- Are You Ready For Total (Ideological) War?
Are You Ready For Total (Ideological) War?
Authored (somewhat satirically) by C.J.Hopkins via The Consent Factory,
So, welcome to 2021! If last week was any indication, it is going to be quite an exciting year. It is going to be the year in which GloboCap reminds everyone who is actually in charge and restores “normality” throughout the world, or at least attempts to restore “normality,” or the “New Normality,” or the “Great Normal Reset,” or “The New Normal War on Domestic Terror” … or whatever they eventually decide to call it.
In any event, whatever they call it, GloboCap is done playing grab-ass. They have had it with all this “populism” malarkey that has been going on for the last four years. Yes, that’s right, the party is over, you Russian-backed white supremacist terrorists! You Trump-loving, anti-mask grandmother killers! You anti-vax, election-fraud-conspiracy theorists! You deviants who refuse to follow orders, wear your damn masks, vote for who they tell you, and believe whatever completely nonsensical official propaganda they pour into your heads!
Oh, yes, you really did it this time! You stormed the goddamned US Capitol. You and your racist, Russia-backed army of bison-hat wearing half-naked actors have meddled with the primal forces of GloboCap, and now, by God, you will atone! No, do not try to minimize your crimes. You entered a building without permission! The building where America simulates democracy! You walked around in there waving silly flags! You went into the Chamber, into people’s offices! One of you actually put his filthy populist feet up on Pelosi’s desk … ON HER DESK! This aggression will not stand!
OK, before I go any further with this essay, I need to explain to my regular readers (in case it wasn’t already clear) that I’ve decided to forswear every word I’ve ever written, and all my principles, and my common sense, and join the remainder of my old leftist and liberal friends in the orgy of online hate and outrage they are currently mindlessly indulging in.
Yes, I realize this comes as a shock, but I have seen the GloboCap writing on the wall, and I don’t want to … you know, get ideologically “cleansed,” or charged with “extremism,” or “insurrectionism,” or “domestic terrorism,” or “populism,” or whatever. I’m already in enough trouble as it is for not playing ball with their “apocalyptic plague,” and whatever else I am, I am certainly no martyr, and I have a career in the arts to consider, so I have decided to listen to my inner coward and join the goose-stepping global-capitalist mob, which is why this column sounds slightly out of character.
See, back in the old days, before my conversion, I would have made fun of my liberal friends for calling this “storming” of the Capitol a “coup,” or an “insurrection,” and for demanding that the protesters be prosecuted as “domestic terrorists.” I probably would have scolded them a bit for taking to the Internet and spewing their hatred at the unarmed woman shot dead by the police like a pack of soulless, totalitarian jackals. I might have even made a reference to that infamous scene in Schindler’s List where the crowd of “normal” German citizens all laugh and jeer as the Jews are marched away to the ghetto by the Nazi goons.
But, now that I have seen the light, I see how bad and wrong that would have been. Clearly, trespassing in the US Capitol is a crime that should be punishable by death. And comparing contemporary American liberals to the “good Germans” during the Nazi era is so outrageous that … well, it should probably be censored. So, good thing I decided not to do that! Plus, the woman was a “devoted conspiracy theorist,” so she got what she deserved, right? (“Play stupid games, win stupid prizes” was the official liberal shibboleth, I believe.)
In fact (and I hope my liberal friends are still reading this), the police should have shot the entire lot of them! All these Russian-backed Nazi insurrectionists should have been gunned down right there on the spot, preferably by muscle-bound corporate mercenaries and CIA snipers in Black Hawk helicopters with big Facebook and Twitter logos on them! Actually, anyone who trespassed in the Capitol Building (which is like a cathedral), or just came to the protest wearing a MAGA hat, should be hunted down by federal authorities, charged as a “domestic white-supremacist terrorist,” frog-marched out onto Black Lives Matter Plaza, and shot, in the face, live, on TV, so that everyone can watch and howl at their screens like the Two Minutes Hate in 1984. That would teach these “insurrectionists” a lesson!
Or they could shoot them in one of those corporate-branded stadiums! We could make it a weekly televised event. It’s not like there is any shortage of Trump-supporting “domestic terrorists.” They could use a different stadium every week, deck the place out with big “New Normal” banners, play music, make speeches, the whole nine yards. Everyone would have to wear masks, of course, and strictly adhere to social distancing. Folks could bring the kids, make a day of it.
How am I doing so far, leftist and liberal friends? No? Not fanatical and hateful enough?
OK, so what is it going to take to convince you that I have changed my tune, got my mind right, and am totally on board with the New Normal totalitarianism?
Trump?
Sure, I can do Trump. I hate him! He’s Hitler! He’s Russian Hitler! He’s Russian White Supremacist Hitler! Yes, I know I’ve spent the last four years pointing out that he isn’t actually Hitler, or a Russian agent, and that he’s really just the same ridiculous, narcissistic ass clown that he has always been, but I was wrong. He’s definitely Hitler, and a Russian agent! He is certainly not just a pathetic old huckster without a single powerful ally in Washington who could not stage an actual coup if Putin nuked every blue state on the map.
No, I soil myself in fear before his awesome power. Never mind that he’s just been banned by Facebook, Twitter, and numerous other corporate platforms, and made a fool of by the corporate media, the international political establishment, the Intelligence agencies, and the rest of GloboCap since the day he took the oath of office. Forget the fact that, although he holds the nuclear launch codes in his tiny little hands and is Commander in Chief of the US military, the most he could do to challenge his removal was file a buttload of hopeless lawsuits and sit around in the Oval Office eating cheeseburgers and tweeting into the night. No, none of that means a thing, not when he still has the power to “embolden” a few dozen pissed-off Americans to storm (or calmly walk) into the Capitol and take selfies sitting in the Vice President’s Chair!
Look, the point is, I hate him. And I hate his supporters. I hate everyone who doesn’t hate him and his supporters. I hate everyone who won’t wear a mask. I hate the Republicans. I hate the Russians. I hate everyone who won’t get the vaccine. My God do I hate them! I am so full of hatred and mindless rage that it is making me crazy. I am so consumed with self-righteous hatred, propaganda, and manufactured hysteria that, if Rachel Maddow, or Chris Hayes, or whoever, told me that it was time to round them all up, these “domestic terrorists,” these “insurrectionists,” these “conspiracy theorists,” these “anti-mask extremists” (and anyone else who won’t obey us), and put them on trains and send them to camps, I’d probably be OK with that.
How am I doing, liberals? Am I back in the club? Because, I get it. I swear! I’m cured! Praise God! I’m ready to pitch in and do my part. I believe in GloboCap’s final victory! I’m willing to work, if our leaders order me, ten, twelve, or fourteen hours a day, and give all I have for GloboCap victory! I am ready for total ideological war … an ideological war more total and radical than anything I can even imagine!
Sure, our imaginary enemies are formidable (and this war will probably last forever … or at least until the end of global capitalism), but, in the words of one our greatest liberal heroes, George W. Bush, “bring it on!”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 23:40 - "Significant Uptick" In Natural Disasters Cause $210 Billion In Damage In 2020
“Significant Uptick” In Natural Disasters Cause $210 Billion In Damage In 2020
Natural disasters worldwide resulted in tens of billions of dollars in damage in 2020, according to catastrophe bonds firm Artemis, citing a new report from German reinsurer Munich Re.
On Thursday, Munich Re reported that the global insurance and reinsurance industry recorded a monstrous $82 billion loss thanks to an increase in natural disasters in 2020, up from $57 billion the year prior.
The reinsurer calculated the world’s economic losses from natural disasters last year was around $210 billion, up from 2019’s $166 billion. It added that only a small proportion of the damage was actually covered.
The US accounted for the largest percentage of damage in 2020, at $67 billion, up significantly from 2019’s $26 billion. This was due to relentless wildfires and hurricanes, contributing to one of the costliest years for natural disasters on record and is facing an economic toll of around $100 billion.
One of the major consequences of surging insurer losses could be upward pressure on customers’ primary insurance pricing.
Munich Re noted that about 60% of the natural disaster worldwide went uninsured in the year.
The insurer believes climate change is responsible for the explosion in natural disasters seen around the world.
Torsten Jeworrek, Member of the Board of Management at Munich Re, explained:
“Natural catastrophe losses in 2020 were significantly higher than in the previous year. Record numbers for many relevant hazards are a cause for concern, whether we are talking about the severe hurricane season, major wildfires or the series of thunderstorms in the US.”
Ernst Rauch, Chief Climate and Geo-Scientist at Munich Re, said, “if the weather disasters for one year cannot be directly linked to climate change, and a longer period needs to be studied to assess their significance, these extreme values fit with the expected consequences of a decades-long warming trend for the atmosphere and oceans that is influencing risks.”
“An increasing number of heatwaves and droughts are fuelling wildfires, and severe tropical cyclones and thunderstorms are becoming more frequent,” said Rauch.
As natural disaster becomes more frequent, here are the US’ zip codes that are subjected to the most disasters.
The latest FEMA report ranks Los Angeles County as the riskiest county for natural disasters.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 23:20 - Keynes' Sleight Of Hand: From Fabian Eugenicist To World Government High Priest
Keynes’ Sleight Of Hand: From Fabian Eugenicist To World Government High Priest
Authored by Matthew Ehret via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
It is as if the battle lines of civil war have been drawn up between masses of Americans who have been led to believe in either a false “bottom up” approach to economics, as defined by the Austrian School represented by Friedrich von Hayek, or in the “top-down” approach of John Maynard Keynes. The former sacrifices the general welfare of the whole nation for the sake of the parts (i.e. individual liberties), while the latter sacrifices the individual liberties of each citizen for the sake of the general welfare (or at least some oligarch’s definition of what that should be).
In my last article, I introduced, in broad strokes, a history of the American System of political economy as advanced by Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Henry Clay, Henry Carey, Lincoln, and McKinley. We reviewed how it was derailed by McKinley’s 1901 murder and was only revived 30 years later with Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 presidential victory which put a stop to the 1933 Bankers Dictatorship.
Finally, we briefly explored how and why both John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek whose ideas so deeply influence the polarization of the USA today, not only despised FDR but hated everything the republic stood for.
In this second installment of a three-part series, we will shed light on the anti-human ideas and the political operations that shaped the mind, the life and the politics of Lord John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946).
Keynes the Fabian Eugenicist
Although Keynes is heralded as the guiding light of the New Deal (and, as such defended by modern “Green New Dealers” and Great Reset technocrats wishing to impose a top-down system of governance onto the world), the fact is that Keynes not only detested Franklin Roosevelt, but also humanity more in general.
This will be seen clearly in 1) his devotion to the theories of Thomas Malthus, 2) his promotion of eugenics as a science of racial purification and population control, and 3) his general devotion to World Government as a leading member of the Fabian Society.
From his earliest days at Cambridge where he rose quickly to become one of the select Cambridge Apostles and shared, among other things, a lifelong friendship with Lord Bertrand Russell, Keynes devoted himself to the service of empire, becoming Knight of the Order of Bath and Order of Leopold by 1919.
His early 1911 book on Indian Currency and Finance (conducted during his five-year foray in the Empire’s Indian Office) ignored all actual political reasons for the famines plaguing India and argued coldly for a greater integration of the Indian banking system into the City of London controls which would somehow solve India’s problems. The provable reality was that Indian famines were coordinated tools of population control by the Malthusian elite of the British establishment who considered “war, famine and disease” as the gifts nature gave the strong to manage the weak.
While his later 1919 Consequences of the Peace appeared to be a reasonably sympathetic warning that the draconian Versailles reparations would do incredible damage and lead to a new world war, in reality, Keynes was displaying a cold sleight of hand. Serving as British Treasury representative to the Versailles Conference, Keynes never opposed fascism: he merely argued that a more liberal pathway to global fascism could be established under the direction of the Bank of England. His opposition, though, to the more violent approach preferred by conservative imperialists among the British Intelligentsia, was one of form more than substance.
Keynes and his fellow Fabians H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell and G.B Shaw preferred the “slow and steady” “long game”, reminiscent of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus who famously fought his enemies by slow attrition rather than in full-scale confrontation. Due to the public’s general ignorance of this strategy, we celebrate these Fabian Society luminaries for their pacifism, though in reality they were just as racist, fascist and eugenics-loving as their more short-sighted, hard-stomached counterparts sir Oswald Mosley, Lord Alfred Milner and even Winston Churchill.
Where the real solution to the hyperinflationary money printing and economic industrial shutdown of Germany during the post WWI years was to be found in the German-Russian Rapallo Agreement (destroyed with the assassination of American System Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau), Keynes and his ilk merely called for economic integration of the German banking and military system under Bank of England/League of Nations control.
Malthus, Eugenics and Keynes
Two theories advanced by the British Empire in response to the growth of the American System, first in the USA, and later internationally, were those of Thomas Malthus, and of Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin who coined the term “eugenics” in 1883. These sister concepts served as nothing less than religious precepts for the ruling elite as it desperately reorganized itself in the late 19th century.
It must be kept firmly in mind that at this period the British Empire was weak, and incapable of stopping the electric spread of win-win cooperation as the American System was sped around the world bringing progress and full-spectrum economics in its wake. One of the leading voices of the American System in 1890 was Colorado’s first Governor William Gilpin whose The Cosmopolitan Railway laid out a practical vision for a world united by rail, development, and national banking [see map].
Nevertheless, the Empire was determined to put an end to the spread of the American System.
A new breed of think tanks was created to shape the Empire’s grand strategy in the face of this growth of independent sovereign nations: these were T.H. Huxley’s X Club (c.1865), the Fabian Society (c.1884), and the Roundtable Group (c.1902). Where Huxley’s X Club coordinated with Cambridge, and the Roundtable Group/Rhodes Trust interfaced with Oxford, the Fabian Society created a new school called the London School of Economics. All three worked together as one unit.
Defining his misanthropic belief in overpopulation, Thomas Malthus (a British East India Company economist) stated in his famous 1799 Essay on Population:
“The power of population is so superior to the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.”
How could this crisis be avoided? Malthus answers it like only a devout imperialist could:
“We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.”
Darwin himself admitted in his autobiography that his theory of evolution arose only after his 1838 reading of Malthus’ Essay on Population in which he “at last got a theory by which to work”.
So, Darwinism is really an extension of Malthus’s Hobbesian social theories onto all of living nature: a mere struggle for survival in a universe of entropy and diminishing returns. After a Malthusian version of biology was created, Darwin’s theories were in turn re-applied to human society as imperial tools for population control under the form of Galton’s Eugenics thus giving the same old evil practices of empire, war and slavery a “scientific validation”.
Although some apologists considered Keynes an anti-Malthusian- due to his theory that overpopulation might be overcome by encouraging spending rather than savings, which would, in turn, somehow create markets and thence new factories and more growth, the reality was the opposite. Keynes not only spoke gushingly of Malthus throughout his life as one of the greatest minds of all time, but even plagiarized many of Malthus’ own theories, for instance that of “demand deficiency causing unemployment and recession” outlined in his 1930 Treatise on Money. In his 1933 Essay on Malthus, Keynes wrote:
“Let us think of Malthus today as the first of the Cambridge economists—as, above all, a great pioneer of the application of a frame of formal thinking to the complex confusion of the world of daily events. Malthus approached the central problems of economic theory by the best of all routes.”
In his May 2, 1914 lecture Population, Keynes argued that government should “mould law and custom deliberately to bring about that density of population which there ought to be” and that “there would be more happiness in the world if the population of it were to be diminished.”
Saying that “India, Egypt and China are gravely overpopulated”, Keynes advocated using violence to defend the “superior white races” in this struggle of survival with the pacifist saying: “Almost any measures seem to me to be justified in order to protect our standard of life from injury at the hands of more prolific races. Some definite parceling out of the world may well become necessary; and I suppose that this may not improbably provoke racial wars. At any rate such wars will be about a substantial issue.”
As Acting chair of the Neo-Malthusian League, Keynes stated in 1927: “We of this society are neo-Malthusians… I believe that for the future the problem of population will emerge in the much greater problem of Hereditary and Eugenics. Quality must become the preoccupation.”
By 1946, Keynes, still a member of the British Eugenics Society (after serving as Vice President from 1936-1944) wrote in The Eugenics Review: “Galton’s eccentric, sceptical, observing, flashing, cavalry-leader type of mind led him eventually to become the founder of the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists, namely eugenics.”
This was not ivory tower theorizing, but concepts with very real-world significance.
By 1937, Keynes’ General Theory of Employment was published in Nazi Germany. If anyone wishes to defend the idea that the economist was somehow an anti-fascist defender of “liberal values”, let them read his own words in the preface and then either redefine “liberal values” or their naïve idea of Keynes:
“I may perhaps expect to find less resistance among German readers than among English ones, when I put before them a theory of employment and production as a whole… The theory of production as a whole which is the object of this book, can be much better adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than the theory of production and distribution of wealth under circumstances of free competition.”
Hitler himself was not only a devout eugenicist (whose racial purification policies emerged through the funding of the Rockefeller, Carnegie Foundations as well as British establishment), but was also a devout Malthusian saying:
“The day will certainly come when the whole of mankind will be forced to check the augmentation of the human species, because there will be no further possibility of adjusting the productivity of the soil to the perpetual increase in the population.”
Keynes was by this time extremely frustrated that the intention-driven system of political economy defining the New Deal under the helm of FDR’s leadership was not absorbing his trojan horse theories on employment, demand, and inflation. However, by the end of the war, many Council on Foreign Relation (CFR)-affiliated operatives pushing Keynesianism were making successful inroads into all branches of U.S. bureaucracy and penetrated the highest levels of the state department and treasury. At one point in 1943, Franklin Roosevelt commented on his understanding of this British Deep State operation when he told his son Elliot:
“You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!” I was told… six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office….”
The Battle for Bretton Woods
During the Bretton Woods conference (July 1-20, 1944), the two opposing paradigms, on the one hand the American System of anti-colonialism, and on the other hand the. British System of zero sum Malthusianism, went to war.
This war took the form of the battles waged by FDR’s trusted collaborator Henry Dexter White against John Maynard Keynes at Bretton Woods, where 730 delegates representing 44 nations gathered to settle the terms of the post-war order.
Although this conference is famously associated with the creation of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), it is falsely assumed to be a Keynesian creation. Keynes’ role as representative of the British Empire, much like his earlier role at Versailles in 1919, was defined by the intention at all costs to shape the conditions of a post-nation state world order on behalf of the City of London. Like Bertrand Russell and other Cambridge Apostles before and since, Keynes was trained in the sophistical deployment of statistics and mathematical logic to cover for the imperial rape of target nations.
Where Dexter White and Franklin Roosevelt demanded a U.S. dollar-backed post-war system of fixed exchange rates (to block speculation on commodities as a tool of economic war), theirs was not an idea premised on imperialism which FDR’s recorded battles with Churchill attest. Unlike the hard vs soft imperialism of Churchill and Keynes, FDR and his allies rather looked to a post-war system defined by U.S.-China-Russia friendship, and the internationalization of the New Deal applying a win-win approach to foreign policy.
At Bretton Woods, Dexter White and Henry Morganthau reached agreements to provide vast technology transfers to help South America industrialize. At the same time, large-scale programs modelled on the New Deal were presented by delegations from India, Eastern Europe, and China. It is noteworthy that the Chinese delegation introduced infrastructure plans first laid out by Sun Yat-sen in his 1920 International Development of China which both Mao, and Zhou Enlai endorsed alongside the Kuomintang’s Chiang Kai-Shek! Had these plans not been sabotaged, it is amazing to consider what sort of progress might have opened up for the Chinese 70 years before anyone heard of the “Belt and Road Initiative”.
At this early stage, Russia was still happy to be a founding member of the IMF and World Bank which were designed to act as cheap lending mechanisms for long-term, low-interest, high-tech global development.
Commenting on support for FDR’s post-war system of mutual interest, Stalin stated:
“Can we count on the activities of this international organization being sufficiently effective? They will be effective if the Great Powers who have borne the brunt of the burden of the war against Hitler’s Germany continue to act in a spirit of unanimity and harmony. They will not be effective if this essential condition is violated”.
In opposition to this anti-imperial win-win system defended by Dexter White, and FDR, Keynes demanded a bankers’ dictatorship with a new supranational currency controlled by the Bank of England called the Bancor, as well as an international clearing house. The Bancor was later revived in a modified form when Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) were established, bringing the world closer to the sort of green synthetic hegemonic currency now promoted by the likes of Mark Carney, Klaus Schwab and George Soros under the veil of a Great Reset and Central Bankers Climate Compact.
Similarly to the League of Nations’ earlier design for World Government, Keynes’ arguments entailed the virtual castration of nation states, preventing their involvement in their own economic planning. These arguments also demanded that the USA fully recognize the legitimacy of the British Empire in the post war age (something which Dexter White and Morgenthau refused to do). In Keynes’ view, nation states should relinquish their sovereign financial controls to Malthusian technocrats managing the levers of production and consumption through a system of globally interconnected central banks.
Keynes’ model of governance would ensure that the sorts of INTENTION-driven large-scale projects that could finally end colonialism would not see the light of day.
The Keynesian World That Emerged Over FDR’s Dead Body
Under the Keynesian takeover of Bretton Woods that emerged during the Anglo-American special relationship created by Truman and Churchill, Trans Atlantic nations became increasingly dominated by bloated bureaucratic systems while plans for genuine development were undermined. With Roosevelt dead by 1945, Harry Hopkins dead by 1946, Dexter White dead by 1948, and Henry Wallace’s presidential efforts sabotaged by 1948, the last serious resistance to Britain’s reconquest of the USA had been put down.
After the war, eugenics-promoting organizations and think tanks changed their names while continuing their work, morphing into new forms by the 1960s such as the environmental movement, transhumanist movement, while not even the pharmaceutical/healthcare sector was left untouched.
In the next chapter we will close up this short series by reviewing the figure of Friedrich von Hayek and the Austrian School of Economics which emerged with the collapse of the Keynesian Bretton Woods in 1971 and the rise of the “Conservative Revolution”.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 23:00 - The Great Purge: Twitter Has Suspended More Than 70,000 Accounts Since Friday
The Great Purge: Twitter Has Suspended More Than 70,000 Accounts Since Friday
In a Monday night blog post, Twitter lays out all the latest details of a historic purge that started with the suspension of president Trump and has escalated into the ban of tens of thousands of conservative voices, or as Twitter puts it, “steps taken to protect the conversation on our service from attempts to incite violence, organize attacks, and share deliberately misleading information about the election outcome.” Odd how none of those considerations emerged during the summer when US cities were literally burning as a result of countless violent protests and frequent riots, but we digress.
In any case, In twitter’s own delightfully ironic words, “It’s important to be transparent about all of this work as the US Presidential Inauguration on January 20, 2021, approaches.” Which is a probably a good idea in the aftermath of the biggest censorship purge in twitter history, one which sent Twitter stock tumbling. So this is what how twitter justifies “the purge”:
We’ve been clear that we will take strong enforcement action on behavior that has the potential to lead to offline harm. Given the violent events in Washington, DC, and increased risk of harm, we began permanently suspending thousands of accounts that were primarily dedicated to sharing QAnon content on Friday afternoon.
And with tens of thousands of accounts suspended (most of them permanently), banned, or merely disappeared, it will hardly be a surprise that according to Tiwtter, “more than 70,000 accounts have been suspended”. What is the justification? “These accounts were engaged in sharing harmful QAnon-associated content at scale and were primarily dedicated to the propagation of this conspiracy theory across the service.”
More in the full blog post below. Meanwhile, as BofA warned today and as traders clearly agreed, Twitter now faces the risk of wholesale “churn”, i.e., exodus, by the conservative community in response to this unprecedented crackdown, which could see tens of millions of MAUs gone:
More engagement risk for Twitter than Facebook
Donald Trump had 88mn followers on Twitter, the 6th most followed account, and on Facebook he had over 33mn followers. President Trump’s follower count represents 47% of Twitter’s daily active users (DAUs) (though clearly not all followers are DAUs), with his account averaging 34 Tweets per day in 2020 (up from 21 in 2019). Additionally we see churn from the conservative community within Twitter as a modest 1Q DAU threat, however SensorTower suggests DAUs on Parlor (a conservative focused alternative) is roughly 130k (0.37% of Twitter’s US DAUs) as of January 8th. Our call is that after some deactivation newsflow near-term, strong political activists will stay on Twitter for other content.
Content risk and Section 230 back in focus
In June, The DoJ had a proposal to rollback some Section 230 protections, which specifies that Internet companies are generally not liable for user posted content. While a Democratic administration may be less focused on significant reform of Section 230, recent events may make content legislation more likely. While we think social platforms may welcome content guidelines, risks of a rollback of Section 230 include: 1) potential civil liability arising from victims of Online content, and; 2) expense risk from need to increase content review capabilities. Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has been vocal in embracing an update to Section 230, while Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, noted “Eroding the foundation of Section 230 could collapse how we communicate on the Internet, leaving only a small number of giant and well-funded technology companies”.
And now we wait to find out just how extensive the conservative user “churn” has been.
Meanwhile, here is Twitter’s full statement on the Friday night purge:
An update following the riots in Washington, DC
Following the horrific events in Washington, DC, last week, here are some of the steps we’ve taken to protect the conversation on our service from attempts to incite violence, organize attacks, and share deliberately misleading information about the election outcome. It’s important to be transparent about all of this work as the US Presidential Inauguration on January 20, 2021, approaches.
Updated our coordinated harmful activity policy
We’ve been clear that we will take strong enforcement action on behavior that has the potential to lead to offline harm. Given the violent events in Washington, DC, and increased risk of harm, we began permanently suspending thousands of accounts that were primarily dedicated to sharing QAnon content on Friday afternoon.
Many of the individuals impacted by this updated enforcement action held multiple accounts, driving up the total number of accounts impacted. Since Friday, more than 70,000 accounts have been suspended as a result of our efforts, with many instances of a single individual operating numerous accounts. These accounts were engaged in sharing harmful QAnon-associated content at scale and were primarily dedicated to the propagation of this conspiracy theory across the service.
Our updated enforcement on QAnon content on Twitter, along with routine spam challenges, has resulted in changes in follower count for some people’s Twitter accounts. In some cases, these actions may have resulted in follower count changes in the thousands.
As stipulated in this policy that we announced ahead of the 2020 US election, accounts that have Tweeted or Retweeted associated content will continue to be subject to limited visibility across search, replies, and on timelines and are prohibited from being recommended to others by Twitter. It’s important that these types of accounts — that are not predominantly engaged in sharing this material — can see different perspectives in the open public conversation that Twitter uniquely provides.
Our teams are discussing ways we can empower research into QAnon and coordinated harmful activity on Twitter.
Escalated enforcement measures for our civic integrity policy
During the past several weeks, misleading and false information surrounding the 2020 US presidential election has been the basis for incitement to violence around the country. We took action on these claims in line with our Civic Integrity policy
Now that the results of the election have been officially certified by Congress, we updated our Civic Integrity policy on Friday to aggressively increase our enforcement action on these claims. The updated policy provides details about how we enforce against violations of this policy, including repeated sharing of Tweets that receive warning labels. Ultimately, repeated violations of this policy can result in permanent suspension.
Deployed tech to surface potentially harmful Tweets for urgent human review
Our teams are continuing to aggressively deploy technology to surface potentially harmful Tweets for human review in an effort to take action as quickly as possible on violative content. Using this combination of technology and human review helps our teams work at scale during this critical time. We continue to update these tools as terminology and behaviors evolve on Twitter.
Limited engagement on labeled Tweets
On Tuesday, we limited engagement by no longer allowing any Tweets labeled for violations of our civic integrity policy to be replied to, Liked or Retweeted. People on Twitter are still able to Quote Tweet to share this content with additional context or their own perspective.
Blocked violative keywords from Search and Trends
We want Trends to promote healthy conversations on Twitter. This means, at times, we may prevent certain content from trending. There are rules for Trends, and if we identify Trends that violate these rules, we’ll take enforcement action.
Since last week, we’ve prohibited certain terms from surfacing in Trends and Search suggestions based on the following Twitter Rules:
- Coordinated harmful activity
- Civic integrity
- Hateful conduct
- Glorification of violence
- Violent threats
- Sensitive media
We will also continue to prioritize reviewing and adding context to Trends. Our goal is to help people see what’s happening while ensuring that potentially confusing trends are presented with context.
Fought spam and challenged potentially inauthentic accounts
It is against the Twitter Rules to engage in spamming behavior, including bulk, aggressive, or deceptive activity. That’s why we routinely deploy anti-spam challenges to accounts to fight this behavior and protect the public conversation. During these challenges, account owners must verify their authenticity through a variety of measures, such as reCAPTCHA or providing a functional email address.
As always, while accounts are undergoing these challenges, they’re temporarily removed from follower counts. This, along with our updated enforcement around coordinated harmful activity, means some people may notice drops or fluctuations in their follower count.
Ahead of the inauguration, we’ll continue to monitor the situation, keep open lines of communication with law enforcement, and keep the public informed of additional enforcement actions.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 22:42 - Over 80% Surveyed Say Tokyo Olympics Should Be Canceled Or Postponed
Over 80% Surveyed Say Tokyo Olympics Should Be Canceled Or Postponed
Two new polls have found that over 80% of respondents in Japan thought the 2021 Tokyo Summer Olympics should be postponed or canceled, according to the Associated Press.
Conducted by the Japanese news agency Kyodo and TBS, the Tokyo Broadcasting System, the TBS poll asked 1,261 people if the Olympics can be held this year while COVID-19 continues to spread. Just 13% answered “yes,” while the 81% said “no” – an 18% increase over a similar survey in December.
The Olympics are scheduled to open on July 23, when 15,000 Olympic and Paralympic athletes will enter the country. On top of that, tens of thousands of “coaches, judges, officials, VIPs, sponsors, media and broadcasters” would likely attend, though it is unclear if fans from abroad – or even local fans – will be able to attend.
Kyodo similarly found that 80.1% of respondents among 715 randomly chosen households said the Olympics should be rescheduled or canceled, an increase from 63% who gave the same answer in December.
Japan is officially spending $15.4 billion to hold the Olympics, although several government audits show the number is about $25 billion. All but $6.7 billion is public money.
The Switzerland-based IOC earns 91% of its income from selling broadcast rights and sponsorships.
The American network NBC agreed in 2011 to a $4.38 billion contract with the IOC to broadcast four Olympics through the Tokyo. In 2014 it agreed to pay an added $7.75 billion for six more games — Winter and Summer — through 2032. –Associated Press
Tokyo is currently experiencing a surge of COVID-19 cases which prompted the government to announce a state of emergency. That said, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said he was confident that the Olympics would still be held.
Japan has had 3,600 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in a country of 126 million.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 22:40 - House Republicans To Call For Trump's Censure To Avoid Democrats' Rushed Impeachment "Damaging Our Democracy"
House Republicans To Call For Trump’s Censure To Avoid Democrats’ Rushed Impeachment “Damaging Our Democracy”
In seeking his removal for “incitement,” legal scholar and Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley warned earlier that Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but free speech, all in a mad rush to remove President Trump just days before the end of his term.
Turley noted specifically that “Congress is about to seek the impeachment of a president for a speech that is protected under the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president who can be blamed for the violent acts of others after the use of reckless or inflammatory language.”
Nevertheless, on the heels of Vice President Pence’s confirmation this evening that he “pledges to work with Trump through the end of his term” thus confirming earlier reports that he would not acquiesce to Speaker Pelosi’s demands that he invoke the 25th Amendment; it appears House Democrats are raring to go on an impeachment vote on Wednesday.
As Turley noted further on Fox News this evening, while remarking on the Democrats’ apparent rush to get this done:
“They are suggesting impeaching a president over a speech that many of us called reckless. But it’s a type of vicarious impeachment in the sense that he doesn’t call for violence in his speech. He in fact tells his followers to be peaceful, he says the reason they should go to the Capitol is to support members who are challenging the election. And to encourage other members to join them.
So the speech itself would not meet any definition, as a criminal matter, of incitement.”
Which brings us to an interesting potential pivot by House GOP members that was elaborated by Republican New York State Congressman Tom Reed, who wrote in a New York Times op-ed:
“If we make the wrong decision in holding the president accountable, it could damage our democracy,” somewhat echoing Turley’s warnings.
But Reed, while condemning the president’s speech, has an option that while unpleasant, is not as draconian as the Democrats blood-baying needs.
Reed begins by noting that this in no way reduces the wrongdoing:
“All responsible parties, including President Trump, must face justice.”
And, again echoing Turley’s Constitution-based warnings, Reed states that:
“while the president’s words were unwise, intemperate and wrong, they may not qualify as incitement. And an impeachment on the grounds that they do will inevitably erode the norms around what may be considered constitutionally protected speech.”
Reed goes on to note that a full impeachment hearing would delay much-neede efforts to tackle the nation’s COVID-19 crisis and furthermore would stymie any efforts at unity in a nation that is tearing itself apart.
“We cannot give credibility to the belief that Washington chooses to hold people accountable only for mere political advantage, especially to the detriment of the Constitution.”
And so Reed offers an alternative.
“I implore our congressional leaders and Mr. Biden to take a moment to consider what is at stake. Work with us on constitutionally viable alternatives to ensure that no individual is above the law.
Such options include censure…
...I intend to join with my House colleagues in the introduction of a censure resolution Tuesday to ensure accountability occurs without delay for the events of Jan. 6. We must also look at alternatives that could allow Congress to bar Mr. Trump from holding federal office in the future.”
In the case of censure, this would be the first for a President since the Senate censured Andrew Jackson in 1834, and the offer of barring him from office likely meets the real desires of Democrats to ouster Trump from a run in 2024.
Call it a “quid pro quo”.
Reed concludes:
“We cannot and should not support a rushed, divisive action simply because the emotions of the moment demand it. That is not the American way.”
“The American Way” eh? Due process… innocent until proven guilty? We can only imagine “the squad’s” response to this ‘offer’ from the GOP.
The question is – will Pelosi fold to it? This is her last term after all and she must know, as Turley warned, this rushed impeachment would tarnish her legacy just as much as she hopes to tarnish Trump’s.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 22:20 - More Iran Escalation: Trump Admin Designates Yemen's Shia Houthis As Terrorists
More Iran Escalation: Trump Admin Designates Yemen’s Shia Houthis As Terrorists
In continuing efforts to make any future softening toward Iran all the more difficult for the incoming Biden administration, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Sunday night announced the US will designate Yemen’s Houthi rebels as a foreign terrorist organization.
Officially named Ansarallah, he called the Shia group that’s been locked in a grinding war with the Saudi-UAE-US backed coalition government “a deadly Iran-backed militia group” which has routinely conducted “terrorist acts, including cross-border attacks threatening civilian populations, infrastructure, and commercial shipping.”
Via AFP The war for Yemen has raged since at least 2015 and has seen civilian deaths mount into the many tens of thousands as the Saudi-US coalition has blanketed the country with airstrikes. The Houthis have simultaneously been known to mount ballistic missile attacks deep inside Saudi Arabia, which Washington has ultimately blamed on Iran, given it’s believed the Houthis would otherwise have no access to such advanced weaponry.
“The designations are also intended to advance efforts to achieve a peaceful, sovereign, and united Yemen that is both free from Iranian interference and at peace with its neighbors,” Pompeo announced in the statement. “Progress in addressing Yemen’s instability can only be made when those responsible for obstructing peace are held accountable for their actions.”
He indicated the State Department will soon notify congress, further to include the designation of three Houthi named leaders as Specially Designated Global Terrorists.
A number of pundits immediately recognized this as no doubt part of the White House’s broader escalation with Iran.
Pretext for escalating conflict with Iran https://t.co/A25xEeBACQ
— Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) January 11, 2021
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Late last year multiple reports said President Trump was actually mulling some kind of military action to ensure the Islamic Republic can’t ever acquire a nuclear weapon, given Biden has vowed to restore the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal (JCPOA).
The US has constantly accused Iran of using the Houthis as a proxy force to mount “terror attacks” while attempting a takeover of the country on Saudi Arabia’s southern border.
The irony is that prior to the 2015 war which saw the US jump in with the Saudis in waging war on the Houthis, US forces at times actually partnered with the Houthis in fighting al-Qaeda in Yemen. For example a report in The Wall Street Journal at the time noted, “The US has formed ties with Houthi rebels who seized control of Yemen’s capital, White House officials and rebel commanders said, in the clearest indication of a shift in the US approach there as it seeks to maintain its fight against a key branch of al Qaeda.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 22:00 - Yellen Appoints Bloomberg Staffer And Former Geithner Advisor As Chief Of Staff
Yellen Appoints Bloomberg Staffer And Former Geithner Advisor As Chief Of Staff
Janet Yellen, the incoming Treasury Secretary who will “coordinate” closely with Jerome Powell now that the Treasury and Fed are effectively one as a result of MMT/Helicopter money, has picked as her chief of staff at the Treasury Didem Nisanci, an executive at Bloomberg LP.
Nisanci has been offered the job and accepted, Bloomberg itself reported.
Nisanci is currently global head of public policy for Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News. If Yellen – who recently disclosed payments of over $7.3 million for “speeches” from the same banks and financial firms she will soon be “regulating”…
… is confirmed as Treasury secretary, Nisanci will be one of her closest aides; her appointment won’t require Senate confirmation.
Nisanci, 47, was chief of staff at the SEC under Barack Obama, where she was the lead adviser to Chairman Mary Schapiro on all issues involving the SEC, including policy, legislative, strategy, and communication matters. Nisanci subsequently worked for Promontory Financial Group, a “revolving door” for government officials, before joining Bloomberg in 2018.
Prior to the SEC, she was the lead adviser to Treasury Secretary Nominee Timothy Geithner after having been staff director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs subcommittee on Securities, Insurance and Investment.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 21:40 - More Good News On COVID Hospitalizations In The Northeast
More Good News On COVID Hospitalizations In The Northeast
A little over two weeks ago we showed that despite the continued rise in covid cases in the US, where BofA calculated that the 7-day average of new US cases hit a new record high of 241,600 yesterday with daily Covid-related deaths at 3,190 and hospitalizations at 4,840 at new highs, having risen 20% over the past week…
… the trend in US hospitalizations was decidedly optimistic, with the second derivative of hospitalizations – or the daily number of new admission – continuing to moderate with the weekly increase well below 10,000 versus the peak of near 15,000 almost two weeks ago.
As a reminder, in Mid-December, we reported why according to Goldman, covid-related hospitalizations are about to tumble – just as Biden gets inaugurated – as more vaccinations are rolled out, and the latest data validates this.
To be sure, despite the increase in absolute terms, the hospitalization rate as a percentage of daily new infections has remained remarkably steady as the following charts from JPMorgan show:
And while select hospital systems are indeed nearing overcrowded levels – which are due to numerous other factors in addition to covid – as the following chart of the ten most overcrowded hospital systems shows…
… even Bloomberg now writes that “the pace of Covid-19 hospitalizations in the Northeast is showing some preliminary signs of easing, adding to hopeful indicators in the Midwest, where the latest viral wave began.“
According to the report, the number of people currently hospitalized with Covid-19 in the Northeast was 21,494 as of Sunday, up 0.8% from a week earlier, the smallest seven-day percentage increase since Sept. 25, according to Covid Tracking Project data.
Bloomberg’s admission that contrary to widespread fears that covid would crush the US hospital system comes as the virus is now raging once again primarily across the Sun Belt and as many states are finding tremendous challenges with the vaccine rollout.
Based on U.S. Census Bureau definitions for each region, hospitalizations are up 6.1% in the past week in the South; up 4% in the West; and down 4.2% in the Midwest.
And some more good news according to the Covid Tracking Project, as reported by Bloomberg: no states posted record cases on Sunday, but weekends are typically slower reporting periods.
Finally, according to Bloomberg, Arizona now leads the nation in people currently hospitalized with the virus per capita, with 685 per million residents.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 21:20 - In Latest "Excess Borrowing" Crackdown, China Will Force Fintech Giants To Disclose Consumer Credit Data
In Latest “Excess Borrowing” Crackdown, China Will Force Fintech Giants To Disclose Consumer Credit Data
One theory that has emerged from Beijing’s crackdown on Jack Ma and his business and fintech empire, is that China’s true intention in bringing China’s richest man to heel was not so much the public humiliation in what has been widely seen as a giant clash of egos between Xi Jinping and Jack Ma, as the ability to peek inside the financial records of China’s biggest private financial company.
Why? Two reason: i) China is a command economy and it needs to have discrete knowledge where every last yuan in new loans ends up and ii) China’s financial system is more than double the size of the US, which is why any gray zones in the financial sector which the PBOC is not aware of could have devastating consequences should a bad debt cascade begin without the central bank being aware.
We bring all this up because in support of the first theory, Reuters today reported that China plans to push tech giants such as Jack Ma’s Ant Group, but also Tencent and JD.com to share consumer loan data to prevent excess borrowing and fraud, in Beijing’s latest tightening of scrutiny. Additionally, Chinese regulators, including the central bank, the People’s Bank of China plan to instruct internet platforms to feed their vast loan data to some of the nationwide credit agencies.
The plan, if implemented, would effectively end the government’s “laissez-faire approach” to the industry and represent a de facto soft nationalization, as well as another sign of attempts to rein in the country’s technology champions.
Naturally, giant internet platforms have strongly resisted handing over their data, a crucial asset that helps them run operations, manage risk and lure new customers. However, in light of the crackdown on Jack Ma, they have no choice, as any continued resistance could cast them in the same unwelcome light as Jack “Uncle Horse” Ma.
According to the report the agencies, which include the PBOC’s Credit Reference Center, China’s main, centralized credit scoring system, and the central bank-backed Baihang Credit, the country’s first licensed personal credit agency, will share the data more widely with banks and other lenders to adequately evaluate risks and prevent over-borrowing. Which is ironic for a country whose debt levels have absolutely exploded in the past year to keep the economy humming amid the covid lockdowns.
“China seems to be making the unpopular, albeit right choice to sacrifice the current closed loop mentality financial paradigm in favour of a broader digital identity framework with potentially better access and greater efficiency in the long run,” said Alex Sirakov, founder of AquariusX, a Shanghai-based consultancy. Translation: even more central planning is just swell.
The plan adds to recent proposals to sharpen scrutiny of the technology champions and rein in empire building, mainly in the financial sector, according to Reuters. The shift was also behind the dramatic collapse of fintech giant Ant’s $37 billion IPO in November, a collapse which is now also being leveraged to expose even more information from the sector. Since then, the regulators have launched an antitrust probe into Ant’s former parent Alibaba and ordered the fintech company to shake up its lending and other consumer finance businesses.
The latest regulatory proposal for internet companies also comes as Beijing grows wary of loose risk controls at banks, mainly smaller ones, in terms of consumer loans and their excessive reliance on platforms such as Ant to find customers.
“Smaller banks are generally in a weaker position when they partner with fintech giants like Ant. They have heavily relied on Ant’s data to underwrite loans and manage risks,” said one senior regulator.
“When defaults happen, they have to shoulder most of the losses,” said the regulator, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter. “It’s crucial for lenders to have better access to more comprehensive and detailed credit data on borrowers.”
And there it is: with SOE banks having lost control over a substantial portion of the loan-creation machinery, Beijing is now desperate to regain said control. And it is starting by forcing the “sharing” of all loan data.
Naturally, the latest regulatory attempt would likely dampen the scale and profitability of the tech giants’ credit businesses which are among the biggest drivers of growth and revenue. That area is a cash cow, as the companies levy high service fees on banks in exchange for access to millions of customers using propriety data.
Take Jack Ma’s Ant Financial: via its super-app Alipay, Ant collects the data of more than 1 billion people, many of whom are young and internet-savvy users without credit cards or sufficient credit records with banks, as well as 80 million merchants, according to the company’s prospectus and analysts. Ant also runs Zhima Credit which means “Sesame Credit” in English, one of China’s biggest private credit-rating platforms, with proprietary algorithms and methodology that score people and small businesses based on their use of Ant-linked services.
The firm offers limited borrower information to about 100 banks, and takes the so-called “technology service fees” – a 30%-40% cut, on average, of the interest on loans it facilitates, analysts have estimated.
Ant’s consumer lending balance stood at 1.7 trillion yuan ($263 billion) as of the end of June, accounting for 21% of all short-term consumer loans issued by Chinese deposit-taking financial institutions. Compared with Ant, rivals Tencent and JD.com run relatively smaller consumer-credit business.
Tencent’s private lender WeBank has operated consumer-loans unit Weilidai since 2015, which made over 460 million loan drawdowns worth a total of more than 3.7 trillion yuan as of the end of 2019, according to WeBank’s 2019 annual report.
JD.com’s fintech arm, JD Digits, operates two platforms – Baitiao and Jintiao – which had a combined 70 million annual active users and took in a total of 4.4 billion yuan in technology service fees during the first half of 2020. Jintiao facilitated consumer loans worth only 261 billion yuan in the same period of last year, as per JD Digits’ prospectus.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 21:00 - Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan Mansion Underwent $23 Million Price Cut
Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan Mansion Underwent $23 Million Price Cut
Whether it’s the slump in Manhattan real estate or just nobody wants to purchase sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion. WSJ reports Epstein’s Manhattan mansion has undergone a significant price cut.
Epstein’s estate executors first listed the 28,000-square-foot townhouse in Manhattan’s Upper East Side for $88 million in July. Estate executors have since slashed the listing price by $23 million, or about 23% to $65 million, a move to attract potential buyers.
Since the initial listing date, housing and rental markets in the borough have taken a steep dive as tens of thousands of New Yorkers have escaped to rural communities and or even other states amid the pandemic and surging violent crime.
Brokerage firm Leslie J. Garfield said by the third quarter of 2020, townhouse sales were halved over the same period last year. For the luxury end of the market, only 22 sales for townhouses in the first three quarters of 2020 were compared with 64 during the period last year.
Real estate broker Donna Olshan told MarketWatch that the seven-story, French Neoclassic mansion was overpriced, to begin with. She doesn’t believe the stigma associated with Epstein would damage the property’s value.
Epstein died in 2019 before he could stand trial on sex-trafficking charges. It’s been reported that he has abused young women and girls at many of his properties, including the one in Manhattan.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 20:40 - Patriots' Belichick Refuses Trump's Presidential Medal Of Freedom
Patriots’ Belichick Refuses Trump’s Presidential Medal Of Freedom
It appears political pressure is tougher to handle than Super Bowl pressure as following comments from Democratic Massachussetts Congressman Jim McGovern, who said (on CNN): “Belichick should do the right thing and say, no, thanks,” the New England Partiots coach has turned down President Trump’s offer of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Trump has awarded the medal 25 times since taking office, including 14 times to sports figures. Golfers Gary Player and Annika Sorenstam drew criticism last week for accepting the medal.
The award recognizes individuals who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”
Full Statement from Bill Belichick:
“Recently, I was offered the opportunity to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which I was flattered by out of respect for what the honor represents and admiration for prior recipients.
Subsequently, the tragic events of last week occurred and the decision has been made not to move forward with the award.
Above all, I am an American citizen with great reverence for our nation’s values, freedom and democracy. I know I also represent my family and the New England Patriots team.
One of the most rewarding things in my professional career took place in 2020 when, through the great leadership within our team, conversations about social justice, equality and human rights moved to the forefront and became actions.
Continuing those efforts while remaining true to the people, team and country I love outweigh the benefits of any individual award.”
Considered the nation’s highest civilian honor, Trump also awarded it to Rush Limbaugh, Rep. Jim Jordan, and Rep. Devin Nunes – none of whom turned down the honor.
We wonder if Tiger will be ‘pressured’ by the mob to return his medal now?
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 20:26 - Air Force Brass Order Removal Of All Offensive, Non-Inclusive Patches, Mottos And Emblems
Air Force Brass Order Removal Of All Offensive, Non-Inclusive Patches, Mottos And Emblems
Commanders have until Feb. 21 to review their units’ emblems, morale patches, mottos, nicknames, coins and other heraldry and insignia and remove any that are racist, sexist or derogatory, the Air Force announced.
As Military.com reports, starting at the squadron level and moving up, commanders must abolish symbols that are derogatory “to any race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, age or disability status to ensure an inclusive and professional environment,” according to a memo from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown, Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett and Gen. John “Jay” Raymond, head of the Space Force.
“It is critical for the Department of the Air Force to embody an environment of dignity, respect and inclusivity for all airmen and guardians,” the memo states, according to a service release. “Our core values demand we hold ourselves to high standards and maintain a culture of respect and trust in our chain of command.”
Air Force Instruction 84-105, last updated in 2019, directs units on how to best recognize their organizational lineage, honors and heraldry. Commanders should consult the AFI — which emphasizes that symbols and language should be original, “in good taste and non-controversial” — and their local historian, the release states.
Disparaging language and symbolism “ostracizes our teammates, undermining unit cohesion and impeding our mission readiness and success,” according to the memo. “Our diversity of experience, culture, demographics and perspectives is a force multiplier and essential to our success in this dynamic global environment. … We must ensure all our airmen and guardians are valued and respected.”
It was not immediately clear whether the latest memo applies to personal call signs — typically given to fighter pilots. In 2019, the Navy created a new process for approving and reviewing pilots’ call signs after two Black aviators at an F/A-18 Hornet training squadron in Virginia filed complaints alleging racial bias in the unit.
The Air Force has had its own issues with call signs: A female airman was given an inappropriate call sign by fellow airmen during a drinking game in 2018, which came to light as officials looked into accounts of a separate threatening incident at the 47th Flying Training Wing at Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas.
Last year, the Air Force announced it had removed all “male-only references” in its official song, known as “Wild Blue Yonder,” which is traditionally sung before service events. In September, the service encouraged airmen to submit ideas for improvements to uniforms, appearance standards, badges and patches, and even jewelry. Both efforts are aimed at creating a more inclusive culture among the ranks.
The memo on symbols comes the same week as the service’s latest initiative to track lesser disciplinary actions by demographic to ensure impartiality.
The service said Wednesday that it will collect data on how airmen and Space Force guardians who receive administrative counseling, admonishments or reprimands are treated, including a comparison based on rank, age, gender, race and ethnicity.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 20:20 - Clean Energy Hydro Plant In Canada Dubbed A "Boondoggle" After Economists Predict $8 Billion In Losses
Clean Energy Hydro Plant In Canada Dubbed A “Boondoggle” After Economists Predict $8 Billion In Losses
Today in “proof governments are horribly inefficient capital allocators” news…
British Columbia is currently in the process of trying to erect a massive hydro dam called the “Site C Clean Energy Project” on the Peace River. The point of erecting the dam was to implement the province’s “green and clean” energy policy and try to create alternative clean energy while lowering carbon emissions.
But the economic price, and lackluster progress of the project had one op-ed in the Financial Post calling the project a “hydro power boondoggle” that “shows real cost of ‘clean’ energy”.
The project has been under construction since 2015, the op-ed notes, and more than $6 billion has already been sunk into it. Despite this, there have been numerous problems identified with the project:
Under foot, according to Premier John Horgan, “there is instability on one of the banks of the river.” Early last year B.C. Hydro identified “structural weaknesses” in the project, which has been under construction since 2015. Site C is also said to suffer from “weak foundations.” Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer recently reported that new information on the precariousness of the project, structurally and financially…
The op-ed asks whether or not it is time for the province to simply cut their losses and abandon the job, which would likely need at least another $6 billion to complete.
A review of the project by three Canadian economists say “yes” and have concluded that “the whole project is uneconomic as an energy source and fails its major green and clean promise, which is to reduce carbon emissions.”
Photo: Financial Post The breakdown of the numbers by the economists show how inefficient the project truly is:
The worst numbers in the study: the total present value of the electricity produced from Site C is estimated at $2.76 billion against an estimated total cost of $10.7 billion, implying a loss of $8 billion. That’s bad. However, if the project were cancelled now, the loss would be cut in half to maybe $4.5 billion. The economists conclude that “policy makers should stop throwing money at a project that is likely to end up under water.”
The economists found that the only way the hydro plant could be worth it, monetarily, would be in conjunction with a “massive national overhaul of the Canadian electricity system”:
“In summary, we find that Site C can offer value, but only if the provinces aim for near complete electricity system de-carbonization and only if new transmission between provinces can be built to enable greater inter-provincial electricity trade. Decisions about the future of Site C should be made in this light; if it is not possible to commit to fully decarbonizing electricity generation, and if prospects for inter-provincial transmission are low, Site C offers little value in comparison to its costs. In contrast, if B.C. and Alberta are committed to achieving a zero-carbon electricity system, and building new inter-provincial transmission lines is feasible, then Site C can offer value in excess of its costs.”
In light of there being a very small chance of that happening, it seems like the obvious decision to simply shut the project down and save several billion dollars.
And of course, it comes as no surprise to us that such a project is horribly cost inefficient. Because if it wasn’t, the free market would have put hydro electric plants to work a long time ago. In other words, the free market shut this project down before it ever even started.
But instead, we get another real life example of how virtue signaling and petty worries over carbon emissions – which are all trending the in the “right” direction globally anyway – lead to frivolous spending, funded by the taxpayer.
We hope B.C. remembers this if Elon Musk ever comes calling, looking for property to build his next solar roof tile factory…
You can read further analysis of the project and the full op-ed here.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 20:00 - The COVID Depression And "Food Insecurity"
The COVID Depression And “Food Insecurity”
Authored by Alice Salles via The Mises Institute,
Americans are going hungry because of coronavirus, and they are turning to theft to survive – at least that’s what we’re supposed to believe…
Nearly 26 million Americans did not have enough food through the month of November, according to survey data reported by the Washington Post. Covid-19 was solely to blame, until the article’s ending when government policies earned a mention. Under these conditions, many people were left with only one option: shoplift.
“Shoplifting is up markedly since the pandemic began in the spring and at higher levels than in past economic downturns, according to interviews with more than a dozen retailers, security experts and police departments across the country,” the report claimed.
Catch that? The newspaper essentially casts poor families in a bad light, as if they were only capable of stealing in order to overcome adversity.
The claim, which the Washington Post has discussed in at least two articles since November, isn’t new.
During a virtual town hall in mid-July, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) blamed the increase of crime in New York City on “desperate” people “stealing bread to feed their children.”
The claim was made even as NY police data showed that shootings went up 130 percent the previous month, not petty theft.
Does the data support what the Post implies? First, let’s look at how the Post got its own data.
According to the publication, “more Americans are going hungry now than at any point during the deadly coronavirus pandemic.” Also, “experts say it is likely that there’s more hunger in the United States today than at any point since 1998, when the Census Bureau began collecting comparable data.”
The data in question was collected through the so-called “food insecurity” survey. Created by the left-wing advocacy organization Food Research Action Center (FRAC), the survey became a widely used tool by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the Bill Clinton administration. Activists and pundits use this survey to claim that taxpayer-funded food programs should be expanded.
Despite what investigative journalist Jim Bovard calls the “mushrooming” of the federal government’s subsidized feeding programs since the 1930s and the fact that these programs feed millions, activists demand more.
One wonders why there isn’t a peep from these do-gooders about the lockdown orders in most states causing widespread unemployment and destruction of capital.
A Survey Meant to Misinform
Food stamps were declared “one of our most valuable weapons for the war on poverty,” over 56 years ago when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into the law the Food Stamp Act of 1964.
Thanks to the food benefits, Johnson added, the country would see a substantial improvement in “the diets of low-income families.”
Over the decades, however, it’s become clear that the war on poverty was a mistake. Worse, it hurt the very people it ostensibly was set up to help. This is to say nothing of the impoverishment “created” for much of the rest of society.
Instead of giving poor Americans quality of life, it created and fueled dependency on government handouts, as Murray Rothbard pointed out. Social welfare spending increased dramatically from $2.2 million in 1955 to $11.2 million in 1976. In 2018, it totaled $1.03 trillion.
Despite the welfare state, hunger is no longer a widespread problem in America. But to keep the narrative going, “hunger” officially became “food insecurity.” Now, politicians and activists use the updated term to ensure that those who don’t obtain the type of food they want at a particular moment (for a variety of reasons) will be portrayed as suffering from hunger.
And how do they obtain the data necessary to claim people are starving? They rely on the government’s “food insecurity” surveys.
“Over the past 15 years federal surveys have profoundly muddled Americans’ understanding of the hunger problem,” Bovard wrote in 2015.
He continued:
One of the USDA’s surveys’ preliminary screening question asks, ‘In the last 12 months, did you ever run short of money and try to make your food or your food money go further?’ Why should we be concerned that shoppers want their food dollars to go further? That was formerly taught as a virtue in high-school home-economics classes. Now it is a pretext for federal alarm.
Noting that most households who claim to be “food insecure” aren’t lacking sufficient amounts of food but instead deal with “reduced quality and variety,” Bovard explained that “‘worry’ about being able to buy sufficient food is the number-one source of food insecurity.”
If someone states that he feared running out of food for a single day (but didn’t run out), that is an indicator of being ‘food insecure’ for the entire year—regardless of whether he ever missed a single meal. If someone felt he needed organic kale but could only afford conventional kale, that is another ‘food insecure’ indicator. If an obese person felt he needed 5,000 calories a day but could only afford 4,800 calories, he could be labeled “food insecure.”
In the age of Covid, this narrative is being weaponized once again.
Power for the State, Dependency for the Poor
By now, we all know that lockdowns don’t work. We also know that lockdowns are the driving force behind the mass unemployment and destruction of capital that America suffered through 2020. What most of us have failed to realize, however, is that politicians are using the economic losses to push their agenda.
While the government stands in the way of those who want to work, it passes as the benevolent hero. As the main course is removed from the table by government enforcers, the crumbs offered to the public in return—such as the small $600 “stimulus” payments—won’t do much to “pay the bills.” Instead, they simply demoralize large numbers of Americans who find themselves more dependent on the dole and less capable to reenter the productive sector.
With the government continuing to threaten to use lockdowns whenever necessary, these same folks will continue to struggle.
Rothbard put it perfectly when he wrote that the only thing bureaucrats can do is to get out of the way.
Let the government get out of the way of the productive energies of all groups in the population, rich, middle class, and poor alike, and the result will be an enormous increase in the welfare and the standard of living of everyone, and most particularly of the poor who are the ones supposedly helped by the miscalled “welfare state.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 19:40 - Supreme Court To Take A Second Look At Case Involving "Insider Trading" On Government Healthcare Tip
Supreme Court To Take A Second Look At Case Involving “Insider Trading” On Government Healthcare Tip
The Supreme Court is taking a second look look at several men who were convicted of wire fraud, insider trading and conversion of government property in a 2018 insider trading case involving what are being called “government secrets”.
The case, which involves “King of Political Intelligence” David Blaszczak, had previously lowered the bar for what constituted insider trading in a Federal appeals court, according to Bloomberg. It centers around Blaszczak giving two hedge funds advance notice of coming government reimbursement rates. A jury had found that he provided “tips he picked up from ex-colleagues who were still in government”.
The government source was Christopher Worrall, his friend at the time. Blaszczak turned around and gave the tips to Robert Olan and Theodore Huber, who were partners with Deerfield Management at the time. For trading on the tips, they were sentenced to “at least 20 months in prison”. Everyone but Worrall was convicted of insider trading and all of the men were convicted of wire fraud and conversion of government property.
Now, it appears the Supreme Court could be poised to reconsider.
While the case is definitely a look into how those in government can clearly use information to benefit themselves (which led many like Senators Feinstein, Inhofe, and Loeffler to become topics of discussion due to their trading records in advance of government action last year) the parties appealed on the grounds that proposed government regulations don’t fall under the umbrella for what constitutes the fraud at the center of the case.
And regardless of the outcome of the case, we won’t be surprised when things return to the status quo: government officials facing little to no consequences for clearly trading on non-public information – and the little guy or run of the mill hedge fund manager – who gets the occasional “tip” on potential government action, winding up the scapegoat.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 19:20 - "Disgruntled Staffer" Hacks State Department Site, Changes Trump/Pence Bios
“Disgruntled Staffer” Hacks State Department Site, Changes Trump/Pence Bios
On the same day that House Democrats introduced an article of impeachment against President Trump on Monday for “incitement of insurrection” following a group of his supporters attacking the Capitol last Wednesday, something odd has happened on the U.S. State Department website under the president’s bio where it now says “Donald J. Trump’s term ended on 2021-01-11 19:49:00.”
NYT’s Seth Abramson first pointed out that President Trump’s presidency will “end” at 7:49 PM tonight.
Abramson said, “FWIW, I accessed the site at 3:02 PM ET, so the time in the screenshot above (7:49 PM) is not—as some are saying—UTC time. There may well be a computer glitch here, I don’t know. Other screenshots have shown other times. But all are today, and State has not explained it yet.”
He then said, “Regardless of time-stamp, it’s not clear why the State Department would edit this presidency’s official biography in *any* way that would say it ended on January 11—let alone do so on a day the House tried to get the Vice President to become Acting President. It is bizarre.”
However, maybe it’s not so bizarre considering BuzzFeed’s Christopher Miller has confirmed with sources that a “disgruntled staffer” is behind the bio change of President Trump and Vice President Pence.
Buzzfeed reports that an investigation into the matter could be a challenge, considering how many people have administrative access to the content management system used for the State Department’s official website.
It’s a “closed system” that is “nearly impossible to hack,” said one of the diplomats.
Which makes us wonder – isn’t altering the President’s bio an “attack on American Democracy”? Or is it a ‘Threat’?
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 19:15 - Socialists Claim Their System Is Morally Superior. They're Wrong!
Socialists Claim Their System Is Morally Superior. They’re Wrong!
Authored by Bradley Thomas via The Mises Institute,
In a December 23 article published on mises.org, Lipton Matthews made the compelling case for advocates of free market capitalism to prioritize the moral superiority of capitalism rather than making the case for capitalism’s superior productivity.
“Demonstrating the impracticality of socialism is necessary, but is also an ineffective strategy to galvanize goodwill for capitalism, because objections to capitalism are usually predicated on moral grounds,” he wrote.
Indeed, in the battle of emotions vs. rational justification in the human brain, emotions are king. You cannot penetrate emotional objections with more charts and spreadsheets.
The most compelling case for economic freedom is not its economic efficiency but its consistency with fundamental moral principles, like voluntary exchange, property, and enhanced individual choice.
To libertarians and other free market supporters, the case is clear. But why do so many still insist that socialism is a morally superior system?
The term “socialism” was trending on Twitter on December 28 and 29, with the following tweet exemplifying the arguments made by many in support:
Selflessness. Meeting people’s needs. These are the characteristics that socialists use to describe their desired system. Nothing about productivity or wealth creation. Theirs is a purely emotional appeal to moral sensibilities.
It’s unwise to merely dismiss such adherents of socialism as being naïve or ignorant. Rather, an understanding of mankind’s historical development tells us that believing socialism to be the moral means of organizing society may be hardwired into our consciousnesses.
Early Moral Codes
In its most basic sense, morality is described as the principles defining “good” or “bad” behavior. But how does a society come to understand which is “good” or “bad” behavior?
In his 2012 article “The Origins of Envy,” published by the American Enterprise Institute, Max Borders cites Max Krasnow, a postdoctoral researcher specializing in evolutionary psychology at Harvard University, who informs us that emotions are “the coordinated response of diverse psychological and physiological systems to a class of stimuli.”
In other words, your brain reacts to things in the world around you, and these reactions have forged emotions in our brains over millions of years. This hardwiring of our emotions was developed based upon survival. And because each new generation can’t learn the right survival instincts from scratch, we have a certain level of emotional responses and learned behavior built into our cognitive systems. Think about reflexes such as jumping in fear when you think you see a snake—that response kicks in before your mind has a chance to reflect. This is a built-in instinct.
Societal Evolution
Throughout most of human history, mankind developed as small tribes of hunters and gatherers. Innate instincts were developed for survival purposes—creating the foundation for a moral code.
A certain set of moral rules emerged, largely because they enhanced the survival chances of the group. These rules were shaped by the primary characteristics of man’s environment. The small tribes people lived in were largely self-sufficient and were small enough to share the same goal (survival).
This moral code based on tribal instincts included these key characteristics:
-
Self-sacrifice (making oneself worse off to benefit another; a zero-sum exchange)
-
Intentionally helping others
-
Providing help to identifiable beneficiaries with shared goals (i.e., survival of the group)
In this setting of small tribes, it was quite reasonable to believe that anyone accumulating wealth was doing so only at the expense of others. Hunters and gatherers were only able to accumulate a finite amount of food to sustain the group. So if John managed to take and accumulate more than his “share” of the day’s food supply, he could do so only at the expense of lessening Jane’s allotment. Jane’s very survival would be threatened because she may not get enough calories to survive.
Tribal instincts established that for the good of the survival of the group (a common goal), John shares his fowl with Jane (intentionally helping an identifiable beneficiary) and gets nothing in return (zero-sum exchange).
Thus, a moral code was established in early, tribal man.
In their 2011 essay “Markets and Morality” in Cato Journal, economists J.R. Clark and Dwight R. Lee referred to this type of moral code as “magnanimous morality.”
They chose this terminology because it is very easy to praise this type of moral behavior, and it is easy to observe and trace the benefits of such self-sacrifice.
The instincts that developed from such scenarios formed emotions such as guilt and provided a foundation for the code of magnanimous morality. Tribes that developed these emotional and moral adaptations were more likely to survive than those that didn’t.
Notice how closely this primitive moral code tracks with the Twitter socialist’s emphasis on “selflessness” and “meeting people’s needs.”
The “Extended Order”
As mankind evolved into larger societies that developed a growing diversity of individual goals, division of labor, trade, and new moral codes of conduct emerged.
These new moral codes emerged because those practicing them were able to grow and prosper relative to other societies—given the changing social environment. These codes of just conduct were not consciously adopted or decreed by individuals—they evolved over countless generations.
The new moral code that emerged included:
-
Self-ownership (i.e., individual rights)
-
Refraining from harming others
-
-
Property rights
-
No one has an entitlement to the property or effort of another
-
-
Equality before the law
-
Free voluntary exchange
Recorded history over the last hundreds of years is crystal clear: those societies that adopted the above as priorities flourished far more than those that didn’t, and continue to do so.
In short, in order to successfully transition from small tribes to large-scale civilization, society must adapt to new rules of interaction; i.e., a new moral code.
Those still insisting that socialism is a morally superior system are appealing to innate moral instincts developed in primitive times, which many now recognize would spell disaster in today’s “extended order” of society. Inspired by Marx and Engels (among others), today’s socialists cling to a romanticized version of early tribal units that had to consciously share goods of value in order to survive.
Why Capitalism Is Necessary to Fulfill the Goals of “Magnanimous Morality” Favored by Socialists
As humankind evolves into large societies, the characteristics of magnanimous morality—as a means to organize society as a whole—break down, for several reasons:
-
The number of people we can meaningfully care for is small relative to the total population (i.e., there is a limited number of identifiable beneficiaries)
-
A wide diversity of skills and specialized efforts means a wide diversity of individual goals—not shared goals like in a small tribe
-
Zero-sum self-sacrifice (i.e., giving without getting anything in return) cannot expand to too many others without spelling one’s own demise. If you keep giving while getting nothing in return, eventually you will starve.
-
People cannot intentionally help others without knowing what their needs are
-
In a larger society, there are simply too many people to understand what each individual’s needs are
-
-
If economic exchanges were restricted only to those with whom we share personal bonds, the loss of gains from trades never occurring would drastically stymie economic growth
Instead, a competitive market based on private property better enables entrepreneurs to meet the needs of other individuals in a large, diverse society:
-
Individuals acquire wealth through producing and exchanging goods and services that others want
-
To receive, one must first give
-
Therefore, they must first take into consideration what others need
-
-
Prices, conveyed by the free exchange of private property, communicate the needs of those we don’t know. Consumers bid up the prices of those goods most in demand, which signals to entrepreneurs, enabling them to intentionally provide goods valued by others
-
People become wealthy by making others better off, not by making others worse off. Market exchanges are decidedly not zero sum.
-
In a market economy, one must serve others in society if he wants to acquire riches, even those he may not like
-
Cattle ranchers in Wyoming who may hate New Yorkers still get up early in the morning to produce beef that will be enjoyed by New Yorkers because the rancher wants to earn income
-
Relying on pure self-sacrifice would not achieve these results; forcing such sacrifice would not only violate our rights but foster resentment and tension
-
Conclusion
In order to win in the arena of ideas, it is critical to understand what motivates our opponents. Socialists are motivated by a moral code that was hardwired into our brains in primitive times, and are mistakenly translating it into a means of organizing a much more extended society than the one in which that moral code emerged.
Even granting the goals of “meeting people’s needs” and “selflessness” cherished by socialists, we can make the case that a competitive, property-based market economy is far superior at meeting those goals in modern civilization compared to a top-down, centrally controlled socialist system.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 19:00 -
- Chinese Tech Giant Baidu Is Going To Create Its Own EV Company
Chinese Tech Giant Baidu Is Going To Create Its Own EV Company
The good news for Tesla is that the company has definitely seemed to spur mass adoption of EVs across the globe. So, in converting the world to EVs, mission accomplished. The bad news for Tesla is, well, also that they have spurred mass adoption of EVs globally. This means competition will be robust.
And that competition isn’t just limited to legacy automakers. In addition to names like Apple and Google working on self-driving in the U.S., the latest tech giant to join the EV race in China looks like it could become search firm Baidu, according to CNBC.
The tech company is reportedly going to make a standalone electric vehicle company as part of a joint venture with Geely automotive, the report says. Geely will make the hardware, while Baidu will make the software.
“Baidu relies heavily on advertising revenue but it has been looking to diversify its business to other areas such as cloud computing and autonomous driving software,” CNBC notes.
The company has already been testing driverless car software in Beijing. Baidu has its own map app and its own voice assistant technology.
Meanwhile, the market for EVs in China continues to be ripe. EV sales from January to November of 2020 were up 4.4% this year versus a decline of 7.6% in overall passenger cars during the same period. Chinese auto sales had seen a full V-shaped recovery by October of this year, we noted at the time.
Recall, we noted in November that NEVs will be 20% of China’s new car sales by 2025. The “new energy” category includes battery electric, plug-in hybrid and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. Sales will rise as the country’s “NEV industry has improved their technology and competitiveness,” according to a new policy paper reviewed by Reuters.
In the country’s 5 year plan to 2025, the State Council has pushed for improvements in EV technologies, building more efficient charging and implementing battery swapping networks. The Chinese government will also adopt quotas and incentives to to “guide automakers” (i.e. force them) to make EVs after Federal subsidies end in two years.
The government is also looking at ways to implement EVs for public uses, commercial use and mass transit.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/11/2021 – 18:40
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...
