- The Government's Next Big Challenge: Regulating The Sex Robot Industry
Today in “your tax dollars at work” news, who would’ve thought a simple idea like sex robots would bring with it so much red tape?
As the Asia Times notes, there are several companies currently developing robots designed to provide humans not only with companionship, but also with sexual pleasure. In fact, some are already on the market.
And unlike conventional sex toys and dolls, sex robots may become mainstream. According to a 2017 survey, half of Americans think that having sex with robots will become a common practice within 50 years. But this practice comes with lots of question marks.
One of the first problems is how we define “sex robot”. Just because something is attractive to a human and provides sexual gratification, does the term “sex robot” apply? Or, should they be defined as “sex toys”, which are “devices primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs” as defined by Alabama? After all, Alabama is the only US state that still has an outright ban on the sale of sex toys.
But it’s looking like these robots will be more than toys: they use self-learning algorithms to engage their partners emotions and offer companionship, as well. There’s been no word on if they’ll be programmable to spoof futures trades, however.
Take the Mark 1 robot, for instance. It has been made to resemble actress Scarlett Johansson and is regularly labeled a sex robot, but it’s creator, Ricky Ma Tsz Hang, states that it is not the robot’s intent. Instead, it’s supposed to assist with all sorts of tasks from “preparing a child’s lunch to keeping an elderly relative company”.
And there’s also legal issues that will arise. For instance, in the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’ sodomy law and established a right to sexual privacy. There’s some debate among Circuit Courts how Lawrence should be applied to state restrictions on the sale of sex toys. For now, Alabama’s ban has been upheld, but should it eventually fall – which would seem likely – states won’t be able to restrict wholesale sales of sex robots. Rumor has it, Michael Avenatti has been retained to represent the robots.
But bans on childlike sex robots may be different. It isn’t clear whether anybody in the United States currently owns a childlike sex robot, but the possibility has already prompted a bipartisan house bill, actually called the Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots Act, or CREEPER, to pass in 2017. State politicians will likely follow down the same road, in attempts to ban childlike sex robots. The question of whether or not they will survive constitutional challenge is a different story.
For starters, the Supreme Court has held that prohibitions on child pornography do not violate the First Amendment because the state has a compelling interest in curtailing the effects of child pornography on the children portrayed. But the Supreme Court also held that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was overly broad in its attempt to prohibit “child pornography that does not depict an actual child”.
Ergo, childlike sex robots are still technically robots and, like virtual pornography, they don’t require any actual interaction with children. Yet, it can be argued that childlike sex robots would have serious detrimental effects that may compel state action.
And while sex robots may eventually become sentient, they are now still just products. Another question is how the US Consumer Product Safety Commission should regulate the hazards associated with them. Existing products aren’t well regulated and this could be cause for concern given the obvious – and excrutiatingly painful – ways they could be harmful to their users. For instance, what if parts of a robot are manufactured with lead paint or a toxin? And what if the robot, with the mechanical strength of five human beings accidentally crushes a human’s finger – or a human’s other parts?
Even worse, what if they become sentient enough to start bossing you around at the house?
Finally, what about the super sensitive data that these robots will collect? Would they be vulnerable to hacking? After they learn what a user likes and doesn’t like from a sexual standpoint, isn’t that arguably the most private type of information that someone would not want shared with the world? Will Huawei be allowed to import sex robots?
Much of the forthcoming regulation will depend on the effects of sex robots on individuals and societies.
In 2018, the Houston City Council enacted an ordinance to ban the operation of America’s first sex robot brothel. An attendee at one meeting warned: “A business like this would destroy homes, families, finances of our neighbors and cause major community uproars in the city.”
But as for right now, there isn’t really any evidence of how the introduction of these robots would affect individuals or societies.
We don’t have any data on whether or not a person who uses a childlike sex robot would be more or less likely to harm an actual child. We don’t have any data as to whether or not robots would be substituted for humans and relationships – or whether they could even enhance relationships. There are a significant amount of unanswered questions and it is difficult to conduct empirical studies in until sex robots become more prevalent.
Regardless, they are coming to the American market soon and the reality will be upon us quicker than we think. The article describes it as a “real world challenge that society is about to face for the first time”. And, like everything else government dips their hands into, our confidence in their effective regulation of this industry is minimal, at best.
- "Europe Will Not Be Europe"
Authored by Guy Milliere via The Gatestone Institute,
-
In the United Kingdom, the Brexit Party victory at 31.6% of the vote was a remarkable achievement that showed the persistent willingness of millions of Britons to leave the European Union. The “populist” positions — the defense of national sovereignty and European civilization, refusal of uncontrolled immigration and diktats of Brussels technocrats — have gained ground.
-
The parties that have ruled Europe for decades obtained weak results, but, with rare exceptions, did not collapse — and will continue to dominate the European Union.
-
The Greens may gain more influence – along with its consequences. To anyone who read the Greens’ programs, it is evident that they are essentially leftists with an environmental green mask. They support unrestricted immigration and multiculturalism. They are…resolutely hostile to any defense of Western civilization, to free enterprise and free markets. They are often in favor of zero growth. Most of them support an apocalyptic vision of climate change and say that the survival of humanity will be at stake around the corner if Europe does not take drastic measures to “save the planet”. All of them are in favor of authoritarian decisions imposed from Brussels to all of Europe.
-
A European parliament placed under the influence of the Greens will almost certainly accelerate the slide towards more power given to the unelected members of the European Commission, and a phasing out of nuclear energy and fossil fuels. Policies favorable to still more immigration already are in preparation.
On the evening of May 26, Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior Matteo Salvini commented on the results of the European elections, “A new Europe is born.” The party he leads, the League, had just won with 34.3% of the vote. Other parties defined in Europe as “populist” also won: in Hungary, the Fidesz-KDNP alliance (Hungarian Civic Alliance and the Christian Democratic People’s Party) received 52.3% of the vote. In Poland, the PiS (Law and Justice) party won 45.4% of the vote. Sebastian Kurz’s Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) won34.6% of the vote and the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), his ally, was awarded 17.2%, despite a recent scandal that led to the resignation of Heinz-Christian Strache, chairma of the FPO, from his post as Vice-Chancellor of Austria (the Kurtz government fell on May 27). In the United Kingdom, the Brexit Party victory— at 31.6% of the vote — was a remarkable achievement that signaled the persistent willingness of millions of Britons to leave the European Union. There, the “populist” positions — the defense of national sovereignty and European civilization, refusal of uncontrolled immigration and diktats of Brussels technocrats — gained ground.
In many European countries, however, the results of the “populists” were mixed. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally finished first, but with 23.3% of the vote: only 0.9% more than The Republic on the Move, created three years ago by Emmanuel Macron. The extreme unpopularity of the French President apparently did not cost him much. In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats received only 15.4%, or two percent less than in the 2018 Swedish general elections. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) received 11%. In Belgium, the Vlams Belang received 11.2% of the vote. In Spain, Vox, with 6.2%, had to deal with even more disappointing results. In the Netherlands, the Forum for Democracy got 10.9% and Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom, which fell to 3.5%, no longer has a seat.
The “populist wave” often mentioned in recent weeks did not overwhelm Europe. “Populist” parties will have only a little more than twenty percent of the seats in the European Parliament: enough to be heard, but not enough to exert influence.
The parties that have ruled Europe for decades obtained weak results, but, with rare exceptions, did not collapse — and will continue to dominate the European Union. The crushing defeat of the British Conservative Party (8.9%, the lowest in its history) seems to have been the result of Theresa May’s inability to deliver Brexit. In France, the sharp downfall of The Republicans (8.5%) and the Socialist Party (6.2%) can be explained by most of their leaders (Republicans and socialists) having joined Macron’s The Republic on the Move party two years ago. In Germany, the CDU-CSU alliance obtained only 28.9% of the vote, but it was enough to win nevertheless. The socialist SPD received an honorable score, 15.8%.
In several Western European countries, socialist parties prevailed, indicating that apparently socialism is not losing ground. The Spanish Socialist Party triumphed(32.8%), as well as the Portuguese Socialist Party (33.4%). In the Netherlands, the Labor Party (18.9%) finished first. In Italy, socialists obtained 22%; in Denmark, 21.5%, and in Sweden, 23.6%.
The center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the Party of European Socialists (PES), however, lost ground. Their alliance will have only 43% of the seats. For the first time since 1979, when the first European Parliament elections were held, they will not be able to form a majority, although they nevertheless remain dominant. All the same, they will need allies and will likely find them in ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), a group composed of center-left parties that support still more abandonment of sovereignty as well as an even more centrally-controlled European Union.
The EPP-PES alliance will also likely find allies in the real winners of the elections: the green parties. The German Greens (20.5% of the vote) finished second. In France, the EELV (Europe Ecology, The Greens), with 13.5% of the votes, finished third. The Greens also showed strength in the Netherlands (10.9%), Sweden (11.4%), Denmark (13.2%), Austria (14.1%) and Belgium (15.2%). As the EPP-PES alliance will rely on those parties to counter and isolate the populist parties, the Greens may gain still more influence — along with its consequences.
To anyone who has read the Greens’ programs, it is evident that they are essentially leftists with an environmental green mask. They support unrestricted immigration and multiculturalism. They are seemingly blind to the dangers arising from the Islamization of Europe and resolutely hostile to any defense of Western civilization, to free enterprise and free markets. They are often in favor of zero growth. Most of them support an apocalyptic vision of climate change and say that the survival of humanity will soon be at stake if Europe does not take drastic measures to “save the planet“. All of them are in favor of authoritarian decisions imposed from Brussels on all of Europe.
A European parliament placed under the influence of the Greens will almost certainly accelerate the slide towards more power given to the unelected members of the European Commission, and a phasing out of nuclear energy and fossil fuels. Policies favorable to still more immigration already are in preparation.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán continues to emphasize the dangers of Islamic mass immigration into Europe and has defined Hungary as “the last bastion against Islamization of Europe.” Italy’s Salvini has said that “Europe is threatened by Islamization” and could become an “Islamic caliphate”. Most other “populist” leaders, however, did not take risks and chose not to address that issue. France’s Marine Le Pen spoke about “extremist Islamism”, but immediately added that most European Muslims integrate. In Britain, Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage did not say a word on the subject. Tommy Robinson, who made Islamic danger the main theme of his campaign, was subjected to constant harassment and barely received 2% of the vote. In the Netherlands, the leader of the Forum for Democracy party, Thierry Baudet, defended the same positions as Wilders, but avoided talking about Islam, and Wilders’s party was basically defeated.
Europe’s severe demographic problems were barely mentioned during the campaign. The idea that a change in population could occur was treated as if it were just a “rightist” fantasy. Facts, however, are hard to ignore. Fertility rates in almost all European countries are well below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. The figure for Italy is 1.45. In Germany it is 1.48; in Spain 1.5; in Hungary 1.4, and in Poland 1.38. The only country in continental Europe where a higher figure exists is France (1.97) — but France also has the largest Muslim population in Europe, and all available data show that birth rates are far higher in Muslim families. The population of most European countries is decreasing. Italy is losing 250,000 inhabitants a year, equivalent to almost the population of Venice. Germany decided to welcome millions of immigrants to stop its population decline; today, 12% of German citizens are foreign-born. The massive influx of hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants in 2015 was a societal disaster. Integration did not occur. Most of the newcomers are still jobless and rely on welfare to survive. In addition, sexual assault cases increased.
Anti-Semitic attacks have also increased. The situation has now grown so toxic that Felix Klein, the Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Anti-Semitism, recently urged Jews not to wear skullcaps in public. Chancellor Merkel said that, “there is to this day not a single synagogue, not a single day care centre for Jewish children, not a single school for Jewish children that does not need to be guarded by German policemen.” Although investigations so far show that most anti-Semitic attacks come from Muslim immigrants, she preferred to speak of the “specters of the past.”
The situation in France is not much different. Sammy Ghozlan, director of the National Bureau of Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism (BNVCA), alleges that all the anti-Semitic attacks in the country have one thing in common: “the culprit is Muslim”. The French government claims that it fights anti-Semitism, but it pointsonly to “rightist and leftist anti-Semitism.” It never speaks of Muslim anti-Semitism.
Commenting on the results of the European elections — and noting that: “populist” movements will have no weight in the European Parliament; that the Greens are gaining ground; that Islamization will not stop, and that anti-Semitism will probably continue to rise — the journalist Éric Zemmour said on television that Europe is probably on the road to an irreversible decline. The author Renaud Camus also noted in his diary that the European people seem to be choosing euthanasia.
In the first paragraph of The Strange Death of Europe, Douglas Murray stated: “By the end of the lifespan of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe”.
Despite the enthusiasm of some commentators on the results of “populist” movements, signs seem to show that European elections have not stopped Europe’s barreling towards decline. If nothing changes, in a few decades Europe truly could no longer be Europe.
-
- Zuesse: The Force That Is Ending Freedom
Authored by Eric Zuesse via Off-Guardian.org,
Every empire is a dictatorship. No nation can be a democracy that’s either heading an empire, or a vassal-state of one. Obviously, in order to be a vassal-state within an empire, that nation is dictated-to by the nation of which it is a colony.
However, even the domestic inhabitants of the colonizing nation cannot be free and living in a democracy, because their services are needed abroad in order to impose the occupying force upon the colony or vassal-nation. This is an important burden upon the ‘citizens’ or actually the subjects of the imperial nation.
Furthermore, they need to finance, via their taxes, this occupying force abroad, to a sufficient extent so as to subdue any resistance by the residents in any colony.
Every empire is imposed, none is really voluntary. Conquest creates an empire, and the constant application of force maintains it.
Every empire is a dictatorship, not only upon its foreign populations (which goes without saying, because otherwise there can’t be any empire), but upon its domestic ones too, upon its own subjects.
Any empire needs weapons-makers, who sell to the government and whose only markets are the imperial government and its vassal-nations or ‘allies’.
By contrast, ’enemy’ nations are ones that the imperial power has placed onto its priority-list of nations that are yet to become conquered. There are two main reasons to conquer a nation.
One is in order to be enabled to extract, from the colony, oil, or gold, or some other valuable commodity.
The other is in order to control it so as to be enabled to use that land as a passageway for exporting, from a vassal-nation, to other nations, that vassal-nation’s products.
International trade is the basis for any empire, and the billionaires who own controlling blocs of stock in a nation’s international corporations are the actual rulers of it, the beneficiaries of empire, the recipients of the wealth that is being extracted from the colonies and from the domestic subjects.
The idea of an empire is that the imperial nation’s rulers, its aristocracy, extract from the colonies their products, and they impose upon their domestic subjects the financial and military burdens of imposing their international dictatorship upon the foreign subjects.
Some authors say that there is a “Deep State” and that it consists of (some undefined elements within) the intelligence services, and of the military, and of the diplomatic corps, of any given dictatorship; but, actually, those employees of the State are merely employees, not the actual governing authority, over that dictatorship.
The actual Deep State are always the aristocrats, themselves, the people who run the revolving door between ‘the private sector’ (the aristocracy’s corporations) and the government.
In former times, many of the aristocrats were themselves governing officials (the titled ‘nobility’), but this is no longer common.
Nowadays, the aristocracy are the individuals who own controlling blocs of stock in international corporations (especially weapons-making firms such as Lockheed Martin and BAE, because the only markets for those corporations are the corporation’s own government and its vassal states or ‘allies’); and such individuals are usually the nation’s billionaires, and, perhaps, a few of the mere centi-millionaires.
A small number, typically less than 100, of these extremely wealthy individuals, are the biggest donors to politicians, and to think tanks, and to other non-profits (these latter being also tax-write-offs to their donors, and so are tax-drains to the general public) that are involved in the formation of the national government’s policies.
Of course, they also are owners of and/or advertisers in the propaganda-media, which sell the aristocracy’s core or most-essential viewpoints to the nation’s subjects in order to persuade those voters to vote only for the aristocracy’s selected candidates and not for any who oppose the aristocracy.
These few, mainly billionaires, are the actual Deep State — the bosses over the dictatorship, the ultimate beneficiaries in any empire.
In order to maintain this system, of international dictatorship or empire, the most essential tool is deceit, of the electorate, by the aristocracy.
The method of control is: the bought agents of the Deep State lie to the public about what their polices will be if they win, in order to be able to win power; and, then, once they have won power, they do the opposite, which is what they have always been paid by the Deep State (the aristocracy) to help them to do.
Thereby, elections aren’t “democratic” but ‘democratic’: they are mere formalities of democracy, without the substance of democracy. All of the well-financed candidates for the top offices are actually the Deep State’s representatives, and virtually none are the representatives of the public, because the voters have been deceived, and were given choices between two or more candidates, none of whom will represent the public if and when elected.
Here are some recent examples of this system — the imperial system, international dictatorship, in action:
During Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign, he said:
The approach of fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. They’re fighting each other and yet we’re fighting both of them. You know, we were fighting both of them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I’ve always felt that. Assad is, you know I’m not saying Assad is a good man, ’cause he’s not, but our far greater problem is not Assad, it’s ISIS. … I think, you can’t be fighting two people that are fighting each other, and fighting them together. You have to pick one or the other.”
Assad is allied with Russia against the Sauds (who are the chief ally of the U.S. aristocracy), so the U.S. (in accord with a policy that George Herbert Walker Bush had initiated on 24 February 1990 and which has been carried out by all subsequent U.S. Presidents) was determined to overthrow Assad, but Trump said that he was strongly opposed to that policy.
Months before that, Trump had said:
I think Assad is a bad guy, a very bad guy, all right? Lots of people killed. I think we are backing people we have no idea who they are. The rebels, we call them the rebels, the patriotic rebels. We have no idea. A lot of people think, Hugh, that they are ISIS. We have to do one thing at a time. We can’t be fighting ISIS and fighting Assad. Assad is fighting ISIS. He is fighting ISIS. Russia is fighting now ISIS. And Iran is fighting ISIS.
We have to do one thing at a time. We can’t go — and I watched Lindsey Graham, he said, I have been here for 10 years fighting. Well, he will be there with that thinking for another 50 years. He won’t be able to solve the problem. We have to get rid of ISIS first. After we get rid of ISIS, we’ll start thinking about it. But we can’t be fighting Assad. And when you’re fighting Assad, you are fighting Russia, you’re fighting — you’re fighting a lot of different groups. But we can’t be fighting everybody at one time.”
In that same debate (15 December 2015) he also said:
In my opinion, we’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and if we could’ve spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems; our airports and all of the other problems we’ve had, we would’ve been a lot better off.
I can tell you that right now. We have done a tremendous disservice, not only to Middle East, we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have wiped away, and for what?
It’s not like we had victory. It’s a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized. A total and complete mess. I wish we had the $4 trillion or $5 trillion. I wish it were spent right here in the United States, on our schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart.”
Did he do that? No. Did he instead intensify what Obama had been trying to do in Syria — overthrow Assad — yes.
As the U.S. President, after having won the 2016 Presidential campaign, has Trump followed through on his criticism there, against the super-hawk, neoconservative, Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham? No. Did he instead encircle himself with precisely such super-hawks, such neoconservatives? Yes.
Did he intensify the overthrow-Assad effort as Graham and those others had advocated? Yes. Did America’s war against Syria succeed? No. Did he constantly lie to the voters? Yes, without a doubt.
Should that be grounds for impeaching him? A prior question to that one is actually: Would a President Mike Pence be any different or maybe even worse than Trump? Yes.
So: what, then, would be achieved by removing Trump from office? Maybe it would actually make things a lot worse. But how likely would the U.S. Senate be to remove Trump from office if the House did impeach Trump?
Two-thirds of the U.S. Senate would need to vote to remove the President in order for a President to be removed after being impeached by the House. A majority of U.S. Senators, 53, are Republicans.
If just 33 of them vote not to convict the President, then Trump won’t be removed. In order to remove him, not only would all 47 of the Democrats and Independents have to vote to convict, but 20 of the 53 Republicans would need to join them. That’s nearly 40% of the Republican Senators. How likely is that? Almost impossible.
What would their voters who had elected them back home think of their doing such a thing? How likely would such Senators face successful re-election challenges that would remove those Senators from office? Would 20 of the 53 be likely to take that personal risk?
Why, then, are so many Democrats in the House pressing for Trump’s impeachment, since Trump’s being forced out of the White House this way is practically impossible and would only install a President Pence, even if it could succeed? Is that Democratic Party initiative anything else than insincere political theater, lying to their own gullible voters, just being phonies who manipulate voters to vote for them instead of who are actually serving them?
Is that what democracy is, now: insincere political theater? Is that “democracy”? America’s voters are trapped, by liars, so it’s instead mere ‘democracy’. It’s just the new form of dictatorship. But it’s actually as ancient as is any empire.
There’s nothing new about this — except one thing: the U.S. regime is aiming to be the ultimate, the last, the final, empire, the ruler over the entire world; so, it is trying especially hard, ‘to defend freedom, democracy and human rights throughout the world’, as Big Brother might say.
Trump’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, was just as evil, and just as insincere, as Trump, but only a far more skillful liar, who deceived his voters to think that he would fight corruption, work to improve relations with Russia, provide a public option in his health-insurance plan, and otherwise work to reduce economic inequality, to improve the economic situation for disadvantaged Americans, and to prosecute banksters.
He abandoned each one of those stated objectives as soon as he won against John McCain, on 4 November 2008, and then yet more when he defeated Mitt Romney in 2012. And aren’t some of those promises the same ones that candidate Trump had also advocated and then abandoned as soon as he too was (s)elected?
THE THREAT TO THE EMPIRE
The heroic fighters for the freedom of everyone in the world are the whistleblowers, who report to the public the corruption and evil that they see perpetrated by their superiors, their bosses, and perpetrated by people who are on the public payroll or otherwise obtaining increased income by virtue of being selected by the government to become government contractors to serve an allegedly public function.
All liars with power hate whistleblowers and want to make special examples of any part of the press that publishes their truths, their facts, their stolen documents. These documents are stolen because that’s the only way for them to become public and thereby known to the voters so that the voters can vote on the basis of truths as in a democracy, instead of be deceived as in a dictatorship.
Even if the truth is stolen from the liars, instead of being kept private (“Confidential”) for them, are the whistleblowers doing wrong to steal the truth from the liars? Or, instead, are the whistleblowers heroes: are they the authentic guardians of democracy and the precariously thin wall that separates democracy from dictatorship?
They are the latter: they are the heroes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of such heroes are also martyrs — martyrs for truth, against lies. Every dictatorship seeks to destroy its whistleblowers. That’s because any whistleblower constitutes a threat to The System — the system of control.
In all of U.S. history, the two Presidents who pursued whistleblowers and their publishers the most relentlessly have been Trump and Obama. The public are fooled to think that this is being done for ’national security’ reasons instead of to hide the government’s crimes and criminality.
However, not a single one of the Democratic Party’s many U.S. Presidential candidates is bringing this issue, of the U.S. government’s many crimes and constant lying, forward as being the central thing that must be criminalized above all else, as constituting “treason.” None of them is proposing legislation saying that it is treason, against the public — against the nation.
Every aristocracy tries to deceive its public in order to control its public; and every aristocracy uses divide-and-rule in order to do this.
But it’s not only to divide the public against each other (such as between Republicans versus Democrats, both of which are actually controlled by the aristocracy), but also to divide between nations, such as between ‘allies’ versus ‘enemies’ — even when a given ‘enemy’ (such as Iraq in 2003) has never threatened, nor invaded, the United States (or whatever the given imperial ‘us’ may happen to be), and thus clearly this was aggressive war and an international war-crime, though unpunished as such.
The public need to fear and hate some ‘enemy’ which is the ‘other’ or ‘alien’, in order not to fear and loathe the aristocracy itself — the actual source of (and winner from) the systemic exploitation, of the public, by the aristocracy.
The pinnacle of the U.S. regime’s totalitarianism is its ceaseless assault against Julian Assange, who is the uber-whistleblower, the strongest protector for whistleblowers, the safest publisher for the evidence that they steal from their employers and from their employers’ government.
He hides the identity of the whistleblowers even at the risk of his own continued existence. Right now, the U.S. regime is raising to a fever-pitch and twisting beyond recognition not only U.S. laws but the U.S. Constitution, so as to impose its will against him. President Trump is supported in this effort by the corrupt U.S. Congress, to either end Assange’s life, or else lock him up for the rest of his heroic life in a dungeon having no communication with the world outside, until he does finally die, in isolation, punishment for his heroic last-ditch fight for the public’s freedom and for democracy — his fight, actually, against our 1984 regime.
What Jesus of Nazareth was locally for the Roman regime in his region, Assange is for the U.S. regime throughout the world: an example to terrify anyone else who might come forth effectively to challenge the Emperor’s authority.
A key country in this operation is Ecuador, which is ruled by the dictator Lenin Moreno, who stole office by lying to the public and pretending to be a progressive who backed his democratically elected predecessor, Rafael Correa, but then as soon as he won power, he reversed Correa’s progressive initiatives, including, above all, his protection of Assange, who had sought refuge in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London.
On 11 April 2019, RT headlined “Who is Lenin Moreno and why did he hand Assange over to British police?” and reported that:
Following his 2017 election, Moreno quickly moved away from his election platform after taking office. He reversed several key pieces of legislation passed under his predecessor which targeted the wealthy and the banks. He also reversed a referendum decision on indefinite re-election while simultaneously blocking any potential for Correa to return.
He effectively purged many of Correa’s appointments to key positions in Ecuador’s judiciary and National Electoral Council via the CPCCS-T council which boasts supra-constitutional powers.
Moreno has also cozied up to the US, with whom Ecuador had a strained relationship under Correa. Following a visit from Vice President Mike Pence in June 2018, Ecuador bolstered its security cooperation with the US, including major arms deals, training exercises and intelligence sharing.
Following Assange’s arrest Correa, who granted Assange asylum in the first place, described Moreno as the “greatest traitor in Ecuadorian and Latin American history” saying he was guilty of a “crime that humanity will never forget.”
Despite his overwhelming power and influence, however, Moreno and his family are the subject of a sweeping corruption probe in the country, as he faces down accusations of money laundering in offshore accounts and shell companies in Panama, including the INA Investment Corp, which is owned by Moreno’s brother.
Damning images, purportedly hacked from Moreno’s phone, have irreparably damaged both his attempts at establishing himself as an anti-corruption champion as well as his relationship with Assange, whom he accused of coordinating the hacking efforts.
On 14 April 2019, Denis Rogatyuk at The Gray Zone headlined: “Sell Out: How Corruption, Voter Fraud and a Neoliberal Turn Led Ecuador’s Lenin to Give Up Assange Desperate to ingratiate his government with Washington and distract the public from his mounting scandals, Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno has sacrificed Julian Assange – and his country’s independence”, and he described some of the documentation for the accusations that Moreno is corrupt.
On 12 April 2019, Zero Hedge headlined “Facebook Removes Page Of Ecuador’s Former President On Same Day As Assange’s Arrest”, and opened: “Facebook has unpublished the page of Ecuador’s former president, Rafael Correa, the social media giant confirmed on Thursday, claiming that the popular leftist leader violated the company’s security policies.”
On 16 April 2019, Jonathan Turley bannered “‘He Is Our Property’: The D.C. Establishment Awaits Assange With A Glee And Grudge”, and opened:
They will punish Assange for their sins
The key to prosecuting Assange has always been to punish him without again embarrassing the powerful figures made mockeries by his disclosures. That means to keep him from discussing how the U.S. government concealed alleged war crimes and huge civilian losses, the type of disclosures that were made in the famous Pentagon Papers case. He cannot discuss how Democratic and Republican members either were complicit or incompetent in their oversight. He cannot discuss how the public was lied to about the program.
A glimpse of that artificial scope was seen within minutes of the arrest. CNN brought on its national security analyst, James Clapper, former director of national intelligence. CNN never mentioned that Clapper was accused of perjury in denying the existence of the National Security Agency surveillance program and was personally implicated in the scandal that WikiLeaks triggered.
Clapper was asked directly before Congress, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”
Clapper responded, “No, sir. … Not wittingly.” Later, Clapper said his testimony was “the least untruthful” statement he could make.
That would still make it a lie, of course, but this is Washington and people like Clapper are untouchable.In the view of the establishment, Assange is the problem.
On 11 April 2019, the YouGov polling organization headlined “53% of Americans say Julian Assange should be extradited to America”.
On 13 April 2019, I headlined “What Public Opinion on Assange Tells Us About the US Government Direction”, and reported the only international poll that had ever been done of opinions about Assange, and its findings demonstrated that, out of the 23 nations which were surveyed, U.S. was the only one where the public are anti-Assange, and that the difference between the U.S. and all of the others was enormous and stark. The report opened:
The only extensive poll of public opinion regarding Julian Assange or Wikileaks was Reuters/Ipsos on 26 April 2011, “WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange is not a criminal: global poll”, and it sampled around a thousand individuals in each of 23 countries — a total of 18,829 respondents.
The Reuters news-report was vague, and not linked to any detailed presentation of the poll-findings, but it did say that “US respondents had a far more critical view” against Wikileaks than in any other country, and that the view by Americans was 69% “believing Assange should be charged and 61 percent opposing WikiLeaks’ mission.” Buried elsewhere on the Web was this detailed presentation of Ipsos’s findings in that poll:
Oppose Wikileaks:
61% US
38% UK
33% Canada
32% Poland
32% Belgium
31% Saudi Arabia
30% Japan
30% France
27% Indonesia
26% Italy
25% Germany
24% Sweden
24% Australia
22% Hungary
22% Brazil
21% Turkey
21% S. Korea
16% Mexico
16% Argentina
15% Spain
15% Russia
15% India
12% S. AfricaIs the US a democracy if the regime is so effective in gripping the minds of its public as to make them hostile to the strongest fighter for their freedom and democracy?
On 13 April 2019, washingtonsblog headlined “4 Myths About Julian Assange DEBUNKED”, and here was one of them:
Myth #2: Assange Will Get a Fair Trial In the US
14-year CIA officer John Kiriakou notes: Assange has been charged in the Eastern District of Virginia — the so-called “Espionage Court.” That is just what many of us have feared. Remember, no national security defendant has ever been found not guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Eastern District is also known as the “rocket docket” for the swiftness with which cases are heard and decided. Not ready to mount a defense? Need more time? Haven’t received all of your discovery? Tough luck. See you in court.
… I have long predicted that Assange would face Judge Leonie Brinkema were he to be charged in the Eastern District. Brinkema handled my case, as well as CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling’s. She also has reserved the Ed Snowden case for herself. Brinkema is a hanging judge.
On 20 May 2019, former British Ambassador Craig Murray (who had quit so that he could blow the whistle) headlined “The Missing Step”and argued that the only chance that Assange now has is if Sweden refuses to extradite Assange to the US in the event that Britain honors the Swedish request to extradite him to Sweden instead of to the US (The decision on that will now probably be made by the US agent Boris Johnson instead of by the regular Tory Theresa May.)
How can it reasonably be denied that the US is, in fact (though not nominally) a dictatorship? All of its allies are thus vassal-nations in its empire. This means acquiescence (if not joining) in some of the US regime’s frequent foreign coups and invasions; and this means their assisting in the spread of the US regime’s control beyond themselves, to include additional other countries.
It reduces the freedom, and the democracy, throughout the world; it spreads the US dictatorship internationally. That is what is evil about what in America is called “neoconservatism” and in other countries is called simply “imperialism.” Under American reign, it is now a spreading curse, a political plague, to peoples throughout the world. Even an American whistleblower about Ukraine who lives in the former Ukraine is being targeted by the US regime.
This is how the freedom of everyone is severely threatened, by the US empire — the most deceitful empire that the world has ever experienced. The martyrs to its lies are the canaries in its coal mine. They are the first to be eliminated.
Looking again at that rank-ordered list of 23 countries, one sees the US and eight of its main allies (or vassal-nations), in order: US, UK, Canada, Poland, Belgium, Saudi Arabia, Japan, France, Indonesia. These are countries where the subjects are already well-controlled by the empire. They already are vassals, and so are ordained as being ‘allies’.
At the opposite end, starting with the most anti-US-regime, are: S. Africa, India, Russia, Spain, Argentina, Mexico, S. Korea, Turkey. These are countries where the subjects are not yet well-controlled by the empire, even though the current government in some of them is trying to change its subjects’ minds so that the country will accept US rule.
Wherever the subjects reject US rule, there exists a strong possibility that the nation will become placed on the US regime’s list of ‘enemies’. Consequently, wherever the residents are the most opposed to US rule, the likelihood of an American coup or invasion is real.
The first step toward a coup or invasion is the imposition of sanctions against the nation. Any such nation that is already subject to them is therefore already in danger. Any such nation that refuses to cooperate with the US regime’s existing sanctions — such as against trading with Russia, China, Iran, or Venezuela — is in danger of becoming itself a US-sanctioned nation, and therefore officially an ‘enemy’.
And this is why freedom and democracy are ending.
Unless and until the US regime itself becomes conquered – either domestically by a second successful American Revolution (this one to eliminate the domestic aristocracy instead of to eliminate a foreign one), or else by a World War III in which the US regime becomes destroyed even worse than the opposing alliance will – the existing insatiable empire will continue to be on the war-path to impose its dictatorship to everyone on this planet.
- Beijing Bans Washington Post, Guardian Websites Amid Political Crackdown
China has banned the websites of The Washington Post and The Guardian amid a government crackdown on information surrounding the politically sensitive 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4th, according to the Post – which notes that the two websites were among “the last few major English-language outlets that were still regularly accessible from mainland China” without using a VPN.
As we noted last week, Chinese social media sites were placed on lockdown ahead of the anniversary, as messing app WeChat and micro-blogging site Weibo prevented users from changing their personal information, including profile photos. Another Chinese platform – video sharing website Bilibili, said that it suspended real-time comments and other features for “technical upgrades.”
All but the most oblique references to the incident were immediately scrubbed, and, during the days around the anniversary, users complained about not even being able to access the function to change their avatars.
Every language edition of Wikipedia was fully banned in mid-May. A CNN reporter said the network’s website was blocked again this week shortly after CNN.com ran a top story commemorating the 1989 event. –Washington Post
Beijing rarely divulges their reasoning for blocking various websites, and it’s unclear whether the Post and Guardian bans are permanent. If past behavior is any indicator, they’re toast.
Reacting to the crackdown, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a Monday statement: “the Chinese Communist Party leadership sent tanks into Tiananmen Square to violently repress demonstrations calling for democracy, human rights and an end to rampant corruption,” adding “China’s one-party state tolerates no dissent and abuses human rights whenever it serves its interests.“
Powered by machine learning, China uses extensive censorship software known as “The Great Firewall” to block over 10,000 web domains, and sniff out Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) which allow Chinese people to circumvent the restrictions. As we noted in March, Google is helping Beijing by banning ads for VPNs in China.
According to Beijing, their censorship efforts maintain the country’s “Internet sovereignty,” with officials touting the Great Firewall as a model that should be adopted by other governments.
- MSM Mourns Death Of CIA-Backed Syrian Al-Qaeda/ISIS Ally
Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,
On Wednesday the alternative media outlet Southfront published an articletitled “New Video Throws Light On Jaysh Al-Izza High-Tolerance To Al-Qaeda Ideology” about newly discovered footage showing the leader of a “rebel” faction in Syria cozying up with a militant who was wearing a badge of the official flag of ISIS.
“The video shows Jaysh al-Izza General Commander Major Jamil al-Saleh congratulating a group of his fighters on the occasion of Eid al-Fitr in a underground bunker,” Southfront reports.
“One of the fighters greeted by Saleh was wearing a batch of the Islamic Black Standard with the Seal of Muhammad. This is a well-known symbol of al-Qaeda and the official flag of ISIS.”
Today, mass media outlets are mourning the death of a well-known Jaysh al-Izza fighter named Abdel-Basset al-Sarout with grief-stricken beatifications not seen since the death of war criminal John McCain. An Associated Pressreport which has been published by major news outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, PBS and Bloomberg commemorates Sarout as a “Syrian soccer goalkeeper” who “won international titles representing his country”, as “the singer of the revolution”, and as “an icon among Syria’s opposition”.
Remember Major Jamil al-Saleh from two paragraphs ago? AP features his glowing eulogy in its write-up on Sarout’s death:
“He was both a popular figure, guiding the rebellion, and a military commander,” said Maj. Jamil al-Saleh, leader of Jaish al-Izza rebel group, in which Sarout was a commander.
“His martyrdom will give us a push to continue down the path he chose and to which he offered his soul and blood as sacrifice.”
Other mainstream outlets like BBC, The Daily Beast and Al Jazeera have contributed their own fawning hagiographies of the late Jaysh al-Izza commander.
New Video Throws Light On Jaysh Al-Izza High-Tolerance To Al-Qaeda Ideology https://t.co/2P2LdcGP0S
— SouthFront (@southfronteng) June 5, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“Formed in 2013, Jaysh al-Izza was one of the first Free Syrian Army (FSA) groups in northern Syria to benefit from U.S. support through the CIA’s ‘Timber Sycamore’ train and equip program, which had been approved by then U.S. President Barack Obama,” Southfront reports in the aforementioned article. “The group received loads of weapons from the U.S. including Grad rockets, as well as Fagot and TOW anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs).”
“Jaysh al-Izza received this support under the pretension of being a ‘moderate group’ led by a known Syrian Arab Army (SAA) defector, al-Saleh,” Southfront adds. “However, the group’s acts were not in line with these claims. Since its formation, Jaysh al-Izza has been deeply linked to al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the al-Nusra Front. The group became one of the main allies of al-Nusra when its changed its name to Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in 2017.”
“Western thought leaders are lionizing Abdel Baset al-Sarout who was killed fighting the Syrian army,” tweeted journalist Dan Cohen of the mass media response to Sarout’s death.
“They conveniently omit that he fought in a militia allied with al-Qaeda and pledged allegiance to ISIS.”
Cohen linked to an excerpt from his mini-documentary The Syria Deceptionfeaturing footage of Sarout holding an ISIS flag, leading chants calling for the extermination of the Alawite minority in Syria, and announcing his allegiance to ISIS.
Western thought leaders are lionizing Abdel Baset al-Sarout who was killed fighting the Syrian army. They conveniently omit that he fought in a militia allied with al-Qaeda and pledged allegiance to ISIS. From my mini-documentary: The Syria Deception https://t.co/MpdkUbJkP7 pic.twitter.com/vLThkIMZFB
— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) June 8, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Other publicly available video footage includes a speech by Sarout urging cooperation between his own faction, ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise), saying “we know that these two groups are not politicized and have the same goals as us, and are working for God.”
“God willing we will work with them shoulder-to-shoulder when we leave here,” Sarout has been translated as saying in the speech.
“And we are not Christians or Shiaa to be scared of suicide belts and car bombs. We consider these things as strengths of ours, and God willing they will be just that. This message is to the Islamic State and our brothers in Jabhat al-Nusra, that when we come out of here we will all be one hand to fight Christians and not to have internal fights among ourselves. We want to take back all the lands that have been filthied by the regime, that were entered and taken over by Shiaas and apostates.”
This bloodthirsty terrorist warmongering was taken by the aforementioned AP hagiography and twisted into the single sentence, “He repeatedly denounced rebel infighting and called on Syrians to unite against government forces.”
The Atlantic’s Hassan Hassan framed Sarout’s unconscionable agendas as mere “flaws” which actually add to his inspiring and heroic story, tweeting, “Some individuals celebrated as heroes make you doubt all stories of heroes in history books. Others, like Abdulbasit Sarout, not inspire of but despite his flaws, make those stories highly plausible. He’s a true legend & his story is well documented. May his soul rest in peace.”
Yeah, come on, everybody’s got flaws. Some people suck at parallel parking, some people team up with ISIS and Al-Qaeda on genocidal extermination campaigns. We’ve all got our quirky little foibles.
Some individuals celebrated as heroes make you doubt all stories of heroes in history books. Others, like Abdulbasit Sarout, not inspire of but despite his flaws, make those stories highly plausible. He’s a true legend & his story is well documented. May his soul rest in peace: pic.twitter.com/FfCzqtyuPT
— Hassan Hassan (@hxhassan) June 8, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
We can expect more and more of these mass media distortions as Syria and its allies draw closer to recapturing Syrian land from the extremist forces which nearly succeeded in toppling Damascus just a few short years ago.
As these distortions pour in, keep this in mind: all of the violence that is still happening in Syria is the fault of the US and its allies, who helped extremist jihadist factions like Jaysh al-Izza overrun the nation to advance the preexisting goal of effecting regime change. The blame for all the death, suffering and chaos which ensues from a sovereign nation fighting to reclaim its land from these bloodthirsty factions rests solely on the government bodies which inflicted their dominance over the region in the first place.
You will see continuing melodramatic garment-rending from the US State Department and its mass media stenographers about “war crimes” and “human rights violations” as though the responsibility for this violence rests somewhere other than on the US-centralized power alliance, but they will be lying. What these warmongering propagandists are doing is exactly the same as paying a bunch of violent thugs to break into a home and murder its owner, then standing by and sounding the alarm about the way the homeowner chooses to fight off their assailants.
After it was discovered that the US and its allies armed actual, literal terrorist factions in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, the only sane response would have been for the public to loudly and aggressively demand that all governments involved to take immediate action to completely rectify all damage done by this unforgivable war crime at any cost, and for there to be war crimes tribunals for every decision maker who was a part of it. Instead, because of propaganda circulated by the same mass media narrative management firms who are sanctifying the memory of Abdel-Basset al-Sarout today, the public remains asleep to the depravity of its rulers. This dynamic must change if we are to survive and thrive as a species.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me onFacebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone has my unconditional permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
- Senate Democrats Demand Amnesty For Foreign Nationals
A group of Senate Democrats spearheaded by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have demanded that the United States grant amnesty to foreign nationals living in the country on Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
Feinstein, along with Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) have called on the GOP-controlled Senate to pass their amnesty plan which would give almost a half-million foreign nationals American citizenship and all the votes that come with it. House Democrats and seven House Republicans passed a similar measure granting amnesty to any illegal alien claiming to have arrived in the US as a child, according to Breitbart‘s John Binder.
According to Feinstein’s website:
Currently, there are approximately 437,000 people with TPS in the United States from ten designated countries: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Liberians, originally granted TPS in 1999, are currently the only country protected by DED – that status is set to terminate on March 31, 2019. The SECURE Act will provide stability for these individuals and their communities by giving them the ability to apply for legal permanent residency. Under the bill, all TPS and DED recipients who qualified under the most recent designation and who have been continuously present in the United States for at least three years would be eligible to apply for legal permanent residency.
In a Wednesday statement, Cardin said “The Senate must act and the president must sign into law protection for Dreamers, who mostly have known no other country but America,” adding “These individuals have lawfully lived and worked in the U.S. as our neighbors, as they sought refuge in the U.S. We have an obligation to take action and give needed predictability and safety to people who are in an uncertain status.”
In February the Trump administration extended the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 300,000 foreign nationals while a preliminary injunction against a Trump admin immigration policy to return non-Mexican asylum seekers to Mexico “for the duration of their immigration proceedings” in the United States.
In February, Pew Research noted that nearly 2/3 of the 300,000 or so immigrants – roughly 195,000 people, are from El Salvador. 50,000 are from Haiti, and the rest are from Sudan and Nicaragua.
TPS was created under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 (INA) introduced by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. It has acted as a sort of quasi-amnesty used by foreign nationals who would otherwise be in the country illegally, and shields individuals from deportation back to countries which have suffered through war, famine or natural disasters.
The program, which was originally set to expire in July 1992, has been renewed by every administration since.
DHS will announce whether they will also renew the status of other foreign nationals covered under TPS set to expire in 2020, including people from Honduras, Yemen and Somalia.
Congressional Democrats, however, would rather just make them into voting citizens.
- Doug Casey: Stupidity, Evil, & The Decline Of The US
(Today’s article is an adaptation from one of Doug’s speeches.)
It used to be that America was a country of free thinkers.
“Say what you think, and think what you say.” That’s an expression you don’t hear much anymore.
It’s much more like the world of 1984 where everything is “double think.” You need to think twice before you say something in public. You think three times before you say something when you’re standing in an airport line.
Regrettably, the US is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. It’s become the land of whipped and whimpering dogs that roll over on their backs and wet themselves when confronted with authority.
Now, why are Americans this way? Let me give you two reasons – though there are many more.
First, there’s a simple absence of virtue. Let’s look at the word virtue. It comes from the Latin vir, which means manly, even heroic. To the Romans, virtues were things like fortitude, nobility and courage. Those virtues are true to the root of the word.
When people think of virtues today they think of faith, hope, charity—which are not related to the word’s root meaning. These may pass as virtues in a religious sense. But, outside a Sunday school, they’re actually actually vices. This deserves a discussion, because I know it will shock many. But I’ll save that for another time.
An absence of virtues and the presence of subtle vices is insinuated throughout society. Worse, overt vices like avarice and especially envy are encouraged. Envy, in particular will become a big vice in the years to come. It’s similar to jealousy, but worse. Jealousy says “You have something I want; I’ll try to take it from you”. Envy says “You have something I want. If I can’t take it from you, I’ll destroy it, and hurt you if I can.” Jealousy and envy seem to motivate most Democratic Party presidential candidates. No wonder America is in rapid decline.
A second reason is unsound philosophy. The reigning philosophy in the US used to be based on individualism and personal freedom. It’s now statism and collectivism. But most people don’t think about philosophy—or even have a consistent worldview. More than ever, they do what seems like a good idea at the time.
The average American has problems. But his rulers are something else again. Most of the people running the US are either knaves or fools. How do we know if we are dealing with a knave or a fool? In other words, are you dealing with somebody who is evil or just stupid? To give a recent, but classic, example, are you dealing with a Dick Cheney or a George W. Bush? Do you prefer the knavish Obama, or the knavish Biden? The foolish Trump, or the foolish Pence. Not much of a real choice anywhere…
At this point, the US resembles the planet Mars, which is circled by two moons, Phobos and Deimos, fear and terror in Greek. The US is also being circled by two moons, Kakos and Chazos, evil and stupidity in Greek. It’s hard to imagine the Founding Fathers having seen that as a possibility.
One of the relatively few laws I believe in is Pareto’s Law. Most people are familiar with it as the 80-20 rule—20% of the people do 80% of the work, 20% commit 80% of the crime, and so forth. It also applies to character and ethics. Most people—80%—are basically decent. What about that other 20%? Let’s call them potential trouble sources because they can go either way. But 20% of that 20%—4%—are the sociopaths; they consistently have bad intentions. They’re usually hiding under rocks. But they like to emerge at election time.
In normal times when everything’s going along well, they can look normal. They’ll deliver the mail, or sell shoes or stocks. They’ll pet the dog, and play softball on weekends. But when circumstances in society get ugly, and reach a certain point, they start evidencing themselves. The rest of the 20% start swinging along with them. That’s the place where we are right now in the US. It’s Pareto’s Law in operation. You can see it in basically all the Democratic Party’s candidates—Bernie, Pocahontas, AOC, and two dozen others.
A lot of people believe in American Exceptionalism. A good argument can be made for America having been exceptional in the past. It’s factually correct that America is the only country founded on the principles of individualism and personal freedom. It was actually different. It was special, even unique. But I don’t think it’s true anymore.
Of course all the world’s countries like to believe they’re special or better than the rest. But they’re only different on the surface, in trivial ways. None—other than America—value individualism and personal freedom as founding virtues. Look at Russia throughout the 20th century. It was a phenomenal nightmarish disaster in Soviet times.
Look at Germany during the ‘30s and ‘40s. China, under Mao for 30 years, was the home of institutionalized, industrial scale mass murder. The same is true in lots of other countries… Cambodia, Rwanda, the Congo. There are dozens of other countries where bloody chaos reigned over the last century. But not the US. It was different.
But what if America has ceased to exist? What if it’s been transformed into just another nation state called the United States, with very different ideals and values? Why should it have a different fate than those other countries? I don’t see any reason why that would be the case.
But if 80% of Americans are basically decent, well-intentioned people, what is going wrong and why?
Let me give you three reasons… although there are many others.
Number one, as I indicated earlier, Americans no longer have any philosophical anchor. They no longer share a national mythos—individualism, personal freedom, free minds, and free markets are now mocked. They may have some nebulous ideas about ethics that they picked up from the Boy Scouts. But they think all political and economic systems—and certainly all cultures—are equally good. The reigning philosophy is a mixture of cultural Marxism, identity politics, anti-male feminism, and anti-white racism.
I suppose it was inevitable in a country where a large plurality of people are dumb enough to spend four years and several hundred thousand dollars to be indoctrinated with those values.
The second thing is fear. It’s a reigning emotion in this country among the diminishing middle class.
Desperation and apathy characterize the growing lower classes. No wonder they’re cemented to the bottom of society. It’s a rare person that rises from the lower class because of those attitudes.
How about the upper classes? Their dominant emotions are avarice and arrogance; they think they’re superior because they have more money. In many cases they’re rich not because they produce anything. But because they’re cronies, benefiting from the flood of money coming from the Fed, or the avalanche of laws and regulations coming from the Congress and the President.
America is still basically a middle-class country, although becoming less and less that way almost daily. And fear is the dominant emotion of the middle class. Fear of losing everything they have. Fear of losing their jobs. Fear they won’t be able to meet the credit card payments, the car payments, the mortgage payment. Fear they can’t afford to send their kids to college—which is a mistake incidentally. But that’s another story.
The whole country is driven by fear… and it’s not a good thing. Deimos and Phobos, those two moons circling Mars are now circling the US, along with Kakos and Chazos.
The third, and perhaps most critical reason the US is going downhill—beyond a lack of a philosophical anchor and an atmosphere of fear—is a reflexive belief in government.
The United States used to be more like Switzerland, which is by far the most prosperous country in Europe. When you ask the Swiss, “Who’s the president of Switzerland?”, It’s rare that anyone can tell you. It’s academic. However, nobody cares. He doesn’t do anything. Politics aren’t a big part of their lives.
But today in the US, people have come to view the government as a cornucopia. People expect it to solve all their problems. And that’s a real problem. Government is a genuine growth industry, and it attracts the worst type of people. Government is inevitably where sociopaths—the 4% and the 20%—are drawn. Washington draws sociopaths like a pile of dog droppings draws flies.
It’s perfectly predictable. And why is that? Mao said it best, “The power of the state comes out the barrel of a gun.” Government is about some people controlling other people. That’s what attracts sociopaths, and that’s why they go to Washington.
But enough bad news… what is it that makes things better in the world? Well, there are two things.
One is technology. The good news is there are more scientists and engineers alive today than have lived in all of earth’s history previously combined. And they’re continually increasing our control of nature. For most people, life is no longer “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, as Hobbes said. Technology is advancing at the rate of Moore’s law. And that improves the standard of living.
The second thing is savings. Individuals, like squirrels, are genetically wired to produce more than they consume. The difference between production and consumption can be saved. That creates capital. And capital enables technology. That creation of wealth should continue, barring a world war. Or most of the world’s governments acting more like Venezuela or Zimbabwe…. Which is quite possible.
So, in conclusion, I have some good news, and some bad news.
In the looming Greater Depression, most of the real wealth in the world will still exist. It’s just going to change ownership.
Hopefully, you’ll be among those who aren’t adversely affected.
* * *
Unfortunately most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of control, let alone how to prepare… The coming economic and political crisis is going to be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we’ve seen in the past. That’s exactly why New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video. Click here to watch it now.
- ECB Floats Rate Cut Trial Balloon, Is "Open" To Cutting Rates
Last week’s non-committal ECB announcement caught markets by surprise, with the Euro jumping despite Mario Draghi’s best attempts to signal further easing even as he hinted at growing “downside risks”, prompting speculation that the ECB may have lost the last shreds of its credibility and leading Rabobank to publish a piece titled “Whatever It Takes” > “Whatever“.”
Not used to being spurred by markets, Mario Draghi refused to take such aggression against his legacy quietly – especially as the former Goldman partner is set to retire shortly – and on Sunday, the European Central Bank used its traditional trial balloon conduit, Reuters, which reported that ECB policymakers “are open to cutting the ECB’s policy rate again” if economic growth weakens in the rest of the year and a strong euro hurts a bloc already bearing the brunt of a global trade war, clearly hoping that this jawboning would be sufficient to slam the euro (it wasn’t with the EURUSD basically unchanged from its Friday close).
As a reminder, last Thursday the ECB said that its interest rates would stay “at their present levels” until mid-2020 but President Mario Draghi added rate setters had started a discussion about a possible cut or fresh bond purchases to stimulate inflation.
This conflicting message failed to convince some investors, who saw it as too tenuous a commitment to more stimulus, sending the euro rallying to a nearly 3 month high of $1.1347 against the U.S. dollar.
So in an attempt to convince the skeptics, Reuters cited its traditionally anonymous “two sources” familiar with the ECB’s policy discussions, who said a rate cut was firmly in play if the bloc’s economy was to stagnate again after expanding by 0.4% in the first quarter of the year.
“If inflation and growth slow, then a rate cut is warranted,” said one of the sources, who requested anonymity because the ECB’s deliberations are confidential.
The problem is that no matter what Draghi says, or “floats”, the market is concerned that the ECB is approaching the end of its credible ammo: with the ECB’s deposit rate already negative 40 bps and Germany’s yield hitting all time low. In this context, countering the euro’s strength, rather than lowering already rock-bottom borrowing costs, would be the main reason for a further cut to that deposit rate, one of the sources said.
But how can the ECB pursue a “surgical” devaluation of the euro (amusingly nobody ever accused the central bank of manipulating its currency when in reality that is all it does) without also slamming government bond yields which have made Europe’s entire banking system into a NIRP zombie trading near record low levels?
“I’ll give you five reasons for a rate cut,” the source said before repeating “exchange rate” five times.
While the ECB doesn’t formally admit it targets an exchange rate – just like every other central bank – Draghi noted the euro’s appreciation in his news conference on Thursday and has long highlighted the currency as a crucial determinant of financing conditions.
So what FX level could trigger the ECB to move?
The Reuters source said a euro at $1.15 would still be tolerable for some but $1.20 would be a critical level to watch. And now that the bogey has been set, the market will certainly test the ECB’s resolve.
The bigger problem facing Europe is… the US. The comnmon currency has risen by 2% against the dollar in just over a week as the Federal Reserve itself signaled its willingness to cut its interest rates if needed. This, in turn, was seen by some analysts such as those from Goldman, as a sign the U.S. central bank was bowing to pressure from the White House to keep the dollar weak and strengthen the administration’s hand in its trade negotiations. Furthermore, Italy’s central bank governor Ignazio Visco also blamed the euro’s surge after the ECB’s latest decision on “interactions with U.S. interest rates”.
That said, even Reuters conceded that the argument for more quantitative easing from the ECB was less clear to some policymakers, according to the “sources.” One of them said more QE could help soothe stock markets if these were spooked by an escalation in the trade war, although there would be a risk for the ECB in appearing to kowtow to equity investors (not like that has ever stopped central banks, which in recent years have largely admitted their only mandate is preserving a levitating stock market).
Ironically, the other said the main benefit of QE was compressing the difference between short- and long-term borrowing costs, making access to finance easier for companies and households, but this so-called term premium was already low. What he meant is that should the ECB cut rates even more, European banks – already on the edge – will start toppling over like dominoes as the bank business model no longer works under a NIRP regime.
As such it will be poetic irony that the same central banks that launched unprecedented “unorthodox” policies to preserve the world’s banking giants a decade ago, will be the culprits behind the wholesale devastation of these same banks. Luckily for Mario Draghi, he will be far away, merrily enjoying his retirement on the shores of one of central Europe’s scenic (if not too secluded) lakes. His successor however, will not be so lucky.
- The Most Crucial Pipeline Of The Middle East?
Authored by Vanand Meliksetian for Oilprice.com,
Contemporary Middle Eastern history is strongly influenced by energy politics. Besides providing revenue for the state’s coffers, oil is also a potent geopolitical tool in the hands of resource-rich countries. Recently, officials from Lebanon, Syria and Iraq have engaged in talks to restart the dysfunctional pipeline that once connected oilfields near Kirkuk in Iraq with the coastal city of Tripoli in Lebanon. Restarting the pipeline could have long-term political, economic, and strategic consequences for the involved states and the wider region.
The original infrastructure was constructed during the 30s of the previous century when two 12-inch pipes transported oil from Kirkuk to Haifa in British mandated Palestine and Tripoli in French-mandated Lebanon. The Tripoli line was supplemented by a 30-inch pipeline in the 50s which could transport approximately 400,000 barrels/day. The Kirkuk-Tripoli pipeline was suspended by Syria during the Iraq-Iran war in an attempt to support Tehran in its struggle against Baghdad.
(Click to enlarge)
Paving the way
The current political climate, which has enabled cooperation between Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, is the consequence of one country’s foreign policy. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iranian influence has grown considerably across the Middle East. Tehran’s support for proxies in neighboring countries has strongly influenced regional politics and made Saudi Arabia nervous of what it sees as “Persian encroachment”.
The Iranian support for Syria’s President Assad provided a lifeline to the regime during the country’s civil war. Tehran has invested significantly in maintaining the position of its ally in Damascus. In neighboring Iraq, the democratization process installed a Shia-dominated parliament which is supported by powerful paramilitary groups funded and organized by the Quds force, the branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard responsible for extraterritorial activities. Despite significant military and political gains, consolidation is required to cement the ties between Iran’s Arab partners, which would also benefit Tehran.
The art of the deal
While Iran’s participation in regional politics was necessary for creating the right environment for cooperation, Russia’s involvement has proven to be crucial. The Kremlin’s decision to participate in the Syrian civil war on the side of Assad’s forces was a pivotal moment in reestablishing control over territories essential for the Kirkuk-Tripoli pipeline to commence operations. Moscow has also established good political relations with both Iraq and Lebanon to become a broker for facilitating an agreement.
The participation of Rosneft was very useful for Moscow’s efforts in the region. The Russian energy giant maintains good relations with the Iraqi government where it operates several oil fields and the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline. Recently, Rosneft signed an agreement with the Lebanese government to operate the storage facility in Tripoli for the next twenty years. Therefore, Russian involvement was important for the Arab countries to consider refurbishing the outdated Kirkuk-Tripoli pipeline.
Despite the modest capacity of the pipeline, reestablishing trade could have a long-term impact on regional politics. The new pipeline would be a physical link between the participating countries and will cement the political ties for decades due to interdependency regarding energy security and the economic interest of energy exports.
Uncertainties ahead
Despite the intention to reinvigorate the old Kirkuk-Tripoli pipeline, it remains unclear whether the project will see the light of day. Especially the situation in Syria creates a veil of uncertainty which makes construction and operation a problematic task. Although the Syrian government has reestablished control over Eastern Syria, IS remains a threat to stability with attacks being an almost daily occurrence. It is uncertain whether the depleted and exhausted Syrian army will be able to secure the pipeline while engaging the remaining rebel-held areas in Idlib.
Also, it can be expected that Washington won’t idly sit by while its rivals in Moscow and Tehran entrench themselves even further in the region. Therefore, for now at least, talks of reinvigorating the pipeline will continue behind closed doors until the security situation improves significantly.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...