habitat Reforestation, $100,000, and Runway and Biosecurity upkeep at Palmyra Atoll, HI, $82,000 (USA). For the years 2000-2016, GCW lists a total of $5,500,000 in TNC’s DoD contracts.

    Grants to TNC for specific projects, not clearly different from contracts, were much larger. Each is listed separately (USA); a rough count of the total was more than $150 million. One $55 million grant was for “Army compatible use buffer (acubs) in vicinity of Fort Benning military installation.” Similar grants, the largest, $14 million, were for this service at other bases. Another was for the implementation of Fort Benning army installation’s ecological monitoring plan. Included in the description of these grants was the notice: “Assist State and local governments to mitigate or prevent incompatible civilian land use/activity that is likely to impair the continued operational utility of a Department of Defense (DoD) military installation. Grantees and participating governments are expected to adopt and implement the study recommendations.”

    TNC’s Form 990 for 2017 states its investment income as $21 million. It reported government grants of $108.5 million, and government contracts of $9 million. These may include funds from state and local as well as all departments of the federal government. The Department of the Interior, which manages the vast lands used for bombing ranges and live ammunition war games, is another TNC grantor.

    Other environmental organizations sustained by DoD contracts are the National Audubon Society ($945,000 for 6 years, GCW), and Point Reyes Bird Observatory ($145,000, 6 years, GCW). USA reports contracts with Stichting Deltares, a Dutch coastal research institute, for $550,000 in 2016, grants to the San Diego Zoo of $367,000, and to the Institute for Wildlife Studies, $1.3 million for shrike monitoring.

    Goodwill Industries (training and employing the disabled, ex-offenders, veterans, and homeless people) is an enormous military contractor. Each entity is a separate corporation, based on state or region, and the total receipt is in the billions. For example, for 2000-2016 (GCW), Goodwill of South Florida had $434 million and Southeastern Wisconsin $906 million in contracts. Goods and services provided include food and logistics support, records processing, army combat pants, custodial, security, mowing, and recycling. Similar organizations working for the DoD include the Jewish Vocational Service and Community Workshop, janitorial services, $12 million over 5 years; Lighthouse for the Blind, $4.5 million, water purification equipment; Ability One; National Institute for the Blind; Pride Industries; and Melwood Horticultural Training Center.

    The DoD does not shun the work of Federal Prison Industries, which sells furniture and other products. A government corporation (and thus not a nonprofit), it had half a billion in sales to all federal departments in 2016. Prison labor, Goodwill Industries, and other sheltered-workshop enterprises, along with for- profits employing immigrant workers, teenagers, retirees, and migrant workers (who grow food for the military and the rest of us), reveal the evolving nature of the US working class, and some explanation for its lack of revolutionary fervor, or even mild dissent from the capitalist system.

    The well-paid, and truly diverse employees (including executives) of major weapons makers are also not about to construct wooden barricades. Boards of directors in these industries are welcoming to minorities and women. The CEOs of Lockheed and General Dynamics are women, as is the Chief Operating Officer of Northrop Grumman. These success stories reinforce personal aspirations among the have-nots, rather than questioning the system.

    Contracts with universities, hospitals, and medical facilities are too numerous to detail here; one that illustrates how far the blanket stretches is with Oxford University, $800,000 for medical research. Professional associations with significant contracts include the Institute of International Education, American Council on Education, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, National Academy of Sciences, Society of Women Engineers, American Indian Science and Engineering Society, American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Society of Mexican-American Engineers, and U.S. Green Building Council. The Council of State Governments (a nonprofit policy association of officials) received a $193,000 contract for “preparedness” work. Let us hope we are well prepared.

    The leaders, staff, members, donors, and volunteers of nonprofit organizations are the kind of people who might have been peace activists, yet so many are smothered into silence under the vast insecurity blanket. In addition to all the direct and indirect beneficiaries of the military establishment, many people with no connection still cheer it on. They have been subject to relentless propaganda forthe military and its wars from the government, the print and digital press, TV, movies, sports shows, parades, and computer games—the latter teach children that killing is fun.

    The indoctrination goes down easily. It has had a head start in the educational system that glorifies the violent history of the nation. Our schools are full of in-house tutoring, STEM programs, and fun robotics teams personally conducted by employees of the weapons makers. Young children may not understand all the connections, but they tend to remember the logos. The JROTC programs, imparting militaristic values, enroll far more children than the ones who will become future officers. The extremely well-funded recruitment efforts in schools include “fun” simulations of warfare.

    There is a worldwide supporting cast for the complex that includes NATO, other alliances, defense ministries, foreign military industries, and bases, but that is a story for another day.

    The millions sheltered under our thick and broad blanket, including the enlistees under the prickly part of it, are not to blame. Some people may be thrilled by the idea of death and destruction. However, most are just trying to earn a living, keep their organization or rust belt afloat, or be accepted into polite company. They would prefer constructive work or income from healthy sources. Yet many have been indoctrinated to believe that militarism is normal and necessary. For those who consider change to be essential if life on this planet has a chance at survival, it is important to see all the ways that the military- industrial-congressional-almost everything-complex is being sustained.

    “Free market economy” is a myth. In addition to the huge nonprofit (non-market) sector, government intervention is substantial, not only in the gigantic military, but in agriculture, education, health care, infrastructure, economic development (!), et al. For the same trillions we could have a national economy that repairs the environment, provides a fine standard of living and cultural opportunities for all, and works for peace on earth.

    *  *  *

    Joan Roelofs is Professor Emerita of Political Science, Keene State College, New Hampshire. She is the author of Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (SUNY Press, 2003) and Greening Cities (Rowman and Littlefield, 1996). She is the translator of Victor Considerant’s Principles of Socialism (Maisonneuve Press, 2006), and with Shawn P. Wilbur, of Charles Fourier’s anti-war fantasy, The World War of Small Pastries (Autonomedia, 2015). A community education short course on the military industrial complex is on her website, and may be used for similar purposes.

    Site: www.joanroelofs.wordpress.com Contact: joan.roelofs@myfairpoint.net

  • Record Murders Plague Mexico In First Half Of 2018: "The Figures Are Horrible"

    Mexico’s next president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a former Mexico City mayor and outspoken critic of the political establishment – has a significant uphill battle once he is inaugurated as President on December 01: deadly violence in the country is intensifying and has hit an all-time high.

    Mexico posted its highest homicides on record, with a new government report Sunday showing murders in the country rose by 16 percent in the first half of 2018.

    The Interior Department said there were 15,973 homicides in the first half of the year, compared to 13,751 killings in the same period of 2017.

    According to the AP, the record-breaking homicides have surpassed the violence seen during the dark years of Mexico’s drug war in 2011, along with exceeding all government data since records began in 1997.

    At these crisis levels, the department’s homicide rate for the country stands around 22 per 100,000 population for year-end estimates — near the level of Columbia 24.2 and Guatemala 26.0.

    Security analyst Alejandro Hope told the AP, “the figures are horrible, but there are some signs that are halfway encouraging.”

    For example, the growth in homicides could be slowing; murders were up only about 4 percent compared to the second half of 2017. “The curve may be flattening out,” Hope noted, though he warned his forecast could be incorrect.

    Hope noted that the northern border state of Baja California exhibited the largest surge in homicide rates, while other states saw declines.

    “Baja California, home to the border city of Tijuana, saw 1,463 homicides in the first half of the year, a 44 percent increase over the same period of 2017. Authorities have attributed the spate of killings to battles between the Jalisco and Sinaloa drug cartels for control of trafficking routes in Baja California. The state is now Mexico’s second most violent, with a homicide rate for the first six months of the year equivalent to 71 murders per 100,000 inhabitants,” said AP.

    By comparison, El Salvador and Venezuela are among the deadliest countries in the world — have homicide rates of around 54 to 60 per 100,000.

    Thanks to the Jalisco drug cartel, Mexico’s most dangerous state is Colima, on the central Pacific coast, which experienced a 27-percent increase in killings and now has a shocking homicide rate of about 80 per 100,000

    Guanajuato, a central Mexican state, saw a 122 percent increase in homicides, which now has a rate of about 40 per 100,000. Government officials have reported that much of violent crime is linked to gangs of fuel thieves who drill taps into government pipelines.

    Here are Mexico’s eight most violent states by annual homicide rate, based on federal data. Over the past few years, killings rebounded in Baja California and Chihuahua states:

    Mexico is on pace to top the record-setting violence of 2017. The 15,973 murders over the first six months of 2018 exceed the 13,503 reported over the same period last year.

    Drug trafficking routes overlaid with homicide rates (2015) — notice a pattern?

    Earlier this year, the US State Department published a new multi-tiered travel advisory system to warn U.S. citizens of traveling to Mexico. Travel advisories range from Level 1 (“exercise normal precautions”) to Level 4 (“do not travel”).

    According to the Igarapé Institute, a Brazilian-based think tank that focuses on emerging security and development issues, the murder epidemic is not just limited to Mexico, but across all of Latin America.

    The Institute stated the current situation is incredibly complex and results from decades of corruption, drug trafficking, organized crime, contraband, illegal mining, land rights, and in some cases, violence by state military forces.

     

  • Here's How Systems (And Nations) Fail

    Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

    These embedded processes strip away autonomy, equating compliance with effectiveness even as the processes become increasingly counter-productive and wasteful.

    Would any sane person choose America’s broken healthcare system over a cheaper, more effective alternative? Let’s see: the current system costs twice as much per person as the healthcare systems of our developed-world competitors, a medication to treat infantile spasms costs $8 per vial in Europe and $38,892 in the U.S., and by any broad measure, the health of the U.S. populace is declining.

    This is how systems and nations fail: nobody chose the current broken system, but now it can’t be changed because the incentive structure locks in embedded processes that enrich self-serving insiders at the expense of the system, nation and its populace.

    Nobody chose America’s insane healthcare system–it arose from a set of initial conditions that generated perverse incentives to do more of what’s failing and protect the processes that benefit insiders at the expense of everyone else.

    In other words, the system that was intended to benefit all ends up benefitting the few at the expense of the many.

    The same question can be asked of America’s broken higher education system:would any sane person choose a system that enriches insiders by indenturing students via massive student loans (i.e. forcing them to become debt serfs)?

    Students and their parents certainly wouldn’t choose the current broken system, but the lenders reaping billions of dollars in profits would choose to keep it, and so would the under-assistant deans earning a cool $200K+ for “administering” some embedded process that has effectively nothing to do with actual learning.

    The academic ronin a.k.a. adjuncts earning $35,000 a year (with little in the way of benefits or security) for doing much of the actual teaching wouldn’t choose the current broken system, either.

    Now that the embedded processes are generating profits and wages, everyone benefitting from these processes will fight to the death to retain and expand them, even if they threaten the system with financial collapse and harm the people who the system was intended to serve.

    How many student loan lenders and assistant deans resign in disgust at the parasitic system that higher education has become? The number of insiders who refuse to participate any longer is signal noise, while the number who plod along, either denying their complicity in a parasitic system of debt servitude and largely worthless diplomas (i.e. the system is failing the students it is supposedly educating at enormous expense) or rationalizing it is legion.

    If I was raking in $200,000 annually from a system I knew was parasitic and counter-productive, I would find reasons to keep my head down and just “do my job,” too.

    At some point, the embedded processes become so odious and burdensome that those actually providing the services start bailing out of the broken system. We’re seeing this in the number of doctors and nurses who retire early or simply quit to do something less stressful and more rewarding.

    These embedded processes strip away autonomy, equating compliance with effectiveness even as the processes become increasingly counter-productive and wasteful. The typical mortgage documents package is now a half-inch thick, a stack of legal disclaimers and stipulations that no home buyer actually understands (unless they happen to be a real estate attorney).

    How much value is actually added by these ever-expanding embedded processes?

    By the time the teacher, professor or doctor complies with the curriculum / “standards of care”, there’s little room left for actually doing their job. But behind the scenes, armies of well-paid administrators will fight to the death to keep the processes as they are, no matter how destructive to the system as a whole.

    This is how systems and the nations that depend on them fail. 

    Meds skyrocket in price…

    …student loans top $1 trillion…

    F-35 fighter aircraft are double the initial cost estimates and so on, and the insider solutions are always the same: just borrow another trillion to keep the broken system afloat for another year.

    *  *  *
    Summer Book Sale: 30% off Kindle editions, 25% off print editions. If you’re interested in real solutions, check these out:

    A Radically Beneficial World ($6.95 Kindle, $15 print)
    Read the first chapter for free.

    Money and Work Unchained ($6.95 Kindle, $15 print)
    Read the first section for free (PDF).

    Resistance, Revolution, Liberation ($6.95 Kindle, $15 print)
    Read the first chapter for free.

    *  *  *

    My new book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition.Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

  • Americans Overwhelmingly Reject Going To War With Iran, New Poll Finds

    Americans are opposed to going to war against Iran by a more than two-to-one margin according to a new poll. 

    This week relations between Iran and Washington entered a heightened intensity and new war of words, with the dangerous potential for an actual war seeming to rise daily, especially after President Trump’s latest twitter warning to Iran of “consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before…” should Iran’s leaders threaten the United States. 

    The US has repeatedly threatened to throttle Iran’s international oil trade as it’s moved closer to imposing sanctions on countries including key allies that don’t eliminate or significantly cut imports of Iranian oil by Nov. 4. It’s but the latest crisis to emerge after the White House pulled the US out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal in May. This is why gauging public opinion on the prospect for war with Iran is particularly important at the end of this week.

    The new HuffPost/YouGov survey finds the prospect of war with Iran out of step with the American public on a bipartisan basis:

    Just 23 percent of the public say they’d support the U.S. deciding to declare war on Iran, while the majority, 53 percent, oppose the idea. Just 9 percent would strongly support declaring war, while 37 percent are strongly opposed.

    The survey further finds: “Voters who backed Hillary Clinton in the last election are the most vehemently against the idea, with 82 percent opposed and just 6 percent in favor; non-voters are also opposed, 48 percent to 20 percent.” 

    And concerning Trump supporters: “Voters who backed President Donald Trump’s campaign are more likely to support a war against Iran, but even among that group, backing remains below the majority level, with 47 percent saying they’d support declaring war, and 29 percent that they’d oppose it.”

    Numbers among Trump supporters:

    The poll was taken early this week, soon after Trump blasted Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani on twitter, eliciting multiple belligerent statements from Iranian military generals which followed. 

    The poll also found that 60% of Americans surveyed were aware of the Trump tweet through news reports, with 12% saying they’d seen in directly on twitter.

    Numbers among Clinton voters:

     

    About 60 percent of Americans polled say they’d heard about Trump’s tweet, although just 12 percent had seen it directly on Twitter, with the rest learning about it from the news.

    The poll concludes of Trump’s general handling of Iran-related issues: “Overall, 36 percent of Americans say they approve of Trump’s handling of issues related to Iran, while 42 percent disapprove, and the rest is uncertain. That net -6 is slightly more positive than overall views of Trump’s job performance.”

    There are a number of hawks in the Trump administration who would like to see a preemptive strike happen based on the claim of an alleged continuing nuclear weapons program, most notably among them national security adviser John Bolton and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. Though notorious uber-hawk Bolton may have had his wings clipped by President Trump, he’s on record as wanting “regime change in Tehran” before 2019. 

  • Bill Clinton Heckled By Angry Prostitutes In Amsterdam

    Bill Clinton was heckled by activists at the International AIDS Conference in Amsterdam on Friday while he was giving a speech. 

    Walking down the center aisle with red umbrellas, protesters demanded the decriminalization, respect and protection of sex workers and drug users – while also vehemently opposing the location of the next conference scheduled for San Francisco in 2020. 

    Clinton responded to the protesters objection to San Francisco as the venue for 2020, telling them: “You should also know for those of us who care about this issue in the United States, it is a sacred place. Many people died and all the first battles were fought, and they died some more. So I think when you get there, you’ll be glad they held the conference in San Francisco.” 

    “The decision to bring the International AIDS Conference to the U.S.A in 2020 reflects a gross disregard to the expressed requests of gay men, people who use drugs, and sex workers that the conference be hosted in a country where our participation is possible,” said George Ayala, executive director of MPACT Global Action for Gay Men’s Health and Rights, in a statement earlier this week.

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

    Matthew Hodson, of the HIV-information website AIDS map and who was attending the conference told PinkNews that the audience were broadly sympathetic to the protesters’ aims.

    He said: “I couldn’t put a figure on it, but they received very warm applause from the delegates and they also received applause from President Clinton too.

    “I do think it’s problematic that they are planning on holding the next conference in San Francisco, I’m very concerned that key populations will be discouraged from attending. –Pink News

    Perhaps the attendees also enjoy using plastic straws and don’t like stepping in poo?

    Meanwhile, Clinton’s stop in Amsterdam came as a surprise to locals:

    A visit last year drew similar reactions:

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

  • Mortgage Prison: Sydney Home Prices Suffer Largest Annual Decline Since 2008

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    Home prices in Sydney and Melbourne are back to 2016 levels. That is a tiny down payment as to what is coming.

    News AU reports House Prices Drop in Sydney, as Melbourne Prices Stall.

    Tumbling house prices in Sydney and Melbourne are the main drivers behind the first annual drop in national property prices in six years, a new report shows. The national median house price fell 1.0 per cent over the June quarter and year, according to a report by property classifieds group Domain released on Thursday.

    It is the first time values have fallen on an annual basis since June 2012.

    The negative national growth rate reflects weakening house prices in Sydney and Melbourne, which together represent about two thirds of Australia’s housing market by value.

    Sydney house prices fell by 4.5 per cent in the 12 months to the end of June for their largest annual drop since 2008. Sydney units also fell by 3.5 per cent over the same period.

    The figures chime with those released this week by property data firm CoreLogic, which said overall Sydney prices fell 5.0 per cent in the 12 months to July 22.

    “House and unit prices in Sydney are now back to values seen at the end of 2016,” Domain property analyst Nicola Powell told AAP. Tighter credit availability and a high number of units being built are key factors behind the dive, Dr Powell said.

    Apartment Boom Comes to End

    Next up, please consider Construction Set for Biggest Decline Since the Global Financial Crisis

    Australia’s building commencements, fueled by investor apartment construction, look like heading from boom to bust, according to forecaster BIS Oxford Economics.

    In a reality check for investors who bought at the top of the apartment boom, BIS is predicting the biggest correction since the global financial crisis hit in 2008, with housing starts set to fall by almost 23 per cent by 2020.

    Associate director Adrian Hart told the ABC’s AM program that the slump would be led by high-density dwelling construction, which is set to halve over the next two years

    A key factor in the residential slowdown has been tougher regulation by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to curb investor lending, while the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) and tax office has been clamping down on overseas buyers.

    Mortgage Prison

    Finally, and most importantly, please consider Aussie Homeowners Trapped in ‘Mortgage Prison’.

    Australian homeowners are trapped in “mortgage prison” because of a rule change. And there is no easy way out.

    Changes in bank rules around living expenses calculations have effectively wiped huge amounts off the maximum a bank will allow you to borrow.

    Many people are now finding they originally borrowed more than a bank would lend them under current conditions, meaning they haven’t got the option of shopping around to get a better interest rate — no bank will lend them the amount they need.

    Precise numbers of Australia’s mortgage prisoners are hard to come by, but Mozo investment and lending expert Steve Jovcevski told news.com.au that he expected most of them are those who have borrowed and bought in the last five years.

    Oops!

    Jovcevski gave an example in which a couple was able to borrow $800,000 a year ago can now only borrow $680,000 under the same rules.

    They are now trapped in a mortgage with no way to refinance and no buyers because of declining prices.

    Mortgage Slaves for Life

    This is precisely what some us foresaw years ago. It’s finally come home to roost, and at a time China is highly unlikely to bail out these buyers.

    People may be trapped for decades. So expect to see more articles like this as desperation sets in: Australia Housing Insanity: Tent Outside, Full Use of Apartment, Cheap, $90 Per Week.

    That was from a year ago. Rates will drop fast. Buyers will need tenants to stay afloat.

    Special Mention

    Dateline July 23, 2017

    13-Year-Old Kid Buys $552,000 Home

    Meet Akira Ellis a 13-year-old kid. He just bought his first piece of real estate, a $552,000 four-room one bath house in Melbourne’s Frankston.

    Right at the peak of the market a 13-year-old kid (with obvious help from his parents), bought a house costing over half a million dollars.

    I noted “Akira is already looking for his next property.”

    I asked “What can possibly go wrong?”

    Today, we found out.

     

  • Which College Degrees Get The Highest Salaries?

    If you’re a college graduate, you likely went to school to pursue an important passion of yours.

    But as we all know, what we major in has consequences that extend far beyond the foundation of knowledge we build in our early years. As  Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, any program we choose to enroll in also sets up a track to meet future friends, career opportunities, and connections.

    Even further, the college degree you choose will partially dictate your future earning potential – especially in the first decade after school. If jobs in your field are in high demand, it can even set you up for long-term financial success, enabling you to pay off costly student loans and build up savings potential.

    DATA BACKGROUNDER

    Today’s chart comes to us from Reddit user /r/SportsAnalyticsGuy, and it’s based on PayScale’s year-long survey of 1.2 million users that graduated only with a bachelor degree in the United States. You can access the full set of data here.

    The data covers two different salary categories:

    Starting median salary: The median of what people were earning after they graduated with their degree.

    Mid-career Percentiles: Salary data from 10 years after graduation, sorted by percentile (10th, 25th, Median, 75th, and 90th)

    In other words, the starting median salary represents what people started making after they graduated, and the rest of the chart depicts the range that people were making 10 years after they got their degree. Lower earners (10th percentile) are the lower bound, and higher earners (90th) are the upper bound.

    COLLEGE DEGREES, BY SALARY

    What college majors win out?

    Here’s the top 20 majors from the data set, sorted by mid-career median salary (10 years in):

    Based on this data, there are a few interesting things to point out.

    The top earning specialization out of college is for Physician Assistants, with a median starting salary of $74,300. The downside of this degree is that earning potential levels out quickly, only showing a 23.4% increase in earning power 10 years in.

    In contrast, the biggest increases in earning power go to Math, Philosophy, Economics, Marketing, Physics, Political Science, and International Relations majors. All these degrees see a 90% or higher increase from median starting salary to median mid-career salary.

    In absolute terms, the majors that saw the highest median mid-career salaries were all along the engineering spectrum: chemical engineering, computer engineering, electrical engineering, and aerospace engineering all came in above $100,000. They also generally had very high starting salaries.

    As a final note, it’s important to recognize that this data does not necessarily correlate to today’s degrees or job market. The data set is based on people that graduated at least a decade ago – and therefore, it does not necessarily represent what grads may experience as they are starting their careers today.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 27

Today’s News 27th July 2018

  • "We Fear For Our Lives": First 50 White South African Families Start Resettlement In Russia

    Just weeks after we reported that white South African farmers, facing racial genocide, had begun seeking refuge – from the violent attacks and death threats of their own government’s policies – in friendly foreign nations such as Australia, RT reports  the first 50 families of Boers, descendants of Dutch settlers in South Africa, could soon be moving to Russia to escape rising violence against farmers.

    As a reminder, back in February, after literally years of scandal, abuse, and incompetence, South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma was finally forced to resign last week, and new President, Cyril Ramaphosa, was supposed to represent a positive, new chapter for South Africa.

    However, as Simon Black wrote at the time, Ramaphosa addressed the nation’s parliament in Cape Town and made clear that his priority is to heal the divisions and injustice of the past, going all the way back to the original European colonists in the 1600s taking land from the indigenous tribes.

    Ramaphosa called this “original sin”, and stated that he wants to see “the return of the land to the people from whom it was taken… to heal the divisions of the past.”

    How does he plan on doing that?

    Confiscation. Specifically– confiscation without compensation.

    “The expropriation of land without compensation is envisaged as one of the measures that we will use to accelerate redistribution of land to black South Africans.”

    Ramaphosa minced no words: he’s talking about taking land from white farmers and giving it to black South Africans.

    And since then the violence and death threats have only worsened forcing many to want to leave South Africa and become farmers in Russia.

    And as RT reports, earlier this month, farmer Adi Schlebusch visited Russia’s farmbelt Stavropol Region.

    Schlebusch, whose grandfather was murdered at his farm, told RT that the land in South Africa “was never taken by whites from blacks with violence or in an unjust manner.”

    He explained that when Boers moved to South Africa in the 19th century, they tried to act in a way that was fair, to negotiate officially and to avoid conflict, but Ramaphosa’s new government refuses to negotiate.

    Rights groups said the initiative incites violence – there were 74 farm murders and 638 attacks, primarily against white farmers, in 2016-17 in South Africa – and while the government doesn’t dispute the figures, officials say farmers are victims of crime like just other citizens of the country gripped by violence and that they are not targeted because they are white.

    Schlebusch confirmed to RT that roughly 15,000 Boers are ready to leave their country and begin a new life in Russia.

    “The reason I’m considering immigration is honestly because I see dark clouds hanging over our future. The reality is that we do fear for our lives. And the reality is that a white farmer is attacked every day in South Africa. My grandfather was murdered on this farm. The government is certainly responsible for creating that climate of antagonism towards white farmers.”

    The farmer said he visited Russia with his family to explore the possibilities of resettling in the area. “I know the growth of agricultural production is immense in Russia. So, I think it’s the right time to buy in into agriculture in Russia. And I think there’s a lot of potential.”

    Stavropol is ready to settle up to 50 Boer families, according to the region’s Deputy Commissioner for human rights Vladimir Poluboyarenko. A Russian delegation is due to come to South Africa to work out a more detailed resettlement plan with the Boer community.

  • Is Portugal Becoming A Bastion Of Neo-Marxism?

    Authored by Tiago Freitas via The Gatestone Institute,

    Since the dramatic October 4, 2015 legislative election in Portugal, which resulted in the fall of the newly-formed conservative government after less than two weeks, the country has been run by a far-left coalition.

    On one hand, this is not surprising, given Portugal’s long-standing socialist tradition; like many European countries, it has managed to balance a free-market economy with heavy government taxation and powerful labor unions.

    On the other hand, the ruling coalition now has the contribution of a toxic partner — the “Bloco de Esquerda” (“Left Bloc”) — which has been demanding implementation of its extreme social, economic and foreign policy agenda in exchange for political support. Since its formation in 1999, through the convergence of the neo-Marxists, Trotskyists, feminists and environmentalists, this bloc entered the scene like a political Trojan Horse, and gradually took root in academia and other cultural institutions, to the point at which it now wields actual parliamentary power.

    This power has taken the form of an intensification of a neo-Marxist agenda, ranging from a near-successful attempt to legalize euthanasia, disproportional defense of animal rights, gender modification for anyone 16 and older, and a series of draconian anti-private-sector measures.

    Yet, not a word from Portuguese media platforms.

    While other European countries are at a crossroads, seeking to regain control of their social structure and borders following years of extreme liberalism, Portugal is backtracking — falling prey to a group that organizes youth camps with indoctrination seminars, and holds conferences on topics such as: “Private Property is Theft: The Need for the Socialization of Productive Assets,” and “Boycott Israel; Free Palestine.”

    It is time for the people of Portugal to take a break from their concern over soccer scores to wake up to the dangerous attempt — within their own parliament — to turn their lovely sunny country into a bastion of neo-Marxism.

  • A Brief History Of US Covert Action In Syria – Part 3

    In part 3 of this corrective history of the Syrian proxy war, we chart ISIS’ rapid advance into central Syria and inroads into the Damascus suburbs, as well as Russian intervention and the resulting failure of US regime change plans. See Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

    Part 3: The Myth of US ‘Inaction’ in Syria, by William Van Wagenen via The Libertarian Institute

    On May 20, 2015 ISIS conquered the city of Tadmur at the site of ancient Palmyra, famous for its Roman ruins, and which lies in Homs province on the road between Deir Ezzour and Damascus. CNN reported of the ISIS assault to take Palmyra that “After at least 100 Syrian soldiers died in fighting overnight, Syrian warplanes carried out airstrikes Thursday in and around Palmyra.”

    Shortly after capturing the city, ISIS released video of its fighters throwing two allegedly gay men from the top of a building, and then stoning them. CBS News cited an eyewitness as claiming that “ISIS militants blared on loudspeakers for men to gather”.

    Then a black van pulled up outside the Wael Hotel, and Mallah and Salamah were brought out. The first to be thrown off was Mallah. He was tied to a chair so he couldn’t resist, then pushed over the side. He landed on his back, broken but still moving. A fighter shot him in the head. Next was Salameh. He landed on his head and died immediately. Still, fighters stoned his body, Omar said. The bodies were then hung up in Palmyra’s Freedom Square for two days, each with a placard on his chest: ‘He received the punishment for practicing the crime of Lot’s people.’”

    ISIS also released video of teenage boys carrying out the mass execution of 25 captured Syrian soldiers in the city’s ancient amphitheater. Agence France Presse (AFP) reported that ISIS executed as many as 200 people after taking the city. ISIS militants also murdered Khalid al-Asaad, the 83 year old retired director of antiquities for Palmyra. The New York Timesreports that “After detaining him for weeks, the jihadists dragged him on Tuesday to a public square where a masked swordsman cut off his head in front of a crowd, Mr. Asaad’s relatives said. His blood-soaked body was then suspended with red twine by its wrists from a traffic light, his head resting on the ground between his feet, his glasses still on, according to a photo distributed on social media by Islamic State supporters.”

    CNN commented that despite these atrocities, “there’s no indication that Syrian ground forces will try to take back the city, 150 miles northeast of Damascus, the capital. Nor that any other countries such as the United States will come to the rescue. ‘The world does not care about us,’ the Palmyra resident said. ‘All they are interested in is the stones of ancient Palmyra.’”

    US refused to stop ISIS advance on Palmyra

    US planners could have indeed bombed convoys of ISIS fighters moving across the open desert from Raqqa to assault Palmyra, but chose not to. The LA Times reported of this period that “as Islamic State [ISIS] closed in on Palmyra, the U.S.-led aerial coalition that has been pummeling Islamic State in Syria for the past 18 months took no action to prevent the extremists’ advance toward the historic town — which, until then, had remained in the hands of the sorely overstretched Syrian security forces.

    The U.S. approach in Palmyra contrasted dramatically with the very proactive U.S. bombardment of Kobani during 2014-15 on behalf of U.S.-allied Kurdish militias fending off a furious Islamic State offensive [Emphasis mine].” US planners were willing to come to the aid of their Kurdish allies in northeastern Syria against ISIS, but refused to do the same for residents in Palmyra, as the city had been under Syrian government control.

    One year later, in March 2016, Russian and Syrian forces were able to retake Palmyra and liberate it from ISIS, to the displeasure of US planners. The LA Times noted that White House officials have “difficulty publicly lauding advances against Islamic State by Assad and his allies, including the Russians and Iranians, after years of calling for Assad’s fall” and that the Russian success in combating ISIS created a “dilemma” for US planners, because “Washington has endeavored to portray the battle against Islamic State as a project of the United States and its allies, while accusing Moscow of attacking ‘moderate’ rebels instead of the extremists. Palmyra seems to embody an alternative narrative.” US dissatisfaction at the defeat of ISIS in Palmyra was also expressed by State Department spokesperson Mark Toner at a press briefing in March 2016, when Toner refused “to laud” the Syrian and Russian effort to liberate the city.

    The fall of Palmyra in May 2015 resulted in ISIS control of some 50% of Syrian territory, and constituted “another strategic defeat that could expose Homs and Damascus to the terror group’s advances,” according to the Guardian. Al-Jazeeraacknowledged the same, explaining that the “fall of the city potentially opens the way for ISIL [ISIS] to advance towards key government-held areas, including the capital and Homs.”

    Terror Insurgency Gains Momentum

    After capturing Palmyra, ISIS militants attempted multiple times to assault the nearby T4 airbase, located 40 km west to the west of the ancient city in Homs province. Crowd-sourced journalism site Bellingcat reported that “The Islamic State’s [ISIS] offensive in Central Syria has not only allowed the fighters of the Islamic State [ISIS] to expand their operations into areas previously out of reach, but it now also threatens the regime’s gas supplies, its presence on numerous fronts, its control over the only road leading to the vitally important T4 airbase and the airbase itself, the largest of its kind in Syria.”

    On August 6, 2015 ISIS advanced further toward the Damascus by capturing the town of al-Qaryatain, which lays roughly half way between Palmyra and the Syrian capital. United Press International (UPI) reports that “37 pro-government forces were killed, as were 23 IS militants.

    The battle began with suicide bombings at checkpoints of the town of about 40,000; the population of the community, a mix of Sunni Muslims and Christians, has been reduced by the flight of refugees. The capture of al-Qaryatain indicates IS [ISIS] can move troops and supplies across central Syria without interference, from Palmyra in the east and southwestward to al-Qaryatain.” CNN cited SOHR as reporting that “The Islamic extremists [ISIS] have abducted more than 200 people, said Rami Abdurrahman, the observatory’s executive director. Up to 500 people are unaccounted for, but Abdurrahman said the observatory has confirmed that at least 230 people have been taken hostage.

    He said that ISIS militants targeted Christians, some of whom were abducted from the town’s Dar Alyan monastery, as well as people believed to have alliances with the Syrian regime.” To be considered a collaborator or as having “alliances with the regime” by ISIS, it was often enough to simply have a picture of Bashar al-Assad on one’s phone, despite the fact that “lots of people have a picture of Bashar on the phone because it helps them get through checkpoints,” according to one former ISIS captive. ISIS militants then bulldozed the 1,500 year old monastery and its church, while the senior priest, Father Jacques Mouraud, was among the kidnapped.

    The capture of Qaraytain also allowed ISIS forces to threaten to take control of the strategic M5 highway on month later.

    Patrick Cockburn of the Independent reported in September 2015 that “Islamic State (Isis) forces in Syria are threatening to capture a crucial road, the loss of which could touch off a panic and the exodus of several million refugees from government areas, in addition to the four million who have already fled. Isis fighters have advanced recently to within 22 miles of the M5 highway, the only major route connecting government-held territory in Damascus to the north and west of the country. . . The four million Syrians who are already refugees mostly came from opposition or contested areas that have been systematically bombarded by government aircraft and artillery, making them uninhabitable. But the majority of the 17 million Syrians still in the country live in government-controlled areas now threatened by Isis. These people are terrified of Isis occupying their cities, towns and villages because of its reputation for mass executions, ritual mutilation and rape against those not obedient to its extreme variant of Sunni Islam. Half the Syrian population has already been displaced inside or outside the country, so accurate figures are hard to estimate, but among those particularly at risk are the Alawites (2.6 million), the Shia heterodox sect that has provided the ruling elite of Syria since the 1960s, the Christians (two million), the Syrian Kurds (2.2 million), and Druze (650,000) in addition to millions of Sunni Arabs associated with the Syrian government and its army [emphasis mine].”

    ISIS inroads to Damascus

    By April 2015, ISIS and Nusra had also captured the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp, known as the capital of the Palestinian diaspora, in the southern suburbs of Damascus, and just kilometers from the presidential palace. This allowed ISIS and Nusra to control territory that could be used as a base to assault the heart of the Syrian capital itself.

    Flush with newly delivered weapons supplied by the CIA and its Saudi partners, rebels from the FSA and Nusra had invaded and occupied Yarmouk camp two and a half years previously, on December 15, 2012. Rebels entered the camp against the will of Yarmouk’s resident’s, despite explicit requests from the PLO that the rebels not invade, as Palestinians wished to remain neutral in the conflict.

    Some 800,000 Yarmouk residents, both Palestinian and Syrian, fled the camp to escape the dangers of the subsequent fighting. Residents, fearing both the rebel mortars and Syrian government MiG airstrikes, sought refuge in other Damascus neighborhoods, in the Palestinian camps in Lebanon, in Turkey, and even in Europe, with the scale of the displacement numerically rivaling that of the 1948 Nakba.

    Rebels soon began looting homes, taking over hospitals and stealing medicine. The Syrian government imposed a siege on Yarmouk, which prevented the rebels from advancing further toward Damascus, but which made food, water, and basic necessities scarce, forcing residents to depend heavily on intermittent UNRWA humanitarian aid deliveries. Government and rebel use of heavy artillery and mortars while fighting one another led to significant destruction in the camp, and scores of civilian deaths.

    The few remaining civilians, roughly 20,000, became trapped in the camp because, as one Yarmouk resident told the Guardian, “rebel groups were eager to keep people in the camp, she said, particularly men and boys. Their departure was seen as defection from the opposition cause as well as potentially making it easier for government troops to enter the camp by force and regain control.” While the Syrian government encouraged civilians to leave, many nonetheless feared being detained by the Syrian security forces which were screening exiting civilians for fighters. The rebel occupation and government siege continued for years, causing hundreds of deaths due to starvation and lack of medical care.

    In April 2015, Nusra fighters facilitated the entry of ISIS fighters into Yarmouk. The BBC reported that “Monitors say IS [ISIS] and the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front, who have fought each other in other parts of Syria, are working together in Yarmouk.”

    Several thousand residents who managed to escape the camp and take shelter in a school in an area under Syrian army control told of ISIS atrocities, including one boy who saw ISIS fighters using a severed head as a soccer ball, and a woman who described how “’Daesh’s [ISIS] arrival meant destruction and massacre. Their behavior’s not human and their religion is not ours.”

    Clashes between ISIS and local Palestinian rebels (who were loyal to Hamas and had previously supported Nusra’s initial invasion of the camp) exacerbated the humanitarian situation, forcing UNRWA to cease the already limited aid deliveries to Yarmouk. The Guardian quoted one Yarmouk resident as stating, “There is no food or electricity or water, Daesh [ISIS] is killing and looting the camp, there are clashes, there is shelling. Everyone is shelling the camp. . . As soon as Daesh entered the camp they burned the Palestinian flag and beheaded civilians.”

    The Syrian government tightened the siege, reaffirming their concern that ISIS fighters controlled territory so near the heart of the Syrian capital. Al-Jazeera reporter Stefanie Dekker explained that “It is a complex situation. The government forces control the northern part [of the camp] towards Damascus. It is their priority to keep the capital safe. . . The fact that ISIL [ISIS] fighters are less than 10km away is of a huge concern. If they allow a humanitarian corridor, who will be coming out?” Despite these concerns, al-Jazeera reported that the Syrian government did indeed allow residents to leave, as some 2,000 were able to be evacuated at this time, with many finding shelter in government schools in neighboring areas.

    Fighters from the pro-government Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) confronted ISIS fighters at the northern edge of the camp to stop their advance, while the Syrian military bombed ISIS positions. Foreign Policy quoted one PFLP-GC fighter originally from Yarmouk as saying “I will not stop until they [ISIS] leave the camp. . . I have no problem staying here in this position, not sleeping, digging out tunnels, and fighting. We need to do this,” while quoting another PFLP-GC fighter who felt that “If we weren’t here fighting, [the militants] would be able to access Damascus. . . We’re here to protect the camp and Damascus.”

    The New York Times acknowledged the ISIS threat to Syrian capital at this time, observing that “By seizing much of the camp” ISIS had “made its greatest inroads yet into Damascus,” while the Washington Post noted that “Their new push puts [ISIS] within five miles of the heart of the capital… even as they are on the retreat in Iraq.”

    As a result of this threat, 14 Palestinian factions agreed to form a joint operations room with the Syrian army to try defeat ISIS militarily and purge its militants from the camp. PLO Executive Committee member Ahmed Majdalani told a press conference that “The decision will be jointly made by the two sides to retake the camp from the obscurantist terrorists who seize it now.” However, the PLO soon reversed course, claiming the Palestinians should not be dragged into any conflict, allegedly as a result of pressure on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    US Policy of Leveraging ISIS Against Assad

    The US preference for the advance of ISIS toward Damascus, even as US warplanes were bombing the terror group in Eastern Syria and Iraq, was explained by Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry shockingly admitted that US planners actually welcomed the ISIS push toward Damascus, which they felt they could leverage to put pressure on Assad to give up power to the US-backed opposition. As discussed above, Kerry explained that, “We were watching. We saw that Daesh [ISIS]was growing in strength. And we thought Assad was threatened. We thought we could manage that Assad might then negotiate. Instead of negotiating, he got Putin to support him.”

    The New York Times reported in detail on the meeting, an audio recording of which was leaked, as did the Guardian and CNN. Despite Kerry’s shocking comments, none of these three news outlets mentioned his admission that US planners welcomed the ISIS advance on Damascus, presumably due to requests by US intelligence officials.

    CNN initially posted the full audio of the leaked tape, but later took it down, claiming in an editor’s note to have done so for the safety of participants in the meeting.

    Enter Russia

    The Nusra/FSA advance on Latakia and ISIS advance on Damascus and the M5 highway provides the context in which Russian forces intervened in Syria in September 2015. Writing in the New York Review of Books, Charles Glass confirmed Secretary of State Kerry’s view that Russia intervened in the conflict to prevent the fall of the Syrian government to jihadists from Nusra and ISIS. Glass quoted “one analyst familiar with Russian decision making” as noting that by autumn 2015, “it was clear Damascus could fall,” which was a “red line” that “Russia could not abide.” As a result, Russia “increased air support and sent ground forces to guarantee the survival of Syria’s government, army, and institutions. Its action saved Damascus from an insurgent onslaught and gave the Syrian army the upper hand in the long seesaw war.”

    US planners responded to Russian efforts to save Damascus and Latakia from Nusra and ISIS respectively by immediately increasing shipments of TOW anti-tank missiles to the FSA, despite their knowledge these weapons had helped Nusra conquer Idlib and threaten Latakia.

    The New York Times reported on October 12, 2015, just two weeks after the start of the Russian intervention, that rebels were now receiving as many TOW missiles as they asked for. One FSA commander explained, “We get what we ask for in a very short time,” while another rebel official in Hama called the supply “carte blanche,” suggesting, “We can get as much as we need and whenever we need them.” The NYT also acknowledged that FSA cooperation with Nusra constituted a “tactical alliance that Free Syrian Army commanders describe as an uncomfortable marriage of necessity, because they cannot operate without the consent of the larger and stronger Nusra Front.”

    Daveed Gartenstein-Ross of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) observedthat “at this point it is impossible to argue that U.S. officials involved in the CIA’s program cannot discern that Nusra and other extremists have benefited” from CIA weapons shipments to Syrian rebels, “And despite this, the CIA decided to drastically increase lethal support to vetted rebel factions following the Russian intervention into Syria in late September.”

    The CIA knew where TOW Missiles were going

    Understanding that TOW shipments were benefitting al-Qaeda, US planners stopped short of also providing anti-aircraft missiles to FSA groups. US planners have strongly supported Syrian rebel groups, but not at any cost. The New York Times noted that the Russians “appear to be using techniques honed in Afghanistan, where the occupying Soviet Army fought insurgents who were eventually supplied with antiaircraft missiles by the United States. Some of those insurgents later began Al Qaeda. That specter hangs over American policy, and has kept Syrian insurgents from receiving what they most want: antiaircraft missiles . . .”

    Opposition supporters, including many oddly identifying as socialists, complained bitterly that US planners were not willing to take the step of providing anti-aircraft missiles to the FSA, for the ultimate benefit of al-Qaeda. Author and opposition supporter Leila al-Shami bizarrely suggested the US refusal to provide anti-aircraft missiles to the rebels proves that “The United States support for Free Syrian Army militias on the ground has never really been any more than rhetoric. It’s never really given any serious support to them.” Al-Shami ignores the over $1 billion of weaponry and assistance provided by the CIA to the rebels directly, not to mention the much larger amounts of aid provided by America’s Gulf partners to both the FSA and Salafi rebel groups Ahrar al-Sham and Jaish al-Islam since the start of the Syrian conflict, with US approval.

    Some opposition supporters expressed to Secretary of State Kerry that they would not be satisfied unless the US military intervened directly on behalf of the rebels to depose Assad, despite the illegality of doing so under international law, and potential that such an intervention could trigger a direct conflict between the US and Russia.

    Rebel-affiliated media activists tweeting under the guise of the young girl, Bana al-Abed, suggested the US should come to the aid of the al-Qaeda-dominated rebels in Aleppo even at the risk of starting World War III with Russia.

    Conclusion

    US planners welcomed rebel gains in Syria, including by jihadist groups advocating genocide against Syria’s Alawite population such as ISIS and Nusra, because these gains bolstered the broader US goal of toppling the Syrian government, in an effort to weaken its close allies, Iran and Hezbollah.

    US planners wished to see rebel gains in Syria, in spite of the obviously catastrophic consequences for Syrian civilians that rebel success would bring. US support for the rebels belies the myth of US “inaction” in Syria, and the myth that any US intervention would be for the sake of preventing massacres and even genocide, rather than in support of it.

    The Syrian government is an authoritarian police state that has long been in need of drastic reform. Like all governments fighting a war, the Syrian government has killed civilians and committed crimes against innocent people during the course of the Syrian conflict (though the extent of these crimes has been massively inflated and often even fabricated in the Western press). Similarly, the Russian military deserves harsh criticism, as it has undoubtedly killed civilians unnecessarily during air strikes against the rebels. The deaths of these civilians are tragic, as are the deaths of civilians in Raqqa and Mosul killed by US bombs in the effort to defeat ISIS in those cities.

    It is unclear however, how Syrian civilians generally would have benefited if US planners had succeeded in accomplishing their goal of helping the predominantly jihadist Syrian rebels, including al-Qaeda and ISIS, topple the Syrian government. One Syrian fighting for a pro-government militia articulated why he and many Syrians in general oppose the rebels and the Syrian political opposition which supports them: “At first, my family sympathized with the protesters. But then it became obvious that the hardliners among the secular opposition work in the interests of Turkey and the Arab monarchies. Plus the course for Islamization was visible early on, and that was a concern. Like pretty much all normal people, my family, my friends and everyone I know in Syria are strongly against Wahhabis and religious extremism in general [emphasis mine],” with Wahhabism referring to the state ideology of Saudi Arabia, from which al-Qaeda and ISIS draw much of their inspiration.

    In Syria’s major population centers, civilians are terrified that the rebels will come, and look to the Syrian army to protect them. Large numbers of civilians leave any city where rebels gain a foothold and seek refuge primarily in government controlled areas of the country or outside of Syria itself. The threat of Syrian and Russian bombing certainly plays a role in this, but it is clear that rebel looting, the murder of minorities and those sympathetic to the government, and the imposition of extremist religious rule do not endear the rebels to Syria’s civilian population.

    Contrary to most reporting on Syria, which suggests the “civil war” has pitted Syria’s entire Sunni population against its Alawite, Christian, Druze, Shia and other minorities, in fact many Syrian Sunnis support the government and oppose Salafi-Jihadism, the extremist religious ideology undergirding most rebel groups in Syria.

    The Syrian government would have fallen long ago, if not for Sunni support. For example, the rebels were hated even in the majority Sunni city of Aleppo and many Sunnis continue to fight in the Syrian army against the rebels, while many Syrian Sunnis have been killed by the rebels for this support of the government. For this reason, describing the rebels as “Sunni” is misleading. A more accurate description of Syria’s rebels would be “Salafi-Jihadi” or “Wahhabi,” or “Takfiri,” or “religious fundamentalist” rather than “Sunni.”

    Had Damascus and Latakia fallen to the rebels, not only Alawites and Christians, but also pro-government Sunnis and Sunnis opposed to Salafi-Jihadi ideology would have been massacred, not to mention members of Syria’s LGBTQ community.

    The Russian intervention in Syria then, by all indications, prevented this horrific outcome for Syrians of all ethnic and religious identities, despite the best efforts of US planners to achieve the “catastrophic success” in Syria they had hoped for.

  • Trump Vs. The Fed: America Sacrificed At The NWO Altar

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    There is a disconnect within the liberty movement over the notion of where to find the root source of globalism.

    A segment of people within the movement seem to think that the fount of globalism resides within America itself; that American imperialism is the foundation of the globalist scheme and the dollar is the single most important mechanism supporting their power. This is an naive oversimplification of the problem.

    Numerous misconceptions stem from the idea that globalists actually have loyalty to the U.S. system. For example, over the past several years you might have often heard the argument that the Federal Reserve would “never end QE,” that they would “never let stock markets fall,” that they would “never raise interest rates,” that they would “inevitably go to negative interest rates,” that they would “never cut the balance sheet,” etc. etc. All of these assumptions were based on the idea that central bankers and globalists need the U.S. economy and the dollar system in order to maintain financial control of the world in general.

    All of these assumptions also turned out to be completely false as the past couple years of fundamentals show the direct effects of the Fed pulling the plug on its artificial support of the U.S. economy.  Particularly, we have seen a spike in corporate and consumer debt not seen since before the crash of 2008.  Business interests are scrambling to take up the slack left by waning Fed stimulus, and they are digging themselves into a grave-like hole in the process.

    Not only this, but we have numerous examples of Fed officials admitting that a crash in markets and the economy would occur if the Fed cut off support. This includes current Fed chairman Jerome Powell, who outlined the result of balance sheet cuts and interest rate hikes back in 2012. Meaning, skeptics cannot argue that the Fed is somehow “unaware” of its own actions and the consequences. The central bankers KNOW exactly what they are doing and what will happen as a result. They are bringing down the U.S. economy deliberately as multiple sectors hang by the thin thread of low but steadily rising interest rates and Trump’s tax cuts.

    This has caused considerable confusion for many alternative analysts. They have spent so long operating under the notion that the Fed will protect U.S. markets, protect the dollar and thus protect itself. What they refused to accept was the possibility that the Fed is actually a suicide bomber whose goal is to eventually destroy itself and everything around it, thus bringing down America from within.

    But why would the globalists do this? For those that assume the U.S. economy represents the “goose that lays the golden eggs,” what I describe above is inconceivable. In order to understand what is happening and why, we must cast off the lie that America is a golden goose that perpetually supports the globalist agenda. Rather, America is more like a host to the globalist parasites, and once the host is drained of all vitality, the parasites will leave and move on to bigger and better targets.

    In other words, just as numerous empires before it, the U.S. system served a purpose for a particular window of time. It was exploited as a means to an end, and now the banking elites are moving on to a “new world order” in which America plays a far diminished role. This is why the Fed continues to act in a manner that appears bewildering to so many people. This is why the Fed is taking actions that they have openly admitted will cause a crash. They WANT a crash.

    The Fed itself is merely an empty shell. It is an institution on paper, representing a set of illusions that are treated as concrete. If we are looking for the top of the globalist pyramid, we would certainly not start with the Fed. The Fed is a tool for manipulating the U.S. political framework and economic engine, and like all other central banks in the world its policies are dictated by much more important entities like the Bank For International Settlements (BIS).

    It is organizations like the BIS and the IMF that are set to become the new centers of the financial world as the U.S. economy and the dollar sink into obscurity. I outlined this plan in detail in my article “The Economic End Game Explained,” but it has taken quite some time for the facts I presented to be accepted by a greater portion of the movement. The claim that the Fed “would never” sacrifice itself is a powerful distraction from the truth.

    Globalists do not care about maintaining the U.S. system as it is. They are even willing to undermine it in order to create the chaos needed to generate social and political capital; the kind of capital that will buy them a worldwide economic reset and their so-called “new world order.” Within this construct, the masses would be made to accept open centralization of financial and political control into the hands of a minority of banking elites. That is to say, the globalists no longer want to be covert; they prefer to be overt, and venerated as saviors of humanity rather than despised as an organized cancer.

    In order to achieve such a fantastic farce, certain steps need to be taken. In particular, someone else needs to take the blame for the disastrous consequences of the global reset when it accelerates.

    Donald Trump fits the bill perfectly for a number of reasons, but the ultimate scapegoat for a crash of the U.S. system is not Trump alone, but the conservative ideal overall. I have argued for some time that Trump is  likely controlled opposition — a pied piper for conservatives. His rhetoric is almost everything liberty advocates and Republicans like to hear, but his actions do not always match his words.

    In particular, the induction of multiple banking elites and Council on Foreign Relations members into Trump’s cabinet makes it impossible for true change to ever take place within the White House, let alone the rest of Washington. Which is probably why we have seen Trump flip-flop on so many issues recently. Trump is supposed to present the face of a “populist” conservative stalwart while at the same time doing the bidding of the globalist handlers standing over his shoulder in the Oval Office.

    More specifically, Trump has reversed course on his relationship to the Fed many times.

    In September of 2016, Trump attacked the Fed on the campaign trail, stating that they were keeping interest rates low and the dollar weak in order to artificially boost stock markets for the Obama administration. This was mostly true, though the Fed could not care less about protecting the image of any particular president. Instead, they were preparing for the global reset while getting ready to lay blame at the feet of their populist scapegoat.

    After Trump entered office, he suddenly changed his attitude, offering full support to Janet Yellen and then Jerome Powell while taking credit for the spike in stocks fueled by Fed’s balance sheet purchases and low rates. Trump at that time also stated that a strong dollar was better for America.

    Today, the situation has changed yet again. Trump now suddenly has conflict with the Federal Reserve and the rising dollar index, voicing his concerns that the Fed is creating conditions that will lead to difficulty in the trade war as well as an economic crisis. Fears are rising within mainstream economic circles that this is leading to a war between Trump and the Fed.  Some are even theorizing that Trump might try to take control of the Fed completely.

    To the casual observer, all this makes Trump appear rather schizophrenic — but maybe this is the point.

    The Fed’s usefulness for the globalists is waning. Their only job now is to continue raising interest rates and cutting their balance sheet in a controlled demolition of financial markets and equities. Once they are done, the only thing left is for the dollar to lose its world reserve status and then the sabotage of the U.S. will be complete.

    A battle between Trump and the Fed serves a couple of purposes.

    Firstly, it provides cover for the dismantling of U.S. stocks and the U.S. dollar, just as the trade war (also blamed on Trump) provides cover for the same. A conflict between the president of the United States and the Fed would lead to substantial doubt in markets over the safety of investment in U.S. equities, debt and currency.

    Secondly, if Trump is seen as “getting tough” on the Fed, liberty activists that are skeptical of the Trump administration and his globalist appointed cabinet might be lured into the fold and support policies which will ultimately be the unmaking of liberty. Dismantling the Fed several years ago would have done irreversible damage to the banking elites and their plans for a perfectly timed economic reset. Today, it’s too little too late. In fact, the globalists may PREFER that the Fed be taken down by conservatives now so that we become the bumbling villains that triggered a historic fiscal panic.

    This is not to say that I support the continued existence of the Fed, but I do want to point out that Trump is not talking about combating the IMF or the BIS, nor is anyone else in the mainstream discussing it. Removing one sacrificial appendage of the vampire squid is useless; we must go to core organizations and shut them all down to make any difference in the outcome. The fact that they are going to sacrifice the Fed and the dollar anyway does not help matters.

    I believe Trump’s “schizophrenia” on the Fed is due to him simply following the script that has been given to him. I do not think the globalists were always certain they wanted to use the tactic of a president vs. Fed crisis. But, I did predict back in early 2017 that this is exactly what they would end up doing in my article “In A Battle Between Trump And The Federal Reserve, Who Really Wins?”

    It only makes sense at this stage in the game. The Fed is going to continue to raise interest rates and cut its balance sheet no matter what happens. They are going to use “inflationary pressures” supposedly caused by Trump’s infrastructure spending and the trade war as an excuse for their actions. Trump, in turn, is going to blame the Fed for the inevitable stock market crash and the rising dollar causing difficulty with “winning” the trade war.

    I do not know if the globalist script calls for Trump to go as far as shutting down the Fed completely, but rest assured if he does there will be hundreds of alternative analysts decreeing that it is irrefutable proof that Trump is not controlled opposition and he “must have a plan.” The actual plan will be the end of the dollar as the world reserve currency to make way for the global economic reset and a NWO currency framework, all in the name of stopping a catastrophe initiated by “evil conservative populists.”

    Make no mistake, what we are witnessing is 4th generation warfare on the public – All other wars including the trade war are kabuki theater designed to distract from this reality.  Even a war between Trump and the Fed would be ultimately farcical as the globalists are already positioned to exploit the outcome of a failing dollar system. 

    The goal? 

    To convince the masses that sovereign nationalism leads to planetary disaster, and that the “only solution” is to hand over economic and political power to a centralized authority of financial high priests with a direct line to the god of fiscal stability.

    *  *  *

    If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

  • 3 Things Happening Right Now That Could Wreak Havoc On The Economy

    Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

    Anyone with a price book will agree that the cost of nearly everything has been steadily going up. Unfortunately, wages are not increasing at the same rate.

    And to quote Bachman-Turner Overdrive, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. There are three events happening in the economy right now that could, alone, cause the prices of everything from food to the materials to make replacement parts for your vehicle to skyrocket. But if you combine them all together? We could be facing a perfect storm of economic havoc.

    Iran is blocking oil exports from Saudi Arabia

    Yesterday, Saudi Arabia announced that they were halting oil exports through a specific lane in the Red Sea due to attacks by “Yemen’s Iran-aligned rebels.” Reuters reported:

    Saudi Arabia and arch-foe Iran have been locked in a three-year proxy war in Yemen, which lies on one side of the Bab al-Mandeb strait at the southern mouth of the sea, one of the most important trade routes for oil tankers heading from the Middle East to Europe.

    The Houthis, who have previously threatened to block the strait, said on Thursday that they had the naval capability to hit Saudi ports and other Red Sea targets. Iran has threatened to block another strategic shipping route, the Strait of Hormuz.

    Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said the Houthis attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea on Wednesday, one of which sustained minimal damage.

    “Saudi Arabia is temporarily halting all oil shipments through Bab al-Mandeb strait immediately until the situation becomes clearer and the maritime transit through Bab al-Mandeb is safe,” he said. (source)

    According to the US Energy Information website, the United States imports 904,000 barrels of oil per day from Saudi Arabia.  Prices of fuel would almost certainly go up, which, of course, affects the price of everything that is transported, which is, of course, everything.

    Should we suddenly see a shortfall of nearly a million barrels per day, we’d have to get that oil from somewhere else. Most of the other oil we do not produce ourselves comes from Canada, from whom we currently import 120.000-140,000 barrels of oil per day.

    Which leads us right to the next financial catastrophe that is looming.

    The trade war is getting more heated every day.

    As soon as President Trump slapped tariffs on products from China, the EU, and even Canada, he opened the door to our exports also being subject to tariffs. While I think the intentions were good – to bring production back to the United States – the whole thing could turn out to be very, very bad for many Americans. We are going to see the prices of almost everything we buy increasing.

    Of course, that’s ALMOST everything, The prices of some things are going to plummet, which may seem good for many of us initially. But for businesses that rely on being able to export their goods, they could face utter devastation.

    Take, for example, the farmers. 2.5 BILLION pounds of meat are taking up space in cold storage right now, and the pile just keeps growing as exports slow down due to the trade war.

    U.S. consumers’ demand is increasing, but not at levels that are in pace with record production of chickens and hogs. The excess supply is generally exported to Mexico and China—among the biggest foreign buyers of U.S. meat — have both recently slapped tariffs on U.S. hog productsin response to President Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other items. Industry officials told the WSJ that U.S. hams, chops and livers have become more expensive in international markets, coupled with a strong dollar weighing on local currencies, which has dramatically reduced demand for U.S. meats.

    America’s meat industry production is rapidly filling up the specialized warehouses built to store meat…

    …Thanks to President Trump, Canada implemented a 10 percent retaliatory tariff on U.S. beef starting July 01, and China increased its tax on U.S. beef to 37 percent on July 06. Mexico, the largest export market for U.S. pork, in June ordered a 10 percent tariff that soared to 20 percent this month. The USDA indicated that overall exports to Mexico are slightly higher than 2017, however, new weekly export data reported for the week of July 05 came in at their lowest levels in more than a year…

    …Scott VanderWal, a farmer from South Dakota, said the uncertainty of a trade war disrupts entire supply chains and will be chaotic to rural America:

    “We’ve got a decreasing population in our rural areas already. If we lose any more population in the state in these rural areas, not only does it make the young farmers and ranchers leave, or the retiring or about to retire people…it also takes out the people who supply those farmers and ranchers. The feed store, the fertilizer people, those that supply the things that we need to raise the products that we do. It has a tremendously long tail.”

    Rapidly increasing meat stockpiles could force prices into a continued downward trend, which could be beneficial for meat-hungry U.S. consumers, along with restaurants and food retailers. While what is good for the consumer is usually bad for businesses, deflationary prices are quickly eroding margins for meat processors. (source)

    Weather conditions are dealing another blow to farmers.

    Nobody in the Western half of the United States can deny that this summer has been hot, dry, and miserable. The conditions are terrible for farmers and Michael Snyder of the Economic Collapse Blog has made an alarming comparison to the current heat and drought.

    Despite all of the other crazy news that is happening all around the world, the top headlines on Drudge on Monday evening were all about the record heatwave that is currently pummeling the Southwest.  Of course it is always hot during the summer, but the strange weather that we have been witnessing in recent months is unlike anything that we have seen since the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s.  At this moment, almost the entire Southwest is in some stage of drought.  Agricultural production has been absolutely devastated, major lakes, rivers and streams are rapidly becoming bone dry, and wild horses are dropping dead because they don’t have any water to drink.  In addition, we are starting to see enormous dust storms strike major cities such as Las Vegas and Phoenix, and the extremely dry conditions have already made this one of the worst years for wildfires in U.S. history.  What we are facing is not “apocalyptic” quite yet, but it will be soon if the rain doesn’t start falling. (source)

    If you recall the Dust Bowl era from history class, you may recall that similar weather conditions to the ones we’re seeing now worsened the Great Depression exponentially.

    It occurred due to a combination of ill-conceived ideas and drought conditions.

    The Homestead Act of 1862, which provided settlers with 160 acres of public land, was followed by the Kinkaid Act of 1904 and the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909. These acts led to a massive influx of new and inexperienced farmers across the Great Plains…

    …A series of wet years during the period created further misunderstanding of the region’s ecology and led to the intensive cultivation of increasingly marginal lands that couldn’t be reached by irrigation.

    Rising wheat prices in the 1910s and 1920s and increased demand for wheat from Europe during World War I encouraged farmers to plow up millions of acres of native grassland to plant wheat, corn and other row crops. But as the United States entered the Great Depression, wheat prices plummeted. Farmers tore up even more grassland in an attempt to harvest a bumper crop and break even.

    Crops began to fail with the onset of drought in 1931, exposing the bare, over-plowed farmland. Without deep-rooted prairie grasses to hold the soil in place, it began to blow away. Eroding soil led to massive dust storms and economic devastation—especially in the Southern Plains. (source)

    The dust storms became so bad that they traveled 2000 miles – as far as New York City and Washington DC. On one particularly notable occasion, the Statue of Liberty could not be seen because of the dust. Another dust storm was so bad that it was called Black Sunday, and on that day an estimated three million tons of topsoil were blown off the Great Plains.

    Just last month, it’s important to note that commuters in Arizona faced down a mile-high wall of dust that was so bad that the National Weather Service in Phoenix warned of “near-zero visibilities” and “life-threatening travel.” Drought conditions, wildfires, and extreme heat have put a massive strain on the power grid in the Southwest.

    These conditions could be troubling for farmers and ranchers.  California produces a tremendous amount of the food grown in the United States and the Midwest and Southwest are studded with farms and ranches. Again, we could be looking at a massive increase in prices as shortages arise due to weather conditions. This is a shortage that would normally be overcome by importing the foods, but wait – since there’s a trade war, you can expect those imports to have an extra 25% cost slapped on them. Look out, economy.

    None of these things alone would be enough to collapse the economy, but together, they’re a perfect storm.

    Each of these events could affect a sector of the US economy on their own but they wouldn’t be enough to cause an economic catastrophe. But all together? It’s a perfect storm. A worrisome picture is starting to form. An inverted yield curve in interest rates has accurately been a predictor of an economic recession 7 times since the 1960s, and we are currently flatlined.

    I know that bloggers have been predicting an economic crisis in America for years now, so much so that some readers scoff.

    But it has been edging along this whole time The indicators are all there.

    It would be difficult to deny that a perfect storm is brewing.

  • What Everyone Seemed To Ignore In Helsinki

    Authored by Jon Basil Utley via The American Conservative,

    We continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.

    Sifting through the cacophony of commentary from the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki, here are four key points missed, ignored or glossed over by the Washington establishment and mainstream news coverage – and they require a good airing.

    They are:

    1) It’s clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But Big Media totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so much on NATO in the first place?

    Are we planning a ground attack on Russia because we really think the former Soviet Empire will invade Poland or the Baltic nations? Are we planning for a land war in Europe to intervene in the Ukraine? What for is the money? The Trump administration and Big Media, for all their noise, mainly argue that more spending is good. There is no debate about the reasons why. Meanwhile Russia is cutting its military spending.

    Washington is so dominated by our military-industrial-congressional complex that spending money is a major intent. Remember when Washington first insisted that putting up an anti-missile system in Poland and Romania was supposed to protect Europe from an Iranian attack? Of course, it was really directed against Russia. Washington was so eager to spend the money that it didn’t even ask the Europeans to pay the cost even though it was supposedly for their defense. As of 2016 Washington had spent $800 millionon the site in Romania. Now it appears that Poland and Romania will pay billions to the Raytheon Corporation for the shield to comply with their commitment to increase military spending to 2 percent of gross national product.

    2) There was no focus on the real, growing threat of nuclear war, intentional or accidental. No one, including journalists at the joint press conference, spoke about the collapsing missile treaties (the only one who reportedly seemed keen to discuss it was ejected beforehand). Scott Ritter details these alarming risks here on TAC.

    The U.S. is now funding new cruise missiles with nukes which allow for a surprise attack on Russia with only a few minutes of warning, unlike the ICBMs which launch gives a half an hour or more. This was the reason Russia opposed the anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, because they could have little warning if cruise missiles were fired from the new bases. Americans may think that we don’t start wars, but the Russians don’t. The old shill argument that democracies don’t start wars is belied by American attacks on Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen.

    3) For all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to Putin, he gave Putin nothing. His administration is still maintaining an increasingly stringent economic attack on Russian trade and banking, announcing (just days after his meeting) $200 million of new aid to Ukraine’s military and threatening Europeans with sanctions if they go ahead with a new Baltic pipeline to import Russian natural gas. Consequently, some analysts believe that Putin has given up on wanting better relations with the U.S. and instead is just trying to weaken and discredit America’s overwhelming power in the world. In a similar vein Rand Paul writes how we never think about other nations’ interests.

    4) The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians’ intervention in the last election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the “Deep State” in dominating American foreign policy. An article by Bruce Fein in TAC argues we should “Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show With Russia,” showing how Washington wants to keep Russia as an enemy because it’s good for business.

    Furthermore, releasing the accusations and indictments via a press already out for Trump’s blood is explained away by pointing out that the special prosecutor has separate authority to that of the president. But the timing, a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows intent to cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia. It’s interesting to note that TAC has been criticizing the “Deep State” since at least 2015.

    The casualness with which much of Washington regards conflict and starting wars is only comparable to the thoughtlessness of Europeans when they started World War I. Like now, that war followed nearly a century of relative peace and prosperity. Both sides thought a war would be “easy” and over quickly and were engulfed in it because of minor incidents instigated by their small nation allies. It was started with a single assassination in Serbia. The situation is similar now. America is hostage to the actions of a host of tiny countries possibly starting a war. Think of our NATO obligations and promises to Taiwan and Israel.

    America has become inured to the risks of escalation and Congress has ceded its war powers to the president. The authority of war power was one of the most important tenets of our Constitution, designed to prevent our rulers from irresponsibly launching conflicts like the European kings. Witness now how casually Trump talks about starting a war with Iran, with no thought of possible consequences, including blowing up oil facilities in the Persian Gulf, oil and gas vital for the world economy.

    For most Americans, war means sitting in front of their TVs watching the bombs fall on small nations unable to resist or respond to our power. “We” kill thousands of “them” in easy battles and then worry if a single American soldier is harmed. We don’t viscerally understand the full threat of modern weapons because they’ve never been used against us. This is not unlike World War I, for which the countries engaged were wholly unprepared for a protracted siege war against the lethality of new modern artillery and chemical weapons. All had assumed the war would be over in weeks. I wrote about these issues after visiting the battlefields of the Crimean war. (See “Lessons in Empire”)

    And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.

  • Meet Your New Self-Driving Chauffeur To Walmart

    Alphabet Inc’s Waymo, an autonomous car company, could have just unlocked a rather displeasing future for the heavily indebted consumer, one where corporate America uses self-driving vehicles to herd the bottom 90 percent to brick and mortar retail stores.

    In fact, this is now a reality, as Waymo and Walmart have launched a pilot program to ferry customers back and forth from home to Walmart’s store in Phoenix, Arizona, the company blog said on Wednesday.

    Tom Ward, Vice President – Digital Operations of Walmart U.S., said, “We’re working with them on an online grocery pilot project – limited to a group within Waymo’s 400 daily users known as “early riders”– that will run out of one Walmart store in Chandler, Arizona.”

    “Those in the pilot simply place an Online Grocery Pickup order at walmart.com/grocery. Our personal shoppers get to work meticulously picking customers’ orders based on their pickup times. Waymo does the rest! They transport customers to and from pickup, and all the while, those customers can text, nap, work… you name it!” explained Ward.

    It is almost like herding cattle! Maybe this novel idea could save crumbling brick and mortar stores?

    According to Reuters, Waymo also partnered with DDR Corp., a real estate investment trust that owns shopping centers, offering customers self-driving vehicles to and from the Ahwatukee Foothills Towne Center in Chandler, Arizona.

    Additionally, the company will give patrons of AutoNation repair centers self-driving vehicles while their cars are being serviced, along with assisting customers at Avis Budget in Phoenix to pick up or drop off rental cars.

    While technology has certainly made it easier for consumers to shop online [Amazon], Walmart and other competitors have been developing self-driving vehicles for home deliveries. However, the Waymo and Walmart partnership is an entirely new concept to lure customers away from Amazon and divert them to collapsing brick and mortar with autonomous vehicles. “These businesses are national and what we learn from these programs will give us a network of partners when we launch in new cities down the road,” the Walmart blog said.

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

    Back in March, Waymo made a massive deal with Jaguar Land Rover for 20,000 self-driving all-electric I-Pace SUVs. A short time later, the company worked out an even larger deal with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles for 62,000 Pacifica Hybrid minivans. The first prototype I-Pace self-driving Waymo is expected to be delivered by the end of 2018, and if the pilot run is a success, it could become part of Waymo’s commercial ride-hailing service starting in 2020.

    Autonomous cars have gained much attention in 2018. Waymo vehicles have been involved in numerous crashes since the Phoenix-area pilot program launched in the first half of 2017, but law enforcement has determined all accidents were human-error. In March, a “software bug” in an autonomous Uber vehicle killed a 49-year-old woman in Tempe, Arizona.

    WALL-E gives an accurate portrayal of what corporate America has in store for the heavily indebted bottom 90 percent. Instead of consumers being whisked around on floating chairs to retail stores on a futuristic spaceship, it seems as today’s equivalent technology are Waymo’s self-driving cars ferrying back and forth to consumers home.

  • The Wealthy Elitists Plan To Survive The Apocalypse And Leave Us Behind

    Authored by Mac Slavo cia SHTFplan.com,

    Silicon Valley’s wealthy elitists are preparing for the apocalypse, and their plans for survival don’t include us. When the time comes, those same elitists plan to only save themselves.

    According to an article written by Douglas Rushkoff published originally in Medium, those hedge fund bankers are all preparing for a major apocalyptic event, which they actually dub “The Event.” Whether “the event” is to be artificial intelligence reaching singularity or a virus that brings about a major death toll, they wanted to be prepared, and they asked Rushkoff to fill them in. The elitists asked such questions as:

    Which region will be less affected by the coming climate crisis: New Zealand or Alaska? Is Google really building Ray Kurzweil a home for his brain, and will his consciousness live through the transition, or will it die and be reborn as a whole new one?

    Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system and asked: “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the Event?”

    This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? 

    The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers — if that technology could be developed in time. –Medium

    This sounds like a dystopia of humanity’s own making. And it also sounds like we should all be preparing. If the wealthiest billionaires are discussing literal slavery in the aftermath of the apocalypse, shouldn’t we all be preparing to defend ourselves from such a fate? We already know our current master, the government, has no plans for any of us to survive. They do, however, have massive bunkers that can withstand nuclear wars built into the sides of mountains that are ready to use at any time.

  • Putin's Football Gift To Trump was Indeed Bugged, But There Is A Catch…

    Confirming every establishment conspiracy, the soccer ball that Russian President Putin gifted to President Trump during their Helsinki press conference has been found to contain special transmitting technology…

    Republican Senator Lindsey Graham even tweeted, “I’d check the soccer ball for listening devices and never allow it in the White House.”

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

    So was Graham’s ultra-Russophobic paranoia proved correct?

    Not exactly!

    While some in the US thought they had uncovered an ingenious and nefarious ploy by the Kremlin to listen in on Trump’s conversations – seemingly oblivious to the president’s prolific and voluminous output on Twitter – RT notes that the tech is simply a feature of any old ball you can pick up in your local store.

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

    As Bloomberg details, markings on the ball indicate that it contained a chip with a tiny antenna that transmits to nearby phones.

    But rather than a spy device, the chip is an advertised feature of the Adidas AG ball.

    Photographs from the news conference in Helsinki, where Putin handed the ball to Trump, show it bore a logo for a near-field communication tag. During manufacturing, the NFC chip is placed inside the ball under that logo, which resembles the icon for a WiFi signal, according to the Adidas website.

    The chip allows fans to access player videos, competitions and other content by bringing their mobile devices close to the ball.

    There is no suggestion that such balls or their chips have any security vulnerabilities. The chip itself can’t be modified, according to the product description on the Adidas website. “It is not possible to delete or rewrite the encoded parameters,” it says.

    Additionally, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in an email:

    “The security screening process that is done for all gifts was done for the soccer ball...We are not going to comment further on security procedures.”

    The White House declined to say whether any modifications to the ball had been identified or where the ball would be kept going forward.

    Nevertheless, there is always the possibility that Putin pushed for The World Cup to come to Russia and forced Adidas to embed the chip in their balls just so that he could spy on the US President’s dribbling ability… we are sure Adam Schiff is ready a probe into just that possibility (remember, Putin is former KGB).

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 26

Today’s News 26th July 2018

  • Russia Unveils 20-Ton Sixth Generation Drone Fighter

    Russian defense industry sources have recently unveiled a massive, 20-ton stealth drone fighter to be flight-tested later this year — will be the prototype for their sixth-generation jet, according to TASS, a Russian state-owned media outlet.

    According to the defense official, the sixth generation jet program “has not yet taken full shape, its main features are already known.”

    “First of all, it should be unmanned and capable of performing any combat task in an autonomous regime. In this sense, the stealth drone will become the prototype of the sixth generation fighter jet,’ the source said, adding that the drone will be able to “take off, fulfill its objectives and return to the airfield.”

    “However, it will not receive the function of decision-making regarding the use of weapons – this will be decided by a human,” he said.

    TASS notes, in the report, that they were not able to officially confirm the information provided by the defense official.

    Another defense expert told TASS that the single-engine Okhotnik (“Hunter” in Russian) stealth drone has a top speed of roughly 621 mph (.809 Mach), and would start flight tests in the second half of this year.

    “The Russian Defense Ministry and the Sukhoi Company signed a contract for developing the 20-ton Okhotnik (Hunter) heavy unmanned strike aircraft in 2011. The drone’s mock-up model was made in 2014. According to unconfirmed reports, composite materials and anti-radar coating were used to create the Okhotnik. The drone is equipped with a reaction-jet propulsion and is supposed to develop a speed of 1000 kilometers per hour,” said TASS.

    Earlier this month, Popular Mechanics published a picture of the Okhotnik, which was posted on a Russian aviation forum called paralay.iboards.ru.

    On Tuesday, Defense One published another alleged picture of the Okhotnik aircraft.

    Here is another photo of the stealth drone circulating defense forums.

    Sam Bendett, a researcher at the CNA Corporation and a member of CNA’s Center for Autonomy and AI, told Defense One, “Sounds like Russia wants everything to be included into the new design at once. In reality, they will probably have to compromise, selecting more realistic qualifications for the new aircraft. Most importantly, this will be an expensive endeavor, further pushing Russian designers and the Ministry of Defense to be more selective in approving the final aircraft specs. However, some qualifications, like optional manning, autonomy and some form of artificial intelligence will probably be included.”

    Bottom line, said Bendett: “Ohotnik is barely flying yet and some time will pass before it becomes an operational variant. Nonetheless, this unmanned aerial vehicle and Russia’s future combat aircraft plans offer a glimpse into Moscow’s thoughts on future warfare.”

    Defense One notes that Russia’s new stealth jet could include radio-photon radar, anti-radar skin, directed energy and electromagnetic weapons, and have the ability to store missiles and precision-guided bombs internally.

    While Russia appears to be building a sixth-generation aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-57, a twin-engine multirole fifth-generation jet fighter, has recently tested some sixth-generation systems, including the radio-photonic radar.

    At this point, you are starting to develop the critical knowledge of how the next round of hybrid wars, expected to start in the mid-2020s will be fought.

    * * *

    As shown in the 53.5 Year War Cycle, there is an increasing probability that from now until the mid-2020s, domestic and international unrest remains elevated.

  • They Knew Too Much

    Via Oriental Review,

    The countries of the West used Israel to evacuate members of the White Helmets from southern Syria.  They couldn’t be allowed to fall into the hands of the Syrian government  – at least, not while they are still alive.

    Essential human-rights defenders

    Damascus is almost finished liberating southwestern Syria. The military’s Operation Basalt was extremely successful, allowing them to regain control of the occupied provinces of Quneitra and Daraa(at present the Syrian army has only a small chunk of land left to liberate from the jihadists).  Many of the local gangs simply surrendered. Those militants who wanted to remain underwent a procedure of reconciliation with the authorities, while the others were put onto green buses and sent to Idlib.

    However, those militants included some very valuable specimens — members of the “Syrian civil defense”, or, as they are more simply known, “the ​​White Helmets.”

    If they were taken prisoner, that would be a serious problem for the US and its allies, since the members of that organization might have a lot to say once they were in front of the cameras. And the damage caused by their statements would be far worse than the fallout over the admissions made by Hassan Diab — the boy the “helmets” named as a victim of a chemical attack in Douma, who admitted that the attack had been staged for the photographers. And it would be so much worse, simply because the White Helmets — or at least their leaders — knew so much more.

    This is not Aleppo, Syria, but rather the streets of Europe where a “save Aleppo” protest was staged. Actors posing in fake dust and blood proved just how easy it is for anyone to create “war victims” anytime, anywhere.

    The White Helmets have been the West’s most important weapon on the propaganda front of the Syrian war. They have acted as the local human-rights activists who have been snapping photos and shooting videos about the “chemical attacks” that that “bloody tyrant” has carried out against his own people. And based on precisely these facts, the US and its partners imposed sanctions against Damascus and have carried out acts of revenge in the form of attacks that would have been nothing less than carpet bombing, had Moscow not been careful to issue stern warnings about the consequences of these attacks.

    They’ve gotten out of hand

    The Syrian authorities, as well as Moscow, Tehran, and anyone else who gives it a minute’s thought, have naturally cautioned that this data is unreliable and that the White Helmets are, in fact, a PR service for terrorists, whose members chop off their captives’ heads once they take off those helmets, just as their un-helmeted counterparts do. And in order to rein in any growing doubts, the West began to create an image for the White Helmets as heroes without fear and above reproach — as fighters for human rights, who rescue ordinary Syrians from the rubble that was created when Assad’s troops bombed peaceful villages.

    According to the official legend, the White Helmets have saved a total of 80,000 lives since 2012 -and some of them right in front of the cameras, after which the “seriously wounded” then stood up and ran somewhere else so they could be heroically saved again. A movie about them even won an Oscar. This means that no decent, upright person (including experts from the OPCW) should harbor any doubts that those pictures — taken from mobile phones somewhere or other, filming something or other — delivered to them by the White Helmets are anything other than real evidence of chemical attacks by Assad.

    Over time, relations between Americans and the Helmets have deteriorated — in part because the new White House administration understood the futility of the Syrian front in the battle against Iran and did not want to get entangled in it. Fulfilling the orders of those who were, in contrast, interested in sucking the US further in, the Helmets staged more and more fake stories, trying to drag Trump into the war, which was the only chance the anti-Assad resistance had for victory. It was no surprise that the United States first stopped funding the organization, and then, when the progressive-minded public was outraged by this infringement of the rights of the heroes of the fight against that bloody tyrant, Washington agreed to allocate several million dollars anyway, so that the “heroes” could keep working until the end of the year. However, Washington was not ready to leave them in the lurch — those people know too much, and must not end up in Bashar al-Assad’s hands.

    Let’s kill guys

    In fact, a few other options did exist. For example, they could order a few killings and then claim those snipers had been employed by that “bloody tyrant,” who had apparently decided to take revenge on the Syrian heroes for exposing his crimes. That would be both cheaper and safer. But there were two problems with that. First of all, there were hundreds of people involved. Someone might dodge a bullet and scamper off to Assad. Second, pulling that tool out of their kit would damage their reputation – other potential tools in other conflicts would simply be too afraid to work with them in the future. To paraphrase Roosevelt, “They might be bastards, but they’re our bastards.”

    Members of the Syrian White Helmets and their families are evacuated out of southern Syria by Israel, in an exceptional humanitarian operation overnight on July 22, 2018

    And this is exactly why the West decided to pull the White Helmets out of southwestern Syria anyway. And they had to be pulled out as quickly as possible — the Syrians had taken control of the Jordanian border, and the “PR reps” were trapped on a small strip of land along the Golan Heights. And according to Benjamin Netanyahu, it was faced with this situation that US President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked him to arrange the evacuation of the White Helmets and their family members, since “the people who saved lives were now under life-threatening danger.”  The Israelis first brought them into their own country, before turning them over to the Jordanians.

    A total of 422 people (the White Helmets and the members of their families) were pulled out, according to official figures.  Now they are being held in a secret shelter inside Jordan, and in three months they will be resettled in Britain, Canada, and Germany. Far from the cameras. And since the data on their subsequent whereabouts will be strictly classified, no one will be able to stop the West from quietly killing off the most important and most dangerous of them. Just to be on the safe side.

  • US Army Secretary: Army Building Next-Gen Weapons To Counter Russia And China

    The US Army has begun to develop and field next-generation weapon systems – like autonomous killer robots, fifth-generation fighters, hypersonic technologies, laser cannons, rail guns, new squad automatic rifles, and quantum computers – in order to contend with its top rivals [Russia and China] on the modern battlefield across multiple domains—space, cyberspace, air, land, maritime, before the next round of hybrid wars break out around 2025 to 2040 timeframe.

    During the Aspen Security Forum, which took place from July 18 to 21, Army Secretary Mark Esper spoke about the new Austin-based “Futures Command” as “the biggest organizational change since 1973” when the Army established Force Command and Training and Doctrine Command to counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

    Almost half a century later, the purpose of adding a new command [Futures Command] is to maintain America’s empire of 800 military bases around the globe, along with countering new economic systems [Belt and Road Initiative and Maritime Silk Road] that Russia and China are attempting to bring online.

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

    “It is important to note that the National Defense Strategy released earlier this year tells us that we need to be prepared for a high-intensity conflict and that we should consider strategic competitors such as China and Russia as those against us”, said Esper, emphasizing that the military is “ready for any kind of threat today”.

    “In the meantime, as we implement our vision, we want to make sure that in a number of areas we can ensure that we are superior in different areas to ensure that we are able to deal with Russia, and eventually with China over this longer period,” he added.

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

    Since the September 11 attacks, the Army has concentrated on fighting insurgents across the Middle East. To pay for the warfighting, military planners cut funding for next-generation weapon programs to fund the trillions of dollars needed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    But with the Pentagon withdrawing forces from Afghanistan, the Army is pivoting back to another Cold-War style era against Russia, and now China.

    Esper said the Army plans on replacing weapons that have been in service since the 1980s, with replacements sought for aircraft, tanks, Paladin artillery systems, and M4 carbine/ M249 light machine guns.

    Esper told the audience to expect next-generation weapons deployed in the near term, including semi-autonomous robots that can scout the battlefield for soldiers, killing enemies without risking American lives.

    “As we think about future challenges and future threats we see an immediate near-term, what’s right in front of us, of course, is North Korea, over the five to 15-year period, we see Russia as our pacing threat, if you will, so we look to them in terms of their formations, their tactics, their equipment, those things that they would bring to bear against us, but the long-term threat is clearly China,” Esper said.

    “This is the strategic competitor we aim for, because the country’s economic power, size, ambitions, all these things are our focus, and why the National Defense Strategy calls us to focus on the People’s Republic as a longer-term, bigger threat,” he added.

    To counteract this, Esper said the Army is accelerating the development and acquisition of new emerging technologies. With Futures Command, he said the Army’s modernization efforts have been centralized and focuses on priorities such as long-range hypersonic missiles, laser weapon systems, robots, artificial intelligence, and new light machine guns.

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

    Esper also talks about multi-domain warfare, which he describes as air, land, sea, cyber, outer space, and across the electronic warfare spectrum. He said the Army needs to have “capabilities” across all those domains for future battle.

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

    Esper concluded and said it is a race America cannot afford to lose.

    “Whoever gets there first will have unmatched lethality on the battlefield for years to come,” Esper said.

    Considering Russia and China are, in fact, years ahead of the US hypersonic program, one can only hope that this time around – America is not the loser. 

  • Escobar: "Tweet Of Mass Destruction" Ratchets Up Tension On Iran

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    The Trump administration’s ultimate goal is regime change in Tehran, but was this just a distraction from the ‘treason’ in Helsinki as US Mid-Term elections loom? Or did he just want to destabilize the Eurasian giants and their New Silk Roads?

    President Trump’s late-night, all-caps Tweet of Mass Destruction threatening Iran is bound to be enshrined in the Art of Diplomacy annals.

    But let’s go back to how this all started. After unilaterally pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, the Trump administration has issued what amounts to a declaration of economic war on Iran and will go no holds barred to squeeze the Islamic Republic out of the global oil market – complete with threatening allies in Europe with secondary sanctions, unless they cut all imports of Iranian oil by November 4.

    This past weekend, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said he would support blocking all Middle East oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz if Iran’s European trade partners succumb to pressure from Washington and stop buying Iranian oil altogether.

    Then President Hassan Rouhani followed Khamenei and warned the US about “playing with the lion’s tail.”

    Rouhani, as his record attests, has always behaved as the epitome of cool diplomacy. Contrary to predictable US media spin, he never “threatened” to attack the US. His premise was that Tehran was pleased to offer Washington the “mother of all peace.” But if Trump instead decided to attack Iran, then (italics mine) that would open the way to the Mother of all Wars.

    Ultimate goal: Regime change

    The fact remains that the Trump administration ditched a UN-sponsored multilateral treaty and has now launched serious covert ops with the ultimate goal of regime change in Iran.

    Trump’s explosion of rage, coupled with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s touting of the interests of “the long-ignored voice of the Iranian people” has been met with derision and scorn all across Iran.

    Geopolitically, Russia-Iran relations remain extremely solid, as shown by the recent meeting between President Putin and Khamenei’s top foreign policy adviser Ali Akbar Velayati. As Professor Mohammad Marandi at the University of Tehran told me: “The Putin-Velayati meeting went very well. Velayati plans to go to Beijing in a few weeks. People in Iran hate Trump, and all political parties and factions have become much more united. Rouhani’s speech was widely watched and very well received.”

    Khamenei and Rouhani are on the same page – and that’s very significant in itself. They now agree any negotiation with Washington is futile. Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif provided the coup de grace, tweeting that Iran had lasted millennia and had seen many empires fall. He wrapped up with an all-caps Trumpism: “BE CAUTIOUS!”

    The whole soap opera is ridden with pathetic overtones as US “experts” posing as extras digress that there are only two outcomes left for Iran: capitulation or implosion of the “regime”.

    Anyone claiming Tehran will capitulate shows an utter ignorance of the overall mood of defiance and scorn among the Iranian people, even as they are faced with massive economic hardship. And anyone stating there will be regime change in Tehran basically parrots a US “policy” that is just wishful thinking.

    The US neo-conservatives that brought the world the failed, multi-trillion-dollar Iraq war should have been buried not six feet, but six miles under. Yet, like the Walking Dead, they will never give up.

    But, in the Middle East, at the moment there are three characters who are singin’ and dancin’ like everything is going according to plan: Saudi Arabia’s Mohamed Bin Salman (MBS), his mentor, the United Arab Emirates’ Mohamed bin Zayed, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Surely they are not heeding the expert advice of former Mossad head Meir Dagan, who stated that a military attack on Iran was “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”

    Deliberate distraction?

    It’s always possible that Trump’s all-caps spectacular may be a ruse to distract Americans from the Helsinki “treason” scandal. That gets traction when associated to the looming mid-term elections and Trump’s absolute need to sound tough and keep the Republicans in line. Call it a brilliant Trump strategic maneuver. Or was it Putin’s?

    Back to reality, the stark options would come down to either Iran becoming a US satellite or closing the Strait of Hormuz – something that for all practical purposes would collapse the global economy.

    I have been assured that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has the technological means to block the Strait and would not flinch to go for it rather than yield, if the going gets tough. President Rouhani cannot resist the IRGC. The Trump administration has, in fact, forced Rouhani to show his cards. All branches of the Iranian government are now united.

    War hysteria, already on, is extremely irresponsible. In the worst Strait of Hormuz scenario, the US Navy would be impotent, as Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn missiles could wreak havoc. Washington could only bomb from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar or Incirlik in Turkey. Neither Qatar nor Turkey is inclined to antagonize Iran.

    The Pentagon would have to bomb coastal missile sites on Iran’s Persian Gulf shoreline. But these are heavily camouflaged; missiles are portable, and there’s no reliable on the ground intel. Iran only needs to fire one missile at a time. No oil tanker would possibly try to get through.

    Things don’t even need to degrade towards a shooting war. All Tehran needs to do is to make the threat credible. Insurance companies would stop insuring oil carriers. No oil carrier will navigate without insurance.

    Breaking Russia-China-Iran

    The geopolitical game is even more complex. Velayati was in Moscow only a few days before Helsinki. Diplomatic sources say Iran and Russia are in synch – and closely coordinating policy. If the current strategy of tension persists, it raises the price of oil, which is good for both Russia and Iran.

    And then there’s China. A tsunami of sanctions or not, Beijing is more likely to increase oil imports from Iran. “Experts” who claim that Iran is becoming a pawn of Russia and China are hopelessly myopic. Russia, China and Iran are already firmly aligned.

    Short of war, the Trump administration’s top priority is disruption of the New Silk Roads – the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – between China and Europe. And the key economic connectivity corridor goes across Iran.

    The fundamental “enemy” is China. But to make any divide-and-rule plan work, first, there’s got to be an attempt to lure Russia into some sort of entente cordiale. And in parallel, Persian destabilization is a must. After all, that’s what the Cheney regime used to describe as “the great prize”.

  • Radioactive Cesium-137 From Fukushima Found In California Wine

    Following the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan – which left Japanese residents contending with toxic water and radioactive wild boars, World Health Organization (WHO) officials said that particles of radioactive fallout which made its way to the Western United States and elsewhere was no biggie and didn’t pose a health risk.

    California wine lovers will get to test that theory, after researchers at the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) discovered cesium-137 in several golden-state vintages. The researchers tested 18 bottles of California rosé and cabernet sauvignon from 2009 onward – finding increased levels of the radioactive isotope in bottles produced after the Fukushima disaster. The cabernets had double the radiation of the other wine, according to the study. 

    “We can measure some radioactive level that is much higher than the usual level,” said Michael Pravikoff, a physicist at a French research center who worked on the study.

    The French research team has in recent years examined wines from around the world, trying to correlate the level of radioactive material with the date the wine grapes were picked.

    Wines made around major nuclear events, including American and Soviet nuclear tests during the Cold War and the Chernobyl accident, should show higher levels of radioactive isotopes, called cesium-137, according to the researchers. The man-made isotope cannot be found in nature and would be present only at certain levels after the nuclear events. –NYT

    While ingesting cesium-137 elevates one’s risk of cancer, the radioactive particles found in California wine “are not seen as a health hazard” according to Pravikoff, who said: “These levels are so low, way below the natural radioactivity that’s everywhere in the world.” 

    The California Department of Public Health said Friday that it had not previously heard of the study, but that there were no “health and safety concerns to California residents.”

    “This report does not change that,” a department spokesman, Corey Egel, said in an emailed statement.

    Mr. Pravikoff said the California bottles had radioactive levels so low that the researchers had to use a special technique to measure them: burning the wine to ashes.

    In other cases, where radiation is higher, the team’s equipment can measure the radiation through the glass of the wine bottle, so the bottle does not have to be opened. –NYT

    In 2016, AP reported that “Radiation from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster detected on Oregon shores,” however officials claimed that the samples from Tillamook Bay and Gold Beach were “at extremely low levels not harmful to humans.” 

    That said, as Whitney Webb of TrueActivist noted at the time, Even if we can’t see the radiation itself, some parts of North America’s western coast have been feeling the effects for years. Not long after Fukushima, fish in Canada began bleeding from their gills, mouths, and eyeballs. This “disease” has been ignored by the government and has decimated native fish populations, including the North Pacific herring. Elsewhere in Western Canada, independent scientists have measured a 300% increase in the level of radiation. According to them, the amount of radiation in the Pacific Ocean is increasing every year. Why is this being ignored by the mainstream media? It might have something to do with the fact that the US and Canadian governments have banned their citizens from talking about Fukushima so “people don’t panic.”

    Also in 2016, Japanese officials admitted there was a cover-up, and there was a concerted effort to downplay the significance of the reactor meltdowns. 

    Multiple reactors at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant menlted down after 50-foot a tsunami wave crashed through barriers and knocked out the reactors’ backup generators. The disaster spewed radioactive fallout into the air and water – sickening the crew of the nearby USS Ronald Reagan as they provided support.

    And while the sailors were undoubtedly exposed to concentrated doses of radioactive isotopes that are nowhere near the levels which have been found along the West Coast – and now in California wine, it is premature – and perhaps highly irresponsible, for officials to claim that such small doses will have no effect, as radiation exposure is cumulative and the Fukushima disaster was an unprecedented event due to its massive release of radioactivity into the Pacific Ocean. 

  • The Greedy Little Nation That Sold Its Soul For House Prices

    Via MacroBusiness.com.au,

    There was a time when Australia’s housing bubble was not much more than a curiosity. Contained mostly to Sydney it seemed it would pass with a little pop and be forgotten.

    Then there was a time when the bubble went national. And suddenly the little pop was going to be a big pop so monetary and fiscal policy began to distort in support of it.

    Next there was a time when moral hazard became so great that the bubble grew to engulf all policy and media, marginalising an entire generation from home ownership. Politicians routinely lied to cover the collapse in evidence based policy-making.

    Finally, we come to today. When notions of managing the macro-economic levers of an economy now boil down to just one thing:

    • low interest rates to prevent the housing bubble bursting;

    • fiscal repair to prevent the bubble bursting, and

    • mass immigration to prevent the bubble bursting even though it is crushing living standards and gutting wages.

    This classic slippery slope upon which one bad policy choice cannoned directly into the next is not over.

    Three ridiculous further steps are being mulled that will ensure the complete selling of the nation’s soul in a vain attempt to save house prices.

    The first is captured by Anthony Bubalo of the Lowy Institute:

    Not long ago I listened to four Australians of Chinese heritage speak at the Lowy Institute about the impact on their communities of the foreign interference question. Some of the issues they raised were similar to those articulated by Muslim Australians when they talked about the effect of terrorism on their relationship with broader society.

    …The government is certainly seized of this challenge. New legislation has been passed and a new position, the National Counter Foreign Interference Coordinator, has been created in the Department of Home Affairs, similar to the longer-standing position of Commonwealth Counter-Terrorism Coordinator.

    But alongside these measures the government will also need to protect the bonds in our society that allow people and communities to cooperate and trust each other despite cultural, ethnic, religious, or ideological differences.

    …Some lessons are obvious, such as the importance of precise language. In the same way that it is vital to distinguish between the ideas of Islamist extremists and those of the Islamic mainstream, we must avoid using the the word “Chinese” in relation to foreign interference to ensure we are not conflating the CCP with Chinese Australians.

    Feel good drivel aside, the only response that will work to prevent the spread of influence within said community from corrupting the wider democracy is to cap its numbers. There is no need at all for discrimination. That is anathema in a modern multicultural nation. We should simply slash the permanent migrant intake in total. Problem solved.

    Literally, the only thing standing in the way? House prices.

    The second slippery slope we find ourselves on is the responses being mulled to collapsed wages. This time from Peter Hartcher:

    There is a case to update and improve the current enterprise bargaining system, but it needs to done intelligently. Inflexible new industry standards could be disastrous.

    The McManus ACTU also demands the scrapping of the current practice of secret worker ballots before a union can call a legal strike, and banning outright any enterprise agreements that are agreed without a union.

    So Aldi supermarkets, for example, a generous employer that offers pay and conditions above and beyond the rest of the industry, resists any union involvement in its workplace negotiations. On the McManus agenda, Aldi would be obliged to deal with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Union. This union commonly negotiates lower pay for workers so long as the employer eases the way for its workers to join the union.

    How can the ACTU endorse these policies while at the same time being in favour of the very mass immigration program that has destroyed industrial relations standards? Easy, house prices. The CFMMMEU now runs the ACTU and it wants more building for its members. In classic building site style, everyone else can fuck off.

    Finally, we have the Coalition musing on a new immigration management brain fart, migrant tag and release in the bush:

    A new population policy that could produce sweeping changes to keep new migrants in regional Australia and improve the co-­ordination of infrastructure development to take account of growth trends is being developed by the Turnbull government.

    The policy, slated to be released later this year, comes amid increasing backbench pressure for a firmer and more clearly articulated immigration policy, with MPs citing concerns in key Sydney and Melbourne electorates about the impact of population growth on quality of life.

    Totally unmanageable without migrant proof fences and satellite tracking bracelets. But house prices need support so let’s abolish freedom too.

    It’s all so bizarre. All we need to do is cut immigration and let house prices fall. There’ll be a period of adjustment while wages and the currency correct but it won’t be too bad. We’ll still be on the doorstep of Asia. The students and tourists will still come, in greater numbers than ever as we get cheaper, but they’ll also go home not pressuring living standards. Broader tradables (40% of the economy) will boom. Commodity income will surge, lifting the Budget. Our maginalised youth will have much greater opportunities to advance their global opportunities as Dutch Disease ends. Incomes will ultimately be much more sustainable.

    Then we can all move on with a much healthier economy, polity, society and strategic outlook.

    The alternative is to sell our freedom to China, our standards of living to a few rich developers, our politics to carpet baggers and our society to fractious class wars. Just for higher house prices.

    If a more ignominious fate awaited any nation in history then I’m not aware of it.

  • Twitter Responds To Conservative Outrage As VICE Confirms "Shadow Ban" Reports

    A Wednesday article in VICE confirmed a report from last week by the Daily Wire‘s Ryan Saavedra which revealed that Twitter has been “shadow banning” conservative users by limiting the number of people who are able to view content from the affected users. 

    While last week’s discussion focused on a site-wide “Quality Filter Discrimination” shadow ban, which prevents anyone not already following a user from viewing their posts, Vice notes that many conservative accounts aren’t able to be found when typing names into the Twitter search engine. 

    The Republican Party’s chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican Congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search — but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

    Vice found the same wasn’t true for Democrats: 

    Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same in Twitter’s search.

    After being shown screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote that “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

    The undercover investigative journalists at Project Veritas even caught a Twitter employee admitting to the shadow bans in January: 

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

    Abhinav Vadrevu:  “One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting but no one sees their content.”

    “So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it. I don’t know if Twitter does this anymore.”

    Meanwhile, Olinda Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team said on December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “down ranking” “shitty people” is in the works:

    “Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on right now.”

    Twitter responds

    Twitter’s product lead Kayvon Beykpour issued a mostly useless explanation over the platform on Wednesday morning, suggesting that they’re “always working to improve our behavior-based ranking models,” and that their “breadth an accuracy doesn’t make judgements based on political views.”

    CEO Jack Dorsey, meanwhile, says “It suffices to say we have a lot more work to do to earn people’s trust on how we work.” No word on whether that will be before or after midterms.  

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

    We’ve heard questions from some of you relating to our work to drive healthy conversation on Twitter. People are asking us 1) about the breadth and precision of our work & 2) the impact of our work on the Search experience. We wanted to address these questions transparently here.

    In May, we started using behavioral signals and machine learning to reduce people’s ability to detract from healthy public conversation on Twitter. This approach looks at account behavior & interactions with other accounts that violate our rules.

    On 1) We’re always working to improve our behavior-based ranking models – their breadth and accuracy will improve over time. It’s important to note that these behavior signals are not binary, and they are one of many other signals that factor into ranking.

    To be clear, our behavioral ranking doesn’t make judgements based on political views or the substance of tweets. We recently publicly testified to Congress on this topic https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Pickles-Testimony.pdf

    On 2) Some accounts weren’t being auto-suggested even when people were searching for their specific name. Our usage of the behavior signals within search was causing this to happen & making search results seem inaccurate. We’re making a change today that will improve this.

    We believe this work is really important to creating a healthier Twitter and we want to continue improving. Your feedback helps us do that so please keep it coming.

    Meanwhile, conservative outrage erupted Wednesday in response to Vice‘s report. 

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

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

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

    In May, Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, along with Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, wrote a letter calling for the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter to address concerns over conservative censorship ahead of the 2020 election, as well as a call for transparency.

    “We recognize that Facebook and Twitter operate in liberal corporate cultures,” the letter reads. “However, rampant political bias is inappropriate for a widely used public forum.”

    The letter notes “In 2016, former Facebook workers reported that they manipulated the “trending” section to exclude news tailored to conservative users, despite those topics trending on their own,” while “A former trending news curator admitted in an interview that nearly all members of the trending news teams identified as liberal… Moreover, some Facebook employees in 2016 reportedly pushed to ban then-candidate Donald Trump’s Facebook posts and label them as hate speech” 

    Meanwhile, conservative Twitter users have accused the company of unfairly targeting them, purging thousands of their followers in an attempt to stem “fake news” content, and unnecessarily prompting them to confirm their identity. Twitter claims its tools are free from political bias, but has allegedly targeted predominantly Republicans as part of a “shadow banning” practice, which covertly limits those accounts’ visibility on the platform.

    Parscale and McDaniel pointed out that during congressional testimony, Facebook apologized for suppressing “Diamond & Silk,” two popular Trump supporters with a highly popular YouTube channel, which the platform deemed “unsafe to the community” for no reason.

     

    They also noted that Facebook says it’s “working with a third party to encourage voter registration,” and asked for transparency over how those advertisements are displayed in people’s news feeds. “This is to make sure that the new feature does not become essentially an in-kind contribution to liberal candidates.“

    Since Facebook and Twitter are platforms used widely by the majority of voters, we request an explanation about how you will ensure all content is managed equally and fairly. How will you safeguard voters’ access to fair content on your platform? How will you guarantee that conservative voices are no longer censored, and conservative news no longer buried or otherwise hidden?

    In an interview with Fox News, McDaniel and Parscale reiterated their concerns: 

    McDaniel: “It’s a legitimate fear. Brad and I hear it all the time as we’re traveling the country. People are very concerned that conservative voices are going to be suppressed on social media. Of course, many of their users are conservatives and so Brad and I feel preemptively, we have to get out ahead of this, talk to Facebook, talk to Twitter, ask them for transparency, let us know what you’re going to do to make sure that every voice has a say on these social media platforms especially before this critical midterm.”

    Parscale: “Every day I receive thousands of messages saying, “I’m being shadow-banned.” And what we want to do in this letter is make sure that we understand what’s happening. We want to ask them for transparency. I think the public deserves that transparency and we need to know that conservative voices have a chance to get their message out. This is a big problem.”

    Watch: 

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

  • Is Bill Browder The Most Dangerous Man In The World?

    Authored by Philip Giraldi via Unz.com,

    The darling of the war party needs to answer some questions…

    At the press conference following their summit meeting in Helsinki, Russian President Vladimir Putin and American President Donald Trump discussed the possibility of resolving potential criminal cases involving citizens of the two countries by permitting interrogators from Washington and Moscow to participate in joint questioning of the individuals named in indictments prepared by the respective judiciaries. The predictable response by the American nomenklatura was that it was a horrible idea as it would potentially require U.S. officials to answer questions from Russians about their activities.

    Putin argued, not unreasonably, that if Washington wants to extradite and talk to any of the twelve recently indicted GRU officers the Justice Department has named then reciprocity is in order for Americans and other identified individuals who are wanted by the Russian authorities for illegal activity while in Russia. And if Russian officials are fair game, so are American officials.

    A prime target for such an interrogation would be President Barack Obama’s Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who was widely criticized while in Moscow for being on an apparent mission to cultivate ties with the Russian political opposition and other “pro-democracy” groups. But McFaul was not specifically identified in the press conference, though Russian prosecutors have asked him to answer questions related to the ongoing investigation of another leading critic, Bill Browder, who was named by Putin during the question and answer session. Browder is a major hedge fund figure who, inter alia, is an American by birth. He renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1997 in exchange for British citizenship to avoid paying federal taxes on his worldwide income.

    Bill Browder is what used to be referred to as an oligarch, having set up shop in 1999 as Hermitage Capital Management Fund, a hedge fund registered in tax havens Guernsey and the Cayman Islands. It focused on “investing” in Russia, taking advantage initially of the loans-for-shares scheme under Russia’s drunkard President Boris Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the early years of Vladimir Putin. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia.

    Yeltsin had won a fraudulent election in 1996 supported by the oligarch-controlled media and by President Bill Clinton, who secured a $20.2 billion IMF loan that enabled him to buy support. Today we would refer to Clinton’s action as “interference in the 1996 election,” but at that time a helpless and bankrupt Russia was not well placed to object to what was being done to it. Yeltsin proved keen to follow oligarchical advice regarding how to strip the former Soviet Union of its vast state-owned assets. Browder’s Hermitage Investments profited hugely from the commodities deals that were struck at that time.

    Browder and his apologists portray him as an honest and honorable Western businessman attempting to operate in a corrupt Russian business world. Nevertheless, the loans-for-shares scheme that made him his initial fortune has been correctly characterized as the epitome of corruption by all parties involved, an arrangement whereby foreign investors worked with local oligarchs to strip the former Soviet economy of its assets paying pennies on each dollar of value. Along the way, Browder was reportedly involved in money laundering, making false representations on official documents and bribery.

    Browder was eventually charged by the Russian authorities for fraud and tax evasion. He was banned from re-entering Russia in 2005 and began to withdraw his assets from the country, but three companies controlled by Hermitage were eventually seized by the authorities. Browder himself was convicted of tax evasion in absentia in 2013 and sentenced to nine years in prison.

    Browder, who refers to himself as Putin’s “public enemy #1,” has notably been able to sell his tale of innocence to leading American politicians like Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman, all of whom are always receptive when criticizing Russia, as well as to a number of European parliamentarians and media outlets. In the wake of the Helsinki press conference he has, for example, claimed that Putin named him personally because he is a threat to continue to expose the crimes of the mafia that he claims is currently running Russia, but there is, inevitably, another less discussed alternative view of his self-serving narrative.

    Central to the tale of what Browder really represents is the Magnitsky Act, which the U.S. Congress passed into law to sanction individual Kremlin officials for their treatment of alleged whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, arrested and imprisoned in Russia. Browder has sold a narrative which basically says that he and his “lawyer” Sergei Magnitsky uncovered massive tax fraud and, when they attempted to report it, were punished by a corrupt police force and magistracy, which had actually stolen the money. Magnitsky was arrested and died in prison, allegedly murdered by the police to silence him.

    The Magnitsky case is of particular importance because both the European Union and the United States have initiated sanctions against the identified Russian officials who were allegedly involved. In the Magnitsky Act, sponsored by Russia-phobic Senator Ben Cardin and signed by President Barack Obama in 2012, the U.S. asserted its willingness to punish foreign governments for human rights abuses. The Act, initially limited to Russia, has now been expanded by virtue of 2016’s Global Magnitsky Act, which enabled U.S. sanctions worldwide.

    Russia reacted angrily to the first iteration of the Act, noting that the actions taken by its government internally, notably the operation of its judiciary, were being subjected to outside interference, while other judicial authorities also questioned Washington’s claimed right to respond to criminal acts committed outside the United States. Moscow reciprocated with sanctions against U.S. officials as well as by increasing pressure on foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups operating in Russia. Some have referred to the Magnitsky Act as the start of the new Cold War.

    The contrary narrative to that provided by Browder concedes that there was indeed a huge fraud related to as much as $230 million in unpaid Russian taxes on an estimated $1.5 billion of income, but that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered by Browder with Magnitsky, who was actually an accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme, using multiple companies and tax avoidance schemes to carry out the deception. Magnitsky, who was on cardiac medication, was indeed arrested and convicted, but he, according to his own family, reportedly died due to his heart condition, possibly exacerbated by negligent authorities who failed to medicate him adequately when he became ill.

    The two competing Browder narratives have been explored in some detail by a Russian documentary film maker Andrei Nekrasov, an outspoken anti-Putin activist, who was actually initially engaged by Browder to do the film. An affable Browder appears extensively in the beginning describing his career and the events surrounding Magnitsky.

    As Nekrasov worked on the documentary, he discovered that the Browder supported narrative was full of contradictions, omissions and fabrication of evidence. By the time he finished, he realized that the more accurate account of what had occurred with Browder and Magnitsky had been that provided by the Russian authorities.

    When Nekrasov prepared to air his work “The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes,” he inevitably found himself confronted by billionaire Browder and a battery of lawyers, who together blocked the showing of the film in Europe and the United States. Anyone subsequently attempting to promote the documentary has been immediately confronted with 300 plus pages of supporting documents accompanying a letter threatening a lawsuit if the film were to be shown to the public.

    A single viewing of “The Magnitsky Act” in Washington in June 2016 turned into a riot when Browder supporters used tickets given to Congressional staffers to disrupt the proceedings. At a subsequent hearing before Congress, where he was featured as an expert witness on Russian corruption before a fawning Senate Judiciary Committee, Bill Browder suggested that those who had challenged his narrative and arranged the film’s viewing in Washington should be prosecuted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), which includes penalties of up to five years in prison.

    Because of the pressure from Browder, there has never been a second public showing of “The Magnitsky Act” but it is possible to see it online at this site.

    Bill Browder, who benefited enormously from Russian corruption, has expertly repackaged himself as a paragon among businessmen, endearing himself to the Russia-haters in Washington and the media. Curiously, however, he has proven reluctant to testify in cases regarding his own business dealings. He has, for example, repeatedly run away, literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under oath.

    When one gets past all of his bluster and posturing, by one significant metric Bill Browder might well be accounted the most dangerous man in the world. Driven by extreme hatred of Putin and of Russia, he personally and his Magnitsky Myth have together done more to launch and sustain a dangerous new Cold War between a nuclear armed United States and a nuclear armed Russia. Blind to what he has accomplished, he continues to pontificate about how Putin is out to get him when instead he is the crook who quite likely stole $230 million dollars and should be facing the consequences. That the U.S. media and Congress appear to be entranced by Browder and dismissive of Moscow’s charges against him is symptomatic of just how far the Russia-phobia in the West has robbed people of their ability to see what is right in front of them. To suggest that what is taking place driven by Browder and his friends in high places could well lead to tragedy for all of us would be an understatement.

  • It's Gotten So Bad, Darts Outperform The Best Hedge Funds

    First thing this morning, an overzealous WSJ Heard of the Street editor Spencer Jakab decided to mock Jeffrey Gundlach’s predictions made three months ago at the Ira Sohn conference, recalling how Gundlach had the temerity to go against the grain of virtually every single hedge fund when revealing his trade recommendations:

    Gundlach’s suggestion to short the shares of Facebook and to go long on an exchange-traded fund of oil and gas explorers, for example, would have lagged behind an S&P 500 Index fund by 24 percentage points through Monday’s close.

    And surely at 6am this morning, Mr. Jakab would have preferred the following sellside “recommendations”:

    Of course, we now know that just 10 hours later, following a historic 20% drop and $130 billion less in market cap, making fun of Gundlach for advising the Sohn conference to short Facebook was not exactly… prudent.

    Jakab, however, at least correctly quoted Gundlach’s words, that “Nothing new ever occurs in the business of speculating. What’s happened in the past will happen again and again and again”, and was also right to mock the stupidity of the professional investor crowd, which as today’s fiasco showed are about a clueless as everyone else, and all they really do is chase momentum while collecting 2 and 20.

    And here’s why: as Jakab reports, “at the time of the conference, Heard on the Street columnists took on the stock pickers by throwing darts to create a portfolio of 10 stocks to go up against the 12 stocks picked by the Sohn speakers.”

    Readers an probably guess where this is going:

    Three months later, the darts have prevailed. The Heard team’s 10 picks, eight long and two short, have returned 7.23% on average. The combined performance of 12 picks by Sohn attendees has been slightly negative, lagging behind the S&P 500 by more than 6 percentage points.

    What were some of the names the best and brightest in the business could come up with? The top “expert” pick belonged, ironically, to former Facebook exec (and current critic) Chamath Palihapitiya who said to buy Box. Since than it is up 16% which is great… until one compares the top 5 dart returns.

    The top pick from the darts was railcar leasing company GATX , up 27% in the past three months.

    The other dart “picks” were PagSeguro, Paychex, Park Hotels and Four Corners, all of which have outperformed their respective “2 and 20” recos.

    In parting, Jakab tells us that he will update this competition ever three months until the next Sohn conference.

    Maybe the Heard on the Street team will be invited to throw its darts on stage next year.

    And maybe he can charge a 20% dart performance fee: they deserve it, which is far more than we can say about all those hedge funds who decided to follow the flocks and all invested in the biggest stock disaster (so far) of 2018.

     

     

     

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 25

Today’s News 25th July 2018

  • The Danes Are Europe's Biggest Wasters

    Data released by Eurostat shows that across Europe, levels of municipal waste generation vary considerably between countries.

    Infographic: The Europeans Generating The Most Waste | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Broken down by kilograms per capita, municipal waste generation is highest in Denmark at 777 kg in 2016.

    Romania was at the opposite end of the scale with just 261 kg in 2016.

  • Sweden's Turbulent Election Year

    Authored by Fjordman via The Gatestone Institute,

    Sweden’s general election on September 9 looks set to become the most interesting the country has had in years. Concerns over mass immigration and rampant crime are redefining the political landscape.

    For the first time in more than a hundred years, the Social Democrats may be dethroned as the country’s largest political party. By Swedish standards, this constitutes a political earthquake.

    Concerns in Europe over crime and mass immigration have been changing the political atmosphere, from Italy to Germany. Now, these developments may finally have caught up with Sweden as well.

    The Social Democrats in Sweden are not just any political party. They have shaped Swedish political and cultural life for generations. At the peak of their power, they dominated Swedish society to such an extent that the country almost resembled a one-party state. They have been the largest party in all national elections for more than a century. From the 1930s until the early 1990s, they received more than 40% of the vote. Several times during this period, they got more than 50% of the votes and held an overall majority of the seats in the Swedish Parliament (Riksdag). They received 45.2 % of the votes as late as in 1994, and 39.9 % in 2002.

    In most opinion polls from mid-2018, the Social Democrats received between 22% and 28% support. If they get 24% of the votes in the 2018 general elections, this will still make them a major party – but it would also be the worst election result the Swedish Social Democratic Party has had since 1912.

    The main challenger is the nationally-oriented party known as the Sweden Democrats (SD). The SD entered the Swedish Parliament for the first time in 2010. In 2014, they received 12.9% of votes and became the third largest party, after the Social Democrats and the Moderate Party.

    The Moderates have promoted mass immigration just as much as the Social Democrats have when they held power. Disaffection with immigration has thus affected the two largest establishment parties.

    Jimmie Åkesson, who has served as the leader of the SD since 2005, stated in an interview from July 2018 that he is certain the Sweden Democrats will become the largest political party in Sweden. Perhaps in 2018; if not, later. The Sweden Democrats have clearly become a force to be reckoned with.

    His optimism is not without merit. Several polls have shown the SD to surpass the Moderates to become the second largest party. A couple of opinion polls from 2018 have even suggested that the SD could surpass the Social Democrats and becomethe largest party in Sweden with up to 28.5 % support.

    Stefan Löfven, who led the Social Democratic Party since 2012, has been Prime Minister of Sweden since 2014, heading a minority coalition government consisting of the Social Democrats and the Green Party. Löfven is widely perceived as not being a particularly strong leader. It caused concern among the Social Democrats when Löfven was openly laughed at by the audience during a TV debate with other party leaders in May 2018.

    Sweden’s Prime Minister Stefan Löfven is widely perceived as not being a particularly strong leader. It caused concern among the Social Democrats when Löfven was openly laughed at by the audience during a TV debate in May 2018. Pictured: Löfven at a European Union summit on December 14, 2017. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

    The election could leave an unpredictable political situation in Sweden. One possibility is that the Social Democrats and the Moderates, the two traditionally largest parties, could team up and form a coalition government together.

    This would be comparable to how the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have been in power together in Germany since 2013. The major establishment parties largely agree on major issues concerning the EU, mass immigration, Islam and Multiculturalism. It may make sense for them to team up together to prevent dissenting voices from gaining power.

    The decline of the Social Democrats in Sweden mirrors the decline of their sister parties in other European countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands. This wider trend cannot be attributed to one person alone, and has also opened up room for movements to the right of the SD.

    This year, a new party called Alternative for Sweden (Alternativ för Sverige, AfS) entered the election campaign. Its name is clearly inspired by the Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland, AfD), which, during the elections in 2017, became the third-largest party in Germany.

    Several former members of the Sweden Democrats, such as the writer Jan Milld, have defected to the AfS, as have several former SD Members of Parliament. Even the party leader of Alternative for Sweden, Gustav Kasselstrand, has a background in the Sweden Democrats.

    During an interview with Voice of Europe last month, Kasselstrand stated:

    “What you read about Sweden on alternative news platforms is true. We are facing problems more severe than ever before in our history, where Swedes face a situation of being a minority within 20 years if nothing is done to stop the replacement of our people. I would describe the problems in Sweden as a kind of low-intensity civil war (with gradually increasing intensity each day). What makes the situation even more difficult is, of course, the extreme political correctness that has haunted Sweden for decades, but which is now finally breaking up.”

    Kasselstrand and the Alternative for Sweden argue that the policies of the Sweden Democrats are no longer sufficient to deal with Sweden’s problems with violent crime and public gang shootings. The AfS want to end immigration completely and to start repatriating hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, criminal aliens and immigrants who burden Swedish society in one way or another.

    Meanwhile, some established parties such as the Green Party feel that Swedish immigration policies are too restrictive. They want even more immigration than today. However, this view no longer seems to be popular with the voters. The Green Party is currently struggling to maintain their seats in Parliament.

    Mass immigration has created an atmosphere of extreme polarization in Swedish society. These tensions will not go away regardless of the election results in September. Political change finally seems to be coming to Sweden.

  • Army Selects Firms To Design Next High-Tech Assault Rifle For "Decades Of Hybrid Wars"

    The United States Army is preparing for decades of hybrid wars across multiple domains – space, cyberspace, air, land, and, maritime. Back in October, we examined the Army’s latest Training and Doctrine Command report, which highlights how the next round of hybrid wars could begin somewhere around 2025 and last through 2040.

    Currently, the Army is in a transitional period [quiet period] before the next round of wars start. President Trump has infused the Pentagon with more than $700 billion this fiscal year, in the attempt to plug significant gaps and expand emerging technologies. For instance, the Army has made it clear that it will replace its three decades old M249 light machine gun and the Colt M4 Modular Weapon System Carbine, with a lightweight and higher chamber pressure assault rifle.

    Back in March, we documented how the Army selected the Textron/AAI Corp. LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technologies) Cased Telescoped Machine Gun, a new high-tech assault rifle that can release a high rate of specialty designed bullets with as much chamber pressure as an M1A2 Abrams tank to pierce through the world’s most advanced body armor, into the Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR) program.

    AAI Corp. and Textron have been developing some of the world’s most advanced assault rifles for a dozen or more years, in hopes to be the defense contractor that replaces the Army’s M249.

    Now it seems Textron is not alone. According to the Prototype Opportunity Notice (PON) for NGSAR, the U.S. Army Contracting Command-New Jersey (ACC-NJ), on behalf of Project Manager Soldier Weapons, awarded six (6) separate Fixed Priced, Full and Open Competition (F&OC), Prototype OTA’s to:

    • AAI Corporation Textron Systems – Hunt Valley, MD; OTA W15QKN-18-9-1017

    • FN America LLC. – Columbia, SC; OTA’s W15QKN-18-9-1018 & W15QKN-18-9-1019

    • General Dynamics-OTS Inc. – Williston, VT; OTA W15QKN-18-9-1020

    • PCP Tactical, LLC – Vero Beach, FL; OTA W15QKN-18-9-1021

    • Sig Sauer Inc. – Newington, NH; OTA W15QKN-18-9-1022

    “These Prototype OTA’s will be for the manufacture and development of a Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR) system demonstrator representative of a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 and Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) 6. The expected Prototype OTA duration is twelve months after award. The Prototype OTA’s were awarded on 25 June 2018,” stated the PON. Following each manufactures submission of their prototype weapons, there will be an open competition, where each gun manufacture hopes their weapon outperforms the rest and ultimately replaces the M249.

    In a Textron press release, the company states the prototype will be based on their cased-telescoped weapons and ammunition portfolio.

    Wayne Prender, vice president of Applied Technologies & Advanced Programs at Textron Systems, spoke with Military.comabout his firm’s prototype weapon and the NGSAR program.

    “We are leveraging and building upon our lineage of lightweight squad weapon technologies that we have been working on over the last 14 years,” he said.

    Prender said his firm was notified in late June of the contract award to deliver “one prototype weapon, one fire control system and 2,000 rounds of ammunition within 12 months.”

    The NGSAR program also wants gun manufacturers to decrease the weight of the ammunition by at least 20 percent. According to Military.com, Textron has invested large sums of money into its case-telescoped ammunition technology.

    “The futuristic cartridges – featuring a plastic case rather than a brass one to hold the propellant and the projectile, like a conventional shotgun shell – offer significant weight reductions compared to conventional ammo,” said Military.com.

    Despite Textron’s vast experience in defense, Prender reveals it could be quite challenging to deliver what the Army wants.

    “They have some pretty aggressive goals with respect to lethality and weight and size and some other performance characteristics,” he said. “All of those things individually may be relatively easy but, when you start stacking them all together, that is really where it becomes complex and you need a new design.”

    Pender was not at liberty to discuss the specifics about the prototype Textron is submitting but said: “we are taking lessons from all of our case-telescoped projects to include the 5.56mm, 7.62mm, and the intermediate caliber — all that information is informing this new design.”

    “There is not an easy button here. Certainly, we think our case-telescoped solution is an ideal one to meet these requirements … but there is development that is necessary over and above what we have done to date,” he added.

    In case you are wondering what the next high-tech assault rifle could look like, well, watch this video: 

  • "Making Shit Up" – The US Intelligence Community As 'Collapse Driver'

    Authored by Dmitry Orlov via Club Orlov blog,

    In today’s United States, the term “espionage” doesn’t get too much use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage, but with regard to Americans’ own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they prefer the term “intelligence.” This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you look at things.

    First of all, US “intelligence” is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.

    In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate negotiating future spy swaps. In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies, sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as “Al Qaeda.” There was no such thing before US intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.

    Most recently, British “special services,” which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their “secret” lab in Porton Down doesn’t work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).

    There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be following due process and rules of evidence, they don’t add much value.

    A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and the method—treason—can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper, professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents. In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for injecting disinformation.

    Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it’s been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet. Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn’t have been done by anyone working remotely from Russia.

    Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the Russian Constitution: “61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of Russia or extradited to another state.” Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.

    That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn’t have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where’s the gratitude? Where’s the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?

    Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign. In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed, at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don’t they understand?

    The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage—“intelligence” in US parlance—which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US “intelligence” is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply “make shit up.”

    The “intelligence” the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful—be they about Syrian chemical weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden—because facts require accuracy and rigor while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual objective is easily discernible.

    Their objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: “moderate” terrorists and so on. One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.

    Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled.

    A light-hearted answer would have been:

    “What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven’t lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task.”

    A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:

    “The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2017 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact.”

    And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:

    “The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their dismissal.”

    But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS—an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria.

    The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593. Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the US, that’s your bill so far for the various US intelligence “oopsies.”

    The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their “mistakes” have cost the country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.

    There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.

    First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for their mistakes.

    Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts—the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known.

    How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of “intelligence,” I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of “treason”: something better than “a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars.”

  • 5.4 Million Americans Will Cut The Cord In 2018, New Report Warns

    Cg42, a boutique consulting firm, has published its latest “2018 Cord Cutter & Cord Never Study,” which builds on several reports by providing an in-depth analysis of both US consumers who opted out of subscription-based Paid-TV service in the last several years (i.e., Cord Cutters) as well as US consumers who have never subscribed to paid-TV service (i.e., Cord Nevers).

    This installment, the first of three reports, forecasts that 5.4 million consumers will cut the cord in 2018, a shocking move that could cost the Pay-TV industry $5.5 billion in lost subscription revenue. This is undoubtedly an acceleration of the trend, compared to 4.8 million in 2017, 3.8 million in 2016, and 3.0 million in 2015.

    “As the process of finding alternative paths to content gets easier and easier, people are acting on the frustrations they have with traditional providers and leaving,” the study’s lead researcher and cg42 managing partner Stephen Beck told MarketWatch.

    MarketWatch said Beck’s consulting firm conducted the online survey in September 2017 of 3,385 U.S. consumers — asking them a series of questions about viewing habits. Thirty percent of respondents said they had opted out of a pay-TV service in the past two years and 18 percent had never subscribed to one.

    Cg42 discovered that Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu Plus were among some of the most popular streaming services that Cord Cutters and Cord Nevers used.

    The report was published on Monday right before Netflix’s stock crashed, as subscriber growth slowed; its cash burn soared, and financial outlook slashed.

    • At the end of 2015, for example, Netflix had 75 million subscribers. But its Free Cash Flow was NEGATIVE $920 million.

    • The following year, Netflix had grown its subscriber base to 93 million. Yet its Free Cash Flow had sunk even further to negative $1.65 billion.

    • By the end of 2017, Netflix subscribers totaled 117 million. But the company burned through $2.02 billion

    Nevertheless, Netflix has managed to attract millions of Americans through its massive debt-fueled binge on premium content. In short, the streaming company had been nominated for a whopping 112 Emmy awards, more than any other network. However, it lost more than $17 million for each of its awards, making it an unstable company.

    It seems like Netflix and other premium streaming services are intentionally destroying the existing ecosystem. This is most evident in the collapse of subscribers for pay-TV companies:

    “Comcast may lose 7.2 percent of its subscriber base, or around 1.5 million customers this year, costing the company $1.6 billion in revenue, cg42 found. AT&T/DirecTV is expected to lose 4.8 percent of its customers, or more than 1.1 million subscribers for a potential $1.2 billion hit. Cox could lose 7.9 percent of its subscribers, or around 317,000 people, costing the company $324 million,” said MarketWatch.

    The report specified that the Millennial and Gen X cohorts are the leading influencer in the cord-cutting phenomenon. A large part of millennials (between 22-37 years of age) identified as Cord Nevers, or people who had never subscribed to pay TV. Hidden prices, excessive channels, limited premium content, outlandish prices, commercials, and hidden charges were some of the top frustration among the younger generations.

    If Cg42 is correct, 5.4 million Americans who are most likely stuck in the gig-economy and do not even realize their standard of living is collapsing — could soon be Cord Cutters by the end of the year. Hell, if these broke Americans can save some money before the next recession, then why not?

  • The "Petroyuan" Might Save Nigeria And Avert Another Migrant Crisis

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

    China has expressed a readiness to increase its investments in Nigeria’s oil industry.

    The China National Offshore Oil Corporation has plans to pump another $3 billion into this sphere on top of the $14 billion in assets that it already has in the West African state, which is a huge move that indicates its intent to challenge the US and India for influence in Africa’s most populous country.

    Washington is Abuja’s top military partner, albeit a conditional one that can’t always be counted on for help, while New Delhi is its largest energy partner, but what China’s seeking to do is leverage its interconnected oil and financial policies in order to ultimately become Nigeria’s most important developmental one.

    The announcement that China intends to increase its energy investments in Nigeria by over a fifth follows a $2.4 billion currency swap deal in early May, which while seemingly not a lot in absolute terms, is designed to strengthen the future prospects for the so-called “petroyuan” by tying Africa’s largest oil producer to the petrodollar’s worst enemy.

    This strategy is expected to dovetail with the several rail corridors that China wants to build in Nigeria in order to make the country the most important node along the vast Sahelian-Saharan Silk Road megaproject that it’s gradually constructing, which is envisioned to lift the world’s greatest concentration of extremely impoverished people out of their misery.

    Time is of the essence, however, since Nigeria is a ticking time bomb of Hybrid War unrest beset by multisided problems stemming from its geopolitical origin as the union of two previously separate British colonies. Whether it’s Boko Haram in the arid northeast, so-called “Biafra” militants in the lush Niger Delta, or ethno-religious conflicts between herding and farming communities in the arable “Middle Belt”, Nigeria is quickly becoming overwhelmed with so many security challenges that the only hope for resolving them all is to introduce a sustainable developmental solution in the afflicted regions such as the type that China envisions through its Silk Road strategy there.

    Connecting Nigeria to the emerging Multipolar World Order through China’s interlinked oil, financial, and developmental deals is a step in the right direction, but it’ll nevertheless take more than the “petroyuan” and railroads to save this failing state, but if Beijing is successful, then it might also end up saving Europe from the Migrant Crisis 2.0 that would inevitably be catalyzed if Africa’s most populous country collapsed.

  • Violent Mob Beats Trump Supporter At Oakland Protest Before Chasing Group Down The Street

    A shocking video has gone viral of an alleged member of The Proud Boys being beaten by a mob of angry protesters at an Oakland vigil, following the Sunday night stabbing of 18-year-old Nia Wilson at a BART station. The Proud Boys, a conservative activist group, had previously scheduled a gathering for Monday according to Indybay.  

    Bystanders can be heard shouting “f–k that n–ga, f–k his a– up” while somebody tapes the confrontation. Police sirens are heard blaring in the background as the crowd continues to viciously pummel the alt right member. –Heavy

    The group was then chased down the street before police intervened.

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

    Hundreds of protesters gathered at the MacArthur BART station for Wilson’s vigil. The suspect, 27-year-old John Cowell, was arrested on Monday evening and booked into Alameda County’s Santa Rita Jail shortly before midnight.

    Nia’s sister Latifah was also stabbed, however she survived what protesters believe was a racially motivated hate crime. 

    The protesters began their vigil with chants of: “No Justice! No Peace!” and “Justice for Nia!” Meanwhile, speakers called on the protesters to take action, defend and protect Black women, and support the grieving family of the Wilson sisters, according to Indybay.

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

  • Moon-Strzok No More, Lisa Page Spills The Beans

    Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

    The meaning of a crucial text message between two FBI officials appears to have been finally explained, and it’s not good news for the Russia-gate faithful…

    Former FBI attorney Lisa Page has reportedly told a joint committee of the House of Representatives that when FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok texted her on May 19, 2017 saying there was “no big there there,” he meant there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    It was clearly a bad-luck day for Strzok, when on Friday the 13th this month Page gave her explanation of the text to the House Judiciary and Oversight/Government Reform Committees and in effect threw her lover, Strzok, under the bus.

    Strzok’s apparent admission to Page about there being “no big there there” was reported on Friday by John Solomon in the Opinion section of The Hill based on multiple sources who he said were present during Page’s closed door interview.

    Strzok’s text did not come out of the blue. For the previous ten months he and his FBI subordinates had been trying every-which-way to ferret out some “there” — preferably a big “there” — but had failed miserably. If Solomon’s sources are accurate, it is appearing more and more likely that there was nothing left for them to do but to make it up out of whole cloth, with the baton then passed to special counsel Robert Mueller.

    The “no there there” text came just two days after former FBI Director James Comey succeeded in getting his friend Mueller appointed to investigate the alleged collusion that Strzok was all but certain wasn’t there. 

    Strzok during his public testimony earlier this month.

    Robert Parry, the late founder and editor of Consortium News whom Solomon described to me last year as his model for journalistic courage and professionalism, was already able to discern as early as March 2017 the outlines of what is now Deep State-gate, and, typically, was the first to dare report on its implications. 

    Parry’s article, written two and a half months before Strzok texted the self-incriminating comment to Page on there being “no big there there,” is a case study in professional journalism. His very first sentence entirely anticipated Strzok’s text: “The hysteria over ‘Russia-gate’ continues to grow … but at its core there may be no there there.”(Emphasis added.) 

    As for “witch-hunts,” Bob and others at Consortiumnews.com, who didn’t succumb to the virulent HWHW (Hillary Would Have Won) virus, and refused to slurp the Kool-Aid offered at the deep Deep State trough, have come close to being burned at the stake — virtually. Typically, Bob stuck to his guns: he ran an organ (now vestigial in most Establishment publications) that sifted through and digested actual evidence and expelled drivel out the other end.

    Those of us following the example set by Bob Parry are still taking a lot of incoming fire — including from folks on formerly serious — even progressive — websites. Nor do we expect a cease-fire now, even with Page’s statement (about which, ten days after her interview, the Establishment media keep a timorous silence). Far too much is at stake.

    As Mark Twain put it, “It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” And, as we have seen over the past couple of years, that goes in spades for “Russia-gate.” For many of us who have looked into it objectively and written about it dispassionately, we are aware, that on this issue, we are looked upon as being in sync with President Donald Trump.

    Blind hatred for the man seems to thwart any acknowledgment that he could ever be right about something—anything. This brings considerable awkwardness. Chalk it up to the price of pursuing the truth, no matter what bedfellows you end up with.

    Courage at The Hill 

    Page: Coughs up the meaning of ‘there.’

    Solomon’s article merits a careful read, in toto. Here are the most germane paragraphs:

    “It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day [May 19, 2017] was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team. [Page has since left the FBI.] 

    “‘Who gives a f*ck, one more AD [Assistant Director] like [redacted] or whoever?’” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: ‘An investigation leading to impeachment?’ …

    “A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: ‘You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.’

    “So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to ‘nothing’ and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.”

    Solomon adds: “How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don’t think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job. Is that an FBI you can live with?”

    The Timing

    As noted, Strzok’s text was written two days after Mueller was appointed on May 17, 2017. The day before, on May 16,The New York Times published a story that Comey leaked to it through an intermediary that was expressly designed (as Comey admitted in Congressional testimony three weeks later) to lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Hmmmmm.

    Had Strzok forgotten to tell his boss that after ten months of his best investigative efforts — legal and other—he could find no “there there”?

    Comey’s leak, by the way, was about alleged pressure from Trump on Comey to go easy on Gen. Michael Flynn for lying at an impromptu interrogation led by — you guessed it — the ubiquitous, indispensable Peter Strzok.

    In any event, the operation worked like a charm — at least at first. And — absent revelation of the Strzok-Page texts — it might well have continued to succeed. After Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named Mueller, one of Comey’s best buddies, to be special counsel, Mueller, in turn, picked Strzok to lead the Russia-gate team, until the summer, when the Department of Justice Inspector General was given the Strzok-Page texts and refused to sit on them.

    A Timeline

    Here’s a timeline, which might be helpful:

    2017

    May 16: Comey leak to NY Times to get a special counsel appointed

    May 17: Special counsel appointed — namely, Robert Mueller.

    May 19: Strzok confides to girlfriend Page, “No big there there.”

    July: Mueller appoints Strzok lead FBI Agent on collusion investigation.

    August: Mueller removes Strzok after learning of his anti-Trump texts to Page.

    Dec. 12: DOJ IG releases some, but by no means all, relevant Strzok-Page texts to Congress and the media, which firstreports on Strzok’s removal in August.

    2018

    June 14: DOJ IG Report Published.

    June 15; Strzok escorted out of FBI Headquarters.

    June 21: Attorney General Jeff Sessions announces Strzok has lost his security clearances.

    July 12: Strzok testifies to House committees. Solomon reports he refused to answer question about the “there there” text.

    July 13: Lisa Page interviewed by same committees. Answers the question.

    Earlier: Bob Parry in Action

    Journalist Robert Parry

    On December 12, 2017, as soon as first news broke of the Strzok-Page texts, Bob Parry and I compared notes by phone. We agreed that this was quite big and that, clearly, Russia-gate had begun to morph into something like FBI-gate. It was rare for Bob to call me before he wrote; in retrospect, it seemed to have been merely a sanity check.

    The piece Bob posted early the following morning was typical Bob. Many of those who click on the link will be surprised that, last December, he already had pieced together most of the story. Sadly, it turned out to be Bob’s last substantive piece before he fell seriously ill. Earlier last year he had successfully shot downother Russia-gate-related canards on which he found Establishment media sorely lacking — “Facebook-gate,” for example.

    Remarkably, it has taken another half-year for Congress and the media to address — haltingly — the significance of Deep State-gate — however easy it has become to dissect the plot, and identify the main plotters. With Bob having prepared the way with his Dec.13 article, I followed up a few weeks later with “The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate,” in the process winning no friends among those still suffering from the highly resistant HWHW virus.

    VIPS

    Parry also deserves credit for his recognition and appreciation of the unique expertise and analytical integrity among Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) and giving us a secure, well respected home at Consortium News.

    It is almost exactly a year since Bob took a whole lot of flak for publishing what quickly became VIPS’ most controversial, and at the same time perhaps most important, Memorandum For the President; namely, “Intelligence Veterans Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence.”

    Critics have landed no serious blows on the key judgments of that Memorandum, which rely largely on the type of forensic evidence that Comey failed to ensure was done by his FBI because the Bureau never seized the DNC server. Still more forensic evidence has become available over recent months soon to be revealed on Consortium News, confirming our conclusions.

  • Congress Officially Blocks F-35 Shipments To Turkey After Mattis Pleads Not To

    It finally happened, even after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis urged Congress not to bar Turkey from purchasing the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter, arguing in a letter sent to lawmakers as they deliberated the move that such a drastic action would trigger an international “supply chain disruption” that would push costs for the already exorbitant $100 million aircraft higher.

    On Tuesday Congress inserted a ban on planned F-35 Joint Strike Fighter deliveries to Turkey’s military into the final draft of the Pentagon’s budget blueprint for the upcoming fiscal year.

    Over the past year there’s been increased wrangling and noise over the program to equip Turkey with the advanced fighter jet as US-Turkey relations have steadily deteriorated and as Turkish President President Recep Tayyip Erdogan appears to have come into Russia’s geopolitical orbit.

    The key stumbling block to Turkey obtaining the F-35s that it has already paid for is Ankara’s moving forward on acquisition of Russian S-400 air defense systems.

    The House and Senate adopted the legislation after months of State Department warnings to Turkey that “there will be consequences” should its S-400 contract with Russia, said to be worth $2.5 billion, continue moving forward into acquisition phase.

    State Department officials have gone so far as to warn of sanctions in recent months, rare to the point of being unheard of when it comes to NATO allies, specifically over fears that Russia would get access to the extremely advanced Joint Strike Fighter stealth aircraft, enabling Moscow to detect and exploit its vulnerabilities. Thus Russia would ultimately learn how the S-400 could take out an F-35. 

    However, the ban is only temporary, until such time as the Pentagon delivers “an assessment of a significant change in Turkish participation in the F-35 program, including the potential elimination of such participation,” according to the language in the legislation.

    Turkey for its part, has previously warned that should the bill become law “it will absolutely retaliate” in the words of Foreign Minister Prime Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, who explained it was wrong to impose such a restriction on a military ally, alluding to the fact that Turkey has graciously allowed the US to use its Encirlik air base to launch its air strikes against ISIS (as well as against Turkey’s enemy the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad).

    In retrospect, Turkey’s veiled threats fell on deaf ears, reflecting not only US unwillingness to cooperate with any counterparty that does concurrent deals with Russia, but also increasing tension with a NATO ally, in a move that blocked the sale of 100 warplanes worth close to $10bn.

    In addition to the broader geopolitical tensions resulting from the Russian S-400 issue, Congressional Defense lawmakers also demanded the immediate release of U.S. Pastor Andrew Brunson, and as the bill’s language reads, any other “U.S. citizens wrongfully or unlawfully detained in Turkey” and improved human rights under an increasingly authoritarian Turkish state. 

    Pastor Andrew Brunson

    Pastor Brunson, who was detained in 2016, faces charges including espionage and aiding terrorist groups after being accused of cooperating with “Kurdish terrorists” and colluding with the Gulenist Islamic movement; he faces up to 35 years in prison if found guilty.

    American diplomats have previously warned the arrest is part of the Turkish government’s policy of “hostage diplomacy” and further said the issue could trigger unprecedented sanctions. President Trump has also personally called for Brunson’s release in public statements. 

    The defense spending bill will next head to the White House for Trump’s signature.

    In late June, Lockheed Martin and US officials held an ostentatious “roll out” ceremony in Fort Worth to mark the symbolic handover of the first F-35 jet to Turkey; however, clearly the advanced stealth multi-role fighter isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 24

Today’s News 24th July 2018

  • Europe Can't Rely On The US To Maintain World Order, Merkel Warns

    Having been called a “foe” by President Trump last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed that she was right to say a year ago that Europe could no longer rely on the United States to impose order on the world, and that it needed to take matters close to home into its own hands.

    “We can’t rely on the superpower of the United States,” Merkel told a news conference in Berlin.

    As AntiWar’s Jason Ditz notes, Merkel did not elaborate on exactly what this “order” meant, but it comes in the context of recent polls showing German voters resistant to her desire to increase military spending. This suggests Merkel is trying to sell increased armament as a way to intervene regionally.

    Merkel also said she intends to continue to work on improving Germany’s relationship with the United States. This appears to be an uphill battle, with the two nations at odds over a number of issues, but she insisted ties are “crucial.”

    Just last week, President Trump said he has “a big problem” with Germany, and the US was threatening to sanction German companies for investing in a Russian energy pipeline. Trump expressed particular anger at the pipeline, saying it means Germany is effective “captive” to Russia.

    Putting this accusation into context, Statista’s Sarah Feldman points out that Germany secures roughly three fifths of its energy needs from foreign sources. A fifth of its overall energy consumption comes from natural gas.

    Infographic: German Dependency on Foreign Energy | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    These dependency numbers have been creeping up over the past decade and are expected to steadily increase in the years to come as Nord Stream 2, a natural gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea, takes effect bringing a stream of natural gas directly into Germany.

    In practice, the pipeline issue is more about the US wanting to increase LNG exports to Europe than being worried about Russia increasing trade ties there. Where US and European interests don’t align, however, it seems to fuel tensions, and that’s liable to mean Angela Merkel faces an uphill battle in improving relations.

  • When The US Invaded Russia

    Authored by Jeff Klein via ConsortiumNews.com,

    Amidst the backdrop of increased U.S.-Russian tensions and even talk of war, long forgotten is the time the U.S. actually invaded…

    Amid the bi-partisan mania over the Trump-Putin Summit in Helsinki, fevered, anti-Russian rhetoric in the United States makes conceivable what until recently seemed inconcievable: that dangerous tensions between Russia and the U.S. could lead to military conflict. It has happened before.

    In September 1959, during a brief thaw in the Cold War, Nikita Khrushchev made his famous visit to the United States. In Los Angeles, the Soviet leader was invited to a luncheon at Twentieth Century-Fox Studios in Hollywood and during a long and rambling exchange he had this to say:

    “Your armed intervention in Russia was the most unpleasant thing that ever occurred in the relations between our two countries, for we had never waged war against America until then; our troops have never set foot on American soil, while your troops have set foot on Soviet soil.”

    These remarks by Khrushchev were little noted in the U.S. press at the time – especially compared to his widely-reported complaint about not being allowed to visit Disneyland.  But even if Americans read about Khrushchev’s comments it is likely that few of them would have had any idea what the Soviet Premier was talking about.

    But Soviet – and now Russian — memory is much more persistent.  The wounds of foreign invasions, from Napoleon to the Nazis, were still fresh in Russian public consciousness in 1959 — and even in Russia today — in a way most Americans could not imagine.  Among other things, that is why the Russians reacted with so much outrage to the expansion of NATO to its borders in the 1990’s, despite U.S. promises not to do so during the negotiations for the unification of Germany.

    The U.S. invasion Khrushchev referred to took place a century ago, after the October Revolution and during the civil war that followed between Bolshevik and anti-Bolshevik forces, the Red Army against White Russians.  While the Germans and Austrians were occupying parts of Western and Southern Russia, the Allies launched their own armed interventions in the Russian North and the Far East in 1918. 

    The Allied nations, including Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the U.S., cited various justifications for sending their troops into Russia: to “rescue” the Czech Legion that had been recruited to fight against the Central Powers; to protect allied military stores and keep them out of the hands of the Germans; to preserve communications via the Trans-Siberian Railway; and possibly to re-open an Eastern Front in the war.  But the real goal – rarely admitted publicly at first—was to reverse the events of October and install a more “acceptable” Russian government. As Winston Churchill later put it, the aim was to “strangle the Bolshevik infant in its cradle.”

    In addition to Siberia, the U.S. joined British and French troops to invade at Archangel, in the north of Russia, on September 4, 1918.

    In July 1918, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had personally typed the “Aide Memoire” on American military action in Russia that was hand-delivered by the Secretary of War at the beginning of August to General William Graves, the designated commander of the U.S. troops en route to Siberia. Wilson’s document was curiously ambivalent and contradictory. It began by asserting that foreign interference in Russia’s internal affairs was “impermissible,” and eventually concluded that the dispatch of U.S. troops to Siberia was not to be considered a “military intervention.”

    The Non-Intervention Intervention

    But the American intervention began when U.S. soldiers disembarked at Vladivostok on August 16, 1918.  These were the 27th and 31st infantry regiments, regular army units that had been involved in pacification of U.S.-occupied Philippines.  Eventually there were to be about 8,000 U.S. troops in Siberia.

    Judging from his memoires, General Graves was puzzled by how different things looked on the ground in Siberia than his vague instructions seemed to suggest.  For one thing, the Czechs hardly needed rescuing.  By the Summer of 1918 they had easily taken control of Vladivostok and a thousand miles of the Trans-Siberian Railway.

    For the next year and a half, General Graves, by all appearances an honest and non-political professional soldier, struggled to understand and carry out his mandate in Siberia.  He seems to have driven the U.S. State Department and his fellow allied commanders to distraction by clinging stubbornly to a literal interpretation of Wilson’s Aide Memoire as mandating strict non-intervention in Russian affairs. The general seemed incapable of noticing the broad “wink” with which everyone else understood these instructions.

    Graves strove to maintain “neutrality” among the various Russian factions battling for control of Siberia and to focus on his mission to guard the railroad and protect Allied military supplies.  But he was also indiscrete enough to report “White” atrocities as well as “Red” ones, to express his distaste for the various Japanese-supported warlords in Eastern Siberia and, later, to have a skeptical (and correct) assessment of the low popular support, incompetence and poor prospects of the anti-Bolshevik forces.

    For his troubles, it was hinted, absurdly, that the General may have been a Bolshevik sympathizer, a charge that in part motivated the publication of his memoirs. 

    In the face of hectoring by State Department officials and other Allied commanders to be more active in support of the “right” people in Russia, Graves repeatedly inquired of his superiors in Washington whether his original instructions of political non-intervention were to be modified. No one, of course, was willing to put any different policy in writing and the general struggled to maintain his “neutrality.”

    By the Spring and Summer of 1919, however, the U.S. had joined the other Allies in providing overt military support to “Supreme Leader,” Admiral Alexander Kolchak’s White regime, based in the Western Siberian city of Omsk.  At first this was carried out discretely through the Red Cross, but later it took the form of direct shipments of military supplies, including boxcars of rifles whose safe delivery Graves was directed to oversee.

    Domestic Intervention 

    But the prospects for a victory by Kolchak soon faded and the Whites in Siberia revealed themselves to be a lost cause.  The decision to remove the US troops was made late in 1919 and General Graves, with the last of his staff, departed from Vladivostok on 1 April 1920.

    In all, 174 American soldiers were killed during the invasion of Russia. (The Soviet Union was formed on Dec. 28, 1922.)

    Interestingly, pressure to withdraw the U.S. troops from Siberia came from fed-up soldiers and home-front opinion opposing the continued deployment of military units abroad long after the conclusion of the war in Europe. It is notable that during a Congressional debate on the Russian intervention one Senator read excerpts from the letters of American soldiers to support the case for bringing them home.

    Then, as in later U.S. foreign interventions, the soldiers had a low opinion of the people they were supposed to be liberating.  One of them wrote home on July 28, 1919 from his base in Verkhne-Udinsk, now Ulan Ude, on the southern shore of Lake Baikal:

    Letter home for U.S. soldier during invasion of Russia

    “Life in Siberia may sound exciting but it isn’t.  It’s all right for a few months but I’m ready to go home now. . .  You want to know how I like the people?  Well I’ll tell you, one couldn’t hardly call them people but they are some kind of animal.  They are the most ignorant things I ever saw.  Oh, I can get a word of their lingo if they aren’t sore when they talk.  They sure do rattle off their lingo when they get  sore. These people have only one ambition and that is to drink more vodka than the next person.”

    Outside of the State Department and some elite opinion, U.S. intervention had never been very popular.  By now it was widely understood, as one historian noted, that there may have been “many reasons why the doughboys came to Russia, but there was only one reason why they stayed: to intervene in a civil war to see who would govern the country.”

    After 1920, the memory of “America’s Siberian Adventure,” as General Graves termed it, soon faded into obscurity.  The American public is notorious for its historic amnesia, even as similar military adventures were repeated again and again over the years since then.

    It seems that we may need to be reminded every generation or so of the perils of foreign military intervention and the simple truth asserted by General Graves: 

    “. . .there isn’t a nation on earth that would not resent foreigners sending troops into their country, for the purpose of putting this or that faction in charge.  The result is not only an injury to the prestige of the foreigner intervening, but is a great handicap to the faction the foreigner is trying to assist.”

    General Graves was writing about Siberia in 1918, but it could just as well have been Vietnam in the 1960s or Afghanistan and Syria now. Or a warning today about 30,000 NATO troops on Russia’s borders.

  • China Announces Deadly Fleet Of "Extra Large" AI Submarines

    China is currently developing relatively low-cost “smart” unmanned submarines that can perform a wide variety of tasks, from surveillance to the placement of munitions and “suicide” attacks, reports the South China Morning Post. 

    The unmanned subs are part of Beijing’s ambitious plan to enhance its country’s naval power with AI technology in order to challenge Western naval superiority in regions like the South China Sea and western Pacific Ocean, while the first autonomous robotic drones expected to be deployed in the early 2020s. 

    The project is part of the government’s ambitious plan to boost the country’s naval power with AI technology. China has built the world’s largest testing facility for surface drone boats in Zhuhai, Guangdong province. Military researchers are also developing an AI-assisted support system for submarine commanders. As the South China Morning Post reported earlier this year, that system will help captains make faster, more accurate judgments in the heat of combat situations.

    The new class of unmanned submarines will join the other autonomous or manned military systems on water, land and orbit to carry out missions in coordinated efforts, according to the researchers. –SCMP

    The AI-enhanced subs will “go out, handle their assignments and return to base on their own,” reports SCMP, while establishing periodic contact with ground command as needed. 

    The subs will eventually be able to station themselves for ambushes at geographical “chockpoints” where enemy ships are likely to travel, while also being able to work with manned submarines to scout, or as decoys to draw fire and expose an adversary’s position. 

    The robotic submarines rely heavily on artificial intelligence to deal with the sea’s complex environment. They must make decisions constantly on their own: changing course and depth to avoid detection; distinguishing civilian from military vessels; choosing the best approach to reach a designated position. –SCMP

    An AI sub “can be instructed to take down a nuclear-powered submarine or other high-value targets. It can even perform a kamikaze strike,” said the researcher, in reference to Japanese WWII fighter pilots. 

    “The AI has no soul. It is perfect for this kind of job,” the researcher added.

    Luo Yuesheng, professor at the College of Automation in Harbin Engineering University, a major development centre for China’s new submarines, contended that AI subs would put the human captains of other vessels under enormous pressure in battle.

    It is not just that the AI subs are fearless, Luo said, but that they could learn from the sinking of other AI vessels and adjust their strategy continuously. An unmanned submarine trained to be familiar to a specific water “will be a formidable opponent”, he said. –SCMP

    The subs do have limits – for now, so they are beginning with relatively simple tasks while final decisions are all made by human beings, according to Chinese military researchers. 

    That said, they’ll be huge compared to normal UUVs, according to the report. 

    Lin Yang, marine technology equipment director at the Shenyang Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, confirmed to the South China Morning Post this month that China is developing a series of extra-large unmanned underwater vehicles, or XLUUVs.

    They station in dock as conventional submarines. Their cargo bay is reconfigurable and large enough to accommodate a wide range of freight, from powerful surveillance equipment to missiles or torpedoes. Their energy supply comes from diesel-electric engines or other power sources that ensure continuous operation for months. –SCMP

    The institute is a major developer of underwater robotics for the Chinese Military – having developed Beijing’s first autonomous underwater vehicle with an operational depth beyond 3.7 miles. Yang is now the chief scientist of China’s “912 Project,” a classified program to develop the country’s underwater military robots in time for the 100-year anniversary of the Chinese Communist party in 2021. 

    Lin called China’s unmanned submarine programme a countermeasure against similar weapons now under intensive development in the United States. He declined to elaborate on technical specifications because the information was “sensitive”. –SCMP

    “It will be announced sooner or later, but not now,” he added.

    Not to be outdone in size or girth, the US military announced as major defense contract last year for two prototype XLUUVs by 2020. 

    Lockheed Martin’s Orca system would station in an area of operation with the ability to establish communication to base from time to time. It would return home after deploying payloads, according to the company’s website. –SCMP

    “A critical benefit of Orca is that Navy personnel launch, recover, operate, and communicate with the vehicle from a home base and are never placed in harm’s way,” the company said in an announcement.

    Unsurprisingly, Lockheed did not respond to the South China Morning Post‘s requests for information on Orca’s size and operational endurance. 

    Boeing, meanwhile, is developing the other prototype – its “Echo Voyager,” a 50-ton autonomous sub first developed for commercial purposes such as mapping the ocean floor. The approximately 50 foot vehicle just 8.5 feet in diameter can operate for months over a range of around 7,500 miles – enough to sail from San Francisco to Shanghai at 8 knots. 

    Russia has also reportedly developed a large underwater drone able to carry a 100-megaton warhead – the Status-6 autonomous torpedo. 

    China’s announcement comes seven months after US officials say China unlawfully seized an unmanned underwater US Navy vehicle in international waters in the South China Sea. According to CNN, a US oceanographic vessel had its underwater drone stolen by a Chinese warship literally right in front of the eyes of the American crew.

  • Trump – The De-Globalizer!

    Authored by Peter Koenig via The Saker blog,

    Looks like Trump is running amok with his “trading policies”. Not only has he upset the European Union – which doesn’t deserve any better, frankly, for having been and still being submissive vassals against the will of by now 90% of Europeans; but he has also managed to get China into a fury. Well, for China it is really not that important, because China has plenty of other markets, including basically all of Asia and probably increasingly also Europe, as Europe increasingly feel the need for detaching from the US.

    What is striking, though, is that even at the outset of the G20 Summit now ongoing in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Trumps Ministers have made it clear that unless Europe cancels all subsidies – referring primarily to agricultural subsidies – and eliminates the newly imposed retaliatory import duties, new trade deals are not going to be discussed. Never mind that the US has the world’s highest farm subsidies.

    From afar this looks like the most wicked and non-sensical trade war the US via Trump, is waging against the rest of the world – à la “Make America Great Again”. Will it work? Maybe. One can never predict dynamics, especially not in a neoliberal western world that is used to live on linearism, which by definition is always wrong. Knowingly and deliberately the west and it’s financial key institutions, IMF, World Bank, FED, European Central Bank – trick the public at large into believing their statistics and predictions – which, if one goes back in history, have always been off, way off.

    All life is dynamic. But to understand this it takes independent thinking – which the west has long given up, unfortunately.

    So, in response to the latest Trump-promoted trade fiasco at the G20 in Argentina, the IMF is up in arms, saying this might lower world GDP by at least 0.5%. – Even if true, so what?

    In reality, there is a totally different scenario that nobody dares talk about.

    Namely, what renewed local production and monetary sovereignty can bring to the world economy; precisely what Mr. Trump says he wants to propagate for the US of A – local production for local markets and for trade with countries that respect mutual benefits. The latter is of course a question not easily achieved by any trade deal with the US. But the former is an enormous economic power keg. The stimulation of local economies through internal credit, is the most commanding means to boost local employment and GDP.

    Then there is the sanctions game. It’s getting ever more aggressive. New sanctions on Russia, new sanctions on Venezuela – and new heavy-heavy sanctions on Iran. And the European puppets still follow suit, although they are the ones that most suffer from US sanctions imposed on others, especially because out of ‘stupidity’ or fear, they cannot let go of the destructive empire, hobbling away on its last breath. Or is it perhaps, that those fake leaders of the Brussels construct are bought? – Yes, I mean bought with money or with favors? – It’s not out of this world, since those of the European Commission who call the shots are not elected, thus, responsible to no one.

    Take the case of Iran, Trump and his peons, Bolton and Pompeo, have threatened every oil company around the globe with heavy sanctions if they keep buying hydrocarbons from Iran beyond November 2018. Particularly concerned are the European Petrol giants, like Total, ENI, Repsol and others. – As a consequence, they have canceled their literally of billions of euros worth of contracts with Iran to protect themselves – and, of course, their shareholders. Just recently I talked to a high executive from Total. He said, we have no choice, as we cannot trust our people in Brussels to shield us from Washington’s sanctions. So, we have to look elsewhere to fulfill our contractual obligations vis-à-vis our clients. But, he added, we did not buy the American fracking stuff; we are negotiating with Russia. – There you go.

    The European market for Iran’s hydrocarbon is estimated at about 20% of Iran’s total production. An amount, easily taken over by China and others which are too big (and too bold) to be sanctioned by the empire. Some may actually resell Iranian hydrocarbons through their backdoor to the otherwise sanctioned European oil corporations.

    Iran has another strong weapon which they already made clear, they will use, if the US attempts seriously to block anyone from buying Iranian oil and gas. Iran can block the Gulf of Hormuz, where daily about 30% of all hydrocarbon used by the world is being shipped, including about half to the United states. This might increase the price of petrol exponentially and ruining many countries’ economies. However, higher prices would also benefit Russia, China and Venezuela, precisely the countries that Washington wants to punish.

    Would such a move by Iran provoke a direct US aggression? – One never knows with the war profiteers of the US. What’s for sure, such an intervention would not pass without a commensurate response from China and Russia.

    *  *  *

    On the other side of the scenario – imagine – countries mired in this global mess, made in the US of A, start looking for their own internal interests again, seeking their own sovereignty, independence from the globalist dependency. They are embarking on economic policies furthering self-sufficiency, self-reliance; first foodwise, then focusing on their scientific research to build their own cutting-edge technology industrial parks. A vivid example is Russia. Since sanctions were imposed, Russia has moved from a totally import-dependent country since the collapse of the Soviet Union, to a food and industry self-sufficient nation. According to Mr. Putin, the sanctions were the best thing that happened to Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia has been the world’s largest wheat exporter for the last two years.

    Europeans have started quietly to reorient their business activities towards the east. Europeans may finally have noticed – not the elitist puppets from Brussels, but Big Business and the public at large – that the transatlantic partner cannot be trusted, nor their self-imposed EU central administration of Brussels. They are seeking their own ways, each one of these nations are seeking gradually to detach from the fangs of Washington, eventually detaching from the dollar dominion, because they notice businesswise the dollar-based economy is a losing proposition.

    There is BREXIT, the most open move away from the ‘freedom limiting’ European dictate which is nothing else but a carbon copy of the economic dictate of the dollar, as practiced in the United States and everywhere the dollar is still the main international contract and reserve currency.

    The Five Star Movement in Italy was created on similar premises – breaking out from Brussels, from the Euro-policy handcuffs. In a first attempt towards sidelining the Euro, they received a spanking from the euro-friendly Italian President, Sergio Mattarella, when he refused to accept the 5-Stars coalition partner’s, Lega Norte, proposed Eurosceptic Minister of Finance, Paolo Savona, who called Italy’s entry into the eurozone a “historic mistake”. This thrive by Italy to regain monetary sovereignty has by no means ended. To the contrary, it has taken strength and more determination. Germany moves in the same direction – quietly opening doors to Moscow and Beijing.

    Unfortunately, these moves have little to do with a new more human and peace-loving consciousness, but rather with business interests. But perhaps conscious awareness – the reconnecting with the original spark of a humanity solidified in solidarity is a step-by-step process.

    *  *  *

    What if, considering the motion towards peoples’ new self-determination – Trump’s jumping from chaos to more chaos, to the never-ending sanction game (punishing, or threatening friends and foes alike) – will lead to a genuine de-globalization of the world?

    If this were to happen then, we the 90% of the globe’s population, should be very grateful to Mr. Trump who has shown and created the path to enlightening – the enlightening of de-globalization.

  • The Cryptocurrency Insurance Business Is Booming

    What is the next step when you have a speculative asset whose value may go to zero  (or $250,000 ) in the near future? Why start writing insurance policies on it, of course!  That’s the line of logic employed in the world of cryptocurrencies, as the newly formed crypto insurance business is booming.

    To be sure, there is ample demand and soaring interest in crypto insurance, according to Bloomberg. After all, with fat premiums and no insurer on record to date of ever paying out a claim, why wouldn’t there be?

    Furthermore, one can rarely go a few weeks without a headline about a major crypto exchange getting hacked, sometimes with hundreds of millions of dollars being lost in the process. Such was the case with the hacks of Bitfinex and Mt. Gox. Remember this stud?

    Mark Karpeles, Mt. Gox CEO

    As a result of this “accident prone” asset class, major players in the insurance and finance industry believe that the future for crypto insurance is bright. As Bloomberg notes, a representative from Allianz said it “could be a big opportunity.” Which is why Allianz is offering the product:

    “Insurance for cryptocurrency storage will be a big opportunity,” said Christian Weishuber, a spokesman for Allianz, which began offering individual coverage for digital-coin theft in the past year and is one of the few insurers that agreed to talk about the issue. “Digital assets are becoming more relevant, important and prevalent on the real economy and we are exploring product and coverage options in this area.”

    In addition, two other major crypto-insurance shops – Marsh & McLennan and Aon – said business has been booming over the last year.

    While the cost is still beyond reach for many fledgling companies, Marsh & McLennan and Aon, the two leading insurance brokers that help companies shop for crypto policies, say business has been brisk this year. For the first time, Marsh formed a team of 10 dedicated to servicing blockchain startups.

    Aon, which claims to have over 50 percent of the market for crypto insurance, recently streamlined its standard policy form to speed up the underwriting process. It has also seen some insurers tweak general company policies to include crypto-specific protections.

    Whil Marsh and Aon declined to identify their partners, people familiar with the matter say over a dozen underwriters, including Chubb and XL, currently provide coverage to crypto-related businesses. And here is a blast from the past: none other than AIG has also been adding crypto coverage into standard policy forms, and said it’s met with cryptocurrency custodians and trading platforms about coverage, however, the firm “declined to say how much in crypto-related premiums it’s taken in.”

    There may be a simple explanation for the enthusiasm to sell insurance: Marsh and Aon said that, so far, they are not aware of any insurance companies that have had to actually pay out on any claims, even as 2018 is supposed to be the “busiest year for hacks on record”. It’s probably safe to say that it won’t be long before claims are paid out. Big ones.

    With 2018 on track to be the busiest year for hacks on record, the potential for a reputational black eye is perhaps one reason many insurers have declined to speak publicly about crypto. Lloyd’s of London, the world’s oldest insurance market, published a bulletin this month with guidance on crypto coverage and asked its agents to “proceed with a level of caution that recognizes the risks.”

    Meanwhile, demand for insurance will only grow as it gives start-ups an air of credibility when try to raise capital, providing some modest cover for a business that has generally been speculative and regarded as somewhat dangerous.

    It’s no small irony that the crypto industry, which originally sprung out of a techno-utopian desire to liberate its users from the traditional financial system, is embracing insurance as a way to go mainstream.

    “I see it is a required step,” said Lucas Nuzzi, director of technology research at Digital Asset Research. Coverage can reduce investor concerns and make it easier to work with banks. “It definitely helps legitimize the industry.”

    For example, Trustology, a London-based startup focused on crypto custody services, is in talks to obtain coverage that would insure its customer accounts up to 85,000 pounds — the same standard as a U.K. bank account — to help attract more clients. It’s also looking at self-insuring client funds.

    And while even major crypto exchanges like Coinbase are starting to buy this type of insurance, in the case of the most popular US crypto exchange, it is only on a “fraction” of their holdings.

    Coinbase, one of the most widely used crypto exchanges, buys insurance for a fraction of the digital coins it holds. Funds stored in so-called hot wallets, which may contain up to 2 percent of client assets and are used in active trading, are covered. Coinbase’s disclosures don’t provide details on how much coverage is provided for its remaining coin deposits, which are stored offline as a security measure.

    Finally, selling crpto insurance for now remains a goldmine, with insurance companies able to charge a significant premiums, as underwriters can charge a crypto-related company upwards of five times or more than your average business for coverage against loss or theft, according to Bloomberg.

    That said, like with any other other financial security boom, where derivatives of derivatives wind up in bloom during the first stage, many are skeptical about how long of a runway the field of crypto insurance will have, especially given the fact that the underlying asset value would will likely be for the determined by regulators in the future – and the decision will likely prove to be extremely volatile, leading to a painful bust for the insurance industry.

  • Paul Craig Roberts Rages "The Arrest Of Maria Butina Is Another Hoax"

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The Guardian Neswspaper, which once was an honest newspaper that spoke for the British working class has now been suborned, in my opinion, by the CIA and British Intelligence (sic).

    Perhaps you remember a few years ago that The Guardian complied with illegal orders from the corrupt UK government to destroy the Wikileak files that revealed US felonies and deceptions of so-called “allies,” who are nothing but Washington’s vassals.

    What disturbs me about The Guardian is that it no longer guards truth and the working class. Instead The Guardian guards the extraordinary lies that serve the agenda of the US hegemonic state.

    I cannot understand why any of The Guardian’s original subscribers read apologies for Washington’s crimes and misdeeds or why The Guardian prefers conflict instead of peace with Russia. Why does The Guardian work to increase hostility between nuclear powers that can easily result in the termination of life on earth? Are The Guardian’s editors paid by the CIA and UK “intelligence,” as the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte said in his book, Bought Journalism, or are The Guardian’s editiors threatened with arrest and prison unless they serve the interests of the UK’s overlord in Washington?

    Whatever The Guardian is, just like The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and the rest of the Western presstitutes, journalism is not present on its pages. What the West has is a Ministry of Propaganda. The public is lied to and brainwashed, not informed.

    We can see the total failure of The Guardian, and all the rest as well, in the reporting on the arrest of the alleged Russian spy, Maria Butina by the utterly corrupt US Department of Justice (sic). The principal evidence against Maria is that she met with a former Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak. According to the utterly corrput US Department of Justice (sic), an assistant US attorney, Erik Kenerson, “cited Butina’s encounter with Kislyak as proof that she was in touch with diplomatic or consular officials and must be detained while awaiting trial.”

    So, in America if you get your photo taken with a former Russian ambassador to the US it is evidence that you are a spy.

    I have read the indictment of Maria Butina. She is not accused of any crime recognizable by Anglo-American law. She is indicted under Jeremy Bentham’s 18th century totalitarian argument that she is guilty of the “crime” of possibly intending to commit one in the future. (See The Tyranny of Good intentions by PCR and Lawrence Stratton.)

    Maria, who has long red hair but otherwise is unremarkable, especially in contrast to the women that the interest groups, such as the military/security complex, Wall Street, and the Israel lobby are believed to provide to the executive and legislative branches of the US government, is certainly not the seductive Russian spy that Americans know from James Bond films.

    The woman has not done a thing. She is indicted for a non-crime. She is indicted because she is Russian and living, according to the presstitute media, with a congressional staffer. Maria has no way whatsoever to spy on the US through the low level congressional staffer with whom she was allegedly livingl

    Her arrest is just another hoax perpetrated on the American people in order to fan the distrust and hatred of Russia, distrust that protects the totally unnecessary $1,000 billion annual budget of the US military/security complex.

    Many uninformed people think that President Trump is in charge of the US government. He is not. And he would be assassinated if he were. As President Dwight Eisenhower warned us to no avail in 1961, the military/security complex is a threat to democracy and accountable government. The military/security complex is most definitely not going to permit any diminuition in its income and power by permitting normalization of relations with Russia.

    Having ignored President Eisenhower’s warning, the warning from a two-term US president and a 5-star general who commanded US, British, and French forces against Hitler in World War 2, the insouciant Americans have lost their democracy to the Deep State.

    Consequently, the passive and insouciant Americans are now getting nearer to losing their lives, along with the lives of many other peoples, to the greed of the American military/security complex.

  • 'Ghosting' On The Rise As Workers Blow Off Interviews

    In a clear but perhaps unwelcome, for companies, sign that the US job market is at its hottest in decades, applicants are increasingly “ghosting” interviews, resulting in employers getting more creative in their hiring and retention efforts after frustration in attracting ideal candidates is on the rise, according to a new report.

    “Ghosting” is a term coined by millennials denoting cutting off all communication with friends or a date, with zero warning or notice before hand, including blocking social media communications and avoiding them in public. Job candidates and employees are now “ghosting” their jobs by way of ditching scheduled job interviews, or even not showing up on the first day of work, or disappearing from existing positions without notice or reason.  

    “Office Space” (1999) via Hollywood Reporter

    That this is taking place at the same time as the quits rate hit an all time high, is probably not a surprise: we detailed the so-called “take this job and shove it” indicator from the latest JOLTS report earlier this month – it shows worker confidence that they can leave their current job and find a better paying job elsewhere. Well, according to the BLS, as of May, this number hit an all time high, rising from 3.349MM in April to 3.561MM in May, an increase of 212K in the month, the biggest monthly increase since December 2015.

    Meanwhile, unemployment has reached an 18-year low of nearly 3.8%, with more job openings than unemployed people in May of this year — only the second month in the past two decades this has happened.

    As a result, employees increasingly find themselves holding all the cards as 2.4% of all those employed quitting their jobs, usually to take another preferred position, the largest share in 17 years.

    One president of a major staffing firm in the New York City area, Dawn Fay, told USA Today that “up to 20 percent of white-collar workers” are no-shows at scheduled interviews as they find themselves with more options, and explained further:

    To some extent, employees are giving employers a taste of their own medicine. During and after the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009, when unemployment reached 10 percent, many firms ignored job applicants and never followed up after interviews. “Candidates were very frustrated because they felt employers were ghosting on them,” Fay says.

    Now it’s payback time as other staffing agencies recently profiled report that they see upwards of 60% of candidates with multiple offers in a market that’s now pit companies in a cut-throat race to attract talent. Some companies report experimenting with group interviews of 20 or 30 applicants or more, with the expectation that up to half may never show up. 

    USA Today notes that “While no one formally tracks such antics, many businesses report that 20 to 50 percent of job applicants and workers are pulling no-shows in some form, forcing many firms to modify their hiring practices.”

    In one prominent online journal geared towards HR professionals and employers, company owners and headhunters rant over recent hiring frustrations: 

    “Downright rude and unprofessional,” says Carl Schussler, managing principal of Mitigate Partners. “What happened to handwritten thank you notes and treating people with respect?”

    Kathleen Downs, senior vice president with staffing and recruiting company Robert Half Finance & Accounting agrees with Bieler that candidates’ having multiple choices in today’s job market feeds into this new trend of professional ghosting. She explains that during the Great Recession, companies would receive 100 applications and choose to interview 15 of them. “Now they receive five or six resumes, and if they are fortunate enough to interview all, each of them would have had three or four previous interviews,” she says.

    Leylek agrees. “We are now working with a candidate-driven market,” he says. “Candidates are in a position where they hold all the cards.”

    For businesses all of this of course spells lost money, time, and wasted expenses as difficult to fill and skill set specific jobs stay vacant event longer. 

    Some staffing firms speculate in recent reports that it could simply be a decline in manners among a younger generation more at home in a social media world of impersonal relations and the ease of “blocking” contact.

    Employee Benefit News cites the reasons behind “ghosting” in the work world as that while “social media made reaching out to people easier, it also made it easier for candidates to just not reply back,” and that “the uncomfortable situation of delivering the rejection personally that plays into this.”

    But more obviously, it’s not social media induced shyness that’s the culprit, but a natural confidence that comes with a robust and growing job market — so perhaps ghosting is but the latest positive phenomenon in a resurgent economy. 

  • Chinese Gold Market: Still In The Driving Seat

    Submitted by Ronan Manly, BullionStar.com,

    With the first half of 2018 now behind us, it’s an opportune time to look at whats been happening in the Chinese Gold Market. As a reminder, China is the largest gold producer in the world, the largest gold importer in the world, and China’s Shanghai Gold Exchange is the largest physical gold exchange in the world.

    For various reasons such as cross-border trade rules, VAT rules and deep liquidity, nearly all physical gold supply in China passes through the Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) vaulting network. These flows include imported gold, domestically mined gold, and recycled gold. Therefore, nearly all Chinese gold demand has to be met by physical gold withdrawals from the SGE, and SGE gold withdrawals are a suitable proxy for Chinese wholesale gold demand. Therefore, at a high level:

    Physical Gold Supply to the SGE = SGE Withdrawals = Chinese Wholesale Gold Demand

    Gold supply includes gold imports, mine supply, gold scrap / recycling and disinvestment. Disinvestment on the SGE is the reverse process of investment. Investment is when any institutional entity or individual purchases gold directly on the SGE. Disinvestment involves selling gold bullion which then goes to a refinery and re-enters the SGE vaulting network.

    Wholesale gold demand includes consumer demand and institutional demand (direct gold purchases at the SGE). For a fuller explanation of this gold supply – demand equation as it applies to the Chinese gold market, see ‘Mechanics of the Chinese Domestic Gold Market’ on the BullionStar website.

    Chinese Gold Market: Still Buoyant

    SGE Gold Withdrawals in 2018

    For the 6 months to the end of June 2018, physical gold withdrawals from the Shanghai Gold Exchange totaled 1038.4 tonnes. These flows represent gold which has actually been physically withdrawn from the network of SGE vaults across China. The monthly SGE gold withdrawal figures from January to June 2018 are as follows:

    • January 223.6 tonnes

    • February 118.4 tonnes

    • March 192.6 tonnes

    • April 212.6 tonnes

    • May 150.6 tonnes

    • June 140.6 tonnes

    This withdrawal total, 1038 tonnes, is the third highest SGE withdrawal total on record for the first six months of any year of the SGE’s existence, only lower than the 1098 tonnes and 1178 tonnes recorded at the end of June 2013 and June 2015, respectively. The following chart highlights the cumulative Month 6 gold withdrawals from the SGE vaults, comparing all years from 2008 to 2018.

    SGE Gold Withdrawals at Month 6 (YTD 2018 June): 2008 – 2018. Source: www.GoldChartsRUs.com

    This year’s gold withdrawals to end of June, if annualized, would be 2076 tonnes, which would represent the fourth highest SGE gold withdrawals year on record after 2015, 2013 and 2014, in that order. All in all, SGE gold withdrawal figures year-to-date point to a very buoyant and healthy gold market in China and very strong wholesale gold demand, with volumes in line with the last 5 years.

    SGE Annual Physical Gold Withdrawals, 2008 – 2017, including YTD 2018. Source: www.GoldChartsRUs.com

    Imports of Gold into China

    Around the world, monetary gold (i.e. central bank gold) is exempt from customs and trade reporting when it moves across borders. Given this exemption, it is difficult to really know how much gold central banks (including the Chinese central bank, the PBoC) actually have at any given time.

    Non-monetary gold is any gold that is not classified as monetary gold. Normally, non-monetary gold flows are estimable since there is no general exemption from customs and trade reporting. However, China is the exception, as it does not publish its gold import or export statistics. Therefore cross-border non-monetary gold trade flows involving China are more difficult to gauge than most. But it is still possible to gauge gold imports into China by looking at other countries’ gold exports to China.

    During the year to date, Hong Kong and Switzerland, as expected, remained the two primary suppliers of non-monetary gold to China. Smaller direct suppliers of gold to China include the UK, Australia and the US. While Hong Kong remains the largest supplier of gold into China, China has been for a few years now, sourcing more gold directly from other countries and less gold via Hong Kong,

    Looking first at Switzerland, for the first six months of 2018 from January to  June, the Swiss supplied 274.7 tonnes of non-monetary gold into China. Specifically, 41.2 tonnes in January, a very large 67.2 tonnes in February, 39.6 tonnes in March, 26.6 tonnes in April, 38 tonnes in May and 62.1 tonnes in June. In fact, China topped the table as the largest single destination for Swiss non-monetary gold imports in every month from January to June 2018, ahead of India and Hong Kong.

    China imported 62.1 tonnes of gold from Switzerland in June 2018, Source: www.GoldChartsRUs.com

    If extrapolated on an annual basis, the 6 month flows would suggest Swiss gold exports to China of 274.7 tonnes from January to June would be roughly 550 tonnes for the full year. Comparing this to the full year 2017 when China imported 299.8 tonnes of non-monetary gold directly from Switzerland would suggest that a major change has occurred this year in the way the Chinese are sourcing their gold imports, with far more direct gold imports and less indirect imports from the interpot of Hong Kong.

    Swiss Gold Exports by Country Destination, 2017, Source: www.GoldChartsRUs.com

    According to Hong Kong’s Census and Statistics Department (HKCSD), Hong Kong net-exported 144.2 tonnes of gold to mainland China during the first 3 months of 2018. Extrapolating this on a 6 months basis would be about 290 tonnes, and 580 tonnes on an annualized basis. This would be a 7.5% drop compared to 2017 full year net gold exports from Hong Kong to China, but such a drop is to be expected as there is a trend of China is now engaged in more direct gold imports from destinations other than Hong Kong.

    Chinese Gold Imports from Hong Kong, Source: www.GoldChartsRUs.com

    China sources gold directly from a number of other countries such as the UK, Australia, US and Canada. Together these other sources are still relatively insignificant as gold exporters to China compared to Hong Kong and Switzerland, but based on 2017 figures, together they may have sent about 30-40 tonnes of gold to mainland China during H1 2018.

    Gold Production in China: 2018

    Beyond gold imports, gold sourced from mining remains a critically important source of gold supply in China. According to the China Gold Association (CGA), China produced 98.22 tonnes of gold from mining in the first quarter of 2018, which was down 3 tonnes on Q1 2017. This comprised 80.8 tonnes from direct gold mining and 17.4 tonnes from extracting gold as a byproduct of other mining.

    While the CGA has not yet published a gold mining output total for the second quarter of 2018 and its website has not yet been updated with such a news release, extrapolating the first quarter figure would suggest a Chinese domestic mining output figure of just less than 200 tonnes of gold for the first half of 2018 and about 400 tonnes for the full year.

    Given that China produced 426.14 tonnes of gold during 2017, and the 2017 gold output total of 426.14 tonnes was itself 27.3 tonnes, or 6%, less than in 2016, it looks like 2018 will see another year of reduced gold production from the world’s number one gold producer. With continued buoyant demand from the Chinese gold market, these relative production shortfalls will have to be made up by larger gold imports or increased volumes of gold recycling.

    SGE Premiums

    Premiums of the Shanghai gold price to the international gold price have remained positive and steady throughout 2018, and generally low, except for a short period at the end of March. In price terms, SGE premiums during the year-to-date period have been recorded at between 1-2 Yuan per gram , or in percentage terms between 0.3% and 0.8%.

    The positive premiums point to the attraction of sending gold from West to East, while the generally sedate levels of these premiums during 2018 indicate that there are currently no major supply constraints, such as tighter gold import rules, that could send the premiums higher into positive territory. Contrast this to late 2016, when the SGE gold price traded 2-3% higher than the international gold price, on the back of rumored PBoC restrictions on gold import quotas and consignments that were said to be an attempt to control capital outflows.

    SGE Premiums on Gold 2018. Source: www.GoldChartsRUs.com

    With Chinese wholesale gold demand running at over 1000 tonnes for the first six months of 2018 as indicated by SGE gold withdrawals, China’s gold market has to principally meet this gold demand from the key supply sources of domestic mine production, gold imports and gold recycling and disinvestment.

    For the year to date to end of June, we can assume that Chinese gold mining contributed about 200 tonnes to Chinese gold supply. Non-monetary gold imports, principally from Switzerland and Hong Kong, contributed another 560-580 tonnes. This would leave about 250 – 300 tonnes to be sourced from gold recycling and scrap through the SGE system and from disinvestment.

  • Trump To Revoke California's Power To Fight Smog

    In a move that will infuriate environmentalists everywhere, but especially in California, the Trump administration is seeking to repeal California’s authority to regulate automobile emissions in a proposed revision of Obama-era standards, according to Bloomberg citing three people familiar with the plan.

    The proposal which will be released later this week represents a “frontal assault” on one of Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

    It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.

    And since the revamp also includes California’s mandate for electric car sales, it represents a gut punch to the likes of Elon Musk, who recently announced (yet again) a deal to begin work on a factory in China.

    The proposed overhaul would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, instead it will cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the plan left behind by Obama.

    As Bloomberg details, as part of the stunning proposal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose revoking the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California that has allowed the state to regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell electric vehicles in the state in higher numbers.

    Separately, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will assert that California is barred from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from autos under the 1975 law that established the first federal fuel-efficiency requirements, the people said.

    Agencies are expected to claim it will reduce traffic fatalities by making it cheaper for drivers to replace older, less-safe cars, while paring sticker prices for new vehicles even if motorists have to spend more for gasoline.

    In other words, in what amounts to a full-blown war between the White House and California, the administration will put its weight behind the dramatic overhaul, including the revocation of California’s cherished authority.

    The state’s 2009 waiver of federal preemption under the Clean Air Act has allowed the California state to set emissions rules for cars and trucks that are more stringent than the federal government’s, but the state has aligned its rules with those set by the EPA and NHTSA in a so-called national program of clean-car rules.

    Needless to say, if Trump’s plan sticks it would represent his biggest regulatory rollback yet.

    Predictably, California was furious and rejects the idea that its 48-year ability to write its own tailpipe emission rules should end: “We have the law on our side, as well as the people of the country and the people of the world,” said Dan Sperling, a member of the state’s Air Resources Board said.

    On May 2, California and 16 others plus the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration’s effort to unravel the Obama-era emissions targets. Sperling said that number will grow as more and more people come to realize how fundamentally Trump is attacking the idea of states’ rights.

    A key, and still unanswered question is what happens to automakers who are caught somewhere in the middle of this fight between the president and most populous US state. According to Bloomberg, in recent months they have stressed they would not support freezing the federal targets and want Washington and Sacramento to continue linking their vehicle efficiency goals. While they spent the first year of the Trump administration attacking Obama’s rules as too costly, they fear the regulatory uncertainty that a years-long court battle over a rollback would create. In addition, other major auto markets such as China and Europe are pressing forward with tougher mandates of their own for cleaner cars.

    Trump’s action will not make him any friends in the Golden State:

    “This is nothing less than an outrageous attack on public health and states’ rights,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. “It’s a dumb move for an administration that claims it wants peace, because this will lead to an emissions war: progressive states versus a reactionary federal government. The big question: who will the car companies back?”

    Meanwhile, others are secretly pleased: some conservatives have long chafed at the rare authority granted California and welcome the effort to revoke.

    “Congress didn’t intend for California to set national fuel economy standards,” said Steve Milloy, a policy adviser for the Heartland Institute, a group critical of climate science. “It’s nutty it’s been allowed to develop. National fuel economy standards are set by the federal government so that’s what we are going to do.”

    Meanwhile, as the pollution fight over California cars heats up, one wonders are its cows next? As a reminder, the meat and dairy industry will soon surpass big oil as the world’s biggest polluters. The silver lining for them is that by the time this happens, Trump will be long gone.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 23

Today’s News 23rd July 2018

  • Visualizing The World's Largest Megacities By 2100

    Throughout the course of human history, the biggest cities have always seemed impossibly large.

    For many millennia, it was almost unfathomable for a city to sustain more than 1 million residents. In fact, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, it wasn’t until the 19th century that the largest cities globally, such as London and Beijing, were able to consistently hold populations beyond that impressive mark.

    Despite this, in the modern era, we’ve quickly discovered that a city of 1 million people isn’t remarkable at all. In China alone, there are now over 100 cities with a million people today – and as such, our mental benchmark for what we consider to be a “big city” has changed considerably from past times.

    THINKING BIG

    Just like a city the size of modern Tokyo was hard to imagine for someone living in the 19th century, it can be an extremely difficult thought experiment for us to visualize what future megacities will look like.

    Researchers at the Global Cities Institute have crunched the numbers to provide us with one view of the potential megacities of the future, extrapolating a variety of factors to project a list of the 101 largest cities in the years 2010, 2025, 2050, 2075, and 2100.

    Today’s video uses this data – it’s also an extension to the previous work we did based on the report here.

    THE LARGEST MEGACITIES BY 2100

    According to the report, human geography will look completely unfamiliar by the turn of the century.

    Here is a list of the 20 largest megacities projected for 2100:

     

    By the year 2100, it’s estimated that 13 of the world’s largest megacities will be located in Africa. Meanwhile, India will hold three of them – and there will be zero of them found in the Americas, China, or Europe.

    Here’s a final look at the top three:

    #1: Lagos, Nigeria
    Nigeria’s largest city, Lagos, is expected to push the limits of how big a metropolis can get. Already, Lagos has seen explosive growth over the past few decades, and is growing so fast that no one really knows how many people live there. Over 2,000 people emigrate to the city every day, and current population estimates vary widely from 11 to 21 million inhabitants.

    Either way, by the turn of the century, Lagos is projected to have a population north of 88 million.

    #2: Kinshasa, DRC
    Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo is projected to be the second largest city in the world with a population of 83 million.

    #3: Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania
    Dar Es Salaam, a city on the coast of Tanzania, has a population of just 4.4 million today. By 2100, its population is projected to jump by a whopping 1,588%, putting the total at 74 million inhabitants.

  • Turkey: Exposing Crimes Of ISIS Is Terrorism

    Authored by Uzay Bulut via The Gatestone Institute,

    How does Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan fight his political opponents, including those who have been working hard to expose the atrocities of the Islamic state terror group, ISIS? By throwing them into jail for allegedly “supporting terrorism.”

    Since the 2016 botched coup attempt in Turkey, Erdogan has been waging a massive crackdown on his opponents and critics, including politicians, political activists, journalists and members of the Turkish security forces and army.

    The latest victim of this crackdown is Eren Erdem, a former deputy of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), who is known for his activities to expose the crimes of ISIS and other terrorist groups.

    Erdem was recently detained on charges of “aiding a terrorist organization” and is also being investigated for “insulting the Turkish state.” He faces a prison sentence of 9 to 22 years on charges of “knowingly and willingly aiding an armed terrorist organization as a non-member”, “revealing the identity of an anonymous witness” and “violating the confidentiality of the investigation.”

    The author of nine books, Erdem worked as a journalist before being elected as a CHP member of parliament for Istanbul in 2015. He appears to be the bravest MP who has exposed ISIS activities across Turkey during his tenure and has often urged the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) government to stop these activities and bring the perpetrators to account.

    Erdem meticulously cited evidence from criminal cases, indictments and investigations by state authorities as well as news reports in his statements and parliamentary motions. On December 10, 2015, for example, Erdem made a speech in Turkey’s parliament about ISIS activities in Turkey. These included ISIS’s transfer of the ingredients of sarin gas through Turkey to Syria “with which thousands of children were murdered in the Middle East”. Referring to the investigation and indictment by the Adana office of a public prosecutor, he said:

    “Some people in Turkey have contacted the members of the ISIS terrorist organization and transferred the raw material of sarin gas, which is a chemical weapon, to Syria. The prosecutor started an investigation on this. The suspects who carried out the transfer were arrested and jailed. Upon the order of the prosecutor, the telephones of all suspects were wiretapped, the details of which are in this indictment… But within a week, the case was closed, the suspects were released and allowed to leave Turkey to cross the border to Syria.”

    Because of the statements he made in parliament, Erdem became the target of a smear campaign, particularly after he spoke to the international press. In December 2015, for example, he told RT: “Chemical weapon materials were brought to Turkey and put together in ISIS camps in Syria, which was known as the Iraqi Al-Qaeda at that time.”

    Erdogan, condemning Erdem for the RT interview, said that Erdem “has sunk in the pit of treason” and called on the CHP to dismiss him: “Shame on his party, me and my nation for letting him stay in his party.” A investigation into treason was then launched against Erdem.

    Erdem then stated that after the publication of the interview, he received death threats over social media, with his home address posted by pro-government Twitter users presumably to enable an attack on his house:

    “I just shared the contents of the indictment with the people… I provided them with a document… [The government] is carrying out a lynching campaign against me. Because they are disturbed by me. I have exposed their filths and exploitation of religion in my books… I have received more than a thousand death threats. My email address is filed with death threats… If something happens to me, the pro-government media and AKP deputies are responsible.”

    Undeterred by the pressure and threats, Erdem has continued exposing and speaking about the activities of jihadist terror groups in the region. During a speech at Turkey’s parliament in June 2016, for instance, Erdem once again criticized the government for turning a blind eye to ISIS activities: “ISIS has sleeper cells in Turkey. These cell houses are monitored [by state authorities]… The information gained from technical surveillance on these cells has confirmed that ISIS is organized in Turkey.”

    The primary suspect of ISIS’s terror attack in Ankara, Erdem said, who goes by acronym I.B. [Ibrahim Bali] “sent 1,800 terrorists to ISIS, all of whom were monitored through technical surveillance but not a single police or military operation was carried out on them… Where are the police forces? I identified 10.000 addresses [of ISIS members] in these documents of investigations conducted by prosecutors and judges…. Why are these men not in jail?”

    Erdem also commented on the Turkish language online magazine published by ISIS, Konstantiniyye:

    “ISIS sends these magazines to bookstores and its cell houses. The government knows this. But no police or military operation has been carried out on anywhere including the printing house of this magazine.”

    Erdem then showed a photo of the “database” interface ISIS created of its injured and treated members and said that many ISIS terrorists received medical treatment in Turkey. He also called on the parliament to open a commission to investigate ISIS activities in Turkey, but the call was rejected by the votes of the ruling AKP party. A day later, at a press conference at Turkey’s parliament, Erdem said:

    “If the commission we proposed were established, we would crush all of the ISIS cells across in Turkey in a few months. There would be no cell left. Because we know the addresses of these cells. We learn them from the police… We also learn from the investigation by police that ISIS members get organized in Istanbul through a magazine called ‘the Islamic World’. But there has been no police operation against them. This is not neglect. This is cooperation [with ISIS].”

    Erdem also said that he received threats and curses on social media after he proposed establishing a commission for investigating ISIS. He added that he was provided with security guards by the governor as a precaution to death threats.

    Eren Erdem at a June 2016 press conference. (Image source: Eren Erdem video screenshot)

    In May 2018, an Islamist association demanded prosecutors to issue an arrest warrant against Erdem. He responded that he was “being exposed to yet another lynching campaign”. He then received a ban on going abroad as he was about to leave Turkey for Germany with his family on May 21. He was stopped at the Istanbul airport by authorities and his passport was seized.

    When Erdem’s party, the CHP, failed to nominate him as MP candidate for June 24 elections, he lost his parliamentary seat and his immunity. On June 26, he was arrested in Istanbul.

    The terror organization to which Erdem’s indictment refers is the FETÖ (Fethullahist Terrorist Organization), named after Islamic cleric Fethullah Gülen. It is an organization that Erdogan and other members of the Turkish government accuse of staging a 2016 attempted coup, and often use as an excuse to arrest its critics.

    A lawsuit was filed against Erdem due to his works at newspaper Karşı, where Erdem was the editor-in-chief. The accusation that he is a “FETÖ supporter” is particularly baseless given that in 2016, he published a book entitled “Nurjuvazi” that criticized Gülen and his movement.

    In the meantime, a former CHP deputy announced on July 3 that CHP MPs who wanted to visit Erdem in prison were not given permission by authorities. “This,” he wrote on Twitter, “is isolation against Erdem.”

    Another investigation was recently opened against him that is looking into his criticism against the Free Syrian Army (FSA) for allegedly violating Article 301 of the penal code, which prescribes prison terms for “denigration of Turkey, the Turkish nation, or Turkish government institutions.”

    In an Orwellian nightmare, a former deputy and a journalist who has so courageously dedicated his career to exposing and condemning terrorist organizations, is now being accused of “aiding terrorists”. The real terrorists he has condemned, however, remain free.

    Erdem is paying the price for telling the truth in Turkey. He has risked his life to stop ISIS and help save lives. Now is the time for human rights activists and the media to defend him.

  • 'Perpetual War' Explained In 140 Seconds

    In 1935, Major General Smedley Butler warned the world that “War is a racket. It always has been…”

    “It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”

    And we ignored it.

    26 years later, in 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower –  a retired five-star Army general –  gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government. He called it the military-industrial complex, a formidable union of defense contractors and the armed forces.

    “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.“

    In his remarks, Eisenhower also explained how the situation had developed:

    “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.”

    57 years after that, we see exactly what they warned about… and as far as we can tell, only Ron and Rand Paul remain to argue against ‘war’ – even though President Trump talks of ‘peace’, the bombing continues – and so here we are today, beholden to the US war machine…

  • Great Nations Are Destroyed By Being Pulled Into Wars To Defend Tiny Ones

    Authored by Martin Sieff via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    NATO’s obsession with pulling in as many small, unstable and potentially extremist countries in Eastern Europe as possible makes a world war inevitable rather than deterring one.

    The reason for this could not be more simple or clear: Small countries start world wars and destroy the empires and great nations that go to war to defend them.

    Belgium doomed England and Serbia doomed Russia in 1914.

    The Russian Empire, the largest nation in the world in terms of area and the third largest after the British Empire and China in terms of population at the time, went to war to defend Serbia from invasion by Austria-Hungary.

    This was a spectacularly unnecessary and catastrophic decision: Count Witte, the great elder statesman of the czarist aristocracy was completely against it. So was the notorious, but ultimately well-meaning mystic and self-proclaimed holy man Gregory Rasputin., He frantically cabled Czar Nikolai II to not take the fateful decision.

    Russia in truth owed Serbia nothing beyond a general feeling of solidarity for a fellow Slav nation. The Serbian government’s attitude towards Russia was far different. They were determined to pull Russia into a full-scale war with Austria-Hungary to destroy that empire. There is no sign that anyone in the Serbian government expressed any concern or regret then or ever afterwards for the 3.4 million Russian deaths in the war, not to mention the many millions who were killed in the Russian civil war, British, Japanese and French military interventions and the terrible typhus epidemic of 1920 that followed.

    Indeed, Serbia, in modern terms, was a terrorist state in 1914. Serbian Military intelligence financed, organized and armed the Black Hand terrorist group that gunned down the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg throne in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austro-Hungarian intelligence was so incompetent they were never able to prove the connection at the time.

    Britain’s descent into the chaos of World War I was even more unnecessary than Russia’s. Britain had no treaty commitment to go to the aid of France but it did have a treaty guaranteeing the security of tiny Belgium. However, that 1839 Treaty of London was 75 years old – even older than the NATO alliance is today and the British were free to ignore it.

    Instead, the British therefore went to war in 1914, amid an orgy of public sentiment to defend “gallant, little Belgium.”

    But the kingdom of Belgium was not “gallant” at all. A mere four years before the outbreak of war, international pressure had forced Belgium’s King Leopold to end a 30 year genocide in the heart of Africa, the Belgian Congo, later known as Zaire and today as the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    It was one of the worst genocides and examples of mass killing in human history. Leopold’s agents killed an estimated10 million people in the Congo over a 30 year period in order to plunder it of all forms of natural resources and wealth.

    Britain therefore went to war in 1914 to protect the successors to a truly genocidal regime in tiny Belgium. Yet that conflict killed, crippled or led to the premature deaths from injuries and hardships of one in three every male Britons between the ages of 18 and 45 when the war started.

    As the great British 20th century novelist C.S. Forester later observed in his book The General, Englishmen through that conflict were dying at in greater numbers and at a faster rate than at any time since the Black Death bubonic plague epidemic of the 1340s, 570 years earlier.

    The lesson that obsessive concerns about small and irresponsible countries needlessly pull great nations and empires to their own destruction was retold a quarter century later when Britain and France went to war with Nazi Germany to defend Poland in 1939.

    1930s Poland, British historian Paul Johnson pointed out in Modern Times was a racist regime whose systems of legal persecution against Russians, Ukrainians and Jews closely paralleled that of Afrikaaner, white supremacist South Africa in the 20th century.

    Yet the Poles, who had previously waged successful aggressions to seize territories from Lithuania, Czechoslovakia and even from the Soviet Union in 1920, flatly refused to cooperate with the Soviet Union, the only nation militarily capable at the time of deterring any Nazi attack. The British and the French agreed with the Poles. Hence they failed to take the only credible action that could have prevented the war.

    Today, it is the United States that is treading down the fateful path that Czar Nikolai, the British in 1914 and the Western Allies in 1939 all followed. The United States is committed to defend Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. It has recklessly extended serious commitments to Ukraine and Georgia. In each case, the governments of these countries are often fiercely anti-Russian and prone to extreme and irresponsible nationalist pressures. These are dangerous commitments for a nuclear superpower to make.

    Commitments to small nations by big ones are almost always dangerous. The tail wags the dog and the greater nation sacrifices its own interests to maintain an empty prestige among small countries that is not worth having.

    Worse yet, large nations like Russia in 1914 or Britain and France in 1939 are drawn into obscure local conflicts where they have no interests of their own and from which they can gain no benefit. Yet they risk being pulled into world-spanning wars that can destroy their own countries.

    It is never worth it.

  • "Worst Case Scenario" Looms As Chinese Overwhelmingly Ready To Boycott US Goods In Trade War

    Despite soaring trade policy uncertainty and a collapsing yuan, “the equity market has largely looked through the marginal risk from tariffs“, according to Goldman’s David Kostin recently wrote:

    No clear relationship exists between reliance on imports from China and recent industry performance. Among at-risk industries, Computer & Electronic Products, which include Semiconductors, have lagged the Russell 3000, while Electrical Equipment stocks have outperformed. As our Tech Hardware and Retail analysts have noted, trade headlines may overstate fundamental risk, as companies have many tools at their disposal to minimize margin pressures. Some firms may be able to switch to other suppliers, while others will pass through costs. A basket of TMT stocks with high imported COGS has also shrugged off the risk from tariffs, matching the broader Info Tech sector’s 12% rally since March.

    However, Kostin cautions that this may be a mistake, however not due to the quantitative aspects of the trade war, namely the downstream impact of tariffs, but the qualitative, and thus much more ambiguous, implications. 

    In other words, it’s not tariffs that investors should be worried about: as the Goldman strategist writes, “a greater risk lies in potential government intervention” and lists the following examples:

    Geopolitical tension can manifest itself in ways beyond tariffs. As precedent, China publicly encouraged consumer boycotts that led to a plunge in Japanese auto sales (in 2012) and South Korean products (in 2017). Last week, China issued a temporary injunction on some of Micron’s (MU) chip sales due to alleged patent infringement. The stock fell by 6%. MU downplayed the impact on sales and the share price has since recovered.

    So there we have it, instead of a 10% tariff on all US imports being the so-called “worst case scenario,” Goldman is warning that a much bigger problem for the US economy (and markets) is if the Chinese begin to boycott US goods, period.

    Which is why the news today, via The Financial Times, that a new survey finds that a majority of Chinese consumers would be prepared to boycott US goods in the event of a trade war with Washington.

    The survey found that 54 per cent of 2,000 respondents in 300 cities across China would “probably” or “definitely” stop buying US-branded goods “in the event of a trade war”. Just 13 per cent said they would not.

    The remaining 33 per cent said they were unsure or did not at present buy US branded goods, according to the survey, conducted for FT Confidential Research (FTCR), a research unit at the Financial Times.

    The survey was carried out between June 27 and July 10, mostly before the US imposed 25 per cent tariffs on $34bn of Chinese goods on July 6. The move elicited an immediate tit-for-tat response from Beijing.

    To date, China has avoided calling for any boycott of US goods.

    As, for now, analysts said Beijing was unlikely to do so because of fears over a backlash.

    “The Chinese authorities haven’t done anything like they did with Japan and South Korean goods in the past,” said Kent Kedl, senior partner in the Shanghai office at Control Risks, a risk consultancy.

    But, market continue to ignore the risk of this more ‘qualitative’ aspect of trade war. Bear in mind that Japanese car exports  plunged 32% in the 12 months after China launched a boycott over disputed islands in September 2012.

    We leave it once again to Goldman’s David Kostin to conclude: “All things considered, we do not think the outlook is very bright.”

  • "It's Our Version Of The GFC": Aussies Face Looming 'Interest-Only' Crisis

    Authored by Caitlin Fitzsimmons & Nicole Pedersen-McKinnon via The Sydney Morning Herald,

    Australia’s version of the sub-prime crisis that ushered in the global financial crisis could be looming, with a significant number of the 1.5 million households with interest-only loans likely to struggle with higher repayments, experts warn.

    Martin North, the principal at consultancy Digital Finance Analytics, said interest-only loans account for about $700 billion of the $1.7 trillion in Australian mortgage lending and it was “our version of the GFC”.

    “My view is we’re in somewhat similar territory to where the US was in 2006 before the GFC,” Mr North said.

    Craig Morgan, managing director of Independent Mortgage Planners, said one in five people who took a loan two or three years ago would not qualify for the same loan now, because of the crackdown on lending by the regulator and ongoing fallout from the Royal Commission into financial services.

    “In the last six months lenders have had this lightbulb moment of what ‘responsible lending’ means,” Mr Morgan said.

    Should we brace for a financial storm?

    One of the triggers for the GFC was rising defaults from over-leveraged borrowers who were unable to refinance when their honeymoon rates ended. However, the sub-prime lending in the United States before the GFC included large mortgages being given to people without jobs or on minimum wage.

    “This is absolutely not ‘sub-prime’ in the US definition but there were people [in Australia] who were being encouraged to get very big loans on the fact that principal & interest was impossible to service but they could service interest-only,” Mr North said.

    “We also know that some interest-only loans were not investors but they are actually first-home buyers encouraged to go in at the top of the market.”

    The Reserve Bank has previously warned $500 billion in interest-only loans are set to expire in the next four years, causing a significant jump in repayments of 30-40 per cent when borrowers are forced to start paying back the principal.

    The banks pushed interest-only home loans – where the borrower pays interest but never reduces the loan balance – over the past five years, because they enabled people to borrow bigger amounts. They were favoured by investors who could claim the interest as a tax deduction and were often looking to pay the minimum in order to cross-leverage and buy multiple properties.

    The typical structure of a such a loan has interest-only repayments for five or sometimes 10 years, at which point it reverts to being principal & interest with repayments 30-40 per cent higher. The lending criteria has tightened in the past six months to a year, so many borrowers would be unable to refinance to another interest-only loan.

    Mr Morgan warned the jump in repayments could be higher than the 30-40 per cent forecast by the Reserve Bank, because many people would not qualify for a new 25 or 30-year loan and would be forced to repay the principal over a shorter period.

    Mr North dismissed this risk. “Most banks are willing to lend up to the full term as if it were a new loan,” he said.

    His modelling suggested $120 billion of interest-only loans would fail tighter lending criteria over the next three years; about two in three of those loans would be able to accommodate a switch to paying the principal, while one in three would be forced to sell.

    Photo: Fairfax Art and Design

    Mr North said a lot of households were “struggling a little bit” because wages were flat and costs were going up. “It’s enough to give a bit of a shock to the banking system here and to put a number of households under pressure,” he said.

    RBA assistant governor Christopher Kent said in April the bank’s data suggested many borrowers would have savings to help them meet the higher payments, and others would be able to refinance their loans. He said only a “small minority” of customers would have trouble when their interest-only term expired.

    James Keillor, a senior credit consultant at Oxygen Home Loans, said tighter lending standards meant it was “difficult if not impossible” to refinance if you had borrowed at your maximum in recent years but he was optimistic about the capacity of borrowers to absorb the higher costs.

    He pointed out lenders had assessed borrowers’ capacity based on principal & interest at current interest rates plus 1-2 per cent and added that the current low interest rates had allowed many homeowners to build a buffer.

    “Most borrowers in my experience generally pay more than the minimum, or utilise an offset facility to build cash reserves,” Mr Keillor said. “Most will adapt reasonably well as they are already making repayments in excess of the minimum.”

  • FBI, CIA Sound Alarm Over China Cold War, Warn "Most Significant" Threat Facing US

    “At the end of the day, the Chinese fundamentally seek to replace the United States as the leading power in the world.” -Michael Collins, CIA Dep. Asst. Dir. East Asia Mission Center

    Forget the Russian hysteria: according to Michael Collins, the CIA’s deputy assistant director for the East Asia Mission Center, it is China that is waging a “quiet cold war” against the United States, using all its resources to try to replace America as the leading power in the world.

    “Beijing doesn’t want to go to war”, he said during a speech at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado on Friday, but the current communist government, under President Xi Jingping, is subtly working on multiple fronts to undermine the U.S. in ways that are different than the much-publicized activities being employed by a far weaker Russia, and which the media is obssesed with.

    Collins also warned that rising U.S.-China tension goes beyond the trade dispute playing out in a tariff tit-for-tat between the two nations, according to AP.

    Among the numerous concerns over China subtle efforts to steal influence he cited pervasive efforts to steal business secrets and details about high-tech research being conducted in the U.S. Meanwhile, the Chinese military is expanding and being modernized even as the U.S., as well as other nations, have complained about China’s construction of military outposts on islands in the South China Sea, which Collins said he “would argue that it’s the Crimea of the East.”

    Collins’ comments track warnings about China’s rising influence issued by others who spoke earlier this week at the security conference. The alarm bells come at a time when Washington needs China’s help in ending its nuclear standoff with North Korea.

    * * *

    Earlier in the week, FBI Director Christopher Wray also underscored US concerns about China, which he said represents the “broadest and most significant threat America faces.” During an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt at the Aspen Ideas Forum on Wednesday, Wray said that the FBI has economic espionage investigations in all 50 states that trace back to Chinese activity.

    “It covers everything from corn seeds in Iowa to wind turbines in Massachusetts and everything in between,” said Wray. “The volume of it. The pervasiveness of it. The significance of it is something that I think this country cannot underestimate.”

    And yet, when Trump cracks down on Chinese policies across various fields including trade and theft of various trade, military, government and corporate secrets (i.e. espionage), he gets promptly vilified.

    The chorus of anti-China sentiment grew to three when National Intelligence Director Dan Coats also warned of rising Chinese aggression, warning that the U.S. must stand strong against China’s effort to steal business secrets and academic research.

    Others joined in: Marcel Lettre, former undersecretary of defense for intelligence, said China has the second-largest defense budget in the world, the largest standing army of ground forces, the third-largest air force and a navy of 300 ships and more than 60 submarines.

    “All of this is in the process of being modernized and upgraded,” said Lettre, who sat on a panel with Collins and Thornton.

    He said China also is pursuing advances in cyber, artificial intelligence, engineering and technology, counter-space, anti-satellite capabilities and hypersonic glide weapons. Army Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told a congressional committee earlier this year that China is developing long-range cruise missiles — some capable of reaching supersonic speeds.

    “The Pentagon has noted that the Chinese have already pursued a test program that has had 20 times more tests than the U.S. has.”

    Franklin Miller, former senior director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council, said China’s weapons developments are emphasizing the need to have a dialogue with Beijing.

    “We need to try to engage,” Miller said. “My expectations for successful engagement are medium-low, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.”

    * * *

    Here we bring readers’ attention back to what we wrote back in May when we said that for all the talk of the escalating confrontation between the US and China, Bank of America’s Chief Investment Officer Mike Hartnett believes that the “trade war” of 2018 should be recognized for what it really is: the first stage of a new arms race between the US & China to reach national superiority in technology over the longer-term via Quantum Computing, Artificial  Intelligence, Hypersonic Warplanes, Electronic Vehicles, Robotics, and Cyber-Security.

    This is hardly a secret: China’s long-term strategy is laid out in its “Made in China 2025” blueprint: It aims to transform “China’s industrial base” into a “smart manufacturing” powerhouse via increased competitiveness and eroding of tech leadership of industrial trading rivals, e.g. Germany, USA, South Korea; this is precisely what Peter Navarro has been raging against (even if his message is in need of some refinement) and hoping to intercept China’s ascent early on while it’s still feasible.

    At the forefront of China ambitious growth plan, Beijing’s investments in “advanced internet and communication technologies, embedded systems and intelligent machines” aim to ensure that 40% of China’s mobile phone chips, 70% of industrial robots, 75% of basic core components and 80% of renewable energy equipment are “Made in China” by 2025.

    Meanwhile, the China First strategy will be met head-on by an America First strategy.  Hence the “arms race” in tech spending which in both countries is intimately linked with defense spending. Note military spending by the US and China is forecast by the IMF to rise substantially in coming decades, but the stunner is that by 2050, China is set to overtake the US, spending $4tn on its military while the US is $1 trillion less, or $3tn.

    This means that some time around 2038, roughly two decades from now, China will surpass the US in military spending, and become the world’s dominant superpower not only in population and economic growth – China is set to overtake the US economy by no later than 2032  – but in military strength and global influence as well.

    And as Thucydides Trap clearly lays out, that kind of unprecedented superpower transition – one in which the world’s reserve currency moves from state A to state B – always takes place in the context of a real – not trade, not currency  – war.

    Which explains BofA’s long-term strategic recommendation: “We believe investors should thus own global defense, tech & cybersecurity stocks, particularly companies seen as “national security champions” over the next 10-years.”

    And here’s the reason why:

    Because one might as well make some money before the next world war breaks out…

  • Disaster For Theresa May: Brits Overwhelmingly Reject New Brexit Plan; Turn To Boris, Farage (And Bannon?)

    It’s been a dreadful, torrid month for UK PM Theresa May whose cabinet has been on the rocks ever since her revised Brexit proposal was revealed, barely scraping by with just a 3 vote margin last week,  amid an exodus of key Brexit voices and a scathing Donald Trump interview.

    And it’s about to get even worse because according to a new poll, May’s plans to leave the European Union are overwhelmingly opposed by the British public.  Worse, more than a third of voters would support a new right-wing political party committed to quitting the bloc and headed by, guess who, Nigel Farage.

    According to the YouGov poll conducted for the Sunday Times, voters would prefer Boris Johnson, who quit as her foreign minister two weeks ago, to negotiate with the EU and lead the Conservative Party into the next election. And in the latest disaster for May, only 16% of voters say the Prime Minister is handling the Brexit negotiations well, compared with 34% who say that Johnson would do a better job.

    Only one in 10 voters would pick the government’s proposed Brexit plans if there were a second referendum, according to the poll, while almost half think it would be bad for Britain.

    But while the poll is a damning testament to her policies, May faces far greater challenges in the near-term. Her revised plan to keep a close trading relationship with the EU thrust her government into crisis this month and there is speculation she could face a leadership challenge after her most senior ministers, Davis and Johnson, resigned in protest.

    But in what may be the best news for libertarians, and those disenchanted with the legacy two-party system in the UK as well as everywhere else, the poll found voters are increasingly polarized, with growing numbers of people alienated from the two main political parties. Meanwhile, as in recent polls, half of voters would support remaining in the EU if there were a second referendum, the poll found. Which of course, means a Brexit is guaranteed – again – as polls prior to the first Brexit vote predicted an avalanche victory for Remain.

    But here is the real shocker.

    38% of respondents said they would vote for a new right-wing party that is committed to Brexit, while almost a quarter would support an explicitly far-right anti-immigrant, anti-Islam party, the poll found.

    According to the Sunday Times, Brexit veteran Nigel Farage, who has vowed to return to politics if May’s “Brexit betrayal is not reversed”, and Steve Bannon are in discussions about forming a new right-wing movement.

    So, one wonders, how long before Europe’s relentless populist wave means that this person is the UK’s next prime minister?

  • The Black Belt Strategist

    Authored by Robert Gore via StraightLineLogic.com,

    Putin has made many of his critics look like fools, thus the rage and hysteria…

    Vladimir Putin is a black belt in judo, the only Russian and one of the few people in the world to be awarded the rank of eighth dan. He also practices karate.

    A fundamental principle of martial arts is using an opponent’s size and momentum against him. This is Putin’s strategic approach. Westerners demonize Putin, but few try to understand him. Trying to understand someone else is regarded as a pointless in narcissistic America, selfie-land. Perhaps 90 percent of the populace is incapable of grasping anything more subtle than a political cartoon.

    That’s a pity, because Putin has accomplished a geopolitical triumph worthy of study. He’s catalyzing the downfall of the American empire, and it has nothing to do with subverting elections or suborning Trump.

    Putin became acting prime minister in 1999, then president in 2000. The Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse devastated Russia. The economy shrunk and life expectancies fell. A group of rapacious oligarchs, many with Western backing, acquired Soviet industrial and commercial assets at fire sale prices.

    Putin coopted the most important oligarchs, letting them hold on to their loot and power in exchange for their allegiance. This bargain has been a bulwark of both his continuing political support and his reportedly immense personal fortune. He quelled a long-running insurrection in Chechnya and stabilized the situation there, exchanging a measure of autonomy for a declaration in the Chechen constitution that it was part of Russia. During his first two terms, from 2000-2008, the economy began recovering from the 1990s. Projecting a law and order image while stifling critics, he solidified what has become his unwavering support, winning 72 percent of the vote in the 2004 presidential election.

    A coterie of highly placed idiots in the US and Europe insist that Putin’s ultimate goal is to reconstitute the former Soviet Union on his way to global domination. Russia’s GDP, after 18 years of recovery, is $1.4 trillion, compared to almost $20 trillion for the US and over $17 trillion for the European Union. Russia’s military budget is $61 billion, versus $250 billion for NATO nations (excluding the US) and over $700 billion for the US. The scaremongering screeds never say where Russia will get the money to invade and conquer former Soviet provinces, much less conquer the world. Putin, unlike America’s high and mighty, realizes from Soviet experience that empires drain rather than augment an empire’s resources.

    Conquering the world is one thing, throwing the American empire to the mat another. Putin must have smiled when George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama bin Laden, purported mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The US’s hubristic rage led it into what has been a quagmire at best, a graveyard at worst, for a string of invaders, including the Soviet Union.

    Defenders fighting on their own turf have huge advantages over occupying forces, rendering conventional invasions virtually obsolete. Relatively inexpensive grenades, mines, IEDs, and shoulder-launched missiles, often supplied from outside the country, take out expensive tanks, artillery, aircraft, and military personnel. The insurgents know the language and territory, they’re supported by the local populace, they can set off remote bombs and blend in with the civilians. They aren’t going anywhere and can wait out the invaders, sapping their morale and political support back home.

    Eighteen years after the Afghanistan invasion, Putin is still smiling. With each military failure since, the US became more stupidly belligerent, bearing massive costs in blood and treasure. Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia: talk about letting the enemy defeat itself! And as the US plunged into one inextricable morass after another, it plunged ever deeper into debt.

    Russia, meanwhile, has one of the developed world’s lowest debt ratios, stockpiles gold, and is divesting its US debt. It has teamed up with China on the Belt and Road Initiative. That series of projects, financed primarily by the Chinese, advances Russia’s and China’s interests and influence across Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. This approach seems to garner more support than US bullets and bombs.

    Russia’s one military foray in the Middle East has been Syria. Obama’s hapless strategy (regime change? terrorist eradication?) left the US at cross-purposes with itself. Putin suffered no such confusion, helping Bashar al-Assad turn the tide against the insurgents. The US pretends to have done the same. Putin strengthened the Shiite axis—Iran, Iraq, Alawite Syria, and Hezbollah—about which Israel, Saudi Arabia, and US neoconservatives have fretted for years. The insurgents are on the run and all the US can do is shout: “And we helped!”

    Putin scored a geopolitical coup. He effectively stood by his allies, in contrast to America’s ineptitude and ever-shifting alliances and objectives. The conflict sent hundreds of thousands of refugees to Europe. Russian intervention reversed the flow. Saner souls in Europe have to be questioning European subservience to the US and NATO.

    Putin has expressed his consternation at NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders, especially the prospect that NATO could incorporate Ukraine. While that’s an understandable concern, the expansion hurts the US more than Russia. The US didn’t intervene when Russia got involved with Georgia, the Crimea, or Ukraine. Why? Somebody in Washington looked at a map and determined that with Russia’s decided geographical advantage, the game wasn’t worth the candle.

    NATO leaves its members hostage to the likes of Lithuania, Montenegro, and Croatia. It’s always at the borders that empires first falter. The US is treaty-bound to go to war to defend tiny, far-flung states that are a stone’s throw from Russia. The US lays out the lion’s share of the money, stations soldiers, and maintains bases pretending that it would actually defend these geopolitical midgets. Putin must smile at the effort wasted on the nonexistent possibility that he’ll invade.

    Often, he doesn’t even need to lift a finger to body slam the US. The Democratic party and neoconservatives, and their toadies in the media and intelligence community have rabidly peddled an evidence-free concoction that he and Trump colluded to deny Hillary Clinton her ordained presidency. It’s emblematic of America’s deranged politics.

    “Masculine” is now a pejorative. Identity is everything, merit nothing. A military that hasn’t won anything in 73 years is widely honored. Men in dresses enter women’s restrooms. Confronted by intellectual challenge, college students retreat to safe spaces. People who illegally enter the country are given most of the privileges of citizenship, including state-provided benefits. Americans watch an average of five hours of TV a day. Over 60 percent are obese and an opioid epidemic kills tens of thousands. Even mainstream media pundits fret about an impending “civil war,” and for once they might be right. None of this is Putin’s doing, but he’s undoubtedly amused at all this decadence and division.

    Trump is determined to pick America up off the mat. SLL has said repeatedly that his foes are most worried about their own criminality being exposed and prosecuted. That’s essential if the country is ever to regroup and recover. Trump’s summit with Putin and subsequent press conference performance left his foes foaming at the mouth, bandying terms like “disgraceful” and “treason.” That he braved the idiotic torrent before and after the summit, seemingly unperturbed except for a few acerbic tweets, suggests that he’s got something up his sleeve. Judging by their insane hysterics, the opposition knows it. As always, their tactics betray desperation and weakness, not strength.

    That something up Trump’s sleeve may well be the initiation of criminal proceedings against a long list of suspects for everything from obstruction of justice to conspiracy and treason, just in time for the midterm elections. That’s more a hunch than a hypothesis. However, it won’t be a bolt out of the blue if it happens. If it doesn’t happen by the midterms, it most likely never will.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 22

Today’s News 22nd July 2018

  • America's Derangement Syndrome A Danger To World Peace

    Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    It is significant that Presidents Putin and Trump have both spoken out against “haters” among America’s political establishment who would rather see conflict between Russia and the United States instead of a normalization of bilateral relations.

    Following their landmark, successful summit this week in Helsinki, Putin and Trump separately made public comments deploring the hostile hysterical reaction emanating from broad sections of the US political establishment and its dutiful, controlled news media.

    Speaking in Moscow to his diplomatic corps, President Putin warned that there were “powerful forces” within the US which are ready to sacrifice the interests of their country and indeed the interests of world peace in order to pursue selfish ambitions.

    For his part, Trump also slammed opponents in the US who “hated” to see him having a good meeting with Putin. “They would rather see a major confrontation with Russia, even if that could lead to war,” said the American president.

    That’s it in a nutshell. Rather than welcoming the opening of a cordial dialogue between the US and Russia, the American political establishment seems to desire the deepening of already dangerous tensions between the world’s two nuclear superpowers. If that’s not deranged, then what is?

    Significantly, the hostile reaction was overwhelmingly on the American side. Russians, by and large, welcomed the long-overdue summit between Trump and Putin, and the potential beginning of a new spirit of dialogue and partnership on a range of urgent global problems. Problems including arms control, nuclear proliferation, and working out political settlement to conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine and the Korea Peninsula.

    Few people would believe that these problems can be resolved easily. But the main thing is that the leaders of the US and Russia are at least attempting to open a dialogue for understanding and political progress. That in itself is a breakthrough from the impasse in bilateral relations which have frozen into a new Cold War since the previous US administration.

    We dare say that most citizens of the world would also endorse this effort by Trump and Putin at improving the relations between the US and Russia.

    Significantly too, according to recent polls, most ordinary Americans seem to be agreeable or neutral about Trump’s diplomatic engagement with Russia. According to a Gallup poll out this week, the vast majority of US citizens are far more concerned by economic woes than they are by anything untoward in American-Russian relations.

    Thus, what we are seeing in the explosion of hostility towards the Trump-Putin summit is twofold. It is an American phenomenon, and secondly, it is an angst that animates only the political class in Washington and the news media corporations. This constituency, it is fair to say, is an elite faction within the US, albeit extremely powerful, made up of Washington politicos, the state intelligence apparatus, the corporate media and think tanks, and the deep state establishment of imperial planners and strategists. In short, this constituency is what some observers call the “War Party” that transcends the US ruling class.

    Any reasonable person would have to welcome the friendly rapport engendered between Trump and Putin, and at least their initial commitment to working together on major matters of global security. The dangerous impasse of recent years in which dialogue was absent must be overcome for the sake of world peace.

    Nevertheless, what has become crystal clear this week following the Helsinki summit is the “War Party” within the US is more determined than ever to sabotage any rapprochement with Russia.

    No sooner had Trump returned to the US, he was assailed with a tidal wave of vilification for having met Putin in a mutual, agreeable manner. The most disturbing aspect was the recurring slander denigrating Trump as a “traitor”. The hysterical name-calling was conveyed by all the major news media, citing former intelligence officials and politicians from both Democrat and Republican parties.

    Which again shows that in the US there is really only one party, the War Party.

    President Trump was evidently forced into making an embarrassing U-turn over his views expressed in Helsinki. He made an unconvincing disavowal of statements made alongside Putin. Trump had been pilloried for appearing to dismiss allegations of Russian interference in the US elections while he was in Helsinki. Within 24 hours, he was forced into making a retraction, saying that he did – kind of – believe that Russia had meddled in US democracy.

    What Trump was subjected to by the US establishment was akin to the worst years of McCarthyite Red-Baiting as seen during the Cold War in the 1950s and 60s, when Americans were mercilessly humiliated and ostracized for being “Communist sympathizers”. Today, official American paranoia is back with a vengeance. In truth, it never went away.

    To be fair to Trump he has not completely capitulated to the American derangement syndrome. He has since said that he is looking forward to holding a second meeting with his Russian counterpart and continuing their promises of partnership as announced in Helsinki.

    However, it is instructive that the American president is, in effect, being held hostage by powerful elements in the US ruling class who view any kind of detente with Moscow as an unforgivable betrayal.

    Trump’s instincts are correct that the whole so-called Russia-gate mania is a phony contrivance. That has been orchestrated by the US establishment based on its refusal to accept Trump’s democratic mandate, as well as being based on an abiding hostility towards Russia as an independent world power.

    The object lesson here is that the scope for improving US-Russia relations is limited, in spite of Trump’s favorable personal inclinations.

    An entrenched animosity towards Russia remains among the American War Party, and the current president has evidently little room for implementing his avowed policy of normalizing relations.

    Russia therefore cannot place too much faith in making progress towards peaceful relations, because all-too apparently President Trump has actually very little freedom to exercise his democratic mandate. That is a damning indictment on the charade of American formal democracy. A president is elected partly on the basis of peaceful engagement, but the unelected powers-that-be have another agenda of conflict which they are pursuing come hell or high water.

    What’s more, the American derangement syndrome is becoming even more virulent, as can be adjudged from this week’s hysterical backlash over the successful Helsinki summit.

    Trump’s willingness for dialogue with Russia is a welcome development. But the far more disturbing development is the full-tilt belligerence and derangement on display among the American political class. This American political chizophrenia is a clear and present danger to world peace. American citizens are as much a victim of the madness as are Russians and the rest of the world.

    One positive aspect of the new phase of Cold War is that before it was largely concealed, and deceived, as a simplistic bifurcated confrontation of Americans versus Russians. Today it is evidently a situation of an American deranged elite versus the rest of the world, with the latter including ordinary American citizens who have much more to gain from standing in solidarity with Russian citizens.

  • Two-Thirds Of Rich Kids Depend On Parents' Inheritance To Maintain Lifestyle

    As young people continue their journeys through life with a negative net worth, more members of the “mass affluent” American youth are openly admitting that their financial stability in retirement will depend on inheriting money from their parents, another family member or a friend, according to Bloomberg.

    Rich

    A recent survey of the “mass affluent” – that is, people age 18 to 40 with investable assets worth between $50,000 and $250,000, or with investable assets between $20,000 and $50,000 and an annual income of at least $50,000 – found that 65% of Americans aged 18-22 expect to depend on inherited money to get through retirement. But not everybody expects to inherit that money from their parents. Roughly 17% of these “Gen Z” respondents said they expect to inherit money from a friend. By comparison, that number is 4% for all age groups.  Another 17% of Gen Zers said they expect to inherit money from their grandparents, compared with 6% overall, while 14% said they expect extended family to shell out some cash, compared with 5% overall.

    BBG

    Indeed, in North America alone, an estimated $30 trillion will be transferred to the younger generation via inheritances over the next 30 years. Though for some members of Gen Z, it could be a while before they see any of that money, because, as a survey from UBS recently showed, roughly 53% of people with more than $1 million in investable assets expect to live to 100, or beyond.

    BBG

    Those beneficiaries may have to wait a long time, though: A recent survey from UBS Financial Services showed that 53 percent of people with more than $1 million in investable assets expected to live to 100. One financial expert said the notion that young people expect to inherit money from friends is unique to their generation.

    Levine attributes the relatively large number of Gen Zers who expect to inherit money from friends as unique to the demographic. They’ve grown up in a sharing economy – think Airbnb, Uber and crowdfunding – so “why wouldn’t you have some sort of shared way with friends to finance your future?” he said.

    The reliance on a hoped-for inheritance points to worries bedeviling Americans who aren’t even struggling to get by. Decades of spending down savings during retirement loom, and safety nets such as Social Security and Medicare don’t feel so safe anymore, particularly to the youngest Americans.

    When it comes to young people across the developed world, Americans aren’t the only ones looking forward to an inheritance to help them make it through retirement. Globally, inheritance expectations are highest in India – with 19% of the population expecting to receiving something – and lowest in Japan, with just 7% expecting to receive something.

    The average across 15 countries in the recent Aegon Retirement Readiness Survey 2018 was 11%. It’s unsurprising that a growing number of young American workers say they will need to depend on inheritances for financial stability in retirement, as wage growth has been stagnant and AI and automation are expected to displace more human workers. But as we pointed out back in 2013, rich kids shouldn’t count their eggs before they hatch. Because as families see the value of their estates rise, they give more money to charity, and less to their kids.

    JPM

  • This Is What Happens Behind Closed Doors When U.S. Presidents Meet With Fed Chairs

    Last week, Donald Trump ventured into what until recently was uncharted, for US presidents, territory.

    First, during a CNBC interview, the president went so far as to say that the strong dollar “puts us at a disadvantage” then went on to do what so many consider anathema, and said he is “not thrilled” about the Fed rising rates “because we go up and every time you go up they want to raise rates again.”

    One day later, Trump doubled down, saying in a tweet that “tightening now hurts all that we have done. The U.S. should be allowed to recapture what was lost due to illegal currency manipulation and BAD Trade Deals. Debt coming due & we are raising rates – Really?”

    And while Trump made it clear he was displeased with the Fed’s tightening – which has been largely a function of the soaring US double deficits and Trump’s own late cycle fiscal stimulus (which according to Barclays will push the economy into near overheating territory, with Q2 GDP now pegged at 5.0%) – he also went on to accuse “China, the European Union and others” of “manipulating their currencies and interest rates lower, while the U.S. is raising rates while the dollars gets stronger and stronger with each passing day – taking away our big competitive edge.”

    So is Trump trying his best to Erdogan-ify the US economy, and is taking a page out of the Turkish dictator’s playbook, in a power grab that will end up with Trump controlling the Fed? That remains to be seen: naturally the White House, Steven Mnuchin and countless other officials have vowed that Trump has utmost respect for the Fed’s independence. That, however, will likely change the moment the market tumbles and Trump demands a rate cut by the Fed.

    For now all Trump has achieved is trapping himself in his escalating trade and now currency, war with China, because as we discussed earlier, the Fed’s hands are now tied and Powell may be unable to cut rates even if it has to, should China proceed with an aggressive yuan devaluation, just to indicate the Fed is still an independent institution and not subject to Trump’s whims.

    * * *

    And yet… is what Trump did really “uncharted”?

    As it turns out a brief jog through history reveals that none other than Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama got into hot water when in April 2016, the former president had a closed door private meeting with then-Fed Chair Janet Yellen, prompting a sharp market reaction and numerous questions what was said.

    As we reported at the time, White House spokesman Josh Earnest apologetically noted that President Obama also “cares deeply about preserving both the appearance of and the fact of the independence of both the Federal Reserve” and added that he wouldn’t anticipate “even in a confidential setting” that Obama “would have a conversation” with Yellen “that would undermine” the ability to make “critical financial decisions independently.”

    To this day, it is unknown what was said.

    But for a far more colorful example of just how laughable the concept of Fed independence is, we go to the NYT with this brief but highly memorable anecdote from a meeting between President Lyndon B Johnson and Fed president William McChesney Martin.

    … in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, who wanted cheap credit to finance the Vietnam War and his Great Society, summoned Fed chairman William McChesney Martin to his Texas ranch. There, after asking other officials to leave the room, Johnson reportedly shoved Martin against the wall as he demanding that the Fed once again hold down interest rates.

    “I hope you have examined your conscience and you’re convinced you’re on the right track.” Lady Bird Johnson said to William McChesney Martin, on his arrival at the LBJ ranch.

    Martin caved, the Fed printed money, and inflation kept climbing until the early 1980s.

    * * *

    For those with more time, here is a far more detailed fascinating, story of the war that ensued between Martin and LBJ, once again via the NYT:

    [In 1965, Martin began speaking publicly about his concerns]. He was afraid the growing cost of the Vietnam War would force a devaluation of the dollar. He saw yet another budget deficit (there had been several in a row) at a time when budget deficits were still looked at askance. In a speech in May, he called it an era of “perpetual deficits and easy money” — red flags among central bankers.

    Then in June,  at Columbia University, he laid down the gauntlet in a speech that described “disquieting similarities” between the current economic climate and the years leading to the Great Depression: “Then, as now, government officials, scholars and businessmen are convinced that a new economic era has opened, an era in which business fluctuations have become a thing of the past.”

    His words were heard. That afternoon the New York Stock Exchange had one of its sharpest declines since Kennedy’s assassination, and the next day The New York Times reported on Page 1 that “Reserve Board Chief Compares Boom Today With That of 20’s.” Johnson, at his next news conference, went out of his way to dispel “gloom and doom” about the economy.

    According to Robert P. Bremner in his book “Chairman of the Fed,” Johnson asked his attorney general, Nicholas Katzenbach, to determine if a president could legally remove a Fed board member from office. (He was advised that disagreeing with administration policies did not constitute “termination for cause.”) 

    In late November Martin signaled to Johnson’s Treasury secretary that he thought he would have the votes for a rate increase at the Fed’s Dec. 3 meeting. The secretary,  Henry H. Fowler, relayed this news to Johnson, and they agreed that Martin should delay any action, at least until January, when the administration’s budget estimates would be available.

    Martin’s behavior, Fowler said, was giving Americans the impression there were “two quarterbacks” running the economy — Martin and Johnson.

    On the morning of Friday, Dec. 3, the day of the Fed’s policy-making meeting, Martin again called Fowler to tell him of the imminent rate increase. Johnson, at his Texas ranch recovering from gallbladder surgery, was livid that his calls for a delay were being ignored. Speaking to Fowler by phone, he made a historical reference going back nearly 150 years: the so-called Bank War when President Andrew Jackson whipped up a populist frenzy against Nicholas Biddle and his Bank of the United States, a predecessor of the Federal Reserve.  

    Johnson made sure Fowler passed along his warning: “It’s going to hurt my pride, and it’s going to hurt my leadership, and it’s going to hurt the best champion business has got in this country.”

    His voice rising, he then told Fowler they needed to replace Martin with a “tough guy” to run the central bank.

    Martin resisted the appeals. At the Board of Governors meeting that afternoon, he called for a vote to raise the discount rate a half-percentage point, to 4.5 percent. But before the vote, he conceded that raising the rate would essentially wave a red flag before the critics of an independent Federal Reserve, in Congress and in the White House.  “We should be under no illusions,” he told his colleagues. “A decision to move now can lead to an important revamping of the Federal Reserve System, including its structure and operating methods. This is a real possibility and I have been turning it over in my mind for months.”

    The vote was 4 to 3. Martin cast the deciding ballot.

    In Texas, Johnson was enraged. Joseph Califano, an aide (later a cabinet secretary under President Jimmy Carter), recalled Johnson’s “burning up the wires to Washington, asking one member of Congress after another, ‘How can I run the country and the government if I have to read on a news-service ticker that Bill Martin is going to run his own economy?’”

    Martin was summoned to explain why he had defied the president.

    Martin flew down to the Johnson Ranch on Monday, Dec. 6, along with Fowler and other advisers. The president met them at an airstrip behind the wheel of his Lincoln convertible. They piled in and he drove them to the house.

    There, Johnson got Martin alone and did not mince words. According to different accounts, the 6-foot-4 Johnson pushed the shorter Martin up against a wall.

    “You went ahead and did something that you knew I disapproved of, that can affect my entire term here,” Johnson said, as Martin recalled later in an oral history. “You took advantage of me and I’m not going to forget it, because here I am, a sick man. You’ve got me into a position where you can run a rapier into me and you’ve run it.”

    “Martin, my boys are dying in Vietnam, and you won’t print the money I need,” he said.

    Martin stood his ground. He pointed out that he had given the president fair warning that a raise was coming. More broadly, he insisted that he and the president had different jobs to do, that the Federal Reserve Act gave the Fed responsibility over interest rates.

    “I knew you disapproved of it, but I had to call the shot as I saw it,” he said.

    The two eventually stepped outside and tried to assure reporters that any differences had been patched up. Their sour expressions, captured in newspapers the next day, suggested otherwise.

    Despite their differences, Johnson renominated Martin to the Fed chairman’s job one year later. Martin would step down in 1970 during the administration of Richard M. Nixon, the fifth president he served under, after having had the longest term of any Fed chief.

    The economic expansion that started  in 1961 would continue until nearly 1970 —  the second longest ever, a credit to Martin’s stewardship. But many argue that he was too slow to raise the discount rate.

    In fact, the increase in rates approved in December 1965 did little to control inflation, which would creep higher after the mid-1960s and become a defining issue in the next two decades.  A successor, Paul A. Volcker, was forced to push interest rates to nearly 20 percent to bring prices down.

    In the end, it appears Martin left the punch bowl out too long.

    This time will not be different.

  • "Truth Was Irrelevant" WSJ Asks: Was Brennan's Action The Real "Treason"?

    The Wall Street Journal continues to counter  the  liberal mainstream media’s Trump Derangement Syndrome, dropping uncomfortable truth-bombs and refusing to back off its intense pressure to get to the truth and hold those responsible, accountable (in a forum that is hard for the establishment to shrug off as ‘Alt-Right’ or ‘Nazi’ or be ‘punished’ by search- and social-media-giants).

    And once again Kimberley Strassel – who by now has become the focus of social media attacks for her truth-seeking reporting – does it again this morning, as she points out – after his ‘treasonous’ outbursts, that Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan acknowledges that it was him egging on the FBI’s probe of Trump and Russia.

    Via The Wall Street Journal,

    The Trump-Russia sleuthers have been back in the news, again giving Americans cause to doubt their claims of nonpartisanship. Last week it was Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Peter Strzok testifying to Congress that he harbored no bias against a president he still describes as “horrible” and “disgusting.” This week it was former FBI Director Jim Comey tweet-lecturing Americans on their duty to vote Democratic in November.

    But the man who deserves a belated bit of scrutiny is former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan. He’s accused President Trump of “venality, moral turpitude and political corruption,” and berated GOP investigations of the FBI. This week he claimed on Twitter that Mr. Trump’s press conference in Helsinki was “nothing short of treasonous.” This is rough stuff, even for an Obama partisan.

    That’s what Mr. Brennan is—a partisan—and it is why his role in the 2016 scandal is in some ways more concerning than the FBI’s. Mr. Comey stands accused of flouting the rules, breaking the chain of command, abusing investigatory powers. Yet it seems far likelier that the FBI’s Trump investigation was a function of arrogance and overconfidence than some partisan plot. No such case can be made for Mr. Brennan. Before his nomination as CIA director, he served as a close Obama adviser. And the record shows he went on to use his position—as head of the most powerful spy agency in the world—to assist Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and keep his job).

    Mr. Brennan has taken credit for launching the Trump investigation. At a House Intelligence Committee hearing in May 2017, he explained that he became “aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons.” The CIA can’t investigate U.S. citizens, but he made sure that “every information and bit of intelligence” was “shared with the bureau,” meaning the FBI. This information, he said, “served as the basis for the FBI investigation.” My sources suggest Mr. Brennan was overstating his initial role, but either way, by his own testimony, he was an Obama-Clinton partisan was pushing information to the FBI and pressuring it to act.

    More notable, Mr. Brennan then took the lead on shaping the narrative that Russia was interfering in the election specifically to help Mr. Trump – which quickly evolved into the Trump-collusion narrative. Team Clinton was eager to make the claim, especially in light of the Democratic National Committee server hack. Numerous reports show Mr. Brennan aggressively pushing the same line internally. Their problem was that as of July 2016 even then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn’t buy it. He publicly refused to say who was responsible for the hack, or ascribe motivation. Mr. Brennan also couldn’t get the FBI to sign on to the view; the bureau continued to believe Russian cyberattacks were aimed at disrupting the U.S. political system generally, not aiding Mr. Trump.

    The CIA director couldn’t himself go public with his Clinton spin—he lacked the support of the intelligence community and had to be careful not to be seen interfering in U.S. politics. So what to do? He called Harry Reid. In a late August briefing, he told the Senate minority leader that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump win the election, and that Trump advisers might be colluding with Russia. (Two years later, no public evidence has emerged to support such a claim.)

    But the truth was irrelevant. On cue, within a few days of the briefing, Mr. Reid wrote a letter to Mr. Comey, which of course immediately became public. “The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump’s presidential campaign continues to mount,” wrote Mr. Reid, going on to float Team Clinton’s Russians-are-helping-Trump theory. Mr. Reid publicly divulged at least one of the allegations contained in the infamous Steele dossier, insisting that the FBI use “every resource available to investigate this matter.”

    The Reid letter marked the first official blast of the Brennan-Clinton collusion narrative into the open. Clinton opposition-research firm Fusion GPS followed up by briefing its media allies about the dossier it had dropped off at the FBI. On Sept. 23, Yahoo News’s Michael Isikoff ran the headline: “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.” Voilà. Not only was the collusion narrative out there, but so was evidence that the FBI was investigating.

    In their recent book “Russian Roulette,” Mr. Isikoff and David Corn say even Mr. Reid believed Mr. Brennan had an “ulterior motive” with the briefing, and “concluded the CIA chief believed the public needed to know about the Russia operation, including the information about the possible links to the Trump campaign.” (Brennan allies have denied his aim was to leak damaging information.)

    Clinton supporters have a plausible case that Mr. Comey’s late-October announcement that the FBI had reopened its investigation into the candidate affected the election. But Trump supporters have a claim that the public outing of the collusion narrative and FBI investigation took a toll on their candidate.

    And as Strassel so poignantly concludes:

    Politics was at the center of that outing, and Mr. Brennan was a ringmaster. Remember that when reading his next “treason” tweet.

    Treason indeed.

     

     

     

  • "It's All Fake" – Reality TV That Masquerades As American Politics

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours… When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience, and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility.”

    – Professor Neil Postman

    Americans have a voracious appetite for TV entertainment, and the Trump reality show – guest starring outraged Democrats, power-hungry Republicans, and a hodgepodge of other special interest groups with dubious motives – feeds that appetite for titillating, soap opera drama.

    After all, who needs the insults, narcissism and power plays that are hallmarks of reality shows when you can have all that and more delivered up by the likes of Donald Trump and his cohorts?

    Trump is inclined to denounce any news agencies and reports that paint him in a less than favorable light as “fake news,” which leaves only the Fox News channel to carry the president’s torch for media integrity.

    Yet as John Lennon reminds us, “nothing is real,” especially not in the world of politics.

    In other words, it’s all fake, i.e. manufactured, i.e. manipulated to distort reality.

    Much like the fabricated universe in Peter Weir’s 1998 film The Truman Show, in which a man’s life is the basis for an elaborately staged television show aimed at selling products and procuring ratings, the political scene in the United States has devolved over the years into a carefully calibrated exercise in how to manipulate, polarize, propagandize and control a population.

    Likewise, “The Trump Show” keeps the citizenry distracted, diverted and divided.

    This is the magic of the reality TV programming that passes for politics today.

    As long as we are distracted, entertained, occasionally outraged, always polarized but largely uninvolved and content to remain in the viewer’s seat, we’ll never manage to present a unified front against tyranny (or government corruption and ineptitude) in any form.

    The more that is beamed at us, the more inclined we are to settle back in our comfy recliners and become passive viewers rather than active participants as unsettling, frightening events unfold. 

    Reality and fiction merge as everything around us becomes entertainment fodder.

    We don’t even have to change the channel when the subject matter becomes too monotonous. That’s taken care of for us by the programmers (the corporate media).

    “Living is easy with eyes closed,” says Lennon, and that’s exactly what reality TV that masquerades as American politics programs the citizenry to do: navigate the world with their eyes shut.

    As long as we’re viewers, we’ll never be doers.

    Studies suggest that the more reality TV people watch—and I would posit that it’s all reality TV, entertainment news included—the more difficult it becomes to distinguishbetween what is real and what is carefully crafted farce.

    “We the people” are watching a lot of TV.

    On average, Americans spend five hours a day watching television. By the time we reach age 65, we’re watching more than 50 hours of television a week, and that number increases as we get older. And reality TV programming consistently captures the largest percentage of TV watchers every season by an almost 2-1 ratio.

    This doesn’t bode well for a citizenry able to sift through masterfully-produced propaganda in order to think critically about the issues of the day, whether it’s fake news peddled by government agencies or foreign entities.

    Those who watch reality shows tend to view what they see as the “norm.” Thus, those who watch shows characterized by lying, aggression and meanness not only come to see such behavior as acceptable and entertaining but also mimic the medium.

    This holds true whether the reality programming is about the antics of celebrities in the White House, in the board room, or in the bedroom.

    It’s a phenomenon called “humilitainment.”

    A term coined by media scholars Brad Waite and Sara Booker, “humilitainment” refers to the tendency for viewers to take pleasure in someone else’s humiliation, suffering and pain.

    “Humilitainment” largely explains not only why American TV watchers are so fixated on reality TV programming but how American citizens, largely insulated from what is really happening in the world around them by layers of technology, entertainment, and other distractions, are being programmed to accept the brutality, surveillance and dehumanizing treatment of the American police state as things happening to other people.

    The ramifications for the future of civic engagement, political discourse and self-government are incredibly depressing and demoralizing.

    This not only explains how a candidate like Donald Trump with a reputation for being rude, egotistical and narcissistic could get elected, but it also says a lot about how a politician like Barack Obama—whose tenure in the White House was characterized by drone killings, a weakening of the Constitution at the expense of Americans’ civil liberties, and an expansion of the police state—could be hailed as “one of the greatest presidents of all times.”

    This is what happens when an entire nation—bombarded by reality TV programming, government propaganda and entertainment news—becomes systematically desensitized and acclimated to the trappings of a government that operates by fiat and speaks in a language of force.

    Ultimately, the reality shows, the entertainment news, the surveillance society, the militarized police, and the political spectacles have one common objective: to keep us divided, distracted, imprisoned, and incapable of taking an active role in the business of self-government.

    Look behind the political spectacles, the reality TV theatrics, the sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions, and the stomach-churning, nail-biting drama, and you will find there is a method to the madness.

    We have become guinea pigs in a ruthlessly calculated, carefully orchestrated, chillingly cold-blooded experiment in how to control a population and advance a political agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.

    This is mind-control in its most sinister form.

    How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.

    In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used.

    In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind. 

    Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination, infantilism, the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.

    Donald Trump is no exception to this Orwellian manipulation of language for dubious ends: labelling something as “fake news” is a masterful way of dismissing truth that may run counter to the ruling power’s own narrative.

    As George Orwell recognized, “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

    Orwell understood only too well the power of language to manipulate the masses. In Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.” In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

    Orwell’s Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary.

    Where we stand now is at the juncture of Oldspeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). 

    Truth is often lost when we fail to distinguish between opinion and fact, and that is the danger we now face as a society. Anyone who relies exclusively on television/cable news hosts and political commentators for actual knowledge of the world is making a serious mistake.

    Unfortunately, since Americans have by and large become non-readers, television has become their prime source of so-called “news.” This reliance on TV news has given rise to such popular news personalities who draw in vast audiences that virtually hang on their every word.

    In our media age, these are the new powers-that-be.

    Yet while these personalities often dispense the news like preachers used to dispense religion, with power and certainty, they are little more than conduits for propaganda and advertisements delivered in the guise of entertainment and news.

    Given the preponderance of news-as-entertainment programming, it’s no wonder that viewers have largely lost the ability to think critically and analytically and differentiate between truth and propaganda, especially when delivered by way of fake news criers and politicians.

    While television news cannot—and should not—be completely avoided, the following suggestions will help you better understand the nature of TV news.

    1. TV news is not what happened. Rather, it is what someone thinks is worth reporting. Although there are still some good TV journalists, the old art of investigative reporting has largely been lost. While viewers are often inclined to take what is reported by television “news” hosts at face value, it is your responsibility to judge and analyze what is reported.

    2. TV news is entertainment. There is a reason why the programs you watch are called news “shows.” It’s a signal that the so-called news is being delivered as a form of entertainment. “In the case of most news shows,” write Neil Postman and Steve Powers in their insightful book, How to Watch TV News (1992), “the package includes attractive anchors, an exciting musical theme, comic relief, stories placed to hold the audience, the creation of the illusion of intimacy, and so on.”

    Of course, the point of all this glitz and glamour is to keep you glued to the set so that a product can be sold to you. (Even the TV news hosts get in on the action by peddling their own products, everything from their latest books to mugs and bathrobes.) Although the news items spoon-fed to you may have some value, they are primarily a commodity to gather an audience, which will in turn be sold to advertisers.

    3. Never underestimate the power of commercials, especially to news audiences. In an average household, the television set is on over seven hours a day. Most people, believing themselves to be in control of their media consumption, are not really bothered by this. But TV is a two-way attack: it not only delivers programming to your home, it also delivers you (the consumer) to a sponsor.

    People who watch the news tend to be more attentive, educated and have more money to spend. They are, thus, a prime market for advertisers. And sponsors spend millions on well-produced commercials. Such commercials are often longer in length than most news stories and cost more to produce than the news stories themselves. Moreover, the content of many commercials, which often contradicts the messages of the news stories, cannot be ignored. Most commercials are aimed at prurient interests in advocating sex, overindulgence, drugs, etc., which has a demoralizing effect on viewers, especially children.

    4. It is vitally important to learn about the economic and political interests of those who own the “corporate” media. There are few independent news sources anymore. The major news outlets are owned by corporate empires. Moreover, even those “fake” news outlets denounced by Trump are enjoying significant sales and ratings boosts as a result of Trump’s so-called war on the media. Indeed, as one trade journal reports, “Trump, of course, has become the greatest source of lead generation the American press has ever seen.” In other words, to a dying news industry, the Trump presidency has been great for business.

    5. Pay special attention to the language of newscasts. Because film footage and other visual imagery are so engaging on TV news shows, viewers are apt to allow language—what the reporter is saying about the images—to go unexamined. A TV news host’s language frames the pictures, and, therefore, the meaning we derive from the picture is often determined by the host’s commentary. TV by its very nature manipulates viewers. One must never forget that every television minute has been edited. The viewer does not see the actual event but the edited form of the event. For example, presenting a one- to two-minute segment from a two-hour political speech and having a TV talk show host critique may be disingenuous, but such edited footage is a regular staple on news shows. Add to that the fact that the reporters editing the film have a subjective view—sometimes determined by their corporate bosses—that enters in. 

    6. Reduce by at least one-half the amount of TV news you watch. TV news generally consists of “bad” news—wars, torture, murders, scandals and so forth. It cannot possibly do you any harm to excuse yourself each week from much of the mayhem projected at you on the news. Do not form your concept of reality based on television. TV news, it must be remembered, does not reflect normal everyday life. Studies indicate that a heavy viewing of TV news makes people think the world is much more dangerous than it actually is. 

    7. One of the reasons many people are addicted to watching TV news is that they feel they must have an opinion on almost everything, which gives the illusion of participation in American life. But an “opinion” is all that we can gain from TV news because it only presents the most rudimentary and fragmented information on anything. Thus, on most issues we don’t really know much about what is actually going on. And, of course, we are expected to take what the TV news host says on an issue as gospel truth. But isn’t it better to think for yourself? Add to this that we need to realize that we often don’t have enough information from the “news” source to form a true opinion. How can that be done? Study a broad variety of sources, carefully analyze issues in order to be better informed, and question everything.

    The bottom line is simply this: Americans should beware of letting others—whether they be television news hosts, political commentators or media corporations—do their thinking for them. 

    As I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, a populace that cannot think for themselves is a populace with its backs to the walls: mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all.

    It’s time to change the channel, tune out the reality TV show, and push back against the real menace of the police state. If not, if we continue to sit back and lose ourselves in political programming, we will remain a captive audience to a farce that grows more absurd by the minute.

  • This One FBI Text In The Russia Probe Should Alarm Every American

    Authored by John Solomon, op-ed via TheHill.com,

    Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the reported FBI lovebirds, are the poster children for the next “Don’t Text and Investigate” public service ads airing soon at an FBI office near you.

    Their extraordinary texting affair on their government phones has given the FBI a black eye, laying bare a raw political bias brought into the workplace that agents are supposed to check at the door when they strap on their guns and badges.

    It is no longer in dispute that they held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trumpfrom becoming president. The only question is whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.

    The Justice Department’s inspector general is endeavoring to answer that question.

    For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

    That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

    The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

    Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

    This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

    The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

    By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).

    They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.

    In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.

    The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

    That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source, is known in spy craft as “circular intelligence reporting,” and it’s the sort of bad product that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.

    But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”

    The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.

    It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team.

    “Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”

    Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

    A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

    So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.

    Impeachment is a political outcome. The only logical conclusion, then, that congressional investigators can make is that political bias led these agents to press an investigation forward to achieve the political outcome of impeachment, even though their professional training told them it had “no big there there.”

    And that, by definition, is political bias in action.

    How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don’t think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job.

    Is that an FBI you can live with?

  • Six Reasons Why Credit Suisse Is Very Worried About China's Economy

    While much of the recent commentary targeting China has centered on its response to Trump’s trade war and the sharp devaluation of the Yuan, many have argued that the real focus should be China’s decelerating economy. Commenting on this paradox, Credit Suisse said in a recent note that “consensus has been far too complacent on China” for a country that in PPP terms is already the biggest economy in the world and has accounted for an average of 36% of annual global GDP growth over the past five years.

    However, the Swiss bank adds, recent weeks have seen the flow of investor questions pick up significantly:

    Given its importance, we find it surprising that, until just the last week or two, clients have not been asking us about China this year. Indeed in our June client survey, there was only a very low proportion of respondents believing China was the key macro risk, as we show in Figure 3 below.

    And judging by Credit Suisse’s bearish outlook, it’s about time clients started asking questions: after all the bank’s view is that there is clear risk that GDP growth undershoots the Credit Suisse house view of 6.5% GDP in 2018 and 6.2% in 2019 “given the weakness of demand proxies and total social lending. China has started to rebalance away from credit and investment led growth, but this process has a lot further to run, and rebalancing is likely to come at the expense of growth momentum.”

    As a result, CS strategist Andrew Garthwaite writes that the “risks are still to the downside” for China’s economy, for the following six reasons:

    1. Credit tightening

    Credit has been steadily tightening in China with total social credit growth at historical lows. Credit momentum tends to lead IP by five months, and is pointing to a sharp slowdown in the latter, as shown in Figure 4 below.

    The slowdown is especially salient in areas that rely heavily on credit. Already, total FAI growth is close to its lowest level in more than 10 years and the subsector of FAI that is most reliant on credit growth, i.e. infrastructure FAI growth, has slowed from c.20% in early 2017 to only 1.4%.

    2. Demand growth is slowing

    If one proxies total demand growth based on retail sales, exports and FAI, it is now the slowest it has been for nearly 20 years, as Credit Suisse shows in the chart below (which shows both the weighted average and the simple average of these inputs). Export growth was the bright spot, but here too growth has now rolled over together with global PMI new orders, as shown in Figure 7 below.

    3. Supply has not slowed

    Interestingly, Garthwaite notes that the proxies on the output side of the economy, i.e. manufacturing PMIs or the bank’s proprietary indicator of 16 different industrial proxies, show no meaningful slowdown in supply. And this stability (measured on an output basis) has supported the headline growth numbers. It may also be storing up problems for H2, however, if output growth is outpacing demand.

    The question then becomes why credit growth and demand are slowing, but supply is not when we look at GDP or PMI (with the official PMI new orders series 1.5 points above its 5 year average, and the Markit PMI series 1.2 points above its 5 year average). There appear to be two possible explanations:

    • There is an inventory build

    While, in theory, stable output growth and slowing demand growth should imply an inventory build, the data does not bear this out. Neither PMI new orders vs inventories nor the growth rate of finished goods on NBS data are sending concerning signals, as shown in the charts below.

    • There is more to demand growth than proxies show

    Proxies on aggregate demand include consumption (retail sales), investment (FAI) and exports, but it is possible these underestimate aggregate demand strength.

    One particular area that might not have been properly captured in previous statistics is service consumption. The retail sales number in China captures primarily goods sales and catering services, but does not capture service consumption in areas such as tourism, education and recreation. The problem is that, although service PMI new orders have remained relatively stable, they are not particularly high relative to manufacturing PMIs.

    4. Housing

    Real estate accounts for 24% of total urban FAI in China. The property market, while it only accounts for 13% of GDP, has a disproportionately large influence on the economy as half of household wealth is accounted for by housing, around 60% of banks’ collateral and 23% of local government revenue is property-related.

    Housing starts have been stronger than expected, with the government keen to develop a rental housing sector. The problem is that there are signs that land purchases, which lead housing starts, are now slowing. Property transactions are pointing to a significant slowdown in housing starts, as shown in the Figure 14 below. CS’ Chinese property analyst believes that housing starts will decline by 5% in 2019 and slow to 4% Y/Y for full year 2018 (versus 7% currently).

    Also note that housing turnover is consistent with property price appreciation slowing to zero, and the recent underperformance of property stocks would also suggest that housing activity is likely to slow.

    5. The equity market is pointing to a slowdown in the Chinese economy

    Both MSCI China and Shanghai A tend to correlate well with China PMI manufacturing new orders. Both of these equity indices point to a sharp slowdown in China PMIs to a level below 50.

    6. Structural issues persist

    There are three structural issues that have been problematic:

    • The investment share of GDP is still higher than any economy has ever experienced (at 43%). While we acknowledge the shift to a consumption-driven economy has started, we note that moving from investment to consumer-led growth has historically seen the growth rate of an economy nearly halve.

    • Leverage: The increase in private sector debt is one of the largest in history, comparable to those in Spain and Thailand before their debt crisis. Private sector credit to GDP ratio is now 209% of GDP, 13 p.p. above its trend, according to BIS.

    • Some symptoms of a real estate bubble. Real estate valuations, in terms of the mortgage rates versus rental yields or the house price to wage ratio, appear to be excessive. Housing as a proportion of GDP is not that far off the levels seen in Spain and Ireland at their peak (12.4% in Spain if we look at construction and real estate activities and 11.3% of GDP in Ireland compared to 13% of GDP in China).

    • Demographics: The labor force is shrinking, with the job offer to applications ratio at an all-time high, suggesting wage inflation may be a key consideration soon if not already.

    Then, after listing a handful of positive offsets, Credit Suisse lays out its conclusion:

    Ultimately, we continue to believe that a hard landing in China can be avoided unless the following catalysts occur:

    (1) House prices fall by more than c30% (which would create negative equity);

    (2) Deflation returns as a result of excess capacity (that would push up real rates to abnormally high levels);

    (3) The loan to deposit ratio rises above 100%;

    (4) China ends up with a sizeable current account deficit and net foreign debt (this would then limit China’s policy flexibility).

    If Trump wants to win the trade/currency war with China, he should focus on the 4 points above and do everything in his power to destabilize the country and its markets. China will undoubtedly be doing the same.

  • State Dept Insider: "Eerily Familiar Drumbeat Of War Intensifying" Ahead Of Pompeo's Iran Speech

    Reza Marashi served in the Office of Iranian Affairs at the U.S. State Department and is currently research director at the National Iranian American Council. He is frequently consulted by Western governments on Iran-related matters. He took to Twitter on Friday to sound the alarm ahead of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s upcoming address called “Supporting Iranian Voices,” set to be held Sunday at the Reagan Library, warning as a former longtime State Department insider that this is not about “rights” or “democracy promotion” but that the wheels of the Washington regime change machine are turning. 

    Authored by former State Department Iranian Affairs officer Reza Marashi,

    And now I shall go on one of my famous rants. This time about Mike Pompeo’s upcoming speech on “Supporting Iranian Voices.” This is going to be long. Find your favorite comfy chair. Put on some cozy attire – sweatpants, perhaps. Pop some popcorn. Pour yourself an adult beverage.

    To date, out of respect for my friends still fighting the good fight at the State Department, I have kept silent about this heavy, wet, overflowing diaper of everything that should not be. But I keep getting asked about it, so I will oblige once and then let the clown show carry on.

    An eerily familiar drumbeat of war is intensifying across DC, as the continues its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen. The ghosts of America’s neoconservative past are dusting off their Iraq playbook to make the case for war with Iran.

    Their formula is simple but effective: Portray the Iranian government as an existential threat, insist that a chain of catastrophic events will result from inaction, and minimize costs and risks of the war that is necessary to facilitate their regime change efforts.

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

    If one looks back, however, neocons weren’t alone in their push for war with Iraq. A crucial aspect of selling the war to the U.S. public was a modicum of support within the Iraqi-American community.

    Iraqi exiles living abroad, such as Ahmed Chalabi and Kanan Makiya, as well as supposed whistle-blowers turned known fabricators like the infamous “Curveball,” led a contingent of vocal Iraqis who pushed for steadily more aggressive actions to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime.

    Their promise that the invasion would be a cakewalk and that U.S. soldiers would be greeted with flowers and candy didn’t quite pan out. Now, the fruits of their labor are clear for all to see — a broken country, devastated by war, with no discernible end in sight.

    Fast forward to 2018, and most Iranian Americans oppose Trump’s push to war. Working at the State Dept and NIAC has crystallized one key takeaway: Iranian Americans deeply resent Iran’s government, but prefer U.S. policies that emphasize engagement and de-escalation. For four decades, Iranian Americans have grappled with the paradox of wanting to make Iran a better place – but fearing success as much as defeat. Some worry that contributing to positive changes inside Iran will only strengthen a draconian system, extending its lease on life.

    For many Iranian Americans, this dilemma was resolved by their disastrous historical experience with revolutionary upheaval. Rather than laying the groundwork for democracy, Iran’s 1979 revolution simply replaced one authoritarian government with another. As a result, Iranian Americans strongly prefer to use the rule of law to alter not only the Iranian government’s behavior, but also the thinking of Iranians inside Iran. Efforts by Iranian Americans to promote engagement and oppose war have been consistent and cohesive.

    Overwhelming Iranian American support for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign is a telling indicator of our political attitudes. For every $1 raised by GOP nominee John McCain from Iranian Americans, Obama — who ran on a platform that promoted diplomacy with Iran — raised $5. Iranian Americans understand from personal experience that abrupt political change is unlikely to produce the desired result. Liberal Iranians were unable to contain the 1979 revolution’s excesses. And they lacked the stomach for the brutality that wins revolutions.

    Reza Marashi, a former State Department insider and consultant to Western governments on Iranian affairs speaking to CNN about the widespread protests that gripped Iran in late 2017 and into January 2018.

    Despite the fact that most Iranian Americans favor a more tolerant, pluralistic, and democratic system in Iran, they see little evidence that U.S. efforts to topple the current government would bring Iranian democrats to power. Within Iran, rampant popular dissatisfaction has yet to evolve into a sustainable and coherent challenge to the system. The Iranian government’s monopoly on violence has prevented such challenges, but has not ended the desire for change.

    Ongoing death and destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen with no end in sight makes Iranian Americans even warier about foreign efforts to “liberate” their ancestral homeland. Right or wrong, many Iranian Americans see these U.S. military invasions as less about democracy, and more as a gambit to seize resources. These conspiracy theories may seem absurd, but behind them lies a deeper reality that is very powerful in the minds of Iranian Americans.

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

    Few Iranian Americans would welcome the prospects of a U.S. war under the auspices of democracy promotion that, in turn, shattered any semblance of stability and ignited a destructive cycle of conflict. The long unmet political, economic, and social aspirations of Iranians inside Iran keep Iranian Americans searching for new ways to help foster peaceful, indigenous change. Their ideas remain diverse, but there is near-unanimous consent that change should occur without bloodshed.

    Iranian expatriates want to change their government – it is their methods that differ. A majority of Iranian-Americans would welcome an improvement of relations between Washington and Tehran because it increases the prospects for positive, peaceful change from within. The watershed moments in U.S.-Iran relations over the past 40 years — particularly the JCPOA and intensive, sustained, direct U.S.-Iran diplomacy that it required — all occurred at the height of Obama’s “mutual interests and mutual respect” initiative.

    Engagement with the Iranian government understandably spurs many moral dilemmas for Iranian-Americans. Most, however, understand the “alternatives” — particularly when juxtaposed with Iraq.

    America’s war has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, millions of displaced Iraqis, and decades worth of destroyed lives for those still living in a perpetual war zone. And sanctions came before that! Are Iranians really supposed to prefer this over the status quo?

    Let’s not kid ourselves: A minority of Iranian Americans support U.S.-backed regime change. American neocons have their kindred spirits — some long-established, some coming of age. But most Iranian Americans distrust anyone who welcomes economic or military warfare on Iran.

    There’s no arguing that Iran must change. Few Iranian Americans favor sitting idly by and waiting for the situation in Iran to improve on its own. But only Uncle Toms buy the deceit that Pompeo is selling. That is all. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

  • Ukraine Furious After Italy's Salvini Calls 2014 Revolution "Fake" And "Foreign-Funded"

    Ukraine has summoned the Italian Ambassador to Ukraine Davide La Cecilia over a statement made by the Interior Minister of Italy Matteo Salvini (whose League political party is now the most popular in Italy) on his recognition of the annexation of Crimea by Russia and his slamming the 2014 Euromaidan protests and coup in Kiev as “pseudo-revolution” sponsored from abroad.

    “We are responding. On Monday, we will meet with the Italian ambassador. He is a very nice person. I understand that he cannot be responsible for the words of their politicians, especially given that that one politician went to Crimea and just returned from Moscow, where, according to our information, he met with Putin,” Olena Zerkal, Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister, told the local Channel 5 on Friday.”

    Ukraine was infuriated by Salvini’s comments made during his interview with the Washington Post, published earlier this week. WaPo senior associate editor Lally Weymouth tried to grill the minister over his support for Crimea’s return to Russia, calling the referendum that took place in Crimea in 2014 “fake.”

    Q. You said that Russia had a right to annex Crimea?
    A. There was a referendum.
    Q. It was a fake referendum.
    A. [That is your] point of view. . . . There was a referendum, and 90 percent of the people voted for the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation.

    Salvini shot back, saying “compare it to the fake revolution in Ukraine, which was a pseudo-revolution funded by foreign powers – similar to the Arab Spring revolutions” adding that “There are some historically Russian zones with Russian culture and traditions which legitimately belong to the Russian Federation.”

    Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry angrily responded that Salvini words were “not grounded in real facts and in contradiction of recognized principles and norms of international law.”

    Zerkal also downplayed Salvini’s words on Friday by saying that “it was hard to expect any different rhetoric from him,” following the “pro-Russian” Salvini’s recent visit to Crimea as an Italian lawmaker.

    The tension goes back to the February 2014 “Maidan” revolution, when then-president Viktor Yanuvkoich was overthrown in a violent, US-assisted coup d’etat. Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, made numerous trips to Kiev to telegraph US support for the anti-Yanukovich protesters, and was even spotted handing treats to the demonstrators, boasted that Washington had invested $5 billion into the promotion of democracy in Ukraine. In the now infamous leaked recording in which the Asst. State Secretary said “Fuck the EU” over the Union’s lack of support for the US strategy, Nuland was revealed as the mastermind behind the Ukraine unrest.

    Victoria Nuland hands out bread to protesters at Independence square in Kiev December 11, 2013.

    The new pro-Western government sent tanks to eastern Ukraine in spring 2014 where the population refused to recognize the coup, at which point Russian soldiers were dispatched to Crimea – a critical chokepoint for the US navy – which held a referendum that saw the local population vote overwhelmingly to join Russia.

    In response, the US and the EU accused Russia of annexing Crimea and stoking the conflict in Donbass, as they slapped Moscow with several waves of sanctions targeting individuals, companies and whole sectors of economy. The animosity between the US State Department, if not so much the US president, and Ukraine continues to this day.

    And while most of Europe had strictly adhered to the conventionally-accepted western narrative, the statement by Salvini indicates that as Europe is washed over by a populist wave, recent history is also being reassessed.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 21

Today’s News 21st July 2018

  • Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex Is Still Running The Show With Russia

    Authored by Bruce Fein via The American Conservative,

    As the media fulminates, they fail to see how Trump has kept the usual machinery running…

    President Donald Trump has strengthened, not weakened, American military and economic opposition to Russian President Vladimir Putin. That fact has been mostly unreported and it is of the utmost importance. Irrespective of what Trump harrumphs about NATO or Vladimir Putin, the multi-trillion-dollar military-industrial-counterterrorism complex (MICC) rules American-Russian relations as it has for seven decades. And the nightmare of the MICC is not to lose a friend, but to lose an enemy.

    Fake news is fixated on personalities. Authentic news understands that nations have no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. The executive branch in particular has a permanent interest in exaggerating threats to augment its own power and to order up more superfluous military spending.

    President Barack Obama, in opposing Russian designs, refused to provide military assistance to Ukraine. Trump has authorized the transfer of defensive military weapons.

    Obama limited the U.S. military mission in Syria to defeating ISIS. Trump has expanded the mission to remain in Syria indefinitely and influence the outcome of that country’s protracted civil war.

    Trump is also planning a $1.2 trillion upgrade of our nuclear arsenal, including low-yield tactical weapons, largely targeting Russia. His most recent National Security Strategy paper elaborates:

    The United States will respond to the growing political, economic, and military competitions we face around the world. China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.

    Trump has supported NATO’s 30,000-strong rapid response force in case of a Russian attack. He has exhorted NATO members to spike their military spending against Russia from 2 percent or less of GDP to 4 percent.

    Trump has affirmed that he will treat an attack on any NATO member as an attack on the United States and will respond with military force without a constitutionally required declaration of war. He has not withdrawn even one soldier of more than 50,000 on the ground in NATO countries.

    Trump has maintained economic sanctions against Russia for its annexation of Crimea and further military encroachments into eastern Ukraine. He signed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which the Russian prime minister assailed as a “full-scale trade war.”

    Last April, the Trump administration’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), in consultation with the Department of State, designated seven Russian oligarchs and 12 companies they own or control, 17 senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its subsidiary, a Russian bank. A designee’s assets in the United States are frozen and business dealings with Americans are prohibited.

    “The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government elites,” said Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin.

    “The Russian government engages in a range of malign activity around the globe, including continuing to occupy Crimea and instigate violence in eastern Ukraine, supplying the Assad regime with material and weaponry as they bomb their own civilians, attempting to subvert Western democracies, and malicious cyber activities. Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government’s destabilizing activities.”

    Trump supported the addition of Montenegro to NATO despite its self-evident irrelevance to the national security of the United States.

    Trump’s detractors moan that he swoons over Putin, a proven assassin (the Litvinenko polonium 210 poisoning), international terrorist (the missile strike on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine), and serial liar (denying that he controls the GRU). They deplore the absurdly positive things he’s said about Russia’s cruel dictatorship and meddling in American politics (as we meddle in theirs). But they cannot point to a single thing the Trump administration has done that has diminished our overwhelming military and economic superiority over Russia or deterrence of Russian aggression.

    Trump is only background noise.

    Our enduring national security libretto is composed by the MICC with the acquiescence of the American people. And its armored knight gratifies them as always with the vicarious thrill of power and domination.

  • A Brief History Of US Covert Action In Syria – Part 2

    In part 2 of this corrective history of the Syrian proxy war which notable Middle East experts have lately urged is important and essential reading, William Van Wagenen demonstrates the direct US-al Qaeda relationship during the heart of the war, resulting in genocide against religious minorities. Part 1 is available here. 

    Part 2: The Myth of US ‘Inaction’ in Syria, by William Van Wagenen via The Libertarian Institute

    Member of the US-backed FSA, Aleppo, Syria. Image source: Wiki Commons

    In March of 2015, rebels from the Jaish al-Fatah coalition, which included Nusra and the jihadist rebel group Ahrar al-Sham, launched a coordinated assault along with brigades from the FSA on Idlib province, leading to the capture of the province as a whole from Syrian government forces two months later.

    Rebels captured Idlib city itself on March 29. Al-Jazeera quoted the pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) as declaring “Al-Nusra Front and its allies have captured all of Idlib,” in a battle that led to some 130 deaths. Al-Jazeera also quoted representatives of the Western-backed Syrian National Council (SNC) as declaring the capture of Idlib city as “an important victory on the road to the full liberation of Syrian soil from the Assad regime and its allies,” showing the close relationship between the US-supported Syrian political opposition in exile and al-Qaeda affiliated militants on the ground in Syria. Rebels captured the last major Syrian army base in the province on March 19 near the town of Mastouma. Rebel control of Idlib was completed with the ouster of the Syrian army from the town of Ariha at the end of May, causing government forces to retreat to bases on the coast in Latakia.

    The US-led Operations Room

    The rebel offensive in Idlib succeeded largely due to the lethal combination of Nusra suicide bombers and US-provided TOW anti-tank missiles. FSA commander Fares Bayoush from the Fursan al-Haq brigade explained to the LA Times “that his group’s TOW missiles played an important role in repelling government tanks during a March offensive in Idlib province spearheaded by an Islamist coalition called the Army of Conquest, which includes Al Nusra Front.” It was during this period that Syria analyst Hassan Hassan observed in Foreign Policy that, “The Syrian rebels are on a roll,” and that “the recent offensives in Idlib have been strikingly swift — thanks in large part to suicide bombers and American anti-tank TOW missiles,” as well as that,“For the first time since the conflict began, Assad’s heartlands in the Western region [Latakia] seemed exposed.”

    The close cooperation between FSA brigades and rebels from the al-Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front in Idlib was encouraged by US planners. Syria analyst Charles Lister, also writing in Foreign Policy, observed that “The involvement of FSA groups, in fact, reveals how the factions’ backers have changed their tune regarding coordination with Islamists. Several commanders involved in leading recent Idlib operations confirmed to this author that the U.S.-led operations room in southern Turkey, which coordinates the provision of lethal and non-lethal support to vetted opposition groups, was instrumental in facilitating their involvement in the operation from early April onwards. That operations room — along with another in Jordan, which covers Syria’s south — also appears to have dramatically increased its level of assistance and provision of intelligence to vetted groups in recent weeks [emphasis mine].”

    Lister, who has testified several times before the US House Foreign Affairs Committee to make policy proscriptions for US planners in Syria, argued at that time that US cooperation with al-Qaeda (Nusra) is the best option: “[T]here still remains no better alternative to cooperating with al Qaeda, and thus facilitating its prominence. If the West wants a better solution, it must broaden and intensify its engagement with Syria’s insurgent groups and considerably expand its provision of assistance to a wider set of acceptable groups” echoing a popular view among Western and Gulf think tank analysts that al-Qaeda was worthy of US support.

    Civilians Flee Foreign Fighters

    Predictably, US efforts to help al-Qaeda conquer Idlib had grim consequences for many of its residents, large numbers of whom fled after rebels took control of the city and province.

    The Guardian reported that while under Syrian government control, Idlib city, with a population of some 165,000 before the war, “had been swollen by hundreds of thousands of displaced people, who had fled there to escape fighting elsewhere.” In contrast, when the rebels came, many civilians fled. The New York Times reported that although “some Idlib residents celebrated Saturday, cheering as fighters ripped down posters of Mr. Assad or embracing insurgent relatives who returned to the city for the first time in years, others streamed out of the city, with convoys of loaded cars and trucks blocking roads.” Citing the United Nations, the NYT reported that already by April 1, just two days after the rebel arrival, at least 30,000 residents had fled the city.

    One Idlib resident who fled when the rebels arrived explained that “The rebels that attacked Idlib at the end of March 2015 came from all sorts of countries. I even saw children carrying weapons. The rebels had a list of names of people who were to be killed, in the majority of cases because they held pro government views. One of my friends, a teacher, was on the list and was shot. . . . I left Idlib with my cousin who had a car. Afterwards, my house was occupied and looted by the rebels. I had planned to sell my house to enable my daughter to study medicine. Now it’s too late. I also worry about our old Christian neighbors. I am a Muslim but the religion of these rebels is not my Islam. I detest Salafism, and do not want to live under it.”

    On April 25, rebels from the Jaish al-Fatah coalition, which included the jihadist rebel groups Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and Jund al-Aqsa, captured the strategic town of Jisr al-Shughour, which lies on the highway connecting Latakia to Aleppo. The rebel capture of the town came one month after the capture of Idlib city. The Guardian quoted one senior opposition member who had supplied weapons to the rebels taking Jisr al-Shughour as noting, “I would put the advances down to one word . . .Tow,” referring to missiles made in the US and purchased by Saudi Arabia for supply to the rebels.

    The US-Saudi Rat Line

    The opposition member noted as well that “Saudi is not as concerned as it was by who among the rebel groups is winning, as long as it’s not [Isis]. They’ve convinced everyone involved in Syria that the real enemy is Iran,” suggesting Saudi comfort in militarily supplying jihadist rebels from al-Qaeda. Rebel media posted video of civilians fleeing Jisr al-Shughour after its capture, claiming they wished to escape in anticipation of a pending regime bombardment now that the city had fallen.

    The Guardian also quoted one resident as noting that FSA groups participated alongside the Nusra-led Jaish al-Fatah coalition in taking the city, in accordance with the familiar pattern: “There were people from the normal opposition there. They were strong too, but the jihadists were stronger.”

    Though the city fell on April 25, hundreds of Syrian army soldiers and some women and children fled to the National Hospital complex, which remained under siege by rebels for the next month. The soldiers managed to repel multiple suicide car bombs, targeting them with rocket propelled grenades. Rebels then began preparing to detonate a large tunnel bomb below the hospital to destroy it and kill the soldiers inside. The soldiers then attempted to flee the hospital under air cover from the Syrian air force.

    Of this incident, the Telegraph reports, “Syrian rebel leaders have described massacres of hundreds of Assad troops and fighters in grim detail as the regime’s defenses begin to crumble in the face of revived attacks on several fronts. President Bashar al-Assad had promised to rescue hundreds of his men who were surrounded in a last stand at a hospital in the key north-western town of Jisr al-Shughour. Eventually, the men tried to run for it under the cover of a regime aerial attack, pre-empting a final assault by rebels including Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, and other Islamist groups. Instead, many of the soldiers were shot down as they were cornered in orchards on the edge of town, a rebel spokesman said.”

    Rebels claimed to have killed 208 Syrian soldiers, including several high ranking officers, while pro-government sources claimed up to 80 soldiers managed to escape. One soldier who managed to escape alive described the ordeal to Chinese state media, adding that a number of civilians escaped with the soldiers.

    Jisr al-Shughour fell four years after rebels initially attempted to take the city in June 2011, just three months after the beginning of anti-government protests. Several hundred rebels attacked the local police station with dynamite, killing a number of soldiers inside, and then ambushed and killed as many as 120 Syrian army soldiers sent as reinforcements. This event was known as the “massacre” of Jisr al-Shughour. The killings were widely attributed to the Syrian army itself at the time, as activists implausibly blamed the Syrian army for the killing of its own soldiers.

    The story of government responsibility for the killings was widely believed, and reported as such in the Western press, as the rebel attacks took place at a time before armed rebel activity in Syria was widely acknowledged. This was despite correct reporting on the killings at the time by Syria expert and University of Oklahoma professor Joshua Landis. Rebel responsibility for the killings was later confirmed by journalist Rania Abouzeid, who was able to return to Jisr al-Shughour years later and interview witnesses who confirmed rebels had killed the soldiers, as recounted in her book, “No Turning Back: Life, Loss, and Hope in Wartime Syria (pages 55-60).”

    Threat of Genocide in Latakia

    The defeat of government forces in Idlib, in particular in Jisr al-Shughour, allowed rebels to then push on toward Latakia province on the Western coast of Syria, and to threaten the massacre of the large Alawite population there, as discussed above. A representative from the rebel group Ahrar al-Sham explained to Reuters that “Jisr al-Shughour is more important than Idlib itself, it is very close to the coastal area which is a regime area [Latakia], the coast now is within our fire reach.”

    Alawites, which comprised some 50% of the population in Latakia, faced the prospect of being massacred if rebels from Nusra had been able to capture the city, due to the virulently anti-Alawite views of Nusra members, who draw on the writings of the fringe 14th century Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya in order to deem Alawites “infidels” deserving of death.

    Syrian analyst Sam Heller cites the views of the supreme Nusra religious official Sami al-Oreidi to show that Nusra promotes “toxic — even genocidal – sectarianism” against Syria’s Alawite population. Heller writes that “[T]he verdict on Syria’s Alawites, Oreidi makes clear, is death. Oreidi cites medieval Islamic jurist Imam al-Ghazali, who wrote, ‘Proceed with [the Alawites] as you would with apostates…. The land must be purged of them.’ He also quotes Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, himself Syrian and among the formative influences on modern Salafism: This people called the ‘Nuseiriyyah [Alawites] . . . are more infidels than the Jews and the Nasara [Christians]; more infidels, in fact, than many polytheists. Their harm to the nation of Muhammad, peace be upon him, is greater than the infidels waging war on it.’”

    But it was not only jihadist fighters from the Nusra Front that held strongly sectarian, anti-Alawite views, but also many fighters from the FSA as well, due to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) roots of many FSA battalions. Thanks to the influence of Brotherhood ideologue Said Hawwa, the Syrian MB promoted the anti-Alawite sectarian views of Ibn Taymiyya from the 1960’s until the 1980’s.

    Islam scholar Itzchak Weismann of the University of Haifa writes that “In defining his attitude toward the ‘Alawis, Hawwa alludes to a fatwa of Ibn Taymiya, which although it concerns a particular Ismal’ili sect can be applied, in his opinion, to any analogous sect in the Muslim world. According to this fatwa jihad against this sect precedes jihad against polytheists (musbrikun) or against ahl al-kitab, as it belongs to the category of jihad against murtaddun [apostates]. Thus, in Hawwa’s view, Syria is a unique case of a Muslim state that is ruled by a heretical batini government, and in such a case he sees no escape from a violent confrontation. The Sunni majority, led by the Islamic movement, must wage an uncompromising war against Assad’s regime and against ‘Alawi dominance in Syria.”

    Revisiting the 1980’s Muslim Brotherhood Insurrection  

    This view helped inspire some Brotherhood members, such as Marwan Hadid, to split from the broader Syrian MB organization and initiate an armed insurrection against the Syrian government in Hama in 1964. Upon Hadid’s death in government custody in 1976, his followers, known as the Fighting Vanguard, initiated an assassination campaign targeting Alawite members of the Syrian government bureaucracy and security forces.

    As part of this campaign, Fighting Vanguard militants massacred 83 Alawite army cadets in Aleppo in June 1979, while attempting to assassinate President Hafez al-Assad himself in June 1980. In response, Assad ordered the massacre of some 500 MB members then being held in Tadmur prison. The Syrian MB joined the Fighting Vanguard in launching an armed insurrection (which they called a jihad) against the Syrian government in Hama in 1982.

    Islamist militants attacked police stations, Ba’ath party offices and Syrian army units, forcing the army to withdraw from the city. The army regrouped however, and (in)famously suppressed the insurrection, with the use of considerable violence, leaving thousands dead and much of the city in ruins (for a review of this period, see “Ashes of Hama” by Rafael Lefevre and “The Struggle for Power in Syria” by Nikolaos van Dam).

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

    While the Syrian MB has espoused more moderate positions after the group was defeated in Hama, anti-Alawite sectarianism which colored its conflict with the Syrian government in the 1980’s re-emerged in some segments of the Syrian opposition at the outset of anti-government protests in 2011, and was taken up by some FSA rebel groups.

    Calls for Ethnic Cleansing Began in Spring 2011

    In some anti-government protests in the spring of 2011, protestors chanted the slogan “Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the grave,” while in June 2011, Syrian opposition cleric and FSA supporter Adnan Arour threatened to put Alawites supporting the government in “meat grinders” and “feed their flesh to the dogs.”

    In the summer of 2011, Lebanese Sunnis from the city of Tripoli were entering Syria to fight for the FSA-affiliated Farouq Brigade in Homs, with encouragement from Lebanese cleric Masen al-Mohammed, who insisted that “Assad is an infidel,” because he is a member of the Alawite faith and that “It is the duty of every Muslim, every Arab to fight the infidels.”

    FSA groups inquired of Islamic scholars in March 2012 whether it was allowed to raid Alawite villages and kill their women and children in response to alleged crimes committed by the Syrian army.

    On April 10, 2011, just weeks after the first anti-government protests in Syria, anti-government activists loyal to local Salafi cleric and protest leader Anas Ayrout murdered an Alawite farmer in Banias named Nidal Janoud. Video emerged of the activists stabbing Nidal to death in the street. In July 2013, Ayrout, by then a rebel commander and member of the Western-backed Syrian National Council (SNC) told Reuters that “We have to drive them [Alawites] out of their homes like they drove us out. They have to feel pain like we feel pain,” and that “(Alawites) are relaxed while areas that have slipped out of regime control are always under shelling (by government forces), always in pain. . . If you do not create a balance of terror, the battle will not be decided.”

    Similarly, in September 2013, Zahran Alloush, a Salafi preacher and founder of the Saudi-supported opposition rebel group Jaish al-Islam, called for “cleansing Damascus” of all Alawites, while calling Shiite Muslims, of which Alawites are considered an offshoot, “unclean” and threating to “destroy your skulls” and “make you taste the worst torture in life before Allah makes you taste the worst torture on judgment day.” Proof that Jaish al-Islam was welcomed by the mainstream and Western-backed political opposition became clear when Zahran’s cousin and co-founder of Jaish al-Islam, Mohammad Alloush, was appointed as the lead negotiator for the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace negotiations in January 2016.

    The anti-Alawite incitement promoted by opposition clerics such as Alloush, al-Mohammed, Arour, and Ayrout was at times translated into action. In December 2012, FSA battalions carried out a mass kidnapping of Alawite civilians in the town of Aqrab. Alex Thomsen of Channel 4 News reported that according to residents of the town who had escaped, “rebels wanted to take the women and children to al-Houla to use them as human shields against bombardment from government forces, and they believed they would kill the remaining men.”

    Whitewashing ISIS

    In August 2013, one month after Ayrout’s threats against Alawites, fighters under the command of FSA head Salim Idriss participated alongside Nusra and ISIS in the massacre and kidnapping of Alawite civilians in 10 villages in Latakia, according to the BBC. Human Rights Watch (HRC) investigated the massacre further, and reported that on August 4, rebels overran a Syrian army position, killing some 30 Syrian soldiers. Rebels then massacred 190 civilians, including 57 women and 18 children and 14 elderly men. Rebels also kidnapped and held hostage some 200 additional civilians, the majority women and children. Many of the hostages were released 9 months later as part of a ceasefire deal to end fighting between the Syrian army and rebels in Homs, and victims were able to recount horrific details of their captivity to the pro-Syrian government Lebanese newspaper, al-Akhbar.

    The massacre came as part of a rebel offensive, led by ISIS, to capture Tartous, a port town crucial for the Syrian army receiving weapons shipments by sea from its Iranian allies. The Telegraph reported that Western-backed Syrian National Council (SNC) denied that rebels were targeting civilians based on their religious identity, but that the SNC nevertheless “praised” the ISIS led-offensive “stating that the villages had been used as launching posts from which pro-government militias had shelled rebel held villages in the north of the province.” At the same time, the Telegraph reported that “Video footage posted showed rebel groups indiscriminately launching rockets in the direction of Qardaha, the Assad village, and many of the comments made in the footage were clearly sectarian.”

    In November 2015, Jaish al-Islam placed Alawite prisoners, both kidnapped civilians and captured Syrian soldiers, in metal cages in public squares. The Telegraph cited SOHR reporting that “Jaish al-Islam is using these captives and kidnapped people – including whole families – as human shields,” allegedly in an effort to prevent Syrian government bombing.

    Christians on the Coast

    Christians in Latakia also feared the rebels. In March 2014, the Armenian Christian village of Kassab in northern Latakia province was overrun by rebels crossing the Syrian border from Turkey. Saudi owned al-Arabia reports that “Kassab’s residents fled after rebels seized their village on March 23, as part of a rebel offensive in the coastal Syrian province of Latakia, Assad’s ancestral heartland.” One resident who fled when the rebels came told al-Jazeera that “There was no obvious reason to invade, no heavy Syrian military presence. . . But that morning, shelling was pouring down like hail.” Once the residents fled, rebels looted their homes and farm equipment. “They have taken the televisions, radios and microwaves to Kassab Square, and they’ve gathered all the tractors at the Kassab Tourist Resort,” a media representative for the Armenians in the town told al-Jazeera.

    The Washington Post reported that a “mother of three said that after she arrived in Latakia with her children, she called home, and a man who identified himself as a member of Jabhat al-Nusra answered” and told her “Come back, why did you leave your home? We have come here to protect you,” before also telling her “she should convert to Islam before returning.” The mother described how “I pleaded with him, ‘Eat and drink whatever you like, but please don’t destroy the house.’”

    American celebrity personality Kim Kardashian, herself Armenian, attempted to bring attention to the plight of Kassab’s residents and the danger they faced from al-Qaeda rebels. In response, the Daily Beast published an article making light of her concerns, suggesting Kardashian was simply an apologist for dictators.

    Despite rebel attacks on various villages in Latakia province as described above, Latakia city and its some 400,000 residents had largely been spared the violence engulfing much of the country, with some 200,000 displaced persons finding refuge in Latakia, many of whom were housed in tents and pre-fabricated homes in the city’s sports stadium complex.

    By the spring of 2015, however, rebels were encroaching closer and closer on Latakia city. In March 2015, Saudi-owned al-Arabiya reported that rebels had detonated a car bomb in Qardaha, President Assad’s hometown, located just 30 kilometers Latakia city, and that the Syrian army was conducting operations in an effort to “put to an end the frequent shelling of loyalist villages and towns on the coasts. Morale is reportedly cracking in the regime strongholds due to repeated artillery shelling.”

    When Jisr al-Shughour in Idlib province fell to the rebels in April 2015, pro-opposition Orient News reported that the coming rebel advance on Latakia would be considerably more difficult and complicated, not just for military reasons, but due to demographic ones as well, as Latakia is primarily populated by supporters of the government. 

    Orient News also acknowledged that many towns and cities in Latakia taken by the rebels would be depopulated, explaining that the “entry of the opposition to these regions will cause a large wave of displaced persons, as occurred when the opposition took control of the villages of Ishtabrak and al-Rasmania and Ghania, which are villages surrounding Jisr al-Shughour and whose residents support the government,” noting as well that the capture of these towns by the opposition “led to residents of these towns fleeing to areas under government control in the Sahel [Latakia].”

    Massive Depopulation

    In June 2015, one Latakia resident told Syria Deeply that, the “opposition’s proximity to Latakia is what everyone talks about these days. People expect that Latakia is next, after Idlib and Jisr al-Shughour. When the opposition took over Idlib, people in Latakia were disappointed, but when they took over Jisr al-Shughour, people were scared.”

    The resident noted that many young men from Latakia had already died fighting with the Syrian army against rebels elsewhere in Syria: “Many Latakians were killed fighting with the army and serving their country. More than 150 people from my neighborhood were killed in service. Their pictures are hung along the main street. All streets in Latakia are like this.” Despite the fear of a rebel takeover of Latakia, the resident suggested many were encouraged by the fact that prominent Syrian general Suhail al-Hassan, who had had considerable success in defeating rebels elsewhere, had been appointed to re-take Jisr al-Shughour. The resident concluded his comments by stating that “The army is our only hope that Syria would become peaceful again.”

    While the threat of the massacre of Alawite civilians in Latakia city loomed in the summer of 2015, Syria’s Alawite community had already suffered terrible losses at the hands of the rebels elsewhere. In April 2015 the Telegraph had noted that “The scale of the sect’s losses is staggering: with a population of around two million, a tenth of Syria’s population, the Alawites boast perhaps 250,000 men of fighting age. Today as many as one third are dead, local residents and Western diplomats say. Many Alawite villages nestled in the hills of their ancestral Latakia province are all but devoid of young men. The women dress only in mourning black [emphasis mine].”

    The Telegraph quotes a Latakia resident as explaining that “Every day there at least 30 men returned from the front lines in coffins. In the beginning of the war their deaths were celebrated with big funerals. Now they are quietly dumped in the back of pick-up trucks,” which caused some Alawite mothers to “set up ‘road blocks’ at the entrances to some of the mountain villages to prevent the army from forcibly taking their sons to the military draft” and to tell military commanders to “Go and bring the sons of the big shots to war and after that we will give you our children.”

    Resentment due to the high casualties among Alawite army conscripts had begun years before. The Telegraph reported in October 2012 that “as families see their young soldiers coming home in body bags ‘everyday’ that support [for Bashar al-Assad] is cracking” in his hometown of Qardaha, where “The walls are covered in posters showing the faces of the young men that have been killed.”

    BBC Excuses Terrorist Bombings

    On September 2, 2015 rebels detonated a car bomb outside a school in Latakia city, killing 12. In providing context for the bombing, the BBC noted that “Latakia has largely escaped the conflict that has devastated most of Syria and left 250,000 people dead. But a rebel alliance that includes al-Qaeda’s local affiliate, al-Nusra Front, has been advancing on the city and within its surrounding province after driving government forces out of much of neighboring Idlib province earlier this year.” 

    The BBC chose not acknowledge the threat to civilians of the rebel advance, characterizing it instead as simply “the latest in a series of setbacks for the president.” Al-Jazeera cited SOHR as reporting this was “the biggest car bomb attack in Latakia since the war began” and that “This is rare for Latakia city, which is usually hit by rockets.” Al-Jazeera added that “Rebel fighters entrenched in the hilly terrain around Latakia regularly fire rockets and other missiles into the city.”

    Robert Worth of the New York Times writes of this period that “the rebels were closing in on the Latakia city limits, and mortars were falling downtown. If the rebels had captured the area — where Alawites are the majority — a result would almost certainly have been sectarian mass murder. Many people in the region would have blamed the United States, which armed some of the rebels operating in the area… Andrew Exum, who worked in the Pentagon at the time, told me that the military drew up contingency plans for a rapid collapse of the regime. The planning sessions were talked about as ‘catastrophic success [emphasis mine].’”

    CIA Insider: Regime Change in Effect from early 2011

    The phrase “catastrophic success” is an odd one. Presumably, the rebel takeover of Latakia and possible collapse of the Syrian government would be catastrophic, given the large numbers of people that would have been massacred. Such an outcome would have nevertheless constituted a success, from the perspective of US planners, as the fall of the Syrian government was long a strategic US goal, due to the desire to weaken Syria’s close allies, Iran and Hezbollah.

    For example, Flynt Leverett, the former Middle East specialist for the State Department, CIA and National Security Council during the Bush Administration described how,“The unrest in Syria started in March 2011. . . . and by April of 2011, just one month into this the Obama administration was backgrounding David Sanger from the New York Times and other sympathetic reporters that they were looking at the situation in Syria as a way of pushing back and undermining Iran. That if you could bring about regime change in [Syria] the argument was that this would really weaken Iran’s regional position and reignite the Green Movement and produce regime change in Iran. . . This has been very much the real strategic driver for American policy toward the situation.”

    * * *

    In part 3 we will chart ISIS’ rapid advance into central Syria and inroads into the Damascus suburbs, as well as Russian intervention and the resulting failure of US regime change plans. 

  • Solomon: Climb Down From The Summit Of Hostile Propaganda

    Authored by Norman Solomon via TruthDig.com,

    Throughout the day before the summit in Helsinki, the lead story on the New York Times home page stayed the same: “Just by Meeting With Trump, Putin Comes Out Ahead.” The Sunday headline was in harmony with the tone of U.S. news coverage overall. As for media commentary, the Washington Post was in the dominant groove as it editorialized that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is “an implacably hostile foreign adversary.”

    Contempt for diplomacy with Russia is now extreme. Mainline U.S. journalists and top Democrats often bait President Donald Trump in zero-sum terms. No doubt Hillary Clinton thought she was sending out an applause line in her tweet Sunday night: “Question for President Trump as he meets Putin: Do you know which team you play for?”

    A bellicose stance toward Russia has become so routine and widespread that we might not give it a second thought—and that makes it all the more hazardous. After President George W. Bush declared “You’re either with us or against us,” many Americans gradually realized what was wrong with a Manichean view of the world. Such an outlook is even more dangerous today.

    Since early 2017, the U.S. mass media have laid it on thick with the rough political equivalent of a painting technique known as chiaroscuro—“the use of strong contrasts between light and dark, usually bold contrasts affecting a whole composition,” in the words of Wikipedia. The Russiagate frenzy is largely about punching up contrasts between the United States (angelic and victimized) and Russia (sinister and victimizer).

    Countless stories with selective facts are being told that way. But other selectively fact-based stories could also be told to portray the United States as a sinister victimizer and Russia as an angelic victim. Those governments and their conformist media outlets are relentless in telling it either way. As the great journalist I.F. Stone observed long ago, “All governments lie, and nothing they say should be believed.” In other words: don’t trust, verify.

    Often the biggest lies involve what remains unsaid. For instance, U.S. media rarely mention such key matters as the promise-breaking huge expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the brazen U.S. intervention in Russia’s pivotal 1996 presidential election, or the U.S. government’s 2002 withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or the more than 800 U.S. military bases overseas—in contrast to Russia’s nine.

    For human survival on this planet, an overarching truth appears in an open letter published last week by The Nation magazine:

    “No political advantage, real or imagined, could possibly compensate for the consequences if even a fraction of U.S. and Russian arsenals were to be utilized in a thermonuclear exchange. The tacit pretense that the worsening of U.S.-Russian relations does not worsen the odds of survival for the next generations is profoundly false.”

    The initial 26 signers of the open letter “Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security” included Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, writer and feminist organizer Gloria Steinem, former UN ambassador Gov. Bill Richardson, political analyst Noam Chomsky, former covert CIA operations officer Valerie Plame, activist leader Rev. Dr. William Barber II, filmmaker Michael Moore, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean, Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen, former U.S. ambassador to the USSR Jack F. Matlock Jr., Pulitzer Prize-winning writers Alice Walker and Viet Thanh Nguyen, The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, former senator Adlai Stevenson III, and former longtime House Armed Services Committee member Patricia Schroeder. (I was also one of the initial signers.)

    Since its release five days ago, the open letter has gained support from a petition already signed by 45,000 people. The petition campaign aims to amplify the call for protecting the digital infrastructure of the electoral process that is now “vulnerable to would-be hackers based anywhere”—and for taking “concrete steps… to ease tensions between the nuclear superpowers.”

    We need a major shift in the U.S. approach toward Russia. Clearly the needed shift won’t be initiated by the Republican or Democratic leaders in Congress; it must come from Americans who make their voices heard. The lives—and even existence—of future generations are at stake in the relationship between Washington and Moscow.

    Many of the petition’s grassroots signers have posted comments along with their names. Here are a few of my favorites:

    *  From Nevada: “We all share the same planet! We better learn how to do it safely or face the consequences of blowing ourselves up!”

    *  From New Mexico: “The earth will not survive a nuclear war. The weapons we have today are able to cause much more destruction than those of previous eras. We must find a way to common ground.”

    *  From Massachusetts: “It is imperative that we take steps to protect the sanctity of our elections and to prevent nuclear war anywhere on the earth.”

    *  From Kentucky: “Secure elections are a fundamental part of a democratic system. But this could become meaningless in the event of thermonuclear war.”

    *  From California: “There is only madness and hubris in talk of belligerence toward others, especially when we have such dangerous weapons and human error has almost led to our annihilation already more than once in the past half-century.”

    Yet a wide array of media outlets, notably the “Russiagate”-obsessed network MSNBC, keeps egging on progressives to climb toward peaks of anti-Russian jingoism. The line of march is often in virtual lockstep with GOP hyper-hawks like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The incessant drumbeat is in sync with what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism.”

    Meanwhile, as Dr. King said, “We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation.”

  • Michael Cohen Secretly Taped Trump Discussing Playboy Model Payoff

    Update: The Wall Street Journal adds some interesting color to the story – reporting that Cohen taped the conversation in person, that they discussed acquiring the rights to McDougal’s story which was previously sold to the National Enquirer’s parent company, and that the recording, which was under two minutes long, cuts out before the conversation ended. 

    *****

    President Trump’s former longtime attorney, Michael Cohen, secretly recorded Trump two months before the 2016 US election discussing payments to a former Playboy model who said she and Trump had an affair, according to the New York Times, citing lawyers and others familiar with the recording which was seized during an FBI raid on Cohen’s office.

    The F.B.I. seized the recording this year during a raid on Mr. Cohen’s office. The Justice Department is investigating Mr. Cohen’s involvement in paying women to tamp down embarrassing news stories about Mr. Trump ahead of the 2016 election. Prosecutors want to know whether that violated federal campaign finance laws, and any conversation with Mr. Trump about those payments would be of keen interest to them. –NYT

    The existence of the recording will undoubtedly kick open the door to tactics Trump and his associates have used to keep aspects of his business dealings and personal life secret, posits the Times, while it also highlights the potential legal and political danger that Cohen poses to Trump. 

    Cast outside of Trump’s inner circle, Cohen recently lawyered up with longtime Clinton pal Lanny Davis, who suggested two weeks ago that Cohen cooperating with prosecutors might not work out so well for Trump.

    “We have nothing to say on this matter,” said Davis when asked about the tape. 

    Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told the Times that the recording existed, however the payment to McDougal was never made.

    Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, confirmed in a telephone conversation on Friday that Mr. Trump had discussed the payments with Mr. Cohen on the tape but said the payment was ultimately never made. He said the recording was less than two minutes and demonstrated that the president had done nothing wrong. –NYT

    “Nothing in that conversation suggests that he had any knowledge of it in advance,” said Giuliani, adding that Trump had previously told Cohen that if he were to make a payment related to the woman, to write a check instead of sending cash so that the transaction could be properly documented. “In the big scheme of things, it’s powerful exculpatory evidence,” Giuliani added.

    The former model, Karen McDougal, claims to have had a nearly yearlong affair with Trump in 2006, right before Melania Trump gave birth to their son Barron. McDougal sold her story to the National Enquirer for $150,000 as the 2016 presidential campaign was in its final months, however the tabloid sat on the story which kept it from becoming public in a practice known as “catch and kill.” 

    The Enquirer’s chairman, David J. Pecker, is a personal friend of Trump’s, and McDougal has accused Cohen of taking part in the deal. 

    Cohen made a similar payment of $130,000 to porn star and stripper Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. Cohen said at the time “In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford.”

    Clifford is suing Trump over a nondisclosure agreement so that she can “tell her story” (in the form of a book, we imagine), while she is also suing both Trump and Cohen for libel after Trump called her statements “fraud” over Twitter, while claiming that Clifford fabricated a story that she was threatened by a man after she went to journalists with the story of her affair.

    Shortly before the 2016 election, former Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that McDougal’s allegations were “totally untrue.”

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

  • Watch: Drone Flies Dangerously "Feet Away" From An Airbus A380

    Fresh off the internet, an incredible video shows the moment an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flies into the path of the world’s largest passenger airliner.

    Video of the incident was first reported by HelicoMicro, which has since circulated many drone and photography forums. The video shows just how stupid someone can be while operating a recreational drone near an airport.

    According to Oliver Kmia, a photo analyst for Fstoppers, he confirms the A380 airliner belongs to the Dubai-based company Emirates, which took off from runway 14 at Plaine Magnien Airport located on the Mauritius Island in the Indian Ocean. As the jumbo jet gains altitude, “the pre-positioned drone films the plane passing dangerously close at about 200 feet from the tip of the left wing,” Kmia said.

    The A380 is a double-deck, wide-body, four-engine jet airliner manufactured by Airbus. It is the world’s largest passenger airliner, and can carry more than 500 passengers in a typical three-class seat configuration and up to 850 passengers in a densified all-economy cabin version.

    Kmia mentions that there is no information about the identity of the pilot. However, he did indicate the video was initially posted on Facebook by Thierry Paris who describes himself as an A380 captain for Air France.

    Paris wrote in the video caption: “That’s what a little crazy guy managed to do with a drone in Mauritius. Hello flight safety!!!”

    The Airbus A380 of Emirates flight EK702 gaining altitude after takeoff from runway 14 in Mauritius Island. (Source: Facebook video)

    The Airbus A380 of Emirates flight EK702 comes “feet away” from the drone. (Source: Facebook video)

    The Airbus A380 of Emirates flight EK702 passing the drone as it was on route to Dubai airport. (Source: Facebook video)

    While the drone pilot and drone manufacture of the craft is unknown, Kmia speculates the pilot used a Parrot Anafi.

    “Unlike DJI, the Parrot drones are not equipped with geofencing capabilities. However, the DJI no-fly zone in the area is very small (see the map below) and the drone was flying just outside this perimeter anyway. Finally, flight restrictions can easily be hacked on consumer drones,” he said.

    Note the approximate position of the drone (X) and the trajectory of the A380 taking off from runway 14 and heading to the south-east. The red circle indicates the no-fly zone as seen on the DJI system but we don’t know what drone was used to film this video. (Source: Oliver Kmia/Fstoppers)

    And, of course, law-abiding drone pilots erupted in anger over the video on social media: 

    It seems like the unknown drone operator could have severely violated the Government Gazette of Mauritius’s Civil Aviation Act.

    Earlier this year, we covered another drone incident, where someone dive-bombed a US passenger jet landing in Vegas.

    Kmia concludes by offering an opinion on the drone industry and warns that new “regulations and restrictions won’t stop stupid people from” flying recreational drones into the flight paths of commercial airlines. So we ask the question: How long until a major incident occurs between a drone and jumbo jet?

    “As usual, this type of story will surely fuel the fire of the anti-drone crowd. However, adding new regulations and restrictions won’t stop stupid people from doing this kind of things. Likes car and guns, drone are just objects that can be diverted by irresponsible people. All the homicide and DUI regulations don’t prevent certain people to commit murders and drive over the limits. Drones are here to stay and any attempt to ground them will fail. The main point is to work on the drone detection capabilities and the integration of these unmanned aircrafts in the national airspace. The business of drone detection is tricky but several companies are already offering solutions like the DJI AeroScope. Beyond that, drones will have to be properly identified and equipped with position reporting equipment such as miniature ADS-B and TCAS system (or based on GPS and cellular network). In the USA, the FAA is working on the issue but the federal government is not known for its decision speed. Hopefully, the official remote ID requirement system won’t be plagued by bureaucratic and technical non-sense otherwise, some drone pilots will continue to fly illegally. Let’s hope that the decision makers find the right balance between liberty and security.”

  • "It's Dire!" – Aussie Farmers Face Worst Drought In 100 Years

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    Farmers are saying the situation they’ve been presented with is “dire.” As they battle the worst drought they’ve faced in 100 years, farming families in central-western New South Wales in Australia are facing ruin.

    According to The Guardian, the farmers in the affected region of central and western New South Wales continue to battle a crippling drought that many locals are calling the worst since 1902. In Warrumbungle Shire, where sharp peaks fall away to once fertile farmland, the small town of Coonabarabran is running out of water. The town dam has fallen to 23% of its capacity and residents are living with level-six water restrictions.

    There are real fears the town will run dry. Unable to provide food would not only mean financial ruin for the farmers but also less food for those who need it.

    “It’s a pretty tough old time,” says Coonabarabran farmer Ambrose Doolan. “But if you’re working with your family and everyone is looking out for each other, you count your blessings.”

    Last year, the Doolan family recorded their fourth-lowest average rainfall and that poor year has been followed by even drier conditions this year. The family has begun selling whatever stock they can and spends their whole day at feeding the cattle that remain because the pastures have dried up.

    Farmers in this part of NSW are importing almost all food for their livestock from as far away as South Australia as prices rise with demand. The continued cost of buying feed is causing many to question their future on the land. The NSW government recently approved an emergency drought relief package of $600m, at least $250m of which will cover low-interest loans to assist eligible farm businesses to recover. The package has been welcomed but, in the words of a local farmer, “it barely touches the sides”. With the prospect of a dry El Niño weather pattern hitting the state in spring, the longer-term outlook is dire. –The Guardian

    As the cost of trucking in food for cattle and sheep increases, so will the cost of the products created from them, hitting consumers’ wallets hard. 

    Charities such as Buy a Bale, where people can purchase hay bales for local farmers, have been some assistance, but rain would offer the biggest relief.  While much of NSW experienced a wet start to winter, the darker skies over Coonabarabran have yet to deliver said relief.

    And many farmers say they will reject the government’s offer of a loan simply because they are already in a dire amount of debt.

  • Trump Slams Door On Putin's Offer For Referendum In Eastern Ukraine

    Perhaps Putin didn’t get the memo that democratic referendums don’t count unless the people can be counted on to vote “the right way”? And perhaps Trump is not actually doing Putin’s bidding? 

    A day after President Vladimir Putin told Russian diplomats in a closed door meeting that he set a proposal before Donald Trump during their Helsinki summit that a resolution to the crisis in eastern Ukraine could be reached by holding an internationally monitored referendum in contested separatist regions, the White House has for the first time acknowledged it.

    In comments reported Friday by Bloomberg, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council indicated Trump has rejected the plan, saying “The administration is not considering supporting a referendum in the eastern Ukraine.” 

    “The Minsk Agreements are the process for resolving the conflict in the Donbas, and these agreements do not include any option for referendum,” the White House spokesman said in reference to the 2015 European-brokered truce deal which ultimately calls for full Ukrainian government restoration of control over the state border and throughout the conflict zone. And added, “Furthermore, to organize a so-called referendum in a part of Ukraine which is not under government control would have no legitimacy.”

    Rebel coalitions in Donetsk and Luhansk held referendums on independence in May of 2014 which resulted in many towns coming under the control of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics; however the vote was rejected internationally with Kiev dismissing the move as a “farce”. Kiev has pushed a compromise of offering the war-torn region some degree of autonomy while remaining under the Ukrainian state. 

    Four years of fighting between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian government troops have resulted in over 10,000 people killed and more than one-and-a-half million displaced. 

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

    Thus far, much of the policy content that is rumored to have been discussed between Trump and Putin during their two hour one-on-one session in Helsinki on Monday has been kept tightly under wraps, with more description of what was considered coming from the Russian side. 

    On Thursday when news first broke of the proposal, which reportedly involved Putin agreeing not to publicly disclose the plan in order to give Trump time to consider it, The Hill summarized what little that could be gleaned as follows:

    The proposal reportedly calls for a vote in separatist regions of the country that would allow the areas to decide their own status as a way to resolve the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine.

    …Such a referendum would almost certainly face intense pushback from Kiev and the European Union, which remain supportive of the 2015 Minsk II agreement to halt the fighting in Ukraine’s Donbas region.

    It would also mark a change in Washington’s position, which calls for Russia to live up to its commitments under the Minsk agreement.

    Or we could translate this more simply as given that some three quarters of the Donbas region identify Russian as their main language, and with Western media reports long acknowledging the multiple polls suggesting the majority in the region reject the EU/US-backed government in Kiev, a referendum on the future of the contested remains unconscionable for the Western alliance.

    On Thursday Trump tweeted that his meeting with Putin was “a great success” and separately cited Ukraine among the areas discussed, but without providing details. Since Monday’s summit, Putin has warned of “serious risks of an escalation” in fighting in eastern Ukraine while also telling Russian state television he and Trump discussed “new ideas about ways of regulating the conflict in Ukraine”. 

    “We agreed to work on this for now on the expert level. In my view, this is a positive element of movement forward,” Putin said.

    Kiev has this week also been seeking clarification of what was discussed at Helsinki. Western and NATO leaders have shown heightened concern over potential future White House policy after last month Trump reportedly told fellow G7 leaders that the Crimean peninsula was part of Russia “because everyone there speaks Russian” (in reference to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea).

    Though President Trump has been hounded by accusations of “treason” and “collusion” more than ever before in the wake of his controversial closed door meeting with his Russian counterpart, NPR on Friday seems to have deflated one of the key ‘Russiagate’ talking points bolstering this narrative.

    In a rare moment of honest mainstream media commentary in response to Trump’s telling reporters on Wednesday, “There’s never been a president as tough on Russia as I have been,” NPR pointed out an obvious truth that’s long been missing in the mainstream: 

    That might sound like hyperbole, but in this case, there’s actually some basis for the president’s boast.

    “When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era,” said Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

    This of course includes Trump’s consistently ramping up arms sales to Ukraine, increased sanctions on Russia, and aggressively lobbying NATO member countries to increase defense spending, among other measures. 

  • The Schizophrenic Deep State Is A Symptom, Not The Disease

    Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

    If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines.

    If we consider the state of the nation from 40,000 feet, several key indicators of profound political disunity within the elites pop out:

    1. The overt politicization of the central state’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies: it is now commonplace to find former top officials of the CIA et al. accusing a sitting president of treason in the mainstream media. What was supposed to be above politics is now nothing but politics.

    2. The overt politicization of the centralized (corporate) media: evidence that would stand up in a court of law is essentially non-existent but the interpretations and exaggerations that fit the chosen narrative are ceaselessly promoted–the classic definition of desperate propaganda by those who have lost the consent of the governed.

    The nation’s elites are not just divided–they’re exhibiting signs of schizophrenic breakdown: disassociation and a loss of the ability to discern the difference between reality and their internal fantasies.

    I’ve been writing about the divided Deep State for a number of years, for example, The Conflict within the Deep State Just Broke into Open Warfare. The topic appears to be one of widespread interest, as this essay drew over 300,000 views.

    It’s impossible to understand the divided Deep State unless we situate it in the larger context of profound political disunity, a concept I learned from historian Michael Grant, whose slim but insightful volume The Fall of the Roman Empire I have been recommending since 2009.

    As I noted in my 2009 book Survival+, this was a key feature of the Roman Empire in its final slide to collapse. The shared values and consensus which had held the Empire’s core together dissolved, leaving petty fiefdoms to war among themselves for what power and swag remained.

    A funny thing happens when a nation allows itself to be ruled by Imperial kleptocrats: such rule is intrinsically destabilizing, as there is no longer any moral or political center to bind the nation together. The public sees the value system at the top is maximize my personal profit by whatever means are available, i.e. complicity, corruption, monopoly and rentier rackets, and they follow suit by pursuing whatever petty frauds and rackets are within reach: tax avoidance, cheating on entrance exams, gaming the disability system, lying on mortgage and job applications, and so on.

    But the scope of the rentier rackets is so large, the bottom 95% cannot possibly keep up with the expanding wealth and income of the top .1% and their army of technocrats and enablers, so a rising sense of injustice widens the already yawning fissures in the body politic.

    Meanwhile, diverting the national income into a few power centers is also destabilizing, as Central Planning and Market Manipulation (a.k.a. the Federal Reserve) are intrinsically unstable as price can no longer be discovered by unfettered markets. As a result, imbalances grow until some seemingly tiny incident or disruption triggers a cascading collapse, a.k.a. a phase shift or system re-set.

    As the Power Elites squabble over the dwindling crumbs left by the various rentier rackets, there’s no one left to fight for the national interest because the entire Status Quo of self-interested fiefdoms and cartels has been co-opted and is now wedded to the Imperial Oligarchy as their guarantor of financial security.

    The divided Deep State is a symptom of this larger systemic political disunity. I have characterized the divide as between the Wall Street-Neocon-Globalist Neoliberal camp–currently the dominant public face of the Deep State, the one desperately attempting to exploit the “Russia hacked our elections and is trying to destroy us” narrative–and a much less public, less organized “rogue Progressive” camp, largely based in the military services and fringes of the Deep State, that sees the dangers of a runaway expansionist Empire and the resulting decay of the nation’s moral/political center.

    What few observers seem to understand is that concentrating power in centralized nodes is intrinsically unstable. Contrast a system in which power, control and wealth is extremely concentrated in a few nodes (the current U.S. Imperial Project) and a decentralized network of numerous dynamic nodes.

    The disruption of any of the few centralized nodes quickly destabilizes the entire system because each centralized node is highly dependent on the others. This is in effect what happened in the 2008-09 Financial Meltdown: the Wall Street node failed and that quickly imperiled the entire economy and thus the entire political order, up to and including the Global Imperial Project.

    Historian Peter Turchin has proposed that the dynamics of profound political disunity (i.e. social, financial and political disintegration) can be quantified in a Political Stress Index, a concept he describes in his new book Ages of Discord.

    If we understand the profound political disunity fracturing the nation and its Imperial Project, we understand the Deep State must also fracture along the same fault lines. There is no other possible output of a system of highly concentrated nodes of power, wealth and control and the competing rentier rackets of these dependent, increasingly fragile centralized nodes.

    *  *  *

    Summer Book Sale: 30% off Kindle editions, 25% off print editions. If you’re interested in real solutions, check these out:

    A Radically Beneficial World ($6.95 Kindle, $15 print)
    Read the first chapter for free.

    Money and Work Unchained ($6.95 Kindle, $15 print)
    Read the first section for free (PDF).

    Resistance, Revolution, Liberation ($6.95 Kindle, $15 print)
    Read the first chapter for free.

    *  *  *

    My new book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

  • Global Warming Hysteria: Record Heat, Vanishing Sunspots, CO2, & Lawsuits

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    There’s record heat, but why? How do we measure it? What’s going on with sunspots? Blame the US? Answers below…

    Record Heat

    ​

    Yes, there’s “record heat” thanks to the nonsensical way we measure temperatures.

    Mann-Made Warming

    Watts Up With That provides a humorous, but accurate, summation in Friday Funny: Josh on Mann-Made Warming.

    In the last couple of weeks, record highs have been set around the U.S., particularly in the Los Angeles area, which I did a lengthy debunking of. Records were also set in Scotland, then denied by an errant Ice Cream truck, and also questioned in Africa. Josh is on the case to illustrate the one common denominator to all these high temperature records we’ve discussed here on WUWT.

    For people who don’t believe this, or think we are just “making stuff up”…Here’s the official weather station at the airport in Rome, Italy. I wonder if the Pope has seen this?

    ​

    WUWT provides more examples including some in the US including LA and Burbank. Here’s Burbank.

    ​

    Yes, the weather station is virtually surrounded by asphalt runways, taxiways, and aircraft parking ramps. The likelihood for the station to get in the middle of a 400F jetwash is almost a certainty, being so close to taxiways with turns. This is a ridiculous place to measure for high temperatures.

    Heat Islands

    NASA notes Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast.

    Cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston are prominent centers of political power. Less known: Their size, background ecology, and development patterns also combine to make them unusually warm, according to NASA scientists who presented new research recently at an American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, Calif.

    Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.

    Measurement Bias?

    You bet

    Reporting Bias?

    You bet

    Nonsensical Lawsuits

    Clearly, we are not accurately measuring the rise in temperatures but that does not stop nonsense lawsuits.

    Today a NY District Judge Tossed NYC’s Climate Change Lawsuit Against Five Oil Companies.

    NYC said BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips. Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell should compensate the city for the cost of mitigating the effects of global warming.

    Judge Keenan wrote “Climate change is a fact of life, as is not contested by Defendants. But the serious problems caused thereby are not for the judiciary to ameliorate. Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government.”

    Last month, a federal judge dismissed climate change cases against oil companies brought by Oakland and San Francisco based on similar grounds.

    This case was so asinine that I wonder why it was filed in the first place. The judge should have made the city pay all of the defendants’ legal costs.

    That would stop the nonsense.

    Sound the CO2 Alarm

    Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. That’s the sound of my CO2 bullshit detector.

    Mark Perry noted the USA alarmist nonsense.

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

    Daniel LaCalle also rang the bell.

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

    Last year the United States had the largest decline in CO2 emissions *in the entire world* for the 9th time this century.

    In Climate Agreement, Hypocrisy and Summits, LaCalle accurately writes “Decarbonization is unstoppable . Not thanks to a summit or due to politicians, quite the opposite. Thanks to competition, technology and research. Thanks to human ingenuity. Coal has been disappearing from the global energy mix for decades, despite – not to thanks to – governments. And the same is happening with oil.”

    Rising Oceans

    But wait, what about the sea rise from melting ice in the antarctic?

    I’m glad you asked.

    Please consider The “Alarmist Gone Wild” Perspective of the Increase in Antarctic Snowfall.

    A new study published in the journal Climate of the Past has some (small) good news as far as snowfall is concerned: it’s going up. Since the 19th century, snowfall across Antarctica has increased by about 10 percent. It isn’t nearly enough to offset sea level rise from ice melting, but the numbers are still impressive. As a press releasepoints out, the continent is packing on about two Dead Sea’s worth of new ice each year.

    Since it’s unclear as to whether or not Antarctica is currently losing or gaining ice, largely due to glacial isostatic adjustment uncertainties, two Dead Seas worth of additional ice (on top of the 19th century accumulation rate) is a lot of fracking ice… If two Dead Seas worth of ice per year were disappearing from Greenland, it would be catastrophic according to the alarmists. We know this because Greenland is currently losing an estimated 186-375 billion tons of ice per year and this is described as catastrophic, despite its insignificance to the overall mass and volume of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS). In Greenland, our friends at Skeptical Sciencedescribe this as “ominous”…

    ​WUWT blasted the claim “Several millimeters a year of sea level rise coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year”

    “On what planet?,” asked WUWT.

    “The best recent estimate is that Antarctica is somewhere between gaining enough ice to lower sea level by as much as 0.14 mm/yr and losing enough ice to raise sea level by 0.55 mm/yr. So… Several millimeters a year of sea level rise are *not* coming from Antarctica’s melting ice each year.”

    Sea Level Math

    ​

    At the current rate, the sea level will rise by 1.6 inches over the next 100 years if we stay on this path.

    Mercy! We need a plan.

    Al Gore’s $90 Trillion Plan

    In order to combat the devastating impact of a global sea rise, new global commission says World Needs a $90 Trillion Infrastructure Overhaul.

    I am quite certain that spending $90 trillion on nearly anything would actually do opposite of whatever the intention was.

    With that thought, let’s move on to sunspots.

    ​Sunspots Vanish at Alarming Rate

    Sunspots are vanishing at an alarming rate. Let’s investigate some possible implications.​

    Quiet Sun: No sunspots

    ​

    “Watts Up With That?” reports Quiet Sun: More than 3 months without a sunspot*.​

    The title is very wrong, it’s more like five days. But there have been about 100 days this year. Here are some details.

    2 July 2018 – “The Belgian department of solar physics research (SIDC) says we are about to touch 100; that is, a hundred days in which we do not see spots on our sun,” says Italian meteorologist Dr. Carlo Testa.

    During a time of few or no sunspots (a solar minimum) the Sun emits less energy than usual, says Dr. Testa. “According to some scholars, this situation could lead to climatic upheavals.”

    Suffice it to recall, says Testa, that between 1645 and 1715 the most significant solar minimum of history, the Little Ice Age, occurred, bringing years and years marked by very strict winters that lasted until June.

    Now several studies indicate that we’re headed into another Great Solar Minimum, says Testa. For some scholars, this is only a hypothesis, but we are seeing small signals that support this idea: namely, the most powerful strat-warming ever recorded in mid-February, the very very unstable Spring, and finally this summer that continues to limp along.

    “What if the worst is to come?” asks Testa.

    NASA: Sunspots Vanishing Faster than Expected

    Also consider NASA: Sunspots Vanishing Faster than Expected

    Sunspots are becoming scarce. Very scarce. So far in 2018 the sun has been blank almost 60% of the time, with whole weeks going by without sunspots. Today’s sun, shown here in an image from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, is typical of the featureless solar disk.

    Beware, the Ice Age Cometh

    Damn. If the sunspot theory holds up, we will have wasted $90 trillion to stop global warming when we need global warming!

    Role of CO2

    I am willing to concede – and always have – that man is responsible for a percentage of global warming (assuming global warming is actually happening).

    Here is a better way of stating things: Man-made CO2, in isolation, all things being equal, would tend to raise temperatures. That statement should not be in dispute, by anyone.

    But assuming there is global warming, does it account for less than 1%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%, 50%, or more?

    And assuming it is happening, what percentages does one want to assign to natural cycles, sunspots or other solar activity like solar flares, volcanoes, changes in the earth’s core, changes in wind patterns, ocean current changes, changes in earth’s magnetic field, etc, etc, but also “man-made” global warming.

    I do not pretend to know all the factors. No one else does either. And I highly doubt every factor has been tracked (or even can be!)

    Correlation is not causation. Even if CO2 models correlate to change, are there more important factors (even natural cycles) that are coincidental to man-made CO2?

    Magnetic Fields

    Where’s the discussion on this?

    Earth’s Magnetic Field Flip Could Happen Sooner Than Expected

    Changes measured by the Swarm satellite show that our magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than originally predicted, especially over the Western Hemisphere

    Earth’s magnetic field acts like a giant invisible bubble that shields the planet from the dangerous cosmic radiation spewing from the sun in the form of solar winds. The field exists because Earth has a giant ball of iron at its core surrounded by an outer layer of molten metal. Changes in the core’s temperature and Earth’s rotation boil and swirl the liquid metal around in the outer core, creating magnetic field lines.

    Complex Systems

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

    Cloud Mystery

    That is a lengthy video, but a very important one. Henrik Svensmark’s documentary on climate change and cosmic rays is one of the best believable explanations of global warming that I have seen.

    Svensmark looks at background radiation coming from space, based on the earth’s position in the Milky Way galaxy. His model accurately predicted prior ice ages and warming cycles.

    I recommend watching the entire video. It is fascinating. One can also skip to the 30 minute mark or so for a shorter version.

    His believable thesis is background radiation, or lack thereof causes warming and cooling cycles.

    The video should give everyone pause to think about the simple models the alarmists project.

    Final Thoughts

    Climate changes – ice ages and warming – have occurred over millions of years whether man was even alive.

    It is beyond idiotic to map two variables, CO2 and temperature change (one of them extremely inaccurately), in an enormously complex system of thousands of variables evolving over hundreds of millions of years, to make a determination we need to spend $90 trillion to do something about it based on data from the last 100 years.

    But that is precisely what the alarmists have done.

    The sad thing about this discussion is that I am in favor of reducing pollution. Millions of people in China are suffering from both air and water pollution.

    Acid rain is real. It has killed forests on the East coast.

    It’s the hype on global warming and idiotic proposals to stop it that I cannot stand.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 20

Today’s News 20th July 2018

  • Calm Before The Storm? Treasury 'Risk' Hits 45-Year Low As Shorts Hit Record Highs

    Having killed the Japanese bond market, some are wondering if central bank interference has finally slayed the US Treasury market, as its numbness to news suggests a zombie-market-walking.

    The 10-year Treasury yield has moved less than 9 basis points so far in July. After retreating from its May 17th high of 3.1261%, the benchmark yield has hovered between 2.8053% and 2.8950% in July…

    Putting it on course for its smallest monthly range since 1973….

    In price-terms, the realized volatility of 10Y US Treasury Futures prices for the last 30 days is the lowest since 1998!

    As Bloomberg notes, Ian Lyngen, a strategist at BMO Capital Markets, said in a note this week that he’s fascinated with how unresponsive the yield has been to new information and “our sense is that something dramatic is nearing on the horizon.”

    And given the fact that there has never been a bigger speculative short position across the Treasury complex…

    We suspect the max-pain trade would be a yield collapse.

    We wonder if the catalyst will somehow be China?

  • US "Diplomacy"…

    Authored by John Laughland, op-ed via RT.com,

    On the world’s Grand Chessboard, the US is fighting for control and influence. And there are countries where its ambassadors are perceived more as imperial governors than simple channels of communication.

    At the height of the Maidan protests in Kiev in early 2014, a conversation was leaked between the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, and the then-Assistant Secretary of State in the Obama administration, Victoria Nuland. The conversation gained notoriety because Nuland said to Pyatt, “F**k the EU” and the recording was almost instantly available on Youtube.

    More shocking than Nuland’s bad language, however, was what the conversation was about. The US government officials were discussing how to put their men into power in Ukraine – which of the three then opposition factions would dominate, who would take the lead (Arseniy Yatsenyuk) and who would be excluded (Vladimir Klitschko).  At the time of this conversation, early February 2014, their enemy Viktor Yanukovych was still president. The leaked recording proved that the US and its Kiev embassy were actively involved in a regime change operation. The composition of the post-Maidan government corresponded exactly with US plans.

    What few people knew at the time was that such levels of control over the composition of foreign governments had become standard practice for US embassies all over the world. As I could see on my very numerous travels around the Balkans in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the US ambassador was treated by the political class and the media in those countries not as the officially accredited representative of a foreign government but instead as an imperial governor whose pronunciamentos were more important than those of the national government.

    This has been going on for decades, although the levels of control exercised by the United States increased as it rushed to fill the political vacuum created by the collapse of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe after 1989. In earlier times, such control, especially regime change operations, had to be conducted either covertly, as with the overthrow of Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, in 1953, or by financing and arming an anti-government militia, such as in Nicaragua and elsewhere in central and South America, or by encouraging the army itself, most famously in Chile in 1973. There is a huge body of literature on this vast subject (for the coup against Mosaddegh, see especially ‘All the Shah’s Men’ by Stephen Kinzer, 2003) and there is no possibility of denying that such operations took place. Indeed, former CIA director, James Woolsey, recently admitted that they continue to this day.  

    Many of the ambassadors who engineered or attempted regime change operations in Eastern Europe and the former USSR had cut their teeth in Latin America in 1980s and 1990s. One of them, Michael Kozak, former US ambassador to Belarus, even boasted in a letter to The Guardian in 2001 that he was doing the same thing in Minsk as he had done in Managua. He wrote: “As regards parallels between Nicaragua in 1989-90 and Belarus today, I plead guilty. Our objective and to some degree methodology are the same.”

    Kozak did not mention that he also played a key role in the overthrow of General Noriega in Panama in 1989 but he is far from alone. The experience accumulated by the Americans during the Cold War, including in major European countries like Italy where US interference was key to preventing Communist victories in elections, spawned a whole generation of Kermit Roosevelts (the architect of the coup against Mosaddegh) who have made their careers over decades in the State Department. Some names, such as that of Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia who made no secret of his opposition to the president of the state to which he was accredited, will be familiar to RT readers.

    Two years after the violent overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, which he helped coordinate, Geoffrey Pyatt was appointed US ambassador to Greece. He remains in that post to this day – which is why some are asking whether his hand might be behind last week’s expulsion of Russian diplomats from Athens. Greece and Russia have customarily had good relations but they differ on the Macedonian issue. Now, the Greek government headed by the “pseudo-Euroskeptic” Alexis Tsipras, claims that four Russian diplomats were engaged in covert operations in Greece to lobby against forcing Macedonia to change its official name. 

    Like almost every other political issue these days, this relatively arcane one is regarded through the distorting prism of alleged Russian “interference“: any decision which does not consolidate the power of American-dominated supranational structures like the US or the EU is now routinely attributed to all-pervasive Russian influence, as if all dissidents were foreign agents.

    Western discussion of this subject now resembles the paranoia of the old Soviet regime, and of its satellites in Eastern Europe, which similarly attacked anti-Communists for being “fifth columnists” – the very phrase used by a prominent European politician last month to lambast all his enemies as Russian stooges.

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

    US influence is suspected in this case between Greece and Macedonia because the Americans are pushing to bring the whole of the Balkan peninsula under Western control.  This has been policy for nearly thirty years – at least since the Yugoslav wars led to a US-brokered peace deal in Bosnia in 1995. In recent years the tempo has quickened, with the accession of Montenegro to NATO last year leaving only Macedonia and Serbia as missing pieces of the puzzle. The Greek victory over the name of Macedonia removes the last obstacle to that country’s accession to NATO and other “Euro-Atlantic structures” like the EU and soon only Serbia will be left. Will she last long? 

    One of the most notorious anecdotes of the Second World War was told by Churchill. While in Moscow in 1944, he and Stalin divided up Eastern Europe and the Balkans into spheres of influence, putting percentage figures to show the respective weight of the West and the USSR – 10:90 in Greece, 50:50 Yugoslavia, 25:75 in Bulgaria, and so on. Churchill recalls how this so-called Percentages Agreement was concluded in a few minutes, and how he scribbled a note of their verbal agreement on a piece of paper which Stalin glanced at for a second and then ticked off. Churchill wrote, “It was all settled in no more time than it takes to set down.”  

    Churchill then reflected that it might seem cynical to decide the fate of millions of people in such an offhand manner. Later generations have generally agreed with his self-criticism.  Today’s West would certainly never conclude such an agreement – but not because of any squeamishness or lack of cynicism on its part. Instead, the West, especially the US, could not conclude any agreement because in every case the only acceptable outcome would be 100% influence for itself. That is what Geoffrey Pyatt and his colleagues spend their entire careers trying to achieve – and, to a large extent, they succeed.

  • White House Asked 8 Times For Trump-Rouhani Meeting, Iran Says

    In a disclosure that the New York Times said showed “a previously undisclosed level of hostility among top Iranian officials toward President Trump”, the paper reported Thursday that Iran had rejected eight requests from the White House for a meeting between Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during the United Nations General Assembly last year.

    Iran
    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

    White House and State Department officials haven’t responded to Iran’s claim, made by Rouhani’s chief of staff, Mahmoud Vaezi, at a cabinet meeting. Reports of the remark first surfaced in Iranian state media. Iran’s Foreign Ministry has previously claimed that it denied a request for a meeting between the two leaders.

    “Trump asked the Iranian delegation eight times to have a meeting with the president,” Mr. Vaezi said.

    Since then, Trump has withdrawn the US from the 2015 Iran deal and restored sanctions against the country in defiance of the wishes of Russia, China and our European partners. Iran was also included in Trump’s travel ban, which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. Despite this, Trump has also expressed a willingness to engage Iran and negotiate, though the two sides haven’t had much, if any, contact.

    “The biggest obstacle to a U.S.-Iran dialogue is not Trump but Khamenei,” said Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow in the Middle East program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Trump flew halfway around the world to meet with Kim Jong-un. Khamenei hasn’t left Iran since 1989.”

    Obama and Mr. Rouhani spoke on the phone at the end of the 2013 General Assembly as the Iranian leader headed home. That was the first time an Iranian leader had spoken with a US President since the revolution. 

    Iranian officials also have threatened to renounce the nuclear accord if its European partners cannot find ways to bypass the American sanctions, which threaten penalties on all countries that engage economically with Iran. Hostilities have endured, and though Iran has expressed openness to engaging with the European Union and the accord’s other partners, many fear it will soon collapse. But regardless of what happens, it doesn’t appear the Iranians will be “engaging” with the Trump administration any time soon.

  • The Plague Of Military Keynesianism And The Obsolescence Of War

    Authored by Tom Streithorst via The American Conservative,

    It’s become obsolete, the days of conquest are behind us, yet the military-industrial complex grinds on all the same.

    America spends more on its military than all its enemies put together yet it still can’t win wars. Failed adventures in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have drained America’s power and diminished its prestige. The bloated Pentagon budget actually makes us weaker.

    Here’s the weird bit: nobody seems to care. If any other government department spent as much and accomplished as little, the populace would be in arms, complaining about wasteful government spending. Instead we mumble “Thank you for your service” and increase defense appropriations.

    War has always been brutal and destructive, but once upon a time it had a purpose. William of Normandy invaded Britain knowing victory would make him rich beyond dreams of avarice. Soldiers followed Genghis Khan, Hernan Cortes, and Napoleon Bonaparte for the opportunity to steal gold, land, or slaves from their defeated enemies. Loot captured in war could transform a man’s life, give him the money he needed to buy land or start a business. For thousands of years, the opportunities inherent in battle gave many men their only chance to escape their impoverished origins. Success in war could turn a brigand into a king.

    Today it is trade and technology, not conquest, that makes us rich. It is a cliché of the left that America went to war in Iraq to take their oil. This is a serious misreading of history. For one thing, had George W. Bush told Saddam to either share his oil wealth with ExxonMobil or face invasion, Saddam would have certainly complied. For another, Korean, Russian, Angolan, and Chinese companies all control more Iraqi oil fields today than do American firms. Had we gone to war to steal Iraqi oil, we might have done a better job of it.

    At least in the developed West, conquest is profitable no more. This has been true for over a century. Back in 1910, Norman Angell wrote “The Great Illusion,” a pamphlet proclaiming that war was obsolete. He noted that the intertwined nature of the global economy made war almost as destructive to the victor as the vanquished. Should they go to war, Angell observed, Germany and England would be slaughtering potential clients, not capturing prospective slaves. And victory in the Franco-Prussian War hadn’t made Germany richer: “When Germany annexed Alsatia, no individual German secured Alsatian property as the spoils of war.”

    Angell decided that since war was no longer cost effective, it was obsolete. Of course, World War I proved him wrong and generations of history teachers have mocked his mistimed prophecy. But maybe he was just ahead of the curve. Today, for America, war is nothing but expensive spectacle.

    A few months ago, the United States government determined that Bashar al-Assad’s regime used chemical weapons on his own citizens. That is a war crime, so pundits clamored for a response. Several days later, the United States, Britain, and France launched airstrikes against regime targets, firing 105 missiles. A Tomahawk cruise missile costs almost $2 million, which suggests the expense of the entire operation was probably north of $250 million. It’s hard to believe the Syrian infrastructure we blew up cost nearly as much.

    The effect of the well-publicized strike has been negligible. Most likely, that was intentional. Assad is closer than ever to winning the war in Syria so encouraging the rebels would do nothing but prolong the agony. In order to forestall escalation, we gave enough warning to Russia and Iran to get their men out of the way. The purpose of the strike wasn’t to make a difference on the battlefield, but to “send a message.” We spent a quarter of a billion dollars, blew up some buildings, killed a handful of soldiers, accomplished nothing, and most journalists applauded.

    The firepower contained in those multimillion-dollar missiles would have crushed the Carthaginians at Cannae, wiped out Wellington at Waterloo and smashed the Soviets at Stalingrad, but today all they did was generate a few headlines, which by now everyone has forgotten. It all seems pointless, stupid. Do we really spend trillions of dollars just so our leaders can posture and armchair warriors can feel butch?

    Maybe there’s a better explanation.

    Maybe the extravagant expense of the Pentagon budget is a feature, not a bug. Maybe no one objects when we spend a quarter of a billion dollars ineffectually bombing Syria or several trillion ineffectually invading Iraq because these days war profiteers make their money not by looting their enemies’ cities, stealing their land, and selling their women into slavery, but from their own governments’ spending.

    My own life confirms this intuition. The invasion of Iraq has been a disaster for the United States, for the Middle East, and for the long-suffering people of Iraq, but for many of us, it was a cash cow. For a decade, I earned a solid middle-class living working just four months a year as a news cameraman in Iraq. The war on terror bought me my house.

    Thousands of Americans (perhaps not coincidentally mostly from red states) worked as contractors for the U.S. military and pulled down salaries much higher than they would have earned in the private sector back home. A truck driver from Mississippi made over $100,000 a year hauling in supplies from Kuwait. It is shocking how little of the money America spent in that misbegotten conflict ever trickled into the Iraqi economy.

    Had our goal been to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis (or even to steal their oil), we would have hired locals to drive the trucks instead of Americans and thus garnered their loyalty. Remember, Saddam Hussein was not popular in 2003, and at least at first, Iraqis were open-minded about the American invasion. By shoveling money towards ordinary Iraqi citizens, America would have created a local constituency with solid financial reasons to support the occupation. Instead, Iraqis saw little benefit as the trillions spent on the war went straight into American pockets. The Iraqi economy was destroyed between 2003 and 2008. Halliburton’s stock price quintupled.

    The Pentagon budget creates jobs in almost every congressional district, giving congressmen solid reasons to support budget increases. Military Keynesianism is the only fiscal stimulus habitually favored by both Democrats and Republicans. Today the primary purpose of the military is not to win wars but to stimulate the domestic economy and make our leaders look manly. These are pathetic reasons to put our sons and daughters into harm’s way, not to mention slaughter the children of strangers.

    Don’t get me wrong: I have huge respect for American soldiers. The military may well be the most meritocratic and least racist large institution in America today. In fixed battle, our soldiers (and their awesome firepower) almost always emerge victorious. There is truth in the jarhead saying “Marines win battles. Politicians lose wars.” But victory in war doesn’t consist of killing lots of enemy soldiers; it lies in bending their leaders to our will, and that we have not achieved since 1945. Even the bloodthirstiest among us cannot think the wars of the past 50 years have made America stronger.

    America doesn’t need a huge army. With Canada to the north, Mexico to the south, and oceans east and west, the United States is more geographically secure than any nation in history. Britain defeated Hitler because it is an island. Russia defeated Hitler because it is a continent. America is both. Our enormous military is unnecessary to protect our homeland.

    If we need to stimulate the economy, we can do it better by investing in infrastructure, education, or providing a better safety net. We certainly don’t need a huge military so that our leaders can posture and Beltway strategists can feel macho. War doesn’t make sense anymore. It is time we recognized that. War in America today is nothing but a sorry combination of show business and fiscal stimulus. No wonder we can’t seem to win.

  • Fentanyl-Related Deaths Double In Six Months; Officials Warn The Third-Wave Will Be A "Crisis"

    According to the CDC’s Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, the number of overdose deaths involving fentanyl and fentanyl analogs doubled in the last several years.

    The third wave of the opioid epidemic is here, as new synthetics [fentanyl analogs] that are 10,000 times as potent as morphine and used to tranquilize elephants are attributing to the latest surge in deaths.

    The new report examined fatal overdoses that tested positive for fentanyl and compound variations of the drug from July 2016 to June 2017 in 10 states: Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

    The findings suggest the opioid epidemic has taken a turn for the worse, as the nation is not prepared for the next parabolic rise in overdoses that could severely strain the economy and or government.

    Researchers report that among 11,045 fentanyl overdose deaths examined in 10 states, 2,275 (20.6 percent) decedents tested positive for fentanyl analogs and 1,236 (11.2 percent) tested positive for carfentanil. Researchers also detected fourteen different compound variations of the drug.

    During the first half of 2017, the number of deaths with fentanyl analogs detected (1,511) nearly doubled, compared with the number during the second half of 2016 (764); deaths with carfentanil detected increased 94 percent, from 421 to 815. The proportions of deaths with fentanyl analogs or with carfentanil detected nearly doubled during this period.

    Carfentanil is 10,000 times as potent as morphine, as standard naloxone treatments are mostly ineffective. Researchers write that the “highly potent nature of many analogs, particularly carfentanil, might warrant multiple administrations of…naloxone.” In other words, researchers allude to the third wave in the opioid crisis, where overdoses of the highly potent analogs may not be reversed, even if first responders administer the reversing agents in time.

    Watch: First responders revive women with Narcan after an opioid overdose

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

    Nationally, the CDC expects 2017 opioid overdose-related deaths to surge to an all-time high of 49,000. About 60 percent of those deaths are expected to be related to synthetic opioids.

    According to the CDC, there were 20,310 overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids in 2016, and that number is expected to climb 45 percent to 29,400 in 2017.

    “We need to reach patients well before they reach the point of needing emergent naloxone,” states Clare Waismann, founder of the Waismann Method™ a medical opioid treatment program.

    “While the attention is focused on addiction, the individual is forgotten. Their basic emotional needs are not met and their hope never restored,” said Waismann.

    “The dramatic rise in deaths from fentanyl and its potent analogs speak to a dire need to effective treatment programs. She adds, “The word crisis in opioid crisis is overused to the point that it sometimes loses meaning. The death rates published by the CDC yesterday [July 13] show why the word ‘crisis’ is accurate and appropriate.”

    The epidemic is so concerning that opioid-related deaths have shifted the overall life expectancy rate for the US lower for the second consecutive year. The last time this occurred, it was the early 1960s when the stock market zoomed to new highs, but then, shortly thereafter, experienced a sizeable downturn,

    America is in decline. The third wave of the opioid crisis is here. So…what now?

  • The World Explained: It's Simple – Everyone Is Smart… Except Trump

    Authored by Dov Fischer via The American Spectator,

    That’s why they all are billionaires and all got elected president…

    It really is quite simple. Everyone is smart except Donald J. Trump. That’s why they all are billionaires and all got elected President. Only Trump does not know what he is doing. Only Trump does not know how to negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Anderson Cooper knows how to stand up to Putin. The whole crowd at MSNBC does. All the journalists do.

    They could not stand up to Matt Lauer at NBC. They could not stand up to Charlie Rose at CBS. They could not stand up to Mark Halperin at NBC. Nor up to Leon Wieseltier at the New Republic, nor Jann Wenner at Rolling Stone, nor Michael Oreskes at NPR, at the New York Times, or at the Associated Press. But — oh, wow! — can they ever stand up to Putin! Only Trump is incapable of negotiating with the Russian tyrant.

    Remember the four years when Anderson Cooper was President of the United States? And before that — when the entire Washington Post editorial staff jointly were elected to be President? Remember? Neither do I.

    The Seedier Media never have negotiated life and death, not corporate life and death, and not human life and death. They think they know how to negotiate, but they do not know how. They go to a college, are told by peers that they are smart, get some good grades, proceed to a graduate degree in journalism, and get hired as analysts. Now they are experts, ready to take on Putin and the Iranian Ayatollahs at age 30.

    That is not the road to expertise in tough dealing. The alternate road is that, along the way, maybe you get forced into some street fights. Sometimes the other guy wins, and sometimes you beat the intestines out of him. Then you deal with grown-ups as you mature, and you learn that people can be nasty, often after they smile and speak softly. You get cheated a few times, played. And you learn. Maybe you become an attorney litigating multi-million-dollar case matters. Say what you will about attorneys, but those years — not the years in law school, not the years drafting legal memoranda, but the years of meeting face-to-face and confronting opposing counsel — those years can teach a great deal. They can teach how to transition from sweet, gentle, diplomatic negotiating to tough negotiating. At some point, with enough tough-nosed experience, you figure out Trump’s “The Art of the Deal” yourself.

    Trump’s voters get him because not only is he we, but we are he. We were not snowflaked-for-life by effete professors who themselves never had negotiated tough life-or-death serious deals. Instead we live in the real world, and we know how that works. Not based on social science theories, not based on “conceptual negotiating models.” But based on the people we have met over life and always will hate. That worst boss we ever had. The coworker who tried to sabotage us. We know the sons of bums whom we survived, the dastardly types who are out there, and we learned from those experiences how to deal with them. We won’t have John Kerry soothe us by having James Taylor sing “You’ve Got a Friend” carols.

    The Bushes got us into all kinds of messes. The first one killed the economic miracle that Reagan had fashioned. The second one screwed up the Middle East, where Iraq and Iran beautifully were engaged in killing each other for years, and he got us mired into the middle of the muddle. Clinton was too busy with Monica Lewinsky to protect us from Osama bin Laden when we had him in our sights. Hillary gave us Benghazi and more. And Obama and Kerry gave us the Iran Deal, ISIS run amok, America in retreat. All to the daily praise of a media who now attack Trump every minute of every day.

    So let us understand a few things:

    Negotiating with NATO:

    NATO is our friend. They also rip off America. They have been ripping us off forever. We saved their butts — before there even was a NATO — in World War I. They messed up, and 116,456 Americans had to die to save their butts. Then they messed up again for the next two decades because West Europeans are effete and so obsessed with their class manners and their rules of savoir faire and their socialist welfare states and their early retirements that they did not have the character to stand up to Hitler in the 1930s. Peace in our time. So they messed up, and we had to save their butts again. And another 405,399 Americans died for them during World War II. And then we had to rebuild them! And we had to station our boys in Germany and all over their blood-stained continent. So, hey, we love those guys. We love NATO.

    And yet they still rip us off. We pay 4% of our gigantic gross domestic product to protect them, and they will not pay a lousy 2% of their GDP towards their own defense. Is there a culture more penny-pinching-cheap-and-stingy than the fine constituents of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? These cheap baseborn prigs will not pay their fare. They are too cheap. They expect America to send boys to die for them in one world war, then another — hundreds of thousands — and then to pay for their NATO defense even a century later.

    And then they have the temerity to cheat us further in trade. Long before Trump, they set up tariffs against us for so many things. If the average American knew how badly Europe has been ripping us off for decades with their tariffs, no one in this country would buy anything European again. We would say, as a matter of self-respect and personal pride, “I no longer will buy anything but American, no matter what it costs.”

    Every American President has complained about the cheating and imbalance — the NATO penny-pinching-cheapness, the tariff and trade imbalances. In more recent years, the various Bushes complained about it. Even Obama complained about it. But they all did it so gently, so diplomatically. They would deliver the sermon, just as the pastor predictably tells the church-goers on Sunday morning that he is against sin, and the Europeans would sit quietly and nod their heads — nodding from sleeping, not from agreeing — and then they would go back out and sin some more. Another four years of America being suckered and snookered. All they had to do was give Obama a Nobel Peace Prize his ninth month in officeand let Kerry ride his bike around Paris.

    So Trump did what any effective negotiator would do: he took note of past approaches to NATO and their failures, and correctly determined that the only way to get these penny-pinching-cheap baseborn prigs to pay their freight would be to bulldoze right into their faces, stare them right in their glazed eyes with cameras rolling, and tell them point-blank the equivalent of:

    “You are the cheapest penny-pinching, miserly, stingy, tightwadded skinflints ever. And it is going to stop on my watch. Whatever it takes from my end, you selfish, curmudgeonly cheap prigs, you are going to pay your fair share. I am not being diplomatic. I am being All-Business: either you start to pay or, wow, are you in for some surprises! And you know what you read in the Fake News: I am crazy! I am out of control! So, lemme see. I know: We will go to trade war! How do you like that? Maybe we even will pull all our troops out of Europe. Hmmm. Yeah, maybe. Why not? Sounds good. Well, let’s see.”

    So Trump stuffed it into their quiche-and-schnitzel ingesting faces. And he convinced them — thanks to America’s Seedier Media who are the real secret to the “Legend That is Trump” — that he just might be crazy enough to go to trade war and to pull American boys home. They knew that Clinton and Bush x 2 and Kerry and Hillary and Nobel Laureate Obama never would do it. But they also know that Trump just might. And if they think they are going to find comfort and moderating in his new advisers, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, alongside him….

    Nuh-uh.

    So CNN and the Washington Post and all the Seedier Media attacked Trump for days: He is destroying the alliance! He attacks our friends!

    Baloney. Obama was the one whom the Left Echo Chamber… Chamber… Chamber never called out for attacking our friends — Israel, Britain, so many others — while cozying up to Hugo Chavez, bowing to dictators, and dancing the tango for Raul Castro. Trump is just the opposite: He knows who the friends are, and he wants to maintain and strengthen those friendships. It is no different from a parent telling a 35-year-old son: “I have been supporting you for thirty-five years. I put you through college by signing four years and $100,000 in PLUS Loans. You graduated college fifteen years ago. For fifteen years I have been asking you nicely to look for a job and to start contributing. Instead, you sit home all day playing video games, texting your friends on a smartphone I pay for, and picking little fuzz balls out of your navel. So, look, I love you. You are my flesh and blood. But if you are not employed and earning a paycheck — and contributing to the cost of this household — in six months, we are throwing you out of the house.” That boy is NATO. Trump is Dad. And all of us have been signing for the PLUS Loans.

    Negotiating with Putin

    Putin is a bad guy. A really bad guy. He is better than Lenin. Better than Stalin, Khrushchev, Kosygin, Brezhnev, Pol Pot, Mao. But he is a really bad guy.

    Here’s the thing: Putin is a dictator. He answers to no one. He does whatever he wants. If there arises an opponent, that guy dies. Maybe the opponent gets poked with a poisoned umbrella. Maybe he gets shot on the street. Maybe the opponent is forced to watch Susan Rice interviews telling the world that Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video seen by nine derelicts in Berkeley and that Bowe Berghdal served with honor and distinction. But, one way or another, the opponent dies.

    Trump knows this about Putin. And here is what that means:

    If you insult Putin in public, like by telling the newsmedia just before or after meeting with him that he is the Butcher of Crimea, and he messed with our elections, and is an overall jerk — then you will get nothing behind closed doors from Putin. Putin will decide “To heck with you, and to heck with the relationship we just forged.” Putin will get even, will take intense personal revenge, even if it is bad for Russia — even if it is bad for Putin. Because there are no institutional reins on him.

    But if you go in public and tell everyone that Putin is a nice guy (y’know, just like Kim Jong Un) and that Putin intensely maintains that he did not mess with elections — not sweet little Putey Wutey (even though he obviously did) — then you next can maintain the momentum established beforehand in the private room. You can proceed to remind Putin what you told him privately: that this garbage has to stop — or else. That if he messes in Syria, we will do “X.” If he messes with our Iran boycott, we will do “Y.” We will generate so much oil from hydraulic fracturing and from ANWR and from all our sources that we will glut the market — if not tomorrow, then a year from now. We will send even more lethal offensive military weapons to Ukraine. We can restore the promised shield to Eastern Europe that Obama withdrew. And even if we cannot mess with Russian elections (because they have no elections), they do have computers — and, so help us, we will mess with their technology in a way they cannot imagine. Trump knows from his advisers what we can do. If he sweet-talks Putin in public — just Putin on the Ritz — then everything that Trump has told Putin privately can be reinforced with action, and he even can wedge concessions because, against that background, Putin knows that no one will believe that he made any concessions. Everyone is set to believe that Putin is getting whatever he wants, that Trump understands nothing. So, in that setting, Putin can make concessions and still save face.

    That is why Trump talks about him that way. And that is the only possible way to do it when negotiating with a tyrant who has no checks and balances on him. If you embarrass the tyrant publicly, then the tyrant never will make concessions because he will fear that people will say he was intimidated and backed down. And that he never will do. Meanwhile, Trump has expelled 60 Russians from America, reversed Obama policy and sent lethal weapons to Ukraine, and is pressing Germany severely on its pipeline project with Russia.

    The Bottom Line

    At the end of the day, Donald Trump is over seventy years old. He has made many mistakes in his life. He still makes some. He is human. But Trump likewise has spent three score and a dozen years learning. He has seen some of his businesses go bankrupt, and he has learned from those experiences to be a billionaire and not let it happen again. No doubt that he has been fooled, outsmarted in years past. And he has learned from life.

    He is a tough and smart negotiator. He sizes up his opponent, and he knows that the approach that works best for one is not the same as for another. It does not matter what he says publicly about his negotiating opponent. What matters is what results months later. In his first eighteen months in Washington, this man has turned around the American economy, brought us near full employment, reduced the welfare and food stamp lines, wiped out ISIS in Raqqa, moved America’s Israel embassy to Jerusalem, successfully has launched massive deregulation of the economy, has opened oil exploration in ANWR, is rebuilding the military massively, has walked out of the useless Paris Climate Accords that were negotiated by America’s amateurs who always get snookered, canned the disastrous Iran Deal, exited the bogus United Nations Human Rights Council. He has Canada and Mexico convinced he will walk out of NAFTA if they do not pony up, and he has the Europeans convinced he will walk out of NATO if they don’t stop being the cheap and lazy parasitic penny-pinchers they are. He has slashed income taxes, expanded legal protections for college students falsely accused of crimes, has taken real steps to protect religious freedoms and liberties promised in the First Amendment, boldly has taken on the lyme-disease-quality of a legislative mess that he inherited from Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama on immigration, and has appointed a steady line of remarkably brilliant conservative federal judges to sit on the district courts, the circuit appellate courts, and the Supreme Court.

    What has Anderson Cooper achieved during that period? Jim Acosta or the editorial staffs of the New York Times and Washington Post? They have not even found the courage and strength to stand up to the coworkers and celebrities within their orbits who abuse sexually or psychologically or emotionally. They have no accomplishments to compare to his. Just their effete opinions, all echoing each other, all echoing, echoing, echoing. They gave us eight years of Nobel Peace Laureate Obama negotiating with the ISIS JV team, calming the rise of the oceans, and healing the planet.

    We will take Trump negotiating with Putin any day.

  • China "Weaponizes Yuan" – Weakens Fix By Most Since 2016

    On the heels of its ‘stealthy’ easing.. and not so stealthy:

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

    The PBOC just lowered the ax on the Yuan Fix – slashing their reference rate by the most since June 2016.

     

    Offshore Yuan is tumbling to new cycle lows after the fix…CNH is down over 1250 pips this week – the biggest weekly devaluation since August 2015’s plunge.

    President Trump is gonna be pissed!!

    Will China’s chaotic capital markets ripple across the world?

    Yen just snapped stronger…

    The Indonesian Rupiah tumbled 0.5%, and gold is falling…

    As we concluded previously, so how long before the trade war, which is already shifting to a currency war as a result of the recent record devaluation in the yuan, morphs into a central bank war and a renewed race to the bottom between the world’s two most important economies? .. or worst still as Bannon suggested, a kinetic war.

    Russia is an annoyance. China is our great challenge. Russia’s economy is the size of Texas or New York State? It’s got lots of nuclear weapons…but in today’s warfare…nuclear weapons are taking a less important role. Trump is trying to end the Cold War and the Korean War…and all he is getting is grief from the globalists.

    And that’s a huge problem, because not only are we adversaries with China, we are at war with China, Bannon said.

    We’re in a war with China. Ray Dalio tweeted the other day. There’s three types of war: information war, economic war, and guns-up kinetic war. They’ve been at war with us for 25 years. Many people in this room have exacerbated the rise of China.”

    Pushing back against the notion that Trump lacks grand foreign policy vision, Trump, like Reagan, is trying to build a foreign policy behind American assertiveness and optimism. Furthermore, the notion that China has advantages over the US in a trade war is laughable; the US can – and will – win, Bannon said.

    If they devalue their currency they’re just going to flood more dollars out. That’s what their own people think about their economy. We allowed them to take the South China Sea. Donald Trump is not going to back off this. Donald Trump is not going to blink. Victory is when they give us access to their markets.

    This trade war is going to end in victory and what you’re going to see is a reorientation of the entire supply chain out of China.

    But, we remind readers that ‘hope’ is not a strategy.

  • Russian Warship "Carrying $133 Billion In Gold" Discovered Off South Korea

    A South Korean marine exploration company claimed Tuesday to have discovered Dmitrii Donskoi, an armored cruiser built for the Imperial Russian Navy in the 1880s, reportedly transporting a cargo of gold worth an estimated $133 billion in today’s dollars.

    Launched in St Petersburg in August 1883, the Dmitrii Donskoi was designed as a commerce raider and fitted with both a full set of sails and a coal-fired engine. The ship spent most of its career operating in the Mediterranean and the Far East and was deployed to Imperial Russia’s Second Pacific Squadron after the Japanese fleet destroyed the majority of Russia’s naval power in the Far East in the opening salvoes of the 1904 Russo-Japanese War.

    The Dmitri Donskoii was sunk in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese war

    The squadron was then intercepted by the Japanese fleet in May 1905 and decimated at the Battle of Tsushima. Assigned to protect the transport ships at the rear of the formation, the Dmitrii Donskoi managed to evade the attacking force, but was later intercepted steaming for the Russian port of Vladivostok.

    According to the Telegraph, the Dmitrii Donskoi was carrying the fleet’s funds and went down with 5,500 boxes containing gold bars as well as a separate haul of 200 tons of gold coins. The gold was being stored in the ship’s holds to stop the Japanese seizing it. Shinil Group estimates the gold would have a total value today of just over $130 billion.

    The ship then disappeared for over a century, however it now appears its remains may have been found.

    According to Aju Business Daily, the Shinil Group, a South Korean exploration company, has indicated that it found the ship Sunday less than a mile off the Jeodong port in Ulleungdo, a South Korean island located between the Korean peninsula and Japan, at a depth of 1,423 feet in the Sea of Japan.

    “We found the body of the Dmitrii Donskoi 434 meters deep in seas 1.3 kilometers off Ulleung Island at around 9:50 a.m., Sunday,” Shinil Group said.

    On Sunday, an expedition team mobilized two human-crewed submarines as it discovered what it believed to be Donskoi. The team confirmed later that the body and cannons of the ships captured via a high-definition video camera are consistent with the ship’s schematics.

    The submarines found the ship’s name on its stern on Sunday, along with several cannons, deck guns, an anchor, two chimneys, three masts, a wooden deck and armored sides.

    “The body of the ship was severely damaged by shelling, with its stern almost broken, and yet the ship’s deck and sides are well preserved,” the company said.

    “Our discovery has finally put a stop to a controversy over Donskoi’s existence and sunken location. We’ll soon go ahead with procedures to rescue the ship,” Shinil group added.

    Shinil did not say if gold bars or coins were discovered. The group plans to recover the gold later this year with the help from companies in China, Canada, and the U.K. Here is video from the moment the ship was identified:

    The exploration firm estimates that there could be as much as 200 tons of gold ($133 billion) on the Dmitrii Donskoi. Shinil pledged to invest 10% of the treasure on Ulleung Island, which is a popular tourist destination for South Koreans. It has also worked out a deal with Russia, the rightful owner of the sunken ship, which Russia has said it would use the money for investments in railroads connecting Russia with South Korea via North Korea.

    As for the $133 billion of gold on the sunken ship, it is anyone’s guess if it exists. But if it does, then it would undoubtedly dwarf the recent discovery of $17 billion in booty off the coast of Cartagena, Colombia.

    The company said it is aiming to raise the ship in October or November. Half of any treasure found aboard the vessel would be handed over to the Russian government, which if the preliminary estimates are accurate, would amount to just over $66 billion. A portion of the rest of the treasure will be donated to joint projects to promote development in north-east Asia, the company said, such as a railway line from Russia to South Korea through North Korea.

  • Trump's Trade War May Spark A Chinese Debt Crisis

    Authored by Anne Stevenson-Yang, op-ed via BloombergQuint.com,

    There’s no chance China will cut its trade surplus with the U.S. in response to President Donald Trump’s tariff threats. For starters, Washington has made no specific demand to which Beijing can respond. But its efforts may have an unexpected side effect: a debt crisis in China.

    The 25 percent additional tariffs on exports of machinery and electronics looked, at first blush, like a stealth tax on offshoring. The focus on categories like semiconductors and nuclear components, in which U.S.-owned manufacturers in China are strong, recalled Trump’s 2016 promise to tax “any business that leaves our country.”

    It seems, though, that offshoring wasn’t the target after all. Now, with the imposition of new tariffs on low-value exports that mostly involve Asian value chains, the simple fact of selling cheap products that the U.S. buys has become the problem.

    Either way, the administration appears set on shrinking its current-account deficit (which, at a moderate 2.4 percent of GDP, is far lower than the 6 percent clocked in 2006-7) just as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates. Distress has already been registered in China. On July 19, the yuan (also known as the renminbi) hit 6.80 to the dollar, the weakest in a year and 7 percent lower than at the end of May.

    Such a move is nothing earth-shaking for less controlled currencies. But a stable renminbi is a key plank in the leadership’s promise to its people, and the exchange rate is tightly managed by the central bank.

    Chinese investors have been buying official assurances for a year that the renminbi would be a fortress, but now they’re not so sure and are exporting money again: May saw net capital outflows and a decline in the foreign-exchange reserves. The currency is the most visible sign of slippage in the image that China tries to project of an economy so brilliantly managed that the bright sun of GDP expansion is untroubled by even temporary clouds on trade, employment or consumption.

    There are many other signs: The Shanghai Composite Index of stocks has declined 7 percent in a month, dropping below the government’s red line of 3,000 for the first time since September 2016. Corporate bonds are about to set a record for the most defaults in a year. Junk bond yields are spiking. The chorus of anxiety about debt is reaching a crescendo, with daily press reports on governments that can’t pay their employees or meet pension obligations. Property prices are tumbling in some cities and frozen in others whose governments have placed a finger in the dyke by halting transactions.

    That the massive burden of debt will drag the economy into recession is as obvious as the empty towers that rise on every landscape. Precise estimates are difficult, since the government’s dedication to the optics of invincibility induces financial institutions to push debt into alternate, opaque channels. But on any metric, the amount of new lending each year grows faster than the economy, and the interest newly owed exceeds the incremental rise in GDP. In other words, the whole economy is a Ponzi scheme.

    Many analysts point out that the Chinese government owns everything, including the banks, and can just issue renminbi to infinity to keep the economy solvent. The flaw in that argument is China’s role in the global economy: It’s the world’s biggest exporter and second-biggest importer. The currency acts as the interface between the domestic and international economies, and its value is a matter of supply and demand.

    The Ponzi economy has been sustained by cheap dollars coming in through legitimate or illegitimate channels, and the problem now is that structural surpluses are disappearing and there is less ‘hot’ money from the U.S. seeking yield. When dollars enter, the central bank buys them and issues renminbi. If it has to issue more than is justified by the amount of inflows, it creates inflation, and inflation, which has toppled or almost toppled governments from the Ming dynasty to Tiananmen, is the third rail of Chinese politics.

    That brings us back to Trump and his trade war. The fundamental idea underlying this salad of a trade agenda is an old one from the right wing of the Republican Party, which believes that the U.S. has paid too dearly for its postwar leadership role under the Bretton Woods regime; putting America first means America marching alone.

    The dollar standard, and not trade policies, underpins the global system of commerce. The U.S. runs trade deficits as a consequence of its desire to own the currency that dominates global commerce, not as a casualty of predatory policies by China. The rise of the gold standard in the second half of the 19th century was the key foundation for the expansion of global trade. Its collapse, starting in 1913, drove a trade implosion.

    After Bretton Woods, the dollar took over as a global standard, and, when former President Richard Nixon made the greenback no longer redeemable for gold, it was freed to become a pure fiat currency. That meant that the U.S. could project any level of currency around the world to support its national economic growth and lifestyle improvements that exceeded productivity gains. No wonder China wishes the renminbi could do the same.

    It is tempting to see the recent yuan depreciation as a strategy to blunt the effect of U.S. tariffs, but really, the capital account is of much greater import to China Inc. than the current account. China’s central bank will almost certainly try to pull back the exchange rate in the near term: Authorities care more about the pile of reserve gold, successful stock-exchange debuts for Xiaomi Corp. and Ant Financial, and lucrative bond issues than about the private and largely foreign-owned companies that dominate exports.

    The truth is that China has followed a mercantilist trading policy since Mao Zedong. Most significantly, the investment splurge in the reform years helped political elites rake billions off the forced savings of the Chinese people. That was enabled by incoming capital, and there is no indication that will change.

    Until now, China has managed to keep its huge raft of nonperforming debt afloat thanks to capital inflows, as successive waves of quantitative easing pushed dollars into the world. A tighter dollar would seem to make the bursting of China’s credit bubble an inevitability. When that happens, the renminbi will have to depreciate sharply. This will have a deflationary impact on the world. It will also lead to a decline in China’s share of global GDP, dramatically reduce the nation’s demand for commodities, and diminish its role on the international political stage.

    Much about Chinese trade practices is genuinely unfair. But the inequity flows as much from U.S. policy favoring big corporations at the expense of workers as it does from Chinese structural subsidies. Both are difficult problems to address — much harder than penalizing exports. No one will benefit when China shrinks and turns inward. Trump should be careful what he wishes for.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Jul 19

Today’s News 19th July 2018

  • Amazon Now Accounts For 49% Of Online Retail

    Amazon will account for accounts for 49.1% of all online retail sales, up from 43% the year before, if they clear an expected $258 billion in sales this year.

    The stunning figure provided by research firm eMarketer is tempered by the fact that Amazon’s near-majority share of online sales accounts for just 5% of all retail sales. Amazon is set to rake in $258.22 billion in US retail sales in 2018, while annual growth has jumped 29.2% year-over-year, reports Tech Crunch.

    Fueling Amazon’s rise is a robust network of third-party sellers and a rapidly expanding range of goods from groceries to fashion – made all the more attractive for subscribers of their Prime services. 

    Now, it is fast approaching a tipping point where more people will be spending money online with Amazon, than with all other retailers — combined. Amazon’s next-closest competitor, eBay, a very, very distant second at 6.6 percent, and Apple in third at 3.9 percent. Walmart, the world’s biggest retailer when counting physical stores, has yet to really hit the right note in e-commerce and comes in behind Apple with 3.7 percent of online sales in the US. –TC

    Popular categories:

    The most popular category on Amazon is consumer electronics and tech, with projected sales of $65.82 billion according to eMarketer; around a quarter of total turnover. Second in line is apparel and accessories, which should account for roughly $39.88 billion, followed by health, personal care and beauty with $16 billion. In last place is food and beverage trailing at $4.75 billion.

    EMarketer arrives at their estimates “based on an analysis of quantitative and qualitative data from research firms, government agencies, media firms and public companies, plus interviews with top executives at publishers, ad buyers and agencies.” 

    What’s more, Amazon is expected to drive over 80% of ecommerce growth this year.

    Bread and butter

    By in large Amazon’s largest cash cow is their Marketplace – a third-party sales platform on which sellers can use Amazon’s retail and logistics infrastructure to hawk their wares. It currently accounts for 68% of all retail sales – or around $176 billion. Direct sales from Amazon comprise the remainder. 

    It’s no wonder that so many other online commerce businesses are chasing the marketplace model, which essentially creates transactions on two fronts for the platform operator, thereby improving margins that might be cut by not selling items directly. –TC

    “The continued growth of Amazon’s Marketplace makes sense on a number of levels,” said Andrew Lipsman, eMarketer’s principal analyst. “More buyers transacting more often on Amazon will naturally attract third-party sellers. But because third-party transactions are also more profitable, Amazon has every incentive to make the process as seamless as possible for those selling on the platform.”

    Given that Amazon now accounts for roughly half of all online sales, one might think it’s ripe for an antitrust investigation. That said, all of Amazon’s sales only amount to five percent of all retail sales across the country. 

  • RIMPAC-2018: What Makes It So Special This Year?

    Authored by Peter Korzun via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The US-organized biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) is the largest international exercise held in and around the Hawaiian Islands and Southern California. The RIMPAC- 2018, the 26th exercise in the series, is running from June 27 to Aug.2 under the motto “Capable, Adaptive, Partners.”

    It involves 46 surface ships, five submarines, 18 national land forces, more than 200 aircraft and 25,000 personnel from twenty five nations. Defending sea lanes is the main mission and there are always political connotations.

    Besides, many things happened for the first time to make the event stand out this year.

    It was the first time Brazil, Israel, Sri Lanka and Vietnam were invited. Brazil had to reject the invitation at the last moment for internal reasons. Chile, a non-founding RIMPAC nation, had never before held a top leadership position (component commander) like this year, joining Canadian, Japanese and Australian admirals. The Philippines increased it participation, and Malaysia sent a warship – something it had not done in previous years.

    For the first time, Israel is among the participants. It demonstrates the US readiness to counter Iran. Israeli sailors can share the experience of mine warfare operations, air defense and conducting commando raids at sea. This year, Israel is also participating for the first time ever in a US European Command exercise. Swift Response is held in Poland, Germany, Latvia, and Lithuania this month. 40 Israeli paratroopers will team with the US Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade in an operation to seize the Miroslawiec airfield in Poland. So, Israel goes global.

    RIMPAC-2018 features live firing of a Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) from a US Air Force aircraft, surface to ship missiles by the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, and a Naval Strike Missile (NSM) by the US Army – the first time a land-based unit is participating in a live-fire event.

    For the first time, the US 3d Fleet commander organized the RIMPAC Innovation Fair in Pearl Harbor (June 28-July 2) to showcase emerging and new technologies, which can be used by navies and marine corps.

    This is also the first time a US newly created regional command is overseeing the exercise. On May 30, Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced that US Pacific Command (PACOM), which oversees all US military forces in Asia, had changed its name to be called the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) to reflect “the increasing connectivity between the Indian and Pacific Oceans,” as well as America’s determination to remain the dominant power in both.

    The US Navy has stepped up patrols in the proximity of waters adjacent to China-claimed islands in the South China Sea (as has China), raising the prospect of clashes. “When it comes down to introducing what they have done in the South China Sea, there are consequences,” US Defense Secretary James Mattis warned China at the Shangri La Strategic Dialogue in Singapore on June 2. The Pentagon is planning to conduct “a steady drumbeat” of naval operations in waters abutting the disputed islands.

    Now the main thing – China’s RIMPAC invitation was revoked in May. China first participated in the RIMPAC exercises in 2014. The formal reason given by US military is the “militarization” of artificial islands in the South China Sea. Secretary Mattis said he did not expect countries to choose between the US and China “because a friend does not demand you choose among them.” The Chinese Navy has sent a Type 815 intelligence gathering ship to observe the exercise.

    The list of nations invited to the RIMPAC-2018 obviously reflects the US desire to strengthen its military ties with states on China’s perimeter in an effort to confine it. The US opposes China’s ambitious “One Belt, One Road” economic initiative and encircling the country with US-friendly actors is a vital component of the policy to counter it.

    The US is testing its combat capability in the two oceans and is doing it with numerous partners. This month, USS Essex amphibious assault ship (jump-jet carrier) with Marine Corps F-35Bs onboard sailed into the Pacific – the second ever deployment of small-deck flattop with the new the aircraft onboard. The F-35 aircraft is known for its stealth design and advanced sensors and controls. Israel was the first nation to ever use the F-35 in combat. This year, it sent the stealth aircraft to attack Iranian training bases and weapons depots in Syria. The plans to sell F-35s to Taiwan are under consideration in the United States. If the deal goes through, the relations with China will greatly deteriorate – the eventuality RIMPAC is taking into account. The voices inside Congress are calling for approval of the sale.

    RIMPAC is a tool of foreign policy. As US military leaders say it’s about “building relationships”, adopting an ‘I’m the popular kid on the block’ approach to all this,” as Peter Layton, visiting fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute in Australia, put it. “We work together, build relationships here, so later on … it’s hard to turn down a friend,” said Vice Adm. John Alexander, commander of the US Navy’s 3rd Fleet at the opening ceremony. The United States demonstrates its “openness” and the ability to bring together many nations while isolating China and Russia.

    RIMPAC could have been an event of friendship and peace to bring all the seafaring nations of the region together.  Germany’s Kieler Woche (Kiel Week) maritime holiday is an example of how it can be done at global scale.

    Keeping such large and powerful navies as that of Russia and China out turns RIMPAC into an event organized to bolster US foreign policy goals and challenge its rivals. Actually, it’s US, not international, because other participants have no say in the decision-making process and have to succumb to what America’s commanders tell them while it may not meet their foreign policy goals. The exercise was initially conceived to promote peace and deter terrorists in an international effort but has turned into a demonstration of US readiness to use force against the nations of the region.

  • China Building 8 Submarines For Pakistan, As China-Pak Projects Flourish

    Chinese shipbuilders are constructing eight new submarines to protect its ally Pakistan with an aim to counter India. Currently, Pakistan’s Navy has ten subs, which suggests their submarine fleet could expand by 80 percent upon delivery, expected in the mid to late 2020s. Relations between both countries are incredibly complex, as the Kashmir conflict and the numerous military disputes on the Line of Control (LoC) have intensified in recent years.

    According to unnamed sources, as quoted per Zee News, under Project Hangor, China’s shipbuilding industry could soon be delivering over eight new subs to Pakistan. India’s underwater warfare program is perceived to be far superior to Pakistan. As of now, India has sixteen submarines while Pakistan has about ten. However, China wants to scale up Pakistan’s underwater warfare capabilities to defend the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

    China and Pakistan have a close strategic relationship as both countries have supported each other financially, strategically and militarily. The move to increase Pakistan’s submarine fleet comes at a time when CPEC, a $50 billion collection of infrastructure projects throughout Pakistan that intends to modernize Pakistan’s energy infrastructure, transportation networks, and economy, threatens to reshape global trade and disrupt the status quo.

    Connecting all of Eurasia and Africa to China through the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) is seen as a significant “security vulnerabilities” for the United States, said Kurt Tidd, chief of the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), who spoke with US lawmakers at a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting, earlier this year.

    China has put forth a cohesive strategy for future growth while the United States has offered zero solutions in response, other than weaponizing India and China’s neighbors [Tiawan], conducting Freedom of Navigation (FON) operations in the South China Sea, along with destabilizing countries in Eurasia to slow down the progression of OBOR.

    In addition to submarines, China successfully launched two remote sensing satellites for Pakistan last week, which could help both countries monitor India and CPEC infrastructure. The satellites were on-board the Chinese Long March (LM-2C) spacecraft, while the PRSS1 – Pakistan’s first optical remote sensing unit – was developed by the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST).

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

    Furthermore, the fiber optic pipeline project connecting Pakistan to China was completed in June which now provides a direct link between Pakistan, Middle Asia, and East Asia and reduces the possibility of disruption to international traffic. This is amongst the only information and communication technology project under the CPEC. The project started in March 2016 and concluded last month. The cable extends over a distance of 509 miles and has 26 microwave transmission nodes from Rawalpindi to Karimabad and 106 miles of aerial fiber cable from Karimabad to Khunjerab as a back-up.

    Also, Chinese automakers are entering the Pakistani market with the likes of JAC Motor, DFSK, Luoyang Dahe, Lifan, Foton JW, and Changan. Some of the companies have already received the government’s approval. They have been awarded a Greenfield status to build their respective manufacturing facilities for the local market.

    So all in all the relation between Pakistan and China is mutually beneficial for both the countries. CPEC enables China access to the Arabian Sea, thus allowing one of the six economic corridors via OBOR to come online.

    In doing so, China recognizes CPEC and or the overall OBOR system can disrupt global trade, or better yet, the American empire. That is why China is beefing up Pakistan’s underwater warfare program, to deter US Indo-Pacific Command.

  • Two Keywords For US Imperialism: 'Justification' And 'Plausibility'

    Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Observing the behavior of the United States over recent decades, it becomes clear that the American establishment has always relied on two fundamental factors to justify choices in foreign policy.

    We have been accustomed in recent years to humanitarian interventions being justified on the assumption that the United States and the West were in some way intervening militarily in the interests of defending innocent civilians from brutal dictators. This justification for armed intervention has either been the key factor or the direct cause for the expansion of US imperialism.

    The use of the media as an instrument of war – with lies, artfully constructed stories, intentional omissions, and targeted disinformation – has helped US imperialism to justify armed interventions abroad.

    There is always some sort of justification, rationale or pretext offered when Washington intervenes to bring about conflict. These excuses were showcased in Yugoslavia in 1999, in Afghanistan in 2002, in Iraq in 2003, and in Libya in 2011. With Yugoslavia and Libya, the lie of protecting human rights was the justification offered to the public. The September 11, 2001 attacks were used to justify attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and 2003, pointing the finger of blame at these countries. The war on terror in general offered a perfect justification for bringing about chaos in every corner of the world.

    Naturally, these are excuses meant to be peddled in the international arena. There is no justification for bombing a nation, completely destroying its services and infrastructure, and killing tens of thousands of its innocent people.

    But US imperialism works like a steam-roller. The artful fabrication of a humanitarian cause gives the green light to rain down bombs to save the poor and downtrodden civilians. All this is possible thanks to the nauseating and false media rhetoric that creates the ideal conditions needed to justify the horrible war crime that is aggression against a sovereign nation.

    Such justifications constitute some of the most deceptive and aggressive imperialist tools employed by the Euro-American power conglomerate to impose its unipolar vision of international relations and strong-arm those seeking a new path in international relations. The objective is to disrupt (with bombs and propaganda) the vision these countries have of fixing the corrupt and sickening world order guided by Washington.

    In more recent times, this strategy of war based on (spurious) justifications has added a new type of ploy that is much more subtle and suitable for imperialist ends. Since Washington has lost the ability to decide the situation on the ground in different war theaters like in Iraq and Syria, it settles for sowing chaos and destruction.

    This is done through the employment of plausible deniability, which helps mask covert operations. An example can be seen in Syria, where Washington arms the Free Syrian Army (FSA), an insurgency group labelled “moderate rebels”, but these weapons somehow seem to find their way into the hands of Al Nusra and Daesh. This situation has been going on for years, with Washington using Daesh and Al Nusra to fight against Assad, being able to plausible deny doing so by professing to be only arming the moderate rebels and not the extremist terrorists.

    Clearly we are facing an obvious case of plausible deniabIlity. The United States claims to be arming only the “rebels” in its efforts to remove Assad, but in reality these rebels do not exist and are merely different acronyms for various Islamist extremists. It is therefore natural that the arms given to the rebels will wind up in the hands of ISIS or Al Nusra. On the rare occasions that journalists enquire as to how US weapons have ended up in the hands of Daesh or Al Nusra, US authorities can plausibly deny that they are intentionally arming any extremist groups.

    Plausible deniability and justifications for war are two manifestations of the hallucinatory world in which we live, based on conjurations rather than reality. No newspaper or journalist questions whether the justification given for war is legitimate. No newspaper wonders whether Iraq really was linked to Al Qaeda, preferring instead to repeat US propaganda. No one bothers to dig and ask whether the FSA is just an acronym like the SDF and therefore another way of plausibly denying and covering for America’s illegal involvement in Syria.

    Clearly there is no justification, or any plausible denial, that can exonerate the United States from the seventy-year attempt to consolidate its power over other countries or prevent them from pursuing foreign policies independently of Washington. But what is increasingly noticeable is how, thanks to more and more good reporting from alternative news sources, the justifications for war and plausible denials carry less and less credibility with the wider population.

    Decades of lies and omissions have convinced the European and American populations that the press is probably more interested in protecting the interests of its management and owners than it is in revealing the truth. As a result, the alternative press, online media, and alternative giants like CGTN, RT, TeleSUR and PressTV widen their audience simply by exposing how the Western media’s packaged truth only aims to justify the deployment of Western troops to foreign countries, or provide plausible deniability for their less palatable covert operations.

    The new perspective provided by the alternative media is ripping apart the lies of the past regarding Iraq, Syria, Yemen or Donbass, showing as fabrications the justifications used to drop bombs, kill civilians, subjugate entire populations in order to advance the US geopolitical goals.

    The world population is increasingly better informed thanks to widespread Internet access and a growing thirst for news. This phenomenon is beginning to gain steam as the deceptions of the mainstream media are increasingly being called out with every passing day. CNN, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, the BBC, and many other broadcasters and newspapers have for many years shown European, American and Middle Eastern populations a partial, falsified and manipulated version of reality for the purposes of justifying criminal actions and providing plausible-denial cover to enable the sneaky killing of even more innocents.

    As the chickens are coming home to roost, more and more old statements made by US officials are revisited and measured against new facts on the ground. Obama’s words about how the US never gave weapons to ISIS are today contradicted by evidence of the perverse flow of weapons from the US and her allies to Daesh terrorists. In the same way, Clinton’s celebration over Gaddafi’s death (“We came, we saw, he died”), or Madeleine Albright’s justification of the death of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of US sanctions, as well as them bombings from 1991 to 2003, are coming back to haunt them. All these lies are exposed years later, delivering a devastating blow to the Western establishment’s credibility.

    The three examples of Iraq, Libya and Obama himself represent the greatest expression of American deception, namely, the portrayal of the US as fighting for a noble cause, sacrificing itself for the sake of humanity in order to confront and overcome tyranny. But reality paints a different picture, showing the US as the bringer of chaos and destruction. It is the revelation of these lies more than anything else that can accelerate the global awakening and complete the rejection of imperialism that relies on false justifications and plausible denials to succeed.

    With the credibility of their previous arguments shot to pieces, the corporate media find themselves with the now practically impossible task of attempting to deceive a woke population that can no longer be fooled as easily as in the past. People are fed up with war and the lies that are offered to justify them, and they are starting to understand the techniques and keywords employed to justify US Imperial policies.

  • San Francisco Begins Registering Non-Citizens To Vote In Local Elections

    The San Francisco Department of Elections issued voter registration forms for non-citizens, including undocumented migrants, who are now eligible to vote for members of the SF Board of Education during the November elections, making the city the first in the state to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections.

    The measure to allow non-citizens over the age of 18 to vote narrowly passed in 2016 in a vote of 54-46 percent following two failed attempts. In order to cast their ballot, however, non-citizens must also be city residents and have at least one child under the age of 19.  

    Prospective voters can request a non-citizen voter registration form in-person at the Department of Elections, online or by phone. The deadline to register is October 22nd. Those who miss the deadline can visit the City Hall Voting Center to register and vote under conditional voter registration. –ABC7

    “This is no-brainer legislation,” Hillary Ronen, a San Francisco supervisor, told the Chronicle. “Why would we not want our parents invested in the education of their children?”

    “We want to give immigrants the right to vote,” Norman Yee, also a county supervisor, told KGO.

    RNC member Harmeet Dhillon disagrees with the measure. 

    “The reason I voted against it is that I think the right to vote is something that goes along with citizenship and should be,” Dhillon told KGO, adding that the school board is already obligated to look out for the interests of all children in the city. 

    “I don’t think that people who have otherwise tenuous ties to San Francisco given their lack of legal residence should be making long term decisions about that structure and process,” said Dhillon.

    The measure allowing non-citizen voting expires in 2022 unless it is renewed by the board of supervisors. 

    Boston too?

    Last week, the Boston City Council discussed the the idea of voting rights for non-US citizens living in the country legally.

    The hearing called by Council President Andrea Campbell is aimed at a discussion on how to make city elections “more inclusive” for the roughly 190,000 foreign-born residents of the city, who would be allowed the right to vote in municipal races. 

    That could include legal permanent residents, visa holders and those on Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. –Boston.com

    Foreign-born residents account for around 28% of Boston’s population according to Campbell’s order, which claims non-US citizens paid $116 million in local and state taxes, while generating over $3.4 billion in spending according to a 2015 city report.

  • Baby Boomers In Gig Economy Make 60% More Than Millennials

    Baby boomers working jobs in the gig economy are raking in more money than younger workers, are far less financially stressed and are typically more content with their situation, according to a study recently published by Prudential Financial.

    Boomers – those above 56-years-old, make an average of $43,600 a year while working 25 hours a week. This compares to Gen Xers (36-55) at $36,300 per year and Millennials (18-35) at $27,500. The younger generations are also working longer hours per week, with GenX at 30 hours and Millennials clocking in an average of 26 hours weekly. 

    The reason behind the variance in income may be because boomers – due to their age – have more hard-to-find skills in fields in which Boomers appear well qualified, compared to younger and less experienced cohorts.

    There are other factors making boomers in the gig economy happy:

    “Boomer gig workers are enjoying not only higher levels of income, but also are more likely to be married,” said Jim Mahaney, vice president of strategic initiatives at Prudential Financial, in an email to AARP.

    “This means that not only are they more likely to have access to employer-sponsored benefits, but that they are less likely to be the sole source of income as well. These factors, we believe, lead to higher degrees of satisfaction than younger generations of gig workers.”

    Surprisingly, just 32% of boomers are their household’s sole source of income, vs 49% of Gen-X and 36% of Millennials, which may be linked to the fact that more boomers are married. While 60% of Boomers are married, just 52% of millennials and 39% of Gen-X have a spouse.

    This also ties into the motivation behind gig work.

    For Boomers and Gen-X, financial worries and making ends meet are the primary concern (46% and 59% respectively). Meanwhile, 75% of Millennials said their gig work is lifestyle related – a number that is high enough to conclude that most live with their parents. 

    Another factor in higher income among boomers in the gig economy is the fact that they have a higher concentration of hard-to-find, or specialty skills in which they are qualified. The survey suggests that construction, installation and repair jobs are more popular among Boomers – fields which have experienced worker shortages. 

    Meanwhile, just 19% of boomers say they use online platforms to find work or generate business – as compared with almost half of millennial gig workers. 

    So it sounds like getting your hands dirty in a high-demand field while being married is the way to go, meanwhile for those 35 and under, the likelihood of ever exiting the parents’ basement grows slimmer by the day. 

  • China Launches Quasi QE To Support Banks And Sliding Bond Market

    With the ECB’s QE coming to an end at the end of the year (absent some shock to the market or economy), some traders have already been voicing concerns which central bank will step in and provide a backstop to the global fixed income market, especially once the BOJ joins the global tightening bandwagon (something it will soon have to as Japan is rapidly running out of monetizable securities, and just moments ago the BOJ announced it would trim its purchases of bonds in both the 10-25 and 25+ year bucket).

    Today one answer emerged when China’s central bank – three weeks after its latest RRR cut – announced further easing measures, including the introduction of incentives that will boost the liquidity of commercial banks, helping them to expand lending and increase investment in bonds issued by corporates and other entities.

    And in a surprising twist, in order to make sure that Chinese banks and financial institutions have ample liquidity, the PBOC appears to have engaged in quasi QE – using monetary policy instruments such as its medium term loan facility (MLF) – to support the local bond market and banks, especially those that have invested in bonds rated AA+ and below. Effectively, China will directly fund banks with ultra cheap liquidity, with one simple instruction: “increase bank lending and bond purchases.” And since all Chinese banks are essentially state owned, what Beijing is doing is launching a form of stealthy QE, only one where it is not the central bank, but the country’s various commercial banks that do the purchases… using central bank liquidity.

    As a reminder, one month ago we noted that the spread between China’s AAA and AA- rated bonds has spiked in the past three months, blowing out to levels not seen since August 2016, and an indication of the market’s growing fears about the recent surge in Chinese corporate defaults.

    It is this spread, and other indications of bond market tightness that the PBOC wants to address using its MLF and the various other central bank lending facilities as tools for managing short- and medium-term liquidity in the banking system. It has to ensure that there is adequate liquidity especially with economic uncertainties, given the trade dispute with the United States. Indicatively, back in July 2014, when describing the PBOC’s Pledged Supplementary Lending facility, that we asked “Is this China’s QE“? We now have the answer.

    And speaking of the MLF, in June, the PBOC lent out 663 billion yuan, or roughly $100 billion, to financial institutions via the MLF, with the outstanding MLF totaling 4,420.50 billion yuan at the end of June, up from 4,017.00 billion yuan at the end of May.

    Commenting on the move by the Chinese central bank, Goldman said that this is a sign that the government is stepping up its loosening measures given the weakness in May and June TSF data, lukewarm June activity data, weak asset market performance, and rising trade tensions.

    The catalyst for this quasi QE? Trump’s unexpected trade war escalation:

    In our view, the government was likely surprised by the timing of the USD200bn tariff announcement by the US and is taking time to come up with a concrete response. While the direct hit to aggregate demand growth from weaker exports is likely to be fairly limited (still 0.5pp or less for the total USD250bn in goods related tariffs in three rounds: USD34bn+USD16bn at 25% and USD200bn at 10%) and can be relatively easily offset by policy loosening, the risk of further escalation and the potential effects other than the hit to export demand (e.g., negative impact on investment due to uncertainty) are significant and much harder to quantify.

    Meanwhile, as we reported last Friday, the government already stepped up loosening in June, seen in the rebound in new yuan loan growth. However, off balance sheet non-loan TSF – and especially the record collapse in shadow – has become a bigger drag.

    In this context, Goldman notes that any guidance to slow the pace of the decline in shadow banking would be an effective policy loosening tool as shadow banking remains the biggest binding constraint on TSF growth.

    Going forward, Goldman expects the government to take further measures to ensure growth stability, including further RRR cuts, lowering the interbank rate, and, most importantly, administrative directives. Further, the bank notes that CNY depreciation is clearly a risk as well, and as we reported moments ago, perhaps in response to today’s directive, the Yuan is tumbling and is now 600 pips below what at the start of the month was said to be the PBOC’s “red line.” Clearly it wasn’t.

    Yet while China’s further easing steps are hardly surprising – as trade tensions are intensifying it is clear that economic and market stability has become the short-term priority over controlling leverage, pollution, and property prices (here Goldman adds that “the key phrase in recent policy directives has been to avoid “one-cut” policy making – i.e., no uniform, across-the-board suspensions of infrastructure investment projects aimed at controlling debt, reducing industrial pollution, and limiting bank lending to reduce credit risk”) – the biggest risk is two-fold: at what point will China’s devaluation reignite the capital outflow observed between 2014 and 2016, when Chinese reserves declined by $1 trillion from $4 to $3 trillion to offset capital flight, and just how will Trump respond to what is now a clear, if implicit, currency devaluation using monetary policy tools?

    Judging by the US president’s recent words and actions, sending Xi Jinping a congratulatory tweet over his handling of the economy will hardly be a priority; instead further tit-for-tat escalation is inevitable.

  • How A Central Bank Caused One Of History's Biggest Cons

    Authored by George Pickering via The Mises Institute,

    In the summer of 1821, a roguish Scotsman named Gregor MacGregor arrived by boat in London, and initiated arguably the most audacious confidence scam in history.

    MacGregor had spent much of the previous decade fighting as a soldier of fortune in the Venezuelan War of Independence, where he had manoeuvred his way up the ranks, eventually being promoted to general by Simón Bolívar. At some point during this period, local Central American rulers had granted MacGregor a large tract of land, most of which took the form of uninhabitable, malaria-ridden swamp along the Black River, in modern-day Honduras. Despite the poor economic prospects of his new acquisition, MacGregor was determined that the land should be his ticket to fortune, even if that required unconventional measures.

    It was this series of events which led to the ‘founding’ of the non-existent country of Poyais.

    Upon returning to Britain, MacGregor ingratiated his way into London’s high-society, claiming to be the sovereign prince, or ‘Cazique’, of a newly-formed, British-friendly colony on Central America’s Mosquito coast, supposedly named ‘Poyais’ after the Poyer peoples of that area.

    In order to convince the British public of the realness of this imaginary country, MacGregor was forced to employ an extremely elaborate series of means, foremost amongst them being the publication of a 355-page guidebook for prospective settlers. This book, likely penned by MacGregor himself, contained a plethora of highly-detailed (and entirely fictitious) descriptions of every aspect of life in Poyais. These included convoluted descriptions of its tricameral parliamentary system and of its commercial and banking systems, distinctly designed uniforms for each regiment of its non-existent armed forces, a fully elaborated honours system, a Poyaisian coat of arms (featuring unicorns), and a national flag. The guidebook also offered detailed descriptions of the climate and agriculture of Poyais, not to mention of its resplendent capital city, and even claimed that the rivers of Poyais contained “globules of pure gold.”

    In addition to the guidebook, MacGregor established Poyaisian government offices in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow, began having Poyaisian paper money and government documents professionally printed, and even commissioned the composition of songs about Poyais to be sung in the streets of Britain’s major cities.

    The trick worked.

    In late-1822 and early-1823, approximately 270 hopeful colonists set sail for Poyais, and MacGregor was able to raise £200,000 from the sale of Poyaisian ‘government bonds’ – with the loan being obliviously underwritten by the highly respectable City of London bank Sir John Perring, Shaw, Barber & co. – in addition to the money he had made by the sale of Poyaisian land certificates and paper money.

    When the 50 surviving Poyais settlers made it back to London in October of 1823 with the news that none of it had been true, the resultant outrage exploded throughout the British press. MacGregor, however, had fled to Paris just days before their arrival, and was not only never convicted of any crime for his involvement of the Poyais scheme, but even went so far as to attempt to repeat the exact same scheme in France, in 1826.

    How could this absurd con possibly have succeeded so completely in tricking the British investing public of the early-1820s?

    The answer is to be found in the British banking system of the time, which was structured in a way that left it particularly able to fuel the kind of economic crises described by the ‘Austrian Business Cycle Theory’ of Ludwig von Mises. In the early-1820s, the British money supply outwardly appeared to be controlled in a very decentralised manner, with approximately 800 banks throughout the country having the right to issue their own banknotes, theoretically redeemable in gold.

    However, at the centre of this system stood the Bank of England, Britain’s central bank, which not only had a monopoly on banknote issues in the London area, but was also legally privileged in a way that allowed the private banks of the time to use Bank of England notes as if they were gold, for reserves, clearing transactions, and redeeming their own private notes.

    Thanks to these legal privileges of Bank of England notes, the private banks of the time were able to pyramid their own credit expansion and note issues atop their fractional reserves of Bank of England notes, which were themselves pyramided atop an even more fractional reserve of gold. This not only allowed a far greater overall extent of credit expansion than if Bank of England notes had not had these privileges, but also gave the Bank of England a huge influence on the extent of credit expansion by the broader British banking system, by altering the volume of its own note issues.

    How does all of this relate to Gregor MacGregor?

    Because the success of his Poyais scheme was only made possible thanks to the speculative mania which had been fuelled by Bank of England credit expansion through these channels. In an effort to reverse the monetary and price deflation which had been going on since 1819, the British government and the Bank of England decided, in 1822, to initiate a massive and coordinated policy of credit expansion.

    Just as Mises’ Austrian Business Cycle Theory would lead us to expect, this credit expansion caused a boom of investment in risky ventures and ‘higher-order’ industries. Given the declining lending standards and borrowing costs which accompany any period of credit expansion, British investors jumped at the chance to invest extensively in the newly-independent states of Latin America, creating a speculative mania surrounding the investments of that continent, which played perfectly into the hands of MacGregor and his attempts to raise money for his non-existent kingdom.

    It was in this way that the credit expansion of 1822-25 not only gave life to the most audacious confidence scheme in history, but also inflated a wider bubble which finally burst during the financial Panic of 1825, which was arguably the most severe economic crash experienced by Britain in the entire first half of the nineteenth century.

    In recent years, central bank credit expansion has often repeated this trick of causing bubbles in absurd and risky investments, such as the ‘NINJA loans’ before the 2007/8 crisis, or the unprofitable tech startups during the dot-com bubble of 1997-2001. However, there is perhaps no lesson from history which more vividly illustrates the dangers of credit expansion-fuelled business cycles than the story of Gregor MacGregor and his imaginary country of Poyais.

  • Cuomo Dominating 'Sex & The City'-Socialist Cynthia Nixon In NY Governor's Race

    New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s lead over Democratic Socialist Cynthia Nixon in the state’s Democratic primary race for governor has widened to 36%, up from 22% in May, according to a Wednesday poll from Quinnipiac University.

    Cuomo, the son of a three-term governor who is himself seeking a third term, leads Nixon 59 percent to 23 percent among potential voters, according to a poll out Wednesday from Quinnipiac University. Nixon, an Emmy winner who starred in HBO’s “Sex and the City,” has called Cuomo a “corrupt hypocrite” who doesn’t reflect Democrats’ core values, is beholden to corporate interests, and has let the subway system deteriorate on his watch. –Bloomberg

    The poll also finds that people want an experienced leader governing the state: 

    “New Yorkers say 59 – 30 percent they want a gubernatorial candidate with experience in politics over someone new to it. Democrats, non-white voters and women, in particular, lead the charge in that preference,” according to Mary Snow, polling analyst for the Quinnipiac University Poll. 

    Also hurting Nixon is the fact that virtually nobody knows who she is aside from “the Miranda” of the group – her character on Sex and the City.

    “A significant percentage of voters say they haven’t heard enough about Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s two main rivals, Duchess County Executive Marc Molinaro and Cynthia Nixon, to give them a thumbs up or down on what they think of them. That is also helping Gov. Cuomo.” 

    Cuomo also has a massive fundraising advantage – with $31.1 million in his warchest vs. just $660,000 for Nixon according to the New York Times. 

    Nixon’s sagging performance is notable in light of the progressive wave of Democratic Socialists unseating establishment candidates – starting with 28-year-old progressive activist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who beat the 4th most powerful Democrat in Congress – Joe Crowley, in an upset victory. 

    Ocasio-Cortez, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Nixon have sought to push the party further left and a victory over the more moderate Cuomo would mark arguably the biggest victory in that political movement to date. –Bloomberg

    We wonder if Nixon can explain the Israeli-Arab conflict better than Ocasio-Cortez? 

Digest powered by RSS Digest